CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Budget Book Navigation Tips BUDGET BOOK NAVIGATION TIPS There are a number of ways to navigate through the budget book. Listed below are the three easiest options: 1. The FY 2013 Annual Budget Book Table of Contents (Page i) as well as two separate table of contents for the Operating Budget (Page 109) and the Capital Budget (Page 256) contain links to all sections of the book. To go directly to the section you would like to see, simply click on the section name or page number directly in any of three table of contents. If at any time you would like to return to the table of contents, click on the Return to TOC button located at the left hand corner of each page. Note that if you are within the Operating Budget or CIP section, clicking on Return to Operating (or CIP) TOC will take you back to the table of contents for that respective section, from there you can return to the Main table of contents. An example of each botton is shown below. If you see text that asks you to “refer to” or “see” a specific section or a website, you can click on the name of the section or document to go directly to the referenced section or website. 2. Click on the Bookmarks tab to the left of the window to view all of the book marked pages; the format is similar to the table of contents. To expand a subsection, click the “+”. To go to a section you would like to see, simply click on the section name. 3. In the page number field, you can enter a page number and press enter to go directly to the page you would like to see. The “◄ & ►” or “ & ” buttons take you back and forward one page at a time. You should be able to display more navigation options by selecting View>Show/Hide>Toolbar Items>Page Navigation and selecting the navigation button you would to have displayed (see below). The Previous and Next View buttons are highly recommended if you are navigating from one page to another throughout the document. City of Glendale, Arizona Annual Budget, 2012-2013 CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Table of Contents CITY OF GLENDALE, ARIZONA FY 2012-13 ANNUAL BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Table of Contents City Organizational Chart Mayor & City Council City Council District Map City Management Map of Glendale and Neighboring Communities Financial Organizational Chart Budget Presentation Award How to Make the Most of this Document Budget Calendar Budget Process Page i 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 13 16 Budget Message City Manager’s Budget Message 19 Budget Summaries Budget Summary Revenues Expenditures 29 44 57 Financial Guidelines Five-Year Financial Forecast Financial Plan Financial Policies 77 94 104 Operating Budget Operating Budget Table of Contents 109 2013-2022 Capital Improvement Plan CIP Table of Contents CIP Ten-Year Plan 259 261 i CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Table of Contents Schedules Why Include Schedules? Schedule 1: Fund Balance Analysis by Category; by Fund Schedule 2: Operating Revenues by Category; by Fund Schedule 3: Operating Budgets by Program and Fund Schedule 4: Transfers Between Funds Schedule 5: Expenditure Limitation and Property Tax Rate Schedule 6: Authorized Staffing Schedule 7: Long Term Debt Service Summary; by Detail Schedule 8: Scheduled Lease Payments Schedule 9: Internal Service Premiums Schedule 10: General Staff and Administrative Service Charges Schedule 11: Operating Capital List Schedule 12: Carryover Savings Budgets Page 437 439 444 457 478 479 480 516 553 554 562 563 565 Appendix Miscellaneous Statistics Acronyms Glossary Frequently Asked Questions 569 574 576 580 ii CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ City Organization Chart CITY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART (Effective July 1, 2012) CITIZENS OF GLENDALE Mayor & Council City Attorney Craig Tindall City Manager Ed Beasley Executive Director Communications Julie Frisoni Assistant City Manager Horatio Skeete Boards & Commissions Director Internal Audit Department Candace MacLeod Deputy City Mgr Development, Nhood & Human Services Jim Colson Executive Director Community and Economic Development Brian Friedman Executive Director Financial Services Sherry Schurhammer Assistant to the Mayor Steve Methvin Interim Executive Director Human Resources & Risk Mgmt Jim Brown City Clerk Pam Hanna Presiding City Judge Elizabeth Finn Director Intergovernmental Programs Brent Stoddard Fire Chief Fire Services Mark Burdick Interim Police Chief Police Services Debora Black Council Services Administrator Kristen Krey Executive Director Parks, Recreation & Library Services Erik Strunk Executive Director Public Works Stuart Kent Executive Director Technology & Innovation Chuck Murphy Executive Director Transportation Services Jamsheed Mehta Executive Director Water Services Craig Johnson Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Mayor & City Council MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL 2 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Glendale District Boundaries GLENDALE COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 3 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ City Management CITY MANAGEMENT Mayor ELAINE M. SCRUGGS Councilmembers Department Heads and Directors, cont. Department Heads and Directors, cont. Steven E. Frate Vice Mayor Sherry Schurhammer Financial Services Jamsheed Mehta Transportation Services Julie Frisoni Communications Craig Johnson Water Services Sahuaro District Norma Alavarez Ocotillo District Joyce V. Clark Candace MacLeod Internal Audit Department Yucca District Yvonne J. Knaack Barrel District H. Philip Lieberman Cactus District Manuel D. Martinez Cholla District Management Staff Ed Beasley City Manager Jim Colson Neighborhood & Human Services Brian Friedman Community & Economic Development Mark Burdick Fire Services Jim Brown Human Resources & Risk Management Assistant City Manager Brent Stoddard Intergovernmental Programs Department Heads and Directors Erik Strunk Parks, Recreation & Library Services Craig Tindall Debora Black Police Services Horatio Skeete City Attorney Pamela Hanna City Clerk Judge Elizabeth Finn Presiding City Judge Stuart Kent Public Works Chuck Murphy Technology & Innovation 4 Return to Main TOC 5 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Financial Organization Chart TOTAL FY 2013 BUDGET $579,000,000 | OPERATING $347,724,647 CAPITAL OUTLAY $106,162,512 | | General Fund Group $171,553,045 | 1000 General $126,118,156 | 1040 General Services $8,992,555 | 1100 Telephone Services $981,990 | 1120 Vehicle Replacement $2,795,693 | 1140 PC Replacement $3,166,124 | 1190 Employee Groups $20,000 | 1220 Arts Commission Fund $166,090 | | 1281 Stadium Event Operations $2,883,873 | 1282 Arena Event Operations $18,207,054 | 1283 CamelbackRanch EventOperations $28,852 | 1740 | 1300 Home Grant $773,117 | 1310 Neighborhood Stabilization Pgm $600,000 1980 Streets Constr. 1999 Auth $6,066 2360 2540 Risk Management Self Insurance $3,024,506 | 2000 Public Safety Construction $2,000 | 2060 $687,728 $2,336,844 $12,706,392 $6,857 | 1340 | 1842 Arena Special Revenue $1,117,000 Highway User Gas Tax $6,742,342 ARRA Stimulus Grants $1,967,324 1790 Stadium City Sales Tax - AZSTA $2,399,570 1650 Transportation Grants $456,820 1860 | 1870 Marketing Self Sust $1,303,130 | | 1660 RICO Funds $3,895,270 | | 2500 Pub Housing Budget Activities $12,700,110 | 1885 Parks & Recreation Designated $177,038 2210 Transportation Capital Project $13,568 | $14,323,309 | Transportation Sales Tax $11,822,518 | Sanitation | 2580 Benefits Trust Fund $22,348,826 2100 Economic Dev. Constr-1999 Auth $2,000 2180 Flood Control Construction $5,213 1720 Fire Special Revenue $6,559,036 | | | | 2480 | 2560 Workers Comp. Self Insurance $1,407,000 2080 Gov't Facilities 1999 Auth $3,734 1880 Parks & Recreation Self Sust $1,231,083 | | 2440 $6,978,339 | 2040 Parks Construction | $48,094,774 $1,030 Grants | Water and Sewer $1,287,197 C.D.B.G. 2538 Glendale Health Center $54,000 | Internal Services Fund Group $26,780,332 Landfill | 1840 | Enterprise Fund Group $82,096,532 Civic Center | 1780 | Capital Fund Group $40,468 Hurf Street Bonds Emergency Shelter Grants $174,160 | 1320 CONTINGENCY $39,096,866 CAP Grant N'hood Stabilization PgmIII $1,684,188 1260 1280 Youth Sports Complex $322,000 | 1820 | 1830 1700 Police Special Revenue $14,240,490 $155,000 | 1760 Airport Special Revenue $600,451 | 1311 2530 Training Facility Revenue Fund $1,496,186 Library | Special Revenue Fund Group $67,254,270 1240 Court Security/Bonds $658,044 | DEBT SERVICE $86,015,975 | For a description of major fund sources please refer to the Budget Summary starting on page 29. You can navigate to the description by clicking the funding source you would like more information about. 6 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Financial Organization Chart F TOTAL FY 2013 BUDGET $579,000,000 | OPERATING $347,724,647 | General Fund Group $1,123,506 CAPITAL OUTLAY $106,162,512 DEBT SERVICE $86,015,975 | | Special Revenue Fund Group $25,518,477 | G.O. Bond Construction Funds $7,633,663 General $465,300 | 1220 Arts Commission Fund $150,000 | 1283 CamelbackRanch EventOperations $258,206 | 1740 | | 1420 1650 Transportation Grants $7,479,235 DIF-Fire Protec Fac $11,480 | 1840 | 1440 DIF-Police Faciliti $2,000,000 $10,919 | 1460 Airport Capital Grants $16,039,242 $250,000 | 2210 Transportation Capital Project $34,902,857 2360 Water and Sewer $31,941,313 | 2440 Landfill $2,769,548 | 2480 Sanitation $2,216 $142,426 $1,280,000 DIF-Citywide RecFac $2,216 Gov't Facilities 1999 Auth $171,606 1500 $213,265 2100 Economic Dev. Constr-1999 Auth $1,623,814 1520 DIF-Citywide Open Spaces $261,689 2130 Cultural Facility Bond Fund $100,985 1540 DIF-Parks Dev Zone1 $41,848 2180 Flood Control Construction $2,609,797 | 2080 | | | | | Other Capital Funds $34,902,857 Parks Construction DIF-Libraries 1620 DIF-General Government $12,799 Enterprise Fund Group $35,990,861 DIF-Citywide Parks | 1600 DIF-Roadway Improve $256,922 Public Safety Construction $719,033 | 2060 | 1480 Civic Center 1980 Streets Constr. 1999 Auth $2,266,002 | 2040 Grants | 2120 | Capital Fund Group $43,529,668 Development Impact Fee Funds $993,148 1000 CONTINGENCY $39,096,866 | 1560 DIF-Parks Dev Zone2 $140,883 | 1580 DIF-Parks Dev Zone3 $38,911 7 | | Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Financial Organization Chart TOTAL FY 2013 BUDGET $579,000,000 | OPERATING $347,724,647 CAPITAL OUTLAY $106,162,512 DEBT SERVICE $86,015,975 | | Debt Service Fund Group $61,815,223 Enterprise Fund Group $24,200,752 1900 G.O. Bond Debt Service $24,276,491 2360 Water and Sewer $24,200,752 | 1920 HURF Debt Service $4,708,869 | 1930 PFC Debt Service $9,010,000 | 1940 M.P.C. Debt Service $16,488,582 | 1970 Transportation Debt Service $7,331,281 8 CONTINGENCY $39,096,866 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Financial Organization Chart F TOTAL FY 2013 BUDGET $579,000,000 | OPERATING $347,724,647 | CAPITAL OUTLAY $106,162,512 | General Fund Group $334,905 Special Revenue Fund Group $5,743,693 1010 1340 Highway User Gas Tax $5,743,693 National Events $334,905 DEBT SERVICE $86,015,975 | | Capital Fund Group $16,892,227 | 1380 DIF-Library Blds $1,746,584 | 1420 DIF-Fire Protec Fac $129,121 | 1440 | 1600 DIF-Roadway Improve $769,862 | 1620 DIF-General Government $169,681 | 1980 $1,236,886 Streets Constr. 1999 Auth $1,008,894 DIF-Citywide Parks Hurf Street Bonds $292,989 $286,356 DIF-Citywide RecFac $1,047,929 2040 Public Safety Construction $1,708,891 1500 2060 DIF-Libraries Parks Construction $3,033,756 $130,601 DIF-Citywide Open Spaces $243,129 2100 Economic Dev. Constr-1999 Auth $62,690 1540 DIF-Parks Dev Zone1 $115,525 2130 Cultural Facility Bond Fund $237,692 1560 DIF-Parks Dev Zone2 $60,343 2140 Open Space/Trails Constr-99 Au $586,583 1580 DIF-Parks Dev Zone3 $19,501 2180 Flood Control Construction $4,005,214 DIF-Police Faciliti | 1460 | 1480 | | 1520 | | | | 2000 | | | | | | 9 CONTINGENCY $39,096,866 | | Trust Fund Group $5,626,041 Enterprise Fund Group $7,500,000 Internal Service Fund Group $3,000,000 2280 Cemetery Perpetual Care $5,626,041 2360 2540 Risk Management Self Insurance $3,000,000 Water and Sewer $5,000,000 | 2440 Landfill $2,000,000 | 2480 Sanitation $500,000 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Distinguished Budget Presentation Award The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the City of Glendale, Arizona for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011. In order to receive this award, a government 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 device. This 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. 10 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ How to Make the Most of this Document f HOW TO MAKE THE MOST OF THIS DOCUMENT This budget document serves two primary but distinct purposes. One purpose is to present the City Council and the public with a clear picture of the services the city provides and of the policy alternatives that are available. The other purpose is to provide city management with a financial and operating plan that adheres to the city’s financial policies. It also communicates the vision of the City Council and executive leadership team for the City of Glendale and presents the financial and organizational operations for each of the City’s departments. In an effort to assist users in navigating through this document, the following guide is provided. The document begins with the mayor’s message that is addressed to the citizens of Glendale. As such, it provides a strategic overview of the city’s infrastructure investments that would be of most interest to Glendale’s citizens. A financial organization chart follows this message and provides a high level look at the operating, capital, debt service and contingency budgets. The budget calendar and a description of the budget process will help the user understand the time and effort that the City puts into developing a balance budget. Budget Message The city manager’s budget message articulates the balancing strategy used to develop the FY 2013 budget as well as policy issues and priorities for the fiscal year. It describes significant changes from the FY 2012 budget and the factors that led to those changes. It also outlines key components of the upcoming budget and discusses underlying administrative practices that support the city’s organizational goals. Budget Summaries The budget summary offers an overview of the city’s finances and examines the following areas:  The budget components, process and budget amendment policy  Financial and operational summaries for all major funds  Historical trends for revenues, expenditures and staffing Financial Guidelines This section offers an overview of the City’s financial planning practices including the following:  The Five-Year Forecast provides the long-range financial outlook for city operations with details on how the revenue and expenditure projections are established,  The Financial Plan discusses short- and long-term strategies that comprise the city’s approach to financial planning, and  The Financial Policies that form the framework and guidelines for overall fiscal planning and management. 11 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ How to Make the Most of this Document Operating Budget This section provides a closer look at the various functions of each department. Each department has provided a description of its core job functions, goals and objectives for the upcoming year, as well as recent accomplishments, performance measures and other relevant statistics. The budget summaries include both historical and current year financial data for programs and services offered by the department. They also include a summary of the type of expenditures incurred by the department as well as trends on authorized staffing. FY 2013-2022 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) The CIP section outlines all infrastructure improvements and additions and their respective funding sources, along with estimates for the associated operating impacts of each capital project. It starts with a narrative summary and is followed by detailed information such as funding source, project number and project description for both capital and operating costs by year for the first five years of the plan. In addition, the CIP includes five additional “out years” for future planning and discussion purposes. Schedules This is the heart of the budget document as an operating and financial plan. These schedules summarize the City’s financial activities in various comprehensive, financial formats. For example, all revenue inflows and outflows are summarized on Schedule One, but from here you can delve into the details for any of the those higher level components by reviewing a schedule dedicated to revenues, operating expenditures or debt service payments. The detail schedules summarize information by account categories, operational departments (i.e. public safety, utilities, sanitation, etc.) and bond issuances. Appendix This section includes some key city statistics regarding population, household income, occupational distribution, school enrollment and much, much more. You can also find information on the number of parks, libraries, fire and police stations. A glossary of important financial and budgetary terms that are used throughout the City’s budget document and a “frequently asked questions” section, which helps address many of the most important aspects regarding the budget document, is also included. 12 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Budget Calendar FY 2013 BUDGET CALENDAR July 2011 – February 2012 Budget staff analyzed revenue and expenditure data to determine budget and economic outlook for FY 2013. Discussions with the City Manager’s Office and other executive management staff occurred during this time regarding numerous balancing options for the FY 2013 revenue, operating and debt service budgets. Preparation of FY 2013 operating budget items such as premiums for workers compensation insurance, risk management insurance, vehicle replacement, technology replacement, phone services, and indirect cost allocation. Analysis of revenue trends was also prepared during this time, with periodic updates to the assistant city manager. September 2011 – February 2012 Capital improvement plan (CIP) budget preparation. This process involved input by departments; the review of project budgets and operating and maintenance budgets by engineering, budget and facilities management staff; the prioritization of projects based on City Council’s strategic priorities and financial constraints; a discussion of various financing options by the CIP finance team; and preparation of the Preliminary FY 20132022 CIP document for City Council review. November 2011 1 Status report through the first quarter on the FY 2012 General Fund operating budget revenues and expenditures was presented to City Council. 16-29 FY 2013 operating budget kickoff meetings with the executive leadership team comprised of the assistant city manager, deputy city managers, police and fire chiefs, and City Council appointees. 30 FY 2013 operating budget kickoff meeting with department directors and staff to commence budget input. Input continued through December 23, 2010. December 2011 7 City Council goal review and strategic planning retreat facilitated by Dick Bowers, President of R.A. Bowers and Associates with special guest Jim Rounds from Elliott D. Pollack and Company (Meeting 1 of 2). 27 Last day for FY 2013 operating budget input by departments. January 2012 3 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Legislative Update presented to Council by the Intergovernmental Programs Department; Debt Management Plan and MPC / WaterSewer Refinancing Options presented by Financial Services Department. 13 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Budget Calendar 10 City Council goal review and strategic planning retreat facilitated by Dick Bowers, President of R.A. Bowers and Associates (Meeting 2 of 2). February 2012 7 The balancing plan for the FY 2013 general fund operating budget and the FY 2013-2022 capital plan was finalized with the assistant city manager and the executive leadership. Delivery of the City Council budget workbook that contained the city manager’s recommended operating budget memo, detailed departmental operating budgets and cost of service worksheets was delivered during the week of February 7. 14 1:30 PM – 5:00 PM, 1st operating budget workshop. 21 1:30 PM – 5:00 PM, 2nd operating budget workshop. 28 1:30 PM – 5:00 PM, 3rd operating budget workshop. March 2012 6 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, 4th operating budget workshop. 20 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, 5th operating budget workshop. April 2012 3 1:30 PM – 5:00 PM, 6th operating budget workshop. 12 Delivery of the preliminary FY 2013-2022 capital improvement plan. 13 Sixty-day (60) posting of the property tax, sales tax, bed tax, and civic center fee increases on the city website’s home page in accordance with state statutes. This posting was done 60 days in advance of the June 12, 2012, City Council meeting at which the city sales tax and bed tax increases as well as civic center fee increases will be considered along the FY 2013 budget adoption. A public hearing on the proposed property tax increase also will occur at the June 12, 2012 City Council meeting. 20 Sixty-day (60) posting of the parks, recreation and library fee increases on the city website’s home page in accordance with state statutes. This posting was done 60 days in advance of the June 26, 2012, City Council meeting at which the parks, recreation and library fee increases will be considered. 17 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, 7th operating and capital budget workshop. 23 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, 8th final operating and capital budget workshop. The FY 2013 tentative budget schedules were prepared. This included preparation of all schedules such as fund balance analyses, summary of revenues, operating budgets by program and fund, debt service schedules, transfers between funds, summary of property tax levy and tax rate, etc. 14 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Budget Calendar May 2012 17 The FY 2013 tentative budget schedules were delivered to City Council in advance of the May 22 council meeting. 22 City Council adopted a resolution approving the FY 2013 tentative budget, directing publication of the tentative budget, giving notice of the June 12 date for the public hearing on the FY 2013 tentative budget and a separate public hearing on the FY 2013 property tax levy and giving notice of the June 26 date for the adoption of the FY 2013 property tax levy. 22 1st clean-up ordinance to City Council regarding FY 2012 inter-fund budget transfers. 31 Publication in The Glendale Star of FY 2013 budget information as required by state statute. The FY 2013 budget document was prepared. This included preparation of all narratives associated with the tentative schedules such as city organizational chart, Council district map, financial organization chart, budget process, budget message, departmental narratives, budget summaries, financial guidelines, financial policies, capital improvement plan, miscellaneous statistics, etc. June 2012 City Council workshop discussion about a potential reduction in the amount of the sales 5 tax increase on single retail item purchases over $10,000. 7 Second publication in The Glendale Star of FY 2013 budget information as required by state statute. The Planning Department presented the FY 2013-2022 CIP to the Planning Commission for review as required by Arizona state law to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan. The Planning Commission sent a letter to the City Council indicating that the FY 2013-2022 CIP is consistent with the Glendale’s General Plan. 12 City Council conducted a public hearing on the FY 2013 property tax levy. City Council conducted a separate public hearing on the FY 2013 budget and convened a special meeting to adopt a resolution approving the FY 2013 budget. City Council also conducted separate public hearings on the sales tax and bed tax increases and then voted to approve the rate adjustments, as well as approving Civic Center fee increases. 26 City Council adopted an ordinance approving the FY 2013 property tax levy. City Council also approved parks, recreation and library fee increases. 26 2nd clean-up ordinance to City Council regarding FY 2012 inter-fund budget transfers. July 2012 1 Start of FY 2013. 15 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Budget Process FY 2013 BUDGET PROCESS OVERVIEW: The FY 2013 operating and capital budgets are based on council’s continued vision of ‘one community’ and the supporting strategic goals that Council reaffirmed at a December 2009 retreat:        One community that is fiscally sound, One community with strong neighborhoods, One community committed to public safety, One community with quality economic development, One community with a vibrant city center, One community with an active partnership with Luke Air Force Base, and One community with high quality services for citizens. Two principal issues for the FY 2013 budget were the ongoing challenges of the economy and the Coyotes National Hockey League team as the main tenant of the city-owned Jobing.com Arena. Both are discussed in detail in the City Manager’s Message in this document. Over the course of several months various balancing options for both the FY 2013 operating budget and the FY 2013-2022 capital improvement plan were evaluated. A final balancing plan was established in February 2012 and resulted in the recommended budget presented to City Council at a series of budget workshops held from February to April 2012. For more information please see the City Manager’s Message in this document At the conclusion of these budget workshops, the proposed budget was presented to Council for tentative adoption and then, two weeks later, for final adoption. The budget was transmitted to the general public in the form of public hearing notices. These notices included summary budget information, including the date for the public hearing on the property tax levy, as required by Arizona state law. After completing the public hearing for the final FY 2013 budget, the Council adopted it and thereby set the expenditure limitation for FY 2013. A separate public hearing on the FY 2013 property tax levy was conducted at the same meeting as the final budget adoption. Adoption of the property tax levy occurred two weeks later. The chart on the following page illustrates the broad outline of the FY 2013 budget development process. 16 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Budget Process Revenue Collections Analyzed. Tentative FY13 Operating Budget Developed. Capital Budget Requests Prepared Adoption of Preliminary Budget and Setting Date f or Budget Adoption and Property Tax Levy Public Hearings 5/22/12 Budget Staf f Compilation And Analysis July '11 - February '12 Public Hearing Adopt Final Budget 6/12/12 Assistant City Manager, Executive Leadership Team Review February '12 Public Hearing Property Tax Levy 6/12/12 Adoption of Levy 6/26/12 Council Budget Workshop Sessions 02/14/12 - 04/23/12 VARIATIONS IN BUDGETING METHODS: The budgets of general government type funds, such as the General Fund, Public Safety Special Revenue Fund, Streets Fund and Transportation Fund are prepared on a modified accrual basis. This means that unpaid financial obligations, such as outstanding purchase orders, are immediately reflected as encumbrances when the cost is estimated, although the items may not have been received yet. However, in most cases revenue is recognized only after it is measurable and actually available. Beginning with FY 1996, sales tax revenues were recorded in the period in which they were due to the city. This changed in FY 2008 and sales tax revenue is now recorded to the month it is collected. Enterprise funds (Water/Sewer, Landfill, Sanitation and Community Housing Services) are prepared using the full accrual method. Enterprise funds also recognize expenditures as encumbered when a commitment is made (e.g., through a purchase order). Revenues, on the other hand, are recognized when they are obligated to the city (for example, water user fees are recognized as revenue when service is provided). Purchase orders for goods and services received prior to the end of the current fiscal year will be eligible for payment for a period of days following the close of the fiscal year. However, encumbrances for all other purchase orders will automatically lapse. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) presents the status of the city's finances on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Since FY 2002, the CAFR has 17 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Budget Process been prepared in compliance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 requirements. The CAFR shows fund expenditures and revenues on both a GAAP basis and budget basis for comparison purposes. In most cases, this conforms to the way the city prepares its budget with the following exceptions: a. Compensated absences liabilities that are expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources are accrued as earned by employees on a GAAP basis as opposed to being expended when paid on a budget basis. b. Principal payments on long-term debt within the enterprise funds are applied to the outstanding liability on a GAAP basis as opposed to being expended when paid on a budget basis. c. Capital outlays within the enterprise funds are recorded as assets on a GAAP basis and expended on a budget basis. d. Inventory is expensed at the time it is used. e. Depreciation expense is not budgeted as an expense. ACCOUNTING CHANGES: A new fund was budgeted in FY 2013 within the general fund group titled PFC Special Revenue (Fund 1782). This fund will be used to track revenues generated at the Camelback Ranch spring training baseball facility which is home to the Los Angeles Dodgers and Chicago White Sox. Revenues in FY 2013 include excess bond construction proceeds that will be used to pay debt service. A transfer out of this fund each year is made to cover the required debt service payment paid from the PFC debt service fund (Fund 1930). This fund will function in much the same way as the Zanjero Special Revenue (Fund 1770) and Arena Special Revenue (Fund 1780) that were established to track revenues within the Zanjero commercial properties (Cabella’s Sporting Goods, Cracker Barrel, etc.) and arena revenues generated within Westgate, respectively. The P.F.C. Debt Service (Fund 1930) mentioned above was created in FY 2012 within the Debt Service Fund Group to track the principal and interest payments associated with the construction and equipment needed for Camelback Ranch. The Public Facilities Corporation (PFC) is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arizona. City Council retains oversight and must approve all debt upon recommendation from the PFC Board of Directors, which consists of four City employees and one private citizen. Although the PFC is a legally separate entity from the City, the PFC is reported as if it is part of the primary government because it sole purpose is to finance and construct public facilities for the City. Debt service for Highway User Fee Revenue (HURF) bonds will continue to be addressed as it was for FY 2010 thru FY 2012. The City has outstanding HURF bonds for street projects that are backed by a pledge of the HURF monies the city receives from the state. The state reduced the amount of HURF revenue that is distributed to cities from FY 2010 thru FY 2012. Therefore, a portion of HURF debt service will continue to be paid by secondary property tax revenue ($1,354,435), roadway development impact fees ($1 million) and transportation sales tax revenues ($1 million). The remaining $1,354,435 needed for the $4,708,869 debt service payment will be paid for using HURF revenues. 18 Budget Message Annual Budget, 2012-2013 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message Honorable Mayor and Council: While the current economic environment has witnessed improvements since the official end of the Great Recession, it also continues to present its share of challenges for local and state government. Nevertheless, the City of Glendale remains committed to a promising future with optimism, flexibility and resilience. Vision, innovation, partnerships, and dedicated employees are the bedrock of the city’s endeavors to ensure a rewarding and successful future for the community despite the challenging economy. This outlook is a result of City Council’s continued focus on enhancing long-term fiscal strength and sustainability for the community. This outcome continues to be accomplished through quality economic development and the continuation of strategic investments that build upon those made over the last decade. An example of the former is the Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc., a 368,000 square-foot outlet development, that will include 85 brand names and is scheduled to open before the 2012 holiday season. Its location adjacent to the city’s sports and entertainment district is a perfect complement for the Westgate City Center and adjacent Jobing.com Arena and University of Phoenix Stadium where two professional sports teams play. This outlook also is the result of the strategic management of constrained city resources during the long and deep recession that hit Arizona particularly hard. As a result, the city’s FY 2013 budget provides resources to maintain high quality, core services and minimizes the impact of budget reductions in other areas of city services. The FY 2013 budget also continues to position ourselves to be proactive and responsive to opportunities that benefit the community. The FY 2013 budget total across all funds is $579 million. Despite the declines, the overall budget continues to focus on the Mayor and Council’s vision of ‘one community’ and the supporting strategic goals that Council reconsidered at a December 2011 retreat.        One community that is fiscally sound, One community with strong neighborhoods, One community committed to public safety, One community with quality economic development, One community with a vibrant city center, One community with an active partnership with Luke Air Force Base, and One community with high quality services for citizens. The FY 2013 budget continues to reflect the enduring challenges of the post-recession economy. Many ongoing and one-time expenditure management measures were implemented since FY 2009 while keeping our focus on providing exceptional core city services that sustain Council’s strategic goals. While public safety remains a top priority for Council, the represented public 19 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message safety labor groups have fully participated in helping to balance the budget. They have made reductions in their operating budget, implemented operational efficiencies, absorbed vacancies, and made concessions in prior FYs on labor-related items. Discussion – Principal Issues The same two principal issues that had to be addressed for the FY 2010, 2011 and 2012 budgets remain for the FY 13 budget as explained below. The budget actions taken to address these two principal issues are addressed after the discussion below. Economic Conditions. One principal issue for the FY 2013 budget continues to be the economy and its impact on the operating and capital budget. The international/national recession from which the economy is gradually recovering was felt far and wide throughout the world. Arizona was particularly hard hit with the bursting of the real estate bubble, steep loss of jobs – particularly in the construction industry – decline in the numbers of individuals moving to the state and a noticeable fall-off in the state’s important tourism industry. The clearest evidence of the recession’s impact is in the city’s General Fund (GF) ongoing revenue. It peaked at $184.2 million in FY 2008 and is expected to bottom out in FY 2012 at about $138 million, the same level of GF ongoing revenue received in FY 2004; the change from the highest to the lowest point is a decline of almost $46.2 million or 25% in the city’s GF ongoing revenue. As a result of this steep drop off in ongoing revenue, the city’s GF faced three consecutive years of operating budget deficits before implementation of balancing measures. By building fund balance and prudent financial management, the city was able to weather the storm despite the significant shortfalls which occurred in GF revenues. According to the academic, private and government experts on the Arizona economy, recovery across the state will continue to progress albeit at a slow rate. The state’s unemployment rate continues its downward trend over time and the past year has seen a reduction in the excess inventory of vacant homes and office and retail space that has dominated the Phoenix area for the past few years. The two major sources of GF operating budget revenue continue to be city sales taxes and stateshared revenues; they comprise two-thirds to three-fourths of the GF ongoing revenue in any FY. The average annual growth rate for city sales tax collections was a phenomenal 9% from FY 2002 through FY 2007. With the onset of the recession, city sales tax receipts bottomed out in FY 2010 at $50.6 million, a level last experienced in FY 2004. The FY 2012 estimate is $51.9 million with growth in FY 2013 (excluding the sales tax rate increase) expected to bring in an additional $800,000 (1.5% growth). This modest growth expectation is based on the forecasts of Arizona economists. Even with this modest growth, the expected $51.9 million in city sales tax revenue is less than the level recorded for FY 2005. State shared revenue for FY 2012 is expected to be $45.8 million and is based on the 2010 census figures, a 31% decline from the peak of $66.1 million in FY 2008. The average annual growth rate for state shared revenue collections was 6% from FY 2002 through FY 2008. With FY 20 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message 2009, a decline started and resulted in four consecutive years of reductions. For FY 2013,stateshared revenue is expected to be $49.6 million, an increase of $3.8 million or 8% primarily due to improved income tax collections during 2011. The state’s distribution of income tax revenue lags by two years. This lag means the state income tax revenue distributed to cities and towns in FY 2013 will reflect the state’s FY 2011 receipts, and they were higher than the FY 2010 receipts. General Fund Total Ongoing Revenue (Excludes one‐time revenues. FY13 excludes impact of sales tax rate increase) $190.0 $180.0 $170.0 $160.0 $150.0 $140.0 $130.0 $120.0 $110.0 $100.0 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY12 FY13 Est Proj On the capital side, one widespread and long-lasting impact of the recent recession is the unprecedented decline in real estate values. While this is true across the country, Arizona is consistently categorized as one of the hardest hit states for real estate value declines, along with California, Nevada and Florida. The following chart displays a long-term historical look at Glendale’s total secondary assessed valuation, which means it includes all types of properties. The chart shows Glendale reached a high of $2.2B in FY 2009. The impact of the recession began to be reflected in Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation in FY 2010 when a multi-year decline commenced. That downward trend is expected to continue through FY 2014 when Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation is estimated to drop another 8% to $1.05B, (based on the February 2012 preliminary notices from the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office). The $1.05B low will represent a 52% decline from the peak of $2.2B in FY 2009, with the bottom of the market will be reflected in Glendale’s FY 2014 secondary property tax revenue. 21 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message Market values still have not declined below 2003 levels in the worst housing/real estate market. For the future, the chart shows a projection of no change for FY 2015 with modest 4% increases expected in FY 2016 [the 2013 real estate market] and beyond. The modest 4% growth rate is reasonable given the fact that Glendale’s annual average growth rate was 8.7% for the 10-year period of 1997 – 2007, representing the real estate markets of calendar years 1994 through 2004 – prior to the run up in property values. City-Owned Jobing.com Arena and the Coyotes Hockey Team. The second principal issue to be addressed for FY 2013 continues to be the city-owned Jobing.com Arena and the Coyotes National Hockey League team. In 2001, the City of Glendale entered into various agreements for the purpose of creating a highquality, diversified economic engine. Council directed staff to establish the city as a destination point through a series of steps over a 10 year period. The purpose of this economic center was to generate new and sustainable revenue sources to support exceptional city services for the community and to develop a signature destination area for tourism. Offices, hotels, entertainment, retail and restaurant facilities were planned to complement the city-owned Jobing.com Arena. A key tenant of the Jobing.com Arena has been the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Coyotes team. 22 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message In May 2009, the former owner of the Coyotes hockey team unexpectedly filed for federal bankruptcy protection. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the National Hockey League purchased the assets of the Coyotes and, for the past three years, the city has been working with potential buyers of the Coyotes to structure an arrangement that would retain the team in Glendale. City Council established criteria to guide the development of a new arrangement. They include:    Retention of the team for the full length of the lease at the city’s Jobing.com Arena, Retention of existing arena revenues to support the annual debt service requirements for the capital construction of the city’s Jobing.com Arena, and Creation of opportunities for the city to share in new revenue streams that could support exceptional city services to the community and ensure a sustainable future for the city. These criteria were established because the expenses of managing the arena are offset, in part, with the revenue earned by having the Coyotes as the arena’s main tenant. An independent economic impact study from FY 2011 showed that keeping the team for the term of the arena lease and management agreement was valued at between $270 million and $338 million. That is the value to the city today so losing the team to another city would cause significant damage to the Glendale community. For the 2010-2011 hockey season, the city agreed to pay the NHL up to $25 million if the team did not sell by the end of the season. In May 2011, the NHL reconfirmed its intention to continue their efforts to keep the team in Glendale and that a deal with a possible buyer, Matthew Hulsizer, was imminent therefore, the city entered into an extension of the management agreement with the NHL. This extension of the agreement allowed the team to remain in Glendale for the NHL’s 2011-12 season and provided additional time to complete a pending agreement with an ownership group that is committed to retaining the team in Glendale at the Jobing.com Arena. In return, the city agreed to extend the agreement with the NHL for an additional $25 million. The pending deal with the Hulsizer group anticipated the city would have to pay at least $20M in management fees and $4 million to $5 million in debt service for the new parking bonds along with other up front capital costs and an escrow deposit of the following year’s management fee. The full cost of that deal to the city was estimated to be in excess of $385 million over the life of the management agreement. This offer was ultimately withdrawn by the Hulsizer group as they were unable to structure a saleable, marketable bond deal. At the time this memo was written in early May 2012, the city and the NHL were actively negotiating with another interested buyer to take over the team. Therefore, the FY 2013 GF operating budget assumes the general terms of the current agreement moving forward will be in place. The most significant is retention of the team as the anchor tenant of Glendale’s Jobing.com Arena. The FY 2013 budget also incorporates the addition of a $17 million arena management fee and $1 million for capital-related renewal and replacement expenses at the arena. 23 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message Discussion – Actions Taken To Address Principal Issues Affecting the City’s Budget Budget Strategy to Address Principal Issues. Since FY 2010, the city has implemented a budget strategy to address these principal issues. This strategy is marked by a strategic, business-based and phased approach. This budget strategy also sustains core health and safety related city services as defined by Council’s strategic goals. At Council direction, a series of three public meetings were held to provide a venue for public comments. One critical element of the city’s budget strategy that deserves recognition is the city’s Innovate Initiative. This initiative is directly tied to the budget process and the city’s strategic business model. The Innovate Program provides the organization with access to a team of internal staff that has been trained in process improvement methods for the purpose of examining business activities and identifying opportunities to increase effectiveness (adding value) and efficiency (maximizing resources). The program also provides an opportunity for employees to be actively involved through a dedicated method to submit suggestions, a chance to become project facilitators, and the ability to re-design processes. In addition to the official projects that the Innovate team has completed, departments that have been introduced to the Innovate tools have used the process improvement concepts to further enhance business practices. Employees have been, and continue to be, actively engaged in making business-based recommendations for adjustments that help us in balancing the budget. As noted earlier, the city’s largest operating fund, the GF, enters FY 2013 with a fourth consecutive year of operating budget deficits before implementation of balancing measures. The two principal balancing actions for the past three FYs to address the GF operating deficits were streamlining service delivery and using GF fund balance to offset GF deficits based on a strategic, business-based approach that was phased in over time. This resulted in a mix of ongoing and one-time measures each FY to balance GF ongoing operating expenses, including transfers, against GF ongoing operating revenues. Ongoing measures included the following steps:  Contractual/temporary/seasonal employee reductions.  FTE reductions through attrition.  Base budget reductions across all city departments based on service and program modifications.  Restructuring of GF lease and Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) debt service to provide relief while the economy slowly recovers.  Operating transfer reductions for GF-supported operations at the Glendale Civic Center and other supported programs.  Revenue enhancements such as new or adjusted fees for services and programs. The GF operating budget balancing also involved the following one-time measures:  Employee furloughs and represented employees’ pay-related pay concessions.  Fund balance reductions. 24 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message  Technology and vehicle replacement fund contribution reductions. For FY 2013, these same measures will continue to be used with one significant exception: rather than drawing down the city’s GF reserve any further, the city will undertake a long-term plan to rebuilding the GF fund balance. The city had established a robust GF reserve totaling $72.5 million (CAFR-basis) at the end of FY 2006 through prudent financial management. With the onset of the recession, revenues began declining significantly. The use of fund balance during challenging economic cycles is a legitimate, generally accepted and widely-used course of action for state and local government across the United States to avoid drastic service reductions when sensitive ongoing revenues fluctuate. Over the course of the most recent recession, the GF fund balance (CAFR-basis) has been drawn down from $72.5 million to $11.7 million by the end of FY 2011 with the FY 2011 draw down being $27.2 million. This course of action allowed Glendale to continue providing high quality city services during the recession and avoid layoffs per Council’s direction. The alternative would have been severe ongoing reductions to city services, including core services, to match the $46.2 million or 25% decline in GF ongoing revenue sources discussed earlier in this message. Operating Budget. The FY 2013 recommended operating and capital budgets provide a multiyear path to improved financial stability as the economy improves and the city grows out of the challenges caused by the recession. The recommended budgets also are based on Council’s continued vision of one community, and the supporting strategic goals. On the operating side, the recommended budget provides for:       Gradual rebuilding of GF fund balance to address the declining GF fund balance that led to a downgrade in the city’s bond rating in January 2012. The downgrade is a signal that we must begin rebuilding the city’s GF fund balance. Continuation of debt service restructuring to establish a payment stream that is more in line with available resources. Continued evaluation of departmental operations to increase effectiveness (adding value) and efficiency (maximizing resources) with reductions in ongoing expenditures where possible. The FY 2013 operating budget continues with base budget reductions including the elimination of approximately an additional 100 FTEs and accompanying program and service modifications. With these additional FTE reductions, GF staffing for FY 2013 will reflect an approximate 25% reduction from the FY 2009 peak staffing level of 1,501. Continued stable funding for public safety. End of employee furloughs and MOU deferrals. Also for FY 2013, step increases will be implemented for eligible employees in the represented public safety labor groups. The increases are necessary for Glendale to remain competitive for essential public safetyrelated recruitment and retention efforts. Incorporation of retirement rate changes into the base budget. 25 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message The multi-year path to improved financial stability for the FY 2013 operating budget includes a transaction privilege (sales) tax rate increase of 0.7% to the city's undesignated portion of the rate. This increase will occur across all eligible sales tax categories and will become effective August 1, 2012. Given the information available in March 2012, a five-year forecast of revenues and expenditures that included the additional revenue expected from this action show the GF operating budget will return to a healthier position in approximately five fiscal years (2017). This forecast shows a projected ending fund balance of $14M for the GF in 2017. Based on this forecast, Council should explore the possibility of repealing of all or some of the tax increase at that time. Other revenue enhancements to be implemented with the FY 2013 budget include an increase to the transient lodging rate [bed tax] from 3.4% to 5.0% with the increased revenue allocated for tourism promotion and related expenses. Other revenue enhancements to be implemented with the FY 2013 budget include adjustments to various fees for the use of the Civic Center and the Parks, Recreation and Library Department programs and services. Highlights of the FY 2013 budget include no rate increases for water/sewer. Sanitation and landfill services as well as continuation of:     Current operating hours for the city’s libraries; Swim programs at the city’s two aquatic facilities, Rose Lane Aquatic Center and Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Facility; Funding for filled sworn positions in police and fire; and Operating hours and maintenance for existing parks and sports fields. Additionally, FY 2013 represents implementation of successful negotiations with the represented labor groups. For the enterprise funds, an annual review of the rates charged for water, sewer, sanitation collection, and landfill disposal services was completed. No rate adjustments will be made for FY 2013. As a result of the payoff of senior lien bonds (WIFA), the reserve fund of retained earnings and cash totaling approximately $11M is freed up allowing for a refunding that eliminates the need for a rate increase in 2013. These annual reviews of the enterprise funds are done to ensure incoming revenues are sufficient to support operating and capital expenditures for those individual operations. Other fees, such as those charged for plan review and building inspections, are adjusted periodically per the consumer price index (CPI). Capital Program. On the capital side, the recommended budget provides for a path to improved financial stability for the general obligation (G.O.) bond program that includes a secondary property tax rate increase of 0.3054 for FY 2013. This increase follows a period of 18 consecutive years where the total property rate tax was either held flat or reduced since FY 1995. As presented to City Council during the April 23, 2012, budget workshop and in the City Manager’s Recommended FY 2013-22 Capital Improvement Plan memo, the FY 2013 secondary property tax rate increase of 0.3054 is step one of a two-step rate increase that will be staggered over two FYs, with step two being implemented for FY 2014 after Council’s review. 26 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Budget Message The higher secondary rates are expected to be in effect through FY 2017 based on the most current information available about future assessed valuation for property within Glendale’s corporate limits. These higher rates are required to pay for existing debt service for the G.O. bond program; no new G.O. bond sales are planned through FY 2017. This rate change means the city’s secondary rate will increase from $1.3699/$100 of assessed valuation to $1.6753; the city’s primary property tax rate will remain unchanged at $0.2252/$100 of assessed valuation. The city’s total property tax rate will change from $1.5951 to $1.9005/$100 of assessed valuation. Conclusion As we progress through FY 2013, the city will continue to evaluate revenues and expenditures to ensure we are on the path the Council has charted for the city. We will continue providing quarterly reports to Council on the performance of the GF and the designated sales tax funds. These reports will keep you apprised of how revenues and expenditures are doing when compared with the revenue and expenditure budgets established for FY 2013. Even with the ongoing challenges of the economy, employees will remain focused on implementing City Council’s strategic goals. The provision of exceptional city services will continue as will collaborative, innovative efforts to:      Strengthen neighborhoods, Ensure Glendale is a safe community, Retain and attract quality economic development opportunities, Foster sustainable downtown development, and Continue the dedicated partnership with Luke Air Force Base. It is important to thank employees for their active participation in and valuable contributions to the development of the FY 2013 budget. As a service organization focused on providing exceptional services to the community, the employees remain the city’s most critical resource. In closing, I believe the FY 2013 budget is a plan that provides resources to maintain core city services while moving forward with strategies that ensure a positive, sustainable future. I continue to be confident that the Mayor and Council’s vision will ensure an outstanding quality of life for the Glendale community and further enhance our position as a world-class destination city. Sincerely, Ed Beasley City Manager 27 Return to Main TOC BUDGET MESSAGE This page left blank intentionally 28 Budget Summaries Annual Budget, 2012-2013 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY The annual budget for the City of Glendale is divided into four major components that include all appropriations for the city and are explained below. The operating budget finances the day-today provision of city services and totals $347.7 million. The capital improvement budget funds the construction of city facilities, such as police/fire stations and libraries, in addition to the construction of roads, public amenities and other infrastructure throughout the city. This year the capital improvement budget totals $106.2 million. The debt service budget is used to repay money borrowed by the city, primarily for capital improvements, and amounts to $86 million. The final component of the budget is the contingency appropriation at $39.1 million. This appropriation is made up of fund reserves and is available to cover emergency expenses, revenue shortages or capital project acceleration should they arise during the fiscal year. The total budget, including all four components, is $579 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. This represents a decrease of 9.2% from the FY 2012 total budget of $638 million. The decrease is the result of operating and capital budget reductions that were implemented to address reduced revenue sources because of the recession. As you can see from the graph below, the operating (60.1%) and capital (18.3%) appropriations are the largest components of the FY 2013 budget and account for 78.4% of the total appropriations. Both are discussed on the following pages. City of Glendale Total FY 2013 Appropriations Contingency 6.8% Operating 60% Debt Service 14.9% Capital 18.3% A summary of the city’s major revenues and expenditures, including other financing sources and uses, provides an overview of the total resources budgeted by the organization. This summary is located in the Schedules section of this book and is titled Schedule One by Category. 29 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Operating Budget The development of Glendale’s FY 2013 budget was an open process designed to reflect the needs and desires of the community. Throughout the year, the Mayor, City Council and city staff obtained input from the community through neighborhood meetings, citizen boards and commissions, surveys and other contacts with individuals and groups. The feedback from Glendale citizens received in FY 2011 regarding proposed operating budget reductions via the city web-site, telephone hotline and public meetings in three locations was used again in developing the FY 2013 operating budget. During the fall of 2012, staff updated the city’s Five-Year Financial Forecast. The forecast allows various budget scenarios to be tested for their effect on the city’s financial condition on a long-range basis. At the same time, the city’s CIP Management Team began the process of updating the Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan. In December 2011 and January 2012, City Council conducted a goal review and strategic planning retreat to review progress made on goals and objectives and to identify key objectives for the coming year. City Council’s strategic goals did not change from the previous year. In December 2011, the Financial Services Department kicked off the budget process for FY 2013. This meeting provided an assessment of current economic trends, the revenue outlook for the upcoming fiscal year and the city manager’s direction for the development of a balanced budget. The same two principal issues that had to be addressed for the FY 2010, 2011 and 2012 budgets remain for the FY 13 budget. One principal issue for the FY 2013 budget continues to be the economy and its impact on the city’s ability to fund services and infrastructure for the community through the operating and capital budgets. The international/national recession from which the economy is gradually recovering was felt far and wide throughout the world. Arizona was particularly hard hit with the bursting of the real estate bubble, steep loss of jobs – particularly in the construction industry – decline in the numbers of individuals moving to the state and a noticeable fall-off in the state’s important tourism industry. The second principal issue to be addressed for FY 2013 continues to be the city-owned Jobing.com Arena and the Coyotes National Hockey League team. Despite improvements in revenues, FY 2013 represents the fourth straight year of operating budget deficits, before the implementation of balancing measures, for the General Fund while demand for city services has remained steady or increased in some areas (e.g., code compliance). City sales tax revenues have stabilized and are projected to have a modest increase of about 1.5% (not including the proposed 7/10ths sales tax rate increase); state shared revenues will see an overall increase of 8.4%, lead by state income tax revenue which is projected to increase 19.8% year over year. Consequently, as part of the FY 2013 budget development process, departments proposed reductions to their ongoing General Fund base operating budgets for both salary and non-salary related items. All departments participated and the proposed reductions equated to $9 million of their General Fund operating budgets. Each department head reviewed the proposed reductions 30 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary to ensure core services, particularly those related to health and safety, as defined by City Council strategic goals, would continue to be provided. For a more in-depth discussion about the two principal issues that had to be addressed for the FY 2013 budget and the budget actions taken to address them, including the implemented operating budget reductions, see the City Manager’s Budget Message. City Council reviewed the city manager’s balanced budget in eight public, televised workshop sessions held between February 14 and April 23 to discuss the pertinent issues surrounding the upcoming fiscal year operating, capital and debt service budgets. The draft budget, as revised by City Council, became the tentative FY 2013 budget. It was published and made available for further public review prior to the public hearing and formal adoption of the final budget on June 12, 2012. See the Budget Calendar for more details about the timing of various steps in the budget development and adoption process. Capital Improvement Plan Budget The city annually updates the Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which is now based on FY 2013 through FY 2022 and includes $597 million in projects. The first year of the plan is the only year appropriated by Council. The remaining nine years are for planning purposes and funding is not guaranteed to occur in the year planned. The final decision to fund a project is made by City Council. Projects include renovations to city buildings, street improvements including pavement preservation, police/fire department communications enhancements and upgrades to water treatment and wastewater collection facilities. The CIP Management Team includes staff from the Public Works and Financial Services Departments. This team reviewed all CIP projects for their construction costs and their projected impact on the operating budget. Projects with high operating costs are analyzed along with the Five-Year Forecast and may be deferred to ensure the city can absorb the operating impact once the facility opens. For FY 2013, $106.2 million in capital investments is planned and a summary by type of project is provided in Table 1 below. 31 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Table 1: Capital Improvements (All Dollars in Millions) Fund Name (Fund Number) Transportation Capital Project (2210) Water and Sewer (2360) Airport Capital Grants (2120) Transportation Grants (1650) Landfill (2440) Flood Control Construction (2180) Streets Constr. - 1999 Auth (1980) Grants (1840) Economic Dev. Constr-1999 Auth (2100) Sanitation (2480) General (1000/1283/1740) Public Safety Construction (2040) DIF-Citywide Open Spaces (1520) DIF-Roadway Improvements (1601) All Other Projects Total CIP FY 2013 $34.9 $31.9 $16.0 $7.5 $2.8 $2.6 $2.3 $2.0 $1.6 $1.3 $1.0 $0.7 $0.3 $0.3 $1.0 $106.2 Refer to the Capital Improvement Plan section for more detailed information regarding the projects included in these categories, as well as the funding sources available for each. Amending the Budget Once the City Council adopts the annual budget, total expenditures cannot exceed the final appropriation of $579 million for FY 2013. However, with City Council’s formal approval, the city can adjust the total appropriations within the funds provided that the budget remains in balance. This means that if one fund’s total appropriation is increased, then appropriations from another fund or funds must be reduced by an equal amount. Inter-fund, inter-departmental or inter-CIP project transfers are approved by City Council as part of the normal course of city business when various council communications detailing pending construction awards, grant awards or professional service agreements are presented at public meetings. During the last three months of the fiscal year, Council may approve the transfer of unencumbered appropriation among funds and departments. All budget transfers are documented by the Financial Services Department and tracked in the city’s computerized financial system. 32 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Fund Descriptions The City of Glendale uses fund accounting to track revenues and expenditures. Some funds, such as the Streets Fund, are required by state legislation. Others were adopted by the city to track and document revenues and expenditures related to specific operations. The city has seven main categories of funds: general, special revenue, debt service, capital, trust, enterprise and internal service. These categories are used to track the activity of almost 90 separate funds. For example, enterprise funds are expected to be self-supporting through revenue for the services provided. For these funds, the city charges a fee for a specific service, such as sanitation collection, just like any other business would do. A brief description of each fund within each fund category is provided on the pages that follow. General Fund Group: General (Fund 1000): The General Fund includes all sources of revenue the city receives that are not designated for a specific purpose. General Fund revenue may be used by the City Council for any legal public purpose. Most city departments receive at least some support from the General Fund. The FY 2013 budget includes a 7/10ths of one cent sales tax increase that is expected to generate an additional $23 million as approved by Council at the April 23 budget workshop. With the increase, the base sales tax rate [General Fund portion] will increase from 1.20% to 1.90%. The additional revenue will be used to cover both operating and debt service expenses funded by the General Fund and will help the city gradually rebuild a fund balance that was drawn down between FY 2009 and FY 2012 to avoid severe service reductions to the community. National Events (Fund 1010): The National Events Fund was established in FY 2005 to track General Fund cash that was set aside by City Council to pay for community improvements and operations associated with the initial Fiesta Bowl, the 2007 Bowl Championship Series college football game and Super Bowl 2008. The cash reserves were augmented by the collection of fees associated with these events, including parking and shuttle revenue. With the successful completion of the Super Bowl event in February 2008, the remaining fund balance was retained in the fund until FY 2011 when $335,000 was transferred back into the General Fund. The remaining fund balance has been appropriated as contingency in FY 2013. General Services (Fund 1040) and Telephone (Fund 1100): The General Services and Telephone Funds are used to track income and expenses of the internal services provided to city departments. The General Services Fund specifically covers vehicle maintenance needs and fuel purchased for city vehicles. The Telephone Fund covers expenses related to phone lines, circuits, T1 lines, VPN access, long distance, etc. City departments pay for these services on an actual usage basis. These charges go into each fund as revenues that support the cost of providing the services. Both funds generally carry only a small fund balance because the rate structures are designed to recover only actual costs. Small annual surpluses may occur from time to time, but these are generally returned to city departments when rates are established for the following year. An exception to this general practice has occurred with the Telephone Fund. A fund balance has been allowed to accrue in anticipation of future upgrades and the potential for unforeseen repairs. 33 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Vehicle (Fund 1120) and Technology Replacement (Fund 1140): These replacement funds were designed to allow the city to accumulate the money needed to replace at regular intervals the city’s fleet of cars, trucks and other rolling stock and its personal computers, servers and other technology-related equipment. Typically each department pays annually into each fund based on the amount of equipment in its inventory, the expected life span of the equipment in use and any residual value of the equipment. Replacement equipment is then purchased according to the established replacement schedule and paid for out of the appropriate replacement fund. Fund balances in both fluctuate from year to year according to the replacement schedules. To help address soft economic conditions, the General Fund contributions to both funds were reduced to the 40% funding level for FY 2013. To account for this reduction in funding, the city’s fleet of cars was reduced in favor of the motor pool, the useful lives of non-public safety equipment were extended and computers will not be replaced unless they malfunction for all General Fund covered equipment. Enterprise Funds contributions remain at the 100% level and replacements continue to be made as scheduled for equipment in FY 2013. Employee Groups (Fund 1190): This fund was created to track activity related to employee groups such as the Glendale’s Exceptional Municipal Staff (GEMS). GEMS plans, organizes and sponsors events such as the annual holiday employee luncheon, conducts fund raising activities for local non-profits and plans periodic social events to provide a setting for informal networking outside of the work environment, with the assistance of various planning committees and employee volunteers. Inflows to the fund include vending machine revenues generated by employee purchases as well as outside donations and sponsorships. Arts Commission (Fund 1220): One percent (1%) of city construction projects included in the Capital Improvement Program is deposited quarterly into the municipal arts fund. The funds are used to administer the city’s public art and performing arts program. Expenditures from the fund are recommended by the Glendale Arts Commission through its annual art projects plan and are subject to approval by the city council. FY 2013 revenue is projected to be $112,082 due to a planned slowdown in construction activity. However, a projected beginning fund balance of $1.3 million will be used to fund operations and any capital related purchases. Court (Fund 1240): The Court Fund revenue is derived from two primary sources: a security surcharge paid by persons convicted of traffic or misdemeanor offenses in City Court, and time payment fees charged to persons who choose to pay their fines in installments. The security surcharge revenue must be used for security services and facility improvements at the City Court. The time payment fee revenue may be used for activities or costs associated with collecting fines. These revenues and any associated expenditures are tracked in this fund. Library (Fund 1260): This fund is used to track revenues from book sales at our Main, Foothills and Velma Teague branches. Other library fines and fees revenue is included in the General Fund. The FY 2013 projected beginning balance of $316,558 and projected revenues of $184,328 will be offset by budgeted expenditures for book purchases and some temporary/hourly labor costs made from the fund totaling $155,000. Therefore, the ending fund balance is projected to increase to $345,886. 34 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Youth Sports Complex (Fund 1280): The Glendale Youth Sports Complex is adjacent to the University of Phoenix Stadium. It features five sports fields that were developed to fill a community need for additional youth facilities in the west valley. The complex also provides additional parking to the stadium. Expenditures related to the operations and maintenance of the facility is offset primarily by a General Fund operating transfer that is supplemented by some rental revenue generated through the use of the fields. Stadium (Fund 1281), Arena Event Operations (Fund 1282) and Camelback Ranch Event Operations (Fund 1283): These funds were created to track the city’s operational costs associated with events held at the stadium, arena and spring training venues. All public safety, transportation and marketing costs related to football, hockey, baseball, concerts, trade shows and other events held at these venues are recorded in the corresponding event operations fund. Revenue reimbursement for city services paid by the operations management company for all venues is recorded in the funds. A General Fund operating transfer is made to cover all expenditures that exceed the reimbursement received. Civic Center (Fund 1740): The Civic Center Fund was created to track revenues and expenses for the downtown facility that contains over 33,000 square feet of meeting and event space. The Civic Center can host as many as 60,000 people at as many as 250 events including weddings, trade shows and conventions in any given fiscal year. This fund was reclassified from the special revenue category to the general fund group in FY 2012 because of the level of support provided by the General Fund. A projected transfer from the General Fund of $296,602 will supplement revenues of $450,440 generated from Civic Center activities in FY 2013 to cover operating and capital related expenditures. For FY 2013, Civic Center rental fees were adjusted upward to reflect market pricing for similar facilities in the metropolitan area. Zanjero Special Revenue (Fund 1770): This fund is used to track the revenue generated by the Zanjero development just north of Westgate on Glendale Avenue. The Zanjero development is a 158-acre mixed-use project that is planned to include residential, office, retail and hotels. This site is anchored by Cabela's, the world’s foremost outfitter of outdoor gear. Revenues collected in the fund are transferred to the MPC debt service fund and are used to pay the debt service related to infrastructure improvements that the city completed for this development. The designated sales taxes for public safety and transportation that are generated at facilities in the Zanjero development are deposited to the appropriate designated sales tax fund. Arena Special Revenue (Fund 1780): The Arena Special Revenue Fund tracks the revenues generated from Jobing.com Arena events and the surrounding Westgate City Center. The Arena Special Revenue Fund also tracks the operating expenditures associated with arena renewal and replacement to ensure the arena stays modernized. For FY 2013, this fund includes $1 million for capital-related renewal and replacement expenses at the arena. Revenue collected in this fund includes Phoenix Coyote team/arena fees, parking fees and sales taxes. There is a transfer from this fund to the MPC debt service fund to pay the debt service related to the construction costs associated with the arena. The designated sales taxes for public safety and transportation that are generated at the Arena and Westgate City Center are deposited to the appropriate designated sales tax fund. 35 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Westgate City Center opened in November 2006 and already includes 2.8 million square feet of retail, lodging, restaurants, entertainment and office uses. In addition, a new Tanger Factory Outlet Center/Mall, a 368,000 square-foot development is scheduled to open before the 2012 holiday season. Jobing.com Arena is home to the National Hockey League’s Phoenix Coyotes and also serves as a first-class venue for concerts, trade shows and other events. PFC Special Revenue (Fund 1782): The PFC Special Revenue Fund tracks the sales tax revenues generated from Camelback Ranch spring training baseball facility events. This is in accordance with an IGA established with the City of Phoenix. The FY 2013 sales tax revenue is estimated to be $105,000. It will also be used to track future revenue streams associated with commercial development projects around the facility. A transfer from this fund to the PFC debt service fund is planned each year to pay the debt service related to the construction costs associated with the facility. In FY 2013, the PFC Special Revenue fund is projected to see a one-time inflow of $11.3 million related to a planned PFC debt service re-financing in which unused capital bonds proceeds associated with the construction of the facility will be made available to pay down PFC related principal and interest. Stadium City Sales Tax - AZSTA (Fund 1790): This fund was created to track specific University of Phoenix Stadium revenues that are refunded to the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA) in accordance with signed development, construction and operating agreements. All revenues collected in this clearing house type fund are subsequently disbursed to the AZSTA. The designated sales taxes for public safety and transportation that are generated at the University of Phoenix stadium are deposited to the appropriate designated sales tax fund. Marketing Self-Sustaining (Fund 1870): This fund tracks the collection and use of revenues related to special events put on by the city’s Marketing Department. Examples include vendor rental fees and city costs for downtown special events such as the Jazz N’ Blues Festival, Glendale Glitters and the Chocolate Affaire. Although the Communications Department receives contributions from sponsors and collects fees from vendors for these special events, it also is scheduled to receive a transfer of $320,145 from the General Fund to support FY 2013 special events. The General Fund support for this fund was reduced for FY 2012 and that will continue for FY 2013 as this fund has sufficient fund balance to use for operations. Public Safety Training Center (Fund 2530): All revenues and expenditures associated with the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center are tracked in this fund. The facility was built with capital contributions from the City of Glendale (74.8%), Maricopa County Community College District (8.2%), City of Surprise (6.6%), City of Peoria (6.5%), City of Avondale (3.9%) and the federal government. The training center provides fire and police departments with the tools required to train new firefighters and conduct continuing education and training for fire and police personnel. Facility management operating costs are shared proportionately with the police and fire partners based upon the initial capital contribution. In addition, direct operating costs incurred at the facility by the Glendale Police and Fire Departments are shared with the partners of those respective disciplines/departments. 36 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Glendale Health Center (Fund 2538): The Glendale Health Center is located within the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center. The center is staffed by contractual medical professionals and is fully equipped with the testing equipment, exam rooms, x-ray machines, and other medical equipment required to perform public safety personnel physical examinations on a fee-for-service basis. The onsite contractual staff is required to perform medical examinations, bill and collect for all services rendered at the center, and remit negotiated fees for each medical examination performed to the City of Glendale and the Glendale Health Center. Revenues and associated operating expenses are tracked in this fund. Although the center will derive a large portion of its business from existing Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center partners, it is also open to outside organizations that are in need of the more extensive testing requirements associated with public safety personnel physical examinations. FY 2013 projected revenues totaling $65,966 will be offset by operating expenditures of $54,000. Any excess revenues at year end will remain in fund balance and can be used to offset future costs associated with the repair and replacement of medical equipment. Special Revenue Fund Group: HURF/Streets (Fund 1340): This fund is used to track Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) monies that the State of Arizona distributes to cities, towns and counties. This revenue source is commonly referred to as the gasoline tax although there are several additional transportationrelated fees that comprise this revenue, including a portion of vehicle license taxes. Overall, much of this revenue source is based on the volume of fuel sold rather than the price of fuel. There is a state constitutional restriction on the use of HURF revenues; they must be used solely for street and highway purposes such as maintenance, repair, reconstruction and roadside development. In Glendale, the fund supports street cleaning and maintenance, traffic signs and signals, street lighting and other street-related activities. Any remaining fund balance is appropriated as contingency appropriation that can be used only as directed by Council during the fiscal year. Local Transportation Assistance (Fund 1640): The Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) is used to receive state lottery funds distributed to the cities based on population. These funds must be used for transportation purposes including transit programs. Glendale transfers 100% of its LTAF funds into the Transportation Sales Tax Fund. The state legislature suspended LTAF distributions to cities and towns in FY 2011 and FY 2012 in an effort to balance the state’s budget. However, LTAF II distributions were reinstated during the course of FY 2012 and will continue into FY 2013. These revenues are expected to generate $665,234 and have been included in the FY 2012 estimate and FY 2013 adopted budget. Transportation Sales Tax (Fund 1660): The Transportation Sales Tax Fund supports transportation services in Glendale. The fund is primarily supported by designated sales tax revenue received from Proposition 402 (0.5%). In 2001 Glendale voters approved a one-half cent adjustment to the city sales tax rate to fund a comprehensive package of transportation projects including expansion of public transit service, intersection improvements to reduce congestion and other street-related services. 100% of the revenues and operating expenditures 37 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary are accounted for in this fund. A separate Transportation Construction Fund exists to track transportation related capital expenditures that are paid for by the designated sales tax. Typically, the city will issue revenue bonds to fund transportation capital projects and deposit the bond proceeds into the Transportation Construction Fund. Debt service payments are then funded with the revenues collected in the Transportation Fund. Each year the Transportation Fund transfers cash into the Transportation Debt Service Fund to cover debt payments. Transfers also can be made from the Transportation Fund to the Transportation Construction Fund to fund capital project construction on a cash basis. This will be done in FY 2013 and accounts for the draw-down of the $26.8 million beginning fund balance. Police (Fund 1700) and Fire Special Revenue (Fund 1720): In 1994, Glendale voters passed a citizens’ initiative that increased the local sales tax by 0.1% to add police and fire personnel and related equipment. In September 2007, Glendale voters passed a separate initiative that increased the local sales tax by another 0.4%, bringing the total public safety tax rate to 0.5%, effective November 1, 2007. Both taxes specified that two-thirds of the revenue would go to police operations and one-third to fire operations. The original tax (0.1%) included all grocery related food sales but the new tax (0.4%) excludes all grocery related food sales. Both taxes specifically prohibit supplanting existing general fund budgets with the sales tax revenue. The number of authorized positions within the designated sales taxes increased from 42 to 118 for the Police Department, and from 22 to 51 for the Fire Department since the tax rate adjustment became effective on November 1, 2007. The designated sales tax also covers the associated vehicles, equipment and supplies needed to outfit the additional staffing. The Police and Fire Revenue Funds are used to track these revenues and expenditures to ensure compliance with all rules and regulations outlined in the ordinance. During the course of FY 2013, the balances for these funds are expected to decline to accommodate planned expenses. Even so, these two public safety funds are expected to retain year-end balances equal to approximately 36% of the current year’s projected revenues in total, which exceeds the 10% preferred fund balance minimums set per the city’s financial policies. Airport Operating (Fund 1760): This fund was established to track the operating revenues and expenses of the Glendale Municipal Airport. The long-range goal for the airport is to become a self-sustaining operation, at which time the Airport Fund will become an enterprise fund. The airport has already attracted more commercial business traffic with the development of Westgate, the Jobing.com Arena, University of Phoenix Stadium and Camelback Ranch (spring training baseball facility). The Airport Fund is projected to receive a General Fund transfer of $144,415 to augment projected revenue collections of $456,036 in FY 2013. Grant Funds: The city created a number of individual funds to track grants received from various federal, state and county sources. Individual funds allow the city to comply with the specific financial and reporting requirements of each grantor agency. Separate funds are used to track revenues received from the federal government and any associated expenditures with the HOME Grant (Fund 1300), Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Fund 1310), Neighborhood 38 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Stabilization Program III (Fund 1311), Community Development Block Grant (Fund 1320) and Emergency Shelter Grant (Fund 1830). Another fund tracks the Community Action Program (Fund 1820) grant funds received from Maricopa County. A Transportation Grant (Fund 1650) fund is used to track grant activity for projects covered by the Glendale Onboard transportation program and a fund titled Airport Capital Grants (Fund 2120) is used for any grant related project involving the city airport. The three-year federal stimulus grants that were started in FY 2010 are tracked within a fund titled ARRA (American Recovery and Reform Act) Stimulus Grants (Fund 1842). Most other grants are tracked through the Other State and Local Grants Fund (Fund 1840). These grant funds come in on a reimbursement basis, so these funds typically do not carry a fund balance from year to year unless a specified grant award is expended over multiple fiscal years. RICO (Fund 1860): Federal anti-racketeering laws permit law enforcement agencies to seize and sell property and proceeds acquired by individuals as a result of their involvement in certain types of criminal activities such as the sale of illegal drugs. The city’s RICO Fund tracks the revenue generated from such seizures as governed by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Expenditures backed by this revenue source must be made for purposes that improve public safety or crime prevention programs and cannot be used to supplant existing funding for law enforcement purposes. Parks & Recreation Self-Sustaining (Fund 1880): This fund tracks the collection and use of revenues related to self-sustaining programs administered by the Parks & Recreation Department for sports, aquatics and special interest type classes for which fees are charged. In FY 2013 projected revenues of $1,231,600 will be offset by projected expenditures totaling $1,231,083. Parks & Recreation Designated (Fund 1885): The Parks and Recreation Department has agreements with several local school districts to cover the maintenance of city pools located on school property and jointly owned city/school district parks. The school districts and the city make payments into the fund to cover major maintenance and restoration costs. The fund balance is projected to decrease from $258,995 to $89,257 in FY 2013 as a result of planned expenditures related to designated facilities. This fund also includes a separate division used to track the costs associated with the maintenance of the Elsie McCarthy Park in accordance with a generous donation made by a private party and designated for this purpose only. Debt Service Fund Group: Bond financing is the primary source used to finance long-term capital projects and infrastructure. The City’s debt management plan is an important tool for one of the main financing sources of the CIP. Outstanding debt, debt limitations, voter authorization and cash flow projections are reviewed as part of the capital budgeting process, while the annual debt service payments are incorporated into the debt service budget. Depending on the need and the type of project being financed, several different types of bonds are available to the City. 39 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary Separate funds are used to track payments made on the city’s outstanding debt obligations. Each type of debt (General Obligation, Revenue Bonds and Municipal Property Corporation) is tracked separately. Fund balances fluctuate according to established debt payment schedules. The city’s debt policies and long-range debt management plans are described in detail in the Capital Improvement Plan section of this document and the associated debt schedules that show the principal and interest payments by year are included in the Schedules section. General Obligation (G.O.) Bond Debt (Fund 1900): G.O. bonds require voter authorization and are backed by the taxing authority of the City. These bonds finance projects that City Council select as part of the budget process every year. Arizona law limits the amount of G.O. bonds the City can have outstanding based on the secondary assessed valuation of both commercial and residential property located within the city limits. Financing for the following types of projects are limited to 20% of the city’s secondary assessed valuation: parks and recreation, open space and trails, flood control, water and sewer, streets and transportation, and public safety. Financing for general government, economic development, libraries and cultural and historic projects is limited to 6% of the secondary assessed valuation. Secondary property tax revenue is recorded directly into this fund and used to pay G.O. bond debt. The balance in this fund grew over time as the timing of bond issuances and the commencement of capital construction occurred later than originally planned. This fund balance was used to address the shortfall between the revenue generated from the secondary property tax rate and the annual debt service requirements that developed with the unprecedented decline in property values with the last recession. As presented to Council during the April 23, 2012 budget workshop, the FY 2013 secondary property tax rate increase of $0.3054 is step one of a two step rate increase. Step two will be implemented in FY 2014 after Council’s annual review of the property tax rates to ensure future tax rates are set in accordance with required debt service obligations. See the Capital Improvement Plan section for a more in-depth discussion. Public Facilities Corp (PFC) Bond Debt (Fund 1930): The PFC is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arizona to assist the City to finance, construct and equip the Camelback Ranch spring training baseball facility. City Council retains oversight and must approve all PFC debt upon recommendation from the PFC’s Board of Directors, which consists of four City employees and one private citizen. Although the PFC is a legally separate entity from the City, the PFC is reported as if it is part of the primary government because it sole purpose is to finance and construct public facilities for the City. Although the facility opened in FY 2010, capitalized interest (i.e. excess bond proceeds) from the initial bond sale were used to make the initial debt service payments. In FY 2013, the City will refinance the PFC debt in a manner that allows the remaining, unused bond proceeds to be used to cover the FY 2013 principal and interest payment. Future year PFC debt service payments will be covered by revenues generated at the facility and surrounding commercial developments with the balance being funded with a transfer from the General Fund. Municipal Property Corp (MPC) Bond Debt (Fund 1940): The MPC is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arizona to assist the City in the acquisition and financing of municipal projects and facilities. MPC bonds require City Council approval but 40 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary do not require voter authorization. These bonds are backed by the city’s excise taxes. For some MPC issuances, the excise tax revenue generated at the location where improvements were funded with MPC bonds is used to offset the respective debt service payment (e.g., Jobing.com Arena and the Zanjero development). The amount of MPC bonds that can be issued is limited by the city’s ability to repay the bonds. These bonds often have restrictive covenants requiring a reserve of pledged revenues equal to some multiple of the maximum debt service payment on the bonds. Street (Fund 1920) and Transportation Revenue Bond Debt (Fund 1970): The Transportation Revenue Bond Debt Fund is for the payment of debt service on revenue bonds used to finance projects that are backed by the designated city sales tax for transportation. This type of bond does not require voter authorization. Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) bonds were used for street projects that are backed by a pledge of the HURF monies the city receives from the state. Street capital projects financed with HURF monies require voter authorization. HURF monies will cover $1.35 million and the remaining debt service will be paid by secondary property tax revenue ($1.35 million), transportation special sales tax revenue ($1 million) and roadway development impact fee revenues ($1 million). Given the uncertainty regarding how future HURF revenue will be distributed, these contributions will be monitored closely going forward. Capital Fund Group: Construction funds account for financial resources used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities and equipment. They are based on the type of general obligation bonds and other types of long-term financing that the city issues. Considerable detail on planned capital projects, their potential operating impacts on the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, debt policies and tax implications are included in the Capital Improvement Plan section of this document. Any remaining fund balances in the capital construction funds are appropriated to contingency to cover unanticipated project costs or the unanticipated acceleration of key projects. Development impact fees have been another major source of funds used for constructing major city infrastructure. These are based on the type of development impact fees the city collects from developers to address the city’s capital costs associated with accommodating growth. Separate funds are used to track the collection of fees associated with the construction of libraries, fire and police facilities, parks, roadway improvements, etc. Further information about these types of funds is included in the Capital Improvement Plan section of this document. Trust Fund Group: Cemetery Perpetual (Fund 2280): The purpose of this fund is to provide future monies sufficient to pay all or a portion of the operational and maintenance expenses of the Glendale Memorial Park Cemetery when operations no longer produce revenue. All revenues from sales 41 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary of lots, headstones, domes, appurtenances and services provided through the operation of the cemetery are deposited to the city’s General Fund. Fund balance invested pursuant to the city investment policy and their related investment earnings accumulate in the perpetual care fund. Although monies may be withdrawn from the fund for cemetery expansion and improvements, none are budgeted in FY 2013. Interest income of $21,505 will increase the projected FY 2013 ending fund balance to $5.6 million of which the entire amount is appropriated as contingency and can only be used pursuant to the perpetual care fund ordinance. Enterprise Fund Group: Water/Sewer (Funds 2360, 2380, 2400 & 2420): The Water/Sewer Enterprise Fund supports the provision of water and sewer service to Glendale residents and businesses. It is completely self-supported through water sales, sewer user fees and other related user fees. The fund receives no tax revenue and pays an annual contribution to the General Fund for administrative support services such as personnel, finance and legal services that General Fund departments provide. If the General Fund departments did not provide these services, the enterprise fund would have to contract with outside vendors to receive the services. All revenues and expenditures associated solely with providing water services to citizens and businesses in Glendale is captured in Fund 2400 (Water). All activity associated solely with providing sewer services is recorded in Fund 2420 (Sewer). Fund 2380 (Water & Sewer bond Debt Service) is used to track activity related to revenue bond financings covering capital improvement projects. Fund 2360 (Water/Sewer) is used to capture any expenditures that are incurred on behalf of both water and sewer operations. For example, administration costs associated with providing oversight to both operations, as well as the expenses associated with the customer service division of the Financial Services Department, which handles the billing accounts for both water and sewer operations, is recorded in Fund 2360. The Water/Sewer Enterprise Fund balance is expected to decrease from $64.3 million to $38 million (ending fund balance plus contingency appropriation) in FY 2013 because of planned capital expenditures totaling $31.9 million and the debt service requirements associated with revenue bond funded projects totaling $24.2 million. Examples of capital projects include groundwater treatment plant improvements, water reclamation facility improvements, system security enhancements, as well as planned line replacements and extensions. A revenue budget of $77.9 million helps cover the previous expenditures, in addition to the operating budget which accounts for salaries, electricity, chemical treatments, supplies, etc. totaling $48.1 million. Landfill (Fund 2440): The Landfill Enterprise Fund supports the operation of the Glendale Landfill. City departments, and all private haulers pay tipping fees (based on tonnage disposed) to use the city’s landfill. Non-city customers pay higher tipping fees. City Code requires that any excess of budgeted revenues over budgeted expenditures be reserved each year for major landfill improvements, major equipment purchases and the eventual closure costs. The city's successful recycling program has helped to extend the life of the landfill and contribute to our community’s effort to improve the environment. 42 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Summary The Landfill fund balance is expected to decrease from about $6.9 million to $5.9 million (ending fund balance plus contingency appropriation). The FY 2013 operating budget totals $7 million and planned capital expenditures related to a scale-house/road relocation project, gas system modifications and heavy equipment purchases total $2.8 million. The FY 2013 projected revenues total $7.9 million. Sanitation (Fund 2480): This fund supports refuse collection and disposal services to homes and businesses in the city. It is supported through monthly charges paid by sanitation customers. The divisions in the Sanitation Enterprise Fund pay the Landfill Fund to dispose of solid waste at the landfill. The fund balance is expected to decrease from about $1.8 million to $1.2 million (ending fund balance plus contingency appropriation) in FY 2013 as planned expenditures for large capital equipment (i.e., roll-off trucks, front and side-load trucks, loose trash equipment, etc.) will be made using some of the fund balance. Projected revenues of $14.8 million are offset by operating expenditures totaling $14.3 million Community Housing Services (Fund 2500): The Housing Fund supports Glendale’s public housing program that is part of the Community Partnerships Department. The fund is almost entirely financed by federal housing revenue/grants but it also receives a yearly transfer from the General Fund to help cover personnel administrative expenses. The scheduled transfer for FY 2013 is $307,000 and remains unchanged from the previous fiscal year. Internal Service Fund Group: Risk Management (Fund 2540) and Workers’ Compensation (Fund 2560): The Risk Management and Workers’ Compensation Trust Funds support the provision of liability insurance and worker’s compensation coverage for the city. Income to the funds comes from premiums charged to each city department based upon a number of factors including the number of employees, job classifications, size of operating budget, actual claims history, etc. The funds are used to pay claims against the city and to cover premiums for certain types of outside insurance coverage. Benefits Trust (Fund 2580): The Benefits Trust Fund was created in FY 2001. An actuarial study of health insurance funding recommended the creation of a separate fund would be the best way to develop reserves to meet future cost increases for health-related insurance. During the course of the year, employer and employee contributions for medical, dental and vision insurance are deposited into this fund. Income to the fund comes from premiums charged to each city department based upon employee coverage elections made each year during open enrollment (employer portion). The fund also receives contributions from employees, both current and retired. Premium payments to insurance carriers and related claims expenses are made directly from the fund. The ending fund balance and any contingency appropriation serves as a reserve to cover incurred but not reported claims, as well as a buffer against rising health care costs. 43 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues REVENUES Total revenues available to the city in FY 2013 from all sources are estimated at $466.3 million, of which $155.3 million or 33.3% goes into the General Fund (GF). Table 1 shows changes expected in the revenue funds included in the table. Please note that numbers in parentheses denote a projected decrease in revenues in FY 2013 from FY 2012. Table 1: Total Revenues by Fund—FY 2012 vs. FY 2013 (All Dollars in Thousands) Fund 1000-General 1040-General Services 1100-Telephone Services 1120-Vehicle Replacement 1140-PC Replacement 1240-Court Security/Bonds 1281-Stadium Event Operations 1282-Arena Event Operations 1340-Highway User Gas Tax 1650-Transportation Grants 1660-Transportation Sales Tax 1700-Police Sales Tax 1720-Fire Sales Tax 1740-Civic Center 1770-Zanjero Special Revenue 1780-Arena Special Revenue 1790-Stadium City Sales Tax - AZSTA 2360-Water and Sewer 2440-Landfill 2480-Sanitation 2500-Pub Housing Budget Activities 2540-Risk Management Self Insurance 2560-Workers Comp. Self Insurance 2580-Benefits Trust Fund Total Operating Capital and Other Revenue Grand Total FY 2012 Estimate $127,376 $8,937 $904 $1,966 $1,750 $373 $861 $380 $10,550 $1,135 $21,070 $12,289 $6,120 $410 $1,227 $10,320 $1,600 $79,610 $7,805 $14,757 $13,243 $2,539 $1,023 $21,896 $348,143 $39,082 $387,225 44 FY 2013 Change FY 12 Projection to FY 13 $155,317 $27,941 $8,993 $55 $945 $41 $1,892 ($74) $2,082 $332 $417 $44 $862 $1 $407 $28 $12,759 $2,209 $7,936 $6,801 $21,646 $576 $12,685 $397 $6,318 $198 $450 $40 $1,735 $508 $8,004 ($2,316) $2,400 $800 $77,906 ($1,703) $7,892 $87 $14,835 $79 $14,219 $976 $2,540 $0 $1,023 $0 $22,313 $418 $385,578 $37,435 $80,673 $41,591 $466,251 $79,026 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues General Fund Group General Fund (Fund 1000): The city expects to collect $155.3 million in total GF revenue in FY 2013. Of that amount, $23 million is the additional revenue projected from the 7/10ths of one cent increase in the city’s sales tax approved for FY 2013. As part of the FY 2013 budget, the City Council approved an increase of 7/10ths of one cent in the city’s undesignated sales tax across all categories (such as retail and restaurants and bars) with the exception of the residential rental and mining categories. The 7/10ths of one cent increase includes food purchased for home consumption. However, food purchased for home consumption with food stamps and other government issued food instruments are exempt from the food sales tax. The sales tax rates increase will become effective on August 1, 2012. The last time the city increased the undesignated portion of its sales tax rate was in 1993. A five-year forecast of revenues and expenditures that included the additional revenue expected from this action show the GF operating budget will return to a healthier position in approximately five fiscal years (2017). This forecast shows a projected ending fund balance of $14 million for the GF in 2017. Based on this forecast, staff recommended that Council should explore the possibility of repealing of all or some of the tax increase at that time. From FY 2008 through the end of FY 2012, total GF ongoing revenue, including HURF revenues, is expected to experience a decline of almost $46.2 million or 25%, a clear reflection of the economic challenges brought on by the recession. For FY 2013, total ongoing general fund revenues are expected to increase primarily to due to the city sales tax rate increase and improved income tax revenue collections. The two major sources of revenue for the GF continue to be city sales taxes and state-shared revenues. They have comprised between two-thirds and three-fourths of the GF revenue since FY 2002 and are expected to continue to do so for FY 2013. The city’s GF revenue projection is based on many factors including the following:      historic trend data; projected changes in state and local population, disposable personal income, retail sales and inflation; economic forecasts of state and local economic activity provided by experts on the Arizona economy; economic forecasts of overall national economic activity; and statistical analyses. 45 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues Summary of General Fund Revenue (Excludes Streets Fund) Sales Tax 48% Development Fees 2% Property Tax 2% State Shared 32% Miscellaneous 7% Court/Lic./Fees 6% Franchise Fees 3% City Sales Tax: City sales tax represents 48% of the GF revenue and is Glendale’s largest source of revenue for FY 2013. It also is the one significant revenue source over which the City Council has authority unlike the state sales tax, state income tax, the gas tax or vehicles license fees. The majority of sales tax revenues is derived from retail businesses (approximately 43% of total city sales tax collections). Other major classes of sales tax activity City Sales Tax include transportation, 10-Year Fiscal History communications and utilities, rental Thousands businesses and restaurants and bars. $80,000 As mentioned previously, City Council approved a rate increase in the undesignated portion of the city’s sales tax rate for FY 2013. As a result, general fund will receive 1.9% of the city’s 2.9% sales tax with the remaining 1.0% designated for public safety (0.5%) and transportation (0.5%). $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 The city collected $63.3 million in city sales tax revenue in FY 2007, the highest level of receipts over a ten-year period. In FY 2008, collections began declining with rapid deterioration occuring over the summer and fall of 2008. Since FY 2009, city sales tax receipts have leveled off at the $50 million level, which was last experienced in FY 2004. 46 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues The estimate for FY 2012 is $51.9 million or almost even with the FY2011 actuals. The FY 2013 projection is $75.1 million, or $23.2 million higher than FY 2012 estimate. Almost all of the increase is from rates increase. State-Shared Revenues: State-shared revenues include state income tax, state sales tax and motor vehicle in-lieu tax. These three revenue sources are shared with all cities and towns throughout the state. The average annual growth rate for the city’s share of state-shared revenue was 6% between FY 2002 and FY 2008. However, starting in FY 2009, a decline started and State Shared Revenue 10-Year Fiscal History resulted in four consecutive Thousands years of reductions. The FY 2012 estimate of $45.8 million $70,000 is based on the 2010 census $60,000 figures and reflects an amount that is less than the FY 2002 $50,000 distribution. $40,000 For FY 2013, the total stateshared revenue is budgeted to $20,000 increase $3.8 million or 8% to $49.6 million. The increase is $10,000 largely due to improved $0 income tax collections. Total '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 state-shared revenue for FY MV In-lieu Income Sales 2013 is comparable to the actual collection in FY 2011 (FY 2011 actual collection for state - shared revenue is $49.9 million). $30,000 The distribution of state sales and income tax revenue is based upon the relation of the city’s population to the total state population while the distribution of motor vehicle in-lieu revenue is based on the city’s population in relation to the total incorporated population of Maricopa County. Prior to the 2010 Census, Glendale was just under 5% of the state’s total population; with the 2010 Census, Glendale is now about 4.5% of the state’s population. While the distribution method is proportional on a per person basis, more mature cities like Glendale typically experience a decrease in their portion of state-shared tax revenues as growing cities tend to receive a greater share of the revenue distribution. The most significant component of state-shared revenue is income tax and it is primarily driven by personal income rather than business income as personal income tax receipts comprise about two-thirds of all Arizona income tax receipts. Income tax revenue distribution to the cities lags by two years. This means the state income tax distribution for FY 2013 will reflect the income tax the state collected in FY 2011. The state’s 2011 income tax receipts were higher than the 2010 receipts. As a result, Glendale’s share of state income tax revenue is expected to increase by $3.9 million or 20.2% from $19.3 million in FY 2012 to $23.2 million in FY 2013. The city last had income tax receipts at the $23.2 million level in FY 2011. 47 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues State sales tax and motor vehicle in lieu revenues are distributed to cities and towns based on current year collections. State sales tax distribution is based on a formula by which varying percentages of different types of sales taxes – such as retail – are used to calculate the distribution amount. The FY 2012 estimate is $18.3 million and is almost even with the FY 2011 actuals. The projection for FY 2013 is $19 million, a modest growth of $700,000 or 3.8% from FY 2012. The city last had state sales tax receipts in the $19 million range in FY 2009. The FY 2013 motor vehicle in lieu tax projection of $7.5 million is 7.4% less than the $8.1 million estimate for FY 2012 and represents the lowest level in the last ten years for this revenue source. This revenue is based on fees collected for the licensing of vehicles, with the value of the vehicle used as the basis for the license cost. Primary Property Tax: Arizona’s property tax system consists of two tiers. The primary property tax levy has state-mandated maximum limits, and a city can adopt a rate anywhere between $0.0000 and the rate that yield the maximum limit under state law. Primary property tax revenue can be used by a city for Primary Property Tax & SRP In-Lieu any purpose. The primary property 10-Year Fiscal History tax revenue is included in the GF Thousands operating budget. $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 Property Tax '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 The secondary property tax revenue can be used only to pay the principal, interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness or other lawful long-term obligations that are issued or incurred for a specific capital purpose. The secondary property tax revenue funds the city’s General Obligation bond portion of the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP). SRP In-Lieu The city primary property tax rate will remain at $0.2252 in FY 2013. With an unchanged primary rate, Glendale will lose approximately $361,000 because of continued declines in the primary assessed valuation of existing property (excludes the impact of new construction, which was minor). The city’s primary property tax revenue began declining in FY2011; the FY2013 projection reflects a decline of $1.6 million from the $4.2 million collected in FY 2010. Salt River Project (SRP) in-lieu revenue represents the quasi-governmental agency’s payment in lieu of a property tax, which it is exempt from paying. This revenue source amounts to a projected $26,747 for FY 2013 and represents approximately 1% of the primary property tax and SRP in-lieu revenue grouping. Development Fees: Development-related fees include building permits, right-of-way permits, plan check fees, planning and zoning fees, engineering and traffic engineering plan check fees, fire service related development fees and miscellaneous development related fees. These sources 48 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues essentially reflect a range of activities related to commercial and residential development and construction. The city experienced its peak collection of development fees in FY 2008 with $6.1 million in receipts. The FY 2013 projection is $3.2 million and is flat with the FY 2012 estimate. For the development fees category, the Development Fee Revenue largest revenue source 10-Year Fiscal History in prior years was Thousands building permit fees. Fire Dept CD Fees $7,000 The same is true for FY 2012 and FY 2013 Traffic Eng. $6,000 with just over $1 $5,000 Engineering million expected in each of the two years. $4,000 Rezoning The next largest $3,000 Plan Check source of revenue in $2,000 this category was, and ROW is expected to $1,000 Bdg Permits continue to be, plan $0 check fees. '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 The decline of over 55% from the peak collection in FY 2008 is the result of the sizeable drop off in commercial and residential construction activity across the metropolitan Phoenix area as a result of the recession. Franchise Fees: Franchise fees are paid to the city by the electric, gas and cable companies operating within the city. These fees increase in response to rate increases by the various utilities and, to a lesser extent, population growth. In all cases, the fees due to the city are based on gross receipts for the franchised organization. The FY 2012 estimate is $4.3 million and is almost even with the FY 2011 actuals. These revenues are projected to remain essentially flat for FY 2013. Franchise Fee Revenue 10-Year Fiscal History Thousands $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 Gas/Elec. 49 '09 '10 Cable '11 '12 '13 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues License and Fee Revenues: This revenue category Thousands includes business and Recreation professional licenses, $7,000 Rent business regulatory $6,000 Bus/Prof licenses, sales tax Cemetery $5,000 licenses, liquor licenses, Library recreation fees, fire $4,000 Fire department fees not $3,000 related to construction Bus. Lic. development, library $2,000 Liquor fines and fees, cemetery Sales Tax $1,000 fees, and rental income Arena & Stad from the use of city $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 facilities. Miscellaneous arena and stadium related fees were included in this category for FY 2004 to FY 2007 but are now accounted for in a separate fund. Stadium security fees were included in FY 2007 only. License and Fee Revenue 10-Year Fiscal History As a group, license and fee revenues are expected to generate $6.4 million in FY 2013, which is an increase of $955,000 or 18% from FY 2012. Almost all of the revenue increase will be in parks, recreation and libraries revenues as a result of fee adjustments effective for FY 2013. For example, starting in FY 2013, the Adult Center will increase its annual facility use fees, fitness/billiard fees and other miscellaneous fees; the Glendale Recreation After-school Program (GRASP) will establish a fee-based program; aquatic and several recreation facilities fees will be increased; and libraries will generate an additional $126,000 in revenue from its rental fees. Court Revenues: The Glendale City Court collects fines for Court Revenue 10-Year Fiscal History parking and traffic violations Thousands and civil and misdemeanor criminal cases. Traffic fines $4,000 represent the largest portion of $3,500 court revenues. The revenue $3,000 generated from fines is subject $2,500 to statutory changes made by $2,000 the Arizona state legislature and can be affected by changes $1,500 in traffic enforcement practices. $1,000 Court collected $3.1 million in $500 FY 2011. However, this $0 revenue is projected to decline '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 in FY 2012 and FY 2013 as a result of a decline in traffic fines cases. The court projected to collect $2.7 million in FY 2013. 50 '12 '13 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues Other Revenues: This revenue category includes interest earnings, staff and administrative chargebacks, capital lease proceeds (if any), sale of assets (if any) and miscellaneous revenues. The projection calls for FY 2013 revenues of approximately $11.5 million, compared to $11.1 million expected to be generated in FY 2012. The city collected $33.3 million in FY 2011 and included $12.6 million in one-time revenue from the amended parking agreement for the mixed use development in the sports and entertainment district (City Council approved in January 2011) and $11.8 million in lease proceeds from a refinancing of outstanding leases. Special Revenue Fund Group: Police and Fire Sales Tax (Funds 1700 & 1720): The source of revenue for these funds is the 0.5% designated sales tax for police and fire services. The sales tax was originally adopted by voters in 1994 at a 0.1% rate. In September 2007 Glendale voters approved an increase to Police And Fire Special Revenue 0.5% effective 10-Year Fiscal History November 1, 2007. Thousands The original one-tenth rate includes food for $20,000 home consumption $18,000 (e.g., groceries) while $16,000 the additional four $14,000 tenths rate excludes $12,000 food for home $10,000 consumption. Two$8,000 thirds of the revenue is $6,000 allocated to police and $4,000 one-third to fire. $2,000 This revenue is subject $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 to the same fluctuations as the Fire Police general sales tax although the performance can be somewhat different because 80% of the rate excludes food for home consumption. The FY 2013 projection is $19.0 million with $12.7 million for police and $6.3 million for fire. The FY 2013 projection reflects growth of 3.0% from the FY 2012 estimate of $18.4 million. Transportation Sales Tax (Fund 1660): The primary source of this fund’s revenue for operations is sales tax receipts from the designated transportation sales tax (0.5%) that voters approved in 2001. This dedicated sales tax funds the Glendale Onboard (GO) Transportation Program, and is expected to generate an estimated $20.9 million in FY 2013 as compared to $20.2 million estimated for FY 2012. This is an increase of $622,000 or 3.0% .This revenue source is dedicated to funding various transportation and transit-related projects. 51 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues Other sources of FY 2013 revenue within the Transportation Sales Tax Fund include $130,000 in transit revenues, $544,000 in grant revenues and $110,000 in interest earnings and miscellaneous revenues. In total, transportation sales tax fund revenues are Transportation Funding Sources projected to be $21.6 million in FY 2013 or about $576,000 more than the FY2012 estimated revenue. Grant Funds This fund is supplemented with 2% $900,000 from the General Fund, General Fund as required by the 2001 election, to 4% Misc. help sustain the delivery of 1% transportation services. For FY 2012 and FY 2013, the Transport. Tax 93% state reinstated the Local Transportation Assistance II (LTAF II) monies for the cities in Maricopa County. As a result, the City of Glendale will receive $665,000 in FY2012 and the similar amount in FY 2013. LTAF 1 monies have not been reinstated. The city uses LTAF revenue to pay for Dial-A- Ride and fixed route bus services. Streets (Fund 1340): The source of this fund’s revenue is the state’s Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). HURF is commonly called the gasoline tax although there HURF Revenue are several additional transportation10-Year Fiscal History related fees that comprise this revenue Thousands source, including a portion of vehicle $18,000 license taxes. Overall, much of this $16,000 revenue source is based on the $14,000 volume of fuel sold rather than the $12,000 price of fuel. $10,000 The state distributes the revenue $8,000 based on a complex distribution $6,000 formula that spreads a portion of the $4,000 money across the state solely on the $2,000 basis of population while the $0 remaining money flows to those areas '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 with the highest gasoline and other fuel sales. This revenue must be accounted for separately and used only for eligible street and highway purposes. HURF collections are affected by the general health of the economy, as well as the vigor of specific industries such as tourism and trucking. The Arizona state legislature has made formula modifications from time to time that have affected Glendale’s share of HURF dollars. Over the past few FYs, the state legislature reallocated a portion of HURF revenues for other purposes 52 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues resulting in a decline of the portion distributed to municipalities and counties. For FY 2013, this reallocation changed so the overall estimate amount of HURF dollars to cities and towns has increased by almost 10%. The city will receive $12.8 million of HURF revenue in FY13, an additional $2.2 million from the FY 2012 estimate. However, the amount is still less than the actual revenue of $13.8 million received in FY 2011. Airport (Fund 1760): Airport revenues consist of user fees, lease proceeds, commercial activities and other fees and are projected to generate $456,000 in FY 2013. This fund is supplemented with $144,000 from the General Fund to assist with the airport operation. Airport user fee revenue comes from activities such as transient tie down fees and conference room fees from tenants. The majority of revenue comes from lease activities such as land rental and office rental. Airport User Revenue 10-Year Fiscal History Thousands $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 Glendale is aggressively pursuing additional airport facility users with an ultimate goal of airport self-sufficiency. Sporting events as well as concerts that are being held at Jobing.com Arena and University of Phoenix Stadium continue to attract corporate jet customers and are expected to provide additional business opportunities for the airport. Enterprise Fund Group Water/Sewer (Funds 2360, 2400 & 2420): In FY 2013, water sales and sewer fees will make up $76.2 million of total revenues for this fund. No bond sale is planned for FY 2013. Development impact fees (DIF) revenue is projected at $350,000 for FY 2013. Other revenue sources totaling about $1.3 million include interest earnings and miscellaneous fees and charges. Overall revenues for the Water/Sewer Fund amount to $77.9 million in FY 2013, just $300,000 more than the FY 2012 estimate of $79.6 million. 53 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues Water & Sewer Revenues Dev. Fees 0% Water Revenue 57% Sewer Revenue 41% Other Revenue 2% Water & Sewer Revenue 10-Year Fiscal History Thousands $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 Sewer '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 Water The city annually hires an independent consulting firm to review the utilities’ financial status and recommend rate adjustments if needed. As a result of the study undertaken during FY 2012, there will not be any rate increases for FY 2013. The median single family customer rate will remain at $61.14 per month. Landfill (Fund 2440): The city annually reviews the five-year financial plan for the Landfill Enterprise Fund. This annual evaluation takes into account operating and capital costs, equipment replacement, rate structures and service demands. Budget decisions are largely based on this long-range plan. 54 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues Glendale city departments are charged an internal rate of $18.00 per ton for the use of the city landfill. Glendale residents pay a tipping fee of $15.79 per ton for a load weighing more than one ton in waste material. These internal and residential tipping fees are projected to generate $2.4 million in revenue for the Landfill Fund in FY 2013, the same as the FY 2012 revenue estimate. City Internal Tipping Fees 10-Year Fiscal History External User Tipping Fees 10-Year Fiscal History Thousands Thousands $3,500 $4,000 $3,000 $3,500 $2,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $500 $0 $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 The tipping fees paid by private haulers, as well as businesses Misc. and individuals not located in 11% Recycling Internal 23% Charges Glendale, will continue to pay 30% $32.25 per ton in FY 2013. This tipping fee will generate $2.8 million in revenue for the Landfill Fund in FY 2013, about $100,000 more than the $2.7 million expected for FY 2012. In FY 2013, the External Charges recycling sales program is 36% projected to bring in $1.8 million. This amount is slightly lower than the actual recycling sales revenue of $2.3 million collected in FY 2011. The decline is mostly related to a decline in the amount of tonnage processed and sold at the recyclables processing facility. Landfill Revenues Additional miscellaneous revenue comes from interest earnings, DIF’s, chargebacks and other fees, and accounts for $867,000. Total projected revenues for FY 2013 are $7.9 million. Sanitation (Fund 2480): The city annually reviews the five-year financial plan for the Sanitation Enterprise Fund. This annual evaluation takes into account operating and capital costs, equipment replacement, rate structures and service demands. Budget decisions are largely 55 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues based on this long-range plan. Landfill fees for the disposal of the solid waste collected from residences and businesses represent a significant part of the expenses incurred by the sanitation enterprise operation. Consequently, adjustments to landfill rates have a major impact on sanitation rates. Glendale’s residential sanitation rate for FY 2012 is $16.30 and includes weekly trash and recycling collection as well as monthly loose trash collection. The last rate change occurred in January 2005. Due to a healthy fund Sanitation Revenues balance and significantly lower equipment repair and replacement costs, the Residential sanitation rate for FY 2013 will remain at 70% Commercial $16.30. 27% The FY 2013 total revenues of $14.8 million come primarily from two sources: residential collection fees, projected at $10.4 million, and commercial collection fees, projected at $4 million. The residential and commercial collection programs account for 97% of the sanitation revenues. Misc. 3% Valley Sanitation Rates Residential Sanitation Fees 10-Year Fiscal History (Based on FY 2010 Published Rates) Thousands $30.00 $12,000 $25.00 $10,000 $20.00 $8,000 $15.00 $10.00 $6,000 $5.00 $4,000 Peoria Chandler Scottsdale Glendale Gilbert Tempe Avondale Mesa Phoenix $0.00 $2,000 $0 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 56 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures EXPENDITURES The FY 2013 Operating Budget The starting point for the FY 2013 operating base budget is the current fiscal year’s ongoing base budget. It continues to focus on the Mayor and Council strategic goals and will carry on the process of transforming the vision of one community into reality. The operating budget also reflects the constrained and challenging economic conditions that the nation currently faces. The FY 2013 operating budget totals $347.7 million, which is a decrease of 4% ($14.4 million) from the FY 2012 budget of $362.1 million. The graph below shows a comparison of the changes in the operating budget from FY 2012 to FY 2013 by fund grouping. Operating Budgets by Fund Group ($'s in Thousands) $200,000 $170,960 $171,553 $150,000 $100,000 $81,430 $82,079 $82,097 $67,254 $50,000 $27,593 $26,780 $39 $40 $0 General Special Revenue Capital FY 2012 Enterprise Internal Service FY 2013 Table 2, on the following page, shows the year over year changes in the operating budgets for some of the City’s largest operating funds within the general, special revenue, capital, enterprise and internal service fund groupings. It is sorted in descending order based upon the size of the FY 2013 operating budget within each fund grouping. It also calculates the percentage change for the fund from the FY 2012 operating base budget. The operating summary that follows Table 2 describes each of these main fund groupings and provides explanations for material changes year over year. 57 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Table 2: Comparison of Operating Budgets FY 2012 vs. FY 2013 Fund Name (All Dollars in Thousands) FY 2012 General (1000) Arena Event Operations (1282) General Services (1040) PC Replacement (1140) Stadium Event Operations (1281) Vehicle Replacement (1120) Stadium City Sales Tax - AZSTA (1790) Training Facility Revenue Fund (2530) Marketing Self Sust (1870) Telephone Services (1100) All Other Funds Sub-Total General Fund Group Police Special Revenue (1700) Other Federal & State Grants (1840) Transportation Sales Tax (1660) Highway User Gas Tax (1340) Fire Special Revenue (1720) RICO Funds (1860) C.D.B.G. (1320) ARRA Stimulus Grants (1842) N'hood Stabilization Pgm III (1311) CAP Grant (1820) All Other Funds Sub-Total Special Rev Fund Group Sub-Total Capital Fund Group Water/Sewer (2360/2400/2420) Landfill (2440) Sanitation (2480) Community Housing Services (2500) Sub-Total Enterprise Fund Group Benefits Trust Fund (2580) Risk Management Self Insurance (2540) Workers Comp. Self Insurance (2560) Sub-Total Internal Svc Fund Group Grand Total: Operating Budget 58 FY 2013 % Change $123,525 $21,204 $8,934 $3,512 $2,967 $3,030 $1,746 $1,545 $753 $979 $2,765 $170,960 $126,118 $18,207 $8,993 $3,166 $2,884 $2,796 $2,400 $1,496 $1,303 $982 $3,209 $171,553 2.1% -14.1% 0.7% -9.8% -2.8% -7.7% 37.4% -3.1% 73.0% 0.3% 16.1% 0.3% $14,174 $18,995 $11,841 $8,218 $6,396 $3,895 $3,719 $2,672 $3,368 $1,603 $6,550 $81,430 $14,240 $12,706 $11,823 $6,742 $6,559 $3,895 $2,337 $1,967 $1,684 $1,287 $4,013 $67,254 0.5% -33.1% -0.2% -18.0% 2.6% 0.0% -37.2% n/a -50.0% -19.7% -38.7% -17.4% $39 $40 4.5% $47,790 $7,099 $14,581 $12,609 $82,079 $48,095 $6,978 $14,323 $12,700 $82,097 0.6% -1.7% -1.8% 0.7% 0.0% $23,118 $3,068 $1,407 $27,593 $22,349 $3,025 $1,407 $26,780 -3.3% -1.4% 0.0% -2.9% $362,100 $347,725 -4.0% Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Operating Budget Summary The majority of the general fund group’s operating budget expenditures are included in the General (Fund 1000), which encompasses 74% of that group’s total operating budget. This fund, along with the Highway User Gas Tax (Fund 1340) that is part of the special revenue group, were the main focus of the City Council budget workshop presentations and are often collectively referred to as the “General and Streets Fund” operating budget for the city. These two funds are discussed in more detail in the following pages starting with Table 3: Comparison of General and Streets Funds Operating Budgets. The decrease in the Arena Event Operations (Fund 1282) operating budget is the direct result of an anticipated $3 million reduction in the budgeted arena management fee from $20 million to $17 million. This fund also includes the operating expenses associated with providing police, fire and transportation related services during events held at Jobing.com Arena. At the time this budget book was produced, a tentative agreement was in place related to the sale of the NHL Coyotes hockey team that included new contractual payments from the city for arena management services. The reduction in both the PC and Vehicle Replacement Funds is due to the timing of when scheduled inventory replacements are expected to occur as the City continues to extend the useful lives of all non-public safety related equipment. The Stadium City Sales Tax – AZSTA and Marketing Self-Sustaining operating budgets increased due to planned expenditures tied to the sales tax and bed tax increases discussed in the City Manager’s Budget Message. Both sales tax increases are effective August 1, 2012, or for eleven months of FY 2013. The decrease in All Other Funds is a result of budget reductions in the Civic Center, Arena Renewal & Replacement and the Library Book funds. The special revenue fund group includes grant-related operating budget appropriation to accommodate grant opportunities that may arise during the course of the fiscal year, or those that have already been awarded to the city. Decreases in anticipated grant opportunities or the reduction of funding for existing state/federal programs are reflected in the Other Federal and State Grants (Fund 1840), Neighborhood Stabilization Program III (Fund 1311), C.D.B.G. (Fund 1320), Cap Grant (Fund 1820) and the All Other funds within the special revenue group. The reduction in the Highway User Gas Tax (Fund 1340) is a direct result of operating budget staffing reductions. It is important to note that the city only pursues grant opportunities that are in line with council goals and objectives and that make strong financial business sense. Grant appropriation cannot be spent unless the city applies for and actually receives the corresponding grant monies. The capital, enterprise and internal services groups did not see any material changes year over year. However, it is important to note that the 3.3% reduction in the Benefits Trust Fund is a result of city-wide staffing reductions that saw authorized staffing levels drop from 1,966.38 FTEs in FY 2012 to 1,824.25 FTEs in FY 2013. 59 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Table 3 includes a tabular comparison of the departmental operating base budgets over the last two fiscal years and calculates the percentage change for the department from the FY 2012 operating base budget. Table 3: Comparison of All Funds Operating Budgets: FY 2012 vs. FY 2013 (All Dollars in Thousands) Department Name Police Services Water Services Public Works Fire Services Human Resources & Risk Mgt Financial Services N'Hood & Human Svcs Parks, Rec & Library Transportation Svcs Technology & Innovation Miscellaneous Grants Communications Community & Econ Dev City Court City Attorney Mayor & Council City Manager City Clerk Non-Departmental Intergovt. Programs Internal Audit Total Operating Budget FY 2012 FY 2013 $74,247 $45,634 $44,938 $36,665 $29,623 $29,136 $27,938 $19,664 $17,704 $7,248 $8,627 $4,247 $4,699 $4,040 $2,885 $1,424 $1,047 $618 $765 $687 $265 $362,100 $75,365 $45,824 $42,056 $37,233 $28,521 $28,020 $21,793 $17,649 $17,307 $7,643 $4,961 $4,794 $4,767 $4,228 $3,055 $1,406 $828 $699 $645 $641 $292 $347,725 % Change 1.5% 0.4% -6.4% 1.6% -3.7% -3.8% -22.0% -10.2% -2.2% 5.5% -42.5% 12.9% 1.5% 4.7% 5.9% -1.3% -21.0% 13.0% -15.8% -6.7% 10.0% -4.0% The Neighborhood & Human Services Department administers federally funded grant programs including C.D.B.G., HOME and Neighborhood Stabilization programs. Reduced funding for these grant programs account for the majority of this department’s operating budget declining $6.1 million in FY 2013 (22%). As discussed previously, the Miscellaneous Grants operating budget appropriation was reduced as available grant opportunities are tightening. The double digit reductions in Parks, Recreation and Library, City Manager and the Non-Departmental departments is a result of not only operating budget reductions, but also re-organizational changes including the elimination of the Administrative Services Admin division (deputy city manager office), that accounted for $152,316 of the reduction in the City Manager operating budget in FY 2013. The Communications Department saw an increase in their Convention & 60 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Visitors Bureau operating budget totaling $418,130 as a result of the increase in the bed tax discussed previously. The City Clerk operating budget includes an increase of $27,385 for budgeted carryover from FY 2012 to FY 2013 to cover upcoming election costs. The Financial Services Department’s operating budget includes the $17 million arena management fee, down from $20 million in FY 2012, associated with the city’s Jobing.com Arena, home of the NHL’s Phoenix Coyotes team. Percentage of Operating Budget by Dept for All Funds N'Hood & Human Svcs 6.3% All Other Depts 7.6% Police Services 21.7% Fire Services 10.7% Technology & Innovation 2.2% Financial Services 8.1% Water Services 13% Human Resources & Risk Mgt 8.2% Transportation Svcs 5% Public Works 12.1% Parks, Rec & Library 5.1% The largest operating department, regardless of funding source, is the Police Services, which accounts for $75.4 million or 21.7% of the total operating budget. The Police Department provides police protection and related support services such as 9-1-1 dispatch, short-term detention and community education. It is accredited through the independent Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement. The second largest department in terms of funding is Water Services at $45.8 million, which makes up 13.2% of the total operating budget. This department is responsible for treating and distributing potable water that meets all federal and state standards, collecting and treating wastewater in compliance with all regulatory requirements, implementing odor and pest infestation control measures and reading all water meters on a daily basis. Environmental Services provides water conservation programs, water quality testing services for the city’s drinking water and reclaimed water services, and long-term water resource planning. The next largest department in terms of funding is Public Works at $42.1 million, which makes up 12.1% of the total operating budget. This department is made up of Field Operations and Engineering staff. Among the many services that this department provides are the following: 61 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures      solid waste collection and disposal services and processing of recyclable products; building and equipment maintenance services for city vehicles and facilities; street and right-of-way maintenance; fuel services, custodial services and graffiti removal; and design and construction management for all city capital projects. Fire Services accounts for $37.2 million or 10.7% of the total operating budget. This department provides fire protection, emergency medical services and natural disaster planning. It also provides core life safety services involving fire suppression, property preservation, basic and advanced life support (paramedics), hazardous and technical response teams, fire code enforcement, fire investigation and child safety car seat installation. It is accredited by the Commission of Fire Accreditation International. Human Resources & Risk Management totals $28.5 million or 8.2% of the total operating budget. The department provides proactive customer service and consultation in the areas of total compensation, organizational development, employee relations and staffing. This department also administers the self insured employee health benefits, risk management and workers’ compensation programs and services. The sixth largest department in terms of funding is Financial Services. It totals $28 million or 8.1% of the total operating budget. It is important to note that $17 million or 61% of the total Financial Services operating budget is related to the arena management fee administered within this department. This department provides financial information to the public, state agencies, bondholders, grantors, auditors, City Council and management. This department is responsible for budget development and management, banking services and investment management, debt management as well as administering the sales tax code. Additional functions include preparation of external financial reports, managing the city payroll and accounts payable processes and maintaining, updating and testing accounting and budget input system changes and upgrades. The next largest department in terms of funding is Neighborhood & Human Services at $21.8 million, which makes up 6.3% of the total operating budget. This department provides direct city services that maintain the quality of life and build stronger neighborhoods for all residents. Some of the services these divisions provide include:    addressing the housing needs of over 4,400 Glendale residents by operating three public housing complexes and a Section 8 voucher program; providing affordable housing, housing rehabilitation assistance and emergency home repair for eligible Glendale residents; and administering the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the Community Action Program (CAP) and other related federal programs. The eighth largest department in terms of funding is the Parks, Recreation & Library Department. It provides services that are probably the most visible to the public and includes library services and parks, open space and recreational activities for residents. This department accounts for $17.6 million or 5.1% of the total operating budget. The library serves Glendale 62 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures citizens by providing books, programming, audio-visual materials and electronic resources that inform, educate and entertain residents. The department also offers opportunities to enhance the social, physical, mental and economic health of the community by offering a wide variety of programs and events. They also maintain, protect and manage parks, open spaces, trails and aquatic and recreational facilities located throughout the community. The next largest department is Transportation Services which totals $17.3 million, and makes up 5% of the total operating budget. This department is responsible for transportation planning, traffic engineering, traffic signals, signs, striping, street lighting, transit services and educational program services to meet the transportation needs of the city. This department is also responsible for operating the Glendale Municipal Airport. The airport is a regional general aviation facility that provides hangar facilities, aviation planning, maintenance, safety and educational tours. The Technology & Innovation Department expenses round out the top ten departments and this area accounts for another $7.6 million or 2.2% of the operating budget. This department supports the City’s technology infrastructure such as application support, network, data services, email and telephony. In addition, this department supports the enhancement of business processes through the use of the LEAN methodology. The remaining departments in the all other category include: Misc. Grants, Communications, Community & Economic Development, City Court, City Attorney, Mayor & Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Non-Departmental, Intergovernmental Programs and Internal Audit. These departments make up the remaining $26.4 million or 7.6% of the total operating budget. The Operating Budget section in this budget book includes more detailed information on all the departments mentioned in this section. Staffing and Personnel Issues As with any service organization, personnel costs are a significant part of the total operating budget of the city. In fact, 78% or $103.5 million of the $132.9 million FY 2013 operating budget for the General and Streets funds is attributable to wages, salaries and benefits. Almost two-thirds (64%) of the wages, salaries and benefits budget for the General and Streets funds is budgeted for Police and Fire Services as shown in Table 4. 