The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Maricopa County, Arizona for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications 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. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Credits Board of Supervisors Don Stapley, Chairman, District 2 Fulton Brock, District 1 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max W. Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox, District 5 County Administrative Officer David R. Smith Deputy County Administrator Sandra L. Wilson Budget Manager Chris Bradley Table of Contents Executive Information Manager Brian G. Hushek Office of Management and Budget 301 W Jefferson St, Ste 1070 Phoenix AZ 85003-2143 Phone (602)506-7280 Fax (602)506-3063 www.maricopa.gov/budget i Maricopa County Mission Statement The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities. Table of Contents Strategic Priorities • Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas in a fiscally responsible manner. • Minimize the burden on the property taxpayer through rate reductions. • Healthy community and solvent healthcare system. • Safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal justice system. • Provide regional leadership for a regional transportation system. • Land use will be planned, managed and funded responsibly; Luke AFB will be preserved. • Maricopa County will continue to improve its positive public image based on results achieved. Approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors – February 21, 2001 ii Table of Contents Credits I Maricopa County Mission Statement ii Strategic Priorities ii Table of Contents iii Budget At A Glance xii County Administrative Officer’s Transmittal Letter 1 Budgeting For Results 2 Managing For Results 3 Government Performance Project 4 Property Tax Rate 5 Budget Priorities 5 Budget Reductions 5 New Facilities to Begin Operations 6 The Capital Improvement Program 6 Mandated Health Care 8 Maricopa Integrated Health System 8 Detention Operations 9 Human Service Campus 9 Employee Benefits and Other Concerns 10 Conclusion 10 Table of Contents Impacts from the State of Arizona Executive Summary Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 11 Basis of Presentation 11 Basis of Accounting 13 Basis of Budgeting and Budgetary Control 13 Budget Process 14 Policies and Their Budgetary Impact 21 County Judicial Branch 24 Indigent Representation 24 Structurally Balanced Budget 24 Interfund Loan to Detention Capital Projects Fund (455) 25 iii Executive Summary (Continued) Economic Development, Non-Profits, Agricultural Extension and Accommodation Schools 26 Table of Contents Summary Schedules iv Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category – FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 27 Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category – FY 2001-02 Revised Budget 28 Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category – FY 2001-02 Adopted Restated Budget 29 Sources of Funds 30 Uses of Funds 31 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Adopted to FY 2001-02 Adopted Restated Budget 32 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Adopted Restated to FY 2001-02 Revised Budget 33 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Revised to FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 35 Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department 39 Consolidated Revenues by Department and Fund Type 43 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary 44 Comparative Tax Data 61 Levy Limit and Truth-In-Taxation Comparisons 62 Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary 63 Expenditure Limitation 69 Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund 70 Consolidated Expenditures by Department and Fund Type 77 Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code 78 General Government Expenditure Summary 84 Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary 87 Major Maintenance Project Summary 89 Health Care Mandates Revenue and Expenditure Detail Report 92 Maricopa Integrated Health System Expenditure Variance Commentary 94 State Budget Reductions 96 Results Initiatives Requests Summary 97 Eliminations Summary 99 Summary Schedules (Continued) Transfers In by Fund 100 Transfers Out by Fund 102 Direct Assessment Special Districts Secondary Roll 105 Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll 106 Personnel Plan Introduction 111 Highlights 111 Personnel Costs & Savings 117 Attrition & Vacancy Rates 120 Employee Retention 124 New Directions 128 Position Control 129 Budgeted FTE Summary 130 Capital Improvement Program 133 Capital Improvement Projects 133 Capital Projects Budget 135 Operating and Capital Budgets – Their Relationship 135 County Departments 137 General Fund / Special Revenue Funds Table of Contents Executive Summary 137 Forensic Science Center 139 New Admin Services Facility Parking 140 New Admin Services Facility (Close-out Costs) 141 Security Building 142 Public Health Clinic 143 Southeast Regional Property Acquisitions 144 Downtown Property Development/Acquisition 145 Justice Courts 146 Environmental Services Facility 147 Human Services Campus 149 Sheriff’s Training Facility 151 Buckeye Hills Shooting Range 153 v Capital Improvement Program (Continued) Sheriff’s Property & Evidence Warehouse 155 Elections Facility 157 Northwest (Surprise) Regional Center 158 West (Avondale) Regional Center 159 Northeast (Scottsdale) Regional Center 160 Detention Capital Projects Fund Table of Contents th 161 4 Avenue Jail 162 Lower Buckeye Jail 163 FMD Maintenance Facility 164 Durango Juvenile Detention 165 Mesa Juvenile Detention 166 Southeast Courtroom Buildout 167 Transportation 169 Special Districts – Flood Control District 267 Special Districts – Library District 303 Debt Service Debt Management Plan 307 Debt Policies 324 County At A Glance vi Profile 329 Economy 331 Population 333 Employment 335 Retail Sales 337 Construction and Real Estate Market 338 Health Care 340 Criminal Justice 342 Sheriff’s Office 342 Superior Court 343 Juvenile Probation 344 Justice Courts 345 County At A Glance (Continued) Legislative Strategies 346 2002 Legislative Session 346 2003 Legislative Session 348 Information Technology Strategies 350 IT Mission 351 IT Values 351 IT Strategic Goals 351 The Highest Purpose of the Office of the Chief Information Officer 351 Managing For Results 353 Why Are We Doing This? 354 Managing for Results System 355 Planning for Results 355 Budgeting for Results 356 Delivering Services & Collecting Data 357 Reporting Results 357 Evaluating Results 357 Decision Making 359 Table of Contents Introduction Financial Forecast Executive Summary 361 General Assumptions 361 Overall Fiscal Position 361 Revenue 362 Expenditures 362 Revenue Assumption Detail 363 Expenditure Assumption Detail 364 Capital Projects 365 General Fund 366 Transportation 368 Flood Control District 370 Library District 372 vii Financial Forecast (Continued) Detention Fund - Operations 374 Detention Fund - Capital Projects 376 Table of Contents Mandates Introduction 377 Executive Summary 377 FY 2002-03 Mandates For All Funds 379 FY 2002-03 General Fund Mandates 381 General Fund Health, Welfare & Sanitation Mandates 383 General Fund Public Safety Mandates 383 General Fund General Government Mandates 384 General Fund Education Mandates 385 FY 2002-03 Mandates Excluding the General Fund 385 Mandate Study - Summary Schedules 385 Consolidated Mandates – Including All Funds 385 General Fund Mandates 389 Departmental Budget Schedules Maricopa County Organization 393 Countywide Organization Chart 393 Elected Officials Elected Officials Organizational Chart 395 Elected Biographies 396 Assessor 400 Attorney 406 Board of Supervisors 415 Clerk of the Superior Court 424 Constables 432 Recorder 436 Sheriff’s Office 441 Superintendent of Schools 452 Treasurer 457 Judicial Branch Judicial Organizational Chart viii 462 Departmental Budget Schedules (Continued) Adult Probation 466 Justice Courts 479 Juvenile Probation 485 Superior Court 492 Appointed 501 Animal Care and Control Services 502 Appropriated Fund Balance 508 Board of Supervisors Clerk 509 Chief Information Officer 514 Community Development 519 Contract Counsel 523 Correctional Health Services 528 County Administrative Officer 535 County Call Center 540 Criminal Justice Facilities Development 544 Elections 550 Eliminations 555 Emergency Management 556 Environmental Services 562 Equipment Services 571 Facilities Management 577 Finance 585 General Government 590 Health Care Delivery System 592 Health Care Mandates 602 Health Plans 614 Housing 620 Human Resources 625 Human Services 630 Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems 637 Internal Audit 641 Legal Advocate 646 Legal Defender 652 Table of Contents Appointed Organizational Chart ix Departmental Budget Schedules (Continued) Management and Budget 658 Materials Management 662 Medical Examiner 667 Parks and Recreation 673 Planning and Development 678 Public Defender 686 Public Fiduciary 693 Public Health 699 Research and Reporting 715 Risk Management 718 Solid Waste 724 Telecommunications 729 Total Compensation 733 Transportation 736 Table of Contents Special Districts Special Districts Organizational Chart 746 Flood Control District 747 Library District 757 Stadium District 762 Attachments x Maricopa County’s Mission Statement 767 Maricopa County’s Vision Statements 767 Maricopa County’s Strategic Priorities 767 Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines 768 Budget Priorities - Maricopa County 772 Budget Priorities - Flood Control District 773 Budget Priorities - Library District 774 Budget Priorities - Stadium District 775 Budget Calendar 776 Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy 777 Funded Position Policy 780 Managing for Results Policy 783 Performance Management Process Policy 785 Attachments (Continued) Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy 788 Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes 790 Policy for Administering Grants 792 Indirect Cost Policy for Grant Programs 796 General Government Policy 798 Vehicle Replacement Policy 800 Fund Descriptions 802 FY 2002-03 Revenue Object and Sub-Object Codes 812 FY 2002-03 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes 815 Glossary Terms and Acronyms Acknowledgements 821 827 Table of Contents xi Budget At A Glance Introduction For the past 9 years, Maricopa County’s Office of Management and Budget has received the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. This award is presented to government entities that meet certain criteria in the presentation of their budget. This “Budget At A Glance” section is designed to provide the lay person with a broad view of the contents included in the FY 2002-03 Maricopa County budget, its processes, issues and anticipated outcomes. Document sections are cited in order to guide the reader to more in-depth information and explanation of the drivers of Maricopa County’s operating budget and capital improvement program. Policy Document Organization-wide Financial and Programmatic Policies and Goals Budget Table of AtContents A Glance Maricopa County’s long-term organization-wide goals and policies are provided in Maricopa County’s mission statement and strategic priorities found below. Other references are included in the Transmittal Letter, the Executive Summary under Policies & Their Budgetary Impact, the Managing for Results section, the Capital Improvement Program, the Financial Forecast, the Departmental Budget Schedules under mission, goals, issues and mandates, while the actual policies are included in the Attachments section. Maricopa County Mission Statement: The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities. Strategic Priorities: • • • • • • • Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas in a fiscally responsible manner. Minimize the burden on the property taxpayer through rate reductions. Healthy community and solvent healthcare system. Safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal justice system. Provide regional leadership for a regional transportation system. Land use will be planned, managed and funded responsibly; Luke AFB will be preserved. Maricopa County will continue to improve its positive public image based on results achieved. Maricopa County’s goals are long-term and address the entire organization, such as the long-term impacts of revenue shortfalls, including the significant drop in recurring state shared sales tax, and long-term financial planning and operations issues. The County’s policies apply to financial matters as well as programmatic (service delivery) concerns over a multi-year time frame, such as the Managing for Results Policy and the Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy, both of which are excerpted below. Managing for Results Policy: All Maricopa County departments will participate in the Maricopa County Managing for Results system and shall comply with this policy. This policy establishes a framework that integrates planning, budgeting, reporting, evaluating and decision making for all Maricopa County departments. This framework is called Managing for Results, a management system that establishes the requirements to fulfill the County’s Mission and Vision of accountability to its citizens. xii Planning for Results Decision Making • Future Demand • Vision & Mission • Performance Targets • Strategic - Goals • Adjust Allocations If Required • Operational - Results • Operational/Process Improvement • Family of Measures per Activity • Employee Performance Plans Evaluating Results • Performance Audit • Employee Evaluations • Resources Consumed Managing For Results • Citizen Survey & Input Reporting Results Deliver Services • Data Verified • Actuals vs. Forecasts • Baselines & Benchmarks • All Customers Included Collect Data Budgeting for Results • Demand for Services • Performance Budget • Resource Allocation Managing for Results is cyclical and ties performance to all that we do. The Managing for Results cycle is outlined on the chart at left. Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy: This policy establishes the guidelines for the maintenance and use of any reserve fund balances. The policy provides for budgetary stability, debt reduction and, ultimately, stabilization and reduction of tax rates when possible. During times of economic downturn, the policy may be used to stabilize the general fund until appropriate long-term budgetary adjustments are made. Further, the purpose of the policy is to demonstrate a commitment to the maintenance and, when possible, reduction of the tax rate while ensuring that Maricopa County remains financially stable and accountable to the citizens. Short-term Financial and Operational Policies That Guide Budget Development Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy: The purpose of the Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy is to provide departments with the flexibility in managing their allocated public resources to achieve program results, while upholding accountability for spending within legal appropriations. This policy seeks to strengthen budget accountability and ownership at the department level. The program encourages departmental staff to save resources and be creative in the delivery of services. Departments are held responsible for bottom-line performance and absorb unanticipated cost increases and revenue shortfalls. This approach to budgeting can help the County cope with new fiscal challenges and improve the quality of County services. Vehicle Replacement Policy: The purpose of this Policy is to provide County Departments/Special Districts with guidelines so that existing vehicles can be replaced in a timely and cost-effective manner. Funded Position Policy: The purpose of the Funded Position Policy is to establish guidelines for adding, deleting and changing positions so that all authorized positions are fully funded on an annualized basis, and that any filled or vacant position that becomes unfunded or under-funded is either fully funded or deleted. Goals and Objectives of Organizational Units-Departments Maricopa County’s organizational units consist of 62 departments, including special districts, each of which has a strategic plan that integrates planning with budgeting and performance measurement to achieve Maricopa County’s mission and strategic priorities. Every department has xiii Budget AtContents A Glance Table of Maricopa County’s short-term financial and operational policies guide the development of the budget for the upcoming year. These policies provide the tools for building a structurally balanced budget, ensuring that the fiduciary obligations as stewards of public monies are met. The policies deal with a wide range of areas that provide financial safeguards and policy direction on such matters as lump sum budgeting, budget development, reserves and tax reduction, and internal charges and indirect cost allocations. These policies may be found in the Transmittal Letter, the Executive Summary under Policies & Their Budgetary Impact, the Managing for Results section, the Capital Budget, the Departmental Budget Schedules under mission, goals, issues and mandates, while the actual policies are included in the Attachments section. Several short-term policies that reflect the financial and operational development of the budget for the upcoming year follow. a mission, vision (optional), strategic priorities, issues, programs, activities, and services, all of which may be found in the Departmental Budget Schedules section under mission, goals, issues, key performance measures, and mandates. Budget Table of AtContents A Glance Some departments have long-term results-oriented goals (descriptions of anticipated accomplishments or results as opposed to descriptions of functions and activities, e.g., recycle 20% of community’s solid waste stream). For example, the Assessors Office has a long term goal for the timely and accurate identification of property owners that is 99.5% consistent with recorded documents and is updated within 30 days of a recorded change. The Elections department has a goal of reducing the number of candidates fined to less than 10% of the total filing. The Maricopa County Supreme Court has a goal to hold individuals accountable and ensure the integrity of the court through monitoring: 100% of probate cases requiring audits and financial accounting within a two year cycle; 80% of court-supervised defendants to comply with pretrial release conditions; 18% of cases complying with court collections orders. All of these goals describe long-term anticipated results. But the majority of County department goals are more short-term in nature due to the demands of regulatory agencies, compliance to new state statutes and court rules, increases in unfunded mandates, and the rapidly changing demographics that affect justice and law enforcement, healthcare and the environmental arenas. It is not practical to establish long-term goals in areas where regulations are continually changing. For example, Proposition 411, which could be brought to the citizens for approval on November 5, 2002, would extend the jail tax to operate new jails; 3 Arizona Supreme Court issues, i.e., Rule 18 that deals with speedier trials for complex cases, Rule 15 regarding the disclosure of evidence, and The Ring Case, dealing with verdict determination by jurors; the mandated increases in acute healthcare contributions due to Proposition 204, the mandate to increase Maricopa County’s contributions for the Arizona Long Term Care System, expenditure increases for the County court order for the seriously mentally ill population, and the residual from the county’s medical eligibility mandate. All of these will have an immediate impact on the County. Alarming portions of the County’s revenue sources are committed to satisfying unfunded mandates. The lack of funding and ability to keep up with a growing population base poses potential threats to public health and safety. Mandated services drive Maricopa County’s strategic planning process, operating policies and financial structure. For example, Maricopa County’s total budgeted expenditures increased $321 million or 12% from FY 2001-02, and mandated expenditures alone increased by $541 million or 41% over the same period of time. General Fund mandates represent 97.8% of the General Fund budget. Maricopa County’s General Fund budget increased 8.6% from FY 2001-02, and mandated expenditures increased by 20.8% over the same period of time. The significant growth in mandated expenditures within the FY 2002-03 budget placed heavy burdens upon management to meet new unfunded mandates and to ensure adequate funding of essential services while maintaining a minimum level of service on existing mandates. Any attempts to set long-term goals for departments that are continually affected by short-term changes in the way they do business do not make sense. Every department within Maricopa County has quantifiable short-term objectives, (e.g., open two new recycling drop-off centers by December xxxx), that are linked to the County’s goals as established in it’s mission and strategic priorities. Through the strategic planning process review annually, every department is required to have goals that are linked to the County’s strategic priorities. The majority of County department goals are short-term. This information may be found in the Departmental Budget Schedules section under department mission, goals, issues, key performance measures, and mandates. Examples follow that show the relationship of department goals to the Maricopa County strategic priorities, and a strategic plan sample of the mission, several goals and key results measures for the Criminal Justice Facilities Development Department. xiv Maricopa County Strategic Priorities/Goals: • • Safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal justice system. Healthy community and solvent healthcare system. Department Goals for the Maricopa County Superior Court: • • By December 2003, the Court will provide speedy and fair justice in case processing as follows: 1) 95% of cases shall be disposed in compliance with established trial court standards; 2) case terminations shall equal or exceed case filings; 3) pending case inventories shall be reduced by 3%. To prevent delay in judicial decisions by December 2003, 90% of needs assessments and evaluative reports will be made to judges within guidelines adopted by the court. Department Goals for the Criminal Justice Facilities Development Department: • • Construct on schedule and within budget 3,139 adult detention beds of the required custody classification and all necessary support facilities at a downtown location and the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. Construct on schedule and within budget a Parking Structure with 985 parking spaces and a Forensic Science Center and laboratory facility by the end of FY 2003. Department Goals for the department of Health Care Mandates: • • By January 1, 2007, reduce average annual litigation judgments/settlements rate by 7% over the 1998 rate. By January 1, 2007, increase amounts written off by providers in the claims resolution process by 20% of full-billed charges while experiencing no percentage increase in payments. • • Improve service to families and other agencies by completing cases within established timeframes by FY 2003, i.e., 90% of cases closed in 45 days and 100% in 90 days. By June 2002, implement additional procedures to better secure drugs taken into custody, strengthen security measures taken for valuables, increase the accuracy rate of initial data entry on admission records to 90%, and free investigators and transporters from the office to go to scenes and provide time for investigators to complete necessary follow-up contacts on investigations. Strategic Plan from the Criminal Justice Facilities Development Department The mission of the Criminal Justice Facilities Development Department is to provide programming, design and construction management services to Maricopa County so that it can fulfill the mandate of the November 1998 jail tax initiative, thereby ensuring that there is adequate jail space to incarcerate the growing population of dangerous offenders. Goals Include: • • Construct on schedule and within budget, 3,139 adult detention beds of the required custody classification and all necessary support facilities at a downtown location and the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. Construct on schedule and within budget, 388 juvenile detention beds and all necessary support facilities at the Durango Complex and the Southeast Regional Facility including expansion of juvenile court facilities at the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. xv Budget AtContents A Glance Table of Department Goals for the Medical Examiner: Example program with key results: Program Name: Adult Detention Construction Program Purpose: The purpose of the Adult Detention Construction Program is to provide construction management services for Maricopa County so that facilities to house an additional 3,139 jail beds can be constructed on time and within budget, thereby ensuring that there is adequate jail space to incarcerate the growing population of dangerous offenders. Key Results: Percent 4th Avenue Jail Construction project completion Percent Lower Buckeye Jail Construction project completion FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 5 16 38 91 4 13 50 96 FY 2002-03 Budget Priorities And Issues Budget Table of AtContents A Glance The Transmittal Letter articulates budget priorities and issues for all funds, including significant priority changes from FY 2001-02, and the factors that led to those changes. These priorities and issues are highlighted by headings in the Transmittal Letter, such as the heading: Budget Priorities, Impacts from the State of Arizona, The Capital Improvement Program; Mandated Health Care; Maricopa Integrated Health System; Detention Operations; Employee Benefits and Other Concerns, etc. Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget priorities are provided in the Attachments section. Priorities and issues are also summarized in the first paragraph of the Transmittal Letter. Excerpts from one of those issues contained in the Transmittal Letter that explain the State of Arizona impacts to Maricopa County’s budget follow. The State of Arizona mandated the largest single area of increase (4.1%) to the Maricopa County budget is implied. State cost shifts and other state mandated health care account for 45% of the total budget increase, equaling nearly $91 million. No merit or market salary increases for county employees have been programmed into the budget. Again, only 1.9% of the 12.3% overall increase from FY 2001-02 is relevant discretionary spending. Revenues for fiscal year 2001-02 are projected to be below budget, with the significant drop occurring in state shared sales tax. Based on this information, the Office of Management and Budget prepared a conservative budget based on pessimistic revenue projections. The State of Arizona faced a $930 million budget shortfall for fiscal year 2002-03. What does that have to do with Maricopa County government? Well, Maricopa County is an administrative delivery system of services for state government. 96.8% of our General Fund functions are mandated by state or federal government. We depend on state government for the majority of our revenues including: state-shared sales tax and vehicle license tax, which make up 49.2% of our general fund revenues. The State also has the ability to provide less state-aid for programs than in past years. These cost shifts and state-aid cuts had a tremendous impact on our 2002-03 budget. Approximately twenty million dollars of our budget-balancing quandary is a result of the state budget impacts. The issues fall into two categories: mandated health care issues and criminal justice issues. In the criminal justice area, adult probation costs that were previously primarily paid for by the State are being redirected to counties. $3.2 million for the cost of probation officers and related costs will be absorbed into the County budget. Fill-the-Gap grant funds that were given to the counties 3 years ago to help speed-up criminal court case processing are being substantially reduced. Maricopa County must find another way to fund these positions and related costs that total $1.8 million. Finally, the State is requiring Maricopa County to pay $1.3 million toward the cost of imprisonment of persons sentenced to terms of less than one year. xvi The Budget As A Financial Plan Fund Structure and Appropriations An overview of Maricopa County’s fund structure, including the basis for budgeting and accounting, and all funds appropriated by Maricopa County and their descriptions, may be found in the Executive Summary, Summary Schedules and Attachments sections. Appropriation levels are established on a departmental basis and lapse annually. Transfers during the year from the contingency account to a department’s budget require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted or as adjusted by allocations from reserves (contingency) or as amended by authorization from the Board of Supervisors. All funds subject to appropriation are described in the Executive Summary section. Examples of funds appropriated, with their description follow. Fund 100 - General Fund: The General Fund accounts for all General Revenues of Maricopa County. It tracks all the general government functions of Maricopa County. Fund 215 - Emergency Management: Emergency Management Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Monies are used for disaster planning and training. Fund 220 - Drug Diversion Fund: The Drug Diversion Fund accounts for the drug court program established by the presiding judge of the superior court under authority of ARS 13-3422. in cooperation with the county attorney for the purpose of prosecuting, adjudicating and treating drug dependent persons who meet the criteria and guidelines for entry into the program that are developed and agreed on by the presiding judge and the prosecutor. Funding is provided by the imposition of a fine and the payment of fees by the drug dependent person. Fund 675 - Self-Insurance Trust: This fund supports the comprehensive insurance/self-insurance program, which provides protection of County assets and employees by means of a Trust Fund. Personnel skilled in loss control, claims and litigation, and workers’ compensation work together to avert risk and conserve the human and financial resources of Maricopa County. Revenues, Expenditures, and Other Financing Sources & Uses The Summary Schedules section provides a single consolidated overview of all resources and expenditures budgeted for all funds, as well as summaries of all major revenues and expenditures by fund, type, category, and department. Maricopa County’s budget is annual, not biennial, therefore summaries of revenues and other resources, and of expenditures are provided for a three year timespan, including the prior year actual, current year budget, estimated current year actual, and proposed budget year. Major Revenue Sources, Trends, and Underlying Assumptions The major revenue sources for all funds are identified below and further described in detail, including charts and tables, in the Summary Schedules section. For major tax-based revenues, economic forecasting models are applied. The following chart lists the major revenue sources for the County and district budgets. xvii Budget AtContents A Glance Table of Fund 378 - Mesa Subordinate Debt Account: On April 1, 1996, the City of Mesa Municipal Development Corporation issued $10 million of Revenue Bonds Series 1996B on behalf of the Stadium District. The Stadium District entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Mesa. Pursuant to the terms of the IGA, the District will, as certain specified revenues become available in the future, repay the City an amount equal to the debt service associated with the Series 1996B bonds, plus certain expenses. This fund was established to record the distributions to Mesa for the reimbursement of debt service. • • • Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Payments in Lieu of Taxes MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES • Tax Penalties & Interest • Grants • State Shared Sales Tax • • • Shared Vehicle License Patient Service Revenue Miscellaneous Revenue • • • Other Charges for Services Fines & Forfeits Gain on Fixed Assets • • • • • • Sales Taxes Other Intergovernmental Shared Highway User Revenue Internal Service Charges Interest Earnings Transfers In A sample of the major assumptions underlying the primary property tax levy for the budget year are provided below, including the basis for the estimate and associated trends. The FY 2002-03 budget process began with the update of the 10-year financial forecast, which is based on current economic trends. For major tax-based revenues, economic forecasting models are applied. The forecast predicts slower growth in primary net assessed value; assessed value growth due to market changes and new construction are projected to subside to lower levels after a drop in FY 2004-05 due to the delayed impact of the 2001-2002 recession. Estimated growth rates are conservative; market and growth estimates are based on local historical trends. However, assessed value could very well experience lower or no growth if the State Legislature makes further changes in the property tax system. Budget Table of AtContents A Glance The Board of Supervisors is committed to keeping tax rates affordable for our constituency. Despite the worst financial conditions in a decade, the Board indicated a desire to keep the overall property tax rate flat. The overall tax rate, including the special districts, is $1.5448 per $100 of assessed valuation. Since fiscal year 1991-92 the rate has been held flat or reduced. The FY 2002-03 Budget includes an estimated primary property tax levy (excluding Salt River Project) of $277,949,612, an increase of $25,273,389 (10%) from the FY 2001-02 adopted primary levy. This increase is due to 7.5% growth in net assessed value, of which nearly four-fifths is due to new construction; the remaining increase on existing property is partly attributable to the impact of biannual property valuation by the County Assessor. Because of biannual assessment, this year’s increase in net assessed value partly reflects increases that would have been realized last year if properties had been re-valued annually. After several years of relatively high growth in net assessed value, forecasts indicate a downward trend in annual growth rates over the next five years. Net assessed values tend to lag behind the general economy. The primary property tax may be used to support any type or level of service within the legal purview of the County, and therefore is the major revenue source for the County General Fund. The County also levies secondary property taxes that are levied for a specific purpose, i.e. the Flood Control District, Library District and Debt Service. Revenue trends for the FY 2002-03 budget are discussed for each of the major revenue sources and enhanced with graphics. An example is provided below, with full detail, including charts and tables, found in the Summary Schedules sections. xviii Listed at left are the actual State Shared Sales Tax collections for the last nine fiscal years, Projected totals for FY 2001-02, plus the budget for FY 2002-03. State shared sales tax collections have suffered most from the economic recession. Prior to this year, state shared sales taxes were budgeted for the upcoming fiscal year at the midpoint between the “pessimistic” and “most likely” forecast scenarios. Following this strategy, the FY 2001-02 budget assumed revenue growth of 4.5%, about half the annual growth seen over the previous five years; nonetheless, actual collections are projected to be only 1% higher than FY 2000-01, a budget shortfall of around $16 million. Given continuing economic uncertainty, the FY 2002-03 budget for the General Fund is based on the “pessimistic” forecast of * Projected Actual 3% growth ($10 million) over FY 2001-02 projected actual ** Budget collections. FY 2002-03 budgeted revenue, even with this growth, will still be less than the amount originally budgeted for FY 2001-02. State Shared Sales Tax Collections Fiscal Year General Fund 1992-93 $176,925,962 1993-94 209,588,061 1994-95 215,015,368 1995-96 231,009,128 1996-97 242,352,311 1997-98 257,643,630 1998-99 279,812,954 1999-00 309,009,200 2000-01 322,429,593 2001-02* 325,653,889 2002-03** 335,423,506 Fund Balances for All Funds Narrative discussions showing anticipated fund balance declines during FY 2002-03 are provided in the Transmittal letter. Both short-term and long-term consequences are addressed. A portion of that discussion is provided below. The County has been setting aside monies in the general fund to operate the jails since fiscal year 1999-2000. In fiscal year 2001-02, over $51.7 million in the general fund operational capacity (fund balance) was budgeted. The funding was being diverted to our “pay-as-you-go” capital program (fund balance) until the operational capacity was needed when the detention facilities opened in fiscal year 2003-04. This conservative fiscal strategy appeared to have great potential for solving the issue without going back to the voters to continue the jail tax. However, this approach has been derailed with the recessionary cycle, Maricopa Integrated Health System losses and the state budget impacts imposed on Maricopa County (over $20 million). The fiscal year 2002-03 budget will only retain $21.1 million of the $51.7 million (fund balance) that was dedicated in the current fiscal year. This reality has brought the County back to the state legislature during the 2002 session to ask for a continuation of the dedicated sales tax for detention facilities. House Bill 2313, passed by both the senate and the house, was sent to the Governor on May 16, 2002, and was later signed. The Board of Supervisors is considering sending this item to the voters on the general election in November. The existing tax is expected to expire in 2007. Maricopa County would like to have guarantee from the voters that the jail sales tax will continue, before appropriating operating expenditures from the detention sales tax funding source which will sunset. Without this assurance, xix Budget AtContents A Glance Table of All fund balances potentially available for appropriation, including those funds carrying a zero balance, changes in fund balances, beginning and ending fund balances, and variance commentary may be found in the Summary Schedules section. Schedules are provided that list fund balance designations, the estimated beginning fund balances, projected revenues, expenditures and appropriated fund balance for the upcoming fiscal year, and resulting estimated fund balances at the end of FY 2002-03. “Beginning Fund Balance” represents resources accumulated within each fund as of the start of the fiscal year, based on actual and projected revenues and expenditures for prior fiscal years. For budgeting purposes, fund balances are Unreserved/Undesignated, which means that estimated unreserved fund balances are reduced by amounts designated for other purposes. the County could open new detention facilities with the detention sales tax that expires, and then have to shutdown the facilities once this tax ends. The Capital Budget The Capital Projects section specifically includes the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) policy, budgeted capital expenditures, a specific listing by fund of all capital projects for which appropriations are made, and a brief description of each major capital project, an example of which follows. Project Title: Forensic Science Center Managing Dept: Criminal Justice Facilities Development Project Narrative This project will result in an approximately 62,000 square foot Forensic Science Center located south of Jefferson Street between 7th and 8th Avenues in downtown Phoenix. The three-level building, with one below grade level, is affixed to the Jefferson Street Parking Structure, completed in 2002. The new facility will house autopsy suites, labs and administrative offices. Project Cost Summary Budget Table of AtContents A Glance The total budget for this project is $19.2 million with $15.9 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $3.3 million. Construction began in 2001 with completion in 2002. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land $ 1,870,331 Construction 12,403,910 Other Costs 1,633,278 Project Total $ 15,907,519 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,662,639 2,662,639 665,659 665,659 $ 3,328,298 $ $ $ $ $ 3,328,298 Total Project $ 1,870,331 15,066,549 2,298,937 $ 19,235,817 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department. The Forensic Science Center is scheduled for completion in FY 2002-03. The estimated operating costs upon completion in total $482,162. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ 18,256 89,000 107,256 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ Net Impact $ xx 107,256 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ $ - Year 2 FY 03-04 Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 13,104 469,058 482,162 $ 13,497 483,130 $ 496,627 $ 13,902 497,624 $ 511,526 $ 14,319 512,552 $ 526,871 $ 14,748 527,929 $ 542,677 $ 482,162 $ 496,627 $ 511,526 $ 526,871 $ 542,677 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed: • • Construct on schedule and within budget a Parking Structure with 985 parking spaces, and A Forensic Science Center and laboratory facility by the end of FY 2003. Key Performance Result Measure(s): • % Forensic Science Center Construction project completion as compared to budget. Associated Impacts of Capital Spending The Capital Improvement Program section and the Summary Schedules section describe if and to what extent capital improvements or other major capital spending will impact Maricopa County’s current and future operating budget. The focus is on reasonably quantifiable additional costs and savings (direct and indirect), and other service impacts that result from capital spending. Future operating costs related to new facilities constructed or acquired through the CIP are carefully considered before project commitments are made. This is a particularly important budgetary consideration with the new jail and juvenile detention facilities. It is the County’s philosophy and policy that new capital projects will be undertaken only if future operating revenues are reasonably estimated to be sufficient to support associated future operating costs. Operating costs associated with new facilities are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department. Estimated operating costs, as well as anticipated savings in lease costs and operating costs of facilities to be replaced, are factored into the County’s Financial Forecast. NEW FACILITY OPERATING COSTS STAFFING SUMMARY - FY 2002-03 Salary/ FTE Benefits Costs Forensic Science Center 0.35 $ 12,600 New Administrative Services Facility Parking 2.35 75,205 Downtown Property Development/Acquisition 25.00 841,240 929,044 Total Projects Opening FY 2002-03 27.70 $ Savings associated with permanent fixes to long-term maintenance problems and replacements are included in the Capital Improvement Program section. One example of a permanent fix to a longterm maintenance problem is the replacement of boilers in the Security Center Building. This project involves the replacement of two of the three existing boilers in this facility. Their condition is very poor, they are outdated (vintage 1929 and 1961), and they do not comply with current boiler code requirements. This project will ensure the proper operation of the facility in the cooler months and will lower operating costs by an estimated $10,000 per fiscal year. The FY2003 budget for this project is $400,000. Operating impacts and savings are also quantified. One example is the Durango Juvenile Probation Building project, which is necessary because Juvenile Probation’s existing facility located in Durango, building 1704, is in need of asbestos and lead paint abatement, and HVAC system replacement. Juvenile Probation employees require temporary office space while building 1704 is under-going abatement and renovation. This project is for the temporary office space only in xxi Budget AtContents A Glance Table of Some new facilities, particularly jails and juvenile detention centers, will also require significant additional staffing to operate. Additional staffing requirements for operating the FY 2002-03 new facilities follows: building 1916, located at 3345 West Durango Street in Phoenix. Completion of this project will allow Juvenile Probation to be temporarily relocated during the abatement and renovation of building 1704. Upon completion of the renovations to building 1704 and its reoccupation by Juvenile Probation, this facility will be used as swing space for other departments in similar situations and for future expansion space as approved by the Facilities Review Committee. The FY2003 Budget for this project is $720,000. The cost to construct a new facility is estimated at $1,449,184, a saving of $729,184. Debt Service A description of Maricopa County’s debt service policies, financial information regarding current debt obligations, including the relationship between current debt levels and legal debt limits, and the effects of existing debt levels on current and future operations is contained in the Debt Service section. The chart below shows the County’s overall net debt: Budget Table of AtContents A Glance DIRECT AND OVERALL NET DEBT MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA OUTSTANDING DEBT General Obligation Less: Amount avail. for Retirement of General Obligation Debt Capital Lease - General Long Term Debt Account Group (GLTDAG) Certificate of Participation (GLTDAG) Lease Revenue Bonds (GLTDAG) Direct Net Debt Overlapping Debt (1) Overall Net Debt Audited 6/30/00 $79,595,000 0 Audited 6/30/01 $58,205,000 0 Projected 6/30/02 $39,350,000 0 Projected 6/30/03 $20,000,000 0 18,121,511 17,222,210 14,225,356 13,575,119 11,353,090 9,804,315 8,828,270 5,808,084 $114,938,721 5,159,228,001 $5,274,166,722 104,355,000 $190,360,475 4,999,831,866 $5,190,192,341 91,558,756 $151,066,161 5,000,000,000 $5,152,066,161 78,031,179 $112,667,533 5,000,000,000 $5,112,667,533 The Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 8, states that a County may become indebted for an amount not to exceed fifteen percent of taxable property. The following table represents the County’s outstanding general obligation indebtedness with respect to its constitutional general obligation debt limitation. 