63 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Table 4: GF/HURF Salaries and Benefit Related Costs (All Dollars in Thousands) Department Police Services Fire Services All Other Total Wages & Salaries 28,981 15,917 25,980 70,878 Retirement Social Sec. Costs & Medicare 7,502 3,195 3,577 14,274 2,529 335 2,477 5,341 Medical & OT, Hourly Dental & Other Insurance Spec Pays 3,601 1,258 1,733 1,420 3,689 1,275 9,023 3,954 Total 43,871 22,600 36,998 103,469 The FY 2012 General Fund budget included 27 frozen public safety positions. These 27 positions will be frozen for another year in the FY 2013 budget. It is important to note that these frozen positions are still included in the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) counts that appear on the following pages. Only the salary and benefits associated with the frozen positions are removed from the department’s respective operating budgets. This is done because the positions are still authorized by City Council to be filled when the economy and revenue collections improve to the point where it makes business sense to fund the positions once again. Table 5 provides a comparison of staffing levels in recent years for all funds which accounts for all changes in authorized staffing city-wide. The overall staffing level decreased by 142.13 FTE’s or 7.2% from FY 2012 to FY 2013. The majority of the decreases were realized in the General and Highway User Gas Tax Funds as these two funds accounted for a reduction in force equivalent to 102.38 and 29 FTE’s, respectively. Sanitation & Landfill accounted for 10 FTE’s and the remaining minor staffing changes were spread over several funds. The city has historically taken a conservative approach to adding new positions and expanding its service delivery system to ensure that basic services can be sustained regardless of revenue and expense fluctuations. Therefore, staff increases are typically closely tied to population growth. However, severe economic downturns can impact staffing levels given the fact that a high percentage of overall operating costs are staffing related. City-wide authorized staffing experienced ten straight years of modest growth before staffing reductions were implemented from FY 2010 thru FY 2013. Since FY 2009, staffing in the General and Streets Fund decreased from 1,501.76 to 1,132.5 FTEs, a reduction of 369.26 or 25%. 64 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Table 5: Staffing Levels by Fund (Full-Time Equivalents) Fund 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 1,403.76 1,389.76 1,202.26 1,198.88 1,096.50 Water and Sewer-2360/2400/2420 242.25 242.25 242.25 242.25 242.25 Police Special Revenue-1700 118.00 118.00 118.00 118.00 118.00 Sanitation-2480 78.00 80.00 80.00 79.00 74.00 Fire Special Revenue-1720 50.00 50.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 Transportation Sales Tax-1660 50.25 50.25 49.25 49.25 49.25 Landfill-2440 41.00 41.00 44.00 44.00 39.00 Highway User Gas Tax-1340 98.00 90.00 67.00 65.00 36.00 General Services-1040 42.00 41.00 37.00 34.00 34.00 Pub Housing Budget Activities-2500 25.00 25.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 Training Facility Revenue Fund-2530 12.00 12.00 10.00 12.00 10.00 C.D.B.G.-1320 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 CAP Grant-1820 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Parks & Recreation Self Sust-1880 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Airport Special Revenue-1760 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 Civic Center-1740 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 Risk Management Self Ins.-2540 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.75 3.00 Court Security/Bonds-1240 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 Grants-1840 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 Stadium Event Operations-1281 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Arena Event Operations-1282 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Telephone Services-1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Arts Commission Fund-1220 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 PC Replacement-1140 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RICO Funds-1860 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 2,204.51 2,182.51 1,971.01 1,966.38 1,824.25 General-1000 Total 65 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures The FY 2010 staffing per 1,000 (all funds) increased because the 2010 census numbers came in 23,090 less than the previous year’s population figure. In addition, the vacant positions accumulated in all funds were not eliminated from the budget until the following fiscal year. COG Authorized Staffing Per 1,000 Population 10-Year Fiscal History 10 9 8 7 6 5 The FY 2011 budget '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 included a decrease in total authorized staffing by 211.5 FTEs across all funds. The majority of the staffing decreases related to the elimination of vacant GF positions and city-wide budget reductions. While the FY 2012 staffing per 1,000 population saw a minimal reduction, a 142.13 FTE reduction in FY 2013 equated to a 7.5% reduction in staffing per 1,000 population. Schedule 6, found in the Schedules section of this document, provides detail on the city’s authorized staffing by position for all departments and funding sources. The total authorized staffing of 1,824.25 FTE positions will serve an estimated 11.3 11.1 12.0 population of 228,585 10.3 at the start of FY 8.2 2013. This results in 8.0 9.0 7.1 a staffing ratio of 7.98 6.6 6.3 employees per 1,000 6.0 residents in FY 2013. As the accompanying graph indicates, 3.0 Glendale continues to maintain a low staff to population ratio compared to Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale and does so without sacrificing the quality of services provided to residents. Please note that the ratio for all staffing-per-each-1,000 residents is from FY 2012 adopted budget numbers except for the City of Glendale, which represents the FY 2013 ratio. This is done because the FY 2013 adopted budget numbers for other cities was not known at the time this budget book was published. 66 Scottsdale Tempe Phoenix Mesa FY13-COG Peoria Chandler Avondale Staffing Per 1,000 Population FY 2012 - Valley Cities Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures General and Streets Funds Operating Expenditures The total operating budget for FY 2013 is $132.9 million. Police Services, at 37.6% or $49.9 million, is the largest component of the General Fund budget, followed by Fire Services at approximately 19.3% or $25.7 million, Parks, Recreation & Library at 11.2% or $14.9 million and finally Public Works at 6.4% or $8.5 million. These four departments comprise 74.5% or $99 million of the total General and Streets Funds operating budgets. The remaining 25.5% or $33.9 million of the $132.9 million budget is within Community and Economic Development, Transportation Services, Financial Services and the All Other Departments categories. The All Other Departments category includes City Court, Technology and Innovation, City Attorney, Communications, Neighborhood and Human Services, Human Resources and Risk Management, Mayor and Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Non-Departmental, Intergovernmental Programs and Internal Audit departments. The accompanying graph displays the General and Streets Funds budgets by department as a percentage of the whole. % of General & Streets Funds Budget by Dept Financial Services 3.3% All Other Depts 16.0% Police Services 37.6% Public Works 6.4% Parks, Rec & Library 11.2% Transportation Svcs 2.8% Community & Econ Dev 3.4% Fire Services 19.3% All street-related costs eligible for the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) allocation are budgeted as expenses of the Streets Fund and are included in the Public Works and Transportation Departments. The following table compares the FY 2013 General and Streets Fund operating budgets by department to FY 2012 in tabular form. 67 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Table 6: General & Streets Funds Operating Budgets By Dept (All Dollars in Thousands) Dept Name Police Services Fire Services Parks, Rec & Library Public Works Community & Econ Dev Financial Services Transportation Svcs City Court Technology & Innovation City Attorney Communications N'Hood & Human Svcs Human Resources & Risk Mayor & Council City Manager City Clerk Non-Departmental Intergovt. Programs Internal Audit Water Services Total FY 2012 Budget $47,636 $24,157 $16,415 $10,779 $4,386 $3,582 $3,783 $3,388 $2,757 $2,885 $2,620 $2,575 $1,946 $1,424 $1,047 $618 $765 $687 $265 $27 $131,743 FY 2013 Budget $49,948 $25,661 $14,892 $8,453 $4,506 $4,410 $3,686 $3,570 $3,495 $3,055 $2,778 $2,177 $1,721 $1,406 $828 $699 $645 $641 $292 $0 $132,860 % Change 4.9% 6.2% -9.3% -21.6% 2.7% 23.1% -2.6% 5.4% 26.8% 5.9% 6.0% -15.5% -11.6% -1.3% -21.0% 13.0% -15.8% -6.7% 10.0% -100.0% 0.8% The bullet points below provide an explanation for the material changes in the FY 2013 General and Streets Funds departmental operating budgets.  The Police and Fire Services operating budgets increased by $2.3 million and $1.5 million, respectively, due primarily to salary and benefit related increases negotiated by the labor unions.  Half of the Parks, Recreation & Library reduction pertained to library operations that cut $760,812 out of its FY 2012 adopted budget with the remainder of the department’s reductions spread across the parks and recreation divisions.  The Public Works Department reduced street maintenance ($1.3 million) and engineering, design and facilities management divisions by another $870,761 collectively, accounting for 94% of their overall reduction. 68 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures  Despite additional staffing reductions, the Financial Services Department’s operating budget increased 23.1% due to increases in scheduled lease debt principal and interest payments as outlined on Schedule Eight.  The Technology and Innovation Department operating budget increased as a result of additional maintenance costs associated with Tax Mantra (sales tax and licensing software) in addition to the consolidation of three informational technology positions previously housed in other departments into the Technology & Innovation Department.  Neighborhood and Human Services Department staffing decreased by 6.5 FTEs and that drove the department’s 15.5% reduction in the operating budget year over year.  A staffing reduction of four FTEs in Human Resources and Risk Mgt was the primary reason for their 11.6% decrease  The City Manager’s Office reduction of 21% was directly related to the elimination of the Administrative Services Admin division resulting in $152,316 of savings year over year.  The last five departments in the table saw a reduction of $86,617, or 3.7%, when combined together. General and Streets Funds Transfers to Other Funds The General and Streets Funds support a number of other funds within the city. The amount of support can vary from year to year based on projected revenue for the supported funds as well as debt service schedules. A net transfer amount of $31.1 million is projected to be transferred to other funds in FY 2013. This amount is $1.2 million less than the net GF transfers included in the FY 2012 budget. The $31.3 million transfer includes $17.6 million for arena event operations, including the $17 million arena management fee, and it includes another transfer of $6.9 million to the Municipal Property Corporation debt service fund to cover principal and interest payments related to several capital projects such as the Glendale Media Center and Expo Hall, Convention Center and Parking Garage in the west area, infrastructure for the Zanjero development, the Jobing.com Arena and a portion of the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Center. The $6.9 million is the net amount after accounting for expected revenue per the respective development agreements for the various facilities named above. A total transfer of $2.5 million is projected for the Stadium, Youth Sports Complex and Camelback Ranch spring training funds. $1.4 million will be transferred from the Streets Fund to the Street Debt Service Fund to help pay the principal and interest payments for previously funded HURF bond projects. Another $900,000 will go to the Transportation Fund and is done annually per the 2001 election approving the transportation sales tax. A transfer of $320,145 will be made to the Marketing Special Events Fund to support the special events held in downtown Glendale. Other transfers will go to the Civic Center, Airport, Housing, Employee 69 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Group and various other grant funds. Transfers between funds are detailed in Schedule 4 of the Schedules section of this document. Police and Fire Sales Tax Fund Expenditures These fund resources are designated to support the salaries of additional police officers and firefighters, as well as the equipment and services needed to support those positions. A total of $14.2 million will be appropriated from the Police Special Revenue Fund to provide police services. An additional $6.6 million from the Fire Special Revenue Fund is designated to provide fire protection and emergency medical services. The Police fund supports 118 authorized police staffing positions while the Fire fund supports 51 fire staffing positions. Transportation Fund Expenditures The Transportation Fund includes Transportation Fund Budget operating, capital and debt service expenses Operating related to providing a 19.8% range of transportation services in accordance with the Debt Svc ballot initiative that 11.8% Glendale voters approved in a 2001 election. Although the majority of Capital expenditures totaling 68.4% $42.4 million are budgeted for capital outlays (including grant funded capital projects), the total operating budget of $12.3 million is used for Fixed Route services (public transportation) at $5.1 million and Dial-A-Ride at $2.5 million. The latter program serves physically challenged residents and individuals with special transportation needs. The Transportation Program Management division includes funding for the streetlight maintenance contract and program audit services, as well as various other items and has a total budget of $2.4 million. The remaining $2.3 million, or 18% of the operating budget, is used for traffic engineering, safety education, traffic mitigation, management oversight and grant related operating appropriation. Debt service payments totaling $7.3 million are budgeted for FY 2013 and represent the final appropriation component. 70 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Airport Fund Expenditures The Airport Fund operating budget is $600,451 that is funded by airport revenues of $456,036 with the remaining $144,415 covered through a transfer from the General Fund. Much of these appropriations fund daily operations at the airport, including fulfilling FAA safety regulations. Continuing efforts to develop more revenue sources, coupled with prudent cost control measures, have brought the airport much closer to self-sufficiency when comparing revenue sources generated and actual expenditures. Once runway and facility improvements are completed, and the economy recovers, staff believes the Glendale Airport will attract more corporate jet customers. When these improvements are coupled with uses from professional football, hockey and baseball spring training, as well as other major national events occurring in Glendale, the city’s airport is expected to be a fully self-sustaining transportation hub for the West Valley. Water/Sewer Fund Expenditures In Arizona’s desert environment, water treatment and delivery is one of the most essential services the city provides. Glendale is fortunate to have reliable, long-term sources of water from the Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Project (Colorado River water) and groundwater. Although water from these sources is becoming more expensive to obtain and treat, Glendale water rates are reasonable when compared to both local and national standards. Water/Sewer Fund Budget Operations 44.0% Cont. 4.6% Capital 29.2% Debt Service 22.2% The operating budget for this fund is $48.1 million for FY 2013. Almost half of this budget, or $18.2 million, is used to support the Oasis Water Campus; the Cholla and Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plants; the West Area and Arrowhead Wastewater Treatment Plants; and the regional sewer treatment facility that the City of Phoenix operates through the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG). In addition, water distribution, wastewater collection, customer service and utilities administration costs make up another $20.4 million. The remaining $9.5 million of the operating budget is used for meter maintenance, central system control, water quality testing and information management services. Many significant capital projects are planned for FY 2013 and they account for the $31.9 million in capital expenditures, as well as the corresponding $24.2 million in debt service payments required for those capital projects. The Capital Improvement Plan of this book includes project 71 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures descriptions and detailed cost estimates for all planned water and sewer capital projects. A $5 million contingency appropriation is supported by fund balance and will be used at the direction of City Council for any unplanned emergencies or if any capital construction projects get ahead of schedule. Landfill Fund Expenditures The total operating budget for FY 2013 is $7 million, relatively unchanged from the $7.1 million in FY 2012. Landfill operations total $3.1 million, the materials recycling facility accounts for $1.8 million and other recycling at $886,721, all of which accounts for 84.1% of the operating budget. The remaining amount, or $1.1 million, is used for solid waste administration and landfill gas management. The FY 2013 capital budget totals $2.8 million and the Landfill Fund also has a $2 million contingency appropriation to be used at City Council discretion for any unplanned emergencies. The recycling program has been in operation for just over a decade, which includes the recycling education and inspection programs and the full cost of the materials recycling facility. Recycling accomplishes a number of objectives such as improving the environment, extending the useful life of Glendale’s landfill, and generating revenue from the sale of reusable materials. Sanitation Fund Expenditures The total operating budget for FY 2013 is $14.3 million, which represents a 2% decrease from the $14.6 million in FY 2012. Residential curb service includes trash, recycling and loose trash collection and accounts for $10.2 million or 71% of the operating budget. The commercial front-load and roll-off divisions account for another $4.1 million. The FY 2013 capital budget includes $1.3 million for the purchase of side load refuse trucks and replacement pickup trucks, which makes up 11% of the total operating budget. The Sanitation Fund has a $500,000 contingency appropriation to be used at City Council discretion for any unplanned emergencies. 72 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Benefits Trust Fund Expenditures The Benefits Trust Fund is used to track city and employee health care contribution payments and to pay health insurance policy premiums for employees and retirees. The fund currently administers the medical, dental, life insurance and vision plans and coverage for both premiums and claims related expenses. The fund has an operating budget of $22.3 million for FY 2013. FY 2013 projected revenues total $22.3 million and include $13.7 million from employer contributions, $4.6 million from employee contributions and retiree contributions totaling $4 million. Modest interest earnings projected at $18,000. The beginning fund balance is projected to be approximately $1.3 million and the fund is projected to end the year with the same $1.3 million fund balance it started with. Benefit rates offered current employees will remain flat year over year. Capital Improvement Plan Expenditures The total capital improvement budget for FY 2013 is $106.2 million, and 92.2% of this amount relates to transportation, public safety, flood control, and water and sewer projects. The $106.2 million includes carryover appropriation from FY 2012 of $74.3 million to complete existing projects and $31.9 million for new projects. This is a decrease of $38 million, or 35.8%, compared to the FY 2012 capital improvement budget of $144.2 million. Approximately half of the reduction was driven by a year over year reduction in the new funding included in the FY 2012 capital budget ($49.7 million) versus FY 2013 ($31.9 million) that accounted for $17.8 million of the decrease. The remainder is a result of a decrease in funding for carryover capital projects of $20.2 million accounted for the remaining year over year reduction. The graph below shows the percentage of capital improvement plan projects by type and as a percentage of the whole. The graph includes new funding and carryover for FY 2013. For more details, please refer to the Capital Improvement Plan section of this document. 73 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Percentage of Capital Improvement Plan Projects by Type Trans./ Streets 57% Economic Development 2% Other 8% Flood Control 2% Water/Sewer 30% Public Safety 1% Debt Service Expenditures The City has used debt financing for a number of years to finance most capital projects. The amount of debt incurred must be compatible with the City’s goals pertaining to the capital program, the financial plan and the operating budget. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends local governments develop a formal comprehensive debt management plan. The City maintains a formal Debt Management Plan, which is a separate document that the Finance Department develops in conjunction with the Management and Budget Department. The Debt Management Plan, which was updated in early FY 2012 and presented to City Council in January 2012, is designed to manage the issuance of the city’s debt obligations in order to maintain the City’s ability to incur debt and other long-term obligations at favorable interest rates for capital improvements, facilities and equipment beneficial to the city and necessary for essential services. This section is not intended to review the City’s total debt position. That discussion is found in the Debt Management Plan. The total debt service budget for FY 2013 is $86 million, compared to $85.1 million in FY 2012. The accompanying graph illustrates how the debt service budget is divided among different types of debt service categories. For a discussion about these debt service categories, please see the Financing the Capital Improvement Plan section in this budget document. 74 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures Debt Service Budget G.O. Bonds 28% Transportation Revenue Bonds 9% MPC/PFC Bonds 30% Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds 28% HURF Bonds 5% CONCLUSION This Budget Summary is intended to provide a general overview of the FY 2013 budget document and to highlight some of the more significant program changes and policy issues addressed in the budget document. The sections that follow the Budget Summary section provide more detailed information about the city’s organizational structure, its goals and objectives, and operating budgets for each city department. Documents comprising the foundation for Glendale’s annual budgeting process have been included in this budget document as well. The Financial Plan and Financial Policies documents identify and explain the strategies used to meet and stabilize city revenues and expenses, and ensure the continuity and reliability of basic services. The Five-Year Forecast addresses the long-term financial projection for city revenues and expenditures. In addition, the city continues to implement of the business-based approach to providing and evaluating city services. Accompanying this approach are departmental business plans that were initiated in FY 2004 and continue to be based on the City Council’s strategic priorities. In future city budgets, the Mayor and Council’s vision for the community will continue to be outlined and then translated into specific actions and programs through departmental business plans. This will then guide the budget process to ensure the Council goals are achieved through each dollar spent by the city. The long-range blueprint for the financing and construction of large projects is contained in the Capital Improvement Plan. The Schedules section contains detailed information about the City of Glendale's fund accounting system, operating revenues and expenditures, debt service and authorized staffing levels. 75 Return to Main TOC BUDGET SUMMARY Expenditures A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guide is included in the appendix to help clarify the words and phrases that may have specialized meaning when applied to municipal government budgeting practices. This FAQ document is a good primer for those who wish to brush up on their financial terminology or want to find parallels between their own personal budgets and the city’s overall budget. The City of Glendale publishes several other documents that may be of interest and assistance in understanding city operations. These include the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Debt Management Plan, available from the Financial Services Department; the Glendale General Plan, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2002 and is available from the Community and Economic Development Department; and the Glendale Annual Report distributed by the Communications Department. Questions, comments or observations regarding this annual budget document should be directed in writing to: City of Glendale Financial Services Department 5850 West Glendale Avenue, 3rd Floor Glendale, Arizona 85301 Phone: (623) 930-2264 76 Financial Guidelines Annual Budget, 2012-2013 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast FIVE-YEAR FORECAST INTRODUCTION Glendale’s annual and long range budgeting process is shaped and guided by the three key foundation documents contained within the Annual Budget. They are the City of Glendale’s Five-Year Forecast, Financial Plan and Financial Policies. Together these documents help the City Council ensure that, regardless of changing economic times, city government has the financial stability and economic resources it needs to provide essential services and maintain Glendale’s high quality of life in future years. This section focuses on the General Fund (GF) given the extent of GF operations. Nevertheless, much of what is discussed in this section also applies to city operations that are not directly supported by GF revenues, such as the enterprise and special revenue fund operations. WHY DO WE DO FORECASTS? Forecasting is such an automatic part of our lives that most of us do it every day without giving the process much conscious thought. For example, if you drive to work, you will make many assumptions and predictions about how various factors will affect the length of time it will take to make the trip. These activities are the most basic elements of the forecasting process. From past experience, you can reasonably predict how long the trip takes under normal circumstances assuming you drive at the legal speed limit and meet all traffic requirements such as red lights and stop signs. You might adjust your travel forecast and leave home a little earlier on Mondays when traffic is usually heavier, or if it is raining, or you have to pick up a co-worker on that particular day. You might factor in some extra time for unanticipated but common events such as a traffic accident, a closed freeway lane on your route or other events that might slow your progress and increase your travel time. Once you are on the road, you will be continually fine-tuning your forecast. As you drive you might look ahead to the short-term future, checking the progress of the cars in front of you, and periodically changing traffic lanes to stay on your projected schedule. You might also look a little further into the future, to the next traffic light or the freeway on-ramp. If the access ramp looks too congested, you might decide to alter your route to avoid a possible freeway backup. Continuous monitoring and fine-tuning adjustments are also characteristic of the budget forecasting process. If past experiences, assumptions and predictions regarding future events were reasonably accurate, resulting in a reliable forecast, you should expect to arrive at work on time. However, even with the best information and forecasting tools, there may be rough spots in the road—those unknown or uncontrollable variables that can never be predicted in advance. For instance, your actual versus forecast results will be very different if, when you try to start your car in the morning, you discover the battery is dead. 77 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast Forecasting our individual, daily routines is relatively simple. However, forecasting becomes increasingly difficult as goals and objectives become more varied and complex, and less reliable as the forecast period lengthens. The number of and potential for unpredictable events and uncontrollable variables also becomes much greater. For example, it is harder to forecast for a vacation next year than to forecast your daily trip to work. It is harder still to plan for that vacation in a way that will not have a negative effect on other, longer-range objectives, such as saving enough money to purchase a home in five years. Most cities go through this type of forecasting process on a much grander scale, using more sophisticated tools to evaluate their current status in relation to their short and long-range goals and objectives. They also make predictions about how future events and circumstances will or may affect their financial stability. THE CITY’S FORECAST The Five-Year Forecast is guided by City Council’s continued vision of ‘one community’ and the supporting strategic goals and key objectives. The Financial Services Department updates the forecast each year to adjust for changes in national and local economic conditions and trends, changes in Council priorities and policies, and other variables that might affect the city’s ability to provide needed services and maintain its financial integrity in future years. Consequently, the Five-Year Forecast identifies the direction in which the city is headed based on information known at the time it is updated for the annual budget document. The forecasting process is continuous, with fine-tuning adjustments made each year as part of the normal budgeting process. Forecasting is one of the most powerful tools we have available to help us make informed decisions, based on available information, to ensure the city’s future vitality and economic stability. Shifts in demographics, economic conditions, and societal values impact how the city operates. This is especially notable in growing communities such as Glendale, where the City must continually assess its ability to support existing services and address new service needs well into the future. By evaluating important trends and economic conditions included in long-range forecasting models, the City is better able to gauge its ability to provide essential services over an extended period of time. LONG RANGE FORECASTING MODELS In order to provide the most accurate and timely data, the Financial Services Department uses a long-range forecasting model for the GF. The model is updated and refined each year before the city’s annual budgeting process begins. Similar forecasts and rate setting models are used for the enterprise funds. These models are used to calculate the likely financial effects of changing internal and external conditions on the city’s fund balances over a five-year period. The GF financial projection in the upcoming five-year period is based on a number of meaningful economic and demographic factors, as well as a series of assumptions about expected operational needs. The local economic outlook is largely based on expert forecasts from 78 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast economists at the Economic & Business Research Program at the University of Arizona, JP Morgan Chase Economy Outlook Center, the L. William Seidman Research Institute at Arizona State University and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee at the State of Arizona. Glendale’s forecasting model is made up of three primary components: the revenue module, the expenditure module and the fund summary module. Whenever new data is entered into each module, the modeling program generates updated fiscal projections. The enterprise fund models include many of the same components. However, because an enterprise fund is a self-contained business unit, these models incorporate all capital costs, debt service requirements, fixed asset information and customer data for the specific funds. Glendale’s forecasting models enable staff to provide City Council and executive leadership with the results of “what-if” scenarios. These “what-if” scenarios in the revenue and cost modules help generate estimates with likely short-term and long-term financial consequences and overall fund balances. As with all financial models, the projections are defined by the specific criteria and assumptions used and the respective limitations associated with both. Nevertheless, the city’s forecasting models have been successfully used to explore questions such as:    How will current national and local economies affect the city's operating budget and fund balances? Can a new service or program that will increase our ongoing costs be added to the operating budget without jeopardizing basic service levels in future years? What long-term costs are associated with changes in employee pay and benefit-related policies? HOW ARE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ESTIMATED? In order to achieve the most reasonable projections for anticipated revenues and expenditures, income and expense categories are analyzed using the most appropriate methodology for each category. Management and budget staff considers all applicable limitations and requirements in projecting each individual revenue and expense source. One or more of the following factors may play an important role in developing revenue and expenditure forecasts. Legal or Mandated Requirements Some revenue and expense categories are defined by specific legal requirements or restrictions. For example, state statutes place restrictions on the primary property tax levy—the total amount collected—and therefore affects the primary property tax rate charged on property in Glendale. Department Staff Estimates In fiscal years when an operating budget surplus is projected, departments are asked to identify key future staffing needs to accommodate population growth and related equipment costs that will affect the operating budget over the next five years. A strong emphasis is placed on the operating impacts associated with new capital projects scheduled to come on line over the forecast period. The experience and expertise of department managers also are crucial for accurately projecting expected revenues from sources such as inspection fees, building permits and court fees. 79 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast Statistical Analysis Linear regression and other statistical methods are used to refine prediction results. For example, regression analysis showed that historical data on Arizona per capita disposable income is a reliable indicator for projecting city sales tax revenues. Staff uses other factors such as Glendale population growth, Arizona’s rate of growth in employment, inflation for urban areas of the western United States (the Consumer Price Index or CPI), growth in Glendale’s primary assessed valuation and Glendale’s actual collections for various revenue sources over the past 5-10 years. Causally Related Formulas Specific city revenues and expenses are directly affected by demographic and economic factors such as local population growth and commercial and residential development. For example, population growth is almost always accompanied by an increase in city and state sales tax revenue, as well as an increased demand for services and additional infrastructure improvements. Balanced Budget Requirement Arizona state law and Glendale city financial policies require that each annual city budget be a balanced budget. This means that within the forecast period expenditures cannot exceed unrestricted revenue resources. Furthermore, city policy recommends the maintenance of a specific level of contingency appropriation—equal to between 5% and 10% of the city’s GF revenue budget for the upcoming fiscal year—and the funds to back that appropriation, for emergencies and unanticipated expenses. This requirement provides the city with a cushion to offset unexpected shortfalls in revenue caused by an economic downturn, or other unexpected events, that may occur in any given year. As part of the budget resolution, City Council will annually commit the funding level of the minimum fund balance requirement. GF EXPENDITURE FORECAST In order to develop a comprehensive Five-Year Forecast, assumptions must be made about a number of complex and often uncontrollable cost and revenue variables. These assumptions include, but are not limited to, the present and future condition of the economy, population growth rates and changes in federal, state and local policies that may affect municipal operations. In addition, the ongoing costs of prior commitments to provide services, and the ongoing costs for new capital facilities under construction, must be considered. The quality and reliability of the long-range forecast are largely dependent upon the accuracy of the cost and revenue assumptions used in the forecast. This section and the following section (GF Revenue Forecast) provide explanations of the key assumptions employed in the current GF forecasting model, as well as the key issues that underlie the GF forecast. 80 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast INFLATION RATES Inflation has a major impact on all city revenues and expenditures. Salaries, supplies, equipment and contracted services are all subject to inflationary pressures. Therefore, the cumulative effects of general inflation are considered in the forecasting process. Because good historical data is available, and the Western Region Consumer Price Index for Urban Users (CPI-U) is adjusted for regional influences, the forecast model relies on this source of inflation data. The CPI-U assesses consumer patterns by judging the cost of a theoretical “market basket” of goods using a specific base year and comparing it with future years. In terms of real purchasing power, $103.60 in goods purchased in 1984 would cost approximately $227.50 in 2011, an increase of 119.58%. The following table shows the historical percentage increase in the CPI-U since 1984 as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI - Urban Users (Western Region) Year 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Index 103.6 108.0 110.5 114.3 119.0 124.6 131.5 137.3 142.0 146.2 149.6 % Increase Base Year 4.25% 2.31% 3.44% 4.11% 4.71% 5.54% 4.41% 3.42% 2.96% 2.33% Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Index 153.5 157.6 161.4 164.4 168.9 174.8 181.2 184.7 188.6 193.0 198.9 % Increase 2.61% 2.67% 2.41% 1.86% 2.74% 3.49% 3.66% 1.93% 2.11% 2.33% 3.06% Year Index % Increase 2006 205.7 3.42% 2007 212.2 3.17% 2008 219.6 3.49% 2009 218.8 -0.38% 2010 221.2 1.09% 2011 227.5 2.84% 2012* 230.9 1.50% 1984 - 2011 Total 119.58% 1984 - 2011 Avg 2.96% 2003 - 2011 Total 20.62% 2003 - 2011 Avg 2.35% * 2012 = Jan to Apr Average The average annual inflation rate has been averaging about 2.96% since 1984. From 2003 to 2011, the average inflation rate has been lower, averaging 2.35%. 2009 marked the first time since 1984 that the average inflation rate declined year over year. However, that trend was short lived as 2010 say an increase of 1.09% from 2009 and 2011 increased by another 2.84%. During the first four months of 2012, the inflation factors increased by an average of 1.50%, meaning that thru the first four months of the year we have already surpassed the percentage increase we saw in all of 2010. POPULATION CHANGES Arizona experienced rapid population growth over the past two decades. Glendale’s population was no exception as it almost doubled over 20 years, from 117,348 residents in 1984, to approximately 233,281 residents in 2004—a 99% increase. Population growth leveled off from the high growth experienced in the 1990s and the early years of the current decade given that the 81 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast 2005 – 2009 average annual increase was a more moderate 1.39%. In 2010, the census figures released for the city were much lower than projected. The current population is estimated at 226,721 which is a 9.24% decrease from the 2009 figure. This loss in population had an adverse impact on our state-shared revenues that are distributed based on a proportion of population. The following table shows the historical and projected population growth and percentage increases for years 1984 through 2017, measured as of the beginning of the fiscal year. The data included in the table was supplied by the Glendale Planning Department. City of Glendale Population at Start of Fiscal Year Year 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 a b c d Population 117,348 122,392 127,486 132,581 137,675 142,769 148,134 151,558 155,916 161,688 168,874 182,615 186,500 191,612 196,820 208,095 218,812 % Increase 4.49% 4.30% 4.16% 4.00% 3.84% 3.70% 3.76% 2.31% 2.88% 3.70% 4.44% 8.14% 2.13% 2.74% 2.72% 5.73% 5.15% e f * * * * * * Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Population 224,703 227,763 231,288 233,281 242,369 243,737 246,396 248,745 249,811 226,721 227,446 228,015 228,585 229,157 229,731 230,305 230,881 % Increase 2.69% 1.36% 1.55% 0.86% 3.90% 0.56% 1.09% 0.95% 0.43% -9.24% 0.32% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Notes: a 1985 Special Census e 2005 Special Census (September 1) b 1990 Census f 2010 Census c 1995 Special Census - includes Luke AFB * Projected Population Figures d 2000 Census All population count s and estimat es from 1995 forward include Luke AFB EMPLOYEE SALARY ADJUSTMENTS The forecasting models are normally programmed to include pay range or “market” adjustments for city employees. With the guidance of the Human Resources Department, Council sets a target of providing a pay range adjustment that is based on a market survey of other Valley cities and therefore may vary depending on whether a job classification is below market, at market or above market. Prior to the implementation of this practice a few years ago, the pay range adjustment was tied solely to the consumer price index and the western region inflation rate. 82 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast Pay range adjustments and merit increases are not automatically given to non-step plan employees. Council must specifically approve merit and/or pay range adjustments for non-step plan employees for the upcoming fiscal year as part of the budget development process. Both increases are also based on the city’s ability to pay in any given year. For FY 2013, no pay increases are included in the forecast. For FY 2006, City Council approved new pay plans for both police and fire sworn personnel to ensure we obtain the most highly qualified staff to provide public safety services to our residential and business communities. They are called “step plans” and apply to sworn positions not classified as managerial. These pay plans are based upon years of service, or steps, and merit increases are automatic as the employee completes each year of service within the city. In addition, public safety personnel representatives meet with the city manager each year to discuss other employment issues. Any changes in employee compensation derived from these meetings are incorporated into the annual budget through an agreed upon memorandum of understanding. In addition, the city’s performance management system works on the basis of merit increases, typically in 4% or 5% increments, for those who receive “meets” or “exceeds expectations” on their respective annual performance evaluations. As mentioned previously, these increases are not included in the FY 2013 budget nor are they included in the Five-Year Forecast. However, in normal years employees that fall into these categories would receive a merit increase based upon their performance evaluation. As in previous years, if an employee “does not meet expectations” that employee would not receive a merit increase. This methodology covers all employees not included in the public safety step plans. EXPECTED CHANGES TO EXPENDITURES The identification of issues and concerns that will affect the overall cost of providing the high quality services that our citizens have come to expect is a critical part of the forecasting process. For example, residential and commercial growth and aging infrastructure are critical cost factors that warrant careful consideration during the forecasting process. New residential and commercial development and the maintenance of existing infrastructure will continue to challenge our ability to expand, sustain and improve existing levels of service in future years. VEHICLE/TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUNDS These replacement funds were designed to allow the city to replace outdated, or worn out equipment at regular intervals. The Field Operations and Information Technology Departments are the administrators of the vehicle and technology replacement programs, respectively. Starting in FY 2009 and as a direct result of the great recession, the funding level was once again lowered to 75% (50% ongoing and 25% one-time) and the FY 2010 and FY 2011 GF contributions will remain at the 50% ongoing level. In FY 2012, the GF contributions were decreased another 10%, bringing the overall GF contribution rate to 40%. This reduction in the GF contribution level will remain in FY 2013 and was needed to fund other critical items identified in the city manager’s recommended balanced budget. Other measures that have been implemented regarding the replacement funds include the following: 83 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast    Non-public safety technology, vehicles and equipment will have their useful lives extended where appropriate until the GF contribution level can be built back into the budget. A city-wide motor pool was developed that required departments with vehicles that had low mileage or utilization to be returned for city-wide use on a first come, first serve, sign-in and sign-out basis. The technology replacement fund will only replace computers and/or monitors when they break or malfunction and are no longer replaced automatically. DEBT SERVICE OBLIGATIONS The forecast includes the scheduled increases and decreases in capital lease debt service payments associated with capital equipment and land purchases. The capital lease debt service payments are included in the departmental operating budgets. Refer to Schedule 8 at the back of this budget book for a complete listing of the capital lease debt service for the city’s various funds. The forecast also includes changes in existing, long-term Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) debt service financings associated with the new regional public safety training facility, infrastructure improvements for the Zanjero development, and the new convention center/media center/parking garage facilities at the Westgate development. Public Facilities Corporation (PFC) debt service associated with the new Camelback Ranch Spring Training Baseball Complex has a significant impact on FY 2014 thru FY 2017 of the forecast period. Capitalized interest was used to make the initial debt services payments after the complex opened. In addition, the PFC debt service is expected to the re-financed during FY 2013 in a manner that allows next year’s payment to be made with remaining bond proceeds. Starting in FY 2014, the payment ranges from $9.5 million to $13.3 million each year. Refer to Schedule 7 for a detailed listing of the current principal and interest payments related to the City’s existing debt service agreements at the time the annual budget document was produced. GENERAL FUND REVENUE FORECAST The local and national economy has changed significantly over the past year. In the spring of 2008 we knew the housing market was in flux as a new equilibrium point between buyers and sellers was being established. Credit also had tightened for consumers and, to some extent, the business community. Business investment had slowed but not stopped. While these conditions were present, they were not pervasive and had not significantly impacted Glendale’s sales tax collections. These national conditions deteriorated rapidly during the summer and fall of 2008 and continued into 2009 as the credit markets froze for consumers and businesses resulting in a precipitous decline in business investment and consumer spending. Then the ranks of the unemployed began 84 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast to grow and continued to swell into 2011. Although the economy is showing signs of recovery in 2012, most economists predict that the nation will continue to bump along at this low point for quite some time. All of this meant that significant revenue growth was unlikely, so the FY 2013 revenue budget was essentially held flat year over year, excluding the 7/10ths of one-cent sales tax increase planned for the GF. For the local economy, the impact of the current recession is reflected in Glendale’s sales tax collections. City and state sales tax collections, which comprise over one-half of the current fiscal year’s GF revenue budget, receded to levels last experienced in FY 2005. This information, coupled with the fact that housing prices have leveled off, and in some areas have started to inch back up, and national earnings reports of leading companies are starting to turn around, allowed the city to build a modest 1.5% increase in city sales tax collections for FY 2013 (excluding the planned 7/10ths of one-cent sales tax increase for the GF). The following graph provides historical data as well as projections for the major revenues sources of the GF. The graph also includes highway user revenues fees, commonly known as HURF or Streets Fund monies. The graph illustrates the relative importance of city sales tax and stateshared revenues in comparison to our overall GF revenue base. These main revenue sources have comprised between two-thirds and three-fourths of the GF ongoing revenue since FY 2002. For the forecast period, this percentage is expected to remain at approximately three-fourths due to the planned 7/10ths of one cent sales tax increase in FY 2013. The other notable GF revenue sources include various fees (municipal court, user fees and charges for city services like building inspections, plan reviews, recreation classes, etc.), the primary property tax and a category called “other” (interest income, city property rental income, bond/lease proceeds, staff/admin charge-backs and miscellaneous revenues). 85 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast General and Streets Funds Summary of Major Revenue Sources In Thousands ($000's) $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 '08 Other '09 Fees '10 HURF '11 '12 Prim Prop Tax '13 '14 State Shared '15 '16 '17 City Sales Tax Note: FY ’08 thru FY ’11 reflect actual numbers and FY ’12 forward reflect projections City Sales Tax City sales tax is “elastic” revenue, meaning it varies directly with the economy. During times of economic expansion, elastic tax revenues increase, due to higher levels of consumer spending. During an economic downturn, the opposite is true and tax revenue levels decline. City sales tax receipts comprise 44.7% of the city’s GF and Streets revenue budget for FY 201. This percentage is projected to remain stable for the forecast period, fluctuating between 44.7% and 45.1%. City sales tax for the forecast period is projected using a combination of econometric modeling and formula calculations. The Financial Services Department obtains its initial projection from a linear regression model, using state disposable personal income as a primary variable. The resulting figures are modified to account for other key variables directly related to the city. For example, since increased employment is usually accompanied by a rise in consumer and business purchasing volume and therefore increased sales tax revenue, Maricopa County’s five-year employment growth estimate is incorporated into the city’s sales tax forecasting model. City sales tax collections declined from $61.3 million in FY 2008 to $51.6 million in FY 2011, or 15.8%. The revised FY 2012 city sales tax revenue projection is essentially flat with FY 2011 coming in $51.9 million. However, FY 2013 includes a modest increase of 1.5% with the remaining years in the forecast period fluctuating between 2% and 4.5%, before the planned 7/10ths of one cent sales tax increase. This expectation is based on the continued expansion of Glendale’s sports, entertainment, office and retail destination area, and the continued attraction of diverse job growth industries to the city. It also is based on the expected growth in Arizona’s 86 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast population and disposable personal income as projected by various experts on the Arizona economy. The graph below provides a historical look at city sales tax revenue, as well as the projected revenues for city sales tax over the forecast period. FY 2013 includes a planned sales tax increase of 7/10ths of one cent that will generate approximately $23 million each year during the forecast period. City Sales Tax Revenue In Thousands ($000's) 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 Actual '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 Projected State-Shared Revenue Cities and towns in Arizona are beneficiaries of a state-shared revenue program that distributes state-collected revenues to Arizona municipalities. State-shared revenues in this document specifically refer to state sales tax, state income tax and motor vehicle in-lieu receipts. State shared revenue receipts comprise about 29.5% or $49.6 million of the city’s GF and Streets revenue budget for FY 2013, including HURF. This is a precipitous drop from the 39.5% level or $64.4 million that was collected in FY 2009. The forecast period assumes a percentage between 29.5% and 31.9% over the forecast period due to slow growth projections in Glendale’s population figures coupled with increases in population growth of other outlying valley cities. This revenue source is projected to rebound by $5.3 million in FY 2014 and total $54.9 million due primarily to a projected increase in state income tax receipts. The projection for FY 2015 through FY 2017 is for more modest growth averaging $2.4 million per year. The forecast for each state revenue source is developed separately and compared to the state’s forecast for these revenue sources. State income tax projections are based on a trend forecast and adjusted for the revenue actually collected by the state as its distribution to the cities lags by two years. Forecasts done by Arizona economists, who use projected state personal income 87 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast growth as a key variable, are also considered in the development of our projections. State sales tax estimates are based on a model similar to the city sales tax forecast. The forecast model assumes that the motor vehicle in-lieu will increase at its historic rate. State-Shared Revenue Summary In Thousands ($000's) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 Actual '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 Projected The average annual growth rate for state shared revenue collections decreased by 8.8% (FY 2008 – FY 2012) and is projected to decrease by another 8.3% in FY 2012 before rebounding in FY 2013. State-shared revenues are directly affected by the economic climate as well as legislative changes such as income tax rate reductions and/or adjustments to distribution formulas – both of which have occurred over the last several years. The forecast assumes an annual average growth rate of 6.3% in FY 2013 - FY 2017 as the national economy rebounds. Property Tax Arizona’s property tax levy consists of two tiers. The primary property tax levy has statemandated maximum limits, but it can be used by a city for any lawful purpose. It is the primary property tax revenue that is included in the GF. The secondary property tax is an unlimited levy that can be used only to pay the principal, interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness or other lawful long-term obligations that are issued or incurred for a specific capital purpose. Primary property tax revenue is a relatively small revenue source for the GF as it comprises only 1.5% of the total, or $2.6 million for FY 2013. The city’s property tax projection must consider the rate of growth in assessed valuation, the assessment ratios for different types of property, and the components of growth associated with new properties as well as appreciation of existing properties. Property tax revenue can be challenging to predict because of the number and types of variables that affect this revenue source such as exemptions and assessment ratios, both of 88 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast which are set by the Arizona Legislature. Nevertheless, the driving force in forecasting property tax revenue is the assessed valuation of property. For FY 2013, Glendale’s total property tax will increase from $1.5951 to $1.9005. This rate is made up of the primary property tax rate of $0.2252 (which remained unchanged year over year) and the secondary property tax rate of $1.6753 which reflects an increase of $0.3054 from the FY 2012 rate of $1.3699. The secondary property tax rate is not included in the GF revenue forecast. The Financial Services Department analyzes historical property tax data to arrive at reasonable assumptions about long-range trends in assessed valuation. Despite Glendale’s historical growth in assessed valuation of the past several years, we know the current imbalance between supply and demand in the housing industry will take some time to right itself. Our projection includes a 12.3% decline in primary property tax revenue for FY 2013, followed by a 6.3% decline in FY 2014 and zero growth in FY 2015. Modest increases in FY 2016 and FY 2017 averaging 4% in primary property tax revenue round out the forecast period. Primary Property Tax Revenue In Thousands ($000's) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 Actual '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 Projected Highway User Revenue Fees (HURF) This source is commonly referred to as the gasoline tax although there are several additional transportation-related fees that comprise this revenue, including a portion of vehicle license taxes. Overall, much of this revenue source is based on the volume of fuel sold rather than the price of fuel. The Arizona state constitution restricts the use of HURF revenue to street and highway purposes such as right-of-way acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, and the payment of the interest and principal on HURF bonds. 89 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast In the past, the Arizona Legislature has altered, and may in the future alter, (1) the type and/or rate of taxes, fees and charges to be deposited into the Arizona Highway Revenue Fund and (2) the allocation of such monies among the Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona cities and counties and other purposes. In fact, the Arizona Legislature reduced the amount of funds allocated to cities for FY 2009. In FY 2012 the city expects to receive $10.6 million in HURF revenue, which is a 23.8% decrease from FY 2011 and is 36.8% below FY 2008 levels. HURF revenues are projected to rebound in FY 2013 and increase by 20.9% and they will comprise 7.6% or $12.8 million of the total GF and Streets revenue. This amount is expected to grow modestly to $12.9 million by the end of the forecast period. Given the state of the economy, we have assumed a 0.2% average growth rate for the remainder of the forecast period. This conservative forecast is based on the assumption that consumers will continue to change their driving habits to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles and to greater use of public transit as the price of fuel continues to escalate. Fees and Charges This category covers a variety of city fees and charges for city services such as building permits, right-of-way permits, construction plan check reviews, barricade fees, business and sales tax licenses, liquor licenses, fire fees, park and recreation fees, court fees and fines, library fees and fines, and fees related to planning and zoning issues. This category also includes revenues from cable, gas and electric franchise fees, income from the rental of city facilities, cemetery services and the miscellaneous category. Total projected fees and charges are expected to be $16.1 million in FY 2013, about 9.6% of total GF and Streets revenue. By FY 2017, revenue from fees and charges is expected to grow to $16.7 million. FY 2013 revenue is projected to increase by 5.8% over the previous fiscal year, but the average growth rate for the remainder of the forecast period is 1.4%. Other Revenue This category includes interest income, capital lease proceeds, city rental income, general staff and administrative service charges and other miscellaneous or one time revenues, like the sale of land. Staff and administrative chargeback revenues comprise the largest component of the other revenue category. Departments whose operations are supported by the General Fund, such as the Financial Services, Human Resources and Risk Management, City Attorney and Facilities Management Division of the Public Works Departments, provide services to the city’s water/sewer, sanitation and landfill enterprise funds as well as the self-supporting Transportation Fund (supported by the transportation sales tax). These are services that enterprise fund operations would have to pay outside contractors to provide if city departments did not provide them. Consequently, each of the identified operations is required to pay its fair share of the cost for these services, which are called general staff and administrative service charges. 90 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast The Financial Services Department established these charges based on an indirect cost allocation model that uses various accepted allocation methods and is updated annually. The charges are applied against enterprise fund’s operating budget in equal amounts (i.e. 1/12) each month. The Internal Audit Department reviewed the cost allocation model during FY 2005 to assess the validity and reasonableness of the model and determined it was a reasonable method to allocate GF costs. During FY 2009, the model was again evaluated but by an outside firm that performs audits of public sector entities. The FY 2009 evaluation found the model to be a reasonable and valid method for allocating GF costs, as well as a generally accepted budget and financing practice that cities and other government agencies commonly use. The total general staff and administrative service charges for FY 2013 are $8.9 million and comprise about 74.8% of the “other” revenue category which is projected to total $11.9 million in FY 2013. The $11.9 million represents only 7.1% of total GF and Streets revenue. The other revenue category is anticipated to decline by 2% in FY 2014 and then grow by an average of 1% each year through the remainder of the forecast period. This revenue category is also includes interest, city property rental and miscellaneous income. NET REVENUES & EXPENSES The final step in completing the Five-Year Forecast is the comparison of the net effects of the projected revenues and expenses on the General and Streets Fund balances. Over the five-year period of this forecast, the city’s operating and capital budgets are balanced. However, due to the national economic downturn that we are experiencing, the city needed to increase its sales tax rate by 7/10ths of one percent to generate approximately $23 million of additional revenue. In addition, ongoing cost reduction/cost saving measures totaling $9 million were needed in FY 2013 to balance the budget and allow for a projected ending fund balance/reserve of $6 million. FY 2014, the second year in the forecast period, will present additional challenges to the city as the forecast calls for an additional $6 million of cost reduction/cost savings measures and/or revenue generation strategies. This is due in large part to the principal and interest payments related to the Camelback Ranch Spring Training Facility that will need to be covered by the GF in FY 2014. Commercial development and the resulting revenue generation around the facility that may come on board were not built into the five-year forecast at this time. Therefore, any commercial development projects brought online by FY 2014 will offset the amount of cost reduction/cost savings measures needed to balance that fiscal year. The final three years of the forecast see a gradual increase in fund balance from $9 million in FY 2015 to $14 million in FY 2017. At that point, GF and Streets Fund revenues are projected to reach $194 million and projected expenditures will be $190 million. The Five-Year Forecast Summary schedule that appears below summarizes the beginning fund balance, revenues and expenses. Expenses include the base budget amount, or $140 million in FY 2013 before an additional $2 million associated with the public safety labor unions memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreement and the ongoing GF expenditure reduction of $9 million at the bottom of the column. 91 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast The transfer amounts reflect planned cash transfers from the GF and Streets Fund to other funds to support operations and debt service obligations. Schedule Four in the Schedules section of this book includes a summary of all the planned FY 2013 transactions that make up the $31 million of transfers (including the arena management fee). The “Contingency/Fund Bal.” line item highlighted in green reflects the projected ending fund balance which is appropriated as contingency appropriation within each fiscal years adopted budget. By appropriating the ending fund balance as contingency appropriation, Council has the ability to activate or use that fund balance during any given fiscal year to cover any unforeseen emergencies. In most fiscal years, this contingency appropriation goes unused and consequently the amount becomes the next fiscal years beginning fund balance. As stated previously, the fund balance is projected to grow to $14 million to FY 2017 over the five-year forecast. CONCLUSION Long-range forecasting and modeling are powerful management and decision-making tools. A key objective in long-range forecasting is to estimate the future consequences of past and present decisions. The Five-Year Forecast process reminds us to lift our eyes from the road directly ahead, cast a glance in the rear-view mirror to see where we have been and take a look through the windshield into the future to assess where we are going. The current Five-Year Forecast indicates that if we continue to exercise fiscal discretion and restraint, examine carefully any projects that entail ongoing expenses, practice prudent fiscal 92 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Five-Year Forecast management and remain conservative in our financial and strategic planning, we can continue to achieve the following:     Accomplish City Council’s strategic goals and objectives set for the budget year; Maintain our quality of service commitments to Glendale residents in future years; Ensure the city’s capacity to meet its future growth and infrastructure needs even in times of national economic uncertainty; and Balance our annual budgets while retaining adequate contingency reserves. In order to go significantly beyond the commitments outlined earlier in this section, the city would have to increase its revenue base by adding new revenue sources or experience betterthan-anticipated economic performance, and/or decrease its operating expenses by reducing or curtailing programs and services that the city currently provides. 93 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan FINANCIAL PLAN INTRODUCTION The foundation for our FY 2013 operating and capital budgets reflects Council’s vision of ‘one community.’ That foundation is supported by additional strategic goals and key objectives, as discussed in the Mayor’s and City Manager’s budget messages, including the continuation of fiscally sound financial management practices. Glendale’s Financial Plan addresses the critical issues that must be addressed with each fiscal year’s budget, as well as the strategies that are used to sustain Council’s strategic goals while accommodating fluctuations in the economy. It is critical for a local government to respond quickly and comprehensively to changes in the political and economic environment so that city services are not compromised. The City of Glendale engages in financial planning in order to avoid curtailing basic services or delaying needed infrastructure improvements when revenue sources are adversely affected. The following discussion highlights the principal issues facing the city (operating budget constraints) and the long-term and short-term key strategies for addressing the changing economic and political environment in which we operate. OPERATING BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS Operating Revenue Considerations A city’s ability to generate additional revenue from existing sources, or create new revenue sources, is limited by social and economic conditions, state statutes, City Council policies and public sentiment. Municipal tax rates and bonding (borrowing) capacity also are limited by state law and require citizen support and/or voter approval. In addition, some revenues are legally restricted and therefore must be used for specific purposes. Examples of special-purpose revenues include public safety and transportation sales tax revenues, highway user revenue fees (HURF), water, sewer, landfill, and sanitation user fees and development impact fees. The General Fund covers costs for essential city services like police, fire, parks/recreation, library services and neighborhood preservation, as well as critical support functions like financial and budget management services, human resources and legal services. Many city departments must rely exclusively on General Fund revenues to finance their operating costs, whereas others receive a lesser amount of General Fund financial support. The city’s primary ongoing General Fund revenue sources are state-shared revenues and city sales taxes. These sources typically account for approximately two-thirds to three-fourths of the city’s ongoing General Fund revenue budget. State-shared revenues and local sales tax revenues can be sensitive to changes in national, regional and local economic conditions. When the state and local economies are healthy, state-shared and city sales tax revenues normally increase. When the economy enters a downward cycle or recessionary period, these revenue sources could decline, although that is not always the case. 94 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan State-shared revenues are comprised of state income tax and state sales tax revenues, as well as state motor vehicle licensing revenue. The state of Arizona distributes to incorporated towns and cities a portion of these state receipts based on each entity’s population in proportion to the state’s total population of incorporated areas. State-shared revenue is subject to fluctuation due to changes in the economic environment, as well as the political environment, as evidenced by prior legislative discussions to modify the amount of state-shared income tax revenue to be distributed to municipalities. For FY 2013, state-shared revenue is expected to be distributed in the same manner used for the FY 2012 distributions. For the most part, past reductions in state-shared revenue allocations have been the result of negotiations between the state and the cities. Income tax revenue distribution to the cities lags by two years. This means the state income tax receipts for FY 2013 will reflect the income tax the state collected in FY 2011. The state’s income tax receipts for FY 2011 are higher than collected in FY 2010. As a result, the city will see an increase in state income tax revenue in FY 2013 as explained in Budget Revenue Summary section. Other sources of city revenue, such as property taxes, franchise fees, and development permits and fees, are also subject to external economic and political factors. For example, property tax revenues are dependent on total assessed valuation, appreciation of existing property, and the amount and type of new construction, as well as the property tax rate approved by Glendale’s City Council. State limits on property tax rates also constrain the use of this revenue source for General Fund operations. Therefore, we took a prudent approach to projecting these other revenues for FY 2013. A more detailed discussion of these other revenue sources and the projection for FY 2013 is found in the Budget Revenue Summary section. Population Growth Arizona has experienced phenomenal growth in the past few decades. It is consistently rated in the top tier of the states experiencing the highest levels of growth in the nation. Growth in population is often accompanied by job growth, which is often a reflection of a healthy local and regional economy. A growing population tends to fuel consumer spending as homes are purchased, and consumer goods for those homes are bought. In addition, the state-shared revenues discussed in the previous section are based on a city’s population in comparison to the total population, so there is an unintended incentive to encourage population growth in order to receive more state-shared revenue. Nevertheless, growth is often a double-edged sword. Rapid and prolonged population growth places a great deal of strain on existing resources. This kind of population growth can make it difficult for the city to maintain current levels of services, repair and replace existing infrastructure as it ages and finance future growth-related needs. The city employs various financing strategies and mechanisms to equitably apportion the costs of growth among various sectors of the community, as well as among current and future Glendale residents. The financing strategies include bond financing, development impact fee assessments, and the creation of improvement districts. These are discussed in more detail in the Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan section. 95 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan Large, expensive projects like recreation facilities, libraries, water and sewer treatment facilities, and public safety facilities require a long-term commitment of resources for ongoing operating costs of these new facilities. For these kinds of projects, the city staggers the opening of them in order to adequately absorb the additional operating costs that come with their operation. Also, Glendale prefers to use conservative population estimates in its planning process to ensure the revenues needed to operate the facility are available when the project is completed. When unusual growth occurs, the city has several short-term, rapid-impact strategies it can employ to accelerate the provision of services and/or infrastructure development. Routine Operating Expenses The cost associated with many routine operating necessities, such as utilities, continue to rise. While Glendale has taken a proactive approach to minimizing the impact of such cost increases, some level of cost escalation is inevitable in order to maintain a high level of service for the Glendale community. In developing the operating budget, these routine operating cost increases were at the top of the list of items that had to be addressed before allocating funds for other purposes. Capital Expense Considerations Large capital improvement projects take many years to plan, finance and complete. Funds for these projects often will be needed long before the number of residents moving into the area can support the construction costs although it might be several more years before population growth is sufficient to generate the revenue needed for ongoing operating expenses. Under virtually any population growth scenario, traditional bond financing and development impact fee revenues would be hard pressed to keep up with the normal demand for new or expanded streets, storm sewers, fire stations and other facilities. To meet the need for the construction of new capital facilities, Glendale has pursued some unique partnering arrangements to cover the capital costs. For example, Glendale partnered with the cities of Avondale, Surprise, and Peoria, as well as the Maricopa County Community College District, to enhance the function and value of the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Facility that opened in FY 2007. The facility currently trains new fire recruits and both police and fire personnel conduct advanced training exercises for the protection of our growing communities. The four partner agencies signed formal, written commitments to share the costs of construction and operations. Another example of partnership in capital construction is found with the Youth Sports Field facilities just to the east of Glendale’s professional sports facilities, the University of Phoenix Stadium and Jobing.com Arena. Both the Fiesta Bowl college football organization and the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority contributed funds to the construction of this project. Glendale also continues partnering opportunities with local school districts in the construction of parks, playgrounds and sports facilities adjacent to school facilities. Glendale also assesses development impact fees for commercial and residential construction. These fees are used to supplement property tax revenues for the construction of public safety facilities, parks and recreation facilities, libraries and other capital projects. By using this 96 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan approach, the city takes steps to ensure that new developments pay their fair share for the costs associated with the city services needed to support such developments. Finally, Glendale pursues grant funds to enhance capital projects. Recent examples include state of Arizona Heritage Funds and federal Bureau of Reclamation dollars for parks, trails and open space projects. As a result of these outside grant dollars, the planned capital projects were accelerated and/or expanded to provide better facilities for the Glendale community. Administering a Sound Financial Plan If a prolonged economic downturn occurs, and annual revenues cannot support the cost of essential services and infrastructure development, the city’s options might include:    Increasing revenues from existing sources such as sales and property taxes or creating new taxing sources; Delaying future growth-related infrastructure development; Reducing operating expenses by cutting budgets for city services. The purpose of a financial plan is to minimize those times when a city must resort to the above alternatives, except in the most extreme circumstances. It also should include short-term financial strategies that are useful in responding to unanticipated budgetary needs of short duration, such as single-year revenue and expense anomalies, damage caused by weather emergencies, or unexpected population growth spurts. While developing the city’s financial plan, it is important to keep the following caveats in mind:     It is almost impossible to pinpoint service demands and their costs for the distant future; The reliability of all predictions will decrease in direct proportion to the increase in the length of the time period involved; It is not prudent to make predictions using only a single variable, such as population growth, when other factors, such as economic conditions, play an important role in future events; and It is important to design short- and long-term strategies that are flexible enough to meet a broad range of possible outcomes. LONG-TERM STRATEGIES Adjusting Staff Levels Although Glendale has one of the Valley’s lowest ratios of city authorized staff positions to population (8.00:1,000) personnel-related costs account for 79% of the city’s General Fund operating expenses. The adjustment of staffing levels is an ineffective method for addressing short-term budget deficits because it requires lead-time to implement effectively and it may adversely affect the city’s ability to maintain quality services. However, downsizing, when combined with other strategies, can be an effective method of dealing with prolonged economic slowdowns. 97 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan The City of Glendale’s leadership team carefully reviews every new position request. When a new position is needed to provide new or expanded services, both the initial (one-time) and ongoing costs associated with providing and maintaining the service must be included with the position request. These procedures help ensure that added services and positions will be sustainable in future years. Alternatives to Permanent Staff Increases The selective use of temporary and contract workers is one of several useful alternatives to meeting predictable but time-limited workload increases without adding regular status employees. It is important to have a definitive policy that limits the length of time a position can be filled by a temporary employee. It also is important to closely monitor the time limit to ensure compliance with the policy. One example of the selective use of temporary employees deals with the staffing of polling sites during city elections. The city’s equalization strategy dictates that the predictable costs for these workers be budgeted as an ongoing operating expense spread evenly between election and nonelection years. Another example of the selective use of contract employees is the establishment of contract positions for building inspections services at the construction sites for the intense development at Westgate. These contract positions expired once the construction activity was materially complete. In some cases, contracting for outside services can be less expensive than adding permanent staff to provide selected city services. A further advantage is that it is faster and easier to vary contract amounts on a year-to-year basis than it is to manipulate permanent staffing levels and overhead costs for equipment and building space. For these reasons, Glendale has placed increasing emphasis on negotiating service contracts for areas like parks landscape maintenance, custodial cleaning of city facilities, and specialized legal work. Equalizing Predictable Expenses Two additional strategies the city uses to moderate peaks in ongoing expenses are   the spreading of routine periodic expenses over multiple budget years; and the pre-funding of replacement equipment such as vehicles and technology equipment (e.g., PCs, servers, etc.) through a rental rate structure that spreads the cost of the replacement over several years. As noted earlier in this discussion, the City Clerk’s Office accrues half of the next election cost in the non-election year to reduce biennial election expense peaks. This amount is carried over and added to an equal amount that is budgeted in the actual election year. Although election expenses will continue to rise as our voter population increases, this practice of dividing known costs across several years substantially levels out the expense curve for scheduled elections. As a result of this approach, the need for one-time election appropriations every two years has been eliminated, leaving only special election expenses, such as bond elections—which occur infrequently—to the one-time budgeting process. 98 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan Prior to the implementation of the technology and vehicle replacement programs, the city’s ability to replace city vehicles and technological equipment cycled up and down with the local economy. In lean years, urgently needed replacement equipment was purchased at the expense of capital projects or the operating budget. Then, when economic conditions improved, the city would engage in massive “catch-up” efforts. To eliminate this problem, the replacement funds were designed to allow the city to replace outdated, or worn out equipment at regular intervals. Two replacement fund line items were added to each department’s annual operating budget to accrue funds for vehicle and technology replacements, respectively. Experience has shown that many vehicles are not replaced as originally scheduled because of low mileage or good maintenance history, and we expect that experience will continue into the future. In these cases, we extend the useful life of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we closely monitor this replacement fund to ensure that it provides sufficient funds to replace essential vehicles and equipment as needed. The technology replacement fund balance not only covers the systematic replacement of desktop computers, but also annual software licensing costs for a wide range of software used in city operations, virus and security maintenance costs, citywide data storage, database servers, and cable/video equipment and presentation systems. As is the case with the vehicle replacement fund, experience has shown that the useful life of some technology equipment can be extended and thus the fund accumulates a level of reserve funding which is used for emergency replacements and/or upgrades to existing inventory. Capital Improvement Plan Development Conservative population and revenue growth projections are used for long-range capital planning to determine when, where, and how capital projects will be implemented because most large capital construction projects permanently increase the city’s ongoing operating costs for staff, maintenance, repair, utilities, etc. For example, the operating budget impact of the Foothills Library and the Downtown Civic Center, both of which opened in the 1990s, were carefully considered prior to initiation of these projects to ensure revenue growth would cover the increased operating costs. Glendale also analyzes the long-term financial projections of debt service costs prior to every bond sale. Major capital projects can be planned, scheduled, and financed in ways that will not deplete needed resources from the annual operating budget or require an increase in Glendale’s secondary property tax. Short-term financial strategies, such as various financing instruments or the acceleration or deceleration of project schedules, can help us meet unusual population growth or service demands. The introduction to Glendale’s 2013-2022 Capital Improvement Plan provides an explanation of the capital project process. 99 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan Property Tax Stabilization For over a decade, Council policy has been to stabilize the property tax rate and structure at reasonable levels so that property tax revenue is sufficient to meet long-term, foreseeable revenue needs without requiring intermittent adjustments. Capital improvement projects are planned, financed and scheduled for implementation so that the secondary property tax rate can remain relatively stable over the coming decade. Arizona’s property tax levy consists of two tiers. The primary property tax levy has statemandated maximum limits, but it can be used by a city for any lawful purpose. The primary property tax revenue is included in the General Fund. However, because Glendale has minimized its use of the primary property tax levy, this revenue source is expected to be less than 2% of the city’s anticipated General and Streets fund revenues in FY 2013. The secondary property tax is an unlimited levy that can be used only to retire the principal and interest on a municipality’s General Obligation bond debt. This revenue source provides more ‘bang for the buck’ because it can be leveraged to borrow more funds to pay for capital projects. Therefore, the secondary property tax levy is optimized in relation to the primary property tax levy. Although many cities in other parts of the country use the property tax rate to make short-term operating budget adjustments, changes in Glendale’s tax structure or rates are viewed as longterm financial strategies. Arizona’s tax limitation statute, the relatively minor role of primary property tax revenue on Glendale’s operating budget, and the city’s property tax stabilization policy combine to make property tax adjustment an ineffective short-term strategic tool. As a practical matter, it might take up to a year for a property tax change to be implemented and longer to produce a significant increase in revenues. Growth in the tax base and changes in the assessed valuation rate determined by the county often have a larger impact on the level of revenues raised through property taxation. Given these facts, increasing Glendale’s property tax rate is a more appropriate alternative for addressing a chronic structural imbalance between revenues and expenses than for balancing a single year’s operating budget. For example, when the city reaches full build-out much less revenue will be generated from new tax base growth. If this decrease were not accompanied by sufficient growth in assessed valuation or offset by increases in other revenues or a reduction in operating expenses, a serious imbalance might occur that might trigger a property tax increase. As noted above, secondary property taxes are used to repay voter-authorized General Obligation bond debt. With efficient scheduling of bond sales and capital projects, the Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan is designed to keep the secondary property tax rate level. Changes in capital construction schedules, interest rates and several other variables might necessitate a property tax rate adjustment over the longer term; however, most of these situations can be addressed by finetuning the primary tax rate and directing the flow of interest earnings on bond proceeds between construction and debt service funds. 100 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES The following short-term financial strategies play an important role in: (1) maintaining the delicate year-to-year equilibrium between revenues and expenses; (2) responding to temporary changes in economic conditions; and/or (3) absorbing or avoiding anticipated revenue shortfalls. Sales Tax Stabilization Sales tax revenues fluctuate and are subject to sudden economic changes like a sudden downturn in the economy, as occurred after September 11, 2001. Prior to FY 2004, Glendale’s stabilization policy required the use of the actual amount of sales tax revenue collected in the prior twelve months as its sales tax revenue base estimate for developing the next year’s operating budget, with no growth rate factor for budgeting purposes. This conservative approach to estimating sales tax revenue minimized the likelihood that annual budgeted operating expenses would significantly exceed actual sales tax revenues in any given year. In fact, actual receipts usually were higher than the prior year because tax revenue increases were attributable to growth in the tax base (i.e. population growth). When actual receipts exceeded the base estimate, excess revenue was applied to the operating capital budget or used to increase the city’s GF fund balance. For the FY 2004 budget, a different approach was taken to establishing the FY 2004 revenue budget for city sales tax receipts. The FY 2004 revenue budget for city sales taxes included a full year of estimated sales tax receipts from new development that was expected to open by the start of FY 2004 or shortly after the start of the fiscal year. This approach was taken to avoid severely impacting service levels as a result of sluggish growth in state shared revenues. For the FY 2005 through FY 2008 budgets, this approach was further modified to allow the city sales tax projection to match the previous year growth percentage because this revenue source had performed so strongly. The severe economic downturn between FY 2009 and FY 2011 required city sale tax projections to mirror the negative decline in sales tax receipts that cities and towns were experiencing throughout the nation. With the economic downturn leveling off, the city sales tax projection returned to the approach discussed previously and used from FY 2005 through FY 2008. This approach requires the city to look at the most recent sales tax activity and only build in a growth percentage that matches the way city sales tax revenues are trending for that time period. Operating Capital Management Operating capital is often referred to as "pay-as-you-go" capital because projects and equipment in this category are funded directly from operating revenues. Operating capital is used to pay for   building maintenance and replacement items such as air conditioners, roofing, and floor furnishings, specialized equipment not in the vehicle replacement program, such as sanitation trucks and street resurfacing vehicles, and 101 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan  selected routine infrastructure maintenance activities such as the street resurfacing program. In addition, the initial purchase of a vehicle is funded with operating capital. For example, if a new inspector position is approved for the Building Safety Department, that inspector will need a vehicle. The initial purchase of the new vehicle for the new inspector position is funded with operating capital because it is an addition to the city’s fleet (versus a replacement). Subsequent replacement of that vehicle is then funded through the vehicle replacement program. U U Unlike personnel costs, it is relatively fast and easy to make adjustments to operating equipment budgets without reducing the city’s service capacity or quality. Adjustments to the rate at which operating capital is spent can function as an effective short-term shock absorber to level out temporary revenue fluctuations. Glendale residents will not be materially affected if city fleet vehicle replacements are delayed or accelerated in a single budget year, as long as the replacement program continues and repair and maintenance costs for these vehicles are not unreasonable. For example, delaying a portion of the street resurfacing program in one year does not have major negative consequences if the program is accelerated in the following year. An ongoing, stable revenue source is much less critical for operating capital than it is for maintaining service levels for police, fire and emergency services. It is important to keep in mind that maintaining adequate operating capital levels and adjusting the rate of capital spending minimizes the need to reduce the operating budget or deplete other fund resources. When possible, operating capital budgets are restored before any new programs or employees are added to the ongoing budget. Building and Maintaining Adequate Fund Balance By law, Arizona cities are required to prepare and operate under a City Council-approved balanced budget that must be filed annually with the state’s Auditor General. City government is prohibited from spending more than the total amount appropriated in its annual budget document. This limitation raises several interesting questions about how the city can successfully maintain an annually balanced budget in years when General Fund revenue deficits or surpluses occur. General Fund revenue surpluses accrued in one year can be reserved and used to offset revenue deficits that might occur in a subsequent year. The accounting mechanism Glendale uses to reserve General Fund surplus revenues is referred to as the General Fund’s fund balance. Every fiscal year, a portion of fund balance is established as a General Fund contingency appropriation. A similar contingency appropriation is established each year for other city funds like the enterprise operations (e.g., sanitation fund and landfill fund). This mechanism enables the city to meet the legal constraints of a balanced annual budget and provides a source to address emergencies and other unanticipated expenses. Like operating capital, fund balance can function as a financial shock absorber to smooth out short-term revenue and expense fluctuations. When sluggish economic conditions result in lower-than-projected revenues, a portion of fund balance can be allocated to cover budgeted 102 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Plan operating expenses. When the economy is healthy, and revenues are higher than predicted for annual budgeting purposes, the excess revenues can be added to the fund balance for future use. City Council policies discourage the routine use of fund balance to support long-term or ongoing expenses in the operating budget. The City’s financial policy calls for the city’s contingency appropriation be equal to between 5% and 10% of General Fund revenues (refer to the Financial Policies section for additional details). If fund balances are used for one-time projects, restoring them becomes the highest budgeting priority after assuring that adequate operating funds are available to support essential services and infrastructure needs. The sales tax stabilization strategy produces a domino-like effect that supports the city’s ability to maintain adequate fund balance during times of high revenue growth. Conservative revenue estimates result in conservative annual budget estimates. Conservative budget estimates limit growth in non-essential operations, and this practice permits a portion of the excess sales tax revenue to be allocated to contingency reserves. These reserves can offset drops in other revenue tax sources, such as building permits, or augment sales tax revenue when unpredictable downturns occur. Once reserves reach the 10% of revenues target level, any further amounts are usually added to the operating capital budget. Fund-related financial information is summarized in Schedule One, which is entitled Fund Balance Analysis. Detailed descriptions of each fund in Glendale’s financial system, including the General Fund, enterprise funds and special revenue funds, are contained in the Budget Summary section of this document. CONCLUSION During the economic downturn that began in late 2001 and continued through early 2003, Glendale employed some of the short-term strategies outlined in the previous sections. By FY 2006, it was clear that the economy had rebounded. The record setting growth that we experienced during this time ended during FY 2008. In order to deal with this most recent slowdown in the economy, we have continued to follow many of the cost-saving measures that were implemented in FY 2003, including     No transfers of salary savings to operating budgets except in very limited instances. Non public-safety staffing positions are reviewed by upper management to make sure they still are serving current business needs and demands as they become vacant before the recruitment process actually begins for those positions. No unbudgeted carryover savings – all carryover will be returned to the General Fund Capital projects are reviewed for all operating and maintenance costs These strategies, coupled with prudent budgeting practices, allowed Glendale to deal with the recent economic downturn without severely hampering current services and programs. Continuation of these strategies will see us through the future. 103 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Policies FINANCIAL POLICIES The financial policies establish the framework for overall fiscal planning and management and set forth guidelines for both current activities and long-range planning. These policies are reviewed annually to ensure the highest standards of fiscal management. The City Manager and the leadership team have the primary role of reviewing financial actions and providing guidance on financial issues to the City Council. OVERALL GOALS The overall financial goals underlying these policies are: 1. Fiscal Conservatism: To ensure that the city is in a solid financial condition at all times. This can be defined as: A. Cash Solvency - the ability to pay existing bills B. Budgetary Solvency - the ability to balance the budget (all operating, capital and debt service expenditures should be covered by the appropriate revenue sources and meet all statutory requirements prior to the beginning of the year) C. Long Run Solvency - the ability to pay future bills D. Service Level Solvency - the ability to provide needed and desired services 2. Flexibility: To ensure that the city is in a position to respond to changes in the economy or new service challenges without an undue amount of financial stress. 3. Adherence to the Highest Accounting and Management Practices: To comply with the Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) standards for financial reporting and budgeting, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and other professional standards. FUND BALANCE POLICY- GENERAL FUND In this policy General Fund refers to the grouping of funds as reported in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) under General Fund and on Schedule One of this budget book. This Fund should maintain a minimum unrestricted fund balance between 5 and 10% of General Fund revenues received less revenues associated with the sporting facilities, certain rental revenues, replacement fund revenues and monies set aside for library, court, art commission, marketing self sustaining and employee groups divisions. As part of the budget resolution, council will annually commit the funding level of the minimum fund balance requirement. Any balance in excess of 10% may be used to support city operations on a one-time basis for such items as capital equipment and building improvements, new construction of city facilities, minimization of prolonged fluctuations relating to the local and national economic condition (i.e. recessions), and unforeseeable and unexpected financial situations (natural disasters, acts of terrorism etc.). If a situation arises where unrestricted fund balance ends the fiscal year with a balance less than the calculated minimum unrestricted fund 104 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Policies balance the deficiency should be replenished in the coming fiscal years, not to exceed a total of five consecutive years, using revenues received and reducing appropriations. ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS Delegation of the authority to establish new funds shall rest with the City Manager and designees as they see the need to segregate funds received for particular services or functions that are desired to be tracked separately from the general fund. OPERATING BUDGET 1. Ongoing operating costs should be supported by ongoing, stable revenue sources. This protects the city from fluctuating service levels and avoids crises when one-time revenues are reduced or removed. Some corollaries to this policy are: A. Fund balance should be used only for one-time expenditures, such as capital equipment and building improvements, or contingency appropriations and related purposes. B. Ongoing maintenance costs such as vehicle repair and maintenance, building maintenance, and swimming pool replastering should be financed through operating revenues, rather than through the issuance of debt. C. Fluctuating federal and state grants should not be used to fund ongoing programs. 2. Revenues from growth or development should be targeted to costs related to development, or invested in improvements that will benefit future residents or make future service provision efficient. While it is tempting to use growth-related revenue to support current operations, doing so can lead to a crisis when the growth rate decreases. This policy implies a commitment to identifying the portions of the city's revenue stream that result from growth. 3. General Fund appropriations, including sales tax funds, should include a contingency appropriation equal to at least 5 to10% of projected revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. This contingency appropriation essentially serves as the City’s revenue stabilization account (i.e., rainy day account). As such, it can help to minimize the impact of prolonged fluctuations in sales tax revenues, which is the revenue source most sensitive to changes in the economy. It also can be used to mitigate the negative effects of unforeseeable and unexpected financial situations. 4. Enterprise Funds should include a sufficient unappropriated fund balance to absorb fluctuations in annual revenue. Enterprise funds should also be charged directly for overhead services whenever possible, rather than using an indirect cost allocation. These services include expenses related to employee fringe benefits, risk management and workers compensation insurance costs, telephone charges, and technology and vehicle replacement charges. Provisions should also be made for interdepartmental charges for services such as solid waste collection and disposal, as well as vehicle maintenance and repair. 105 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Policies 5. Replacement of vehicles and technological equipment will be done through the Vehicle Replacement and Technology Replacement Funds. A rental rate structure will be established annually to provide sufficient funds for replacement of covered equipment. New equipment added to the existing fleet should be paid initially with operating capital by the requesting department. In addition, a corresponding rental rate payment for the new equipment should be included within the requesting department’s operating budget on an ongoing basis. The Field Operations Department should review all vehicle-related purchases and the Information Technology Department all technology related purchases. 6. A financial forecasting model should be maintained to test the ability of the city to absorb operating costs due to capital improvements, and to react to changes in the economy or service demands. This forecast should cover at least five years and be updated annually. 7. Salary policy and structure should emphasize the provision of predictable salary increases, sustainable over time, that serve to recognize and reward the contributions of experienced and well-trained staff. To this end, the merit pay policy provides for merit increases of up to 6% annually to qualified employees based on the city's ability to pay. To reflect increases related to market pay range adjustments and inflation, Council sets a target that is based on a Human Resources market survey of other Valley cities and therefore will vary depending on whether the majority of city job classifications are below market, at market or above market. 8. Laws and policies related to limitations on revenue sources should be explicitly addressed in the budget process. These include: A. One-third of annual Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF) must be devoted to transit (Regional Public Transportation Authority). B. No more than one-half of the prior year's Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) can be used for debt service (A.R.S. 48-689). C. The city must maintain its level of General Fund support in street maintenance and operations, as provided by state law. 9. Debt Management A. Short-term borrowing or lease/purchase contracts should be considered for financing major operating capital equipment when the Executive Director for Budget and Finance Services, along with the city's financial advisors, determines that this is in the city's best financial interest. Lease/purchase decisions should have the concurrence of the appropriate operating manager. B. Short-term debt should not exceed 5% of revenue or 20% of total debt. The short-term debt for the city is documented in Schedule 8 of this budget book. C. Long-term debt. The City will maintain a secondary property tax rate to support existing and future property tax supported debt. The City should maintain a general obligation debt service fund balance of at least 10% of the next year's property tax 106 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Policies supported debt service. The long-term debt for the city is documented in Schedule 7 of this budget book. 10. Budget Amendment Policies A. Total fund appropriation changes must be approved by the City Council. These amendments must also comply with the city's Alternative Expenditure Limitation. In order to provide flexibility, between 5 and10% of the total General Fund revenue budget for the upcoming fiscal year should be set aside as a contingency appropriation as long as this contingency is backed by available fund balances. B. Uses of contingency appropriations must be specifically approved by the City Council. C. Shifts in appropriations. The City Council may authorize a transfer of unencumbered appropriation balanced within an individual city office, department or agency at any time during the fiscal year. During the last three months of the fiscal year, the City Council may approve transfers among city offices, departments, and agencies as necessary. Inter-fund transfers (i.e., transfers between funds) must be specifically approved by City Council. Procedures for requesting City Council approval of appropriation transfers and delegation of budget responsibility will be set by the City Manager. D. Salary savings transfers to make funds available for other department expenses must be approved by the City Council to the extent any such transfer modifies a budget item. 11. A Budgetary Control System will be maintained to ensure compliance with the adopted budget. Quarterly budget status reports will be presented to, and reviewed by the City Council to ensure that the city finances are on track with the adopted budget. 12. Revenue Policies A. Diversified and stable revenues will be maintained to ensure fiscal health and absorb short-run fluctuations in any one revenue source. B. User fees for all operations will be examined annually to ensure that fees cover direct and indirect costs of service. Rate adjustments for enterprise operations will be based on five-year enterprise fund plans and/or other comprehensive rate studies. C. Development fees for one-time capital expenses attributable to new development will be reviewed periodically to ensure that fees match development-related expenses. 107 Return to Main TOC FINANCIAL GUIDELINES Financial Policies CAPITAL BUDGET 1. A long-range capital improvement plan should be prepared and updated each year. The first five years of the 10-year plan should identify projects that can be completed with identified funding sources, with only the first year of the plan actually appropriated. This 10-year plan may include unfunded projects in the last five years of the plan as placeholders that carry out the city's long-term strategic and general plans. All projects are assessed annually regarding their necessity, priority, compatibility with Council goals, long-range plans of various departments and the City’s financing capabilities. 2. When planning capital projects, each department must estimate the associated impact on the city's operating budget. Examples include any associated staffing, utilities, water, landscape, building and equipment maintenance, computer/vehicle ongoing replacement, insurance costs, etc. 3. Amendments to capital appropriations fall under the same guidelines as changes to the operating budget noted above. 108 Operating Budget Annual Budget, 2012-2013 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Operating Budget Table of Contents OPERATING BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Mayor & Council 111 City Attorney 118 City Clerk 122 City Court 128 City Manager’s Office 134 Communications 140 150 Marketing and Communications Convention Center, Media Center and Parking Garage 151 Glendale Civic Center 152 Community and Economic Development Building Safety Economic Development Planning Rebates & Incentives 153 157 160 167 Financial Services 168 178 179 180 181 Finance Lease Payments/Other Fees Management & Budget Grants Fire Services 182 Human Resources & Risk Management 189 Intergovernmental Programs 196 Internal Audit 201 Neighborhood & Human Services 204 208 209 210 211 Community Action Program Community Partnerships Community Development Admin Code Compliance 109 Return to Main TOC CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ Operating Budget Table of Contents Page Non-Departmental 212 Parks, Recreation & Library Services 213 220 221 223 Right of Way Parks & Recreation Library & Arts Police Services 224 Public Works 230 237 239 Field Operations Engineering Technology & Innovation 240 Transportation Services 244 248 250 Transportation Airport Water Services 251 255 256 Environmental Resources Utilities 110 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE Mayor and City Council MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL The Mayor and City Council constitute the elected legislative and policy making body of the city. The Mayor is elected at-large every four years. Council members also are elected to fouryear terms from one of six electoral districts in Glendale. One of the highest priorities of the Mayor and Council is to involve the public in their decision making process. They regularly appoint citizens to 17 advisory boards and commissions and often form public committees to address specific citywide issues. The Mayor and Council each become involved in the support and economic development of Glendale’s six districts. The Mayor hosts various community events throughout the year to inform constituents of city issues and solicit feedback. Councilmembers host meetings in their districts or meet with small groups of citizens throughout the year to resolve local issues. These meetings ensure citizens are informed on projects in and around their homes and businesses and give the Mayor and Council input from their constituents. The Mayor and Council also communicate with citizens through electronic media such as Web sites, electronic bulletins and programming on Glendale 11, the city’s cable station. The Mayor and Council represent Glendale as members and leaders on numerous city, regional and national organizations and committees. City staff that support the Mayor and Council work closely with constituents to resolve any issues or questions they have about city programs and services. The Mayor and City Council determines strategic goals that guide the future vision and policy direction for the city. City Council Strategic Goals Our Vision for Glendale:        One Community That Is Fiscally Sound One Community With Strong Neighborhoods One Community Committed To Public Safety One Community With Quality Economic Development One Community With A Vibrant City Center One Community With an Active Partnership With Luke Air Force Base One Community With High Quality Services For Citizens 111 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE Mayor and City Council Accomplishments Fiscally Sound  Conducted 8 public budget meetings for the purpose of reviewing proposed budget documents and giving direction to city staff regarding the FY 2013 budget.  Reduced on-going operating costs by reducing authorized staffing levels by 131.38 FTE’s in the General and Streets funds combined and an additional 10.75 FTE’s from other funds. The process to identify levels of service to reduce was conducted through a variety of methods including the evaluation of business practices and implementation of cost savings brought forward during budget meetings.  Volunteers provided more than 120,000 hours of service, which, if paid, would be valued at $2.5 million.  Provided in-house design, construction administration and inspection services for CIP Projects. Financially, this new method reduced the total cost of projects such as Sewer Line Replacement and Northern Avenue Overlay by an estimated 59 percent.  Implemented an alternative solution for managing the disposal of waste generated by the landfill gas collection system resulting in an annual cost savings of approximately $50,000.  Received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), marking the 24th consecutive year Glendale has garnered such an honor. Strong Neighborhoods  Engaged citizens by hosting events such as Community, District and Legislative Link meetings.  Accepted $1,296,540 of Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP 3) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of the city’s Community Revitalization Annual Action Plan. The agreement allows Habitat for Humanity to use the funds to acquire, rehabilitate and sell approximately 12 foreclosed homes to qualified residents.  Partnered with private funders to acquire 29 previously foreclosed/abandoned homes that have been renovated and will house new families using $2.89 million in Neighborhood Stabilization funds.  Continued support of the Planning Department’s Historic Preservation Plan.  Recognized neighborhood leaders, community volunteers and businesses that have contributed to their community and improved the quality of the city’s neighborhoods with Glendale’s annual Spark Awards.  Continued to support Glendale’s 192 registered neighborhoods and HOAs.  Celebrated “Getting Arizona Involved in Neighborhoods” (GAIN) Night with many of Glendale’s 173 Neighborhood Watch Groups.  Proactively opened 73% of all Code Compliance cases to address code violations in Glendale and responded to more than 11,000 instances of graffiti.  Received notice from the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, that Glendale’s redistricting map had been approved. The city instituted an aggressive outreach campaign to ensure residents participated in the process. 112 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE Mayor and City Council Public Safety  Received a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs in the amount of $237,451. The Glendale Police Department was one of only two agencies in the U.S. to receive this second round of funding that will be used for Glendale’s Smart Policing Initiative.  Expanded Criminal Investigation external partnerships by joining the United States Marshal’s West Valley Task Force, the United States Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force and the FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force. These partnerships provide the Police Department with direct access to federal law enforcement resources.  Eighteen specially trained firefighters served over 100 days on national incident management teams, at seven large-scale wildfires in Arizona and New Mexico, gaining insight applicable to brush fires in Glendale.  Supported the Glendale Police and Fire Departments in their community education and prevention efforts. Departments held dozens of community events covering identity theft prevention, children’s safety, auto theft prevention, fire prevention, hands only Continuous Chest Compressions and personal safety. Quality Economic Development  Chosen by Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. for its newest shopping center that will include 85 brand name outlet stores. The upscale open-air mall broke ground near the Loop 101 and Glendale Avenue, which is within walking distance to Westgate City Center, Jobing.com Arena and the University of Phoenix Stadium.  Retained high technology employer, Honeywell Aerospace, with an eight-year lease extension with the property owner of its north Glendale location. The Glendale facility has 800 employees and is the city’s fifth largest employer.  Attracted numerous new business investments, totaling more than 231,000 square feet of leased or purchased commercial space, to Glendale’s thriving Bell Road Corridor.  Partnered with the Small Business Development Center and Glendale Community College (GCC) in securing funding for Arizona’s only Procurement Technical Assistance Center which will be headquartered at GCC and will assist small business looking to secure federal government contracts.  Welcomed thousands of out-of-state fans and travelers to the Fiesta Bowl and sports and entertainment events. These fans supported Glendale businesses and hotels, providing a much-needed economic boost to the local economy and tourism industry. A Vibrant City Center  Continued to fulfill the vision for continued economic development in the Centerline District, welcoming two new Centerline projects – renovation of the Beet Sugar Factory, the reopening of the Glendale Gaslight Inn and the opening of Jivemind Co-operative Music Lab.  Continued to support Glendale’s signature special events which draw 500,000 people per year to the downtown. As evidenced by an International Festival and Events Association study, the economic impact of Glendale Glitters and the Chocolate Affaire is $3.1 million annually. 113 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE Mayor and City Council  Continued to support Artwerks Lateral 58, a new element of the Glendale Centerline, designed to bring artists to the area. This program includes the downtown shops and restaurants while showcasing artists and their work – including a new mural that graces the outer south wall of a longtime downtown restaurant. An Active Partnership with Luke Air Force Base  Continued to administer the state and federal consulting/lobbying contract for the West Valley Partners, a group of 14 West Valley communities.  Advanced the statewide “Luke Forward” campaign to bring the new F-35 joint strike fighter mission to Luke Air Force Base. Since October 2009, over 21,000 supporters have registered on LukeForward.com and nearly $25,000 has been raised to privately underwrite the initiative.  Worked with Fighter Country Partnership to engage the public to participate in the F-35 Environmental Impact Study (EIS) process. As a result, the West Valley hosted a record number of supporters at the public meetings in February 2012 and set a new baseline for written support cards received by the Air Force in support of the F-35 mission.  Mayor Scruggs, along with Governor Jan Brewer, lobbied in November 2011 for Pentagon and Air Force support for bringing the F-35 mission to Luke AFB. This trip to DC included securing support for linking the departure of two F-16 squadrons with the arrival of the F-35 mission to avoid any prolonged reduction in aircraft and personnel at Luke. High Quality Services for Citizens  Appointed 55 residents to the Ad-Hoc Water and Sewer Task Force. This task force will consider all issues related to water and sewer services, including rate structures.  Continued GO Transportation program efforts which have resulted in expanded transit services, enhanced traffic flow and safety on Glendale streets and at intersections, and further development of bicycle and pedestrian enhancements throughout the city.  Supported several events and classes such as the Green Festival, the Glendale Family Bike Ride, several earth day events and a variety of conservation and sustainable living classes – all designed to raise environmental awareness in our community.  Assisted over 1,700 low-income families with rental assistance, providing them with affordable housing through the Community Housing Division.  Assisted 141 homeowners to restore habitability and conditions of low- to moderateincome homes via the Emergency Repair Program.  Awarded $4,000 in Performing Arts Grants to performing arts projects throughout Glendale.  Received a total of five federal grant awards specifically for transit projects in the amount of $1,344,767. The funds are going toward transportation needs such as Dial-a-Ride buses, a pilot Taxi Supplement Program for ADA para-transit riders and transportation services that address the challenges of low income transit users.  Commemorated the Arizona Centennial by incorporating centennial themes into Glendale’s Special Events, Library and Arts Programs, Parks and Recreation Programs and more. Governor Jan Brewer was guest of honor at Glendale Glitters opening night. 114 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE Mayor and City Council    Received a Deaf and Hard of Hearing grant with partial funding from the Arizona Community Foundation (ACF) for the Glendale Civic Center to install the latest technology to enhance the quality of sound for its hard of hearing clients. Launched a new Coast2Coast Rx card allowing all Glendale residents, regardless of income, age or health status to participate in the program and save more than 50% on the cost of their medications. The card also provides discounts for dental, vision, diabetes and hearing products, as well as lab and imaging tests. Hosted, in partnership with the Arizona Foreclosure Prevention Task Force, a free community event offering numerous resources to homeowners facing a possible foreclosure. Interesting Facts In March 2012, Mayor Elaine Scruggs was honored as one of Arizona’s 48 most intriguing women throughout the state’s 100-year history. Arizona’s 48 Most Intriguing Women was created as part of the Arizona Centennial Legacy Project to honor women from diverse backgrounds whose leadership and commitment contribute in a positive way to the future of Arizona during its centennial year. The number of women being honored was symbolic with Arizona becoming the 48th state in the Union in 1912. The Glendale Civic Center was named the number one facility for meeting and convention buildings of its size by Ranking Arizona: The Best of Arizona Business. The business opinion poll, conducted by Ranking Arizona, includes more than 160 business, tourism and leisure categories throughout Arizona. 115 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Mayor MAYOR FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual (1000) Office of the Mayor Total - Mayor BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $341,358 $333,342 $333,342 $362,188 9% $341,358 $333,342 $333,342 $362,188 9% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $320,317 $335,289 $335,289 $338,853 1% Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums $14,453 $3,512 $18,087 $3,427 $18,087 $3,427 $17,173 $3,643 -5% 6% $2,519 -11% Internal Service Charges $3,076 Work Order Credits Total - Mayor FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Office of the Mayor Total -Mayor $341,358 $2,821 $2,821 ($26,282) ($26,282) $333,342 $333,342 $362,188 9% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 4 4 4 4 0% 4 4 4 4 0% 116 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Council Office COUNCIL OFFICE FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Barrel District (1000) Cactus District FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate $57,731 $75,201 $99,446 $99,213 (1000) Cholla District $67,927 $104,581 (1000) Council Office $513,676 $489,998 (1000) Ocotillo District (1000) Sahuaro District $78,788 $55,708 $99,223 $99,264 $91,002 $83,858 (1000) Yucca District Total - Council Office BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES $81,814 $85,073 FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $63,663 $94,143 -36% -5% $74,581 $65,705 -37% $489,998 $573,118 17% $87,594 $61,585 -12% -38% $52,058 $99,258 $70,342 $97,504 -2% $901,089 $1,090,983 $976,668 $1,043,312 -4% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $794,391 $820,134 $820,134 $856,468 4% Supplies and Contracts $82,423 $298,933 $184,618 $164,359 -45% Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges $14,858 $9,417 $14,865 $9,764 $14,865 $9,764 $15,068 $7,417 1% -24% ($52,713) ($52,713) $1,043,312 -4% Work Order Credits Total - Council Office FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM $901,089 $1,090,983 $976,668 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Barrel District 1 1 1 1 0% (1000) Cactus District 1 1 1 1 0% (1000) Cholla District 1 1 1 1 0% (1000) Council Office (1000) Ocotillo District 6 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 0% 0% (1000) Sahuaro District 1 1 1 1 0% (1000) Yucca District 1 1 1 1 0% 12 13 13 13 0% Total -Council Office 117 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Attorney's Office CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Craig Tindall Mission Statement: Provide the highest level of legal services to the city and its officials by adhering to professional standards, garnering strong understanding of city operations and incorporating all relevant information into the legal advice and guidance provided. To serve the people of Arizona by prosecuting violations of Glendale City Code and misdemeanor violations of state law in an ethical manner in order to assure that justice is done. Department Description: The City Attorney is appointed by the City Council and acts as legal adviser to the city, its officials, departments, as well as boards and commissions on matters that affect the conduct of city business. The City Attorney’s Office represents the city in all legal proceedings and directs the legal services provided by outside counsel. The office also prepares resolutions, ordinances and related legal documents for City Council consideration in order to implement adopted city policy, draft and review all contracts considered by the city, and issue opinions on a variety of municipal matters. The City Attorney’s Office works closely with the Police Department with ongoing training of its officers relating to state and city laws. The office is responsible for prosecuting any misdemeanor violation that occurs within the city limits including violations of Glendale City Code, DUI and domestic violence cases. The office also handles conflict cases for other cities as well as the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Provide high-quality, professional and timely legal services to the Mayor, City Council and city staff. One community with high-quality services for citizens. Continue to provide excellent legal and procedural guidance to City Council and administrative bodies as needed for city operations. Develop strong relationships with department and attend 100% of the meetings or hearings as needed or requested. Goal is an ongoing effort. None. Serve the people of Arizona by assuring the consistent and ethical application of criminal justice. One community committed to public safety. Continue to aggressively prosecute Glendale City Code and state law misdemeanor violations. 118 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Attorney's Office Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Obtain 80% conviction rate or plea agreements on misdemeanor charges. When appropriate, facilitate resolution of cases by mediation and successful completion of diversion programs. Goal is an ongoing effort. Budget constraints. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Improvements to the Prosecutor’s software program, JustWare, have allowed for a more efficient drafting of plea agreements, which is especially helpful in the courtrooms. Electronic files now exist in JustWare for every defendant.  Application and acceptance of a Stop Violence Against Women grant in the amount of $148,812 from the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families. Funding from this grant was used to hire a special Misdemeanor Domestic Violence (DV) Prosecutor and DV Advocate for a one year. This grant may be extended for an additional two years if funding from the Governor’s Office is available.  The Prosecutor’s Office continues to use law student interns. Accomplishments:  Continued to represent the city in litigation brought by third parties.  Vigorously prosecuted all city code violations and misdemeanor violations of state law that are supported by probable cause and ensure that justice is served. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Performance Measures? Obstacles/Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Performance Measures? Obstacles/Challenges Provide high quality, professional and timely legal services to the Mayor, City Council and city staff. One community with high-quality services for its citizens. Yes. Attend 100% of the meetings/hearings as needed or requested. None. Work to ensure the consistent and ethical application of criminal justice. One community committed to public safety. Yes. Obtained an overall conviction rate of 88%. In addition, 374 cases were plead to diversion programs. None. 119 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Attorney's Office FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Through a Governor’s Office of Highway Safety grant, laptops and printers were purchased and wireless hubs installed in the court house for the prosecutors. The equipment made it possible to create plea agreements, receive documents from the Motor Vehicle Division, receive and communicate with the office by e-mail, access the office JustWare Program and print while anywhere in the court house. Consequently, the prosecutors have seen an improvement in their overall management of their cases as well as improvement reduction in the amount of time required by both prosecutors and support staff to complete their duties. Accomplishments:  Continued to represent the city in litigation brought by third parties.  Vigorously prosecuted all Glendale City Code violations and misdemeanor violations of state law that are supported by probable cause and ensure that justice is served. GOAL UPDATES Goal Provide high quality, professional and timely legal services to the Mayor, City Council and city staff. One community with high quality services for its citizens. Yes. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Attend 100% of the meetings/hearings as needed or requested. Performance Measures? None. Obstacles/Challenges Serve the people of Arizona by assuring the consistent and ethical application of criminal justice. One community committed to public safety. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Obtain 85% conviction rate or plea agreements on misdemeanor What were the Performance Measures? charges. Budget constraints. Obstacles/Challenges Goal 120 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT City Attorney CITY ATTORNEY FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) City Attorney (1000) Outside Legal Fees Total - City Attorney BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget $2,378,306 $1,000,000 $2,554,970 $500,000 7% 0% $2,639,713 $2,884,723 $3,378,306 $3,054,970 6% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget Total -City Attorney FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $2,201,327 $397,244 $2,461,073 $628,336 $2,461,073 $1,121,919 $2,517,244 $616,846 2% -2% $32,802 $30,586 $30,586 $44,042 44% $8,340 $7,818 $7,818 $8,588 ($243,090) (1000) City Attorney Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $2,384,723 $500,000 Work Order Credits FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2013 Budget $2,348,048 $291,665 Internal Service Charges Total - City Attorney FY 2012 Estimate $2,639,713 $2,884,723 ($243,090) $3,378,306 ($131,750) $3,054,970 10% -46% 6% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 26 27 25 25 -7% 26 27 25 25 -7% 121 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Clerk Department CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT Pam Hanna Mission Statement: To consistently and constantly maintain superior service to the citizens, elected officials and staff by providing an accurate and current legislative record including the Glendale City Code Book; a comprehensive and accessible records management system; a responsible and effective public notification program; an impartial and efficient municipal election, campaign finance, and redistricting process and other public services such as processing public record requests, recording documents, preparing City Council minutes and retaining permanent city records. Department Description: The City Clerk Department’s responsibilities are defined by the City Charter, City Code, State Statutes and Federal Laws. The department’s primary functions are focused on informing our citizens about public meetings, public records, the City Charter and Code Book and municipal elections. Our department is responsible for providing public notice to our citizens about what the city is planning to do and when and where the issues are being discussed by publishing and posting to the official notice board, the City Clerk’s internet page, and the official newspaper.      