2000-01 Constitutional General Obligation Bonding Capacity Maricopa County, Arizona 2000-01 Secondary Assessed Valuation $ 20,877,715,546 15% of Secondary Assessed Valuation Less: GO Bonded Debt Outstanding Plus: GO Debt Service Fund Balance Unused Fifteen Percent Borrowing Capacity $ 3,131,657,332 (58,205,000) 0 3,073,452,332 $ The debt policies include: Administration of Policy, Use of Debt Financing, Method of Sale, Competitive Sale, Negotiated Sale, Use of Bond Insurance, Arbitrage Liability Management, Selection of Professional Services, Continuing Disclosure of County Financial Information, Maturity Structures, Ratings, and Modification of Policies and the Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy that discusses debt incurred. xxii Basis of Budgeting The County is required by Arizona law to prepare and adopt a balanced budget annually for the General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, Enterprise and Capital Projects Funds. Arizona law further requires that no expenditure shall be made or liability incurred in excess of the amounts budgeted except as provided by law. The County prepares its budget on the same modified accrual basis of accounting used to record actual revenues and expenditures in the Governmental funds in the fund-based financial statements as detailed in the Executive Summary section. An explanation of the basis of budgeting for all funds is essentially the same as the Basis of Accounting. Appropriation levels are established on a departmental basis and lapse annually. Transfers during the year from the contingency account to a department’s budget require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted or as adjusted by allocations from reserves (contingency) or as amended by authorization from the Board of Supervisors. The County budgets for Governmental Fund types on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), with the exception of the following types of transactions: • • • Capital Lease Transactions Bond Issuance Transactions Arizona Long-Term Care System Refund Operations Guide Organization Structure Managing for Results Managing for Results provides the tools necessary to determine and apply objective methods that measure progress toward accomplishing the County’s mission and strategic priorities, as well as department program goals and objectives. See the Departmental Budget Schedules section for mission statements, vision (optional), major goals, issues, key programs, activities, services, and mandate details. Planning for Results Through the Planning for Results process of the Managing for Results cycle, performance is measured, which focuses on results and accomplishments. Key performance measures focus on output and efficiency that support services. Services, in turn, support department programs. For more information regarding Planning for Results and the key performance measurements for each department, see the Managing for Results section. xxiii Budget AtContents A Glance Table of Maricopa County’s organizational structure is by department. All programs, activities, and services that comprise those organizational units are fully identified and described in the Departmental Budget Schedules section. Organization Charts An organization chart for all of Maricopa County government is provided below. Detailed organization charts are provided throughout the Departmental Budget Schedules section, including the one that follows. Elected Maricopa County Citizens Superintendent of Schools Constables (23) County Attorney Board of Supervisors, Borad of Directors for Flood Control, Library and Stadium Districts Sheriff Clerk of the Court Assessor Appointed Treasurer STAR Call Center Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer Recorder Elections Internal Audit Deputy County Administrator Contract Counsel Legal Defender Budget Table of AtContents A Glance Deputy County Administrator Public Defender Chief Health Services Officer Legal Advocacy Chief Financial Officer Maricopa Integrated Health System Chief Community Services Officer Chief Public Works Officer Management and Budget Public Health Finance Parks and Recreation Criminal Justice Facilities Development Office of the CIO Human Resources Human Services Risk Management Library District Transportation Telecommunications Research and Reporting Medical Examiner Materials Management Public Fiduciary Flood Control District General Governemnt Correctional Health Planning and Development Emergency Management Health Care Mandates Animal Care & Control Services Housing Facilities Management Total Compensation Environmental Services Community Development Equipment Services Stadium District Solid Waste Arizona Courts in Maricopa County Clerk of Superior Court xxiv Chief Information Officer Trial Courts, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Superior Court Judges and Commissioners Juvenile Court Center Adult Probation Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Maricopa County Justice Courts Superior Court Administration Justice Court Administration Personnel A key element in position control is the historical tracking of funded positions and their full-time equivalent (FTE) status. A trend view of FTE levels puts into perspective the prior year’s staffing (and consequently service) funding decisions. The chart below represents a ten-year historical look at the County’s FTE levels. FTE’s reflect the hours budgeted for part-time positions converted to an equal number of full-time positions (based on a standard of 40 hours per week.) Budgeted FTEs xxv Budget AtContents A Glance Table of ADULT PROBATION ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE ASSESSOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 CALL CENTER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY COUNSEL CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV ELECTIONS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FINANCE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT GENERAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM HEALTH CARE MANDATES HEALTH PLANS HOUSING HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN SERVICES INDIGENT REPRESENTATION INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO INTERNAL AUDIT JUDICIAL MANDATES JUSTICE COURTS JUVENILE PROBATION LEGAL ADVOCATE LEGAL DEFENDER LIBRARY DISTRICT MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MATERIALS MANAGEMENT MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC FIDUCIARY PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER RESEARCH & REPORTING RISK MANAGEMENT SHERIFF SHERIFF DETENTION SOLID WASTE STADIUM DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SUPERIOR COURT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION TRANSPORTATION TREASURER Total FY 1993-94 FY 1994-95 FY 1995-96 FY 1996-97 FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate Adopted 643.00 740.00 775.69 851.00 937.00 949.00 1,045.00 1,120.50 1,167.00 1,174.00 116.00 114.00 113.00 120.00 125.00 135.00 130.00 146.00 141.00 130.50 1.00 622.00 300.00 308.00 297.00 334.00 329.00 325.00 326.00 322.00 321.80 7.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 10.00 20.00 20.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 189.00 72.00 100.00 106.00 70.00 64.00 62.00 67.00 64.00 64.00 563.00 653.00 606.04 596.25 589.00 596.00 599.00 620.00 649.00 677.00 13.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 28.00 25.00 28.00 26.00 27.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 7.83 8.41 139.00 26.00 133.00 135.78 165.00 177.00 223.00 220.40 244.65 265.83 30.00 14.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 15.00 13.00 16.00 15.00 14.33 563.00 600.00 676.71 737.30 742.00 796.00 831.00 850.00 830.92 821.25 76.33 86.50 4.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 61.00 57.00 57.00 57.00 55.00 53.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 14.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 63.00 151.00 229.00 238.60 245.00 272.00 267.00 266.75 284.25 273.50 78.00 60.00 64.00 63.00 65.00 60.00 60.00 62.00 63.00 63.00 183.00 139.00 219.00 183.40 158.00 158.00 184.00 196.50 219.50 239.00 80.00 70.00 57.00 53.00 49.00 46.00 42.00 36.00 35.00 43.00 257.00 244.00 240.00 240.00 241.00 222.00 222.00 222.25 222.50 223.50 1.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 11.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 2,786.00 3,718.00 2,974.75 2,630.50 2,099.00 1,812.00 1,766.00 3,013.25 3,040.21 3,326.01 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.00 78.00 34.00 826.00 372.00 378.00 377.50 444.00 361.00 353.00 345.70 361.73 357.47 60.00 64.00 63.00 64.00 63.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 129.00 73.00 100.00 96.00 81.00 82.00 79.00 81.00 65.37 65.50 207.00 301.00 273.00 256.00 286.00 281.00 295.00 287.00 309.00 360.00 320.00 327.00 357.34 349.19 421.00 459.00 446.00 466.25 1.00 13.80 14.00 8.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 36.00 197.00 211.00 236.02 228.75 244.00 294.00 280.00 287.01 293.01 299.06 502.00 539.00 538.00 540.00 589.00 679.00 794.00 784.00 794.00 862.50 51.89 51.34 67.56 69.00 96.00 121.00 134.48 126.66 134.00 146.00 143.00 118.00 116.00 135.50 22.00 19.00 23.00 22.00 21.00 22.00 24.00 18.00 20.00 18.00 90.00 75.00 53.00 53.00 47.00 38.00 39.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 332.00 335.00 336.31 337.50 342.00 263.00 298.00 292.50 291.50 0.00 15.00 27.00 44.00 45.50 47.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 62.00 62.00 85.00 78.00 72.89 76.84 77.00 74.00 80.00 86.50 96.50 103.00 61.00 54.00 55.00 54.00 66.00 65.00 93.00 108.00 106.00 107.00 423.27 430.46 41.00 36.00 37.00 41.00 37.00 33.00 33.00 35.00 34.00 35.00 510.00 504.00 507.09 503.25 460.00 441.00 479.00 459.24 469.39 522.71 65.00 66.00 65.00 63.00 66.00 65.00 69.00 69.00 69.75 69.75 12.00 14.50 14.00 8.00 7.00 34.50 9.50 6.75 32.00 18.00 12.00 12.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 20.00 19.00 1,970.00 1,858.00 2,053.00 2,108.00 2,188.00 2,235.00 2,428.00 2,482.50 1,022.45 1,007.50 1,448.05 1,472.50 51.00 50.00 31.00 45.00 19.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 13.00 12.00 * 9.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 26.00 35.00 29.00 28.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 595.00 617.00 668.40 677.60 764.00 819.00 873.00 910.20 953.00 979.00 50.00 107.00 39.00 42.00 45.00 41.00 42.00 42.00 40.00 42.00 15.00 15.00 536.00 495.00 500.00 511.00 522.00 512.00 511.00 511.50 509.00 478.75 74.00 109.00 75.00 66.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 13,354.00 13,543.00 13,354.72 13,166.12 13,099.00 12,963.00 13,622.00 15,117.55 15,524.96 15,751.43 Within each department, positions may be budgeted from a variety of funding sources. In general, as discussed earlier in this document, the General Fund covers the bulk of Personnel Services, with monies from Special Revenue, Capital Project, Enterprise and Internal Service funds covering the rest. A chart is included in the Personnel Plan section detailing this. Countywide staffing from FY 2001-02 to FY 2002-03 increased by 226.5 full-time equivalents (FTE’s), or 1.5%. Significant changes in staffing levels from FY 2001-02 to FY 2002-03, including variance explanations, are provided by department at the end of the Personnel Plan section. Communications Summary information, including an overview of significant budgetary issues, trends, and resource choices, is integrated within the Transmittal Letter. Summary information designed to provide the lay person with a broad view of the contents included in the FY 2002-03 Maricopa County budget, its processes, issues and anticipated outcomes is presented in this Budget At A Glance section. Complete budget summary data, trends and variance commentary, along with an overview of Maricopa County’s fund structure may be found in the Executive Summary, Summary Schedules, Capital Projects, and Financial Forecast sections. Budget Table of AtContents A Glance Other Planning Processes The Maricopa County budget process is closely tied to the Managing for Results system that integrates strategic planning with budgeting and performance measurement (see the Managing for Results section for details behind this successful planning process). Another planning process identified within the budget document is Budgeting for Results that integrates performance based budgeting with the development and update of strategic plans. The Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy provides for the control of the budget at the department level. The Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy provides for long-term financial stability and low, sustainable tax rates through responsible use of non-recurring resources, appropriate and minimal use of debt, and maintenance of reserve funds. This policy sets budgetary and financial guidelines regarding the reduction of taxes. The Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy demonstrates a commitment to the maintenance and, when possible, reduction of tax rates while ensuring that Maricopa County remains financially stable and accountable to the citizens. Detail regarding Maricopa County’s other planning processes and their effects upon the budget, including those mentioned above, (i.e., Managing for Results, Budgeting for Results Policy, separate Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy, and the Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy), and the Vehicle Replacement Policy, General Government Policy, Policy for Administering Grants, Performance Management Process, Funded Position Policy, New Position Establishment Policy, Position Funding Policy Guidelines, Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) process, Use of the Jail Excise Tax process, and the Capital Improvement Plan processes may be found in the Executive Summary, Managing for Results, and the Attachments sections. Budget Processes A full description of the process for preparing, reviewing and adopting the budget for the coming fiscal year is provided in the Executive Summary section, including the procedures for amending the budget after adoption. This budget document is also available on the Internet at: http://www.maricopa.gov/budget/default.asp. A separate capital budget process is described in the Capital Improvement Program section. A direct relationship exists between Maricopa County’s capital and operating budgets. Operating cost estimates are the anticipated annual costs to operate facilities and improvements upon completion or acquisition. Capital projects completed generally require additional operating budget resources xxvi for upkeep, maintenance, security and other costs associated with additional acreage, mileage or square footage. There are two budget calendars included in this document. There is a Budget Process Timeline that provides a general guideline for developing the budget and supplements the budget process narrative in the Executive Summary section. The actual Budget Calendar used for developing and adopting the FY 2002-03 budget may be found in the Attachments section, along with the Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines. Communicating with Charts and Graphs Charts/tables and graphs are used throughout the budget document to highlight financial and statistical information. Detailed narrative interpretation is provided when the message conveyed by the charts and graphs are not self-evident. Charts/tables and graphics are integrated with narratives to illustrate essential information throughout this budget document, particularly when communicating policy information, trends and impacts upon the budget. The County At A Glance, Personnel Plan, Mandates, and Departmental Budget Schedules sections contain the most charts/tables and graphs. Revenue and Expenditure Classifications Narrative, tables, schedules, and matrices show the relationship between different revenue and expenditure classifications (e.g., funds, programs, organizational units) in the Summary Schedules section. Maricopa County’s fund structure, or relationship between the County’s functional units and its financial structure is explained in the Executive Summary section, (i.e., the reader is able to learn the relationship between functional units and the entity’s financial structure). Table of Contents A Table of Contents is provided at the beginning of this document. It is very comprehensive for a document of this size and allows the reader to quickly locate information. A sample is provided below. Personnel Plan Introduction Highlights Personnel Costs & Savings Attrition & Vacancy Rates Employee Retention New Directions Position Control Budgeted FTE Summary 111 111 117 120 124 128 129 130 Glossary A glossary is provided in a section at the back of the budget document. The glossary defines technical terms related to finance and accounting as well as terms related to Maricopa County. The glossary is written in simple language, specifically for the non-technical reader. Several examples follow. xxvii Budget AtContents A Glance Table of Revenue and expenditure information is cross-classified into other formats, which may be found in the Summary Schedules section. Some of these formats include the cross-classification by major revenue classifications across funds, by major objects of expenditure across departments and by funds across departments. Demand Measure: A measure of the number of total units of service or product anticipated to be demanded or needed by the customer. Examples include, number of residents eligible for job training or number of building inspection applications received. Personal Services: A category of expenditures within the budget that includes salaries, benefits, temporary help, special pay, overtime, and salary adjustments. Fund: A fund is used to account for revenues and expenditures with a specified purpose. Family of Measures: A set of the four categories of performance measures that are used to measure the performance of an activity. The categories of measure are result, output, demand and efficiency. Acronyms used in this document are defined in the Glossary section, with examples below. GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. MCSO: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. ISF (Internal Service Fund): A proprietary fund that accounts for the financing of goods or services provided by one department to other departments on a cost-reimbursement basis like a business. The County and Community It Serves Budget Table of AtContents A Glance Statistical and supplemental data that describes Maricopa County and the community it serves, including other pertinent background information related to the services provided may be found in the County At A Glance section. This section also provides statistical information that defines the community such as demographics (e.g., population, composition of population, and land area). Supplemental and other pertinent information regarding Maricopa County and the local community and economy (e.g., major industries, employment, building permits issued, healthcare services provided, and maps) are located in the County At A Glance section and Transmittal Letter. The FY 2002-03 Annual Business Strategies Document This document is formatted and printed in such a way as to enhance understanding and utility to the reader’s needs. Page formats are consistent, each showing the current section of the document in the margin, the page number at the bottom, and the department name at the top of each page in the Departmental Budget Schedules section. Large bold headings identify what is being presented, and the use of “(continued)” on the top of pages is added when deemed essential, and, when related information is split between pages. Although this document is large, as is the County it represents, the information presented is vital to a full understanding of the Maricopa County, its budget, budget processes, mandates, impacts, and the citizens it serves. The level of detail presented in this document is done so at the request of management, Elected Officials, and the citizens of Maricopa County. This “Budget At A Glance” section is provided so that the lay reader may quickly obtain a comprehensive understanding of all that is contained herein. The table of contents helps the reader locate information quickly within the document. Charts and graphs are provided throughout the document with sufficient information as to be easily understood by the casual reader. Changes in type sizes and styles are avoided in this document. The entire document utilizes consistent type styles and sizes for headings, body text and graphics, the use of which adds to the overall presentation and comprehension of the data provided. See the County At A Glance, Personnel Plan, Mandates, and Departmental Budget Schedules sections to view the areas containing the most charts and graphs. xxviii County Administrative Officer’s Transmittal Letter To: Don Stapley, Chairman, District 2 Fulton Brock, District 1 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max W. Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox, District 5 The 2002-03 fiscal year budget for Maricopa County is being presented as a creative solution to a very tight budget year. The total budget is $2.465 billion (with Special Districts). Discretionary spending outside of the health care system amounted to an overall increase of only 1.9%. Expenditure increases driven by patient volume in the Maricopa Integrated Health System generated an additional 2.4% increase, offset by patient-generated revenues. Unavoidable increases for health, dental and other insurance costs added another 0.6% growth in total spending. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) accounts for almost $72 million, or 3.3% of the total budget variance. The CIP is being funded with cash and proceeds from the voter-approved sales tax for detention facilities, and will reduce operational costs by cancellation of leases into the future. The State of Arizona mandated the largest single area of increase (4.1%). State cost shifts and other state mandated health care account for 45% of the total budget increase, equaling nearly $91 million. No merit or market salary increases for county employees have been programmed into the budget. Again, only 1.9% of the 12.3% overall increase from FY 2001-02 is relevant discretionary spending. On October 15, 2001, budget-balancing guidelines were instituted. These guidelines encouraged departments and offices to reduce spending, and continue to provide high quality services at a reduced cost. The actions taken included: a reduction in travel, reduced capital outlay, voluntary expenditure reductions, and revenue enhancements. This cooperative method of budget balancing has been quite successful, and is preferable to the arbitrary method of choice used in most jurisdictions – across the board percentage reductions. Not only were we able to balance the 200102 budget, but create positive camaraderie that is seldom seen during budget alerts. Revenues for fiscal year 2001-02 are projected to be below budget, with the significant drop occurring in state shared sales tax. In December, the Board of Supervisors ratified the Elected Officials, the Judicial Branch, and appointed department directors’ voluntary budget reductions. Those reductions resulted in an $11.8 million mid-year adjustment to Maricopa County’s budgeted expenditures and a $3.5 million increase in department revenue projections. Impacts from the State of Arizona The State of Arizona faced a $930 million budget shortfall for fiscal year 2002-03. What does that have to do with Maricopa County government? Well, Maricopa County is an administrative delivery system of services for state government. 96.8% of our functions are mandated by state or federal government. We depend on state government for the majority of our revenues including: stateshared sales tax and vehicle license tax, which make up 49.2% of our general fund revenues. Solutions to many issues that we face, require us to ask for authority from the State Legislature. When the state is facing a budget shortfall, they often look to local governments, primarily counties, 1 Transmittal Letter Maricopa County’s response to the September 11th attacks and the economic slowdown that resulted has been both innovative and fiscally sound. Prompt, decisive action was taken by the Board of Supervisors and County government. The economic downturn placed a heavy burden on Maricopa County. The Board of Supervisors took all appropriate action to maintain a structurally balanced budget. to pick up more costs. The State also has the ability to provide less state-aid for programs than in past years. These cost shifts and state-aid cuts had a tremendous impact on our 2002-03 budget. Approximately twenty million dollars of our budget-balancing quandary is a result of the state budget impacts. The issues fall into two categories: mandated health care issues and criminal justice issues. Maricopa County spends approximately 35.7% of our General Fund budget or $345.8 million on health care costs. These unavoidable cost transfers from the state must be absorbed in our budget plan. They include: $6.5 million increased contribution for the Arizona Long Term Care System, a $4.0 million expenditure increase for mental health restoration to competency, a $200,000 reduction in county health care grants, and a small positive gain of $1.1 million for the Maricopa Medical Center. In the criminal justice area, adult probation costs that were previously primarily paid for by the State are being redirected to counties. $3.2 million for the cost of probation officers and related costs will be absorbed into the county budget. Fill-the-Gap grant funds that were given to the counties 3 years ago to help speed-up criminal court case processing are being substantially reduced. Maricopa County must find another way to fund these positions and related costs that total $1.8 million. Finally, the State is requiring Maricopa County to pay $1.3 million toward the cost of imprisonment of persons sentenced to terms of less than one year. Budgeting For Results Transmittal Letter Budget preparation for fiscal year 2002-03 utilized similar techniques to those established during the 2001-02 budget alert. Budget Guidelines established by the Board of Supervisors on January 14, 2002, outlined the need for base budget reviews, which reduces expenditures, encourage no additional project funding requests, and emphasized keeping service levels high. Maricopa County prides itself in providing high quality services at a low cost. Base budgets throughout the County were reduced by $22.8 million, while keeping service levels constant. We continue to be the fastest growing, large County in the United States. On April 30, 2002, the headline in the Arizona Republic was, Valley has growing Pains, Maricopa County services to be strained”. The article confirmed that Maricopa County is the fastest growing in the nation, according to Census Bureau figures. Interestingly, Maricopa County’s population is larger than that of 21 states. It also is quoted as affirming, “That means the county faces state-sized demand for needs as varied as roads, affordable housing, schools, parks and social services, needs that most officials agree will require more money than is available.” County officials acknowledge this but set a goal of completing a budget, which maintains current service levels, while cutting expenditures. This outcome was achieved. Econometric predictions declare that in fiscal year 2002-03, a slow recovery process will begin. Based on this information, the Office of Management and Budget prepared a conservative budget based on pessimistic revenue projections, as the graph at right shows. Major revenue growth for 2002-03 will be $20.5 million. However, base budget expansion will be $28.5 million for unavoidable increases, such as the Maricopa County contribution to the Arizona Long Term Care Major General Fund Revenue Trend $700,000,000 $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 $0 F Y 97-98 F Y 98-99 V ehicle License Tax (VLT) 2 F Y 99-00 F Y 00-01 F Y 01-02 PR OJ S tate Shared S ales Tax F Y 02-03 BUD GET P roperty Tax System, employee health and dental benefit costs, general election expenses, and the county court order for the seriously mentally ill population. This required an immediate adjustment to departmental base budgets to remain in balance, before state funding cost shifts and funding reductions. Budgeting for Results was used as the conduit for our discussion during this budget development cycle. All funding requests focused on the program outcomes that would be achieved for the dollars invested. Alignment with countywide strategic goals and departments strategic plans was a catalyst to reaching budget recommendations. All of this detailed project information will be tracked and evaluated in the next fiscal year. Result information will be made available to our citizenry. Managing For Results In fiscal year 2000-01, Managing for Results became a reality in Maricopa County. All departments participated in an intensive strategic planning process and have been tracking performance measures and progress towards strategic goals all year. County management and the Board of Supervisors utilize this information to make decisions throughout the year. The performance information is tracked quarterly and available on the county’s website: www.maricopa.gov. Planning for Results Decision Making • Future Demand • Vision & Mission • Performance Targets • Strategic - Goals • Adjust Allocations If Required • Operational - Results • Operational/Process Improvement • Family of Measures per Activity • Employee Performance Plans Evaluating Results • Performance Audit • Employee Evaluations • Resources Consumed Managing For Results • Citizen Survey & Input Reporting Results Deliver Services • Data Verified • Actuals vs. Forecasts Collect Data Budgeting for Results • Demand for Services • Performance Budget • Resource Allocation • Baselines & Benchmarks To demonstrate a department example I • All Customers Included have included an excerpt from the most recent quarterly report for the Transportation department. The complete strategic report is available on the County’s website. Department Mission: The mission of the Department of Transportation is to provide a quality transportation system to the travelers in Maricopa County so they can experience a safe, efficient and cost-effective journey. Department Goal # 2: By 2005, MCDOT will increase the safety and capacity of the existing transportation system while reducing congestion by decreasing the accident rate and increasing the capacity on county maintained roadways by 5%. Quarter 3: MCDOT completed construction of intersection improvements at SR303L and Indian School Road, the first of three interim intersection improvements along SR303. Completed four new traffic signals at intersections of Ellsworth Road and El Mirage Road. Award contract to upgrade traffic signal controllers at 27 locations occurred. 3 Transmittal Letter Participation in the Managing for Results process is ongoing. It ties performance to all that we do. Employees are connected to the process through the development of the strategic plan, reporting on performance measures, with their own performance plans which align with that department’s strategic plan, and finally, through their annual performance appraisals. The County is working on a gain-sharing plan that will reward employees for achievement of results and for saving money within their department. The cycle utilized is outlined at right. Program Name and Purpose: Operate and Maintain Transportation Systems The purpose of the Operate and Maintain Transportation Systems program is to provide roadway upkeep and traffic flow management to the travelling public so that they can have safe trips on smooth, cost effective roads. Activity Name and Purpose: Incident Management The purpose of Incident Management activity is to provide emergency and event traffic control services to travelers so that they experience safe and minimal delays during the incident/event. Key Results Measures: % of responses by Response Team within 30 minutes to the scene: Projected – 98.0% Quarter 1 – 100.0% Quarter 2 – 96.7% Quarter 3 – 75.0% Transmittal Letter Outputs: # of incidents/events requests Projected – 96 Full Year Quarter 1 – 21 Quarter 2 – 27 Quarter 3 – 24 Efficiency: $ cost per response made by Response Team Projected – $572.00 Quarter 1 – $605.66 Quarter 2 – $537.99 Quarter 3 – $400.78 As you can see, there are a wide variety of details available to the public on the performance of a department, at the highest level to the lowest detail. We hope that this information will evolve over time and will become more and more useful as this initiative progresses. As more information is gathered, trends will be presented and more analysis will follow. Government Performance Project Maricopa County was selected as one of 40 counties in the United States to participate in the Government Performance Project in 2001. The Government Performance Project has been in existence since 1996. Under the auspices of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University has rated the management capacity of local and state governments and selected federal agencies in the United States. Maxwell School’s Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute administers the project, called the Government Performance Project (GPP). GPP is a comprehensive survey of the effectiveness of core government management activities. The survey reviews the following areas: financial management, capital management, human resources, managing for results, and information technology. It is the most in-depth survey ever completed on counties. Maricopa County was one of two counties in the nation to receive their highest grade, A-. Governing Magazine is quoted as stating, “Over the past six years, the county has undergone a startling reformation . . . There has emerged a focus on team-building, a results orientation and a system of incentives and disincentives to keep spending in line. The county now awards its departments enormous freedom to make spending decisions, retain savings and offer personal 4 rewards to employees.” This accurately portrays the environment that we strive to achieve. Below is how our grades were awards in the various categories. ! ! ! ! ! Financial Management Capital Management Human Resources Managing for Results Information Technology AB+ B+ AA Property Tax Rate The Board of Supervisors is committed to keeping tax rates affordable for our constituency. A P rim ary strategic goal adopted by the Board $1.80 last year addressed this issue. This was reiterated in the budget $1.60 guidelines the Board approved in $1.40 January 2002. Despite the worst $1.20 financial conditions in a decade, the $1.00 Board indicated a desire to keep the $0.80 overall property tax rate flat. The $0.60 overall tax rate, including the special $0.40 districts, will include a recommended $0.20 flat rate of $1.5448 per $100 of $0.00 assessed valuation. Since fiscal year 1991-92 the rate has been held flat or *Recommended reduced. The graphical illustration shows a 15-year historical perspective on this issue. 01-02 *02-03 L ib rary 00-01 99-00 98-99 97-98 96-97 95-96 F lo o d C o ntro l 94-95 93-94 92-93 D eb t S e rvic e 91-92 90-91 89-90 88-89 Property Tax Rate Trend For FY 2002-03, the Board of Supervisors had a very simple approach to budget development – keep base expenditures the same or lower than the current year. Revenues were budgeted very conservatively, and no requests for additional funding were to be submitted. The only items that have been given consideration for funding beyond last year’s base are those that the Board of Supervisors considers critical or emergency in nature. These items have primarily been replacement of local grants, mandated items (primarily from the State of Arizona), and funding new facilities that are opening. Without increasing funding to replace local grant cuts, service levels would be decreased. Funding to utilize new facilities coming on-line, have received adequate resources to begin operations. And finally, expenditure allocations were made for mandated costs and cost shifts that the State of Arizona has passed onto County residents. Budget Reductions The Office of Management and Budget worked very closely with Elected, Judicial Branch, and Appointed departments to reduce base budgets. Departments and Offices have cooperated and been very supportive of the approach taken by the Board of Supervisors. Many departments took significant reductions in their expenditure budget either through the voluntary reduction in December of 2001 or during the fiscal year 2002-03 budget development process. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the Elected Officials, Department Directors, and Judicial Officers who 5 Transmittal Letter Budget Priorities unselfishly accepted reduced funding levels and still vowed to continue the same level of service to our citizens. New Facilities to Begin Operations In fiscal year 2002-03, four new facilities will be brought into service. These new facilities have been paid for with cash accumulated over the past four years, a result of the Board’s conservative pay-as-you-go approach to capital spending. These facilities have been paid for with General Fund dollars and the designated Jail Transaction Privilege Tax. Each facility is expected to provide better service and will be a community asset for years to come. The first facility to become operational is the Northwest Regional Court. This new regional court will expand Superior Court services and will be a located at the Surprise City Services Complex. The City of Surprise has worked in cooperation with Maricopa County to locate this much needed court facility to the northwestern section of the valley. Court services that will be provided there include the adjudication of civil, family and probate cases. The cost to finance and operate this new facility will be $944,465, and operation of this facility will begin in July 2002. Transmittal Letter The next facility that will open will be the Forensic Science Center and new administrative parking structure. This facility’s opening is planned for the Fall of 2002, and will replace an existing building that was built in the 1960s. The antiquated and dysfunctional building that is now housing this important County mandated function will be demolished once vacated. The new 62,000 square feet, three-story building will house autopsy suites, labs, and administrative offices. Operating costs associated with the new facility will be $482,162 in fiscal year 2002-03, along with $74,251 for new staff and associated costs. In conjunction with the opening of this building, an 8-level, 985 space parking structure will also open. The operating costs for this element of the structure is $196,394 in the first year. The Detention Capital Projects will open two new facilities in fiscal year 2002-03. The adult detention operations will open the Central Services building in January 2003. The Central Service building will consist of laundry, stores warehouse, food factory, and the central plant. This building is 183,000 square feet, and the operational costs associated with it will be $3,263,516 in FY 200203 (partial year) to $3,700,047 in FY 2003-04. This building will begin providing support services to existing jails during fiscal year 2002-03, and will expand to new detention facilities in the coming years, as new jails come on-line. The Juvenile Detention program will open an innovative and important new building in January of 2003. The Juvenile Residential Treatment Center will be located at the corner of Durango and 35th Avenue. This single-level, 28,000 square foot structure will provide 48 treatment beds for juveniles. Since 60% of juveniles that enter the detention system has substance abuse issues, this new service is expected to have measurable results for the community, such as: • Reducing the waiting time for juveniles to receive substance abuse treatment (currently averaging 4-6 months); and • Increasing the likelihood of juveniles remaining free of illegal substances, therefore increasing the likelihood that they will successfully complete their term of probation. The Capital Improvement Program One of our most innovative fiscal policies is our pay-as-you-go capital financing plan for our general fund Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In order to ensure that the County continues cash funding, the Board reduced the CIP from a five-year $238 million plan to the current $158.7 million CIP (including projects completed to date). This reduction was necessary due to our strained economic circumstances and the unanticipated state funding shifts that occurred during the 2002 6 legislative session. This fiscal discipline explains Maricopa County’s ability to remain solvent and healthy during even the most difficult financial conditions. The reduction in the Capital Improvement Program was primarily achieved by scaling back the Downtown Administrative Service Building from $141.5 million to $50 million. The County is now investigating the possibility of purchasing an existing facility or building a much lower cost and sized building on our established site. In accordance with the Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy, the Board of Supervisors authorized annual debt service payments on the General Government CIP plan of $18.3 million. The County issued “certificates of participation”, (COPS, a financing instrument) in June 2001. The COPS will be repaid with the CIP cash reserve fund balance noted above. The cost of financing will be offset by interest earned on the CIP cash reserve fund balance account. This fund balance also serves as a rainy day contingency fund, and has reserves for our Maricopa Medical Center’s accounts receivables, general fund cash flow, operating losses in the Maricopa Integrated Health System, and other major building maintenance issues. This approach will provide the greatest fiscal flexibility and will result in the lowest cost option for our taxpayers. Maricopa County is projected to accumulate full funding for the CIP by the end of fiscal year 2001-02. Facility Downtown Property Development/Acquisition Facilities Maintenance Facility Forensic Science Center Justice Courts New Administration Services Facility Parking Sheriff’s Training Academy Southeast Courtroom Buildout 4th Avenue Jail Buckeye Hills Shooting Range Elections Facility Juvenile Durango Juvenile Mesa Lower Buckeye Jail Public Health Clinic Sheriff’s Property & Evidence Warehouse Environmental Services Facility Human Services Campus Security Building NE (Scottsdale) Regional Center NW (Surprise) Regional Center Southeast Regional Property Acquisitions W (Avondale) Regional Center Anticipated Date of Completion FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 TBD TBD TBD TBD Our adult and juvenile detention facilities are being funded by a 1/5 of a cent Jail Excise Tax (sales tax) approved by the voters in November 1998. These taxes will sunset after 9 years or when $900 million is raised. The 2002-03 CIP fund for these programs is $252 million and $525.6 million for the 5-year CIP. Projects underway include: 4th Avenue jail, Jackson Street garage, Lower Buckeye jail, Sheriff’s training facility, Durango and Mesa juvenile detention facilities, Facilities Management Department’s Maintenance Facilities, and the Southeast courtroom build-out. Public works departments, Transportation and the Flood Control District, continue to have the largest Capital Programs in Maricopa County. The Department of Transportation utilizes a planning process that employs intergovernmental cooperation and prioritization based on an established list of ranking criteria. These include: safety, land use, traffic volume, cost/benefit, joint sponsorship, and bonus points for a variety of items. Fiscal year 2002-03 capital improvement expenditures for the Department of Transportation will be $84.3 million, with a 5-year projection of $334.7 million. The Flood Control District also utilizes a collaboration model to plan and prioritize projects. Their multi-step decision process is intended to implement previously approved fiscal policies from the District’s strategic plan. Potential CIP projects are identified through Area Drainage Master Plans or agency requests. Issues that are considered through the prioritization process include: agency priority, master plan elements, hydrologic significance, protection, environmental quality, area-wide benefits, project cost, partnership participation, operational and maintenance costs and 7 Transmittal Letter General Fund and special revenue projects that are continuing from last year include: the forensic science center, new administrative parking structure, infrastructure for a new administrative building, security building tenant improvements, human services campus and the public health building. New projects that have been added to the CIP are downtown property acquisition/development, the Buckeye Hills shooting range, the Sheriff’s property and evidence warehouse, elections facility, and land acquisition for three regional centers (contingent upon land sales.) responsibilities. In fiscal year 2002-03, the CIP budget for the Flood Control District will be $48.7 million, with the 5 year CIP plan of $257.6 million. The Maricopa Integrated Health System is not budgeting any CIP in the coming year due to lack of a funding source. Mandated Health Care Transmittal Letter Health Care issues are front and center in Maricopa County. Costs for providing these mandates continue to grow at a very quick pace. One of the reasons for this is the increased cost for the acute care and long-term care programs. These programs are operated at the state level but funded in part or largely by county government. Maricopa County is responsible for funding a large portion of the State of Arizona’s acute care program called the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) and long-term care program called Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS). Increases in AHCCCS contributions will be $3.0 million in 2002-03 due to Proposition 204 mandates. The ALTCS contribution is more problematic. In 1997, the Arizona State Legislature passed legislation to assist counties with the double-digit growth being experienced in the long-term care plans, by sharing the growth 50-50 in future years. This important legislation was touted as saving many of the smaller counties from bankruptcy. (Prior to this legislation, counties paid 100% for the cost of the long-term care system.) In exchange, the urban counties, Maricopa and Pima, would give-up the monopoly they had on providing these services to the long-term care population, and would compete for the business with the private sector. This privatization of the system resulted in a reduction in bottom-line profits for Maricopa’s long-term care health plan from $25.4 million to $15.7 million in the first full-year of operations. Maricopa County’s market share is now 69.1%, rather than the 100% prior to the deal. As part of the budget-balancing plan by the state, the agreement to share the growth has been rescinded. In fiscal year 2002-03, Maricopa County will have an increased contribution of $13.6 million from the General Fund, which has been budgeted. Only half was anticipated. This has been a serious fiscal blow. Maricopa County is dealing with residual from our medical eligibility mandate, which existed prior to October 2001. Now our pending claim resolution/litigation pool has reached $318 million. Litigation costs and potential adverse court decisions could have a devastating impact on our financial health. Maricopa County officials will do all they can to protect taxpayer funds by aggressively defending against claims the County believes are not eligible under state statutes. In the aftermath of September 11th, Maricopa County has recommitted to protecting our community from bio-terrorism through our public health department. In fiscal year 2001-02, the Board of Supervisors approved a $38,465 emergency response program that will ensure our preparedness in the event of a public health crisis. This funding was continued in the 2002-03 budget at an annualized level of $313,876. Maricopa County is committed to protecting the health and safety of our community, and this program will focus on the infectious disease aspect of a threat. Grant funding in the amount of $3 million will be used to supplement this new program. Maricopa Integrated Health System Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) has not required a County general fund subsidy, despite the turbulent health care market, until very recently. In fiscal year 2001-02, the County general fund will transfer $11.7 million dollars of its fund balance to MIHS to offset the cash depletion that has occurred in the last 18 months. In addition, a $4.1 million operating loss is anticipated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002 on a full accrual basis, and the system is projected to lose $5.3 million in FY 2002-03. This unfortunate dwindling of resources is putting a strain on all county services, but is not unexpected in a recessionary environment. During 8 recessions, more families and individuals depend on the County integrated health system to provide uncompensated health care services. The unemployment rate and lack of employer-provided health insurance during difficult times has a very detrimental impact on our system. MIHS will continue to investigate ways to lessen the burden by instituting an ”Ability to Pay Program”, seeking state and federal assistance, and looking for ways to cut costs and increase revenues. Meanwhile, the County is reserving funds for the health system to ensure that if deficits continue, the government can weather the storm. A total of $53 million is reserved in the General Fund fund balance for the Maricopa Integrated Health System in fiscal year 2002-03. Detention Operations The fiscal difficulties that we are experiencing could have ramifications for our expanding detention programs. In November of 1998, the voters of Maricopa County approved a dedicated sales tax to build and operate adult and juvenile detention facilities. When this measure was originally brought to the state legislature, the County and the citizen committee asked for a continuing sales tax. The recommendation was to have a 1/3 of a cent tax that would be reduced after construction of the jails to a lesser amount for operation of the jails/juvenile detention facilities. The Legislature rejected that measure, and instead approved a measure to raise 1/5 of a cent tax for 9 years or until $900 million was obtained. This strategy was, and still is problematic, since the County may not be able to absorb the operational costs within its general fund resources. This reality has brought the County back to the state legislature during the 2002 session to ask for a continuation of the dedicated sales tax for detention facilities. House Bill 2313, passed by both the senate and the house, was sent to the Governor on May 16, 2002, and was later signed. The Board of Supervisors is considering sending this item to the voters on the general election in November. The existing tax is expected to expire in 2007. Maricopa County would like to have guarantee from the voters that the jail sales tax will continue, before appropriating operating expenditures from the detention sales tax funding source which will sunset. Without this assurance, the County could open new detention facilities with the detention sales tax that expires, and then have to shutdown the facilities once the this tax ends. Human Services Campus Maricopa County is working on an innovative program with other community leaders to provide coordinated services for the homeless and at risk populations in our region. In April 2001, the Board of Supervisors asked county administration to facilitate the development of a multi-agency and services campus for this population. The 2002-03 budget includes $1.71 million of funding that the county is contributing to this important function. An action plan has been developed that addresses facility planning and campus design, a center-based delivery system, capital development and financing, and integration of the campus with other regional planning efforts. Major services that have been identified to be housed on the campus include: Andre’ House of 9 Transmittal Letter The County has been setting aside monies in the general fund to operate the jails since fiscal year 1999-2000. In fiscal year 2001-02, over $51.7 million in the general fund operational capacity was budgeted. The funding was being diverted to our “pay-as-you-go” capital program until the operational capacity was needed when the detention facilities opened in fiscal year 2003-04. This conservative fiscal strategy appeared to have great potential for solving the issue without going back to the voters to continue the jail tax. However, this approach has been derailed with the recessionary cycle, Maricopa Integrated Health System losses and the state budget impacts imposed on Maricopa County (over $20 million). The fiscal year 2002-03 budget will only retain $21.1 million of the $51.7 million expenditure appropriation that was dedicated in the current fiscal year. Arizona, Central Arizona Shelter Services, Maricopa County HealthCare for the Homeless Program, Northwest organization for Voluntary Alternatives Safe Haven, St. Joseph the Worker, and St. Vincent de Paul. These organizations provide food, temporary shelter, health care, clothing, counseling, education, and job readiness training. This important project will have a lasting effect on the community. We are glad to be a part of this first step towards ending homelessness in our county. Employee Benefits and Other Concerns Maricopa County has experienced three consecutive years of over 20% increases in its medical health insurance premiums for its employees. The County is in the process of bidding these services and may have a new provider in January of 2003. Based on projections made by our health benefit consultants and actuaries, we have projected as much as a 30% increase in these premiums beginning in January 2003. I am not recommending any general salary increase for employees in the coming year. However, I will be recommending that the Board of Supervisors fund the employee portion of the health benefit increase, consider one-time gain-sharing incentive plans, and provide more paid-time-off for County employees based on performance. I hope that these initiatives will help to maintain morale during these financially lean times. Transmittal Letter Conclusion The Board of Supervisors deserves great praise for continuing their conservative budgeting fiscal policies in a very difficult year. They have set sound priorities, avoided tax increases, have maintained service levels. I want to thank the Elected Officials, Judicial Officers, Appointed Department Directors for working very collaboratively with the Office of Management Budget to develop a results-oriented annual plan to present to our citizenry. and and and and Sincerely, David R. Smith County Administrative Officer On July 22, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the 2002-03 Final Budget, with changes from the Tentative Budget, including the Flood Control, Library, and Stadium Districts, in the amount of $2,464,915,690. General Fund and Detention Fund revenue and expenditures were reduced to reflect revised revenue collection forecasts. As a result of the reduction in Detention Fund revenue, the fund transfer from the Detention Fund (operating) to Capital Projects was reduced commensurately. This action required a corresponding change to the Eliminations budget. Special revenue fund revenue and expenditures increased overall, due to additional grants and fee revenue. Enterprise fund revenue and expenditures were increased to accommodate expansion of the Obstetrics Ward at the Health Care Delivery System. Adjustments were made to the Stadium District’s Debt Service, Special Revenue, and Eliminations funds as a result of bond refinancing. The Final Budget expenditures, which are subject to the expenditure limit, do not exceed those in the published estimates adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2002. 10 Executive Summary Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The accounting policies of Maricopa County conform to generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental units adopted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). During the year ended June 30, 2002, the County implemented GASB Statement No. 34, as amended by GASB Statement No. 37, which prescribes a new reporting model consisting of both government-wide and fund financial statements. The County also implemented GASB No. 38, which prescribes new and revised note disclosure. A summary of the County’s more significant accounting policies is presented. Basis of Presentation The basic financial statements include both government-wide statements and fund financial statements. The government-wide statements focus on the County as a whole, while the fund financial statements focus on major funds. Each presentation provides valuable information that can be analyzed and compared between years and between governments to enhance the usefulness of the information. The statement of activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and program revenues for each function of the County’s governmental activities and segment of its business-type activities. Direct expenses are those that are specifically associated with a program or function and, therefore, are clearly identifiable to a particular function. The County allocates indirect expenses to programs or functions. Program revenues include: • • • Charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, or privileges provided, Operating grants and contributions, and Capital grants and contributions, including special assessments. Revenues that are not classified as program revenues, including internally dedicated resources and all taxes, are reported as general revenues. Generally, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial statements to minimize the double counting of internal activities. However, charges for interfund services provided and used are not eliminated if doing so would distort the direct costs and program revenues reports by the departments concerned. Fund-based financial statements – provide information about the County’s funds, including fiduciary funds and blended component units. Separate statements are presented for the governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary fund categories. The emphasis of fund financial statements is on major governmental and enterprise funds, each displayed in a separate column. All remaining governmental and enterprise funds are aggregated and reported as nonmajor funds. Fiduciary funds are aggregated and reported by fund type. 11 Executive Summary Government-wide statements – provide information about the primary government (the County) and its component units. The statements include a statement of net assets and a statement of activities. These statements report the financial activities of the overall government, except for fiduciary activities. They also distinguish between the governmental and business-type activities of the County. Governmental activities generally are financed through taxes and intergovernmental revenues. Business type activities are finances in whole or in part by fees charged to external parties. Proprietary Fund Operating Revenues, such as charges for services, result from transactions associated with the fund’s principal activity in which each party receives and gives up essentially equal values. Nonoperating revenues, such as subsidies and investment earnings, result from transactions in which the parties do not exchange equal values. Revenues generated by ancillary activities are also reported as nonoperating revenues. The County reports and budgets for the following major governmental funds: The General Fund – is the County’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Transportation Fund – Plans and implements an environmentally balanced multi-model transportation system. Operations are funded through highway user tax. The Flood Control Fund – Provides flood control facilities and regulates floodplains and drainage to prevent flooding of property and endangering the lives of people in Maricopa County. Operations are funded by a secondary tax levy. The Jail Operations Fund – Established under the authority of propositions 400 and 401, which were passed in the General Election of November 3, 1998. These propositions authorized a temporary 1/5 cent sales tax to be used for the construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. The General Obligation Fund – To account for debt service on all various purpose general obligation bonds. Funding is provided by the County’s secondary property tax revenues, which may be used only for debt service. Executive Summary The County Improvement – To account for the debt service on the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2001, for $124,855,000. Funding is provided by transfers from the General Fund. The Jail Construction Fund – Accounts for the proceeds associated with the temporary 1/5 of one cent Sales Tax approved by voters in the General Election of November 3, 1998. The proceeds are for the construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. The County Improvement Fund – Accounts for capital projects funded through the issuance of the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2001, for $124,855,000. The County reports the following major enterprise funds: The Maricopa Health Plan Fund – Is an ambulatory health care plan operated by Maricopa Managed Care System (MMCS). MMCS contracts with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) which provides monthly capitation revenues based on MCHP plan enrollment. The Medical Center Fund – The Maricopa Medical Center provides quality, cost competitive health care and health professional education to assure the health security of individuals, families, and the community. The Arizona Long-Term Care System (ALTCS) Fund – Is a managed care, long term care plan operated by Maricopa Managed Care Systems (MMCS). Chronically ill and physically disabled patients receive medical services as a result of an annual contract with AHCCCS. The County reports the following fund types: The internal service funds – account for automotive maintenance and service, telecommunications services, printing and duplicating services, insurance services, self insured employee benefits, and warehouse services provided to County department or to other governments on a cost reimbursement basis. The investment trust fund – accounts for pooled assets held and invested by the County Treasurer on behalf of county departments and other governmental entities. 12 The agency funds – account for assets held by the County as an agent for the State and various local governments, for the property taxes collected and distributed to the State, local school districts, community college districts and special districts. Basis of Accounting The government-wide, proprietary, and fiduciary fund financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when the related cash flows take place. Property taxes are recognized as revenue in the year for which they are levied. Grants and donations are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental funds in the fund-based financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when measurable and available. The County considers all revenues reported in the governmental funds to be available if the revenues are collected within 60 days after year-end. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, except for principal and interest on general long-term debt, claims and judgments, compensated absences, and landfill closure and postclosure care costs, which are recognized as expenditures to the extent they are due and payable. General capital asset acquisitions are reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Proceeds of general long-term debt and acquisitions under capital leases are reported as other financing sources. The County’s business-type activities and enterprise funds of the County follow FASB statements and Interpretations issued on or before November 30, 1989; Accounting Principles Board Opinions; and Accounting Research Bulletins, unless those pronouncements conflict with GASB pronouncements. Basis of Budgeting and Budgetary Control The County is required by Arizona law to prepare and adopt a balanced budget annually for the General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, Enterprise and Capital Projects Funds. Arizona law further requires that no expenditure shall be made or liability incurred in excess of the amounts budgeted except as provided by law. Appropriation levels are established on a departmental basis and lapse annually. Transfers during the year from the contingency account to a department’s budget require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted or as adjusted by allocations from reserves (contingency) or as amended by authorization from the Board of Supervisors. The County budgets for Governmental Fund types on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), with the exception of the following types of transactions: • • • Capital Lease Transactions Bond Issuance Transactions Arizona Long-Term Care System Refund The activity in the law Library, Sports Authority, Probate Programs, Regional Schools, and Taxpayers’ Information Funds is not specifically budgeted, but is presented as separate funds in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 13 Executive Summary Under the terms of grant agreements, the County funds certain programs by a combination of grants and general revenues. Therefore, when program expenses are incurred there are both restricted and unrestricted net assets available to finance the program. The County applies grant resources to such programs before using general revenues. Budget Process Introduction Maricopa County’s fiscal year begins July 1 and ends the following June 30, coinciding with the State of Arizona’s fiscal calendar. The Maricopa County budget process is closely tied to the strategic planning process, forming a continuous cycle of planning-budgeting-evaluation. The following timeline details the basic budget process. Budget Process Timeline Executive Summary July Activity 10 Year Financial Forecast developed based on economic trends Departments update Strategic Plans and draft Results Initiatives due OMB develops Budgeting for Results guidelines Board of Supervisors approve Budgeting for Results Guidelines OMB establishes expenditure levels and prepares budget instructions for departments to use in budget preparation Budget kick-off meetings held; budget targets, guidelines, policies, and other documentation distributed; training provided Internal Service Fund (ISF) cost estimates submitted to the OMB Departments prepare budget requests Five Year Capital Improvement Program developed and approved by the Board of Supervisors Departmental budget requests received OMB reviews budget requests The Deputy County Administrator (DCA) reviews appointed departments’ budgets and negotiate budgets with Elected Officials and Judicial Branch Elected Officials and Judicial Branch budget requests presented to the Board of Supervisors OMB consolidated the County's Tentative Budget County Administrative Officer presents Tentative Budget to the Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors approves Tentative Budget Public meetings held in Supervisorial Districts to solicit public comment Final Budget is adopted by the Board of Supervisors Property tax rates are approved by the Board September August November October January December March February May April June The Annual Budget Process presented below is an example of the general tools that guide the budget process. It is intended to enhance the reader’s understanding of the entire budget process. This overview does not replace the actual FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04 budget processes that follow, or the actual FY 2002-03 budget calendar provided in the Attachments section of this document. Each year, certain circumstances, such as delays in the State of Arizona’s budget approval process, may impact and alter certain dates. Annual Budget Process Financial Forecast Developed: The annual budget process begins in July of each fiscal year when the Office of Management and Budget develops a financial forecast. The forecast assists in both short and long range financial planning. This forecast provides a conservative estimate of the County’s fiscal condition through the next ten years given realistic economic trends, current Board policies and existing laws. The forecast does not incorporate anticipated policy changes, spending priorities, or proposed new revenue sources. The resulting forecasts include revenues, expenditures and ending fund balances beginning with the current fiscal year for major funds. Strategic Plan Updates: Departments review their strategic plans to ensure that the services they provide are accurately and fully represented in the plan, and that performance measures are 14 meaningful. If necessary, departmental strategic plans are updated. See the Managing for Results section for details behind this process. Draft Results Initiatives Request (RIR) Submitted: RIR’s must be drafted and submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for departments requiring funding above the budget base to support a program, activity and strategic goal identified in the strategic planning process. Results initiatives address mandates, demands for service caused by demographic changes, new programs, or expansion of existing programs. Results initiatives must clearly relate to the department’s mission and be supported by relevant performance measures. Budgeting for Results Guidelines Developed and Approved: The Office of Management and Budget develops annual budget guidelines for the Board of Supervisors’ approval. These are broad directives that provide guidance to departments regarding base submissions, requests for additional funding, capital project budgeting, and compliance with various Board policies. The Guidelines are influenced by current economic conditions and the financial forecast. Expenditure Levels Established: The Office of Management and Budget develops base-level expenditure targets for each department and fund based on current year appropriations. Adjustments are made for one-time expenses, and annualizations of mid-year budget adjustments. Expenditure levels are right-sized as necessary to ensure that they do not exceed available resources. Budget Instructions Prepared and Disseminated: The Office of Management and Budget prepares budget targets and detailed instructions for departmental budget submissions. Instructions provide methodologies for budgeting revenue, personnel expenses, capital projects, and capital purchases, as well as technical guidance for entering budget requests into the budget system. Internal Service Fund Costs Estimates Submitted: The Total Compensation, Materials Management, Equipment Services, Risk Management, and Telecommunications departments provide the Office of Management and Budget with estimates on the cost of services for the upcoming fiscal year. This information is compiled by the Office of Management and Budget, and distributed to departments Count-wide so that they can adequately budget for internal services. Budget Requests Prepared: Departments must submit budget requests for revenue and expenditures that are consistent with the targets provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Any proposed increases to expenditure levels must be submitted as a Results Initiative Request. Departments must submit supporting documentation on revenues and expenditures for each of their distinct funds, and allocate budgets according to elements of their strategic plan. Capital projects funds must also be allocated by specific capital projects. In addition, detailed base budgets and Results Initiative Requests must be entered into the budget system. Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Submitted and Approved: Departments involved in capital construction must prepare and submit a five year budget for every project, and indicate how the project contributes to their strategic plan. This information is analyzed and compiled by the Office of Management and Budget, and presented to the Board of Supervisors for their review and approval. Budget Requests Submitted: Departments typically have several weeks during which to develop their requested budget. Base budget requests, Results Initiative Requests, and supporting 15 Executive Summary Budget Kick-Off Meetings Held, and Associated Materials Distributed: The budget season officially begins with Budget Kick-Off Meetings, at which the Office of Management and Budget introduces the budget guidelines for the upcoming year. These meetings address changes to the budget process, as well as introduce the schedule for the budget season. Submission instructions are provided to departments, as is information about recent updates or changes to the budget system. documentation are submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in both hard copy and electronic form. Budget Requests Reviewed: The Office of Management and Budget analyzes base budgets and Results Initiative Requests in the context of available resources, Board of Supervisors’ priorities, and performance, as defined by each department’s strategic plan. Budget requests are analyzed at the object-code level for every fund and strategic plan element. All funds must be structurally balanced, and all positions must be fully funded. Deputy County Administrator Reviews and Negotiates Budgets: After analyzing requested budgets, the Office of Management and Budget prepares budget recommendations for the Deputy County Administrator’s review. The Deputy County Administrator reviews and approves budget recommendations for appointed departments, and negotiates with elected officials and Judicial Branch departments to reach budget agreements. Budget Requests Presented: Elected officials and the Judicial Branch departments have the opportunity to present their requested budgets to the Board of Supervisors. This provides an opportunity to highlight significant issues, and discuss any Results Initiative Requests that may have been submitted. Executive Summary Tentative Budget Consolidated: Upon finalization of budget recommendations and agreements, the Office of Management and Budget consolidates the budget for the entire County. This includes verifying that all fund transfers are budgeted appropriately, balancing the Eliminations budget, finetuning the General Government and Appropriated Fund Balance budgets, verifying that all entries have been made correctly in the budget system, and creating consolidated reports. These tasks culminate in the creation of a tentative budget document. Tentative Budget Presented and Adopted: The Deputy County Administrator presents the tentative budget to the Board of Supervisors, highlighting significant changes in revenues, expenditures, and overall structure. The presentation also includes an overview of issues facing the County, such as changes in benefits or retirement rates, State statutes impacting County operations, and econometric trends. The Board of Supervisors may choose to change the tentative budget, or adopt it as recommended. Public Meetings Held: Each Supervisor may hold a public meeting in their district to elicit citizen feedback on the tentative budget. An overview of the budget is presented by the Office of Management and Budget, followed by a question and answer period. These meetings are advertised in local papers. Final Budget Adopted: The Office of Management and Budget consolidates the final budget, including any changes requested by the Board of Supervisors. The final budget is presented to the Board of Supervisors during a public hearing by the Deputy County Administrator for their adoption. Property Tax Rates Approved: Maricopa County levies primary property taxes based on assessed valuations of personal and real property. Each year the primary tax levy limit is computed by the Assessor’s Office and is confirmed by the State Property Tax Oversight Commission. The County also levies secondary property taxes for specific purposes, namely the Flood Control District, the Library District, and Debt Service. Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget Process The FY 2002-03 budget process began with the update of the 10 year financial forecast, which is based on current economic trends provided to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by its contracted economist. This became the cornerstone for revenue projections for FY 2002-03. In the Fall of 2000, all County departments developed new strategic plans and performance measures based on a standardized format for use during FY 2001-02 (see Managing For Results Section and 16 Managing For Results Policy in the Attachments section). Very few strategic plan updates were needed during the FY 2002-03 budget planning process. With the events of September 11th and a general downturn in the economy, Maricopa County’s Board of Supervisors took action in October 2001 to deal with a forecasted structural imbalance in the FY 2001-02 budget. A budget balancing plan was approved which called for voluntary budget reductions and strategies for revenue increases. The Office of Management and Budget reviewed the department balancing plans, which led to a 45 day delay in the FY 2002-03 budget development schedule. On January 14, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the updated budget guidelines (see Budgeting For Results Policy Guidelines in the Attachment section) that incorporated the initiatives found in the Managing For Results Policy. OMB then developed the departmental expenditure levels (budget targets) and the instructions departments would use in developing their budget requests. Budget kick-off meetings were held in mid-January with departments. Budget targets and related instructions were distributed and budget system training was provided to requesting departments. Internal Service Fund (ISF) cost estimates submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) were distributed to departments. The Office of Management and Budget received departmental budget requests in mid-February and reviewed them through the end of March. The Deputy County Administrator (DCA) reviewed the appointed departments’ budgets and began the budget negotiation process with the Elected Officials and the Judicial Branch beginning in mid-March through mid-April. Elected Official and Judicial Branch budget requests were presented to the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2002. Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Process The FY 2003-04 budget process will be similar to that of a normal budget year. Beginning in July 2002, a update of the 10 year financial forecast will begin. This process, in conjunction with other revenue forecasting based on economic trends, will be the cornerstone for revenue projections for FY 2003-04. The Office of Management and Budget will begin developing the Budgeting For Results Policy Guidelines (budget guidelines), which the Board of Supervisors will approve by early November 2002. Following this Board action, expenditure budget targets will be developed and budget kick-off meetings will be held with departments. Budget instructions, policies, and necessary documentation will be distributed, as well as, training on the budget preparation system will be provided to departments. The Office of Management and Budget will receive departmental budget requests by mid-February and will review them through the end of March. The Deputy County Administrator (DCA) will then review the appointed departments’ budgets and begin the budget negotiation process with the Elected Official and the Judicial Branch. This process is expected to last through mid-April. Through early May, the Office of Management and Budget will consolidate the County's Tentative Budget, which includes the maximum expenditure limits. The County Administrative Officer will present the preliminary budget to the Board of Supervisors in mid-May, and the Board is slated to 17 Executive Summary Due to the delayed outcome of the State of Arizona’s budget approval process, the Office of Management and Budget consolidated the County's Tentative Budget much later than usual. The County Administrative Officer presented it to the Board of Supervisors on June 17th, with approval by the Board that same day. Due to the delayed budget calendar, public meetings that were scheduled in all Supervisorial Districts were cancelled. The statutory budget hearing was held on July 22, 2002, and the FY 2002-03 Final Budget was adopted by the Board of Supervisors that same day. The property tax rates were later approved by the Board on August 19, 2002. approve it a week later. Public hearings will be scheduled in the Supervisorial Districts through midJune to solicit public comment. The FY 2003-04 Final Budget is scheduled for adoption by the Board of Supervisors in June 2003. The property tax rates, which must cover the expenditure total in the approved annual budget, are scheduled to be approved by the third Monday in August 2003. Statutory Requirements Executive Summary The Maricopa County budget adoption process is guided by various Arizona statutes. According to A.R.S. §42-17101, “On or before the third Monday in July each year the governing body of each county and incorporated city or town shall prepare: 1. A full and complete statement of the political subdivision's financial affairs for the preceding fiscal year. 2. An estimate of the different amounts that will be required to meet the political subdivision's public expense for the current fiscal year entered in the minutes of the governing body and containing the items prescribed by section 4217102. 3. A summary schedule of estimated expenditures and revenues that shall be: (a) Entered in the minutes of the governing body. (b) Prepared according to forms supplied by the auditor general." A.R.S. §42-17102 states, “A. The annual estimate of expenses of each county, city and town shall include: 1. An estimate of the amount of money required for each item of expenditure necessary for county, city or town purposes. 2. The amounts necessary to pay the interest and principal of outstanding bonds. 3. The items and amounts of each special levy provided by law. 4. An amount for unanticipated contingencies or emergencies. 5. A statement of the receipts for the preceding fiscal year from sources other than direct property taxes. 6. The amounts that are estimated to be received during the current fiscal year from sources other than direct property taxes and voluntary contributions. 7. The amounts that were actually levied and the amounts that were actually collected for county, city or town purposes on the primary and secondary property tax rolls of the preceding fiscal year. 8. The amounts that were collected through primary property taxes and secondary property taxes levied for the years before the preceding fiscal year. 9. The amount that is proposed to be raised by direct property taxation for the current fiscal year for the general fund, bonds, special assessments and district levies. 10. The separate amounts to be raised by primary property tax levies and by secondary property tax levies for the current fiscal year. 11. The amount of voluntary contributions estimated to be received pursuant to section 48-242, based on the information transmitted to the governing body by the department of revenue. 12. The maximum amount that can be raised by primary property tax levies by the county, city or town pursuant to article 2 of this chapter for the current fiscal year. 13. The amount that the county, city or town proposes to raise by secondary property tax levies and the additional amounts, if any, that the county, city or town will levy pursuant to the authority given to the governing body by the voters at an election called pursuant to article 5 of this chapter. 14. The property tax rate for county, city or town purposes for the preceding fiscal year for the primary property tax and the secondary property tax. 15. The estimated property tax rate for county, city or town purposes for the current fiscal year for the primary property tax and the secondary property tax. 16. The expenditure limitation for the preceding fiscal year and the total amount that was proposed to be spent for the preceding fiscal year. 17. The total expenditure limitation for the current fiscal year. 18. The amount of monies received from primary property taxation in the preceding fiscal year in excess of the maximum allowable amount as computed pursuant to article 2 of this chapter. B. The estimate shall be fully itemized according to forms supplied by the auditor general showing under separate headings: 1. The amounts that are estimated as required for each department, public office or official. 2. A complete disclosure and statement of the contemplated expenditures for the current fiscal year, showing the amount proposed to be spent from each fund and the total amount of proposed public expense. C. The total of amounts proposed in the estimates to be spent shall not exceed the expenditure limitation established for the county, city or town.” 18 According to A.R.S. §42-17103, “A. The governing body of each county, city or town shall publish the estimates of expenses and a notice of a public hearing and special meeting of the governing body to hear taxpayers and make tax levies at designated times and places. B. The estimates and notice shall be published once a week for at least two consecutive weeks after the estimates are tentatively adopted in the official newspaper of the county, city or town, if there is one, and, if not, in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city or town. C. If a truth in taxation notice and hearing is required under section 42-17107, the governing body may combine the notice under this section with the truth in taxation notice.” A.R.S. §42-17104 states, “A. The governing body of each county, city or town shall hold a public hearing and special meeting on or before the seventh day before the day on which it levies taxes as stated in the notice under section 42-17103. Any taxpayer may appear and be heard in favor of or against any proposed expenditure or tax levy. B. If a truth in taxation notice and hearing is required under section 42-17107, the governing body may combine the hearing under this section with the truth in taxation hearing.” The budget is adopted per A.R.S. §42-17105, “A. After the hearing on estimates under section 4217104 is concluded, the governing body shall convene in a special meeting and finally determine and adopt estimates of proposed expenditures for the purposes stated in the published proposal. B. The adopted estimates constitute the budget of the county, city or town for the current fiscal year. C. The total amounts that are proposed to be spent in the budget shall not exceed the total of amounts that were proposed for expenditure in the published estimates.” Truth in Taxation Hearing Notice of Tax Increase In compliance with section 42-17107, Arizona Revised Statutes, __________ (name of county, city or town) is notifying its property taxpayers of __________'s (name of county, city or town) intention to raise its primary property taxes over last year's level. __________ (name of county, city or town) is proposing an increase in primary property taxes of $__________ or _____%. For example, the proposed tax increase will cause __________'s (name of county, city or town) primary property taxes on a $100,000 home to increase from $__________ (total taxes that would be owed without the proposed tax increase) to $__________ (total proposed taxes including the tax increase). This proposed increase is exclusive of increased primary property taxes received from new construction. The increase is also exclusive of any changes that may occur from property tax levies for voter approved bonded indebtedness or budget and tax overrides. 19 Executive Summary Beginning with the Fiscal Year 1997-98 budget process, A.R.S. §42-17107, otherwise know as the “Truth in Taxation” legislation went into effect, which states that, “A. On or before July 1, the county assessor shall transmit to the county, city or town an estimate of the total net assessed valuation of the county, city or town, including an estimate of new property that has been added to the tax roll since the previous levy of property taxes in the county, city or town. If the proposed primary property tax levy, excluding amounts that are attributable to new construction, is greater than the amount levied by the county, city or town in the preceding tax year in the county, city or town: 1. The governing body shall publish a notice that meets the following requirements: (a) The notice shall be published twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city or town. The first publication shall be at least fourteen but not more than twenty days before the date of the hearing. The second publication shall be at least seven but not more than ten days before the date of the hearing. (b) The notice shall be published in a location other than the classified or legal advertising section of the newspaper in which it is published. (c) The notice shall be at least one-fourth page in size and shall be surrounded by a solid black border at least one-eighth inch in width. (d) The notice shall be in the following form, with the "truth in taxation hearing - notice of tax increase" headline in at least eighteen point type: All interested citizens are invited to attend the public hearing on the tax increase that is scheduled to be held __________ (date and time) at __________ (location). Executive Summary 2. In lieu of publishing the truth in taxation notice, the governing body may mail the truth in taxation notice prescribed by paragraph 1, subdivision (d) to all registered voters in the county, city or town at least ten but not more than twenty days before the date of the hearing on the estimates pursuant to section 42-17104. 3. In addition to publishing the truth in taxation notice under paragraph 1 or mailing the notice under paragraph 2, the governing body shall issue a press release containing the truth in taxation notice. 4. The governing body shall consider a motion to levy the increased property taxes by roll call vote. 5. Within three days after the hearing, the governing body shall mail a copy of the truth in taxation notice, a statement of its publication or mailing and the result of the governing body's vote under paragraph 4 to the property tax oversight commission. 6. The governing body shall hold the truth in taxation hearing on or before the adoption of the county, city or town budget under section 42-17105. B. For purposes of this section, "amount attributable to new construction" means the net assessed valuation of property added to the tax roll since the previous year multiplied by a property tax rate computed by dividing the primary property tax levy of the county, city or town in the preceding year by the estimate of the total net assessed valuation of the county, city or town for the current year, excluding the net assessed valuation attributable to new construction.” Tax rates are set according to A.R.S. §42-17151, which states that, “A. On or before the third Monday in August each year the governing body of each county, city, town, community college district and school district shall: 1. Fix, levy and assess the amount to be raised from primary property taxation and secondary property taxation. This amount, plus all other sources of revenue, as estimated, and unencumbered balances from the preceding fiscal year, shall equal the total of amounts proposed to be spent in the budget for the current fiscal year. 2. Designate the amounts to be levied for each purpose appearing in the adopted budget. 3. Fix and determine a primary property tax rate and a secondary property tax rate, each rounded to four decimal places on each one hundred dollars of taxable property shown by the finally equalized valuations of property, less exemptions, that appear on the tax rolls for the fiscal year and that when extended on those valuations will produce, in the aggregate, the entire amount to be raised by direct taxation for that year. B. The governing body of a county, city, town or community college district shall not fix, levy or assess an amount of primary property taxes in excess of the amount permitted by section 4217051, subsection A, paragraph 7 or section 42-17005 as determined by the property tax oversight commission. C. Within three days after the final levies are determined for a county, city, town or community college district, the chief county fiscal officer shall notify the property tax oversight commission of the amount of the primary property tax levied.” Budget Adjustment Process Any department requesting an adjustment to its budget must do so via a written request which must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. According to A.R.S. §42-17106, “A. Except as provided in subsection B, a county, city or town shall not: 1. Spend money for a purpose that is not included in its budget. 2. Spend money or incur or create a debt, obligation or liability in a fiscal year in excess of the amount stated for each purpose in the finally adopted budget for that year, except as provided by law, regardless of whether the county, city or town has received at any time, or has on hand, monies or revenue in excess of the amount required to meet expenditures, debts, obligations and liabilities that are incurred under the budget. B. A governing body may transfer monies between budget items if all of the following apply: 1. The monies are available. 2. The transfer is in the public interest and based on a demonstrated need. 3. The transfer does not result in a violation of the limitations prescribed in article IX, sections 19 and 20, Constitution of Arizona. 4. A majority of the members of the governing body votes affirmatively on the transfer at a public meeting.” 20 If approved, the requesting department must prepare and submit a completed budget adjustment per the instructions provided by the Office of Management & Budget for processing. The Office of Management & Budget is responsible for verifying the budget adjustment for accuracy and appropriateness on a timely basis. The Budget Analyst, after appropriate analysis is performed, authorizes the adjustment be made. The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for inputting the budget adjustments into the financial system. The Department of Finance is responsible for the final, electronic, approval of the budget adjustment in the financial system. Programmatic Budgeting Maricopa County has been budgeting based on program since the early 1990’s, but has recently revised that process through a “Managing for Results” template. It provides a shift in the focus of financial planning from resource allocation (input) to service results (output). This budgetary policy is a focus which seeks to relate the consumption of financial resources to services provided. It allows for the modification of activities based on the prioritization’s of strategic goals and objectives, as defined by departmental strategic plans, and reflects the financial conservatism of our community. A major benefit of activity based budgeting is the ability to track program performance. Department directors develop budget requests based on program priorities. The involvement of service providers in the budget process ensures that priorities remain focused on the delivery of services to the community. By focusing on the service needs of County residents, and by developing strategic plans that take a systematic approach to meeting those needs, Maricopa County is better able to act as a steward of the public funds. Policies and Their Budgetary Impact Introduction Since the financial turbulence of FY 1993-94, Maricopa County has reached financial recovery and stability. Over the past few years, a set of systems and policies have been developed and adopted to ensure that the fiduciary obligations as stewards of public monies are met. The policies deal with a wide range of areas that provide financial safeguards and policy direction to the organization on matters such as lump sum budgeting, budget development and reserves and tax reduction. In recent years, many of these policies have been updated to incorporate the new Managing for Results philosophy. A discussion of these policies, which includes their intent and their applicability to the budget process or financial management, is included on the following pages. Copies of all these policies can be found in the Attachments section. Budgeting For Results Accountability Policy Background On June 13, 1994, the Board of Supervisors departed from tradition and approved a tentative budget which called for a lump sum allocation of authorized expenditures for all departments. While budgets are built by identifying expenditures and revenues by distinct categories and programs, budgets are controlled at the department/fund level. This policy is updated and adjusted annually. In May 1997 and later in December 2000, the Board of Supervisors amended this policy in order to meet the challenges of the implementation of a broad-band compensation system and Managing for Results. Funding is allocated to departments on an annual basis. 