Our department further contributes to municipal transparency by formatting and linking the items in the City Council agenda and support documents for posting on the City Clerk web page prior to every City Council meeting. The official record of the meetings, the City Council minutes, are prepared and posted to the same website after every meeting. In addition, we compile the minutes of all other city public meetings assuring their availability on the internet. Management of the City Charter and Code book is another significant public information service the City Clerk Department provides to our citizens. We verify and process all charter amendments and ordinances as a part of the codification process. The City Charter and Code Book is then made available in our office, city libraries and on the internet so citizens can research the laws and regulations of the city Our department oversees and implements the city’s record management program which directs the processing, organizing, and storing of all city records. We manage the city’s record center where thousands of records are stored, scanned and/or microfilmed. The City Clerk Department teaches record management classes and assists other departments in indexing, scanning and researching in the Clerk’s electronic records database. At the same time, we facilitate the public’s access to those records through an interactive internet record request form and other methods of record request. We provide voter and political committee services which are vital and necessary to the community by planning and conducting municipal elections, in partnership with Maricopa County. We also assist citizens who wish to run for office, as well as receiving political committee campaign finance filings and posting them to the internet. Recently, we managed the city’s redistricting process, successfully complying with the City Charter, State and Federal laws. Our six employees are functional in all areas of departmental processes and procedures. The integration of staff’s knowledge and assignments assures that the city’s critical responsibilities are fulfilled with regard to public notices, public records, public record 122 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Clerk Department requests, the Charter and Code Book and municipal elections. The City Clerk Department facilitates our citizens’ rights to participate in city government. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Successfully plan and conduct the 2012 Fall Municipal Elections. One community with high quality services for citizens. Activities include but not limited to:  Nomination process.  Department of Justice submittal.  Early ballot requests.  Political committee filings.  Translation of election materials and canvass of votes. 100% compliance with all election laws; all Primary and General election processes performed successfully, and seamless coordination with Maricopa County. Process expected to be complete by January 2013. Raising the awareness of registered voters to encourage their voting in city elections. Purge Day 2013. One community with high quality services for citizens. Planning and execution of all Purge Day events for 2013. Includes invitation to all department liaisons, tracking can requests for delivery and pickup, working with Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), Field Operations and Warehouse staff for implementation, vendor selection and pricing, storing of cans at Spring City awaiting shred truck, shred day and recycling at MRF. Equal to or increased purge activity for individual departments. 4 weeks. Change of can style may limit companies who can shred onsite; completing in one day to reduce cost of rented shredding truck. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Contracts, Resolutions, and Ordinances with user friendly search feature added to City Clerk web page to promote transparency in government. 123 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Clerk Department  Redistricting web page with interactive maps, statistics and citizen comment functions. Accomplishments:  Redistricting – the City Clerk Department successfully coordinated and conducted the Redistricting effort for the City of Glendale resulting in new district lines being approved by the Department of Justice in December of 2011 with no issues or questions.  Preparation of I-Pad version of agenda and council packet posted to City Clerk web page, available to citizens to download.  Purge Day completed by partnering with Field Operations Recycling and Sanitation, Materials Recovery Facility and Material Control departments. The City Clerk Department and 33 departments purged 644 boxes or 108 recycle cans, resulting in 18,520 pounds (9.26 tons) of recycled paper.  Voter Outreach events conducted on three separate dates’ voter registration and permanent early voting forms completed and sent to county.  City Clerk Services Update class was offered to all city employees. The original class was held in 2010. Follow up questions and discussion assisted departments in understanding the clerk department functions and reasons for processes in place.  Contract Management Training Class – offered as a part of the Supervisor Brown Bag Classes, sponsored by the HR Department.  Retention Schedule Management Class for Library staff. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Successful completion of city charter required redistricting. State and federal statutes mandate redistricting of the existing six council districts to reflect changes in population and demographics pursuant to the 2010 Decennial Census. One community with high quality services for citizens. Yes. The City Clerk Dept. successfully coordinated and conducted the redistricting effort resulting in new district lines to reflect changes in population and demographics pursuant to the 2010 Decennial Census. City Council and Justice Department approval of 2011 Redistricting What were the Performance Measures? proposal. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Related Council Goal There were no major issues with the redistricting although it was a challenge to get voters/residents to participate in the process. Completion of Parks and Recreation Department Pilot Project: group that is conducting an electronic purging of expired documents according to the city’s retention schedules. The goal of this endeavor is to create a reproducible manual that can be used to conduct electronic purges of department files on a regular basis. The longterm goal is to hold an annual Electronic Records Purge Day. One community with high-quality services for citizens. 124 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Clerk Department The project is not complete; however, substantial progress has been made and the process is continuing. Expired documents have been Was the goal met? purged and electronic storage space made available. The reproducible manual is in draft form. Reduction in expired documents and gain in electronic storage What were the Performance Measures? space. The process has one Parks and Recreation staff member assigned to it and the reduction in staffing levels has impacted the amount of Obstacles/Challenges time available to spend on this project. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Searching capabilities were improved by adding an additional field to the electronic record management contract index. Due to the increasing number of requests for contracts and additional questions about the City Council meeting approval dates, the contract process was modified to include this information as an ongoing searchable field at no additional cost to the city. Accomplishments:  Updated the City Clerk Services Manual. The manual is an aid to employees of other departments doing business with the City Clerk’s Department; training on City Clerk’s Services held with the objective of the familiarizing employees with our processes, the services manual, and to answer specific questions.  The 2010 Primary and General Elections were completed, with the approval of the Canvass of Votes by the City Council. Election process includes a myriad of legal, managerial, and intergovernmental processes.  Purge Day was held in January, partnering with Field Operations, Landfill, Material Recovery Facility and Materials Controls. The City Clerk’s Department and 26 departments purged 459 banker boxes, resulting in 17,300 pounds of recycled paper. GOAL UPDATES Goal Plan and initiate voter outreach events. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes, with events occurring in August 2010 at Freshman Orientation Day at ASU West; March 2011 at the Green Festival at the Main Was the goal met? Library; April 2011 at the International Festival at Glendale Community College and West CultureFest at ASU West. All voter outreach events were located within the city hosting regional events held during peak time such as weekend or evening What were the for greatest potential contact; support by three volunteers from the Performance Measures? Mayor’s Youth Advisory Commission and two volunteers from local colleges/universities. Events were held on nights and weekends and it was a challenge to Obstacles/Challenges 125 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Clerk Department hold more due to limited staff availability at these times. Goal Plan and conduct records management classes for the organization. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Two classes were held, one focused on records management Was the goal met? and one City Clerk Services class conducted for the organization. Classes were interactive with questions and discussion. The Records What were the Management Class had 17 participants from 12 departments. The Performance Measures? City Clerk Services Class had 53 participants from 19 departments. Due to limited staff time and conflicting meeting times, lower Obstacles/Challenges attendance was noticed at these classes. 126 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT City Clerk CITY CLERK FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) City Clerk (1000) Elections (1000) Records Management Total - City Clerk BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $392,031 $85,772 $372,249 $111,556 $370,864 $97,996 $412,442 $138,941 $141,139 $134,634 $133,274 $147,358 9% $618,942 $618,439 $602,134 $698,741 13% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 11% 25% Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $463,732 $488,853 $488,853 $492,829 1% Supplies and Contracts $134,875 $166,092 $149,787 $193,201 16% $10,862 $9,139 $9,139 $9,212 1% $3,427 $6,046 $3,203 $3,203 $3,499 9% ($48,848) ($48,848) $618,942 $618,439 $602,134 Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges Operating Capital Work Order Credits Total - City Clerk FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM $698,741 13% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) City Clerk 4 4 4 4 0% (1000) Records Management 2 2 2 2 0% 6 6 6 6 0% Total -City Clerk 127 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Court CITY COURT Judge Finn Mission Statement: To provide a forum for prompt, fair and just resolution of cases in a professional, efficient and courteous manner. Department Description: Glendale City Court adjudicates criminal misdemeanors, city code violations, traffic violations, and certain juvenile offenses committed in the city of Glendale. In cases of domestic violence and harassment, the court issues protective orders. The court has the authority to issue search warrants for misdemeanors and felonies. Glendale City Court collaborates with numerous internal and external justice and community agencies to develop and implement programs to reduce recidivism and promote safe communities. Approximately 120,000 customers enter the court each year to conduct business. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Explore community collaborations and partnerships to identify new and innovative methods of adjudicating specialized offender populations, such as defendants with mental health disorders. One community committed to public safety. Consideration of potential diversion programs and dismissal options for appropriate non-violent carefully-screened defendants. Reductions in the levels of staff resources and costs necessary to process cases involving specialized offender populations. This is an ongoing goal requiring frequent consultation and review with court staff and outside stakeholders. Strong education efforts are vital to inform city management and Glendale citizens about the benefits of utilizing non-traditional judicial intervention to enhance the success of specialized offender populations. Submit a FY12 grant funding proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. One community with high quality services for citizens. If the grant is received, the City Court would work in partnership with the Glendale Police Department to:  Hire and train domestic violence high-lethality victim advocate.  Continue funding protective order service coordinator.  Develop new offense-specific domestic violence police reports.  Fund overtime pay for domestic violence detectives to serve warrants on domestic violence fugitives. 128 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Court  Activities (con’t) Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Work in partnership with non-profit provider A New Leaf to continue offering one FTE court-based domestic violence victim advocate.  Schedule one temporary judge pro tem to continue presiding over domestic violence cases and protective order petitions during the lunch hour. Submittal of the grant’s first required semi-annual progress report to the U.S. Department of Justice in January 2013 would reflect full successful implementation of all project elements. This two-year project period runs from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014. Implementation of all project elements is dependent upon successful award of the grant proposal. It should be noted that the Court has received three consecutive D.O.J. awards totaling $1.2 million since 2005. Congress has authorized continued federal funding for FY13 through the Violence Against Women Act. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  All five city courtrooms have been equipped with high fidelity digital audio recording systems. The new media solution ensures all court proceedings are archived for accurate appellate proceedings and other historical purposes. The software-based recording system creates sound files on a courtroom computer which can be moved to the court’s network, a CD, a DVD, or any other computer-compatible storage media. The audio system was procured with Arizona Supreme Court “Fill The Gap” funding, at no additional cost to the City Court.  Through the city’s Innovate Program, the Court’s Fines Management Supervisor helped develop a new process for depositing bond money which saves the Police Department’s Detention Supervisors approximately eight hours of work each month. Instead of handdelivering large cash deposits to the city’s Finance Department, the Detention Supervisors now transfer that money to court staff when they retrieve the Court bond deposit. Both bond deposits are secured in the Court safe until an armored car conducts its daily pickup. Accomplishments:  Glendale City Court was selected to participate in a FARE (Fines, Fees and Restitution Enforcement) Revenue Enhancement Collections Pilot Project administered by the Arizona Supreme Court. This effort targeted current open receivables accounts in FARE that remain uncollected. Skip tracing software was used to locate absconders to obtain current information to better effectuate collection activities. Data for the three-month pilot showed Glendale was one of five top Courts in the State by collecting more than $66,500 during the project. The Court has been aggressive in identifying eligible FARE cases for collections to help offset reductions in case filings which mirror local and national court caseload trends. 129 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Court  Glendale’s award-winning Treatment Court program for domestic violence defendants recorded 420 successful graduates in FY12. For over seven years, this specialized court has insured offender accountability through frequent judicial oversight and close monitoring of counseling status and other sentencing conditions. Treatment Court is a past recipient of the Arizona Supreme Court’s “Justice for a Better Arizona” Achievement Award. To date, more than 5,800 defendants have graduated. GOAL UPDATES Continue to process and adjudicate cases in accordance with state statutes, rules of the Supreme Court and the US Constitution, while Goal maintaining superior customer service. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. The Court continues to compile and submit a monthly DUI case aging report to monitor adjudication status in accordance with standards established by the Arizona Supreme Court. The Courtroom Operations Supervisor prioritizes the calendaring of DUI cases to expedite case completion. The Court’s Case Flow/Case Was the goal met? Management Committee initiated the development of a specialized DUI Review Calendar to complement these efforts. A supervised probation review docket was also established to monitor compliance of repeat offenders of domestic violence. No backlog observed on court calendared cases. Individual case What were the terminations will continue to exceed Performance Measures? case filings. None. Obstacles/Challenges Develop additional electronic court forms to reduce costs and maximize staffing resources. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Daily court division calendars and appearance orders are now disseminated to all parties electronically instead of hard copy. Protective order forms can now be completed in fillable PDF format and filed with the court electronically from its website. Public records requests are satisfied with scanned documents emailed to Was the goal met? customers whenever possible. Other electronic forms available on the Court website include standard motions, motions to continue, application to set aside judgment, arraignment notice and home detention enrollment. Decreased duplication costs: In FY09 the Court spent $27,426 on duplication costs. In FY10 the Court spent $14,240 on duplicating What were the Performance Measures? costs. In FY11 the Court spent $12,462 on duplicating costs. Projected duplicating costs for FY12 are approximately $10,951. None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal 130 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Court FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Glendale City Court has increased the flexibility, frequency, and cost effectiveness of training its staff to meet annual judicial education requirements mandated by the Supreme Court. The court’s Training Coordinator organized a Faculty Skills Development (FSD) Training Team to conduct in-house training courses on a variety of judicial education topics. The FSD Training Team offers at least one training class per month to staff to supplement the court’s ongoing training calendar. During 2010, the Training Coordinator accredited 74 different classes, e-learning opportunities and independent learning modules including 29 on-site courses. Adding to its menu of training opportunities, Glendale City Court serves as a satellite receptor site for statewide broadcast events sponsored by the Arizona Supreme Court and other entities. Accomplishments:  Arizona law enables misdemeanant domestic violence offenders with one prior conviction to be placed on felony-level supervision offered by the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department. In Glendale City Court, a caseload of such defendants is actively supervised in the community by a specialized domestic violence probation officer/surveillance officer team. In late 2010 this probation team assisted the court in developing a monthly review calendar for all second-offense domestic violence offenders. These individuals are summoned to Court for a formal review of their compliance status toward counseling orders and financial sanctions. Noncompliant defendants face added punishment, such as community service and/or incarceration. Since this process was implemented, probation officers report that defendants are more actively engaged in complying with the conditions of their probation directives.  Glendale’s Treatment Court Program for DUI and domestic violence defendants recorded its 5,000th successful graduate this year. For six years, this specialized court has insured offender accountability through frequent judicial oversight and close monitoring of sentencing conditions. Looking forward through fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the court will phase out all DUI cases from the Treatment Court program and instead closely monitor these cases under separate review hearings. The result will be a specialized Treatment Court dedicated solely to monitoring domestic violence defendants. A recent court study on program outcomes and effectiveness of Treatment Court helped initiate this change, which will lead to better allocation of court staffing resources. Treatment Court is a past recipient of the Arizona Supreme Court’s “Justice for a Better Arizona” Achievement Award. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Increase defendant compliance rates with court financial obligations. One community that is fiscally sound. An automated financial contracts module has been designed and deployed through the Court’s AZTEC Wizard case management system. Phone calls to defendants are now triggered after the first missed payment. The contracts module is saving staff time through reduced direct contact with the public. 131 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Court Implemented new fines collection strategies to increase defendant What were the Performance Measures? compliance. Comprehensive training and project updates were necessary to insure staff was comfortable with new business practices. Sufficient staffing levels are directly correlated to effectively processing the Obstacles/Challenges volume of revenue-generating phone calls arising from the new contracts module. However, reduced staffing levels have accompanied deployment of the contracts module. Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Increase the operational efficiency of jail court services and reduce jail court costs. One community committed to public safety. One community that is fiscally sound.  Jail Court calendaring modifications allowed the elimination of inmate transportation to Jail Court each Thursday morning, which achieves direct cost savings for the Police Department’s prisoner maintenance budget.  The Court Jail Efficiencies Committee worked with the City Prosecutors Office to recommend changes in custody policies to save additional jail costs. When automated detention databases reveal a Glendale inmate is also being held in custody from another jurisdiction, that defendant is now released on their own recognizance to insure Glendale does not incur the incarceration costs. The defendant remains in custody on the alternate jurisdiction’s charge. Since June 2010, bookings of 83 Glendale defendants were avoided due to custody holds from other jurisdictions. Had these defendants been booked, a minimum of $15,600 in costs would have been incurred for the first jail day alone.  Jail expenditures paid by the Glendale Police Department to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office were reduced by more than $214,000 between fiscal years 2009 and 2010, in part due to the work of the Court Jail Efficiencies Committee.  Home detention with electronic monitoring and random alcohol testing continues to provide substantial cost savings. During 2010, 305 defendants successfully completed their home detention sentencing requirements for a total of 9,069 days of electronic monitoring in lieu of incarceration. Had these 9,069 days been spent in jail, more than $667,000 would have been incurred in jail costs. All defendants are carefully screened to preclude home detention participation by violent offenders. What were the Reduced jail court operational costs for the city of Glendale. Performance Measures? Proposed legislative bills on home detention require close Obstacles/Challenges monitoring for potential impacts on court and detention operations. 132 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT City Court CITY COURT FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) City Court (1240) Court Security (1240) Court Time Payments FY 2011 Actual BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges FY 2012 Estimate $3,353,567 $278,357 $3,570,321 $471,345 5% 18% $75,693 $128,391 $127,177 $129,699 1% $8,193 $57,000 $3,542 $57,000 0% $3,808,103 $3,971,652 $3,762,643 $4,228,365 6% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate (1240) Court Security (1240) Court Time Payments Total -City Court Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $3,492,263 $3,489,695 $3,526,377 1% $540,538 $682,441 $479,035 $672,592 -1% $31,940 $41,890 $30,163 $43,079 $30,163 $40,044 $30,479 $41,170 1% -4% ($276,294) ($276,294) $9,403 (1000) City Court FY 2013 Budget $3,184,332 Work Order Credits FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $3,387,792 $398,469 Operating Capital Total - City Court FY 2013 Budget $3,453,731 $270,486 (1240) Fill the Gap Total - City Court FY 2012 Budget $3,808,103 $0 $3,971,652 $3,762,643 $10,000 ($52,253) $4,228,365 -81% 6% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 42.75 40.75 37.75 37.75 -7% 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 100% 0% 44.75 42.75 40.75 40.75 -5% 133 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Mission Statement: To enhance the quality of life for Glendale residents by providing collaborative and supportive leadership for the organization as it implements City Council policy and goals in the provision of valued services to the community. Department Description: The City Manager’s Office is responsible for seeking policy direction from Council and preparing recommendations for Council action in accordance with established strategic goals and key objectives; ensuring effective and efficient internal operations citywide; and establishing value-added programs and services for the citizens of Glendale. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Continue to provide leadership and accountability for the organization through vigilant oversight of the city’s budget during the challenging economic recession and downturn. One community that is fiscally sound. Schedule budget workshops with City Council, as needed, to provide timely review and transparency regarding departmental budgeting, forecasting and revenue generating opportunities. Quarterly operational, business plan and financial reviews position the city to reassess expenditures, city-wide programs and departmental budgeting to prepare the city for an eventual economic rebound. May require numerous budget workshops and City Council meetings, along with subsequent staff time, to provide information to the public including potential public budget meetings in various areas throughout the city. Ensure budget information is provided on a timely basis well in advance of the meetings so there is adequate time to review the materials. Provide leadership, vision and accountability for the organization as economic development and redevelopment opportunities surface and require City Council action. One community with quality economic development. Facilitate and encourage business development in the Glendale Centerline, Glendale Avenue corridor and Westgate/Zanjero areas which will engage City Council, the public and business communities. 134 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Manager's Office Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Additional new business development, business partnerships and redevelopment of existing businesses to initiate new synergistic opportunities for revenue and job creation. Requires the time commitment of several departments within the city to facilitate business development including the City Manager’s Office. New projects may require fast turnaround times by limited staffing. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  The City Council agenda process was reviewed by the INNOVATE team and newly streamlined procedures have been implemented including the Glendale Bulletin tool created by Information Technology whereby the Council agenda was incorporated into one weekly update that city staff, or the public, can receive online. In addition, an agenda sign-up form will be available at City Council evening meetings and workshop meetings so citizens can easily complete a request to be added to the automatic e-mail for the agenda and other city public relations information. A new feature was created to refer city staff to online agenda information links rather than a duplicative process whereby individual e-mails were sent by the agenda administrator. The agenda administrator eliminated several informational lists that were combined into one list for ease of reading resulting in less preparation time. The City Council goal section was removed from all Council Communications for evening voting and workshop meetings saving time for city staff and reducing printing costs.  The 2011 United Way Campaign, overseen by the City Manager’s Office in partnership with the Fire Department, successfully implemented an innovative campaign increasing employee attendance at events including the annual Chili Cook-Off while minimizing expenditures to less than $500. The 2011 United Way Campaign donation total was $112,638 and Glendale was ranked 11th on United Way’s top 25 campaigns for companies with 1000-1999 employees. In addition, Glendale was the second strongest municipal campaign after the City of Phoenix.  The City Manager’s Office placed an emphasis on workplace training, teamwork and efficiency resulting in a staff reduction of one FTE (Executive Admin Assistant) while maintaining the same level of customer service to stakeholders within the organization. Accomplishments:  Successfully implemented two City Council Retreats including an informative presentation on the economic outlook by Elliott Pollack and Company. The Council Retreat in December 2011 provided information on how the city should prepare for the eventual economic recovery and how proper planning can impact the city’s future.  Continued to foster diversity in the workplace by City Manager’s Office representation on the Diversity Task Force. The City Manager’s Office staff participated in Diversity Dialogues, MLK luncheon, Cesar Chavez breakfast and other events to promote the importance of a diverse, informed workforce. 135 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Manager's Office  The City Manager’s Office worked closely with the Economic Development Department to attract or expand seven businesses totaling approximately 1,520 jobs and retained businesses in Glendale while maintaining a strong economic base. In the second quarter, the city’s Economic Development Department, at the direction of the City Manager’s Office, brought three new businesses to the community which will result in approximately 1,178 new jobs. In addition, the Tanger Outlet mall at Westgate will result assist in generating sales tax revenues, jobs and visitor and tourism dollars into the local economic base. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Expand the INNOVATE program to include community outreach and communication, integration of technology, and continued employee education on LEAN methodology. One community with high quality services for citizens. Yes, initiatives are ongoing.   What were the Performance Measures?  Details regarding the INNOVATE program have been integrated into the Glendale University curriculum, the program will be featured in an upcoming episode of Glendale Full Circle on Channel 11, and information about our program was presented at the annual League of Arizona Cities and Towns conference. We also provided training to two members of the Mohave County Department of Public Health who are interested in establishing a LEAN program, staff participated in a national City Innovators Summit to share program details, and information has been shared with several other local governments in the region. The administration of the INNOVATE program has been fully integrated into the Technology & Innovation department which was the first step in incorporating the use of the INNOVATE initiative with technology. Additionally, the resources of the INNOVATE team have been utilized for documenting about 90 processes for the Police Department in preparation for their technology project to replace the computer-aided dispatch/records management system. Finally, several steps have been taken this fiscal year to assess and educate employees regarding the program including: employee and leadership team surveys, development of specific program initiatives aimed at communication/outreach, program details incorporated into new employee orientation, partnership with Human Resources to present as part of the Brown Bag Supervisory Series, and the successful recruitment/training of 13 new INNOVATE team members. Plans continue for additional organizational outreach and education in the coming fiscal year. 136 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Manager's Office Obstacles/Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Staff time to participate in learning opportunities is limited and finding ways to reach more employees has been a challenge. Utilize the INNOVATE program to examine the internal Council Agenda preparation process to create a simplified and more efficient process for departments to submit items for Council agendas; and, decrease the level of difficulty in producing the final agenda. One community with high quality services for citizens. Yes, initiatives are ongoing.   What were the Performance Measures?   Obstacles/Challenges The City Council agenda process was reviewed by the INNOVATE team and newly streamlined procedures have been implemented including the Glendale Bulletin tool created by Information Technology whereby the Council agenda was incorporated into one weekly update that city staff, or the public, can receive online. In addition, an agenda sign-up form will be available at City Council evening meetings and workshop meetings so citizens can easily complete a request to be added to the automatic email for the agenda and other city public relations information. A new feature was created to refer city staff to online agenda information links rather than a duplicative process whereby individual e-mails were sent by the agenda administrator. The agenda administrator eliminated several informational lists that were combined into one list for ease of reading resulting in less preparation time. The Council goal section was removed from all Council Communications for evening voting and workshop meetings saving time for city staff and reducing printing costs. The internal, departmental Council Agenda preparation process is continuing to evolve in keeping with the goal of creating a simplified and more efficient process for departments to submit items for Council agendas. A paperless departmental submittal format is still in the planning stages. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Discontinued the practice of numbering Council Agenda items to accommodate the ability to add or remove items as needed without creating the need to re-number all items. This change has provided greater flexibility in the preparation process and reduced the amount of staff time required to accommodate unanticipated changes. 137 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES City Manager's Office Accomplishments:  Successfully executed a unique City Council retreat where line level employees made presentations on innovative solutions that have been implemented in their areas. This event was very informative and provided an opportunity to share a story with the City Council and the community about the importance of nurturing an innovative culture, as well as the simplistic nature of finding ways to work smarter and save money.  Continued to maintain value-added services and amenities for Glendale citizens despite the economic downturn by absorbing internal vacancies, being creative in service delivery, and capitalizing on opportunities to realign resources and services. GOAL UPDATES Encourage organizational change by empowering employees to utilize the INNOVATE program (LEAN methodology) for Goal streamlining everyday business practices to increase operational efficiency and explore new business concepts. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Under the new leadership structure with Chair and Co-Chair positions, the INNOVATE team implemented new program enhancements, recruited and trained new members, planned and Was the goal met? coordinated the Council Retreat presentations, and continued to take on several new projects. Implemented five program enhancements, trained 11 new team What were the members, received positive feedback on the Council Retreat Performance Measures? presentations, and took on 11 new projects. Retaining INNOVATE team members has been a challenge due to the fact that many employees are absorbing duties of other positions Obstacles/Challenges and have found it difficult to remain actively engaged on the team. Implement Council policy direction related to protecting and promoting the economic development and vitality of our community Goal and safeguarding current economic investments. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal This is an ongoing goal, staff has worked continuously throughout the year to retain key tenants and bring new tenants to Glendale to Was the goal met? support economic vitality. A total of 1,085 new jobs have been located in Glendale through six What were the Performance Measures? employer expansion projects and three new business locates. The economic downturn has created challenges as well as ensuring the community has a good understanding of the city’s investment in Obstacles/Challenges strategic development and the losses that could result if we discontinue pursuing the protection of those investments. 138 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT City Manager CITY MANAGER FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) City Manager Total - City Manager BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $971,182 $895,124 $889,395 $827,696 -8% $971,182 $895,124 $889,395 $827,696 -8% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $886,885 $859,242 $859,242 $794,045 -8% Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums $69,335 $9,894 $114,574 $7,335 $108,845 $7,335 $85,023 $7,004 -26% -5% Internal Service Charges $5,068 Work Order Credits Total - City Manager FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) City Manager Total -City Manager $971,182 $2,543 $2,543 $2,820 11% ($88,570) ($88,570) ($61,196) -31% $895,124 $889,395 $827,696 -8% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 7 7 5 5 -29% 7 7 5 5 -29% 139 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications Communications Department Civic Center Marketing COMMUNICATIONS Julie Frisoni Mission Statement: To develop and implement marketing and public relations programs, resident communications and visitor services that promote Glendale and ensure the city’s key messages are delivered to target audiences in an accurate, timely and cost-effective manner. Department Description: The Marketing/Communications Department consists of nine divisions, including the Public Relations Office, Special Events, Tourism and the new Glendale Convention & Visitors Bureau, Glendale 11, Glendale Media Center, Web Services, Creative Services, Glendale Civic Center and Administration. Marketing/Communications produces and oversees Glendale’s print and electronic communications with the public and the media, as well as develops communication strategies and marketing campaigns that enhance the city’s image. The city’s special events, produced in this department, draw about one-half million visitors to downtown Glendale annually. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Successfully transition Glendale Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) from a membership fee based budget model to a bed tax revenue budget model. One community with quality economic development. Update CVB Business Plan to reflect organization’s new funding model, establish new organization bylaws, create new hotel advisory group, meet with group to identify budget priorities, develop new advertising, marketing and sales plan, etc. 140 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications  Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Seek events to bring to Glendale that meet our mission to increase overnight stays.  Increase marketing and promotion both nationally and internationally to target markets which meets the goal of increasing bed sales throughout Glendale’s 13 hotel properties.  Engage hotel advisory group in regular and ongoing meetings to develop strategies and initiatives to further Glendale’s presence in the overnight stay market. This will be nearly a full-time job for the small, 2.5 FTE Glendale CVB staff. Staff resources. Develop higher revenue generation with a new rate increase, the first rate increase since the Civic Center opened more than a decade ago. One community that is fiscally sound. One community with a vibrant city center. Increase promotion and marketing of the facility throughout the meeting and trade associations industry, in-house marketing events, monthly communication to clients and public relations opportunities with the media. Increase revenue 20% from FY2012 levels. This will vary by each individual sale but the overall process will take the entire FY to establish the success of the new rate structure. The Civic Center sales staff will be concentrating 75% of their business day on facility sales including audio-visual sales, which is an integral part of facility sales that is currently taking place. The hospitality industry continues to feel the impact of the economic downturn including the decrease in catering from clients who are focused on room rental and less on food/beverage. Another possible challenge is the new rate increase and any concerns from long-time clients who will now be charged more. The facility’s general fund transfer has been decreased due to overall citywide budget cuts; this creates a challenge in many areas including very limited funds for paying for advertising. Increase usage of Civic Center’s in-house Audio/Visual staff and equipment to generate revenue. One community that is fiscally sound. One community with a vibrant city center. At every opportunity sell in-house A/V services to meetings, conferences and social groups that use the Civic Center. Increase revenue from A/V sales by 0.5% from FY12. 141 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities This will vary by each individual sale but the overall process will take the entire FY to establish the success of the new rate structure. The Civic Center sales staff will be concentrating 75% of their business day on facility sales including A/V sales, which is an integral part of facility sales that is currently taking place. The uncertainty of the current economy may hold some clients back from purchasing the “extras” for their meetings. The Civic Center sales staff will identify their need and sell A/V services whenever possible. Attract new special events to Glendale. One community with a vibrant city center. One community with high quality services for citizens. Research area events and determine their potential to move to Glendale. Also, continue networking with regional festival and event promoters to help ensure they know Glendale is interested in hosting events in our city. Bring, or facilitate in bringing, one new event to Glendale in FY13. This would be a regular commitment of a few hours each week in terms of research, phone calls, meetings with prospective promoters and required due diligence. Competition from others (both municipalities and private sector), as well as the level of support Glendale is willing to provide in terms of support. Continue to secure a high volume of positive media stories about city services, events and programs. Emphasis will be given to stories on services to residents, and those with potential for economic impact. One community with strong neighborhoods. One community with a vibrant city center. One community with quality economic development.  Seek proactive opportunities for media coverage of city’s programs, events and services.  Respond to media inquiries, including message and talking point development.  Promote upcoming events and activities through the various media tools: news releases, alerts, social media, targeted pitching, story development.  Identify and implement new PR programs/contests to maximize public relations exposure.  Maintain relationships with city departments to identify newsworthy events. 142 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications  Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Meet reporter deadlines and provide information needed on the same business day.  Produce an average 12 positive stories a month.  Add 75 followers to media twitter account.  Establish new media relationships with 10 new media representatives. This is a yearlong goal requiring about 80% of all available staff time.  Keeping a strong balance between the positive and negative stories  Identify new method of researching media to replace CISION. Develop strategic partnerships that can help cross-promote the city’s events and tourism efforts. One community with quality economic development.  Tag team with other businesses such as Arrowhead Towne Center, a large regional mall located in Glednale, or Westgate City Center to raise awareness or increase exposure on city campaigns or events.  Use partner databases to reach larger audiences and coordinate joint events.  Explore potential partnerships with Centerline Arts Community, other Valley city PIOs, other CVBs, businesses in Sports & Entertainment district, Arrowhead Towne Center, and the education community.  Additional dollars or in-kind trade from partners for joint events valued at $5,000  2 joint FAM, media tours in support of tourism. This is a yearlong time commitment requiring about 10% of senior manager’s time and 10% of staff time. Editorial in some travel publications involve high expenses because the CVB has to pay for the writer to come out, so a partnership can leverage some of the costs. Evolve city’s online multi-media presence through increased use of online video and social media strategies and continue to grow Glendale 11 programming, the city’s local cable station, through the use of online video tools and other social media. One community with high quality services for citizens.  Collaborating with city departments in email blasts and website postings to make sure online video resources are easily available to citizens.  Promote web-specific video content suitable for the fast-paced mobile world.  Create and launch strategic designs that enhance video services 143 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications Activities (con’t) Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges online.  Expanded use of Glendale 11 resources targeted for online use.  Prioritize shoots, stories and shows for online purposes over on air content. Increase online downloads/viewership of online video by 5%. Increased Glendale 11 content online by 10%. This would be an ongoing commitment with multiple hours spent daily from Production and Web staff. Meeting changing mobile video requirements and growing storytelling skills with technical staff. Enhance city’s mobile web presence. One community with high quality services for citizens. Continue to use mobile website, video and social media tools that can further the city’s messaging via mobile devices. Increased mobile page views, increased number of mobile communication/social media campaigns. For example, the groundbreaking of one of the largest retail developments to occur in the city in FY12, Tanger Outlets, was live tweeted by city staff. Ongoing. Cost of some mobile solutions. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Received a grant from the Arizona Community Foundation for induction loop technology to help hard of hearing clients who use the facility. The Glendale Civic Center will be the first conference center in Arizona to have this technology installed.  Began posting weekly video news updates on the home page and every page of the city’s web site. The Glendale 24/7 city news brief allows residents and visitors to quickly get access to the latest city news and information.  Launched a new mobile version of the city’s key tourism site, www.visitglendale.com. Travelers, visitors and residents who want to learn more about the West Valley can now log on via mobile device and get a streamlined version of the complete tourism website.  Implemented weekly list of proactive story ideas created exclusively for reporters, resulting in 5 to 8 new stories per month.  Initiated a new partnership program, which brought forward a multi-faceted promotional marketing and membership strategy to attract new events and activities to the area. This initiative met specific CVB goals, including new memberships, gaining revenues to the communities through bed tax on room rentals and contributing to the overall economic growth of Glendale and the West Valley. Over the past year, these new events have included Kiss Me I’m Irish Run & Walk, Cirque du Soleil, Pro Bull Riding and Pro Roller Derby. 144 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications      Engaged in multiple social media programs and partnerships, which resulted in recordbreaking visitor touch points. Social media products, including Facebook, Twitter and Flickr, grew in viewership and interaction by nearly 700%. The GCVB online print products, which have been converted to fully digital and downloadable formats, continue to see record-breaking views and downloads. Cross-training Center Operations Staff to assist in the areas of A/V and enhanced room set-up (pipe & drape, rear projection screens etc.) This saves revenue dollars and creates a more cohesive staff. The new A/V Specialist was certified at “Bi-Amp Certification School”, to learn to repair, install and design systems using Bi-Amp equipment. Most of the city has this equipment in place and training our in-house specialist will save revenue by eliminating the need for to hire outside firms to service City gear. Created the Center’s first “Prom Experience” trade show. This resulted in two prom bookings. We exceeded last year’s bookings by 3 proms for a total of 9 events which is the maximum the Civic Center can book in any one prom-cycle. Created two in-house marketing events that resulted in 4 new bookings. Accomplishments:  Increased city’s social media presence to 4,400 Facebook followers, 2,500 Twitter followers, 710,000 photo views on Flickr and 216,000 online video views for the city’s YouTube channel. Experienced more than 5.5 million visits to the cities websites in 2011.  Glendale 11 won an award from the ASU Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety for a PSA publicizing the serious consequences of ‘beer runs’ from convenience stores. The PSA was produced in partnership with the Glendale Police Department and the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Commission (MYAC). During the time Glendale 11 broadcast the PSA, the police department saw a 22% decrease in thefts across the board.  For the first time ever, the Glendale Civic Center is ranked #1 by Ranking Arizona: The Best of Arizona Business for 2012.  Oversaw messaging, editorial input and strategy on 400 yearly press releases, news advisories and media pitches resulting in approximately 40 proactive news stories per month in print and/or broadcast.  Attracted more than 425,000 visitors to downtown Glendale through the successful production of the City’s 2011-12 signature festivals.  Glendale Glitters was named one of the top five festivals in the state of Arizona by AAA’s Highroads Magazine.  Glendale Glitters won “Arizona’s Best Of” Critics Choice Award for best kids event by The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com.  Ranked #1 in the state of Arizona for meeting facilities of its size by the Arizona Business Journal’s Ranking Arizona’s 2012 compendium.  On-track to increase A/V revenue by 5% over last year.  By creating sound systems that are more cost effective and easier to install the Civic Center’s A/V Division was able to save the Special Events Department money with gear that was easier to install and breakdown and overall cost. 145 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications GOAL UPDATES Develop new strategic partnerships that can help cross-promote the city’s events and CVB efforts. Potential partners include the Centerline Arts Community; other Valley cities and CVBs; Goal businesses in the Sports & Entertainment district and historic downtown Glendale; Camelback Ranch Glendale; Arrowhead Mall and the Education community. One community with quality economic development. Related Council Goal One community with high quality services for residents. Yes. Was the goal met? Developing a new Glendale CVB sponsorship model to bring added value for events promoters, who bring events to Glendale. This new initiative resulted in several new sponsorships with such events as What were the Performance Measures? Cirque du Soleil, Pro Roller Derby Glendale Invitational, Professional Bull Riders Glendale Invitational and the Kiss Me I’m Irish Run & Walk. Unlike other CVBs in the Valley, the Glendale CVB has not had any funds available to help attract events to Glendale. This puts Obstacles/Challenges Glendale at a competitive disadvantage among other Valley cities, especially in the area of youth and amateur sports tournaments. Attracting new events to the area is a high priority goal for the Office of Special Events this year. One community with a vibrant city center. Related Council Goal One community with high quality services for citizens. Yes. Was the goal met? We proactively brought a new event to Glendale, which was previously held in the city of Peoria. The Kiss Me I’m Irish Run & Walk, which was held in Glendale’s Sports & Entertainment District, more than doubled in the number of participants (2,000+) What were the Performance Measures? this year. The run also attracted hundreds of out of towners. In addition, Special Events staff worked with a downtown merchant and Jivemind, a new downtown business, on a new weekly Jazz Concert series. The Thursday night series began in May. Challenges in creating and bringing new events include attracting Obstacles/Challenges visitors and getting the word out. Goal Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Increase facility usage and revenue at the Glendale Civic Center. One community that is fiscally sound. One community with a vibrant city center. The Civic Center staff is doing everything possible to meet a revenue return of 50%. The Civic Center (with about 2 months left to book) is projected to exceed 2011 A/V revenue by 5% and the social market revenue numbers are up over 20% from FY11. The Center is also projecting an increase of 5% in event attendance. 146 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications Revenue production is a benchmark and in many areas such as the social market, A/V and event attendance, the Civic Center has What were the exceeded 2011 numbers or is projected to do so. Client satisfaction Performance Measures? is also a benchmark and to date the Civic Center is well in the 90% range of client satisfaction per returned surveys and event critiques. With the hospitality industry as a whole still feeling the effects of the ailing economy the profile of many of the meetings held at the Civic Center have changed. There are still meetings taking place Obstacles/Challenges but the purchase of food and beverage and extra equipment such as staging, lighting and other “extras” has dropped. The lack of any type of advertising budget has also been cumbersome.  Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? The Civic Center has two revenue opportunities through technology services. The Audio/Visual (A/V) Division is now positioned to be a full time in-house audio team for all clients. This will assist clients with all A/V needs, create revenue and make the Civic Center a one-stop shop for rental needs.  The second revenue opportunity is to use newly installed electronic reader boards to sell advertising. These high quality television monitors are located in public areas of the facility. They are viewed as directional signage and have the capability to offer advertising as well. We will promote this capability to local downtown businesses. Advertisers taking advantage of the opportunity will be showcased to attendees during Civic Center events throughout the year. One community that is fiscally sound. The A/V line item is on track to be at least 5% over the previous year. What were the A/V being 5% ahead of previous year Performance Measures? The challenge continues to be the economy and what ‘extras’ such Obstacles/Challenges as A/V that clients want to add to their event. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  A paid parking program was initiated for the first time at the two downtown garages during Glendale festivals. This process was conceptualized from an idea generated by the Marketing Department to generate revenue for the city’s General Fund and implemented by the Office of Special Events.  The department continues to expand the use of digital and social media in a variety of ways. Examples include the CVB use of Twitter and Facebook, downloadable brochures, e-newsletters and collateral; Glendale 11’s establishment of a secure online File Transfer Protocol site that allows media and clients to download video material 147 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications  24/7 via a digital address provided by the city at minimal cost, and the Web Division’s use of special url’s that enable more accurate tracking of online advertising performance without paying for additional statistical reporting. Due to the downturn in the economy, businesses have been cutting back on just about everything, but most obviously on holiday functions for their staff. During the 2010 holiday season, the Glendale Civic Center in conjunction with its caterer, Arizona Catering, hosted its first annual Dine and Glitter Holiday Celebration. This event was marketed to businesses throughout the West Valley by utilizing the Civic Center and the Glendale Chamber of Commerce databases. We were successful in attracting five businesses owners and 150 of their employees. This function coincided with the Glendale Glitters celebration and for its first year it was considered a success. We partnered this event with this existing downtown attraction as added value to the businesses and their attendees. Accomplishments:  The Marketing Department leveraged the 2011 Bowl Games for $2.2 million worth of local, regional and national media coverage on a budget of $7,500.  Glendale’s signature events won 6 national awards from the International Festivals and Events Association for Special Events and Glendale 11 programming. These awards are the highest recognition in festivals around the world, competing against such events as the Rose Bowl and the Kentucky Derby.  Glendale 11 and the web team developed a special live streaming video feed of the BCS championship game day, the Glitter & Glow Festival and the Chocolate Affaire; this allowed anyone with access to the Internet to click on what’s happening in Glendale to see live video of these special events.  The Civic Center was rated in the top five meeting and convention centers in the entire state of Arizona through a business poll conducted by Arizona Business Magazine.  Wedding Wire named the Civic Center one of the top venues in the state as part of its 2011 Bride’s Choice Awards. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Performance Measures? Obstacles/Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Transition the Glendale Visitors Center into a new Glendale CVB to enhance tourism marketing efforts. One community with quality economic development. The transition formally took place on July 1, 2010. The Glendale CVB membership drive is underway and on track with a goal of 100 members for the first year. The tight economy has business and CVB partners also facing limited budgets. Develop partnerships with businesses to maintain the quality of city festivals. One community with high quality services for citizens. 148 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Communications The Office of Special Events has established new partnerships with businesses such as ABC15, Bookmans, Music & Arts and Arizona Catering which have increased publicity, advertising and exposure, Was the goal met? as well as enhanced our programming and onsite interactive offerings to attendees and the city’s attractiveness as a festival destination. Special Events increased the dollar value of the TV promotional schedule and the TV website value; included live studio interview segments before every event; planned remote weather broadcasts at each event and greatly enhanced publicity from the new TV partner ABC15. The division also procured new budget relieving trade What were the Performance Measures? support from Music & Arts on sheet music and related items; new budget relieving programming and kids craft support from Bookmans and a new cooking demonstration program from Arizona Catering at the Civic Center was provided at no cost to the department. Although many businesses are reticent to take on new marketing costs, which can provide the department with budget relief, the department was fortunate in what it was able to accomplish this year. The department feels strongly that this is due in great part to the city of Glendale’s reputation as a major festival producer. This, Obstacles/Challenges combined with a strong history of attendance while providing great marketing value via community relations and branding exposure, is still a strong incentive for some of these partners to work with city festivals. Increase facility usage and overcome obstacles set forth by the downturn in local and state economies. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal One community with a vibrant city center. Yes. Was the goal met? Increased attendance at the Civic Center by an estimated 23,000 What were the people (a 50% increase over last year) and increased event days by Performance Measures? 7% over the previous year. The current economy has resulted in some clients having to scale Obstacles/Challenges back their events due to their organizational budget restrictions. Goal Promote and sell the Civic Center’s new A/V capabilities to clients. Goal One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? What were the Increased A/V revenue by 25% over FY 2010. Performance Measures? Some clients have pulled back or forgone A/V due to the tight Obstacles/Challenges economy and restricted budgets. 149 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Marketing and Comm. MARKETING AND COMM. FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Audio/Visual (1000) Cable Communications (1000) City-Wide Special Events (1000) Marketing (1000) Tourism (1281) Mkt'g - Stadium Events (1870) Audio/Visual - Self Sust. FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $199,562 $719,690 $188,922 $666,655 $188,087 $664,606 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $126,289 $619,222 -33% -7% $283,567 $277,840 $277,523 $321,007 16% $1,005,313 $853,849 $852,425 $1,068,890 25% $227,385 $101,243 $215,385 $106,500 $213,323 $106,500 $231,442 $25,070 7% -76% $13,046 $0 $0 $0 $102,261 $21,951 $104,000 $30,000 $104,006 $29,500 $102,676 $448,130 -1% 1394% (1870) Enchanted Evening $88,828 $75,818 $75,821 $89,268 18% (1870) Glitter and Glow $94,310 $94,000 $94,005 $95,751 2% (1870) Glitter Spectacular (1870) Glitters Light $122,309 $152,565 $99,000 $155,798 $99,006 $155,798 $124,865 $154,182 26% -1% (1870) Jazz Festival $172,404 $158,000 $158,008 $176,408 12% (1870) Other Special Events (1870) Summer Band $103,843 $3,435 $30,000 $1,500 $30,000 $1,500 $103,415 $3,435 245% 129% $1,217 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,412,929 $3,062,267 $3,055,108 $3,695,050 (1870) Chocolate Affaire (1870) Convention & Visitors Bureau (1870) Tourism - Souvenir Program Total - Marketing and Comm. BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget NA 0% 21% Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $2,190,904 $2,200,166 $2,200,194 $2,256,335 3% Supplies and Contracts $1,068,334 $941,230 $934,043 $1,401,189 49% $135,168 $117,038 $117,038 $113,965 -3% $18,523 $16,300 ($212,467) $16,300 ($212,467) $16,575 ($93,014) 2% -56% Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits Total - Marketing and Comm. $3,412,929 $3,062,267 $3,055,108 $3,695,050 21% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Audio/Visual (1000) Cable Communications 2 7 2 7 1 6 1 6 -50% -14% (1000) City-Wide Special Events (1000) Marketing (1000) Tourism Total -Marketing and Comm. 4 3.75 4 4 7% 10 3.5 10 2.5 11 2.5 11 2.5 10% 0% 26.5 25.25 24.5 24.5 -3% 150 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Conv./Media/Parking CONV./MEDIA/PARKING FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Convention/Media/Parking (1000) Media Center Operations Total - Conv./Media/Parking BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $278,967 $147,775 $274,515 $142,988 $267,278 $141,200 $268,358 $142,603 -2% 0% $426,742 $417,503 $408,478 $410,961 -2% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts $97,262 $149,727 $102,680 $178,496 $102,680 $169,471 $103,475 $163,493 Internal Premiums $165,373 $130,729 $130,729 $130,546 0% $14,380 $16,005 $16,005 $13,447 -16% ($10,407) ($10,407) $426,742 $417,503 $408,478 $410,961 -2% Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits Total - Conv./Media/Parking FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Media Center Operations Total -Conv./Media/Parking 1% -8% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 1 1 1 1 0% 1 1 1 1 0% 151 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Civic Center CIVIC CENTER FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1740) Civic Center Total - Civic Center BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $751,586 $766,817 $766,817 $687,728 -10% $751,586 $766,817 $766,817 $687,728 -10% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $551,847 $562,736 $562,736 $497,146 -12% Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums $173,191 $12,910 $185,140 $12,024 $185,140 $12,024 $162,681 $11,486 -12% -4% $13,638 $16,422 $16,422 $16,415 0% ($9,505) ($9,505) $687,728 -10% Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits Total - Civic Center FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1740) Civic Center Total -Civic Center $751,586 $766,817 $766,817 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 6 6 5 5 -17% 6 6 5 5 -17% 152 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development Community and Economic Development Department Brian Friedman Building Safety Economic Development Planning BUILDING SAFETY Deborah Mazoyer Mission Statement: The Building Safety Department is a team of professionals dedicated to providing exceptional customer service and through the spirit of cooperation and partnership with our citizens and development customers, we ensure a safer and stronger community. Department Description: The Building Safety Department is the central resource for building construction, code information, plan review, permit issuance and building construction inspection. The department consists of the building inspection, plan review, development services center and cross connection control divisions. Our core purpose is to protect the lives and safety of Glendale residents through the implementation of building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Administer and enforce construction codes and development regulations that produce a safe, durable, efficient, accessible, and sustainable built environment. One community with high quality services for citizens. Adopt the 2012 International Code series to update the currently adopted codes to new safety standards and enable the use of newly evolving construction methods and materials. We anticipate adopting the Energy Code for the first time. Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Codes to be adopted by October 2012. Time Commitment Amendments to the codes need to be studied, proposed codes with current procedures and policies need to be coordinated, and involvement of community stakeholders all need to occur prior to city council consideration. This is a 6 month process that has already started. 153 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Amount of time dedicated to the process. Utilize technological advances to make customer interaction with the Building Safety Department more efficient and convenient. One community with high quality services for citizens. Review records retention requirements in order to utilize electronic records storage in lieu of microfilming. Eliminate need to microfilm construction documents for records retention and utilize electronic storage to meet requirements. This is less expensive, takes up less room and does not require specialized equipment to view records. Will also increase information accessibility internally and for our customers. Several months. State records retention requirements. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  The department completed several Innovate Team reviews of our processes; including those on streamlining the internal water meter application process and our procedures for expiring permits.  A special web portal was developed for use by the proposed the 84 tenants for the Tanger Outlet Mall. Staff partnered with the Technology & Innovation and Communications Departments to establish a password protected website where all of the information, specific to the tenants could be placed. Typical handouts were revised to answer specific questions that would apply only to these tenants and compiled into a simple document explaining the review, permitting and inspection process. All tenants are expected to open on the same day that the mall opens. The creation of this website has reduced the number of calls that staff is receiving by half.  The Development Services Center developed a concept for improving customer outreach by utilizing social media (YouTube), and has begun filming segments on “What to Expect When We Are Inspecting”. Accomplishments:  The department participated in a two-day design review process coordinated by Planning for Tanger Outlet Mall. Subsequently, Building Safety facilitated a four day turn-around for construction plan review. These expedited reviews resulted in a time savings of at least six months over the standard design review and permitting process.  The department performed over 39,000 inspections and assisted over 10,000 customers at the public counter.  The Development Services Center implemented online permitting for the replacement of water heaters and staff will be looking into expanding this service to other types of permits that do not require plan review. 154 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development GOAL UPDATES Provide responsive, proactive, efficient, consistent and costeffective service. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Process all plans, permits, utility clearances and requests for Certificates of Occupancy in an efficient, accurate and timely What were the manner to ensure all departments have an opportunity to review and Performance Measures? identify enforcement issues and the development customer receives adequate guidance. The number of permits increased by 6% and inspections by 9%. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Administer and enforce construction codes and development regulations that produce a safe, durable, efficient, accessible, and Goal sustainable built environment. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Continue the quality assurance program in plan review and inspection to ensure consistency and accuracy and develop and What were the Performance Measures? maintain policy and procedure manuals to increase consistency and accuracy. The number of inspections increased by 9%. Obstacles/Challenges FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  The department is currently involved with the Innovate team on several of our processes. The certificate of occupancy process at the completion of a development project is one of the most complex as it involves over six departments. The goal is to make this process easier and less complex for both internal staff and the development customer.  Building Safety and Development Services Center have created classes that are being offered to the public to assist in understanding the permit process and why permits are necessary. Three classes are currently being offered: Permits 101, Solar Installations, and How to Build a Patio Cover. We have partnered with Home Depot to provide the patio cover class at their store. These classes have become popular with citizens who anticipate building a project, or simply have questions about why permits are necessary.  The group home process has been completed through the Innovate team and is currently being implemented. Coordination of city requirements with outside agencies has become simplified and will actually save at least one trip to city hall for each applicant. 155 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development Accomplishments:  Plans were approved and inspections continue for a 40,000 square foot school for West-MEC which will bring new education opportunities and jobs near the Glendale Municipal Airport. West-MEC’s new facility will provide training for individuals who wish to enter the airframe-power maintenance program and fulfill FAA licensing requirements.  Building Safety worked with the Police Department and has been successful in bringing over 15 businesses and residences into compliance with city regulations or in abating properties that were not able to be secured from entry.  Development Services has implemented a new phone system allowing staff to spend more time directly assisting customers at the counter and achieving a $400 per month cost savings. GOAL UPDATES Provide responsive, proactive, efficient, consistent and cost-effective service. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Monitoring and tracking progress on unsafe and damaged buildings continues to be an ongoing process. Quarterly status report of all cases was reported to the Assistant Director. Additionally, a Was the goal met? database was maintained for Council and management to obtain status of cases as needed. Staff provides quarterly reports on status of all cases to Assistant Director and Assistant Deputy City Manager. Plus, maintain What were the Performance Measures? database for communicating regularly to Council and management of case workload and status of cases. On several occasions it was difficult to indentify and contact the resident’s legal owner, which prolonged the process. Also, due to Obstacles/Challenges the economy, several cases were not able to be abated in a timely manner due to the lack of resources of the property owner. Goal Administer and enforce construction codes and development regulations that produce a safe, durable, efficient and accessible built environment. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Implementation of improvements in customer service at the public counter by cross training in other departments has enabled staff to Was the goal met? exceed the goal of reviewing over 20% of over-the-counter plans throughout the year. 20% of all over-the-counter plans will be reviewed through the oneWhat were the Performance Measures? stop shop by January 2011. Even with a reduction is staffing at the public counter, we were able to exceed this goal by continuing to cross train all staff in different Obstacles/Challenges areas of our department. Goal 156 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Brian Friedman Mission Statement: The Economic Development Department’s mission is to create high quality jobs, develop financially sound projects that increase the city’s tax base and enhance underperforming properties to increase the quality of life for current businesses and the community. Department Description:  The mission of Economic Development is to make a positive contribution to the economic base of the city by building relationships with the business community to collaboratively direct business attraction, redevelopment, business retention and expansion, to meet the goals of the City Council and city management as we continually work to enhance the quality of life for Glendale residents and improve city vitality by facilitating the creation of quality jobs.  Economic Development directs programs to attract and retain businesses that create quality jobs, increase the tax base, improve land values and enhance city vitality.  The department works to grow the city’s economy and capitalize on Glendale’s success at building a destination for entertainment, sports and tourism by assisting in the development of quality employment centers that will solidify Glendale’s economic position in the Valley.  The department coordinates with both internal and external partners to preserve a business-friendly climate and enhance the quality of life for the residents of Glendale. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Attract targeted industries and businesses to Glendale One community with quality economic development Recruit new businesses through our relationship building, and maintaining a current knowledge of property lease expirations and industry trends. Creation of 500 new jobs. On-going effort. Limited office inventory and the likelihood of new speculative construction is scarce. Assist existing Glendale businesses through a proactive Business Retention and Expansion Program. One community with quality economic development. Outreach and visits to existing companies to offer networking and educational assistance. 157 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Reach out to 30 existing Glendale companies On-going effort. Continually providing comprehensive assistance to businesses looking to expand. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Partnered with the Maricopa Small Business Development Center (SBDC) and Glendale Community College in securing funding for Arizona’s only Procurement Technical Assistance Center (PTAC). The new center is headquartered at Glendale Community College. The PTAC office assists small businesses looking to secure contracts from the federal government.  Department worked with the Communications Department to develop a one-page Glendale Centerline advertisement that ran in the two fall issues of Commercial Executive Magazine. The department also created an advertisement that was placed in a full Sunday run of the L.A. Times on October 22, 2011 highlighting Centerline, and the benefits of the new overlay district, as an outreach effort to the California market.  Coordinated city participation in the 2012 Arizona Science and Technology Festival and introduced Honeywell to the event as a sponsor and participant as well. Accomplishments:  Located nine new companies and assisted in the retention or expansion of eight existing companies resulting in the creation of 2,590 jobs so far this fiscal year.  Working with our partners in the community, the department has assisted in the absorption of 856,779 square feet of office and industrial space so far this fiscal year.  In October 2011, Economic Development received the Excellence in Economic Development Award at the Governor’s Statewide Development Conference in the category of Metro Business Retention and Expansion for the innovative partnership with GCC, ASU West and the Glendale Chamber. Significant regional projects were Bechtel, Honeywell, Southwest Ambulance and Midwestern University.  In the summer of 2011, the department met with Jivemind an organization specifically focused on promoting and enhancing the music community in the Valley by working to bring musicians and opportunities together. Jivemind officially opened their doors at the former Bead Museum in the spring of 2012. This project is another step in the establishment of an Arts District in the downtown.  The Economic Development Department had the exciting opportunity this year to develop the message and presentation for the Mayor’s State of the City address at the Glendale Chamber of Commerce Annual Awards Luncheon on March 15, 2012, showcasing Glendale’s growth and status as an attractive destination for business attraction. 158 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Attract targeted industries and businesses to Glendale. One community with quality economic development. Yes – Assisted in locating nine new companies in Glendale resulting in the creation of 1,388 new jobs. What were the Creation of 500 new jobs. Performance Measures? A slow-moving economy combined with limited vacant office Obstacles/Challenges inventory available . Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Assist existing Glendale businesses through a proactive Business Retention and Expansion Program. One community with quality economic development. Yes - Assisted with retention/expansion of eight companies including four of Glendale’s top major employers, resulting in 1,202 jobs. What were the Reached out to more than 30 existing Glendale companies Performance Measures? Economic recovery is still negatively impacting some expansions. Obstacles/Challenges FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Department staff has been actively involved in the Innovate Program resulting in the creation of new and innovative revenue sources.  The department participated in the evaluation of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program with the Community Partnerships and Planning Departments. Accomplishments:  Located five new companies and assisted in the retention or expansion of seven existing companies resulting in the creation of 1,450 jobs so far this fiscal year.  Working with the broker community, the department has assisted in the absorption of 954,976 square feet of office and industrial space so far this fiscal year. GOAL UPDATES Goal Attract targeted industries and businesses to Glendale. One community with quality economic development. Yes. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Creation of 500 jobs. Performance Measures? A sluggish economy has curtailed some new site location decisions. Obstacles/Challenges 159 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Continue with our proactive Business Retention and Expansion Program, while utilizing relationships with educational institutions. One community with quality economic development. Yes, six companies have expanded resulting in the creation of 852 jobs for Glendale residents. What were the Reach out to 30 existing Glendale companies. Performance Measures? The economic recovery has slowed some expansions. Obstacles/Challenges PLANNING Jon Froke Mission Statement: The Glendale Planning Department provides professional quality customer service in a friendly and responsive manner. The mission includes:  Assist elected and appointed officials in planning for future land use, development and redevelopment in harmony with community values.  Facilitate community involvement in the decision making process.  Facilitate decision making through Glendale’s Boards & Commissions.  Administer adopted regulations and guidelines in a fair and impartial manner.  Manage the general plan, zoning, subdivision and design review process efficiently.  Resolve to the best of our ability the inevitable issues and conflicts associated with changing land use and development. Department Description: The Planning Department has three major functions: long range planning and research, current planning, and zoning administration. All three major functions provide service to internal and external customers to service the community. The long range planning and research function is responsible for the long-range physical General Plan, special studies, research, quarterly population estimates, annexation analysis and application processing. In addition, the division administers the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the related program, coordinates preparation of national and local register nominations and staffs the Historic Preservation Commission. The current planning and zoning administration functions manages the review of land use applications including minor General Plan amendments, rezoning requests, conditional use permits, preliminary and final plats, residential and commercial reviews, variance requests, group home review, appeals, zoning administrative review and relief requests, commercial tenant improvements, special events, liquor licenses, business license reviews, group homes and custom home reviews and geographic information systems and mapping services. The department has a secondary function which is administration. This function is just as valuable as the three major functions as it also provides service to internal and external customers to provide planning services and information to the community. 160 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development The administration function prepares staff reports and ensures compliance for City Council, the Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission and Board of Adjustment Workshops and public hearings. This function also ensures proper advertising and notification processes are complete and in conformance with state open meeting laws. The administrative support function manages the departmental budget, request for service inquiries and provides staff support for City Council, the Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission and Board of Adjustment public workshops and public hearings. A new component to the Planning Department for FY13 will be the addition of Mapping & Records. This component will provide additional resources to the department and to internal and external customers. It includes a significant GIS (Geographic Information Services) component which will allow greater use of GIS as a tool for city staff and clients who need information relative to property data, recorded subdivision plats, public rights-of-way and easements. Mapping & Records will augment the graphic capabilities of the Planning Department which prepares and provides exhibits for internal and external customers. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Updates to the Zoning Ordinance. One community with a vibrant city center. Research, citizen participation process, and public hearings. Approval to update by adoption of an ordinance and resolution. One year. Some opposition from citizens and business owners. Streamline internal processes to allow greater flexibility to meet the service needs of the citizens. One community with high-quality services for citizens. Review procedures and timelines. Elimination of unnecessary steps within a process without sacrificing quality development. 10 months. Resistance to change. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Established an online Service Request Form. The form allows customers to submit a request through the internet for potential development and other Planning related inquires instead of coming into the office or calling to complete a form. Accomplishments: 161 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development     Provided internships to two future planning professionals. Participated in Career Day at Sunset Ridge Elementary School to provide insight into the essential function of the Planning Department to developing a community. Staff was able to obtain professional development through attending workshops and conferences without using department funds. Assisted other departments with projects such as City Council redistricting, Census 2010 implementation, business outreach, and mapping without impacting external consumer service with a reduced staff. GOAL UPDATES Maintaining superior customer service to internal and external customers. One community with high quality service for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? The performance measures were based on turnaround of projects What were the Performance Measures? and feedback from customers. Additional reduction in self provided some level of challenges. Staff was able to overcome the challenges by improving internal Obstacles/Challenges communication on project status and assisting each other when needed. Goal Goal Modify planning tools to meet current demands for city development. One community with strong neighborhoods. Yes. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Performance measures were based on project proposals. Performance Measures? Challenges were created when opposition was received from citizens and appointed officials. Staff worked through the concerns Obstacles/Challenges in order to reach favorable solutions. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  The Group Home application process was shortened by reducing the number of steps from 40 to 30, a 25% reduction. Also, by training the Development Services Center staff to assist with the processing of applications, a reduction in the review time went from 2 to 3 days to only 24 hours. Accomplishments:  Adopted a text amendment to enact reasonable zoning regulations to regulate medical marijuana, as permitted by the voter approved Proposition 203.  Revamped the Historic Preservation Program in a manner that allows it to continue to be an asset to Glendale. Obtained funding to complete the rehabilitation of the Myrtle Avenue Cultural Gateway. 162 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Community and Economic Development   The 8th Annual Historic Preservation Bus Tour was held which provided 35 residents the opportunity to view Historic Districts, historic properties and other cultural resources. New bronze plaques were ordered to recognize the Sands Estates Historic District. GOAL UPDATES Goal Redevelopment of the Glendale Centerline. One community with a vibrant city center. No. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Adoption of the Glendale Centerline Overlay District. Performance Measures? The time frame for Glendale Centerline process. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Support the City Council Sustainability Committee. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Increase public understanding of the Glendale Centerline Overlay District, added two new Historic Districts to the National Register of What were the Performance Measures? Historic Places, and complete all annexation requests by property owners. The time frame for the process was a challenge. Obstacles/Challenges 163 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Building Safety BUILDING SAFETY FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Building Safety (1000) Development Services Center (2400) Cross Connection Control Total - Building Safety BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits FY 2011 Actual $1,976,985 $363,070 FY 2012 Budget $1,895,038 $425,102 FY 2012 Estimate $1,889,630 $393,078 FY 2013 Budget $1,795,236 $361,758 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget -5% -15% $248,236 $225,125 $225,125 $232,134 3% $2,588,291 $2,545,265 $2,507,833 $2,389,128 -6% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $2,441,701 $2,566,247 $2,566,261 $2,399,705 -6% Supplies and Contracts $32,148 $110,421 $72,975 $98,443 -11% Internal Premiums $64,110 $50,443 $50,443 $45,469 -10% Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits $50,332 $54,545 ($236,391) $54,545 ($236,391) $47,825 ($202,314) -12% -14% Total - Building Safety FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Building Safety (1000) Development Services Center (2400) Cross Connection Control Total -Building Safety $2,588,291 $2,545,265 $2,507,833 $2,389,128 -6% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 21 6 21 6 18 5 18 5 -14% -17% 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 0% 29.75 29.75 25.75 25.75 -13% 164 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Planning PLANNING FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Current Planning (1000) Long-Range Planning & Research (1000) Mapping and Records (1000) Planning Administration Total - Planning BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual $353,764 $163,816 FY 2012 Budget $323,844 $126,988 FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $323,844 $126,988 $256,829 $142,469 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget -21% 12% $93,467 $96,327 $95,505 $105,129 9% $314,618 $323,524 $320,664 $354,377 10% $925,665 $870,683 $867,001 $858,804 -1% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $867,011 $867,460 $867,460 $854,661 Supplies and Contracts $34,516 $73,642 $69,960 $75,981 3% Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges $19,989 $4,149 $15,380 $2,694 $15,380 $2,694 $12,556 $2,900 -18% 8% ($88,493) ($88,493) ($87,294) -1% $925,665 $870,683 $867,001 $858,804 -1% Work Order Credits Total - Planning FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM -1% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Current Planning 6 4 3 3 -25% (1000) Long-Range Planning & Research 2 2 2 2 0% (1000) Mapping and Records (1000) Planning Administration 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 0% 0% 12 10 9 9 -10% Total -Planning 165 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Economic Development ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Business Development (1000) Economic Development Total - Economic Development BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $3,558,920 $713,484 $468,583 $626,736 $785,428 $621,995 $328,583 $773,718 $4,272,404 $1,095,319 $1,407,423 $1,102,301 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget -30% 23% 1% Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $522,897 $3,740,229 $573,323 $563,412 $573,323 $875,516 $685,149 $502,719 20% -11% Internal Premiums $7,290 $6,639 $6,639 $7,761 17% Internal Service Charges $1,988 $1,694 $1,694 $2,244 32% ($49,749) ($49,749) ($95,572) 92% Work Order Credits Total - Economic Development $4,272,404 $1,095,319 $1,407,423 $1,102,301 1% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget (1000) Economic Development 5 5 6 6 20% 5 5 6 6 20% Total -Economic Development 166 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Rebates & Incentives REBATES & INCENTIVES FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Rebates & Incentives Total - Rebates & Incentives BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Supplies and Contracts Total - Rebates & Incentives FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $388,000 288% $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $388,000 288% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $388,000 288% $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $388,000 288% 167 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department Financial Services Department Sherry Schurhammer Management & Budget Finance Materials Management Mission Statement: The Financial Services Department helps the city to accomplish its financial management objectives. Department Description: The Financial Services Department provides a range of services that helps ensure prudent fiscal management of city resources. Specifically, the four divisions of the department provide the services identified in the following bullet points:  The Management and Budget Division conducts independent, objective analyses of expenditures and revenues, as well as expenditure and revenue forecasts, in monitoring the budget for the current fiscal year and developing the budget for the next fiscal year.  The Finance Division’s main responsibilities are debt management, banking services, investment management, and financial analysis for the city. Finance also provides financial information to the public, state agencies, bond holders, grantors, auditors, city management, and the City Council.  The Purchasing Division works with departments to ensure the procurement of goods and services is completed in a manner that is compliant with city and state statutes.  The Grants Administration Division is responsible for coordinating the city’s efforts to identify and obtain alternative funding for priority projects that advance the mission, goals and objectives established by the City Council and executive management. MANAGEMENT & BUDGET Don Bolton Mission Statement: Management and Budget helps the city to accomplish its financial management objectives by:  promoting integrity and public accountability in the budget planning and implementation process;  increasing public trust in the city’s fiscal planning and implementation efforts by presenting information in a clear and understandable manner  improving the efficiency and effectiveness of citywide business processes to ensure prudent fiscal management of the city’s resources. 168 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department Division Description: The Management and Budget Division provides internal budget guidance and support services to all of the 18 departments within the city. Management and Budget spearheads the budget planning and implementation process for the city as a whole, presents budget related information to the public in a clear and understandable way, and provides professional expertise to Mayor and Council on financial management decisions. The department provides citizens with information that is key to understanding the goals and priorities of the city. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Collect, analyze and provide accurate and useful information to city departments, city management, and the Mayor and City Council as it relates to the city budget. One community that is fiscally sound.  Prepare the annual Council workshop materials relating to the operating and capital budgets.  Prepare reports on capital-related budget items, such as capital budget financial options and property tax rate options as needed.  Work with individual departments on rate studies for the enterprise funds and other departments that are supported in whole or in part by fees.  Maintain an open and responsive relationship with management, Council, and departments in order to anticipate information needs.  Monthly expenditure and revenue reports are evaluated and follow up with departments occurs as needed. The FY 2013 operating and capital budgets and quarterly reports to Mayor and Council presented accurately and in a timely manner.  Positive recognition from GFOA on annual budget book. This goal reflects an ongoing time commitment from the budget division. Preparation of budget information is a consistent requirement of Management and Budget. Maintaining the level of service provided to the organizaiton and the community with the loss of 2 FTE’s, a budget analyst and budget coordinator, over the past two fiscal years. Successfully complete the program management of the Energy Efficeny and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) and provide a centralized grants coordination function for the organization. One community that is fiscally sound. 169 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department   Activities   Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges    Complete all EECBG projects on time and identify energy and cost savings that are communicated to the organization and the community. Work with departments to identify projects for which grant funds are available, help prepare accurate and complete grant applications and resolve grant administration issues that might arise once funding is awarded. Build relationships with other Valley cities and non-profits to develop regional grant applications that are more likely to be funded. The three-year EECBG grant is expected to be completed by May 2013. This $2.324M grant has 13 activities within the program and is expected to reduce energy use and operating costs throughout the city. EECBG grant deadline is May 2013. Grant coordination efforts are on-going throughout the year. State and Federal grant opportunities have seen a significant decline over the last several years. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Over the past fiscal year, Management and Budget has worked diligently to enhance the capabilities of the city’s software technology systems to improve the evaluation and analysis of budget vs actual related data. Management and Budget developed Budget Control Queries and Reports, a user-friendly interface with PeopleSoft, the city’s financial system, which is menu driven and runs queries of real-time information of expenditures and revenues. This is of great benefit to the organization as it allows non-technical staff throughout the organization to gain access to real-time data regarding their departmental budgets via drop down menus and point and click type selection buttons. This will allow the organization to better analyze budget-related data and make more informed management decisions. The system was developed and tested in FY2012 and is expected to be rolled out to the organization in FY2013. Accomplishments:  Received the GFOA Distinguished Budget Award for the FY 2012 budget document. The overall document was scored as “proficient” and/or “outstanding” by all reviewers in regards to a policy document, financial plan and operations guide and was scored as “proficient” in regards to the overall presentation as a communications device. GOAL UPDATES Goal Collect, analyze and provide accurate and useful information to city departments, city management, and the Mayor and City Council as it relates to the city budget. 170 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department One community that is fiscally sound. Yes.  Monthly expenditure and revenue reports were consistently completed in a timely and accurate manner.  The FY 2012 recommended operating and capital budgets and What were the quarterly reports to Mayor and Council were presented Performance Measures? accurately and in a timely manner.  The FY 2011 annual budget book received the GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award None. Obstacles/Challenges Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Leverage software technology systems that minimize manual processes, improve the accuracy and breadth of data collected, and Goal enhance the evaluation and analysis of budget related data. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met?  Minimized “shadow systems” used for budget data in city departments.  Minimized manual processes and reduced potential errors due to the multiple entry of data or missing data. What were the  Enhanced the capabilities of PeopleSoft, the city’s financial Performance Measures? system, by developing an in-house interfacing tool that allowed the organization to easily access real-time information regarding their departmental budgets. This system was developed and tested this fiscal year and is expected to be rolled-out to the organization in FY13. None. Obstacles/Challenges FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Cross trained two individuals in Management and Budget to assist the Finance Division during off peak time. These staff members specifically focused on analysis related to a residential rental canvas of the city. This creative use of staff helped mitigate reduced staffing levels in Finance, provided development opportunities for Management and Budget staff and generated $15,318 of residential rental tax bills that were past due. It also created a potential future rental tax of $7,003 annually from the 25 audited rental properties.  Created enhanced BI reports for expenditure to budget data that improves the evaluation and analytic tools for departments across the city. This innovation allows departments to drill down into expenditure data details immediately as opposed to opening a new screen and sifting through volumes of data to see their particular expenditure details. This enhancement has made it much easier for departments to view and analyze their expenditure and budget data. 171 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department Accomplishments:  Received the GFOA Distinguished Budget Award for the FY 2011 budget document by achieving the highest rating in accordance with award criteria. Received outstanding ratings from GFOA for sections within the budget document related to the book as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide and a communications device. GOAL UPDATES Collect, analyze and provide accurate and useful information to city departments, city management and the Mayor and City Council as it Goal relates to the city budget. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met?  Monthly expenditure and revenue reports were consistently completed in a timely and accurate manner.  The FY 2011 recommended operating and capital budgets and What were the quarterly reports to Mayor and Council were presented Performance Measures? accurately and in a timely manner.  The FY 2011 annual budget book received the GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. None. Obstacles/Challenges FINANCE Diane Goke Mission Statement: The Finance Division’s mission is to provide responsible financial management and exemplary customer services with integrity. Division Description: The Finance Division’s main responsibilities are debt management, banking services, investment management, and financial analysis for the city. Finance also provides financial information to the public, state agencies, bond holders, grantors, auditors, city management, and the City Council. Accounting Services prepares external financial reports, manages the city payroll process, pays vendors, and provides financial management consulting to departments. License/Collection administers the sales tax code to ensure compliance and is responsible for the collection of accounts receivable. The Customer Service Office bill customers for utility services, processes cash receipts and provides overall customer service to citizens. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Start disconnection of water services by 8:00 am on scheduled day. One community that is fiscally sound. One community with high quality services for citizens. 172 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Work with the Water Services department to begin disconnection process sooner. This will allow water users to have service restored quicker and the will be more manageable for staff. Balance workload among staff and provide more efficient customer service to the public. Six months. Coordination between two different departments, Financial Services department and Water Services department. Implement PeopleSoft capital assets module & streamline processes. One community that is fiscally sound. Clean-up current capital assets records, set up PeopleSoft capital assets module, test the system, upload the data into the module, write up procedures and processes manual, and train staff.  By streamlining the capital assets process into PeopleSoft we will reduce data entry errors ensuring capital assets are being recorded properly and shorten the processing time allowing the accounting staff more time to focus on other issues.  The module will produce accurate and up-to-date reports for use by departments for their annual audits, which will reduce the audit process time frame for Finance.  The departments will be able to access the information in real time so they do not have to wait for reporting and can manage their inventory.  All of this results in more a more efficient process and more accurate accounting data. 6-7 month process to include training-should be completed by December 2012. Limited experience w/ PeopleSoft program, spreadsheet clean-up & upload into module, city staff resistance due to changes in process. Provide taxpayers with an on-line, electronic solution to file sales tax returns and payment of taxes. One community that is fiscally sound. Implement e-tax system, set up registration and login, and promote e-tax service. Creates efficiencies, generates cost savings and provides taxpayers an easy, quick and accurate method to file a return and pay taxes. The goal is an ongoing effort, intended to attain 80% electronically filed returns and payments within five (5) years. Resources to operate both manual and electronic tax return and payment processes until fully transitioned; earning taxpayer trust and willingness to participate; funding for development and implementation. 173 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  In December 2011 Billing Services and Customer Relations institued a “lump sum deposit” alternative for the qualified property management and real estate agents. This new deposit option gave these parties the option to pay a one-time $500 utility deposit for all the properties they opened with the city. This program was succesfully implemented and resulted in more convenience with the two parties, better customer service and decreased work load for staff.  The method of paying vendors electronically through the ACH (automated clearing house) system was developed and tested in Peoplesoft during FY12. The ACH payment method provides an opportunity for vendors doing business with the city to receive payments for their services in a timely manner by eliminating paper checks. This payment method is expected to be rolled out in a production environment toward the end of FY12. Accomplishments:  Developed and implemented billing of fire inspection fees through the TaxMantra sales tax system using the annual business license renewal process.  In January of 2012 the Billing Services and Customer Relations staff coordinated a dedicated staff meeting once a month. After an analysis of the incoming call statistics were complete, the Customer Relations call center opened up an hour later, one time a month. This resulted in a better communciation with all Billing, Customer Relations and Cashiering staff. In addition, the opportunity was there to have the Field Customer Service staff attend once a quarter. This collabortive effort resulted in better communication and training opportunity for the combined departments.  In March of 2012, the first file was sent to the third-party collections vendor. A collaborative effort was completed between the Revenue Recovery, Billing Services and Cashiering groups to establish procedures, prepare the file and send it to the collection agency for bad debt recovery.  The city received an unqualified audit opinion in December 2011 regarding the FY 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). This audit covers the restatement of beginning fund balance for the governmental funds as required by the new pronouncement #54 issued by the rule making body Governmental Accounting Standards Board. This change clarifies the reporting of fund balances for the governmental funds for end-users of the CAFR, which includes the general public, municipal bond investors, etc. Additionally, this change brings the city’s required annual CAFR in-line with the standards established by GASB. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Eliminate routine paper checks. One community that is fiscally sound. While we have eliminated some paper checks, we will be working in the coming year to continue the process by working with our vendors. 174 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department What were the Eliminated some paper checks. Performance Measures? The fact that we have to work with several outside parties to achieve Obstacles/Challenges this goal is challenging. Implement an automated sales tax filing process that is available online. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal No. Was the goal met? Reduced volume of mail, walk-in customers and number of sales tax What were the Performance Measures? returns and payments processed manually. After initial implementation of the sales tax system, we had many process and system changes that restricted us from achieving this Obstacles/Challenges goal. Goal Transition outlying departments to a more self-sufficient centralized cashiering process. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes Was the goal met? The accurate reporting of receipts entered into the system by the What were the Performance Measures? outlying department. Configuration of the program at an offsite location. Obstacles/Challenges Goal FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Due to enhanced functionality in the cities new municipal billing system, customers’ final bills are processed at an expedited rate enabling them to receive their deposit refund weeks earlier compared to the cities previous municipal billing system. Accomplishments:  On February 7, 2011 Sales Tax staff implemented a new sales tax system-“Tax Mantra.” Tax Mantra provides effective, flexible management of the city’s current and future tax and licensing needs. Special features include E-Tax an electronic online tax return service for customer, and I-Capture which takes a visual scan of information and converts it into electronic data. Benefits of Tax Mantra include: integration of ecommerce capabilities like online license applications, online tax return filing, customer account detail self-management, and online tax return payments. Tax Mantra also allows for payments of other system balances, dynamic query and reporting capabilities for management, integration with other city database systems, daily postings to the general ledger, data mining capabilities, document management and ADA compliance.  Successfully cross trained Accounts Payable and Cashiering staff so they have the skills and knowledge to be utilized at high peak times between the two business units. High peak times constitute heavy lobby traffic in the customer service lobby and/or 175 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department Lockbox for Utility and Sales Tax payments. High peak times in the accounts payable constitute seasonal peak periods during fiscal year end and annual reporting in January. GOAL UPDATES Compile financial information to produce an approved Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). One community that is fiscally sound. Goal was met. Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the City received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement. Performance Measures? Implementing the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s new Obstacles/Challenges pronouncements for accounting for intangible assets. Document and complete an implementation plan for the Government Accounting Standards Boards (GASB) Statement No. 54. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal On track to meeting the goal by fiscal year end 6/30/2011. Was the goal met? Completion of an implementation plan that meets or exceeds the What were the Performance Measures? GASB standards. None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Jacque Behrens Mission Statement:  To augment the effectiveness of the tax dollar in the purchase of materials and services within the requirements of city code and state law. Division Description:  Working with city departments to ensure the procurement of goods and services is completed in a manner that is compliant with city code and state statutes.  Providing logistical support to departments by procuring and maintaining a secure, justin-time inventory of supplies for all city departments. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Ensure procurement procedures are current and complete. One community that is fiscally sound. Develop and update procurement procedures to reflect changes that have occurred. Procurement procedures are current and complete. Ongoing. Resources. 176 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Financial Services Department FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Updated and streamlined solicitation documents and forms to reduce the time it takes to complete procurement activities. Accomplishments:  Completed 30 solicitations, 54 sole source/emergency purchases and processed over 565 purchase orders. GOAL UPDATES Goal Ensure the procurement code is current. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Internal procedures were developed or are being revised to ensure What were the Performance Measures? compliance with the procurement code. Resources. Obstacles/Challenges FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Streamlined procurement forms and processes to enhance communication and access to information. Accomplishments:  Maintained over 200 contracts with an estimated value in excess of $60 million. GOAL UPDATES Reduce the manual processes through increased use of PeopleSoft functionalities. Improve employee skill sets in using PeopleSoft functions. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? The revision of the procurement code has been deferred until What were the completion of the FY 2011 budget development process and Performance Measures? implementation of a PeopleSoft upgrade. Resources. Obstacles/Challenges Goal 177 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Finance FINANCE FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual (1000) Accounting Services (1000) Finance Administration (1000) License/Collection (1282) Arena Management Fee (1780) Arena Renewal and Replacement (1790) AZSTA - Stadium Tax Refund (2360) Customer Service Office Total - Finance BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES $852,193 $428,576 FY 2012 Budget $848,492 $531,275 FY 2012 Estimate $847,099 $529,766 FY 2013 Budget $823,627 $483,798 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget -3% -9% $697,775 $665,368 $651,559 $722,844 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $17,000,000 -15% 9% $0 $1,043,117 $550,000 $1,745,900 $0 $1,745,900 $1,117,000 $2,399,570 103% 37% $2,382,145 $2,963,088 $2,953,965 $2,957,838 0% $30,403,806 $27,304,123 $31,728,289 $25,504,677 -7% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $3,648,419 $4,111,403 $4,111,403 $3,993,365 -3% Supplies and Contracts $26,760,329 $23,393,660 $27,817,826 $21,608,254 -8% $73,391 $40,541 $87,901 $37,418 $87,901 $37,418 $84,253 $46,380 -4% 24% ($118,874) ($326,259) ($326,259) ($227,575) -30% Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits Total - Finance $30,403,806 $27,304,123 $31,728,289 $25,504,677 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Accounting Services 16 15 13 13 -13% (1000) Finance Administration 4 6 4 4 -33% (1000) License/Collection 8.5 7 7 7 0% (2360) Customer Service Office 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 0% 64 63.5 59.5 59.5 -6% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM Total -Finance 178 -7% Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Lease Pmts/OtherFees LEASE PMTS/OTHERFEES FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual (1000) 1000 Advisor Fees (1000) Lease Payments $58,132 $12,963,406 $90,000 $403,075 $90,000 $632,758 $90,000 $1,177,077 (1000) Merchant Fees FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 0% 192% $280,436 $199,687 $199,687 $199,687 0% (1980) 1980 Advisor Fees $152 $6,066 $0 $6,066 0% (2000) 2000 Advisor Fees (2040) 2040 Advisor Fees $0 $1,824 $1,030 $2,000 $0 $1,701 $1,030 $2,000 0% 0% (2060) 2060 Advisor Fees $459 $6,857 $107 $6,857 0% (2080) 2080 Advisor Fees (2100) 2100 Advisor Fees $59 $586 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $725 $3,734 $2,000 87% 0% (2180) 2180 Advisor Fees $4,285 $5,213 $4,640 $5,213 0% (2210) 2210 Advisor Fees $4,226 $13,568 $13,568 $13,568 0% (2360) 2360 Advisor Fees (2400) 2400 Advisor Fees $0 $0 $3,289 $17,222 $3,289 $17,222 $3,289 $17,222 0% 0% (2420) 2420 Advisor Fees Total - Lease Pmts/OtherFees $0 $17,514 $17,514 $17,514 $13,313,565 $769,521 $981,211 $1,545,257 BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual Supplies and Contracts $13,313,565 $769,521 $981,211 $1,545,257 101% $13,313,565 $769,521 $981,211 $1,545,257 101% Total - Lease Pmts/OtherFees FY 2012 Budget 179 FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 0% 101% Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Management & Budget MANAGEMENT & BUDGET FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Budget & Research (1000) Grants Administration (1000) Materials Management Total - Management & Budget BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $638,863 $39,011 $622,329 $58,653 $621,113 $58,609 $554,290 $65,743 -11% 12% $395,613 $163,126 $163,002 $292,544 79% $1,073,487 $844,108 $842,724 $912,577 8% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $1,046,300 $894,715 $894,715 $939,200 5% Supplies and Contracts $10,097 $24,509 $23,125 $22,505 -8% Internal Premiums $12,735 $11,318 $11,318 $10,221 -10% $4,355 $5,871 ($92,305) $5,871 ($92,305) $5,041 ($64,390) -14% -30% $844,108 $842,724 $912,577 8% Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits Total - Management & Budget $1,073,487 FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Budget & Research (1000) Grants Administration 6 1 6 1 4 1 4 1 -33% 0% 4 2 3 3 50% 11 9 8 8 -11% (1000) Materials Management Total -Management & Budget 180 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Grants GRANTS FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1840) DV Pilot Project Grant (1840) Miscellaneous Grants $182,281 $275,453 $68,219 $8,626,542 $68,219 $650,000 $0 $4,960,603 (1842) ARWRF Facility UV System Imp -100% -42% $102,846 $806,000 $76,355 $806,799 0% (1842) AzPAC Project AZ ARRA BTOP 1 $9,966 $0 $0 $0 NA (1842) Build Safe Engy Prog Enhance (1842) Downtown Parking Garage Light $4,212 $0 $87,599 $0 $1,662 $64,000 $29,259 $0 -67% NA $54,223 $162,906 $43,794 $73,771 -55% $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,352 $57,571 $31,296 $5,308 NA NA (1842) Main Library Lighting $287,101 $136,831 $64,350 $0 (1842) MRF Lighting Retrofit $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $24,223 $59,540 $218,026 $32,000 $22,697 $19,409 $57,225 $9,051 (1842) Energy Matters Public Educat (1842) Equip Mgmt Facility Lighting (1842) GMOC Parking Garage Lighting (1842) Program Manager (1842) Public Safety/Court Lighting (1842) Solar Parks Lighting $0 $0 $0 $165,079 (1842) Sports Courts Lighting Retrofi (1842) Traffic Signal LED Conversion $65,528 $45,010 $75,000 $42,790 $4,079 $0 $0 $0 (1842) Well 43 Variable Drive Retrofi $13,645 $75,000 $6,885 $76,970 $1,124,028 $10,330,913 $1,124,373 $6,215,361 Total - Grants BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget -100% NA -74% -72% NA -100% -100% 3% -40% Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $269,750 $466,844 $255,232 $223,021 -52% Supplies and Contracts $853,890 $9,865,570 $870,642 $5,992,340 -39% $0 $0 Internal Service Charges $388 Work Order Credits ($1,501) Total - Grants $1,124,028 $10,330,913 FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget (1840) DV Pilot Project Grant 1 1 1 1 Total -Grants 181 ($1,501) $1,124,373 FY 2012 Estimate $6,215,361 FY 2013 Budget -40% Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Fire Services FIRE SERVICES Chief Mark Burdick Mission Statement: Fast - Caring - Innovative - Professional Department Description: The Glendale Fire Department provides Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Medical Services to the citizens of Glendale. Within the scope of our work are five core interactive services including:  Fire Prevention and Education (Public Education, Inspections, Investigations, Code Adoption)  Fire Suppression (Firefighting)  Emergency Medical Services (Advanced Life Support and Basic Life Support)  Special Operations (Hazardous Materials and Technical Rescue)  Crisis Response (Social Services) The Glendale Fire Department utilizes the Automatic Aid System, intergovernmental agreements with surrounding agencies, public/private partnerships, and our highly skilled and dedicated staff to guarantee high quality services to those in our community. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Strive to increase public education through community outreach and implement a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT Team) that is deployable within the city of Glendale. One community committed to public safety. Community Education:  CCC-CCR and AED Classes  Drowning Impact Awareness Activities  Events: Staff Safety Booths  Fire Drills at Senior Living Facilities  Fire and Life Safety Presentations  Fire Pal Program  Healthier Safer Lives Program  Home Safety Inspections  Pre-school Headstart Presentations  Residential Lock Box Program  Safety Trailer Events  Smoke Detector Walks  Youth Firesetter Intervention Program  Youth Firesetter Prevention Classes  Youth Firesetter Train-the Trainer Classes 182 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Fire Services Activities (con’t) Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Community Emergency Response Team (CERT):  CERT 21-Hour Basic Class  CERT Continuing Education Classes  Implement a Deployable CERT Team for Glendale Indirectly reduce the number of medical emergencies, injuries, near drowning, deaths, and fires in Glendale by increasing citizen’s knowledge and skills on fire and life safety issues. This goal provides an ongoing time commitment. Efforts to educate the public in order to prevent loss of life and property are a continuous goal of the Fire department. Limited staff creates challenges; however, the department has been able to maintain services with the assistance of Safety Educator and CERT Volunteers. Enhance response times. One community committed to public safety.  Ensure that emergency responding personnel are staffed in the field and deployable, without diminishing service delivery.  Properly train and certify Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics.  Maintain apparatus and equipment to reduce delays in emergency response.  Continue to conduct periodic reviews of deployment strategies to better utilize all apparatus and crews to our greatest advantage. The Fire department’s travel time goals are in compliance with the best practices prescribed by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International:  For 90% of all emergency incidents, the first unit shall arrive onscene within 5-minutes 12-seconds.  For 90% of structure fires, an effective response force consisting of 3-engines, 1-ladder and 2-commanders shall arrive on-scene within 10-mintes 24-seconds. This is an ongoing effort as the Fire department consistently strives to improve response times. Due to reduced budget and vacancies, constant staffing will continue to be a challenge. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Innovative programs such as Continuous Chest Compressions (CCC) and Rapid AntiConvulsive Medicine Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) continue to be successful. In a recent press conference, a national study involving the University of Arizona College of Medicine and Glendale Fire revealed superior emergency treatment. A better, safer 183 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Fire Services  emergency treatment for potentially fatal seizure victims has been found, according to the National Institute of Health. The results of the two-year study involving the drugs administered by emergency personnel to seizure victims showed that an alternate drug given by intramuscular injection, is faster and is a more effective way to stop prolonged seizures. The RAMPART study is sponsored by the National Institute of Health at no cost to the department. Out of 30 Fire department’s who participated nationally; GFD was ranked #1 on enrollment and quality. The department launched a six-month, grant-funded pilot program to operate an engine company out of Luke Air Force Base. The unit, staffed by two Glendale firefighters and two Air Force firefighters is the first of its kind in the nation. The success of this program will determine if this dual-staffed unit could become a full time operation in the future. Accomplishments:  The department has been approved for re-accreditation for an additional five years (2012 – 2017). The department has maintained its accredited status since 2002, awarded by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International, a private organization dedicated to assisting fire departments in achieving excellence. This year the department completed a thorough, self-assessment of the entire department and invited a Peer Assessor Group of four fire service professionals through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International agency, to do a thorough review and confirmation of the data provided by the department. This exercise enables all divisions to regularly evaluate their efficiency, and to strive toward continuous quality improvement. We are proud to report that the Commission has approved accreditation status to the Glendale Fire Department for the next five years.  An analysis of investigated structure fires revealed that 92% of structure values were saved through effective fire ground operations. This speaks to the value of the 5,706 hours of fire-related training received by the field personnel.  Crisis Response units dispatched to traumatic incidents contributed an average of five hours per shift to engine company availability. Their presence on-scene either released an engine company sooner, or enabled other companies to remain in service, available for other incidents. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Strive to increase public education and outreach. One community committed to public safety. Yes. During 2011, the Community Services Division increased public education/outreach and awareness by providing the following events:  CCC-CPR: 160 one-hour classes; 5,126 students and 815 adults trained in CCC-CPR and AED utilization  CERT: Community Emergency Response Training: Two 21hour classes; 42 graduates.  Drowning Impact Awareness: City Proclamation and August Awareness Month. 184 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Fire Services  Fire Drills at Senior Living Facilities: 3 Drills: 174 resident participants.  Fire and Life Safety Presentations: 34 one-hour presentations; 1,699 attendees.  Fire Pal Program: 15 Fire Pals; 34 Schools approximately 12,200 students in K-3rd grade taught per month.  Healthier Safer Lives Program: 4 Events; 139 Participants.  Pre-school Headstart Presentations: 21 Classes; 281 Children and 115 Parents.  Safety Educator Events: 35 Events: staffed booths – 15 Was the goal met? volunteers. (con’t)  Safety Trailer: 6 Events; 54 Classes; 94 Participants.  Youth Firesetter Intervention Program 3-hour Interventions: 12 Classes; 20 Youth and 18 Parents.  Youth Firesetter Prevention Presentations: 9 Classes; 236 Attendees.  Youth Firesetter Train-the-Trainer Courses: Three separate two to six day classes: Three separate classes; 138 Attendees.  15 Volunteers gave 726 Hours that equates to $15,413.90 worth of valued time (in-kind). Indirectly reduce the number of medical emergencies, injuries and What were the fires in Glendale by increasing citizen’s education on safety related Performance Measures? issues. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Limited staff creates challenges; however, the department has been able to overcome this with the numerous hours donated by volunteers. Enhance response times. One community committed to public safety. Yes, this goal was met.  FIRE baseline: The first engine company arrived at 90% of Glendale structure fires within 4-minutes 34-seconds travel time. The full alarm assignment (effective response force) arrived on the scene within 8-minutes 40-seconds travel time.  EMS baseline: For 90% of EMS incidents, the travel time for the first arriving unit with AED capability was within 5-minutes 34seconds.  ALS baseline: For 90% of ALS incidents, the travel time for the arrival of ALS paramedic services was within 5-minutes 31seconds. 185 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Fire Services The department’s Service Level Objectives for response times are:  90% of the time - Arrive on-scene in six minutes or less for the arrival of the first arriving engine company at a fire suppression incident and/or eight minutes or less arrival of a full first alarm assignment at a fire suppression incident. What were the  90% of the time - Arrive on-scene in six minutes or less for the Performance Measures? arrival of a unit with first responder or higher-level capability at an emergency medical incident.  90% of the time - Arrive on-scene in eight minutes or less for the arrival of an advanced life support unit at an emergency medical incident, where this service is provided by the fire department. Reduced funding continues to be a challenge in staffing units. Obstacles/Challenges FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Glendale Fire Department took over the responsibility of Infectious Control for its members. Prior to July 1, 2010 Phoenix Fire Department was providing the service. Estimated savings to Glendale Fire Department is $5,000 - $10,000 annually. Accomplishments:  Adopted the 2009 International Fire Code. The adoption of current model codes helps ensure that Glendale is a safe community by utilizing the most current fire code.  Glendale Fire Department transitioned to the 700-800 megahertz radio system for nonhazard zone emergencies. This enhances communications with Automatic Aid fire department participants. GOAL UPDATES Improve our internal and external customer service through continuous assessment, progressive management and quality personnel practices. One community focused on public safety. Related Council Goal Yes. The department has implemented a continuous quality improvement plan for EMS in accordance with Arizona Department Was the goal met? of Health Services rule R9-25-206. At minimum, review the following categories of pre-hospital patient encounter forms to ensure fire department personnel follow established protocols and procedures: •5% of all patient refusals, trauma, and medical incidents; What were the •100% of all code arrests, cerebral vascular accidents (CVA), and Performance Measures? acute coronary syndrome (ACS) Develop a process to implement corrective action when review of cases indicates a lapse in following pre-hospital protocols and/or procedures. Goal 186 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Fire Services Obstacles/Challenges Shortage in staff has created challenges in meeting minimum reviews. Provide fast, effective emergency response to our community through proper support and deployment of staffing, apparatus and equipment. One community focused on public safety. Related Council Goal Yes. In 2010, a Glendale unit capable of providing AED arrived on scene in less than 6-minutes travel time, 93% of the time for all ALS Was the goal met? and BLS incidents. The Glendale Fire Department’s service level objective for first arriving unit at an emergency medical incident: •90 percent of all code three, 911 emergent incidents, the first unit will arrive on the scene in less than six minutes (travel time). What were the Performance Measures? •Advanced Life Support (ALS) units shall arrive on scene within eight minutes (travel time), 90 percent of the time. However, we strive to meet the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 travel time of four minutes. Yes, reduced funding creates challenges in staffing units. Obstacles/Challenges Goal 187 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Fire Department FIRE DEPARTMENT FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Air-Med & Logistics Ops (HALO) (1000) Ambulance Services (1000) Fire Administration (1000) Fire Community Services (1000) Fire Marshal's Office (1000) Fire Medical Services & Health (1000) Fire Operations (1000) Fire Resource Management (1000) Fire Special Operations (1000) Fire Training FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $713,102 $451,597 $736,989 $484,004 $736,989 $470,107 $767,633 $498,294 4% 3% $1,658,063 $1,605,998 $1,605,297 $1,666,157 4% $12,412 $15,250 $14,487 $15,250 0% $826,394 $32,787 $812,173 $48,983 $809,600 $46,546 $813,458 $48,983 0% 0% $17,047,101 $17,785,340 $17,737,651 $19,160,363 8% $1,996,372 $18,234 $2,070,956 $16,293 $1,899,197 $15,478 $2,078,803 $16,293 0% 0% 0% $11,406 $13,656 $12,973 $13,656 $436,937 $567,227 $567,227 $581,875 3% $43,919 $45,396 $0 $159,942 $0 $159,942 $0 $159,942 NA 0% (1281) Stadium - Fire Event Staffing $193,710 $229,886 $229,886 $229,886 0% (1282) Arena - Fire Event Staffing (1282) Westgate - Fire Event Staffing $127,226 $5,042 $301,041 $0 $301,041 $0 $302,336 $0 0% NA 0% (1000) PS Training Ctr - Fire (1281) Fire - BCS Event (1281) Fire - Fiesta Bowl Event (1283) CBRanch - Fire Event Staffing $44,892 $28,852 $28,852 $28,852 $6,659,567 $6,395,637 $7,171,125 $6,559,036 3% (1840) Grant Approp - Fire Dept (1842) PSSP Fire OT Grant $956,462 $0 $4,500,000 $75,000 $1,100,000 $75,000 $3,500,000 $0 -22% -100% (2530) PS Training Ops - Fire $669,830 $763,314 $735,693 $738,533 -3% (2538) Glendale Health Center $29,719 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 0% $31,980,168 $36,664,541 $33,771,091 $37,233,350 2% BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $26,460,229 $28,679,286 $28,279,286 $29,923,922 4% Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums $3,785,328 $744,630 $7,161,620 $612,827 $4,790,732 $612,827 $6,195,554 $639,543 -13% 4% $989,981 $922,702 $922,702 $919,501 0% $147,074 20% ($592,244) -29% (1720) Fire - Special Revenue Fund Total - Fire Department Internal Service Charges Operating Capital $122,562 Work Order Credits Total - Fire Department ($834,456) ($834,456) Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $31,980,168 $36,664,541 $33,771,091 $37,233,350 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Air-Med & Logistics Ops (HALO) 4 4 4 4 0% (1000) Ambulance Services (1000) Fire Administration 2 13 2 14 2 13 2 13 0% -7% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM 2% (1000) Fire Marshal's Office 10 10 9 9 -10% (1000) Fire Operations (1000) Fire Resource Management 188 4 188 5 188 4 188 4 0% -20% 0% (1282) Arena - Fire Event Staffing 1 1 1 1 (1720) Fire - Special Revenue Fund 51 51 51 51 0% (2530) PS Training Ops - Fire 6 6 5 5 -17% 279 281 277 277 -1% Total -Fire Department 188 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Human Resources & Risk Management HUMAN RESOURCES & RISK MANAGEMENT Jim Brown Mission Statement: Collaborate and partner with our internal and external customers to develop a diverse workforce committed to delivering the highest quality of service. Department Description: The Glendale Human Resources Department provides proactive, innovative and quality customer service and consultation in the areas of total compensation, organizational development, employee relations, staffing and risk management/safety. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Review and enhance existing HR processes by using existing and new technology to streamline services and improve the overall customer experience. One community with high quality services for citizens.  Review Performance Management Program and implement an online, electronic format that will streamline the process, reduce paper and enhance the overall customer experience.  Move existing employee relations database to an environment that will improve data security and allow authorized users to more readily access and update case files.  Implement new online anti-harassment and safety training classes across all city departments. Review to be completed and recommendations implemented by May 2013. Expected to be complete by May 2013. None. Review existing Compensation and Benefits programs to ensure consistency, sustainability, and the ability to remain competitive with other benchmarked organizations. One community that is fiscally sound.  Update compensation policy and provide training and tools to city leadership to ensure understanding of and compliance with our policy and practices.  Negotiate a reduction in fees paid by participants in the Deferred Compensation Program and provide a more robust line-up of investments.  Review employee benefits options to determine the most competitive, cost effective and sustainable options for the city and plan participants. 189 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Human Resources & Risk Management Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Review to be completed and recommendations implemented by May 2013. Expected to be complete by May 2013. None. Review existing Risk Management and Workers Compensation policies and processes to ensure compliance with relevant laws, maintain or reduce overall costs, and improve the overall customer experience. One community that is fiscally sound.  