21 Executive Summary Through the Managing for Results initiative, Maricopa County has standardized how it will budget and report financial figures. In FY 2001-02, PAS (Program/Service/Activity) codes were developed to track expenses at this level. Beginning in FY 2002-03, the budget was developed and expenditures will be reported utilizing this new standardized PAS codes. Expenditure reporting is then aligned directly with department’s strategic plan programs and performance measures. Intent According to A.R.S. §42-17106, the County may not incur expenditures in excess of the amounts appropriated by the Board of Supervisors in the annual budget. The purpose of the Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy is to provide departments with the flexibility in managing their allocated public resources to achieve program results, while upholding accountability for spending within legal appropriations. This policy seeks to strengthen budget accountability and ownership at the department level. The program encourages departmental staff to save resources and be creative in the delivery of services. This approach to budgeting can help the County cope with new fiscal challenges and improve the quality of County Services. Main Provisions Funding is allocated to departments on an annual basis. Departments are required to submit a monthly (calendarized) revenue and expenditure plan. This serves as the basis for the annual appropriations in the financial system. Departments are held responsible for bottom-line performance and absorb unanticipated cost increases and revenue shortfalls. Departments have the authority to adjust their monthly revenue and expenditure budgets, but adjustments are restricted to the same funding source, e.g., General Fund. Once a department exceeds (or is projected to exceed) their budget allotment, full controls may be implemented and the financial system will prevent payments from being generated. Executive Summary Personnel costs account for a large portion of the budget. By taking a lump sum approach, adequate funding for all established positions becomes crucial. Therefore, all positions must be fully funded. Any positions not funded in a department’s budget submission are eliminated per the Funded Positions Policy, which was also adopted by the Board in May 1997. (See the Attachments section for a copy of this policy.) Expenditure and revenue variance reviews are conducted with departments on a monthly basis by the Department of Finance. This process includes participation by the Office of Management & Budget to insure accurate estimates, identify savings, and assist in preparing the following year’s budget target. Departments are allowed to retain and carry forward savings achieved by cost cutting that does not decrease service levels within a fiscal year. Any savings with a service level impact must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Budgeting For Results Policy Guidelines Background Developed each year, these guideline serves as the "umbrella" document for the next year's budget development process. It alludes to, and reinforces points from other policies. Intent Provide policy direction to the departments in the development of their budget submissions. Maricopa County’s budget process provides for responsible management of taxpayers’ resources, while insuring that funds are directed towards achieving results at all levels. Budgetary decisions are based on performance information that describes the cost or efficiency of producing an activity and the results achieved for customers. This is accomplished by structuring the accounting and budgeting systems according to the structure of departments' strategic plans. Main Provisions: General The Board of Supervisors must understand and be aware of all fiscal impacts due to programs needs in order to make sound budgeting decisions. Therefore, specific guidelines were developed addressing several key areas that in the past may or may not have been surfaced. For example, • 22 New programs are not to be instituted without Board of Supervisors approval. • • • New, unfunded, or underfunded program mandates from the state or federal government must be critically reviewed by the Director or Program Manager to identify fiscal impact and funding solutions. Full cost recovery is to be attempted for all programs and services. And, Organizational and financial structural changes are to be made prior to budget kick-off. Revenues Traditionally, User Fees had been inconsistently established. The revenue policy section focuses attention on the adoption and review of those fees and charges. User Fees for all operations will be reviewed and set to attempt to recover up to, but not greater than 100% of costs; market rates and charges for comparable services for similar services will be considered. Expenditures The expenditure section communicates how budget targets are established and what adjustments if any will be made to those targets. Carryover items will not be budgeted without Board of Supervisor approval. Expenditure targets will be based on calendar year end current positions, revised budget supplies and services plus full-year impacts of any adjustments, and revised budget capital outlay. Turnover savings will be applied to submitted budgets based on current turnover rates (which can be negotiated with Office of Management & Budget and approved by the County Administrative Officer.) Internal Service Fund and Cost Allocation This section establishes the process to determine the charges for services and directs the departments to budget (according to those charges) for any discretionary services they may require. The Department of Finance will determine and charge the various funds for central service cost activities based on a full cost allocation methodology (and will include the base level service charges from Facilities, Materials, and Corporate Business Technology). Capital improvement program policy direction provides for the adequate and orderly replacement of facilities and major equipment from current revenue where possible, the funding of the organization’s own maintenance needs, and reviewing and gaining approval on carryover projects prior to the consideration of new requests. Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy Background In August 1996, the Board of Supervisors adopted this policy which established the guidelines for the maintenance and use of any reserve fund balances. Reserve funds, which are defined as the difference between fund assets and fund liabilities. A reserve fund balance that is determined to exist during any fiscal year will be budgeted for the next fiscal year according to priorities established by this policy. Intent The policy provides for budgetary stability, debt reduction and, ultimately, stabilization and reduction of tax rates when possible. During times of economic downturn, such as an unexpected decrease in revenues or unavoidable increase in expenditures, the policy may be used to stabilize the general fund until appropriate long-term budgetary adjustments are made. However, every attempt will be made to forecast economic changes and manage finances in the new environment without expenditure of reserves or an increase in taxes. Reserves above the base level determined to ensure financial stability should be used to retire debt in advance of maturities. Further, the purpose of the policy is to demonstrate a commitment to the maintenance and, when possible, reduction of the tax rate while ensuring that Maricopa County remains financially stable and accountable to the citizens. 23 Executive Summary Capital Improvements Main Provisions: Reserves The Board of Supervisors will maintain an unreserved fund balance for the County. At the close of each fiscal year, the status of the unreserved fund balance and outstanding debt in light of revenue projections and other economic considerations is determined and the County Administrative Officer will recommend to the Board of Supervisors a target unreserved balance for the coming fiscal year. The County Administrative Officer also recommends retention of proceeds from the sale of major County assets in the event of liabilities related to those assets. The County Administrator Officer’s recommendations may include any of the following: • • • • • Fiscal stabilization by supplementing revenues during economic downturns. Reduction of cash flow borrowing. Funding of one-time capital purchases with cash. Retiring outstanding long and/or short term debt. Funding outstanding liabilities associated with major assets that were formerly owned by the County. Executive Summary Tax Reduction The County, will strive to set the county-wide tax rate at current or lower levels, unless otherwise mandated by a vote of the citizenry or legislative enactment. The Board of Supervisors may reduce tax rates when, according to reasonable estimates, the tax reduction is sustainable for the foreseeable future; when the recurring revenue is in excess of the recurring expenditures and the projections of the recurring revenue based on the proposed tax rate (after the tax reduction is made) must at least equal expenditures; when the County's reserve balance is sufficient to ensure against cash-flow borrowing and unexpected economic changes; when attempting to reduce shortterm debt in advance of due dates, therefore, eliminating recurring short term debt; and when possible, attempts have been made to fund one-time capital purchases with cash rather than incurring further debt. County Judicial Branch In FY 2002-03, Adult Probation, Justice Courts, Juvenile Probation and Superior Court will be known as the "Judicial Branch", and considered as one appropriation. Any and all appropriations in the "Judicial Branch" appropriation can be moved between any and all “Judicial Branch” departments by Fund, as requested and approved by the Presiding Judge, without any further Board approval. Indigent Representation In FY 2002-03, Contract Counsel, Legal Advocate, Legal Defender and Public Defender will be known as "Indigent Representation", and considered as one appropriation. Any and all appropriations in the "Indigent Representation" appropriation can be moved between any and all “Indigent Representation” departments by Fund, as requested and approved by the County Administrative Officer, without any further Board approval. Structurally Balanced Budget The FY 2002-03 Budget includes one exception from the provision of the Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines that requires structurally balanced budgets (recurring revenues fully support recurring expenditures). Specifics on the exception is as follows: 24 Library District: The Library District (Fund 244) budget includes $425,561 of operating expenditures above the operating revenue level. These operating costs are related to the establishment of the Northwest Regional Library opening in the summer of 2002. The Library District entered into a ten-year Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Surprise to operate the new library. The Library District will use fund balance to offset operating costs during the ten-year period. After the expiration of the IGA, the City of Surprise will fund the operating costs of the library. Interfund Loan to Detention Capital Projects Fund (455) The Board of Supervisor’s approve and authorize the use of funds by the Detention Capital Projects Fund, (Fund 455), from the County Improvement Debt Service Fund, (Fund 320). The Debt Service Fund has an unreserved fund balance, which may be used temporarily to cover a projected cash deficiency in the Detention Capital Projects Fund. This transaction will not impact the County’s ability to make future debt service payments. A projected cash flow deficiency in the Detention Capital Projects Fund is due to construction spending occurring at a faster pace than the collection of the Jail Excise Tax. The cash deficiency is expected for the period January 2003 through May 2004, and should not exceed $55 million. Executive Summary 25 Economic Development, Non-Profits, Agricultural Extension and Accommodation Schools A.R.S. §11-254 authorizes the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to appropriate up to a maximum of $1.5 million for contributions to non-profit organizations for economic development activities. A.R.S. §11-254.04 allows the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to appropriate and spend public monies for and in connection with economic development activities. A.R.S. §3-126 authorizes the Board of Supervisors to appropriate funds based on a request submitted to them by the Agricultural Extension Board for extension work that will benefit Maricopa County. The Board of Supervisors is authorized by A.R.S. §15-1001 to appropriate funding for Accommodation Schools. As illustrated in the table below, the FY 2002-03 Budget includes a total of $4,625,580 in funding for these issues. Agency Supported Greater Phoenix Economic Council Phoenix Chamber of Commerce Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau Maricopa County Sports Commission Western Maricopa Enterprise Zone Collaboration for a New Century Executive Summary International Genomics Consortium Human Services Campus Total Economic Development Funding Program Economic Development Action Plan Bid Source Program, APTAN Convention & Tourism Destination Marketing Enriching Our Community Through Sports Economic Development Support Improving the standard of living for the community by working with issues concerning children, housing, and health care To put Maricopa County in the forefront of the bio-industry Helping Others to Help Themselves FY 2002-03 Final Budget $ 659,776 165,000 250,000 25,000 15,000 25,000 $ 1,000,000 1,710,804 3,850,580 Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) Emergency Shelter Total General Non-Profit Funding $ $ 180,000 180,000 University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Maricopa County Cooperative Extension Total Agricultural Extension Funding $ $ 230,000 230,000 Maricopa County Regional Schools Maricopa County Regional Schools Total Accommodation School Funding $ $ 365,000 365,000 $ 4,625,580 Grand Total 26 Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS GENERAL FUND Unreserved Beginning Fund Balance $ 73,444,803 SPECIAL REVENUE $ DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 104,372,577 $ 119,500,384 $ 7,975,989 $ $ 55,164,478 101,691,796 25,533,818 179,602,824 48,057,758 323,478 77,933,792 6,682,872 29,776,878 2,819,664 2,312,633 2,506,966 30,115,977 230,000 123,286,664 $ 686,039,598 $ 19,565,638 5,500,800 359,306 7,166,188 1,376,476 $ 33,968,408 $ 31,578,721 540,500 8,009,500 259,880,069 $ 300,008,790 Total Sources $ 964,903,437 $ 784,965,616 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ 258,496,946 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 453,252,111 CAPITAL OUTLAY 20,306,839 TRANSFERS OUT 138,286,587 Expenditures Subtotal $ 870,342,483 $ 138,340,985 $ 276,998,848 176,005,856 19,697,025 132,145,785 $ 605,834,813 $ 43,680,899 200,000 $ 43,880,899 76,704 $ $ 3,784,279 110,327,599 40,648 666,619,585 5,608,808 2,412,026 40,305,228 $ 829,098,173 $ 419,509,174 $ 7,932 3,000 497,894,394 $ 497,905,326 - $ $ 499,012 6,833,576 45,633,576 1,156,954 516,156 $ 54,639,274 $ 352,679,728 8,000,000 107,192,596 25,962,788 183,387,103 197,644,311 7,612,468 335,423,506 77,933,792 108,663,810 55,169,385 45,633,576 669,492,097 13,031,453 28,980,996 43,649,344 280,000 534,475,924 $ 2,795,212,877 $ $ 352,679,728 8,000,000 107,192,596 25,962,788 183,387,103 197,644,311 7,612,468 335,423,506 77,933,792 108,663,810 (2,600,000) 52,569,385 (45,633,576) (72,066,024) 597,426,073 13,031,453 28,980,996 43,649,344 280,000 (534,475,924) $ (654,775,524) $ 2,140,437,353 $ 837,074,162 $ 54,715,978 $ 3,199,509,352 $ (654,775,524) $ 2,544,733,828 $ 167,468,045 523,030,785 9,859,127 126,978,376 $ 827,336,333 $ $ $ $ 125,844,378 $ Total Uses $ 964,903,437 $ 731,679,191 $ 43,880,899 $ 497,905,326 53,286,425 $ 94,460,086 $ (78,396,152) $ $ 784,965,616 $ 138,340,985 $ 419,509,174 Total Uses and Ending Fund Balance $ 964,903,437 $ ELIMINATIONS TOTAL FUNDS 404,296,475 Appropriated Beginning Fund Balance $ 94,560,954 (0) $ - SUB-TOTAL $ - $ 827,336,333 9,737,829 $ 837,074,162 7,090,778 45,225,850 776,235 893,165 $ 53,986,028 $ - 710,062,549 1,197,517,602 592,214,519 398,503,913 $ 2,898,298,583 $ 220,405,332 - $ 404,296,475 $ 710,062,549 (120,299,600) 1,077,218,002 592,214,519 (534,475,924) (135,972,011) $ (654,775,524) $ 2,243,523,059 $ - $ 220,405,332 $ 53,986,028 $ 3,119,691,214 $ (654,775,524) $ 2,464,915,690 $ $ $ 729,950 $ 54,715,978 79,818,138 $ 3,199,509,352 - $ 79,818,138 $ (654,775,524) $ 2,544,733,828 27 Summary Schedules 98,926,018 REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES $ 277,949,612 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST 8,000,000 SALES TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS 428,970 GRANTS OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 7,181,221 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 6,929,684 STATE SHARED SALES TAX 335,423,506 STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 101,980,938 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 18,518,283 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 52,848 FINES & FORFEITS 10,718,820 INTEREST EARNINGS 12,001,580 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 2,595,685 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 50,000 TRANSFERS IN 109,627,487 Revenues Subtotal $ 891,458,634 Estimated Ending Fund Balance $ INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2001-02 Revised Budget CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY - FY 2001-02 REVISED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS GENERAL FUND Summary Schedules UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 48,034,750 SPECIAL REVENUE $ 73,314,815 $ DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS TOTAL FUNDS 538,392,152 $ $ $ 327,717,255 8,000,000 108,747,791 23,592,491 190,996,545 160,062,409 7,140,044 341,524,693 81,000,000 100,068,667 52,340,779 39,975,892 615,037,245 13,183,429 32,316,176 40,084,155 290,000 471,820,569 $ 2,613,898,140 $ $ 327,717,255 8,000,000 108,747,791 23,592,491 (1,000,000) 189,996,545 160,062,409 7,140,044 341,524,693 81,000,000 100,068,667 (3,582,344) 48,758,435 (39,975,892) (91,299,912) 523,737,333 13,183,429 32,316,176 40,084,155 290,000 (471,820,569) $ (607,678,717) $ 2,006,219,423 $ 124,439,800 $ 252,488,959 $ 63,717,447 $ (23,603,619) $ $ 20,071,906 402,033 5,507,546 89,156,576 $ 115,138,061 $ $ 6,195,413 51,161,908 613,702,400 8,817,643 3,215,800 39,412,150 $ 722,505,314 $ - 538,392,152 REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES $ 252,676,223 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST 8,000,000 SALES TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS 375,000 GRANTS OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 6,323,629 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 6,391,210 STATE SHARED SALES TAX 341,524,693 STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 92,868,667 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 18,058,818 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 93,044 FINES & FORFEITS 10,333,814 INTEREST EARNINGS 12,000,000 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 3,057,006 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 50,000 TRANSFERS IN 54,050,489 Revenues Subtotal $ 805,802,593 $ 54,969,126 108,747,791 23,217,491 184,801,132 48,984,775 346,801 81,000,000 7,200,000 27,038,021 1,241,801 2,849,615 1,711,008 25,058,357 240,000 108,275,343 675,681,261 $ 53,592,097 3,159,979 8,008,000 180,926,011 245,686,087 $ 7,243,940 39,975,892 1,120,000 744,992 49,084,824 Total Sources $ 853,837,343 $ 748,996,076 $ 239,577,861 $ 498,175,046 $ 786,222,761 $ 25,481,205 $ 3,152,290,292 $ (607,678,717) $ 2,544,611,575 $ $ $ $ 143,429,866 523,199,722 2,058,553 69,956,164 $ 738,644,305 $ 6,891,043 39,066,843 649,890 1,111,470 47,719,246 $ $ $ 10,571,682 22,149,710 387,314,141 6,000,000 426,035,533 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ 251,064,412 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 346,325,760 CAPITAL OUTLAY 22,215,494 TRANSFERS OUT 119,713,543 Expenditures Subtotal $ 739,319,209 $ 268,861,713 182,772,626 39,434,622 108,572,858 599,641,819 Appropriated Beginning Fund Balance $ 100,795,360 $ 101,091,257 $ Total Uses $ 840,114,569 $ 700,733,076 $ UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED ENDING FUND BALANCE 28 $ 49,836,268 49,836,268 - $ $ 49,836,268 $ - $ - $ $ 426,035,533 $ 738,644,305 $ 47,719,246 680,818,716 1,113,514,661 501,508,968 305,354,035 $ 2,601,196,380 $ 13,722,774 $ 48,263,000 $ 189,741,593 $ 72,139,513 $ 47,578,456 $ (22,238,041) $ Total Uses and Ending Fund Balance $ 853,837,343 $ 748,996,076 $ 239,577,861 $ 498,175,046 $ 786,222,761 $ 25,481,205 201,886,617 $ 2,803,082,997 349,207,295 $ 3,152,290,292 $ 680,818,716 (135,858,148) 977,656,513 501,508,968 (471,820,569) (166,466,534) $ (607,678,717) $ 1,993,517,663 $ - $ 201,886,617 $ (607,678,717) $ 2,195,404,280 $ - $ 349,207,295 $ (607,678,717) $ 2,544,611,575 Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2001-02 Adopted Restated Budget CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY - FY 2001-02 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS GENERAL FUND UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 48,034,750 SPECIAL REVENUE DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL $ 73,314,815 $ 124,439,800 $ 252,488,959 $ 63,717,447 $ (23,603,619) $ $ $ $ $ 9,897,659 19,955,502 595,311,060 431,700 11,592,501 9,242 39,412,150 $ 676,609,814 $ ELIMINATIONS TOTAL FUNDS 538,392,152 $ - $ 538,392,152 $ 327,717,255 8,000,000 108,747,791 22,922,491 182,834,246 111,504,804 7,140,044 341,524,693 81,000,000 100,068,667 68,948,936 39,770,634 596,645,905 13,121,429 23,724,353 41,170,388 299,242 417,488,151 $ 2,492,629,029 $ $ 327,717,255 8,000,000 108,747,791 22,922,491 (1,000,000) 181,834,246 111,504,804 7,140,044 341,524,693 81,000,000 100,068,667 (2,400,000) 66,548,936 (39,770,634) (92,049,912) 504,595,993 13,121,429 23,724,353 41,170,388 299,242 (417,488,151) $ (552,708,697) $ 1,939,920,332 REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES $ 252,676,223 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST 8,000,000 SALES TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS 375,000 GRANTS OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 13,565,019 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 6,391,210 STATE SHARED SALES TAX 341,524,693 STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 92,868,667 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 15,954,567 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 93,044 FINES & FORFEITS 10,333,814 INTEREST EARNINGS 12,000,000 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 2,965,158 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 50,000 TRANSFERS IN 8,154,989 Revenues Subtotal $ 764,952,384 $ 54,969,126 108,747,791 22,547,491 172,188,587 45,095,688 346,801 81,000,000 7,200,000 26,977,271 1,241,801 2,787,615 1,711,008 24,138,254 240,000 101,938,425 651,129,858 $ 20,071,906 402,033 5,507,546 89,156,576 115,138,061 $ 748,000 52,844,097 3,159,979 2,008,000 178,826,011 237,586,087 $ 6,061,596 39,770,634 914,120 466,475 47,212,825 Total Sources $ 812,987,134 $ 724,444,673 $ 239,577,861 $ 490,075,046 $ 740,327,261 $ 23,609,206 $ 3,031,021,181 $ (552,708,697) $ 2,478,312,484 $ $ $ 4,371,682 32,173,962 378,422,535 414,968,179 $ 141,709,951 498,389,576 28,612,761 24,060,664 $ 692,772,952 $ $ $ 6,736,350 38,633,701 841,973 1,111,470 47,323,494 $ $ 49,836,268 49,836,268 $ $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ 258,222,152 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 314,455,957 CAPITAL OUTLAY 21,163,840 TRANSFERS OUT 119,376,625 Expenditures Subtotal $ 713,218,574 99,768,560 $ 101,746,508 $ Total Uses $ 812,987,134 $ 678,598,200 $ $ 45,846,473 $ 724,444,673 Appropriated Beginning Fund Balance $ UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED ENDING FUND BALANCE $ - Total Uses and Ending Fund Balance $ 812,987,134 - $ $ 49,836,268 $ $ 189,741,593 $ 239,577,861 - - 47,323,494 673,715,112 1,054,863,197 515,371,233 251,021,617 $ 2,494,971,159 $ 414,968,179 $ 692,772,952 $ $ 75,106,867 $ 47,554,309 $ (23,714,288) $ $ 490,075,046 $ 740,327,261 $ 23,609,206 201,515,068 $ 2,696,486,227 334,534,954 $ 3,031,021,181 $ 673,715,112 (135,220,546) 919,642,651 515,371,233 (417,488,151) (166,466,534) $ (552,708,697) $ 1,942,262,462 $ - $ 201,515,068 $ (552,708,697) $ 2,143,777,530 $ - $ 334,534,954 $ (552,708,697) $ 2,478,312,484 29 Summary Schedules $ 262,674,977 171,210,001 36,493,856 106,472,858 576,851,692 Sources of Funds Sources of Funds FY 2002-03 $2,464,915,690 Miscellaneous & Interest 2.96% Fund Balances 13.16% Patient Revenue 24.24% Property Taxes, Penalties & Interest 14.63% Permits, Fees & Fines 3.71% Sales Taxes 4.35% State Shared Sales Taxes 13.61% Other Intergovernmental & Grants 15.77% Summary Schedules Highway User Revenues 3.16% 30 State Shared Vehicle License Taxes 4.41% Uses of Funds Uses of Funds FY 2002-03 $2,464,915,690 Education 0.07% Public Safety 32.40% Culture & Recreation 1.18% General Government 16.63% Highways & Streets 5.38% Summary Schedules Health, Welfare & Sanitation 44.35% 31 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Adopted to FY 2001-02 Adopted Restated Budget FY 2001-02 Adopted Budget Fund General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Fund Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations $ $ 813.0 $ 699.1 49.8 301.0 692.8 47.3 (459.2) 2,143.8 $ FY 2001-02 Adopted/ Restated $ Variance 813.0 $ 678.6 49.8 415.0 692.8 47.3 (552.7) 2,143.8 $ 20.5 (114.0) 93.5 - % Variance 0.00% 2.93% 0.00% (37.87%) 0.00% 0.00% (20.36%) 0.00% Special Revenue Funds: Summary Schedules $ $ 56.0 Transfer of MCDOT Capital Projects from Special Revenue Funds to Capital Project Funds (46.0) Fund Transfer from MCDOT Operating to CIP Fund 58.0 Transfer of Flood Capital Projects from Special Revenue Funds to Capital Project Funds (47.5) Fund Transfer from Flood Control Operating to CIP Fund 20.5 Total Special Revenue Fund Variance Capital Projects Funds: $ (56.0) Transfer of MCDOT Capital Projects from Special Revenue Funds to Capital Project Funds (58.0) Transfer of Flood Capital Projects from Special Revenue Funds to Capital Project Funds $ (114.0) Total Capital Projects Fund Variance Eliminations $ $ 32 46.0 Fund Transfer from MCDOT Operating to CIP Fund 47.5 Fund Transfer from Flood Control Operating to CIP Fund 93.5 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Adopted Restated to FY 2001-02 Revised Budget FY 2001-02 Adopted/ Restated Fund General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Fund Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations $ $ 813.0 $ 678.6 49.8 415.0 692.8 47.3 (552.7) 2,143.8 $ FY 2001-02 Revised Budget 840.1 $ 700.7 49.8 426.0 738.6 47.7 (607.7) 2,195.4 $ $ Variance (27.1) (22.1) (0.0) (11.0) (45.8) (0.4) 55.0 (51.6) % Variance (3.33%) (3.26%) (0.08%) (2.66%) (6.62%) (0.89%) (9.95%) (2.41%) General Fund: $ (45.9) Re-institution of Dispro. Share by State of Arizona 9.8 Department Voluntary Reductions 8.3 Transfer of Medical Eligibility to the State of Arizona 0.7 Transfer Exp. Authority to New EDMS fund $ (27.1) Total General Fund Variance Summary Schedules Special Revenue Funds: $ 0.1 Judicial Branch Voluntary Reductions (4.0) Net Change in Judicial Branch Grants 0.1 Elected Official Voluntary Reductions (0.7) Transfer General Fund authority to Special Revenue for new EDMS fund (3.6) Net Change in Elected Official Grants 1.1 Appointed Voluntary Reductions (9.2) Net Change in Appointed Department Grants (0.1) Animal Control Outsourcing of Animal Licenses (0.2) Increase Associated with High Volume of Permits Reviewed by Planning and Development (0.1) Increase in Correctional Health's Contract with MCMA (6.0) Prepayment of Stadium District Loan (0.3) Law Enforcement for Stadium District (0.2) Stadium District World Series Expenses (0.3) Increase in Library District's IGA with City of Surprise 0.8 Other Adjustments 0.5 Flood Control Voluntary Reduction $ (22.1) Total Special Revenue Fund Variance Capital Projects Funds: $ (2.1) Transfer from SCAAP Funds to Capital Projects Fund for Homeless Campus 3.1 Budget Reduction to Acquire Southeast Regional Property (12.0) Prepayment of Stadium District Loan $ (11.0) Total Capital Projects Fund Variance 33 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Adopted Restated to FY 2001-02 Revised Budget (Continued) Enterprise Funds: $ (45.9) Re-institution of Dispro. Share by State of Arizona 0.1 Voluntary Reductions $ (45.8) Total Enterprise Fund Variance Internal Service Funds: $ 0.8 Voluntary Reductions (1.2) Cigna Performance Payments and Co-Pay Reimbursement $ (0.4) Total Internal Service Fund Variance Summary Schedules Eliminations: $ 0.3 Maintenance of Effort Adjustment for Compensation Increases 1.2 Cigna Performance Payments and Co-Pay Reimbursement 0.2 Reprographics Mid-Year Adjustment 2.1 Transfer from SCAAP Funds to Capital Projects Fund for Homeless Campus 45.9 Re-institution of Dispro. Share by State of Arizona 6.0 Prepayment of Stadium District Loan (0.7) Reduction in Health Care Mandates Payments to MIHS $ 55.0 Total Eliminations Variance 34 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Revised to FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Fund General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Fund Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations FY 2001-02 Revised Budget $ $ FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 840.1 $ 700.7 49.8 426.0 738.6 47.7 (607.7) 2,195.4 $ 964.9 $ 731.7 43.9 497.9 827.3 54.0 (654.8) 2,464.9 $ $ Variance Breakdown of Source of Change Non-Recurring Recurring $ (14.9%) (4.4%) 11.9% (16.9%) (12.0%) (13.2%) (7.8%) (12.3%) % of Total % Variance 27.0% 73.0% 100.0% -3.3% -9.0% -12.3% $ (69.3) (19.8) (8.7) (4.6) (102.4) 35.2% 10.1% 4.4% 2.3% 52.1% -3.2% -0.9% -0.4% -0.2% -4.7% $ $ (22.6) 21.3 (32.3) (52.2) (8.5) (94.3) 11.5% -10.8% 16.4% 26.5% 4.3% 47.9% -1.0% 1.0% -1.5% -2.4% -0.4% -4.3% $ (196.7) 100.0% -9.0% Summary Schedules Discretionary Results Initiative Requests (New Facilities) Operating Budget Reductions General Government - Contingencies, etc. MIHS Volume Increases All Other Operating Increases & Decreases: (124.8) (31.0) 5.9 (71.9) (88.7) (6.3) 47.1 (269.5) % Variance (72.8) (196.7) (269.5) $ Breakdown of Recurring Increases & Decreases: Mandated or Non-Discretionary State Budget Impacts Mandated Health Care (Aside from State Cuts) Employee Health, Dental & Retirement Risk Management Costs $ Variance 35 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Revised to FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget (Continued) GENERAL FUND ONLY: Non-Recurring Recurring $ 3.8 (128.6) (124.8) -1.4% 47.7% 46.3% 0.2% -7.1% -6.9% (71.3) (18.5) (1.4) (19.6) (5.1) (4.2) (120.1) 57.1% 14.8% 1.1% 15.7% 4.1% 3.4% 96.2% -3.9% -1.0% -0.1% -1.1% -0.3% -0.2% -6.6% $ (6.1) 9.2 (14.7) 6.9 (4.7) 4.9% -7.4% 11.8% -5.5% 3.8% -0.3% 0.5% -0.8% 0.4% -0.3% $ (124.8) 100.0% -6.9% $ Breakdown of Recurring Increases & Decreases: Mandated or Non-Discretionary State Budget Impacts Mandated Health Care (Aside from State Cuts) Risk Management Costs Jail Tax MOE/Base and Above Base Employee Health, Dental & Retirement Primary/General Election $ $ Summary Schedules Discretionary Results Initiative Requests (New Facilities) Operating Budget Reductions General Government - Contingencies, etc. Ann. Impact of FY 02 RIR's, Mid-Year Adjustments $ General Fund: $ Variance $ (4.9) (0.2) (4.2) (9.8) (3.4) (7.8) 4.3 (0.9) (1.4) (0.2) 4.9 (6.1) (55.9) (15.4) (7.3) (9.8) (14.7) 8.0 $ (124.8) 36 Description Increased Health/Dental Benefit Premiums Retirement Contributions Primary/General Election Costs Jail Excise Tax Maint. of Effort-Base Other Mandated Health Care ALTCS Contribution Increase-Base Ann. Impact/FY 2001-02 Dept. Vol. Reductions Annualized Impact of Mid-Year Adjustments Risk Mgmt. & Other Internal Service Costs Ann. Impact of FY 2001-02 Results Inititative Req. Department Base Budget Reductions Results Initiative Requests (see schedule) State Mandated Dispro. Share Program Increase State Cost Shifts (see schedule) Other Health Care Mandates (see schedule) Detention Fund-Above Base Maint. of Effort Other General Government (see schedule) Appropriated Fund Balance (see schedule) Total General Fund Variance Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Revised to FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget (Continued) Special Revenue Funds: $ Variance $ (3.5) (0.1) 4.6 (1.4) 7.7 2.8 1.1 (16.5) 2.0 9.2 (1.3) (17.6) (12.4) (11.1) 5.5 $ (31.0) Description Increased Health/Dental Benefit Premiums Retirement Contributions Annualized Impact of Mid-Year Adjustments Risk Management & Other Internal Service Costs FY 2001-02 Non-Recurring Expenditures Transportation Zero-Base Budget Reductions Ann. Impact of FY 2001-02 Results Inititative Req. Results Initiative Requests (see schedule) State Cost Shifts (see schedule) Base Reductions Health Care Mandates (see schedule) General Government (see schedule) Appropriated Fund Balance (see schedule) CIP Fund Transfers Stadium District Bond Refinancing Total Special Revenue Fund Variance Debt Service Funds: Summary Schedules $ Variance Description $ 4.5 Reduction in Gen. Obligation Bond Debt Service 0.2 Reduction in COP Debt Service 1.2 Stadium District Bond Refinancing $ 5.9 Total Debt Service Funds Variance Capital Project Funds: $ Variance $ (19.0) (45.7) (28.3) 9.2 (1.1) 13.0 $ (71.9) Description Jail/Juvenile Detention CIP (See CIP Schedule) General Government CIP (See CIP Schedule) Transportation CIP (See CIP Schedule) Flood Control District CIP (See CIP Schedule) Library District CIP (See CIP Schedule) Stadium Dist. - Bank One Ballpark Final Payment Total Capital Project Funds Variance 37 Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2001-02 Revised to FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget (Continued) Enterprise Funds: $ Variance $ (4.7) 0.1 (55.9) (27.3) (0.9) $ (88.7) Description Maricopa Health Plans (See Commentary) Solid Waste Base Decrease State Mandated Dispro. Share Program Increase Maricopa Medical Center (See Commentary) Results Initiative Requests (see schedule) Total Enterprise Funds Variance Internal Service Funds: $ Variance $ (0.7) (4.6) 0.5 (1.5) $ (6.3) Description Self-Insured Health & Dental Benefits Risk Management Claims Equipment Services - Budget Rightsizing Increased Telecommunications Costs Total Internal Service Fund Variance Summary Schedules Eliminations: $ Variance $ 55.9 75.0 (60.2) (1.1) 5.7 1.6 (26.0) 5.2 (1.0) 1.5 1.1 (10.6) $ 47.1 38 Description State Mandated Dispro. Share Program Increase Net Inc. in Other Fund Transfers (see Schedule) Appropriated Fund Balance Transfers Increase in Payments to Benefits Fund Increased Internal Service Charges Inc. in Health Care Mandates Payments to MIHS Decreased MIHS Internal Payments Employer-paid Health Premiums to MHP Elimination of Ryan White Pass-through to MIHS Increase in Flood Control District CIP Transfer Increase in Library District CIP Transfer Decrease in Stadium District Fund Transfers/Bond Refinancing Total Eliminations Variance Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % TOTAL FUNDS JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 240 JUSTICE COURTS 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 380 SUPERIOR COURT $ $ Subtotal $ 41,293,138 12,947,634 15,469,643 8,138,682 77,849,097 ELECTED OFFICIAL 120 ASSESSOR $ 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF 510 SHERIFF DETENTION Subtotal $ 123,543 12,196,071 9,186,846 2,694,759 620,092 12,702,760 112,299 5,747 7,369,889 22,373,841 67,385,847 $ -13% $ 3% 3% 4% -5% $ 41,973,567 13,903,399 19,090,565 10,088,373 85,055,904 $ 0% $ 0% -7% 56% 0% -13% 35% -5% -19% -8% -8% $ 133,669 12,669,956 10,041,568 2,085,000 1,100,000 11,644,388 153,050 5,686 9,154,572 24,789,111 71,777,000 $ $ 12,084 (798,325) 751,959 (1,490,793) 40,050 (314) (1,912,078) (2,189,502) (5,586,919) 897,964 $ 897,964 $ 1,211,608 $ 666,659 $ 15,871,627 15,871,627 11,627,114 15,861,375 8,154,989 8,154,989 8,218,001 7,837,842 26,975,193 26,975,193 27,027,814 29,685,927 241 75 72,913 72,913 81,985 65,151 8,482,366 411,195 1,013,155 420,000 420,000 411,771 420,000 4,163,081 4,163,081 4,297,050 4,260,819 157,450 157,450 87,478 157,450 830,000 850,000 820,000 850,000 6,061,596 7,243,940 6,762,614 6,833,576 93,044 45,988,544 45,959,900 45,948,348 84,726,011 84,726,011 84,726,011 99,126,011 8,335,000 8,335,000 9,090,916 8,335,000 316,192 316,192 502,331 440,000 939,880,590 942,317,508 834,543,094 901,478,518 103,117,791 103,117,791 103,329,899 102,679,095 1,499,749 1,690,775 2,152,548 2,050,423 84,200 104,200 101,973 104,500 29,686 69,686 49,127 50,842 100,000 205,000 248,109 248,109 408,034,795 408,034,795 424,988,446 431,732,097 176,220,600 176,220,600 136,548,118 173,657,609 11,429,508 11,429,508 11,429,507 11,435,848 4,186,500 4,186,500 4,258,371 4,715,000 1,636,550 1,636,550 1,936,550 1,159,054 725,517 980,775 980,775 980,775 9,200,000 9,200,000 8,874,324 9,200,000 20,033,616 20,518,013 20,575,557 24,500,384 11,219,096 11,219,096 13,494,659 11,498,706 6,877,384 7,146,766 6,976,962 8,149,907 38,514,035 46,519,794 33,207,071 37,300,702 17,199,688 19,234,287 17,848,715 17,579,818 269,005,582 314,901,082 335,592,222 339,211,377 (498,899,287) (547,869,307) (472,906,550) (507,051,350) $ 1,685,653,026 $ 1,735,447,518 $ 1,686,067,466 $ 1,791,169,647 $ (231,305) (10,252) (317,147) 2,710,734 75 (7,762) (411,195) 97,738 (410,364) (40,196) 14,400,000 123,808 (40,838,990) (438,696) 359,648 300 (18,844) 43,109 23,697,302 (2,562,991) 6,340 528,500 (477,496) 3,982,371 279,610 1,003,141 (9,219,092) (1,654,469) 24,310,295 40,817,957 55,722,129 -26% $ 0% -4% 10% $ $ 100,000 11,257,872 10,917,081 792,500 509,872 10,374,639 113,000 6,000 7,641,265 25,539,384 67,251,613 $ $ $ 45,500,837 13,152,938 19,308,384 10,600,909 88,563,068 $ 133,669 11,257,872 11,096,823 1,333,041 1,100,000 11,871,181 113,000 6,000 10,147,979 26,425,349 73,484,914 $ $ $ 38,796,579 13,076,872 15,100,620 9,405,276 76,379,347 $ 133,669 13,148,284 9,874,362 1,369,318 1,100,000 14,291,107 106,074 5,340 8,645,035 24,411,750 73,084,939 $ $ $ 39,687,051 13,509,012 19,869,273 11,026,709 84,092,045 $ 133,669 11,269,956 10,298,498 2,085,000 1,100,000 10,380,388 153,050 5,686 8,235,901 24,235,847 67,897,995 $ $ $ -11% -100% 0% 2% 0% 0% -6% 0% 17% 0% 39% -4% 0% 21% 0% -27% 21% 6% -1% 0% 13% -29% 0% 0% 19% 2% 14% -20% -9% 8% 7% 3% $ $ 1,412,084 (1,055,255) 751,959 (226,793) 40,050 (314) (993,407) (1,636,238) (1,707,914) 666,659 $ 15,861,375 7,866,687 29,599,739 75 1,056,052 420,000 4,419,867 115,511 850,000 6,843,576 101,813,648 98,138,712 8,490,000 440,000 980,085,552 101,691,796 1,672,519 104,500 50,842 248,109 431,738,882 173,657,609 11,435,849 4,280,698 1,159,054 980,775 9,200,000 24,500,384 13,201,539 9,763,754 37,262,716 17,437,846 398,331,106 (602,949,306) $ 1,890,436,125 $ (231,305) (10,252) (288,302) 2,624,546 75 983,139 (411,195) 256,786 (41,939) (400,364) 55,825,104 13,412,701 155,000 123,808 37,768,044 (1,425,995) (18,256) 300 (18,844) 43,109 23,704,087 (2,562,991) 6,341 94,198 (477,496) 3,982,371 1,982,443 2,616,988 (9,257,078) (1,796,441) 83,430,024 (55,079,999) 154,988,607 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 2,385,742,554 $ 1,837,509,966 $ 1,897,495,500 $ 1,835,531,752 $ 1,943,159,687 $ 45,664,187 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 65,590,586 $ 79,435,207 $ 79,435,207 $ 75,464,028 $ 71,029,399 $ (8,405,808) -11% $ 71,031,854 $ LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 9,748,997 $ 10,764,068 $ 10,604,125 $ 10,633,129 $ 10,463,345 $ (140,780) -1% $ 11,074,969 $ STADIUM DISTRICT $ 17,628,910 $ 12,211,091 $ 18,684,591 $ 17,558,579 $ 11,061,501 $ (7,623,090) -41% $ 11,061,501 $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 2,478,711,046 $ 2,035,713,932 $ 29,494,509 1% $ 2,140,437,353 $ $ 1,939,920,332 $ 2,006,219,423 $ 1,939,187,488 (3,527,270) 750,461 (217,819) (512,536) (3,507,164) 2% $ 2,047,269,029 $ 149,773,529 (8,403,353) 470,844 (7,623,090) 134,217,930 39 Summary Schedules APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT $ 693,294 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7,862,321 180 FINANCE 8,326,228 220 HUMAN SERVICES 25,339,404 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 87,743 280 MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY 1,683,119 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 368,963 300 PARKS & RECREATION 4,246,127 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 74,241 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 863,930 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 3,757,350 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 32,856,318 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV 103,032,316 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 9,687,983 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 730,184 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,153,168,937 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 2,707,200 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 20 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 1,317,694 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 50,150 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 600 HEALTH PLANS 403,123,162 640 TRANSPORTATION 96,550,231 660 HOUSING 17,028,129 670 SOLID WASTE 5,028,906 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 410,229 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 1,024,820 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 8,686,392 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 20,640,633 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 13,652,713 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 5,649,430 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 30,225,911 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 16,964,844 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 264,668,687 980 ELIMINATIONS Subtotal $ 2,240,507,609 (5,813,786) 356,074 560,889 425,800 (4,471,023) $ 45,500,837 12,887,438 15,616,143 10,600,909 84,605,327 Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted GENERAL FUND Summary Schedules JUDICIAL BRANCH 240 JUSTICE COURTS 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 380 SUPERIOR COURT $ Subtotal $ 11,955,505 21,983 390,074 12,367,563 ELECTED OFFICIAL 120 ASSESSOR $ 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF Subtotal $ 123,543 7,528,689 16,703 2,694,759 620,092 8,608,768 112,299 5,747 3,724,864 23,435,464 $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 180 FINANCE $ 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 280 MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Subtotal $ 8,326,228 1,683,119 368,963 74,241 863,930 15,340 32,856,318 688,852,118 2,707,200 20 45,100 10,500 410,229 154,885 736,368,191 $ $ 772,171,218 MARICOPA COUNTY 40 $ 11,976,438 32,600 260,000 12,269,038 $ 100,000 5,250,000 8,000 792,500 509,872 6,736,000 113,000 6,000 3,131,010 16,646,382 $ $ $ 8,154,989 8,482,366 420,000 157,450 830,000 93,044 716,135,565 100,000 1,636,550 27,000 736,036,964 $ 764,952,384 $ $ 11,976,438 32,600 260,000 12,269,038 $ 133,669 5,250,000 8,000 1,333,041 1,100,000 8,232,542 113,000 6,000 3,131,010 19,307,262 $ $ $ 8,154,989 411,195 420,000 157,450 850,000 45,988,544 716,135,565 130,000 20,000 40,000 205,000 1,636,550 77,000 774,226,293 $ 805,802,593 $ $ 12,009,607 24,574 273,579 12,307,760 $ 133,669 7,050,255 12,000 1,369,318 1,100,000 10,000,000 106,074 5,340 3,932,712 23,709,368 $ $ $ 8,218,001 241 1,013,155 411,771 87,478 820,000 8,120 45,959,900 699,849,401 130,000 24,500 34,285 248,109 1,936,550 77,000 4,500 758,823,011 $ 794,840,139 $ $ 12,270,520 32,600 293,132 12,596,252 $ 133,669 5,250,000 12,000 2,085,000 1,100,000 6,736,000 153,050 5,686 4,109,582 19,584,987 $ $ $ 7,837,842 75 420,000 157,450 850,000 45,948,348 740,263,678 101,140 24,500 36,000 248,109 1,159,054 77,000 6,000 797,129,196 $ (317,147) 75 (411,195) (40,196) 24,128,113 (28,860) 4,500 (4,000) 43,109 (477,496) 6,000 22,902,903 $ 829,310,435 $ 23,507,842 $ $ $ $ 294,082 33,132 327,214 4,000 751,959 (1,496,542) 40,050 (314) 978,572 277,725 2% $ 0% 13% 3% $ 12,633,446 18,000 293,132 12,944,578 $ 0% $ 0% 50% 56% 0% -18% 35% -5% 31% 1% $ 133,669 5,250,000 12,000 2,085,000 1,100,000 8,000,000 153,050 5,686 4,094,415 20,833,820 $ -4% $ $ 3% $ 7,866,687 75 420,000 115,511 850,000 10,000 101,813,648 744,958,512 101,140 24,500 36,000 248,109 1,159,054 77,000 857,680,236 $ (288,302) 75 (411,195) (41,939) 10,000 55,825,104 28,822,947 (28,860) 4,500 (4,000) 43,109 (477,496) 83,453,943 3% $ 891,458,634 $ 85,656,041 -100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% -22% 23% -10% 21% -29% 0% $ $ 657,008 (14,600) 33,132 675,540 4,000 751,959 (232,542) 40,050 (314) 963,405 1,526,558 Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted SPECIAL REVENUE JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 240 JUSTICE COURTS 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 380 SUPERIOR COURT $ 45,500,837 911,000 15,583,543 10,340,909 72,336,289 $ 45,500,837 1,176,500 19,275,784 10,340,909 76,294,030 $ ELECTED OFFICIAL 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT $ 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 360 RECORDER 500 SHERIFF 510 SHERIFF DETENTION Subtotal $ 4,667,382 9,170,143 4,093,992 3,645,025 22,373,841 43,950,383 $ 6,007,872 10,909,081 3,638,639 4,510,255 25,539,384 50,605,231 $ 6,007,872 11,088,823 3,638,639 7,016,969 26,425,349 54,177,652 $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT $ 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 220 HUMAN SERVICES 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 300 PARKS & RECREATION 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 600 HEALTH PLANS 640 TRANSPORTATION 660 HOUSING 670 SOLID WASTE 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Subtotal $ 693,294 7,862,321 25,339,404 87,743 4,246,127 9,687,983 730,184 203,895,676 1,272,594 39,650 40,651,297 89,147,975 17,028,129 3,752,050 5,649,430 30,225,911 16,964,844 457,274,612 $ $ $ 897,964 15,871,627 26,975,193 72,913 4,163,081 8,335,000 316,192 111,990,887 103,117,791 1,499,749 84,200 29,686 1,701,063 90,351,834 11,429,508 2,916,000 6,877,384 38,514,035 17,199,688 442,343,795 $ $ 897,964 15,871,627 26,975,193 72,913 4,163,081 8,335,000 316,192 112,327,805 103,117,791 1,560,775 84,200 29,686 1,701,063 90,351,834 11,429,508 2,916,000 7,146,766 46,519,794 19,234,287 453,051,479 MARICOPA COUNTY $ FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 566,706,529 $ 65,436,128 $ 565,285,315 $ 65,419,384 $ LIBRARY DISTRICT STADIUM DISTRICT $ 9,748,997 $ 9,287,821 $ 10,764,068 $ 9,661,091 TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 651,179,476 $ 651,129,858 $ $ 38,796,579 1,067,265 15,076,046 9,131,697 64,071,587 $ 6,098,029 9,862,362 4,291,107 4,712,323 24,411,750 49,375,571 $ $ $ 1,211,608 11,627,114 27,027,814 81,985 4,297,050 9,090,916 502,331 103,742,824 103,329,899 2,022,548 77,473 14,842 1,701,063 85,173,326 11,429,507 3,417,724 6,976,962 33,207,071 17,844,215 422,776,272 583,523,161 $ 65,419,384 $ $ 10,604,125 $ 16,134,591 $ 675,681,261 $ $ 39,687,051 1,238,492 19,836,673 10,733,577 71,495,793 $ 6,019,956 10,286,498 3,644,388 4,126,319 24,235,847 48,313,008 $ $ $ 666,659 15,861,375 29,685,927 65,151 4,260,819 8,335,000 440,000 138,633,225 102,679,095 1,949,283 80,000 14,842 1,805,678 89,078,888 11,435,848 3,600,000 8,149,907 37,300,702 17,573,818 471,616,217 536,223,430 $ 74,249,211 $ $ 10,633,129 $ 15,158,648 $ 636,264,418 $ $ (5,813,786) 61,992 560,889 392,668 (4,798,237) -13% $ 5% 3% 4% -6% $ 41,973,567 1,269,953 19,072,565 9,795,241 72,111,326 $ 12,084 (802,325) 5,749 (2,890,650) (2,189,502) (5,864,644) 0% $ -7% 0% -41% -8% -11% $ 7,419,956 10,029,568 3,644,388 5,060,157 24,789,111 50,943,180 $ -26% $ 0% 10% -11% 2% 0% 39% 23% 0% 25% -5% -50% 6% -1% 0% 23% 14% -20% -9% 4% $ 666,659 15,861,375 29,599,739 1,056,052 4,419,867 8,490,000 440,000 142,304,293 101,691,796 1,571,379 80,000 14,842 1,812,463 89,078,888 11,435,849 3,440,050 9,763,754 37,262,716 17,437,846 476,427,568 $ $ (231,305) (10,252) 2,710,734 (7,762) 97,738 123,808 26,305,420 (438,696) 388,508 (4,200) (14,844) 104,615 (1,272,946) 6,340 684,000 1,003,141 (9,219,092) (1,660,469) 18,564,738 $ (231,305) (10,252) 2,624,546 983,139 256,786 155,000 123,808 29,976,488 (1,425,995) 10,604 (4,200) (14,844) 111,400 (1,272,946) 6,341 524,050 2,616,988 (9,257,078) (1,796,441) 23,376,089 591,425,018 $ 7,901,857 1% $ 599,482,074 $ 15,958,913 71,029,399 $ 5,610,015 9% $ 71,031,854 $ 5,612,470 $ 10,463,345 $ (140,780) -1% $ 11,074,969 $ $ 9,851,501 $ (6,283,090) -39% $ 4,450,701 $ (11,683,890) $ 682,769,263 $ 7,088,002 1% $ 686,039,598 $ 10,358,337 $ $ $ $ $ $ (3,527,270) 93,453 (203,219) (545,668) (4,182,704) 1,412,084 (1,059,255) 5,749 (1,956,812) (1,636,238) (3,234,472) 470,844 CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted DEBT SERVICE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ Subtotal $ 149,325,437 149,325,437 $ $ 109,428,651 109,428,651 $ $ 109,428,651 109,428,651 $ $ 27,688,128 27,688,128 $ $ 1,376,476 1,376,476 $ (108,052,175) $ (108,052,175) -99% $ -99% $ 28,367,608 28,367,608 $ $ (81,061,043) (81,061,043) MARICOPA COUNTY $ 149,325,437 $ 109,428,651 $ 109,428,651 $ 27,688,128 $ 1,376,476 $ (108,052,175) -99% $ 28,367,608 $ (81,061,043) STADIUM DISTRICT $ 5,685,825 $ 5,709,410 $ 5,709,410 $ 5,577,755 $ 5,466,898 $ (242,512) -4% $ 5,600,800 $ (108,610) TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 155,011,262 $ 115,138,061 $ 115,138,061 $ 33,265,883 $ 6,843,374 $ (108,294,687) -94% $ 33,968,408 $ (81,169,653) 41 Summary Schedules $ Subtotal $ 41,293,138 992,129 15,447,660 7,748,608 65,481,535 Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % CAPITAL PROJECTS APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV $ 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 640 TRANSPORTATION Subtotal $ 103,032,316 111,095,706 7,402,256 221,530,278 $ MARICOPA COUNTY $ 221,530,278 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 154,458 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ STADIUM DISTRICT $ 2,655,263 $ 3,150,000 $ 9,150,000 $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 224,339,999 $ 237,586,087 $ 245,686,087 $ - $ $ 84,726,011 2,325,487 85,868,766 172,920,264 $ 172,920,264 $ 61,515,823 $ - $ $ 84,726,011 4,425,487 85,868,766 175,020,264 $ 175,020,264 $ 61,515,823 $ - $ $ 84,726,011 3,262,741 51,374,792 139,363,544 $ 139,363,544 $ 48,714,817 $ $ $ 99,126,011 21,205,139 84,578,721 204,909,871 $ 204,909,871 $ $ 8,998,196 197,076,557 - 17% $ 379% -2% 17% $ 98,138,712 64,455,139 84,578,721 247,172,572 $ $ 14,400,000 16,779,652 (1,290,045) 29,889,607 $ 13,412,701 60,029,652 (1,290,045) 72,152,308 $ 29,889,607 17% $ 247,172,572 $ 72,152,308 49,000,000 $ (12,515,823) -20% $ 49,000,000 $ (12,515,823) 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 $ 2,734,018 $ (6,415,982) -70% $ 2,734,018 $ (6,415,982) $ 257,746,089 $ 12,060,002 5% $ 300,008,790 $ 54,322,703 CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % Summary Schedules ENTERPRISE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 600 HEALTH PLANS $ 670 SOLID WASTE 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Subtotal $ 362,471,865 1,276,856 264,668,687 628,417,408 MARICOPA COUNTY $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ $ $ 406,333,732 1,270,500 269,005,582 676,609,814 628,417,408 $ 628,417,408 $ $ $ 406,333,732 1,270,500 314,901,082 722,505,314 676,609,814 $ 676,609,814 $ $ $ 423,287,383 840,647 335,592,222 759,720,252 722,505,314 $ 722,505,314 $ $ $ 429,926,419 1,115,000 339,211,377 770,252,796 $ $ 23,592,687 (155,500) 24,310,295 47,747,482 6% $ -12% 8% 7% $ 429,926,419 840,648 398,331,106 829,098,173 759,720,252 $ 770,252,796 $ 759,720,252 $ 770,252,796 $ $ $ 23,592,687 (429,852) 83,430,024 106,592,859 47,747,482 7% $ 829,098,173 $ 106,592,859 47,747,482 7% $ 829,098,173 $ 106,592,859 CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % INTERNAL SERVICE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS $ Subtotal $ 3,742,010 869,935 8,686,392 20,640,633 13,652,713 47,591,683 $ $ 6,061,596 698,517 9,200,000 20,033,616 11,219,096 47,212,825 $ $ 7,243,940 903,775 9,200,000 20,518,013 11,219,096 49,084,824 $ $ 6,754,494 903,775 8,874,324 20,575,557 13,494,659 50,602,809 $ $ 6,833,576 903,775 9,200,000 24,500,384 11,498,706 52,936,441 $ $ (410,364) 3,982,371 279,610 3,851,617 -6% $ 0% 0% 19% 2% 8% $ 6,833,576 903,775 9,200,000 24,500,384 13,201,539 54,639,274 $ $ (410,364) 3,982,371 1,982,443 5,554,450 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 47,591,683 $ 47,212,825 $ 49,084,824 $ 50,602,809 $ 52,936,441 $ 3,851,617 8% $ 54,639,274 $ 5,554,450 TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 47,591,683 $ 47,212,825 $ 49,084,824 $ 50,602,809 $ 52,936,441 $ 3,851,617 8% $ 54,639,274 $ 5,554,450 CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % Adopted vs Revised Variance ELIMINATIONS APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 980 ELIMINATIONS $ Subtotal $ - $ (498,899,287) $ (547,869,307) $ (472,906,550) $ (507,051,350) $ $ (498,899,287) $ (547,869,307) $ (472,906,550) $ (507,051,350) $ 40,817,957 40,817,957 MARICOPA COUNTY $ - $ (498,899,287) $ (547,869,307) $ (472,906,550) $ (507,051,350) $ FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ - $ (49,000,000) $ LIBRARY DISTRICT $ - $ $ STADIUM DISTRICT $ - $ (12,176,020) $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ - 42 7% $ 7% $ (602,949,306) $ (602,949,306) $ (55,079,999) (55,079,999) 40,817,957 7% $ (602,949,306) $ (55,079,999) (1,500,000) -3% $ (49,000,000) $ (1,500,000) (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) (6,990,916) $ 5,318,494 43% $ (1,724,018) $ 10,585,392 $ (552,708,697) $ (607,678,717) $ (532,582,570) $ (564,144,466) $ 43,534,251 7% $ (654,775,524) $ (47,500,000) $ - $ (6,309,410) $ (47,500,000) $ - $ (12,309,410) $ (47,500,000) $ - (47,096,807) Consolidated Revenues by Department and Fund Type CONSOLIDATED REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT AND FUND TYPE FY 2002-03 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 240 JUSTICE COURTS 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 380 SUPERIOR COURT $ SPECIAL REVENUE $ Subtotal $ 12,633,446 18,000 293,132 12,944,578 ELECTED OFFICIAL 120 ASSESSOR $ 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF 510 SHERIFF DETENTION Subtotal $ 133,669 5,250,000 12,000 2,085,000 1,100,000 8,000,000 153,050 5,686 4,094,415 20,833,820 $ 41,973,567 1,269,953 19,072,565 9,795,241 72,111,326 $ 7,419,956 10,029,568 3,644,388 5,060,157 24,789,111 50,943,180 $ 666,659 15,861,375 29,599,739 1,056,052 4,419,867 8,490,000 440,000 142,304,293 101,691,796 1,571,379 80,000 14,842 1,812,463 89,078,888 11,435,849 3,440,050 9,763,754 37,262,716 17,437,846 $ 476,427,568 $ $ $ $ $ $ CAPITAL PROJECTS - $ - $ $ $ INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ TOTAL FUNDS ELIMINATIONS - $ - $ $ $ $ 98,138,712 64,455,139 84,578,721 $ 247,172,572 $ 429,926,419 840,648 398,331,106 $ 829,098,173 $ 6,833,576 903,775 9,200,000 24,500,384 13,201,539 $ 54,639,274 $ $ 28,367,608 28,367,608 28,367,608 - $ - $ $ $ 41,973,567 13,903,399 19,090,565 10,088,373 85,055,904 133,669 12,669,956 10,041,568 2,085,000 1,100,000 11,644,388 153,050 5,686 9,154,572 24,789,111 71,777,000 $ 666,659 15,861,375 7,866,687 29,599,739 75 1,056,052 420,000 4,419,867 115,511 850,000 6,843,576 101,813,648 98,138,712 8,490,000 440,000 980,085,552 101,691,796 1,672,519 104,500 50,842 248,109 431,738,882 173,657,609 11,435,849 4,280,698 1,159,054 980,775 9,200,000 24,500,384 13,201,539 9,763,754 37,262,716 17,437,846 398,331,106 (602,949,306) (602,949,306) $ (602,949,306) $ 1,890,436,125 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 891,458,634 $ 599,482,074 $ $ 247,172,572 $ 829,098,173 $ 54,639,274 $ (602,949,306) $ 2,047,269,029 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ - $ 71,031,854 $ - $ 49,000,000 $ - $ - $ (49,000,000) $ 71,031,854 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ - $ 11,074,969 $ - $ 1,102,200 $ - $ - $ (1,102,200) $ 11,074,969 STADIUM DISTRICT $ - $ 4,450,701 $ 5,600,800 $ 2,734,018 $ - $ - $ (1,724,018) $ 11,061,501 MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 891,458,634 $ 686,039,598 $ 33,968,408 $ 300,008,790 $ 829,098,173 $ 54,639,274 $ (654,775,524) $ 2,140,437,353 43 Summary Schedules APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT $ 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 7,866,687 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 75 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 420,000 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 115,511 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 850,000 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 10,000 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 101,813,648 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 744,958,512 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 101,140 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 24,500 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 36,000 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 248,109 600 HEALTH PLANS 640 TRANSPORTATION 660 HOUSING 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 1,159,054 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 77,000 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 980 ELIMINATIONS Subtotal $ 857,680,236 DEBT SERVICE Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary Maricopa County and the Flood Control, Library, and Stadium Districts collect revenues within the following general categories: • • • • • Licenses & Permits • Charges for Services • Miscellaneous Taxes Intergovernmental Revenues Fines & Forfeits Other Financing Sources Revenues are estimated conservatively for budgetary purposes, because it is preferable to err by under-estimating revenues than over-estimating them. For major tax-based revenues, economic forecasting models are applied. The following sections describe the major revenues sources for the County and district budgets, as well as the estimated collections for FY 2002-03. CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS Summary Schedules GENERAL FUND REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES $ 277,949,612 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST 8,000,000 SALES TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS 428,970 GRANTS OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 7,181,221 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 6,929,684 STATE SHARED SALES TAX 335,423,506 STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 101,980,938 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 18,518,283 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 52,848 FINES & FORFEITS 10,718,820 INTEREST EARNINGS 12,001,580 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 2,595,685 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 50,000 TRANSFERS IN 109,627,487 Revenues Total $ 891,458,634 SPECIAL REVENUE $ 55,164,478 101,691,796 25,533,818 179,602,824 48,057,758 323,478 77,933,792 6,682,872 29,776,878 2,819,664 2,312,633 2,506,966 30,115,977 230,000 123,286,664 $ 686,039,598 DEBT SERVICE $ $ CAPITAL PROJECTS 19,565,638 5,500,800 359,306 7,166,188 1,376,476 33,968,408 $ 31,578,721 540,500 8,009,500 259,880,069 $ 300,008,790 INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE $ 3,784,279 110,327,599 40,648 666,619,585 5,608,808 2,412,026 40,305,228 $ 829,098,173 $ 499,012 6,833,576 45,633,576 1,156,954 516,156 $ 54,639,274 SUB-TOTAL $ 352,679,728 8,000,000 107,192,596 25,962,788 183,387,103 197,644,311 7,612,468 335,423,506 77,933,792 108,663,810 55,169,385 45,633,576 669,492,097 13,031,453 28,980,996 43,649,344 280,000 534,475,924 $ 2,795,212,877 ELIMINATIONS $ $ TOTAL FUNDS $ 352,679,728 8,000,000 107,192,596 25,962,788 183,387,103 197,644,311 7,612,468 335,423,506 77,933,792 108,663,810 (2,600,000) 52,569,385 (45,633,576) (72,066,024) 597,426,073 13,031,453 28,980,996 43,649,344 280,000 (534,475,924) (654,775,524) $ 2,140,437,353 Taxes Maricopa County and Districts collect both property taxes and special sales taxes. Below is a table summarizing historical tax revenue collections by fund type, followed by a discussion of specific major revenues. Taxes Fiscal Year General Fund 1990-91 $156,355,464 1991-92 165,604,737 1992-93 175,163,920 1993-94 156,614,258 1994-95 182,014,228 1995-96 176,554,624 1996-97 172,143,843 1997-98 184,371,372 1998-99 198,905,506 1999-00 222,975,967 2000-01 239,737,516 2001-02* 256,734,137 2002-03** 285,949,612 * Projected Actual ** Budget 44 Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Total $52,067,583 $25,272,789 233,695,836 53,083,814 25,480,480 244,169,031 45,514,466 20,904,747 241,583,133 45,165,003 25,721,266 227,500,527 64,355,715 2,368,049 248,737,992 129,829,133 20,072,454 326,456,211 145,750,489 23,628,785 341,523,117 91,239,254 22,510,213 298,120,839 98,611,890 22,783,249 320,300,645 149,751,499 21,008,968 393,736,434 156,127,504 24,148,892 420,013,912 158,876,060 20,071,906 435,682,103 156,856,274 25,066,438 467,872,324 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Property Taxes Property taxes are imposed on both real and personal property, and are taxed under two systems primary and secondary. Primary property taxes finance the County’s general operations through its General Fund. Secondary taxes finance repayment of the County's outstanding voter-approved general obligation bonds, as well as operations and capital improvements carried out by the Flood Control and the Library Districts. Primary property taxes differ from secondary property taxes in that the rate of growth in the tax base for primary tax purposes is limited, and primary property tax levies are subject to a more stringent constitutional limitation. The primary property tax levy may increase by only 2% per year on property taxed in the prior year. The Board of Supervisors must adopt the property tax levy for all taxing jurisdictions within the County on or before the third Monday in August for the fiscal year that begins on the previous July 1. Real property taxes are paid in arrears in two installments, due November 1 and May 1. Personal property taxes have historically been collected on a different schedule, but collection dates are now being shifted to align with the real property tax collection cycle. Personal property owners are exempt from Flood Control District taxation. Thus, personal property taxes are levied only for the General Fund (primary), Debt Service (secondary), and the Library District (secondary). The following schedule lists the overall primary and secondary net assessed values and tax rates for the last ten fiscal years, plus the assessed values and preliminary tax rates for FY 2002-03. Secondary Primary Primary Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) 1.0739 1.0548 1.2394 1.1580 1.1054 1.1265 1.1472 1.1884 1.1641 1.1832 1.2108 Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 13,808,814 13,504,108 13,521,175 14,119,435 14,343,156 15,723,498 16,813,017 18,676,830 20,877,716 22,913,134 24,457,047 Library District Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) $ 0.0426 0.0417 0.0099 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 Flood Control Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 10,063,004 9,675,782 9,724,304 10,827,837 11,129,482 12,361,851 13,660,618 15,504,112 17,485,890 19,544,069 21,174,169 Flood Control District Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) $ 0.3901 0.3632 0.3632 0.3332 0.3425 0.3425 0.3270 0.2858 0.2534 0.2319 0.2119 Combined Rate 1.6475 1.6475 1.6157 1.6797 1.6475 1.6475 1.6475 1.6248 1.5748 1.5448 1.5448 *Preliminary Property Tax Levies; subject to final Board approval. The combined FY 2002-03 property tax rate for Maricopa County and the Library and Flood Control Districts will remain flat at $1.5448 per $100 net assessed value. The primary rate will increase by $0.0276, offset by reductions of $0.0076 in the Debt Service rate and $0.0200 in the Flood Control District rate. The Library District tax rate will continue at $0.0421 per $100 net assessed value. The following table depicts the primary and secondary property tax levies for the last ten fiscal years, plus the preliminary levies for FY 2002-03: 45 Summary Schedules Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03* Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 13,605,515 13,296,195 13,302,327 13,493,737 13,975,668 15,006,270 16,017,265 17,463,875 19,362,298 21,355,326 22,955,865 Debt Service Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) $ 0.1409 0.1878 0.0032 0.1464 0.1575 0.1364 0.1312 0.1085 0.1152 0.0876 0.0800 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Primary Fiscal Year 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02* 2002-03** General Fund $136,572,245 146,115,141 140,248,266 164,865,317 156,257,472 154,487,036 169,045,638 183,750,071 207,540,697 225,396,514 248,734,137 277,949,612 Preliminary Tax Levy Secondary Flood Control District Debt Service $25,868,883 $46,536,850 19,461,200 39,254,429 25,360,203 35,142,441 428,377 35,318,672 20,670,863 36,078,354 22,590,472 38,118,477 21,446,852 42,339,342 22,058,679 44,670,223 20,264,361 44,310,754 24,037,880 45,042,553 20,071,906 45,322,696 19,565,638 44,868,061 Library District $6,320,418 5,882,555 5,631,213 5,638,330 1,397,824 6,038,469 6,619,593 7,078,280 7,862,946 8,586,315 9,646,430 10,296,417 Total $215,298,396 210,713,325 206,382,123 206,250,696 214,404,513 221,234,454 239,451,425 257,557,253 279,978,758 303,063,262 327,717,255 352,679,728 Summary Schedules * Projected Actual ** Budget Note: Excludes SRP, Payments in Lieu of Taxes The FY 2002-03 Budget includes an estimated primary property tax levy (excluding Salt River Project) of $277,949,612, an increase of $25,273,389 (10%) from the FY 2001-02 adopted primary levy. This increase is due to 7.5% growth in net assessed value, of which nearly four-fifths is due to new construction; the remaining increase on existing property is partly attributable to the impact of biannual property valuation by the County Assessor. Because of biannual assessment, this year’s increase in net assessed value partly reflects increases that would have been realized last year if properties had been re-valued annually. After several years of relatively high growth in net assessed value, forecasts indicate a downward trend in annual growth rates over the next five years. Net assessed values tend to lag behind the general economy. For further information, refer to the “Comparative Tax Data” schedule, as well as the Levy Limit and Truth in Taxation comparisons. Property Taxes (General Fund) $252,676,223 $248,734,137 $277,949,612 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 FY 02 REVISED 46 FY 02 PROJ ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Tax Penalties & Interest The County Treasurer collects penalties and interest on repayment of delinquent property taxes, and proceeds are deposited to the General Fund. Collections fluctuate and are difficult to accurately forecast, so it is prudent to budget this revenue conservatively. FY 2001-02 projections are consistent with the budget. The FY 2002-03 budget is a conservative estimate based on historical collection trends. Special Sales Taxes The County and Stadium District levy special sales taxes for specific purposes. These special sales taxes are collected by the State of Arizona and transmitted to the County Treasurer monthly. The two current special sales taxes are the Jail Excise Tax and the Stadium District car rental surcharge. In 1994-95 the State Legislature allowed the Stadium District to levy a surcharge on rental cars to help fund Cactus League stadium construction in Maricopa County. Previously, the District collected a special 0.25% sales tax for construction of Bank One Ballpark. In November 1998, Maricopa County voters approved a new Jail Excise tax to fund construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. This new special sales tax began collections in January of 1999. The FY 1999-00 budget reflected the first full year of collections of the special tax. Total budgeted revenue from the Jail Excise Tax will amount to a total of $101,691,796 in FY 2002-03, an increase of $2,961,897 (3%) from what is projected for FY 2001-02. Jail Excise Tax revenue is budgeted based on the pessimistic forecast due to continuing economic uncertainty. Jail Excise Tax NA NA NA NA NA $ 41,477,224 91,984,716 97,752,375 98,729,899 101,691,796 Stadium District Major League Baseball NA $ 18,883,297 87,061,064 96,058,302 35,997,339 NA NA NA NA NA Summary Schedules Fiscal Year 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02* 2002-03** Stadium District Car Rental Surcharge $ 3,998,649 4,408,888 4,818,487 5,326,147 5,443,369 5,400,000 5,722,238 5,637,184 5,605,118 5,500,800 Total $ 3,998,649 23,292,185 91,879,551 101,384,449 41,440,708 46,877,224 97,706,954 103,389,559 104,335,017 107,192,596 * Projected Actual ** Budget 47 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Jail Excise Tax Forecasts "Pessimistic Scenario" "Most Likely" Scenario Fiscal Annual % Cumulative % Cumulative Year Collections Chg. Collections Annual Collections Chg. Collections 2002-03 $ 101,691,796 3.8% $ 431,639,401 $ 104,692,794 5.0% $ 435,617,938 2003-04 106,267,927 4.5% 537,907,328 110,555,591 5.6% 546,173,535 2004-05 111,049,984 4.5% 648,957,312 116,746,704 5.6% 662,920,245 2005-06 116,047,233 4.5% 765,004,545 123,284,579 5.6% 786,204,772 2006-07 121,269,358 4.5% 886,273,904 113,795,228 5.6% 900,000,000 2007-08 13,726,096 4.5% 900,000,000 900,000,000 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. Summary Schedules Licenses and Permits Maricopa County and the Flood Control District collect revenue from a variety of licenses and permits that it issues through various County departments. Rates for licenses and permits are approved by the Board of Supervisors, unless otherwise set forth in State statutes. The revenue generated from licenses and permits is used to offset the cost of issuing the permits. Examples of licenses and permits include building permits, marriage licenses, dog licenses, and environmental health permits. Listed below are the actual license and permit revenues recorded for the last ten fiscal years, along with projected actual collections for totals FY 2001-02 and estimated revenues for FY 2002-03. Fiscal Year 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02* 2002-03** Licenses & Permits Special Revenue General Fund Funds $ 1,670,967 $ 8,687,231 1,880,372 9,378,628 1,677,251 10,943,744 1,927,793 13,012,399 2,340,983 10,074,284 2,380,622 10,944,271 2,248,372 12,634,283 2,839,905 14,227,608 271,025 21,915,996 501,811 23,186,962 423,700 23,825,944 428,970 25,533,818 Total $ 10,358,198 11,259,000 12,620,995 14,940,192 12,415,267 13,324,933 14,882,655 17,067,513 22,187,021 23,688,773 24,249,644 25,962,788 * Projected Actual ** Budget General Fund license and permit revenues include license fees paid by cable television companies for operation in unincorporated areas. Prior to FY 1999-00, Planning and Development fees were deposited in the General Fund. 48 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Department General Government General Government Sheriff Amount $50,000 325,000 53,970 Description Liquor Licenses Cable Television Franchise Fees Pawnshop & Peddler's Licenses Major sources of Special Revenue Fund license and permit revenue include Planning and Development fees, environmental health permits, and air quality permits. Licenses & Permits Revenue (General Fund) $375,000 $428,970 $423,700 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $FY 02 REVISED FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Intergovernmental Revenues Intergovernmental and Grant Revenues Fiscal Year Special Revenue Funds General Fund 1990-91 $ 57,789,081 1991-92 56,917,902 1992-93 58,413,355 1993-94 61,766,027 1994-95 76,624,601 1995-96 28,170,608 1996-97 33,158,048 1997-98 16,869,017 1998-99 20,122,702 1999-00 4,201,782 2000-01 5,217,685 2001-02* 6,941,483 2002-03** 7,181,221 $ 19,169,422 33,259,242 25,269,829 26,443,641 33,460,444 339,459 868,273 63,794,109 157,814,665 109,352,532 165,830,808 91,813,355 125,968,786 Enterprise Funds $ 5,111,763 $ 4,382,076 5,938,212 8,930,589 4,495,155 6,506,520 13,010,680 8,093,439 55,341,499 114,111,878 Internal Service Funds 277,682 609,417 365,475 458,113 34,434 338,534 499,012 Capital Projects Funds $ 17,161,901 $ 5,107,746 950,777 1,065,771 1,043,694 42,238,451 1,335,329 6,495,734 31,578,721 Debt Service 277,295 279,935 262,793 - Total $ 99,509,849 100,276,383 90,937,648 98,206,028 116,082,007 35,293,882 34,306,256 136,175,050 179,272,696 113,554,314 179,176,366 160,930,605 279,339,618 * Projected Actual ** Budget Note: Historical data prior to FY 1997-98 for General Fund and Debt Service included Indirect Cost Recovery. 49 Summary Schedules Intergovernmental revenues are amounts received by the County and districts from other government or public entities, and includes payments in lieu of taxes, state shared revenues, grants, and payments required by intergovernmental agreements (IGA’s). Intergovernmental revenues come from a variety of sources, including the Federal government, local cities and the State of Arizona. Included in the intergovernmental classification are grant revenues that typically carry restrictions on how they may be expended. Listed below are the actual intergovernmental and grant revenues recorded for the last eleven fiscal years prior to FY 2001-02, projected actual collections for FY 2001-02, and the amounts budgeted for FY 2002-03. Beginning in FY 1999-00 the General Fund total revenue for this category decreased because revenue from jail per diem charges was moved to the special revenue category. The FY 2002-03 budget includes increases in various grant-funded programs and intergovernmental agreements with the State of Arizona. Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Payments in Lieu of Taxes General Fund $6,391,210 $5,430,195 $6,929,684 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $FY 02 REVISED Summary Schedules Federal FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Salt River Project Payments in lieu of taxes are collected from the Salt River Project (SRP) and the federal government. SRP values have declined in recent years due to changes in tax laws and in the electric utility industry. Although it is a public entity, SRP estimates its net assessed value and makes payments in lieu of property taxes to each taxing jurisdiction based on its property tax rates. The estimated FY 2002-03 budget for payments in lieu of taxes is $6,929,684, a increase of $538,474 or 8.4% from FY 2001-02 revised budget. This change is primarily due to an increase in the payment from the Federal Bureau of Land Management. State Shared Sales Taxes Maricopa County does not have legal authority to levy a general-purpose sales tax. However, the County does receive a portion of the State of Arizona's Transaction Privilege Tax collections, which are deposited in the General Fund. The State collects transaction privilege taxes on 30 types of business activities, at rates ranging from .516 to 6.05 percent. A portion of each of these taxes, ranging from 0 to 80 percent, is allocated to a pool for distribution to the cities, counties and state. Of this pool, 40.51 percent is allocated to Arizona counties. Prior to FY 1994-95, the counties' distribution was determined using a calculation that combined assessed valuation and location of actual sales tax receipts (point of sale). Beginning with FY 1994-95, the state started using a new allocation procedure. The new procedure distributes the funds determined from the larger of two different calculations: a) 50% based on point of sale + 50% based on assessed valuation; or b) 50% based on point of sale + 50% based on population. Also, as of FY 1994-95, the counties receive a portion of an additional 2.43 percent of the State's share of receipts, distributed using a 50% point of sale + 50% population basis method. Listed below are the actual state shared sales tax collections for the last nine fiscal years, Projected totals for FY 2001-02, plus the budget for FY 2002-03. State shared sales tax collections have suffered most from the economic recession. Prior to this year, state shared sales taxes were budgeted for the upcoming fiscal year at the midpoint between the “pessimistic” and “most likely” forecast scenarios. Following this strategy, the FY 2001-02 budget assumed revenue growth of 4.5%, about half the annual growth seen over the previous five years; nonetheless, actual collections are projected to be only 1% higher than FY 2000-01, a budget shortfall of around $16 million. Given continuing economic uncertainty, the FY 2002-03 budget for the General Fund is based on the “pessimistic” forecast of 3% growth ($10 million) over FY 2001-02 projected actual 50 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) collections. FY 2002-03 budgeted revenue, even with this growth, will still be less than the amount originally budgeted for FY 2001-02. State Shared Sales Tax Collections Fiscal Year General Fund 1992-93 $176,925,962 1993-94 209,588,061 1994-95 215,015,368 1995-96 231,009,128 1996-97 242,352,311 1997-98 257,643,630 1998-99 279,812,954 1999-00 309,009,200 2000-01 322,429,593 2001-02* 325,653,889 2002-03** 335,423,506 * Projected Actual ** Budget State Shared Sales Tax $341,524,693 $325,653,889 $335,423,506 $350,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 FY 02 REVISED FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET The five-year forecast for state shared sales tax revenue is shown in the following table. While annual growth rates will recover as the economy improves, they are not anticipated to reach the levels seen prior to FY 2001-02. State Shared Sales Tax Forecast Fiscal Year "Pessimistic Scenario" Annual Collections % Chg. "Most Likely" Scenario Annual Collections % Chg. 2002-03 $ 335,423,506 3.6% $ 345,322,094 2003-04 350,517,564 4.5% 364,660,132 2004-05 366,290,854 4.5% 385,081,099 2005-06 382,773,942 4.5% 406,645,641 2006-07 399,998,770 4.5% 429,417,799 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. 5.0% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 51 Summary Schedules $300,000,000 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) State Shared Vehicle License Taxes The State of Arizona levies vehicle license taxes (VLT) annually on all vehicles, based upon their estimated value. The Vehicle License Tax is essentially a personal property tax levied by the state on cars and trucks. VLT revenue is shared with counties and cities, and a portion is also deposited in the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF), which is in turn also shared with local governments. VLT is paid as part of the annual auto license renewal process, billed and payable during the month in which the vehicle was first registered. Following is a table showing actual and projected vehicle license tax collections from FY 1992-93 to FY 2002-03. Summary Schedules State Shared Vehicle License Tax Fiscal General Year Fund 1992-93 $ 34,229,803 1993-94 39,330,291 1994-95 44,940,805 1995-96 53,481,261 1996-97 64,600,858 1997-98 68,309,110 1998-99 81,053,747 1999-00 94,431,066 2000-01 93,389,137 2001-02* 98,058,594 2002-03** 101,980,938 * Projected Actual ** Budget Prior to FY 2001-02, VLT was budgeted at the midpoint between the “pessimistic” and “most likely” forecasts, but was budgeted at the pessimistic level last year due to uncertainties about the impact of biennial collection. FY 2001-02 VLT collections have in fact been quite strong despite the economy, and projected actual revenue is significantly greater than budgeted, which has helped to offset the shortfall in state shared sales taxes. The FY 2002-03 budget assumes a $3.9 million increase in Vehicle License Tax revenue based on the pessimistic forecast of 4% growth. State Shared Vehicle License Tax 110,000,000 98,058,594 101,980,938 92,868,667 90,000,000 70,000,000 50,000,000 FY 02 REVISED 52 FY 02 PROJ ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) State Shared Vehicle License Tax Forecast Fiscal Year "Pessimistic Scenario" Annual Collections % Chg. "Most Likely" Scenario Annual Collections % Chg. 2002-03 $ 101,980,938 4.0% $ 107,420,855 2003-04 107,589,889 5.5% 115,477,419 2004-05 111,893,485 4.0% 123,560,838 2005-06 116,369,224 4.0% 132,210,097 2006-07 121,023,993 4.0% 141,464,804 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. 7.0% 7.5% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% State Shared Highway User Revenues The State of Arizona levies a highway user tax of $0.18 per gallon on the motor fuel sold within the state. The primary purpose of the highway user tax is to fund construction and maintenance of streets and highways. The State distributes these highway user funds in approximately the following proportions: 50 percent to the State Highway Fund, 30 percent to cities and towns and 20 percent to counties. The highway user revenues distributed to the counties are allocated based upon fuel sales and estimated consumption as well as population. Maricopa County highway user revenue funds (HURF) are deposited in the Transportation Fund to support the Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02* 2002-03** State Shared Highway User Revenues $ 55,922,890 57,901,673 63,227,494 68,763,760 73,249,850 67,408,288 72,392,313 77,317,632 78,243,269 77,014,014 77,933,792 * Projected Actual ** Budget 53 Summary Schedules Listed below are the actual collections of the highway user revenues for the last nine fiscal years, Projected totals for FY 2001-02, plus the budget for FY 2002-03. Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Other Intergovernmental Revenue Other Intergovernmental Revenues include a variety of payments from other jurisdictions, usually as required by Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) with the County or districts. The following chart shows overall revenue activity for the General Fund. Intergovernmental (General Fund) $6,939,375 $15,000,000 $12,000,000 $7,181,221 $6,323,629 $9,000,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $FY 02 REVISED FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Summary Schedules Detail of FY 2002-03 General Fund Other Intergovernmental Revenue is shown in the following table. Most of the increase is due to reimbursements from the State for costs associated with the primary and general elections. Department Elections General Government Indigent Representation Justice Courts Juvenile Courts Medical Examiner Sheriff’s Office Superintendent of Schools Total Amount $2,067,500 249,772 324,177 895,185 18,000 60,000 3,448,537 118,050 $7,181,221 Description Election Services Shared State Lottery Sales State Grand Jury Reimbursements State Reimbursement for JP Salaries Federal Reimbursement for Inmate Housing IGA’s with Coconino and Yavaipai Counties for exam and laboratory services Patrol Services National Forest Fees for Schools Charges for Services Maricopa County charges fees for various services. County policy is to fully recover the cost for providing services. When setting fees, care is exercised in establishing charges for services so that they do not unfairly discriminate against those most in need of services. The County Board of Supervisors approves all fee schedules, unless fees are specifically set forth in state statute. Charges for service are also levied internally within Maricopa County government for internal services provided by one County department to another department, but are eliminated within the overall County budget. Examples of charges for services to the public include court filing fees, kennel fees, landfill charges, park entrance fees, vital statistic document fees, probation service fees, and patient service charges. Examples of internal charges for services include motor pool charges and long distance telephone charges. Each of these types of revenues, charges for services, internal charges for services and fines and forfeits are recorded in the applicable fund type, depending on their nature. Charges for service to the public are recorded in the General Fund, the Special Revenue Funds and the Enterprise Funds. Fines and forfeits are recorded in the General and Special Revenue Funds. 54 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Listed below are the other charges for services, fines and forfeits and net patient service revenues recorded for the last nine fiscal years, Projected totals for FY 2001-02, plus the budget for FY 200203. Special Revenue Funds $ 22,713,435 30,598,649 33,636,546 40,987,616 43,365,082 33,482,636 34,909,175 Fiscal General Fund Year 1996-97 $ 21,498,899 1997-98 23,285,414 1998-99 23,282,041 1999-00 20,744,303 2000-01 22,344,319 2001-02* 33,581,911 2002-03** 29,289,951 Debt Service Fund $ 302,898 180,180 352,643 280,976 125,432 - Fees and Charges Capital Internal Projects Enterprise Service Funds Funds Funds $ 64,018 $ 308,557,653 $ 85,204,601 231,215 338,064,362 66,587,939 16,630 356,784,696 70,147,479 13,389 387,932,964 87,758,508 1,526 401,251,736 47,269,363 619,714,924 48,250,779 666,660,233 52,467,152 Eliminations Total $ 438,341,504 458,947,759 484,220,035 537,717,756 514,357,458 (106,746,307) 628,283,943 (120,299,600) 663,026,911 * Projected Actual ** Budget Patient Charges * Projected Actual ** Budget Patient Charges (General Fund) $250,000 $200,000 $93,044 $64,400 $52,848 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $FY 02 REVISED FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET In the General Fund, patient service revenues are generated by the residual long-term care program. The long-term care residual population will decline because no new patients are enrolled in the program. This budget reflects the declining population of long-term care residual patients. 55 Summary Schedules Fiscal General Year Fund 1997-98 $ 2,444,637 1998-99 647,580 1999-00 87,872 2000-01 101,118 2001-02* 64,400 2002-03** 52,848 Patient Charges and Patient Care – Revenue Allowances Special Internal Revenue Enterprise Service Capital Projects Funds Funds Funds Funds Eliminations Total $ 532,007 $ 323,663,351 $ - $ - $ (54,232,273) $ 272,408,322 602,542 508,799,795 (40,707,215) 469,342,702 1,060,650 584,897,791 (47,811,146) 538,106,404 1,242,215 187,203,802 188,547,135 1,301,834 619,674,277 (62,093,733) 558,946,778 2,819,664 666,619,585 (72,066,024) 597,426,073 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Patient Charges FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Summary Department Health Care Mandates Amount Description $52,848 LTC Share of Cost $52,848 Internal Service Charges Summary Schedules Internal service charges are established each budget season. The internal service fee rates are intended to recover from the appropriate user the full cost of the services provided. Internal charges for services are recorded in the Internal Service Funds. Fiscal Internal Service Year Funds 1991-92 $ 132,704,926 1992-93 137,626,475 1993-94 162,749,217 1994-95 126,851,818 1995-96 71,231,729 1996-97 82,204,601 1997-98 24,354,392 1998-99 26,769,664 1999-00 40,522,322 2000-01 41,710,416 2001-02* 41,549,502 2002-03** 45,633,576 * Projected Actual ** Budget Other Charges for Services Other Charges for Services (General Fund) $18,058,818 $21,515,902 $18,518,283 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $FY 02 REVISED FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Most departments that collect charges for services have maintained or increased budgets over the prior year. However, budgeted Other Charges for Services have decreased for the second consecutive year. 56 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Other Charges for Service Summary Department Clerk of the Court Constables Elections General Government Human Resources Indigent Representation Justice Courts Medical Examiner Public Fiduciary Recorder $ FY 2001-02 3,610,000 509,872 2,000,000 25,300 2,318,395 420,000 830,000 5,940,000 FY 2002-03 $ 3,610,000 1,100,000 2,000,000 25,000 85,572 2,506,634 360,000 850,000 7,241,000 - 416,682 35,000 260,000 6,000 18,538,592 35,000 282,709 5,686 18,518,283 Sheriff Superintendent of Schools Superior Court Treasurer Total Description Filing Fees Writ & Restitution Collection Fees Certification Fees Tax Sale Fees and Cable TV Franchise Fees Garnishments and Support Processing Fees State Grand Jury Reimbursements Court Filing Fees Cremation Certificate Fees and Transport Fees Fiduciary Fees and Probate Fees Document Recording Fees Delinquent Property Tax Sales Fee for Mobile Home and Miscellaneous Civil Fees Garnishment & Support Processing Fees Reimbursement of Court Costs Miscellaneous Charges Fines and Forfeits Fiscal Year 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02* 2002-03** Fines & Forfeits Special General Revenue Fund Funds Total $9,552,255 $1,947,305 $11,499,560 10,552,336 1,908,335 12,460,671 10,954,594 2,472,263 13,426,857 10,871,790 3,711,582 14,583,372 11,989,817 2,918,598 14,908,415 12,001,609 4,607,834 16,609,443 10,718,820 2,312,633 13,031,453 * Projected Actual ** Budget 57 Summary Schedules Through statutory and enforcement authority, Maricopa County also collects various fines and forfeitures such as citations, court fines, and library fines. The largest source of fine revenue is the Justice Courts. Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Fines & Forfeits (General Fund) $10,333,814 $10,718,820 $12,001,609 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $FY 02 REVISED FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Fines and forfeits are collected by the Justice Courts and Superior Court. Based on collections through March, the forecasted revenue is expected to exceed budget due to rising caseloads. The FY 2002-03 budget anticipates fines and forfeits in line with caseload increases, primarily in the Justice Courts. Summary Schedules Department Clerk of the Superior Court Elections Justice Courts Amount Description $ 1,615,000 Superior Court Fines 2,500 Campaign Finance Penalty Fees 9,101,320 Traffic and Misdemeanor Fines 10,718,820 Miscellaneous Revenue Maricopa County classifies miscellaneous revenues as any revenues that do not fall within a more specific revenue category. Examples of miscellaneous revenues include concessions, sales of copies, sales of fixed assets, interest earnings, building rental, pay phone receipts, insurance recoveries, food sales, land sales, map sales, equipment rental and bond proceeds. Listed below are the miscellaneous revenues recorded for the last nine fiscal years, projected amounts for FY 2001-02, plus the budget for FY 2002-03. Miscellaneous revenues are recorded in all of the fund types. The major increase in miscellaneous revenue in Capital Projects Funds is due to one-time receipt of proceeds from Certificates of Participation that will be used to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Fiscal General Year Fund 1996-97 $ 12,052,384 1997-98 10,170,063 1998-99 12,514,416 1999-00 13,968,176 2000-01 20,448,749 2001-02* 13,890,231 2002-03** 14,597,265 * Projected Actual ** Budget 58 Special Revenue Funds $ 19,343,464 32,181,062 24,642,605 25,334,749 38,295,643 31,655,705 32,622,943 Miscellaneous Revenue Internal Enterprise Service Funds Funds $ 5,221,705 $ 741,659 1,292,308 269,866 78,878,826 2,594,804 21,320,726 941,625 26,279,616 2,344,981 9,874,274 2,002,496 8,020,834 1,673,110 Debt Service Funds $ 622,445 524,591 400,000 400,000 4,927,850 5,509,281 7,166,188 Capital Projects Funds $ 10,056,965 100,241,220 407,093 1,325,000 113,020,718 9,581,307 8,550,000 Total $ 48,038,622 144,679,110 119,437,744 63,290,276 205,317,557 72,513,294 72,630,340 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Miscellaneous Revenue (General Fund) $15,057,006 $13,890,231 $20,000,000 $14,597,265 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $FY 02 REVISED FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET The largest single component of miscellaneous revenues in the General Fund is interest income. Increased miscellaneous revenue is attributed to an increase in budgeted interest income for FY 2002-03. In the future, General Fund interest income is expected to decline because of the transfer of the fund balance to the new County Improvement Fund to repay COP’s. Additional revenue has also been realized from the parking fees generated by Facilities Management related to Major League Baseball. General Fund Miscellaneous Revenue Summary FY 2001-02 $ 133,669 25,000 8,000 15,000 1,636,550 12,000,000 132,300 107,858 1,400 77,000 804,029 116,200 $ 15,057,006 FY 2002-03 $ 133,669 25,000 12,000 15,000 1,159,054 12,000,000 90,511 75 130,307 77,000 759,000 175,226 10,423 10,000 $ 14,597,265 Description Sale of Maps, Copies, Etc. Sale of Copies & Bad Check Fees Drug Offender Diversion Fees Sale of Copies and Maps Security Building Rental Revenue Interest Income, Other Sale of Copies, Garnishment of Wages, COBRA Admin. Sale of Instructional Videos Sale of Copies Key Replacement Fees Surplus, Vending Machine, & Copy Sales Micrographics & Photocopy Sales Sale of Copies and Reimbursement for ID Cards Interest Earnings Sale of Copies, Garnishment of Wages, COBRA Admin. Summary Schedules Department Assessor Clerk of the Court County Attorney Elections Facilities Management General Government Human Resources Internal Audit Justice Courts Juvenile Probation Materials Management Recorder Sheriff Superior Court Total Compensation 59 Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Gain/Loss on Fixed Assets Gain / Loss of Fixed Assets (General Fund) $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $50,000 $24,998 $20,000 $FY 02 REVISED FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Gain/Loss on General Fund Fixed Assets is budgeted conservatively and is consistent with the FY 2001-02 revised budget. Other Financing Sources Summary Schedules Other Financing Sources include Proceeds of Financing (debt) and Fund Transfers In. Proceeds of financing are not budgeted for FY 2002-03. Fund Transfers In Detail on Fund Transfers In and Out are included later in this document. For the General Fund, Fund Transfers In to the General Fund include Central Service Allocation charges to non-General Fund departments and the reimbursement from the Health Care Delivery System for the Disproportionate Share match payment to the State of Arizona. While Central Service Allocations have remained relatively flat, the Disproportionate Share payment and transfer to the General Fund will increase by nearly $55 million in FY 2002-03 due to State budget balancing efforts. Transfers In (General Fund) $54,050,489 $109,627,487 $54,113,501 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $FY 02 REVISED 60 FY 02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 03 BUDGET Comparative Tax Data Maricopa County levies primary property taxes based on assessed valuations of personal and real property. The primary tax levy is limited by A.R.S. §42-17051. Each year the primary tax levy limit is computed by the Assessor’s Office and is confirmed by the State Property Tax Oversight Commission. The primary property tax may be used to support any type or level of service within the legal purview of the County, and therefore is the major revenue source for the County General Fund. The County also levies secondary property taxes that are levied for a specific purpose, i.e. the Flood Control District, Library District and Debt Service. FY 2002-03 PROPERTY TAX LEVY Primary, Debt Service, Flood Control District and Library District Levies Description Salt River Proj. Effective Assessed Value Assessed Value MARICOPA COUNTY PRIMARY: $ 22,955,864,882 FY 2002-03 Final $ 21,355,326,477 FY 2001-02 Final $ 1,600,538,405 Variance Revenue from 1-cent Levy Tax Rates $ 277,949,612 $ 252,676,223 $ 25,273,389 SRP Payments in Lieu (PILT) MARICOPA COUNTY DEBT SERVICE SECONDARY: $ 24,457,047,282 $ 445,216,494 $ 24,902,263,776 FY 2002-03 Final $ 22,913,134,480 $ 458,941,459 $ 23,372,075,939 FY 2001-02 Final $ 1,543,912,802 $ (13,724,965) $ 1,530,187,837 Variance $ 2,490,226 $ 2,337,208 $ 153,018 $ $ $ 0.0800 $ 19,565,638 $ 0.0876 $ 20,071,906 $ (0.0076) $ (506,268) $ 356,173 $ 19,921,811 402,033 $ 20,473,939 (45,860) $ (552,128) FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: $ 21,174,168,674 FY 2002-03 Final $ 19,544,068,975 FY 2001-02 Final $ 1,630,099,699 Variance $ $ $ 64,942,150 $ 21,239,110,824 66,230,009 $ 19,610,298,984 (1,287,859) $ 1,628,811,840 $ 2,123,911 $ 1,961,030 $ 162,881 $ $ $ 0.2119 $ 44,868,061 $ 0.2319 $ 45,322,696 $ (0.0200) $ (454,635) $ 137,612 $ 45,005,673 153,587 $ 45,476,283 (15,975) $ (470,610) LIBRARY DISTRICT: FY 2002-03 Final FY 2001-02 Final Variance $ $ $ 445,216,494 $ 24,902,263,776 458,941,459 $ 23,372,075,939 (13,724,965) $ 1,530,187,837 $ 2,490,226 $ 2,337,208 $ 153,018 $ $ $ 0.0421 0.0421 - $ $ $ 1.5448 $ 352,679,728 $ 1.5448 $ 327,717,255 $ $ 24,962,473 $ 0.0% 8.3% $ $ $ 5,390,681 $ 283,340,293 5,430,195 $ 258,106,418 (39,514) $ 25,233,875 187,436 $ 10,483,853 193,214 $ 9,839,644 (5,778) $ 644,209 6,071,902 $ 358,751,630 6,179,029 $ 333,896,284 (107,127) $ 24,855,346 -1.6% 8.0% 61 Summary Schedules $ $ $ $ 10,296,417 $ 9,646,430 $ 649,987 $ $ $ Total Tax Levy & PILT $ 2,340,108 $ 2,181,427 $ 158,681 GRAND TOTALS: FY 2002-03 Final FY 2001-02 Final Variance 1.2108 1.1832 0.0276 Property Tax Levy 445,216,494 $ 23,401,081,376 458,941,459 $ 21,814,267,936 (13,724,965) $ 1,586,813,440 $ 24,457,047,282 $ 22,913,134,480 $ 1,543,912,802 $ $ $ Total Assessed Value w/SRP Levy Limit and Truth-In-Taxation Comparisons Summary Schedules PRELIMINARY FY 2002-03 LEVY VS. TRUTH-IN-TAXATION LEVY Current NAV Subject to Taxation in Prior Year FY 2001-02 Primary Levy FY 2002-03 Truth-in-Taxation Rate FY 2002-03 Current Net Assessed Value FY 2002-03 Truth-in-Taxation Levy $ 21,667,900,580 $ 252,676,223 $ 1.1661 $ 22,955,864,882 $ 267,688,340 FY 2002-03 Preliminary Primary Levy (excluding SRP) FY 2002-03 Preliminary Primary Rate $ $ 277,949,612 1.2108 Amount Under/(Over) Truth-in-Taxation Levy Amount Under/(Over) Truth-in-Taxation Rate $ $ (10,261,272) (0.0447) Truth-in-Taxation Assessment on a $100,000 Home: Recommended Primary Levy on a $100,000 Home: (Increase)/Decrease $ $ $ 116.61 121.08 (4.47) -3.8% Impact of Overall Rate on a $100,000 home: FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Net Impact on Taxpayer $ $ $ 154.48 154.48 0.0% PRELIMINARY LEVY VS. FY 2002-03 LIMIT 62 FY 2002-03 Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit Maximum Rate $ 296,291,348 $ 1.2907 FY 2002-03 Preliminary Primary Levy (excluding SRP): Primary Levy Rate $ 277,949,612 $ 1.2108 Amount Under/(Over) Limit: $ 18,341,736 $ 0.0799 Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary The following schedule lists the estimated beginning fund balances, projected revenues, expenditures and appropriated fund balance for the upcoming fiscal year, and resulting estimated fund balances at the end of FY 2002-03. “Beginning Fund balance” represents resources accumulated within each fund as of the start of the fiscal year, based on actual and projected revenues and expenditures for prior fiscal years. For budgeting purposes, fund balances are Unreserved/Undesignated, which means that estimated unreserved fund balances are reduced by amounts designated for other purposes. A list of fund balance designations is provided in the following section. The process for estimating all beginning fund balances for FY 2002-03 fiscal year begins with audited actual fund balance information at the end of FY 2000-01, as presented in the Maricopa County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). For governmental funds, which include the General Fund as well as special revenue, debt service and capital project funds, the “unreserved fund balance” is used. For proprietary funds, “expendable fund balance” is calculated as: Current assets less amounts held for contractual obligations less current liabilities. This measure provides a more accurate estimation of the resources that can be appropriated from these types of funds than “unreserved fund equity”, which includes the net value of property, plant, and equipment as well as long-term liabilities. Several funds are projected to have deficit fund balances at the end of FY 2002-03, as follows: Maricopa Medical Center (Fund 535): The Maricopa Medical Center is part of the Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS), which includes the Maricopa Health Plan (fund 541), ALTCS (fund 551), Non-AHCCCS Health Plans (fund 561), and Senior Select (fund 566). The Medical Center and Senior Select funds routinely incur operating deficits, which are offset by operating income in the other three funds. Accumulated net income is eventually transferred from the plan funds to the Medical Center and Senior Select funds to cover their fund deficits. However, contractual obligations with the State’s Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) effectively do not allow current-year net income from the Maricopa Health Plan and ALTCS plans to be transferred in this manner. As a result the Medical Center fund will end FY 2002-03 with a deficit, but the balances in the other MIHS funds that will be transferred in the following fiscal year will offset the deficit. Equipment Services (Fund 654): The Equipment Services internal service fund has incurred a fund deficit because FY 2001-02 expenditures have exceeded revenue from other County departments and funds. The Equipment Services Department has implemented corrective actions that have reduced the fund deficit in the second half of FY 2001-02, and will continue to reduce the deficit in FY 2002-03. The deficit will be eliminated during FY 2003-04. 