Review the Workers Compensation process via Innovate in order to streamline and improve the process and the customer experience.  Enhance safety training and safety processes to help reduce cost associated with risk and to ensure employee safety. Review to be completed and recommendations implemented by February 2013. Expected to be complete by February 2013. None. Review and restructure existing temporary worker process to improve overall services and reduce risk to the city. One community that is fiscally sound.  Review existing temporary contracted duties to determine if positions should be considered full or part time equivalencies and should be incorporated into the budget process.  Identify temporary agencies that will assist the city in finding the best possible solutions to accomplish the work that is not performed by full or part time equivalencies as identified in the budget. Review to be completed and recommendations implemented by March 2013 Expected to be complete by March 2013. None. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Reduced manual processes related to retiree benefits by entering all retiree data in PeopleSoft. Having the retiree data in PeopleSoft will enable HR to track retiree benefit history and more quickly respond to retiree questions. Accomplishments:  The city received recognition by the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) as one of fifty Best Employers for Workers Over 50 nationally for 190 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Human Resources & Risk Management  2011. This is the 2nd time Glendale has ben recognized for this prestigeous award. Glendale was the only municipality in the nation and the only organization in Arizona to win the AARP award. The cost of the city’s risk in FY12 was 1.18%, well below the public entity industry average of 2.0%. The Risk Management/Safety Division continues to provide safety training and education opportunities for management, supervisors and employees. These sessions help keep managers, supervisors and employees mindful of safety as they perform their work. GOAL UPDATES Goal Implement an online applicant system to improve the applicant experience when applying for a city position and to improve internal application processing. One community with high quality services for citizens. Yes. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the New system was implemented in June 2012. Performance Measures? None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Expand online training to include mandatory anti-harassment training. One community that is fiscally sound. No. This is being incorporated into a broader goal for FY13. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the None. Performance Measures? None. Obstacles/Challenges Improve the health of the city’s health plan participants and reduce healthcare costs by offering health education and wellness activities that support positive lifestyle changes. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Increased employee participation in the Health Risk Assessment and What were the maintained current health benefit premiums, co-pays and Performance Measures? deductibles for FY13. None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Successfully implemented online training for mandatory ethics training for all city employees. All city staff completed the online training. The greatest benefit was the ability of staff to complete the training as time permitted rather than attending scheduled sessions. 191 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Human Resources & Risk Management   Implemented a Wellness Brown Bag Series for employees and retirees. This six-part series focused on the importance of nutrition to improve overall health. Employees and retirees attended these sessions. Outside presenters offered their insights on developing healthy living styles that incorporate good nutrition habits. Participants have requested more onsite wellness-focused sessions. Implemented a Financial Planning Series in partnership with International City/County Management Association-Retirement Corporation. The workshops focused on educating employees on their financial wellness and preparing for the future. Workshops were held each month and the expertise of certified financial planners and retirement plan specialists were shared with employees on the topics of smart saving, managing credit and debt, strategies to save for retirement, retirement accounts, women’s financial health, and estate planning. Feedback from participants has been very positive and participants have shared additional topics for future sessions. The program will continue next fiscal year with additional topics. Accomplishments:  The city received Mature Worker Friendly Certification by the Governor's Advisory Council on Aging and the Arizona Department of Commerce. The Mature Worker Friendly Employer Certification provides special recognition to employers that commit to creating a workplace environment that values experience and skills that mature workers exhibit, and also assists employers in attracting and retaining those mature workers. The Mature Worker Friendly Certification complements Glendale’s recognition by the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) as one of fifty Best Employers for Workers Over 50 nationally. Glendale was the only municipality in the nation and the only organization in Arizona to win the AARP award.  Conducted basic computer skills training for city staff. Approximately 75 employees attended one of the four half day sessions to become familiar with the city’s technology and technology-related policies. Participants found the sessions to be beneficial. Future sessions are being planned.  The cost of the city’s risk in FY 2011 was 1.06%, well below the public entity industry average of 2.0%. The Risk Management/Safety Division continues to provide safety training and education opportunities for management, supervisors and employees. These sessions help keep managers, supervisors and employees mindful of safety as they perform their work.  Conducted a request for proposal for the dental and vision benefits provided to employees and retirees that resulted in significant rate reductions and enhanced benefits. The rate reductions included: a 5% reduction for the PPO dental plan; a 15% reduction for the employee rate for the HMO dental plan and a 11.4% reduction to the vision plan. The negotiations included maintaining the reduced rates for multiple years. GOAL UPDATES Goal Research the cost and implementation requirements of outsourcing the administration of the city’s benefits program for active employees and retirees to determine feasibility. 192 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Human Resources & Risk Management One community that is fiscally sound. Yes, the city has contracted with a 3rd party to begin administering Was the goal met? the city’s benefits program for retirees effective July 2011. The department will save about 20 hours per month by not What were the processing payments, allowing more time on core business Performance Measures? processes. Effectively communicating the changes to retirees. Obstacles/Challenges Related Council Goal Review jobs and work closely with departments to ensure internal staffing meets the needs of the new city structure. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes, a citywide reorganization was completed in March 2011. Was the goal met? The ability of departments to continue to meet service needs through What were the Performance Measures? appropriate job alignment and staff placement Communicating and managing the change organizationally. Obstacles/Challenges Goal 193 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Human Resources HUMAN RESOURCES FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Benefits (1000) Compensation $134,757 $429,994 $144,941 $374,781 $144,100 $374,707 $101,704 $424,728 -30% 13% (1000) Employee Relations $177,976 $166,386 $166,311 $186,022 12% (1000) Employment Services $332,755 $315,455 $314,622 $364,182 15% (1000) Human Resources Administration (1000) Organizational Development $611,008 $287,025 $563,541 $259,189 $558,751 $289,189 $348,246 $163,192 -38% -37% (1000) Risk Management/Safety (2540) Risk Mgmt Trust Fund (2560) Worker's Compensation (2580) Benefit Programs Total - Human Resources BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES $190,523 $121,547 $120,326 $132,626 9% $2,482,031 $1,029,553 $3,068,438 $1,407,000 $2,332,447 $1,907,000 $3,024,506 $1,407,000 -1% 0% $22,545,070 $23,117,869 $23,117,869 $22,348,826 -3% $28,220,692 $29,539,147 $29,325,322 $28,501,032 -4% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $2,239,989 $2,303,058 $2,303,058 $2,187,314 Supplies and Contracts $25,935,755 $27,398,179 $27,184,354 $26,611,649 -3% Internal Premiums $33,507 $24,847 $24,847 $27,259 10% Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits $11,441 $11,180 ($198,117) $11,180 ($198,117) $9,755 ($334,945) -13% 69% Total - Human Resources -5% $28,220,692 $29,539,147 $29,325,322 $28,501,032 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 1.25 6 2 4.75 1 4.75 1 4.75 -50% 0% (1000) Employee Relations 2 2 2 2 0% (1000) Employment Services (1000) Human Resources Administration 3 5 4 5 4 3 4 3 0% -40% (1000) Organizational Development 1 3 2 2 -33% (1000) Risk Management/Safety 2 1 1 1 0% (2540) Risk Mgmt Trust Fund 1 3.75 3 3 -20% 21.25 25.5 20.75 20.75 -19% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Benefits (1000) Compensation Total -Human Resources 194 -4% Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Employee Groups EMPLOYEE GROUPS FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget (1190) Diversity Committee (1190) GEMS $31,392 $11,154 (1190) Glendale Hispanic Network BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Supplies and Contracts Total - Employee Groups FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $54,000 $0 $40,225 $0 $0 $20,000 $21,277 $0 $13,775 $0 NA $0 $30,000 $30,000 $0 -100% $63,823 $84,000 $84,000 $20,000 -76% (1190) Holiday Event Total - Employee Groups FY 2012 Estimate FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget -100% NA Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $63,823 $84,000 $84,000 $20,000 -76% $63,823 $84,000 $84,000 $20,000 -76% 195 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Intergovernmental Programs INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS Brent Stoddard Mission Statement: The mission of the Intergovernmental Programs Department is to develop, represent and advocate the city’s legislative policy decisions by consistently and effectively interacting with other governmental and non-governmental entities. Department Description: The Intergovernmental Programs Department coordinates the legislative and external activities and programs of the city of Glendale. We carry out the state and federal legislative agenda adopted by the City Council. We research and review state and federal legislation impacting the city. We protect the city’s interests in various stakeholder processes and work to resolve City issues with external partners. We develop reports and policy recommendations to City Management and City Council. We staff the Mayor and Council on the various federal, state and regional policy committees they hold positions on including, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the Regional Public Transit Authority (RPTA), Metro Light Rail, the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA), the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, the National League of Cities (NLC), Westmarc and others. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Successfully advocate the city's position on issues at the Arizona Legislature, United States Congress and other governmental bodies. One community with high quality services for citizens. Work with legislators, the Governor's office, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Congressman, other elected officials and local and regional decision making bodies to advocate for and against issues which impact Glendale residents. Successful implementation of the city’s legislative agenda. The time commitment for this goal is ongoing. Budget deficits and competing priorities. Identify opportunities through the state and regional transportation agencies to keep on schedule or to accelerate the design and construction of transportation facilities and services critical to Glendale. One community with high quality services for citizens. Actively work with Glendale, state and regional agency staff to ensure that the funding committed for Glendale projects continues. Look for creative strategies to secure funding to accelerate projects and services as appropriate. 196 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Intergovernmental Programs Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Reducing Glendale’s financial commitment to projects and moving forward additional projects currently delayed. Time Commitment The time commitment for this goal is ongoing. Expected Challenges Funding deficits for the transit, highway and arterial regional programs. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Reduced the department budget by almost 12.4%.  Eliminated contracts and successfully negotiated 10% reductions in remaining contracts. Accomplishments:  Led a successful effort to stop ADOT from turning Grand Avenue back to local jurisdictions. Negotiated agreement with West Valley cities to protect the expressway.  Helped advance legislation sponsored by U.S. Representative Franks to protect the cities sports and entertainment district.  Coordinated and led a mobile workshop highlighting Glendale’s sports and entertainment district for over 100 elected officials from across the country at the National League of Cities that was held in Phoenix.  Secured new (non-Glendale) funds to construct a $14.5 million HOV ramp project at Loop 101 and Maryland Avenue.  Secured nearly $500,000 from competitive regional funds for Bike and Pedestrian and highway safety projects in Glendale.  Successfully secured over $3.2M in transit CMAQ money specifically for city of Glendale preventative maintenance projects which will be distributed in FY13.  Represented the city before the State Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) and successfully advocated for the City Council’s desire for a reduction in the number of State legislative districts representing the City from 6 to 5. Successfully lobbied for two Congressional Districts to continue to cover Glendale. Successfully worked to ensure that Luke Air Force Base remained in a Glendale District, as the original proposed Commission maps had it being moved outside of a Glendale District. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Successfully advocate the city's position on issues at the Arizona Legislature, United States Congress and other governmental bodies. One community with high quality services for citizens. Yes. 197 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Intergovernmental Programs  We were successful in significantly reducing the impacts of harmful legislation to the city of Glendale.  We were successful in negotiating no new negative budgetary impacts on Glendale and were able to restore some previously swept funding. What were the  We took the lead role in organizing lunch meetings with Performance Measures? legislative leadership, the Governor and the mayors of the 6 largest cities in the State.  We helped to successfully advance legislation through the committee process in Congress which will help protect our sports and entertainment district. Budget deficits and competing priorities. Obstacles/Challenges Identify opportunities through the state and regional transportation agencies to keep on schedule or to accelerate the design and Goal construction of transportation facilities and services critical to Glendale. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? We were successful in identifying new funds to construct a $14.5 million HOV ramp project at Loop 101 and Maryland Avenue. It was a new project with no identified funding source. The critical What were the project will now be completed with no local Glendale funds, instead Performance Measures? it will be totally paid for by regional and state funding. We were successful in minimizing impacts on Glendale projects during highway/transit regional program re-balancing. Funding deficits for the transit, highway and arterial regional Obstacles/Challenges programs. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Reduced the subscription level for the legislative tracking database saving over $1,000.  Instituted policy of double sided printing for large legislative bills, reducing paper usage significantly. Accomplishments:  Successful in getting annexation legislation passed by the state legislature to protect the City of Glendale.  Successful in getting Maricopa Association of Governments to approve funding for the Northern Traffic Interchange saving Glendale approximately $10 million and increasing the Loop 101 HOV lane budget by $9 million to accommodate future construction of HOV ramps at Maryland Avenue. 198 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Intergovernmental Programs   Secured a $150,000 public safety grant from the Governor’s Public Safety Stabilization Program (ARRA funding). Successfully negotiated new Regional Public Transportation Authority Transit Life Cycle Program Policies that were most beneficial to Glendale totaling $37 million in services. GOAL UPDATES Successfully advocate the city's position on issues at the Arizona Legislature, United States Congress and other governmental bodies. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? We were successful in getting annexation legislation passed by the state legislature to protect the City of Glendale. We successfully What were the stopped many bills that would have had devastating financial Performance Measures? impacts on Glendale. We were successful in protecting the state shared revenue streams from the budget cuts at the legislature. The legislature introduced an overwhelming amount of anti-city Obstacles/Challenges legislation. Goal Increase federal issues the IGP Department becomes involved with and is actively engaged in at the federal level. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Contacted and met with all of the Congressional offices in the What were the greater metropolitan area. Advocated for Glendale’s priorities, Performance Measures? resulting in the introduction of federal legislation to assist Glendale. The Congress put a one-year moratorium on earmarks and non Obstacles/Challenges discretionary spending. Goal 199 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Intergovt. Programs INTERGOVT. PROGRAMS FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Intergovernmental Programs Total - Intergovt. Programs BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $711,739 $686,721 $671,875 $640,658 -7% $711,739 $686,721 $671,875 $640,658 -7% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $406,800 $427,410 $427,410 $427,423 0% Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums $299,950 $3,723 $296,926 $4,533 $282,080 $4,533 $206,926 $4,655 -30% 3% $1,654 41% $640,658 -7% Internal Service Charges $1,266 Work Order Credits Total - Intergovt. Programs FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Intergovernmental Programs Total -Intergovt. Programs $711,739 $1,171 $1,171 ($43,319) ($43,319) $686,721 $671,875 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 4 4 4 4 0% 4 4 4 4 0% 200 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Internal Audit INTERNAL AUDIT Candace MacLeod Mission Statement: To conduct independent, objective assurance and consulting activities that add value and improve operations. Department Description: The City Auditor’s Office provides audit and consulting services to city departments to identify and minimize business risks, maximize efficiencies, improve internal controls and strengthen accountability to Glendale’s citizens. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Allocate audit resources to the areas that pose the greatest risk to the city. One community that is fiscally sound. Develop a risk-based audit plan with focus on improved business processes. Quarterly risk-based audit plan with focus on improved business processes. Ongoing review and adjustment of the audit plan based on business risk. Resources. Ensure city assets are adequately safeguarded. One community that is fiscally sound. Develop audit programs that include a review of controls over city assets. Audit recommendations that enhance controls over city assets. Ongoing. Resources. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Continued to utilize audit software to efficiently and effectively facilitate audit testing procedures. Accomplishments:  Completed six performance audits, five special projects, two contract audits and eight department procurement card reviews. 201 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Internal Audit GOAL UPDATES Allocate audit resources to the areas that pose the greatest risk to the city. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes Was the goal met? Quarterly risk-based audit plan with focus on improved business What were the Performance Measures? processes. Resources. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Goal Consider the effectiveness of the city’s safety and security practices. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Every audit includes an assessment of compliance with laws and What were the Performance Measures? regulations. Resources. Obstacles/Challenges FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Utilized audit software tools to effectively facilitate audit testing procedures. Accomplishments:  Completed 10 performance and information technology audits and follow-ups and four contract audits.  Performed 13 special projects at the request of management. GOAL UPDATES Goal Consider the effectiveness of the city’s safety and security practices. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes Was the goal met? Every audit includes an assessment of compliance with laws and What were the Performance Measures? regulations. None Obstacles/Challenges Allocate audit resources to the areas that pose the greatest risk to the city. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes Was the goal met? Quarterly risk-based audit plan with focus on improved business What were the Performance Measures? processes. None Obstacles/Challenges Goal 202 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Internal Audit INTERNAL AUDIT FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Internal Audit Total - Internal Audit BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits FY 2011 Actual Total -Internal Audit Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $265,196 $264,741 $291,823 10% $265,196 $264,741 $291,823 10% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $266,655 $281,011 $281,011 $279,890 0% $6,898 $4,139 $9,106 $2,465 $8,651 $2,465 $8,607 $2,737 -5% 11% $862 $589 -32% $291,823 10% $895 Work Order Credits (1000) Internal Audit FY 2013 Budget $278,587 Internal Service Charges FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2012 Estimate $278,587 Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums Total - Internal Audit FY 2012 Budget $278,587 $862 ($28,248) ($28,248) $265,196 $264,741 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 0% 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 0% 203 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Neighborhood & Human Services NEIGHBORHOOD & HUMAN SERVICES Jim Colson Mission Statement: Connecting people through the power of community and preserving the heatlh, safety and living environment of our neighorhoods. Department Description: The Neighborhood & Human Services Department is comprised of the Community Revitalization, Community Housing, Community Action Program and Code Compliance sections. Each of these sections provides direct community services that ensure residents receive access to resources and community programs that support self-suffiency and build strong neighborhoods. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Provide resources for neighborhoods that promote neighborhood revitalization efforts through the use of general and federal funds. One community with strong neighborhoods.  Link people and neighborhoods with known resources that support property and neighborhood improvement efforts.  Enforce property maintenance codes on a primarily proactive basis.  Provide and participate in community education programs, meeting and events that educate our residents.  Identify additional resources to support Glendale neighborhoods.  Work with a non-profit organization to purchase and rehabilitate 10 houses.  Be responsive to resident calls for service.  Identify and offer resources to residents in an effort to prevent and correct property maintenance violations. 204 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Neighborhood & Human Services  Participate in twelve neighborhood education activities. Expected Outcomes  Expand the Adopt-a-Neighborhood Program with one additional (Perf. Measures – con’t) neighborhood being adopted. These activities will be ongoing throughout the fiscal year. Time Commitment Recent reductions in staffing, available financial resources and the availability of qualified housing are expected to present challenges Expected Challenges during this fiscal year. Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Provide resources and programs that support individuals and families by providing temporary assistance and support. One community with strong neighborhoods.  Secure, distribute and monitor the use of federal resources that benefit Glendale residents.  Monitor monthly housing voucher activity and work to prepare for anticipated budget reductions.  Provide Glendale residents with emergency utility assistance.  Provide homeless prevention assistance.  Offer emergency home repair assistance.  Assist families with housing services within our budget authority.  Assist individuals and families with emergency utility assistance.  Provide homeless prevention assistance.  Offer a federally funded home repair program. These activities require an ongoing time commitment. Anticipated federal budget reductions and the different budget cycle calendars used by the city and federal government create budgeting and scheduling challenges. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  The CAP office worked with IT to implement a pre-screening system that establishes early program elgibility, which results in a one-stop assistance process aimed at helping customers succesfully navigate through the many programs available to them. CAP also implemented a new case management software system to help manage applicants through the process and collect data with the goal of interfacing with the pre-screening system, and providing enhanced data reporting. Accomplishments:  Code Compliance staff assisted the Neighborhood Partnership Office with their Adopt-ANeighborhood Program and partners in adopting the Granada Estates Neighborhood.  Code Compliance staff and volunteers continued to remove the visual blight created by illegal temporary signs from the city’s right of way. A total of 12,824 signs have been removed from the city right of way through March 31, 2012.  Code Compliance staff continued to participate in the education of Glendale residents on 205 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Neighborhood & Human Services city code and enforcement processes by participating in Glendale University. Residents participating in Glendale University were provided department brochures and information on city codes and the enforcement processes used to gain compliance. GOAL UPDATES Continue neighborhood revitalization efforts using NSP 3 funding to improve affordable housing options for working families. One community with strong neighborhoods. Related Council Goal Yes, the division partnered with the Gorman group to purchase a 115 unit apartment complex in Centerline for low to moderate Was the goal met? income families. The leverage of federal funds with private equity finance at the What were the Performance Measures? most will provide up to $16 million to rehabilitate this complex. Securing construction and long term financing is a challenge with Obstacles/Challenges this type of project and the current state of the economy. Goal Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Maintain the financial stability of both housing programs, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Conventional Public Housing, while assisting the maximum number of families allowed by federal budget constraints. One community that is fiscally sound. Yes, Community Housing successfully paid out more than $7 million in Section 8 housing assistance, which was within 2% of budget authority, while utilizing the maximum number of vouchers possible within this authority. The conventional public housing program successfully maintained occupancy standards as set forth by HUD. What were the High performer status on annual federal performance audit. Performance Measures? Main challenge was balancing federal budget cuts, while continuing to assist families without a reduction in voucher Obstacles/Challenges utilization. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  In the area of environmental review, Community Revitalization staff enacted a programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office, reducing approval turnaround from 60 days to two weeks. The clearance process was further streamlined and enhanced to identify any deficiencies in the process.  Through the city’s Innovate LEAN process, we reviewed procedural guidelines used by Housing Assistance Representatives and streamlined the incoming paper-flow process. A second LEAN process streamlined client intake procedures for the Community Action Program resulting in improved customer service and a step-by-step model for a new software application that meets state requirements. 206 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Neighborhood & Human Services Accomplishments:  Community Housing Division was designated as a high-performer for the 18th consecutive fiscal year.  The Neighborhood Partnership Division’s Adopt-A-Neighborhood program matched faith based organizations with four challenged neighborhoods resulting in long-term relationships with focused volunteer and community service projects.  Administered and assisted with processing $914,122 in Homeless Prevention Rapid Re-housing (HPRP) funds well ahead of the federal deadline. This performance was taken into account when the State of Arizona decided to provide the Community Action Program with an additional $316,000 in HPRP funding in March 2011.  Through the first three quarters of FY 2011, 66 community volunteer projects were completed by 2,280 volunteers at a value of $188,700. GOAL UPDATES Utilize our allocation of federal funds to assist the community in mitigating the impact of foreclosures, to increase the number of firsttime homebuyers, to partner with non-profits in developing senior Goal housing, and to administer homeless prevention funds for utility assistance and rapid rehousing. One community with strong neighborhoods. Related Council Goal The mitigation of foreclosures continues with funds being used to purchase, rehabilitate, and resell properties. The first allocation of homeless prevention funds was expended by the Community Action Was the goal met? Program and two partner nonprofits within one year. Two other nonprofits have completed designs for two new senior housing complexes on vacant/blighted property. Out of 29 houses purchased and rehabilitated with federal funding, it is anticipated that we (all partners combined) will sell at least 18 What were the Performance Measures? houses by June 30, 2011. The full $914,122 in homeless prevention funds assisted 1,391 people. Mortgage qualification of customers and competing with private Obstacles/Challenges investors on the purchase of homes. Goal Maintain the financial stability of the Community Housing Division. One community with high quality services for residents. Related Council Goal Yes, staff has continued to manage the programs efficiently. Was the goal met? The payment of more than $7 million to Glendale landlords for housing assistance payments. What were the Performance Measures? Capital Funds received were used to improve the quality of housing available through the public housing program. Federal budget reductions coupled with an increase in rental payments due to the economic downturn may reduce the number of Obstacles/Challenges families that will receive assistance. 207 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Comm. Action Program COMM. ACTION PROGRAM FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) CAP Local Match (1820) ACAA APS Assistance FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate $119,600 $0 $129,859 $0 (1820) ACAA HEAF Program $8,995 (1820) ACAA SRP Assistance $10,437 (1820) ACAA SW Gas Assistance (1820) ACAA URRD Program (1820) Case Mgmt Admin FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $124,364 $0 $129,859 $1,500 0% NA $10,136 $0 $10,136 0% $59,441 $46,790 $63,441 7% $1,287 $8,303 $5,000 $36,732 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $36,732 0% 0% $95,799 $179,549 $179,549 $212,425 18% $720,721 $0 $790,705 $3,135 $790,705 $0 $621,847 $1,567 -21% -50% (1820) Case Mgmt-Qwest Admin $3,849 $3,919 $0 $0 -100% (1820) Case Mgmt-SSBG Admin. $3,711 $0 $0 $0 NA (1820) Case Mgmt-TANF Voucher (1820) Case Mgt-LIHEAP A16 Admin $44,914 $56,367 $45,000 $56,647 $0 $0 $45,000 $0 0% -100% (1820) Case Mgt-LIHEAP Administration $52,372 $51,568 $0 $0 -100% (1820) CM-LIHEAP Admin Contingency (1820) CM-LIHEAP Voucher Contingency $5,972 $0 $5,341 $90,718 $0 $0 $0 $0 -100% -100% (1820) Community Svcs Block Grant-Adm $234,348 $265,153 $265,153 $289,549 9% $2,312 $0 $12,185 $0 NA $0 $40,738 $0 $0 $2,816 $200,122 $0 $0 NA NA (1820) Case Mgmt-LIHEAP Voucher (1820) Case Mgmt-NHN Voucher (1842) ADOH HPRP-Admin (1842) ADOH HPRP-Data Collection (1842) ADOH HPRP-Fin Assist (1842) ADOH HPRP-Housing Reloc SS (1842) ADOH HPRP-RR Assist (1842) ADOH HPRP-RR HR SS Total - Comm. Action Program BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts $624 $0 $358 $0 NA $13,401 $0 $0 $0 $39,417 $5,634 $0 $0 NA NA $1,423,750 $1,732,903 $1,672,093 $1,417,056 FY 2011 Actual $404,051 $1,006,082 Internal Premiums FY 2012 Budget $664,091 $1,172,718 FY 2012 Estimate $564,582 $1,211,417 FY 2013 Budget $486,418 $909,978 -18% Percent Over FY 2012 Budget -27% -22% $3,548 $3,480 $3,480 $3,546 2% Internal Service Charges $15,833 $16,980 $16,980 $17,114 1% Work Order Credits ($5,764) ($124,366) ($124,366) Total - Comm. Action Program FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM $1,423,750 FY 2011 Actual (1820) Case Mgmt Admin (1820) Community Action Program (CAP) (1820) Community Svcs Block Grant-Adm Total -Comm. Action Program $1,732,903 $1,672,093 $1,417,056 -18% FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 3.5 3.5 3.5 0% 3.5 3.5 3.5 0% 7 7 7 0% 7 7 208 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Comm. Partnerships COMM. PARTNERSHIPS FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Community Revitalization (1300) HOME Program FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate $317,927 $717,558 $507,275 $1,787,501 $2,522,944 $2,117,897 $0 $3,368,377 $2,179,261 $51,732 $3,718,764 $0 (1830) ESG General Administration $4,737 (1830) Homeward Bound-ESG (1830) PREHAB Faith House-ESG $20,057 $74,899 (1310) NSP Programs (1311) NSP III (1320) CDBG Programs (1830) Central AZ Shelter Srvs-ESG (1830) U-Mom (1842) CDBG-R Public Hous Lamar H $500,483 $864,126 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $363,066 $773,117 -28% -57% $650,000 $600,000 -72% $1,684,188 $1,684,188 -50% $1,394,182 $0 $2,336,844 $0 -37% NA $0 $0 $174,160 NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA NA -100% $0 $98,278 $98,278 $0 $1,698 $60,000 $44,314 $60,000 0% $53,207 $1,119 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA NA (1842) CDBG-R (1842) CDBG-R Visual Improv (1842) CDBG-R Floralcroft Neigh FY 2013 Budget $49,532 $0 $0 $0 NA $359,178 $1,584,974 $0 $12,609,126 $0 $12,609,126 $0 $12,700,110 NA 1% $7,938,823 $24,267,218 $17,844,697 $18,691,485 -23% FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $2,270,525 $6,090,341 $3,204,568 $20,798,280 $3,239,568 $14,340,759 $3,171,987 $15,181,185 Internal Premiums $95,829 $96,027 $96,027 $101,093 5% Internal Service Charges $30,045 $30,822 $30,822 $27,220 -12% $47,603 ($595,520) $224,126 ($86,605) $224,126 ($86,605) $210,000 -6% (1842) Homeless Prevention HPRP (2500) Community Housing Total - Comm. Partnerships BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts Operating Capital Work Order Credits Total - Comm. Partnerships FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Community Revitalization (1320) CDBG Programs (2500) Community Housing Total -Comm. Partnerships FY 2011 Actual $7,938,823 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget -1% -27% $24,267,218 $17,844,697 $18,691,485 -23% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 2 8.75 3 8.75 2 8.75 2 8.75 -33% 0% 24 24 25 25 4% 34.75 35.75 35.75 35.75 0% 209 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Community Dev Admin COMMUNITY DEV ADMIN FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) CD Deputy City Manager Total - Community Dev Admin BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits FY 2011 Actual Total -Community Dev Admin Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $186,405 $186,095 $205,473 10% $186,405 $186,095 $205,473 10% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $189,618 $199,681 $199,681 $197,358 -1% $2,130 $1,602 $6,194 $1,075 $5,884 $1,075 $6,194 $1,728 0% 61% $170 $193 14% $205,473 10% $173 Work Order Credits (1000) CD Deputy City Manager FY 2013 Budget $193,523 Internal Service Charges FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2012 Estimate $193,523 Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums Total - Community Dev Admin FY 2012 Budget $193,523 $170 ($20,715) ($20,715) $186,405 $186,095 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 1 1 1 1 0% 1 1 1 1 0% 210 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Code Compliance CODE COMPLIANCE FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Code Compliance (1000) Neighborhood Partnership Total - Code Compliance BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $1,354,424 $469,600 $1,295,976 $455,321 $1,291,146 $453,681 $1,256,396 $222,099 -3% -51% $1,824,024 $1,751,297 $1,744,827 $1,478,495 -16% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $1,662,994 $68,862 $1,760,897 $83,909 $1,760,897 $77,439 $1,592,991 $80,126 Internal Premiums $38,412 $30,839 $30,839 $31,984 Internal Service Charges $53,756 $52,517 $52,517 $56,163 7% ($176,865) ($176,865) ($282,769) 60% Work Order Credits Total - Code Compliance FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM $1,824,024 FY 2011 Actual $1,751,297 $1,744,827 $1,478,495 -10% -5% 4% -16% FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget -16% (1000) Code Compliance 19 19 16 16 (1000) Neighborhood Partnership 4 5.5 2 2 -64% 23 24.5 18 18 -27% Total -Code Compliance 211 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Non-Departmental NON-DEPARTMENTAL FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Fund 1000 Non-Dept Total - Non-Departmental BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $543,453 $765,358 $6,762,632 $644,720 -16% $543,453 $765,358 $6,762,632 $644,720 -16% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $410,461 $315,000 $4,104,423 $265,000 Supplies and Contracts $132,992 $450,358 $2,658,209 $379,720 -16% $543,453 $765,358 $6,762,632 $644,720 -16% Total - Non-Departmental 212 -16% Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Parks, Recreation & Library Services Parks, Recreation & Library Services Parks & Recreation Library & Arts PARKS, RECREATION & LIBRARY SERVICES Erik Strunk Mission Statement: The mission of the Parks, Recreation and Library Services Department is to provide safe, high quality parks, open space and recreational facilities and access to literature, information, technology, public arts and culture, and educational and life-enhancing materials and services. Department Description: The parks and recreation system offers opportunities to enhance the social, physical, mental and economic health of the community through a variety of diverse programs. The system maintains, protects and manages all public parks, open spaces, trails, rights-of-way, aquatic and recreational facilities located throughout the community. The public library system serves the needs of Glendale citizens by providing services, programming, books, audio/visual materials and electronic resources that inform, educate and entertain residents. The arts program administers the city’s Public Art and Performing Arts Partnership Program. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Implement new technology strategies to increase efficiency, service and responsiveness to the community. One community with high quality services for citizens.  Staff will collaborate with Maricopa County Library District and the Polaris vendor to migrate from the city’s current Horizon Integrated Library System (ILS) to the Polaris ILS.  Staff will implement a new Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) circulation system.  The Library will purchase new mobile electronic devices for ebook downloads and accompanying policies regarding their use. 213 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Parks, Recreation & Library Services Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment  A new Polaris ILS will provide citizens with a more intuitive catalog interface which equates to increased ease of use through features that improve searching capabilities, more seamless access to e-Books, and optimized catalog enhancements for mobile device users.  Utilizing RFID will promote department efficiency and better meet customer service needs of patrons and staff. It will result in more staff time available to provide direct assistance to library patrons, and enables staff to work more efficiently.  The use of the new mobile electronic devices will be heavily monitored (quantitatively and qualitatively) to determine whether the Glendale public library system should devote more resources to digital downloads. The time commitment to migrate to Polaris equates to a minimum of 6 months and implementing RFID system-wide will require at least 4 months once tagging equipment and tags are received. The use and assessment of new mobile electronic devices will occur over the entire fiscal year.  Challenges will be in getting patrons accustomed to accessing the new Polaris online catalog and staff will need to be trained and will encounter a steep learning curve in the different modules of Polaris in order to do their jobs effectively and efficiently.  Due to limited staffing levels and the time commitment involved in placing RFID tags in 451,151 items system-wide the short implementation time frame will be a challenge.  Once checked-out, receiving back the electronic mobile devices in sound working order will be a challenge. Reduce windshield time (time spent driving in city vehicle) for Parks Maintenance front line staff and reduce fuel consumption. One community that is fiscally sound by setting goals that conservatively reflect the fiscal limitations of the current economic environment.  Parks Maintenance staff will reduce driving time to and from facilities and projects by utilizing more direct routes.  Crews will be relocated to a satellite maintenance campus that is conducive to less driving time and geographically appropriate.  When possible, staff will use fewer vehicles when conducting routine business.  Reduce FY13 fuel consumption by 7%  Reduce FY13 staff window time by 10%  Reduce preventive maintenance on vehicles by 20% The entire FY13. 214 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Parks, Recreation & Library Services Expected Challenges Goal  Staff reduction will decrease opportunities for vehicle partnering.  Unexpected vehicle breakdowns will affect operating and maintenance costs.  Increased fuel costs. To continue providing the highest levels of arts and cultural experiences to the residents of Glendale. Related Council Goal One community with high quality services for citizens by continuing to apply the organizational creativity and commitment to innovation. Activities  Continue to seek partnerships to maximize public access to artsrelated activities.  Seek new and innovative ways to offer citizens of Glendale cultural arts experiences that are cost-conscious yet of the highest quality.  Continue to provide new and innovative arts educational opportunities and programs to the citizens of Glendale. Manage and maintain the municipal art collection. Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures)  Offer at least 2 arts-related experiences during the city’s signature events in partnership with special events.  Enter into “art-loan” programs with at least two of the four colleges and universities located in the Glendale region.  Offer a set of summer art camp classes for youth. Time Commitment The entire FY13. Expected Challenges Ongoing budget constraints may require staff to realign priorities; a reduced work force could impact or reduce staff participation levels; and reduced CIP projects impact the commissioning of permanent public art and ongoing maintenance funding. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  The Library developed Facebook pages for the Youth and Adult departments, developed a “Foursquare” page, and a mobile website.  The Library launched the “Introduction to E-Readers” program in September 2011.  The Library implemented a new online payment system to allow patrons to pay their fines and fees by credit card. The new system provided a great convenience for patrons and has improved payment response times.  Court ordered community service workers were used by the Parks Maintenance division to supplement staff hours missed to due to furlough, vacation, and sick time.  Parks Maintenance staff partnered with the Utilities Department to repair an irrigation mainline at the Western Area Regional Park, which saved the department $8,000 in contractor fees. 215 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Parks, Recreation & Library Services  Parks Maintenance staff purchased two concrete grinders and will take on the responsibilities of repairing concrete in house. The estimated cost savings is well over $50,000. Accomplishments:  The Library participated in a grant that provided early literacy “play stations” for each library’s youth department. The grant also allowed for “brain boxes” that parents could check out and use at home with their children; and the library developed a monthly Early Literacy Tips program in tandem with the brain boxes.  The Folk and Heritage Festival held at Sahuaro Ranch expanded this year to include two performance stages at the Library. The event involved more than 150 performers and over 50 workshops.  The Foothills Recreation & Aquatics Center recently completed a partnership agreement with Healthways to become a designated “Silver Sneakers” facility. The Silver Sneakers designation allows eligible Foothills participants (that are covered by health insurance plans that offer Silver Sneakers) the opportunity to enroll and participate in programs with no out of pocket costs to them.  The Aquatics division continues to partner with Southwest Ambulance to provide free swim lessons to entry level, preschool swimmers. Southwest Ambulance provides a $5,000 grant which serves nearly 200 children every summer.  In FY12, the Sports and Health division hosted 22 Adult Slow Pitch and 33 Youth Fast Pitch Softball Tournaments for a total of 55 tournaments during the fiscal year. Tournaments were held at both Sahuaro Ranch and Paseo Sports Complexes. The 55 tournaments had over 750 teams with approximately 50 of those teams being from outside of Arizona and more than 10,000 participants.  The Bonsall Jet was refurbished and rededicated in December 2011. This was a combined effort between city staff and volunteers, City Council, and the Air National Guard.  Staff secured a $20,000 donation from Landscape Structures to replace the dilapidated “Kid Power” structure at Chaparral Park.  A new park entry monument was installed at Sahuaro Ranch as a result of a $40,000 award by the Glendale Arts Commission.  The Department received a Community Challenge Grant to fund a departmental tree master plan.  The Department was one of 15 communities across the nation to receive a grant to encourage young children how to golf. The grant consisted of $12,000 in funds for equipment and support of the program.  Five licensed “AM/PM Programs” were selected to participate in a child-care self-study project/grant with Association for Supportive Child Care and Department of Economic Services. At the completion of the grant project, each site will be awarded $4,000 to purchase supplies for the program  The Youth & Teen division conducted over 40 outreach events and activities that took place at schools, churches, businesses, and other events throughout the city. 216 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Parks, Recreation & Library Services GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? As a result of new federal regulation requirements, the Parks & Recreation Department must conduct a comprehensive assessment of the existing conditions of all parks and facilities related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The assessment will identify the physical obstacles, describe the methods to make the facilities accessible, provide a schedule for making the access modifications and indicate what department is responsible for the implementation of the plan. One community with high quality services for citizens. Yes. A request for proposal (RFP) was developed and advertised to solicit interested businesses to conduct a comprehensive accessibility audit of 91 parks and city facilities. Five firms from across the country responded. A qualified firm was selected as the most responsive bidder and work will continue into FY13. What were the Award of the RFP for the ADA Audit. Performance Measures? There were no General Fund monies associated with this mandated Obstacles/Challenges project. Self-sustaining revenue funds were used. Implement technology strategies that increase efficiency, service and responsiveness to the community so that library users will be able to Goal access digital resources and information through a reliable, up-todate technical infrastructure. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Creating an E-Book training program to introduce new users to EBooks and the related technologies. E-Book classes run twice What were the monthly at various library locations, and have grown from basic Performance Measures? Intro to E-Book Readers programs to include How to Download EBooks and E-Book labs. In a time of dwindling resources, challenges included dedicating staff time to provide training and allocating funding to purchase eObstacles/Challenges books. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Parks maintenance staff designed new “no spin” toilet paper dispensers for use in parks with restroom facilities. This has created a savings in the use of toilet paper, reduced travel time needed to service restrooms, and provides parks maintenance staff with more time to maintain the city’s parks and recreational sites for our residents.  The library staff examined the steps taken from the time a patron returns an item to the library to the moment it is placed on a cart to be re-shelved. Results of the analysis 217 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Parks, Recreation & Library Services included the elimination of eight steps, with an estimated savings of 7,287 staff hours annually. This savings has resulted in the provision of additional direct services that benefit all library system patrons. Accomplishments:  A $3.2 million renovation of the Sahuaro Ranch Sports Complex was completed in April 2011. The renovation included replacing the entire sprinkler irrigation system, new athletic field lighting, new infield soil and outfield turf, new fencing and backstops, additional spectator shade, enhanced landscaping, additional pedestrian walkways, and an entirely new facility drainage plan.  The library secured a $59,216 Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant from the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records Agency. The “Read and Play With Me at Glendale Public Libraries” grant provides funding to help parents and caregivers become their children’s first and most important teachers, with the aim of better preparing children for the formal learning environment.  Vehicles assigned to crew leaders in the parks system are now equipped with laptop computers. This has allowed them to be in the field more frequently and respond to citizen concerns in a more efficient manner. The computers are equipped with aerial photography which provides instant access to park topography and infrastructure data. Data can be exchanged between staff and/or citizens instantly, resulting in immediate and more detailed responses. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Complete the Parks and Recreation Master Plan update. One community with strong neighborhoods. Yes, on March 7, 2011, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission unanimously approved the updated master plan recommendations and motioned to forward the plan to the City Council for its approval and adoption. The update and its recommendations were subsequently shared with the Council via memo. What were the Complete a Parks Master Plan update by December 2010. Performance Measures? Coordination and quality control with consultants. Obstacles/Challenges Department actively supports and contributes to the Community Services Group hybrid action teams. One community committed to public safety. Related Council Goal Partially, patrons have reported an 80% satisfactory rating for security on the library’s annual survey. However, security personnel Was the goal met? were present for only 66% of documented incident reports to date. Patrons rate an 80% satisfactory rating for security on the library’s What were the annual survey; security guards are present when 80% of the recorded Performance Measures? incidents occur. Availability of security staff when incidents are taking place. Obstacles/Challenges Goal 218 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Parks, Recreation & Library Services Actively support and contribute to connecting people, with the power of community. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes, library and parks staff participated in various outreach efforts throughout the year and partnered with a number of community organizations and agencies. Examples would include: the United Way for family story times at Velma Teague, HeadStart, and the West Valley Cancer Connection for Community Outreach. Various Was the goal met? Parks and Recreation staff members participated in developing new neighborhood outreach strategies; researching alternative funding sources; and created and distributed a new quarterly “My Community” publication for Glendale residents. Department staff attended over 15 civic, school and community forums in Glendale and elsewhere in the Valley and collaborated What were the Performance Measures? with 10 community organizations agencies to assist them to achieve their goals. Sufficient staffing continues to poses a challenge when Obstacles/Challenges implementing outreach programs for the community. Goal 219 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Right-of-Way RIGHT-OF-WAY FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1282) Arena - ROW Maintenance (1340) Right-of-Way Maintenance Total - Right-of-Way BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges FY 2011 Actual FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1340) Right-of-Way Maintenance Total -Right-of-Way FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $25,312 $2,116,833 $49,966 $2,084,123 $49,966 $2,021,494 $49,966 $2,012,694 0% -3% $2,142,145 $2,134,089 $2,071,460 $2,062,660 -3% FY 2011 Actual $797,009 $1,126,980 FY 2012 Budget $828,051 $1,152,495 FY 2012 Estimate $828,051 $1,089,866 FY 2013 Budget $858,451 $1,168,845 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 4% 1% $98,802 $97,825 $97,825 $81,864 $119,354 $132,669 $132,669 $131,655 -1% ($76,951) ($76,951) ($178,155) 132% Work Order Credits Total - Right-of-Way FY 2012 Budget $2,142,145 $2,134,089 $2,071,460 $2,062,660 -16% -3% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 13 13 11 11 -15% 13 13 11 11 -15% 220 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Parks & Recreation PARKS & RECREATION FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Adult Center (1000) Aquatics (1000) Audio/Visual FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget $483,979 $210,294 FY 2012 Estimate $484,688 $218,251 FY 2013 Budget $482,762 $211,529 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $370,526 $140,960 -24% -35% $296 $0 $0 $0 NA $1,547,919 $1,426,274 $1,426,274 $1,378,645 -3% (1000) Glendale Community Center (1000) Historic Sahuaro Ranch $134,598 $246,225 $129,873 $231,126 $129,188 $230,244 $72,358 $92,862 -44% -60% (1000) Marketing - Parks & Rec $140,554 $139,706 $138,790 $0 -100% (1000) Park Irrigation (1000) Park Rangers $235,967 $266,224 $242,779 $259,807 $240,297 $253,554 $174,568 $273,166 -28% 5% (1000) Parks & Recreation Admin. $145,621 $139,186 $139,131 $378,753 172% (1000) Parks CIP & Planning $155,281 $174,510 $174,000 $105,439 -40% $3,453,188 $211,873 $3,208,114 $187,553 $3,103,503 $184,761 $3,363,140 $175,333 5% -7% (1000) Recreation Support Services $848,637 $793,122 $775,669 $733,082 -8% (1000) Special Events and Programs (1000) Sports and Health $65,485 $409,044 $86,276 $392,850 $85,992 $391,817 $6,258 $298,557 -93% -24% (1000) Youth and Teen $437,573 $530,707 $523,811 $420,808 -21% (1280) YSC - Parks & Rec $248,516 $262,000 $186,000 $262,000 0% (1840) Grant Approp - Parks & Rec (1880) Adult Center Self Sustaining $146,005 $157,953 $550,000 $117,000 $60,000 $117,000 $275,000 $117,000 -50% 0% (1880) Aquatic Self Sustaining (1000) Foothills Recreation Center (1000) Parks Maintenance (1000) Pool Maintenance $135,508 $90,001 $90,001 $90,001 0% (1880) GESD-Reimb Division (1880) Glendale Community Center $13,328 $955 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 NA 0% (1880) Rec Self Sust-Administration 33% $17,964 $15,360 $15,360 $20,360 (1880) Rec Self Sust-Audio/Visual $754 $0 $0 $0 (1880) Rec Self Sust-Foothills Rec (1880) Recreation Self-Sustaining $308,481 $0 $254,893 $15,000 $254,893 $15,000 $322,199 $0 26% -100% (1880) Sports Self Sustaining $218,350 $228,364 $228,364 $300,149 31% (1880) SRPHA Sahuaro Ranch Hist (1880) Youth and Teen Self Sustaining $55,383 $239,257 $34,999 $312,584 $34,999 $312,584 $54,999 $321,375 57% 3% (1885) Apollo Pool Repair $6,669 $19,000 $0 $0 (1885) Cactus Pool Repair $30,142 $20,000 $18,883 $20,000 0% (1885) Cardinal Pool Repair (1885) City-Wide Aquatics $26,289 $0 $19,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,000 -100% NA (1885) Dedicate A Tree (1885) Desert Gardens Park (1885) Desert Mirage Park (1885) Desert Valley Park NA -100% $664 $5,000 $0 $5,000 0% $2,489 $0 $7,000 $7,000 $0 $0 $7,000 $7,000 0% 0% $0 $2,000 $0 $8,000 300% (1885) Discovery Park $11,084 $7,000 $0 $7,000 0% (1885) Elsie McCarthy Pk. Maint (1885) GESD ES Ballfields $13,266 $0 $44,038 $7,000 $8,383 $0 $44,038 $7,000 0% 0% (1885) Ironwood HS Light (1885) Ironwood Pool Repair (1885) O'Neil Park Maintenance Total - Parks & Recreation $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0% $108,292 $5,500 $30,200 $4,800 $27,734 $0 $30,200 $4,800 0% 0% $10,739,607 $10,707,061 $9,870,523 $9,929,576 -7% 221 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Parks & Recreation PARKS & RECREATION BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $6,268,479 $3,770,547 $6,575,527 $4,014,809 $6,535,375 $3,218,423 $6,304,326 $3,966,209 Internal Premiums $212,253 $193,470 $193,470 $205,434 6% Internal Service Charges $379,209 $369,181 $369,181 $360,887 -2% Operating Capital Work Order Credits $126,150 ($17,031) ($907,280) 103% Total - Parks & Recreation ($445,926) ($445,926) $10,739,607 $10,707,061 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Adult Center (1000) Aquatics 8 1 8 1 5 5 -38% (1000) Foothills Recreation Center 8 7.75 7 7 -10% (1000) Glendale Community Center (1000) Historic Sahuaro Ranch 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 -50% -67% 3 4 3 4 0% 300% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Marketing - Parks & Rec 1.75 1.75 (1000) Park Irrigation 3 3 (1000) Park Rangers (1000) Parks & Recreation Admin. 3 2 3 1 $9,870,523 $9,929,576 -4% -1% -7% (1000) Parks CIP & Planning 2 2 1 1 -50% (1000) Parks Maintenance (1000) Pool Maintenance 23 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 0% 0% (1000) Recreation Support Services 6 6 4 4 -33% (1000) Special Events and Programs 1 1 5 6.5 5 6.75 4 4.25 4 4.25 -20% -37% (1880) Rec Self Sust-Foothills Rec 1 1 1 1 0% (1880) Sports Self Sustaining (1880) Youth and Teen Self Sustaining 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 0% 0% 84.25 80.25 63.25 63.25 -21% (1000) Sports and Health (1000) Youth and Teen Total -Parks & Recreation 222 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Library & Arts LIBRARY & ARTS FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) Arts Maintenance - Admin. (1000) Library FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $27,304 $5,943,273 $30,302 $5,655,581 $28,914 $5,601,987 $329 $4,894,769 -99% -13% (1220) Arts Maintenance $47,800 $127,787 $127,787 $166,090 30% (1260) Library Book Fund $71,731 $142,223 $247,305 $155,000 9% (1260) Library Special Revenue (1840) Grant Approp - Library $65,616 $91,477 $105,150 $550,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $275,000 -100% -50% $6,247,201 $6,611,043 $6,065,993 $5,491,188 -17% Total - Library & Arts BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges Operating Capital FY 2011 Actual FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Library FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $5,135,564 $1,779,023 $5,107,084 $1,262,453 $4,347,706 $1,208,264 -15% -32% $147,633 $121,746 $121,746 $120,519 -1% $56,340 $52,350 $52,350 $56,878 $77,378 9% ($477,640) ($477,640) ($319,557) -33% $6,247,201 $6,611,043 $6,065,993 $5,491,188 -17% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 69.26 70.13 55 55 -22% 1 1 56 56 (1220) Arts Maintenance Total -Library & Arts FY 2012 Estimate $4,797,248 $1,245,980 Work Order Credits Total - Library & Arts FY 2012 Budget 69.26 70.13 223 -20% Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Police Services POLICE SERVICES Interim Police Chief Debora Black Mission Statement: The mission of the Glendale Police Department is to protect the lives and property of the people we serve. Department Description: The Glendale Police Department is committed to preventing crime, maintaining order, and providing support to numerous events held within the city. The organization continues to emphasize the development of professional knowledge and leadership skills within our ranks and retain exemplary men and women who reflect our community. Emphasis is placed on progressive, innovative techniques and emerging technologies in order to accomplish our mission. A partnership with our citizens and consistent engagement of our community allow us to formulate policing strategies that are critical to our mission. The Glendale Police Department provides the most effective possible response to law enforcement emergencies, neighborhood problems and the enforcement of traffic laws, ensuring that Glendale continues to be a desirable place to live, raise a family, educate, recreate and do business. Everything done, collectively or individually, is done in accordance with department values and objectives. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Reduce violent and property crime. One community focused on public safety.  Identify and arrest more repeat offenders.  Intensify partnerships with other agencies to investigate and identify persons engaged in ongoing criminal activity.  Expand application of CompStat/DDACTS program to target crime in “hotspots” through analysis of patterns and trends. Reduce Part I crimes by 5%. Part I crimes are those crimes that involve murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson. This goal involves an ongoing commitment. The Glendale Police promote the community policing philosophy that seeks the active involvement of the community in the development and application of strategies to address public safety issues. Resource limitations due to budget constraints will require even more innovative and efficient methods to control crime. Enhance response to crime One community focused on public safety. Enhancing police services. 224 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Police Services Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Increase response times by arriving unit at Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls in 5 minutes or less by 5%. We will need to ensure proper deployment of uniformed personnel and proper distribution of resources. This goal involves an ongoing commitment to ensure that the established targets are met and maintained. Resource limitations due to budget constraints will require even more innovative and efficient methods to control crime. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Smart Policing Initiative – Working with the Arizona State University’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, we successfully secured a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance that we used for community policing and the implementation of proven problem solving methods to reduce crime and disorder in our community. In September, the department received notification that grant funding has been approved to continue the Smart Policing Initiative in Glendale for an additional two years; one of only two agencies in the country to receive a second round of funding, which will allow us to expand our efforts.  Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS ) - DDACTS is a law enforcement operational model supported by a partnership among the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and two agencies of the Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Institute of Justice. Glendale Police encorporated the DDACTS model into the existing CompStat program. DDACTS integrates location-based crime and traffic crash data to determine the most effective methods for deploying law enforcement and other resources. Drawing on the deterrent value of highly visible traffic enforcement and the knowledge that crimes often involve motor vehicles, the goal of DDACTS is to reduce crime, crashes, and traffic violations across the country. Glendale Police encorporated the DDACTS model into the existing CompStat program.  Vehicle Marking – The Police Department created a new design for marked vehicles featuring an updated look that incorporates the department’s mission to “protect and serve” as well as the department’s values: integrity, courage, excellence, dedication, respect and compassion. The design incorporates retro-reflective features, including at least four times more the reflective material than the current markings. The new design is more cost effective than the current design creating a savings of $124 per car, or a savings of $21,204 to mark the entire fleet of 171 marked vehicles. The savings is created by the use of a vehicle marking kit that can be installed in approximately half the time required to install the current markings.  Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System (CAD/RMS) Upgrade Project – The department secured five grants for partial funding for the replacement of the current CAD/RMS hardware and software, which are over twenty years old. Phase one of the project is beginning with on-site work. The new CAD/RMS will offer a fully integrated system and provide tools to better analyze trends, link crimes, and identify 225 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Police Services suspects. It will provide ready availability to volumes of information and significantly enhances our ability to provide outstanding service to our community and citizens. Accomplishments:  External Partnerships – The Police Department’s Criminal Investigations Division has expanded external partnerships by assigning a detective to the FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force. Two detectives are assigned part-time to the US Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force. A detective is assigned to the US Marshalls Task Force while another is assigned to the DEA Task Force. The Criminal Investigations Division also shares off-site workspace with both the US Marshalls Task Force and the DEA Task Force with a single squad of investigators assigned to each facility. While assigned to the respective task forces, detectives are able to focus on crimes either occurring in or related to Glendale.  Crime Trend and Safety Strategies - In October the Police Department initiated a new monthly publication in an effort to help prevent crime in the city; the “Glendale Police Crime Trends & Safety Strategies.” The publication will be issued each month to share information about a recent crime trend in Glendale and offer information on ways citizens can help to prevent these types of crimes. Each publication will also include a monthly safety tip. Copies of the new publication are available via the department webpage. The publication is formatted in such a fashion that it would potentially be an excellent handout for community meetings. GOAL UPDATES Enhance response to crime. Goal One community focused on public safety. Related Council Goal No. Was the goal met? What were the Reduce Part I crimes by 5%. Performance Measures? Aggravated assaults crimes were reduced by 4.4% and rapes were reduced by 4.3%, though there was not an overall reduction in Part I Obstacles/Challenges crimes. Goal Enhance community outreach. One community focused on public safety. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Increase citizen contacts through increased community outreach What were the including Coffee with a Cop, Citizens Police Academy, and the Performance Measures? Citizen’s Advisory Committee. Staffing declines presented challenges requiring innovative Obstacles/Challenges approaches to enhancing community outreach. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Smart Policing Initiative – Partnering with the ASU’s Center for Violence Prevention 226 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Police Services   and Community Safety with a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) the department used community policing problem solving methods to target and reduce crime and disorder. Multifaceted approaches addressed neighborhood crime problems resulting in significant crime reductions. Restructured Approach to Investigations – A Night Detective Squad was created to enhance response to high profile crimes after hours. Property Crime detectives were assigned to the Patrol Divisions to improve coordination with patrol officers. External Partnerships - The Criminal Investigations Division is in the process of developing a formal ongoing partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Marshals Service to aide in the enhanced service to victims of crime within Glendale. Accomplishments:  Glendale was recognized as one of the Top 10 Safest Cities in America by Forbes Magazine based on violent crime rates and fatal traffic accidents. Violent crime (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) declined 14% in 2010. Three of four categories of property crime (burglary, auto theft and arson) declined 15.6%.  The Department secured three grants to assist funding replacement of the current CAD/RMS hardware and software which are over 20 years old. Officers now have more access to information through the newly activated access to the Justice Web Interface, COPLINK and WISE-Net.  Patrol Commanders continue to meet regularly with citizen groups who act in an advisory capacity providing information and input on community concerns. Patrol Divisions host quarterly meetings with citizens to discuss crime trends and provide crime prevention options. GOAL UPDATES Goal Enhance response to crime. One community focused on public safety. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assaults) What were the declined 14% in 2010. Property crime of burglary, stolen vehicles Performance Measures? and arson are down by at total of 15.6%. Economic conditions required organizational and procedural Obstacles/Challenges changes in order to maintain services. Goal Enhance community outreach. One community focused on public safety. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Thirty seven new Neighborhood Watch groups were formed and department personnel significantly increased public contacts What were the Performance Measures? through meetings and presentations. Citizens contributed more then 12,000 hours of service to the department. Finding new and innovative ways to engage and involve the public. Obstacles/Challenges 227 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Police Department POLICE DEPARTMENT FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget (1000) Central Patrol Bureau (1000) Crime Investigations $10,133,990 $8,158,156 $10,712,033 $8,487,109 $10,675,151 $8,463,766 $10,911,821 $9,227,328 2% 9% (1000) Foothills Patrol Bureau $10,159,045 $10,480,476 $10,452,664 $11,758,912 12% (1000) PD - Communications $2,453,224 $2,255,017 $2,232,435 $2,462,604 9% (1000) PD - Detention (1000) PD - Emergency Management $1,298,984 $737,029 $1,097,144 $737,610 $1,067,408 $708,260 $1,219,934 $428,621 11% -42% (1000) PD - Fiscal Management $1,874,892 $2,839,755 $2,808,652 $2,837,345 0% (1000) PD - Special Operations (1000) PD - Tow Administration $4,201,675 $45,496 $4,460,707 $44,128 $4,434,437 $44,093 $4,558,932 $51,693 2% 17% (1000) Police Administration $2,807,258 $2,377,837 $2,364,172 $2,393,571 1% (1000) Police Legal Services $30,236 $4,467 $3,976 $4,185 -6% $2,243,270 $1,636,219 $2,232,275 $1,330,181 $2,229,545 $1,326,422 $2,114,192 $1,396,654 -5% 5% (1000) PS Training Ctr - Police $436,937 $577,227 $577,227 $581,875 1% (1281) PD - BCS Event (1281) PD - Fiesta Bowl Event $297,989 $308,906 $0 $401,268 $0 $401,268 $0 $401,268 NA 0% $1,316,787 $1,343,947 $1,343,947 $1,342,031 0% $365,167 $838,135 $838,135 $839,752 0% $9,772,978 $1,466,782 $14,173,737 $4,500,000 $11,318,444 $1,750,000 $14,240,490 $3,500,000 0% -22% (1840) Victim Rights - PD $75,997 $104,752 $104,752 $93,472 -11% (1840) VOCA (1842) JAG Recovery Act $81,766 $0 $95,482 $740,863 $95,482 $0 $102,317 $652,566 7% -12% (1842) PSSP Police OT Grant $25,977 $75,000 $50,103 $0 -100% (1842) Stop Violence - Women $67,406 $84,742 $17,335 $0 -100% $248 $2,306,936 $225,000 $3,670,053 $225,000 $3,670,053 $225,000 $3,670,270 (1000) Police Personnel Management (1000) Police Support Services (1281) Stadium - PD Event Staffing (1282) Arena-PD Event Staffing (1700) Patrol - Special Revenue Fund (1840) Grant Approp - Police Dept (1860) Federal RICO (1860) State RICO (2530) PS Training Ops - Police Total - Police Department Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 0% 0% $274,596 $326,041 $313,000 $340,622 4% $62,577,946 $74,214,986 $67,515,727 $75,355,455 2% 228 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Police Department POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts $50,937,843 $7,310,753 $58,201,898 $14,341,705 $56,001,708 $10,155,677 $61,717,474 $12,991,040 6% -9% Internal Premiums $2,403,323 $2,201,890 $2,201,890 $2,231,701 1% Internal Service Charges $1,994,737 $2,147,695 $1,834,654 $2,164,327 1% $429,786 ($3,107,988) $429,786 ($3,107,988) $427,712 ($4,176,799) 0% 34% $62,577,946 $74,214,986 $67,515,727 $75,355,455 2% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Central Patrol Bureau (1000) Crime Investigations 120 83 118 85 109 85 109 85 -8% 0% Operating Capital Work Order Credits Total - Police Department $348,551 ($417,261) Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Foothills Patrol Bureau 110 115 118 118 3% (1000) PD - Communications (1000) PD - Detention 32.5 10 30.5 9 30.5 10 30.5 10 0% 11% (1000) PD - Emergency Management 6 6 4 4 -33% (1000) PD - Special Operations 38 39 35 35 -10% (1000) PD - Tow Administration (1000) Police Administration 1 19 1 21 1 18 1 18 0% -14% 25 19.5 24 24.5 20 21.5 20 21.5 -17% -12% (1281) Stadium - PD Event Staffing 2 2 2 2 0% (1282) Arena-PD Event Staffing 1 1 1 1 0% 118 1 118 1 118 1 118 1 0% 0% (1000) Police Legal Services (1000) Police Personnel Management (1000) Police Support Services (1700) Patrol - Special Revenue Fund (1840) Victim Rights - PD (1840) VOCA (1860) State RICO (2530) PS Training Ops - Police Total -Police Department 1 1 1 1 1 0% 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0% 0% 590.5 598.5 577.5 577.5 -4% 229 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Public Works Public Works Department Field Operations Engineering PUBLIC WORKS Stuart Kent Mission Statement: A partnership of employees and community working together to create a better quality of life for Glendale. Department Description: Public Works provides essential services that directly impact the community and provides support to other departments within the organization. Public Works is comprised of two separate, yet interdependent departments that provide essential services to the city, they are the Field Operations and Engineering departments. Field Operations provides solid waste collection for residential and commercial customers, curbside recycling for single-family homes, household hazardous waste pick-up, residential loose trash collection and street sweeping, as well as solid waste disposal services at the Glendale Municipal Landfill and Materials Recovery Facility. Street Maintenance functions include street and concrete repair, graffiti removal, and burial services at the Glendale Memorial Cemetery. Equipment Management maintains a fleet of approximately 1,300 city vehicles in support of police, fire, streets, sanitation, utilities and other city operations that provide services to the community. Facilities Management maintains over 102 buildings totaling approximately 1.8 million gross square feet so that customers and city employees can conduct business in a clean and professional setting. Engineering ensures citizen safety and high quality of life by providing properly designed, constructed and inspected public facilities and right-of-way infrastructure. It also supports other city departments when undertaking capital improvement projects. The department oversees the city-adopted National Flood Insurance Program, which provides flood insurance to property owners protecting them against flood losses through the Community Rating System (CRS) program, and it enforces the floodplain management ordinances and annually certifies city compliance with the credited activities required to maintain a healthy CRS rating. 230 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Public Works FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Implement an electronic routing system for the sanitation collection division for the purpose of increasing citywide route efficiency and productivity, while reducing overall operation & maintenance costs. One community with high quality services for citizens. Develop request for proposal, examine products through a competitive process, purchase new software, train staff and re-route the entire city to identify the most cost effective and efficient method for collections. Reduced operations and maintenance costs on trucks, while servicing the same residential community with fewer trucks and personnel. Year long time commitment. Finding the right routing system for our collections operation and possibly communicating an entirely new collection schedule to all Glendale residents. Increase fleet fuel efficiency. One community that is fiscally sound.  Perform preventative maintenance on schedule.  Maintain proper tire pressures.  Improve on fuel reporting accuracy.  Reduce vehicle idling time.  Increase use of Motor Pool operations.  Purchase new fuel efficient vehicles. 5% reduction in total fuel used, approximately 37,000 gallons annually. Ongoing - goal requires work throughout the year and will be evaluated monthly.  Maintaining fuel reporting accuracy with older fuel dispensing and tracking equipment that requires regular monitoring and adjustment.  Educating fleet users to encourage support of ongoing fleet fuel reduction initiatives. Deliver a capital improvement program that provides accurate information, optimizes available resources, and provides needed projects for our community. One community with high quality services for citizens. Design, procure and manage engineering and construction consultant services to all city departments for the city’s capital and operating projects. Complete 90% of the projects with 85% and above satisfaction rating from our client departments. 231 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Public Works Time Commitment Expected Challenges Year long time commitment. Budget and staffing reductions could impact project funding and reduce response times when working with client departments. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  The Landfill implemented an alternative solution for managing the landfill gas condensate (the liquid formed when warm landfill gas cools as it travels through the collection pipe system) which resulted in an annual cost savings of approximately $50,000. Instead of paying to have this liquid hauled off-site, the condensate is recirculated into the landfill or sprayed onto the landfill surface for dust control.  The Sanitation division launched a new residential outreach program called “3 Feet Apart for Better Service.” This program informs residents that residential containers need to be at least three feet apart for safe, efficient collections, by placing stickers on each of the residential container lids. This message will also be permanently “hot stamped” on future container lids moving forward. In addition to the container information, a media blitz was utilized to get this message out to the community which included direct emails to HOA groups, newspaper advertisements and website information.  Field Operations was able to leverage funding to provide roofing repairs and/or replacement to upgrade the roofs at 19 different city buildings in the last fiscal year. The list of buildings includes the Glendale Main Library, Field Operations Complex (2buildings), Spring City, Glendale Adult Center, Velma Teague Library, Information Technology, Fire Station #155, Cholla Water Treatment Plant (3-buildings), Manistee Ranch (garage & office), Sahuaro Ranch (2-restrooms & the garage), Community Center North, Glendale Youth Center, and the Glendale Memorial Park Cemetery.  Engineering has been working with Water Services to develop construction document and specification templates for reoccurring construction projects such as manhole rehabilitation, fire hydrant and valve replacement, and meter vault replacement. The templates will help ensure that the needs of Water Services are met and also provide clear, concise documents for bidding and construction, which is instrumental in avoiding time delays and change orders. By utilizing the templates for in-house design, the savings to the Water Services Department are twofold: first, by doing in-house design the savings can range from 10% to 20% of construction costs, and second, design time can be reduced by 50% allowing projects to move more swiftly to construction.  Engineering is taking every opportunity to provide better services to the citizen and customers. The department is now posting the plan holder’s lists for projects that advertise for bid on the Engineering webpage. The department frequently receives calls from plan rooms and contractors wanting a copy of this list so they can see which other companies have picked up plans, especially as we get closer to the bid deadlines. Previously, the administration would fax the information out, and on the due date we could spend large amounts of time doing this. Now, the administrative office directs them to the web site and they can view or print it themselves. The lists are updated every few days or more often if there have been many changes. 232 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Public Works Accomplishments:  Established a new partnership and opportunity for maintaining Landfill fund revenues by offering the city of Peoria solid waste disposal services through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The partnership is mutually beneficial to both parties in that it secures tonnage with guaranteed annual revenue for the Glendale landfill, and it provides Peoria with an alternate disposal location for greater flexibility and efficiencies while routing solid waste collection vehicles. The proposed tonnage of 5,000 to 10,000 tons delivered to the Glendale Landfill each year will provide $125,000 in annual revenue.  The Sanitation Inspection services division continues to revamp the educational outreach programs to keep them relevant and interesting for the public. This year, the “Recyclemania” program was expanded to include two schools and over 180 fifth graders who competed in a fun, educational contest to collect as many 1-7’s plastics as possible. Over 19,000 plastic items were collected between both schools totaling approximately 1,700 pounds of recyclable plastics that were sent to the City of Glendale Material Recovery Facility for processing.  Facilities Maintenance was able to remodel and retrofit existing city buildings to allow for the consolidation of city staff from six different departments. By vacating staff from these areas it has provided 14,500 square feet of new marketable space, and saved the city more than $15,000 annually in utility costs.  During this fiscal year, the Engineering Department completed several capital projects in the areas of transportation, water services, parks and recreation services, library, housing, public safety services, streets, and flood control. The projects include: Bike overpass on 63rd Avenue @ Loop 101; multiuse paths at Skunk Creek & Bell Road; 51st and Northern Avenue intersection improvements; Sewer and manhole rehabilitation, phases I & II; The Cholla Water Treatment Plant security system; Missouri Avenue waterline replacement; Sahuaro Ranch sports complex roof replacement; tenant improvements for Lamar and Cholla Housing; Glendale Storm Water Master Plan; Northern Avenue drain overlay project; tenant improvements at Promenade of Palmaire. GOAL UPDATES Reduce costs of solid waste collection operations without compromising the high level of service provided. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Reduce the number of residential collection routes while servicing the same number of residential homes with fewer trucks. Implement a customer call-in system so customers can call when boxes What were the approach full capacity (instead of automatically scheduling boxes Performance Measures? for routine service). Both efforts reduced fuel costs, staff time and overall vehicle maintenance by driving fewer miles and maximized truck utilization while on route. None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Goal Related Council Goal Increase fleet fuel efficiency. One community that is fiscally sound. 233 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Public Works Yes. City wide fuel usage was down by 45,236 gallons of fuel used in What were the comparison to FY11. This reduction is fuel usage resulted in a Performance Measures? savings of over $150,000. Fuel savings resulted from the procurement of newer fuel efficient vehicles; we will continue to down size vehicles as opportunities Obstacles/Challenges become available which will lead to further fuel reductions. Was the goal met? Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Manage the city’s pavement infrastructure through ongoing maintenance and repair of up to twenty-one miles of collector/residential streets. One community with high-quality services for citizens. In progress. On April 24, 2012, Council approved a construction agreement with Southwest Slurry Seal, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000. Surface treatments will be applied to 22 miles of roadways in 18 Glendale neighborhoods. What were the Number of miles completed. Performance Measures? The process of finalizing the pavement management report and communicating the plan to Council was important and required time. The procurement (bid & cooperative purchase), legal review Obstacles/Challenges and Council agenda process also required time to ensure a quality product was purchased. Deliver a capital improvement program that provides accurate information, optimizes available resources, and provides needed projects for our community. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. We completed approximately 36 projects. Was the goal met? Completed 96% of the projects with 85% and above satisfaction What were the Performance Measures? rating from our department’s clients. None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Ensure all private development projects constructed within city are reviewed in a timely manner (plan review within 20 working days and material inspection within 48 hours). One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Complete 98% of plan reviews within established timelines (20 What were the working days) and complete 99.3% of scheduled testing services Performance Measures? inspections within 48 hrs. None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal 234 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Public Works FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  As a result of the Innovate Process, the Equipment Management Division consolidated the vehicle replacement fund database with the fleet management system to eliminate a need to enter duplicate information in multiple systems. The change reduces the time needed to process new vehicles and the possibility of input errors.  Effective April 4, 2011, the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) expanded the list of accepted recyclable items to include any plastic that is marked as a 1-7. The MRF is able to add plastics # 3-7 to the processing line without making any modifications to the existing equipment. This change in business practice will allow residents to place more recyclable items into their cans and save valuable landfill space.  The Engineering Department took the initiative to assess the possibility of providing in-house construction inspection services to the city’s capital projects and also to other government agencies’ capital projects. This new approach, has reduced the total cost of the project construction administration by using in-house staff for select capital projects. Right now, the department is providing construction inspections services to approximately ten of the city’s capital projects and three other governments’ agencies capital projects.  The Engineering Department in conjunction with the Utilities Department is now utilizing “trenchless” technology in the rehabilitation of the city’s wastewater infrastructure. Previously when sewer lines began to deteriorate they would need to be dug up and replaced. Pipe lining technologies have now been developed to essentially create a new pipe within the existing pipe eliminating the need to dig up and replace the old pipe. Utilizing this type of rehabilitation is faster, minimizes disruptions to traffic, and limits service outages to residents. Accomplishments:  Equipment Management effectively maintained the city fleet with a 20% reduction in shop staffing. Fleet vehicle availably remained high and annual fleet maintenance costs were reduced by over $300,000. Additionally, the division fully implemented the operation of 22 Motor Pool vehicles at two locations. The establishment of the Motor Pool was instrumental in allowing departments to turn in over 100 vehicles as part of ongoing budget reductions.  New technology has allowed for improved sanitation fleet management resulting in fewer miles driven, increased customer service and overall fuel savings. This new technology has contributed to a 4% decrease in miles driven and 7% less fuel being used. Essentially, sanitation has been able to service the same community driving approximately 50,000 fewer miles and using 30,000 fewer gallons of gas through identified route efficiencies and revised collection practices. The technology has also allowed for fewer missed containers and streets during collections, resulting in fewer customer complaints. Operational improvements have contributed to a fuel cost savings of approximately $96,000.  In November 2010, the landfill entrance signalization project was completed at the MRF. The improvement allows traffic to safely enter the landfill with a deceleration lane and a safe exit from the landfill with a traffic signal. 235 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Public Works  This fiscal year, the Engineering Department completed several capital projects including: Northern Ave. Storm Drain and Raw Waterline (47th Ave. – 63rd); Bell Rd. Rubberized Asphalt Overlay (59th-70th); Glendale Municipal Landfill Traffic Signal, Glendale Avenue Overlay (51st-66th); Glendale Avenue Drainage Improvements, Lamar and Cholla Vista Housing; O’Neil Park Improvements; Fire Station Ventilation System; Multiuse Skunk Creek/Union Hill project; Main Library Lighting Study and Improvements project; 65th Ave. Maryland, Tuckey and McClellan Rd. project; Bethany Home Outfall/Storm Drain (Camelback Ave. 75th-59th Ave.). GOAL UPDATES Goal Reduce contamination received by recycling facility. One community for high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal No. Was the goal met? Recycling contamination rate is reviewed each month in conjunction What were the Performance Measures? with MRF processing operations. Recycling contamination has seemed to increase in conjunction with the current economic conditions as homeowners/tenants use Obstacles/Challenges recycling containers for refuse as they vacate residences. Goal Complete an audit of the vehicle replacement fund to evaluate sustainability and financial health. One community that is fiscally sound. Goal is on hold pending funding availability. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Review recommendations of audit report. Performance Measures? Funding is not available for the foreseeable future. Obstacles/Challenges Provide a capital improvement program that assures accurate information, optimizes available resources and provides needed Goal projects for our community. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. We completed approximately 25 projects. Was the goal met? Completed 91% of the projects with 85% and above satisfaction What were the Performance Measures? rating from our department’s clients. None. Obstacles/Challenges Ensure all private development projects constructed within Glendale are reviewed in a timely manner. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? Complete 90% of plan reviews within established timelines (20 What were the working days) and complete 90% of scheduled testing services Performance Measures? inspections within 48 hrs. None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal 236 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Field Operations FIELD OPERATIONS FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Cemetery (1000) Custodial Services $201,437 $913,968 $221,401 $890,900 $216,249 $879,842 $239,082 $862,107 8% -3% (1000) Downtown Beaut. & Promotion $262,297 $242,095 $238,148 $152,420 -37% $75,690 $82,859 $78,729 $82,859 0% $3,867,667 $638,112 $3,774,973 $610,971 $3,639,432 $595,742 $3,452,476 $648,008 -9% 6% (1000) Graffiti Removal $220,688 $234,496 $229,238 $193,603 -17% (1000) Manistee Ranch Maintenance (1000) Materials Control Warehouse $5,403 $283,291 $5,113 $279,552 $4,857 $278,479 $5,113 $217,428 0% -22% (1040) Equipment Management $3,528,954 $3,810,623 $3,810,623 $3,866,686 1% (1040) Fuel Services $3,401,022 $3,303,029 $3,303,029 $3,303,029 0% (1040) Parts Store Operations (1120) Equipment Replacement $1,326,662 $1,857,539 $1,820,397 $3,029,742 $1,820,397 $2,582,538 $1,822,840 $2,795,693 0% -8% $46,031 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $19,658 $2,157,952 $0 $2,350,017 $0 $2,320,529 $0 $1,043,221 (1000) Downtown Parking Garage (1000) Facilities Management (1000) Field Operations Admin. (1280) YSC - Facilities Mgt. (1340) Street Cleaning (1340) Street Maintenance (2440) Gas Management System 0% NA -56% $167,069 $169,400 $214,400 $169,400 0% (2440) Landfill $3,083,833 $3,162,699 $3,162,699 $3,141,897 -1% (2440) MRF Operations (2440) Recycling $1,581,374 $799,421 $2,021,336 $937,523 $1,865,984 $869,055 $1,840,955 $886,721 -9% -5% (2440) Solid Waste Admin $786,109 $808,184 $808,184 $939,366 16% (2480) Curb Service (2480) Residential-Loose Trash Collec $6,633,953 $2,629,358 $7,548,223 $2,802,234 $7,548,223 $2,795,495 $7,410,232 $2,828,556 -2% 1% (2480) Sanitation Frontload $3,179,287 $3,435,176 $3,370,982 $3,331,312 -3% (2480) Sanitation Roll-off $701,899 $795,098 $763,486 $753,209 -5% (2530) PS Training Ops - Fac. Mgmt. $434,056 $455,462 $455,462 $417,031 -8% $38,802,730 $42,851,503 $41,911,802 $40,463,244 -6% Total - Field Operations 237 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Field Operations FIELD OPERATIONS BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts $13,257,160 $13,853,694 $14,586,444 $14,561,976 $14,524,551 $14,055,059 $13,705,649 $14,272,575 -6% -2% -15% Internal Premiums Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $723,675 $706,754 $706,754 $603,747 Internal Service Charges $9,188,749 $10,668,934 $10,745,247 $10,774,907 1% Operating Capital Work Order Credits $1,780,592 ($1,140) $2,750,693 ($1,644,327) -7% 162% -6% Total - Field Operations FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1000) Cemetery (1000) Custodial Services $2,954,742 ($627,347) $2,507,538 ($627,347) $38,802,730 $42,851,503 $41,911,802 $40,463,244 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 2 18 2 15 2 13 2 13 0% -13% (1000) Downtown Beaut. & Promotion 4 4 2 2 -50% (1000) Facilities Management (1000) Field Operations Admin. 17 2 16 2 10 2 10 2 -38% 0% (1000) Graffiti Removal 3 3 2 2 -33% 4.75 4.75 3.75 3.75 -21% (1040) Equipment Management (1040) Parts Store Operations 36 1 33 1 33 1 33 1 0% 0% (1340) Street Maintenance 28 27 5 5 -81% (2440) Landfill (2440) MRF Operations 19 11 19 11 16 8 16 8 -16% -27% (2440) Recycling 6 6 6 6 0% (2440) Solid Waste Admin 8 8 9 9 13% (2480) Curb Service (2480) Residential-Loose Trash Collec 40 21 40 21 37 21 37 21 -8% 0% (2480) Sanitation Frontload 15 15 14 14 -7% (2480) Sanitation Roll-off (2530) PS Training Ops - Fac. Mgmt. 4 2 3 4 2 3 2 3 -33% -25% 241.75 234.75 189.75 189.75 -19% (1000) Materials Control Warehouse Total -Field Operations 238 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Engineering ENGINEERING FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate (1000) BofA Bank Building (1000) Construction Inspection $238,515 $350,707 $256,579 $412,707 $243,750 $410,112 (1000) Design Division $284,220 $229,987 (1000) Engineering Administration $621,151 $584,296 (1000) Land Development Division (1000) Materials Testing $310,766 $219,803 (1000) Promenade at Palmaire (1000) Utility Inspection Total - Engineering BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits Total - Engineering FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $256,579 $413,204 0% 0% $228,249 $26,900 -88% $583,022 $239,119 -59% $306,881 $225,901 $305,859 $223,686 $332,794 $231,379 8% 2% $61,122 $56,400 $53,580 $56,400 $85,638 $13,622 $13,130 $0 -100% $2,171,922 $2,086,373 $2,061,388 $1,556,375 -25% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 0% Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $2,258,506 $2,417,716 $2,417,778 $2,294,367 -5% $379,836 $77,481 $438,538 $61,181 $413,491 $61,181 $400,182 $52,684 -9% -14% $45,127 -14% $53,736 $52,357 $52,357 ($597,637) ($883,419) ($883,419) $2,171,922 $2,086,373 $2,061,388 ($1,235,985) 40% $1,556,375 -25% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Construction Inspection 4 5 4 4 -20% (1000) Design Division 9 9 6 6 -33% (1000) Engineering Administration (1000) Land Development Division 5 5 6 3 3 3 3 3 -50% 0% (1000) Materials Testing 2 3 3 3 0% (1000) Utility Inspection 2 26 19 19 -27% Total -Engineering 27 239 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Technology & Innovation TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION Chuck Murphy Mission Statement: Provide maximum value to the city through the implementation of agile and cost effective solutions that improve service, reduce costs and leverage information across city departments. Department Description: The Information Technology Department (ITD) supports the city’s technology infrastructure such as application support, network, data services, email, and telephony. ITD also supports the enhancement of business processes through the use of the LEAN methodology blended with the appropriate application of technology. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Complete migration of email to hosted provider. One community that is fiscally sound. Work with consultants to design and implement infrastructure. Test infrastructure to ensure mail and calendar information is transferred correctly. Test calendars, migrate data. Transparent migration of email services to hosted provider. Reduced maintenance impact on internal staff. 4 months. Working through technical issues with relatively new product. Implement public web-based financial expenditure and revenue reporting. One community that is fiscally sound. Develop application in-house. Collaborate with other departments to ensure information presented correctly. Enhanced reporting capabilities for the public. Ability to search and download expenditure data based on multiple criteria. 6 months. Redacting appropriate sensitive information. Expand Innovate Program. One community with high quality services for citizens.  Expand Innovate training program by offering “Lean Basics” training open to all employees.  Offer process improvement workshop for the business community.  Develop a management steering committee to help increase the number of internal projects.  Conduct internal Lean events throughout the organization. 240 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Technology & Innovation Activities (Con’t) Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges  Share program information with other communities in the region to assist in developing a “Lean Government” community.  Provide training to 5% of the employee base.  Present at least one community workshop.  Establish steering committee with quarterly reviews/updates.  Conduct at least 10 new internal projects.  Seek opportunities to present program information to the region. 12 months. Increasing employee engagement at all levels. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  The city stopped using the software that was used to send out bulletins. Free replacement software was identified by staff and implemented, which saved the city approximately $30,000 in annual maintenance.  IT was able to remove an item from the Capital Improvement Plan by re-engineering the city’s geographic information system’s infrastructure and taking advantage of technology was that was unable to be used in the past. This resulted in a savings of approximately $350,000. Accomplishments:  IT, Budget, and Finance staff collaborated on the PeopleSoft Financials upgrade, which was completed without the use of consultants.  Partnered with several departments on the implementation of call center software. GOAL UPDATES Support the Police Department with the implementation of a new records management and computer aided dispatch system. One community committed to public safety. Related Council Goal Project is underway, estimated 18 month completion. Was the goal met? Council approved the contract for the selected vendor on October What were the 25, 2011. A project plan has been developed and the project is Performance Measures? currently on target. Hiring qualified technology staff is a major hurdle. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Goal Develop 2013-2017 Information Technology Strategic Plan. One community that is fiscally sound. No. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Plan development. Performance Measures? Competing project priorities and lack of funding for technology Obstacles/Challenges projects. 241 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Technology & Innovation FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  Service Desk staff have been replacing faulty capacitors as opposed to replacing expensive mother boards. This has saved the City approximately $29,000. Accomplishments:  Supported the Finance Department with the sales tax system implementation.  Partnered with the Police Department with the development of an RFP for their new computer aided dispatch and records management systems. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Was the goal met? Explore and evaluate productivity solutions (i.e. Microsoft Office, Open Office, etc). One community that is fiscally sound. IT met with Google and Microsoft in regards to their product offerings. Due to product release dates being delayed, the selection process will continue into early summer. What were the Select new solution by June 30, 2011. Performance Measures? Microsoft has new product offerings, which will not be available until summer 2011. This has made it difficult to make a final Obstacles/Challenges decision. Goal Evaluate data back-up and email archiving solutions. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. New solutions were selected. Was the goal met? The annual savings by making this change is approximately What were the Performance Measures? $69,000. There were not any obstacles or changes. Obstacles/Challenges 242 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Info. Technology INFO. TECHNOLOGY FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Information Technology (1100) Telephones $2,986,696 $792,263 $2,757,188 $979,324 $2,753,400 $979,324 $3,495,158 $981,990 27% 0% (1140) Technology Replacement $1,405,989 $3,511,584 $2,016,559 $3,166,124 -10% $5,184,948 $7,248,096 $5,749,283 $7,643,272 5% Total - Info. Technology BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $2,436,297 $2,553,253 $2,555,608 $2,789,284 9% Supplies and Contracts $2,007,662 $3,609,721 $2,472,543 $3,111,318 -14% $638,879 $499,863 $499,863 $725,596 45% $14,757 $87,353 $14,108 $803,687 $14,108 $439,697 $17,228 $999,846 22% 24% $5,184,948 $7,248,096 $7,643,272 5% Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges Operating Capital Work Order Credits Total - Info. Technology ($232,536) ($232,536) $5,749,283 FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1000) Information Technology 25 25 28 28 12% (1100) Telephones 1 1 1 1 0% (1140) Technology Replacement 1 1 1 1 0% 27 27 30 30 11% Total -Info. Technology 243 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Transportation Services Transportation Services Department Transportation Airport TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Jamsheed Mehta Mission Statement: To ensure the safe, efficient transportation of people and goods in the city of Glendale. Department Description: Transportation Services plans, programs, funds, designs, constructs, maintains and manages programs and projects for all modes of transportation including aviation, streets and highways, pedestrians, bicycles and transit services. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Successfully coordinate completion of design and construction of regional roadway projects. One community with quality economic development.  Coordinate completion of Northern Parkway construction from Sarival Avenue to Dysart Road (scheduled for completion by spring 2013), and initiate final design of the parkway from Dysart Road to 111th Avenue.  Ensure construction is underway on Grand Avenue, between 43rd and 71st avenues (construction to begin in summer 2012, with completion in FY 2014). Agreements for ongoing operations and maintenance are reviewed and complete. Design and construction standards are to Glendale specifications. These high-priority projects will be constructed over several years. These are large, multiyear projects requiring coordination between state, regional and local agencies with competing priorities. 244 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Transportation Services Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) To complete the Glendale Corridor Planning Study for high-capacity transit/light rail. Secure funding for an alternatives analysis of a preferred alignment in Glendale. Ensure that a Glendale Corridor remains within the life cycle of Proposition 400. One community with quality economic development. One community with a vibrant city center. Coordinate with Metro Rail and the City of Phoenix to secure regional and/or federal funds for an alternatives analysis that would be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration. Completion of the Glendale Corridor Planning Study and securing regional and/or federal funds for an alternatives analysis. Time Commitment An alternatives analysis may take up to three years to complete. Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Challenges Securing funding through the regional process at Metro Rail, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) and federal appropriations in a future transportation Bill. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Transportation Services staff created an electronic barricade permit that could be issued directly to contractors working on city streets. The electronic permit replaces the paper permit that required contractors to travel to city hall to pick up the permit. Applications for permits are now approved and sent electronically. This resulted in a significant time savings for contractors since work on city streets usually requires multiple barricade permits. Accomplishments:  Construction of Northern Parkway, from Sarival Avenue to Dysart Road, is underway.  Design of Grand Avenue is complete and right-of-way acquisitions for the project are in the final stages.  Glendale’s preferred enhancements in the Intelligent Transportation System and landscape infrastructure have been incorporated into the Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) Loop 303 design and schedule for construction in Summer 2012.  Secured complete funding for the Maryland direct High Occupancy Vehicle ramps at Loop 101. GOAL UPDATES Goal Related Council Goal Successfully coordinate final design and construction of major roadway projects in Glendale to include Northern Parkway and the Loop 303. One community with quality economic development. 245 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Transportation Services Was the goal met? In progress. The Loop 303 project design is complete and construction will soon be underway. The Northern Parkway project design, between Sarival and Dysart, is complete and construction is currently underway. What were the Project development milestones. Performance Measures? Challenges include interagency coordination and maintaining the Obstacles/Challenges funding secured toward these projects. Goal Successfully lead ten federally funded traffic signal/intelligent transportation system and safety projects through the federal-aid process. Projects include new communication lines to traffic signals, real-time traffic monitoring cameras, electronic message signs in downtown and pedestrian countdown signal heads. One community with high-quality services for citizens. In progress. Two projects have been completed; four projects are under design; three projects are under construction; and one project Was the goal met? is yet to be advertised for bids by ADOT. Implement the design of all projects—completed. For as many projects as possible, within a one-year timeframe, either advertise What were the Performance Measures? for bids to start construction or implement ADOT equipment procurement process. Related Council Goal Obstacles/Challenges Working through ADOT’s policies and procedures to either bid projects or to purchase equipment. Also need to adhere to federal requirements. FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  To provide enhanced driver information to the public traveling to and from the Sports and Entertainment District, electronic message signs are used around the arena and stadium during most events. In FY 2011, the electronic message signs were used to display 250 messages for a total of 1,286 hours. Accomplishments:  Over $48.7 million in funding from federal, state and regional sources was programmed or expended to improve the city’s intersections, roadways, bike paths, pedestrian walkways and transit services.  Transportation’s efforts in receiving the environmental assessment approval by the Federal Highway Administration for the Northern Parkway project cleared the way for committed federal funding of over $221 million to the project. 246 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Transportation Services GOAL UPDATES Enhance regional highway connectivity in Glendale’s future growth areas. One community with quality economic development. Related Council Goal Yes. Planned improvements for the Loop 303, Northern Parkway, Grand Avenue and ongoing improvements to the Loop 101 have been designed and are near or are under construction. Extending Was the goal met? these transportation corridors into undeveloped areas will not only provide access to new business and commercial areas but will also attract private-sector investment along these growth corridors. Integrating the design of multiple projects that would ensure What were the Performance Measures? connectivity between all highways and Glendale’s growth areas. Challenges included coordinating with multiple agencies at the federal, state and regional levels to ensure design coordination, and Obstacles/Challenges securing funding in light of budget reductions at all levels of government. Goal Explore revenue-generating options and pursue new funding sources through grants and other potential revenue-generating options to Goal offset shortfalls in transit funding from local and state revenue sources. One community that is fiscally sound. Related Council Goal Yes. Two grants, known as New Freedom and Job Access Reverse Commute totaling $1.5 million, were received. With the loss of state funds in December 2009, and regional funds in 2010, transit Was the goal met? schedules and routes would have been significantly impacted. Staff aggressively pursued federal discretionary grants, and award of these two grants prevented immediate service cuts. To research and secure grant funding, and explore other revenueWhat were the Performance Measures? generating options. The grant selection process is highly competitive and only a few Obstacles/Challenges cities in Maricopa County were awarded these funds. 247 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Transportation TRANSPORTATION FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1281) Stadium - Transportation Ops. (1281) Transp - Fiesta Bowl Event (1282) Arena - Transportation Ops. FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget $592,861 $74,165 FY 2012 Estimate $645,734 $79,942 FY 2013 Budget $245,734 $79,942 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $645,734 $79,942 0% 0% $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0% $675,864 $646,465 $635,324 $677,854 5% $1,595,630 $296,318 $1,403,390 $290,717 $1,333,435 $290,332 $1,408,390 $178,043 (1340) Traffic Signals $809,407 $800,256 $780,775 $807,393 1% (1340) Traffic Studies (1340) Transportation Administration $327,547 $332,524 $345,690 $296,918 $344,965 $296,299 $385,951 $228,796 12% -23% (1650) Grant Approp - Transportation $0 $768,765 $0 $0 -100% (1650) HSIP Ped Countdown Signals $0 $0 $19,659 $35,541 NA (1650) JARC - GUS 1 & 2 (1650) JARC - Route 60 $299,602 $0 $0 $0 $152,672 $260,582 $212,971 $118,466 NA NA (1650) New Freedom - GUS 3 $103,340 $0 $60,144 $44,670 NA $54,716 $99,913 $0 $0 $26,407 $51,470 $45,172 $0 NA NA 0% (1340) Signs & Markings (1340) Street Light Management (1340) Traffic Design and Development (1650) New Freedom-Bus Buddies BAG IT (1650) New Freedom-Taxi Subsidy Prog. (1660) Demand Management 0% -39% $22,775 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 (1660) Dial-A-Ride $2,260,161 $2,449,479 $2,551,025 $2,499,516 2% (1660) Fixed Route (1660) Intelligent Transportation Sys $3,610,747 $467,380 $5,175,488 $600,342 $5,073,942 $600,342 $5,133,488 $613,532 -1% 2% $84,005 $580,336 $480,336 $432,681 -25% $286,768 $136,916 $339,875 $113,893 $339,875 $113,893 $350,442 $113,893 3% 0% 1% (1660) Traffic Mitigation (1660) Transit Management (1660) Transportation CIP O&M (1660) Transportation Education $171,535 $226,075 $226,075 $229,122 (1660) Transportation Program Mgmt $2,248,365 $2,313,072 $2,313,072 $2,407,844 4% (1842) Old Roma Alley ARRA Grant $305,319 $0 $0 $0 NA $14,870,858 $17,133,437 $16,333,300 $16,706,441 -2% Total - Transportation 248 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Transportation TRANSPORTATION BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges Operating Capital Work Order Credits FY 2011 Actual $5,072,814 $7,346,336 $5,871,007 $9,495,660 FY 2012 Estimate $5,864,059 $8,537,953 FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $5,794,537 $9,056,112 -1% -5% $418,673 $404,534 $404,534 $457,140 13% $1,763,130 $1,741,584 $1,906,102 $1,863,663 7% $277,514 ($7,609) Total - Transportation FY 2012 Budget ($379,348) ($379,348) ($465,011) 23% $14,870,858 $17,133,437 $16,333,300 $16,706,441 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (1340) Signs & Markings (1340) Traffic Design and Development 8 3 8 3 7 2 7 2 -13% -33% (1340) Traffic Signals 7 7 5 5 -29% (1340) Traffic Studies (1340) Transportation Administration 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 2 0% -33% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1660) Dial-A-Ride -2% 34.25 34.25 34.25 34.25 0% (1660) Intelligent Transportation Sys 4 4 4 4 0% (1660) Traffic Mitigation (1660) Transit Management 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 0% 0% (1660) Transportation Education 1 1 1 1 0% (1660) Transportation Program Mgmt 5 5 5 5 0% 75.25 74.25 69.25 69.25 -7% Total -Transportation 249 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Airport AIRPORT FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2011 Actual (1760) Airport Operations Total - Airport BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $523,990 $527,326 $527,326 $600,451 14% $523,990 $527,326 $527,326 $600,451 14% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits $324,167 $317,908 $317,908 $384,127 21% Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums $135,930 $30,015 $147,941 $38,218 $147,941 $38,218 $126,211 $58,463 -15% 53% $33,878 $30,365 $30,365 $31,650 4% ($7,106) ($7,106) $600,451 14% Internal Service Charges Work Order Credits Total - Airport FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (1760) Airport Operations Total -Airport $523,990 $527,326 $527,326 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 5 5 6 6 20% 5 5 6 6 20% 250 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Water Services Water Services Department Environmental Resources Utilities WATER SERVICES Craig Johnson Mission Statement: Glendale Water Services Department provides customers with safe, reliable, high quality water and wastewater services to ensure public health and the vitality of our community. Department Description: The Water Services Department serves more than 225,000 people within the city of Glendale. The Department is responsible for treating and distributing drinking water that meets all federal and state water quality standards, collecting and treating the city’s wastewater in compliance with all regulatory requirements, operating and maintaining the storm water system, implementing odor and roach infestation control measures, and reading all water meters on a monthly basis. The Department receives no revenues from sales or property taxes, and operates solely on funds from rates and service charges and fees. In accordance with city policy, these funds are administered in an enterprise account. FISCAL YEAR 2013 GOALS Goal Related Council Goal Activities Successful completion of the Ad-hoc Citizen Task Force on Water and Sewer by achieving the desired outcome of developing a shared understanding between the Task Force and the city on the management, sustainability, and value of water and its impact on the community by reaching consensus recommendations to ensure the well-being and quality of life of Glendale residents and businesses. One community with high quality services for citizens. Through 13 meetings and two facility tours the Task Force will be provided with an educational program/process covering water resources planning, water/wastewater treatment, reclaim water storage, customer service and billing, financial planning, and other pertinent topics. 251 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Water Services Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Goal Related Council Goal Activities Expected Outcomes (Perf. Measures) Time Commitment Expected Challenges Based upon the education provided and through facilitated consensus building discussions the task force will provide Council with information and recommendations on the city’s water and wastewater enterprise. The Task Force will meet from April through December 2012. The city’s water and sewer enterprise is very complex and it will be a challenge to ensure that the Task Force process is properly designed and implemented. Complete the improvements to the Arrowhead Ranch Water Reclamation Facility ultraviolet (UV) disinfectant system. This project will replace the existing UV systems with energy efficient low pressure UV disinfection systems. One community with high quality services for citizens. In this multi-year project the design has been completed and the project will be under construction starting June 2012. The effort will entail project management and staff review of project documentation, coordination meeting participation, providing direction and decisions to the engineering consultant and contractor on as-needed basis, and testing the system prior to acceptance. The project is expected to be completed by June 2013. The project will reduce operation and maintenance costs by $100,000 annually. One year. None, the project is on schedule. FISCAL YEAR 2012 Area of Innovation:  Two electrical savings projects were undertaken which have the potential for annual savings of approximately $140,000. The first involved an internal assessment of facility electrical rates which resulted the lowering of electrical rates for six facilities. The second project pertains to APS’s Peak Solutions program, an electrical load shedding program, which provides for an annual refund based on identified electrical load enrolled in the program. Accomplishments:  The Water Services Department won the WESTMARC Best of the West Excellence in Innovation Award for the Oasis Groundwater Treatment Plant. This esteemed award recognizes outstanding contributions to the image, lifestyle, and economic development of the West Valley.  In addition, Water Services was honored with four prestigious awards at the 2012 Annual Arizona Water Conference. The awards included: Large Collection System of the Year, Large Distribution System of the Year, Plant Mechanic of the Year, and Water Treatment Plant Operator of the Year. 252 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Water Services GOAL UPDATES Complete the sewer rehabilitation and replacement project to meet the federal and state regulatory requirements. The sewer system Goal will be rehabilitated using state-of- the-art trenchless technologies to reduce construction costs. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal Yes. Was the goal met? All sewer manholes and sewer pipelines were rehabilitated in this What were the Performance Measures? project. None. Obstacles/Challenges Complete the improvements to the Arrowhead Ranch Water Reclamation Facility ultraviolet (UV) disinfectant system. This project will replace the existing Trojan medium pressure UV Goal systems with energy efficient low pressure UV disinfection systems to reduce operating costs and enhance UV system disinfection performance. One community with high quality services for citizens. Related Council Goal This is a multi-year project that has completed the design phase and is scheduled to begin construction in early July 2012. Anticipated Was the goal met? completion is June 2013. The performance measures are (1) timely completion within budget What were the (2) Upon completion reduction in electrical and maintenance Performance Measures? requirements. None at this time. Project is on schedule. Obstacles/Challenges FISCAL YEAR 2011 Area of Innovation:  A water production optimization program was implemented which resulted in approximately $600,000 annual cost savings in 2011. The Utilities and Environmental Resources Departments was instrumental in generating additional revenues, including amendment of the SROG effluent agreement with the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station which resulted in $0.5 million additional annual revenue in FY 2011. Accomplishments:  The Department received the most prestigious Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Platinum Award for utilities performance excellence in FY 2011. Since 2004, the only cities in Arizona to receive this award have been Tucson Water and the City of Glendale.  The Department also implemented an annual fire hydrant maintenance program to meet the Insurance Services Office (ISO) requirements and to ensure the existing public fire protection is available to individual property owners. This program has helped lower home owner insurance costs within the city. 253 Return to Operating TOC MISSION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Water Services GOAL UPDATES Goal Complete the construction phase of the 10 MGD groundwater treatment plant located at the Oasis Water Campus. This facility will augment existing water supplies and help meet demands during peak demand events and periods of canal outages due to scheduled maintenance. This includes hiring a construction manager, a principal contractor, and construction manager at risk for preconstruction and the onset of construction. One Community with High-Quality Services for Citizens. Yes. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the The project will be completed by May 2011. Performance Measures? None. Obstacles/Challenges Goal Complete the improvements to the Arrowhead Ranch Water Reclamation Facility ultraviolet (UV) disinfectant system. This project will replace the existing Trojan medium pressure UV systems with energy efficient low pressure UV disinfection systems to reduce operating costs and enhance UV system disinfection performance. One Community with High-Quality Services for Citizens. It is anticipated to meet the goal after project completion. Related Council Goal Was the goal met? What were the Completion of UV replacement project by November 2012. Performance Measures? None. Obstacles/Challenges 254 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Env. Resources ENV. RESOURCES FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (1000) HazMat Incidence Response (1840) Smart Landscapes (2360) Environmental Resources (2360) Water Quality (2400) Water Conservation Total - Env. Resources BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts Internal Premiums Internal Service Charges FY 2011 Actual $21,617 $1,806 FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM $26,845 $0 FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $21,158 $63,000 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $0 $0 -100% NA $427,841 $537,929 $533,108 $555,056 3% $1,047,122 $1,155,382 $1,155,382 $1,172,199 1% $261,132 $315,811 $315,811 $320,366 1% $1,759,518 $2,035,967 $2,088,459 $2,047,621 1% FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget $1,249,940 $1,387,136 $1,387,136 $1,410,886 2% $473,026 $22,335 $634,070 $21,844 $686,562 $21,844 $593,235 $21,424 -6% -2% $21,660 $21,660 $22,076 2% ($28,743) ($28,743) $2,047,621 1% $14,217 Work Order Credits Total - Env. Resources FY 2012 Budget $1,759,518 FY 2011 Actual $2,035,967 FY 2012 Budget $2,088,459 FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (2360) Environmental Resources 5 5 5 5 0% (2360) Water Quality (2400) Water Conservation 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 0% 0% 17 17 17 17 0% Total -Env. Resources 255 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Utilities UTILITIES FUND NUMBER / BUDGET BY PROGRAM (2360) Arrowhead Reclamation Plant (2360) Information Management (2360) Property Management FY 2011 Actual $2,202,163 $936,204 FY 2012 Budget $2,106,685 $1,071,445 FY 2012 Estimate $2,106,685 $1,071,445 FY 2013 Budget $2,107,164 $1,086,755 Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 0% 1% $99,066 $87,000 $87,000 $87,000 0% (2360) Public Service Representatives $144,416 $221,824 $221,824 $284,838 28% (2360) Safety Administration (2360) System Security $110,529 $489,114 $0 $771,316 $0 $771,316 $0 $783,306 NA 2% (2360) Utilities Administration $6,231,267 $6,433,504 $6,433,504 $6,605,952 3% (2360) West Area Plant (2400) Central System Control $3,104,923 $1,068,103 $3,560,668 $1,312,765 $3,560,668 $1,312,765 $3,681,280 $1,328,441 3% 1% (2400) Central System Maintenance $414,709 $706,057 $706,057 $641,250 -9% $2,547,719 $3,459,182 $3,459,182 $3,529,249 2% (2400) Customer Service - Field (2400) Irrigation $982,650 $193,119 $1,186,886 $195,269 $1,186,886 $195,269 $1,203,551 $189,209 1% -3% (2400) Meter Maintenance (2400) Cholla Treatment Plant $967,558 $1,208,990 $1,208,990 $1,218,679 1% (2400) Oasis Groundwater WTP (2400) Oasis Surface WTP $0 $3,013,452 $0 $4,104,326 $0 $4,104,326 $615,000 $3,392,105 NA -17% (2400) Pyramid Peak Plant $1,558,089 $1,712,457 $1,712,457 $1,785,133 4% (2400) Raw Water Usage $2,924,438 $3,382,182 $3,382,182 $3,382,182 0% (2400) Water Distribution (2420) 99th Avenue Interceptor $3,127,553 $125,091 $3,424,134 $200,000 $3,379,303 $200,000 $3,234,945 $200,000 -6% 0% (2420) Pretreatment Program $386,938 $526,731 $526,731 $502,157 -5% (2420) SROG (91st Ave) Plant (2420) Storm Water $3,059,821 $10,219 $3,700,000 $0 $3,700,000 $0 $3,700,000 $214,788 0% NA (2420) Wastewater Collection $2,417,132 $3,182,901 $3,062,989 $3,046,172 -4% $36,114,273 $42,554,322 $42,389,579 $42,819,156 1% Total - Utilities 256 Return to Operating TOC BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Utilities UTILITIES BUDGET BY CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Wages/Salaries/Benefits Supplies and Contracts $11,504,257 $18,043,665 $13,415,240 $22,715,085 $13,282,213 $22,683,386 $13,432,031 $22,788,863 Internal Premiums $1,196,456 $1,214,903 $1,214,903 $1,281,225 5% Internal Service Charges $5,320,917 $5,440,756 $5,440,739 $5,287,037 -3% $30,000 27% 1% Operating Capital Work Order Credits $48,978 Total - Utilities $23,687 ($255,349) $23,687 ($255,349) Percent Over FY 2012 Budget 0% 0% $36,114,273 $42,554,322 $42,389,579 $42,819,156 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Percent Over FY 2012 Budget (2360) Arrowhead Reclamation Plant (2360) Information Management 13 6 13 6 12 6 12 6 -8% 0% (2360) Public Service Representatives 4 3 4 4 33% (2360) Safety Administration (2360) System Security 1 8 10 10 10 0% (2360) Utilities Administration 10 10 12 12 20% (2360) West Area Plant 14 14 15 15 7% (2400) Central System Control (2400) Central System Maintenance 9 6 9 6 9 5 9 5 0% -17% FUND NUMBER / STAFFING BY PROGRAM (2400) Cholla Treatment Plant 9 8 9 9 13% (2400) Customer Service - Field (2400) Irrigation 15 1 16 1 16 1 16 1 0% 0% (2400) Meter Maintenance 11 11 11 11 0% (2400) Oasis Surface WTP 15 15 14 14 -7% (2400) Pyramid Peak Plant (2400) Water Distribution 10 30 11 29 11 26 11 26 0% -10% (2420) Pretreatment Program 6 6 6 6 0% 19 19 3 17 3 17 -11% 187 187 187 187 0% (2420) Storm Water (2420) Wastewater Collection Total -Utilities 257 Return to Operating TOC OPERATING BUDGET This page left blank intentionally 258 Capital Improvement Plan Annual Budget, 2012-2013 Return to Main TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CIP Table of Contents CIP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents 259 Introduction 261 Financing the CIP 266 Impact of the CIP on the Operating Budget 283 Summary by Type of Project 285 Summary of All Capital Projects by Funding Type 286 FUND SUMMARIES BOND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS Street/Parking 1980 – Street/Parking Bonds 287 288 289 Open Space & Trails 2140 – Open Space/Trails Construction 292 293 Parks 2060 – Parks Construction 298 299 Library 2160 – Library Construction 309 310 Public Safety 2040 – Public Safety Construction 312 313 Government Facilities 2080 – Government Facilities Construction 319 320 Cultural Facilities/Historical Preservation 2130 – Cultural Facility Construction 325 326 Economic Development 2100 – Economic Development Construction 328 329 Flood Control 2180 – Flood Control Construction 332 333 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUNDS Roadway Improvements 1600 – DIF – Roadway Improvements 339 340 341 Open Space 1520 – DIF – Citywide Open Space 343 344 259 Return to Main TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Table of Contents Page Parks & Recreation 1460 – DIF – Citywide Parks 1480 – DIF – Citywide Rec Facility 1540 – DIF – Park Dev Zone 1 1560 – DIF – Park Dev Zone 2 1580 – DIF – Park Dev Zone 3 346 347 348 349 350 352 Library 1380 – DIF – Library Buildings 1500 – DIF – Libraries 353 354 355 Public Safety 1440 – DIF-Police Dept Facilities 1420 – DIF-Fire Protection Facilities 357 358 359 General Government 1620 – DIF – General Government 360 361 ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS Water & Sewer 2360 – Water & Sewer 2400 – Water 2420 – Sewer 362 363 364 369 380 Transportation 2210 – Transportation Construction 2000 – HURF/Street Bonds 1340 – HURF/Streets Fund 1650 – Transportation Grants 388 389 399 401 402 Sanitation 2480 – Sanitation 407 408 Landfill 2440 – Landfill 410 411 Airport Capital Grants 2120 – Airport Capital Grants 418 419 Other Capital Project Funds 1840 – Other Federal and State Grants 1000 – General Fund 1283 – Camelback Ranch Events 1740 – Civic Center 2150 – Technology Infrastructure 1220 – Arts Commission 423 424 425 428 429 432 436 260 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Introduction INTRODUCTION What are Capital Improvements? The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a ten-year roadmap for creating, maintaining and paying for Glendale’s present and future infrastructure needs. The CIP outlines project costs, funding sources and estimated future operating costs associated with each capital improvement. The plan is designed to ensure that capital improvements will be made when and where they are needed, and that the city will have the funds to pay for and maintain them. Capital improvement projects are non-routine capital expenditures that generally cost more than $50,000 and result in the purchase of equipment, acquisition of land, design and construction of new assets, or the renovation, rehabilitation or expansion of existing capital assets. Capital projects usually have an expected useful life of at least five years. Capital improvements make up the bricks and mortar, or infrastructure that all cities must have in place to provide essential services to current residents and support new growth and development. They also are designed to prevent the deterioration of the city’s existing infrastructure, and respond to and anticipate the future growth of the city. A wide range of projects comprise capital improvements as illustrated by the examples below:          fire and police stations; libraries, court facilities and office buildings; parks, trails, open space, pools, recreation centers and other related facilities; water and wastewater treatment plants, transmission pipes, storage facilities and pump stations; roads, bridges, traffic signals and other traffic control devices including fiber optic infrastructure needed for the operation of intelligent transportation systems; landscape beautification projects; computer software and hardware systems other than personal computers and printers; flood control drainage channels, storm drains and retention basins; and major equipment purchases such as landfill compactors, street sweepers and sanitation trucks. Growing municipalities such as Glendale face a special set of complex problems. These cities need to build new roads, add public amenities such as parks and expand public safety services to accommodate new residential and non-residential development. They also must simultaneously maintain, replace, rehabilitate and/or upgrade existing capital assets such as roads, parks, buildings and underground pipes for the water and sewer system. Glendale has kept pace with its rapid growth through many new public assets. Glendale also has completed many capital projects that involved renovating, rehabilitating or expanding existing infrastructure or buildings. Notable projects completed since 2002 include the following: 261 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Introduction 2012 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2008 2008 2008 2008 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2006 2006 2006 2005 2004 2004 2003 2002 Sales Tax System Union Hills/Skunk Creek Path Sahuaro Ranch Park Improvements Landfill Entrance Signal O’Neil Park Renovations Marshall Ranch Trail Improvements Thunderbird Park Parking Lot Improvements Bicentennial Park Renovations Butler Park Renovations Relocation of Fire Station 151 Catlin Court Alleyway Project Replacement of Billing System for City Services Storm Drain Improvements – 59th Avenue and 67th Avenue Sahuaro Ranch Park Picnic Pavilion Renovations Trail Renovations at Thunderbird Conservation Park Oasis Water Treatment Plant Cholla Water Treatment Plant Process Improvements Park and Ride Facility at 99th and Glendale Avenues Downtown Parking Garage Grand Avenue Improvements Downtown Campus Foothills Recreation & Aquatic Center Emergency Operations Center Convention Center/Media Center/Parking Garage Field Operations Complex Fire Station 159 Rose Lane Pool Restoration 99th Avenue Metering Station Improvements New Adult Center Facility Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant – Solids Handling Expansion Jobing.com Arena Manistee Land Redevelopment Paying for Capital Improvements In many respects, the city planning process for selecting, scheduling and financing capital improvements parallels the way an individual might plan for buying a new house or car. This process entails an assessment of many valid competing needs, a determination of priorities, an evaluation of costs and financing options and an establishment of realistic completion timeframes. The analysis process involves many familiar questions.     Do I need a new home or car or just “want” one? Can I wait another year or two? Are there other alternatives such as remodeling, using public transit or carpooling? What other purchases will I need to forego? 262 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Introduction  What can I afford and how can I pay for it?  Do I need outside financing and what will it cost? If the purchase plan moves forward, a decision must be made about the down payment. A good planner might have started a replacement fund a few years ago in anticipation of the need. Other cash sources might include a savings account or a rainy day emergency fund. The city, just like most families, needs to find longer-term financing to cover certain costs for capital improvements. Repayment of the loan might require cutting other expenses like eating at restaurants or increasing income by taking a second part-time job. An unanticipated inheritance may speed up the timetable; a negative event, such as a flood or unanticipated medical expense, might delay the plan. Similarly, most large capital improvements cannot be financed solely from a single year’s revenue stream or by simply increasing income or decreasing expenses. For a more detailed discussion about this issue see the “Impacts of the CIP on the Operating Budget.” Guidelines and Policies Used in Developing the CIP City Council’s strategic goals and key objectives and the city’s financial policies provide the broad parameters for development of the annual capital plan. Additional considerations include the following:  Does a project support City Council’s strategic goals?  