63 Summary Schedules Detention Capital Projects (Fund 455): The Detention Capital Projects fund is used to account for proceeds of the Jail Excise Tax, approved by County voters in 1998, that are applied toward the jail and juvenile detention capital improvement program. The Jail Excise Tax will expire after nine years or $900 million in collections. As previously anticipated, during FY 2002-03 capital improvement spending will exceed forecasted tax collections, but the shortfall will be made up in the following fiscal year as the capital projects are completed. As a result, the Detention Capital Projects Fund will end FY 2002-03 in a deficit. The deficit will be covered by an inter-fund loan from the County Improvement Debt fund (320), which has an accumulated balance from transfers from the General Fund that is sufficient to cover full repayment of the debt issue, but most of which will not be required until after FY 2003-04. Interest charges will be assessed from the Detention Capital Projects fund. Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) Risk Management (Fund 675): The projected deficit in the Risk Management fund is due to actuarially estimated claims liabilities. Risk Management charges to other funds for FY 2002-03 are sufficient to cover actuarially determined claim estimates projected to be paid during the fiscal year, consistent with the established plan for funding Risk Management. The funding plan provides for an ending cash balance equal to next fiscal year’s paid losses and claims-related expenses (see Risk Management Variance Commentary). CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FUND BALANCES FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Summary Schedules Fund: GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: 201 ADULT PROBATION FEES 203 SHERIFF DONATIONS 204 JUSTICE CT JUDICIAL ENHANCEMNT 205 COURT DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL 207 PALO VERDE 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 209 PUBLIC DEFENDER TRAINING 210 WASTE MANAGEMENT 211 ADULT PROBATION GRANTS 213 COUNTY ATTORNEY RICO 215 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 216 CLERK OF THE COURT GRANTS 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST 218 CLERK OF COURT FILL THE GAP 219 COUNTY ATTORNEY GRANTS 220 DIVERSION 221 COUNTY ATTORNEY FILL THE GAP 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS 223 TRANSPORTATION GRANTS 225 SPUR CROSS RANCH CONSERVATION 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES 227 JUVENILE COURT GRANTS 228 JUVENILE COURT SPECIAL FEES 229 JUVENILE RESTITUTION FUND 230 PARKS & REC. GRANTS 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 233 PUBLIC DEFENDER GRANTS 235 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANTS 236 RECORDER'S SURCHARGE 238 SUPERIOR COURT GRANTS 239 PARKS SOUVENIR FUND 240 LAKE PLEASANT RECREATION SVCS 241 PARKS ENHANCEMENT FUND 242 LIBRARY DISTRICT GRANTS 243 PARKS DONATIONS FUND 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT 245 JUSTICE COURT ENHANCEMENT 246 JUSTICE COURTS GRANTS 248 SAIL GRANTS 249 GENERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS 250 COUNTY STADIUM DISTRICT 251 SHERIFF GRANTS 252 INMATE SERVICES 253 MLB STADIUM OPERATION 254 INMATE HEALTH SERVICES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 256 PROBATE FEES 257 CONCILIATION COURT FEES 258 COURT AUTOMATED SERVICES 259 SUPERIOR COURT SPECIAL REVENUE 260 RESEARCH & REPORTING 261 LAW LIBRARY FEES 64 Beginning Unreserved/ Undesignated Fund Revenues & Transfers Expenditures & Balance In Transfers Out $ 73,444,803 $ 891,458,634 $ 870,342,483 Appropriated Fund Balance $ 94,560,954 Unreserved/ Undesignated Ending Fund Balance $ - $ $ $ 993,309 $ 15,498 608,172 516,811 68,143 611,259 130,362 265,402 (1) 413,811 1,982,201 47,248 7,288,442 587,732 11,581 288,535 13,525,279 15,953 2,153,591 30,279 3,895,934 964,543 613,393 5,269,839 143,570 4,140,222 2,207,007 3,124,541 100,000 24,545,729 157,894 385,383 188,672 907,155 243,638 345,516 8,687,839 16,400 552,219 1,127,929 201,313 1,361,279 404,842 3,671,068 33,285,728 1,300,000 465,346 1,668,421 15,861,375 1,800,000 4,859,485 830,000 442,216 29,599,739 682,000 417,600 8,315,000 17,852,661 901,479 50,000 128,391 88,396,888 405,511 175,000 3,644,388 1,356,000 35,000 1,482,000 1,984,876 25,000 372,000 11,049,969 466,234 251,500 1,812,463 17,766,301 300,000 6,706,367 8,565,140 4,150,701 56,800 237,072,181 388,576 1,556,639 730,976 3,206,998 440,000 804,510 $ 8,687,839 16,400 759,873 1,507,254 237,335 1,852,990 404,842 3,906,314 33,285,728 1,300,000 849,447 1,668,421 15,861,375 1,800,000 4,859,485 1,000,000 442,216 29,599,739 682,000 415,553 8,339,004 17,852,661 1,154,482 50,000 416,926 100,540,927 405,511 133,864 4,745,524 1,356,000 21,000 4,090,768 2,415,885 25,000 331,500 12,577,743 463,900 251,500 1,812,463 17,766,301 109,371 6,706,367 8,550,688 3,464,807 156,800 135,376,319 388,576 1,556,640 784,140 3,193,356 446,622 800,000 125,844,378 - 993,309 15,498 400,518 137,486 32,121 119,548 130,362 30,156 (1) 29,710 1,812,201 49,295 7,264,438 334,729 11,581 1,381,240 57,089 1,052,455 44,279 1,287,166 533,534 653,893 3,742,065 145,904 4,330,851 2,221,459 3,810,435 397,213 157,894 385,382 135,508 920,797 237,016 350,026 Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) Beginning Unreserved/ Undesignated Fund Revenues & Transfers Expenditures & Balance In Transfers Out Fund: 262 PUBLIC DEFENDER FILL THE GAP 815,868 815,868 263 LEGAL DEFENDER FILL THE GAP 40,000 40,000 264 SUPERIOR COURT FILL THE GAP 958,040 958,040 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES 1,287,552 2,804,768 3,082,585 266 CHECK ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 228,848 665,121 718,491 267 CRIM JUSTICE ENHANCEMENT 407,275 1,800,000 1,800,000 268 VICTIM COMP AND ASSISTANCE 91,144 57,309 75,000 269 VICTIM COMP RESTITUTION INT 216,772 75,437 200,000 270 CHILD SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT 192,051 65,500 192,875 271 EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT 358,359 399,569 399,569 272 CHILD SUPPORT AUTOMATION 12,894 2,000 14,894 273 VICTIM LOCATION 81,670 16,161 40,714 274 CLERK OF THE COURT EDMS 44,309 1,400,000 1,400,000 275 JUVENILE PROBATION DIVERSION 244,307 268,425 342,425 280 OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION 6,140 10,000 10,000 281 CHILDREN'S ISSUES EDUCATION 25,637 20,000 20,000 282 DOM REL MEDIATION EDUCATION 254,639 142,599 124,689 290 WASTE TIRE 3,809,755 3,440,050 3,472,515 292 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH GRANT 1,047,152 1,047,152 295 HOUSING GRANTS 11,435,849 11,435,849 504 AIR QUALITY FEES 3,876,897 5,438,000 6,313,697 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT 3,719,080 3,719,080 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH 2,706,520 8,280,766 9,678,328 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS 34,457,948 34,457,948 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER 1,005,956 5,897,234 6,700,083 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION (1,520,714) 3,866,520 2,345,805 748 JUROR IMPROVEMENT 250 200,000 200,000 991 FLOOD CONTROL 8,809,114 71,031,854 70,807,750 SPECIAL REVENUE $ 98,926,018 $ 686,039,598 $ 604,847,514 925,030 103,445,811 1,736 104,372,577 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS: 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT 410 STADIUM DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 440 LIBRARY DIST CAPITAL PROJECTS 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 223,620 3,848 164,699 52,720,398 6,320,541 59,888,864 178,414 119,500,384 $ 21,601,420 6,766,188 5,600,800 33,968,408 $ 84,578,721 1,000,000 27,865,139 36,590,000 1,102,200 1,734,018 98,138,712 49,000,000 300,008,790 ENTERPRISE FUNDS: 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 561 HEALTH SELECT 566 SENIOR SELECT PLAN 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE $ (23,625,571) 8,691,974 13,237,728 1,687,326 35,310 7,949,222 7,975,989 $ 398,331,106 103,910,621 251,854,360 12,306,999 61,854,439 840,648 829,098,173 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS: 652 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 673 REPROGRAPHICS 675 RISK MANAGEMENT 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 685 BENEFITS TRUST INTERNAL SERVICE $ 1,617,677 (440,255) 231,319 (4,751,045) (17,725) 3,436,733 76,704 $ 120,000 9,200,000 903,775 24,380,384 13,201,539 6,833,576 54,639,274 ELIMINATIONS $ TOTAL $ 404,296,475 $ $ $ 21,347,350 18,293,455 4,240,094 43,880,899 $ 84,306,743 1,000,000 21,915,097 88,867,183 1,102,200 3,000 252,006,606 48,704,497 497,905,326 $ 399,029,048 104,605,320 251,055,472 10,057,680 61,889,749 699,064 827,336,333 $ 609,127 8,923,046 860,803 22,789,256 12,875,220 7,928,576 53,986,028 (654,775,524) $ 2,140,437,353 $ $ 1,179,100 91,918,544 1,360,706 1,736 94,460,086 $ 495,598 3,848 6,114,741 443,215 8,051,559 (93,979,030) 473,917 (78,396,152) $ (24,323,513) 7,997,275 14,036,616 3,936,645 8,090,806 9,737,829 $ - $ 1,128,550 (163,301) 274,291 (3,159,917) 308,594 2,341,733 729,950 (654,775,524) $ - $ 2,464,915,690 $ - $ - $ - $ 221,392,631 $ 79,818,138 65 Summary Schedules DEBT SERVICE FUNDS: 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICING 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 375 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-PEORIA DEBT SERVICE $ Appropriated Fund Balance $ 126,831,677 Unreserved/ Undesignated Ending Fund Balance 1,009,735 175,478 407,275 73,453 92,209 64,676 358,359 57,117 44,309 170,307 6,140 25,637 272,549 3,777,290 3,001,200 1,308,958 203,107 1 250 9,033,218 $ 53,286,425 Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) Explanation of Year-to-Year Decreases in Fund Balances Summary: The FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget contains a number of one-time expenditures from fund balances associated with technology purchases, capital projects, start-up materials, and equipment purchases. The Budget also includes several one-time fund transfers, which essentially transfer fund balances to capital projects funds for construction and maintenance. In one instance, the budget contains a one-time reduction in revenue associated with the Benefits Trust fund. Detail: Fund 204: One-time capital purchases for video arraignment and digital recording equipment for the Justice Courts. Fund 205: One-time expenses associated with facility infrastructure and technology related to the file tracking system, electronic imaging, and common case number conversion for the Clerk of the Court. Summary Schedules Fund 208: One-time expenses associated with Exhibits Tracking Systems Integration, Electronic Document Management System Project Startup and implementation, Reimbursement Fines Restitution System evaluation, Minute Entries Electronic Distribution System enhancements, Trust System, and Debit/Credit Card System for the Clerk of the Court. Fund 210: Accumulated fund balance in the Waste Management fund will be spent down on a variety of one-time community projects. Fund 215: Reimbursement payments from the Federal Government to Emergency Management are based on the Federal fiscal year – balance carried forward results from the difference in fiscal years. Fund 220: One-time expenses associated with the Drug Diversion Media Campaign for the County Attorney. Fund 228: One-time expenses associated with training, Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision Dispatch, Temporary Pay, and Grant Supplies for Juvenile Probation. Fund 232: Increase in amount transferred to Capital Projects Fund for Transportation. Fund 236: One-time expenses associated with Ingeo Software for Digital Recording, Database Document Software, and Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Renewal for the Recorder. Fund 240: One-time expenses associated with improvements to the Lake Pleasant Regional Park. The funding has been provided through an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation with Parks and Recreation and is earmarked for approved improvement projects to the park. Fund 241: One-time capital and equipment expenses associated with the San Tan Mountains Regional Park for Parks & Recreation. Fund 244: One-time expenses associated with operating costs for the Northwest Regional Library (operational costs will be funded by the City of Surprise via an IGA in the future), and a transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund to cover a portion of the cost of a proposed New Library Administrative Building for the Library District. 66 Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) Fund 254: One-time expenses associated with the outsourcing or automation of Correctional Health Services’ existing pharmaceutical function in the Sheriff’s Office budget. Fund 255: Increase in amount transferred to Capital Projects Fund in General Government. Fund 265: One-time expenses associated with a contract employee and consultant to help the department comply with federal mandates, and the development of a surveillance system in area hospitals and urgent care centers in Public Health. Fund 269: One-time expenses associated with victim restitution for the County Attorney. Fund 504: One-time expenses associated with vehicle replacement, an information technology consultant, and a transfer to the Capital Projects Fund in Environmental Services. Fund 506: One-time expenses associated with vehicle replacement, an information technology consultant, and a transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for Environmental Services. Fund 572: One-time transfer to fund 574 to balance fund for Animal Care and Control Services. Fund 320: Accumulated fund balance from General Fund operating transfers will be expended as planned on debt service payments used to support the “pay as you go” capital improvement program. Fund 435: One-time expenses associated with capital projects. Fund 652: One-time expenses associated with consultations, property surveys, environmental remediation, and hazardous materials emergency responses (in the event that recoveries do not materialize as anticipated) for Risk Management. 67 Summary Schedules Fund 685: Reflects a one-time revenue decrease and a one-time expense associated with the settlement of a contract issue for Total Compensation. Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) Fund Designations The following schedule lists amounts designated within the estimated balances of various funds. Designations are the County’s and Districts’ self-imposed limitations on financial resources that would otherwise be available for use. The major fund balance designation is for budget stabilization. For the County General Fund, this includes an amount designated to cover cash shortfalls during the fiscal year due to the property tax collection cycle, as well as amounts set aside to cover potential worst-case scenarios in regard to the Maricopa Integrated Health System. Budget stabilization amounts related to cash flow due to the property tax collection cycle are also designated for the Flood Control and Library District operating funds, which are supported by their own secondary property tax levies. In addition to budget stabilization, an amount is designated within the County General Fund for capital improvement project spending that is included in the approved five-year Capital Improvement Program, but which will not occur until after FY 2002-03. FY 2002-03 Fund Balance Designations Fund/Designation FY 2001-02 Summary Schedules General Fund (Fund 100) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax $ MIHS Accounts Receivable MIHS Potential Losses Subtotal - Budget Stabilization $ Approved Capital Projects/County $ Improvements Fund (Fund 435) Totals $ FY 2002-03 (Inc.)/Dec. 76,000,000 $ 93,000,000 $ 13,000,000 40,000,000 76,000,000 $ 146,000,000 $ - 76,000,000 $ 4,500,000 $ (17,000,000) (1) (13,000,000) (2) (40,000,000) (3) (70,000,000) (4,500,000) (4) $ 150,500,000 $ (74,500,000) Flood Control District (Fund 991) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax $ - $ 8,000,000 $ (8,000,000) (1) $ - $ 1,700,000 $ (1,700,000) (1) Library District (Fund 244) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax (1) Based on estimate provided by the Department of Finance of the amount to eliminate the need for Tax Anticipation Notes or other forms of short-term borrowing to finance current operations. (2) Amount need to cover Maricopa Integrated Health System losses due to a potential write-down of accounts receivable, under worst-case projections. (3) Amount needed to subsidize potential operating losses in the Maricopa Integrated Health System above and beyond losses due to a write-down of accounts receivable, based on worst-case projections. (4) Amount need to fund "pay as you go" capital projects in addition to amounts already on hand from Certificates of Participation, for which funds for repayment are reserved in the County Improvement Debt Fund (Fund 320). 68 Expenditure Limitation Maricopa County expenditures are subject to limitation according to Article 9, Section 20 of the Arizona Constitution. The expenditure limitation is calculated annually by the Economic Estimates Commission based on Maricopa County’s actual expenditures in FY 1979-80, with base adjustments approved by County voters or by the Legislature. The Commission increases the base to reflect changes in population and in inflation, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflator. The normal annual expenditure limitation for Maricopa County will be further adjusted for FY 2002-03 for Disproportionate Share payments to the Maricopa Medical Center. Expenditures from “local revenues” are subject to limitation. Generally, local revenues include taxes, fees, and fines assessed by the County, but exclude revenues from intergovernmental payments, grants, proceeds of debt, and interest earnings. Maricopa County’s expenditures subject to limitation are certified by the State Auditor General, and published in an annual expenditure limitation report. When actual expenditures subject to limitation are less than the limitation, the excess capacity can be carried forward to future fiscal years. For this reason, actual expenditures are reported as $1 less than the limitation. Expenditure Limitation $ $ 789,987,771 (105,949,525) 684,038,246 FY 2002-03 Expenditures Subject to Limitation $ 684,038,245 Expenditures (Over)/Under Limitation $ 1 Summary Schedules FY 2002-03 Expenditure Limitation Est. Adjustment for Disproportionate Share Payments FY 2002-03 Adjusted Limitation 69 Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % TOTAL FUNDS JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 240 JUSTICE COURTS 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 380 SUPERIOR COURT $ Subtotal $ Summary Schedules ELECTED OFFICIAL 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 $ 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 120 ASSESSOR 140 CALL CENTER 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 320 COUNTY COUNSEL 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF 510 SHERIFF DETENTION Subtotal $ 51,066,332 15,863,792 37,515,842 47,292,003 151,737,969 $ 59,406,032 16,684,734 40,635,850 51,833,661 168,560,277 221,603 $ 204,489 208,811 203,671 218,097 14,354,297 1,221,730 23,735,924 49,170,912 9,978,332 1,482,054 (116,303) 5,480,442 1,573,130 3,475,408 61,827,743 66,358,388 239,598,728 $ 232,745 232,745 232,745 232,745 232,745 14,453,030 1,281,308 28,084,664 50,658,062 6,069,510 1,541,266 1,640,192 7,136,352 1,637,442 3,735,313 60,217,907 70,361,519 247,980,290 APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD $ 414,580 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 815,380 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7,862,318 180 FINANCE 1,881,276 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 1,172,121 220 HUMAN SERVICES 26,649,928 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 842,862 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 18,444,456 280 MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY 11,152,985 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 3,392,903 300 PARKS & RECREATION 5,419,971 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 3,390,081 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 1,703,933 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 4,005,465 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 211,706,179 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV 51,548,659 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 5,175,468 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO 1,955,612 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 6,856,925 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 437,512 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 358,879,226 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 100,886,402 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 1,372,435 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 24,535,623 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 4,160,142 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 2,155,534 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 9,798,668 600 HEALTH PLANS 392,624,442 640 TRANSPORTATION 113,738,688 660 HOUSING 16,501,035 670 SOLID WASTE 4,328,668 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 21,326,682 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 2,015,126 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 9,451,951 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 16,318,865 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 12,543,939 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 6,764,980 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 35,428,677 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 16,678,574 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 276,054,802 980 ELIMINATIONS Subtotal $ 1,790,393,074 $ $ $ $ $ 59,365,876 17,168,986 44,439,962 51,948,450 172,923,274 232,745 232,745 232,745 232,745 232,745 14,453,030 1,301,396 28,359,904 51,683,658 6,069,510 1,531,166 1,688,412 7,136,352 1,650,154 3,697,960 65,426,503 70,728,596 254,890,366 $ $ $ $ 53,658,439 16,295,566 38,433,308 50,256,874 158,644,187 224,342 209,379 217,290 207,919 224,537 14,482,021 1,252,766 26,225,675 49,386,365 5,963,585 1,517,989 1,551,957 6,154,421 1,426,911 3,425,336 61,512,108 71,946,293 245,928,894 $ $ $ $ 54,244,418 17,630,762 47,343,012 52,514,268 171,732,460 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,716,557 1,327,959 29,235,902 52,035,935 10,376,212 1,561,948 1,863,610 6,652,910 1,682,124 3,757,836 66,512,913 88,862,186 279,772,917 $ $ $ $ 56,184,531 17,186,197 46,572,310 51,352,888 171,295,926 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,791,846 1,323,313 29,531,122 51,074,918 10,135,373 1,573,243 1,672,481 6,616,478 1,651,193 3,678,416 63,809,367 76,420,529 263,465,104 $ $ $ $ $ 3,181,345 (17,211) (2,132,348) 595,562 1,627,348 5% 0% -5% 1% 1% (4,620) (4,620) (4,620) (4,620) (4,620) (338,816) (21,917) (1,171,218) 608,740 (4,065,863) (42,077) 15,931 519,874 (1,039) 19,544 1,617,136 (5,691,933) (8,574,738) -2% -2% -2% -2% -2% -2% -2% -4% 1% -67% -3% 1% 7% 0% 1% 2% -8% -3% 528,574 $ 491,574 $ 455,569 $ 496,686 $ 496,686 $ 1,005,875 1,005,875 927,971 1,184,923 1,163,890 15,871,627 15,871,627 11,627,114 15,861,375 15,861,375 2,352,408 2,268,052 1,924,119 2,277,509 2,289,162 1,455,275 1,424,020 1,238,341 1,365,656 1,458,476 28,283,047 28,283,047 28,314,735 30,998,282 30,866,842 994,722 987,222 975,863 1,003,030 1,014,158 16,882,464 17,366,711 17,416,849 19,814,513 20,009,260 11,474,510 3,152,488 3,149,035 3,693,196 3,752,627 3,472,800 3,890,591 3,888,275 11,521,578 11,255,998 8,650,887 9,214,353 9,432,036 3,736,400 3,643,100 3,549,380 3,740,533 3,844,842 1,808,600 1,793,600 1,794,080 1,823,273 1,820,125 7,156,201 8,385,598 7,446,598 9,184,803 8,973,067 223,984,503 263,041,442 265,538,401 271,482,837 347,748,310 230,637,353 230,608,218 176,608,429 240,194,041 249,325,795 5,423,007 5,268,518 5,117,416 5,310,839 5,263,577 4,682,763 4,522,101 4,331,182 4,662,643 4,541,898 7,028,230 6,915,830 6,712,639 6,991,271 8,472,868 501,900 501,900 411,313 505,966 446,622 301,223,115 291,478,382 223,671,619 246,519,228 383,767,029 201,515,068 201,886,617 101,149,975 115,938,835 220,405,332 1,690,749 1,570,749 1,556,107 1,587,360 1,587,360 27,206,028 27,994,693 28,393,175 28,810,993 28,788,065 4,712,263 4,835,294 4,810,789 4,899,052 5,077,933 2,844,347 3,694,276 3,248,691 3,864,616 3,843,681 6,327,008 5,533,466 7,503,463 5,433,718 5,411,936 424,642,202 424,610,914 441,058,377 427,049,694 429,420,684 152,159,810 152,159,810 143,505,392 185,529,663 185,529,670 11,429,508 11,429,508 11,429,507 11,435,848 11,435,849 4,707,815 4,611,104 3,026,239 3,753,794 4,171,579 23,544,869 23,457,824 22,712,427 26,582,429 26,370,075 2,221,003 2,164,649 2,175,465 2,234,694 2,241,787 9,421,424 9,379,529 8,708,367 9,034,898 8,923,046 19,051,516 18,848,902 19,233,202 23,430,820 23,398,383 11,930,097 11,390,097 13,723,115 10,989,699 12,875,220 6,718,245 6,987,627 6,908,306 7,332,508 9,349,929 44,579,837 52,659,802 39,123,714 43,288,858 43,903,415 21,313,083 22,362,184 17,581,114 20,291,032 20,448,437 269,005,582 314,901,082 310,490,320 348,182,793 399,029,048 (498,899,287) (547,869,307) (472,906,550) (507,051,350) (602,949,306) $ 1,626,366,515 $ 1,654,626,750 $ 1,486,765,535 $ 1,649,142,306 $ 1,939,946,416 $ (5,112) -1% (158,015) -16% 10,252 0% (21,110) -1% (34,456) -2% (2,583,795) -9% (26,936) -3% (2,642,549) -15% 3,152,488 100% (135,648) -4% 1,823,962 16% (201,742) -6% (26,525) -1% (587,469) -7% (84,706,868) -32% (18,717,577) -8% 4,941 0% (19,797) 0% (1,557,038) -23% 55,278 11% (92,288,647) -32% (18,518,715) -9% (16,611) -1% (793,372) -3% (242,639) -5% (149,405) -4% 121,530 2% (4,809,770) -1% (33,369,860) -22% (6,341) 0% 439,525 10% (2,912,251) -12% (77,138) -4% 456,483 5% (4,549,481) -24% (1,485,123) -13% (2,362,302) -34% 8,756,387 17% 1,913,747 9% (84,127,966) -27% 55,079,999 10% (285,319,666) -17% MARICOPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT LIBRARY DISTRICT STADIUM DISTRICT $ 2,181,729,771 $ 79,750,682 $ 9,277,831 $ 15,624,583 $ 2,042,907,082 $ 80,081,712 $ 10,496,279 $ 10,292,457 $ 2,082,440,390 $ 79,574,912 $ 10,820,031 $ 22,568,947 $ 1,891,338,616 $ 69,608,969 $ 10,006,989 $ 20,992,533 $ 2,100,647,683 $ 71,186,231 $ 12,693,085 $ 8,520,058 $ 2,374,707,446 $ 70,512,247 $ 12,602,743 $ 7,093,254 $ $ $ $ (292,267,056) 9,062,665 (1,782,712) 15,475,693 -14% 11% -16% 69% MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 2,286,382,866 $ 2,143,777,530 $ 2,195,404,280 $ 1,991,947,107 $ 2,193,047,057 $ 2,464,915,690 $ (269,511,410) -12% 70 Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 240 JUSTICE COURTS 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 380 SUPERIOR COURT $ ELECTED OFFICIAL 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 $ 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 120 ASSESSOR 140 CALL CENTER 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 320 COUNTY COUNSEL 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF Subtotal $ 221,603 $ 204,489 208,811 203,671 218,097 14,354,297 1,221,730 19,302,060 40,235,330 9,978,332 1,482,054 (116,303) 1,609,900 1,573,130 3,475,408 39,261,814 133,434,423 $ 232,745 232,745 232,745 232,745 232,745 14,453,030 1,281,308 19,968,254 39,743,453 6,069,510 1,541,266 1,640,192 1,847,713 1,637,442 3,735,313 36,831,132 129,912,338 APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD $ 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 280 MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Subtotal $ 414,580 136,354 1,881,276 1,172,121 1,310,528 842,862 11,152,985 3,392,903 1,501,019 3,390,081 1,703,933 1,039,598 211,706,179 5,175,468 144,432,386 100,886,402 1,372,435 23,218,823 4,122,360 2,155,534 9,798,668 21,326,682 1,291,013 228,096 5,317,269 677,640 559,647,196 $ 528,574 86,179 2,352,408 1,455,275 1,307,854 994,722 11,474,510 3,693,196 1,749,747 3,736,400 1,808,600 1,094,605 222,284,503 5,423,007 172,223,966 99,768,560 1,690,749 25,706,279 4,628,063 2,814,661 6,327,008 23,544,869 1,362,142 304,041 5,872,998 763,914 602,996,830 $ 769,712,926 $ 812,987,134 MARICOPA COUNTY $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 12,094,117 15,766,611 10,917,573 41,607,540 80,385,841 232,745 232,745 232,745 232,745 232,745 14,453,030 1,301,396 20,305,951 40,589,307 6,069,510 1,531,166 1,688,412 1,847,713 1,650,154 3,697,960 37,811,831 132,110,155 $ 491,574 86,179 2,268,052 1,424,020 1,307,854 987,222 3,152,488 3,752,627 1,741,747 3,643,100 1,793,600 1,141,658 261,841,442 5,268,518 164,223,983 100,795,360 1,570,749 26,433,918 4,751,094 3,664,590 5,533,466 23,457,824 1,307,871 304,041 5,947,181 728,415 627,618,573 $ 840,114,569 $ $ $ $ $ 11,803,518 15,309,720 10,532,920 41,701,009 79,347,167 224,342 209,379 217,290 207,919 224,537 14,482,021 1,252,766 19,266,982 39,309,053 5,963,585 1,517,989 1,551,957 1,838,424 1,426,911 3,425,336 37,767,028 128,885,519 $ 455,569 74,257 1,924,119 1,238,341 1,286,921 975,863 3,149,035 3,472,800 1,510,808 3,549,380 1,794,080 1,090,731 264,038,401 5,117,416 142,444,245 12,916,873 1,556,107 26,439,132 4,734,016 3,241,271 7,503,463 22,712,427 1,369,448 304,041 5,836,520 713,539 519,448,803 $ 727,681,489 $ $ $ $ $ 12,333,645 16,228,386 10,986,553 42,284,006 81,832,590 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,716,557 1,327,959 21,929,525 41,064,462 10,376,212 1,561,948 1,863,610 1,884,271 1,682,124 3,757,836 40,344,302 141,695,631 $ 496,686 84,282 2,277,509 1,365,656 1,312,359 1,003,030 3,890,591 2,343,352 3,740,533 1,823,273 1,168,883 270,282,837 5,310,839 177,805,325 12,521,067 1,587,360 26,861,876 4,819,104 3,849,774 5,433,718 26,582,429 1,331,448 426,357 5,988,138 739,799 563,046,225 $ 786,574,446 $ $ $ $ $ 14,210,964 15,710,924 11,608,350 41,595,611 83,125,849 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,791,846 1,323,313 21,020,241 40,679,726 10,135,373 1,573,243 1,672,481 1,870,954 1,651,193 3,678,416 37,139,909 136,723,520 $ $ $ $ $ (2,116,847) 55,687 (690,777) 11,929 (2,740,008) -18% 0% -6% 0% -3% (4,620) (4,620) (4,620) (4,620) (4,620) (338,816) (21,917) (714,290) (90,419) (4,065,863) (42,077) 15,931 (23,241) (1,039) 19,544 671,922 (4,613,365) -2% -2% -2% -2% -2% -2% -2% -4% 0% -67% -3% 1% -1% 0% 1% 2% -3% $ 496,686 77,108 2,289,162 1,458,476 1,267,103 1,014,158 3,888,275 1,740,404 3,844,842 1,820,125 1,044,491 345,248,310 5,263,577 202,842,329 94,560,954 1,587,360 27,216,686 4,997,933 3,828,839 5,411,936 26,370,075 1,380,984 304,041 6,362,882 737,332 745,054,068 $ (5,112) -1% 9,071 11% (21,110) -1% (34,456) -2% 40,751 3% (26,936) -3% 3,152,488 100% (135,648) -4% 1,343 0% (201,742) -6% (26,525) -1% 97,167 9% (83,406,868) -32% 4,941 0% (38,618,346) -24% 6,234,406 6% (16,611) -1% (782,768) -3% (246,839) -5% (164,249) -4% 121,530 2% (2,912,251) -12% (73,113) -6% 0% (415,701) -7% (8,917) -1% (117,435,495) -19% $ 964,903,437 $ (124,788,868) -15% 71 Summary Schedules $ 12,134,273 15,494,859 10,956,082 41,492,752 80,077,966 Subtotal $ 11,619,103 14,876,927 10,577,639 39,557,638 76,631,307 Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE / DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACT. FY 2002-03 REQUESTED Adopted vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL REVENUE JUDICIAL 110 ADULT PROBATION 201 ADULT PROBATION FEES 211 ADULT PROBATION GRANTS Summary Schedules Dept Total 240 JUSTICE COURTS 204 JUSTICE CT JUDICIAL ENHANCEMNT 245 JUSTICE COURT ENHANCEMENT 246 JUSTICE COURTS GRANTS Dept Total 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 227 JUVENILE COURT GRANTS 228 JUVENILE COURT SPECIAL FEES 229 JUVENILE RESTITUTION FUND 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 275 JUVENILE PROBATION DIVERSION Dept Total 380 SUPERIOR COURT 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 238 SUPERIOR COURT GRANTS 256 PROBATE FEES 257 CONCILIATION COURT FEES 258 COURT AUTOMATED SERVICES 259 SUPERIOR COURT SPECIAL REVENUE 261 LAW LIBRARY FEES 264 SUPERIOR COURT FILL THE GAP 280 OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION 281 CHILDREN'S ISSUES EDUCATION 282 DOM REL MEDIATION EDUCATION 748 JUROR IMPROVEMENT Dept Total $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,363,674 34,083,555 39,447,229 507,302 479,563 986,865 13,632,832 906,838 12,137,561 260,972 26,938,203 $ 613,313 1,315,621 276,201 1,460,206 555,800 1,499,872 1,071,748 852,481 5 89,118 7,734,365 JUDICIAL SUBTOTAL $ 75,106,662 1,081,420 606,034 990,116 996,394 165,334 103,755 469,721 21,090 4,433,864 ELECTED 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 205 COURT DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 216 CLERK OF THE COURT GRANTS 218 CLERK OF COURT FILL THE GAP 258 COURT AUTOMATED SERVICES 270 CHILD SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT 271 EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT 272 CHILD SUPPORT AUTOMATION 273 VICTIM LOCATION 274 CLERK OF THE COURT EDMS Dept Total 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 213 COUNTY ATTORNEY RICO 219 COUNTY ATTORNEY GRANTS 220 DIVERSION 221 COUNTY ATTORNEY FILL THE GAP 266 CHECK ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 267 CRIM JUSTICE ENHANCEMENT 268 VICTIM COMP AND ASSISTANCE 269 VICTIM COMP RESTITUTION INT Dept Total 360 RECORDER 236 RECORDER'S SURCHARGE Dept Total 500 SHERIFF 203 SHERIFF DONATIONS 251 SHERIFF GRANTS 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total 510 SHERIFF DETENTION 251 SHERIFF GRANTS 252 INMATE SERVICES 254 INMATE HEALTH SERVICES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total 72 $ $ $ $ $ 783,383 5,003,121 337,065 575,865 798,698 1,411,873 25,077 500 8,935,582 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,797,825 38,473,934 47,271,759 695,977 493,898 1,189,875 14,504,816 1,155,887 50,000 13,089,617 224,905 29,025,225 $ 600,000 1,698,719 388,577 1,658,261 549,977 2,433,352 800,000 2,057,334 10,000 20,000 124,689 10,340,909 $ 87,827,768 $ 1,631,087 1,600,000 1,515,019 1,800,001 343,900 270,642 783,524 118,974 53,263 8,116,410 $ $ $ 1,300,000 5,040,800 1,076,388 791,266 1,010,566 1,575,953 77,285 42,351 10,914,609 3,870,542 3,870,542 $ $ 2,880,519 19,685,410 22,565,929 $ $ $ $ 1,631,313 4,683,855 7,197 60,036,023 66,358,388 ELECTED SUBTOTAL $ 106,164,305 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,797,825 38,473,934 47,271,759 672,977 463,898 265,500 1,402,375 18,197,057 1,155,887 50,000 13,239,997 224,905 32,867,846 $ 600,000 1,698,720 388,577 1,658,261 549,977 2,433,352 800,000 2,057,334 10,000 20,000 124,689 10,340,910 $ 91,882,890 $ 1,631,087 1,600,000 1,515,019 1,800,000 343,900 220,642 783,524 118,974 40,807 8,053,953 $ $ $ 1,300,000 4,720,542 876,834 1,291,266 1,074,140 1,725,083 92,387 14,099 11,094,351 5,288,639 5,288,639 $ $ 100,000 4,415,377 18,871,398 23,386,775 $ $ $ $ 1,056,262 5,700,000 60,000 61,839,475 68,655,737 $ 116,362,170 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10,528,269 31,326,652 41,854,921 509,566 390,567 85,713 985,846 13,978,469 1,042,661 5,000 12,326,925 197,148 27,550,203 $ 538,278 1,295,585 294,140 1,576,713 439,355 1,763,555 794,885 1,714,430 5,002 11,881 122,041 8,555,865 $ 78,946,835 $ 1,387,029 1,425,000 1,222,639 1,676,206 211,833 135,000 345,692 78,339 21,264 455,691 6,958,693 $ $ $ 1,000,000 4,817,709 564,408 1,198,656 845,636 1,544,286 66,617 40,000 10,077,312 5,288,639 5,288,639 $ $ 100,000 6,916,971 20,597,701 27,614,672 $ $ $ $ 1,947,349 5,700,000 60,000 61,315,465 69,022,814 $ 121,074,429 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,773,741 32,137,032 41,910,773 672,977 463,900 265,499 1,402,376 18,700,728 1,114,526 50,000 15,412,628 298,329 35,576,211 $ 599,999 1,424,970 388,575 1,658,261 549,976 2,433,354 800,000 2,220,438 10,000 20,000 124,689 10,230,262 $ 89,119,622 $ 1,514,867 1,150,000 1,668,421 1,800,000 295,000 200,000 622,481 14,894 40,714 7,306,377 $ $ $ 649,973 4,859,485 830,000 1,525,000 1,032,015 1,800,000 75,000 200,000 10,971,473 4,315,997 4,315,997 $ $ 29,999 4,677,346 19,037,735 23,745,080 $ $ $ $ 1,726,578 6,577,841 7,988 62,334,825 70,647,232 $ 115,744,314 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,687,839 33,285,728 41,973,567 759,873 463,900 251,500 1,475,273 17,852,661 1,154,482 50,000 14,784,146 342,425 34,183,714 $ $ $ $ $ $ -13% 0% 5% -5% 344,396 1,405 (1,544,149) (117,520) (1,315,868) 2% 0% 0% -12% -52% -4% 0% 20% 0% 6% 0% -31% 0% 53% 0% 0% 0% $ $ 342,720 1 101,621 1 (760,004) 1,099,294 (200,000) 583,633 $ 87,389,831 $ 4,493,059 $ 1,507,254 1,252,990 1,668,421 1,800,000 234,164 192,875 399,569 14,894 40,714 1,400,000 8,510,881 $ 123,833 347,010 (153,402) 109,736 27,767 383,955 104,080 93 (1,400,000) (456,928) $ $ $ 1,300,000 4,859,485 1,000,000 442,216 718,491 1,800,000 75,000 200,000 10,395,192 $ 4,768,639 4,768,639 $ $ 4,745,524 4,745,524 $ $ 105,000 4,109,906 21,953,705 26,168,611 $ 16,400 5,043,757 21,609,301 26,669,458 $ $ $ $ 1,109,346 5,858,139 60,000 80,128,919 87,156,404 $ 136,371,504 $ $ 1% 13% 11% (86,896) (2) 14,000 (72,898) 600,000 1,356,000 388,576 1,556,640 549,976 3,193,356 800,000 958,040 10,000 20,000 124,689 200,000 9,757,277 $ $ 109,986 5,188,206 5,298,192 6% 5% 8% 22% -10% 0% 32% 13% 49% 87% 0% -6% 0% (138,943) -3% (123,166) -14% 849,050 66% 355,649 33% (74,917) -4% 17,387 19% (185,901) -1319% 699,159 6% 543,115 543,115 10% 10% 83,600 1,873,214 (1,011,600) 945,214 84% 27% -5% 3% 15% -50% -161% -5% -8% -3% $ $ 1,662,610 8,550,688 156,800 64,344,649 74,714,747 $ 284,739 (2,850,688) (96,800) (3,029,184) (5,691,933) $ 125,035,802 $ (3,961,373) Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE / DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACT. FY 2002-03 REQUESTED Adopted vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL REVENUE APPOINTED 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 207 PALO VERDE 215 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST $ Dept Total $ 220,601 458,425 679,026 $ Dept Total $ 7,862,318 7,862,318 $ $ $ 220 HUMAN SERVICES 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS $ $ $ 227,669 692,027 919,696 $ $ 15,871,627 15,871,627 25,339,400 25,339,400 $ $ 18,363,102 81,354 18,444,456 $ $ $ 82,814 42,349 47,516 2,112,153 1,623,722 10,398 3,918,952 $ $ $ 227,669 692,027 919,696 $ $ 15,871,627 15,871,627 26,975,193 26,975,193 $ $ 16,809,552 72,912 16,882,464 $ $ $ 490,455 78,750 30,000 7,305,220 1,855,906 11,500 9,771,831 - $ $ $ $ 1,955,612 1,955,612 $ $ 6,720,381 136,544 6,856,925 $ $ 437,512 437,512 $ $ 53,128 110,475,675 110,528,803 $ $ $ $ $ 11,627,114 11,627,114 26,975,193 26,975,193 $ $ 17,293,798 72,913 17,366,711 $ $ $ 1,700,000 1,700,000 $ $ $ $ 4,682,763 4,682,763 $ $ 6,899,782 128,448 7,028,230 $ $ 501,900 501,900 $ $ 288,758 10,721,425 7,858,546 18,868,729 - $ $ 322,240 380,487 614,073 1,316,800 $ $ $ 37,782 37,782 $ $ $ $ $ 15,861,375 15,861,375 27,027,814 27,027,814 $ $ 17,343,764 73,085 17,416,849 $ $ $ 1,200,000 1,200,000 $ $ $ $ 4,522,101 4,522,101 $ $ 6,787,382 128,448 6,915,830 $ $ 501,900 501,900 $ $ 288,758 10,721,425 7,013,796 18,023,979 101,746,508 101,746,508 $ $ 382,000 315,485 802,264 1,499,749 $ $ $ 49,200 35,000 84,200 - $ $ $ $ 41,587,220 41,587,220 $ $ 851,218 46,409,362 47,260,580 $ $ 16,501,035 16,501,035 $ $ (9,666) (157,420) (167,086) $ $ 15,861,375 15,861,375 $ $ 10,252 10,252 29,685,923 29,685,923 $ $ 29,599,739 29,599,739 $ $ (2,624,546) (2,624,546) 18,767,361 1,047,152 19,814,513 $ 18,767,325 1,047,152 19,814,477 $ $ $ (1,473,527) -9% (974,239) -1336% (2,447,766) -14% $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ $ $ $ 4,331,182 4,331,182 $ $ 6,609,038 103,601 6,712,639 $ $ 411,313 411,313 $ $ 137,869 2,100,000 3,493,380 5,731,249 101,091,257 101,091,257 $ $ 382,000 376,511 802,264 1,560,775 $ $ $ 49,200 35,000 84,200 29,686 29,686 $ $ $ $ 1,732,351 1,732,351 $ $ 300,000 95,842,163 96,142,163 $ $ 11,429,508 11,429,508 $ 0% 0% -10% -10% $ 1,200,000 1,200,000 $ $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 $ $ (1,300,000) (1,300,000) -108% -108% $ $ 4,662,643 4,662,643 $ $ 4,541,898 4,541,898 $ $ (19,797) (19,797) 0% 0% $ $ $ 8,339,004 133,864 8,472,868 $ $ 6,857,407 133,864 6,991,271 $ (1,551,622) (5,416) (1,557,038) -23% -4% -23% $ $ 505,966 505,966 $ $ 446,622 446,622 $ $ $ $ $ 3,906,314 17,766,301 8,829,000 30,501,615 $ $ 249,731 17,766,301 5,979,000 23,995,032 $ (3,617,556) -1253% (7,044,876) -66% (1,815,204) -26% (12,477,636) -69% 88,233,102 88,233,102 $ $ 103,417,768 103,417,768 $ $ 125,844,378 125,844,378 $ $ (24,753,121) (24,753,121) -24% -24% 306,880 354,597 1,292,566 1,954,043 $ $ $ 350,000 405,511 815,868 1,571,379 $ $ 349,989 405,463 1,193,665 1,949,117 $ 32,000 (29,000) (13,604) (10,604) 8% -8% -2% -1% $ 38,300 38,473 76,773 $ 40,000 39,948 79,948 $ 40,000 40,000 80,000 $ 9,200 (5,000) 4,200 19% -14% 5% 29,686 29,686 $ $ 7,420 7,420 $ $ 14,842 14,842 $ $ 14,842 14,842 $ $ 14,844 14,844 50% 50% $ $ 1,701,063 1,701,063 $ $ 1,701,063 1,701,063 $ $ 1,789,823 1,789,823 $ $ 1,812,463 1,812,463 $ $ (111,400) (111,400) -7% -7% $ $ $ 682,000 100,540,927 101,222,927 $ $ 682,000 100,557,152 101,239,152 $ $ 92,354,220 92,354,220 $ $ 300,000 95,842,163 96,142,163 $ (382,000) (4,698,764) (5,080,764) -127% -5% -5% $ $ 11,429,508 11,429,508 $ $ 11,429,507 11,429,507 $ $ 11,435,848 11,435,848 $ $ 11,435,849 11,435,849 $ $ (6,341) (6,341) 0% 0% $ $ $ -4% -23% -18% $ $ $ $ 415,553 416,926 21,000 4,090,768 2,415,885 331,500 7,691,632 $ $ $ 237,335 849,447 1,086,782 415,553 423,391 30,000 4,111,990 1,826,882 63,185 6,871,001 $ $ $ 241,351 859,290 1,100,641 347,496 10,307 20,126 4,885,695 1,871,721 4,734 7,140,079 $ $ $ 218,276 635,438 853,714 432,875 78,750 30,000 7,305,220 1,655,906 11,500 9,514,251 $ $ $ $ 17,322 4% (338,176) -429% 9,000 30% 3,214,452 44% (759,979) -46% (320,000) -2783% 1,822,619 19% 55,278 55,278 11% 11% 73 Summary Schedules Dept Total 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 292 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH GRANT Dept Total 300 PARKS & RECREATION 225 SPUR CROSS RANCH CONSERVATION 230 PARKS & REC. GRANTS 239 PARKS SOUVENIR FUND 240 LAKE PLEASANT RECREATION SVCS 241 PARKS ENHANCEMENT FUND 243 PARKS DONATIONS FUND Dept Total 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES 235 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANTS Dept Total 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 260 RESEARCH & REPORTING Dept Total 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 210 WASTE MANAGEMENT 249 GENERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 209 PUBLIC DEFENDER TRAINING 233 PUBLIC DEFENDER GRANTS 262 PUBLIC DEFENDER FILL THE GAP Dept Total 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 209 PUBLIC DEFENDER TRAINING 263 LEGAL DEFENDER FILL THE GAP Dept Total 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 209 PUBLIC DEFENDER TRAINING Dept Total 600 HEALTH PLANS 248 SAIL GRANTS Dept Total 640 TRANSPORTATION 223 TRANSPORTATION GRANTS 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS Dept Total 660 HOUSING 295 HOUSING GRANTS Dept Total $ Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE / DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACT. FY 2002-03 REQUESTED Adopted vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL REVENUE APPOINTED (Continued) 670 SOLID WASTE 290 WASTE TIRE $ Dept Total $ 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER 573 ANIMAL CONTROL GRANTS 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION Dept Total 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS Dept Total 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 504 AIR QUALITY FEES 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH Dept Total $ $ $ 3,850,296 3,850,296 $ $ 3,777,732 3,777,732 $ $ 2,221,067 2,221,067 $ $ 2,916,000 2,916,000 $ $ 3,472,515 3,472,515 $ $ 4,436,128 2,159 2,098,597 6,536,884 $ 4,541,886 1,872,318 6,414,204 $ 4,497,030 2,186,556 6,683,586 $ 4,607,995 1,996,270 6,604,265 $ 4,559,907 2,346,244 6,906,151 $ 6,700,083 2,345,805 9,045,888 $ 2,725,452 27,385,956 30,111,408 $ APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ $ $ $ $ 338,370,543 $ $ Dept Total $ 22,921,641 22,921,641 APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT 242 LIBRARY DISTRICT GRANTS $ 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT Dept Total $ APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ $ $ $ $ 385,387,106 $ $ $ 69,635,420 69,635,420 22,921,641 $ 88,386 9,189,445 9,277,831 $ 9,277,831 5,732,399 2,776,537 8,508,936 $ APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ 8,508,936 $ 560,349,919 $ MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 2,833,264 43,879,357 46,712,621 5,964,691 5,649,287 10,019,791 21,633,769 Dept Total $ $ 2,833,265 35,873,574 38,706,839 5,964,690 4,564,688 10,019,791 20,549,169 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 250 COUNTY STADIUM DISTRICT 253 MLB STADIUM OPERATION $ $ $ 4,403,093 3,433,744 8,164,097 16,000,934 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 991 FLOOD CONTROL Summary Schedules $ 2,994,897 2,994,897 $ $ $ $ 2,565,220 30,721,974 33,287,194 $ 4,680,192 4,023,827 8,163,556 16,867,575 392,657,648 $ $ $ 69,128,620 69,128,620 69,635,420 $ $ $ 109,822 10,386,457 10,496,279 $ 10,496,279 $ 5,819,282 3,070,175 8,889,457 $ $ 8,889,457 $ 678,598,200 $ $ $ $ 2,640,460 34,660,260 37,300,720 $ 6,345,734 3,719,080 9,486,419 19,551,233 337,488,182 $ $ $ 68,572,566 68,572,566 69,128,620 $ $ $ 198,377 10,621,654 10,820,031 $ 10,820,031 $ 5,809,283 9,360,175 15,169,458 $ $ 15,169,458 $ 700,733,076 $ $ $ $ 3,082,585 34,457,948 37,540,533 $ $ $ $ 305,217 305,217 8% 8% (2,203,053) (159,249) (2,362,302) -49% -7% -35% (249,321) 9,421,409 9,172,088 -9% 21% 20% -6% 34% 3% 9% $ 6,313,697 3,719,080 9,678,328 19,711,105 $ (349,006) 1,930,207 341,463 1,922,664 397,288,967 $ 432,268,887 $ (39,611,239) -10% $ $ 71,586,231 71,586,231 $ $ 70,807,750 70,807,750 $ $ (1,679,130) (1,679,130) -2% -2% 68,572,566 $ 71,586,231 $ 70,807,750 $ (1,679,130) -2% $ $ 25,000 12,577,743 12,602,743 $ $ 25,000 12,668,085 12,693,085 $ $ 191,255 9,815,734 10,006,989 $ 173,377 (1,956,089) (1,782,712) 87% -18% -16% $ 10,006,989 $ 12,693,085 $ 12,602,743 $ (1,782,712) -16% $ 5,647,391 8,754,631 14,402,022 $ 5,576,269 3,464,807 9,041,076 $ $ 109,371 3,464,807 3,574,178 $ $ $ 5,699,912 5,895,368 11,595,280 98% 63% 76% $ 14,402,022 $ 9,041,076 $ 3,574,178 $ 11,595,280 76% $ 625,160,908 $ 716,100,485 $ 731,679,191 $ (30,946,115) -4% CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE / DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACT. FY 2002-03 REQUESTED Adopted vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY DEBT SERVICE APPOINTED 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICING $ 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT Dept Total $ 25,941,675 25,941,675 $ 22,160,035 21,966,823 44,126,858 $ 22,160,035 21,966,823 44,126,858 $ 21,655,552 25,045,497 46,701,049 $ - $ 21,347,350 18,293,455 39,640,805 $ 812,685 3,673,368 4,486,053 4% 17% 10% $ $ $ $ $ $ APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ 25,941,675 $ 44,126,858 $ 44,126,858 $ 46,701,049 $ - $ 39,640,805 $ 4,486,053 10% 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 $ 371 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-1993A 373 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-1993B 375 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-PEORIA 377 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-1996 378 MESA SUBORDINATE DEBT 379 MARYVALE SUBORDINATE DEBT Dept Total $ 633,025 739,648 2,381,055 603,428 664,333 664,333 5,685,821 $ $ $ 4,240,094 4,240,094 $ $ 635,700 738,488 2,379,990 591,928 560,396 560,396 5,466,898 $ $ 634,525 734,978 2,378,502 597,678 615,168 615,168 5,576,019 $ $ 634,525 734,978 2,378,503 597,678 681,863 681,863 5,709,410 $ $ 634,525 734,978 2,378,503 597,678 681,863 681,863 5,709,410 $ (4,240,094) 634,525 734,978 2,378,503 597,678 681,863 681,863 1,469,316 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 26% APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ 5,685,821 $ 5,709,410 $ 5,709,410 $ 5,576,019 $ 5,466,898 $ 4,240,094 $ 1,469,316 26% $ 31,627,496 $ 49,836,268 $ 49,836,268 $ 52,277,068 $ 5,466,898 $ 43,880,899 $ 5,955,369 12% MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS 74 Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE / DEPARTMENT FY 2000-01 ACTUAL FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACT. FY 2002-03 REQUESTED Adopted vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY - $ $ 654,543 654,543 $ $ 654,543 654,543 $ $ 350,185 350,185 $ $ 780,248 780,248 $ $ 780,246 780,246 $ $ (125,703) (125,703) -19% -19% JUDICIAL SUBTOTAL $ - $ 654,543 $ 654,543 $ 350,185 $ 780,248 $ 780,246 $ (125,703) -19% ELECTED 510 SHERIFF DETENTION 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ Dept Total $ - $ $ 1,705,782 1,705,782 $ $ 1,705,782 1,705,782 $ $ 1,299,061 1,299,061 $ $ 1,705,782 1,705,782 $ $ 1,705,782 1,705,782 $ $ - 0% 0% ELECTED SUBTOTAL $ - $ 1,705,782 $ 1,705,782 $ 1,299,061 $ 1,705,782 $ 1,705,782 $ - 0% $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ 194,783 194,783 $ $ (194,783) (194,783) $ $ 51,548,659 51,548,659 $ $ 230,637,353 230,637,353 $ $ 230,608,218 230,608,218 $ $ 176,608,429 176,608,429 $ $ 240,194,041 240,194,041 $ $ 249,325,795 249,325,795 $ $ (18,717,577) (18,717,577) -8% -8% $ $ $ 21,915,097 88,867,183 110,782,280 $ $ 17,640,884 27,077,987 44,718,871 $ $ 1,935,301 26,859,775 28,795,076 $ $ 2,100,000 63,003,562 65,103,562 $ $ 66,003,562 66,003,562 $ $ 77,976,362 77,976,362 $ (19,815,097) (25,863,621) (45,678,718) -944% -41% -70% $ $ 66,478,108 66,478,108 $ $ 56,017,647 56,017,647 $ $ 56,017,647 56,017,647 $ $ 51,151,172 51,151,172 $ $ 84,290,511 84,290,511 $ $ 84,306,743 84,306,743 $ $ (28,289,096) (28,289,096) -51% -51% APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ 196,003,129 $ 352,658,562 $ 351,729,427 $ 256,554,677 $ 369,203,423 $ 444,609,601 $ (92,880,174) -26% 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS $ Dept Total $ 56,829,041 56,829,041 $ $ 57,946,292 57,946,292 $ $ 57,946,292 57,946,292 $ $ 48,536,403 48,536,403 $ $ 48,600,000 48,600,000 $ $ 48,704,497 48,704,497 $ $ 9,241,795 9,241,795 16% 16% APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT 440 LIBRARY DIST CAPITAL PROJECTS $ Dept Total $ 56,829,041 $ 57,946,292 $ 57,946,292 $ 48,536,403 $ 48,600,000 $ 48,704,497 $ 9,241,795 16% - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 $ $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 $ $ (1,102,200) (1,102,200) APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 $ (1,102,200) 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 410 STADIUM DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION $ 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE Dept Total $ 1,427,325 2,500 1,429,825 $ $ $ 1,000,000 3,000 1,003,000 $ $ 1,000,000 3,000 1,003,000 $ $ 7,188,012 6,002,500 13,190,512 $ $ 7,996,489 6,003,000 13,999,489 $ $ 2,000,000 3,000 2,003,000 $ 6,996,489 6,000,000 12,996,489 87% 100% 93% APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ 1,429,825 $ 2,003,000 $ 13,999,489 $ 13,190,512 $ 1,003,000 $ 1,003,000 $ 12,996,489 93% $ 254,261,995 $ 414,968,179 $ 426,035,533 $ 319,930,838 $ 422,394,653 $ 497,905,326 $ (71,869,793) -17% APPOINTED 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Dept Total 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Dept Total 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND Dept Total 640 TRANSPORTATION 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Dept Total MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE / DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACT. FY 2002-03 REQUESTED Adopted vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY ENTERPRISE APPOINTED 600 HEALTH PLANS 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 561 HEALTH SELECT 566 SENIOR SELECT PLAN 570 HEALTH PLAN ADMINISTRATION Dept Total 670 SOLID WASTE 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Dept Total 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Dept Total $ $ 75,791,274 275,014,275 231,673 351,037,222 $ $ 1,333,771 1,333,771 $ $ APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ $ $ 103,296,188 268,538,320 5,116,083 35,047,636 10,911,624 422,909,851 $ $ 857,519 857,519 276,054,802 276,054,802 $ $ 628,425,795 $ $ $ 103,296,188 268,538,320 5,116,083 35,047,636 10,911,624 422,909,851 $ $ 833,372 833,372 269,005,582 269,005,582 $ $ 692,772,952 $ $ $ 106,708,526 270,630,107 9,692,700 52,325,981 439,357,314 $ $ 805,172 805,172 314,901,082 314,901,082 $ $ 738,644,305 $ $ $ 104,605,320 248,707,122 10,057,680 61,889,749 425,259,871 $ $ 837,794 837,794 310,490,320 310,490,320 $ $ 750,652,806 $ $ $ 104,605,320 251,055,472 10,057,680 61,889,749 427,608,221 $ (1,309,132) 17,482,848 (4,941,597) (26,842,113) 10,911,624 (4,698,370) $ $ $ 699,064 699,064 $ $ 348,182,793 348,182,793 $ $ 399,029,048 399,029,048 $ $ (84,127,966) (84,127,966) -27% -27% 774,280,458 $ 827,336,333 $ (88,692,028) -12% 134,308 134,308 -1% 7% -97% -77% 100% -1% 16% 16% 75 Summary Schedules CAPITAL PROJECTS JUDICIAL 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ Dept Total $ Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE / DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACT. FY 2002-03 REQUESTED Adopted vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY INTERNAL SERVICE APPOINTED 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 685 BENEFITS TRUST $ Dept Total $ 2,965,867 2,965,867 $ $ 6,061,596 6,061,596 $ $ 7,243,940 7,243,940 $ $ 6,355,867 6,355,867 $ $ 8,015,920 8,015,920 $ $ 7,928,576 7,928,576 $ $ (684,636) (684,636) -9% -9% $ Dept Total $ 724,113 724,113 $ $ 858,861 858,861 $ $ 856,778 856,778 $ $ 806,017 806,017 $ $ 903,246 903,246 $ $ 860,803 860,803 $ $ (4,025) (4,025) 0% 0% $ Dept Total $ 9,451,951 9,451,951 $ $ 9,421,424 9,421,424 $ $ 9,379,529 9,379,529 $ $ 8,708,367 8,708,367 $ $ 9,034,898 9,034,898 $ $ 8,923,046 8,923,046 $ $ $ 488,803 15,830,062 16,318,865 $ $ 609,127 22,821,693 23,430,820 $ $ 609,128 18,624,074 19,233,202 $ $ 609,128 18,239,774 18,848,902 $ $ 800,000 18,251,516 19,051,516 $ Dept Total $ $ 609,127 22,789,256 23,398,383 $ 1 (4,549,482) (4,549,481) 0% -25% -24% $ Dept Total $ 12,543,939 12,543,939 $ $ 11,930,097 11,930,097 $ $ 11,390,097 11,390,097 $ $ 13,723,115 13,723,115 $ $ 10,989,699 10,989,699 $ $ 12,875,220 12,875,220 $ $ (1,485,123) (1,485,123) -13% -13% APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ 42,004,735 $ 47,323,494 $ 47,719,246 $ 48,826,568 $ 52,374,583 $ 53,986,028 $ (6,266,782) -13% 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 673 REPROGRAPHICS 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 652 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 675 RISK MANAGEMENT 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS $ 456,483 456,483 5% 5% CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE / DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACT. FY 2002-03 REQUESTED FY 2002-03 ADOPTED Adopted vs Revised Variance % MARICOPA COUNTY Summary Schedules ELIMINATIONS APPOINTED 980 ELIMINATIONS 900 ELIMINATIONS $ - $ (498,899,287) $ (547,869,307) $ (472,906,550) $ (507,051,350) $ (602,949,306) $ 55,079,999 10% APPOINTED SUBTOTAL $ - $ (498,899,287) $ (547,869,307) $ (472,906,550) $ (507,051,350) $ (602,949,306) $ 55,079,999 10% $ Dept Total $ - $ $ 3% 3% $ Dept Total $ - $ $ $ Dept Total $ - $ $ $ - $ (552,708,697) $ (607,678,717) $ (532,582,570) $ (564,144,466) $ (654,775,524) $ 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 900 ELIMINATIONS 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT 900 ELIMINATIONS 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 900 ELIMINATIONS MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS 76 (47,500,000) $ (47,500,000) $ - $ $ (6,309,410) $ (6,309,410) $ (47,500,000) $ (47,500,000) $ - $ $ (12,309,410) $ (12,309,410) $ (47,500,000) $ (47,500,000) $ (49,000,000) $ (49,000,000) $ (49,000,000) $ (49,000,000) $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 (12,176,020) $ (12,176,020) $ (6,990,916) $ (6,990,916) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,724,018) $ (10,585,392) (10,585,392) - 47,096,807 -86% -86% 8% Consolidated Expenditures by Department and Fund Type CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT AND FUND TYPE FY 2002-03 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 240 JUSTICE COURTS 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 380 SUPERIOR COURT $ 14,210,964 15,710,924 11,608,350 41,595,611 Subtotal $ 83,125,849 ELECTED OFFICIAL 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 $ 237,365 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 237,365 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 237,365 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 237,365 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 237,365 120 ASSESSOR 14,791,846 140 CALL CENTER 1,323,313 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 21,020,241 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 40,679,726 210 ELECTIONS 10,135,373 250 CONSTABLES 1,573,243 320 COUNTY COUNSEL 1,672,481 360 RECORDER 1,870,954 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 1,651,193 430 TREASURER 3,678,416 500 SHERIFF 37,139,909 510 SHERIFF DETENTION Subtotal $ 136,723,520 $ DEBT SERVICE 41,973,567 1,475,273 34,183,714 9,757,277 87,389,831 $ 8,510,881 10,395,192 4,745,524 26,669,458 74,714,747 125,035,802 $ $ $ 1,086,782 15,861,375 29,599,739 19,814,477 7,691,632 2,500,000 4,541,898 8,472,868 446,622 30,501,615 125,844,378 1,571,379 80,000 14,842 1,812,463 101,222,927 11,435,849 3,472,515 9,045,888 37,540,533 19,711,105 432,268,887 39,640,805 $ 39,640,805 $ $ $ $ CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,705,782 1,705,782 $ $ 194,783 249,325,795 110,782,280 84,306,743 $ 444,609,601 $ 427,608,221 699,064 399,029,048 $ 827,336,333 $ 7,928,576 860,803 8,923,046 23,398,383 12,875,220 $ 53,986,028 $ $ 39,640,805 $ 447,095,629 $ 827,336,333 $ 53,986,028 $ (602,949,306) $ 2,374,707,446 - $ 48,704,497 $ - $ - $ (49,000,000) $ 70,512,247 - $ 1,102,200 $ - $ - $ (1,102,200) $ 12,602,743 $ 1,003,000 $ - $ - $ (1,724,018) $ 7,093,254 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 964,903,437 $ 644,694,520 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ - $ 70,807,750 $ LIBRARY DISTRICT $ - $ 12,602,743 $ STADIUM DISTRICT $ - $ 3,574,178 $ MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 964,903,437 $ 731,679,191 - $ 4,240,094 $ 43,880,899 $ $ $ 497,905,326 $ $ - $ - $ TOTAL FUNDS ELIMINATIONS $ $ $ INTERNAL SERVICE 780,246 780,246 $ - ENTERPRISE $ 827,336,333 $ $ - $ - $ $ 53,986,028 $ $ - $ - $ $ $ 56,184,531 17,186,197 46,572,310 51,352,888 171,295,926 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,791,846 1,323,313 29,531,122 51,074,918 10,135,373 1,573,243 1,672,481 6,616,478 1,651,193 3,678,416 63,809,367 76,420,529 263,465,104 $ 496,686 1,163,890 15,861,375 2,289,162 1,458,476 30,866,842 1,014,158 20,009,260 3,888,275 9,432,036 3,844,842 1,820,125 8,973,067 347,748,310 249,325,795 5,263,577 4,541,898 8,472,868 446,622 383,767,029 220,405,332 1,587,360 28,788,065 5,077,933 3,843,681 5,411,936 429,420,684 185,529,670 11,435,849 4,171,579 26,370,075 2,241,787 8,923,046 23,398,383 12,875,220 9,349,929 43,903,415 20,448,437 399,029,048 (602,949,306) (602,949,306) $ (602,949,306) $ 1,939,946,416 $ (654,775,524) $ 2,464,915,690 77 Summary Schedules APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD $ 496,686 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 77,108 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 2,289,162 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 1,458,476 220 HUMAN SERVICES 1,267,103 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 1,014,158 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 3,888,275 300 PARKS & RECREATION 1,740,404 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 3,844,842 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 1,820,125 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 1,044,491 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 345,248,310 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 5,263,577 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 202,842,329 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 94,560,954 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 1,587,360 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 27,216,686 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 4,997,933 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 3,828,839 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 5,411,936 600 HEALTH PLANS 640 TRANSPORTATION 660 HOUSING 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 26,370,075 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 1,380,984 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 304,041 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 6,362,882 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 737,332 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 980 ELIMINATIONS Subtotal $ 745,054,068 SPECIAL REVENUE Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS FY 2000-01 Actual Summary Schedules TOTAL FUNDS PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Sub Total $ FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % 524,737,556 $ 8,758,013 14,445,853 77,730,076 1,027,424 (17,990,240) 16,270,947 624,979,629 $ 521,028,466 $ 6,607,522 11,546,890 116,724,122 23,737,259 (31,518,005) 25,588,858 673,715,112 $ 537,924,291 $ 6,342,165 11,269,587 114,756,882 17,503,332 (36,661,164) 29,683,623 680,818,716 $ 525,047,717 $ 7,693,985 11,665,807 112,273,194 11,576,488 (33,119,225) 25,137,503 660,275,469 $ 553,591,660 $ 7,166,566 12,477,222 133,209,399 7,613,188 (44,426,903) 31,997,871 701,629,003 $ (15,667,369) (824,401) (1,207,635) (18,452,517) 9,890,144 7,765,739 (2,314,248) (20,810,287) -3% $ -13% -11% -16% 57% 21% -8% -3% $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 88,153,063 $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 381,650,434 803 FUEL 3,167,834 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 9,043,445 810 LEGAL SERVICES 18,696,316 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 10,350,046 812 OTHER SERVICES 156,876,932 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 20,600,228 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 21,541,017 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 212,396,479 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 39,778,281 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 6,542,023 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 377,188 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 457,753 850 UTILITIES 18,492,155 855 INTEREST EXPENSE 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT 393,753,853 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS (24,772) Sub Total $ 1,381,852,273 $ 44,964,664 $ 48,989,662 3,099,972 5,523,747 33,580,093 349,939,827 185,488,611 24,405,253 20,604,106 193,522,718 (2,413,342) 7,860,273 3,303,045 (9,469,165) 21,448,619 35,000 299,905 931,182,988 $ 50,362,557 $ 54,324,712 3,015,907 9,798,394 27,003,964 141,987,164 186,156,847 23,906,463 20,804,780 241,963,755 (2,871,577) 7,819,664 3,137,708 186,314,428 19,914,143 3,737,840 11,327,769 988,704,518 $ 44,100,637 $ 59,635,548 $ 46,962,451 51,920,268 2,678,173 2,794,576 8,309,876 12,864,853 25,294,124 25,566,204 152,522,708 166,398,289 149,276,471 156,108,588 22,889,526 22,863,065 19,136,117 22,771,154 238,371,363 251,414,667 (3,787,776) (1,959,146) 6,943,813 7,823,263 4,216,635 4,677,820 180,628,243 178,805,586 21,198,447 21,057,115 4,697,045 6,659,751 16,048,939 1,861 923,439,714 $ 1,005,450,540 $ (9,272,991) 2,404,444 221,331 (3,066,459) 1,437,760 (24,411,125) 30,048,259 1,043,398 (1,966,374) (9,450,912) (912,431) (3,599) (1,540,112) 7,508,842 (1,142,972) (2,921,911) (4,721,170) (16,746,022) -18% 4% 7% -31% 5% -17% 16% 4% -9% -4% -32% 0% -49% 4% -6% -78% -42% CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Sub Total $ 16,412,112 432,723,076 9,548,272 8,503,907 6,540,225 65,151,838 538,879,430 8,068,500 388,972,297 6,974,589 10,206,941 42,718,236 68,940,483 525,881,046 12,067,775 259,526,858 12,124,767 6,988,477 47,984,455 69,539,592 408,231,924 (4,680,500) -58% $ 70,460,952 18% (2,314,867) -33% 1,781,534 17% (78,556,775) -184% 53,223,188 77% 39,913,532 8% $ 34,131,205 169,324,864 14,315,358 7,912,113 45,803,287 271,486,827 Fund Total $ 2,278,318,729 78 $ $ $ 2,143,777,530 $ $ $ 2,195,404,280 $ $ $ 1,991,947,107 $ 12,749,000 318,511,345 9,289,456 8,425,407 121,275,011 15,717,295 485,967,514 $ $ 2,193,047,057 $ $ $ 2,357,223 FY 2002-03 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance 556,079,849 $ 6,782,540 10,947,509 129,936,513 20,847,863 (47,056,471) 32,524,746 710,062,549 $ 70,682,209 52,208,620 2,716,960 8,112,811 37,620,450 159,833,116 228,419,801 23,677,779 22,507,098 317,499,410 (4,303,619) 6,961,143 4,937,826 178,936,478 21,954,255 8,300,201 -2% $ 1,140,064,538 $ 12,749,000 398,393,877 18,611,099 7,948,336 122,395,740 54,690,551 614,788,603 $ $ 0% $ 2,464,915,690 $ (18,155,558) (440,375) 322,078 (15,179,631) (3,344,531) 10,395,307 (2,841,123) (29,243,833) % -3% -7% 3% -13% -19% 28% -10% -4% (20,319,652) -40% 2,116,092 4% 298,947 10% 1,685,583 17% (10,616,486) -39% (17,845,952) -13% (42,262,954) -23% 228,684 1% (1,702,318) -8% (75,535,655) -31% 1,432,042 50% 858,521 11% (1,800,118) -57% 7,377,950 4% (2,040,112) -10% (4,562,361) -122% 11,327,769 100% (151,360,020) -15% (4,680,500) -58% (9,421,580) -2% (11,636,510) -167% 2,258,605 22% (79,677,504) -187% 14,249,932 21% (88,907,557) -17% (269,511,410) -12% Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 Adopted 206,548,328 $ 4,307,870 6,675,493 39,618,185 374,247 (17,425,748) 368,275 240,466,650 $ 217,551,559 $ 2,462,178 2,938,069 46,749,123 10,157,169 (22,576,013) 940,067 258,222,152 $ 217,234,521 $ 2,231,843 2,723,643 45,201,768 3,991,179 (21,323,592) 1,005,050 251,064,412 $ 211,799,963 $ 3,199,029 1,720,646 44,433,017 1,791,511 (21,215,168) 835,002 242,564,000 $ 216,604,296 $ 2,691,492 2,955,169 50,923,091 1,688,339 (23,264,562) 968,940 252,566,765 $ 630,225 (459,649) (231,526) (5,721,323) 2,302,840 1,940,970 36,110 (1,502,353) SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 855 INTEREST EXPENSE 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS Sub Total $ 6,888,893 491,300 1,822,486 4,172,991 13,417,378 1,218,670 21,467,898 11,087,777 7,740,261 204,250,020 14,671,815 3,386,156 99,868 406,030 7,637,528 193,719,560 492,478,630 9,759,543 557,361 908,661 1,625,657 28,952,148 7,401,354 48,190,680 10,238,354 7,119,622 177,210,632 15,428,746 3,225,749 2,069,721 741,031 7,914,538 35,000 201,117,148 522,495,945 10,159,717 534,957 860,957 964,960 21,749,254 5,770,957 40,965,008 9,506,477 7,160,649 225,806,717 15,361,237 3,150,651 2,421,563 738,861 7,517,535 86,768 201,454,066 554,210,334 10,332,825 $ 541,253 933,407 262,987 21,073,899 2,697,033 15,625,991 9,630,341 5,995,302 226,329,403 15,502,856 2,905,834 2,742,486 589,087 7,755,716 131,401,180 (3,381) 454,316,219 $ 10,097,856 588,755 973,341 523,820 21,398,133 9,849,904 37,265,039 10,407,264 7,615,895 234,625,398 17,287,870 3,335,129 3,151,884 501,071 9,478,198 138,882,587 505,982,144 61,861 1% (53,798) -10% (112,384) -13% 441,140 46% 351,121 2% (4,078,947) -71% 3,699,969 9% (900,787) -9% (455,246) -6% (8,818,681) -4% (1,926,633) -13% (184,478) -6% (730,321) -30% 237,790 32% (1,960,663) -26% 86,768 100% 62,571,479 31% 48,228,190 9% $ 19,573,530 516,755 885,974 240,155 33,633,477 7,432,098 86,407,544 10,399,595 7,248,502 300,097,913 17,144,469 3,127,188 3,373,333 599,463 9,357,636 175,132,587 675,170,219 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Sub Total $ 13,106,000 8,556,853 2,410,278 4,630,378 28,703,509 $ (744,974) -5% 1,335,020 82% 1,448,815 25% 2,642,499 100% 2,132,926 24% 6,814,286 20% $ 17,224,681 683,433 3,856,649 1,000,000 8,471,509 31,236,272 Fund Total $ 761,648,789 964,903,437 $ $ $ $ 16,297,950 1,411,984 4,276,852 3,100,000 7,182,251 32,269,037 $ 812,987,134 $ $ $ $ 15,767,950 1,635,770 5,885,792 2,642,499 8,907,812 34,839,823 $ 840,114,569 $ $ $ $ 2,750 14,291,720 1,581,355 3,779,475 2,642,499 8,503,471 30,801,270 $ 727,681,489 $ $ $ $ 16,512,924 300,750 4,436,977 6,774,886 28,025,537 $ $ $ 786,574,446 $ 53,540,123 0% $ -21% -9% -13% 58% 9% 4% -1% $ 6% $ Adopted vs Revised Variance 217,718,943 $ 2,612,908 1,576,803 49,069,804 9,919,222 (23,839,934) 1,439,200 258,496,946 $ $ $ % (484,422) 0% (381,065) -17% 1,146,840 42% (3,868,036) -9% (5,928,043) -149% 2,516,342 12% (434,150) -43% (7,432,534) -3% (9,413,813) -93% 18,202 3% (25,017) -3% 724,805 75% (11,884,223) -55% (1,661,141) -29% (45,442,536) -111% (893,118) -9% (87,853) -1% (74,291,196) -33% (1,783,232) -12% 23,463 1% (951,770) -39% 139,398 19% (1,840,101) -24% 86,768 100% 26,321,479 13% (120,959,885) -22% $ (1,456,731) 952,337 2,029,143 1,642,499 436,303 3,603,551 -9% 58% 34% 62% 5% 10% $ (124,788,868) -15% 79 Summary Schedules GENERAL FUND PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Sub Total $ Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS Summary Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance SPECIAL REVENUE PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Sub Total $ 174,036,463 $ 4,349,455 7,473,962 35,824,588 608,618 (564,492) 15,772,392 237,500,985 $ 189,207,942 $ 3,951,683 2,709,835 46,369,314 8,122,123 (8,405,577) 20,719,657 262,674,977 $ 203,136,908 $ 3,917,277 2,660,593 47,166,453 8,121,268 (14,690,225) 18,549,439 268,861,713 $ 189,157,083 $ 4,387,196 2,487,634 44,222,224 6,347,570 (11,385,538) 18,244,376 253,460,545 $ 201,251,666 $ 4,303,318 2,375,137 52,554,119 3,292,783 (11,908,527) 20,509,498 272,377,994 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS Sub Total $ 32,007,629 $ 41,572,393 1,209,461 5,023,280 1,160,312 9,274,899 63,526,269 6,119,163 7,057,410 8,146,459 14,125,478 3,017,945 272,659 257,230 1,891,362 110,097,596 (24,772) 304,734,774 $ 24,712,878 7,591,462 2,111,688 3,658,230 2,393,981 6,723,195 68,530,288 9,891,779 7,704,482 16,110,827 13,944,965 3,727,893 327,750 5,682,417 2,715,663 191,198,869 367,026,367 28,785,826 12,709,781 2,119,899 3,884,105 2,065,074 5,835,599 70,931,246 10,246,084 8,348,236 15,970,779 13,906,953 3,700,308 386,420 5,675,517 2,824,296 193,298,869 380,688,992 22,017,104 6,322,564 1,662,951 2,773,156 978,589 9,108,671 57,904,943 7,830,693 7,177,244 11,842,479 14,057,845 3,157,686 960,661 5,558,851 2,916,971 193,698,244 5,242 347,973,894 38,012,789 2,965,745 1,731,948 6,827,673 943,436 7,933,470 57,315,168 7,093,360 8,992,606 16,597,402 14,830,047 3,558,977 977,630 5,563,076 2,580,506 236,233,595 412,157,428 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Sub Total $ 80,895 5,596,570 5,320,728 5,497,286 1,618,681 18,114,160 Fund Total $ 560,349,919 $ $ 175,000 37,182,420 4,585,985 4,069,905 778,000 2,105,546 48,896,856 $ 678,598,200 $ $ $ $ 17,500 34,044,919 4,847,819 4,193,999 8,078,134 51,182,371 $ 700,733,076 $ $ $ $ 10,392,916 3,464,474 2,622,216 7,246,863 23,726,469 $ 625,160,908 $ $ $ $ 16,326,987 8,955,706 3,905,544 636,000 1,740,826 31,565,063 $ 716,100,485 1,885,242 (386,041) 285,456 (5,387,666) 4,828,485 (2,781,698) (1,960,059) (3,516,281) $ FY 2002-03 Adopted % 1% $ -10% 11% -11% 59% -19% -11% -1% $ 201,406,337 $ 4,067,379 2,230,988 50,880,220 7,685,269 (11,068,899) 21,797,554 276,998,848 $ (9,226,963) -32% 9,744,036 77% 387,951 18% (2,943,568) -76% 1,121,638 54% (2,097,871) -36% 13,616,078 19% 3,152,724 31% (644,370) -8% (626,623) -4% (923,094) -7% 141,331 4% (591,210) -153% 112,441 2% 243,790 9% (42,934,726) -22% (31,468,436) -8% $ $ $ 100% $ 52% -85% 7% $ 17,500 17,717,932 (4,107,887) 288,455 (636,000) 6,337,308 19,617,308 $ (15,367,409) Adopted vs Revised Variance 37,019,558 3,015,588 1,748,734 2,276,536 797,338 7,936,103 78,243,900 8,154,076 9,034,159 17,209,630 14,538,809 2,935,128 1,022,402 5,563,076 2,571,834 231,271,796 423,338,667 1,730,571 (150,102) 429,605 (3,713,767) 435,999 (3,621,326) (3,248,115) (8,137,135) 78% 38% $ $ -2% $ 731,679,191 $ 1% -4% 16% -8% 5% -25% -18% -3% (8,233,732) -29% 9,694,193 76% 371,165 18% 1,607,569 41% 1,267,736 61% (2,100,504) -36% (7,312,654) -10% 2,092,008 20% (685,923) -8% (1,238,851) -8% (631,856) -5% 765,180 21% (635,982) -165% 112,441 2% 252,462 9% (37,972,927) -20% (42,649,675) -11% $ 12,823,662 11,609,739 3,978,583 636,000 2,293,692 31,341,676 % $ 17,500 100% 21,221,257 62% (6,761,920) -139% 215,416 5% (636,000) 5,784,442 72% 19,840,695 39% (30,946,115) -4% CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % Adopted vs Revised Variance % DEBT SERVICE PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES & SERVICES 880 TRANSFERS OUT Sub Total $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE 80 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 200,000 $ (200,000) (200,000) Sub Total $ 31,627,496 31,627,496 $ 49,836,268 49,836,268 $ 49,836,268 49,836,268 $ 52,277,068 52,277,068 $ 5,466,898 5,466,898 $ 44,369,370 44,369,370 89% 89% $ 43,680,899 43,680,899 $ 6,155,369 6,155,369 12% 12% Fund Total $ 31,627,496 $ 49,836,268 $ 49,836,268 $ 52,277,068 $ 5,466,898 $ 44,369,370 89% $ 43,880,899 $ 5,955,369 12% Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted CAPITAL PROJECTS PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Sub Total $ 1,743,432 23,317 27,758 291,336 2,085,843 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT Sub Total $ 5,980,808 48,011 144,313 21,043,447 101,678 4,708 114,543 261 19 3,158 38,740,925 66,181,871 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Sub Total $ 34,050,310 150,620,089 437,777 886,105 185,994,281 $ Fund Total $ 254,261,995 $ FY 2001-02 Revised 727,341 $ 27,045 155,655 35,787 (503,280) 3,929,134 4,371,682 $ 156,642 99,110 31,684,135 138,400 68,482 20,593 1,000 5,600 32,173,962 $ $ $ 16,237,112 359,180,650 52,000 2,662,225 290,548 378,422,535 $ 414,968,179 $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act 795,573 $ 24,173 166,800 35,787 (579,785) 10,129,134 10,571,682 $ 156,642 99,110 21,659,883 138,400 68,482 20,593 1,000 5,600 6,000,000 28,149,710 $ $ $ 8,051,000 339,129,428 5,000 52,000 40,075,737 976 387,314,141 $ 426,035,533 $ FY 2002-03 Requested 1,964,067 $ 12,591 12,991 357,086 66 (510,074) 6,057,235 7,893,962 $ 1,006,626 24,173 205,152 25,500 1,292,531 2,553,982 $ 315,318 1,500 61,500 30,000 4,500 148,060 203,828 21,600 2,000 9,600 797,906 $ $ $ 66,628 1 31,791 14,942,946 135,333 615 30,320 11,624 334 5,393 6,000,000 21,224,985 $ $ $ 12,065,025 233,401,580 45,341,956 3,330 290,811,891 $ 12,749,000 285,641,434 120,639,011 13,320 419,042,765 $ 319,930,838 $ 422,394,653 $ $ Requested vs Revised Variance $ $ $ (211,053) (38,352) 10,287 (579,785) 8,836,603 8,017,700 (158,676) (1,500) 37,610 (30,000) 21,655,383 (9,660) (135,346) (1,007) (1,000) (4,000) 6,000,000 27,351,804 FY 2002-03 Adopted % -27% $ 0% -23% 29% -100% 87% 76% $ 2,211,718 $ 24,173 461,658 (2,750,707) 61,090 7,932 $ -198% -5% -100% -71% 100% 97% $ 3,000 3,000 (4,698,000) -58% $ 53,487,994 16% 5,000 100% 52,000 100% (80,563,274) -201% (12,344) -1265% (31,728,624) -8% $ 12,749,000 364,321,334 51,000 120,759,740 13,320 497,894,394 $ 497,905,326 $ 3,640,880 -101% Adopted vs Revised Variance 38% 100% -7% 1% $ $ $ % (1,416,145) (294,858) 35,787 2,170,922 10,068,044 10,563,750 -178% 0% 156,642 99,110 21,656,883 138,400 68,482 20,593 1,000 5,600 6,000,000 28,146,710 100% -177% 100% 374% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (4,698,000) -58% (25,191,906) -7% 5,000 100% 1,000 2% (80,684,003) -201% (12,344) -1265% (110,580,253) -29% (71,869,793) -17% Summary Schedules 81 Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS FY 2000-01 Actual ENTERPRISE PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Sub Total $ 137,413,500 17,004 33,345 1,021,609 2,561 138,488,019 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 855 INTEREST EXPENSE 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT Sub Total $ FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance % 111,321,458 $ 67,000 5,668,881 21,084,991 5,355,098 (67,562) 143,429,866 $ 116,853,754 $ 23,499 7,303,980 22,101,251 3,398,390 (8,445) (18,400) 149,654,029 $ 129,201,781 $ 71,200 6,959,531 28,200,236 2,606,566 (9,253,814) 9,148,912 166,934,412 $ (17,880,323) -16% $ (4,200) -6% (1,290,650) -23% (7,115,245) -34% 2,748,532 51% 9,186,252 13597% (9,148,912) (23,504,546) -16% $ 129,291,715 $ 25,500 6,952,182 28,234,875 3,211,792 (9,396,931) 9,148,912 167,468,045 $ (17,970,257) -16% 41,500 62% (1,283,301) -23% (7,149,884) -34% 2,143,306 40% 9,329,369 13809% (9,148,912) (24,038,179) -17% 37,825,391 $ 339,586,741 72,047 4,545 (143,523) 38,330,801 2,092,972 3,040,541 7,877,488 4,575 (205,507) 4,079,495 50,370,700 482,936,266 $ 5,348,249 40,840,839 63,472 410,465,190 20,958,833 3,024,448 3,266,613 11,259 6,098,003 737,488 901,274 6,632,828 41,080 24,060,664 522,450,240 $ 6,226,205 41,079,974 20,000 4,754,470 204,280,520 37,965,363 2,910,730 2,871,058 11,259 5,972,297 836,978 325,975 195,823,155 5,401,722 3,651,072 11,068,944 69,956,164 593,155,886 $ 6,999,888 40,098,633 14,705 5,180,192 52,000 188,175,388 45,359,861 3,351,708 3,450,292 21,950 6,412,466 759,912 502,174 187,915,654 4,652,445 4,697,045 93,625,369 591,269,682 $ 6,751,449 48,365,768 20,000 5,376,160 5,000 203,188,078 41,146,300 3,381,737 3,875,604 16,867 7,813,002 802,173 540,056 186,084,300 5,210,025 6,659,751 15,381,019 71,088,307 605,705,596 (525,244) (7,285,794) (621,690) (5,000) 1,092,442 (3,180,937) (471,007) (1,004,546) (5,608) (1,840,705) 34,805 (214,081) 9,738,855 191,697 (3,008,679) (4,312,075) (1,132,143) (12,549,710) 1% -8% -16% -35% -50% -31% 4% -66% 5% 4% -82% -39% -2% -2% $ 8,509,353 48,676,277 14,705 5,520,420 203,188,078 41,060,118 3,381,737 3,850,952 16,867 7,843,506 800,443 536,141 186,116,800 5,215,187 8,300,201 126,978,376 650,009,161 $ (2,283,148) (7,596,303) 5,295 (765,950) 1,092,442 (3,094,755) (471,007) (979,894) (5,608) (1,871,209) 36,535 (210,166) 9,706,355 186,535 (4,649,129) 11,068,944 (57,022,212) (56,853,275) 1% -8% -16% -34% -50% -31% 4% -64% 5% 3% -127% 100% -82% -10% CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Sub Total $ 2,205 4,549 6,994,756 7,001,510 $ 19,982,056 2,921,080 5,709,625 28,612,761 $ 2,058,553 2,058,553 $ 1,409,642 6,348,217 521,116 1,450,120 9,729,095 $ 1,640,450 1,640,450 $ 20% 20% $ 3,994,200 5,829,927 35,000 9,859,127 $ (3,994,200) (5,829,927) (35,000) 2,058,553 (7,800,574) 100% -379% Fund Total $ 628,425,795 $ 692,772,952 $ 738,644,305 $ 750,652,806 $ 774,280,458 $ -5% $ 827,336,333 $ (88,692,028) -12% Summary Schedules 108,253,651 $ 77,000 5,668,875 22,321,380 5,422,180 (33,135) 141,709,951 $ 82 $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ $ $ 418,103 418,103 (35,636,153) -8% -18% 0% -13% -37% -18% 26% -16% Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS FY 2000-01 Actual INTERNAL SERVICE PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Sub Total $ FY 2001-02 Adopted 4,995,833 60,368 235,295 974,358 44,559 127,719 6,438,132 $ $ 5,287,973 89,616 230,111 1,128,650 6,736,350 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT Sub Total $ 5,450,342 $ 63,840 (205,382) 3,974,312 12,508,517 1,198,638 3,698,097 2,988,957 133,085 4,642 4,880,612 825,072 35,520,732 $ 4,987,352 16,151 140,750 2,233,964 2,400,000 18,524,675 1,112,272 2,513,389 190,000 1,817,096 148,550 3,300 107,387 4,179,990 258,825 1,111,470 39,745,171 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Sub Total $ 45,871 45,871 Fund Total $ 42,004,735 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ 5,435,831 101,872 216,470 1,136,870 6,891,043 $ 5,034,167 15,051 95,749 3,189,636 2,400,000 18,217,691 1,104,772 2,424,837 175,000 1,795,346 111,134 2,750 76,895 4,164,990 258,825 1,111,470 40,178,313 $ 80,000 629,223 105,150 27,600 841,973 $ 47,323,494 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 5,272,850 71,670 140,556 1,159,616 38,951 19,290 6,702,933 $ $ $ 4,684,192 67,110 61,750 3,189,636 1,200,000 18,545,802 1,941,451 2,513,279 176,916 1,758,239 108,757 10,980 5,867,922 1,111,470 41,237,504 $ 30,000 486,000 75,150 58,740 649,890 $ 47,719,246 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ 5,527,291 76,383 187,385 1,326,801 77,990 7,195,850 $ 4,458,136 67,787 75,700 3,189,635 2,600,000 22,977,581 1,832,644 2,287,049 175,000 1,836,850 105,384 6,250 3,778,786 667,920 893,210 44,951,932 $ 31,000 730,721 65,670 58,740 886,131 $ 30,000 33,000 82,886 80,915 226,801 $ 48,826,568 $ 52,374,583 Requested vs Revised Variance $ $ $ $ (91,460) 25,489 29,085 (189,931) (77,990) (304,807) % -2% $ 25% 13% -17% FY 2002-03 Adopted -4% $ 5,451,136 52,580 187,536 1,289,956 31,580 77,990 7,090,778 576,031 11% (52,736) -350% 20,049 21% 1 0% (200,000) -8% (4,759,890) -26% (727,872) -66% 137,788 6% 0% (41,504) -2% 5,750 5% (3,500) -127% 76,895 100% 386,204 9% (409,095) -158% 218,260 20% (4,773,619) -12% $ 5,579,768 67,547 75,700 3,189,635 25,305,239 1,742,371 2,373,485 175,000 1,803,173 98,384 5,950 4,809,598 893,165 46,119,015 Adopted vs Revised Variance $ $ (15,305) 49,292 28,934 (153,086) (31,580) (77,990) (199,735) % 0% 48% 13% -13% -3% $ (545,601) -11% (52,496) -349% 20,049 21% 1 0% 2,400,000 100% (7,087,548) -39% (637,599) -58% 51,352 2% 0% (7,827) 0% 12,750 11% (3,200) -116% 76,895 100% (644,608) -15% 258,825 100% 218,305 20% (5,940,702) -15% 0% (2,000) 0% 48,046 64% (172,391) -293% (126,345) -19% $ 453,000 (7,736) (22,175) 423,089 0% 93% -10% -38% 65% $ 30,000 488,000 27,104 231,131 776,235 $ $ (4,655,337) -10% $ 53,986,028 $ (6,266,782) -13% FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance % ELIMINATIONS PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES & SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 880 TRANSFERS OUT Sub Total $ - - $ (77,049,912) (2,400,000) (39,770,634) (16,000,000) (417,488,151) (552,708,697) $ (76,299,912) (3,582,344) (39,975,892) (16,000,000) (471,820,569) (607,678,717) $ (48,658,384) (3,103,072) (41,549,502) (13,435,349) (425,836,263) (532,582,570) $ (57,173,163) (2,600,000) (43,930,743) (13,342,861) (447,097,699) (564,144,466) $ (19,126,749) -25% (982,344) -27% 3,954,851 10% (2,657,139) -17% (24,722,870) -5% (43,534,251) -7% $ (58,723,163) (2,600,000) (45,633,576) (13,342,861) (534,475,924) (654,775,524) $ $ (552,708,697) $ (607,678,717) $ (532,582,570) $ (564,144,466) $ (43,534,251) (654,775,524) $ (17,576,749) -23% (982,344) -27% 5,657,684 14% (2,657,139) -17% 62,655,355 13% 47,096,807 8% CAPITAL OUTLAY Fund Total $ -7% $ 47,096,807 8% 83 Summary Schedules CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS General Government Expenditure Summary FY 2001-02 Adopted Description DEPARTMENT 470 - GENERAL GOVERNMENT FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Projected Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted General Fund (100) Summary Schedules 4711 - Contingency General Contingency Reserved Items Chief Information Officer Clerk of the Superior Court: Docketing Staff NWSC Clerk of the Superior Court: EDMS Clerk of the Superior Court: NW Regional Court County Attorney: CAIS Programmer County Attorney: Data Entry Night Shift County Attorney: Electronic Crimes Program County Attorney: Health Care Services Court Appointed Counsel: Caseload Court Appointed Counsel: Caseload (Civil) Employee Initiatives Facilities Management: Janitorial Contract Helicopter Payoff Justice Courts: Pending Leases Materials Management: Procurement Trainer New Admin. Services Building Office of Contract Counsel: Additional Costs Parks and Recreation: Park Police Retirement Salary Adjustment Contingency Sheriff: Overtime Superior Court: Pretrial Svcs. Staff Superior Court: Court Reporters Superior Court: NW Reg. Court - Operating State Budget Cuts Technology Reserve Total Compensation: CY 2003 Fixed Ben. Increase Subtotal 4712 - Other General Fund Programs Article V Procurement Base-level Internal Service Charges Board NW Regional Facilities Charge Board Resolution (9/11 Reward Fund) Citizens Tax Education Clerk of the Superior Court: NW Regional Court Correctional Health Overrun Customer Satisifaction Survey Emergency Management: Disaster Relief Human Resources Peak Performers Jail Excise Tax Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Office of Contract Counsel Overrun Parks and Recreation: Equip. Purchase from McDot Public Works Administrative Charges Security Bldg. Mgmt. Contract/Lease Sheriff: Equipment for Wrecked Vehicles Special Master Superior Court: NW Regional Court Vector Control Vehicle Replacement West Tempe Justice Court (Moving & Equipment) Subtotal 84 $ 14,427,096 $ 9,483,745 $ - $ 19,988,251 $ (10,504,506) $ 50,000 1,597,094 300,000 75,000 341,225 371,371 2,680,937 676,552 150,000 $ 50,000 1,597,094 277,000 18,149 142,309 154,738 2,680,937 676,552 150,000 700,000 26,266 45,197 172,045 2,441,447 366,240 18,981,719 $ - $ 50,000 100,000 6,700,000 98,392 3,000,000 300,000 1,934,137 500,000 4,780,754 37,451,534 $ 50,000 (50,000) 1,597,094 277,000 18,149 142,309 154,738 (100,000) 2,680,937 676,552 (6,700,000) 150,000 700,000 26,266 45,197 (98,392) (3,000,000) 172,045 2,441,447 66,240 (1,934,137) (500,000) (4,780,754) (18,469,815) 13,107,154 5,280 10,000 200,000 23,000 89,000 50,000 75,338 101,523,880 50,800 45,816 27,000 100,000 282,723 68,726 5,390,142 200,000 121,248,859 $ 100,000 14,856,873 5,280 10,000 350,000 89,000 50,000 100,000 120,866,924 13,447 7,500 100,000 100,000 100,000 3,691,649 140,440,673 $ $ $ $ 26,266 45,197 172,045 7,000,000 366,240 258,685 250,000 282,723 29,070,431 13,107,154 5,280 200,000 125,000 50,000 101,186,962 45,816 84,215 3,833,202 118,637,629 $ $ $ $ $ 13,107,154 5,280 200,000 23,000 1,400,000 45,000 75,338 101,523,880 1,000,000 50,800 45,816 261,211 3,589,149 200,000 121,526,628 $ $ $ $ $ (100,000) (1,749,719) (150,000) 23,000 (24,662) (19,343,044) 50,800 32,369 19,500 (100,000) 282,723 (31,274) 1,698,493 200,000 (19,191,814) General Government Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2001-02 Adopted Description FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Projected Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 4713 - Debt Service/Cap. Lease $ 5,894,104 $ 5,894,104 $ 5,847,604 $ 6,392,749 $ (498,645) 4721 - Dues and Memberships $ 284,752 $ 284,752 $ 150,565 $ 237,804 $ 46,948 4722 - Taxes and Assessments $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 89,188 $ 98,778 $ (8,778) 4724 - Consultants $ 2,315,003 $ 2,310,003 $ 1,747,654 $ 2,296,334 $ 13,669 4726 - Tuition Reimbursement $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,164,869 $ 1,500,000 $ (200,000) 4732 - Major Maintenance $ 9,522,271 $ 9,064,770 $ 7,503,546 $ 7,949,681 $ 4741 - Tax Appeal Cases $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 644,542 $ 1,300,000 $ 4742 - Judgements $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 463,293 $ 500,000 $ 4743 - Outside Legal Counsel $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,258,772 $ 1,500,000 $ $ $ $ 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 40,000 $ $ 2,632 6,600 9,232 $ $ 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 40,000 $ $ 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 $ - 4771 - Indigent Burials $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 328,576 $ 400,000 $ - 4774 - Non-Profit Funding Genomics Project Other Non-Profit Funding $ $ $ 1,000,000 1,139,776 2,139,776 $ $ 1,114,776 1,114,776 $ $ 1,114,776 1,114,776 $ $ 1,114,776 1,114,776 4775 - Accommodation Schools $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ - 4776 - Cooperative Extension $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ - Total General Fund $ 172,223,966 $ 164,223,983 $ 142,444,245 $ 202,842,329 $ (38,618,346) 4751 - District 1 4752 - District 2 4753 - District 3 4754 - District 4 4755 - District 5 4756 - Summer Youth/Scholarship 4757 - Illegal Dumping Program 4758 - Mobile Comm. Council Requests 4758 - Potential Fee Increases (Environmental, Public Adult Prob., Planning & Development) Total Waste Management Fund $ 20,509 24,261 27,628 26,763 11,099 20,000 100,000 58,498 $ 20,509 24,261 27,628 26,763 11,099 20,000 100,000 58,498 $ 10,253 15,629 13,812 13,380 5,549 49,998 29,248 $ 20,325 32,504 39,371 36,706 22,842 100,000 58,498 $ 184 (8,243) (11,743) (9,943) (11,743) 20,000 - 4750 - District Special Projects District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Subtotal $ (600,000) 200,000 (1,000,000) (25,000) (1,025,000) Waste Management Fund (210) $ 288,758 $ 288,758 $ 137,869 $ 3,596,068 3,906,314 $ (3,596,068) (3,617,556) 4711 - State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) $ 10,721,425 $ 10,721,425 $ 2,100,000 $ 17,766,301 $ (7,044,876) General Government Grants Fund (249) 85 Summary Schedules Subtotal 1,115,089 General Government Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2001-02 Adopted Description FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Projected Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted Detention Fund (255) 4711 - Contingency Contingency - Detention Fund Operating $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 2,000,000 $ $ $ - $ $ 1,500,000 150,000 200,000 3,850,000 $ $ 350,000 21,546 200,000 2,571,546 $ $ 1,500,000 350,000 21,546 200,000 4,071,546 $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ 100,000 100,000 $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ $ 3,287,000 $ 3,942,250 $ 3,393,380 $ 4,479,000 $ (536,750) $ 7,858,546 $ 7,013,796 $ 3,493,380 $ 8,829,000 $ (1,815,204) Bond Debt Servicing Fund (312) 4710 - Debt Service $ 22,160,035 $ 22,160,035 $ 21,655,552 $ 21,347,350 $ 812,685 County Improvement Debt Fund (320) 4710 - County Improvement Debt $ 21,966,823 $ 21,966,823 $ 25,045,497 $ 18,293,455 $ 3,673,368 County Improvement Fund (435) Capital Projects 4713 - Infrastructure Systems $ 66,003,562 $ 63,003,562 $ 26,859,775 $ 88,867,183 $ (25,863,621) Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (422) 4713 - Intergovernmental Capital Projects $ $ 2,100,000 $ 1,935,301 $ 21,915,097 $ (19,815,097) $ 291,478,382 $ 223,671,619 $ 383,767,029 $ (92,288,647) Reserved Items Compensation Reserve Correctional Health: Pharmaceutical Increase ICJIS: Info. Security Officer Sheriff: Overtime Sheriff: Repairs and Maintenance Sheriff: Sexually Violent Predator Mandate Subtotal 4712 - Other Detention Fund Programs Sheriff: Recruiting Expenses Subtotal 4732 - Major Maintenance Summary Schedules Total Detention Fund Total All Funds 86 $ 301,223,115 $ $ - (1,500,000) 350,000 21,546 (150,000) (200,000) 200,000 (1,278,454) - Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary FY 2001-02 Adopted Description FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Projected Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted DEPARTMENT 480 - APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE General Fund (100) 4811 - Contingency General Contingency $ Reserved Items County Attorney: CAIS Enhancements Facility Start-Up Contingency HR/Financial System Upgrades Materials Management: E-Procurement Pre-Paid Enterprise Software License Relocations Sheriff: Central Service Complex Voice System Sheriff: Records Management System Superior Court: NW Reg. Court - Start-Up Telecommunications: Capital Projects Technology Projects Subtotal 4813 - Infrastructure/CIP Transfer to Bond Debt Servicing Fund (312) Transfer to Intergov. Capital Projects Fund (422) Transfer to County Improvement Fund (435) Wittell Phone System (carryover) Subtotal 4824 - Consultants Childcare Survey Funding Carryover Homeless Campus Study Carryover Space Planning Aperture Consultant FMD $ $ $ $ 4832 - Major Maintenance Total General Fund 406,400 270,089 14,000 230,000 75,500 1,808,657 172,149 20,449 31,105 873,000 3,901,349 $ $ $ $ 81,740,523 828,118 82,568,641 $ $ $ 11,250 25,000 160,000 196,250 $ $ $ $ Subtotal 156,900 586,641 145,000 2,343,100 3,231,641 $ - 145,000 1,562,718 1,707,718 406,400 296,887 48,000 14,000 230,000 155,246 156,900 170,000 550,000 150,000 292,638 40,000 1,808,657 1,000,000 172,149 20,449 31,105 173,000 586,641 150,000 6,452,072 $ - $ 16,333,548 $ (16,333,548) $ - $ 2,000,000 10,000,000 700,000 10,000,000 2,500,000 654,433 1,110,873 500,000 3,000,000 46,798,854 $ (2,000,000) (10,000,000) (700,000) (10,000,000) (2,500,000) (654,433) (1,110,873) (355,000) (1,437,282) (45,091,136) $ $ $ 81,740,523 828,118 82,568,641 $ $ $ 11,250 25,000 160,000 196,250 9,870,679 $ 99,768,560 $ $ 152,184 296,887 48,000 98,579 81,791 36,929 49,264 100,000 18,900 1,000,000 8,904 586,641 2,478,079 $ $ $ 828,118 828,118 $ $ $ 11,250 25,000 131,747 167,997 9,870,679 $ 100,795,360 $ $ 250,000 21,100 20,000 250,000 541,100 $ $ $ 406,400 296,887 48,000 (236,000) 230,000 155,246 156,900 170,000 550,000 150,000 292,638 18,900 1,808,657 (20,000) 1,000,000 172,149 20,449 31,105 173,000 586,641 150,000 (250,000) 5,910,972 36,846,000 36,846,000 $ $ $ 100,000 100,000 $ 11,250 25,000 60,000 96,250 9,442,679 $ 10,275,000 $ (404,321) 12,916,873 $ 94,560,954 $ $ $ 81,740,523 (36,846,000) 828,118 45,722,641 6,234,406 87 Summary Schedules 4812 - Other General Fund Programs Animal Control: Vehicle Replacement/Subsidy Assessor: GIS Enhancement Clerk of the Court: Conversion of Minutes County Admin. Officer: Video Prod. Equip County Attorney: Admin. 2nd Floor Remodel County Attorney: CAIS Phase II + Carryover County Attorney: CAIS Enhancements County Attorney: Microsoft Exchange Desert Vista Courtroom Project DOME: Relocation to Psych Annex E-Jamis One Time Finance: Info Advantage Carryover Materials Management: E-Procurement System Medical Examiner: Move Related Expenses Sale of Helicopter Sheriff: Match/Neighborhood Narc. Enf. Grant Sheriff: Match/Boat House Grant Sheriff: Match/Ed. And First Aid Center Grant Superior Court: ACS/CMS/JCS Replacement Superior Court: NW Regional Court - Start-Up 800MHZ Radio @ MIHS Maricopa County Regional Trails Master Plan Subtotal $ - Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2001-02 Adopted Description FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Projected Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted DEPARTMENT 480 - APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Detention Fund (255) 4811 - Contingency General Contingency CIP Contingency $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ - $ 5,000,000 - $ $ (5,000,000) 10,000,000 $ 250,000 10,250,000 $ 250,000 10,250,000 $ - $ 250,000 93,000 250,000 250,000 280,000 1,000,000 32,700 200,000 500,000 100,000 1,035,000 8,279,771 154,601 5,734,506 476,088 23,635,666 $ (250,000) (93,000) (250,000) (250,000) (280,000) (1,000,000) (32,700) (200,000) (500,000) (100,000) (1,035,000) (8,279,771) (154,601) (5,734,506) (226,088) (13,385,666) $ $ $ 84,726,011 400,000 500,000 56,551 3,410,946 89,093,508 $ $ 84,726,011 400,000 500,000 56,551 3,410,946 89,093,508 $ (14,162,701) 400,000 500,000 56,551 3,410,946 (9,795,204) $ 2,403,000 $ Total Detention Fund $ 101,746,508 Total All Funds $ 201,515,068 Reserved Items Facility Start-Up Contingency ICJIS: Moving Costs ICJIS: Tenant Improvements Juvenile Probation: Software for RTC Telecom: Durango Failities Management Telecom: Durango JuvenileCourt & Detention Telecom: Durango Parking Structure Telecom: Durango Parks Building Telecom: Mesa Juvenile Court & Detention Telecom: Residential Treatment Center Telecom: Adult Facilities Data Equipment Sheriff: Central Service Complex Voice System Sheriff: New Jail Pre-Booking System Sheriff: Nicevision Security System Sheriff: Records Management System Subtotal Summary Schedules 4812 - Other Detention Fund Programs Detention CIP Fund Transfer ICJIS: Parallel Projects Relocations Sheriff: Jail Crimes and Intelligence Sheriff: Refrigerated Trucks $ Subtotal 4832 - Major Maintenance 88 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 84,726,011 150,000 15,260 900,000 85,791,271 $ 98,888,712 98,888,712 1,747,749 $ 1,891,831 $ 3,320,000 $ (1,572,251) $ 101,091,257 $ 88,233,102 $ 125,844,378 $ (24,753,121) $ 201,886,617 $ 101,149,975 $ 220,405,332 $ (18,518,715) Major Maintenance Project Summary Maricopa County defines major maintenance as a category of non-routine projects comprised of major maintenance or upgrades to facilities and/or equipment that will achieve demonstrable savings in operational cost, extend the useful life of assets, or achieve at least ten percent savings in current energy consumption. Each project cost must exceed $20,000 for it to be classified as a major maintenance item. Examples of Major Maintenance projects include replacing heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) systems, replacing roofs, repairing building exteriors, retrofitting light fixtures, installing variable drive fan motors, installing energy management systems, etc. Maintenance projects costing less than $20,000 will be treated as Facilities base-level or discretionary services, and charged accordingly (refer to Internal Charges section). Several examples of approved permanent fixes to long-term maintenance issues included in the FY 2002-03 budget are provided below: Durango Juvenile Probation Building: The completion of this project is necessary because Juvenile Probation’s existing facility located in Durango, building 1704, is in need of asbestos and lead paint abatement, and HVAC system replacement. Juvenile Probation employees require temporary office space while building 1704 is under-going abatement and renovation. This project is for the temporary office space only in building 1916, located at 3345 West Durango Street in Phoenix. Completion of this project will allow Juvenile Probation to be temporarily relocated during the abatement and renovation of building 1704 in Durango. Upon completion of the renovations to building 1704 and its reoccupation by Juvenile Probation, this facility will be used as swing space for other departments in similar situations and for future expansion space as approved by the Facilities Review Committee. The FY2003 Budget for this project is $720,000. The cost to construct a new facility is estimated at $1,449,184, a savings of $729,184. West Courts Building - Replace Generators: The existing two forty-year-old emergency generators, and their transfer switches and switch gears, require replacement because increased total electrical power demand is required to meet new life-safety building code requirements, repair parts are almost impossible to obtain, and because they are now in service far beyond their normal life span. These emergency generators provide service to the entire downtown Phoenix Superior Courts and Sheriff’s Complex. With the completion of this project, the emergency generator system will be able to meet the requirements of the Superior Court and Sheriff’s Complex life-safety building requirements in a reliable manner. The FY2003 budget for this project is $900,000. Avondale MCSO Substation Improvements: The scope of the work includes renovation of two restrooms for ADA compliance, HVAC system and electrical service modifications, security system upgrades for the building and equipment storage yard, landscaping, and the addition of needed patrol car parking pavement. Completion of this project will ensure code compliance of the facility and will extend is useful life for future operations. The FY2003 budget for this project is $350,000. The cost to construct a new facility is estimated at $1,724,280. Administration Building Elevator Renovation: This project is necessary to return the Administration Building elevator system to a satisfactory state of operational condition through the replacement of all major hoist and control components that have become obsolete and are no longer capable of meeting the performance requirements of the building. The new system will have the intelligence capability to position cars to where they best serve building occupants throughout a given day, thus reducing wait time. Additionally, elevator car travel speed will also be increased. 