Does a project qualify as a capital project, i.e., cost more than $50,000 and have an expected useful life of at least five years?  Does a project satisfactorily address all federal, state and city legal and financial requirements?  Does a project support the city's favorable investment ratings and financial integrity?  Does a project support the city’s goal of ensuring all geographic areas of the city have comparable quality in the types of services that are defined in the Public Facilities section of the General Plan?  Does a project prevent the deterioration of the city’s existing infrastructure?  Does a project respond to and, if possible, anticipate future growth in the city?  Does a project encourage and sustain quality economic development?  Can a project be financed through growth in the tax base or development fees, when possible, if constructed in response to residential or commercial development?  Is a project responsive to the needs of residents and businesses within the constraints of reasonable taxes and fees?  Does a project leverage funds provided by other units of government (e.g., Maricopa County Flood Control District, Arizona Department of Transportation, etc) where appropriate? Master plans also help determine which projects should be included in the CIP and the timeframes in which the projects should be completed. For example, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan’s guidelines for neighborhood parks include one acre of park land per 1,000 263 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Introduction residents. When population growth causes an area to exceed this threshold, that neighborhood will rise on the capital plan’s priority list for park development. The Water & Sewer Master Plan, Parks Master Plan, Storm Water Master Plan, GO Transportation Plan and five-year plans for landfill and solid waste collection services also provide valuable guidance in the preparation of the CIP. Economic forecasts also are a critical source of information and guidance throughout the capital planning process. The forecasts assess external factors such as whether the local economy is growing or contracting, population growth, inflation for construction materials, the value of land, and other variables that may affect the city’s ability to finance needed services and capital projects. Glendale’s Annual CIP Development Process In conjunction with the annual budgeting process, the Management and Budget Department coordinates the citywide process of revising and updating the city’s capital plan. City staff members from all departments participate in an extensive review of projects in the existing plan and the identification of new projects for inclusion in the CIP. The City Council’s commitment to the needs and desires of Glendale’s citizens is a critical factor considered during the capital planning process, as well as compliance with legal limits and financial resources. The first year of the plan is the only year appropriated by Council. The remaining nine years are for planning purposes and funding is not guaranteed to occur in the year planned. City Council makes the final decision about whether and when to fund a project. Once projects are selected for inclusion in the capital plan, decisions must be made about which projects should be recommended for inclusion in the first five years of the plan. Determining how and when to schedule projects is a complicated process. It must take into account City Council’s strategic goals as well as all of the variables that affect the city’s ability to generate the funds to pay for these projects without jeopardizing its ability to provide routine, ongoing services and one-time or emergency services when needed. Prior to Council’s consideration of the proposed CIP, the Finance and Management & Budget Departments evaluate various debt-related issues to ensure the proposed expenditures meet all debt coverage requirements as discussed in the city’s Debt Management Plan. The Finance Department periodically updates the Debt Management Plan to include the most recent debt issuances. The City Council reviews the recommended CIP during the spring budget workshops. Council also considers citizen requests and considers the recommendations of staff before making the final decision about which projects should be included in which years of the CIP. 264 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Introduction Citizen Involvement in the CIP Process The CIP is an important financial, planning and public communication tool. It gives residents and businesses a clear and concrete view of the city's long-term direction for capital improvements and a better understanding of the city’s ongoing needs for stable revenue sources to fund large or multi-year capital projects. Input into the annual CIP updating process is obtained from citizens who serve on many different city boards and commissions, as well from individual citizens through the public hearing and comment process. Through these public input venues, residents and businesses have alerted staff about infrastructure development and renovation needs, important quality-of-life enhancements, and environmental and historic preservation issues that should be addressed in the capital plan. Citizens have additional opportunities for input when participating in committees that consider voter authorization proposals. There have been two bond elections since 1999. One occurred in November 1999 when Glendale voters approved 100% of the $411.5 million in bond requests. In 2006, City Council established an Ad-Hoc Citizens Bond Election Committee to consider whether additional bond authorization was needed to complete the Council approved CIP. On May 15, 2007, voters approved $218 million of the $270 million in bond requests. We encourage and welcome your comments and suggestions for improving Glendale’s annual CIP. Please share your thoughts, concerns and suggestions with the city staff in the Management and Budget Department. 265 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP FINANCING THE CIP Introduction The financial projections used to develop the CIP are based on staff’s best prediction of future real estate values, construction costs, interest rates, and other relevant variables. These financial projections are jointly developed by the Financial Services Department and Public Works Department in conjunction with the Assistant City Manager. They are updated annually to reflect changes in the economic environment. Although only the first year of the plan is appropriated, the first five years of the plan are financially balanced. This means the plan     complies with the state’s constitutional debt limits; complies with the available voter authorization required for municipal bonds; balances the use of incoming revenue streams with the use of fund balance, while maintaining a fund balance that exceeds the required minimum of 10% of next year’s debt service; and identifies the source of revenue to finance various projects. Financial and legal constraints make it impossible for the city to fund every project on its priority list. For example, it is not possible for the city to fund concurrently several large-scale projects that have significant operating budget impacts. Also, revenues used to pay the debt service are not limitless. Therefore, implementation timetables are established to stagger projects over time based on Council’s strategic goals and the estimated financial resources expected for the future. Limited staff resources to undertake new capital projects also must be considered. Capital projects can consume significant time to manage effectively, and project managers in the departments typically manage several capital projects concurrently. The city also must coordinate the timing of many of its capital projects with federal, state, county and municipal governments and outside entities. For example, street improvements are coordinated with utility companies, when possible, to minimize the amount of new street surface that must be cut to lay new or replacement utility and fiber optic lines. Also, flood control capital improvements are coordinated with the Maricopa County Flood Control District to maximize matching funds that the district makes available for eligible projects. The availability of unanticipated financing, such as federal or state transportation grants may cause the city to accelerate or delay a particular project. In addition, a scheduled project may be delayed in order to take advantage of an unusual onetime opportunity such as the receipt of non-governmental grant monies. All of these issues are discussed in more detail in the following material. 266 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP Debt Management Plan A critical element of financing capital projects is the ability to manage within available resources the overall debt incurred for past projects while including new debt for future projects. Glendale has a formal Debt Management Plan (DMP) that is produced as a separate document from the annual budget book. The DMP was updated in early FY 2012 and presented to City Council in January 2012. For the purposes of this discussion, portions of the DMP are reflected below. The purpose of the city’s DMP is to manage the issuance of the city’s debt obligations within the city’s financial policies, the legal framework governing municipal debt and the bond covenants established for prior issuances. This plan also includes an assessment of the city’s ability to incur additional debt and other long-term obligations within these same limits at favorable interest rates. Analysis of the city’s debt position is essential as planned future capital projects could result in the need for additional capital financing. Decisions regarding the use of debt will be based in part on the long-term needs of the city, the limitations mentioned above and discussed in more detail in the material following this section, and the amount of cash that can be dedicated in a given fiscal year to capital outlay. Glendale believes that a disciplined, systematic approach to debt management will ensure stable credit ratings. The city has instituted a conservative plan of finance for capital projects. The main objectives of that plan are:      evaluate all possible funding mechanisms to insure the city receives the best possible terms and conditions; use debt structures that match the useful lives of the projects being financed or fall within accepted maturity guidelines; use revenue-based bond issuances where feasible, e.g. water and sewer revenue bonds, transportation sales tax revenue bonds and highway user fee revenue fee (HURF) bonds; use excise tax-secured bond financing when appropriate; and finance the majority of the remaining projects with general obligation bonds that are supported by the city’s secondary property tax revenue. Furthermore, the DMP states that the city’s direct net tax-supported debt should be maintained at a level considered manageable by the rating agencies given current economic conditions. Measures of economic conditions include per capita income for Glendale residents and the assessed valuation of property within the city’s corporate limits. Within the context of the DMP, the ten-year CIP is developed with identified funding sources for each CIP project. For example, a street project might be funded through one or more of the following financing sources: HURF bonds, general obligation (G.O.) bonds, federal or state grants, local improvement district funding (LIDs), development impact fees (DIFs), Glendale’s dedicated transportation sales tax or Glendale’s general fund excise taxes. In many cases, a large or multi-year project will be financed using a mix of these funding sources. 267 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds G.O. bonds are direct and general obligations of the city. Glendale uses G.O. bonds to fund most large-scale capital improvements other than water, sewer, sanitation, landfill, many transportation-related projects and professional sports-related facilities such as the Jobing.com Arena, home of the Phoenix Coyotes, and Camelback Ranch, spring training home of the Chicago White Sox and the Los Angeles Dodgers. These bonds are backed by "the full faith and credit" of the city. Arizona State law mandates the separation of city property taxes into two components, the primary tax levy and the secondary tax levy. A municipality’s secondary property tax revenue can be used only to pay the principal, interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness or other lawful long-term obligations that are issued or incurred for a specific capital purpose. In contrast, primary property tax revenue may be used for any lawful purpose. It is preferable for water and sewer (utilities) revenues to pay for water/sewer G.O. bond debt if this type of financing is used instead of revenue bonds. However, if adequate utility revenue is not available, the city can fall back on secondary property tax revenue for water/sewer G.O. bond debt. General Obligation Debt Limitations Arizona’s State Constitution limits G.O. bonded indebtedness to 6% or 20% of the city's total secondary assessed valuation. With this approach, a municipality’s capacity to issue additional G.O. debt will grow as assessed valuation increases and as outstanding G.O. bonds are retired. If secondary assessed valuation declines, which the city has experienced beginning with FY 2010, then the city’s G.O. debt limitations will decrease. The debt limitation – commonly called “bond capacity” and “debt capacity” – figures do not represent the amount of G.O. debt that could be supported by the city’s current and projected secondary property tax revenue. G.O. projects in the 20% category are     Water, sewer, storm sewers (flood control facilities) and artificial light when controlled by the municipality; Open space preserves, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities; Public safety, law enforcement, fire and emergency services facilities; and Streets and transportation facilities. G.O. projects in the 6% category are     Economic development, Historic preservation and cultural facilities, General government facilities, and Libraries. 268 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP Previously, the 6% constitutional limitation applied to public safety, streets and transportation facilities, but Arizona voters changed this in the November 2006 election with the passage of Proposition 104. Table 2-1 reflects the city’s G.O. bond debt limitation as of December 31, 2011. Debt outstanding prior to the passage of Proposition 104 for public safety, streets/parking and transportation facilities is reflected in the 6% category and in the 20% category thereafter. The amount of debt outstanding excludes debt service fund balances. Table 2-1 Constitutional Debt Limitation (All Dollars in Thousands) General Municipal Purpose Bonds 1 6% Limitation Less Direct Bonded Debt to be Outstanding Unused 6% Borrowing Capacity Water, Sewer, Flood Control, Light, Parks and Open Space $78,813 $16,949 $61,864 1,2 20% Limitation Less Direct Bonded Debt to be Outstanding Unused 20% Borrowing Capacity $262,712 $184,731 $77,981 1 Based on 2012 secondary assessed value of $1,313,557,625 2 Public safety, streets/parking and transportation facilities debt prior to Prop. 104 is included in the 6% category Table 2-2 shows the city’s bond capacity under the state’s constitutional debt limits after accounting for existing bond issuances that are outstanding. Changes between fiscal years in the “Outstanding Debt” columns are the result of outstanding bonds being paid down. The columns labeled “Projected Remaining Capacity” show the amount of additional G.O. bonds that could be sold without violating the state constitutional limits. Note that the “Projected Remaining Capacity” figures do not reflect the amount of G.O. debt that could be supported by the city’s current and projected secondary property tax revenue. The FY 2013 secondary assessed valuation figure in Table 2-2 shows a 12.5% decline in secondary assessed valuation from the prior FY and reflects the 2010 real estate market. The FY 2013 valuation figure is the final figure from the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office. The FY 2014 figure reflects an additional 8.2% decline from FY 2013 and is a projection based on the preliminary valuation notices that the county assessor’s office mailed to property owners in February 2012. These significant valuation declines are the result of the unprecedented real estate market that dominates urban areas of the southwestern United States. In Maricopa County, where Glendale is located, the median value of single family residential properties dropped an astonishing 52.5% over five consecutive years. Preliminary data from the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office also indicate that the median value of commercial property continues to decline. The median full cash value of commercial property is down 49.2% since 2009. 269 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP These declines in secondary assessed valuation result in lower debt limitation figures (column A) in FY 2013 through FY 2017 than those shown in Table 2-1 (above). The decline in property valuation significantly limits the city’s ability to take on new debt. For this reason, no new general obligation bond sales are planned in the first five years of the capital plan. Therefore the table simply reflects the impact of outstanding debt on the city’s borrowing capacity. The remaining borrowing capacity is shown in the last column of Table 2-2 below. Table 2-2 Projected G.O. Debt Capacity (All Dollar in Thousands) Fiscal Year FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Projected1 Secondary Assessed Value $1,149,265 $1,055,429 $1,055,429 $1,097,646 $1,141,552 Limitation2 (A) 6% $68,956 $63,326 $63,326 $65,859 $68,493 20% $229,853 $211,086 $211,086 $219,529 $228,310 Outstanding Debt2 (B) 6% $12,634 $8,194 $2,880 $0 $0 20% $172,861 $160,451 $149,425 $132,235 $113,760 Projected Remaining1 Capacity (A-B) 6% 20% $56,322 $56,992 $55,131 $50,635 $60,446 $61,661 $65,859 $87,294 $68,493 $114,550 1 FY 2013 figure reflects actual secondary assessed valuation. Outstanding debt refers to the debt on the principal balance only. 2 Assessed Valuation In FY 2009, secondary assessed valuation peaked at just under $2.2 billion, a 20.1% increase from FY 2008 and on top of a 33.3% increase from FY 2007 to FY 2008. The FY 2009 valuation reflected the 2006 real estate market. The FY 2009 secondary assessed valuation reflected commercial valuation comprising 29.0% of the total, residential comprising 66.8% and the remaining 4.2% included, but was not limited to vacant land, agriculture, railroad and historical property. In FY 2010, Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation was approximately $2.1 billion, a 2.9% decline from the prior FY. The FY 2010 valuation reflected the 2007 real estate market when property valuations began to slip. Commercial properties comprised 33.6% of the FY 2010 total, residential property comprised 61.8% and the remaining 4.6% included, but was not limited to vacant land, agriculture, railroad and historical property. Glendale’s FY 2011 secondary assessed valuation was approximately $1.8 billion, a 17.7% decline from the prior FY. The FY 2011 valuation reflected the 2008 real estate market when property valuations tumbled downward at an accelerated pace. Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation in FY 2012 was approximately $1.3 billion, representing a 25.1% decline from the FY 2011 secondary assessed value. The FY 2012 valuation reflects the 2009 real estate market when property values experienced the most significant plunge. 270 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP For FY 2013, Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation is $1.1 billion, a 12.5% decline from FY 2012. The FY 2013 valuation is based on the 2010 real estate market, when property values continued to fall but at a slower rate. Approximately 56.6% of the FY 2013 valuation is attributable to residential property, 39.8% is attributable to commercial property and the remaining 3.6% includes, but is not limited to vacant land, agriculture, railroad and historical property. A fifth consecutive year of valuation decline – an additional 8.2% – is expected with the FY 2014 valuation. The FY 2014 estimate is based on the preliminary valuation notices that the county assessor’s office mailed to property owners in February 2012 and reflects the 2011 real estate market. These astonishing declines are in contrast to the fact that Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation more than doubled between FY 2004 and FY 2009. This growth was the result of the quality economic development investments the city made over the last several years. However, the latest assessed valuation information means the decline in Glendale property values equates to a loss of over one-half of the city’s secondary assessed valuation – from a peak of nearly $2.2 billion in FY 2009 to a projection under $1.1 billion for FY 2014. For the future, it is assumed that Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation will bottom out with no change in FY 2015 and conservative growth of 4% starting in FY 2016. These are conservative valuation assumptions. The average annual growth rate in Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation was 8.7% for the 10 year period of 1997–2007 – representing the real estate markets of calendar years 1994 through 2004 – prior to the run up in property values. The following chart provides a graphical view of Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation changes between FY 2003 and FY 2013 as well as the projected valuations for FY 2014 through FY 2022. 271 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP The impact of the steep valuation decline on the city’s secondary property tax revenue stream directly affects the city’s capacity to support debt service on existing G.O. bonds, as well as the city’s ability to support additional debt service for new capital projects. The impact and the city’s plan to address the impact are discussed in the next section. Capital Plan Implications for Secondary Property Tax Rate Table 2-3 (below) summarizes annual debt service requirements for existing bonds outstanding. No new G.O. bond issuances are shown per the previous discussion for Table 2-2. You will see that the secondary assessed valuation figures reflect the declines discussed previously in this capital section. The FY 2013 capital budget provides for a path to improved financial stability for the general obligation (G.O.) bond program that includes a secondary property tax rate increase of 0.3054 for FY 2013. This increase follows a period of 18 consecutive years where the total property rate tax was either held flat or reduced since FY 1995. As presented to City Council during the April 23, 2012, budget workshop and in the City Manager’s Recommended FY 2013-22 Capital Improvement Plan memo, the FY 2013 secondary property tax rate increase of 0.3054 is step one of a two-step rate increase that will be staggered over two FYs, with step two being implemented for FY 2014 after Council’s review. The higher secondary rates are expected to be in effect through FY 2017 based on the most current information available about future assessed valuation for property within Glendale’s corporate limits. These higher rates are required to pay for existing debt service for the G.O. bond program; no new G.O. bond sales are planned through FY 2017. This rate change means the city’s secondary rate will increase from $1.3699/$100 of assessed valuation to $1.6753; the city’s primary property tax rate will remain unchanged at $0.2252/$100 of assessed valuation. The city’s total property tax rate will change from $1.5951 to $1.9005/$100 of assessed valuation. Table 2-3 also reflects the Build America Bond (BAB) subsidy related to the G.O. bonds sold in 2010 and the DIF Citywide Recreation Facilities Fund (Fund 1480) debt service contributions related to the Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center which was funded with proceeds from the 2004 G.O. bond sale. The BAB subsidy and DIF debt service contributions directly reduce the debt service to be covered by secondary property tax revenue and will help address the shortfall between the annual debt service requirements and secondary property tax revenue. The current G.O. debt is documented in Schedule 7 of this budget book. 272 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP Table 2-3 General Obligation Property Tax Bonds (All Dollars in Thousands with Exception of Tax Rate) Fiscal Year FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Less Build Less Estimated Estimated Existing Proposed Secondary Secondary America Fund 1480 Secondary Debt Debt Assessed Bond DIF Property Property 2 Service Valuation Service Subsidy Contribution Tax Rate Tax Rev.1 $1,149,265 $1.6753 $19,404 $25,555 ($659) ($209) $0 $1,055,429 $1.9807 $21,055 $24,311 ($647) ($209) $0 $1,055,429 $1.9807 $21,055 $26,483 ($633) ($210) $0 $1,097,646 $1.9807 $21,891 $24,361 ($618) ($211) $0 $1,141,552 $1.9807 $22,761 $23,814 ($593) ($211) $0 Total Debt Service $24,687 $23,455 $25,640 $23,532 $23,009 1 Includes esimated SRP In-Lieu revenue of $150,000 per fiscal year 2 Existing debt service includes HURF debt service in FY's 2013-2016 and repayment to the General Fund through FY 2021 for an interfund loan that occurred in FY 2011 Existing G.O. debt service addresses bonds issued over the last several years to pay for numerous capital projects such as the Emergency Operations Center, Public Safety Training Facility, the downtown parking garage, fire stations 159 and 151, the Glendale Adult Center, the Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center, the Rose Lane Pool Aquatic Center, various flood control projects such as the Bethany Home Outfall Channel, and the downtown plaza and civic center annex. Voter Authorization Under Arizona State law, cities can obtain long-term financing through the use of G.O. bonds only with the approval of voters. On November 2, 1999, the City Council placed on the ballot a variety of proposed capital improvements recommended by the Citizen Bond Election Committee resulting in voters approving $411.5 million of bonds requested. In 2006, City Council established an Ad-Hoc Citizens Bond Election Committee to consider whether additional authorization was needed to support the Council approved FY 2007-16 CIP. On May 15, 2007, voters approved $218 million of the $270 million bond request recommended by the 2006 Ad-Hoc Citizen Bond Election Committee. The time between a bond election varies depending on how much the voters approve in a given election and how many capital projects are initiated. Bond sale proceeds must be used for the purposes specified in the bond authorization election. Remaining bond funds in one bond category may not be used to fund projects in another bond category. Table 2-4 shows the projected remaining voter authorization for G.O. bonds by authorization category. The remaining authorization numbers reflect unused authorization from the October 1981, March 1987, November 1999 and May 2007 bond elections. 273 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP Table 2-4 Projected Remaining G.O. Bond Voter Authorization (All Dollars in Thousands) Category FY 20121 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Public Safety $104,473 $104,473 $104,473 $104,473 $104,473 $104,473 Landfill $15,540 $15,540 $15,540 $15,540 $15,540 $15,540 Library $17,096 $17,096 $17,096 $17,096 $17,096 $17,096 $67,238 $67,238 $67,238 $67,238 $67,238 $67,238 $13,721 $13,721 $13,721 $13,721 $13,721 $13,721 $6,750 $6,750 $6,750 $6,750 $6,750 $6,750 $32,627 $32,627 $32,627 $32,627 $32,627 $32,627 Govt. Facilities $30,200 $30,200 $30,200 $30,200 $30,200 $30,200 Open Space/Trails $50,525 $50,525 $50,525 $50,525 $50,525 $50,525 Parks $14,637 $14,637 $14,637 $14,637 $14,637 $14,637 Flood Control $10,522 $10,522 $10,522 $10,522 $10,522 $10,522 Streets/Parking2,3 Cultural/Historical Transit 2 2 Econ. Development 2 1 Remaining authorization as of June 30, 2012 Bonds can be issued as G. O. Bonds, Revenue Bonds or both. 3 Streets/Parking voter authorization can be used for Street Revenue Bonds that are repaid with HURF revenue 2 Revenue Bonds The City of Glendale can currently make use of four types of revenue bonds: HURF, transportation, water/sewer (utilities) and landfill. The principal and interest on these bonds will be paid from future revenue derived from state highway user revenue fees, the city’s transportation sales tax, and user fees for water, sewer and landfill services. Although revenue bonds may incur slightly higher interest costs than G.O. bonds, revenue bonds do not affect the city's debt limitation. However revenue bonds do require voter authorization unless an alternative form of financing is chosen. Street Revenue Bonds: The State of Arizona shares with cities a portion of the revenues it collects from highway user fees. This revenue is tracked in the Streets Fund (Fund 1340) and is known as HURF revenue. The Arizona State Constitution restricts the use of HURF revenue to street and highway purposes such as right-of-way acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair and the payment of the interest and principal on HURF bonds. HURF often is called the gas tax even though there are several other transportation-related fees, including a portion of the vehicle license tax, that comprise this revenue source. Much of this revenue source is based on the volume of fuel sold rather than the price of fuel. 274 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP In the past, the Arizona Legislature has altered, and may in the future alter, (1) the type and/or rate of taxes, fees and charges to be deposited into the Arizona Highway Revenue Fund and (2) the allocation of such monies among the Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona cities and counties and other purposes. In fact, the Arizona Legislature reduced the amount of funds allocated to cities in FY 2009 through FY 2012. HURF bond-funded projects require voter authorization (either HURF voter authorization or streets/parking G.O. voter authorization) but do not affect the city's debt limitation. By state law, when a city sells this type of bond, the maximum projected annual total debt service payment cannot exceed one-half of the previous year’s revenue allocation. Because of the volatility of highway user revenues, the City Council directed staff to cap the street bond debt service to total highway user revenue ratio slightly below the state limit of .50. The city’s target for CIP purposes is to remain at or near a .45 debt service to revenue ratio. Table 2-5 summarizes the debt service to revenue ratio for HURF bonds. The current HURF debt service is documented in Schedule 7. There are no HURF bond sales planned for FY 2013 through FY 2017. The HURF revenue figures assume the state will continue with the reduced distribution approach in place in FY 2009 through FY 2012. Consequently, HURF revenue will cover only $1.4M of the HURF debt service, while the remaining revenue will be used to pay street operating costs in FY 2013. The remaining $3.3M in annual HURF debt service will be paid by contributions from the roadway development impact fee fund, the transportation sales tax fund and the general obligation debt service fund balance. Table 2-5 Street Revenue Bonds (All Dollars in Throusands) Fiscal Year FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 * Highway User Tax Revenues* $10,550 $12,759 $12,791 $12,823 $12,855 $12,887 Existing Debt Service $4,706 $4,709 $4,696 $1,958 $1,976 $0 Debt Service Proposed Total Annual to Prev. Year Debt Service Debt Service Coverage Revenue % $0 $4,706 N/A N/A $0 $4,709 2.71 45% $0 $4,696 2.72 37% $0 $1,958 6.55 15% $0 $1,976 6.51 15% $0 $0 N/A 0% FY 2012 estimated revenue; FY 2013-2017 projected revenues Transportation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds: On November 6, 2001, Glendale held a special election where voters passed a new half-cent sales tax to fund a new transportation plan. The transportation plan was created to improve service for all modes of transportation including public transit, motorized vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and aviation. Of the 13,019 ballots cast for this proposition, 64% were in favor and 36% were in opposition. By their votes, Glendale 275 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP residents indicated that having transportation choices and being connected to regional activities and employment centers were important to maintaining Glendale’s high quality of life. Everyone who shops in Glendale pays the half-cent sales tax that became effective January 1, 2002. The revenues are dedicated to funding the implementation of the Glendale Onboard! (GO) Transportation Plan. The sales tax has no termination date because it will be used for future transit operating costs that are ongoing. The transportation capital and operating budgets are balanced yearly. Table 2-6 displays proposed revenue bond sales to support capital projects in the transportation sales tax program. The table summarizes annual revenue expected from the designated sales tax, future bond sale amounts, the corresponding debt service, and the resulting coverage ratio. The minimum debt coverage ratio that was established for the FY 2008 transportation sales tax revenue bond issuance is 2.0. Please see the Glendale Onboard Annual Report for more information. Table 2-6 Transportation Revenue Bonds (All Dollars in Thousands) Fiscal Year FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Transportation Bond Existing Debt Proposed Total Annual Sales Tax Sales Service Debt Service Debt Service Coverage Revenue $20,862 $0 $7,326 $0 $7,326 2.85 $21,856 $26,000 $7,326 $1,938 $9,264 2.36 $22,402 $0 $7,326 $1,938 $9,264 2.42 $23,298 $10,000 $7,326 $2,684 $10,010 2.33 $24,347 $0 $7,327 $2,684 $10,011 2.43 Water/Sewer Revenue Bonds: The city can sell bonds that pledge water/sewer utility revenues as payment for bond debt service. Water/sewer revenue bond sales are limited by Ordinance 1323 New Series (adopted in 1984) and Ordinance 1784 New Series (adopted in 1993). Glendale’s bond covenant states that net utility revenue (i.e. revenues less operating costs) will be at least 1.2 times the maximum debt service due in any succeeding fiscal year; this is the bond debt service coverage ratio. Adjustments in net revenue may be made in some circumstances; restatement of debt service on variable rate and certain other types of debt is permitted; and refunding and compound interest bonds may be issued under different tests. In December 2003, the city entered into a trust agreement and issued subordinate lien obligations. Subordinate lien obligations are not bonds; they are junior and subordinate to the lien on water/sewer system revenues from existing city revenue bonds. Obligations offer the city the ability to take advantage of historically low interest rates at a time when adequate bond authorization is unavailable. 276 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP Table 2-7 Water/Sewer Planned Bonds & Coverage Ratios (All Dollars in Thousands) Fiscal Year FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Bond Sales $0 $29,400 $0 $30,900 $0 Annual Coverage Ratio 1.27 1.21 1.20 1.21 1.33 Table 2-7 displays projected water/sewer bond sales and coverage ratios. FY 2013-17 CIP projects for the water and sewer system will be funded with one of the financing sources described above. The current water/sewer debt is documented in Schedule 7 of this budget book. The FY 2013 rate recommendation for the water/sewer enterprise fund is for no change to the rates currently in effect. This recommendation is based on the annual update of the individual rate models for each of the enterprise funds that are used to develop a balanced capital plan for each operation. As a result of the payoff of senior lien bonds (WIFA) during FY 2012, the reserve fund of retained earnings and cash totaling approximately $11M is freed up allowing for a refunding that eliminates the need for a rate increase in 2013. Overall, this rate recommendation is the result of:      The prepayment and/or restructuring of water/sewer debt The deferral of non-essential growth-related capital projects Continuation of critical repair, maintenance and replacement of existing capital assets such as underground pipes Continuation of capital projects that ensure compliance with applicable federal, state and county regulations Ongoing improvements in operational efficiencies to minimize cost increases related to fuel, equipment and electricity. Landfill Revenue Bonds: Landfill revenue bonds fund environmental improvements required by federal and state law as well as improvements relating to constructing, extending, improving and repairing the Glendale Municipal Landfill. Users of the Glendale Municipal Landfill include both outside haulers and the city’s residential and commercial solid waste operations. Landfill CIP projects will be funded from operating revenues over the next few years. The voter authorization for landfill revenue bonds as of June 30, 2011, was $15.5 million. 277 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP Other Capital Financing Options Local Improvement District Bonds: Local improvement districts (LIDs) are legally designated geographic areas in which a majority of the affected property owners agree to pay for one or more capital improvements through a supplemental assessment. This financing approach ties the repayment of debt to those property owners who most directly benefit from the improvements financed. The city’s most recent LID was formed in 1993 to finance the construction of improvements on Bell Road, from 67th Avenue to 83rd Avenue, and the Arrowhead Mall area. There are several financial and practical constraints that can limit the formation of such districts. While LID bonds are not subject to specific debt limits, LID debt appears in the city's financial statements as an obligation of the city, and therefore can affect the city’s bond ratings. In addition, it may be difficult to obtain the consent of the number of property owners needed to create a LID. Residential property owners and business property owners in the same area may have different concerns, priorities and financial assets. Finally, a LID usually is not a viable option in lower-income areas. For capital plan purposes, it is assumed that any new LIDs either will be fully funded by private property owners or the city’s financial participation will be limited to a small “general city contribution” for the share of improvements that benefits property owners outside the district. The formation of a LID can affect the CIP positively by accelerating the completion of a capital improvement already in the CIP or negatively by delaying other scheduled projects in order to finance the city’s LID contribution. Municipal Property Corporation Bonds: A city may form a Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) to finance a large capital project. An MPC is a non-profit organization over which the city exercises oversight authority, including the appointment of its governing board. This mechanism allows the city to finance a needed capital improvement and then purchase the improvement from the corporation over a period of years. In order for the MPC to market the bonds, a city will typically pledge unrestricted excise taxes. Unrestricted excise taxes are generally all excise, transaction privilege, franchise and income taxes. In fact, MPC debt service is paid with General Fund operating dollars and this is a serious limitation of this financing option. (The General Fund operating budget contribution is reflected as a transfer from the General Fund to the MPC debt service fund in Schedule 4 of this document). While the city has potential MPC bond capacity, a large issuance of MPC bonds could place a significant strain on the overall General Fund operating budget. Before entering into a purchase agreement with the MPC, the city also will pledge that actual annual excise tax collections will be at least three times the maximum annual debt service payment for all senior MPC bonds. The city has formed and entered into agreements to sell MPC bonds to fund several construction projects, including the following:   Glendale Municipal Office Complex (debt is retired), Jobing.com Arena, 278 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP    Glendale Media Center and Expo Hall, Convention Center and Parking Garage adjacent to the Westgate development in west Glendale, a portion of the Glendale Regional Public Safety Training Facility, and infrastructure for the Zanjero development. Table 2-8 shows the current amount of MPC principal debt outstanding as of July 1, 2012. It is anticipated that the debt service on these obligations will be paid by the undesignated portion of city sales tax receipts from the projects that benefit from the capital improvements, with any shortfalls addressed by the General Fund transfer. It should be noted that the city intends to refund or otherwise restructure one or more MPC issuances during FY 2013 if good market conditions prevail. The current MPC debt is documented in Schedule 7 of this budget book. Table 2-8 Outstanding Municipal Property Corportation Bonds Issue MPC Bonds - Arena Tax Exempt MPC Bonds - Arena Taxable MPC Bonds - Refund Imp Dist MPC Bonds - GRPSTF/Zanjero MPC Bonds - H/Conv/Media Tax Exempt MPC Bonds - H/Conv/Media Taxable MPC Bonds - H/Conv/Media Taxable AMFP - Arena AMFP - Refunding - Arena MPC Bonds - Refunding 2003A, 2004A & 2006A TOTAL Principal Balance Year Issued Outstanding 2003A $41,635,000 2003B $95,675,000 2004A $1,865,000 2006A $25,610,000 2008A $32,220,000 2008B $50,605,000 2008C $3,920,000 2002 $5,055,000 2003 $7,250,000 2012A $8,665,000 $272,500,000 Public Facilities Corporation Bonds: Similar to an MPC, a public facilities corporation (PFC) a non-profit organization that is formed under Arizona State law to secure funding for capital projects. A PFC is also governed by a Council appointed Board of Directors responsible for authorizing debt. The PFC’s sole purpose is to finance and construct public facilities for the city. While the PFC is a legally separate entity from the city, the city is responsible for the debt associated with the PFC bonds. The special debt obligations are back by the city’s unrestricted excise taxes. Bonds were issued under the Western Loop 101 PFC in 2008 to be used for the construction of a Spring Training facility to accommodate two Major League Baseball teams as well as construct the infrastructure surrounding the facility. While a majority of the bond proceeds were used for the design and construction of the spring training facility and surrounding infrastructure, a portion of the proceeds were used toward capitalized interest through October 30, 2011. 279 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP Table 2-9 shows the current amount of PFC principal debt outstanding as of July 1, 2012. It is anticipated that the debt service on these obligations will be paid by the undesignated portion of city sales tax receipts from the projects that benefit from the capital improvements, with any shortfalls addressed by the General Fund transfer. It should be noted that it is the intent of the city to refund or otherwise restructure this issuance during FY 2013. The projected PFC debt after refunding is documented in Schedule 7 of this budget book. Table 2-9 Outstanding Public Facilities Corporation Bonds Principal Balance Year Issued Outstanding 2008A $137,495,000 2008B $48,670,000 2008C $13,585,000 $199,750,000 Issue PFC - Western Loop 101 PFC - Western Loop 101 PFC - Western Loop 101 TOTAL Lease Financing: Lease financing provides long-term financing for the purchase of equipment or other capital improvements and does not affect the city’s G.O. bond capacity and does not require voter approval. In a lease transaction, the asset being financed can include new capital needs, assets under existing lease agreements or, in some cases, equipment purchased in the past for which the government or municipal unit would prefer to be reimbursed and paid over time. Title to the asset is transferred to the city at the end of the lease term. Table 2-10 reflects the expected FY 2013 payments for capital leases and notes under contract by the city. Year Original Issued Amount Equipment Lease 2007 $1,368,800 Equipment Lease 2009 $1,189,365 Refunding Lease (Hickman/N. Crossing/ADOT) 2011 $11,503,100 Total Lease Financing Lease Financing 1 FY 2013 Scheduled 1 Lease Payment $77,181 $249,877 $1,099,895 $1,426,953 Includes principal and interest; excludes copier leases Grants: The majority of Glendale’s grants for capital projects come from the federal or state government. There are two major types of grants. Open, competitive grant programs usually offer a great deal of latitude in developing a proposal and grants are awarded through a competitive review process. The existing Arizona Heritage Fund grants for parks and historic preservation capital projects are an example of competitive grants. Entitlement or categorical grants are allocated to qualified governmental entities based on a formula basis (e.g., by population, income levels, etc.). Entitlement funds must be used for a 280 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP specific grantor-defined purpose. Community Development Block Grants are considered entitlement grants and typically must benefit low-moderate income residents. A new entitlement grant was awarded to the city during FY 2010 that will move forward several energy efficiency capital projects. Specifically, Glendale is the recipient of a $2.3 million allocation through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. This grant funding will allow for capital projects to be completed that otherwise may not be completed for several years. Some of the capital projects already completed or under construction at the time this document was prepared include:    replacement of outdated lighting systems at the public safety/court facility, the main library and sport courts in the city’s parks with energy efficient lighting systems; an upgrade to the ultraviolet disinfection system at the Arrowhead Wastewater Reclamation Facility; and completion of the LED conversion program for the remaining 30 (of 190) signalized intersections. It is important to note that most federal and state grant programs, with the exception of some public housing programs, require the applicant to contribute to the cost of the project. The required contribution, referred to as local match, can vary from 5% to 75%. Federal Transportation Administration grants for public transit improvements and Federal Aviation Administration grants for airport projects are examples of capital improvement grants for which local matching requirements will come from the city’s operating budget and/or the city’s transportation sales tax. Many federal and state grant programs specifically prohibit the applicant from using other government grants as match, and require that the match be cash rather than donated services. Therefore, matching funds usually come from General Fund department operating budgets, G.O. bonds or development impact fees. There is always a possibility that some of the grant-funded projects will be delayed or not completed if government grants fail to materialize. CIP projects adversely affected by changes in the availability of grants may be postponed until the needed grant funds are acquired, the project is modified to reduce costs, or the project is funded using alternative means. Operating Budget - Pay-As-You-Go: Many capital improvements and purchases of large pieces of equipment are included in the operating budget on a pay-as-you-go basis. The city’s FY 2013 operating budget also provides for the maintenance of capital assets and expenses associated with the growth and depreciation of city facilities and equipment. A vehicle replacement fund for most city vehicles, including police patrol cars, and a technology replacement fund for desktop computers, servers, optical scanning equipment, and other related technology are included in the operating budget. Typically, each department pays annually into each fund based on the equipment in its inventory and the expected life span and value of the equipment. 281 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Financing the CIP Specialized vehicles such as street sweepers, and recurring maintenance costs such as asphalt repairs and sealcoating, are also funded from the operating budget. Some capital improvements are paid for on a cash basis in order to avoid the interest costs incurred with other financing mechanisms. Other Financing Alternatives The City of Glendale’s ongoing challenge to balance the service and infrastructure needs of its current residents with those of its future residents is not unique. Every city that experiences prolonged periods of growth is looking for ways to more equitably distribute the cost of capital improvements based on usage levels and derived benefit. Forming New Utilities: Some cities form a utility to finance and maintain infrastructure for a specific purpose. Examples include streetlights and storm sewers. Rates for these services might be set according to the expected level of facility usage. For example, monthly storm sewer billing rates could be set according to the amount of runoff typically generated by different types and sizes of property. One advantage of usage-based rates is that some of the cost burden is redistributed from the lowend user (i.e. the residential sector) to the high-end user (i.e. the commercial sector). For example, a shopping center generates more runoff per acre than a residential dwelling, and would pay a proportionately higher storm water utility bill. Currently, the city does not use this method. Community Facilities Districts: Community facilities districts (CFDs), enabled by the Arizona Legislature, can provide another mechanism for targeting the funding of capital improvements to the specific area or population that benefits from the improvement. The CFD is conceptually similar to LID’s, but a CFD is given much broader authority in the type of tax or fee implemented and the use of the revenue. As an example, a CFD can levy a tax or fee for the ongoing maintenance of a capital improvement. Currently, the city does not have any CFDs established. 282 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CIP Operating Impact IMPACT OF THE CIP ON THE OPERATING BUDGET Glendale’s operating budget is directly affected by the CIP. Almost every new capital improvement entails additional ongoing expenses for routine operation, repair and maintenance upon completion or acquisition that must be incorporated into the operating budget. Also, many new capital facilities require the addition of new positions. Existing city facilities and equipment that were once considered state-of-the-art will require rehabilitation, renovation or upgrades to accommodate new uses and/or address safety and structural improvements. Older facilities usually involve higher maintenance and repair costs as well. PAYGO capital projects, grantmatching funds and lease/purchase capital expenses also come directly from the operating budget. The costs of future operations and maintenance for new CIP projects are estimated by each department based on a detailed set of cost guidelines that is provided to all departments each year. These guidelines are updated annually in conjunction with the various departments that are experts on different types of operating costs. For instance, the FY 2013 – 2022 CIP reflects the following estimated operating cost for capital projects:        between $2.01 and $3.39 per sq ft annually for electrical and gas costs in a building; between $2.00 and $3.00 per sq ft annually for building maintenance, including heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC), plumbing, electrical and structural repairs; $1.62 per sq ft annually for custodial services; $0.195 per sq ft annually for building water usage; $341.26 per month for refuse (two 6 yard containers picked up three times a week); Vehicle annual replacement contributions, maintenance and fuel costs: o ½-Ton Pickup: $2,170 annual replacement cost, $0.18/$0.25 per mile maintenance/gas; o Mid-Size Sedan: $3,000 annual replacement cost, $0.19/$0.16 per mile maintenance/gas; Technology annual replacement contributions: o Desktop Computer: $461.00; o Laptop Computer: $607.00; o Color Printer: $499.00. CIP projects involving land acquisitions in anticipation of future needs also increase operating budget costs. Vacant parcels typically have an operating budget impact because of new maintenance costs related to fencing, security, weed control, etc., until the land is needed for new parks, libraries, water treatment facilities, etc. However, even with these additional costs, it often is more cost effective to purchase land before an area has been fully developed. Operating costs are carefully considered in deciding which projects move forward in the CIP because it is not possible for the city to fund concurrently several large-scale projects that have significant operating budget impacts. Therefore, implementation timetables are established that stagger projects over time. Council reviews operating and maintenance costs associated with capital projects scheduled to come on-line in the upcoming fiscal year during the annual spring budget workshops. If 283 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CIP Operating Impact operating and maintenance costs have been identified in a project the departments are required to either absorb the additional costs or submit a supplemental request to receive funding. Supplemental requests for CIP operating and maintenance costs are balanced against other requests for additional funding. Many improvements make a positive contribution to the fiscal well being of the city. Capital projects such as redevelopment of under-performing or under-used areas of the city, and the infrastructure expansion needed to support new development, help promote the economic development and growth that generates additional operating revenues. These new revenue sources provide the funding needed to maintain, improve and expand the city’s infrastructure. The table below summarizes the projected cumulative impact of the CIP on the city’s operating budget over the next 10 years, by category. Detailed operating cost estimates are included in the project detail section of the CIP. If applicable, each project contains an operating and maintenance description, as well as a projection for the operating costs for the first five years and a five-year aggregate estimate for the second five years for personnel, supplies, utilities, insurance, etc. In many instances an inflation rate of 3% is figured into the ongoing operating and maintenance costs each year. Until such time that supplemental requests are again being considered, departments have been directed to either defer projects to a later year or absorb additional costs into their current operating budget. Operating Impact by CIP Project Type Project Type FY 2017 FY's 2018-22 335,546 345,612 355,981 17,510 18,035 18,576 19,134 Transportation Sales Tax 919,858 1,385,149 1,442,940 1,483,904 Projects 688,310 278 286 295 304 All Other Transportation 26,740 27,542 28,367 29,219 Projects (DIF, HURF & Streets) 25,961 Park Projects Library/Arts Projects Public Safety Projects Landfill Sanitation Projects 220,554 220,554 Economic Development Projects Other Projects 96,511 96,573 96,637 96,703 96,771 $0 $946,598 $1,748,237 $1,816,919 $1,869,104 TOTAL Operating Impact $810,782 $114,361 $114,958 $336,128 $336,763 TOTAL $810,782 $1,060,959 $1,863,195 $2,153,047 $2,205,867 5,266,634 104,631 8,098,632 1,662 671,738 4,333,346 58,334 16,472,548 1,102,770 28,103 3,426,365 484,941 $38,269,263 $1,780,441 $40,049,704 Water & Sewer Projects S/A FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 S A S A S A S A S A S A S A S A S A S A S = Department plans on submitting a supplemental request; A = Department plans to absorb operating costs 284 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Summary SUMMARY BY TYPE OF PROJECT Glendale’s CIP contains a wide range of projects that make up a well-rounded, long-range program for municipal improvements. One of the most useful ways to view the CIP and understand its components is to group projects into similar types or categories. Since city revenue sources are often limited to specific categories (e.g., streets, water/sewer utility) and bonds are authorized by major categories (e.g., public safety, parks), this approach is also helpful when evaluating bond issues. The graph below shows new FY 2013 CIP project funding by major category type, excluding grant appropriation and carryover. FY 2013 NEW CIP PROJECT FUNDING BY TYPE (excludes carryover and grant appropriation) The following section includes a summary of all capital projects by fund. A narrative description of the major CIP categories precedes the project detail sheets for each project. Each detail sheet contains a project identification number and name, a short project description, the anticipated funding source, projected costs for each of the first five years (including carryover funding from the previous years CIP, if applicable), a five-year aggregate estimate for the second five years and the operating impact, if any. The operating impact section remains expanded to show how much will be spent on personnel, supplies, utilities, insurance, etc. along with a description of the operating impact. New projects are identified with an asterisk --*-- in the project’s title for the detailed description of each project. Projects that do not have funding in the first year are assigned a “T” (temporary) number until design or construction begins. 285 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Summary of All Capital Projects by Funding Type Summary of ALL Capital Projects by Funding Type Fund # - Name Carryover BOND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS 1980 - Street/Parking Bonds 2140 - Open Space/Trails 2060 - Parks 2160 - Library 2040 - Public Safety 2080 - Government Facilities 2130 - Cultural Facility 2100 - Economic Development 2180 - Flood Control FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 2,066,432 199,570 84,140 110,265 0 117,616 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,504,688 142,426 0 0 0 0 0 77,586,257 20,251,865 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,913,076 481,636 237,397 82,835 212,766 84,394 242,639 71,539,756 171,606 0 0 0 0 0 17,547,542 100,985 0 0 0 0 0 252,980 1,623,814 0 0 0 0 0 22,426,465 2,448,872 160,925 160,925 160,925 160,925 160,925 41,733,597 $7,035,771 $597,892 $327,900 $483,956 $245,319 $521,180 $288,756,226 DIF FUNDS 1600 - Roadway Improvements 131,958 124,964 102,900 194,908 171,500 194,908 908,678 1520 - Citywide Open Space 215,473 46,216 44,000 44,000 0 0 80,000 1460 - Citywide Parks 1480 - Citywide Rec Facility 0 2,216 0 2,350 0 2,350 5,140 Sub-Total 0 2,216 0 2,350 0 2,350 5,140 1540 - Park Dev Zone 1 39,632 2,216 0 2,350 0 2,350 5,140 1560 - Park Dev Zone 2 1580 - Park Dev Zone 3 133,067 7,816 5,600 2,350 0 2,350 5,140 31,395 7,516 6,000 2,350 0 2,350 5,140 1380 - Library Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,609,288 1500 - Libraries 1440 - Police Dept Facilities 0 213,265 200,000 214,073 200,000 214,703 2,484,259 0 10,919 0 11,584 0 11,584 25,329 1420 - Fire Protection Facilities 0 11,480 0 12,179 0 12,179 26,627 1620 - General Government Sub-Total ENTERPRISE/OTHER FUNDS 2360 - Water & Sewer 2400 - Water 2420 - Sewer 2210 - Transportation Construction 2000 - HURF/Street Bonds 1340 - HURF/Streets Fund 1650 - Transportation Grants 2480 - Sanitation 2440 - Landfill 0 12,799 0 0 0 0 0 $551,525 $441,623 $358,500 $488,494 $371,500 $445,124 $5,159,881 7,424,962 3,368,453 9,292,667 3,835,090 3,172,927 2,387,788 29,835,837 6,763,884 4,863,030 7,694,660 3,501,200 6,001,200 9,345,653 70,525,423 4,175,034 5,345,950 3,213,364 9,054,745 12,573,014 9,052,581 54,280,076 26,181,132 8,721,725 8,578,438 8,539,427 3,905,665 3,265,700 60,289,524 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,076,659 0 0 0 0 0 0 290,000 5,479,235 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000 0 1,280,000 2,622,200 3,068,000 3,778,990 4,289,069 10,469,365 545,175 2,224,373 1,116,101 14,361,820 14,026,406 1,434,360 9,377,115 15,888,604 150,638 438,750 450,000 6,669,600 8,190,000 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000 0 465,300 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 800,071 1283 - Camelback Ranch Events 10,732 247,474 0 0 0 0 0 1740 - Civic Center 2150 - Technology Infrastructure 200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 4,145,734 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,865,625 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Sub-Total $66,668,758 $30,866,943 $37,206,180 $47,060,282 $54,377,802 $42,215,151 $302,705,429 Grand Total Total FY 2013 Funding $74,256,054 $31,906,458 $106,162,512 $37,892,580 $48,032,732 $54,994,621 $43,181,455 $596,621,536 2120 - Airport Capital Grants 1840 - Other Federal & State Grants 1000 - General Fund 1220 - Arts Commission 286 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Bond Construction Funds BOND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS Bond construction funds are used to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of capital projects in the city’s council-approved CIP using general obligation bonds and HURF revenue bonds. Beginning balances are based on prior bond issuance proceeds that have been received but not yet expended. Additional bond sales during the specified years, estimated investment and interest income, and expected grant/IGA revenues increase the beginning balances. Project expenses including carryover and operating expenses (e.g. advisor fees) reduce the beginning balances. Sahuaro Ranch Park Improvements Fund # - Name 1980 - Street/Parking Bonds 2140 - Open Space/Trails 2060 - Parks 2160 - Library 2040 - Public Safety 2080 - Government Facilities 2130 - Cultural Facility 2100 - Economic Development 2180 - Flood Control Total Bond Funds Carryover 2,066,432 0 142,426 0 481,636 171,606 100,985 1,623,814 2,448,872 FY 2013 199,570 0 0 0 237,397 0 0 0 160,925 FY 2014 84,140 0 0 0 82,835 0 0 0 160,925 FY 2015 110,265 0 0 0 212,766 0 0 0 160,925 FY 2016 0 0 0 0 84,394 0 0 0 160,925 $7,035,771 $597,892 $327,900 $483,956 $245,319 287 FY 2017 117,616 0 0 0 242,639 0 0 0 160,925 FYs 18-22 20,251,865 11,504,688 77,586,257 25,913,076 71,539,756 17,547,542 252,980 22,426,465 41,733,597 $521,180 $288,756,226 Return to CIP TOC STREET/PARKING CONSTRUCTION FUNDS This category includes projects that are funded with General Obligation street/parking construction bonds. In FY 2013, carryover funding is available for street scallops, street beautification and street light repair where needed. Existing bond proceeds will be utilized for a new Capital Bridge Repair Program to fund maintenance to bridges as identified by the Arizona Department of Transportation. Project Name: Promenade Parking/Tenant Imps Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 1980 Project #: 68120 288 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1980-Street/Parking Bonds Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 20% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $3,280,962 $1,008,894 $924,754 $814,489 $814,489 $696,873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,560,000 19,560,000 6,066 6,066 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue Bond Proceeds Total Revenue: Operating Expenses Advisor Fees Total Operating Expenses: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 68103 Street Scallop 68104 Street Beautification 1,126,451 691,124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,711,345 6,444,410 248,857 0 2,066,432 0 199,570 199,570 0 84,140 84,140 0 110,265 110,265 0 0 0 0 117,616 117,616 0 283,610 16,439,365 0 0 0 2,066,432 0 0 0 199,570 0 0 0 84,140 0 0 0 110,265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117,616 800,000 3,012,500 3,812,500 20,251,865 $924,754 $814,489 $814,489 $696,873 $5,008 Replacement of Existing Assets 68121 Streetlight Repair 68122 *Capital Bridge Repair Program Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 68102 Petition Lighting Program T1232 95th Ave Camelback to Missouri Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 2,266,002 $1,008,894 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1980-Street/Parking Bonds Category: 20% Project: 68103 - Street Scallop (I) Project Description: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds The Scallop Street Program is used to complete street improvements to reduce traffic accidents, enhance traffic flow, provide safety to adjacent pedestrian traffic and to mitigate property flooding. Projects are selected based on need and available funding from a scallop street inventory maintained by the Engineering Department. Capital Costs: Carryover Design FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $1,126,451 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,567,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $219,316 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,670 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $719,359 $1,126,451 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,711,345 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M costs are not expected for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 289 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1980-Street/Parking Bonds Category: 20% Project: 68104 - Street Beautification (I) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: The Street Beautification Program is used to complete landscaping improvements that were not required of the developer at the time of development. The objective of the program is to create an aesthetically pleasing landscape continuity, citywide, along the arterial street system. Improvements include construction of sidewalks, multiuse paths, improvements to handicap accessibility, benches, planting of trees, shrubs and ground cover. Capital Costs: Carryover Design Construction Finance Charges FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $73,703 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,107,000 $617,421 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,340 $120,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,070 $691,124 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,444,410 TOTAL Operating Description: Additional O and M will be needed starting in FY 2019. O and M based on the standard formula for water and maintenance for 307,500 sq ft of landscaped area. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 Landscape TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: 68121 - Streetlight Repair (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: FYs 18-22 $257,166 $0 $0 Funding Source: $257,166 General Obligation Bonds Funding to provide for replacement of removed streetlight poles, arms, and luminaires due to vehicular knockdowns or severe rusting. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $248,857 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $248,857 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No operating impact as these poles and lights already exist. Project: 68122* - Capital Bridge Repair Program (R) Project Description: FY 2017 Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds This program is needed to maintain city bridges to meet Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards. There are 43 bridges that are inspected by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) semi-annually. Under the National Bridge Inspection Program, administered by ADOT, the City is required to maintain its bridges to a satisfactory standard. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $50,000 $10,000 $30,000 $0 $32,000 $70,000 Construction $0 $140,000 $70,000 $75,000 $0 $80,000 $200,000 Engineering Charges $0 $8,170 $3,440 $4,515 $0 $4,816 $11,610 Arts $0 $1,400 $700 $750 $0 $800 $2,000 $0 $199,570 $84,140 $110,265 $0 $117,616 $283,610 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is required. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 290 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1980-Street/Parking Bonds Category: 20% Project: 68102 - Petition Lighting Program (N) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: This project installs additional street lighting in areas that have been determined to be inadequate. Infill street lighting requests are initiated by residents and requires approval of affected residents. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $700,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,600 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M identified provides for 40 requested street lights per year. Supplies cover photo control cost, electricity for a 150-watt light is $92 per year, estimated maintenance for a light is $26 per year, including Remote Operations Asset Management monitoring. A supplemental budget request will be made as new streetlights are added to the system. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $3,914 $4,031 $4,152 $4,277 Utilities Equip. Maint. $3,790 $1,071 $3,904 $1,103 $4,021 $1,136 $4,141 $1,170 $8,775 $9,038 $9,309 $9,588 TOTAL Project: T1232 - 95th Ave Camelback to Missouri (N) Project Description: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $24,090 $4,405 $4,266 $23,326 $6,592 $1,205 $9,876 $54,008 General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: This project is to acquire right-of-way, design and construct roadway, with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, street lighting and underground overhead utilities between Camelback Road North to Missouri Avenue. This project was previously referred to as 95th Avenue Camelback to Bethany Home Rd. This project is dependent upon private development. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,500 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,012,500 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Landscape O and M based on 13,200 square feet of landscaping for a 1/4 mile of street improvements for five years. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: Landscape TOTAL $700,000 FY 2013 $0 $0 FY 2014 FY 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 291 FY 2016 $0 $0 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $14,520 $14,520 Return to CIP TOC OPEN SPACE & TRAILS CONSTRUCTION FUND This category enables the city to acquire land for the preservation of open space and to construct multiuse trails and linear parks. There is no new funding included in the first five years of the capital improvement plan for the Open Space & Trails Construction Fund due to the continued drop in secondary assessed valuation. Project Name: Sahuaro Ranch Park Improv. Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 2140 Project #: 70006 Picture Note: Project was completed during FY 2011 292 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2140-Open Space/Trails Construction Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 20% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $586,583 $586,583 $586,583 $586,583 $586,583 $586,583 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,920,000 10,920,000 Revenue Bond Proceeds Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 70000 Thunderbird Paseo Park Develop T1630 Thunderbird Park Improvements Sub-Total - Existing Assets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,998,675 5,113,101 7,111,776 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 1,000,000 2,390,698 1,002,214 4,392,912 11,504,688 $586,583 $586,583 $586,583 $586,583 $1,895 New Assets 70003 City-Wide Trails System 70005 West Valley Multi-Modal Corrid T1761 New River Bike Trail Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: Estimated Ending Balance: 0 $586,583 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 293 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2140-Open Space/Trails Construction Project: 70000 - Thunderbird Paseo Park Develop (I) Project Description: Category: 20% General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Park improvements and renovations to maintain this 55 acre linear park. This includes tree replacement and additions, improvements to landscaping, signage replacements, trail asphalt overlay, pedestrian/equestrian bridges and replacement of equipment located in the linear park. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $423,475 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,209,928 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,973 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,919 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,099 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,217 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $178,064 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,998,675 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M expenses would vary based upon the specific type of future landscape improvements that are implemented. Supplies and contracts calculated at $601 per acre X 50 acres (estimate value) plus inflation. A landscape water rate is calculated at $0.0495 per sq ft for 435,600 sq ft. All calculations are for 31 months of operation. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr Landscape $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 294 FY 2017 $0 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $95,558 $68,566 $164,124 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2140-Open Space/Trails Construction Project: T1630 - Thunderbird Park Improvements (I) Project Description: Category: 20% General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Based on the Thunderbird Conservation Park Master Plan recommendations, items to be addressed include the continued repair and maintenance of trails, removal of invasive plant species and re-vegetation of the park with native plants, repair and upgrading of existing park elements (ramadas, restrooms) and the removal of various park elements (ramadas and restrooms) from the wash located at 59th Avenue. The removal of ramadas in the 59th Avenue wash area will allow for restoration of the wildlife corridor and vegetation. The installation of new park elements such as ramadas and restrooms are also within the scope of this project. Capital Costs: Carryover Design $0 Construction Finance Charges FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,141,304 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,260,869 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,062 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $81,440 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,609 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,501 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $467,316 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,113,101 TOTAL Operating Description: Staffing is a Service Worker II at $53,310 with benefits and inflation, a Park Ranger at $51,087 with benefits and inflation; Supplies/Contracts is ramada cleaning contract at $3,000 per ramada (23) per year. Utilities at $2.70 sq ft X 3,000 sq ft plus inflation. Building Maintenance at $1.62 X 3,000 sq ft and 10 light poles at $179 annually; insurance for two new staff at $828 each per year; vehicle maintenance/replacement for compact pickup, computer and printer; landscape maintenance at $601 per acre X 5 acres; building water $0.195 per sq ft (3,000); refuse at $341 per month plus inflation. Operations are calculated for 36 months. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. If both receive funding, building expenses and staffing will be eliminated from one project. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Staffing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $385,522 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 $254,806 Utilities Bldg. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equip. Maint. $0 $0 $0 Insurance PC/Vehicle Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Landscape $0 $0 Water $0 $0 Refuse TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 295 $0 $29,911 $24,557 $0 $0 $6,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,115 $19,059 $0 $0 $0 $11,097 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,111 $754,893 $2,161 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2140-Open Space/Trails Construction Project: 70003 - City-Wide Trails System (N) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: This fund will implement recommendations for open space acquisition, trailhead land purchases, construction of pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian paths and trails, and connectivity between areas of interest citywide that accommodates future growth and user demands. Capital Costs: Carryover Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Category: 20% FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Specific scope will determine the additional O and M costs which could include utilities for additional lighting (260 poles X $153 per pole) and signage maintenance, contracts for cleaning trails and rest nodes, landscape maintenance, water costs, and building maintenance for repairs and maintenance of drinking fountains and walkway light bulb replacement at $26 each per year. Staffing is a Service Worker II position at $49,732 including benefits. Insurance is for a new staff member at $828 a year. Other operating calculations have been based upon 50 acres. Supplies/contracts at $601 per acre plus inflation, landscape maintenance at $0.22 per sq ft, landscape water at $0.0495 sq ft plus inflation, vehicle replacement is for a compact pickup with maintenance. All calculations are for 26 months of operation. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Staffing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,753 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,258 Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,313 Bldg. Maint. Equip. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $592 $733 Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 PC/Vehicle Replacement Landscape $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215 $51,961 $0 $0 $77,016 Water TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 296 $11,691 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2140-Open Space/Trails Construction Project: 70005 - West Valley Multi-Modal Corrid (N) Project Description: Category: 20% General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Construct a multimodal trail system along New River and Agua Fria River Corridor as per the Maricopa Association of Governments West Valley Rivers Trails Plan. The trail system will link with other trails in and around the City of Glendale connecting parks and other recreation facilities, and serve new and existing residents. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $540,555 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,544,414 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,196 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,444 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $177,089 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,390,698 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Supplies and contracts include $601x 10 acres. Building maintenance costs include 34 low-level security lights for rest nodes and trail at $75 per light and $13 per lamp for bulb replacement. Landscape includes maintenance of approximately 435,600 sq ft x $.0927per sq ft, water at $.22 per sq ft x 435,600 sq ft, and ramada cleaning/maintenance at $4,000 per ramada x three ramadas. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 Bldg. Maint. Landscape $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Project: T1761 - New River Bike Trail (N) Project Description: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $6,010 $0 $0 $14,992 $95,832 $0 $0 $116,834 General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Construct a 1,500-foot long multiuse path from an existing pathway just north of the Paraiso Drive alignment to Hillcrest Boulevard, including two bridges. One would be over the drainage channel and the other would be over the retention area north of the Paraiso Drive alignment. The project will complete a safe and convenient, off-street connection from Pinnacle Peak Road to existing Hillcrest Road and 75th Avenue bike routes. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $113,109 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $754,059 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,811 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,288 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,541 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,002,214 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M associated with 7-foot wide landscaped area along a 1,500-foot long multiuse pathway. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: Landscape TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 297 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $4,689 $4,689 Return to CIP TOC PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND Park projects are traditionally funded by a combination of park G.O. bonds and development impact fees. Due to the continued drop in secondary assessed valuation, the Parks Construction Fund is not expected to receive new funding until after the first five years of the capital improvement plan. However, there is carryover funding available for the redevelopment, renovation and improvement of existing parks and related facilities. Examples of this work include renovation, replacement or expansion of ramada areas, shade structures, playground facilities, sports courts, ball fields, turf and landscaping, irrigation systems, security lighting and landscaping. A portion of carryover funding will be used to complete improvement projects at Thunderbird Conservation Park and Saguaro Ranch Park. Project Name: Parks Enhancements Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 2060 Project #: 70510 Picture Note: O’Neil Park 298 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2060-Parks Construction Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 20% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $279,808 $130,601 $130,630 $130,659 $130,688 $130,729 0 76 76 0 48 48 0 48 48 0 48 48 0 48 48 77,460,000 121 77,460,121 6,857 6,857 19 19 19 19 19 19 7 7 48 48 Revenue Bond Proceeds^ Investment Income Total Revenue: Operating Expenses Advisor Fees Total Operating Expenses: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 70502 Orangewood Community Park 70506 63rd & Northern Park Dev. 70510 Park Enhancements 70515 T-Bird Park Improvements 70520 Sahuaro Ranch Park Improv. 70535 Paseo Racquet Center Park 70540 Grounds & Facilities Imprvmnts T1715 *Play Structure Improvements 0 0 0 42,000 15,088 0 7,399 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 0 0 0 0 0 5,143,628 2,406,953 8,208,794 2,890,015 0 4,453,631 691,260 1,576,260 63,673 0 0 14,266 0 0 142,426 142,426 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 0 0 0 0 27,549,469 9,530,345 4,746,919 1,230,000 7,269,958 1,889,025 77,586,257 77,586,257 $130,630 $130,659 $130,688 $130,729 $4,545 Replacement of Existing Assets 70500 Parks Redevelopment 70512 Facilities Renovation 70526 Multiuse Sports Field Lighting 70541 Parks Capital Equipment T1712 Aquatic Facility Restoration T1713 Foothills Center Restoration Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: Estimated Ending Balance: 142,426 $130,601 ^Will require additional voter authorization in last 5 years of plan. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 299 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: 70502 - Orangewood Community Park (I) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Continued development of the 40+ acre Orangewood Community Park at 71st and Orangewood Avenues. This phase includes the construction of additional lighted multiuse fields, bleachers, a restroom, control building, final half-street improvements, and other park amenities that are typically associated with community parks. Once completed, the multiuse complex will also feature soccer/football fields, sports lights, playground, picnic facility, parking, and sport courts with lights. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $680,121 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,400,608 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $132,323 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,493 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,006 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $340,068 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $381,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,143,628 TOTAL Operating Description: Additional O and M would be needed starting in FY 2019. Staffing includes a Service Worker II at $51,732 (includes benefits) and a Building Maintenance Worker at $58,782 (includes benefits). Supplies/Contracts include $601 per acre x 20 acres. Utilities includes $2.70 per sq ft x 2,000 sq ft for the control building electrical cost. Building maintenance costs include lights ($16,000 per field) and lamp replacement ($3,166 per field) for three soccer fields, 40 additional low level security lights will be maintained at $75 per fixture and $13 for lamp replacement per fixture, $4.60 per sq ft to maintain the plumbing in 800 sq ft restroom, HVAC and maintenance is $2.50 per sq ft x 1,200 sq ft control building, $2.07 per sq ft x 1,200 sq ft control building for custodial service, and $4.60 per sq ft for plumbing maintenance of the control building. Equipment maintenance includes the installation and maintenance costs 12 street lights at $153 each and ongoing O and M at $26 per pole. Insurance is $828 per new employee. Electrical includes security monitoring system at $600 per year. Vehicle replacement includes $1,950 per year for a 1/2 ton pickup and technology replacement includes $607 per year for a laptop,$2,252 per year for a printer, $2,000 annually for landlines. Landscape is calculated at 871,200 sq ft x $.0927 and landscape water at 871,200 sq ft x $.0495. Water is calculated at 2,000 sq ft x $.195. Refuse includes a 6-yard container x 3 pick-ups per week. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Staffing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $552,069 Supplies/Contr Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,046 $26,976 Bldg. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $459,693 Equip. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,586 Insurance Electrical $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,280 $10,015 PC/Vehicle Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,850 Landscape Water $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $618,862 $1,948 $0 $0 $1,813,776 Refuse TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 300 $20,451 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: 70506 - 63rd & Northern Park Dev. (I) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Proposed final improvements include a looped concrete pathway/trail, a restroom, native grass, landscaping and low flow crossing. Phase I of the community park included a playground, a ramada, open turf area, parking, a dog park, landscaping and meandering multiuse paths. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $273,462 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,823,082 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,564 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,231 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $183,614 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,406,953 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Supplies and Contracts: $601 x 30 acres for supplies and contracts and $6,600 for restroom cleaning. Utilities: $2.25 x 800 sq ft for restroom electricity. Building Maintenance includes electrical for 40 additional low-level security lights at $75 per light and $13 for lamp replacement x 40 lamps and plumbing at $4.60 x 800 sq ft. Since most of the area will be designed with native grasses, the cost of maintaining the facility will be less than a typical community park. As a result, Landscape Maintenance and Landscape Water are calculated at half the normal rate. Landscape Maintenance is 1,306,800 sq ft x $0.04635 per sq ft, landscape water is 1,306,800 sq ft x $0.02475 per sq ft . Water would include 800 sq ft restroom x $0.195 per sq ft, and a drinking fountain at $60.39. Refuse includes one container for the entire site at $2,047 per year. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 Utilities Bldg. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Landscape $0 $0 $0 Water $0 $0 $0 Refuse TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 301 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $6,582 $0 $8,124 $26,588 $0 $0 $343,113 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,559 $392,763 $797 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: 70510 - Park Enhancements (I) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Ongoing park enhancements are vital in the city's effort to improve and enhance park functionality and appeal. Staff continually assesses park amenities and infrastructure, and strive to meet the demands park users place on park land and facilities. Park enhancements focus on a variety of elements and amenities within the existing park setting, and can be urgent in nature or planned. Typical park enhancements include new sport courts, additional low-level security lighting, picnic areas, picnic benches, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) play surface for playgrounds, shade structures, landscape, and other amenities added to existing park sites. Ongoing enhancements typically address service gaps in the level of service requirements outlined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $926,587 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,177,247 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $206,517 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,772 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $494,171 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,208,794 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: In most cases, park enhancements will have little or no impact on the O and M. In fact, in many cases the enhancements allow for a more efficient operation of infrastructure and amenities. O and M will be impacted when additional amenities are introduced to the park, such as ramadas, additional low-level lighting, etc. Supplies/contracts include $601 x 4 acre. Building Maintenance includes an average of 10 additional low level security lighting x $75 for electricity, and $13 per lamp for replacement. Landscape maintenance $0.0927 per x 43,560 sq ft, and landscape water at $0.0495 per sq ft x 43,560 sq ft. The additional O and M will be absorbed by the department. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,796 Bldg. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 Landscape TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,122 $58,334 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 302 $5,416 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: 70515 - T-Bird Park Improvements (I) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Continue to implement the Thunderbird Conservation Park Master Plan recommendations and improvements including the removal of invasive plant species and re-vegetation, signage upgrades, repairs or replacements to existing ramadas, picnic tables, grills, restrooms and other infrastructure. This funding also addresses the continuation of re-vegetation, as well as the installation of new park elements, such as trail head improvements, ramadas and parking lot improvements. Capital Costs: Carryover Design FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $646,739 $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,847,826 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,777 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,478 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,195 $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,890,015 Construction Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Improvements have O and M impact for two new 750 square feet restrooms with associated utilities and supplies. Improvements will require a Service Worker II at $53,310 with benefits, a Park Ranger with benefits at $51,087, contracted labor assistance at $25,000 per year, supplies are $20,000 a year; utilities at $2.70 per sq ft X 3,000 sq ft = $8,100; building maintenance at $1.62 X 3,000 sq ft = $4,860 annually; equipment maintenance is for two added pole lights at $358 annually; insurance is for 2 new employees at $828 per person; ramada cleaning at $3,000 each at five new ramadas, building water at $0.195 sq ft or $49 per month; equipment replacement is a computer, printer purchase and their replacement cost. Calculations are based on a 34 month operating period. If both receive funding, building expenses and staffing will be eliminated from one project. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Staffing Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $364,104 $209,262 Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,250 Bldg. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,912 Equip. Maint. Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,203 $10,192 $0 PC/Vehicle Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,717 Landscape Water $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,431 $1,930 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Project: 70520 - Sahuaro Ranch Park Improv. (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: $674,001 General Obligation Bonds Renovation of aging infrastructure and amenities at regional sports complex and park. Examples of improvements will include new fencing , irrigation, scoreboards, park entry monuments, walkways, etc. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $14,017 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,071 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,088 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 303 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: 70535 - Paseo Racquet Center Park (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: The park project has two components: Paseo Sports Complex and Paseo Racquet Center, both of which are in this park. The Sports Complex work would include, replacement of the lighting system, restroom and concessions building. At the Paseo Racquet Center, necessary maintenance repairs include court overlays, court resurfacing, lighting, fencing and building restoration and improvements. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,005,416 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,872,616 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $87,326 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,744 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,726 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $387,803 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,453,631 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: These capital improvements are to existing facilities and will likely decrease O and M expenses. Project: 70540 - Grounds & Facilities Imprvmnts (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds This project addresses minor renovations and golf course enhancements that may not otherwise be included or covered in the golf course management agreements. Issues to be addressed include golf course grounds and infrastructure at Glendale's Glen Lakes and Desert Mirage golf courses. Improvements will include modifying or enhancing greens, tees, fairways, cart paths, irrigation systems, lakes, driving ranges, parking lots, fence replacement, and pro-shops for both municipal golf courses. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $7,399 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,860 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,400 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $7,399 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $691,260 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 304 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: T1715* - Play Structure Improvements (I) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: This project involves replacing all playground components and playground surfacing in city parks that will not be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and/or the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). In 2011, all of these organizations made significant changes to the laws, guidelines, and standards as it relates to playground accessibility, use, and safety. Subsequent evaluation in 2011 by two staff certified as Playground Safety Inspectors (CPSI) resulted in a comprehensive annual audit of all playgrounds to identify all play structure, playground, and playground surface deficiencies. The audit identified multiple playgrounds requiring varying levels of update to meet the new ADA, CPSC, and/or the ASTM laws, guidelines, and/or regulations. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,400,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116,760 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,576,260 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is required. The new laws, guidelines, and standards would actually reduce O and M by reducing the staff time to conduct head and torso inspections, and tilling sand fall zones. Project: 70500 - Parks Redevelopment (R) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: This project is designed as a proactive focus for revitalizing parks currently in the city's inventory that have shown signs of deteriorating infrastructure, amenities, and/or landscape. The purpose of the redevelopment process is to heighten or restore the overall functionality of the park for the users, while at the same time enhancing the operating efficiency. As in the past, staff identify strategies that are designed to revive the park’s existing strengths and develop new or enhanced functions of the park. Development strategies, service gaps, and needs are identified and addressed during the design and construction phase. Depending on the park category, location, size, and level of service, each requires a distinct level of funding to address an assortment of services or operational improvements. Capital Costs: Carryover Design Construction FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $49,688 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,283,947 $18,239,851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,985 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $680,571 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $122,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $182,398 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,040,702 $63,673 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,549,469 Finance Charges Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Supplies and contracts are based on 10 acres x $601 per acre. Building Maintenance includes an additional 30, low-level park lighting at $88 per pole. These parks are currently maintained, so staff doesn't project additional landscape maintenance or water costs. Water would include the addition of 40 drinking fountains at $66 each. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 Bldg. Maint. Water $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 305 FY 2017 $0 $0 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $36,990 $16,249 $16,249 $69,488 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: 70512 - Facilities Renovation (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Renovations address planned and/or unexpected restoration improvements and infrastructure replacement at existing park and recreation buildings, centers, ball field complex sites, group ramada pavilions, restrooms, and tennis and golf complexes. Funds are used citywide to provide ongoing renovation to existing facilities. The specific facilities that receive assistance from this fund are targeted through an ongoing assessment and feedback from citizens and staff. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,093,137 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $186,870 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,931 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $849,407 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,530,345 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: New O and M expenses are not usually encountered with restoration activities. Project: 70526 - Multiuse Sports Field Lighting (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds The Parks, Recreation and Library Services Department has 25 lighted sports fields that are used for various youth and adult sports program and cultural events. Of the 25 lighted sports fields, 14 of the sports fields have athletic field lighting and lighting infrastructure that are over 15 years old. This project involves the renovation or replacement of existing sports lights that have illumination depreciation or no longer meet current illumination standards. Carryover Design $0 Construction Finance Charges FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $705,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,528,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $118,088 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,311 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $282,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,746,919 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: This project will not require additional O and M. The bid specifications would be performance based and would require the contractor to perform bulb replacements. The newer lighting technology would operate more efficiently, thus reducing electrical consumption and O and M. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 306 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: 70541 - Parks Capital Equipment (R) Project Description: The Parks Department has 17 pieces of equipment currently in the fleet that are 13 years or older and not included as part of the City's Vehicle Replacement Fund. Replacing old, outdated equipment such as mowers, trailers, utility vehicles, park/facility maintenance equipment and ball field preparation machines and equipment are essential to the care and maintenance of facilities and parks. The equipment has outlasted its useful and effective lifespan. Capital Costs: Carryover Finance Charges Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $14,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,230,000 Park Capital Equipment and Vehicle Replacement includes maintenance for 5 mowers, 5 trailers, 5 ball field preparation machines and 2 pick-up trucks. Equipment maintenance is $75 per hour x 20 (# of visits) x pieces of equipment. The remaining equipment will be calculated as the equivalent as one vehicle, which is one truck at $1,950 at $.17 per mile for maintenance costs x 8,000 miles, and $.20 per mile x 8,000 miles for fuel costs. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. FY 2013 Equip. Maint. PC/Vehicle Replacement TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: T1712 - Aquatic Facility Restoration (R) Capital Costs: FY 2016 $14,266 Operating Costs: Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $138,482 $127,280 $0 $0 Funding Source: $265,762 General Obligation Bonds This project includes the renovation and restoration of existing swimming pools and aquatic facilities owned and/or operated by the Glendale Parks and Recreation Department. The aquatic facilities require annual attention and typical repair projects at each pool include replastering of the water vessels, patching and repairs to the pool decking, replacement of shade canopies, pool pumps and other equipment to ensure continued compliance with all federal, state and county health code requirements. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,350,822 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,650,207 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,672 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,502 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $948,255 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,269,958 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 307 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2060-Parks Construction Category: 20% Project: T1713 - Foothills Center Restoration (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds This project involves the replacement of recreation center equipment that has an expected useful life of 5-7 years and renovation of the facility. Replacement of fitness room equipment, existing audio/visual equipment, carpeting, room dividers, window blinds and other items due to normal wear and tear. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $189,625 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $758,500 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,040 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,500 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,769 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,585 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $634,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,506 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,889,025 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 308 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Library - Construction Fund LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION FUND The continued decline in Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation required the Western Area Library originally planned for FY 2009 and FY 2010 to be pushed to the last five years of the capital improvement plan joining the renovation project for the three existing city libraries. Project Name: Int. Renovation-Main, VT, FH Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 2160 Project #: T2810 Picture Note: Foothills Branch Library above, Main Library Below 309 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2160-Library Construction Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 6% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,915,000 25,915,000 Revenue Bond Proceeds^ Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets T2810 Int. Renovation-Main, VT, FH Sub-Total - Existing Assets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,883,361 2,883,361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,029,715 23,029,715 25,913,076 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,924 New Assets 74000 West Branch Library Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 0 $0 Estimated Ending Balance: ^Will require additional voter authorization in last 5 years of plan. PROJECT DETAIL: 2160-Library Construction Category: 6% Project: T2810 - Int. Renovation-Main, VT, FH (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Finance Charges Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds This project includes renovating and updating the interior spaces at the 42 year old Velma Teague , 24 year old Main and 13 year old Foothills branch libraries. There would be no changes to walls, electrical, plumbing or HVAC. Functional improvements would include paint, tile, sinks, fixtures, etc. Carryover $0 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,611 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,840,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,883,361 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 310 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2160-Library Construction Category: 6% Project: 74000 - West Branch Library (N) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: This request is for funding to construct and furnish a branch library to serve the western portion of the city. This includes the design and construction of a 33,500 sq ft facility on approximately 7 acres of land at the Western Area Regional Facility site at 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road. This project is being funded by a combination of Library Bonds and Development Impact Fees from projects 1380-74250 and 1500-74750. The total project cost is estimated at $26,592,494 in FY 2018. A total of $23,029,715 in general obligation bonds will be needed for this project with the remaining cost covered by DIF. The design of the building was completed in 2009, and was paid from DIF Account 1380-74250. By 2018, it is anticipated that considerable redesign will be necessary. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,549,996 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,974,202 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $561,718 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $440,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $101,862 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $149,742 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,221,001 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,801,194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,230,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,029,715 Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Additional O and M would be needed starting in September 2019. Staffing includes the salary and benefits for a branch manager, 2 Librarian III's, 7 Librarian I's, a Library Operations Supervisor, 4 Library Assistant III's, a Library Assistant II, a Library Assistant I, 2.5 Public Service Assistants, 0.5 Courier, 0.5 Office Assistant, a PC Support Specialist II, a Security Officer and a Building Maintenance Worker for the Facilities Management Department that must be added to support the addition of this building. Staffing also includes eight 19-hour pages and two 19-hour Information Services Assistants. Additionally, a building maintenance truck will be provided for the Building Maintenance Worker. The operating budget also includes books, periodicals, electronic resources, supplies and contracts (including contracted custodial services), a library vehicle, professional development, equipment maintenance, building maintenance, utilities and insurance. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Staffing $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies/Contr Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bldg. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $291,623 Equip. Maint. Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360,839 $51,857 $395,056 $0 $0 $0 PC/Vehicle Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Landscape $0 $0 $0 $0 Water Refuse $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 311 $0 $0 $5,730,470 $1,784,895 $343,743 $26,176 $33,461 $5,746 $9,023,866 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Public Safety – Construction Funds PUBLIC SAFETY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS Public safety projects are funded by a combination of public safety general obligation bonds and development impact fees. This section highlights the G.O. projects funded in Fund 2040 for the Fire, Police and City Court Departments. In the first five years of the capital plan, remaining Public Safety General Obligation bond proceeds are currently being set aside to be used exclusively for expenses related to the city of Glendale joining the Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC) which includes funding for the purchase of radios for the Fire Department, lifecycle upgrades, narrow-banding and console replacement. The scheduling of upgrades, narrow-banding and replacements are currently being negotiated by members of the RWC and funding needs are subject to change. Due to the continued drop in secondary assessed valuation, funding for the City Court Building, which was previously scheduled for completion in FY 2012, has been deferred until the last five years of the capital improvement plan, joining Phase II of the Western Public Safety Training Facility. Project Name: PS Digital Comm. System Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 2040 Project #: 75012 312 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2040-Public Safety Construction Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 20% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $2,428,734 $1,708,891 $1,626,631 $1,414,390 $1,330,469 $1,088,248 0 1,190 1,190 0 959 959 0 874 874 0 789 789 0 695 695 70,455,000 3,945 70,458,945 2,000 2,000 384 384 350 350 316 316 278 278 1,578 1,578 Revenue Bond Proceeds Investment Income Total Revenue: Operating Expenses Advisor Fees Total Operating Expenses: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 75012 PS Digital Comm. System 221,492 237,397 82,835 212,766 84,394 242,639 2,068,309 260,144 0 0 0 0 0 481,636 0 0 0 0 0 0 237,397 0 0 0 0 0 0 82,835 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 84,394 0 0 0 0 0 0 242,639 1,937,128 3,938,255 4,800,612 617,290 822,150 1,543,110 15,726,854 0 0 0 481,636 0 0 0 237,397 0 0 0 82,835 0 0 0 212,766 0 0 0 84,394 0 0 0 242,639 43,005,399 12,807,503 55,812,902 71,539,756 $1,626,631 $1,414,390 $1,330,469 $1,088,248 $5,859 Replacement of Existing Assets 75024 800MHz Comm Equip 75034 Engine & Ladder Replacement T5320 EOC Equipment Replacement T5380 Replace HazMat Vehicle T5450 30 Heart Monitors T5539 Replacement of Airpacks Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 75020 City Court Building T5536 Fire Station - Western Area Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: Estimated Ending Balance: 719,033 $1,708,891 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 313 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2040-Public Safety Construction Project: 75012 - PS Digital Comm. System (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Carryover IT/Phone/Security Equipment Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FYs 18-22 $1,657 $4,255 $1,688 $19,157 $0 $79,775 $81,178 $81,939 $82,706 $83,759 $429,983 $86,446 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $19,157 $131,781 $152,874 $0 $126,572 $0 $139,723 $419,169 $221,492 $237,397 $82,835 $212,766 $84,394 $242,639 $2,068,309 Maintenance costs on hardware/software. The costs associated with equipment maintenance includes the additional fees of $125,000 per year (including a 3% inflation rate) for the software subscription agreement which upgrades the actual software that operates the handheld and mobile radios and was covered in the past by the initial warranty and system upgrade. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. FY 2013 TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: 75024 - 800MHz Comm Equip (R) FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $1,432,986 $0 $0 $1,432,986 General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Replacement and/or upgrade of existing 800 MHz radios for the Regional Wireless Cooperative to ensure the department continues to meet Federal Communications Commission requirements for Public Safety radio transmissions as mandated and/or to replace radios that have met or exceeded their life expectancy and to ensure they meet technology upgrades. Capital Costs: Carryover Finance Charges Equipment TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,628 $260,144 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,500 $260,144 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,937,128 O and M includes network fees annually at $49 per month, per radio for 275 radios. The department will submit a supplemental in the future for the additional O and M. O and M projected start date: August 30, 2017. Annual ongoing O and M before inflationary increases: $161,700 Operating Costs: Supplies/Contr TOTAL FY 2017 $4,748 Operating Costs: Operating Description: FY 2016 $3,265 Equip. Maint. Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: This project helps fund the city's share of membership in the Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC) digital communications system (two-way radio). Fees associated with this membership cover the operational and maintenance costs on a per radio basis as well as special assessment fees. Membership in the RWC provides for enhanced service, redundancy and increased coverage for all city departments. Most importantly, interoperability not only within city departments but also valley wide partners is greatly increased. The city's "Gold Elite" consoles will require replacement upon the upgrade to IP-based radio consoles. Finance Charges Operating Description: Category: 20% FY 2013 $0 $0 FY 2014 FY 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 314 FY 2016 $0 $0 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $963,894 $963,894 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2040-Public Safety Construction Project: 75034 - Engine & Ladder Replacement (R) Project Description: Category: 20% General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: To maximize the safe use of Emergency Code 3 Apparatus the Fire Department's replacement plan indicates that front line engines should be replaced at seven years or 100,000 miles and be moved into a reserve status. Ladder trucks should be replaced after 15 years or 100,000 miles. The department will maintain a reserve fleet of one reserve truck for every two front line trucks. This CIP request is for a continuous plan for replacement of the department's Code 3 Apparatus in an effort to be compliant with the National Fire Protection Association Standards for emergency apparatus. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,055 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,842,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,938,255 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since this is the replacement of existing equipment. Project: T5320 - EOC Equipment Replacement (R) Project Description: This project will fund the replacement of telecommunication, audio/visual, computer infrastructure, data storage, radios, and other equipment in the Emergency Operations Center that will enable continued operation of these and future technology based systems. Overall use and evolving technology will require upgrades. Capital Costs: Carryover Finance Charges FY 2013 $0 IT/Phone/Security TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2014 FY 2015 $0 $0 $94,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,706,482 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,800,612 This project will replace existing equipment and systems at the EOC and placed in the technology replacement fund. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: T5380 - Replace HazMat Vehicle (R) Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: FYs 18-22 $0 TOTAL Capital Costs: FY 2017 $0 PC/Vehicle Replacement Finance Charges FY 2016 $0 Operating Costs: Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $4,706,482 $0 $0 Funding Source: $4,706,482 General Obligation Bonds Replacement of a HazMat vehicle for the hazardous materials team. The current truck will have served its useful life of 10 years by FY 2019. Carryover $0 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,540 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $603,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $617,290 No additional O and M is needed since the Hazmat truck will be replacing the current vehicle, which will not be used as a reserve vehicle. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 315 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2040-Public Safety Construction Project: T5450 - 30 Heart Monitors (R) Project Description: Category: 20% General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Purchase of 30 cardiac monitors. The life span is difficult to gauge as wear and tear is a factor that plays into how long these units last. New technology also plays a part in how long we can continue to use older equipment. Currently, the department’s heart monitors are adequate through FY 2018, at which time they are expected to reach the end of their useful life. Heart monitors are considered a capital expenditure due to the type of equipment requiring to be updated all at the same time; which cannot be phased in when replaced. Personnel must all be able to train and work on the same type, make and model of equipment. The department will continue to seek alternative funding mechanisms such as grants as they become available. Heart monitors are currently on a maintenance contract which will cover the cost to repair or replace a malfunctioned monitor. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,150 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $810,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $822,150 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M for the heart monitors would be needed starting in FY 2019-2022. O and M includes two batteries a year per unit at ($225 per battery x 60) and a 3% inflation has been added per year. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 Equip. Maint. TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: T5539 - Replacement of Airpacks (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Carryover $67,439 $67,439 General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: FY 2013 $0 Equipment TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,505,473 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,543,110 O and M includes maintenance and repair at $25,000 annually and an additional $36,000 (once every 5 years) for 2 hydro tests on 300 bottles at $60.00 per bottle that is performed every 5 years. The current SCBA budget is $17,291 and does not cover the O and M identified; an additional $74,545 is necessary. The $25,000 for annual maintenance and repair will be needed the year after purchase. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: Supplies/Contr TOTAL FYs 18-22 $0 $0 Replacement of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs) or air packs. The current supply is in compliance with National Fire Protection Association Standards through FY 2018. In FY 2018, 150 air packs will be outdated and in need of replacement. The useful life span of SCBAs is 7-10 years. Upgrades were completed in 2009 for all air packs. As components of the air packs fail, the department will repair or replace them using the department operating budget. Air packs are considered a capital expenditure due to the type of equipment requiring to be updated all at the same time; which cannot be phased in when replaced. Personnel must all be able to train and work on the same type, make and model of equipment. The department will continue to seek alternative funding mechanisms such as grants as they become available. Finance Charges Operating Description: FY 2017 FY 2013 $0 $0 FY 2014 FY 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 316 FY 2016 $0 $0 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $74,545 $74,545 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2040-Public Safety Construction Project: 75020 - City Court Building (N) Project Description: Category: 20% General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Construction will resume on the city court building in FY 2018. As of the end of December 2009, the structure was built to ground level. When completed the building is expected to be approximately 90,000 net square feet and include 10 courtrooms. There is the possibility of additional costs due to the delay in construction. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,742,010 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,613,404 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $791,603 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,235,868 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $139,968 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $316,134 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,166,412 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,005,399 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M would be needed starting in FY 2020 and includes a Building Maintenance Worker, two Custodians, a Day Porter and three Detention Officers. Other items include, utilities and electricity, security, building and elevator maintenance, parking lot sweeping and custodial supplies. There are $213,800 in one-time expenses in FY 2020 including one-time purchases of vehicles and other essential supplies. The O and M related to opening the new facility does not include current grant-funded and one-time funded staff and operational costs. These costs total $577,269. O and M costs for additional court positions will also be needed starting in the year the building is occupied. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Staffing $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies/Contr Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $1,453,002 $0 $693,971 $184,533 Bldg. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,966 Equip. Maint. Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,056 $51,671 Electrical $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,107,210 PC/Vehicle Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 Landscape Water $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Refuse $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 317 $18,684 $0 $27,426 $38,579 $0 $0 $3,895,590 $22,492 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2040-Public Safety Construction Project: T5536 - Fire Station - Western Area (N) Project Description: Category: 20% General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Design and construction of a 15,000 sq ft, four bay fire station, with firefighter quarters for 18 personnel, furniture, fixtures, equipment, office space and storage. Equipment includes one engine. This facility will respond to the surrounding areas between Northern Avenue and Camelback Road and 83rd to 115th Avenues. This fire station would house a fire pumper 24/7 initially, with further expansion of ladders and medic units as growth demands. Formally referred to as Fire Station 99th and Maryland. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,395,800 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,407,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,226,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $251,128 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,260 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,601,040 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,625,775 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,807,503 TOTAL Operating Description: Additional O and M would be needed starting in March of 2019. Staffing includes the salary and benefits for 12 Firefighters, 3 Captains, 3 Engineers and .5 FTE Building Maintenance Worker. Also includes promotions, training, medic pay, station supplies, station and equipment maintenance, telephone charges, grounds maintenance, insurance and onetime cost in the amount of $486,895 to recruit, test, hire and to send 18 firefighters to the training academy and six to medic school. Utilities, building maintenance, supplies and custodial services for 15,000 sq ft of space. PC replacement contributions for 3 computers and 1 color printer replacement = $2,182. Landscaping estimated at $0.22 per sq ft for 15,000 sq ft. Water estimated at $0.195 per sq ft. Refuse estimated at $342.26 x 12 months. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 $0 FYs 18-22 Staffing Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $146,398 Bldg. Maint. Equip. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $434,875 $57,327 $0 $3,844,622 $703,502 Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,165 Electrical $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,695 PC/Vehicle Replacement Landscape $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,282 $9,501 Water $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,421 Refuse TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,824 $5,331,612 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 318 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Government Facilities - Construction Fund GOVERNMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION FUND Carryover in FY 2013 is available for the repair, maintenance and/or replacement of electrical/ lighting and mechanical systems. A third of the Civic Center 10 Year Restoration project will also be funded with Government Facilities bond proceeds. The Government Facility Construction Fund will not receive new funding until the last five years of the capital improvement plan due to the continued decline in secondary assessed valuation. Project Name: City Hall Parking Garage Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 2080 Project #: T1160 319 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2080-Government Facilities Construction Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 6% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $175,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,550,000 0 17,550,000 3,734 3,734 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue Bond Proceeds Investment Income Total Revenue: Operating Expenses Advisor Fees Total Operating Expenses: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 77515 Civic Center 10 Yr Restoration T1160 City Hall Parking Garage 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,831,799 0 0 0 0 30,260 41,346 0 0 171,606 171,606 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,613,307 5,432,824 2,186,637 1,051,101 3,472,537 621,673 1,114,471 223,193 17,547,542 17,547,542 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,458 Replacement of Existing Assets 77503 Exterior Closure (Roofing) 77504 City Hall - HVAC System 77507 Interior Finishes (Flooring) 77508 Interior Finishes (Paint) 77509 Mechanical Upgrades 77510 Electrical/Lighting Upgrades 77512 Exterior Closure (Paint) T4730 Fuel Sites Equipment Upgrade Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 171,606 $0 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 2080-Government Facilities Construction Project: 77515 - Civic Center 10 Yr Restoration (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction TOTAL Operating Description: Category: 6% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Funding for this project will be used to replace and upgrade high cost depreciable items that have been in operation and use at the facility for the past 11 years. This funding is for the replacement of crucial items such as carpet, acoustical air walls in the ballroom, banquet chairs, and audio visual systems. The restoration is needed to ensure that the Civic Center remains a competitive, desirable, high-quality event venue and is considered essential to the continued success of the facility. Recommendation for the planning and funding for the replacement of these high cost items was discussed in a City Council Budget Workshop in 2006. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 320 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2080-Government Facilities Construction Project: T1160 - City Hall Parking Garage (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: 6% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds As part of the emergency garage repair in FY 2009, the structural engineer provided additional maintenance recommendations for the remainder of the city hall garage related to replacement or repair of synthetic cushions. Over the past 25 years, the natural expansion and contraction of the structure's elements have pushed out of place many of the synthetic cushions on which the 366 concrete beams are seated. This has caused the concrete to wear against bare concrete causing deterioration. Also, there are four locations that have significant deterioration that will require extra maintenance and repair before the deterioration becomes more costly. Carryover Design $0 Construction Finance Charges FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $392,110 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,689 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,831,799 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 77503 - Exterior Closure (Roofing) (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Citywide roofing upgrades will require a total of $921,858 in FY 2018 to improve the condition of several facilities and extend the useful life of the infrastructure. There will be over 80 different roofing-related projects needed on all city buildings over a five year period totaling $1,613,307. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,249 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,249 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,107 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,412,462 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,613,307 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 321 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2080-Government Facilities Construction Project: 77504 - City Hall - HVAC System (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: 6% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds The existing heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system at Glendale City Hall is projected to reach its capacity with future occupancy and use of the building, which will exceed the original design within the next 10 years. The replacements and upgrades will improve indoor air quality and provide a new HVAC system life capacity of an additional 20+ years. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,346,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $123,487 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,460 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,429,446 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $402,431 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,432,824 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed at this time. Project: 77507 - Interior Finishes (Flooring) (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Provide citywide interior flooring replacements and upgrades that would require a total of $2,186,637over a five year period to improve the condition of several facilities, and extend the useful life of the infrastructure. There will be approximately 100 different flooring related projects completed on all city buildings over the five year period. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,826 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,826 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,381 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,959,175 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,429 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,186,637 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 77508 - Interior Finishes (Paint) (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Make citywide interior paint and wall covering replacements and upgrades that would require a total of $1,051,101 over a five year period to improve the condition of several facilities and extend the useful life of the infrastructure. There are over 142 paint/wall covering related projects needed on all city buildings. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,048 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,048 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,900 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $991,105 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,051,101 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 322 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2080-Government Facilities Construction Project: 77509 - Mechanical Upgrades (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction Finance Charges Engineering Charges Equipment Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Capital Costs: Design Finance Charges Engineering Charges Equipment Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: General Obligation Bonds Citywide mechanical replacement and upgrades would require a total of $3,472,537 to improve the mechanical systems of several facilities, as well as extend the useful life of the infrastructure. There will be a total of nine heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical related projects completed on different city buildings. Major projects include: replacing all the HVAC equipment and adding capacity to cool the data center located at the Public Safety Building, replacing the cooling tower drive motor at the Main Library, replacing the heat pumps at Fire Station 154 and renovating the mechanical systems at the Operations Center. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,843 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,680 $61,680 $6,417 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,785 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,084,049 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $258,343 $30,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,472,537 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 77510 - Electrical/Lighting Upgrades (R) Project Description: Category: 6% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds The replacement and upgrade of lighting and electrical systems in city buildings is estimated to cost a total of $621,673 over several years. These upgrades are expected to reduce the consumption of electricity usage citywide. Improvements are needed for the O'Neil and Rose Lane Community Center recreation buildings, and Fire Stations 152, 153, 154 and 155. This project will include the replacement of old coil and core light fixture ballasts with energy efficient electronic ones and the replacement of the fluorescent lamps with higher efficient options. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $29,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,862 $2,862 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,693 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $557,241 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,708 $41,346 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $621,673 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 323 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2080-Government Facilities Construction Project: 77512 - Exterior Closure (Paint) (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: 6% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Citywide painting related replacements and upgrades that would require a total of $1,114,471 over a several year period to improve the condition of several facilities and extend the useful life of the infrastructure. The painted surface deteriorates when exposed to the elements, and keeping the exterior surface coated in paint protects the underlying building materials. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,067 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,067 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,050 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $988,924 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,363 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,114,471 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: T4730 - Fuel Sites Equipment Upgrade (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds This project reflects the replacement of all city of Glendale fuel dispensing equipment that will reach its maximum useful life over the next ten years. The project includes installation of new fuel monitoring and tank leak detection systems and replacement of the fuel tracking system for two fueling sites at Field Operations and Fire Station 153. Completion of this project will ensure reporting accuracy, equipment stability and integrity, and improved customer service. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,500 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,525 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,973 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $945 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $223,193 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is required since new equipment will replace aging existing equipment. No annual maintenance is required, if repairs are required vendors will be paid through existing operational budgets. Contributions to the Technology Replacement Fund are being made for the hardware currently being used and no additional hardware would be needed at this time. The software is a one-time purchase and the yearly license agreement will be paid through the departments existing budget. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 324 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Cultural Facility/Historical Preservation – Construction Fund CULTURAL FACILITY/HISTORICAL PRESERVATION CONSTRUCTION FUND This general obligation category will fund the continuation of repair and rehabilitation work at the Morcomb property. Work will include restoration of both the historic house and gas station in order to preserve the historic integrity of the property. Project Name: Sahuaro Ranch Carriage House Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 2130 Project #: 84308 325 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2130-Cultural Facility Construction Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 6% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $338,677 $237,692 $237,692 $237,692 $237,692 $237,692 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 20,000 Revenue Bond Proceeds Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 84307 Morcomb Property 100,985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,985 100,985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252,980 252,980 252,980 $237,692 $237,692 $237,692 $237,692 $4,712 Replacement of Existing Assets 84308 Sahuaro Ranch Carriage House Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 100,985 $237,692 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 2130-Cultural Facility Construction Project: 84307 - Morcomb Property (I) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: There are two existing buildings on the site that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places: 1) Adobe House and 2) Service Station. This project will restore both buildings and will complete the Myrtle Avenue Cultural Gateway. Capital Costs: Carryover Design Engineering Charges TOTAL Operating Description: Category: 6% FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $9,462 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,523 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,985 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Property is owned by the City of Glendale. Field Operations and Parks & Recreation will maintain the buildings and landscaping. Occupancy of either building is not contemplated as this is a static display. The additional O and M will be absorbed by Field Operations and the Parks & Recreation Departments. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Bldg. Maint. $1,030 $1,061 $1,093 $1,126 $1,160 $6,343 Landscape TOTAL $1,030 $2,060 $1,061 $2,122 $1,093 $2,186 $1,126 $2,252 $1,160 $2,320 $6,343 $12,686 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 326 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2130-Cultural Facility Construction Project: 84308 - Sahuaro Ranch Carriage House (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: 6% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Repair and/or replace the interior wood siding of the carriage house with the intent to restore the weather tightness of the structure. Repair the deteriorating parts of the bay window. Replace the metal flashing at the roof of the bay and install flooring with materials that meet ADA and historical standards. Replace all electrical infrastructure, prepare and re-paint all previously painted interior surfaces. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,200 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $132,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,960 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,320 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $252,980 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 327 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Economic Development – Construction Fund ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND This general obligation bond category includes $1.6 million in carryover for economic development capital projects in FY 2013. These funds are intended for the purchase of land for redevelopment, the upgrade and repair of older infrastructure and new development infrastructure. The overall goal of the economic development capital projects is to attract high quality economic development projects that create or retain well-paying jobs in Glendale, enhance the city’s financial stability and attract new capital investment. Proceeds will also be utilized to ensure parking remains available for events at the University of Phoenix Stadium. A number of spaces were displaced when Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. chose the Westgate area as a site for a new outlet mall. Due to the continued decline in Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation, additional funding for economic development related projects will be deferred to the last five years of the plan. Project Name: Loop 303 Infrastructure Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 2100 Project #: 84406 328 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2100-Economic Development Construction Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 6% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $1,688,061 $62,691 $62,710 $62,729 $62,748 $62,775 0 444 444 0 32 32 0 32 32 0 32 32 0 32 32 22,365,000 159 22,365,159 2,000 2,000 13 13 13 13 13 13 5 5 64 64 Revenue Bond Proceeds Investment Income Total Revenue: Operating Expenses Advisor Fees Total Operating Expenses: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 84401 Downtown Redevelopment Sub-Total - Existing Assets 450,000 450,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,142,857 7,142,857 723,814 0 450,000 1,173,814 1,623,814 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 5,966,771 9,316,837 15,283,608 22,426,465 $62,710 $62,729 $62,748 $62,775 $1,406 New Assets 84400 Downtown Land Acquisition 84406 Loop 303 Infrastructure 84407 New Development Infrastructure Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 1,623,814 $62,691 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 2100-Economic Development Construction Project: 84401 - Downtown Redevelopment (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Land Construction Finance Charges TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Category: 6% General Obligation Bonds Redevelopment of infrastructure that needs to be upgraded or repaired to encourage private investment in redevelopment of the downtown area. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $142,857 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,142,857 Land acquisition only. Acquired land would be offered to developers for purchase and development as desired within scope of a development agreement. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 329 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2100-Economic Development Construction Project: 84400 - Downtown Land Acquisition (N) Project Description: Carryover Land TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $723,814 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 There is minimal O and M associated with this project related to land acquisition. O and M for weed control maintenance will be absorbed by the department's operating budget. Acquired land would be offered to developer for purchase and development as desired by city within scope of a development agreement. Estimation for weed control and maintenance is just over $2,000 per year for FYs 2012-2016. Operating Costs: FY 2013 TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: 84406 - Loop 303 Infrastructure (N) Capital Costs: FY 2016 $723,814 Landscape Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Funding Source: Districts affected include Ocotillo and Cactus. Purchase of underperforming properties in the City Center Master Plan area which can be assembled and re-marketed to businesses and establishments that desire to locate in the downtown redevelopment area, spurring economic growth. Funding will also cover associated costs of appraisals, environmental assessments, title searches, demolitions, etc. The city will undertake requests for proposals to identify and negotiate development agreements. Continue implementation of the City Center Master Plan. Capital Costs: Operating Description: Category: 6% FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $28,103 $0 $0 Funding Source: $28,103 General Obligation Bonds Construction of new infrastructure and other development costs for new retail or mixed-use development near Loop 303 in fulfillment of development agreement. As development along the Loop 303 continues, the Loop 303 area is becoming the focus for new development within the city. Attracting high-quality development projects to spur economic growth, requires infrastructure to be in place. Carryover Design $0 Construction Finance Charges FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,143,603 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $148,150 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,907 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,436 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $866,675 Miscellaneous/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,966,771 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 330 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2100-Economic Development Construction Project: 84407 - New Development Infrastructure (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Land Funding Source: Category: 6% General Obligation Bonds Funding to provide new infrastructure to recruit and encourage new high-quality private development citywide. The city incurs infrastructure and development costs as new economic development projects occur. Funds are needed to assist with infrastructure costs to support major development projects which will generate new revenues and economic benefits for the city as a tool to recruit high quality employers to the city. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,700,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,800,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $186,337 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,000 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,316,837 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M costs would be included within the scope of a development agreement. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 331 $2,500,000 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Flood Control – Construction Fund FLOOD CONTROL CONSTRUCTION FUND FY 2013 carryover will be used to complete the storm drain in Camelback Road between 59th and 75th Avenues which is the last phase of the Bethany Home Outfall Channel project. Carryover funds are also available for the local draining problem and collector drain programs where needed. With the exception of the ongoing AZDES Permit Project, no new funding is included in the first five years of the CIP plan due to the continued decline in Glendale’s secondary assessed valuation. The AZDES Permit Project ensures that the city remains compliant with the requirements of a permit obtained under the Clean Water Act. Project Name: Bethany Home Outfall Channel Funding Source: G.O. Bond Fund #: 2180 Project #: 79000 332 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2180-Flood Control Construction Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: 20% FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $6,617,554 $4,005,214 $3,845,966 $3,686,650 $3,527,265 $3,367,812 0 0 2,670 2,670 0 0 1,973 1,973 0 0 1,892 1,892 0 0 1,812 1,812 0 0 1,732 1,732 30,865,000 7,500,000 4,530 38,369,530 5,213 5,213 296 296 284 284 272 272 260 260 680 680 Revenue Bond Proceeds^ Intergovernmental Revenue Investment Income Total Revenue: Operating Expenses Advisor Fees Total Operating Expenses: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 79004 Local Drainage Problems 79005 Collector Drains 79006 AZDES SD Permit T2944 51st Ave. SD, Northern - Olive Sub-Total - Existing Assets 717,185 560,008 425,314 0 1,702,507 0 0 160,925 0 160,925 0 0 160,925 0 160,925 0 0 160,925 0 160,925 0 0 160,925 0 160,925 0 0 160,925 0 160,925 5,293,992 0 804,625 2,668,340 8,766,957 746,365 0 0 0 0 0 0 746,365 2,448,872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,925 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,925 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,925 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,925 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,925 0 5,014,601 3,684,359 10,608,840 8,221,654 3,684,074 1,753,112 32,966,640 41,733,597 $3,845,966 $3,686,650 $3,527,265 $3,367,812 $3,065 New Assets 79000 Bethany Home Outfall Channel 79001 Bethany Home SD, 58th - 51st 79007 Greenway SD, 59th - 67th 79013 Bethany Home SD, 79th-67th T2910 Bethany Home SD, 67th-58th T2940 Greenway SD, 51st-59th T2945 *59th Ave & Thunderbird Rd SD Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: Estimated Ending Balance: 2,609,797 $4,005,214 ^Will require additional voter authorization in last 5 years of the plan. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 333 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2180-Flood Control Construction Project: 79004 - Local Drainage Problems (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction Finance Charges Engineering Charges Arts Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Capital Costs: Design TOTAL Operating Description: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Design FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $6,258 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $502,460 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,099,284 $46,035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,715 $121,510 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $32,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,993 $8,297 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $717,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,293,992 Storm drain pipe requires little or no maintenance and in most cases will reduce existing maintenance because storm water does not pond in the street or other public facility. Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Ongoing program to construct storm drain improvements on arterial and collector streets to mitigate drainage and flooding problems. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $560,008 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $560,008 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Storm drain pipe requires little or no maintenance and in most cases will reduce existing maintenance because storm water does not pond in the street or other public facility. Project: 79006 - AZDES SD Permit (I) Project Description: General Obligation Bonds Construct localized storm drain improvements to mitigate drainage and/or flooding problems. This is an ongoing program that typically addresses drainage problems in older neighborhoods, residential areas, and extends existing storm drain systems. Project: 79005 - Collector Drains (I) Project Description: Category: 20% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds In 1999, the City of Glendale obtained a permit under the Clean Water Act for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The permit requires monitoring of storm water flows and preparation of annual reports. This funding will insure that the city can continue to meet the requirements of the permit and avoid fines up to $25,000 per day. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $200,936 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,332 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $9,842 $3,925 $3,925 $3,925 $3,925 $3,925 $19,625 Engineering Charges $8,304 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $155,900 $157,000 $157,000 $157,000 $157,000 $157,000 $785,000 $425,314 $160,925 $160,925 $160,925 $160,925 $160,925 $804,625 Construction TOTAL Operating Description: O and M of storm water monitoring will be done by the United States Geological Survey agency through an IGA. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 334 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2180-Flood Control Construction Project: T2944 - 51st Ave. SD, Northern - Olive (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: 20% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Project will construct a 42" storm drain pipe, inlets, and other appurtenances in 51st Avenue between Northern Avenue and Olive Avenue. Additionally the Northern Avenue storm drain will be extended from 47th Avenue to 43rd Avenue. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,200,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,340 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $220,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,668,340 TOTAL Operating Description: The storm drain will not require O and M. Project: 79000 - Bethany Home Outfall Channel (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds This is the last phase of the Bethany Home Outfall Channel Project with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County. The portions of the outfall channel between the Loop 101 and 83rd Avenue are complete and the storm drain piping between 83rd and 75th Avenues along the Grand Canal are also complete. This phase will complete the storm drain in Camelback Road from 75th to 59th Avenues. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $1,138 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $211,962 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $495,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $38,061 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $746,365 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: Storm drain pipe requires little or no maintenance and in most cases will reduce existing maintenance because storm water does not pond in the street or other public facility. The outfall channel will be maintained by the flood control district. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 335 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2180-Flood Control Construction Project: 79001 - Bethany Home SD, 58th - 51st (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: 20% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Construct a storm drain along Bethany Home Road between 51st and 58th Avenues including mainline pipe, catch basins and appurtenances. The need for this project was identified in the Maryvale Area Drainage Management Plan that the County Flood District developed. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,551 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,550 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 Miscellaneous/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,014,601 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M will not occur until project is actually constructed in the future. Storm drain pipe requires little or no maintenance and in most cases will reduce existing maintenance because storm water does not pond in the street or other public facility. Project: 79007 - Greenway SD, 59th - 67th (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Construct a storm drain at Greenway Road from 59th to 67th Avenues. Project includes catch basins and appurtenances. This project will intercept storm water flows east of 67th Avenue. Carryover Design $0 Construction Finance Charges FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,640,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,869 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,090 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $370,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,684,359 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 336 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2180-Flood Control Construction Project: 79013 - Bethany Home SD, 79th-67th (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: 20% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Construct storm drain pipe, inlets, and other appurtenances in Bethany Home Road from 79th Avenue to 67th Avenue. Carryover Design $0 Construction Finance Charges FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,500 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $785,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,608,840 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Storm drain pipe requires little or no maintenance and in most cases will reduce existing maintenance because storm water does not pond in the street or other public facility. Project: T2910 - Bethany Home SD, 67th-58th (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Construct a storm drain in Bethany Home Road from 67th to 58th Avenues. Construction costs are to be shared with Maricopa County Flood Control District (50%) per an existing intergovernmental agreement. The project will include storm drain pipe, catch basins, and appurtenances. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $161,209 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $597,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $110,875 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,221,654 Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Storm drain pipe requires little or no maintenance and in most cases will reduce existing maintenance because storm water does not pond in the street or other public facility. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 337 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2180-Flood Control Construction Project: T2940 - Greenway SD, 51st-59th (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: 20% Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Construct a storm drain in Greenway Road between 51st and 59th Avenues to include mainline piping, catch basins, and appurtenances. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,630,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,869 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,905 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,300 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $380,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,684,074 TOTAL Operating Description: Storm drain pipe requires little or no maintenance and in most cases will reduce existing maintenance because storm water does not pond in the street or other public facility. Project: T2945* - 59th Ave & Thunderbird Rd SD (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: General Obligation Bonds Project will construct a storm drain in 59th Avenue between the Thunderbird Road intersection and the Arizona Canal Drainage Channel. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,612 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,500 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,753,112 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is required for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 338 $20,000 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Development Impact Fee Funds DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUNDS Impact fees are one-time charges to developers that are used to offset a city’s capital costs resulting from new development. Developers pay development impact fees when they construct new residential and commercial developments. These fees are designed to cover a city’s increased costs for providing new or expanded infrastructure in the following categories: roadway improvements, open space and trails, parks, libraries, police, fire, general government, solid waste services and water/sewer. In this section you will find separate DIF fund summaries for each of these categories with the exception of solid waste services and water/sewer which are included in the Enterprise/Other Fund section of the Capital Improvement Plan. Planning and zoning information, such as anticipated population growth and expected density of residential and commercial development, is the foundation for impact fee revenue estimates. Given this information, the city then estimates the amount of impact fee revenue available to pay for growth-related capital projects. In normal economic conditions a number of DIF funded projects would be included in the capital plan to supplement the growth related portion of projects funded with other resources. However with the drastic decline in secondary assessed value, most G. O. bond funded projects have either been removed or deferred to the last five years of the plan. Since DIF revenue alone often is not sufficient to fund 100% of the cost of growth-related projects, the current plan is to evaluate options over the next year as staff continues to identify appropriate uses for DIF revenue. Late in FY 2011 Senate Bill 1525 was signed into law. The new law changes how development impact fees will be administered and on how DIF revenue can be used. For example cities cannot assess impact fees for general government or solid waste capital facilities. Under the new law municipalities were required to have a new fee structure incorporated with an effective date of January 1, 2012 that took into account the restrictions. Staff used the most recent DIF study adopted by Council as a basis for calculating the new fees. Funding from each DIF category is set aside in FY 2013 for a new study to be prepared that will incorporate the new DIF framework by August 1, 2014 as required by the law. The new law allows funding accumulated prior to January 1, 2012 to be used for any project that was eligible under the guidelines of the previous law until January 1, 2020. All FY 2013 and FY 2014 projects utilize funds accumulated before January 1, 2012. Fund # - Name 1600 - Roadway Improvements 1520 - Citywide Open Space 1460 - Citywide Parks 1480 - Citywide Rec Facility 1540 - Park Dev Zone 1 1560 - Park Dev Zone 2 1580 - Park Dev Zone 3 1380 - Library Buildings 1500 - Libraries 1440 - Police Dept Facilities 1420 - Fire Protection Facilities 1620 - General Government Total DIF Funds Carryover 131,958 215,473 0 0 39,632 133,067 31,395 0 0 0 0 0 FY 2013 124,964 46,216 2,216 2,216 2,216 7,816 7,516 0 213,265 10,919 11,480 12,799 FY 2014 102,900 44,000 0 0 0 5,600 6,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 FY 2015 194,908 44,000 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 0 214,073 11,584 12,179 0 FY 2016 171,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 FY 2017 194,908 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 0 214,703 11,584 12,179 0 FYs 18-22 908,678 80,000 5,140 5,140 5,140 5,140 5,140 1,609,288 2,484,259 25,329 26,627 0 $551,525 $441,623 $358,500 $488,494 $371,500 $445,124 $5,159,881 339 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Roadway Improvements - DIF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS DIF FUND This category includes development impact fees paid by developers for roadway improvements that are needed because of new residential and commercial developments within city limits. The DIF-Roadway Improvement Fund has contributed $1M per year to cover a portion of debt service associated with growth related HURF projects; FY 2013 will be the last year this contribution is made. Funding is set aside in FY 2013 for a DIF study to be completed that will incorporate new guidelines set forth by State Bill 1525. Being that Roadway Improvements continues to be an allowable category under the new legislation, funding is also set aside to update the study biennially. Carryover and new funding is also available for development agreements involving arterial streets and intersection such as improvements to curbs/gutters, sidewalks, street lights, traffic signals and landscaping where needed. Project Name: Dev. Agree. - Signals Funding Source: DIF Fund #: 1600 Project #: 67803 340 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1600-DIF-Roadway Improvements Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $1,799,759 $769,862 $893,333 $926,537 $985,256 $1,020,366 221,284 5,741 227,025 223,497 2,874 226,371 225,732 2,380 228,112 227,989 2,230 230,219 227,989 2,029 230,017 1,128,658 11,433 1,140,091 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Operating Expenses Transfer Out Total Operating Expenses: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 67802 Dev. Agree. - Arterials 65,110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,110 22,064 22,064 0 0 23,408 23,408 0 0 23,408 23,408 51,178 51,178 66,848 66,848 131,958 102,900 102,900 124,964 102,900 102,900 102,900 171,500 171,500 194,908 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 194,908 857,500 857,500 908,678 $893,333 $926,537 $985,256 $1,020,366 $1,251,778 Replacement of Existing Assets 67809 DIF Update Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 67803 Dev. Agree. - Signals Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 256,922 $769,862 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1600-DIF-Roadway Improvements Project: 67802 - Dev. Agree. - Arterials (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Category: DIF Funding Source: Development Impact Fees This program is to fund partial street improvements agreed to in development agreements for Arterial streets as an incentive to the developer. Some of the improvements could include pavement widening, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, and street lights to accommodate growth. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $65,110 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,110 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 341 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1600-DIF-Roadway Improvements Project: 67809 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Carryover Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $22,064 $0 $23,408 $0 $23,408 $51,178 $0 $22,064 $0 $23,408 $0 $23,408 $51,178 No additional O and M is needed. Project: 67803 - Dev. Agree. - Signals (N) Project Description: Development Impact Fees Funding Source: Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the roadway improvements portion of the DIF study and updates. Capital Costs: Operating Description: Category: DIF Development Impact Fees Funding Source: Fees charged to developers are used to improve intersections that have experienced increased vehicular traffic generated by new development. This project provides for the installation or upgrades of traffic signals and Intelligent Transportation Systems equipment at various locations throughout the city. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Land $0 $3,611 $3,611 $6,018 $6,018 $6,018 Design $0 $6,319 $6,319 $10,531 $10,531 $10,531 $52,654 $66,848 $82,538 $82,538 $137,563 $137,563 $137,563 $687,814 Engineering Charges $0 $2,804 $2,804 $4,674 $4,674 $4,674 $23,370 Arts $0 $825 $825 $1,376 $1,376 $1,376 $6,878 Contingency $0 $6,803 $6,803 $11,338 $11,338 $11,338 $56,696 $66,848 $102,900 $102,900 $171,500 $171,500 $171,500 $857,500 Construction TOTAL Operating Description: $30,088 O and M costs are for the electricity and maintenance of new traffic signal installations. A supplemental budget request will be made as new equipment is added to the system. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Utilities $11,457 $11,801 $12,155 $12,519 Equip. Maint. TOTAL $5,729 $17,186 $5,901 $17,702 $6,078 $18,233 $6,260 $18,779 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 342 FY 2017 $12,895 $6,448 $19,343 FYs 18-22 $70,515 $35,261 $105,776 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Open Space – DIF OPEN SPACE DIF FUND This category includes development impact fees paid by developers for new or expanded infrastructure related to open space and multiuse trails that are needed as a result of new residential developments within city limits. Funding is set aside in FY 2013 for a DIF study to be completed that will incorporate new guidelines set forth by State Bill 1525. Open Space is no longer an eligible category under the new DIF legislation; funds accumulated through January 1, 2011 will need to be utilized prior to January 1, 2020. Currently, carryover funding will be used for trail/walkway improvements to accommodate increased use by residents from new and/or growing residential developments citywide. Funding also is available for similar improvements specifically for Discovery and Pasadena Parks. Project Name: Discovery Park Source: DIF Fund #: 1520 Project #: 70453 Project Name: Pasadena Park Source: DIF Fund #: 1520 Project #: 70454 343 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1520-DIF-Citywide Open Space Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $503,249 $243,129 $200,169 $157,005 $157,819 $158,635 1,569 1,569 1,040 1,040 836 836 814 814 816 816 3,058 3,058 Revenue Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 70452 Park Improvements - City Wide 70453 Discovery Park 70454 Pasadena Park 33,128 113,965 68,380 0 21,000 23,000 0 21,000 23,000 0 21,000 23,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 45,000 0 215,473 215,473 2,216 46,216 46,216 0 44,000 44,000 0 44,000 44,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 $200,169 $157,005 $157,819 $158,635 $81,693 Replacement of Existing Assets 70450 DIF Update Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 261,689 $243,129 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1520-DIF-Citywide Open Space Category: DIF Project: 70452 - Park Improvements - City Wide (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Develop and update parks citywide to accommodate growth per the current Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Funding will be used to develop facilities and parks to accommodate increased use by residents from new or growing residential developments. Examples of improvements may include playgrounds, ball fields, ramadas, etc. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $33,128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33,128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 344 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1520-DIF-Citywide Open Space Category: DIF Project: 70453 - Discovery Park (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Construction $18,071 $18,071 $0 $0 $30,118 $1,193 $1,193 $1,193 $0 $0 $1,988 $982 $181 $181 $181 $0 $0 $301 $8,439 $1,555 $1,555 $1,555 $0 $0 $2,593 $113,965 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $0 $0 $35,000 No additional O and M is needed at this time. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $19,792 $19,792 $19,792 $0 $0 $38,724 $1,306 $1,306 $1,306 $0 $0 $2,556 $589 $198 $198 $198 $0 $0 $387 $5,066 $1,704 $1,704 $1,704 $0 $0 $3,333 $68,380 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 $0 $0 $45,000 No additional O and M is needed at this time. Project: 70450 - DIF Update (R) Capital Costs: FY 2016 $3,883 Contingency Project Description: Development Impact Fees $58,842 Arts Operating Description: Funding Source: This project will create new amenities and infrastructure related to open space. The most likely improvement includes connections to adjacent sidewalks in the park and trail connections to the current and future neighborhoods. Other improvements or additions may include picnic ramadas, shaded rest areas, drinking fountains, enhanced open play areas, playground or exercise equipment, and other trail amenities and site improvements that address growth within the city. Engineering Charges TOTAL FYs 18-22 $18,071 Project: 70454 - Pasadena Park (I) Capital Costs: FY 2017 $6,474 Contingency Project Description: FY 2016 $98,070 Arts Operating Description: Development Impact Fees This project will create new amenities and infrastructure related to open space. Likely improvements include additional trails in the park and trail connections to the adjacent neighborhoods. Other improvements may include picnic ramadas, shaded rest areas, drinking fountains, enhanced open play areas, playground or exercise equipment, and other trail amenities and site improvements that address growth within the city. Engineering Charges TOTAL Funding Source: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the citywide open space and trails portion of the DIF study. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $2,216 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,216 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 345 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Parks & Recreation – DIF PARKS & RECREATION DIF FUNDS This category includes development impact fees paid by developers for new or expanded park infrastructure that is needed because of new residential developments within city limits. The majority of park impact fee revenue is restricted for use in specific areas, as defined below:      DIF Citywide Parks: DIF Citywide Rec Fac: DIF Parks Dev Zone 1: DIF Parks Dev Zone 2: DIF Parks Dev Zone 3: Eligible for use citywide. Eligible for use citywide on recreation facilities. Restricted to areas west of 75th Avenue, south of Greenway Road. Restricted to areas east of 75th Avenue, south of Greenway Road. Restricted to areas north of Greenway Road. Continuing through FY 2019, the existing funds in the DIF-Citywide Recreation Facility Fund will cover a portion of the debt service payments attributed to growth for the Foothills Recreation and Aquatic Center. Funding is set aside in FY 2013 for a DIF study to be completed that will incorporate new guidelines set forth by State Bill 1525. Being that Roadway Improvements continues to be an allowable category under the new legislation, funding is also set aside to update the study biennially. Also in FY 2013, carryover funding will be used for: the completion of a neighborhood, joint-use park at 79th Avenue and Orangewood to serve residents within a one-mile radius per the Park’s 2002 Master Plan in Zone 1; growth related improvements to Paseo Linear Park in Zone 2; and the addition of kiosks at Thunderbird Conservation Park in Zone 3. Project Name: Thunderbird Park Kiosks Source: DIF Fund #: 1580 Project #: 73704 346 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1460-DIF-Citywide Parks Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $250,184 $292,989 $338,666 $382,518 $429,454 $474,145 44,096 925 45,021 44,537 1,140 45,677 44,982 1,220 46,202 45,432 1,504 46,936 45,432 1,608 47,040 224,912 9,556 234,468 0 0 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 0 0 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 5,140 5,140 5,140 $338,666 $382,518 $429,454 $474,145 $703,473 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 72502 DIF Update 0 0 0 Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 2,216 2,216 2,216 2,216 Estimated Ending Balance: $292,989 PROJECT DETAIL: 1460-DIF-Citywide Parks Category: DIF Project: 72502 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the citywide parks portion of the DIF study and updates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 347 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1480-DIF-Citywide Rec Facility Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $1,209,998 $1,047,929 $887,418 $723,699 $560,950 $606,393 44,096 4,568 48,664 44,537 4,248 48,785 44,982 3,362 48,344 45,432 2,794 48,226 45,432 2,361 47,793 224,912 13,323 238,235 208,517 208,517 209,296 209,296 209,713 209,713 210,975 210,975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 0 0 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 5,140 5,140 5,140 $887,418 $723,699 $560,950 $606,393 $839,487 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Operating Expenses Transfer Out Total Operating Expenses: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 72801 DIF Update 0 0 0 Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 2,216 2,216 2,216 2,216 Estimated Ending Balance: $1,047,929 PROJECT DETAIL: 1480-DIF-Citywide Rec Facility Project: 72801 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Category: DIF Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the citywide recreation facilities portion of the DIF study and updates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 348 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1540-DIF-Park Dev Zone 1 Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $136,840 $115,525 $136,263 $154,888 $176,185 $195,176 20,064 469 20,533 20,265 474 20,738 20,467 508 20,975 20,672 625 21,297 20,672 669 21,341 102,336 3,991 106,328 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 73104 79th Ave & Orangewood 39,632 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,632 39,632 2,216 2,216 2,216 0 0 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 0 0 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 5,140 5,140 5,140 $136,263 $154,888 $176,185 $195,176 $296,364 Replacement of Existing Assets 73102 DIF Update Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 41,848 $115,525 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1540-DIF-Park Dev Zone 1 Category: DIF Project: 73104 - 79th Ave & Orangewood (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Final phase for development of a 10-acre joint-use neighborhood park that will include pathway, park lighting, ramadas, landscape and irrigation. Additional funding to support this project is included in park project 2060-70523. The school and the joint-use park were constructed to address the growth in the area and the increasing student enrollment in the neighboring schools in the Glendale Elementary School District. The service area around this joint-use park is without a neighborhood ramada and concrete walkways. The ramada, concrete pathway, and surrounding ground stabilization are the highest priorities. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $39,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Ramada cleaning would simply be incorporated into the park maintenance routine. Project: 73102 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Development Impact Fees Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the neighborhood parks zone 1 portion of the DIF study and updates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 349 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1560-DIF-Park Dev Zone 2 Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $186,550 $60,343 $69,303 $81,659 $96,568 $109,149 14,212 464 14,676 14,354 206 14,560 14,498 208 14,705 14,643 267 14,909 14,643 288 14,931 72,488 1,748 74,237 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 73400 Park Improvements/Enhance 73404 Paseo Linear Park Additions 105,506 27,561 0 5,600 0 5,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133,067 133,067 2,216 7,816 7,816 0 5,600 5,600 2,350 2,350 2,350 0 0 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 5,140 5,140 5,140 $69,303 $81,659 $96,568 $109,149 $178,246 Replacement of Existing Assets 73403 DIF Update Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 140,883 $60,343 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1560-DIF-Park Dev Zone 2 Category: DIF Project: 73400 - Park Improvements/Enhance (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: The Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan identifies action strategies to develop, enhance and improve parks between Greenway Road and Olive Avenue, and 51st Avenue and 73rd Avenue, that have been impacted by community growth. Increased bicycle and general user traffic is creating the need for additional shade and rest nodes along the 4 mile trail system as well as repairs to the asphalt trail surface system. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Contingency Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $105,506 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,506 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for these projects. Project: 73404 - Paseo Linear Park Additions (I) Project Description: Development Impact Fees Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Additional amenities consist of accommodating community growth by adding active recreation elements, such as playground equipment, shade structures or exercise equipment stations into Paseo Linear Park. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $415 $415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,561 $5,185 $5,185 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,561 $5,600 $5,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for these projects. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 350 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1560-DIF-Park Dev Zone 2 Category: DIF Project: 73403 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the neighborhood parks zone 2 portion of the DIF study and updates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 351 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1580-DIF-Park Dev Zone 3 Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $50,750 $19,501 $21,100 $26,425 $34,177 $39,579 7,524 138 7,662 7,599 0 7,599 7,675 0 7,675 7,752 0 7,752 7,752 0 7,752 38,376 0 38,376 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 73704 Thunderbird Park Kiosks 31,395 5,300 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 31,395 31,395 2,216 7,516 7,516 0 6,000 6,000 2,350 2,350 2,350 0 0 0 2,350 2,350 2,350 5,140 5,140 5,140 $21,100 $26,425 $34,177 $39,579 $72,816 Replacement of Existing Assets 73702 DIF Update Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 38,911 $19,501 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1580-DIF-Park Dev Zone 3 Category: DIF Project: 73704 - Thunderbird Park Kiosks (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: TOTAL Operating Description: Carryover $1,481 FY 2013 $393 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $444 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,914 $4,907 $5,556 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,395 $5,300 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 73702 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Development Impact Fees Increased usage of Thunderbird Conservation Park due to growth is requiring the construction of trail head informational kiosks in the park. Kiosks will provide trail users with information about wildlife in the park, maintenance notifications and trail lengths/difficulty/elevations. Contingency Miscellaneous/Other Funding Source: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the neighborhood parks zone 3 portion of the DIF study and updates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 $0 $2,216 $0 $2,350 $0 $2,350 $5,140 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 352 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Library – DIF LIBRARY DIF FUNDS This category includes development impact fees paid by developers for new or expanded library infrastructure that is needed due to new residential developments within city limits. Funding is set aside in FY 2013 for a DIF study to be completed that will incorporate new guidelines set forth by State Bill 1525. Being that Roadway Improvements continues to be an allowable category under the new legislation, funding is also set aside to update the study biennially. Impact fees collected prior to January 1, 2011 will continue to fund additional library material needed to meet residential growth. New restrictions prohibit the use of impact fees collected on or after this date for library materials. A portion of the design and construction of a new branch library in the western area of Glendale, which is now planned for the last five years of the capital plan, will be covered with development impact fee revenue. Project Name: Library Books – Pop. Growth Funding Source: DIF Fund #: 1500 Project #: 74751 353 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1380-DIF-Library Buildings Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $1,739,461 $1,746,584 $1,754,594 $1,762,623 $1,771,551 $1,780,502 7,123 7,123 8,010 8,010 8,029 8,029 8,928 8,928 8,951 8,951 24,591 24,591 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,609,288 1,609,288 1,609,288 $1,754,594 $1,762,623 $1,771,551 $1,780,502 $195,805 Revenue Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding New Assets 74250 West Branch Library 0 0 0 Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: 0 0 0 Total FY 2013 Funding: 0 $1,746,584 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1380-DIF-Library Buildings Category: DIF Project: 74250 - West Branch Library (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees This request is for funding to construct and furnish a branch library to serve the western portion of the city. This includes the design and construction of a 33,500 sq ft facility on approximately 7 acres of land at the Western Area Regional Facility site at 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road. This project is being funded by a combination of Library Bonds and Development Impact Fees from projects 2160-74000 and 1500-74750. The total project cost is estimated at $26,592,494 in FY 2018. A total of $23,029,715 in general obligation bonds will be needed for this project with the remaining cost covered by DIF. The design of the building was completed in 2009, and was paid from DIF Account 1380-74250. By 2018, it is anticipated that considerable redesign will be necessary. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,313,132 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $284,032 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,284 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,609,288 TOTAL Operating Description: Refer to Library Project No. 2160-74000 for O and M impact. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 354 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1500-DIF-Libraries Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $3,150,542 $3,033,756 $2,931,871 $2,816,014 $2,715,721 $2,599,921 84,376 12,103 96,479 85,220 12,895 98,115 86,072 12,144 98,216 86,933 12,775 99,707 86,933 11,971 98,903 430,360 29,507 459,867 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 74752 DIF Update Sub-Total - Existing Assets 0 0 13,265 13,265 0 0 14,073 14,073 0 0 14,703 14,703 30,769 30,769 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 213,265 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 200,000 214,073 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 200,000 214,703 1,953,490 500,000 2,453,490 2,484,259 $2,931,871 $2,816,014 $2,715,721 $2,599,921 $575,529 New Assets 74750 West Branch Library/Books 74751 Library Books - Pop. Growth Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 213,265 $3,033,756 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1500-DIF-Libraries Category: DIF Project: 74752 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the library portion of the DIF study and updates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $13,265 $0 $14,073 $0 $14,703 $30,769 $0 $13,265 $0 $14,073 $0 $14,703 $30,769 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 355 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1500-DIF-Libraries Category: DIF Project: 74750 - West Branch Library/Books (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees This request is for funding to construct and furnish a branch library to serve the western portion of the city. This includes the design and construction of a 33,500 sq ft facility on approximately 7 acres of land at the Western Area Regional Facility site at 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road. This project is being funded by a combination of Library Bonds and Development Impact Fees from projects 1380-74250 and 2160-74000. The total project cost is estimated at $26,592,494 in FY 2018. A total of $23,029,715 in general obligation bonds will be needed for this project with the remaining cost covered by DIF. The design of the building was completed in 2009, and was paid from DIF Account 1380-74250. By 2018, it is anticipated that considerable redesign will be necessary. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $334,606 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,532,703 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,854 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,327 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,953,490 Arts TOTAL Operating Description: Refer to Library Project No. 2160-74000 for O and M impact. Project: 74751 - Library Books - Pop. Growth (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Request is for funds to continue the phased-in approach of increasing the number of library material at the three Glendale libraries, related to the growth of the city. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $500,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $500,000 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 356 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Public Safety - DIF PUBLIC SAFETY DIF FUNDS This category includes development impact fees paid by developers for new or expanded public safety infrastructure that is needed because of new residential and commercial developments within city limits. Funding is set aside in FY 2013 for a DIF study to be completed that will incorporate new guidelines set forth by State Bill 1525. Being that Roadway Improvements continues to be an allowable category under the new legislation, funding is also set aside to update the study biennially. FY 2011 was the last year that the Police and Fire DIF funds contributed to the debt service payments for the growth related aspect of the Gateway Public Safety Facility at 6261 North 83rd Avenue in the western area of Glendale. Currently there are no capital projects planned that utilize DIF revenue; potential eligible uses of the remaining fund balance will be evaluated over the next FY. Debt Service: Gateway Public Safety Facility Funding Source: DIF Fund #’s: 1420 & 1440 357 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1440-DIF-Police Dept Facilities Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $1,180,094 $1,236,886 $1,305,935 $1,364,141 $1,435,378 $1,495,161 63,886 3,825 67,711 64,525 4,524 69,049 65,170 4,620 69,790 65,822 5,415 71,237 65,822 5,545 71,367 325,851 29,524 355,375 0 0 0 11,584 11,584 11,584 0 0 0 11,584 11,584 11,584 25,329 25,329 25,329 $1,305,935 $1,364,141 $1,435,378 $1,495,161 $1,825,207 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 77300 DIF Update 0 0 0 Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 10,919 10,919 10,919 10,919 Estimated Ending Balance: $1,236,886 PROJECT DETAIL: 1440-DIF-Police Dept Facilities Project: 77300 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Category: DIF Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the police facilities portion of the DIF study and updates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $10,919 $0 $11,584 $0 $11,584 $25,329 $0 $10,919 $0 $11,584 $0 $11,584 $25,329 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 358 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1420-DIF-Fire Protection Facilities Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $58,078 $129,121 $212,371 $284,242 $369,266 $442,274 81,867 656 82,523 82,686 564 83,250 83,513 538 84,051 84,348 676 85,024 84,348 839 85,187 417,564 6,591 424,155 0 0 0 12,179 12,179 12,179 0 0 0 12,179 12,179 12,179 26,627 26,627 26,627 $212,371 $284,242 $369,266 $442,274 $839,802 Revenue Development Impact Fees Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 77001 DIF Update 0 0 0 Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 11,480 11,480 11,480 11,480 Estimated Ending Balance: $129,121 PROJECT DETAIL: 1420-DIF-Fire Protection Facilities Project: 77001 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Category: DIF Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. Funding in the following years are needed to update the study biennially. This is the fire facilities portion of the DIF study and updates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $11,480 $0 $12,179 $0 $12,179 $26,627 $0 $11,480 $0 $12,179 $0 $12,179 $26,627 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 359 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN General Government - DIF GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIF FUND This category includes development impact fees paid by developers for new or expanded general government infrastructure that are needed because of new residential and commercial developments within city limits. Funding is set aside in FY 2013 for a DIF study to be completed that will incorporate new guidelines set forth by State Bill 1525. General Government is no longer an eligible category under the new DIF legislation; funds accumulated through January 1, 2011 will need to be utilized prior to January 1, 2020. Currently there are no capital projects planned that utilize DIF revenue; potential eligible uses of the remaining fund balance will be evaluated over the next FY. Project Name: Land for City Court Building Funding Source: DIF Fund #: 1620 Project #: 77752 Note: The last lease purchase payment was in FY 2010. 360 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1620-DIF-General Government Estimated Beginning Balance: Category: DIF FY 2013: FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: $181,737 $169,681 $170,483 $171,287 $172,179 $173,073 743 743 802 802 804 804 892 892 894 894 4,481 4,481 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $170,483 $171,287 $172,179 $173,073 $177,553 Revenue Interest Income Total Revenue: Project Expenses Carryover New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 77753 DIF Update 0 0 0 Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 12,799 12,799 12,799 12,799 $169,681 Estimated Ending Balance: PROJECT DETAIL: 1620-DIF-General Government Category: DIF Project: 77753 - DIF Update (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Development Impact Fees Funding in FY 2013 is for an updated DIF study to comply with new legislation. The new fees are required to be implemented by July 1, 2014. The city will no longer receive DIF revenue since General Government is no longer eligible under the new legislation. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $12,799 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,799 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 361 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Enterprise and Other Funds ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS This category of funds captures the capital expenses for the enterprise funds (water/sewer, landfill and sanitation), the designated sales tax fund for the GO transportation capital program, the fund designated for transportation capital grants from federal, the HURF bond fund, state and county government agencies, and a few other funds set up for specific purposes such as airport, Camelback Ranch and Glendale Civic Center capital needs. The General Fund represents the city’s pay-as-you-go program (PAYGO). The Technology Infrastructure Fund was established to address the capital needs of major technology systems that are critical to city operations such as the PeopleSoft financial management system. Both the PAYGO and Technology Infrastructure Fund are funded with GF operating dollars. The Arts Commission Fund represents the program funded by the one percent for the arts program that the city administers. One percent of the construction costs of each capital project are allocated for this program. Glendale Public Safety Memorial Note: Because these funds include both operating divisions and CIP projects, the fund summaries are limited to the project expenses only. Fund # - Name 2360 - Water & Sewer 2400 - Water 2420 - Sewer 2210 - Transportation Construction 2000 - HURF/Street Bonds 1340 - HURF/Streets Fund 1650 - Transportation Grants 2480 - Sanitation 2440 - Landfill 2120 - Airport Capital Grants 1840 - Other Federal & State Grants 1000 - General Fund 1283 - Camelback Ranch Events 1740 - Civic Center 2150 - Technology Infrastructure 1220 - Arts Commission Total Enterprise/Other Funds Carryover 7,424,962 6,763,884 4,175,034 26,181,132 0 0 5,479,235 0 545,175 15,888,604 0 0 10,732 200,000 0 0 FY 2013 3,368,453 4,863,030 5,345,950 8,721,725 0 0 2,000,000 1,280,000 2,224,373 150,638 2,000,000 465,300 247,474 50,000 0 150,000 FY 2014 9,292,667 7,694,660 3,213,364 8,578,438 0 0 2,000,000 2,622,200 1,116,101 438,750 2,000,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 150,000 FY 2015 3,835,090 3,501,200 9,054,745 8,539,427 0 0 2,000,000 3,068,000 14,361,820 450,000 2,000,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 150,000 FY 2016 3,172,927 6,001,200 12,573,014 3,905,665 0 0 2,000,000 3,778,990 14,026,406 6,669,600 2,000,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 150,000 FY 2017 2,387,788 9,345,653 9,052,581 3,265,700 0 0 2,000,000 4,289,069 1,434,360 8,190,000 2,000,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 150,000 FYs 18-22 29,835,837 70,525,423 54,280,076 60,289,524 12,076,659 290,000 10,000,000 10,469,365 9,377,115 0 10,000,000 800,071 0 4,145,734 29,865,625 750,000 $66,668,758 $30,866,943 $37,206,180 $47,060,282 $54,377,802 $42,215,151 $302,705,429 362 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Water & Sewer - Enterprise Funds WATER & SEWER ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water and sewer capital projects account for the largest portion of the current capital improvement plan. These projects will be funded from water/sewer fund revenues. The FY 2013-2022 budget reflects recommendations from the Red Oak rate study completed in 2012. The combined Water/Sewer Fund (2360) reflects continued and new funding in FY 2013 for upgrades at the Arrowhead Water Reclamation Facility to ensure regulatory requirements are met. FY 2013 for the Water Fund (2400) reflects carryover funding for the Zone 4 Groundwater Treatment Plant that will provide capacity of 10 million gallons per day (MGD) for the drinking water system. FY 2013 also includes funding for citywide water line replacement where needed and part ownership of a New River/Agua Fria underground storage facility which provides additional recharge capacity for the city. In FY 2013, the Sewer Fund (2420) projects include carryover and new funding for sewer line replacement and/or rehabilitation, as well as new funding for the continued expansion of the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plan co-owned by the City of Phoenix and other valley cities. This project will expand the facility’s treatment capacity from 153 MGD to 250 MGD. Project Name: Oasis Water Campus Funding Source: Revenue Bond Fund #: 2400 Project #: 61003 363 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2360-Water & Sewer Category: Revenue FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 60007 Arrwhd Wtr Reclam Fac Imps 6,991,104 2,968,453 7,372,726 3,835,090 1,741,227 1,808,151 18,439,099 0 149,594 0 0 0 0 0 7,140,698 100,000 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 3,368,453 0 0 0 752,950 0 0 848,720 8,974,396 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,835,090 350,000 0 0 0 1,081,700 0 0 3,172,927 0 0 0 0 0 579,637 0 2,387,788 335,000 0 0 0 0 3,260,718 983,000 23,017,817 284,264 284,264 0 0 318,271 318,271 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,818,020 6,818,020 $7,424,962 $3,368,453 $9,292,667 $3,835,090 $3,172,927 $2,387,788 $29,835,837 Replacement of Existing Assets 60001 Water Quality Instruments 60009 West Area WRF Service Wtr Sys. 60010 Lab Data Management System T2270 WAWRF Fine Screen Replacement T2280 WAWRF Odor Control Replacement T2283 Computerized Maint. Mgmt Sys. T2284 Radio Phase IV Equipment Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 60008 WAWRF Phase IV Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $10,793,415 PROJECT DETAIL: 2360-Water & Sewer Category: Revenue Project: 60007 - Arrwhd Wtr Reclam Fac Imps (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: To ensure reliable and safe treatment of wastewater in the Arrowhead area and meet upcoming regulatory requirements, the treatment plant processes will be upgraded. This project will replace the aging sand filters and headworks at the Arrowhead Ranch Water Reclamation Facility. This project will also include civil, mechanical, and electrical improvements. These improvements will enable the plant to consistently meet the A+ effluent water quality requirements and help assure personnel safety by meeting Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $707,448 $2,300,000 $1,055,000 $300,000 $320,000 $320,000 $3,200,000 $5,580,546 $350,000 $5,580,000 $3,100,000 $1,250,000 $1,300,000 $14,600,000 Finance Charges $85,453 $39,750 $99,525 $51,000 $23,550 $24,300 $243,000 Engineering Charges $57,021 $10,203 $25,545 $13,090 $6,045 $6,237 $68,530 $0 $3,500 $55,800 $31,000 $12,500 $13,000 $146,000 $560,575 $265,000 $556,856 $340,000 $129,132 $144,614 $181,569 $61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,991,104 $2,968,453 $7,372,726 $3,835,090 $1,741,227 $1,808,151 $18,439,099 Construction Arts Contingency Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 364 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2360-Water & Sewer Category: Revenue Project: 60001 - Water Quality Instruments (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: This project reflects a replacement program for the major analytical instrumentation at the city's water quality laboratory. Highly sensitive and precise analytical instrumentation is required for the regulatory analysis of the city's water. FY 2013 funding is for replacement of an inductively coupled plasma instrument for metals analysis. Carryover Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Construction $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $0 $335,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $350,000 $0 $335,000 Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $820 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $149,594 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Purchase of a new information management system to replace an outdated data system. The new information system will interface directly with laboratory instrumentation, integrate quality control processes, eliminate duplicate and manual data entry, and automate regulatory reporting. Carryover IT/Phone/Security TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2016 $9,840 Project: 60010 - Lab Data Management System (R) Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: $131,594 Contingency Project Description: FYs 18-22 This project will include replacement of the existing 2 inch galvanized water lines at the West Area Water Reclamation Facility. Numerous areas of the pipeline system have leaks indicating pipeline corrosion. Leaks currently have temporary repairs done by Utilities staff. Arts Operating Description: FY 2017 No additional O & M is required for this project. Engineering Charges TOTAL FY 2016 $0 Project: 60009 - West Area WRF Service Wtr Sys. (R) Project Description: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional O and M expenses are related to software license renewals/updates and system configuration hardware requirements. The additional O and M will be absorbed by the department. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $17,510 $18,035 $18,576 TOTAL $0 $17,510 $18,035 $18,576 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 365 FY 2017 $19,134 $19,134 FYs 18-22 $104,631 $104,631 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2360-Water & Sewer Category: Revenue Project: T2270 - WAWRF Fine Screen Replacement (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The West Area Water Reclamation Facility (WAWRF) fine screens are mechanical devices that remove solid materials from the influent flows. These devices are subject to wear and tear and need to be replaced periodically. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $580,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $29,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts $0 $0 $5,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $87,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $752,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: T2280 - WAWRF Odor Control Replacement (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The West Area Water Reclamation Facility odor control system is required to meet air quality regulatory standards and minimize or prevent odor complaints. Elements of the odor control system will require rehabilitation or replacement due to normal wear and tear. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $839,000 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,377 $0 $0 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,390 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $93,933 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,081,700 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 366 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2360-Water & Sewer Category: Revenue Project: T2283 - Computerized Maint. Mgmt Sys. (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: A computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) will be used to track data regarding the operation and maintenance of the city's water and wastewater treatment, distribution and collection systems. This database system eliminates manual record keeping. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $22,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $495,000 $2,800,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,300 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,435 $52,207 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,950 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,252 $313,211 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $579,637 $3,260,718 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: New O and M costs are needed to support the new programs. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is complete. The $40,000 is for two years of software maintenance. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: T2284 - Radio Phase IV Equipment (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $40,000 $40,000 Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project includes the replacement of the existing microwave radio equipment that is a critical component for the wide area networking of the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System. The microwave radio equipment installed under the Radio Phase III project has a supportable and operational life span of approximately five years. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Construction $0 $0 $749,000 $0 $0 $0 $868,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $26,964 $0 $0 $0 $31,248 Arts $0 $0 $7,490 $0 $0 $0 $8,680 Contingency $0 $0 $65,266 $0 $0 $0 $75,072 $0 $0 $848,720 $0 $0 $0 $983,000 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 367 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2360-Water & Sewer Category: Revenue Project: 60008 - WAWRF Phase IV (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: The funding request for FY 2015 and beyond includes an engineering assessment, design and construction of treatment system improvements and capacity expansion to address the expected increase in wastewater flows from the developing areas along the Loop 101 and west area. The plant improvements and expansion were identified in the West Area Water Reclamation Facility Phase V Master Plan conducted by Damon S. Williams Associates (DSWA). Carryover Design Construction FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $220,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $3,820 $0 $0 $0 $88,680 $2,567 $0 $2,200 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $24,969 $0 $32,251 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,340 $284,264 $0 $318,271 $0 $0 $0 $6,818,020 Arts Miscellaneous/Other Operating Description: FY 2014 $0 Engineering Charges TOTAL FY 2013 $256,728 Finance Charges Contingency Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: An expanded facility is estimated to require two new plant operators and one senior plant maintenance mechanic once construction nears completion. Other additional operating expenses are projected as a result of increases in supplies (chemicals) $200,000, (2) utilities of $300,000, and (3) equipment maintenance $66,000. No new telephones, PCs or vehicles will be required. A supplemental will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Staffing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $865,692 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $260,955 Utilities Equip. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $391,432 $86,115 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 368 $1,604,194 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2400-Water Category: Revenue FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 61023 Water System Security 61024 Cholla Water Plant Process Imp 61036 Zn4 Groundwater Trtment Plant 61045 Thunderbird Reservoir Misc. Im 61046 SRP Well Imp 61047 Citywide Meter Vault Imp 61048 *City Wide Well Rehab T3540 WTPs Chlorine Gas Elimination T3555 Fiber Optic Cable at Reservoir T3561 Northern Ave PRV Station Reloc T3563 *Pyramid Peak Trains Improv 112,169 400,000 1,748,165 180,000 280,000 125,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 800,000 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 0 3,009,012 0 22,168,476 0 0 0 0 9,344,653 225,000 200,000 9,109,792 596,074 0 689,992 0 100,000 0 4,231,400 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,300,000 301,200 200,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,501,200 301,200 200,000 3,500,000 0 0 0 4,001,200 300,200 200,000 3,500,000 1,600,000 0 0 5,600,200 0 200,000 14,000,000 2,600,000 0 2,388,015 63,244,948 0 0 1,257,030 0 0 1,275,454 0 2,532,484 0 0 1,257,030 0 756,000 0 0 2,013,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,394,660 6,394,660 0 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 745,453 0 3,000,000 0 0 0 3,745,453 1,775,000 4,005,475 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 7,280,475 $6,763,884 $4,863,030 $7,694,660 $3,501,200 $6,001,200 $9,345,653 $70,525,423 Replacement of Existing Assets 61001 Fire Hydrant Replacement 61012 Citywide Irrigation System 61013 Water Line Replacement 61015 Outer Loop Effluent Line 61043 Pyramid Pk WTP Train #1 Equip T3550 Hillcrest Ranch Booster Rehab Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 61009 Drinking Water Well Head Trmt 61019 Storage and Recovery Well 61021 N River/Agua Fria Storage Proj 61027 Water Line Extension 61038 Loop 101 Water Treatment Plant 61044 New River Waterline Crossing T3552 Additional Water Supply Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $11,626,914 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 369 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: 61023 - Water System Security (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction Finance Charges Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project includes the installation of equipment to further enhance security of the city's water supply, treatment plants and distribution system. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $103,434 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,190,000 $39,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,735 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,900 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $252,512 $112,169 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,009,012 Engineering Charges TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 61024 - Cholla Water Plant Process Imp (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction Engineering Charges Arts Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project will include improvements at Cholla Water Treatment Plant to continue to meet regulatory requirements. The improvements include the installation of new variable frequency drive systems, odor control, solids handling facility repair and improvements, and reservoir lining rehabilitation or replacement. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $70,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 $0 $364,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,835 $0 $20,810 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,750 $0 $3,647 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,415 $0 $50,843 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 370 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: 61036 - Zn4 Groundwater Trtment Plant (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction This 10 million gallons per day (MGD) Groundwater Treatment Plant was identified in the "Comprehensive Water Facilities Planning and Design" report by Black & Veatch as a key water supply component to provide additional water during plant outages such as canal dry-ups and to help meet peak water demands. This project will include additional conveyance pipeline, a supply well, and brine disposal ponds. Carryover FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $297,000 $43,761 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $179,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,771,696 $1,748,165 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,168,476 Contingency Operating Description: FY 2014 $543,895 Arts TOTAL FY 2013 $1,160,509 Finance Charges Engineering Charges Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The new O and M costs reflect the need for additional staff, chemicals and utilities beginning 7/1/2020 . Staffing includes three plant operator 1's. This equals to $149,145 per years for all three with benefits. Chemical, utilities, and maintenance costs are based on actual costs during a pilot study to treat groundwater. A supplemental will be submitted in the future for the additional O and M costs. Operating Costs: FY 2013 Staffing Supplies/Contr $0 $0 FY 2014 FY 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 FY 2016 FY 2017 $0 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $0 $298,290 $887,760 Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $134,500 Equip. Maint. Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,950 $15,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Project: 61045 - Thunderbird Reservoir Misc. Im (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: $1,348,280 Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The requested funding addresses an engineering study to evaluate alternatives for enhancing water quality during the hot summer months for water stored at the Thunderbird Reservoir. Once the study is completed, design and construction of the recommended improvements are projected to proceed in FY 2016. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $73,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,497 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges Arts Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,703 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 371 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: 61046 - SRP Well Imp (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction Engineering Charges Arts Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: The project will include the rehabilitation of various Salt River Project wells in water zones 1 and 2 to meet the drinking water standards. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Construction FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $198,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,113 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 61047 - Citywide Meter Vault Imp (I) Project Description: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Based on a field condition assessment conducted by staff, modifications to large meter vaults are recommended to enhance safe entry. The meter vault covers will be replaced with spring-torsion type covers per the city’s design standards and meter vaults will be retrofitted or replaced as needed. Meter vaults are the structure that house the meters. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $106,000 $212,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $6,996 $13,992 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts $1,060 $2,120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,944 $21,888 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 61048* - City Wide Well Rehab (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project is to rehabilitate or replace the existing City Well No. 5 which will be used as a recharge well to enhance water quality within the water distribution system and help the city obtain groundwater recharge credit. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $271,000 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $0 $7,665 $12,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $18,296 $24,704 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts $0 $2,710 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: $0 $0 $60,329 $68,196 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 372 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: T3540 - WTPs Chlorine Gas Elimination (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project includes the design and construction of a chlorine gas elimination system as well as the removal of the current onsite storage system for chlorine gas, which is the current disinfection method for potable water. The chlorine gas will be replaced with equipment that will provide onsite generation of sodium hypochlorite as the disinfection chemical for Pyramid Peak and Cholla Water Treatment Plants. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,400,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,900,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,500 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $758,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,344,653 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Based on a start date of 7/1/2019 additional annual inflated cost for supplies will be $76,028 and electricity will be $57,021. Costs are based on engineering studies. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 Utilities TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: T3555 - Fiber Optic Cable at Reservoir (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: FY 2017 $0 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $76,028 $57,021 $133,049 Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project includes the installation of fiber optic cables at Thunderbird Reservoir and Zone 4 Reservoir. A recent assessment recommends fiber optic cables as the least expensive, long-term solution for wide area network communications at Thunderbird and Zone 4 Reservoirs to replace the T1 data line that currently is being leased from Qwest. The new fiber optic cables will permit remote monitoring of the numerous security cameras at the reservoirs and also provide more reliable access for the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 Arts TOTAL Operating Description: A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 373 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: T3561 - Northern Ave PRV Station Reloc (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The city needs to relocate the pressure reducing valve (PRV) station on Northern Avenue to provide more operational flexibility and better access to conduct maintenance work, meet safety requirements, and increase sustainability of chlorine residual. The relocation of the PRV station will assist the city in meeting the federal and state regulation of disinfection byproduct such as trihalomethanes formation. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,240 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,760 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: T3563* - Pyramid Peak Trains Improv (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project will include engineering evaluation, design and construction of existing treatment trains improvements. The original equipment will be over 20 years old and will be nearing the end of its useful life. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,250,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,750 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,500 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $987,042 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,109,792 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 61001 - Fire Hydrant Replacement (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction Engineering Charges Arts Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Water & Sewer Revenues This project funds a replacement program for approximately 800 existing fire hydrants. To date, 349 fire hydrants have been replaced. The existing fire hydrants need to be replaced due to age and lack of replacement parts. The new fire hydrants will be installed to meet the city and industry spacing guidelines. In addition, the new fire hydrants will be accessible for routine maintenance to ensure fire system integrity. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $520,571 $0 $0 $262,000 $262,000 $262,000 $0 $23,843 $0 $0 $13,200 $13,200 $13,200 $0 $5,206 $0 $0 $2,620 $2,620 $2,620 $0 $46,454 $0 $0 $23,380 $23,380 $22,380 $0 $596,074 $0 $0 $301,200 $301,200 $300,200 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 374 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: 61012 - Citywide Irrigation System (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Irrigation pipelines and related irrigation structure in the city owned portion of the flood irrigation system will be rehabilitated or replaced. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Funding Source: Carryover FY 2013 Construction $370,492 $0 Engineering Charges Arts Operating Description: FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $200,000 $330,000 $330,000 $2,300,000 $1,550,800 $0 $1,550,800 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 $10,000,000 $26,262 $0 $26,262 $45,900 $45,900 $184,500 $5,397 $9,744 $0 $9,744 $17,030 $17,030 $68,453 $7,455 $15,508 $0 $15,508 $27,300 $27,300 $100,000 $96,691 $197,686 $0 $197,686 $349,770 $349,770 $1,347,047 $689,992 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $14,000,000 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 61015 - Outer Loop Effluent Line (R) Project Description: Water & Sewer Revenues The Water Distribution System Evaluation Study conducted by CH2M-Hill identified the segments of water lines to be rehabilitated and/or replaced, based on historic repair and maintenance records. This project will include water line rehabilitation and/or replacement to ensure effective water distribution system operations and regulatory compliance. $200,000 TOTAL FYs 18-22 $0 $209,957 Contingency FY 2017 $0 Design Finance Charges FY 2016 $0 Project: 61013 - Water Line Replacement (R) Project Description: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Water & Sewer Revenues The Arrowhead Ranch Water Reclamation Facility (ARWRF) effluent transmission line has been in service since the late 1980's. This effluent transmission line is essential for conveying and disposal of the effluent from the ARWRF. This project will include applicable rehabilitation to ensure effluent transmission system integrity and reliability. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,100,000 $1,970,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $34,050 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,900 $41,995 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 $19,700 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $142,100 $234,255 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $2,600,000 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 375 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: 61043 - Pyramid Pk WTP Train #1 Equip (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Engineering Charges Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: This project will include equipment improvements and rehabilitation (FY's 2012 through 2014), an engineering assessment (FY 2015) and equipment replacement (FY 2016 and beyond) at the Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant related to Train No. 1 and other related equipment. The original equipment will be approximately 23 years old and will be at the end of its useful life. Based on the existing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Glendale and Peoria, this cost will be split between the two cities - with Peoria being responsible for approximately 23% of the project costs. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $89,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,645 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,855 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: T3550 - Hillcrest Ranch Booster Rehab (R) Project Description: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Hillcrest Ranch booster station will be rehabilitated to ensure the station operates effectively and efficiently. This booster station will provide an emergency backup supply for the Zone 3 Water Pressure Zone. Zone 3 is in the northernmost part of the city. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,650,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,500 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,500 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $185,015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,388,015 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 61009 - Drinking Water Well Head Trmt (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project will include the design of a new Zone 4 wellhead treatment system for groundwater to meet federal drinking water standards. This new wellhead treatment system was recommended in the Groundwater Master Plan in 2008 in order to meet the projected growth in the west areas of the city. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,400,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,100 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,775,000 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 376 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: 61019 - Storage and Recovery Well (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The project will result in the installation of groundwater recharge and recovery wells for the purpose of recharging effluent and/or "recovering" recharge credits by pumping groundwater resulting in cost savings for the city.. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $148,000 $3,300,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,720 $57,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,988 $70,300 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,480 $33,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,265 $45,175 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $745,453 $4,005,475 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M projected start date January 2, 2019. Ongoing O and M before inflationary increases $68,870. Additional O and M expenses are related to $33,831 in chemical supplies, $24,165 in utility expenses, and $10, 874 for equipment maintenance based on pilot studies. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,165 Equip. Maint. TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,874 $68,870 Project: 61021 - N River/Agua Fria Storage Proj (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: $33,831 Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Maintain a 20% ownership in the New River/Agua Fria Underground Storage Facility administered by the Salt River Project. The additional recharge capacity developed through this project will accommodate the effluent produced at the West Area Water Reclamation Facility. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $1,257,030 $1,257,030 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,257,030 $1,257,030 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 377 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: 61027 - Water Line Extension (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Water line extensions are installed where needed to extend the city's water transmission and distribution systems to meet projected demand from future development. Projects funded from this account typically involve city participation in pipeline over sizing and other distribution piping extensions as needed to accommodate projected growth. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 $400,000 $400,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $875,000 $860,000 $2,000,000 $915,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $26,400 $36,000 $19,725 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $12,746 $25,638 $34,961 $19,156 Arts $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $8,600 $20,000 $9,150 $0 $0 $0 $90,379 $179,362 $509,039 $136,969 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,500,000 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 61038 - Loop 101 Water Treatment Plant (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Land TOTAL Operating Description: Land for the Loop 101 water treatment plant was purchased in FY 2009 with payments from FY 2009 through FY 2013. The funding allocated in FY 2013 is for the final land purchase payment . The design and construction of the new plant has been deferred beyond FY 2022 due to reduced growth estimates. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $756,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $756,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. Project: 61044 - New River Waterline Crossing (N) Project Description: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: A new water line will be installed to connect Zone 1 (south central part of the city) and Zone 4 (western part of the city) to enhance water quality in the west area of the city. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $198,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $887,454 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $41,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: $9,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $121,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,275,454 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 378 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2400-Water Category: Revenue Project: T3552 - Additional Water Supply (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Acquisition and development of renewable water supplies to meet increasing demand for water, maintain city's designation of assured water supply, and to minimize drought impacts on Glendale water system customers. The $6,394,660 represents the cost of acquiring a 100-year lease of water rights per the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Settlement anticipated in FY 2014. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $94,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $0 $0 $6,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,394,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M includes projected payment to Central Arizona Water Conservation District for water delivery costs and city treatment costs relating to the additional water supply. Starting in FY 2015, O and M costs are projected to be $335,546 per year. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $335,546 $345,612 TOTAL $0 $0 $335,546 $345,612 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 379 FY 2017 $355,981 $355,981 FYs 18-22 $1,946,649 $1,946,649 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2420-Sewer Category: Revenue FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 63006 Arrowhead Sewer Lines 63007 Sewer 99th Ave. W. Water Meter 63010 91st Ave. Construction 63020 Security Enhance Wastewtr Ops 63023 City Wide Sewer Odor Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 700,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 1,719,575 0 1,077,500 0 770,000 2,035,490 0 2,800,000 0 1,112,000 0 0 1,015,000 0 0 0 5,389,952 4,060,000 8,756,702 0 0 2,576,429 1,000,001 0 56,888 3,633,318 345,000 3,316,586 0 463,000 521,364 5,345,950 392,000 0 0 1,600,000 521,364 3,013,364 1,431,034 3,435,272 0 0 521,364 8,954,745 2,100,000 3,503,190 0 0 521,364 12,072,044 2,100,000 3,503,190 0 0 0 6,618,190 0 14,006,697 0 0 0 32,213,351 0 231,787 0 309,929 0 0 0 541,716 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,970 500,970 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,434,391 2,434,391 11,887,985 0 0 1,600,000 4,911,877 1,118,591 2,548,272 22,066,725 $4,175,034 $5,345,950 $3,213,364 $9,054,745 $12,573,014 $9,052,581 $54,280,076 Replacement of Existing Assets 63003 99th Ave Interceptor Line 63016 Sewer Line Replacement 63018 Camelback Swr Rehab 63021 Sweetwater & 55th Ave SLS 63024 Citywide Manhole Rehab Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 63000 67th-115th, Northern-C'Back 63008 Sewers for Areas on Septic Sys 63015 CMOM Implementation 63017 Sewer Line Extension T3610 Bethany Hme Rd Interceptor T3611 Glendale Ave 93rd-99th Ave T3612 Influent Pump Sta (RSPS) Imp Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $9,520,984 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 380 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2420-Sewer Category: Revenue Project: 63006 - Arrowhead Sewer Lines (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Replacement or rehabilitation of various wastewater collection lines in the Arrowhead Ranch area to improve sewer flow conditions and reduce sewer odors. This work was identified in a report completed by the consulting firm, Damon Williams and Associates. The work will be done in phases. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $350,000 $480,000 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $1,158,000 $1,300,000 $0 $0 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $22,620 $26,700 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $27,898 $32,930 $0 $0 Arts $0 $0 $0 $11,580 $13,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $149,477 $182,860 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,719,575 $2,035,490 $0 $0 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 63007 - Sewer 99th Ave. W. Water Meter (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The existing meter station, GL03, is located within the 99th Avenue Alignment and needs to be relocated due to safety reasons. This project will include relocation of the GL03 meter station to the existing influent pump station site located on the northeast corner of Camelback Road and 99th Avenue. The project will also upgrade the meter station to meet the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) standards. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,015,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,680,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,425 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,858 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,800 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,869 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,389,952 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M includes service and replacement of automatic sampling units, miscellaneous telemetry and flow recording equipment at the metering stations on a periodic basis. O and M projected start date July 1, 2019. Ongoing O and M before inflationary increases $41,864 yearly. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: Utilities Equip. Maint. TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 381 FY 2017 $0 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $20,934 $104,658 $125,592 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2420-Sewer Category: Revenue Project: 63010 - 91st Ave. Construction (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project consists of continuing improvements to the Regional 91st Ave Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) of which Glendale is part owner as a member of the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG). SROG consists of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale. The last 91st Ave WWTP expansion decommissioned one of the oldest sections of the facility and replaced that section with new biological treatment, enlarged blowers and new clarifiers. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $42,000 $15,000 $60,000 Miscellaneous/Other $0 $700,000 $500,000 $1,070,000 $2,758,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 $700,000 $500,000 $1,077,500 $2,800,000 $1,015,000 $4,060,000 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 63020 - Security Enhance Wastewtr Ops (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Provide security enhancements to the water reclamation facilities, the various effluent recharge facilities and sewer lift stations. These improvements will enable the city staff to more closely monitor water reclamation and domestic water from remote locations. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $114,750 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $829,452 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,756,702 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. Project: 63023 - City Wide Sewer Odor Control (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Addition of permanent hydrogen peroxide chemical dosing stations to various sewer lines for odor control and control of hydrogen sulfide gas. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $575,000 $975,000 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $18,563 $26,813 $0 $0 Arts $0 $0 $0 $5,750 $9,750 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $70,687 $100,437 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $770,000 $1,112,000 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 382 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2420-Sewer Category: Revenue Project: 63003 - 99th Ave Interceptor Line (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The Sewer Condition Assessment Study conducted by Project Engineering Consultants recommended that the 99th Avenue sewer line be repaired or rehabilitated by the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) partners. This project will include rehabilitation of Glendale’s portion of the 99th Avenue sewer line; Glendale currently owns 70% of the 99th Avenue sewer line. Pipe lining will be replaced and the corroded manhole structures will be rehabilitated. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $31,034 $31,034 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $0 $345,000 $392,000 $1,400,000 $2,068,966 $2,100,000 $0 $0 $345,000 $392,000 $1,431,034 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. Project: 63016 - Sewer Line Replacement (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction Finance Charges Engineering Charges Arts Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing sanitary sewer lines and manholes as identified by the Sewer Evaluation Study prepared by HDR and Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) Engineers. Projects will be developed as funds are available. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $280,000 $0 $290,000 $300,000 $300,000 $700,000 $2,086,440 $2,520,000 $0 $2,610,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $10,300,000 $39,825 $42,000 $0 $43,500 $45,000 $45,000 $165,000 $0 $15,048 $0 $15,586 $16,123 $16,123 $59,119 $26,550 $25,200 $0 $26,100 $27,000 $27,000 $103,000 $423,614 $434,338 $0 $450,086 $415,067 $415,067 $2,679,578 $2,576,429 $3,316,586 $0 $3,435,272 $3,503,190 $3,503,190 $14,006,697 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 63018 - Camelback Swr Rehab (R) Project Description: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project will include sewer and manhole rehabilitation or replacement in the area of Camelback Road and 75th Avenue. The 75th Avenue and Camelback Road Sewer and Manhole Rehabilitation Study conducted by Camp,Dresser, and McKee (CDM) in 2008 identified the sewer segments and manholes that need to be rehabilitated or replaced. Capital Costs: Carryover Construction $1,000,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 383 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2420-Sewer Category: Revenue Project: 63021 - Sweetwater & 55th Ave SLS (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The sewage lift station (SLS) at Sweetwater and 55th Avenue requires upgrades to ensure continued system reliability, sufficient treatment capacity, safety, and public health. This project includes the design and construction for the improvements and rehabilitation of the upstream sewer line and lift station including new submersible pumps, valves, piping, and electrical system. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $288,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $120,000 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $0 $6,120 $21,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $11,220 $38,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts $0 $1,200 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: $0 $36,460 $128,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $463,000 $1,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 63024 - Citywide Manhole Rehab (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction $0 Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The requested funding will be used to rehabilitate existing sewer manholes that have reached the end of their expected life as identified in the Sewer Master Plan and Evaluation by Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM). Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $48,343 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 Engineering Charges $6,545 $16,364 $16,364 $16,364 $16,364 $0 $0 Arts $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $56,888 $521,364 $521,364 $521,364 $521,364 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 63000 - 67th-115th, Northern-C'Back (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: $0 Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Installation of new sewer lines to improve existing sewer mains as identified by the HDR West Area Sewer Depth Study. This project will provide deeper outfall sewers for development in the area and will relieve or replace existing sewers that have inadequate slope. Carryover Design $0 Construction Finance Charges FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,040,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,900 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $917,085 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,887,985 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 384 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2420-Sewer Category: Revenue Project: 63008 - Sewers for Areas on Septic Sys (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project will include installation of sewers in the areas currently on septic systems. This is a citizen driven program in which citizens must request that their area (subdivision, neighborhood, street, etc.) be served by the city sewer system. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $231,787 $0 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts $0 $0 $1,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $17,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $231,787 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 63015 - CMOM Implementation (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: The Environmental Protection Agency has mandated a new Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) program for the sanitary sewer systems nationwide. The proposed program will assist in protecting the sanitary sewer system. Work completed includes the development of an infrastructure inventory of sanitary sewer manholes by means of the Global Positioning Satellite System (GPS). Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $82,900 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $9,119 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $7,981 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 63017 - Sewer Line Extension (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: This project will include sewer line extensions at various locations to meet projected demand is needed. These extensions will transfer wastewater from new developments. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $309,929 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,400 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,600 $309,929 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 385 $1,400,000 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2420-Sewer Category: Revenue Project: T3610 - Bethany Hme Rd Interceptor (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Installation of an interceptor sewer along the Bethany Home Road alignment from 83rd to 95th Avenue. The interceptor is designed to intercept flows from the existing sewers in 83rd and 91st Avenues that had to be altered due to construction of the Bethany Home Outfall Channel. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,720,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,550 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,845 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $358,282 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,911,877 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. Project: T3611 - Glendale Ave 93rd-99th Ave (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Water & Sewer Revenues Funding Source: Improvements will be needed to handle the additional wastewater flows generated by projected growth at build-out in the west area of the city. Improvements include the design and construction of a parallel relief sewer on Glendale Avenue from 93rd to 99th Avenue. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $785,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,175 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,635 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,850 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $110,931 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,118,591 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 386 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2420-Sewer Category: Revenue Project: T3612 - Influent Pump Sta (RSPS) Imp (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: Water & Sewer Revenues The requested funding is for a new screening system to reduce maintenance efforts required for the waste activated sludge pumps at the West Area Water Reclamation Facility. The new screening system will include mechanical bar screens, a washer compactor conveyor system with dumpster storage area, a building and odor control system. This project will include an enclosed self cleaning bar screen and ancillary system. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $460,000 $220,000 $220,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,920,000 $2,000,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,100 $35,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,510 $39,590 $41,070 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,200 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,460 $203,501 $232,202 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,970 $2,434,391 $2,548,272 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 387 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Transportation – Other Funds TRANSPORTATION This category includes projects funded with revenue bonds backed by the half-cent transportation sales tax approved by Glendale voters in 2001. The half-cent sales tax will fund improvement projects for all modes of transportation including transit, street, bicycle, pedestrian and aviation (Fund 2210). This category also includes projects covered by HURF revenue bonds (2000), the Street Fund (Fund 1340) and transportation related grants (Fund 1650). Over the next few years, transit projects paid from the half-cent sales tax will include projects related to bus services, a transit center and preliminary light rail studies. The street element of the Transportation Plan emphasizes improvements at major intersections as well as improvements and enhancements along major streets. A majority of FY 2013 funding is for the Northern Avenue Super Street Project that will create an east-west corridor between Grand Avenue and the Loop 303. Other projects and programs in the Transportation Plan include enhancing the bicycle system, traffic mitigation and providing matching funds for airport capital grants. Currently there are no projects planned in the first five years of the capital plan that utilize HURF revenue bonds. There are two street improvement projects planned in the last five years of the capital improvement plan which include improvements on 99th Avenue from Camelback Road to Northern Avenue as property develops and a street widening project on 67th Avenue between Glendale Aveue and Frier Drive. In the last five years of the capital plan, the Street Fund (Fund 1340) will cover the replacement of a right-of-way rearload truck. The Transportation Grants Fund (Fund 1650) was established to accommodate grants for capital projects from federal and state government agencies. These are open, competitive grant programs. Grant projects are budgeted in Fund 1650 upon notification that the city has received approval for grant funding. Transportation projects in which the city applies for reimbursement in a future year are budgeted in the transportation sales tax construction fund and any reimbursements are credited to the transportation sales tax construction fund as grant revenue when received. A number of transportation grant projects have carryover funding in FY 2013 included grant funding for the design of the transit center at Arrowhead and Grand Avenue infrastructure improvements. Project Name: 63rd Ave @ Loop 101-Bike Overpass Funding Source: Transportation Half-Cent Sales Tax Fund #: 2210 Project #: 65054 388 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2210-Transportation Construction FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: Transportation FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 65005 Smart Traffic Signals 65006 Bus Pullouts 65007 Grand Ave Access Enhancements 65008 Intersection Improvements 65013 Bus Stops and Shelters 65016 Northern Ave Super Street 65022 PE & Oversight for Transp. Pkg 65072 Expanded Safety Program 65078 Airport Matching Funds 65086 51st Avenue HES Projects 65088 Downtown Alley Improvements 65089 Pavement Management 65092 Maryland Ave Bike Rte Spot Imp 1,957,851 0 1,826,528 1,093,920 100,000 5,096,390 1,615,515 963,645 424,944 359,709 86,698 2,411,881 0 127,913 0 0 0 109,478 5,204,443 509,501 107,217 293,262 0 0 2,000,000 143,961 0 0 0 0 112,703 5,324,144 521,218 110,915 50,761 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 115,522 5,457,248 267,125 113,687 45,685 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 118,641 594,833 274,337 116,756 179,086 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 119,852 0 282,018 120,025 213,197 0 0 2,000,000 0 750,000 1,524,823 0 0 646,232 0 1,538,429 1,192,783 0 0 0 10,000,000 0 200,000 77,929 247,409 16,462,419 100,000 75,000 0 8,670,775 150,000 100,000 156,575 8,526,316 200,000 125,000 161,735 8,486,002 250,000 150,000 167,145 3,850,798 300,000 174,204 0 3,209,296 1,579,903 939,649 0 18,171,819 2,470,514 1,149,755 470,000 2,391,300 2,000,000 1,237,144 9,718,713 50,950 0 0 0 0 0 50,950 52,122 0 0 0 0 0 52,122 53,425 0 0 0 0 0 53,425 54,867 0 0 0 0 0 54,867 56,404 0 0 0 0 0 56,404 42,117,705 0 0 0 0 0 42,117,705 $26,181,132 $8,721,725 $8,578,438 $8,539,427 $3,905,665 $3,265,700 $60,289,524 Replacement of Existing Assets 65004 Buses/Vans 65014 Transit Support Capital 65083 Speed Cushions Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 65017 Rail System 65030 Multi-Use Pathway Grand Canal 65062 Glendale Sports Facilities Sgn 65063 New River - Multi-use Pathway 65080 Bell/101 Park&Ride/Transit Ctr 65090 Loop 303 Landscape & Design Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $34,902,857 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 389 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65005 - Smart Traffic Signals (I) Project Description: Category: Transportation Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: A smart traffic signal system will be implemented that includes communications infrastructure, traffic cameras, message signs, and networking equipment to make the traffic signal system more responsive. Capital Costs: Carryover Construction $1,957,851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $0 $1,919 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,250 Contingency $0 $6,396 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $0 $119,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $738,750 $1,957,851 $127,913 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 O and M costs associated with electricity for new signal heads, cameras and communication equipment as well as maintenance of fiber optic connections. O and M for this project will be identified once federal funds have been secured and the scope of the project is available. Project: 65006 - Bus Pullouts (I) Project Description: FY 2016 Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Bus pullouts to relieve congestion, improve air quality, and provide traffic and pedestrian safety. Bus pullouts will be constructed at major intersections where there are bus route extensions and new bus routes. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $228,723 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $878,297 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,874 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,000 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,783 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,183 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,524,823 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 390 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 Construction Operating Description: $0 FY 2017 Design TOTAL $0 FY 2016 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $0 FY 2015 Land $228,723 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65007 - Grand Ave Access Enhancements (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: Transportation This project provides enhanced access control along Grand Avenue and includes beautification and sidewalks. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 $0 $0 FY 2016 $423,792 Design $471,792 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $930,944 $0 $0 $0 $1,826,528 $0 $0 $0 $0 Operating Description: $0 FY 2015 Land TOTAL FY 2017 $0 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 O and M is associated with 112,113 sq ft of landscape maintenance and irrigation water. A supplemental budget request will be made when the project is close to completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 Landscape TOTAL FY 2014 $0 $0 FY 2015 $25,405 $25,405 $26,167 $26,167 Project: 65008 - Intersection Improvements (I) Project Description: Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: FY 2016 $26,952 $26,952 FY 2017 $27,761 $27,761 FYs 18-22 $151,809 $151,809 Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: This project provides for the design and construction of intersection improvements for capacity, safety and access as identified on an ongoing basis. Turning lanes, median barriers, lane extensions, right-of-way, utility relocations and paving access points are examples of the type of construction this project will fund. Capital Costs: Carryover Design $1,093,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,093,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 No additional O and M is needed. Project: 65013 - Bus Stops and Shelters (I) Project Description: FY 2016 Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Bus shelters, with shade and seating, will be provided where bus transfers occur and at other high demand locations. Benches will be provided at other bus stops as needed. Carryover Design FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $9,402 $9,679 $9,921 $10,189 $10,250 $55,499 $100,000 $85,613 $88,136 $90,340 $92,779 $93,600 $505,359 Finance Charges $0 $1,643 $1,691 $1,734 $1,780 $1,771 $9,698 Engineering Charges $0 $3,852 $3,965 $4,064 $4,174 $4,210 $22,735 Arts $0 $856 $881 $903 $928 $936 $5,054 Contingency $0 $8,112 $8,351 $8,560 $8,791 $9,085 $47,887 $100,000 $109,478 $112,703 $115,522 $118,641 $119,852 $646,232 Construction TOTAL Operating Description: O and M associated with the maintenance of each new bus shelter as they become completed. Supplemental budget requests will be made as new bus stops are added. Operating Costs: Equip. Maint. TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $10,927 $22,510 $34,779 $47,764 $10,927 $22,510 $34,779 $47,764 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 391 FY 2017 $49,197 $49,197 FYs 18-22 $269,029 $269,029 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65016 - Northern Ave Super Street (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Finance Charges Contingency Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Per intergovernmental agreement, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the Northern Parkway corridor alignment between Loop 303 and Grand Avenue is targeted for completion by FY 2026. When completed the Northern Parkway will have six through lanes and grade separations at major arterials. Costs for this project are shared between the region at 70% ($221 million) and local agencies at 30%. Glendale's portion of local funding is $39 million. To date Glendale has expended approximately $20 million towards this project. Other jurisdictions involved include Maricopa County, Peoria, and El Mirage. Carryover $76,450 FY 2013 FY 2014 $78,067 FY 2015 $79,862 $81,859 FY 2016 FY 2017 $8,922 $0 FYs 18-22 $0 $254,820 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,765,120 $5,126,376 $5,244,282 $5,375,389 $585,911 $0 $0 $5,096,390 $5,204,443 $5,324,144 $5,457,248 $594,833 $0 $0 O and M costs are for landscape, water, electrical and other maintenance based on current design. Supplemental budget requests will be made when each project phase is close to completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 Utilities Landscape TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $108,536 $562,139 $111,032 $575,068 $183,320 $949,465 $188,269 $975,101 $670,675 $686,100 $1,132,785 $1,163,370 Project: 65022 - PE & Oversight for Transp. Pkg (I) Project Description: Category: Transportation FY 2017 $193,541 $1,002,404 $1,195,945 FYs 18-22 $1,055,778 $5,468,181 $6,523,959 Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Professional engineering for preparation of design concepts and administration of right-of-way purchase for roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit projects. Capital Costs: Carryover Design $1,107,014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,628 $7,643 $7,818 $4,007 $4,115 $4,230 $23,076 $25,425 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges Contingency Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $475,448 $501,858 $513,400 $263,118 $270,222 $277,788 $1,515,353 $1,615,515 $509,501 $521,218 $267,125 $274,337 $282,018 $1,538,429 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 392 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65072 - Expanded Safety Program (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction Finance Charges Engineering Charges Contingency Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Land Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Provide traffic safety improvements along city streets to improve the safety of motorists. Examples are safety mitigation at bridge crossing (blunt ends), lighting, signing, striping, pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements, discontinuous roadway sections (drop-offs), and access management. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $698,027 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,582 $1,608 $1,664 $1,705 $1,751 $1,800 $17,892 $0 $150,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,278 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107,858 $105,609 $109,251 $111,982 $115,005 $118,225 $1,174,891 $963,645 $107,217 $110,915 $113,687 $116,756 $120,025 $1,192,783 No additional O and M is needed. Project: 65078 - Airport Matching Funds (I) Project Description: Category: Transportation Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: This project provides matching funds for Glendale Airport projects as identified in the Airport Capital Improvement Program Funding covers 100% of engineering and art related charges and local match for all other capital costs. Refer to the Airport Capital Fund 2120 for detailed information related to the airport projects. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $381,234 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,159 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $6,060 $4,399 $761 $685 $2,686 $3,197 $0 Engineering Charges $7,205 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,250 $13,863 $50,000 $45,000 $176,400 $210,000 $0 $424,944 $293,262 $50,761 $45,685 $179,086 $213,197 $0 Design Construction Arts Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: $0 This project provides local match funds for airport capital projects. Refer to the Airport Capital Fund 2120 projects for O and M impact. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 393 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65086 - 51st Avenue HES Projects (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: Transportation Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) projects provide for intersection capacity and safety improvements at the intersections of 51st Avenue and Camelback Road and 51st Avenue and Northern Avenue. Projects include right turn lanes, bus bays and shelters, modifications to traffic signals, street lights, and landscaping. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $70,734 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $23,199 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $229,209 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $36,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $359,709 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M costs are for landscape maintenance. The Transportation Departments operating budget will absorb additional O and M. Operating Costs: Landscape TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 $270 $278 $286 $295 $270 $278 $286 $295 Project: 65088 - Downtown Alley Improvements (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2017 $304 $304 FYs 18-22 $1,662 $1,662 Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Design and construct transformation of existing service alley into a safe environment for pedestrian circulation and limited vehicular traffic. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $86,698 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,698 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 O and M includes $2,438 for the maintenance of 10 pedestrian lights, $1,200 for water, $300 for landscape maintenance by an outside company, $2,200 for downtown beautification crew maintenance and $300 for electricity. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: Supplies/Contr FY 2016 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $300 $309 $318 $328 $338 $1,846 Utilities $1,200 $1,236 $1,273 $1,311 $1,351 $7,386 Equip. Maint. Electrical $2,438 $300 $2,511 $309 $2,586 $318 $2,664 $328 $2,744 $338 $15,005 $1,846 $2,476 $7,247 $39,623 Landscape TOTAL $2,200 $2,266 $2,334 $2,404 $6,438 $6,631 $6,829 $7,035 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 394 $13,540 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65089 - Pavement Management (I) Project Description: Category: Transportation Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Pavement maintenance program funds are used to maximize the life of the street network. This may include activities ranging from surface preparation, repairs and treatments, to heavy full depth paving and rubberized asphalt overlays. Pavement maintenance and rehabilitation activities are recommended to properly address the needs of each individual street segment using data gathered in the development of the pavement management program. Streets are selected and scheduled within the available funding. Capital Costs: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Construction $2,374,590 $1,962,709 $1,962,709 $1,962,709 $1,962,709 $1,962,709 $9,813,543 $17,664 $17,664 $17,664 $17,664 $17,664 $17,664 $88,322 Engineering Charges Arts TOTAL Operating Description: $19,627 $19,627 $19,627 $19,627 $19,627 $19,627 $98,135 $2,411,881 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 65092 - Maryland Ave Bike Rte Spot Imp (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: The project will add additional asphalt for bike lanes where Maryland Avenue is too narrow and build short multiuse path segments to tie Maryland Avenue into existing pathways at Discovery Park. Overall, the project would add 1,776 feet of bikeway improvements to make Maryland Avenue a more continuous bike route from 43rd Avenue to 91st Avenue, at the Glendale Sports Complex. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Construction $0 $122,102 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $0 $1,440 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts $0 $1,221 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $7,198 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,961 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. Project: 65004 - Buses/Vans (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Finance Charges Equipment Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: $0 Funding Source: Half Cent Sales Tax This project replaces buses and vans for local circulators and Dial-a-Ride service. The buses are replaced every four years or when mileage exceeds recommended limits. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $3,000 $1,500 $2,250 $3,000 $3,750 $4,500 $23,699 $187,000 $93,500 $140,250 $187,000 $233,750 $280,725 $1,437,711 $10,000 $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 $12,500 $14,775 $118,493 $200,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $1,579,903 No O and M is needed since these are replacements for existing buses and vans. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 395 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65014 - Transit Support Capital (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Finance Charges Contingency Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Construction Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: To continue delivery of transit services, replacement capital are needed, including computer equipment, support vehicles and radio systems. Because of past federal funding sources for these items, Transit has not contributed to replacement funds for vehicles or computers. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $750 $1,125 $1,500 $1,875 $2,250 $2,615 $2,500 $3,750 $5,000 $6,250 $7,500 $8,710 $46,982 $74,679 $70,125 $93,500 $116,875 $140,250 $162,879 $878,572 $77,929 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $174,204 $939,649 $14,095 No additional O and M is required for this project. Project: 65083 - Speed Cushions (R) Project Description: Category: Transportation Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: This project will remove and replace existing modified speed humps with speed cushions and add mitigation devices where warranted. Replacing modified speed humps and constructing new mitigation devices will help address the current backlog of neighborhoods qualifying for traffic mitigation. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $247,409 $0 $132,553 $136,923 $141,503 $0 $0 Finance Charges $0 $0 $2,349 $2,426 $2,507 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $8,749 $9,037 $9,339 $0 $0 Arts $0 $0 $1,326 $1,369 $1,415 $0 $0 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: $0 $0 $11,598 $11,980 $12,381 $0 $0 $247,409 $0 $156,575 $161,735 $167,145 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed. Project: 65017 - Rail System (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Finance Charges Contingency Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Planning studies, design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of light rail facility to be located on an alignment to be determined. Federal and regional grants will fund 60% of the project. Current cost estimates are based on regional plans prepared by Valley Metro. Costs reflect Glendale's fees to Metro and Alternatives Analysis studies in later years. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $763 $764 $782 $801 $823 $846 $631,766 $87 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,469,664 $50,186 $51,340 $52,624 $54,044 $55,558 $41,485,939 $2,470,514 $50,950 $52,122 $53,425 $54,867 $56,404 $42,117,705 A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion in FY 2026. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 396 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65030 - Multi-Use Pathway Grand Canal (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Engineering Charges TOTAL Operating Description: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Operating Description: FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 O and M associated with the maintenance of trash receptacles and 30 foot wide landscaped area along a 6,300 foot long multiuse pathway. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $42,827 $8,959 $44,112 $9,228 $45,436 $9,505 $0 $51,786 $53,340 $54,941 Project: 65062 - Glendale Sports Facilities Sgn (N) TOTAL FY 2017 $1,149,755 TOTAL Capital Costs: FY 2016 $1,149,755 Landscape Refuse Equipment Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: This project is to construct a multiuse path from just east of the Loop 101 Freeway to New River. The project will provide a safe and convenient, off-street facility for bicyclists and pedestrians that extends the existing Grand Canal Linear Park path to the future New River Pathway. Additional federal funds have also been awarded towards this project. Capital costs include local funds to match $500,000 in federal funds available towards this project. Operating Costs: Project Description: Category: Transportation FY 2017 $46,799 $9,790 $56,589 FYs 18-22 $255,916 $53,536 $309,452 Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: This project includes design, purchase and installation of Dynamic Message Signs on arterial streets and lane control signs around the Glendale Sports Facilities in addition to the communications connections of the signs to the central traffic control system. Once this project is completed, the message boards will be used for traffic information dissemination as well as parking management. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $470,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $470,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 O and M for this project is for electrical costs of the message signs. Equipment maintenance costs for the expected life is ten years and significant maintenance costs at $5,000 per year after five years of installation. A supplemental budget request will be made when project is close to completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $1,194 $1,230 $6,726 Utilities $0 $0 $0 $1,194 Equip. Maint. TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,304 $7,692 $1,230 $5,463 $7,923 $29,874 $43,326 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 397 $6,726 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2210-Transportation Construction Project: 65063 - New River - Multi-use Pathway (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Engineering Charges TOTAL Operating Description: Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Operating Description: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 O and M associated with 8 foot wide landscaped area along a 12,200 foot long multiuse pathway. A supplemental budget request will be made when the project is close to completion. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 $21,639 $22,288 $22,957 $0 $21,639 $22,288 $22,957 Carryover Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 There are no direct O and M costs to the City of Glendale related to this project. The facility will be maintained by other parties. Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: Provide funding to Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for additional infrastructure to meet the City's standards or needs that are not specifically addressed in ADOT's design of Loop 303 project. Infrastructure improvements include Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) connectivity, enhancement of bridges over local arterial streets, and irrigation waterline for landscaping that meets the City's standard. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,594 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,237,144 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 The cost of the O and M is to pay for the irrigation water for landscape installed to Glendale standards. Operating Costs: TOTAL $129,306 $129,306 $0 $1,158,550 Water FYs 18-22 $2,000,000 Carryover Operating Description: $23,646 $23,646 $2,000,000 Capital Costs: TOTAL FY 2017 This project will construct a transit center and a park-and-ride facility in the Bell Rd and Loop 101 area to serve the needs of transit passengers from multiple bus routes including express service. Federal funds have been secured for this project. Land Miscellaneous/Other FY 2016 $0 Project: 65090 - Loop 303 Landscape & Design (N) Project Description: FYs 18-22 $0 Project: 65080 - Bell/101 Park&Ride/Transit Ctr (N) TOTAL FY 2017 $2,391,300 TOTAL Construction FY 2016 $2,391,300 Operating Costs: Capital Costs: Half Cent Sales Tax Funding Source: This project is to construct a multi-use path from the Bethany Home Road alignment to Northern Avenue. The project will provide a safe and convenient, off-street facility for bicyclists and pedestrians that is part of the regional West valley Rivers Multimodal Corridor Master Plan. This project has $1,550,000 in federal funds towards construction costs. Landscape Project Description: Category: Transportation FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $105,787 $108,961 $112,229 $0 $105,787 $108,961 $112,229 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 398 FY 2017 $115,596 $115,596 FYs 18-22 $632,128 $632,128 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2000-HURF/Street Bonds FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: HURF FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 68913 99th Widening-Camelbck-Northrn T2710 67th Ave Glendale to Frier Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,154,767 6,921,892 12,076,659 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,076,659 Total FY 2013 Funding: $0 PROJECT DETAIL: 2000-HURF/Street Bonds Category: HURF Project: 68913 - 99th Widening-Camelbck-Northrn (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: HURF Bonds Funding Source: Complete street improvements on 99th Avenue from Camelback Road to Northern Avenue as the property develops. Improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, landscaping and a bridge widening over the Grand Canal. Project also includes the piping of an existing Salt River Project (SRP) irrigation ditch and the underground conversion of the existing utilities. This project is dependent upon private development. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $735,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,675,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $157,817 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $81,585 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,750 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $468,615 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,154,767 TOTAL Operating Description: Estimated 132 street lights ($171 per year) for 1 2/3 years with inflation (3%). Landscaping will be maintained by the commercial development adjacent to the roadway. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: Utilities TOTAL FY 2013 $0 $0 FY 2014 FY 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 399 FY 2016 $0 $0 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $48,513 $48,513 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2000-HURF/Street Bonds Category: HURF Project: T2710 - 67th Ave Glendale to Frier (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: HURF Bonds Funding Source: Construct street improvements on 67th Avenue from Glendale Avenue to Frier Drive. This project will widen 67th Avenue, add curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, and landscaping. Project will also underground overhead 12kV power lines, move 69kV power poles and underground Salt River Project (SRP) irrigation ditches. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,553 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,011,697 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,292 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,117 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $512,733 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,921,892 TOTAL Operating Description: Estimate based on two years of O and M. Utility costs are for 42 street lights. Landscape and water costs are for approximately 50,000 sq ft of landscaping. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: Utilities Landscape TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 400 FY 2017 $0 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $18,468 $28,287 $46,755 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1340-HURF/Streets Fund FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: Other FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets T0010 Right-of-Way Rearload Truck Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290,000 290,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $290,000 Total FY 2013 Funding: $0 PROJECT DETAIL: 1340-HURF/Streets Fund Category: Other Project: T0010 - Right-of-Way Rearload Truck (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Replacement of the existing Right-of-Way rear-loading compactor truck, which is not currently in the city's Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF). After replacement, the truck will be added to the VRF. The truck is utilized by Right-of-Way staff for the disposal of tree trimmings and other landscaping debris on a daily basis. The useful life of this truck will be 15 years. Carryover Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $290,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $290,000 Because this new truck will replace an existing truck, funding is already available for equipment maintenance. The O and M amount of $145,000 represents the first five years (FY's 2018 - 2022) of vehicle replacement contributions required from adding the equipment to the VRF based on a replacement cost of $290,000 and a 15-year expected useful life. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the truck has been purchased. Operating Costs: PC/Vehicle Replacement TOTAL Highway User Revenue Fund Funding Source: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 401 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $145,000 $145,000 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1650-Transportation Grants FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: Other FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 67532 Central Signal System 4,550 10,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 257,013 351,252 1,959,914 2,982,979 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 55,516 96,996 34,751 496,724 75,381 54,374 206,252 635,896 840,366 2,496,256 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 10,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000,000 $5,479,235 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 67540 NF Supplemental Taxi AZ57-X013 Replacement of Existing Assets 67533 Replacement Video Equipment 67536 FTA AZ-90-X103 Grant 67541 FTA AZ-90-X109 67542 Grand Ave Infrastructure Imps Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 67505 CIP Transport. Grant Reserve 67526 DS Multiuse Path: Grand Canal 67527 DS Multiuse Path: New River 67528 DS Multiuse Path: Maryland Ave 67529 FTA Grant X096 67530 Fiber & Conduit - DMS 67531 Fiber & Conduit for ITS 67534 ITS Strategic Plan 67537 FTA X006 Predesign ArrowheadTC 67538 FTA 0203 Design ArrowheadTC Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $7,479,235 PROJECT DETAIL: 1650-Transportation Grants Category: Other Project: 67532 - Central Signal System (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Grants Funding Source: Procure a new centralized traffic signal system for remote control of the City's 194 traffic signals. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $4,550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is required for this project. The project replaces an existing system that is paid for through the ITS budget. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 402 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1650-Transportation Grants Category: Other Project: 67540 - NF Supplemental Taxi AZ57-X013 (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: This grant provides a public transportation alternative for the elderly and persons with disabilities. The project will provide funding for contracted service of taxi trips for qualified persons. Trips must be within a 1-mile buffer zone or less of Glendale's borders. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Equipment Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed due to this project. Grants Funding Source: Modernize the video equipment at the Glendale Traffic Management Center. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 The replacement project does not require additional O and M. Grants Funding Source: The grant includes funds for the replacement of three Dial-A-Ride buses and funds for the maintenance of the Transit Department's bus fleet. The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) will reimburse the city for the local match portion of the bus purchase. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $64,254 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,759 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $257,013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed. Project: 67541 - FTA AZ-90-X109 (R) Project Description: FY 2017 $10,250 Project: 67536 - FTA AZ-90-X103 Grant (R) Project Description: FY 2016 $10,250 Project: 67533 - Replacement Video Equipment (R) Project Description: Grants Funding Source: Grants Funding Source: This grant is used for capital and ongoing transit capital maintenance. It funds the replacement of two Dial-A-Ride buses and transit vehicle maintenance expenses. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $351,252 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $351,252 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 The project replaces existing buses and pays for capital maintenance. No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 403 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1650-Transportation Grants Category: Other Project: 67542 - Grand Ave Infrastructure Imps (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Grants Funding Source: APS and SRP to underground existing electrical facilities and provide electrical service to Glendale street lighting system, landscaping, and traffic signal electrical panels from 43rd Avenue to 71st Avenue on Grand Avenue. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $445,435 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $445,435 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,069,044 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,959,914 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: The replacement/undergrounding project does not require additional O and M. Project: 67505 - CIP Transport. Grant Reserve (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: This represents reserve appropriation for unanticipated transportation related grant opportunities that may arise during the fiscal year. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Design TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Design TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 No additional O and M is needed. Grants Funding Source: This project is to provide for the design of a multi-use pathway along the Grand Canal from east of Loop 101 to the New River east bank. Once complete, the pathway should connect the existing Grand Canal multi-use pathway to the future New River multi-use pathway. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $55,516 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,516 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No O and M is associated with this design project. Project: 67527 - DS Multiuse Path: New River (N) Project Description: FY 2016 $0 Project: 67526 - DS Multiuse Path: Grand Canal (N) Project Description: Grants Funding Source: Grants Funding Source: This project provides for the design of a multiuse pathway along the New River east bank from Northern Avenue to Grand Canal. This project is to design a safe and convenient, off-street facility for bicyclists and pedestrians that is part of the regional West Valley Rivers Multimodal Corridor Master Plan. Federal funds will pay for this design project. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $96,996 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,996 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No O and M is associated with this design project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 404 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1650-Transportation Grants Category: Other Project: 67528 - DS Multiuse Path: Maryland Ave (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design TOTAL Operating Description: This project provides for the design of a bike lane along Maryland Avenue from 67th Avenue to 69th Avenue, a multi-use path along Maryland Avenue east of 75th Avenue, and a multi-use path along the Maryland Avenue alignment in the Discovery Park from west of 75th Lane to 77th Drive. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No O and M is associated with this design project. Grants Funding Source: This is a Federal Transit Administration grant for replacement bus purchases, computer purchases, and preventative maintenance reimbursement for buses. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $496,724 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $496,724 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed. Grants Funding Source: This project will complete the design of fiber, conduit, and cameras along Peoria Avenue between 43rd and 67th Avenues for intelligent transportation systems. Additionally four message signs will be designed for 59th and Glendale Avenues leading into downtown Glendale to display traffic information. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $75,381 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,381 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 This is a design project. There are no operating costs associated with the design. Operating funds will be identified during the construction stage of the project. Project: 67531 - Fiber & Conduit for ITS (N) Project Description: FY 2017 $34,751 Project: 67530 - Fiber & Conduit - DMS (N) Project Description: FY 2016 $34,751 Project: 67529 - FTA Grant X096 (N) Project Description: Grants Funding Source: Grants Funding Source: This project will complete the design of fiber, conduit, and cameras along Cactus, Thunderbird, and Greenway roads for intelligent transportation systems. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $54,374 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,374 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 This is a design project. There are no operating costs associated with the design. Operating funds will be identified during the construction phase of the project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 405 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1650-Transportation Grants Category: Other Project: 67534 - ITS Strategic Plan (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: This project will complete a citywide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Strategic Plan that is consistent with federal, state, and regional plans. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Design TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Design TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $206,252 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 This is a project to develop a study. There are no operating costs associated with the study. Grants Funding Source: North Glendale is currently served by multiple routes including two express routes, and three local routes. These routes provide regional service to the northwest valley. Many of the routes start/end in the area of Loop 101 and Bell Road. This project will provide the predesign for a centralized facility for routes serving the area to provide transit patron parking, and to promote improved bus flow and accessibility for patrons using the routes serving the area. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $635,896 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $635,896 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 This project is for pre-design of the Transit Center. O and M costs will be identified during the design of the project. Project: 67538 - FTA 0203 Design ArrowheadTC (N) Project Description: FY 2016 $206,252 Project: 67537 - FTA X006 Predesign ArrowheadTC (N) Project Description: Grants Funding Source: Grants Funding Source: North Glendale is currently served by multiple routes, including two express routes and three local routes. These routes provide regional service to the northwest valley. Many of the routes start/end in the area of Loop 101 and Bell Road. This project will provide the design for a centralized facility for routes serving the area to provide transit patron parking and to promote improved bus flow and accessibility for patrons using the routes serving the area. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $840,366 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $840,366 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 O and M costs will be identified during the design of the Transit Center project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 406 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Sanitation - Enterprise Fund SANITATION ENTERPRISE FUND The Sanitation Fund capital program includes the replacement of roll-off trucks, frontload trucks, sideload trucks, rearload trucks, container delivery trucks, pickup trucks and various refuse containers that have reached the end of their serviceable lives. In FY 2012 funding will be used to replace five 20-yard commercial containers, a frontload truck, three sideload trucks, a tractor, and a mechanic’s truck. Project Name: Frontloader Trucks - 17820 Fund #: 2480 Project #: 78002 Project Name: Rolloff Trucks - 17810 Fund #: 2480 Project #: 78001 Project Name: Commercial Trucks - 17820 Fund #: 2480 Project #: 78002 407 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2480-Sanitation Category: Other FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 78001 Rolloff Trucks-Commercial 78002 Frontload Trucks-Commercial 78003 Sideload Trucks-Residential 78004 Loose Trash Equip.-Residential 78005 Repl Pickup Trucks-Sanitation Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 290,000 825,000 90,000 50,000 1,280,000 0 290,000 1,740,000 592,200 0 2,622,200 458,000 290,000 1,450,000 870,000 0 3,068,000 0 885,000 1,450,000 1,376,980 67,010 3,778,990 258,000 295,000 2,320,000 1,276,069 140,000 4,289,069 0 1,287,000 7,250,000 1,862,365 70,000 10,469,365 $0 $1,280,000 $2,622,200 $3,068,000 $3,778,990 $4,289,069 $10,469,365 Total FY 2013 Funding: $1,280,000 PROJECT DETAIL: 2480-Sanitation Category: Other Project: 78001 - Rolloff Trucks-Commercial (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Finance Charges Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Replacement of three Rolloff trucks and containers over a 10 year period. Rolloff trucks are used to service the 20 and 40 cubic yard dumpsters used at construction sites as well as both business and residential cleanup projects. The service life of a Rolloff truck is projected to be nine years. This equipment is not included in the city’s Vehicle Replacement Fund . In FY 2013, five 20-yard containers will be purchased at a cost of $5,000 each. In FY 2015, two replacement trucks will be purchased at a cost of $214,000 each to replace trucks purchased in FY 2004, and five 40-yard containers at a cost of $6,000 each. In FY 2017, one replacement truck will be purchase at a cost of $258,000 to replace a truck purchased in FY,2008. Carryover $0 FY 2013 FY 2014 $375 $0 $0 $24,625 $0 $25,000 FY 2015 Capital Costs: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $16,766 $0 $3,870 $0 $0 $441,234 $0 $254,130 $0 $0 $458,000 $0 $258,000 $0 No additional O and M is needed since this is the replacement of existing equipment. Project: 78002 - Frontload Trucks-Commercial (R) Project Description: Sanitation Revenues Funding Source: Sanitation Revenues Replacement of 11 commercial frontload refuse trucks and a commercial container delivery truck over a 10-year period. Service life is projected to be six years, except the delivery truck which is projected at 10 years. These trucks are not in the city's Vehicle Replacement Fund. In FY 2013, replace one frontload truck for $290,000. In FY 2014, replace one frontload truck for $290,000. In FY 2015, replace one frontload truck for $290,000. In FY 2016, replace three frontload trucks for $295,000 each. In FY 2017, replace one frontload truck for $295,000. In FY 2018, replace one frontload truck for $295,000. In FY 2019, replace one frontload truck for $295,000. In FY 2020, replace one frontload truck at a cost of $295.000, and a commercial container truck for $107,000. In FY 2021, replace one frontload truck at a cost of $295,000. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $4,350 $4,350 $4,350 $18,507 $4,425 $19,305 Equipment $0 $285,650 $285,650 $285,650 $866,493 $290,575 $1,267,695 $0 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $885,000 $295,000 $1,287,000 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since this is the replacement of existing equipment. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 408 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2480-Sanitation Category: Other Project: 78003 - Sideload Trucks-Residential (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: Sanitation Revenues Replacement of 52 sideload refuse trucks over a 10-year period. Service life is projected at six years for newly purchased equipment. These vehicles are not in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. In FY 2013 replace three trucks at a cost of $275,000 each. In FY 2014 replace six trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. In FY 2015 replace five trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. In FY 2016 replace five trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. In FY 2017 replace eight trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. In FY 2018 replace seven trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. In FY 2019 replace three trucks at a cost of $ 290,000 each. In FY 2020 replace six trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. In FY 2021 replace four trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. In FY 2022 replace five trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $12,375 $30,978 $28,882 $30,845 $34,800 $176,762 Equipment $0 $812,625 $1,709,022 $1,421,118 $1,419,155 $2,285,200 $7,073,238 $0 $825,000 $1,740,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $2,320,000 $7,250,000 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since this is the replacement of existing equipment. Project: 78004 - Loose Trash Equip.-Residential (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: Sanitation Revenues Replacement of loose trash rearload trucks, tractors and sweepers that are expected to reach the end of their service life. Expected life for rearload trucks, tractors and sweepers is eight years. In FY 2013, replace a tractor at a cost of $90,000. In FY 2014 replace a rearload truck at a cost of $275,000, a tractor at a cost of $96,300 and a sweeper at a cost of $220,900. In FY 2015 replace three rearload trucks at a cost of $290,000 each. In FY 2016 replace two rearload trucks at a cost of $290,000 each, two tractors at a cost of $137,455 each and two sweepers at a cost of $261,035 each. In FY 2017 replace two rearload truck at a cost of $290,000 each, a tractor at a cost of $137,455 and two sweepers at a cost of $279,307 each. In FY 2018 replace two rearload trucks at a cost of $290,000 each and a tractor at a cost of $137,455. In FY 2020 replace three rearload trucks at a cost of $290,000 and a tractor at a cost of $137,455. In 2021 replace a tractor at a cost of $137,455. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $1,350 $8,883 $14,766 $18,898 $19,141 $44,284 Equipment $0 $88,650 $583,317 $855,234 $1,358,082 $1,256,928 $1,818,081 $0 $90,000 $592,200 $870,000 $1,376,980 $1,276,069 $1,862,365 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since this is the replacement of existing equipment. Project: 78005 - Repl Pickup Trucks-Sanitation (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Funding Source: Sanitation Revenues These pickups will replace aging pickup trucks over a 10-year period. FY 2013, a replacement mechanic's truck at a cost of $50,000. FY 2016, two replacement pickup trucks at a cost of $33,505 each. FY 2017, four replacement pickup trucks at a cost of $35,000 each. In FY 2018, a replacement mechanic's truck at a cost of $70,000. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $645 $0 $0 $1,005 $2,100 $3,727 Equipment $0 $49,355 $0 $0 $66,005 $137,900 $66,273 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $67,010 $140,000 $70,000 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since this is the replacement of existing equipment. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 409 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Landfill - Enterprise Fund LANDFILL ENTERPRISE FUND FY 2013 will see the replacement of a number of Glendale Municipal Landfill equipment including a water pull tractor, a motor grader and a scraper. Starting in FY 2014 are projects that will lay the groundwork for the closing of the south area of the Glendale Landfill and preparing the north expansion area for future waste cell development as identified in Landfill Development Plan (October 2001). It is projected that the 140 acres in the south half of the landfill will reach approved filling capacity by FY 2015. In preparation for the closing of the south end of the landfill, a combination of carryover and new funding is also available in FY 2013 for relocation of the scalehouse closer to the north end of the landfill. Project Name: Landfill Entrance Signal Fund #: 2440 Project #: 78519 Picture Note: Project was completed during FY 2011 410 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2440-Landfill Category: Other FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 78523 Scalehouse & Road Relocation 78526 *LF Gas System Modifications 52,900 0 1,073,061 455,359 0 274,954 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 492,275 0 0 545,175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320,953 375,000 2,224,373 130,000 32,506 0 0 59,406 0 0 0 0 0 496,866 29,300 33,481 983,007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,045,788 0 0 0 0 136,032 182,700 0 0 0 0 318,732 0 0 1,042,872 0 35,000 253,750 0 0 0 0 1,331,622 158,300 108,000 0 187,775 35,000 2,135,220 228,019 624,063 0 1,551,313 5,027,690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 516,654 0 102,581 619,235 205,304 102,738 13,007,990 13,316,032 9,100,874 4,606,800 0 13,707,674 0 102,738 0 102,738 0 4,349,425 0 4,349,425 $545,175 $2,224,373 $1,116,101 $14,361,820 $14,026,406 $1,434,360 $9,377,115 Replacement of Existing Assets 78506 Landfill Repl Pickup Truck 78509 MRF Forklifts 78511 Landfill Compactor Replacement 78512 Fuel Tanker Replacement 78514 Sanitation Insp Trucks - 17740 78520 Landfill Bulldozer Replacement 78521 MRF Loader Replacement 78522 LF Water Pull Tractor Replace 78524 Landfill Motor Grader Replace 78525 Landfill Scraper Equipment Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 78503 Landfill Closure (South) 78505 LF Phase Construction (North) 78507 Landfill Soil Excavation Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $2,769,548 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 411 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2440-Landfill Category: Other Project: 78523 - Scalehouse & Road Relocation (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction Finance Charges Engineering Charges Arts Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: Project provides for roadway improvements to the internal entrance roadway and relocation of the scale house to be closer to the north area. This project will relocate the other facilities supporting the landfill operation including the equipment maintenance area as well as the administrative and field staff office trailers. The scale house and other landfill facilities are currently located where waste will be placed prior to closing the south area of the landfill. According to the landfill's waste capacity calculations, it will take approximately one year to fill this permitted air space. It will be necessary to relocate the scale house in FY 2013 based on our anticipated waste acceptance rate. Carryover FY 2013 $50,000 $70,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 $0 $0 Capital Costs: FY 2016 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $787,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750 $13,313 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,150 $36,873 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,875 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $157,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,900 $1,073,061 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is required for this project. Project: 78526* - LF Gas System Modifications (I) Project Description: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: The Glendale Landfill is required by federal and state environmental regulations to install and maintain an active gas collection system within the landfill. Project provides for improvements to the existing gas collection system including retrofits, extensions, and modifications to the vertical extraction wells and lateral collection pipes. Because the gas wells and collection pipes presently are located above-ground level within the active landfill area, it is necessary to complete the gas well modifications and improvements ahead of filling the landfill sections with additional waste. Project scope also includes burying of the above-ground lateral collection pipes to allow for simpler waste filling operations. This project is required to maintain the sequencing plan developed for waste filling in the landfill through the end of FY 2014. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $35,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $356,900 $212,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $0 $5,879 $3,555 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $18,321 $11,079 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arts $0 $3,569 $2,120 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: $0 $35,690 $21,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $455,359 $274,954 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 412 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2440-Landfill Category: Other Project: 78506 - Landfill Repl Pickup Truck (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: Landfill currently has six pickup trucks in its equipment fleet that will require replacement over the next ten years. Pickup trucks are used by the landfill inspector, mechanic, crew leader, supervisor, and field employees. Two trucks will reach the end of their serviceable life in FY 2014 and FY 2015. The vehicle due for replacement in FY 2014 is a heavy duty truck equipped with an 11 foot crane, heavy duty tool boxes, air compressor, and a gas welder. The project also includes the replacement of four trucks reaching the end of their service life during the second five years. These replacement trucks include a flat bed truck and a pickup both with Tommy lifts in FY 2019, a pickup in FY 2021, and a pickup in FY 2022. Landfill vehicles and equipment are not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the vehicles are purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $130,000 $29,300 $0 $0 $158,300 $0 $130,000 $29,300 $0 $0 $158,300 No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace existing equipment that is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life. Landfill Revenues Funding Source: The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) currently has a total of four forklifts in its fleet used for a variety of heavy lifting purposes including loading, unloading, and transporting recyclable bales. This project includes the replacement of two forklifts that are expected to reach the end of their serviceable lives in FY 2014 and FY 2015 as well as replacement of forklifts that will be due for replacement during the second five years. Replacement of forklifts in the second five years is scheduled to occur in FY 2019, FY 2021 and FY 2022 at an approximate cost of $36,000 per piece of equipment. The MRF forklifts have an estimated service life of approximately seven years, although replacement schedules may be adjusted depending on hours of use and equipment condition. MRF vehicles and equipment are not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the equipment is purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $32,506 $33,481 $0 $0 $108,000 $0 $0 $32,506 $33,481 $0 $0 $108,000 No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace existing equipment that are expected to reach the end of their serviceable lives. Project: 78511 - Landfill Compactor Replacement (R) Project Description: FY 2016 $0 Project: 78509 - MRF Forklifts (R) Project Description: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: Funding Source: Landfill Revenues Project provides for the rebuild and replacement of the landfill compactors at the end of their serviceable life or on an appropriate schedule based on current usage hours and equipment condition. One compactor, which was purchased in 2000, will reach the end of its serviceable life in FY 2015 and require replacement. The other compactor, which was purchased in 2007, will require a certified rebuild or new replacement in FY 2017. The compactors are essential pieces of equipment used on a daily basis for proper placement and compaction of solid waste within the landfill. Landfill vehicles and equipment are not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the equipment is purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $14,527 $0 $15,412 $0 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $968,480 $0 $1,027,460 $0 $0 $0 $0 $983,007 $0 $1,042,872 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace existing equipment this is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 413 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2440-Landfill Category: Other Project: 78512 - Fuel Tanker Replacement (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: Replacement of the fuel tanker, which was purchased in 2008, and is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life in FY 2018. The fuel tanker truck transports diesel fuel from the on site storage tank to the landfill heavy equipment located on the active waste disposal area. It is an essential piece of support equipment at the landfill for maximizing operational efficiencies and minimizing equipment downtime. Landfill equipment is not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the equipment is purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,775 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $185,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,775 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace existing equipment that is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life. Project: 78514 - Sanitation Insp Trucks - 17740 (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Finance Charges Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: Sanitation Inspectors enforce the regulations related to refuse collection, recycling collection and loose trash services. They contact residents to respond to questions and educate residents on proper procedures for services. Purchase of eight replacement pickups over a 10-year period. Service life is projected to be approximately seven years. In FY 2014, two replacement trucks costing a projected $29,703 each. In FY 2016, four replacement trucks at a cost of $34,008 each. In FY 2017, a replacement truck at a cost of $35,000. In FY 2018, one replacement truck at a cost of $35,000. Carryover $0 FY 2013 $0 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $891 $0 $2,040 $525 $525 $0 $0 $58,515 $0 $133,992 $34,475 $34,475 $0 $0 $59,406 $0 $136,032 $35,000 $35,000 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 78520 - Landfill Bulldozer Replacement (R) Project Description: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: Funding Source: Landfill Revenues Project provides for the rebuild and/or replacement of the landfill bulldozers at the end of their serviceable life or on an appropriate schedule based on current usage hours and equipment condition. Both Model D-8 and Model D-9 bulldozers will require a powertrain rebuild in FY 2016 and FY 2017, respectively. This project also includes funds for replacement of the Model D-8 bulldozer in FY 2019 and the Model D-9 bulldozer in FY 2020. Bulldozers are used at the landfill primarily to push garbage into position for the compactors. Landfill vehicles and equipment are not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the equipment is purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,700 $3,750 $31,555 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $250,000 $2,103,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 $182,700 $253,750 $2,135,220 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace existing equipment that is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 414 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2440-Landfill Category: Other Project: 78521 - MRF Loader Replacement (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: Replacement of loader used to move recyclables from the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) tipping floor to the processing line. The current loader was purchased in FY 2009 and is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life in FY 2019. MRF vehicles and equipment are not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the equipment is purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,420 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224,599 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $228,019 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace existing equipment that is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life. Project: 78522 - LF Water Pull Tractor Replace (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Finance Charges Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: Replacement of water pull truck, which was purchased in 2012 and is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life in FY 2020. The water pull truck is a critical piece of support equipment for reducing dust and maintaining compliance with the existing air quality permit. Landfill vehicles and equipment are not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the equipment is purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Finance Charges Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,222 $492,275 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $614,841 $492,275 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $624,063 No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace aging existing equipment. Project: 78524 - Landfill Motor Grader Replace (R) Project Description: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: Replacement of the motor grader that is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life in FY 2013. The motor grader is an essential piece of support equipment used to establish and maintain the temporary roads on the active portion of the landfill. Landfill vehicles and equipment are not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the equipment is purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover $0 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $4,743 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $316,210 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,953 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace existing equipment that is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 415 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2440-Landfill Category: Other Project: 78525 - Landfill Scraper Equipment (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: The scraper is an essential piece of support equipment that excavates, transports, and stockpiles soil used for covering waste disposed at the landfill. Project provides for a powertrain rebuild of the landfill auger scraper in FY 2013. Funds are also programmed during the second five years for either a certified rebuild or a new replacement of the scraper, which is anticipated to occur in FY 2018 based on hours of use and equipment condition. Landfill vehicles and equipment are not included in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Instead the equipment is purchased with cash or financed at the time of acquisition. Carryover Finance Charges FY 2013 $0 Equipment TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,926 $0 $375,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,528,387 $0 $375,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,551,313 No additional O and M is needed since new equipment will replace existing equipment that is expected to reach the end of its serviceable life. Landfill Revenues Funding Source: Project provides for closure of the south area of the landfill after the permitted air space is completely filled with waste. A landfill reaching its permitted capacity is required by federal and state law to be closed with a final cover system, which includes a vegetative layer, a compacted soil layer, additional gas system wells, erosion control, and storm water control measures. Funds in FY 2014 provide for the installation of six out of the sixteen needed storm water drainage devices (down drains) on the eastern and southern portions of the landfill, which are anticipated to reach final grade in 2013. Installation of the remaining storm water devices will be completed as part of final closure of the entire 140-acre south area, which is anticipated to reach filling capacity in early 2016. Carryover Design $0 Construction Finance Charges Engineering Charges $0 Arts $0 Contingency $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2016 $0 Project: 78503 - Landfill Closure (South) (N) Project Description: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: FY 2013 FY 2014 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 $0 FYs 18-22 $200,000 $250,000 $0 $376,320 $0 $7,152,522 $0 $0 $6,395 $3,000 $111,038 $0 $0 $0 $4,912 $2,304 $85,284 $0 $0 $0 $3,763 $0 $71,525 $0 $0 $0 $75,264 $0 $1,430,505 $0 $0 $0 $516,654 $205,304 $9,100,874 $0 $0 Funds provided in supplies/contracts are annual costs for post-closure ($220,554) at the landfill. Post-closure costs include monitoring, maintenance, and repair of the following items: landfill gas control system, groundwater monitoring system, storm water monitoring, final cover/vegetative cover inspection, landfill settlement monitoring, access roads, drainage control system, site security inspection, and administrative reporting. Annual post-closure maintenance, monitoring, and repair activities will begin once closure of the south area is completed. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $220,554 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $220,554 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 416 FY 2017 $220,554 $220,554 FYs 18-22 $1,102,770 $1,102,770 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2440-Landfill Category: Other Project: 78505 - LF Phase Construction (North) (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: This project is required for the development of the northern portion of the landfill and includes phased installation a of liner and a leachate collection system. Funds identified in FY 2015 ($102,738) will be used for engineering design. Funds in FY 2016 ($4,606,800) will pay for construction of North Phase 1a, which is anticipated to begin accepting waste in 2017. Funds identified in FY 2017 ($102,738) will be used for engineering design of North Phase 1b. Funds identified in FY 2018 ($4,349,225) will pay for construction of North Phase 1b, which is anticipated to begin accepting waste in 2019. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,640,000 $0 $3,432,000 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $56,100 $1,500 $52,980 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $1,238 $46,300 $1,238 $43,725 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,400 $0 $34,320 $0 $0 $0 $0 $728,000 $0 $686,400 $0 $0 $0 $102,738 $4,606,800 $102,738 $4,349,425 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 78507 - Landfill Soil Excavation (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Landfill Revenues Funding Source: This project provides for excavation of Phase 1 in the north expansion area to prepare for future landfill cell development. It includes excavation of approximately one-third of the north expansion area, removal of berm located between the north area and the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) as well as utility relocation due to berm removal. Excavated soil will be stockpiled in various storage locations on the landfill property. Excavation of the remaining two-thirds will occur as part of future landfill phase construction. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $10,442,915 $0 $0 $0 Finance Charges $0 $0 $1,500 $158,144 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $1,081 $113,919 $0 $0 $0 Arts $0 $0 $0 $104,429 $0 $0 $0 Contingency TOTAL Operating Description: $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,088,583 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $102,581 $13,007,990 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 417 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Airport Capital Grants AIRPORT CAPITAL GRANTS During the next decade, the Glendale Airport will continue to grow in response to the business and recreational needs of Glendale and West Valley residents. Like most municipal airports, Glendale’s airport relies heavily on federal and state grants to accomplish capital improvements. The grant-funded portion of airport projects has recently changed from 97.5% (95% federal and 2.5% state) to 95.53% (91.06% federal and 4.47% state). The city’s match of 4.47% will come from the voter-approved, half-cent sales transportation tax. The use of FY 2013 airport capital funding is contingent on the city receiving Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grants. The city will pursue grant funding for projects related to the removal of a blast fence, a runway protection zone land purchase and a capacity study. Project Name: Airport-Master Plan Update Funding Source: FAA & ADOT Grants/Transportation Half-Cent Sales Tax Fund #: 2120 Project #: 79511 418 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2120-Airport Capital Grants FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: Other FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 79504 Airport-Security Upgrade 79516 Airport-RSA Remove Blast Fence T1472 *Airport EA for Channelization 0 691,829 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135,000 0 0 1,657,500 0 0 0 0 195,000 0 0 0 0 691,829 0 0 0 0 0 135,000 0 1,657,500 292,500 487,500 0 0 15,000,000 146,775 50,000 0 0 0 0 15,196,775 0 150,638 0 0 0 0 0 150,638 0 0 0 438,750 0 0 0 438,750 0 0 0 0 315,000 0 0 315,000 0 0 0 0 4,387,500 63,000 561,600 5,012,100 0 0 0 0 0 682,500 7,020,000 7,702,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $15,888,604 $150,638 $438,750 $450,000 $6,669,600 $8,190,000 $0 Replacement of Existing Assets 79511 Airport-Master Plan Update Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets 79517 Land Purchase 79518 Airport-EA Land Acq. 43 Acres 79519 Airport-Capacity Study T1463 Airport-EA East TWY, NW Ramp T1469 Airport-Eastside Taxiway T1470 Airport-EMAS Taxiway Pavement T1471 Airport-EMAS Design/Constr Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $16,039,242 PROJECT DETAIL: 2120-Airport Capital Grants Project: 79504 - Airport-Security Upgrade (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Category: Other Grants/City Match Funding Source: These are FAA, ADOT, and city funded projects to enhance airport security designing, acquiring, and installing additional perimeter security cameras and related support equipment. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $135,000 $1,657,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,000 $1,657,500 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 419 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2120-Airport Capital Grants Project: 79516 - Airport-RSA Remove Blast Fence (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Design Construction Engineering Charges Arts TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: The FAA runway safety action group has identified the moving of the blast fences in the runway safety area (RSA) at the end of Runway 19 due to a safety hazard. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Land TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $624,998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,915 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $691,829 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Grants/City Match Funding Source: Conduct an Environmental Assessment for channelization of the New River, which is necessary to meet the safety area requirements of the runway. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $195,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $195,000 $0 No additional O and M is required for this project. Grants/City Match Funding Source: The Airport Master Plan was last updated in 2009 and guides the future development of the airport, identifies grant funding opportunities for capital improvements and forecasts aircraft operations. The FAA recommends updates to the master plan every 5-10 years. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $292,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $292,500 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: 79517 - Land Purchase (N) Project Description: FY 2016 $48,149 Project: 79511 - Airport-Master Plan Update (R) Project Description: Grants/City Match Funding Source: Project: T1472* - Airport EA for Channelization (I) Project Description: Category: Other Grants/City Match Funding Source: Acquire land north of approach to Runway 19 for runway protection zone for the safety of aircraft operations. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $15,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 420 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2120-Airport Capital Grants Project: 79518 - Airport-EA Land Acq. 43 Acres (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: An environmental assessment, survey, and appraisal are required on the acquisition of 43 acres of land to protect the runway safety area off the end of Runway 19 for aircraft operations. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $150,638 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $146,775 $150,638 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Grants/City Match Funding Source: The capacity study is a joint study between the City of Glendale and John F. Long to determine if there is a need for a second runway. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Grants/City Match Funding Source: An environmental assessment (EA) is required prior to the construction of an eastside taxiway and northwest ramp for future aviation development on the eastside of the airport property. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $438,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $438,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed for this project. Project: T1469 - Airport-Eastside Taxiway (N) Project Description: FY 2016 $146,775 Project: T1463 - Airport-EA East TWY, NW Ramp (N) Project Description: Grants/City Match Funding Source: Project: 79519 - Airport-Capacity Study (N) Project Description: Category: Other Grants/City Match Funding Source: Pending an environmental assessment design only for an eastside taxiway and ramps for future expansion of airport facilities that are needed for future growth of forecasted aviation. The taxiway and ramps are for movement of aircraft to hangars and support services. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $315,000 $4,387,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $315,000 $4,387,500 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 421 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2120-Airport Capital Grants Project: T1470 - Airport-EMAS Taxiway Pavement (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Grants/City Match Design and pave taxiway on Runway 01 for Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) product for the safety of aircraft over running the runway end. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,000 $682,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,000 $682,500 $0 No additional O and M is required for this project. Project: T1471 - Airport-EMAS Design/Constr (N) Project Description: Category: Other Funding Source: Grants/City Match Design and construct Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) at Runway's 01 and 19 in the runway safety areas to stop aircraft that are in an emergency situation and have run out of runway length. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $561,600 $7,020,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $561,600 $7,020,000 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 422 Return to CIP TOC 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Other Capital Project Funds OTHER CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Other Federal and State Grants The majority of Glendale’s grants for capital projects come from the federal or state government. The grants in this category are open and competitive. The CIP grant reserve appropriation represents a contingency appropriation for unanticipated grant opportunities that may arise during the fiscal year. General Fund General Fund projects that are typically referred to as pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) projects are funded with General Fund operating dollars. Therefore they are typically balanced against base budget operations, vehicle and technology replacement premiums, supplemental requests and possible salary increases. Funding in FY 2013 is available for the ongoing Building Maintenance Reserve for emergency building repairs and equipment upgrades needed to support the GIS Enterprise System. Camelback Ranch Events The new Capital Repair – Camelback Ranch Project was created to capture the replacement and repair costs the city is responsible for according to the facility use agreement. Civic Center Projects in this category are considered PAYGO projects and are funded with General Fund operating dollars. A Civic Center 10 Year Restoration project is included in FY 2013; this project will utilize $200,000 that was set-aside per City Council direction in FY 2007. An additional $100,000 is included in the Government Facility General Obligation Bond Fund. The ongoing Civic Center Maintenance Reserve is also available for emergency repairs at the Civic Center or for emergency replacement of Civic Center equipment. Technology Infrastructure In FY 2008 a new fund was added to the General Fund PAYGO category. New Information Technology projects are included in the last five years of the capital plan. The Strategic Initiatives Group (SIG) submitted projects in this category. SIG, with representatives from all city departments, was initiated to provide a viable, consolidated request for information technology infrastructure. SIG compiled a list of information technology needs that meet three criteria: (1) direct customer service benefits to citizens; (2) creation of efficiencies in operations and cost savings; and (3) technology that is crucial to operations using the current number of employees. Arts Commission The Municipal Art Fund promotes the creative use of art in public places. One percent of the cost associated with each public construction project is set aside for the purchase and maintenance of public art. The Glendale Arts Commission was formed to select works of art to be commissioned or purchased through the Municipal Arts Fund. This fund has been used to purchase the recently dedicated Glendale Public Safety Memorial located in the Glendale Civic Center Plaza and the award-winning brick sculpture, “Tribute to Firefighters,” at Fire Station 157, as well as other art pieces in various locations within the city. 423 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1840-Other Federal and State Grants FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: Other FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding New Assets 80013 CIP Grant Reserve Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,000,000 PROJECT DETAIL: 1840-Other Federal and State Grants Project: 80013 - CIP Grant Reserve (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Category: Other Grants Funding Source: This represents reserve appropriation for unanticipated grant opportunities that may arise during the fiscal year. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 No additional O and M is needed. Project reflects appropriation only. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 424 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1000-General Fund Category: Other FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 81013 Bldg. Maintenance Reserve 81062 GIS Enterprise System T4620 Resurface Library Parking Lots Sub-Total - Existing Assets 0 0 0 0 50,000 415,300 0 465,300 50,000 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 50,000 250,000 0 130,471 380,471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 419,600 419,600 $0 $465,300 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $800,071 New Assets T4736 City Fiber Optic Study Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $465,300 PROJECT DETAIL: 1000-General Fund Category: Other Project: 81013 - Bldg. Maintenance Reserve (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Funding Source: General Fund This project is intended to support emergency replacements and repairs of building components for city owned buildings. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 425 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1000-General Fund Category: Other Project: 81062 - GIS Enterprise System (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: The city’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has grown at a faster rate than the current technology infrastructure can handle. In the last year alone, GIS data storage has tripled in size. Glendale's GIS has evolved from a decentralized team of individuals providing maps, to the creation of an enterprise database with "location-based" information. Due to the need for expanded data storage space and faster processing speeds, existing equipment located at the Emergency Operation Center has been used to meet increased system demands. This short term solution manages growth without putting an additional burden on the city’s General Fund. In FY 2013 it is expected that the equipment will not meet standard vendor and operational requirements needed to support core GIS functions within the enterprise system. Without a replacement system, city departments could experience delays in data updates and reduced workflow for field and customer service workers, leading to slower service. Carryover IT/Phone/Security TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $415,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Presently, the GIS system is not in the Technology Replacement Fund. It is imperative that contributions be made to the TRF due to the enterprise nature of the GIS system. The GIS system requires replacement every five years to maintain support status. O and M will also cover annual licenses. The additional O and M will be absorbed by the department. FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 $94,451 $94,451 $94,451 $94,451 $94,451 $94,451 $94,451 FY 2017 $94,451 $94,451 FYs 18-22 $472,255 $472,255 General Fund Funding Source: Repave and seal the 23 year old asphalt parking lot at the Main Library and slurry seal the 11 year old parking lot at the Foothills Branch Library. The Main Library's parking lot has deteriorated to the point that a 1 1/2" fabric overlay is needed. A heavy grade slurry seal is recommended for the Foothills Branch Library in order to preserve the life span of the asphalt, which, with proper maintenance, should reach 20-30 years. Carryover Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,471 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,471 O and M is required for asphalt maintenance starting in 2020. The industry standard for asphalt maintenance is to seal every 2-3 years from the completion date. Maintenance includes crack sealing and restriping of parking lots. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Annual O and M is $12,763 for each parking lot at current day pricing. Operating Costs: TOTAL FY 2016 $94,451 Project: T4620 - Resurface Library Parking Lots (R) Bldg. Maint. FYs 18-22 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2017 $415,300 Operating Costs: Capital Costs: FY 2016 $0 PC/Vehicle Replacement Project Description: General Fund Funding Source: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 426 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $30,120 $30,120 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1000-General Fund Category: Other Project: T4736 - City Fiber Optic Study (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: General Fund Funding Source: The existing city owned fiber optic infrastructure is nearing capacity and currently does not extend to several city facilities. The purpose of this study is to review the existing fiber cable and conduit capacity and then make recommendations for future planning. This study will create a road map for Information Technology and Intelligent Transportation to follow as the city continues to expand its voice and data communications. This study will evaluate the existing infrastructure to determine capacity and usage and provide recommendations on improving current design and usage. This study would also recommend and produce a long term plan to provide redundancy to critical city locations and to connect all city buildings to the fiber infrastructure. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $419,600 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 427 $400,000 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1283-Camelback Ranch Events FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: Other FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Replacement of Existing Assets 84200 *Capital Repair-Camelback Ranch Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: 10,732 10,732 247,474 247,474 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $10,732 $247,474 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total FY 2013 Funding: $258,206 PROJECT DETAIL: 1283-Camelback Ranch Events Project: 84200* - Capital Repair-Camelback Ranch (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Construction Category: Other General Fund Funding Source: The city is responsible for funding all capital repairs and facility upgrades per the Facility Use Agreement. Capital repair means any work which is reasonably required to be performed in and about the facility to repair, restore, upgrades or replace any components of the Camelback Ranch facility that may require such work due to damage, destruction, ordinary wear and tear, defects in construction or design, or any other cause. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $10,732 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment $0 $182,478 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous/Other $0 $39,996 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,732 $247,474 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed for this project. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 428 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1740-Civic Center Category: Other FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets 84551 Civic Center Renovation 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,895,734 0 200,000 200,000 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 250,000 0 4,145,734 $200,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $4,145,734 Replacement of Existing Assets 84554 Civic Ctr. Maintenance Reserve 84555 Civic Center 10 Yr Restoration Sub-Total - Existing Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $250,000 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 429 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1740-Civic Center Category: Other Project: 84551 - Civic Center Renovation (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: General Fund Funding Source: This enhancement would create another signature feature at the Glendale Civic Center. The east courtyard would be converted into more meeting room space with sky lighting. This project also involves renovating and developing the grass (open space), south of the Civic Center into functional use space that can be booked for private events. This 5,000 square foot renovation to the Civic Center will enhance amenities, provide more pre-function space, attract clients and allow the facility to remain competitive within the surrounding marketplace. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $756,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,488,000 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,014 Arts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,880 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $341,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,895,734 Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Additional O and M will be need to be started in FY 2020. This project would include staffing of one Service Worker III position to help maintain the facility and provide additional supervision for event set-up as well as audio/visual technical expertise for the renovated space and one secretary to assist with office support needs and increased events and bookings. Supplies at $0.75 per sq ft and $3,000 for ongoing supplies/contracts, utilities at $2.80 per sq ft, electrical at $1,800 annually, building maintenance at $2.00 per sq ft, equipment maintenance at $0.40 per sq ft and building water usage at $0.143 per sq ft for 5,000 sq ft of expanded Civic Center space. The Civic Center currently has a company that maintains the landscaping in the areas addressed in this request, so no new funding is needed for landscaping or refuse. Currently the project is set up as a one time expense with no ongoing O and M. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Staffing Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $531,296 $33,719 Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,937 Bldg. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,955 Equip. Maint. Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Electrical $0 $0 $0 $0 Water $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Project: 84554 - Civic Ctr. Maintenance Reserve (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: $0 $9,991 $6,069 $0 $0 $0 $3,572 $713,531 Funding Source: $8,992 General Fund The Civic Center's maintenance reserve is used for emergency repairs at the facility, as well as the replacement of furniture, fixtures, and equipment on an as needed basis. The reserve will ensure that the Civic Center remains a competitive and high quality event venue and it is essential to the continued success of the facility. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 No additional O and M is needed. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 430 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 1740-Civic Center Category: Other Project: 84555 - Civic Center 10 Yr Restoration (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: General Fund Funding Source: Funding for this project will be used to replace and upgrade high cost depreciable items that have been in operation and use at the facility for the past 11 years. This funding is for the replacement of crucial items such as carpet, acoustical air walls in the ballroom, banquet chairs, and audio visual systems. The restoration is needed to ensure that the Civic Center remains a competitive, desirable, high-quality event venue and is considered essential to the continued success of the facility. Recommendation for the planning and funding for the replacement of these high cost items was discussed in a City Council Budget Workshop in 2006. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional O and M is needed at this time. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 431 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 2150-Technology Infrastructure FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: Other FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding Existing Assets Improvement of Existing Assets T7010 Event Management Center Upgrad T7071 PeopleSoft Phase 2 Enhancement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,325,000 2,100,000 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 2,500,000 1,820,000 400,000 5,500,000 13,645,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,220,625 16,220,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,865,625 Replacement of Existing Assets T7030 Project/Permit Tracking System T7050 Facility Audio/Visual Systems T7072 Library Technology Upgrades T7073 City Phone System Replacement Sub-Total - Existing Assets New Assets T7000 City Fiber Optic Communication Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: $0 PROJECT DETAIL: 2150-Technology Infrastructure Project: T7010 - Event Management Center Upgrad (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: Other General Fund Funding Source: The city acquired the Mobile Command Center (MCC) in 2000 and opened the Traffic Management Center (TMC) in 2004 to improve the city’s management of incidents, events, and day-to-day traffic. Signal system management software along with audio/visual and communications equipment within these two centers needs to be upgraded to enhance system functionality and coordination between the Police Department, Traffic Management Center, and Emergency Operations Center. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,325,000 TOTAL Operating Description: No additional O and M is needed. This project replaces and upgrades the existing system. O and M of this system is currently funded in the Transportation Department operating budget. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 432 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2150-Technology Infrastructure Project: T7071 - PeopleSoft Phase 2 Enhancement (I) Project Description: Capital Costs: Category: Other General Fund Funding Source: PeopleSoft’s Human Capital Management module is coming end of life in December 2014 and Financials in 2017. Major upgrades and significant expense will be required in order to maintain PeopleSoft support after those dates. The City now has the option to continue with PeopleSoft or consider a more cost effective solution that has a lower cost of ownership and promotes further efficiencies throughout the organization. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,100,000 TOTAL Operating Description: Additional O and M is not required for upgrading PeopleSoft since annual maintenance is already being paid as well as the PC maintenance. While the O and M cost for a new system is not known at this time, it is not expected to be higher than the current PeopleSoft costs. Project: T7030 - Project/Permit Tracking System (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: General Fund Funding Source: The current project/permit system provides automated tracking of all construction projects and city assets. The system is used by the Building Safety, Planning, Transportation, Utilities, Sanitation, Fire, Engineering, Code Compliance, and Economic Development departments for plan review and inspections. The city's current system is supported by Infor which is not expected to continue support indefinitely. Funding is requested to replace or upgrade the current system with a web-based system before the current system becomes obsolete. Carryover Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: $2,000,000 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 The $160,902 is required for the ongoing service and maintenance agreement associated with the software purchase. Staffing is for a Database Administrator. This FTE would provide ongoing technical assistance and support to the nine departments using the system. The current system maintenance costs are $43,000 per year, with increases of approximately 2% per year. The requirements for the new system are in addition to this current cost. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Staffing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $430,854 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $591,756 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 433 $160,902 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2150-Technology Infrastructure Project: T7050 - Facility Audio/Visual Systems (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Carryover TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000 Total payments for the six year period to the Technology Replacement Fund. Assumes capital cost will be equally spread over the six year period and a six-year life cycle for the equipment per industry equipment standards. $1,820,000/6 = $303,333 * 16.67% = $50,566 paid into replacement fund in year one. This doubles in year two ($101,132) triples in year three ($151,698), quadruples in year four ($202,264), quintuples in year five ($252,830), sextuples in year six ($303,396). The total for FY's 2017 though 2021 is $758,490. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. FY 2013 TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: T7072 - Library Technology Upgrades (R) FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $758,490 $758,490 General Fund Funding Source: Replacement of the Integrated Library System (ILS) to ensure that the library's resources remain current with library technology. The ILS is vital to the operation of all library services, integrating the holdings catalog, materials purchases, circulation and patron information. Carryover Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: FY 2017 $0 PC/Vehicle Replacement Capital Costs: FY 2016 $0 Operating Costs: Project Description: General Fund Funding Source: The replacement of citywide audio/visual (A/V) equipment that is not currently in the city's Technology Replacement Fund. Although the serviceable life for a number of the identified systems have been extended beyond their expected life cycle, all systems continue to function properly and will be monitored by staff. The systems identified for future replacement include: the Sahuaro Ranch ball complex, the Foothills ball complex, four city pools, the amphitheater outdoor lighting systems, Council Chamber lighting system, A/V equipment in the City Hall Complex, the Main Library A/V and lighting systems, the Adult Center’s audio, lighting and security systems, the Foothills Library, and the security camera systems at the Foothills Skate Court and WARP X-Court. Equipment Operating Description: Category: Other FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 Annual maintenance/licensing costs of $50,000. The O and M costs will be offset by $30,000 of existing funding used for maintenance of the current system, so this request includes only a $20,000 increase for O and M. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. O and M projected start date: 01/03/2019, One-time O and M before inflationary increases: $50,000, Ongoing annual O and M before inflationary increases: $50,000. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Supplies/Contr $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 434 FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $50,000 $50,000 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail PROJECT DETAIL: 2150-Technology Infrastructure Project: T7073 - City Phone System Replacement (R) Project Description: Capital Costs: Carryover TOTAL FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,500,000 O and M is currently paid for from the Telephone Services Fund, an estimated $130,000 annually may be needed for additional O and M costs starting in FY 2017. Software updates at an estimated cost of $300,000 are also included and may be needed every two to three years. A supplemental will be submitted once the telephone system has been replaced. FY 2013 Equip. Maint. TOTAL FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Project: T7000 - City Fiber Optic Communication (N) Capital Costs: FY 2016 $0 Operating Costs: Project Description: General Fund Funding Source: The current telephone switch will be out of production support in 2016, consequently service and parts will no longer be available. The current vendor Nortel was purchased by Avaya in 2010, the Nortel product the city currently owns will be discontinued in 2016. The telephone switch handles all calls coming into the city and will have a direct impact on every department. Because this is a technology project, scope and cost could change significantly as the actual replacement date approaches. Costs provided at this time are only budgetary for planning purposes. IT/Phone/Security Operating Description: Category: Other FY 2017 $0 $0 FYs 18-22 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 General Fund Funding Source: Installation of conduit and fiber optic cable on arterial streets, and some minor streets, to connect city facilities and the signal system to support traffic operations, city business and the security mesh network. Completing the planned network will eliminate monthly lease fees, which will improve network speeds and allow remote control of signals, cameras and message signs. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 IT/Phone/Security $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $395,625 Engineering Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,770,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,220,625 TOTAL Operating Description: O and M costs associated with electricity ($4,000) for fiber optic communications equipment as well as the maintenance ($44,000) for fiber and the fiber connections per year. The costs above are for FY 2020 through FY 2022 in inflated dollars. A supplemental budget request will be submitted once the project is near completion. Operating Costs: FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,206 Equip. Maint. $0 $0 $0 $0 $167,262 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 435 $182,468 Return to CIP TOC FY 2013-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fund Summary and Project Detail FUND SUMMARY: 1220-Arts Commission FY 2013: Capital Project Expenses Carryover Category: Other FY 2014: FY 2015: FY 2016: FY 2017: FYs 18-22: New Funding New Assets 84650 Arts Commission Sub-Total - New Assets Total Project Expenses: Total FY 2013 Funding: 0 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 750,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 $150,000 PROJECT DETAIL: 1220-Arts Commission Category: Other Project: 84650 - Arts Commission (N) Project Description: Capital Costs: Miscellaneous/Other TOTAL Operating Description: Capital Plan Funding Source: City Council Ordinance No. 1226 created a Municipal Art Fund which provides for the purchase of works of art for public places. The Arts Commission selects the art work that will be purchased and/or commissioned. Carryover FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FYs 18-22 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 Maintenance and restoration of the public art collection is funded in the operating budget. * New Project N=New Asset, R=Replacement of Existing Asset, I=Improvement of Existing Asset 436 Schedules Annual Budget, 2012-2013 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Why Have Schedules? SCHEDULES The budget schedules summarize the City’s financial activities in a comprehensive, numeric format. They are intended to give the reader a glance at the city's financial situation. Schedule 1 is the most comprehensive schedule, offering a summary of all pertinent financial information for all the City’s funds. The reader can readily determine the starting and ending fund balances, transfers in and out, revenues and operating, capital and debt service expenditures for each fund. The remaining schedules provide in-depth detail of budgetary information which is necessary for the smooth operation of the city. All the schedules serve as handy reference materials to City of Glendale employees and to the public. This section includes detailed analyses and reports for the following areas:  Schedule 1 by Category includes major sources of inflows & outflows by category (pg 1)  Schedule 1 by Fund is a summary of the inflows and outflows by fund (pg 2)  Schedule 2 by Category is a multi-year look at revenues all funds combined (pg 6)  Schedule 2 by Fund is a multi-year look at revenues by individual fund (pg 8)  Schedule 3 is a multi-year look at operating expenditures (pg 19)  Schedule 4 is a summary of scheduled inter-fund transfers for the upcoming FY (pg 40)  Schedule 5 is an analysis of the current and proposed property tax levy & rate (pg 41)  Schedule 6 is a multi-year listing of departmental authorized staffing by position (pg 42)  Schedule 7 - Summary is a multi-year look at long-term debt service obligations (pg 76)  Schedule 7 - Detail is a look at each individual long-term debt service obligation (pg 82)  Schedule 8 is a multi-year look at payment requirements for capital leases (pg 113)  Schedule 9 is a listing of internal services premiums by fund and department (pg 114)  Schedule 10 is a listing of general staff and administrative service charges (pg 122)  Schedule 11 lists department’s operating capital budgets (pg 123)  Schedule 12 lists any carryover savings budgeted by fund and department (pg 125) 437 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES This page left blank intentionally 438 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule One by Category FY 2013 Fund Balance Analysis by Category (All Dollars in Thousands) General Trust Special Revenue Enterprise Internal Service Capital Debt Service Total Revenues and Other Sources Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Interest Income Intergovernmental Licenses and permits Miscellaneous Other financing sources Self insurance premiums Taxes revenue Transfer In Total $31,706 $3,349 $287 $50,346 $9,133 $16,187 $0 $0 $86,890 $21,013 $0 $0 $22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,370 $0 $159 $62,947 $0 $2,573 $0 $0 $39,866 $1,768 $97,792 $0 $86 $10,119 $98 $6,527 $230 $0 $0 $1,402 $0 $0 $37 $0 $0 $60 $0 $25,779 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44 $0 $581 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,863 $0 $0 $659 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,404 $37,747 $130,868 $3,349 $1,293 $123,413 $9,813 $25,347 $230 $25,779 $146,159 $89,793 $218,910 $22 $108,683 $116,255 $25,876 $28,489 $57,809 $556,044 $0 $1,124 $20 $0 $18,416 $335 $0 $28,596 $0 $0 $20,517 $80,463 $22,751 $0 $791 $0 $48,788 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,626 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $457 $25,518 $6,856 $0 $20,475 $5,744 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,543 $182 $0 $6,742 $0 $38,214 $215 $35,991 $0 $12,700 $0 $7,500 $24,201 $0 $0 $6,978 $0 $0 $0 $14,323 $0 $47,880 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $26,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,530 $0 $0 $22 $16,892 $0 $11 $0 $0 $0 $2 $5 $0 $1 $0 $1,209 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,815 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,583 $672 $106,163 $6,876 $12,700 $38,913 $39,097 $86,016 $28,606 $26,780 $6,978 $20,517 $113,008 $22,938 $14,323 $7,534 $47,880 $89,793 $221,799 $5,626 $136,731 $149,788 $29,780 $61,671 $63,398 $668,793 Expenditures Capital Outlay Community Environment Community Housing Community Services Contingency Debt Service General Government Internal Services Landfill Other Public Safety Public Works Sanitation Street Maintenance Water and Sewer Transfer Out Total Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenses ($2,889) ($5,605) ($28,048) ($33,533) ($3,904) ($33,182) Beginning Fund Balance ($1,489) $5,605 $55,397 $74,764 $7,142 $33,182 $16,522 $191,123 Ending Fund Balance ($4,378) $0 $27,349 $41,231 $3,238 $0 $10,933 $78,373 439 ($5,589) ($112,749) n to Main TOC 440/441 n to Main TOC 442/443 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Category Summary of Revenues by Category (Includes All Funds) Description FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget City Sales Tax $92,717,126 $86,198,143 $81,252,484 $109,634,784 Grants $22,650,788 $20,199,269 $21,710,145 $56,815,963 Water Revenues $42,393,912 $44,858,419 $46,740,078 $44,368,174 Sewer Revenue $28,662,682 $32,301,341 $31,006,477 $31,853,906 State Income Tax $31,292,382 $23,590,445 $19,336,210 $23,156,962 Miscellaneous $21,902,931 $24,629,678 $13,697,100 $22,148,896 Property Tax $33,311,218 $27,487,743 $20,937,987 $21,835,958 Internal Charges $17,972,244 $19,360,325 $19,270,833 $19,641,433 State Shared Sales Tax $17,786,351 $18,438,079 $18,337,894 $18,958,462 $7,062,029 $14,297,367 $14,511,829 City Sales Tax - PS .4 City Contributions $14,273,336 $12,643,745 $13,479,264 $13,673,500 Highway User Revenues $13,774,184 $13,843,424 $10,550,000 $12,759,293 Residential Sanitiation $10,299,381 $10,204,897 $10,417,000 $10,412,000 Staff & Adm Chargebacks $8,404,382 $8,404,382 $9,422,382 $9,422,382 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu $8,129,455 $7,917,722 $8,125,685 $7,516,147 Employee Contributions $5,102,408 $4,938,846 $5,114,659 $4,613,000 Retiree Contributions $3,269,747 $3,373,158 $3,263,758 $4,008,000 Commercial Sanitation Frontload $3,561,214 $3,390,512 $3,437,000 $3,500,000 Court Revenue $3,819,749 $3,617,451 $3,219,663 $3,121,197 Recreation Revenue $2,522,757 $2,384,069 $2,404,578 $3,021,528 Tipping Fees $2,758,555 $3,166,154 $2,701,720 $2,812,540 State Forfeitures $3,618,044 $2,208,398 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 Gas/Electric Franchise Fees $2,717,704 $2,705,246 $2,712,050 $2,722,000 Arena Fees $5,414,384 $2,582,842 $2,582,152 $2,629,906 Fire Department Other Fees $1,998,343 $1,890,846 $1,974,000 $2,130,549 Facility Rental Income $2,524,178 $1,956,507 $2,051,512 $2,120,815 Recycling Sales $1,915,090 $2,293,642 $1,890,000 $1,836,000 Cable Franchise Fees $1,468,703 $1,526,340 $1,556,573 $1,547,000 Partner Revenue $1,872,109 $1,210,332 $1,504,155 $1,496,637 Interest $2,813,253 $2,111,907 $1,375,921 $1,283,135 Building Permits $990,838 $1,018,999 $1,071,000 $1,050,000 Security Revenue $939,371 $898,168 $920,661 $921,549 Plan Check Fees $598,611 $609,078 $735,000 $735,000 444 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Category Summary of Revenues by Category (Includes All Funds) Description FY 2010 Actual LTAF - Lottery $599,909 Sales Tax Licenses $585,970 Right-of-Way Permits FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $665,234 $665,234 $632,273 $650,000 $655,950 $593,237 $580,039 $630,000 $630,000 $1,093,288 $819,511 $670,876 $581,405 City Property Rental $544,001 $520,742 $466,876 $520,947 Commercial Sanitation Rolloff $667,608 $610,416 $475,000 $500,000 Library Fines/Fees $488,922 $376,097 $352,322 $478,790 Airport Fees $505,416 $478,074 $439,614 $447,271 Fire Dept CD Fees $360,079 $225,753 $314,000 $397,800 Water Development Impact Fees $708,368 $1,033,130 $500,000 $250,000 Loan Proceeds $3,481,777 $249,877 $242,500 $240,000 Lease Proceeds $1,526,154 $11,761,648 $210,284 $210,200 Liquor Licenses $169,396 $187,430 $200,000 $200,000 Planning/Zoning $186,604 $159,550 $140,000 $182,400 SRP In-Lieu $199,892 $205,133 $181,236 $176,747 Cemetery Revenue $163,309 $200,095 $160,000 $160,000 Transit Revenue $129,626 $129,659 $129,561 $129,750 Bus./Prof. Licenses $108,740 $117,368 $110,000 $110,000 Engineering Plan Check Revenue $122,222 $104,267 $105,000 $105,000 Sewer Development Impact Fees $231,582 $335,520 $200,000 $100,000 Business Licenses $78,828 $63,297 $80,000 $80,000 Health Care Revenue $56,328 $73,288 $62,824 $65,966 Miscellaneous Bin Service $105,066 $105,173 $86,000 $65,000 Outside City Commercial $17,423 $74,210 $62,600 $60,000 $123,659 $92,277 $60,000 $60,000 Camelback Ranch Rev - Fire $28,674 $36,119 $37,800 $39,000 Equipment Rental $24,061 $29,854 $33,700 $35,500 Federal Forfeitures $28,187 $747 $30,000 $30,000 Traffic Engineering Plan Check $29,247 $22,091 $12,000 $15,000 Development Impact Fees $18,866 $22,750 $14,550 $3,864 $9,156 $7,500 $41,659,534 $25,685,000 $466,115,267 $443,962,680 Development Impact Fees Miscellaneous CD Fees Sanitation Development Impact Fe Bond Proceeds Grand Total : 445 $387,224,785 $466,250,505 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget City Sales Tax $50,540,466 $51,585,904 $51,900,000 $75,050,732 State Income Tax $31,292,382 $23,590,445 $19,336,210 $23,156,962 State Shared Sales Tax $17,786,351 $18,438,079 $18,337,894 $18,958,462 Staff & Adm Chargebacks $7,862,000 $7,862,000 $8,862,000 $8,862,000 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu $8,129,455 $7,917,722 $8,125,685 $7,516,147 Gas/Electric Franchise Fees $2,717,704 $2,705,246 $2,712,050 $2,722,000 Court Revenue $3,477,494 $3,260,799 $2,853,032 $2,710,380 Property Tax $4,170,237 $3,682,783 $2,943,561 $2,582,325 Miscellaneous $2,255,298 $13,484,697 $1,736,270 $2,139,321 Fire Department Other Fees $1,998,343 $1,890,846 $1,974,000 $2,130,549 Recreation Revenue $1,404,981 $1,274,072 $1,231,000 $1,842,628 Cable Franchise Fees $1,468,703 $1,526,340 $1,556,573 $1,547,000 Building Permits $990,838 $1,018,999 $1,071,000 $1,050,000 Plan Check Fees $598,611 $609,078 $735,000 $735,000 Sales Tax Licenses $585,970 $632,273 $650,000 $655,950 Right-of-Way Permits $593,237 $580,039 $630,000 $630,000 Facility Rental Income $257,819 $354,660 $471,502 $471,502 City Property Rental $460,459 $450,926 $406,636 $460,947 Fire Dept CD Fees $360,079 $225,753 $314,000 $397,800 Library Fines/Fees $251,980 $188,171 $171,502 $297,970 $1,224,698 $211,532 $250,000 $250,000 Lease Proceeds $325,335 $11,756,156 $210,200 $210,200 Liquor Licenses $169,396 $187,430 $200,000 $200,000 Planning/Zoning $186,604 $159,550 $140,000 $182,400 Cemetery Revenue $163,309 $200,095 $160,000 $160,000 Bus./Prof. Licenses $108,740 $117,368 $110,000 $110,000 Engineering Plan Check Revenue $122,222 $104,267 $105,000 $105,000 $78,828 $63,297 $80,000 $80,000 $123,659 $92,277 $60,000 $60,000 SRP In-Lieu $28,221 $28,961 $31,236 $26,747 Traffic Engineering Plan Check $29,247 $22,091 $12,000 $15,000 GENERAL FUND GROUP 1000 - General Interest Business Licenses Miscellaneous CD Fees Equipment Rental $25 Fund Total - General: $139,762,691 $154,221,856 $127,376,351 $155,317,022 $7,922,392 $8,261,881 $8,937,427 $8,992,555 1040 - General Services Internal Charges Miscellaneous $3,475 446 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual $7,922,392 $8,265,356 $8,937,427 $8,992,555 $1,007,113 $989,541 $904,272 $944,831 $1,007,113 $989,541 $904,272 $944,831 $2,116,483 $1,996,860 $1,700,280 $1,625,703 $389,277 $247,393 $250,000 $250,000 $39,563 $28,125 $15,902 $16,061 $2,545,323 $2,272,378 $1,966,182 $1,891,764 $1,978,370 $2,042,766 $1,718,550 $2,067,884 Interest $25,248 $20,534 $11,663 $8,973 Miscellaneous $46,484 $2,877 $20,000 $5,000 $2,050,102 $2,066,177 $1,750,213 $2,081,857 $75,054 $76,666 $80,000 $80,000 $75,054 $76,666 $80,000 $80,000 $214,157 $48,477 $91,187 $106,806 $17,881 $7,343 $5,224 $5,276 $232,038 $55,820 $96,411 $112,082 $340,016 $356,560 $366,631 $410,817 $2,256 $1,924 $6,469 $6,483 $37,463 $36,731 $379,735 $395,215 $373,100 $417,300 $236,942 $187,926 $180,820 $180,820 $6,477 $4,391 $3,508 $3,508 $243,419 $192,317 $184,328 $184,328 $36,164 $32,021 $27,500 $27,500 $36,164 $32,021 $27,500 $27,500 Fund Total - General Services: FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 1100 - Telephone Services Internal Charges Fund Total - Telephone Services: 1120 - Vehicle Replacement Internal Charges Miscellaneous Interest Fund Total - Vehicle Replacement: 1140 - PC Replacement Internal Charges Fund Total - PC Replacement: 1190 - Employee Groups Miscellaneous Fund Total - Employee Groups: 1220 - Arts Commission Fund Miscellaneous Interest Fund Total - Arts Commission Fund: 1240 - Court Security/Bonds Court Revenue Interest Miscellaneous Fund Total - Court Security/Bonds: 1260 - Library Library Fines/Fees Miscellaneous Fund Total - Library: 1280 - Youth Sports Complex Recreation Revenue Fund Total - Youth Sports Complex: 447 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 1281 - Stadium Event Operations Security Revenue Miscellaneous Fund Total - Stadium Event Operatio $882,406 $852,452 $375 $1,800 $860,661 $861,549 $882,781 $854,252 $860,661 $861,549 $959,910 $400,684 $379,656 $407,410 $590,684 $379,656 $407,410 1282 - Arena Event Operations Arena Fees Miscellaneous Fund Total - Arena Event Operations: $190,000 $959,910 1283 - CamelbackRanch EventOperations Camelback Ranch Rev - Fire $28,674 $36,119 $37,800 $39,000 Fund Total - CamelbackRanch Event $28,674 $36,119 $37,800 $39,000 Facility Rental Income $234,000 $293,350 $304,000 $323,000 Miscellaneous $106,541 $78,367 $72,300 $91,440 $24,036 $29,854 $33,700 $35,500 $689 $4,496 $300 $500 $365,266 $406,067 $410,300 $450,440 $1,213,365 $1,192,306 $1,227,000 $1,734,520 $1,213,365 $1,192,306 $1,227,000 $1,734,520 City Sales Tax $2,053,856 $2,107,335 $2,174,038 $4,538,356 Arena Fees $4,454,474 $2,182,158 $2,202,496 $2,222,496 $320,545 $222,791 $1,188,313 $1,238,313 $4,755,000 $5,000 $10,319,847 $8,004,165 $102,911 $11,405,000 $102,911 $11,405,000 1740 - Civic Center Equipment Rental Recreation Revenue Fund Total - Civic Center: 1770 - Zanjero Special Revenue City Sales Tax Fund Total - Zanjero Special Revenue 1780 - Arena Special Revenue Facility Rental Income Miscellaneous Fund Total - Arena Special Revenue: $2,845 $4,512,284 $6,831,720 1782 - PFC Special Revenue Fund Miscellaneous Fund Total - PFC Special Revenue Fu 1790 - Stadium City Sales Tax - AZSTA City Sales Tax Fund Total - Stadium City Sales Tax - $1,520,432 $816,388 $1,600,000 $2,399,570 $1,520,432 $816,388 $1,600,000 $2,399,570 1870 - Marketing Self Sust City Sales Tax Miscellaneous $557,507 $409,328 $435,372 448 $407,000 $426,000 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual Facility Rental Income FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $1,193 $436,565 $407,000 $983,507 $1,609,495 $1,210,332 $1,504,155 $1,496,637 $6,657 $825 $1,616,152 $1,211,157 $1,504,155 $1,496,637 $56,328 $73,288 $62,824 $65,966 $56,328 $73,288 $62,824 $65,966 $168,137,987 $178,696,457 $158,607,938 $197,897,003 $1,111,412 $730,983 $773,117 $773,117 $1,111,412 $730,983 $773,117 $773,117 $2,195,198 $0 $500,000 $327,746 $650,000 $100,000 $2,522,944 $650,000 $600,000 $1,684,188 $1,684,188 $1,684,188 $1,684,188 $1,387,429 $2,336,844 Fund Total - Marketing Self Sust: $409,328 2530 - Training Facility Revenue Fund Partner Revenue Miscellaneous Fund Total - Training Facility Revenu 2538 - Glendale Health Center Health Care Revenue Fund Total - Glendale Health Center: TOTAL-GENERAL FUND GROUP SPECIAL REVENUE FUND GROUP 1300 - Home Grant Grants Fund Total - Home Grant: 1310 - Neighborhood Stabilization Pgm Grants $2,237,448 Miscellaneous Fund Total - Neighborhood Stabilizati $2,237,448 1311 - N'hood Stabilization Pgm III Grants Fund Total - N'hood Stabilization Pg 1320 - C.D.B.G. Grants Miscellaneous Fund Total - C.D.B.G.: $2,224,039 $2,167,755 $30,617 $16,803 $2,254,656 $2,184,558 $1,387,429 $2,336,844 $13,774,184 $13,843,424 $10,550,000 $12,759,293 $1,643 $2,130 $13,775,827 $13,845,554 $10,550,000 $12,759,293 $599,909 $665,234 $665,234 $599,909 $665,234 $665,234 1340 - Highway User Gas Tax Highway User Revenues Miscellaneous Fund Total - Highway User Gas Tax: 1640 - Local Transp. Assistance LTAF - Lottery Fund Total - Local Transp. Assistance 449 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 1650 - Transportation Grants Grants $1,200,877 $671,966 $1,134,833 Miscellaneous $5,936,055 $2,000,000 $1,200,877 $671,966 $1,134,833 $7,936,055 $19,488,267 $19,485,621 $20,239,793 $20,862,081 Grants $708,238 $375,465 $589,966 $544,389 Transit Revenue $129,626 $129,659 $129,561 $129,750 Interest $167,644 $131,559 $95,828 $95,000 Miscellaneous $482,170 $2,172,175 $10,640 $10,000 $21,475 $4,697 $5,000 Fund Total - Transportation Grants: 1660 - Transportation Sales Tax City Sales Tax Facility Rental Income Court Revenue $2,239 $92 $20,978,184 $22,316,046 $21,070,485 $21,646,220 $4,708,018 $9,542,823 $9,685,966 $11,939,794 $7,342,698 $2,745,875 $2,999,523 $11,939,794 $12,050,716 $12,288,698 $12,685,489 $2,354,011 $4,754,544 $4,825,863 $5,960,946 $3,667,891 $1,365,778 $1,492,495 $5,960,946 $6,021,902 $6,120,322 $6,318,358 $505,416 $478,074 $439,614 $447,271 Miscellaneous $8,310 $9,501 $11,005 $8,765 Lease Proceeds $11,454 $5,492 $84 $525,180 $493,067 $450,703 $456,036 $1,171,938 $1,542,675 $1,121,803 Fund Total - Transportation Sales Ta 1700 - Police Special Revenue City Sales Tax - PS .4 City Sales Tax Fund Total - Police Special Revenue: 1720 - Fire Special Revenue City Sales Tax - PS .4 City Sales Tax Fund Total - Fire Special Revenue: 1760 - Airport Special Revenue Airport Fees Fund Total - Airport Special Revenue 1820 - CAP Grant Grants Miscellaneous $334,295 $37,628 Fund Total - CAP Grant: $334,295 $1,209,566 $1,542,675 $1,121,803 $65,203 $151,425 $98,278 $174,160 $65,203 $151,425 $98,278 $174,160 $3,894,170 $2,654,000 $4,250,000 $15,800,000 1830 - Emergency Shelter Grants Grants Fund Total - Emergency Shelter Gran 1840 - Grants Grants 450 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual $3,894,170 $2,654,000 $4,250,000 $15,800,000 $1,174,353 $488,550 $1,034,340 $1,786,747 $96,972 $751,550 $1,271,325 $1,240,100 $1,034,340 $1,786,747 $3,618,044 $2,208,398 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $122,301 $95,487 $58,494 $63,529 $28,187 $747 $30,000 $30,000 $30 $75 $3,768,562 $2,304,707 $2,888,494 $2,893,529 $1,080,473 $1,072,930 $1,142,478 $1,144,100 Facility Rental Income $96,161 $104,126 $83,000 $83,000 Miscellaneous $11,460 $7,966 $4,500 $4,500 $1,188,094 $1,185,022 $1,229,978 $1,231,600 $450 $550 $3,300 $6,800 $1,052 $722 $500 $500 $1,502 $1,272 $3,800 $7,300 $72,035 $16,039,242 Fund Total - Grants: FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 1842 - ARRA Stimulus Grants Grants Miscellaneous Fund Total - ARRA Stimulus Grants: 1860 - RICO Funds State Forfeitures Interest Federal Forfeitures Miscellaneous Fund Total - RICO Funds: 1880 - Parks & Recreation Self Sust Recreation Revenue Fund Total - Parks & Recreation Self 1885 - Parks & Recreation Designated Recreation Revenue Interest Fund Total - Parks & Recreation Desi 2120 - Airport Capital Grants Grants Interest $355,511 $2 $1 $355,513 $1 $72,035 $16,039,242 TOTAL-SPECIAL REVENUE FUND GROUP $71,462,897 $69,583,829 $67,894,609 $106,915,215 $29,140,981 $23,804,960 $17,994,426 $19,253,633 Interest $354,536 $675,305 $668,632 $658,552 SRP In-Lieu $171,671 $176,172 $150,000 $150,000 $29,667,188 $24,656,437 $18,813,058 $20,062,185 $1,609,762 $953,313 $88,570 $15,899 Fund Total - Airport Capital Grants: DEBT SERVICE FUND GROUP 1900 - G.O. Bond Debt Service Property Tax Fund Total - G.O. Bond Debt Service: 1940 - M.P.C. Debt Service Facility Rental Income Miscellaneous 451 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual Interest Fund Total - M.P.C. Debt Service: TOTAL-DEBT SERVICE FUND GROUP FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $1 $1,698,333 $969,212 $31,365,521 $25,625,649 $18,813,058 $20,062,185 $11,170 $8,670 $7,108 $7,123 $11,170 $8,670 $7,108 $7,123 $100,735 $57,697 $69,213 $81,867 $2,981 $586 $167 $656 $103,716 $58,283 $69,380 $82,523 CAPITAL FUND GROUP 1270 - G.F. Revenue Oblgs Interest $187 Fund Total - G.F. Revenue Oblgs: $187 1380 - DIF-Library Blds Interest Fund Total - DIF-Library Blds: 1421 - DIF-Fire Protec Fac pre SB1525 Development Impact Fees Interest Fund Total - DIF-Fire Protec Fac pre 1441 - DIF-Police Faciliti pre SB1525 Development Impact Fees $92,096 $55,379 $59,242 $63,886 Interest $10,332 $6,510 $3,735 $3,825 $102,428 $61,889 $62,977 $67,711 $25,590 $41,638 $48,406 $44,096 $912 $897 $832 $925 $26,502 $42,535 $49,238 $45,021 $27,642 $44,690 $50,338 $44,096 $9,186 $7,364 $5,600 $4,568 $36,828 $52,054 $55,938 $48,664 Development Impact Fees $40,690 $66,054 $84,002 $84,376 Interest $21,623 $16,373 $12,738 $12,103 $62,313 $82,427 $96,740 $96,479 $1,879 $1,924 $1,980 $1,569 $63,334 $101,697 $64,377 Fund Total - DIF-Police Faciliti pre S 1461 - DIF-Citywide Parks pre SB1525 Development Impact Fees Interest Fund Total - DIF-Citywide Parks pre 1481 - DIF-Citywide RecFac pre SB1525 Development Impact Fees Interest Fund Total - DIF-Citywide RecFac pr 1501 - DIF-Libraries pre SB1525 Fund Total - DIF-Libraries pre SB152 1521 Interest Development Impact Fees 452 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual Fund Total - : $65,213 FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $103,621 $66,357 $1,569 $9,022 $27,066 $20,442 $20,064 $528 $506 $512 $469 $9,550 $27,572 $20,954 $20,533 1541 - DIF-Parks Dev Zone1 pre SB1525 Development Impact Fees Interest Fund Total - DIF-Parks Dev Zone1 pr 1561 - DIF-Parks Dev Zone2 pre SB1525 Development Impact Fees $9,726 $9,369 $18,210 $14,212 Interest $1,003 $844 $734 $464 $10,729 $10,213 $18,944 $14,676 $4,858 $1,388 $6,191 $7,524 $319 $264 $200 $138 $5,177 $1,652 $6,391 $7,662 $494,038 $292,686 $191,017 $221,284 $28,991 $16,845 $11,198 $5,741 $523,029 $309,531 $202,215 $227,025 $264 $643 $743 $225,557 $121,847 $59,438 $224,869 $122,111 $60,081 $743 Interest $31,851 $3,960 Miscellaneous $77,898 Fund Total - DIF-Parks Dev Zone2 pr 1581 - DIF-Parks Dev Zone3 pre SB1525 Development Impact Fees Interest Fund Total - DIF-Parks Dev Zone3 pr 1601 - DIF-Roadway Improve pre SB1525 Development Impact Fees Interest Fund Total - DIF-Roadway Improve p 1620 - DIF-General Government Interest Development Impact Fees Fund Total - DIF-General Governmen ($688) 1980 - Streets Constr. - 1999 Auth $109,749 $3,960 $4,210 $1,709 $1,390 $1,349 $109,784 $1,709 $1,390 $1,349 ($14,059) $37,542 $2,025 $1,190 Miscellaneous $8,879 $171,280 Bond Proceeds $12,302,816 $2,025 $1,190 Fund Total - Streets Constr. - 1999 Au 2000 - Hurf Street Bonds Interest Miscellaneous Fund Total - Hurf Street Bonds: $105,574 2040 - Public Safety Construction Interest Fund Total - Public Safety Constructi $208,822 $12,297,636 453 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 2060 - Parks Construction Interest ($5,392) Bond Proceeds $8,967,053 Miscellaneous $3,339 Fund Total - Parks Construction: $8,965,000 $9,223 $132 $76 $9,223 $132 $76 $13,899 $894 $444 $13,899 $894 $444 $94,473 $5,531 $2,670 2080 - Gov't Facilities - 1999 Auth Interest ($531) Bond Proceeds $4,526,035 Miscellaneous $1,716 Fund Total - Gov't Facilities - 1999 A $799 $799 $4,527,220 2100 - Economic Dev. Constr-1999 Auth Interest ($4,429) Bond Proceeds $1,785,408 Miscellaneous $13,208 Fund Total - Economic Dev. Constr-1 $1,794,187 2140 - Open Space/Trails Constr-99 Au Interest $799 Fund Total - Open Space/Trails Const $799 2180 - Flood Control Construction Interest $540 Miscellaneous $7,523,801 Bond Proceeds $14,078,222 Fund Total - Flood Control Construct $288,291 $94,473 $21,602,563 $293,822 $2,670 2210 - Transportation Capital Project Interest $45,203 Miscellaneous $26,232 $2,065 Fund Total - Transportation Capital $26,232 $47,268 2536 - Training Facility Capital Proj Partner Revenue Fund Total - Training Facility Capital TOTAL-CAPITAL FUND GROUP $262,614 $262,614 $50,898,531 $1,239,675 $1,014,586 $625,458 $35,829 $27,944 $21,293 $21,505 TRUST FUND GROUP 2280 - Cemetery Perpetual Care Interest 454 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description Fund Total - Cemetery Perpetual Car FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $35,829 $27,944 $21,293 $21,505 $35,829 $27,944 $21,293 $21,505 Water Revenues $42,393,912 $44,858,419 $46,740,078 $44,368,174 Sewer Revenue $28,662,682 $32,301,341 $31,006,477 $31,853,906 Miscellaneous $4,106,249 $1,165,348 $909,839 $1,170,156 Water Development Impact Fees $708,368 $1,033,130 $500,000 $250,000 Sewer Development Impact Fees $231,582 $335,520 $200,000 $100,000 Staff & Adm Chargebacks $168,000 $168,000 $82,000 $82,000 $83,542 $69,816 $60,240 $60,000 $409,810 $546,142 $111,000 $22,000 TOTAL-TRUST FUND GROUP ENTERPRISE FUND GROUP 2360 - Water and Sewer City Property Rental Interest Bond Proceeds Facility Rental Income Loan Proceeds Grants $25,685,000 $5,891 $5,599 $3,231,900 $500 $80,002,436 $106,168,315 $79,609,634 $77,906,236 Tipping Fees $2,758,555 $3,166,154 $2,701,720 $2,812,540 Internal Charges $2,191,865 $2,437,966 $2,358,000 $2,376,000 Recycling Sales $1,915,090 $2,293,642 $1,890,000 $1,836,000 Staff & Adm Chargebacks $327,000 $327,000 $431,000 $431,000 Loan Proceeds $249,877 $249,877 $242,500 $240,000 Miscellaneous $122,456 $110,248 $127,400 $146,400 Interest $157,210 $51,909 $40,000 $50,000 $18,866 $22,750 $14,550 $7,740,919 $8,659,546 $7,805,170 $7,891,940 $10,299,381 $10,204,897 $10,417,000 $10,412,000 $3,561,214 $3,390,512 $3,437,000 $3,500,000 Commercial Sanitation Rolloff $667,608 $610,416 $475,000 $500,000 Internal Charges $158,495 $119,744 $143,000 $150,000 Miscellaneous $216,406 $125,547 $77,249 $97,000 Miscellaneous Bin Service $105,066 $105,173 $86,000 $65,000 Outside City Commercial $17,423 $74,210 $62,600 $60,000 Staff & Adm Chargebacks $47,382 $47,382 $47,382 $47,382 Fund Total - Water and Sewer: 2440 - Landfill Development Impact Fees Fund Total - Landfill: 2480 - Sanitation Residential Sanitiation Commercial Sanitation Frontload 455 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Two by Fund Summary of Revenues Fund Description Interest FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $12,687 $11,248 $4,000 $3,864 $9,156 $7,500 $14,698,285 $14,756,731 $14,835,382 Sanitation Development Impact Fe Lease Proceeds $1,189,365 Fund Total - Sanitation: $16,278,891 $4,000 2500 - Pub Housing Budget Activities Grants $9,679,037 $9,591,989 $9,143,284 $10,119,418 Miscellaneous $4,869,760 $4,828,513 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 Fund Total - Pub Housing Budget Act $14,548,797 $14,420,502 $13,243,284 $14,219,418 TOTAL-ENTERPRISE FUND GROUP $118,571,043 $143,946,648 $115,414,819 $114,852,976 $2,488,937 $2,499,891 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Security Revenue $28,483 $22,858 $30,000 $30,000 Interest $47,020 $21,397 $9,475 $9,569 $2,564,440 $2,544,146 $2,539,475 $2,539,569 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND GROUP 2540 - Risk Management Self Insurance Internal Charges Fund Total - Risk Management Self I 2560 - Workers Comp. Self Insurance Internal Charges $984,458 $984,460 $984,460 Security Revenue $28,482 $22,858 $30,000 $30,000 Interest $15,537 $9,684 $8,761 $8,848 $44,019 $1,017,000 $1,023,221 $1,023,308 $14,273,336 $12,643,745 $13,479,264 $13,673,500 Employee Contributions $5,102,408 $4,938,846 $5,114,659 $4,613,000 Retiree Contributions $3,269,747 $3,373,158 $3,263,758 $4,008,000 $33,363 $22,167 $13,261 $18,786 Internal Charges $108,589 $27,218 $24,844 Miscellaneous $247,557 $276,198 $23,035,000 $21,281,332 $21,895,786 $22,313,286 TOTAL-INTERNAL SERVICE FUND GROUP $25,643,459 $24,842,478 $25,458,482 $25,876,163 $443,962,680 $387,224,785 $466,250,505 Fund Total - Workers Comp. Self Ins 2580 - Benefits Trust Fund City Contributions Interest Fund Total - Benefits Trust Fund: TOTAL - ALL REVENUE : $466,115,267 456 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $2,348,048 $291,665 $2,639,713 $2,384,723 $500,000 $2,884,723 $2,378,306 $1,000,000 $3,378,306 $2,554,970 $500,000 $3,054,970 $392,031 $141,139 $85,772 $618,942 $372,249 $134,634 $111,556 $618,439 $370,864 $133,274 $97,996 $602,134 $412,442 $147,358 $138,941 $698,741 $3,453,731 $3,387,792 $3,353,567 $3,570,321 $262,220 $152,316 $152,316 $971,182 $895,124 $889,395 $1,233,402 $1,047,440 $1,041,711 $278,967 $147,775 $426,742 $274,515 $142,988 $417,503 $267,278 $141,200 $408,478 $268,358 $142,603 $410,961 Marketing and Comm. 10810 Marketing 10820 Tourism 14110 City-Wide Special Events 14115 Audio/Visual 14120 Cable Communications Dept. Total - Marketing and Comm. $1,005,313 $227,385 $283,567 $199,562 $719,690 $2,435,517 $853,849 $215,385 $277,840 $188,922 $666,655 $2,202,651 $852,425 $213,323 $277,523 $188,087 $664,606 $2,195,964 $1,068,890 $231,442 $321,007 $126,289 $619,222 $2,366,850 Group Total - COMMUNICATIONS: $2,862,259 $2,620,154 $2,604,442 $2,777,811 COMMUNITY & ECON DEV GROUP Building Safety 15610 Building Safety $1,976,985 $1,895,038 $1,889,630 $1,795,236 Program Name GENERAL FUND GROUP 1000 - GENERAL CITY ATTORNEY GROUP City Attorney 10610 City Attorney 10615 Outside Legal Fees Dept. Total - City Attorney CITY CLERK GROUP City Clerk 10210 City Clerk 10220 Records Management 10240 Elections Dept. Total - City Clerk CITY COURT GROUP City Court 10410 City Court CITY MANAGER GROUP Admin Svcs Admin. 11210 Administration Services Admin. City Manager 10310 City Manager Group Total - CITY MANAGER: COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Conv./Media/Parking 10890 Convention/Media/Parking 10891 Media Center Operations Dept. Total - Conv./Media/Parking 457 $827,696 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 15620 Development Services Center Dept. Total - Building Safety $363,070 $2,340,055 $425,102 $2,320,140 $393,078 $2,282,708 $361,758 $2,156,994 Economic Development 16010 Economic Development 16025 Business Development Dept. Total - Economic Development $713,484 $3,558,920 $4,272,404 $626,736 $468,583 $1,095,319 $621,995 $785,428 $1,407,423 $773,718 $328,583 $1,102,301 $93,467 $314,618 $353,764 $163,816 $925,665 $96,327 $323,524 $323,844 $126,988 $870,683 $95,505 $320,664 $323,844 $126,988 $867,001 $105,129 $354,377 $256,829 $142,469 $858,804 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $388,000 Group Total - COMMUNITY & ECON DEV: $7,588,124 $4,386,142 $4,657,132 $4,506,099 FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Finance 11310 Finance Administration 11320 Accounting Services 11340 License/Collection Dept. Total - Finance $428,576 $852,193 $697,775 $1,978,544 $531,275 $848,492 $665,368 $2,045,135 $529,766 $847,099 $651,559 $2,028,424 $483,798 $823,627 $722,844 $2,030,269 Lease Pmts/OtherFees 11380 Lease Payments 11390 Merchant Fees 89800 1000 Advisor Fees Dept. Total - Lease Pmts/OtherFees $12,963,406 $280,436 $58,132 $13,301,974 $403,075 $199,687 $90,000 $692,762 $632,758 $199,687 $90,000 $922,445 $1,177,077 $199,687 $90,000 $1,466,764 Management & Budget 11360 Materials Management 11610 Budget & Research 11620 Grants Administration Dept. Total - Management & Budget $395,613 $638,863 $39,011 $1,073,487 $163,126 $622,329 $58,653 $844,108 $163,002 $621,113 $58,609 $842,724 $292,544 $554,290 $65,743 $912,577 Group Total - FINANCIAL SERVICES: $16,354,005 $3,582,005 $3,793,593 $4,409,610 FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 12410 Fire Administration 12421 Fire Special Operations 12422 Fire Operations 12433 Fire Resource Management 12434 Fire Training 12436 Fire Medical Services & Health 12441 Fire Marshal's Office 12444 Fire Community Services 12491 Ambulance Services $1,658,063 $18,234 $17,047,101 $1,996,372 $11,406 $32,787 $826,394 $12,412 $451,597 $1,605,998 $16,293 $17,785,340 $2,070,956 $13,656 $48,983 $812,173 $15,250 $484,004 $1,605,297 $15,478 $17,737,651 $1,899,197 $12,973 $46,546 $809,600 $14,487 $470,107 $1,666,157 $16,293 $19,160,363 $2,078,803 $13,656 $48,983 $813,458 $15,250 $498,294 Program Name Planning 13770 Mapping and Records 15910 Planning Administration 15930 Current Planning 15940 Long-Range Planning & Research Dept. Total - Planning Rebates & Incentives 16210 Rebates & Incentives 458 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $713,102 $436,937 $23,204,405 $736,989 $567,227 $24,156,869 $736,989 $567,227 $23,915,552 $767,633 $581,875 $25,660,765 $190,523 $134,757 $611,008 $332,755 $177,976 $429,994 $287,025 $2,164,038 $121,547 $144,941 $563,541 $315,455 $166,386 $374,781 $259,189 $1,945,840 $120,326 $144,100 $558,751 $314,622 $166,311 $374,707 $289,189 $1,968,006 $132,626 $101,704 $348,246 $364,182 $186,022 $424,728 $163,192 $1,720,700 INTERGOVT. PROGRAMS GROUP Intergovt. Programs 10910 Intergovernmental Programs $711,739 $686,721 $671,875 $640,658 INTERNAL AUDIT GROUP Internal Audit 10710 Internal Audit $278,587 $265,196 $264,741 $291,823 MAYOR & COUNCIL GROUP Council Office 10110 Council Office 10120 Cholla District 10130 Barrel District 10140 Sahuaro District 10150 Cactus District 10160 Yucca District 10170 Ocotillo District Dept. Total - Council Office $513,676 $67,927 $57,731 $55,708 $75,201 $52,058 $78,788 $901,089 $489,998 $104,581 $99,446 $99,264 $99,213 $99,258 $99,223 $1,090,983 $489,998 $74,581 $81,814 $83,858 $85,073 $70,342 $91,002 $976,668 $573,118 $65,705 $63,663 $61,585 $94,143 $97,504 $87,594 $1,043,312 Mayor 10010 Office of the Mayor $341,358 $333,342 $333,342 $362,188 Group Total - MAYOR & COUNCIL: $1,242,447 $1,424,325 $1,310,010 $1,405,500 N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Code Compliance 14410 Code Compliance 15015 Neighborhood Partnership Dept. Total - Code Compliance $1,354,424 $469,600 $1,824,024 $1,295,976 $455,321 $1,751,297 $1,291,146 $453,681 $1,744,827 $1,256,396 $222,099 $1,478,495 $119,600 $129,859 $124,364 $129,859 Program Name 12492 Air-Med & Logistics Ops (HALO) 12521 PS Training Ctr - Fire Dept. Total - Fire Department HR & RISK MGT GROUP Human Resources 11010 Risk Management/Safety 11020 Benefits 11030 Human Resources Administration 11040 Employment Services 11050 Employee Relations 11060 Compensation 11070 Organizational Development Dept. Total - Human Resources Comm. Action Program 14420 CAP Local Match 459 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget Comm. Partnerships 15010 Community Revitalization $317,927 $507,275 $500,483 $363,066 Comm. Services Adm 14510 Comm. Services Admin. $190,064 Community Dev Admin 15510 CD Deputy City Manager $193,523 $186,405 $186,095 $205,473 $2,645,138 $2,574,836 $2,555,769 $2,176,893 $543,453 $765,358 $6,762,632 $644,720 $5,943,273 $27,304 $5,970,577 $5,655,581 $30,302 $5,685,883 $5,601,987 $28,914 $5,630,901 $4,894,769 $329 $4,895,098 $211,873 $235,967 $155,281 $3,453,188 $145,621 $134,598 $848,637 $483,979 $437,573 $65,485 $409,044 $210,294 $296 $140,554 $266,224 $1,547,919 $246,225 $8,992,758 $187,553 $242,779 $174,510 $3,208,114 $139,186 $129,873 $793,122 $484,688 $530,707 $86,276 $392,850 $218,251 $184,761 $240,297 $174,000 $3,103,503 $139,131 $129,188 $775,669 $482,762 $523,811 $85,992 $391,817 $211,529 $175,333 $174,568 $105,439 $3,363,140 $378,753 $72,358 $733,082 $370,526 $420,808 $6,258 $298,557 $140,960 $139,706 $259,807 $1,426,274 $231,126 $8,644,822 $138,790 $253,554 $1,426,274 $230,244 $8,491,322 $0 $273,166 $1,378,645 $92,862 $7,984,455 Group Total - PARKS, REC & LIBRARY: $14,963,335 $14,330,705 $14,122,223 $12,879,553 POLICE SERVICES GROUP Police Department 12110 Police Legal Services 12120 Police Administration 12130 Central Patrol Bureau 12150 Crime Investigations 12160 Police Personnel Management $30,236 $2,807,258 $10,133,990 $8,158,156 $2,243,270 $4,467 $2,377,837 $10,712,033 $8,487,109 $2,232,275 $3,976 $2,364,172 $10,675,151 $8,463,766 $2,229,545 $4,185 $2,393,571 $10,911,821 $9,227,328 $2,114,192 Program Name Group Total - N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS: NON-DEPARTMENTAL GROUP Non-Departmental 11801 Fund 1000 Non-Dept PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Library & Arts 15220 Library 15230 Arts Maintenance - Admin. Dept. Total - Library & Arts Parks & Recreation 13010 Pool Maintenance 13020 Park Irrigation 13030 Parks CIP & Planning 13040 Parks Maintenance 14610 Parks & Recreation Admin. 14620 Glendale Community Center 14630 Recreation Support Services 14640 Adult Center 14650 Youth and Teen 14660 Special Events and Programs 14670 Sports and Health 14680 Aquatics 14690 Audio/Visual 14700 Marketing - Parks & Rec 14710 Park Rangers 14720 Foothills Recreation Center 14760 Historic Sahuaro Ranch Dept. Total - Parks & Recreation 460 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name 12170 Foothills Patrol Bureau 12180 Police Support Services 12210 PD - Fiscal Management 12215 PD - Tow Administration 12220 PD - Detention 12230 PD - Communications 12232 PS Training Ctr - Police 12233 PD - Special Operations 12235 PD - Emergency Management Dept. Total - Police Department PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Engineering 13710 BofA Bank Building 13715 Promenade at Palmaire 13720 Engineering Administration 13730 Design Division 13780 Land Development Division 13790 Construction Inspection 13800 Materials Testing 13820 Utility Inspection Dept. Total - Engineering Field Operations 11370 Materials Control Warehouse 13410 Field Operations Admin. 13420 Cemetery 13430 Manistee Ranch Maintenance 13440 Graffiti Removal 13450 Facilities Management 13460 Custodial Services 13461 Downtown Parking Garage 16040 Downtown Beaut. & Promotion Dept. Total - Field Operations Public Works Admin. 13310 Public Works Administration FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $10,159,045 $1,636,219 $1,874,892 $45,496 $1,298,984 $2,453,224 $436,937 $4,201,675 $737,029 $46,216,411 $10,480,476 $1,330,181 $2,839,755 $44,128 $1,097,144 $2,255,017 $577,227 $4,460,707 $737,610 $47,635,966 $10,452,664 $1,326,422 $2,808,652 $44,093 $1,067,408 $2,232,435 $577,227 $4,434,437 $708,260 $47,388,208 $11,758,912 $1,396,654 $2,837,345 $51,693 $1,219,934 $2,462,604 $581,875 $4,558,932 $428,621 $49,947,667 $238,515 $61,122 $621,151 $284,220 $310,766 $350,707 $219,803 $85,638 $2,171,922 $256,579 $56,400 $584,296 $229,987 $306,881 $412,707 $225,901 $13,622 $2,086,373 $243,750 $53,580 $583,022 $228,249 $305,859 $410,112 $223,686 $13,130 $2,061,388 $256,579 $56,400 $239,119 $26,900 $332,794 $413,204 $231,379 $1,556,375 $283,291 $638,112 $201,437 $5,403 $220,688 $3,867,667 $913,968 $75,690 $262,297 $6,468,553 $279,552 $610,971 $221,401 $5,113 $234,496 $3,774,973 $890,900 $82,859 $242,095 $6,342,360 $278,479 $595,742 $216,249 $4,857 $229,238 $3,639,432 $879,842 $78,729 $238,148 $6,160,716 $217,428 $648,008 $239,082 $5,113 $193,603 $3,452,476 $862,107 $82,859 $152,420 $5,853,096 $126,768 Group Total - PUBLIC WORKS: $8,767,243 $8,428,733 $8,222,104 $7,409,471 TECH. & INNOVATION GROUP Info. Technology 11510 Information Technology $2,986,696 $2,757,188 $2,753,400 $3,495,158 $21,617 $26,845 $21,158 $0 WATER SERVICES GROUP Env. Resources 12910 HazMat Incidence Response 461 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $138,495,285 $123,525,277 $129,386,563 $126,118,156 PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Field Operations 13510 Equipment Management 13520 Fuel Services 13530 Parts Store Operations Dept. Total - Field Operations $3,528,954 $3,401,022 $1,326,662 $8,256,638 $3,810,623 $3,303,029 $1,820,397 $8,934,049 $3,810,623 $3,303,029 $1,820,397 $8,934,049 $3,866,686 $3,303,029 $1,822,840 $8,992,555 Fund Total - GENERAL SERVICES: $8,256,638 $8,934,049 $8,934,049 $8,992,555 TECH. & INNOVATION GROUP Info. Technology 11520 Telephones $792,263 $979,324 $979,324 $981,990 Fund Total - TELEPHONE SERVICES: $792,263 $979,324 $979,324 $981,990 $1,857,539 $3,029,742 $2,582,538 $2,795,693 $1,857,539 $3,029,742 $2,582,538 $2,795,693 $1,405,989 $3,511,584 $2,016,559 $3,166,124 $1,405,989 $3,511,584 $2,016,559 $3,166,124 $11,154 $31,392 $21,277 $54,000 $40,225 $13,775 $30,000 $84,000 Program Name Fund Total - GENERAL: 1040 - GENERAL SERVICES 1100 - TELEPHONE SERVICES 1120 - VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Field Operations 13610 Equipment Replacement Fund Total - VEHICLE REPLACEMENT: 1140 - PC REPLACEMENT TECH. & INNOVATION GROUP Info. Technology 11530 Technology Replacement Fund Total - PC REPLACEMENT: 1190 - EMPLOYEE GROUPS HR & RISK MGT GROUP Employee Groups 11110 GEMS 11120 Diversity Committee 11130 Glendale Hispanic Network 11140 Holiday Event Dept. Total - Employee Groups $63,823 462 $30,000 $84,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name Fund Total - EMPLOYEE GROUPS: FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $63,823 $84,000 $84,000 $20,000 $47,800 $127,787 $127,787 $166,090 $47,800 $127,787 $127,787 $166,090 $270,486 $75,693 $8,193 $354,372 $398,469 $128,391 $57,000 $583,860 $278,357 $127,177 $3,542 $409,076 $471,345 $129,699 $57,000 $658,044 $354,372 $583,860 $409,076 $658,044 $71,731 $65,616 $137,347 $142,223 $105,150 $247,373 $247,305 $155,000 $247,305 $155,000 $137,347 $247,373 $247,305 $155,000 $248,516 $262,000 $186,000 $262,000 $46,031 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $294,547 $322,000 $246,000 $322,000 $101,243 $106,500 $106,500 $25,070 1220 - ARTS COMMISSION FUND PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Library & Arts 15310 Arts Maintenance Fund Total - ARTS COMMISSION FUND: 1240 - COURT SECURITY/BONDS CITY COURT GROUP City Court 10510 Court Security 10520 Court Time Payments 10530 Fill the Gap Dept. Total - City Court Fund Total - COURT SECURITY/BONDS: 1260 - LIBRARY PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Library & Arts 15410 Library Book Fund 15420 Library Special Revenue Dept. Total - Library & Arts Fund Total - LIBRARY: 1280 - YOUTH SPORTS COMPLEX PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Parks & Recreation 13290 YSC - Parks & Rec PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Field Operations 13470 YSC - Facilities Mgt. Fund Total - YOUTH SPORTS COMPLEX: 1281 - STADIUM EVENT OPERATIONS COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Marketing and Comm. 10840 Mkt'g - Stadium Events 463 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 12515 Fire - Fiesta Bowl Event 12520 Stadium - Fire Event Staffing 12555 Fire - BCS Event Dept. Total - Fire Department POLICE SERVICES GROUP Police Department 12231 Stadium - PD Event Staffing 12234 PD - Fiesta Bowl Event 12355 PD - BCS Event Dept. Total - Police Department TRANSPORTATION SVCS GROUP Transportation 16840 Stadium - Transportation Ops. 16845 Transp - Fiesta Bowl Event Dept. Total - Transportation Fund Total - STADIUM EVENT OPERATIONS: FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $45,396 $193,710 $43,919 $283,025 $159,942 $229,886 $159,942 $229,886 $159,942 $229,886 $389,828 $389,828 $389,828 $1,316,787 $308,906 $297,989 $1,923,682 $1,343,947 $401,268 $1,343,947 $401,268 $1,342,031 $401,268 $1,745,215 $1,745,215 $1,743,299 $592,861 $74,165 $667,026 $645,734 $79,942 $725,676 $245,734 $79,942 $325,676 $645,734 $79,942 $725,676 $2,974,976 $2,967,219 $2,567,219 $2,883,873 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $17,000,000 $5,042 $127,226 $132,268 $301,041 $301,041 $301,041 $301,041 $302,336 $302,336 $25,312 $49,966 $49,966 $49,966 $365,167 $838,135 $838,135 $839,752 1282 - ARENA EVENT OPERATIONS FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Finance 11415 Arena Management Fee FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 12489 Westgate - Fire Event Staffing 12490 Arena - Fire Event Staffing Dept. Total - Fire Department PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Right-of-Way 16740 Arena - ROW Maintenance POLICE SERVICES GROUP Police Department 12190 Arena-PD Event Staffing 464 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $25,537,747 $21,204,142 $26,204,142 $18,207,054 $44,892 $28,852 $28,852 $28,852 Fund Total - CAMELBACKRANCH EVENTOPERATIONS $44,892 $28,852 $28,852 $28,852 $751,586 $766,817 $766,817 $687,728 $751,586 $766,817 $766,817 $687,728 Program Name TRANSPORTATION SVCS GROUP Transportation 16830 Arena - Transportation Ops. Fund Total - ARENA EVENT OPERATIONS: 1283 - CAMELBACKRANCH EVENTOPERATIONS FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 12485 CBRanch - Fire Event Staffing 1740 - CIVIC CENTER COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Civic Center 11710 Civic Center Fund Total - CIVIC CENTER: 1780 - ARENA SPECIAL REVENUE FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Finance 11420 Arena Renewal and Replacement Fund Total - ARENA SPECIAL REVENUE: $550,000 $1,117,000 $550,000 $1,117,000 1790 - STADIUM CITY SALES TAX - AZSTA FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Finance 11400 AZSTA - Stadium Tax Refund Fund Total - STADIUM CITY SALES TAX - AZSTA: $1,043,117 $1,745,900 $1,745,900 $2,399,570 $1,043,117 $1,745,900 $1,745,900 $2,399,570 $13,046 $1,217 $21,951 $122,309 $88,828 $5,000 $30,000 $99,000 $75,818 $5,000 $29,500 $99,006 $75,821 $5,000 $448,130 $124,865 $89,268 1870 - MARKETING SELF SUST COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Marketing and Comm. 14301 Audio/Visual - Self Sust. 14310 Tourism - Souvenir Program 14311 Convention & Visitors Bureau 14321 Glitter Spectacular 14322 Enchanted Evening 465 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name 14323 Glitter and Glow 14324 Chocolate Affaire 14325 Jazz Festival 14326 Glitters Light 14327 Other Special Events 14328 Summer Band Dept. Total - Marketing and Comm. Fund Total - MARKETING SELF SUST: FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $94,310 $102,261 $172,404 $152,565 $103,843 $3,435 $876,169 $94,000 $104,000 $158,000 $155,798 $30,000 $1,500 $753,116 $94,005 $104,006 $158,008 $155,798 $30,000 $1,500 $752,644 $95,751 $102,676 $176,408 $154,182 $103,415 $3,435 $1,303,130 $876,169 $753,116 $752,644 $1,303,130 2530 - TRAINING FACILITY REVENUE FUND FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 12590 PS Training Ops - Fire $669,830 $763,314 $735,693 $738,533 POLICE SERVICES GROUP Police Department 12390 PS Training Ops - Police $274,596 $326,041 $313,000 $340,622 PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Field Operations 13480 PS Training Ops - Fac. Mgmt. $434,056 $455,462 $455,462 $417,031 $1,378,482 $1,544,817 $1,504,155 $1,496,186 $29,719 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $29,719 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $184,342,291 $170,959,859 $178,636,930 $171,553,045 $717,558 $1,787,501 $864,126 $773,117 $717,558 $1,787,501 $864,126 $773,117 Fund Total - TRAINING FACILITY REVENUE FUND: 2538 - GLENDALE HEALTH CENTER FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 12711 Glendale Health Center Fund Total - GLENDALE HEALTH CENTER: TOTAL - GENERAL FUND GROUP SPECIAL REVENUE FUND GROUP 1300 - HOME GRANT N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Comm. Partnerships 30001 HOME Program Fund Total - HOME GRANT: 466 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $2,522,944 $2,117,897 $650,000 $600,000 Fund Total - NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PGM: $2,522,944 $2,117,897 $650,000 $600,000 $3,368,377 $1,684,188 $1,684,188 $3,368,377 $1,684,188 $1,684,188 $2,179,261 $3,718,764 $1,394,182 $2,336,844 $2,179,261 $3,718,764 $1,394,182 $2,336,844 PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Right-of-Way 16710 Right-of-Way Maintenance $2,116,833 $2,084,123 $2,021,494 $2,012,694 PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Field Operations 16720 Street Maintenance 16730 Street Cleaning Dept. Total - Field Operations $2,157,952 $19,658 $2,177,610 $2,350,017 $2,320,529 $1,043,221 $2,350,017 $2,320,529 $1,043,221 TRANSPORTATION SVCS GROUP Transportation 16810 Traffic Signals 16820 Signs & Markings 16910 Transportation Administration 16920 Street Light Management 16940 Traffic Studies 16950 Traffic Design and Development Dept. Total - Transportation $809,407 $675,864 $332,524 $1,595,630 $327,547 $296,318 $4,037,290 $800,256 $646,465 $296,918 $1,403,390 $345,690 $290,717 $3,783,436 $780,775 $635,324 $296,299 $1,333,435 $344,965 $290,332 $3,681,130 $807,393 $677,854 $228,796 $1,408,390 $385,951 $178,043 $3,686,427 FY 2011 Actual Program Name 1310 - NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PGM N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Comm. Partnerships 30900 NSP Programs 1311 - N'HOOD STABILIZATION PGM III N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Comm. Partnerships 30910 NSP III Fund Total - N'HOOD STABILIZATION PGM III: 1320 - C.D.B.G. N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Comm. Partnerships 31001 CDBG Programs Fund Total - C.D.B.G.: 1340 - HIGHWAY USER GAS TAX 467 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name Fund Total - HIGHWAY USER GAS TAX: FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $8,331,733 $8,217,576 $8,023,153 $6,742,342 $212,971 $44,670 $45,172 $118,466 $35,541 $456,820 1650 - TRANSPORTATION GRANTS TRANSPORTATION SVCS GROUP Transportation 37200 Grant Approp - Transportation 37201 JARC - GUS 1 & 2 37202 New Freedom - GUS 3 37203 New Freedom-Bus Buddies BAG IT 37204 New Freedom-Taxi Subsidy Prog. 37205 JARC - Route 60 37206 HSIP Ped Countdown Signals Dept. Total - Transportation Fund Total - TRANSPORTATION GRANTS: $768,765 $299,602 $103,340 $54,716 $99,913 $557,571 $768,765 $152,672 $60,144 $26,407 $51,470 $260,582 $19,659 $570,934 $557,571 $768,765 $570,934 $456,820 $2,248,365 $171,535 $286,768 $2,260,161 $3,610,747 $22,775 $467,380 $84,005 $136,916 $9,288,652 $2,313,072 $226,075 $339,875 $2,449,479 $5,175,488 $42,000 $600,342 $580,336 $113,893 $11,840,560 $2,313,072 $226,075 $339,875 $2,551,025 $5,073,942 $42,000 $600,342 $480,336 $113,893 $11,740,560 $2,407,844 $229,122 $350,442 $2,499,516 $5,133,488 $42,000 $613,532 $432,681 $113,893 $11,822,518 $9,288,652 $11,840,560 $11,740,560 $11,822,518 $9,772,978 $14,173,737 $11,318,444 $14,240,490 $9,772,978 $14,173,737 $11,318,444 $14,240,490 $6,659,567 $6,395,637 $7,171,125 $6,559,036 1660 - TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX TRANSPORTATION SVCS GROUP Transportation 16510 Transportation Program Mgmt 16520 Transportation Education 16525 Transit Management 16530 Dial-A-Ride 16540 Fixed Route 16550 Demand Management 16570 Intelligent Transportation Sys 16580 Traffic Mitigation 16590 Transportation CIP O&M Dept. Total - Transportation Fund Total - TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX: 1700 - POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE POLICE SERVICES GROUP Police Department 12310 Patrol - Special Revenue Fund Fund Total - POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE: 1720 - FIRE SPECIAL REVENUE FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 12610 Fire - Special Revenue Fund 468 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $6,659,567 $6,395,637 $7,171,125 $6,559,036 $523,990 $527,326 $527,326 $600,451 $523,990 $527,326 $527,326 $600,451 $720,721 $790,705 $621,847 $179,549 $45,000 $212,425 $1,567 $3,849 $3,711 $234,348 $8,995 $1,287 $8,303 $10,437 $790,705 $90,718 $51,568 $56,647 $5,341 $45,000 $179,549 $3,135 $3,919 $265,153 $10,136 $5,000 $36,732 $59,441 $265,153 $1,247,075 $1,603,044 $1,287,197 $289,549 $10,136 $5,000 $36,732 $63,441 $1,500 $1,287,197 $1,247,075 $1,603,044 $1,287,197 $1,287,197 Program Name Fund Total - FIRE SPECIAL REVENUE: 1760 - AIRPORT SPECIAL REVENUE TRANSPORTATION SVCS GROUP Airport 16410 Airport Operations Fund Total - AIRPORT SPECIAL REVENUE: 1820 - CAP GRANT N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Comm. Action Program 32050 Case Mgmt-LIHEAP Voucher 32051 CM-LIHEAP Voucher Contingency 32052 Case Mgt-LIHEAP Administration 32053 Case Mgt-LIHEAP A16 Admin 32054 CM-LIHEAP Admin Contingency 32055 Case Mgmt-TANF Voucher 32056 Case Mgmt Admin 32057 Case Mgmt-NHN Voucher 32058 Case Mgmt-Qwest Admin 32059 Case Mgmt-SSBG Admin. 32060 Community Svcs Block Grant-Adm 32070 ACAA HEAF Program 32071 ACAA SW Gas Assistance 32072 ACAA URRD Program 32073 ACAA SRP Assistance 32074 ACAA APS Assistance Dept. Total - Comm. Action Program Fund Total - CAP GRANT: $52,372 $56,367 $5,972 $44,914 $95,799 $5,000 $46,790 1830 - EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Comm. Partnerships 31900 ESG General Administration 31902 Central AZ Shelter Srvs-ESG 31903 Homeward Bound-ESG 31904 PREHAB Faith House-ESG 31905 U-Mom Dept. Total - Comm. Partnerships Fund Total - EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS: $4,737 $51,732 $20,057 $74,899 $174,160 $151,425 $98,278 $98,278 $98,278 $98,278 $0 $174,160 $151,425 $98,278 $98,278 $174,160 469 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate CITY COURT GROUP Grants 32136 DV Pilot Project Grant $182,281 $68,219 $68,219 FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 34001 Grant Approp - Fire Dept $956,462 $4,500,000 $1,100,000 $3,500,000 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS GROUP Grants 32118 Miscellaneous Grants $275,453 $8,626,542 $650,000 $4,960,603 PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Library & Arts 36006 Grant Approp - Library $91,477 $550,000 $60,000 $275,000 Parks & Recreation 35004 Grant Approp - Parks & Rec $146,005 $550,000 $60,000 $275,000 $237,482 $1,100,000 $120,000 $550,000 $75,997 $81,766 $1,466,782 $1,624,545 $104,752 $95,482 $4,500,000 $4,700,234 $104,752 $95,482 $1,750,000 $1,950,234 $93,472 $102,317 $3,500,000 $3,695,789 Program Name FY 2013 Budget 1840 - GRANTS Group Total - PARKS, REC & LIBRARY: POLICE SERVICES GROUP Police Department 33002 Victim Rights - PD 33018 VOCA 33021 Grant Approp - Police Dept Dept. Total - Police Department WATER SERVICES GROUP Env. Resources 36504 Smart Landscapes Fund Total - GRANTS: $1,806 $63,000 $3,278,029 $18,994,995 $3,951,453 $12,706,392 $4,212 $87,599 $1,662 $29,259 $24,223 $218,026 $22,697 $57,225 1842 - ARRA STIMULUS GRANTS COMMUNITY & ECON DEV GROUP Grants 37065 Build Safe Engy Prog Enhance FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Grants 37068 Program Manager 470 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name FY 2011 Actual FIRE SERVICES GROUP Fire Department 37110 PSSP Fire OT Grant N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Comm. Action Program 37130 ADOH HPRP-Fin Assist 37131 ADOH HPRP-RR Assist 37132 ADOH HPRP-Housing Reloc SS 37133 ADOH HPRP-RR HR SS 37134 ADOH HPRP-Admin 37135 ADOH HPRP-Data Collection Dept. Total - Comm. Action Program Comm. Partnerships 37020 Homeless Prevention HPRP 37021 CDBG-R 37022 CDBG-R Visual Improv 37023 CDBG-R Floralcroft Neigh 37025 CDBG-R Public Hous Lamar H Dept. Total - Comm. Partnerships FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate $75,000 $75,000 $40,738 $13,401 $624 $200,122 $39,417 $358 $5,634 $12,185 $2,816 $260,532 $2,312 $57,075 $359,178 $1,698 $53,207 $1,119 $49,532 $464,734 FY 2013 Budget $60,000 $44,314 $60,000 $60,000 $44,314 $60,000 Group Total - N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS: $521,809 PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Grants 37063 Sports Courts Lighting Retrofi 37064 Main Library Lighting 37070 AzPAC Project AZ ARRA BTOP 1 37075 Solar Parks Lighting Dept. Total - Grants $65,528 $287,101 $9,966 $75,000 $136,831 $4,079 $64,350 $0 $0 $362,595 $211,831 $0 $68,429 $165,079 $165,079 $59,540 $32,000 $19,409 $9,051 $25,977 $67,406 $50,103 $17,335 $93,383 $75,000 $84,742 $740,863 $900,605 $67,438 $652,566 $652,566 $152,923 $932,605 $86,847 $661,617 $35,352 $57,571 $31,296 $5,308 POLICE SERVICES GROUP Grants 37062 Public Safety/Court Lighting Police Department 37000 PSSP Police OT Grant 37001 Stop Violence - Women 37002 JAG Recovery Act Dept. Total - Police Department Group Total - POLICE SERVICES: PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Grants 37071 Equip Mgmt Facility Lighting 37072 GMOC Parking Garage Lighting 471 $304,846 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $64,000 $10,000 $166,923 $0 $36,604 $42,790 $0 $0 37073 Downtown Parking Garage Light 37074 MRF Lighting Retrofit Dept. Total - Grants TRANSPORTATION SVCS GROUP Grants 37066 Traffic Signal LED Conversion $45,010 Transportation 37090 Old Roma Alley ARRA Grant $305,319 Group Total - TRANSPORTATION SVCS: $350,329 $42,790 $0 $0 WATER SERVICES GROUP Grants 37060 ARWRF Facility UV System Imp 37061 Well 43 Variable Drive Retrofi 37067 Energy Matters Public Educat Dept. Total - Grants $102,846 $13,645 $54,223 $170,714 $806,000 $75,000 $162,906 $1,043,906 $76,355 $6,885 $43,794 $127,034 $806,799 $76,970 $73,771 $957,540 $1,586,805 $2,671,757 $853,438 $1,967,324 $248 $2,306,936 $2,307,184 $225,000 $3,670,053 $3,895,053 $225,000 $3,670,053 $3,895,053 $225,000 $3,670,270 $3,895,270 $2,307,184 $3,895,053 $3,895,053 $3,895,270 $15,000 $15,360 $117,000 $254,893 $228,364 $312,584 $34,999 $15,000 $15,360 $117,000 $254,893 $228,364 $312,584 $34,999 $20,360 $117,000 $322,199 $300,149 $321,375 $54,999 $90,001 $0 $5,000 $1,073,201 $90,001 $0 $5,000 $1,073,201 Fund Total - ARRA STIMULUS GRANTS: 1860 - RICO FUNDS POLICE SERVICES GROUP Police Department 32020 Federal RICO 32030 State RICO Dept. Total - Police Department Fund Total - RICO FUNDS: 1880 - PARKS & RECREATION SELF SUST PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Parks & Recreation 14810 Recreation Self-Sustaining 14820 Rec Self Sust-Administration 14825 Adult Center Self Sustaining 14830 Rec Self Sust-Foothills Rec 14840 Sports Self Sustaining 14850 Youth and Teen Self Sustaining 14860 SRPHA Sahuaro Ranch Hist 14870 Rec Self Sust-Audio/Visual 14890 Aquatic Self Sustaining 14891 GESD-Reimb Division 14892 Glendale Community Center Dept. Total - Parks & Recreation $17,964 $157,953 $308,481 $218,350 $239,257 $55,383 $754 $135,508 $13,328 $955 $1,147,933 472 $90,001 $5,000 $1,231,083 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name Fund Total - PARKS & RECREATION SELF SUST: FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $1,147,933 $1,073,201 $1,073,201 $1,231,083 1885 - PARKS & RECREATION DESIGNATED PARKS, REC & LIBRARY GROUP Parks & Recreation 13110 O'Neil Park Maintenance 13120 Apollo Pool Repair 13130 Cardinal Pool Repair 13135 City-Wide Aquatics 13140 Cactus Pool Repair 13160 Ironwood Pool Repair 13170 Dedicate A Tree 13180 Desert Valley Park 13190 GESD ES Ballfields 13210 Desert Mirage Park 13220 Desert Gardens Park 13230 Discovery Park 13234 Ironwood HS Light 13235 Elsie McCarthy Pk. Maint Dept. Total - Parks & Recreation $5,500 $6,669 $26,289 $4,800 $19,000 $19,000 $30,142 $108,292 $664 $13,266 $204,395 $20,000 $30,200 $5,000 $2,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $5,000 $44,038 $177,038 $18,883 $27,734 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $8,383 $60,000 $32,000 $20,000 $30,200 $5,000 $8,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $5,000 $44,038 $177,038 $204,395 $177,038 $60,000 $177,038 $50,477,100 $81,429,506 $55,162,658 $67,254,270 $152 $6,066 $6,066 $152 $6,066 $6,066 FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89807 2000 Advisor Fees $1,030 $1,030 Fund Total - HURF STREET BONDS: $1,030 $1,030 Fund Total - PARKS & RECREATION DESIGNATED: TOTAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUND GROUP $2,489 $11,084 $4,800 CAPITAL FUND GROUP 1980 - STREETS CONSTR. - 1999 AUTH FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89802 1980 Advisor Fees Fund Total - STREETS CONSTR. - 1999 AUTH: 2000 - HURF STREET BONDS 473 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $1,824 $2,000 $1,701 $2,000 $1,824 $2,000 $1,701 $2,000 $459 $6,857 $107 $6,857 $459 $6,857 $107 $6,857 $59 $2,000 $3,734 $59 $2,000 $3,734 2040 - PUBLIC SAFETY CONSTRUCTION FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89806 2040 Advisor Fees Fund Total - PUBLIC SAFETY CONSTRUCTION: 2060 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89804 2060 Advisor Fees Fund Total - PARKS CONSTRUCTION: 2080 - GOV'T FACILITIES - 1999 AUTH FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89814 2080 Advisor Fees Fund Total - GOV'T FACILITIES - 1999 AUTH: 2100 - ECONOMIC DEV. CONSTR-1999 AUTH FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89815 2100 Advisor Fees $586 $2,000 $725 $2,000 $586 $2,000 $725 $2,000 $4,285 $5,213 $4,640 $5,213 $4,285 $5,213 $4,640 $5,213 $13,568 $13,568 $13,568 Fund Total - ECONOMIC DEV. CONSTR-1999 AUTH: 2180 - FLOOD CONTROL CONSTRUCTION FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89808 2180 Advisor Fees Fund Total - FLOOD CONTROL CONSTRUCTION: 2210 - TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89813 2210 Advisor Fees $4,226 474 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $4,226 $13,568 $13,568 $13,568 $11,591 $38,734 $20,741 $40,468 $248,236 $225,125 $225,125 $232,134 $2,382,145 $2,963,088 $2,953,965 $2,957,838 $3,289 $17,222 $17,514 $38,025 $3,289 $17,222 $17,514 $38,025 $3,289 $17,222 $17,514 $38,025 Fund Total - TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT: TOTAL - CAPITAL FUND GROUP ENTERPRISE FUND GROUP 2360 - WATER COMMUNITY & ECON DEV GROUP Building Safety 17510 Cross Connection Control FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Finance 17020 Customer Service Office Lease Pmts/OtherFees 89805 2360 Advisor Fees 89809 2400 Advisor Fees 89810 2420 Advisor Fees Dept. Total - Lease Pmts/OtherFees Group Total - FINANCIAL SERVICES: $2,382,145 $3,001,113 $2,991,990 $2,995,863 WATER SERVICES GROUP Env. Resources 17010 Environmental Resources 17410 Water Conservation 17420 Water Quality Dept. Total - Env. Resources $427,841 $261,132 $1,047,122 $1,736,095 $537,929 $315,811 $1,155,382 $2,009,122 $533,108 $315,811 $1,155,382 $2,004,301 $555,056 $320,366 $1,172,199 $2,047,621 $6,231,267 $110,529 $936,204 $144,416 $489,114 $99,066 $2,202,163 $3,104,923 $982,650 $193,119 $2,924,438 $1,068,103 $1,558,089 $2,547,719 $414,709 $3,127,553 $967,558 $6,433,504 $6,433,504 $6,605,952 $1,071,445 $221,824 $771,316 $87,000 $2,106,685 $3,560,668 $1,186,886 $195,269 $3,382,182 $1,312,765 $1,712,457 $3,459,182 $706,057 $3,424,134 $1,208,990 $1,071,445 $221,824 $771,316 $87,000 $2,106,685 $3,560,668 $1,186,886 $195,269 $3,382,182 $1,312,765 $1,712,457 $3,459,182 $706,057 $3,379,303 $1,208,990 $1,086,755 $284,838 $783,306 $87,000 $2,107,164 $3,681,280 $1,203,551 $189,209 $3,382,182 $1,328,441 $1,785,133 $3,529,249 $641,250 $3,234,945 $1,218,679 Utilities 17110 17115 17120 17130 17140 17150 17160 17170 17210 17220 17230 17240 17250 17260 17280 17290 17300 Utilities Administration Safety Administration Information Management Public Service Representatives System Security Property Management Arrowhead Reclamation Plant West Area Plant Customer Service - Field Irrigation Raw Water Usage Central System Control Pyramid Peak Plant Cholla Treatment Plant Central System Maintenance Water Distribution Meter Maintenance 475 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund Program Name FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget 17310 Oasis Surface WTP 17320 Oasis Groundwater WTP 17610 Pretreatment Program 17620 SROG (91st Ave) Plant 17625 99th Avenue Interceptor 17630 Wastewater Collection 17699 Storm Water Dept. Total - Utilities $3,013,452 $4,104,326 $4,104,326 $386,938 $3,059,821 $125,091 $2,417,132 $10,219 $36,114,273 $526,731 $3,700,000 $200,000 $3,182,901 $526,731 $3,700,000 $200,000 $3,062,989 $42,554,322 $42,389,579 $3,392,105 $615,000 $502,157 $3,700,000 $200,000 $3,046,172 $214,788 $42,819,156 Group Total - WATER SERVICES: $37,850,368 $44,563,444 $44,393,880 $44,866,777 $40,480,749 $47,789,682 $47,610,995 $48,094,774 $3,083,833 $167,069 $786,109 $799,421 $1,581,374 $6,417,806 $3,162,699 $169,400 $808,184 $937,523 $2,021,336 $7,099,142 $3,162,699 $214,400 $808,184 $869,055 $1,865,984 $6,920,322 $3,141,897 $169,400 $939,366 $886,721 $1,840,955 $6,978,339 $6,417,806 $7,099,142 $6,920,322 $6,978,339 $701,899 $3,179,287 $6,633,953 $2,629,358 $13,144,497 $795,098 $3,435,176 $7,548,223 $2,802,234 $14,580,731 $763,486 $3,370,982 $7,548,223 $2,795,495 $14,478,186 $753,209 $3,331,312 $7,410,232 $2,828,556 $14,323,309 $13,144,497 $14,580,731 $14,478,186 $14,323,309 $1,584,974 $12,609,126 $12,609,126 $12,700,110 $1,584,974 $12,609,126 $12,609,126 $12,700,110 $61,628,026 $82,078,681 $81,618,629 $82,096,532 Fund Total - WATER: 2440 - LANDFILL PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Field Operations 17710 Landfill 17720 Gas Management System 17730 Solid Waste Admin 17740 Recycling 17750 MRF Operations Dept. Total - Field Operations Fund Total - LANDFILL: 2480 - SANITATION PUBLIC WORKS GROUP Field Operations 17810 Sanitation Roll-off 17820 Sanitation Frontload 17830 Curb Service 17840 Residential-Loose Trash Collec Dept. Total - Field Operations Fund Total - SANITATION: 2500 - PUB HOUSING BUDGET ACTIVITIES N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS GROUP Comm. Partnerships 17910 Community Housing Fund Total - PUB HOUSING BUDGET ACTIVITIES: TOTAL - ENTERPRISE FUND GROUP 476 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Three Operating Budget by Program and Fund FY 2012 Budget FY 2012 Estimate FY 2013 Budget $2,482,031 $3,068,438 $2,332,447 $3,024,506 Fund Total - RISK MANAGEMENT SELF INSURANCE: $2,482,031 $3,068,438 $2,332,447 $3,024,506 $1,029,553 $1,407,000 $1,907,000 $1,407,000 $1,029,553 $1,407,000 $1,907,000 $1,407,000 $22,545,070 $23,117,869 $23,117,869 $22,348,826 $22,545,070 $23,117,869 $23,117,869 $22,348,826 $26,056,654 $27,593,307 $27,357,316 $26,780,332 $322,515,662 $362,100,087 $342,796,274 $347,724,647 Program Name FY 2011 Actual INTERNAL SERVICE FUND GROUP 2540 - RISK MANAGEMENT SELF INSURANCE HR & RISK MGT GROUP Human Resources 18010 Risk Mgmt Trust Fund 2560 - WORKERS COMP. SELF INSURANCE HR & RISK MGT GROUP Human Resources 18110 Worker's Compensation Fund Total - WORKERS COMP. SELF INSURANCE: 2580 - BENEFITS TRUST FUND HR & RISK MGT GROUP Human Resources 18210 Benefit Programs Fund Total - BENEFITS TRUST FUND: TOTAL - INTERNAL SERVICE FUND GROUP TOTAL - OPERATING BUDGET 477 Return to Main TOC 478 Return to Main TOC 479 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT City Attorney - 151 10610 City Attorney Asst City Attorney Asst City Prosecutor City Attorney City Prosecutor Dep City Attorney Exec Legal Asst Legal Asst Mgmt Asst to the City Attorney Public Safety Staff Attorney Secretary Sr Secretary Victim Assistance Caseworker Fund 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 3 8 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 3 9 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 3 7 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 7 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 5 1 2 6 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 28 28 26 27 25 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 6 6 6 6 6 CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT TOTAL: CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT City Clerk - 121 10210 City Clerk City Clerk Dep City Clerk Mgmt Aide Secretary Sr Secretary City Clerk Division Total: 10220 Records Management Records Mgmt Asst Records Supv Records Management Division Total: CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT TOTAL: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 CITY COURT DEPARTMENT *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 480 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title CITY COURT DEPARTMENT City Court - 141 10410 City Court Account Spec II City Judge Coll Rep Court Accounting Supv Court Admin Court Clerk I Court Clerk II Court Clerk III Court Hearing Officer Court Interpreter Court Supv Dep Court Admin Judicial Asst Police Officer Presiding City Judge Sr Secretary City Court Division Total: 10510 Court Security Mgmt Asst Police Officer Court Security Division Total: 10520 Court Time Payments Court Clerk II City Court - 141 Rollup Total: Grants - 470 32136 DV Pilot Project Grant Mgmt Asst Fund 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 2 1 1 1 3 27 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 50 1 2 1 1 1 3 25 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 48 1 2 1 1 1 3 23.2 2 1 1.75 1 1 2 1 0.8 42.75 1 2 1 1 1 3 23.2 2 1 1.75 1 1 1 0.8 40.75 1 2 1 1 1 20.2 2 1 1.75 3 1 1 1 0.8 37.75 1240 1240 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1240 51 49 1 44.75 1 42.75 1 40.75 1840 1 1 1 1 - 52 50 45.75 43.75 40.75 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 5 CITY COURT DEPARTMENT TOTAL: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT City Manager - 131 10310 City Manager Asst City Mgr City Mgr City Mgr Relations Dir Exec Administrative Asst Mgmt Asst Mgmt Asst II Mgmt Asst to the City Mgr Sr Mgmt Asst City Manager Division Total: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 481 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT Fac & Fin Mgmt - 210 11220 Facilities & Financial Mgmt Dep City Mgr Sr Mgmt Asst Facilities & Financial Mgmt Division Total: Admin Svcs Admin. - 220 11210 Administration Services Admin. Dep City Mgr Exec Administrative Asst Exec Administrative Asst II Sr Mgmt Asst Administration Services Admin. Division Fund 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 - - - 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 - 15 15 11 9 5 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 14 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 11 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 0.5 1 1 1 3.5 0.5 1 1 1 3.5 0.5 1 1 1 3.5 0.5 1 1 2.5 0.5 1 1 2.5 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT TOTAL: COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT Marketing and Comm. - 154 10810 Marketing Asst Dep City Mgr Comm Dir Comm Exec Dir Creative Designer Creative Services Mgr Customer Assistance Rep Dep Comm Dir Economic Development Admin Exec Comm Dir Marketing & Comm Coord Marketing & Comm Mgr Marketing & Comm Prog Mgr Mgmt Asst Sr Marketing & Comm Mgr Sr Secretary Web Content Program Mgr Marketing Division Total: 10820 Tourism Customer Assistance Rep CVB Mgr Dep Comm Dir Tourism Coordinator Tourism Manager Tourism Division Total: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 482 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT Marketing and Comm. - 154 14110 City-Wide Special Events Special Events Coord Special Events Division Mgr Special Events Program Manager City-Wide Special Events Division Total: 14115 Audio/Visual Audio/Visual Coordinator Audio/Visual Network Spec Media Production Spec Audio/Visual Division Total: 14120 Cable Communications Cable Media Administrator Media Production Spec Television Exec Prod/Anchor Television Producer/Host Video Production Coord Cable Communications Division Total: Marketing and Comm. - 154 Rollup Total: Conv./Media/Parking - 155 10891 Media Center Operations Chief Broadcast Engineer Civic Center - 431 11710 Civic Center Civic Center Event Coord Civic Center Mgr Civic Center Ops Coord Mgmt Aide Secretary Srvc Worker III (Bldg Maint) Civic Center Division Total: COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT TOTAL: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 0.75 1 2 3.75 1 1 2 4 1000 1000 1000 - - 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 4 7 27.5 1 4 1 1 7 28.5 1 4 1 1 7 26.5 1 4 1 1 7 25.25 1 4 1 6 24.5 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1740 1740 1740 1740 1740 1740 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 5 35.5 36.5 33.5 32.25 30.5 COMMUNITY & ECON DEV DEPARTMENT *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 483 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title COMMUNITY & ECON DEV DEPARTMENT Building Safety - 521 15610 Building Safety Asst Bldg Safety Dir Asst Dep City Mgr Bldg Insp Bldg Insp Spec Bldg Safety Dir Plans Examiner Secretary Sr Bldg Insp Sr Mgmt Asst Sr Plans Examiner Sr Secretary Structural Plans Examiner Building Safety Division Total: 15620 Development Services Center Bldg Safety Mgr Customer Assistance Rep Development Plans Tech Development Srvcs Rep Development Srvcs Supv Sr Development Srvcs Rep Development Services Center Division 15630 Westgate-Bldg Safety Rvw/Insp. Bldg Insp Spec Development Plans Tech Plans Examiner Sr Bldg Insp Westgate-Bldg Safety Rvw/Insp. Division 17510 Cross Connection Control Bldg Insp Secretary Sr Bldg Insp Cross Connection Control Division Total: Building Safety - 521 Rollup Total: Planning - 531 13770 Mapping and Records Engineering Tech II Sr Engineering Tech Mapping and Records Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 4 7 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 26 1 4 7 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 4 4 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 21 1 1 3 4 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 21 1 3 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 18 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 2 2 2 1 2 10 1 2 2 2 1 2 10 1 2 1 2 6 1 2 2 1 6 1 2 1 1 5 1000 1000 1000 1000 9 1 1 1 12 - - - - 2400 2400 2400 1 0.75 1 2.75 50.75 1 0.75 1 2.75 38.75 1 0.75 1 2.75 29.75 1 0.75 1 2.75 29.75 1 0.75 1 2.75 25.75 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 484 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title COMMUNITY & ECON DEV DEPARTMENT Planning - 531 15910 Planning Administration Planning Dir Sr Mgmt Asst Sr Secretary Planning Administration Division Total: 15930 Current Planning Assoc Planner Asst Planning Dir Dep Planning Dir Planner Principal Planner Sr Planner Current Planning Division Total: 15940 Long-Range Planning & Research Dep Planning Dir Planner Planning Tech Sr Planner Long-Range Planning & Research Division Planning - 531 Rollup Total: Economic Development - 540 16010 Economic Development Asst Economic Development Dir Econ Development Admin Asst Economic Development Admin Economic Development Dir Economic Development Spec Mgmt Asst Mgmt Asst II Sr Marketing & Comm Mgr Sr Mgmt Asst Economic Development Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 2 4 10 1 1 2 2 4 10 2 2 2 6 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 4 21 1 1 1 1 4 21 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 10 1 1 2 9 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4 1 1 1 7 4 1 1 6 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 78.75 65.75 46.75 44.75 40.75 COMMUNITY & ECON DEV DEPARTMENT TOTAL: FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 485 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Finance - 221 11310 Finance Administration Account Spec Chief Financial Officer Dep Finance Dir Finance Dir Finance Dir/CFO Financial Administrative Coord Mgmt Asst Office Support Supv Revenue Admin Secretary Sr Secretary Finance Administration Division Total: 11320 Accounting Services Account Spec Account Spec II Accountant I Accountant II Accounting Mgr Office Support Supv Payroll & Accts Payable Supv Payroll Spec Accounting Services Division Total: 11340 License/Collection Coll Rep Reg Licensing & Compl Analyst Sr Applications Analyst Sr Billing & Compliance Spec Tax & License Mgr Tax Auditor License/Collection Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 9 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 4 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 3 5 5 2 1 1 2 19 4 2 5 5 2 1 19 3 2 4 4 2 1 16 2 2 4 4 2 1 15 2 2 3 3 2 1 13 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 2 1 2 1 3 10 1 3 1 2 1 3 11 1 2 1 0.5 1 3 8.5 1 2 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 3 7 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 486 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Finance - 221 17020 Customer Service Office Account Spec Account Spec II Billing & Compliance Spec Billing Supv Business Equip Tech Cashier Coll Rep Customer Relations Supv Duplicating Coord Office Asst Reg Licensing & Compl Analyst Revenue Recovery Supv Secretary Sr Account Spec Sr Billing & Compliance Spec Sr Customer Assistance Rep Customer Service Office Division Total: Finance - 221 Rollup Total: Management & Budget - 241 11360 Materials Management Contract Analyst Contract Spec Materials Mgr Purch & Materials Control Mgr Materials Management Division Total: 11610 Budget & Research Asst Budget Dir Budget Analyst Budget Coord Budget Dir Chief Budget Officer Financial Srvcs Exec Dir Sr Budget Analyst Budget & Research Division Total: 11620 Grants Administration Grants Admin Secretary Sr Mgmt Asst Grants Administration Division Total: Management & Budget - 241 Rollup Total: FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 1 4 7 1 2 6 3 1 1 1 1 5 2.5 35.5 73.5 1 4 7 1 2 6 3 1 1 1 1 5 2.5 35.5 73.5 1 4 7 1 2 6 3 1 1 1 1 5 2.5 35.5 64 1 4 9 1 2 6 2 1 1 4 2 2.5 35.5 63.5 1 4 9 1 2 6 2 1 1 4 2 2.5 35.5 59.5 1000 1000 1000 1000 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 4 2 2 2 1 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 2 1 2 6 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 2 4 1000 1000 1000 1 0.5 1.5 12.5 1 0.5 1.5 12.5 1 1 11 1 1 9 1 1 8 86 86 75 72.5 67.5 FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 487 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fire Department - 331 12410 Fire Administration Asst Fire Chief Dep Fire Chief (40 hrs) Dept Accting & Budget Mgr Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hrs) Fire Budget & Project Mgr Fire Captain (40 Hrs) Fire Captain (52 Hrs) Fire Chief Fire Comm Outreach Coord Fire Fighter (52 Hrs) Fire Finance/Budget Coord Fire Mgmt Analyst Mgmt Aide Mgmt Asst Programs Admin Secretary Sr HR Analyst Sr Secretary Fire Administration Division Total: 12420 Fire Life Safety Services Adm. Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hrs) 12422 Fire Operations Dep Fire Chief (40 hrs) Dep Fire Chief (52 hrs) Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hrs) Fire Battalion Chief (52 Hrs) Fire Captain (40 Hrs) Fire Captain (52 Hrs) Fire Comm Outreach Coord Fire Crisis Response Vol Coord Fire Engineer (40 Hrs) Fire Engineer (52 Hrs) Fire Fighter (40 Hrs) Fire Fighter (52 Hrs) Programs Admin Fire Operations Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 0.5 1 13.5 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.5 17.5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 13 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1000 1 - - - - 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 3 5 49 1 1 44 83 186 3 4 5 2 49 1 1 46 84 195 3 5 8 44 1 1 3 43 4 75 1 188 3 1 4 1 51 1 1 1 46 4 74 1 188 2 1 3 3 5 45 1 1 1 45 5 76 188 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 488 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fire Department - 331 12433 Fire Resource Management Dep Fire Chief (40 hrs) Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hrs) Fire Captain (40 Hrs) Fire Engineer (52 Hrs) Programs Admin Public Safety Tech Srvcs Admin Srvc Worker I Srvc Worker II Sys Analyst Fire Resource Management Division Total: 12434 Fire Training Fire Battalion Chief (52 Hrs) Fire Captain (40 Hrs) Fire Training Division Total: 12436 Fire Medical Services & Health Fire Battalion Chief (52 Hrs) Fire Engineer (52 Hrs) Fire Medical Services & Health Division 12441 Fire Marshal's Office Asst Fire Marshal Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hrs) Fire Insp I Fire Insp II Fire Marshal Fire Protection Engineer I Mgmt Aide Plans Examiner Fire Marshal's Office Division Total: 12444 Fire Community Services Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hrs) Fire Comm Outreach Coord Fire Fighter (52 Hrs) Fire Community Services Division Total: 12490 Arena - Fire Event Staffing Secretary 12491 Ambulance Services Fire Captain (40 Hrs) Fire Captain (52 Hrs) Secretary Sr Secretary Ambulance Services Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1000 1000 1 2 3 - - - - 1000 1000 2 1 3 - - - - 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 12 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 12 1 3 3 1 1 1 10 1 2 5 1 1 10 1 1 5 1 1 9 1000 1000 1000 2 2 1 5 - - - - 1282 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 489 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fire Department - 331 12590 PS Training Ops - Fire Dep Fire Chief (40 hrs) Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hrs) Fire Captain (40 Hrs) Mgmt Aide Mgmt Asst Secretary Srvc Worker II PS Training Ops - Fire Division Total: 12610 Fire - Special Revenue Fund Applications Analyst Comm Sys Tech Customer Assistance Rep Emergency Srvcs Coord Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hrs) Fire Battalion Chief (52 Hrs) Fire Captain (40 Hrs) Fire Captain (52 Hrs) Fire Crisis Response Vol Coord Fire Dept Staff Counselor Fire EMS Coordinator Fire Engineer (40 Hrs) Fire Engineer (52 Hrs) Fire Fighter (40 Hrs) Fire Fighter (52 Hrs) Fire Insp I Fire Insp II Fire Protection Engineer II Mgmt Aide Secretary Shop Maint Coord Srvc Worker III Fire - Special Revenue Fund Division Total: Fire Department - 331 Rollup Total: Fire Department - 333 12492 Air-Med & Logistics Ops (HALO) Fire Engineer (40 Hrs) Fire Fighter (52 Hrs) Mgmt Aide Air-Med & Logistics Ops (HALO) Division FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 2530 2530 2530 2530 2530 2530 2530 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1 1 2 6 1 3 1 4 23 1 1 2 1 1 2 50 289.5 1 1 1 2 5 1 3 1 1 4 23 1 1 2 1 1 1 50 289.5 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 4 3 26 1 2 1 1 51 275 1 1 2 1 5 2 1 1 4 1 27 1 2 1 1 51 277 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 1 1 3 4 24 1 2 1 1 51 273 1000 1000 1000 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 1 2 1 4 293.5 293.5 279 281 277 HR & RISK MGT DEPARTMENT *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 490 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title HR & RISK MGT DEPARTMENT Human Resources - 191 11010 Risk Management/Safety Employee Safety Specialist Loss Control Supervisor Occupational Health Nurse Risk Mgr Risk Mgmt Claims Analyst Worker's Comp Claims Analyst Risk Management/Safety Division Total: 11020 Benefits Employee Benefits Rep HR Generalist Sr Customer Assistance Rep Sr HR Analyst Benefits Division Total: 11030 Human Resources Administration Asst HR Dir HR & Risk Mgmt Dir HR Coord HR Program Mgr HR Technology Analyst Mgmt Asst Sr HR Analyst Sr HR Technology Analyst Human Resources Administration Division 11040 Employment Services Benefits Analyst HR Admin HR Analyst HR Coord HR Generalist HR Program Coord HR Program Mgr Employment Services Division Total: 11050 Employee Relations HR Admin HR Analyst HR Generalist HR Program Mgr HR Tech Sr HR Analyst Employee Relations Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 1 3 1.75 1 2.75 0.25 1 1.25 1 1 2 1 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 0.75 1 3.75 2 1 1 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 0.75 2.75 1 0.75 1 2.75 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 491 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title HR & RISK MGT DEPARTMENT Human Resources - 191 11060 Compensation Dep HR Dir HR Admin HR Coord HR Program Mgr HR Tech Mgmt Asst Sr Customer Assistance Rep Compensation Division Total: 11070 Organizational Development Dep HR Dir Employee Devel Coord HR Generalist HR Program Mgr Sr HR Analyst Organizational Development Division 18010 Risk Mgmt Trust Fund Occ Health & Wellness Nurse Risk & Safety Analyst Risk Mgmt Claims Analyst Risk Mgmt Trust Fund Division Total: Fund 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2.5 1 5.5 1 1 2.5 1 5.5 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 0.75 4.75 1 1 1 1 0.75 4.75 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2540 2540 2540 - - 1 1 0.75 3 3.75 3 3 30 30 21.25 25.5 20.75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 0.5 1 1 2 0.5 1 1 - 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 4.5 4.5 2 2.5 2.5 HR & RISK MGT DEPARTMENT TOTAL: INTERGOVT. PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT Intergovt. Programs - 133 10910 Intergovernmental Programs Dep Intergov Programs Dir Intergov Programs Admin Intergov Programs Dir Legislative Coordinator Mgmt Asst 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 INTERGOVT. PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT TOTAL: INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT Internal Audit - 132 10710 Internal Audit Asst City Auditor City Auditor Compliance/Asset Mgmt Exec Dir Internal Auditor Sr Secretary INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT TOTAL: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 492 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title MAYOR & COUNCIL DEPARTMENT Mayor - 111 10010 Office of the Mayor Asst to the Mayor Exec Administrative Asst II Mayor Mgmt Aide Sr Mgmt Asst Office of the Mayor Division Total: Council Office - 112 10110 Council Office Council Asst Council Srvcs Admin Exec Administrative Asst Secretary Council Office Division Total: 10120 Cholla District Council Member Vice Mayor Cholla District Division Total: 10130 Barrel District Council Member 10140 Sahuaro District Council Member Vice Mayor Sahuaro District Division Total: 10150 Cactus District Council Member 10160 Yucca District Council Member 10170 Ocotillo District Council Member Council Office - 112 Rollup Total: Fund 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1000 1000 1000 1000 4 1 1 1 7 4 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 6 4 1 1 1 7 4 1 2 7 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1 13 1 13 1 12 1 13 1 13 17 17 16 17 17 1 1.5 2 1 1 0.5 7 1 2.5 1 1 1 0.5 7 1 2.5 1 1 1 0.5 7 - - MAYOR & COUNCIL DEPARTMENT TOTAL: N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS DEPARTMENT Comm. Action Program - 171 32040 Community Action Program (CAP) Community Action Program Admin Community Eligibility Rep Community Eligibility Spec Customer Assistance Rep Mgmt Aide Office Asst Community Action Program (CAP) FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1820 1820 1820 1820 1820 1820 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 493 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS DEPARTMENT Comm. Action Program - 171 32056 Case Mgmt Admin Community Eligibility Rep Community Eligibility Spec Case Mgmt Admin Division Total: 32060 Community Svcs Block Grant-Adm Community Action Program Admin Customer Assistance Rep Mgmt Aide Office Asst Community Svcs Block Grant-Adm Comm. Action Program - 171 Rollup Total: Comm. Services Adm - 411 14510 Comm. Services Admin. Dep City Mgr Sr Mgmt Asst Comm. Services Admin. Division Total: Comm. Partnerships - 441 15010 Community Revitalization Dep City Mgr Revitalization Admin Revitalization Grants Supv Community Revitalization Division Total: 17910 Community Housing Account Spec II Accountant I Bldg Maint Leader Bldg Maint Supv Building Maintenance Worker Community Partnerships Dir Housing Assistance Rep Housing Srvcs Admin Housing Supv Mgmt Asst Neighborhood Srvcs Coord Secretary Sr Mgmt Asst Sr Secretary Srvc Worker I (Bldg Maint) Community Housing Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1820 1820 - - - 2.5 1 3.5 2.5 1 3.5 1820 1820 1820 1820 7 7 7 1 1 1 0.5 3.5 7 1 1 1 0.5 3.5 7 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 - - 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 1 1 1 3 1 10 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 25 1 1 1 3 1 10 1 1 2 2 1 1 25 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 25 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 494 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title Fund N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS DEPARTMENT Comm. Partnerships - 441 31001 CDBG Programs Account Spec II Mgmt Asst Revitalization Coord Revitalization Supv Secretary Sr Secretary CDBG Programs Division Total: Comm. Partnerships - 441 Rollup Total: Community Dev Admin - 511 15510 CD Deputy City Manager Dep City Mgr Code Compliance - 550 14410 Code Compliance Asst Code Compliance Dir Code Compliance Dir Code Compliance Supv Code Insp I Code Insp II Code Insp III Mgmt Asst Secretary Sr Secretary Code Compliance Division Total: 15015 Neighborhood Partnership Mgmt Aide Neighborhood Partnership Admin Neighborhood Srvcs Coord Sr Secretary Neighborhood Partnership Division Total: Code Compliance - 550 Rollup Total: 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1 0.75 4 1 1 1 8.75 35.75 1 0.75 4 1 1 1 8.75 35.75 1 0.75 4 1 1 1 8.75 34.75 1 0.75 4 1 1 1 8.75 35.75 1 0.75 4 1 1 1 8.75 35.75 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 6 5 2 1 2.5 1 21.5 1 1 2 4 3 6 1 2.5 1 21.5 1 1 2 2 7 2 1 2 1 19 1 1 2 3 6 2 1 2 1 19 1 1 2 3 4 2 1 1 1 16 1000 1000 1000 1000 0.5 1 3 1 5.5 27 0.5 1 3 1 5.5 27 1 2 1 4 23 0.5 1 3 1 5.5 24.5 1 1 2 18 72.75 72.75 66.75 68.25 61.75 2 1 1 8 4 1 17 2 1 1 8 3 1 16 2 1 7 3 13 2 7 3 1 13 1 1 5 4 11 N'HOOD & HUMAN SVCS DEPARTMENT TOTAL: PARKS, REC & LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Right-of-Way - 420 16710 Right-of-Way Maintenance Crewleader (Streets) Engineering Insp II PC Oper Service Worker III (Streets) Srvc Worker II (Streets) Streets Supv Right-of-Way Maintenance Division Total: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 495 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 PARKS, REC & LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Right-of-Way - 420 Parks & Recreation - 421 13010 Pool Maintenance Srvc Worker III (Parks) 13020 Park Irrigation Crewleader (Parks) Srvc Worker II (Parks) Srvc Worker III (Parks) Park Irrigation Division Total: 13030 Parks CIP & Planning Dep Parks & Rec Dir Parks & Rec Projects Coord Parks CIP & Planning Division Total: 13040 Parks Maintenance Crewleader (Parks) Dep Parks & Rec Dir Landscape Gard/Horticulturist Park Mgr Playground Equip Srvc Worker Rec Mgr Secretary Sr Heavy Equip Srvc Worker Sr Rec Coord Srvc Worker I (Parks) Srvc Worker II (Parks) Srvc Worker III (Parks) Parks Maintenance Division Total: 14610 Parks & Recreation Admin. Account Spec Mgmt Asst II Parks & Rec Dir Parks, Rec & Library Exec Dir Sr Mgmt Asst Parks & Recreation Admin. Division Total: 14620 Glendale Community Center Rec Programmer Sr Rec Coord Glendale Community Center Division 1000 3 3 2 2 2 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 - 1000 1000 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 9 4 28 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 13 3 27 2 1 1 2 1 1 10 5 23 2 1 1 2 1 1 8 4 20 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 2 20 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 1000 1000 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 496 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title PARKS, REC & LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Parks & Recreation - 421 14630 Recreation Support Services Mgmt Asst Rec Accounts Coord Secretary Sr Secretary Srvc Worker II (Parks) Support Srvc Supv Recreation Support Services Division Total: 14640 Adult Center Rec Coord Rec Mgr Secretary Srvc Worker II (Parks) Support Srvc Supv Adult Center Division Total: 14650 Youth and Teen Rec Coord Rec Mgr Rec Programmer Sr Rec Coord Youth and Teen Division Total: 14660 Special Events and Programs Rec Coord Rec Mgr Special Events and Programs Division 14670 Sports and Health Dep Parks & Rec Dir Park Mgr Rec Coord Rec Mgr Srvc Worker II (Parks) Sports and Health Division Total: 14680 Aquatics Sr Rec Coord 14690 Audio/Visual Audio/Visual Coordinator Audio/Visual Network Spec Audio/Visual Division Total: 14700 Marketing - Parks & Rec Mgmt Asst Rec Programmer Marketing - Parks & Rec Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 1 2 1 4 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 1 2 1 6 2 1 2 1 6 2 1 2 2 1 8 2 1 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 5 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 4.5 1 7.5 1 5.25 2 8.25 1 4.5 1 6.5 1 3.75 2 6.75 1 2.25 1 4.25 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 - 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1000 1 1 1 1 - 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 - - - 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 1.75 1 0.75 1.75 - *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 497 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title PARKS, REC & LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Parks & Recreation - 421 14710 Park Rangers Park Mgr Park Ranger Srvc Worker III (Parks) Park Rangers Division Total: 14740 Copper Canyon HS Youth Dev Prg Rec Programmer 14760 Historic Sahuaro Ranch Rec Coord Rec Programmer Sr Rec Coord Historic Sahuaro Ranch Division Total: 14830 Rec Self Sust-Foothills Rec Rec Coord 14840 Sports Self Sustaining Rec Coord 14850 Youth and Teen Self Sustaining Rec Programmer 35008 Youth Football Hub Grant Rec Coord Parks & Recreation - 421 Rollup Total: Parks & Recreation - 422 14720 Foothills Recreation Center Building Maintenance Worker Office Support Supv Rec Mgr Rec Programmer Secretary Sr Rec Coord Srvc Worker II (Parks) Foothills Recreation Center Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1 3 4 1 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1000 0.75 - - - - 1000 1000 1000 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1880 - - 1 1 1 1880 - - 1 1 1 1880 5 5 5 5 5 1840 1 89.25 88.25 76.25 72.5 56.25 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 2.75 1 1 7.75 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 498 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title PARKS, REC & LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Library & Arts - 452 15220 Library Account Spec Chief Librarian Computer Ops Supv Courier Librarian I Librarian II Librarian III Librarian IV Library Asst I Library Asst II Library Asst III Library Circulation Clerk Library Dir Library Graphics Coord Library Mgr Library Ops Supv Library Technology Coord Library Technology Supv Mgmt Asst PC Support Specialist II Public Service Asst Secretary Library Division Total: 15230 Arts Maintenance - Admin. Arts & Cultural Admin 15310 Arts Maintenance Library Graphics Coord Library & Arts - 452 Rollup Total: Fund 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 1 1 2.5 21.25 6 4 3 3 13.75 11.26 1 1 6 5 1 1 3 86.76 2 1 1.5 22.25 6 4 3 3 13.75 1 1 6 4 2 1 1 3 11.26 86.76 2 1 3.5 16.25 3 4 4 1.63 13.25 1 1 5 4 2 1 1 2 2.63 1 69.26 2 1 18.75 3 4 4 1.63 13.25 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 2 6.5 1 70.13 1 0.5 16.75 3 3 3.5 1 11.75 3 4 1 5.5 1 55 1000 1 1 - - - 1220 87.76 87.76 69.26 70.13 1 56 204.01 202.01 166.51 163.38 130.25 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 - - PARKS, REC & LIBRARY DEPARTMENT TOTAL: POLICE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Police Department - 312 12110 Police Legal Services Police Officer Police Sergeant Public Safety Staff Attorney Police Legal Services Division Total: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 499 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title POLICE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Police Department - 312 12120 Police Administration Asst Police Chief Asst Police Dir Mgmt Aide Mgmt Asst Police Chief Police Crime/Stats Analyst Police Lieutenant Police Officer Police Plan & Research Analyst Police Sergeant Police Support Srvcs Supv Police Tech Srvcs Mgr Sr Mgmt Asst Sr Secretary Police Administration Division Total: 12130 Central Patrol Bureau Police Commander Police Community Srvcs Officer Police Crime Prevention Spec Police Lieutenant Police Officer Police Records Tech Police Sergeant Police Volunteer Coord Secretary Central Patrol Bureau Division Total: 12150 Crime Investigations Mgmt Aide Police Commander Police Community Srvcs Officer Police Crime/Stats Analyst Police Identification Supv Police Identification Tech Police Lieutenant Police Officer Police Officer (Assignment) Police Sergeant Sr Secretary Victim Assistance Caseworker Crime Investigations Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 4 2 1 22 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 5 2 4 26 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 1 3 19 2 3 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 21 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 18 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 3 3 105.5 14 1 1 128.5 1 1 3 5 96 1 12 1 120 1 5 101 13 120 1 3 5 94 15 118 1 2 5 87 14 109 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 3 1 5 3 56 1 7 1 3 80 3 1 1 6 3 58 9 1 3 85 3 1 1 1 5 3 57 9 1 2 83 2 1 1 1 5 3 60 9 1 2 85 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 60 9 1 2 85 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 500 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title POLICE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Police Department - 312 12160 Police Personnel Management Police Commander Police Crisis Srvcs Coord Police Hiring Coord Police Officer Police Officer (Assignment) Police Sergeant Police Tech Srvcs Mgr Police Volunteer Coord Secur Officer Secur Srvcs Coord Police Personnel Management Division 12170 Foothills Patrol Bureau Police Commander Police Community Srvcs Officer Police Crime Prevention Spec Police Crime/Stats Analyst Police Lieutenant Police Officer Police Sergeant Secretary Foothills Patrol Bureau Division Total: 12180 Police Support Services Police Comm Spec Police Community Srvcs Officer Police Identification Supv Police Identification Tech Police Lieutenant Police Officer Police Property/Evid Custodian Police Records Tech Police Sergeant Police Support Srvcs Supv Police Tech Srvcs Bureau Admin Police Tech Srvcs Mgr Property Room Supv Public Safety Tech Srvcs Admin Sr Secretary Srvc Worker III (Fleet) Police Support Services Division Total: 12190 Arena-PD Event Staffing Public Safety Events Scheduler 12215 PD - Tow Administration Mgmt Aide Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 3 6 1 3 1 4 1 21 1 1 3 12 5 1 1 4 1 29 1 14 5 1 3 1 25 1 14 4 1 3 1 24 12 4 3 1 20 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 3 5 84.5 12 1 106.5 1 3 4 95 12 1 116 1 1 4 92 11 1 110 1 1 3 1 4 92 12 1 115 1 3 1 4 94 14 1 118 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 9 1 1 4 3 15.5 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 44.5 8 3 14.5 2 1 1 1 1 31.5 3 12.5 1 1 1 1 19.5 5 3 11.5 1 1 1 1 1 24.5 2 1 3 12.5 1 1 1 21.5 1282 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1 1 1 1 1 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 501 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title POLICE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Police Department - 312 12220 PD - Detention Police Detention Officer Police Support Srvcs Supv Police Tech Srvcs Mgr PD - Detention Division Total: 12230 PD - Communications Comm Sys Tech Police Comm Spec Police Comm Supv Police Comm Sys Spec Police Ops Mgr PD - Communications Division Total: 12231 Stadium - PD Event Staffing Mgmt Aide Public Safety Events Scheduler Stadium - PD Event Staffing Division Total: 12233 PD - Special Operations Police Aide Police Commander Police Lieutenant Police Officer Police Officer (Assignment) Police Sergeant Police Support Srvcs Supv PD - Special Operations Division Total: 12235 PD - Emergency Management Asst Homeland Security Dir Building Maintenance Worker Emergency Mgmt Admin Emergency Srvcs Coord Homeland Security Dir Mgmt Aide Police Ops Mgr Police Volunteer Coord Sys Admin PD - Emergency Management Division Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 9 3 1 13 9 3 1 13 6 3 1 10 6 2 1 9 6 3 1 10 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 26.5 5 1 1 34.5 1 27.5 5 1 1 35.5 1 24.5 5 1 1 32.5 1 23.5 4 1 1 30.5 1 22.5 5 1 1 30.5 1281 1281 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4 1 4 27 1 10 1 48 4 1 3 25 1 9 1 44 1 3 24 1 9 38 1 3 26 1 8 39 1 3 23 1 7 35 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 502 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title POLICE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Police Department - 312 12310 Patrol - Special Revenue Fund Database Admin Info Technology Mgr Info Technology Project Mgr Legal Asst Mgmt Aide Mgmt Asst Police Aide Police Comm Spec Police Detention Officer Police Hiring Coord Police Lieutenant Police Officer Police Officer Trainee Police Records Tech Police Sergeant Police Support Srvcs Supv Police Tech Srvcs Mgr Programs Admin Secretary Secur Officer Sr HR Analyst Sys Analyst Victim Assistance Caseworker Patrol - Special Revenue Fund Division 12390 PS Training Ops - Police Police Lieutenant Secur Officer PS Training Ops - Police Division Total: 32030 State RICO Secretary 33002 Victim Rights - PD Victim Assistance Caseworker 33018 VOCA Victim Assistance Caseworker Police Department - 312 Rollup Total: Homeland Security - 341 12810 Homeland Security Admin. Homeland Security Dir Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1 1 1 6 3 10 9 1 75 3 4 1 1 1 1 118 1 1 1 4 1 10 9 1 1 75 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 118 1 1 1 4 1 10 9 1 1 74 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 118 1 5 2 1 9 8 1 1 74 1 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 118 1 5 2 1 9 8 1 1 70 5 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 118 2530 2530 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1860 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1840 - 1 1 1 1 1840 2 628.5 1 628.5 1 590.5 1 598.5 1 577.5 1000 1 1 - - - *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 503 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title POLICE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Homeland Security - 341 12820 Emergency Operations Ctr (EOC) Asst Homeland Security Dir Building Maintenance Worker Emergency Srvcs Coord Mgmt Aide Operations & Training Officer Sys Admin Sys Analyst Emergency Operations Ctr (EOC) Division Homeland Security - 341 Rollup Total: Fund 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 7 1 1 2 1 1 6 7 - - - 635.5 635.5 590.5 598.5 577.5 1000 1 1 1 - - 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 2.75 1 1 5.75 1 2.75 1 1 5.75 2.75 1 1 4.75 2.75 1 1 4.75 2.75 1 3.75 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 POLICE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Public Works Admin. - 611 13310 Public Works Administration Dep City Mgr Field Operations - 620 11370 Materials Control Warehouse Materials Control Asst Materials Control Spec Materials Logistics Mgr Secretary Materials Control Warehouse Division 13410 Field Operations Admin. Account Spec II Dep Field Ops Dir Dispatcher/Router Field Ops Admin Supv Field Ops Dir Public Works Exec Dir Sr Mgmt Asst Sr Secretary Field Operations Admin. Division Total: 13420 Cemetery Crewleader (Parks) Srvc Worker III (Parks) Cemetery Division Total: 13440 Graffiti Removal Srvc Worker II Srvc Worker II (Airport) Srvc Worker II (Streets) Graffiti Removal Division Total: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 504 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Field Operations - 620 13450 Facilities Management Bldg Maint Leader Bldg Maint Supv Building Maintenance Worker Facilities Mgmt Supt Facilities Management Division Total: 13460 Custodial Services Custodial Supv Custodian Custodian Lead Custodial Services Division Total: 13480 PS Training Ops - Fac. Mgmt. Building Maintenance Worker Custodian PS Training Ops - Fac. Mgmt. Division 13510 Equipment Management Buyer I Equip Mechanic I Equip Mechanic II Equip Mechanic Spec Equip Mgmt Supt Fleet Sys Coord Shop Maint Coord Shop Supv Srvc Worker I Srvc Writer Welder\Fabricator Equipment Management Division Total: 13530 Parts Store Operations Buyer II 16040 Downtown Beaut. & Promotion Secur Officer Srvc Worker II Downtown Beaut. & Promotion Division 16720 Street Maintenance Crewleader (Streets) Engineering Insp II Heavy Equip Oper Mgmt Asst Service Worker III (Streets) Srvc Worker II (Streets) Streets Supt Streets Supv Street Maintenance Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 2 2 16 1 21 2 2 16 1 21 2 1 14 17 1 2 13 16 1 2 7 10 1000 1000 1000 1 15 4 20 1 15 4 20 1 13 4 18 1 10 4 15 1 8 4 13 2530 2530 1 3 4 1 3 4 2 2 1 3 4 1 2 3 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1 5 10 17 1 1 2 2 1 1 41 1 5 9 16 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 40 1 4 9 15 1 2 2 1 1 36 1 3 9 14 1 2 2 1 33 1 3 9 14 1 2 2 1 33 1040 1 1 1 1 1 1000 1000 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 7 1 1 1 9 17 1 3 40 7 2 1 1 6 14 1 3 35 5 2 1 1 5 11 1 2 28 5 2 1 1 6 9 1 2 27 2 2 1 5 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 505 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Field Operations - 620 16730 Street Cleaning Equipment Operator (Streets) Service Worker III (Streets) Street Cleaning Division Total: 17710 Landfill Cashier Crewleader (Landfill) Landfill Insp Landfill Oper Landfill Supv Mgmt Asst Sr Equip Mechanic Special Srvc Worker I Srvc Worker I (Landfill) Srvc Worker II (Landfill) Weigh Scale Oper Landfill Division Total: 17730 Solid Waste Admin Account Spec II Accountant II Dep Field Ops Dir Field Ops Admin Supv Landfill Supt Sanitation Supt Sr Budget Analyst Sr Secretary Solid Waste Admin Division Total: 17740 Recycling Recycling Coord Sanitation Insp Sr Sanitation Insp Recycling Division Total: 17750 MRF Operations Account Spec II Crewleader (Sanitation) Engineering Insp II Equip Mechanic I Equip Mechanic II Sanitation Supv Srvc Worker I Srvc Worker I (Sanitation) Srvc Worker II Srvc Worker II (Landfill) MRF Operations Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1340 1340 4 1 5 2 1 3 - - - 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 19 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 19 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 19 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 19 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 16 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 2440 2440 2440 1 4 1 6 1 4 1 6 1 4 1 6 1 4 1 6 1 4 1 6 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 2440 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 506 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Field Operations - 620 17810 Sanitation Roll-off Account Spec II Equip Operator (Sanitation) Sanitation Roll-off Division Total: 17820 Sanitation Frontload Account Spec II Commercial Sanitation Insp Crewleader (Sanitation) Equip Operator (Sanitation) Sr Mgmt Asst Srvc Worker III (Sanitation) Sanitation Frontload Division Total: 17830 Curb Service Crewleader (Sanitation) Custodian Equip Mechanic I Equip Operator Equip Operator (Sanitation) Sanitation Supv Srvc Worker II (Sanitation) Curb Service Division Total: 17840 Residential-Loose Trash Collec Building Maintenance Worker Crewleader (Sanitation) Equip Operator (Sanitation) Equipment Operator (Streets) Sanitation Insp Sanitation Supv Service Worker III (Streets) Residential-Loose Trash Collec Division Field Operations - 620 Rollup Total: Engineering - 631 13720 Engineering Administration City Engineer Engineering Project Coord Engineering Project Mgr Mgmt Aide Mgmt Asst Property Agent Property Mgr Sr Secretary Engineering Administration Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 2480 2480 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 2480 2480 2480 2480 2480 2480 1 1 1 9 1 2 15 1 1 1 9 1 2 15 1 1 1 9 1 2 15 1 1 1 9 1 2 15 1 1 1 9 1 1 14 2480 2480 2480 2480 2480 2480 2480 2 2 2 31 1 2 40 2 2 2 31 1 2 40 2 2 2 31 1 2 40 2 1 2 2 30 1 2 40 2 2 30 1 2 37 2480 2480 2480 2480 2480 2480 2480 1 15 1 1 18 274.75 1 15 2 1 1 20 268.75 1 15 2 1 1 1 21 241.75 1 1 14 2 1 1 1 21 234.75 1 16 2 1 1 21 189.75 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 3 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 507 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering - 631 13730 Design Division Assoc Civil Engineer Asst City Engineer Engineering Insp II Engineering Project Mgr Engineering Tech II Landscape Architect Mgmt Aide Mgmt Asst Principal Engineer Programs Admin Sr Civil Engineer Sr Engineering Tech Design Division Division Total: 13760 Real Estate Services Property Agent Property Mgr Real Estate Services Division Total: 13780 Land Development Division Asst City Engineer Mgmt Aide Sr Civil Engineer Land Development Division Division Total: 13790 Construction Inspection Construction Engineering Supv Engineering Insp II Engineering Project Mgr Sr Engineering Insp Construction Inspection Division Total: 13800 Materials Testing Materials Tech Sr Materials Tech Materials Testing Division Total: 13820 Utility Inspection Engineering Insp II Engineering Utility Coord Utility Inspection Division Total: 16310 Transportation Engineering Pgm Principal Engineer Sr Civil Engineer Transportation Engineering Pgm Division Engineering - 631 Rollup Total: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TOTAL: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 15 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 15 1 2 1 2 1 2 9 1 1 2 2 1 2 9 1 2 1 1 1 6 1000 1000 1 1 2 - - - - 1000 1000 1000 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 3 3 7 3 1 3 7 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 5 2 1 1 4 1000 1000 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 1000 1000 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 - - 1660 1660 1 1 41 1 1 41 27 26 19 316.75 310.75 269.75 260.75 208.75 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 508 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title TECH. & INNOVATION DEPARTMENT Info. Technology - 231 11510 Information Technology Applications Analyst Assoc Sys Admin Chief Info Technology Officer Database Admin Dep Chief Info Tech Officer Help Desk Support Spec Help Desk Supv Info Technology Mgr Info Technology Project Mgr Innovate Admin Library Technology Supv Mgmt Aide Network Engineer PC Support Specialist II Sr Applications Analyst Sr Database Admin Sr GIS Analyst Sr Network Engineer Sr Sys Admin Sr Sys Analyst Sys Admin Sys Analyst Tech & Innovation Exec Dir Information Technology Division Total: 11520 Telephones Voice Comms Admin 11530 Technology Replacement Mgmt Aide Fund 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 29 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 29 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 25 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 25 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 28 1100 1 1 1 1 1 1140 1 1 1 1 1 31 31 27 27 30 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 TECH. & INNOVATION DEPARTMENT TOTAL: TRANSPORTATION SVCS DEPARTMENT Transportation - 632 16510 Transportation Program Mgmt Dep Trans Dir Planning Mgr Secretary Sr Secretary Trans Dir Trans Planner Trans Srvcs Exec Dir Transportation Program Mgmt Division FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 509 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title TRANSPORTATION SVCS DEPARTMENT Transportation - 632 16520 Transportation Education Sr. Trans Analyst Trans Coord Transportation Education Division Total: 16525 Transit Management Mgmt Aide Sr Secretary Trans Planner Transit Administrator Transit Mgr Transit Management Division Total: 16530 Dial-A-Ride Dispatcher/Router Lead Transit Oper Lead Transit Rep Programs Admin Secretary Sr Mgmt Asst Transit Coord Transit Oper Transit Supv Dial-A-Ride Division Total: 16570 Intelligent Transportation Sys Intelligent Trans Sys Analyst Intelligent Trans Sys Mgr Intelligent Trans Sys Tech Principal Engineer Traffic Signal Tech II Trans Sys Mgr Intelligent Transportation Sys Division 16580 Traffic Mitigation Traffic Engineer I 16810 Traffic Signals Traffic Ops Electronic Tech Traffic Ops Supt Traffic Signal Supv Traffic Signal Tech I Traffic Signal Tech II Traffic Signal Tech III Traffic Signals Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1660 1660 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 6.5 7 1 1 2 16.75 1 35.25 5.5 8 1 1 2 16.75 1 35.25 5.5 8 1 1 1 16.75 1 34.25 5.5 8 1 2 16.75 1 34.25 5.5 8 1 2 16.75 1 34.25 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1660 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1660 1 1 1 1 1 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1 1 1 2 3 2 10 1 1 1 2 3 2 10 1 1 1 2 2 7 1 1 1 2 2 7 1 1 2 1 5 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 510 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title TRANSPORTATION SVCS DEPARTMENT Transportation - 632 16820 Signs & Markings Crewleader (Streets) Service Worker III (Streets) Sign Fabricator Srvc Worker II (Streets) Traffic Signs & Markings Supv Signs & Markings Division Total: 16910 Transportation Administration Intelligent Trans Sys Tech Mgmt Aide Mgmt Asst Secretary Sr Mgmt Asst Sr Secretary Trans Dir Transportation Administration Division 16920 Street Light Management Traffic Engineer II Traffic Engineering Spec Street Light Management Division Total: 16930 Transportation Planning Trans Planner 16940 Traffic Studies Principal Engineer Traffic Education Program Mgr Traffic Engineering Tech Trans Planning Mgr Traffic Studies Division Total: 16950 Traffic Design and Development Dep Trans Dir Sr Traffic Engineering Spec Traffic Engineering Spec Traffic Design and Development Division Transportation - 632 Rollup Total: Airport - 633 16410 Airport Operations Airport Administrator Crewleader (Airport) Mgmt Aide Sr Secretary Srvc Worker II (Airport) Airport Operations Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 2 1 1 5 1 10 2 1 1 5 1 10 1 1 5 1 8 1 1 5 1 8 2 4 1 7 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1340 1340 1 1 2 1 1 2 - - - 1340 1 1 - - - 1340 1340 1340 1340 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1340 1340 1340 1 1 1 3 85.25 1 1 1 3 85.25 1 1 1 3 75.25 1 1 1 3 74.25 1 1 2 69.25 1760 1760 1760 1760 1760 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 3 6 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 511 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title Fund TRANSPORTATION SVCS DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION SVCS DEPARTMENT TOTAL: WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT Env. Resources - 135 17010 Environmental Resources Environmental Program Mgr Environmental Resource Dir Sr Secretary Environmental Resources Division Total: 17410 Water Conservation Environmental Program Mgr Water Conservation Spec Water Conservation Division Total: 17420 Water Quality Chemist Laboratory Tech Water Quality Data Coord Water Quality Lab Mgr Water Quality Division Total: Env. Resources - 135 Rollup Total: Utilities - 641 17110 Utilities Administration Account Spec Dep Utilities Dir Dept Accting & Budget Mgr HR Generalist Mgmt Aide Mgmt Asst Secretary Sr Civil Engineer Sr Mgmt Asst Sr Secretary Utilities Dir Water Srvcs Admin Water Srvcs Exec Dir Utilities Administration Division Total: 17115 Safety Administration Sr Mgmt Asst Util Safety Spec Safety Administration Division Total: FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 90.25 90.25 80.25 79.25 75.25 2360 2360 2360 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 2400 2400 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2360 2360 2360 2360 5 3 1 1 10 17 5 3 1 1 10 17 5 3 1 1 10 17 5 3 1 1 10 17 5 3 1 1 10 17 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 12 2360 2360 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 512 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT Utilities - 641 17120 Information Management GIS Coord Sys Admin Utilities Network Engineer Utilities Technology Mgr Utility Data Coord Information Management Division Total: 17130 Public Service Representatives Public Srvc Rep 17140 System Security Secur Officer Security Systems Tech Sr Mgmt Asst Util Safety Spec Util Safety/Security Coor Utilities Secur Supt System Security Division Total: 17160 Arrowhead Reclamation Plant Plant Maint Mechanic II Sr Plant Instrument Tech Sr Water Reclam Facility Oper Water Reclam Facility Oper I Water Reclam Facility Oper II Water Reclam Facility Supv Arrowhead Reclamation Plant Division 17170 West Area Plant PC Oper Plant Instrument Tech II Sr Plant Instrument Tech Sr Plant Maint Mechanic Sr Water Reclam Facility Oper Utility Ops Supt Water Reclam Facility Oper I Water Reclam Facility Oper II Water Reclam Facility Supv West Area Plant Division Total: 17210 Customer Service - Field Lead Water Srvc Rep Sr Applications Analyst Utilities Supv Utility Ops Supt Water Srvc Rep Customer Service - Field Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 6 2360 4 4 4 3 4 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 5 1 1 1 8 5 1 1 1 8 5 1 1 1 8 6 1 1 1 1 10 6 1 1 1 1 10 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2 1 2 7 1 13 2 1 2 7 1 13 2 1 1 1 7 1 13 2 1 1 1 7 1 13 2 1 1 7 1 12 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 2360 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 15 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 1 1 1 12 15 1 1 1 12 15 1 1 1 12 15 2 1 1 1 11 16 2 1 1 1 11 16 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 513 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT Utilities - 641 17220 Irrigation Crewleader (Water) 17240 Central System Control HR Generalist HR Program Mgr Plant Maint Mechanic II Sr HR Analyst Sr Water Plant Oper Utility Ops Supt Water Control Room Oper Water Plant Ops Supv Central System Control Division Total: 17250 Pyramid Peak Plant Sr Plant Instrument Tech Sr Plant Maint Mechanic Sr Water Plant Oper Water Plant Operator II Water Plant Ops Supv Pyramid Peak Plant Division Total: 17260 Cholla Treatment Plant Plant Instrument Tech II Plant Maint Mechanic II Sr Plant Instrument Tech Sr Plant Maint Mechanic Sr Water Plant Oper Water Plant Operator II Cholla Treatment Plant Division Total: 17280 Central System Maintenance Plant Instrument Tech II Sr Plant Instrument Tech Sr Plant Maint Mechanic Srvc Worker II (Water) Water Plant Ops Supv Central System Maintenance Division 17290 Water Distribution Lead Water Srvc Rep Public Srvc Rep Secretary Sr Utility Sys Tech Utilities Supv Utility Sys Tech I Utility Sys Tech II Water Distribution Division Total: Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 2400 1 1 1 1 1 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 1 5 1 9 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 1 1 1 7 10 1 1 1 7 10 1 1 1 7 10 1 1 1 8 11 1 1 1 7 1 11 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 1 1 2 5 9 1 1 2 5 9 1 1 2 5 9 1 1 2 4 8 1 1 2 5 9 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 5 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 1 2 2 16 9 30 1 2 2 16 9 30 1 2 2 16 9 30 1 1 2 2 12 11 29 2 2 10 12 26 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 514 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Six Authorized Staffing DEPT/Rollup/Division/Position Title WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT Utilities - 641 17300 Meter Maintenance Sr Utility Sys Tech Utilities Supv Utility Locator Utility Sys Tech I Utility Sys Tech II Meter Maintenance Division Total: 17310 Oasis Surface WTP Building Maintenance Worker Custodian Plant Instrument Tech II Public Srvc Rep Sr Plant Instrument Tech Sr Plant Maint Mechanic Sr Water Plant Oper Srvc Worker II (Water) Water Plant Operator II Water Plant Ops Supv Oasis Surface WTP Division Total: 17610 Pretreatment Program Pretreatment Insp Pretreatment Officer Pretreatment Program Mgr Sr Pretreatment Insp Pretreatment Program Division Total: 17630 Wastewater Collection PC Oper Sr Utility Sys Tech Srvc Worker I Utilities Supv Utility Ops Supt Utility Sys Tech I Utility Sys Tech II Wastewater Collection Division Total: 17699 Storm Water Utility Sys Tech I Utility Sys Tech II Storm Water Division Total: Utilities - 641 Rollup Total: WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL: Grand Total Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012* FY 2013 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 1 1 4 3 2 11 1 1 4 3 2 11 1 1 4 3 2 11 1 1 4 3 2 11 1 1 3 3 3 11 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 14 2420 2420 2420 2420 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 3 1 2 6 2420 2420 2420 2420 2420 2420 2420 1 1 1 1 10 5 19 1 1 1 1 9 6 19 1 1 1 1 9 6 19 1 1 1 1 1 8 6 19 1 1 1 1 8 5 17 2420 2420 187 187 187 187 2 1 3 187 204 204 204 204 204 2,204.51 2,182.51 1,971.01 1,966.38 1,824.25 *The FTE counts for some of the individual position classifications were updated from the version in the original printed budget books. However, all the divisional and departmental sub totals and the grand total remain unchanged. 515 Return to Main TOC 516 Return to Main TOC 517 Return to Main TOC 518 Return to Main TOC 519 Return to Main TOC 520 Return to Main TOC 521 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $49,940,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2003A – Arena Tax Exempt Date: June 1, 2003, maturing in 2033. Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2003. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 2.500% to 5.000% Purpose: The Series 2003A (taxable) bonds were issued to pay for the cost of constructing, equipping and furnishing the arena complex and related facilities, including parking and other public infrastructure. In February 2012, the MPC Bonds Series 2012A‐Refunding Bond was issued for the purpose of refunding a portion of the 2003‐2033 maturities of the City of Glendale MPC Bonds Series 2003A‐ Arena Tax Exempt. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior Years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021 ‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2033 Total Principal 5,540,000 ‐ 1,395,000 1,410,000 10,650,000 9,430,000 9,870,000 8,880,000 47,175,000 522 Interest 15,200,065 1,991,575 1,991,575 1,935,775 8,364,875 5,770,413 3,853,000 918,250 40,025,528 Total 20,740,065 1,991,575 3,386,575 3,345,775 19,014,875 15,200,413 13,723,000 9,798,250 87,200,528 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $97,040,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2003B – Arena Taxable Date: June 1, 2003, maturing in 2033. Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2003. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 2.380% to 5.580% Purpose: The Series 2003B (tax‐exempt) bonds were issued to pay for the cost of constructing, equipping and furnishing the arena complex and related facilities, including parking and other public infrastructure. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior Years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2033 Total Principal 1,365,000 480,000 575,000 700,000 12,530,000 25,750,000 37,605,000 18,035,000 97,040,000 523 Interest 37,031,657 5,252,745 5,232,441 5,202,081 24,788,349 16,772,820 14,812,110 1,647,774 110,739,977 Total 38,396,657 5,732,745 5,807,441 5,902,081 37,318,349 42,522,820 52,417,110 19,682,774 207,779,977 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $10,880,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A – Refund Imp Dist Date: May 1, 2004, maturing in 2014. Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2005. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 2.000% to 5.000% Purpose: The Series 2004A bonds were issued to pay for the refunding of the City of Glendale Special Improvement District No. 57 Bonds and the City of Glendale Special Improvement District No. 59 Bonds. In February 2012, the MPC Bonds Series 2012A‐Refunding Bond was issued for the purpose of refunding a portion of the 2004‐2014 maturities of the City of Glendale MPC Bonds, Series 2004A‐Refund Imp Dist. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior Years 2013 2014 Total Principal 5,585,000 ‐ 1,865,000 7,450,000 524 Interest 2,498,850 93,250 93,250 2,685,350 Total 8,083,850 93,250 1,958,250 10,135,350 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $33,250,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A – GRPSTC/Zanjero Date: June, 1, 2006, maturing in 2026. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2007. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 4.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The Series 2006A bonds were issued to pay for a portion of the cost of developing, constructing and equipping a public safety training facility and constructing infrastructure improvement within the City of Glendale. In February 2012, the MPC Bonds Series 2012A‐Refunding Bond was issued for the purpose of refunding a portion of the 2006‐2026 maturities of the City of Glendale MPC Bonds Series 2006A‐GRPSTC/Zanjero. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior Years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026 Total Principal 4,880,000 ‐ 1,465,000 1,540,000 8,895,000 11,170,000 2,540,000 30,490,000 525 Interest 7,137,538 1,185,563 1,185,563 1,112,313 4,366,813 2,090,750 111,125 17,189,664 Total 12,017,538 1,185,563 2,650,563 2,652,313 13,261,813 13,260,750 2,651,125 47,679,664 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $32,315,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A – H/Conv/Media (Tax‐Exempt) Date: June 1, 2008, maturing in 2032. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2009. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The Series 2008A (tax‐exempt) bonds were issued to refund and redeem the Corporation’s outstanding Subordinate Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006B. The Series 2006B bonds were used to design, acquire, construct and equip conference center and related media and parking garage facilities for the City (Conference Center Project). Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior Years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2032 Total Principal 95,000 ‐ ‐ 240,000 7,340,000 9,015,000 11,410,000 4,215,000 32,315,000 526 Interest 5,125,021 1,462,256 1,462,256 1,462,256 6,700,280 5,029,522 2,603,580 261,676 24,106,847 Total 5,220,021 1,462,256 1,462,256 14,040,280 14,044,522 14,013,580 4,476,676 54,719,591 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $52,780,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2008B – H/Conv/Media (Taxable) Date: June 1, 2008, maturing in 2033. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2009. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 5.446% to 6.157% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The Series 2008B (taxable) bonds were issued to refund and redeem the Corporation’s outstanding Subordinate Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006B. The Series 2006B bonds were used to design, acquire, construct and equip conference center and related media and parking garage facilities for the City (Conference Center Project). Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior Years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2033 Total Principal 2,175,000 740,000 1,030,000 1,345,000 7,905,000 10,550,000 14,225,000 14,810,000 52,780,000 527 Interest 10,839,091 3,050,475 3,010,174 2,954,081 13,577,360 10,938,972 7,291,426 2,026,886 53,688,465 Total 13,014,091 3,790,475 4,040,174 4,299,081 21,482,360 21,488,972 21,516,426 16,836,886 106,468,465 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $9,140,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2008C – H/Conv/Media (Taxable) Date: June 1, 2008, maturing in 2015. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2009. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3.958% to 5.019% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The Series 2008C (taxable) bonds were issued to refund and redeem the Corporation’s outstanding Subordinate Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006C. The Series 2006C bonds were used to design, acquire, construct and equip conference center and related media and parking garage facilities for the City (Conference Center Project). Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior Years 2013 2014 2015 Total Principal 5,220,000 1,570,000 1,350,000 1,000,000 9,140,000 528 Interest 1,034,954 190,905 115,922 50,190 1,391,971 Total 6,254,954 1,760,905 1,465,922 1,050,190 10,531,971 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $8,665,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Senior Lien Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2012A Date: June 1, 2012, maturing in 2021. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2012. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “A1” Standard and Poor’s “AA+” Purpose: The Series 2012A bonds were issued to refund a portion of MPC Series 2003A, MPC Series 2004A and MPC Series 2006A‐GRPSTC/Zanjero. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior Years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021 Total Principal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,370,000 1,295,000 8,665,000 529 Interest 130,679 331,300 331,300 331,300 1,214,950 64,750 2,404,279 Total 130,679 331,300 331,300 331,300 8,584,950 1,359,750 11,069,279 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $5,055,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Refunding Certificate of Participation – AMFP Series 14 ‐ Arena Date: June 28, 2002, maturing in 2033. Interest: Semi‐annual each February and August, commencing February 1, 2003. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 5.000% to 5.375% Purpose: The refunding certificate of participations were issued to refund and retire prior years outstanding Refunding Certificate of Participations and to pay a portion of the costs of constructing, equipping, furnishing and otherwise providing for an approximately 17,500‐seat multipurpose arena facility and related infrastructure. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2033 Total Principal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,870,000 3,185,000 5,055,000 530 Interest 1,818,339 259,763 259,763 259,763 1,298,813 1,298,813 1,274,356 429,175 6,898,783 Total 1,818,339 259,763 259,763 259,763 1,298,813 1,298,813 3,144,356 3,614,175 11,953,783 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $7,250,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Municipal Property Corporation Refunding Certificate of Participation – AMFP Refunding Series 16 ‐ Arena Date: July 31, 2003, maturing in 2033. Interest: Semi‐annual each February and August, commencing February 1, 2004. Interest accrues at rate of 4.7000% Purpose: The refunding certificates of participations were issued to refund and retire prior years outstanding Refunding Certificate of Participations. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2033 Total Principal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,250,000 7,250,000 531 Interest 2,385,250 340,750 340,750 340,750 1,703,750 1,703,750 1,703,750 1,192,625 9,711,375 Total 2,385,250 340,750 340,750 340,750 1,703,750 1,703,750 1,703,750 8,442,625 16,961,375 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $66,400,000 (Original Issuance) City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 (1 of 2) Date: April 1, 2003, maturing in 2018. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2003. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 1.500% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to pay for the costs of acquisition, improvement and equipment of a variety of projects relating to government facility, maintenance facilities, public safety, streets/parking, flood control, open space/trails, and parks and recreation. $3,875,000 is related to Water and Sewer Fund (Refer to General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003, Water and Sewer (2 of 2). In November 2010, the General Obligation Refunding Bonds Series 2010 was issued for the purpose of refunding a portion of the 2014‐2017 maturities of the City of Glendale G.O. Bonds Series 2003. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2018 Total Principal 44,660,000 3,530,000 ‐ ‐ 4,335,000 52,525,000 532 Interest 18,874,748 263,200 86,700 86,700 260,100 19,571,448 Total 63,534,748 3,793,200 86,700 86,700 4,595,100 72,096,448 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $36,645,000 City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Bonds, Series 2004 Date: June 1, 2004, maturing in 2019. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2005. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to pay for the costs of acquisition, improvement and equipment of a variety of projects relating to government facility, maintenance facilities, public safety, streets/parking, flood control, open space/trails, parks and recreation. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2019 Total Principal 17,040,000 2,440,000 2,550,000 2,665,000 11,950,000 36,645,000 533 Interest 9,897,800 876,494 778,894 670,519 1,441,988 13,665,694 Total 26,937,800 3,316,494 3,328,894 3,335,519 13,391,988 50,310,694 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $11,960,000 City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Bonds, Series 2005 Date: June 1, 2005, maturing in 2015. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2006. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3.500% to 4.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to pay for the costs of acquisition, improvement and equipment of a variety of projects relating to cultural/historic projects, economic development and public safety. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 Total Principal 7,925,000 1,295,000 1,345,000 1,395,000 11,960,000 534 Interest 2,318,694 158,100 107,919 55,799 2,640,511 Total 10,243,694 1,453,100 1,452,919 1,450,799 14,600,511 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $29,365,000 City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Bonds, Series 2006A Date: June 1, 2006, maturing in 2021. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2007. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 4.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to pay for the costs of acquisition, improvement and equipment of a variety of projects relating to streets/parking, parks, public safety and flood control. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021 Total Principal 9,605,000 1,850,000 1,925,000 2,000,000 11,370,000 2,615,000 29,365,000 535 Interest 7,016,474 882,281 808,281 712,031 2,171,219 120,945 11,711,232 Total 16,621,474 2,732,281 2,733,281 2,712,031 13,541,219 2,735,945 41,076,232 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $9,065,000 City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Bonds, Series 2006B Date: June 1, 2006, maturing in 2015. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2007. Interest accrues at rate of 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to advance refund the 2011‐2015 maturities of the City of Glendale General Obligation Bonds Series June 2000. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 Total Principal 3,340,000 1,810,000 1,905,000 2,010,000 9,065,000 536 Interest 2,712,533 286,250 195,747 100,500 3,295,030 Total 6,052,533 2,096,250 2,100,747 2,110,500 12,360,030 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $61,000,000 City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Bonds, Series 2007 Date: June 26, 2007, maturing in 2022. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2008. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 4.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to pay for the costs of acquisition, improvement and equipment of a variety of projects relating to streets/parking, public safety, flood control and government facilities. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2022 Total Principal 16,380,000 3,660,000 3,805,000 3,960,000 22,550,000 10,645,000 61,000,000 537 Interest 12,210,077 2,040,988 1,885,438 1,723,725 5,813,575 750,250 24,424,052 Total 28,590,077 5,700,988 5,690,438 5,683,725 28,363,575 11,395,250 85,424,052 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $41,650,000 City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Bonds, Series 2009B (Taxable Direct‐Pay Build America Bond) Date: Dec 8, 2009, maturing in 2028. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2010. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 1.500% to 5.625% Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to pay for the costs of acquisition, improvement and equipment of a variety of projects relating to economic development, government facilities, public safety, flood control, and parks & recreation. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 Total Principal 2,550,000 1,295,000 1,315,000 1,335,000 9,885,000 11,515,000 13,755,000 41,650,000 538 Interest 4,852,755 1,881,578 1,849,202 1,809,752 8,057,094 5,684,420 2,408,968 26,543,769 Total 7,402,755 3,176,578 3,164,202 3,144,752 17,942,094 17,199,420 16,163,968 68,193,769 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $38,300,000 City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 Date: Nov 30, 2010, maturing in 2022. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2011. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 2.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa1” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to advance refund the 2012‐2022maturities of the City of Glendale General Obligation Refunding Bonds Series 2002 and the 2014‐ 2017 maturities of General Obligation Bonds Series 2003. The proceeds were also used to pay for the issuance costs of the refunding project. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2022 Total Principal ‐ ‐ 2,475,000 5,645,000 23,600,000 6,580,000 38,300,000 Interest 2,644,999 1,667,600 1,667,600 1,568,600 4,439,000 430,100 12,417,899 539 Total 2,644,999 1,667,600 4,142,600 7,213,600 28,039,000 7,010,100 50,717,899 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $66,400,000 (Original Issuance) City of Glendale, Arizona General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 (2 of 2) Date: April 1, 2003, maturing in 2018. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2003. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 1.500% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The bond proceeds were used to pay for the costs of acquisition, improvement and equipment of a variety of projects relating to water and sewer. $52,525,000 of the total proceed is for regular General Obligation Bonds (Refer to General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 (1 of 2) Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2018 Total Principal 7,390,000 970,000 1,020,000 1,060,000 3,435,000 13,875,000 540 Interest 2,935,787 288,550 240,050 189,050 240,900 3,894,337 Total 10,325,787 1,258,550 1,260,050 1,249,050 3,675,900 17,769,337 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $80,000,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Subordinate Lien Water & Sewer Revenue Obligations, Series 2003 Date: December 1, 2003, maturing in 2028. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2004. Interest accrues at rate of 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The proceeds of the obligations were used to pay for the expansion of the existing West Area Water Reclamation Facility, payments for the City’s share of upgrades to and expansion of the 91st Avenue Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, replacement and rehabilitation of water lines throughout the system, a water resource master plan and water treatment plant design, design and construction of facilities at the Cholla Water Treatment Plant to meet solids handling regulations and land purchase for a water plant. In February 2012, the Senior Lien Water & Sewer Revenue Refunding Obligations Series 2012 was issued for the purpose of refunding WIFA Loan Series 2001, WIFA Loan Series 2010 and a portion of the Subordinate Lien Water & Sewer Revenue Obligations Series 2003. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2028 Total Principal 4,320,000 1,630,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,950,000 541 Interest 25,833,250 81,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25,914,750 Total 30,153,250 1,711,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 31,864,750 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $80,000,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Subordinate Lien Water & Sewer Revenue Obligations, Series 2006 Date: February 7, 2006, maturing in 2026. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2006. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 4.000% to 5.250% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The proceeds of the obligations were used to pay for the City’s share of upgrades to, and expansion of, the 91st Avenue Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, replacement and rehabilitation of water lines throughout the system, water resource master plan and water treatment plant design, design and construction of facilities at the Cholla Water Treatment Plant to meet solids handling regulations and construction of a water treatment plant. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026 Total Principal 7,045,000 3,745,000 3,925,000 4,140,000 24,060,000 30,220,000 6,865,000 80,000,000 542 Interest 23,427,631 3,434,231 3,237,619 3,031,556 11,782,531 5,627,588 308,925 50,850,081 Total 30,472,631 7,179,231 7,162,619 7,171,556 35,842,531 35,847,588 7,173,925 130,850,081 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $44,500,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Subordinate Lien Water & Sewer Revenue Obligations, Series 2007 Date: June 15, 2007, maturing in 2027. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2008. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 4.250% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The proceeds of the obligations were used to pay for the City’s share of upgrades to, and expansion of, the 91st Avenue Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, replacement and rehabilitation of water lines throughout the system, water resource master plan and water treatment plant design, design and construction of upgrades at the Cholla Water Treatment Plant to meet federal regulations, construction of water treatment plants and associated transmission lines and design and construction of upgrades at the wastewater treatment plants to meet federal regulations. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2027 Total Principal 5,425,000 1,840,000 1,930,000 2,010,000 11,620,000 14,710,000 6,965,000 44,500,000 543 Interest 10,281,742 1,884,750 1,806,550 1,722,113 7,043,625 3,952,813 499,975 27,191,567 Total 15,706,742 3,724,750 3,736,550 3,732,113 18,663,625 18,662,813 7,464,975 71,691,567 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $65,500,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Subordinate Lien Water & Sewer Revenue Obligations, Series 2008 Date: February 1, 2008, maturing in 2028. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2008. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The proceeds of the obligations were used to pay for the City’s share of upgrades to, and expansion of, the 91st Avenue Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, replacement and rehabilitation of water lines throughout the system, water resource master plan and water treatment plant design, design and construction of upgrades at the Cholla Water Treatment Plant to meet federal regulations, construction of water treatment plants and associated transmission lines and design and construction of upgrades at the wastewater treatment plants to meet federal regulations. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2028 Total Principal 9,400,000 2,540,000 2,630,000 2,730,000 19,535,000 14,885,000 13,780,000 65,500,000 544 Interest 10,837,052 2,518,113 2,429,213 2,330,588 9,921,350 6,254,775 1,400,500 35,691,589 Total 20,237,052 5,058,113 5,059,213 5,060,588 29,456,350 21,139,775 15,180,500 101,191,589 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $77,635,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Subordinate Lien Water & Sewer Revenue Obligations, Series 2012 Date: July 1, 2012, maturing in 2028. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2012. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 2.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aa3” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: The series 2012 bonds were issued to refund WIFA Loan Series 2001, WIFA Loan Series 2010 and a portion of the Subordinate Lien Water & Sewer Revenue Obligation Series 2003. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2028 Total Principal ‐ ‐ 1,725,000 4,290,000 23,850,000 26,825,000 20,945,000 77,635,000 Interest 1,417,929 3,594,750 3,594,750 3,560,250 15,039,550 9,535,500 2,128,750 38,871,479 545 Total 1,417,929 3,594,750 5,319,750 7,850,250 38,889,550 36,360,500 23,073,750 116,506,479 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $25,685,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Subordinate Lien Water and Sewer Revenue Obligations Series 2010A (Taxable Direct Pay Build America Bonds) Date: November 30, 2011, maturing in 2030. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2011. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 6.200% to 6.550% Rating: Moody’s “Aa3” Standard and Poor’s “AA+” Purpose: The proceeds of the obligations were used for various improvement and extensions of the system which are contained in the City’s water and sewer Capital Improvement Plan, including, without limitation, (a) payments for the City’s share of upgrades to and the expansion of the 91st Avenue Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan, (b) replacement and rehabilitation of water lines throughout the System, (c) various water treatment plant improvements and construction of associated transmissions lines and (d) design and construction of upgrades at the wastewater treatment plants to meet federal regulations. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 Total Principal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25,685,000 25,685,000 Interest 2,599,410 1,638,858 1,638,858 1,638,858 8,194,288 8,194,288 5,854,703 29,759,260 546 Total 2,599,410 1,638,858 1,638,858 1,638,858 8,194,288 8,194,288 31,539,703 55,444,260 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $14,655,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Street and Highway User Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 2004 Date: June 1, 2004, maturing in 2014. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2005. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 2.500% to 4.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The bonds were used to finance the improvement, construction, reconstruction, acquisition of right‐of‐way or maintenance of streets and highways of the City including certain traffic control devices and to refund portions of the City’s outstanding highway revenue bonds. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 Total Principal 9,510,000 2,525,000 2,620,000 14,655,000 547 Interest 3,302,022 202,644 104,800 3,609,465 Total 12,812,022 2,727,644 2,724,800 18,264,465 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $15,745,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Street and Highway User Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 Date: April 11, 2006, maturing in 2016. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing January 1, 2007. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 4.000% to 5.000% Rating: Moody’s “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s “AAA” Purpose: The bonds were issued to finance the improvement, construction, acquisition of right‐of‐way or maintenance of streets and highways of the City including a bridge and noise walls. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Principal 8,640,000 1,670,000 1,735,000 1,805,000 1,895,000 15,745,000 548 Interest 3,217,144 301,225 226,075 148,000 75,800 3,968,244 Total 11,857,144 1,971,225 1,961,075 1,953,000 1,970,800 19,713,244 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $137,495,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Western Loop 101 Public Facilities Corp, Series 2008A Date: October 1, 2008, maturing in 2038. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2009. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 6.000% to 7.000% Rating: Moody’s “A2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: Most of the proceeds were deposited to the acquisition and construction project related to the design and construction of a new Major League Baseball spring training stadium and related facilities. The remaining proceeds were used toward capitalized interest on 2008 bond issuance and issuance costs. Debt Service: This schedule shows the outstanding debt service amount for PFC Series 2008A before any refunding. It is the intent of the city to refund this issuance. Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2038 Total Principal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,980,000 14,710,000 26,695,000 43,350,000 42,760,000 137,495,000 549 Interest 32,709,108 8,913,913 8,913,913 8,913,913 43,732,265 39,847,315 33,845,065 22,707,140 5,452,813 205,035,445 Total 32,709,108 8,913,913 8,913,913 8,913,913 53,712,265 54,557,315 60,540,065 66,057,140 48,212,813 342,530,445 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $48,670,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Western Loop 101 Public Facilities Corp, Series 2008B Date: October 1, 2008, maturing in 2038. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2009. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 5.000% to 7.000% Rating: Moody’s “A2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: Most of the proceeds were deposited to the acquisition and construction project related to the design and construction of a new Major League Baseball spring training stadium and related facilities. The remaining proceeds were used toward capitalized interest on 2008 bond issuance and issuance costs. Debt Service: This schedule shows the outstanding debt service amount for PFC Series 2008B before any refunding. It is the intent of the city to refund this issuance. Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2039 Total Principal ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,555,000 5,130,000 8,265,000 13,110,000 19,610,000 48,670,000 550 Interest 11,294,091 3,077,875 3,077,875 3,077,875 15,131,826 13,839,415 11,897,551 8,041,225 1,931,251 71,368,984 Total 11,294,091 3,077,875 3,077,875 3,077,875 17,686,826 18,969,415 20,162,551 21,151,225 21,541,251 120,038,984 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $13,585,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Western Loop 101 Public Facilities Corp, Series 2008C Date: October 1, 2008, maturing in 2017. Interest: Semi‐annual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2009. Interest accrues at rates of 7.500% Rating: Moody’s “A2” Standard and Poor’s “AA” Purpose: Most of the proceeds were deposited into a revenue stabilization fund to be used toward interest payments of Series A and B. The remainder was used toward the design and construction of a new Major League Baseball spring training stadium and related facilities, and for capitalized interest on 2008 bond issuance costs. Debt Service: This schedule shows the outstanding debt service amount for PFC Series 2008C before any refunding. It is the intent of the city to refund this issuance. Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2017 Total Principal ‐ ‐ 2,940,000 4,975,000 5,670,000 13,585,000 551 Interest 3,738,705 1,018,875 1,018,875 798,375 457,500 7,032,330 Total 3,738,705 1,018,875 3,958,875 5,773,375 6,127,500 20,617,330 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Seven - Detail Schedule Seven – DETAIL Long-Term Debt Service $109,110,000 City of Glendale, Arizona Transportation Excise Tax Revenue Obligations, Series 2007 Date: October 16, 2007, maturing in 2032. Rating: Moody’s: “Aaa” Standard and Poor’s : “AAA” Interest: Semiannual each January and July, commencing July 1, 2008. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 4.000% to 5.000% Purpose: The proceeds were used to construct transportation projects including design, construction and right‐of‐way acquisitions. Most of the funding was used to construct street projects such as roadway widening and intersections improvements. Funding was also used to construct transit stops, bicycle connections, park and ride lots and airport projects. Debt Service: Fiscal Year Prior years 2013 2014 2015 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2032 Total Principal 14,965,000 3,005,000 3,125,000 3,250,000 18,645,000 23,095,000 22,885,000 20,140,000 109,110,000 552 Interest 21,677,179 4,321,281 4,201,082 4,076,082 17,992,306 13,546,438 6,432,550 1,839,150 74,086,068 Total 36,642,179 7,326,281 7,326,082 7,326,082 36,637,306 36,641,438 29,317,550 21,979,150 183,196,068 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Eight FY 2013 Scheduled Lease Payments Lease Desc. & Account 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2011 Lease Refinance (Refinanced Northern Crossing, Hickman and ADOT payment) 1000-11380-560400 490,100 668,900 1,212,300 2,855,000 1000-11380-560600 609,795 580,948 537,589 450,244 Total 1,099,895 1,249,848 1,749,889 3,305,244 Fire Trucks & Equipment - '07 Lease 1000-11380-560400 1000-11380-560600 Total 68,826 8,356 77,181 71,445 8,468 79,913 Parks & Rec Copier - De Lage Landen Public Finance LLC 1000-14700-560400 6,474 2,358 1000-14700-560600 798 66 Total 7,272 2,424 1000 - General Fund Total: 1,184,348 1,332,185 17 -Beyond 6,187,100 423,190 6,610,290 48,286 3,259 51,545 50,123 1,422 51,545 - - - - 1,801,434 3,356,789 6,610,290 Library Copier - '09 Kansas State Bank 1260-15410-560400 1260-15410-560600 Total 5,607 488 6,095 - - - - 1260 - Library Fund Total: 6,095 - - - - Three (3) Frontloaders - '09 Lease (Interfund Borrowing) 2480-17820-560400 150,939 153,775 2480-17820-560600 4,996 2,160 Total 155,935 155,935 - - - Sideloader -'09 Lease (Interfund Borrowing) 2480-17830-560400 43,410 2480-17830-560600 1,437 Total 44,847 44,226 621 44,847 - - - Rearloader - '09 Lease (Interfund Borrowing) 2480-17840-560400 47,522 2480-17840-560600 1,573 Total 49,095 48,415 680 49,095 - - - 249,877 249,877 - - - 1,440,321 1,582,062 2480 - Sanitation Fund Total: Grand Total: 553 1,801,434 3,356,789 6,610,290 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Nine Internal Service Premiums Note: The following amounts provide for departmental participation in the city's self insurance fund, workers' compensation fund, vehicle and technology replacement programs and telephone fund. The rates are approved by the Budget Division based on computer models established for each fund. Monthly amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Division during the fiscal year. Fund Dept / Program Name Name Insurance Workers' Compensation Vehicle Replacement Technology Replacement Telephone 1000 - General Mayor Office of the Mayor Council Office Cactus District Cholla District Council Office Sahuaro District City Clerk City Clerk Elections Records Management City Manager City Manager Internal Audit Internal Audit Materials Control Warehouse Materials Management Intergovt. Programs Intergovernmental Programs City Court City Court City Attorney City Attorney Marketing and Comm. Audio/Visual Cable Communications City-Wide Special Events Marketing Tourism Conv./Media/Parking Convention/Media/Parking Media Center Operations Comm. Action Program CAP Local Match Human Resources Benefits Compensation Employee Relations Employment Services $1,922 $72 $1,649 $2,519 $1,328 $1,328 $3,407 $1,354 $5,563 $4,158 $5,347 $2,171 $305 $945 $430 $2,564 $50 $2,747 $4,465 $337 $2,202 $2,820 $1,446 $2,481 $1,023 $26 $3,371 $36 $1,265 $1,536 $2,120 $589 $1,754 $961 $3,030 $72 $1,553 $1,654 $21,013 $994 $6,332 $17,755 $32,485 $1,306 $10,251 $8,588 $1,093 $3,841 $2,699 $3,876 $1,310 $51 $126 $97 $428 $892 $31,003 $41,529 $1,832 $4,418 $1,415 $1,166 $4,757 $4,558 $750 $679 $2,907 $1,450 $1,539 $2,931 $3,499 $128,806 $311 $355 $12,447 $3,191 $973 $2,394 $1,032 $2,016 $36 $86 $302 $670 554 $175 $216 $16,759 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Nine Internal Service Premiums Note: The following amounts provide for departmental participation in the city's self insurance fund, workers' compensation fund, vehicle and technology replacement programs and telephone fund. The rates are approved by the Budget Division based on computer models established for each fund. Monthly amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Division during the fiscal year. Fund Dept / Program Name Name Human Resources Human Resources Administration Organizational Development Risk Management/Safety Finance Accounting Services Finance Administration License/Collection Info. Technology Information Technology Management & Budget Budget & Research Grants Administration Police Department PD - Emergency Management PD - Fiscal Management Fire Department Air-Med & Logistics Ops (HALO) Ambulance Services Fire Administration Fire Marshal's Office Fire Medical Services & Health Fire Operations Fire Resource Management Parks & Recreation Adult Center Aquatics Foothills Recreation Center Glendale Community Center Historic Sahuaro Ranch Park Irrigation Park Rangers Parks & Recreation Admin. Parks CIP & Planning Parks Maintenance Pool Maintenance Recreation Support Services Special Events and Programs Sports and Health Youth and Teen Insurance Workers' Compensation $2,992 $1,438 $621 $373 $54 $275 $6,646 $3,183 $3,837 Vehicle Replacement Technology Replacement Telephone $6,318 $1,607 $8,170 $216 $672 $379 $123 $159 $992 $8,526 $7,236 $5,471 $3,508 $14,155 $3,088 $2,349 $704,108 $14,728 $3,431 $449 $108 $18 $2,604 $432 $1,370 $193 $893,694 $414 $283,634 $431,974 $143,127 $177,730 $3,609 $465 $3,253 $2,673 $256 $154,037 $5,367 $53,450 $28,333 $93,156 $3,629 $216 $9,402 $690 $240 $8,492 $191,543 $7,575 $3,230 $6,127 $812 $792 $720 $1,973 $18 $163 $6,558 $706 $471 $249 $1,036 $3,208 $6,173 $1,497 $8,849 $2,546 $1,068 $22,748 $1,947 $52,690 555 $9,932 $672 $1,080 $1,082 $2,352 $38,088 $12,427 $216 $33,049 $3,856 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Nine Internal Service Premiums Note: The following amounts provide for departmental participation in the city's self insurance fund, workers' compensation fund, vehicle and technology replacement programs and telephone fund. The rates are approved by the Budget Division based on computer models established for each fund. Monthly amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Division during the fiscal year. Fund Dept / Program Name Name Comm. Partnerships Community Revitalization Neighborhood Partnership Library & Arts Arts Maintenance - Admin. Library Community Dev Admin CD Deputy City Manager Building Safety Building Safety Development Services Center Planning Current Planning Long-Range Planning & Research Planning Administration Field Operations Downtown Beaut. & Promotion Economic Development Code Compliance Code Compliance Field Operations Cemetery Custodial Services Downtown Parking Garage Facilities Management Field Operations Admin. Graffiti Removal Engineering Construction Inspection Design Division Engineering Administration Land Development Division Mapping and Records Materials Testing Total General Insurance Workers' Compensation Vehicle Replacement Technology Replacement Telephone $2,251 $2,831 $53 $108 $1,296 $557 $4,018 $2,152 $2,820 $2,244 $83 $41,533 $246 $5,622 $1,738 $69,692 $50,378 $798 $18 $912 $193 $12,829 $2,893 $4,487 $109 $8,288 $3,720 $6,440 $2,244 $2,039 $924 $1,749 $72 $36 $54 $432 $707 $3,831 $961 $193 $1,746 $1,816 $3,652 $1,274 $255 $456 $3,854 $2,244 $9,964 $997 $8,888 $6,487 $6,919 $4,594 $7,345 $226 $31,957 $2,246 $1,711 $523 $14,224 $2,322 $8,315 $216 $1,536 $3,405 $23,273 $36 $1,897 $16,790 $1,369 $2,194 $25,653 $27,739 $3,833 $910 $194 $54 $18 $2,214 $10,354 $1,470,486 $566,281 $597,191 $1,311,593 $589,574 $38,612 $17,680 $19,635 $586 $4,518 $8,655 $21,671 $8,004 ($630) $2,270 $871 $5,008 $3,150 $2,905 $2,694 $1,520 $7,159 $4,190 1040 - General Services Field Operations Equipment Management Fuel Services 556 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Nine Internal Service Premiums Note: The following amounts provide for departmental participation in the city's self insurance fund, workers' compensation fund, vehicle and technology replacement programs and telephone fund. The rates are approved by the Budget Division based on computer models established for each fund. Monthly amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Division during the fiscal year. Fund Dept / Program Name Name Insurance Workers' Compensation Field Operations Parts Store Operations Total General Services Vehicle Replacement Technology Replacement Telephone $18 $38,612 $17,698 $1,270 $18 $1,270 $18 $590 $18 $200 $590 $18 $200 $20,221 $4,518 $8,655 1100 - Telephone Services Info. Technology Telephones Total Telephone Services 1140 - PC Replacement Info. Technology Technology Replacement Total PC Replacement 1220 - Arts Commission Fund Library & Arts Arts Maintenance $1,605 Total Arts Commission Fund $1,605 1240 - Court Security/Bonds City Court Court Time Payments $690 Total Court Security/Bonds $690 1281 - Stadium Event Operations Marketing and Comm. Mkt'g - Stadium Events Police Department PD - Fiesta Bowl Event Stadium - PD Event Staffing Fire Department Fire - Fiesta Bowl Event Stadium - Fire Event Staffing Transportation Stadium - Transportation Ops. Transp - Fiesta Bowl Event Total Stadium Event Operations $14,885 $1,096 $3,671 $6,578 $437 $628 $587 $4,475 $306 $25,498 $6,578 557 $587 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Nine Internal Service Premiums Note: The following amounts provide for departmental participation in the city's self insurance fund, workers' compensation fund, vehicle and technology replacement programs and telephone fund. The rates are approved by the Budget Division based on computer models established for each fund. Monthly amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Division during the fiscal year. Fund Dept / Program Name Name Insurance Workers' Compensation Vehicle Replacement Technology Replacement Telephone 1282 - Arena Event Operations Police Department Arena-PD Event Staffing Fire Department Arena - Fire Event Staffing Right-of-Way Arena - ROW Maintenance Transportation Arena - Transportation Ops. Total Arena Event Operations $2,866 $18 $1,399 $18 $191 $57 $4,513 $36 $34,418 $23,935 $19,413 $25,654 $26,002 $17,741 $14,468 $8,759 $5,595 $56,133 $7,202 $84,921 $7,339 $1,494 $11,379 $72 $791 $21,648 $540 $1,407 $16,431 $2,148 ($5,744) $1,393 $1,332 $5,960 $6,896 $235,431 $66,142 $80,173 $17,864 $6,896 $67,735 $17,582 $425 $792 $18 $72 $284 $90 $7,375 $19,526 $19,811 $17,872 $4,326 $3,970 $3,770 $68,557 $19,263 $23,781 $97,574 $23,852 $70,910 $107,994 $90,651 $37,272 1340 - Highway User Gas Tax Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Maintenance Street Maintenance Transportation Signs & Markings Street Light Management Traffic Design and Development Traffic Signals Traffic Studies Transportation Administration Total Highway User Gas Tax $1,840 $6,658 $681 1660 - Transportation Sales Tax Transportation Dial-A-Ride Fixed Route Intelligent Transportation Sys Traffic Mitigation Transit Management Transportation Education Transportation Program Mgmt Total Transportation Sales Tax $67,735 1700 - Police Special Revenue Police Department Patrol - Special Revenue Fund 558 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Nine Internal Service Premiums Note: The following amounts provide for departmental participation in the city's self insurance fund, workers' compensation fund, vehicle and technology replacement programs and telephone fund. The rates are approved by the Budget Division based on computer models established for each fund. Monthly amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Division during the fiscal year. Fund Dept / Program Name Name Insurance Total Police Special Revenue Workers' Compensation Vehicle Replacement Technology Replacement Telephone $70,910 $107,994 $90,651 $37,272 $41,513 $13,363 $31,917 $23,289 $41,513 $13,363 $31,917 $23,289 $3,826 $1,271 $1,351 $5,038 $12,415 $3,826 $1,271 $1,351 $5,038 $12,415 $54,155 $738 $2,073 $1,497 $17,239 $54,155 $738 $2,073 $1,497 $17,239 1720 - Fire Special Revenue Fire Department Fire - Special Revenue Fund Total Fire Special Revenue 1740 - Civic Center Civic Center Civic Center Total Civic Center 1760 - Airport Special Revenue Airport Airport Operations Total Airport Special Revenue 1860 - RICO Funds Police Department State RICO $147,236 Total RICO Funds $147,236 1880 - Parks & Recreation Self Sust Parks & Recreation Adult Center Self Sustaining Rec Self Sust-Foothills Rec Sports Self Sustaining SRPHA Sahuaro Ranch Hist Youth and Teen Self Sustaining $384 $383 $304 $130 $2,443 Total Parks & Recreation Self S $3,644 $540 $540 2360 - Water and Sewer Env. Resources Environmental Resources Water Quality Finance Customer Service Office Utilities Arrowhead Reclamation Plant $90 $2,778 $2,535 $3,890 559 $3,210 $854 $1,481 $50,637 $37,401 $7,718 $10,187 $1,210 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Nine Internal Service Premiums Note: The following amounts provide for departmental participation in the city's self insurance fund, workers' compensation fund, vehicle and technology replacement programs and telephone fund. The rates are approved by the Budget Division based on computer models established for each fund. Monthly amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Division during the fiscal year. Fund Dept / Program Name Name Utilities Information Management Public Service Representatives System Security Utilities Administration West Area Plant Total Water and Sewer Insurance Workers' Compensation Technology Replacement Telephone $786 $790 $2,470 $186 $3,153 $7,350 $11,139 $9,521 $8,472 $14,638 $275,997 $16,678 $69,025 $346,385 $150,905 $2,307 $1,639 $3,682 $654 $662 $3,337 $1,140 $441 $2,676 $1,317 $3,826 $13,059 $260 $3,391 $7,998 $17,983 $17,501 $5,593 $13,344 $3,802 $25,950 $2,661 $21,512 $14,133 $10,168 $186,581 $70,980 $288,720 $9,682 $1,558 $8,654 $15,131 $33,721 $167,297 $1,176 $540 $10,212 $216,149 $1,716 $331,413 $331,413 Vehicle Replacement $540 $111,169 $14,791 2400 - Water Env. Resources Water Conservation Building Safety Cross Connection Control Utilities Central System Control Central System Maintenance Cholla Treatment Plant Customer Service - Field Irrigation Meter Maintenance Oasis Surface WTP Pyramid Peak Plant Water Distribution Total Water $540 $4,320 $1,095 2420 - Sewer Utilities Pretreatment Program Storm Water Wastewater Collection Total Sewer 2440 - Landfill Field Operations Landfill MRF Operations Recycling Solid Waste Admin Total Landfill $42,964 $10,008 $4,536 $3,821 $1,336 $10,430 $3,844 $3,221 $2,968 $5,635 $3,569 $854 $1,198 $42,964 $19,701 $20,463 $11,256 560 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Nine Internal Service Premiums Note: The following amounts provide for departmental participation in the city's self insurance fund, workers' compensation fund, vehicle and technology replacement programs and telephone fund. The rates are approved by the Budget Division based on computer models established for each fund. Monthly amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Division during the fiscal year. Fund Dept / Program Name Name Insurance Workers' Compensation Vehicle Replacement Technology Replacement Telephone 2480 - Sanitation Field Operations Curb Service Residential-Loose Trash Collec Sanitation Frontload Sanitation Roll-off Total Sanitation $63,135 $37,798 $34,606 $7,491 $24,631 $16,357 $24,245 $1,793 $2,618 $1,838 $6,224 $654 $3,695 $143,030 $67,026 $10,680 $4,349 2500 - Pub Housing Budget Activities Comm. Partnerships Community Housing Total Pub Housing Budget Activ $61,592 $2,461 $15,605 $13,817 $61,592 $2,461 $15,605 $13,817 $1,577 $651 $34,649 $10,961 $19,758 $14,422 $1,315 $3,653 $80,962 $33,839 $2,814 $1,258 $4,519 $18,813 $3,224 $42,821 $91,923 $53,597 2530 - Training Facility Revenue Fund Police Department PS Training Ops - Police Fire Department PS Training Ops - Fire Field Operations PS Training Ops - Fac. Mgmt. Total Training Facility Revenue 2538 - Glendale Health Center Fire Department Glendale Health Center $72 $6,271 $3,150 Total Glendale Health Center $72 $6,271 $3,150 $68 $2,873 $1,087 $68 $2,873 $1,087 $2,067,884 $944,831 2540 - Risk Management Self Insurance Human Resources Risk Mgmt Trust Fund Total Risk Management Self Ins FY 2013 Total Internal Service Premiums: $2,500,000 $984,460 561 $1,625,703 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Ten General Staff and Administrative Service Charges Note: The following schedule identifies the general staff and administrative charges which are direct expenses of the enterprise and certain special revenue funds but incurred in other funds. The charges are established by the Budget Office based on the indirect cost allocation model which utilizes various generally accepted allocation methods. Annual amounts should be charged against departmental operating budgets by the Finance Department at the beginning of each fiscal year. Charges for Customer Service are paid to the Water/Sewer Fund and charges for Solid Waste Adminstration are paid to the Landfill Fund. Fund Name Dept Program Name General Fund Indirect Customer Service Solid Waste Administration Sanitation F/L 1660 - Transportation Sales Tax Transportation Program Mgmt $1,017,000 $1,017,000 2360 - Water and Sewer Utilities Administration $4,394,000 $4,394,000 $47,382 $47,382 2440 - Landfill Gas Management System Landfill MRF Operations Recycling Solid Waste Admin $6,000 $404,000 $357,000 $125,000 $87,000 $979,000 $25,000 $3,000 $28,000 2480 - Sanitation Curb Service Residential-Loose Trash Collec Sanitation Frontload Sanitation Roll-off FY 2013 Total General Staff / Admin Charges: $1,445,000 $529,000 $362,000 $136,000 $2,472,000 $27,000 $54,000 $216,000 $78,000 $108,000 $29,000 $431,000 $8,862,000 $82,000 $431,000 $27,000 562 $47,382 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Eleven Operating Capital List Fund Dept / Program Name Status Item Description FY 2013 Budget 1000 - General Fire Department Fire Resource Management (12433) Base Equipment (Refurbish Pumper) GENERAL TOTAL ............................................................................................. $98,050 $98,050 1120 - Vehicle Replacement Field Operations Equipment Replacement (13610) Base Police Dept - 41 Vehicles Base Unscheduled Repl's - Approp. Base Utilitites - 9 Vehicles Base Field Operations - 2 Vehicles Base Transportation - 1 Vehicle Equipment Replacement VEHICLE REPLACEMENT TOTAL .............................................................. $1,211,103 $775,000 $515,460 $171,350 $77,780 $2,750,693 $2,750,693 1140 - PC Replacement Info. Technology Technology Replacement (11530) Base Mobile Data Terminals Base Servers Base Phone Systems Base Multiplexer Costs Technology Replacement PC REPLACEMENT TOTAL ........................................................................... $495,548 $362,766 $91,900 $49,632 $999,846 $999,846 1220 - Arts Commission Fund Library & Arts Arts Maintenance (15310) Base Public Art ARTS COMMISSION FUND TOTAL ............................................................. $77,378 $77,378 1240 - Court Security/Bonds City Court Fill the Gap (10530) Base Equipment COURT SECURITY/BONDS TOTAL ............................................................. 563 $10,000 $10,000 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Eleven Operating Capital List Fund Dept / Program Name Status Item Description FY 2013 Budget 1720 - Fire Special Revenue Fire Department Fire - Special Revenue Fund (12610) Base Equipment (Refurbish Pumper) Carryo Engine Refurbishments Fire - Special Revenue Fund FIRE SPECIAL REVENUE TOTAL ................................................................ $24,512 $24,512 $49,024 $49,024 1860 - RICO Funds Police Department Federal RICO (32020) Base Equipment $100,000 Equipment Improve Other Than Bldgs State RICO $232,712 $95,000 $327,712 State RICO (32030) Base Base RICO FUNDS TOTAL ........................................................................................ $427,712 2360 - Water and Sewer Utilities Water Distribution (17290) Base Valve Exerciser WATER AND SEWER TOTAL ........................................................................ $30,000 $30,000 2500 - Pub Housing Budget Activities Comm. Partnerships Community Housing (17910) Base Misc Cap Projects PUB HOUSING BUDGET ACTIVITIES TOTAL .......................................... Grand Total: 564 $210,000 $210,000 $4,652,703 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Twelve Operating Carryover Savings Budgets Fund Dept / Program Name Item Description FY 2013 Budget 1000 - General Council Office Barrel District (10130) Small Capital Projects $4,200 Small Capital Projects $9,000 Small Capital Projects $221 Small Capital Projects $4,000 Small Capital Projects $1,500 Small Capital Projects $13,000 Cactus District (10150) Cholla District (10120) Ocotillo District (10170) Sahuaro District (10140) Yucca District (10160) City Clerk Elections (10240) County Election Services $110,000 Non-Departmental Fund 1000 Non-Dept (11801) Unbudgeted Carryover Reserve GENERAL TOTAL .............................................................................................. $30,000 $171,921 1310 - Neighborhood Stabilization Pgm Comm. Partnerships NSP Programs (30900) Professional & Contractual $423,375 Salary $150,000 Allocated Retirement Expense Social Security - City Share ER-Medicare Exp $2,175 NSP Programs NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PGM TOTAL .................................... 565 $15,150 $9,300 $600,000 $600,000 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Twelve Operating Carryover Savings Budgets Fund Dept / Program Name Item Description FY 2013 Budget 1311 - N'hood Stabilization Pgm III Comm. Partnerships NSP III (30910) Professional & Contractual $300,000 Pay Reimb-Salary $50,000 NSP III N'HOOD STABILIZATION PGM III TOTAL ................................................ $350,000 $350,000 1320 - C.D.B.G. Comm. Partnerships CDBG Programs (31001) Housing Projects $358,264 CDBG Allocation Future Project $353,249 Housing Rehab-Subrecipients Demolitions $228,789 $109,962 Temporary Relocation CDBG Programs C.D.B.G. TOTAL .................................................................................................. $85,517 $1,135,781 $1,135,781 1660 - Transportation Sales Tax Transportation Traffic Mitigation (16580) Intersection/Ped Safety Imp TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX TOTAL ..................................................... $100,000 $100,000 1720 - Fire Special Revenue Fire Department Fire - Special Revenue Fund (12610) Engine Refurbishments FIRE SPECIAL REVENUE TOTAL ................................................................. 566 $24,512 $24,512 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Twelve Operating Carryover Savings Budgets Fund Dept / Program Name Item Description FY 2013 Budget 1842 - ARRA Stimulus Grants Comm. Partnerships CDBG-R (37021) CDBG-R Visual Improvement $60,000 Equip Mgmt Facility Lighting (37071) Professional and Contractual $15,648 GMOC Parking Garage Lighting (37072) Professional and Contractual $2,654 JAG Recovery Act (37002) Professional and Contractual $652,566 Professional and Contractual $165,079 Solar Parks Lighting (37075) 567 Return to Main TOC SCHEDULES Schedule Twelve Operating Carryover Savings Budgets Fund Dept / Program Name Item Description FY 2013 Budget Grants ARWRF Facility UV System Imp (37060) Professional and Contractual $806,799 Build Safe Engy Prog Enhance (37065) Professional and Contractual $29,259 Energy Matters Public Educat (37067) Line Supplies $45,200 Temporary Pay $14,673 Professional And Contractual Social Security - City Share $12,775 $910 ER-Medicare Exp $213 Energy Matters Public Educat $73,771 Program Manager (37068) Authorized Salaries Allocated Retirement Expense Social Security - City Share ER-Medicare Exp $48,599 $4,908 $3,013 $705 Program Manager $57,225 Public Safety/Court Lighting (37062) Professional and Contractual $9,051 Well 43 Variable Drive Retrofi (37061) Professional and Contractual $76,970 ARRA STIMULUS GRANTS TOTAL .............................................................. $1,949,022 2530 - Training Facility Revenue Fund Fire Department PS Training Ops - Fire (12590) Dept Cont. / Emergency Repairs $30,000 TRAINING FACILITY REVENUE FUND TOTAL ........................................ $30,000 Grand Total: 568 $4,361,236 Appendix Annual Budget, 2012-2013 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Miscellaneous Statistics MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS FROM 2005-09 est. AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: POPULATION DISTRIBUTION: Age 5 years & Under 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 to 84 years 85 years & over Total # 22,284 19,450 19,121 19,197 18,518 38,324 35,105 32,620 13,964 10,400 10,113 7,058 3,301 249,455 % 8.93% 7.80% 7.67% 7.70% 7.42% 15.36% 14.07% 13.08% 5.60% 4.17% 4.05% 2.83% 1.32% - Population 3 yrs & older Enrolled in school Nursery school, preschool Kindergarten Elementary school (grades 1-8) High school (grades 9-12) College or graduate school EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Education Population 25 years and over Less than High School graduate High school graduate (or equivalent) Some college, or Associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher Median age: 31.9 Sex Male Female # 124,641 124,814 Enrolled # % 71,910 3,521 4.90% 4,066 5.65% 30,565 42.50% 16,371 22.77% 17,387 24.18% Percent w/ bachelor's degree or higher: Percent of high school graduates w/ some college or an associate's degree: Percent of all other: % 49.97% 50.03% Attained # % 130,413 21,643 16.6% 34,927 26.8% 46,721 35.8% 27,122 20.8% 27,122 20.8% 81,648 21,643 62.6% 16.6% INCOME AND BENEFITS (2009 INFLATION-ADJUSTED $'s): Households in Range Income Total Households Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more # 80,943 5,272 3,860 8,342 8,918 12,056 16,862 10,374 10,337 2,956 1,966 OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION: % 6.51% 4.77% 10.31% 11.02% 14.89% 20.83% 12.82% 12.77% 3.65% 2.43% Occupation Employed (Age 16 & over) M anagement/Professional Service Sales and office Farming/fishing/forestry Construction/maintenance Prod./transport/M aterial M oving M edian household income: $52,447 M ean household income: $65,769 569 Employed # % 114,587 33,895 29.58% 18,791 16.40% 32,583 28.44% 209 0.18% 15,714 13.71% 13,395 11.69% Return to Main TOC 2009 Population Distribution 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 5 & 5 to 9 10 to 15 to 20 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 60 to 65 to 75 to 85 & Under 14 19 24 34 44 54 59 64 74 84 over Age in Years 2009 School Enrollment 40,000 30,565 30,000 20,000 16,371 17,387 10,000 3,521 4,066 Nursery school, preschool Kindergarten 0 Elementary school (grades 1‐8) 570 High school College or (grades 9‐12) graduate school Return to Main TOC 2009 Income and Benefits 20,000 16,862 16,000 12,056 12,000 8,342 8,000 5,272 4,000 10,374 10,337 8,918 3,860 2,956 1,966 0 in Thousands 2009 Educational Attainment 140,000 130,413 Population 25 years and over 120,000 Less than High School graduate 100,000 High school graduate (or equivalent) 80,000 60,000 Some college, or Associate's degree 46,721 34,927 40,000 21,643 27,122 20,000 0 571 Bachelor's degree or higher Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Miscellaneous Statistics CITY STATISTICS Year Founded: 1892 Date of Incorporation: June 18, 1910 Elections: Number of votes cast: August 2010 Primary Elec. (8/10) 14,526 (3 districts) November 2010 General Elec. (11/10) 14,052 (2 District runoff elec.) Form of Government: Council/City Manager County: Maricopa Elevation: 1,152 Ft. Top Five Glendale Employers: U.S. Air Force-Luke (Military/Civil) Banner Health System Wal-Mart (FT & PT) Glendale Union High School District City of Glendale Annexed Area in Sq. Miles: Year 1910 1910-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Percentage of registered voters voting in: August 2010 Primary Elec. (08/10) 28.63% November 2010 General Elec. (11/10) 47.67% 6,000 2,866 2,025 2,008 1,966 Building Permits: Fiscal Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 1 15 39 49 54 54 54 54 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 59 Number 8,561 7,925 6,944 5,439 6,299 4,819 6,980 6,844 6,185 6,883 5,289 5,184 Fire Protection (for CY 2010): Number of Stations 90% of the time Units arrived On-scene Number of Calls EMS Fire Miscellaneous Special Operations Total Calls Fire FTE’s (FY 2013) Population: 1970 36,228 1980 97,172 1985 (Special Census) 122,392 1990 (Census) 148,134 1995* (Special Census) 182,615 2000 (Census) 218,812 2010 (Census) 226,721 2012 (Estimate) 228,015 * All population numbers 1995 and after include the population of Luke AFB. Value of Buildings $333,138,095 $292,105,521 $287,722,622 $219,539,420 $327,352,955 $359,027,305 $546,094,645 $445,703,739 $582,249,673 $452,658,952 $324,754,646 $158,860,414 9 5:43 Min 34,960 5,253 2,409 809 43,431 277 Police Protection (for CY 2010): Number of Stations 3 Calls Processed* 452,237 Vehicular Patrol Units** 116 Number of Reserves 16 *Includes incoming, outgoing and 911 calls **Marked by lights/sirens & uniformed patrol officers Police FTE’s (FY 2013) 577.5 City Authorized Staffing as of July 1, 2012: Full-Time &Part-Time, Permanent 1,824.25 572 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Miscellaneous Statistics City Court Offenses Processed (FY 2012): DUI 2,114 Serious Traffic 441 Other Criminal Traffic 6,348 Civil Traffic 28,498 Non-Traffic Misdemeanor 7,789 Total Citations Issued 45,190 Protective Orders 2,643 Parks and Recreation (FY 2012): Number of Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Sports Complexes Total Park Acreage Playgrounds Ramadas Tennis Courts Racquetball Courts Basketball Courts Volleyball Courts Soccer/Football Fields Softball Fields Swimming Pools Splash Pads Dog Parks Skate Parks Reservable Ramadas Area Lights Park Benches Drinking Fountains Barbeques Picnic Tables Miles of Trails Linear Feet of Multiuse Walkways Transportation (FY 2012): Miles of Streets Maintained Arterial Secondary (1/2 Mile Streets) Collector (1/4 Miles Streets) Local Alleys Unpaved Total Water Utilities (for CY 2010): Number of Active Customers* 59,435 Miles of System (lines) 997 Annual Consumption 13,460 M Gal Avg. gallons/user/month 18.37 K Gal Avg. gallons/user/year 220.4 K Gal Available Storage Capacity 67 M Gal Avg. Treatment Plan Capacities Cholla 30.0 MGD Pyramid Peak 48.0 MGD Oasis 12.5 MGD Avg. Daily Water Produced 53.6 M Gal 55 9 4 2,188.5 97 144 38 49 55 44 55 54 2 2 3 2 45 1,491 542 139 252 716 41 92,892 Wastewater Utilities (for CY 2010): Number of Active Customers Miles of Collection Lines Treatment Plant Capacities WAWRF Arrowhead SROG Annual Wastewater Treated Sanitation (FY 2012): Number of Customers 56,000 710 11.5 MGD 4.5 MGD 13.2 MGD 6.9 B Gal 52,500 Landfill & MRF (FY 2012): Number of Customer Transactions 120,409 Tonnage Processed Residential 135,269 Commercial 56,471 Recycle 11,290 Total 203.030 103 64 151 464 20 0.0 802 Sources: Various City of Glendale Department Records U.S. Census 573 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Acronyms ACRONYMS A ACDC ADA ADOT AFB ARRA AMFP A/V AWRF AZSTA Arizona Canal Diversion Channel Americans with Disabilities Act Arizona Department of Transportation Air Force Base American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Arizona Municipal Financing Program Audio/Visual Arrowhead Water Reclamation Facility Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority B BofA Bank of America CAFR CAP CD CDBG CFD CIP CPI CPI-U CVB CY Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Community Action Program Community Development Community Development Block Grant Community Facilities Districts Capital Improvement Plan Consumer Price Index Consumer Price Index for Urban Users Convention & Visitors Bureau Calendar Year DIF DMP Development Impact Fees Debt Management Plan C D E EMS EOC EECBG Emergency Medical Services Emergency Operations Center Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant F FAA FAQ FT FTA FTE FY Federal Aviation Administration Frequently Asked Questions Full Time Federal Transit Administration Full Time Equivalent Fiscal Year G GAAP GASB GCC GEMS GF Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Governmental Accounting Standards Board Glendale Community College Glendale’s Exceptional Municipal Staff General Fund 574 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Acronyms GFOA GIS G.O. GO Government Finance Officers Association Geographic Information System General Obligation Glendale Onboard H HALO HR HUD HURF Helicopter Air-medical and Logistical Operations Human Resources Department of Housing and Urban Development Highway User Revenue Fund IGA IGP IT Intergovernmental Agreement Intergovernmental Programs Department Information Technology LID LTAF Local Improvement Districts Local Transportation Assistance Fund I L M MGD MOU MPC MRF Million Gallons per Day Memorandum of Understanding Municipal Property Corporation Material Recovery Facility NHL National Hockey League O and M OSHA Operational and Maintenance Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAYGO PC PFC Pay-As-You-Go Capital Personal Computer Public Facilities Corporation RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations SROG SRP Sub-Regional Operating Group Salt River Project N O P R S V VOCA Victims of Crime Act WAWRF WIFA WRF WTP Western Area Water Reclamation Facility Water Infrastructure Finance Authority Water Reclamation Facility Water Treatment Plant W 575 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Glossary GLENDALE BUDGET DOCUMENT GLOSSARY The City of Glendale designed the Annual Budget to offer citizens and staff an understandable and meaningful budget document. This glossary provides assistance to those unfamiliar with budgeting terms and specific terms related to the Glendale financial planning process. A BOND: A municipality will issue this debt instrument and agree to repay the face amount of the bond on the designated maturity date. Bonds are primarily used to finance capital projects. ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING: The most commonly used accounting method, which reports income when earned and expenses when incurred, as opposed to cash basis accounting, which reports income when received and expenses when paid. General Obligation (GO) Bond: This type of bond is secured by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the municipality. ADOPTION: A formal action taken by the City Council which sets the spending limits for the fiscal year. Revenue Bond: This type of bond is secured by the revenues from a specific source such as gas taxes or water revenues. APPROPRIATION: An authorization made by the City Council which permits the city to incur obligations and expend resources. C ASSESSED VALUATION: A valuation placed upon real estate or other property by the county assessor and the state as a basis for levying taxes. CAPITAL BUDGET: The appropriation of bonds or operating revenue for improvements to city facilities which may include buildings, streets, water/sewer lines and parks. B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Non-routine capital expenditures that generally cost more than $50,000 resulting in the purchase of equipment, construction, renovation or acquisition of land, infrastructure and/or buildings with an expected useful life of at least five years. Capital improvement projects are designed to prevent the deterioration of the city's existing infrastructure, and respond to and anticipate the future growth of the city. BALANCED BUDGET: Arizona law (Title 42 Arizona Revised Statutes) requires the City Council to annually adopt a balanced budget by purpose of public expense. The city charter also requires an annual balanced budget. The charter specifically states that “the total amounts in the budget proposed for expenditure shall not exceed the total amounts proposed for expenditure in the published estimates. BASE BUDGET: Ongoing expenses for personnel, contractual services, and the replacement of supplies and equipment to maintain service levels for each program as authorized by the City Council. CARRYOVER: Year-end savings that can be carried forward to cover any one-time expenses such as supplies, equipment, or special contracts. 576 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Glossary D the Home Rule Option since the inception of the expenditure limitation. DEBT RATIO: Total debt divided by total assets. Used by finance and budget staff to assess fiscal health, internal controls, etc. F FISCAL YEAR (FY): The period designated by the city for the beginning and ending of financial transactions. The fiscal year for the City of Glendale begins July 1 and ends June 30. DEBT SERVICE: Principal and interest payments on outstanding bonds. DEPRECIATION: The decline in the value of an asset due to general wear and tear or obsolescence. FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE): A position converted to the decimal equivalent of a full-time position based on 2,080 hours per year. For example, a part-time typist working for 20 hours per week would be equivalent to a 0.5 FTE (20 hours times 52 weeks divided by 2,080 hours). DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: Fees requiring new development to cover the increased cost to the city of providing new infrastructure when they construct new residential and commercial developments. E FUND: A fiscal and accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts recording cash and other financial resources. ENCUMBRANCE: The formal accounting recognition of commitments to expend resources in the future. FUND BALANCE: A balance or carry over that occurs when actual revenues exceed budgeted revenues and/or when actual expenditures are less than budgeted expenditures. ENTERPRISE FUND: Funds that are accounted for in a manner similar to a private business. Enterprise funds are intended to be self-sufficient with all costs supported primarily by user fees. The city maintains three enterprise funds: water/sewer, landfill and sanitation. G GENERAL FUND: Primary operating fund of the city. It exists to account for the resources devoted to finance the services traditionally associated with local government. Included in these services are police and fire protection, street and right of way maintenance, parks and recreation, planning and economic development, general administration of the city, and any other activity for which a special fund has not been created. EXPENDITURE: Represents a decrease in fund resources. EXPENDITURE LIMITATION: An amendment to the Arizona State Constitution which limits annual expenditures of all municipalities. The Economic Estimates Commission uses actual payments of local revenues for FY 1980 as the base limit and adjusts annually for population growth and inflation. All municipalities have the option of Home Rule that requires voters to approve a four-year expenditure limit based on revenues received. Glendale citizens have approved GOAL: A general and timeless statement created with a purpose based on the needs of the community. 577 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Glossary GROUP: Administrative groups that consist of a number of departments and divisions that provide services. These groups include Administrative Services, Community Development, Public Works and Public Safety. P PAY-AS-YOU-GO (PAYGO) CAPITAL PROJECTS: Capital projects funded by General Fund operating revenues. PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Measurement of service performance indicators that reflect the amount of money spent on services and the resulting outcomes at a specific level of services provided. I INFRASTRUCTURE: Facilities that support the continuance and growth of a community. Examples include roads, water lines, sewers, public buildings, parks and airports. PERMANENT BASE ADJUSTMENT: An adjustment to the expenditure limitation base established by the Economics Estimate Commission (see expenditure limitation) which requires voter approval. The Glendale voters approved a permanent base adjust in the spring of 2000 which became effective with the FY 2003 budget year. L LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID): LID’s are legally designated geographic areas in which a majority of the affected property owners agree to pay for one or more capital improvements through a special assessment. PRODUCTIVITY: A measurement of the increase/decrease of city services output compared to the per unit input cost invested. PROGRAM: A group of related activities performed by one or more organizational units for the purpose of accomplishing a city responsibility. O OBJECTIVE: A measurable output that an organization strives to achieve within a designated time frame. The achievement of the objective advances an organization toward a corresponding goal. PROPERTY TAX: The total property tax levied by a municipality. Arizona’s municipal property tax system is divided into a primary and secondary tax rate. OPERATING AND MAINENANCE (O & M) COSTS: The day-to-day operating and maintenance costs of a municipality. These costs include personnel, gas, electric utility bills, telephone expense, reproduction costs, postage and vehicle maintenance. Primary Tax: Arizona statute limits the primary property tax levy amount and municipalities may use this tax for any purpose. Secondary Rate: Arizona statute does not limit the secondary tax levy amount and municipalities may only use this levy to retire the principal and interest or redemption charges on bond debt. OPERATING BUDGET: The day-to-day costs of delivering city services. 578 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Glossary expenses which enhance the service level of a program. Supplemental increases are directed at attaining council goals or meeting increased service needs. R RESOURCES: Total amounts available for appropriation including estimated revenues, fund transfers and beginning fund balances. T REVENUE: Financial resources received from taxes, user charges and other levels of government. TAX LEVY: The total amount of the general property taxes collected for purposes specified in the Tax Levy Ordinance. Actual vs. Budgeted: Difference between the amount projected (budgeted) in revenues or expenditures at the beginning of the fiscal year and the actual receipts or expenses which are incurred by the end of the fiscal year. TAX RATE: The amount of tax levied for each $100 of assessed valuation. TRANSFER: Movement of resources between two funds. Example: An interfund transfer would include the transfer of operating resources from the General Fund to an Enterprise Fund. S U SALARY SAVINGS TRANSFER: A transfer of savings from salary & benefit accounts to non-salary, operational accounts like office supplies, equipment maintenance, etc. Normal employee turnover, retirements and terminations can create salary savings situations. USER CHARGES: The payment of a fee in direct receipt of a public service by the party who benefits from the service. W WORKLOAD INDICATORS: Statistical information that indicates the demands for services within a given department or division. Workload indicators are a type of performance measure utilized by departments or divisions to assess its level of service. SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX: A tax levy restricted to the payment of principal and interest on general obligation bonds. SERVICE LEASE: A leesor maintains and services an asset under a service lease. SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: A fund that accounts for receipts from revenue sources that have been earmarked for specific activities and related expenditures. STATE-SHARED REVENUE: Includes the city’s portion of state sales tax revenues, state income tax receipts and Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes. SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ALLOWANCE: This allowance provides additional personnel, equipment and related 579 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Frequently Asked Questions FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS The City of Glendale designed the Annual Budget to offer citizens and staff an understandable and meaningful budget document. This guide will provide assistance to those unfamiliar with Glendale's budgeting and financial planning processes. What is a “Fiscal Year (FY)” and when does it begin and end? The City of Glendale and State of Arizona follow a Fiscal Year (FY) that starts July 1 and ends June 30. A Fiscal Year is the period designated by the city for the beginning and ending of financial transactions or a budget cycle. The “2013 Annual Budget” or “Fiscal Year 2012-13 (FY 2013)” refers to the period that begins July 1, 2012 and concludes on June 30, 2013. What does it mean to, “adopt the budget?” Budget adoption is a formal action taken by the City Council that sets the city’s priorities and spending limits for the upcoming fiscal year. The FY 2013 budget will be formally adopted by the City Council at a public meeting in June 2012, though city staff has been preparing the budget for months in advance. How do I get involved or learn about the budget before it’s adopted? At any time of the year citizens can view the city’s budget online, in city libraries or at City Hall. Residents can discuss it with neighbors, city staff or Council Members. In addition, the City Council has several special Budget Workshops every March and/or April that citizens can attend, watch on KGLN cable channel 11 or borrow on videotape from Glendale’s libraries. What is meant by “budget appropriation?” Budget appropriation refers to authorizations made by the City Council that permit the city to incur obligations and expend resources. When the City Council appropriates funds, they are saying the community should, for example, spend its money on public safety, or make investments that improve the quality of life in Glendale. The city cannot spend money unless it is appropriated, and this ensures the public’s money is spent according to the public’s needs as expressed by the democratically elected City Council. What are municipal bonds? A municipality, such as the City of Glendale, will sell (issue) bonds primarily to finance capital projects. This is similar to a family taking out a mortgage in order to finance a house. Just like a family, the city has basic necessities (infrastructure) like roads and office buildings, but usually does not have cash available for such major purchases. Municipal bonds are like loans that help make large, important purchases affordable. Bonds also effectively spread out the costs of major projects across their useful life, so all those citizens who utilize them can help pay for them. What is the difference between the capital budget and the operating budget? The capital budget, or Capital Improvement Plan, is an appropriation of bonds or operating revenue for improvements to city facilities that may include buildings, parks, streets and water/sewer lines. The operating budget covers the costs of the city’s day-to-day operations, such as employee salaries, supplies and contracts. What is carryover? Carryover refers to year-end savings that can be carried forward into the next fiscal year to cover any one-time expenses such as supplies, equipment or special contracts that were budgeted for but not purchased (or paid for) in the previous fiscal year. For example, if 580 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Frequently Asked Questions a piece of equipment was ordered in June (the last month in a fiscal year) but not received until July (the start of the next fiscal year), then the “savings” from the previous budget year could be used to purchase the equipment in the next budget year using carryover appropriation. What is a debt ratio? The debt ratio is total debt divided by total assets. This is one measurement of fiscal health. If the city, or a family, owes substantially more money than the value of the things it owns or its ability to generate revenue, a dangerous financial situation exists. The lower the debt ratio, the better interest rates the city can receive when it wants to sell more bonds to finance additional capital improvements for Glendale. What is debt service? A family’s debt service is the payments they make on loans, such as a mortgage and credit cards. Principal and interest payments on outstanding bonds are referred to as debt service. Just like a family cannot skip on mortgage or credit card payments, the city must always keep up on its debt service, so this will always be a part of the city’s budget. What is an encumbrance? An encumbrance refers to the formal accounting recognition of commitments to expend resources in the future. For example, when a purchase order is issued for equipment, that funding is encumbered until delivery. Once the equipment is received, the invoice is paid and the encumbrance becomes an expense. What is an expenditure? Expenditures represent a decrease in fund resources or, stated simply, a recorded expense. What is an expenditure limitation or permanent base adjustment? Arizona municipalities can only spend funds up to a level specified by the State or local voters via Home Rule (see Glendale’s City Charter at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=13944&sid=3). This is meant to ensure local government budgets are balanced. Glendale’s voters approved Home Rule that required voters to approve a four-year expenditure limit based on actual revenues the city has received. However, in the spring of 2000, Glendale voters approved a permanent base adjustment, eliminating the need for further expenditure limitation elections. What is a full-time equivalent position (FTE)? An FTE (1.0 FTE) refers to one or more employees working 40 hours per week, or 2,080 hours per year. For example, a part-time employee working 20 hours per week would be considered a 0.5 FTE. Two part-time employees each working 20 hours per week would be considered 1.0 FTE. What is the definition of a budget fund? Glendale currently has 100 budget funds to help keep track of and focus resources. These include the General Fund, Transportation Fund, Sanitation Fund and Water/Sewer Fund, to name just a few. A family might use several funds, too, in order to help manage their finances and determine how close they are to reaching certain goals. For instance, a family might have a children’s college fund, a retirement fund, vacation fund and household expenses fund (such as an IRA, savings and checking account). A budget fund, then, is a fiscal and accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts recording cash and other financial resources. Glendale uses separate funds in order to correctly and legally track revenues and expenditures associated with that particular fund to aid with various financial reporting requirements. 581 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Frequently Asked Questions What is a fund balance? Fund balance refers to the remainder or carryover that occurs when actual revenues exceed budgeted revenues and/or when actual expenditures are less than budgeted expenditures at the end of the fiscal year (June 30). If the city budgets (plans to spend) $15.0 million on roads next year, but only spends $14.0 million, the leftover $1.0 million would essentially become fund balance. What does the word "group" in Glendale's budget mean? Every department belongs to an administrative group led by an Executive Director, Department Director, City Manager or Assistant City Manager. These groups include Appointed & Elected Officials, Budget & Financial Services, City Manager, Communications, Compliance & Asset Management, Development Services, Economic Development, Human Resources & Risk Management, Intergovernmental Programs, Parks, Recreation & Library Services, Neighborhood & Human Services, Public Safety, Public Works, Technology & Innovation, Transportation Services and Water Services. What are infrastructure and capital improvements? Infrastructure and capital improvements refer to facilities that need to be in place in order to support the basic needs of residents and businesses in the community. Examples include roads, water lines, sewers, public buildings, parks and airports. What are strategic priorities and benchmarks? Why does Glendale use them? Strategic Priorities, developed by the City Council, are statements of community values that direct the city's operations and help demonstrate progress towards a shared vision. City staff uses these priorities to assist in program development, creating annual budget requests and building department business plans. Benchmarks are established for each activity listed in business plans and represent a desired level of performance that demonstrates the efficient use of city resources to do the most good. City staff measures actual performance throughout the year, makes comparisons to established benchmarks, determines the causes for deviation and evaluates alternative courses of action. What exactly is a “program” in the city budget? A program is a group of related activities performed by one or more organizational units for the purpose of accomplishing a city responsibility. For example, one program in the Field Operations Department is Street Cleaning. Based on staff’s assessment of costs and needs, the desires of citizens and the priorities of the City Council, the Field Operations Department is budgeted a set amount of money to accomplish street cleaning. What is “assessed valuation” and how does it relate to my taxes and the city’s budget? Each year the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office determines the value of all property within the county, including city buildings and individual homes. These assessment values are then used as a basis for levying property taxes. The City of Glendale charges $1.9005 in property tax per $100 of assessed valuation ($0.2252 primary rate and $1.6753 secondary rate). How much does the city receive from my property tax bill and how is it used? Primary Property tax revenue represents 2% of the city’s General Fund revenue, which is estimated at $2.6 million in this year’s budget. Secondary Property Tax, used to pay off General Obligation bonds, will generate approximately $19.3 million in FY 2013. The City of Glendale is one of 582 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX Frequently Asked Questions several entities that receive a portion of the property taxes residents pay, with school districts typically receiving the majority. Each year the Glendale City Council levies the property tax one week after final budget adoption. Primary Tax: Arizona law limits the primary property tax levy amount and municipalities may use revenue from this tax for any lawful purpose. Glendale’s FY 2013 primary property tax rate of $0.2252 per $100 of assessed valuation is used for General Fund operations. Secondary Tax: Arizona does not limit the secondary tax levy amount and municipalities may only use this levy to retire the principal and interest or redemption charges on bond debt. Glendale’s FY 2013 secondary tax rate of $1.6753 per $100 of assessed valuation is used to pay debt service on General Obligation bonds. Where does the city’s revenue come from? Glendale's revenue comes from a variety of sources, including sales tax, property tax, user charges and other levels of government. What is state-shared revenue? The state of Arizona shares a portion of its tax revenues (from sales, income and motor vehicle in-lieu taxes) with Arizona cities and towns. This funding is divided among the cities and towns using population formulas supplied by state law. These state-shared revenues comprise a large portion of most city and town budgets, including 32% of Glendale's General Fund (Fund 1000). State-shared revenue enables local governments to continue providing basic services, such as police and fire protection, without burdening the residents with additional local taxes. Since cities and towns are not equally wealthy, state shared revenue is of great assistance, especially to cities with lesser wealth or greater service needs. Because state-shared revenue distribution is a specified percentage of state revenue collections, as state revenue declines, city revenue declines. Consequently, in difficult economic times, cities 'feel the pinch' just as the State does. What is a budget transfer? A budget transfer moves budget appropriation between city offices, departments, or agencies. The City Council approves all transfers that result in a modification of a budget item. What are user charges? User charges are fees paid in direct receipt of a public service by the party who benefits from the service. Fees paid for recreation classes or leagues that citizens elect to sign up for and participate are examples of user charges. City of Glendale Financial Services Department 5850 West Glendale Avenue, 3rd Floor Glendale, Arizona 85301 Phone: (623) 930-2264 583 Return to Main TOC APPENDIX This page left blank intentionally 584 City of Glendale Management & Budget Department 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale, Arizona 85301 623-930-2264 | www.GlendaleAZ.com