89 Summary Schedules Security Center Building - Replace Boilers: This project involves the replacement of two of the three existing boilers in this facility. Their condition is very poor, they are outdated (vintage 1929 and 1961), and they do not comply with current boiler code requirements. This project will ensure the proper operation of the facility in the cooler months and will lower operating costs by an estimated $10,000 per fiscal year. The FY2003 budget for this project is $400,000. The FY2003 budget for this project is $849,139. The alternative would be to replace the existing elevators. The cost to remove and replace the existing elevators is estimated in excess of $3,000,000. Public Meeting Space Improvements/Renovations (Board of Supervisors Auditorium – Renovation): This project involves the upgrading of the outdated audio-visual system, interior lighting improvements, replacement of countertops containing environmentally hazardous material, replacement of the audio-visual lectern, and remodeling of the audio-visual equipment control booth. By completing this project the Board of Supervisors Auditorium will be outfitted with up-todate audio-visual equipment, which will facilitate improved information dissemination for the attending and viewing public, and bring the building into compliance with environmental codes. The FY2003 budget for this project is $500,000. YEAR 1 FY 2002-03 YEAR 2 FY 2003-04 YEAR 3 FY 2004-05 YEAR 4 FY 2005-06 YEAR 5 FY 2006-07 5-YEAR TOTAL Summary Schedules 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT Ongoing Major Maintenance General Fund (Fund 100) - Countywide Projects ADMINISTRATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $ ANNUAL COUNTY WIDE MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS BOS AUDITORIUM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CENTRAL COURTS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CODE COMPLIANCE RESERVE DURANGO JUVENILE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS EAST COURTS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FEES SECURITY CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS SUPERIOR COURT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS S.E. REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WEST COURT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 5TH AVENUE PARKING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS UNALLOCATED Subtotal Gen Fund - Countywide Projects $ 1,030,000 2,679,498 200,000 720,000 320,000 832,886 700,000 50,000 190,000 180,000 20,000 438,444 7,360,828 General Fund (Fund 100) - Parks & Recreation Projects BUCKEYE HILLS RECREATION AREA $ CAVE CREEK ET BED ESTRELLA CAMPGROUND DESIGN Subtotal Gen Fund - Parks & Rec Projects $ 78,640 249,400 260,813 588,853 $ $ 78,640 249,400 260,813 588,853 Total General Fund Projects (Fund 100) $ 7,949,681 $ 8,782,498 $ 6,032,498 $ 5,962,498 $ 5,962,498 $ 34,689,673 Detention Operations (Fund 255) ANNUAL DETENTION FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS $ CODE COMPLIANCE RESERVE DURANGO JAIL INFRASTRUCTRE IMPROVEMENTS DURANGO JUVENILE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ESTRELLA JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MADISON JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MAIN JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MCSO/SUBSTATION(2853) INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS S.E. JUVENILE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOWERS JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS UNALLOCATED Subtotal Detention Operations (Fund 255) $ 1,025,000 100,000 795,000 889,000 435,000 100,000 210,000 425,000 500,000 4,479,000 $ $ $ 2,150,000 300,000 50,000 25,000 2,525,000 $ $ 2,250,000 300,000 50,000 25,000 2,625,000 $ $ 2,100,000 300,000 2,000,000 50,000 25,000 4,475,000 $ $ 1,652,000 300,000 850,000 11,150,000 50,000 1,630,000 150,000 75,000 208,000 25,000 16,090,000 $ 9,177,000 1,300,000 3,645,000 12,039,000 635,000 1,730,000 150,000 75,000 418,000 525,000 500,000 30,194,000 TOTAL - 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 12,428,681 $ 24,872,498 $ 10,507,498 $ 8,587,498 $ 8,487,498 $ 64,883,673 900,000 1,330,000 1,275,000 250,000 350,000 300,000 350,000 2,100,000 500,000 200,000 300,000 150,000 1,720,000 50,000 500,000 10,275,000 $ 100,000 610,000 100,000 100,000 2,655,000 50,000 200,000 150,000 2,800,000 1,260,000 100,000 8,125,000 $ 100,000 2,760,000 2,000,000 920,000 5,780,000 $ 2,890,000 1,300,000 4,190,000 $ 3,020,000 3,020,000 $ 100,000 1,610,000 100,000 1,430,000 12,600,000 50,000 250,000 350,000 300,000 200,000 500,000 8,200,000 500,000 200,000 300,000 150,000 3,900,000 150,000 500,000 31,390,000 $ $ $ 470,000 3,662,498 30,000 750,000 580,000 680,000 880,000 700,000 100,000 50,000 860,000 20,000 8,782,498 - $ $ $ $ 3,662,498 520,000 150,000 880,000 700,000 100,000 20,000 6,032,498 - $ $ $ $ 3,662,498 600,000 880,000 700,000 100,000 20,000 5,962,498 - $ $ $ $ 3,662,498 600,000 880,000 700,000 100,000 20,000 5,962,498 - $ $ $ 1,500,000 17,329,490 30,000 750,000 2,500,000 720,000 1,150,000 4,352,886 3,500,000 450,000 240,000 1,040,000 100,000 438,444 34,100,820 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Deferred Major Maintenance General Fund (Fund 100) BLUE POINT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $ CENTRAL COURT BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE DURANGO JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS DURANGO JUVENILE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS EAST COURT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS HOMELESS CLINIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS JUSTICE COURTS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MCSO CMPTR CNTR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MCSO/RECORDS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MCSO/SUBSTATION IMPROVEMENTS OLD COURT HOUSE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC MEETING SPACE IMPROVEMENTS/RENOVATIONS SANTA FE DEPOT BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS SECURITY CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS S.E. REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WEST COURT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 911 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS UNALLOCATED Subtotal General Fund (Fund 100) $ 90 $ $ $ $ $ Major Maintenance Project Summary (Continued) YEAR 1 FY 2002-03 YEAR 2 FY 2003-04 Detention Operations (Fund 255) DURANGO JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $ DURANGO JUVENILE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ESTRELLA JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MADISON JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS MAIN JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS S.E. JUVENILE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TOWERS JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Subtotal Detention Operations (Fund 255) $ 1,900,000 300,000 870,000 250,000 3,320,000 $ TOTAL - 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE $ YEAR 3 FY 2004-05 $ $ 2,100,000 300,000 32,000,000 150,000 100,000 3,850,000 38,500,000 13,595,000 $ Hospital Fund (Fund 535) DESERT VISTA INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS $ LAUNDRY FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS POWER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS MEDICAL CENTERL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS UNALLOCATED Subtotal Hospital Fund (Fund 535) $ 185,000 28,147 1,200,000 930,000 2,343,147 $ TOTAL - 900 MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER $ 2,343,147 YEAR 4 FY 2005-06 $ $ 200,000 48,000,000 150,000 3,100,000 51,450,000 46,625,000 $ $ $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 YEAR 5 FY 2006-07 $ $ 200,000 3,000,000 150,000 25,000,000 28,350,000 57,230,000 $ $ $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 5-YEAR TOTAL $ $ 400,000 33,000,000 1,800,000 150,000 35,350,000 $ 4,800,000 600,000 36,000,000 80,870,000 2,250,000 100,000 32,350,000 156,970,000 32,540,000 $ 38,370,000 $ 188,360,000 $ $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 $ $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 $ 185,000 28,147 1,200,000 930,000 10,000,000 12,343,147 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 12,343,147 900 MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER Summary Schedules 91 Health Care Mandates Revenue and Expenditure Detail Report FY 2001-02 Adopted Description FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Projected Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted Department 390 General Fund (100) Revenue Disproportionate Share Refund $ Long Term Care Residual: Nursing Home Care Home Care Total General Fund Revenue $ 13,597 79,447 93,044 $ 45,895,500 $ 13,597 79,447 45,988,544 $ 45,895,500 $ 101,760,800 $ 55,865,300 $ 31,097 33,303 45,959,900 52,848 $ 101,813,648 $ 39,251 (79,447) 55,825,104 Expenditures Summary Schedules Administration Contract Monitoring Healthcare Mandates Consulting $ Healthcare Financial Admin Healthcare Financial Admin. $ Claims Processing Notifications Claims Processing Consulting Group Tracking and Coordination Team Subtotal $ AHCCCS AHCCCS Acute Prop 204 Admin. Contribution Prop 204 Urban Nomad $ 73,657 1,250,000 $ 29,967 1,250,000 $ 150,000 2,000,000 $ (76,343) (750,000) 1,150,186 937,376 650,119 355,710 3,093,391 $ 1,166,575 798,273 56,495 305,438 179,327 155,852 2,661,960 $ 1,300,000 600,000 55,030 215,000 265,000 130,000 2,565,030 $ 652,402 794,021 119,915 1,566,338 $ 514,173 798,273 56,495 (488,583) 59,412 155,852 1,095,622 Subtotal $ 38,659,236 2,223,305 2,075,085 42,957,626 $ Subtotal $ 125,000 43,082,626 $ 101,077,241 Mental Health Arnold V Sarn Court Order $ Arnold V Sarn Litigation Costs Arnold V Sarn Court Monitor Gen Mental Health IGA/Non-SMI Mental Health Orders Mental Health Testimony Compentency Restoration Subtotal $ 25,800,000 75,000 140,000 4,856,576 50,000 220,000 31,141,576 MMC Teaching Prog. Subsidy $ Disproportionate Share Match AHCCCS Sanctions ALTCS Contribution $ 170,787 1,250,000 $ $ $ 38,660,551 2,223,305 2,075,085 42,958,941 $ $ 125,000 43,083,941 $ $ 38,659,236 2,223,305 2,075,085 42,957,626 $ $ 721 42,958,347 $ $ $ $ 38,659,236 3,483,176 3,853,800 45,996,212 $ $ 1,315 (1,259,871) (1,778,715) (3,037,271) $ $ 45,996,212 $ $ 125,000 (2,912,271) $ 101,811,893 $ 102,435,821 $ 114,845,600 $ (13,033,707) $ $ $ $ $ 25,800,000 75,000 140,000 4,856,576 50,000 220,000 1,980,000 33,121,576 3,547,900 $ $ - Public Health TB Hospitalization $ Sail Grant Matching Funds $ 92 $ $ 25,800,000 65,786 140,000 4,856,574 29,191 188,571 1,980,000 33,060,122 3,547,900 $ 3,547,900 $ 45,895,500 $ 45,895,500 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 686,463 $ 686,463 $ $ 27,090,000 75,000 140,000 5,099,404 50,000 220,000 4,000,000 36,674,404 $ $ 3,547,900 $ (1,290,000) (242,828) (2,020,000) (3,552,828) - $ 101,760,800 $ (55,865,300) 428,570 $ 1,000,000 $ 686,463 $ 686,463 $ (250,000) - Health Care Mandates Revenue and Expenditure Detail Report (Continued) FY 2001-02 Adopted Description Long Term Care Residual Adminstration Acute Care Nursing Home Care Home Care $ Subtotal $ 2,845 27,444 125,303 148,892 304,484 $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ 2,845 27,444 125,303 148,892 304,484 1,937,500 $ Medical Eligibility Lawsuits 1998 Settlement $ New Settlements MMC Pre-AHCCCS Claims Subsidy Claims Resolution Subtotal $ 2,102,235 16,000,000 750,000 3,000,000 23,789,735 $ MIHS Operating Subsidy Base MIHS Operating Subsidy FY 2001 Deficit Projected Ongoing Deficit $ 13,140,300 - $ 222,284,503 $ 1,700,000 Total All Funds Expenditures $ 223,984,503 Pre-AHCCCS Outside Hosptial Claims Total General Fund Expenditures $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Projected $ 21,440 67,555 118,000 111,667 318,662 937,500 $ 11,326,268 750,000 2,500,000 15,513,768 $ 13,140,300 - $ $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 38,448 73,196 68,649 180,293 $ (35,603) (45,752) 56,654 148,892 124,191 491,267 $ - $ 937,500 3,908,442 750,000 863,810 6,013,519 $ 18,700,000 5,000,000 23,700,000 $ (18,700,000) 750,000 (2,500,000) $ (8,186,232) 13,140,300 - $ 24,848,500 9,008,200 2,700,000 $ $ $ $ - $ 261,841,442 $ 264,038,401 $ 345,248,310 $ (83,406,868) $ $ $ $ Detention Fund (255) Correctional Health Claims 1,200,000 $ 263,041,442 1,500,000 $ 265,538,401 2,500,000 $ 347,748,310 (1,300,000) $ (84,706,868) 93 Summary Schedules Expenditures Maricopa Integrated Health System Expenditure Variance Commentary System Overview Fund Revenues Healthcare Delivery System (535) $ 363,065,916 Long Term Care Plan (551) 251,854,360 Health Plan (541) $ 103,910,621 Health Select (561) 12,306,999 Senior Select Plan (566) 60,362,301 MIHS Total $ 791,500,197 Expenditures $ 399,029,048 237,817,744 $ 95,913,346 8,370,354 61,889,749 $ 803,020,241 Net Revenue General Fund Net Revenue Before Fund MIHS InterAfter Fund Operating Transfers Fund Transfers Transfers Subsidy $ (35,963,132) $ 22,124,890 $ 13,140,300 $ (697,942) $ 14,036,616 (13,237,728) 5,344,642 $ 7,997,275 (8,691,974) (5,240,453) $ 3,936,645 (1,687,326) 2,249,319 $ (1,527,448) 1,492,138 (35,310) $ (11,520,044) $ $ 13,140,300 $ 1,620,256 Summary Schedules Health Care Delivery System (Fund 535) The Health Care Delivery System’s Fiscal Year 2002-03 net operating budget, including transfers in from several Health Plans funds and the County General Fund, is projected at a loss of $697,942. FY 2002-03 acute patient days and admissions are projected to increase 5.0% from the FY 2001-02 year end forecast due to population growth and continued expansion of AHCCCS/Health Plan membership. Psychiatric patient days and admissions are budgeted to increase 28.7% from the FY 2001-02 year end forecast as a result of the acquisition of Desert Vista increasing available bed capacity from 92 to 152. Outpatient visits are projected to increase by 9.5% from the FY 2001-02 year end forecast due to the addition of new services or services previously not available due to capacity constraints. Net revenue per adjusted patient day is budgeted to increase by 0.6%. The budgeted net revenue increase reflects overall rate increases in AHCCCS, commercial insurance, and self pay rates. Budgeted bad debt is 20.5% of net revenue, or 1.9% lower than the FY 2001-02 year end forecasted rate due to business office improvements. Depreciation and interest expenses are increasing by 38.5% over the current year forecast due to the increased capital activity in FY 2001-02 that did not impact operations for a full fiscal year, and the budgeted capital outlays in the FY 2002-03 budget. Maricopa Health Plan (Fund 541) The Maricopa Health Plan (MHP) budget includes 5.8% membership growth and an average 3.0% increase in medical expenses on a per member per month (pmpm) basis relative to FY 2001-02. The overall expenditure increase is exceeded by increases in revenue. FY 2002-03 includes a capitation reduction for Prop 204 resulting in a 6% decrease in capitation revenue on a per member per month basis (compared to December 2001 baseline). Hospital supplement payments driven by Prop 204 members are anticipated to remain stable and SOBRA supplement payments (supplemental payments for births) are anticipated to increase in correlation with growth in member months. These two revenue items offset the decrease in capitation on a pmpm basis in comparison to the baseline. The FY 2002-03 Maricopa Health Plan (MHP) Budget is based on year-end member months totaling 528,322 relative to the 499,081 FY 2001-02 year-end projection. Member months are budgeted by prospective and prior-period coverage (PPC) population types based on historical analyses of each MHP population. The 5.8% total member months growth relative to the FY 200102 year-end projection is based upon maintaining 11.7% market share and 5% membership growth. 94 Maricopa Integrated Health System Expenditure Variance Commentary (Continued) The 3.0% pmpm budgeted expense increase consists of a 3% increase in the hospitalization pmpm rate, a 1.0% decrease in the medical compensation pmpm rate, an average 5.0% increase in the other medical pmpm rate and a 10.0% decrease in the administration pmpm rate. Arizona Long-Term Care System (Fund 551) The FY 2002-03 Maricopa Long Term Care Plan Budget is based on year-end member months totaling 90,499 relative to the 99,818 fiscal year 2001-02 year-end projection. The 10% budgeted member months decrease from the fiscal year 2001-02 year-end projection is based on a 33.0% population growth and a 27% historical death rate. In addition, MIHS assumed that the ALTCP would attract 38% of new enrollees and retain 95% of eligible members during open enrollment periods of October, November and December 2002. The $7.1 million expense reduction, driven by the loss of member months, includes an average increase in expenses of 7%. Maricopa Health Select Plan (Fund 561) Maricopa Senior Select Plan (Fund 566) The FY 2002-03 Maricopa Senior Select Plan Budget is based on year-end member months totaling 79,892 relative to the 64,847 fiscal year 2001-02 year end projection. The 23.0% member months increase from the FY 2001-02 year-end projection is based upon the anticipated closure of Medicare+Choice contractors in this market. The increase in budgeted expenses over FY 2001-02 is due to membership growth. Expenses remain stable on a pmpm basis compared to the FY 02 baseline (December 2001). 95 Summary Schedules The FY 2002-03 Maricopa Health Select Plan Budget is based on year-end member months totaling 63,744 relative to the 59,470 FY 2001-02 year-end projection. This is a 7.1% increase from the FY 2001-02 year-end projection. Member months are projected at 5.0% base growth and 3.0% open enrollment growth. The budget reflects a flat per member per month (pmpm) premium rate and a total pmpm net expense increase of 4.0% which includes a 7.0% increase in pmpm medical expenses and an 3% pmpm reduction in administrative expenses. State Budget Reductions STATE BUDGET REDUCTIONS FY 2002-03 REQUESTED FY 2003-04 (ONGOING) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED FY 2003-04 (ONGOING) SUMMARY GENERAL FUND 110 ADULT PROBATION State Budget Cut: Grant Replacement $ State Budget Cut Total $ - $ $ - $ $ 1,907,297 1,907,297 $ $ - 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT State Budget Cut: Fill the Gap Grant Replacement $ State Budget Cut Total $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ - $ $ 318,650 318,650 $ $ - 270 JUVENILE PROBATION State Budget Cut: Grant Replacement $ State Budget Cut Total $ - $ $ - $ $ 668,600 668,600 $ $ - 380 SUPERIOR COURT State Budget Cut: Fill the Gap Grant Replacement $ State Budget Cut Total $ - $ $ - $ $ 453,470 453,470 $ $ - 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES State Budget Cut: ALTCS Increase $ State Budget Cut: Restoration to Competency State Budget Impact: Dispro Share State Budget Cut Total $ - $ $ $ 5,960,539 4,000,000 55,865,300 65,825,839 $ $ - $ 6,516,800 4,000,000 55,865,300 66,382,100 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT State Budget Cut: Public Safety Reductions $ - $ - $ 1,934,137 $ State Budget Cut Total $ - $ - $ 1,934,137 $ State Budget Cut Total $ 500,000 $ - $ 71,107,993 $ 72,905,001 MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS State Budget Cut Total $ 500,000 $ - $ 71,107,993 $ 72,905,001 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY State Budget Cut: Fill the Gap Grant Replacement $ State Budget Cut Total $ - $ $ - $ $ (397,784) $ (397,784) $ (397,784) (397,784) 380 SUPERIOR COURT State Budget Cut: Fill the Gap Grant Replacement $ State Budget Cut Total $ - $ $ - $ $ (1,044,795) $ (1,044,795) $ (1,044,795) (1,044,795) 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER State Budget Cut: Fill the Gap Grant Replacement $ State Budget Cut Total $ - $ $ - $ $ (377,904) $ (377,904) $ (377,904) (377,904) 860 PUBLIC HEALTH State Budget Cut: Health Grants $ State Budget Cut Total $ - $ $ - $ $ (202,293) $ (202,293) $ (202,293) (202,293) State Budget Cut Total $ - $ - $ (2,022,776) $ (2,022,776) MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS State Budget Cut Total $ - $ - $ (2,022,776) $ (2,022,776) - $ $ - $ $ 55,865,300 55,865,300 $ $ 55,865,300 Offset by revenue from State of Arizona 55,865,300 State Budget Cut Total $ - $ - $ 55,865,300 $ 55,865,300 MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS State Budget Cut Total $ - $ - $ 55,865,300 $ 55,865,300 6,522,901 Includes reductions in Probation grantsl payments to State in lieu of inmate shift; reductions in Fillthe-Gap funding 6,522,901 MARICOPA COUNTY Summary Schedules SPECIAL REVENUE MARICOPA COUNTY ENTERPRISE 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM State Budget Impact: Dispro Share $ State Budget Cut Total $ MARICOPA COUNTY 96 Results Initiatives Requests Summary RESULTS INITIATIVES REQUESTS COMMENTARY FY 2002-03 REQUESTED FY 2003-04 (ONGOING) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED FY 2003-04 (ONGOING) SUMMARY GENERAL FUND 110 ADULT PROBATION Bilingual Internship Program $ Regular Initiatives Total $ 40,500 40,500 $ $ 40,500 40,500 $ $ 40,500 40,500 $ $ 40,500 40,500 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Backfill Central Court Building Divisions $ Northwest Regional Superior Court Regular Initiatives Total $ 286,755 291,641 578,396 $ - $ $ 102,345 102,345 $ $ $ 102,345 102,345 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER Forensic Science Center Exam and Lab Equipment $ Forensic Science Center - Additional IT Hardware Forensic Science Center - Upgrade CME Case Trackin Regular Initiatives Total $ 43,650 18,501 13,474 75,625 $ Regular Initiatives Total $ $ 498,012 498,012 $ $ $ 43,650 17,127 13,474 74,251 $ 43,650 17,127 10,000 70,777 39,300 39,300 $ $ 212,032 212,032 $ $ 167,032 167,032 $ Regular Initiatives Total $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ $ $ 1,000,000 98,392 1,098,392 $ 1,000,000 393,570 1,393,570 $ 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Central Services Complex Voice System, etc. $ Records Management System Regular Initiatives Total $ - $ - $ 654,433 1,110,873 1,765,306 $ - Sheriff's Office Results Initiative Request - Sheriff's Office Results Initiative Request - $ Regular Initiatives Total $ 1,110,874 1,110,874 $ $ 197,750 197,750 $ $ - $ $ - See Dept. 480 Approp. Fund Balance - 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Durango Parking Garage $ Durango Residential Treatment Facility Forensic Science Center Jefferson St. Parking Garage Lower Buckeye Central Services New Admin. Services Building Northwest Regional Superior Court SE Mesa Early Disposition Court Vehicles/Uniforms/Barcode Readers 4th Avenue Jail Regular Initiatives Total $ 253,924 154,683 355,247 183,621 1,453,079 98,392 160,491 39,982 138,600 81,326 2,919,345 $ $ $ 253,924 154,683 355,247 183,621 1,453,079 160,491 39,982 138,600 81,326 2,820,953 $ $ 253,924 235,015 376,451 193,528 2,695,078 393,570 160,491 39,982 325,304 4,673,343 $ 253,924 235,015 376,451 193,528 2,695,078 160,491 39,982 325,304 4,279,773 Regular Initiatives Total $ 6,222,752 $ 6,023,044 $ 6,113,779 $ 6,053,997 MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS Regular Initiatives Total $ 6,222,752 $ 6,023,044 $ 6,113,779 $ 6,053,997 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT International Genomics Consortium New Admin. Services Building 500 SHERIFF Records Management System $ $ $ $ $ Summary Schedules $ 43,650 18,501 10,000 72,151 300 PARKS & RECREATION San Tan Park $ MARICOPA COUNTY 97 Results Initiatives Requests Summary (Continued) RESULTS INITIATIVE REQUEST COMMENTARY FY 2002-03 REQUESTED FY 2003-04 (ONGOING) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED FY 2003-04 (ONGOING) SUMMARY SPECIAL REVENUE 270 JUVENILE PROBATION Residential Treatment Facility RTC Supporting Technology $ $ 3,651,945 115,463 3,767,408 $ $ 1,262,305 66,096 1,328,401 $ 2,043,998 88,017 2,132,015 - $ $ - $ $ 346,000 346,000 $ $ - 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO Data Integration $ Required Network Improvements Regular Initiatives Total $ 2,247,789 678,994 2,926,783 $ 956,668 457,795 1,414,463 $ 2,247,789 678,994 2,926,783 $ 956,668 457,795 1,414,463 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Central Services Complex Voice System, etc. $ Records Management System Regular Initiatives Total $ - $ $ $ 8,434,372 476,088 8,910,460 $ $ - $ Regular Initiatives Total $ 476,087 476,087 $ $ 84,750 84,750 $ $ - $ $ - See Dept. 480 Approp. Fund Balance - 510 SHERIFF DETENTION Central Services Complex Equipment $ Central Services Complex Staffing Central Services Complex Voice System, etc. Inmate Trust Accounting System Regular Initiatives Total $ 2,331,990 678,111 15,193,300 92,000 18,295,401 $ $ $ 1,328,913 568,438 92,000 1,989,351 $ $ 192,500 10,000 202,500 $ 67,474 927,495 - See Dept. 480 Approp. Fund Balance 10,000 1,004,969 Regular Initiatives Total $ 23,532,130 $ 5,469,121 $ 15,500,995 $ 4,610,189 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Dam Safety Program (Structural Assessment) $ NEMBY Permit Regulatory Positions Stormwater Quality - Personnel Regular Initiatives Total $ 1,108,597 200,000 319,707 47,222 1,675,526 $ $ $ 1,001,200 1,001,200 $ $ 959,790 200,000 1,159,790 $ 966,200 966,200 Regular Initiatives Total $ 1,675,526 $ 1,159,790 $ 1,001,200 $ 966,200 MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS Regular Initiatives Total $ 25,207,656 $ 6,628,911 $ 16,502,195 $ 5,576,389 300 PARKS & RECREATION San Tan Park 500 SHERIFF Records Management System $ Regular Initiatives Total $ 1,552,929 280,930 1,833,859 $ Regular Initiatives Total $ $ $ $ $ 58,742 Sheriff's Office Results Initiative Request - Sheriff's Office Results Initiative Request 58,742 $ Summary Schedules MARICOPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT RESULTS INITIATIVE REQUEST COMMENTARY FY 2002-03 REQUESTED FY 2003-04 (ONGOING) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED FY 2003-04 (ONGOING) ENTERPRISE 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Expansion of Obstetrics Ward $ Regular Initiatives Total $ - $ $ - $ $ 953,196 953,196 $ $ 863,196 863,196 Regular Initiatives Total $ - $ - $ 953,196 $ 863,196 MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS Regular Initiatives Total $ - $ - $ 953,196 $ 863,196 MARICOPA COUNTY 98 SUMMARY Eliminations Summary Eliminations are included in the budget to offset amounts budgeted as expenditures in one fund that are associated with offsetting revenues and expenditures in another fund. Interdepartmental charges from the Reprographics (print shop) fund to various County departments are one example. Departments pay the print shop for services, and these costs are included in departments’ budgeted expenditures, supported by revenues from sources external to the County. The print shop, in turn, budgets these payments as revenue, along with expenditures related to the cost of providing printing services. The expenditure and revenue is therefore budgeted twice within the overall budget. Budgeting eliminations removes these duplicated revenues and expenditures from the budget as a whole in order to provide a more accurate picture of total expenditures and revenues. The following schedule lists the various items that are eliminated in the budget: FY 2001-02 Adopted DESCRIPTION Maricopa County: Fund Transfers (see schedule) $ 363,678,741 Payments from Departments to Benefits Trust Fund for EmployerPaid Health & Dental Premiums FY 2001-02 Revised $ 412,011,159 FY2002-03 Adopted $ 482,649,706 Variance Rev./Rec. $ 70,638,547 17.1% 3,582,344 2,600,000 39,770,634 39,975,892 45,633,576 5,657,684 14.2% Payments from Health Care Mandates to Health System for Correctional Health 1,700,000 1,200,000 2,500,000 1,300,000 108.3% Payments from Health Care Mandates to Health System for Public Health TB Hospitalization 1,000,000 750,000 1,000,000 250,000 33.3% Payments from Maricopa Health Plans to Health System for Patient Services 67,000,000 67,000,000 43,659,347 (23,340,653) -34.8% Payments from Maricopa Health Plans to Health System for Attendant Care 16,000,000 16,000,000 13,342,861 (2,657,139) -16.6% Payments from Departments to Maricopa Health Plans for Employer Health Premiums 6,349,912 6,349,912 11,563,816 5,213,904 82.1% Payments from Public Health to Health Plan for Ryan White Grant 1,000,000 1,000,000 Subtotal Maricopa County $ 498,899,287 Flood Control District: Capital Projects Fund Transfer $ Library District Capital Projects Fund Transfer $ Stadium District: Cap. Projects, Debt Service Fund Tansfers $ 47,500,000 - - (1,000,000) -100.0% $ 547,869,307 $ 602,949,306 $ 55,079,999 $ 47,500,000 $ 49,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 $ - -27.4% 6,309,410 $ 12,309,410 $ 1,724,018 $ (10,585,392) Total Maricopa County & Districts $ 552,708,697 $ 607,678,717 $ 654,775,524 $ 47,096,807 3.2% -86.0% 7.8% 99 Summary Schedules 2,400,000 Internal Service Charges (982,344) % Transfers In by Fund TRANSFERS BY FUND Transfers In FY 2001-02 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND Dispro. Share Match Reimb. - MMC Central Services Allocation Summary Schedules SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 243 PARKS DONATIONS FUND Transfer from Lake Pleasant Fund Transfer from Parks Enhancement Fund $ $ 8,154,989 8,154,989 - $ $ $ 54,050,489 45,895,500 8,154,989 686,463 686,463 FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 2002-03 ADOPTED $ 54,113,501 45,895,500 8,218,001 $ 109,627,487 101,760,800 7,866,687 $ 469,753 134,576 335,177 $ $ 686,463 686,463 $ 686,463 686,463 $ 200,000 200,000 - 248 SAIL GRANTS SAIL Grant Match from Gen. Fund $ 250 COUNTY STADIUM DISTRICT Transfer from Stadium District Debt Service $ - $ 253 MLB STADIUM OPERATION Transfer from B.O.B. Long Term Reserve $ - $ 6,000,000 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 6,000,000 $ 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Jail Excise Tax Maint. of Effort - Base Jail Excise Tax Maint. of Effort - Above Base $ 101,186,962 101,186,962 - $ 101,523,880 101,523,880 - $ 101,523,880 101,523,880 - $ 120,866,924 111,051,924 9,815,000 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES Vital Statistics - General Fund $ 65,000 65,000 $ 65,000 65,000 $ 44,437 44,437 $ 45,000 45,000 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION Transfer from License/Shelter Fund $ - $ - $ - $ 1,488,277 1,488,277 SPECIAL REVENUE $ 101,938,425 $ 108,275,343 $ 108,724,533 $ 123,286,664 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICING Central Service Allocation $ 1,706,643 1,706,643 $ 1,706,643 1,706,643 $ 1,706,643 1,706,643 $ 1,376,476 1,376,476 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT Transfer from General Fund $ 81,740,523 81,740,523 $ 81,740,523 81,740,523 $ 371 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-1993A Transfer from Stadium District Operating $ 634,525 634,525 $ 634,525 634,525 $ 373 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-1993B Transfer from Stadium District Operating $ 734,978 734,978 $ 734,978 734,978 375 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-PEORIA Transfer from Stadium District Operating $ 2,378,503 2,378,503 $ 377 STADIUM DEBT SERVICES-1996 Transfer from Stadium District Operating $ 597,678 597,678 378 MESA SUBORDINATE DEBT Transfer from Stadium District Operating $ 379 MARYVALE SUBORDINATE DEBT Transfer from Stadium District Operating DEBT SERVICE 100 686,463 686,463 FY 2001-02 REVISED - $ - - - $ - 634,525 634,525 $ - $ 734,978 734,978 $ - 2,378,503 2,378,503 $ 2,378,503 2,378,503 $ - $ 597,678 597,678 $ 597,678 597,678 $ - 681,863 681,863 $ 681,863 681,863 $ 615,168 615,168 $ - $ 681,863 681,863 $ 681,863 681,863 $ 615,168 615,168 $ - $ 89,156,576 $ 89,156,576 $ 7,282,663 $ 1,376,476 Transfers In by Fund (Continued) FY 2001-02 ADOPTED CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Transfer from Trans. Operating Fund $ 46,000,000 46,000,000 FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 2002-03 ADOPTED $ 46,000,000 46,000,000 $ 46,000,000 46,000,000 $ 53,000,000 53,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 - $ 2,100,000 2,100,000 - $ 20,865,139 17,766,301 596,000 1,251,419 1,251,419 $ - $ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND Transfer from Gen. Fund/Proj. Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ 36,250,000 36,250,000 440 LIBRARY DIST CAPITAL PROJECTS Transfer from Library District Operating $ - $ - $ - $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE Transfer from MLB Operations Fund $ 600,000 600,000 $ 600,000 600,000 $ 600,000 600,000 $ 1,524,018 1,524,018 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Transfer from Detention Operations Fund $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS Transfer from Flood Control Dist. Op. $ 47,500,000 47,500,000 $ 47,500,000 47,500,000 $ 47,500,000 47,500,000 $ 49,000,000 49,000,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 178,826,011 $ 180,926,011 $ 180,926,011 $ 259,880,069 $ 34,521,200 13,140,300 3,547,900 750,000 17,083,000 - $ 34,521,200 13,140,300 3,547,900 750,000 17,083,000 - $ 68,868,969 13,140,300 9,008,200 2,700,000 3,547,900 750,000 21,219,360 16,633,644 1,869,565 $ 38,813,090 13,140,300 3,547,900 11,745,590 8,691,974 1,687,326 566 SENIOR SELECT PLAN Transfer from ALTCS Fund $ 4,890,950 4,890,950 $ 4,890,950 4,890,950 $ 5,920,586 5,920,586 $ 1,492,138 1,492,138 ENTERPRISE $ 39,412,150 $ 39,412,150 $ 74,789,555 $ 40,305,228 ELIMINATIONS Maricopa County Flood Control District Library District Stadium District $ (417,488,151) $ (471,820,569) $ (363,678,741) (412,011,159) (47,500,000) (47,500,000) (6,309,410) (12,309,410) ENTERPRISE FUNDS 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Operating Subsidy from Gen. Fund MMC Op. Subsidy - FY 2000-01 Deficit MMC Op. Subsidy - Current Deficits Teaching Prog. Subsidy from Gen. Fund Pre-AHCCCS Subsidy from Gen. Fund Transfer from ALTCS Fund Transfer from Health Plan Fund Transfer from Non-AHCCCS Health Plans (425,836,263) $ (366,160,243) (47,500,000) (12,176,020) (534,475,924) (482,649,706) (49,000,000) (1,102,200) (1,724,018) 101 Summary Schedules 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ Transfer from Gen. Govt. Grants Fund Transfer from General Fund Transfer from Environmental Svcs. Fund Transfer from Air Quality Fees Fund Transfers Out by Fund TRANSFERS BY FUND Transfers Out FY 2001-02 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND Jail Excise Tax Maint. of Effort - Base Jail Excise Tax Maint. of Effort - Above Base Transfer to County Improvement Debt Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Proj. Transfer to County Improvement Fund MMC Operating Subsidy MMC Op. Subsidy - FY 2000-01 Deficit MMC Op. Subsidy - Current Deficits MMC Teaching Program Subsidy MMC Pre-AHCCCS Claims Subsidy SAIL Grant Match Public Health Vital Statistics Summary Schedules SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ $ FY 2001-02 REVISED 201,117,148 101,186,962 81,740,523 13,140,300 $ 201,454,066 $ 101,523,880 81,740,523 13,140,300 3,547,900 750,000 686,463 65,000 3,547,900 750,000 686,463 65,000 FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 2002-03 ADOPTED $ $ 131,401,180 101,523,880 13,140,300 9,008,200 2,700,000 3,547,900 750,000 686,463 44,437 $ $ 175,132,587 111,051,924 9,815,000 596,000 36,250,000 13,140,300 3,547,900 686,463 45,000 $ 30,213 30,213 $ 30,213 30,213 $ 30,213 30,213 $ 33,989 33,989 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ 342,563 301,142 41,421 $ 342,563 301,142 41,421 $ 342,563 301,142 41,421 $ 257,541 224,134 33,407 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service Transportation CIP Transfer $ 48,014,028 1,669,636 344,392 46,000,000 $ 48,014,028 1,669,636 344,392 46,000,000 $ 48,014,028 1,669,636 344,392 46,000,000 $ 54,925,005 1,647,240 277,765 53,000,000 240 LAKE PLEASANT RECREATION SVCS Central Service Allocation - Debt Service Transfer to Parks Donations Fund $ 121,530 121,530 - $ 121,530 121,530 - $ 256,106 121,530 134,576 $ 98,019 98,019 - 241 PARKS ENHANCEMENT FUND Transfer to Parks Donations Fund $ $ 335,177 335,177 $ - 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service Library District CIP Transfer $ $ 587,133 584,472 2,661 - $ 1,696,966 592,619 2,147 1,102,200 248 SAIL GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ - $ $ 7,371 7,371 249 GENERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Proj. $ - $ 2,100,000 2,100,000 $ 2,100,000 2,100,000 $ 17,766,301 17,766,301 250 COUNTY STADIUM DISTRICT Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Debt Service-1993A Fund Transfer to Debt Service-1993B Fund Transfer to Debt Service-Peoria Fund Transfer to Debt Service-1996 Fund Transfer to Mesa Subord. Debt Fund Transfer to Maryvale Subord. Debt Fund $ 5,709,410 634,525 734,978 2,378,503 597,678 681,863 681,863 $ 5,709,410 634,525 734,978 2,378,503 597,678 681,863 681,863 $ 5,576,020 634,525 734,978 2,378,503 597,678 615,168 615,168 $ 1,929 1,929 - 253 MLB STADIUM OPERATION Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to B.O.B. Long Term Reserve $ 635,110 35,110 600,000 $ 635,110 35,110 600,000 $ 635,110 35,110 600,000 $ 1,553,211 29,193 1,524,018 102 587,133 584,472 2,661 - $ $ 587,133 584,472 2,661 - $ - Transfers Out by Fund (Continued) FY 2001-02 ADOPTED FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 2002-03 ADOPTED $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 260 RESEARCH & REPORTING Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ 79,243 78,193 1,050 $ 79,243 78,193 1,050 $ 79,243 78,193 1,050 $ 71,601 70,755 846 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 226,335 226,335 $ 226,335 226,335 $ 226,335 226,335 $ 241,556 241,556 290 WASTE TIRE Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ 156,663 40,055 116,608 295 HOUSING GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 68,483 68,483 $ 68,483 68,483 $ 68,483 68,483 $ 73,304 73,304 504 AIR QUALITY FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Proj. $ 262,285 262,285 - $ 262,285 262,285 - $ 262,285 262,285 - $ 1,393,570 142,151 1,251,419 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ $ 66,083 66,083 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Proj. $ 262,285 262,285 - $ 262,285 262,285 - $ 262,285 262,285 - $ 1,606,072 354,653 1,251,419 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 892,592 892,592 $ 892,592 892,592 $ 955,604 955,604 $ 1,086,945 1,086,945 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service Transfer to Animal Control Field Operations $ 548,707 542,894 5,813 - $ 329,224 323,411 5,813 - $ 329,224 323,411 5,813 - $ 1,783,238 292,114 2,847 1,488,277 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ $ 219,483 219,483 - $ 219,483 219,483 - $ 190,862 189,020 1,842 991 FLOOD CONTROL Central Service Allocation - General Fund Flood Control District CIP Transfer $ 48,692,941 1,192,941 47,500,000 $ 48,692,941 1,192,941 47,500,000 $ 48,692,941 1,192,941 47,500,000 $ 50,122,858 1,122,858 49,000,000 SPECIAL REVENUE $ 191,198,869 $ 193,298,869 $ 193,698,244 $ 231,271,796 DEBT SERVICE 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 Transfer to Stadium District Speical Revenue Fund $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 200,000 DEBT SERVICE $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE Transfer to Stadium Dist. Operating Fund $ - $ 6,000,000 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 6,000,000 $ - CAPITAL PROJECTS $ - $ 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ - - - $ - $ - 103 Summary Schedules 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Transfer to Detention Capital Projects Transfers Out by Fund (Continued) FY 2001-02 ADOPTED Summary Schedules ENTERPRISE FUNDS 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Dispro. Share Reimb. - General Fund Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service FY 2001-02 REVISED FY 2001-02 PROJ. ACTUAL FY 2002-03 ADOPTED $ 1,696,252 754,338 941,914 $ 47,591,752 45,895,500 754,338 941,914 $ 47,591,752 45,895,500 754,338 941,914 $ 103,224,695 101,760,800 704,202 759,693 541 HEALTH PLAN Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Medical Center $ 55,946 55,946 - $ 55,946 55,946 - $ 16,689,590 55,946 16,633,644 $ 8,691,974 8,691,974 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Medical Center Transfer to Senior Select $ 21,973,950 17,083,000 4,890,950 $ 21,973,950 17,083,000 4,890,950 $ 27,139,946 21,219,360 5,920,586 $ 13,262,118 24,390 11,745,590 1,492,138 561 HEALTH SELECT Transfer to Medical Center $ - $ - $ 1,869,565 1,869,565 $ 1,687,326 1,687,326 566 SENIOR SELECT PLAN Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ - $ - $ $ 379 379 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ 334,516 86,654 247,862 $ 334,516 86,654 247,862 $ 334,516 86,654 247,862 $ 111,884 28,582 83,302 ENTERPRISE $ 24,060,664 $ 69,956,164 $ 93,625,369 $ 126,978,376 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 667,741 667,741 $ 667,741 667,741 $ 667,741 667,741 $ 491,717 491,717 673 REPROGRAPHICS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 17,666 17,666 $ 17,666 17,666 $ 17,666 17,666 $ 38,089 38,089 675 RISK MANAGEMENT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 84,002 84,002 $ 84,002 84,002 $ 84,002 84,002 $ 123,591 123,591 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 342,061 342,061 $ 342,061 342,061 $ 342,061 342,061 $ 239,768 239,768 INTERNAL SERVICE $ 1,111,470 $ 1,111,470 $ 1,111,470 $ 893,165 ELIMINATIONS Maricopa County Flood Control District Library District Stadium District $ $ $ $ $ 104 (417,488,151) (363,678,741) (47,500,000) (6,309,410) - $ (471,820,569) $ (425,836,263) $ (534,475,924) $ (412,011,159) $ (366,160,243) $ (482,649,706) $ (47,500,000) $ (47,500,000) $ (49,000,000) $ $ $ (1,102,200) $ (12,309,410) $ (12,176,020) $ (1,724,018) Direct Assessment Special Districts Secondary Roll MARICOPA COUNTY DIRECT ASSESSMENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS SECONDARY ROLL FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DIST. NO. DISTRICT NAME 28583 Boulder 28589 158TH Street LEVY PURPOSE Bond Interest Bond redemption Bond Interest Bond redemption 2001-02 BUDGET $ 294 3,264 $ 3,558 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2001-02 $ 294 3,264 $ 3,558 $ $ 54 600 654 $ $ 3,969 3,969 $ $ 28590 Grandview Manor Bond Interest Bond redemption $ $ 28592 Fairview Lane Bond Interest Bond redemption $ $ 28593 East Fairview Lane Bond Interest Bond redemption $ $ 28594 White Fence Farms Bond Interest Bond redemption $ $ Bond Interest Bond redemption $ $ 28793 Queen Creek Water Improv Bond Interest Bond redemption $ $ Central Ave Bond Interest Bond redemption $ $ Billings Street Bond Interest Bond redemption $ $ 28529 28530 28531 28532 28533 28535 28546 28539 28547 28548 28793 28795 Estrella Dells 129th Avenue 14th Street Avenida Del Sol Mallory Eagle Peak Desert Foothills North West Phoenix Estates 10 Beautiful Arizona Estates 192nd Ave. Q ueen Creek W ater Im prov Circle City Community Park General General General General General General General General General General General General 2,051 2,051 $ $ $ $ $ 5,261 5,332 10,593 $ 2,795 640 3,435 $ 12,167 15,126 27,293 15,684 30,191 45,875 566 681 1,247 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,969 3,969 1,071 2,953 4,024 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,051 2,051 $ 5,261 5,332 10,593 $ $ $ 2,795 640 3,435 $ 12,167 15,126 27,293 $ 15,684 30,191 45,875 566 681 1,247 $ $ $ $ $ $ LESS AVAILABLE FUNDS $ $ - 2002-03 DIRECT ASSESSMENT $ $ - - $ $ 3,744 1,076 4,820 $ - $ $ 678 689 1,367 $ 1,905 3,844 5,749 $ 4,475 3,591 8,066 2,391 1,601 3,992 11,429 15,126 26,555 12,362 12,362 397 397 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,744 1,076 4,820 678 689 1,367 1,905 3,844 5,749 4,475 3,591 8,066 2,391 1,601 3,992 11,429 15,126 26,555 12,362 12,362 397 397 $ 75,026 248 617 115 543 1,304 15,340 8,100 28,897 247 13,000 $ 75,026 248 617 115 543 1,304 15,340 8,100 28,897 247 13,000 $ 74,828 748 501 796 543 1,665 15,340 10,125 27,792 874 21,003 13,800 $ - $ 74,828 748 501 796 543 1,665 15,340 10,125 27,792 874 21,003 13,800 $ 246,136 $ 246,136 $ 231,323 $ - $ 231,323 105 Summary Schedules 28595 104th Place/University Dr. 1,071 2,953 4,024 $ 54 600 654 2002-03 BUDGET REQUEST Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll Summary Schedules MARICOPA COUNTY STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LEVIES SECONDARY ROLL FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DIST # 23189 13879 13908 13447 13446 13972 13109 13248 13974 13978 13448 13955 13315 13420 13418 13490 13449 13070 13510 13450 13310 13335 13817 13346 23255 13057 23254 13177 23137 13059 13863 13838 13839 13888 13886 13885 13853 13210 13228 23176 13103 13107 13329 13348 13072 13121 13356 13357 13492 13451 13396 23344 106 DESCRIPTION Anthem I Apache Cntry Club Est. 1 Apache Cntry Club Est. 3 Apache Cntry Club Est. 5 Apache Wells Mobil P 1&2 Apache Wells Mobile P 3 Apache Wells Mobile P 3A Apache Wells Mobile P 3B Apache Wells Mobile P 4 Apache Wells Mobile P 4A Apache Wells Mobile P 4B Apache Wells Mobile P 5 Apache Wells Mobile P 6 Az Skies Mobil Estates AZ Skies Mobile Est E2 Brentwood Acres Caballeros Haciendas Camelot Golf Club Est. 1 Camelot Golf Club Est. 2 Casa Mia Casa Mia 2A Casa Mia 2B Cavalier Circle City Citrus Point Clark Acres Cloud Creek Ranch Coronado Acres Country Meadows 10 Country Meadows 9 Country Place at Chandler Cox Heights 1 Cox Heights 2 Cox Heights 4 Cox Heights 6 Cox Heights 7 Cox Hghts 3 & Scot Est 12 Crestview Manor Crimson Cove Crystal Manor Desert Foothills Est 5 Desert Foothills Est 6 Desert Saguaro Estates 1 Desert Saguaro Estates 2 Desert Sands Golf & CC 3 Desert Sands Golf & CC 4 Desert Sands Golf & CC 6 Desert Sands Golf & CC 7 Desert Sands Golf & CC 8 Desert Skies Desert Skies 2 Dreaming Summit 1,2a,2b 2001-02 BUDGET $ 221,436 6,970 10,587 3,861 12,875 7,624 1,904 2,850 5,570 2,419 927 2,431 2,430 3,617 2,855 1,523 1,191 3,842 3,248 5,599 1,858 2,284 5,882 2,915 3,060 685 984 555 12,549 15,528 6,315 3,395 9,441 4,141 1,132 1,690 8,658 762 1,713 6,737 3,502 4,568 3,617 1,523 5,062 8,945 2,229 3,807 4,758 1,504 1,879 2002-03 BUDGET $ 216,000 7,008 10,644 3,888 12,948 7,668 1,920 2,868 5,604 2,436 936 2,448 2,448 3,636 2,868 1,536 1,200 3,864 3,264 5,628 1,872 2,292 5,916 2,940 3,876 684 984 564 12,648 15,564 6,348 3,420 9,492 4,164 1,140 1,704 8,712 768 1,728 6,780 3,528 4,596 3,636 1,536 5,088 9,000 2,244 3,828 4,788 1,512 1,884 22,176 DIRECT 2002 TAX NET ASSESSED LEVY VALUATION $ 281,306 $ 25,548,558 7,656 2,064,874 11,675 3,172,900 4,560 1,507,450 13,957 2,028,370 8,108 1,249,422 2,071 211,389 3,080 372,467 6,099 1,444,287 2,735 478,993 1,011 182,050 2,664 279,304 2,680 477,357 3,965 281,617 3,021 167,358 1,838 232,650 1,339 323,900 4,199 873,292 3,510 1,208,775 6,073 853,050 1,950 360,250 2,445 579,050 6,392 1,607,637 3,198 784,020 5,407 2,727,510 738 301,880 1,023 246,740 612 200,150 13,057 2,609,200 16,555 2,085,600 6,948 1,684,300 3,766 1,143,331 10,101 2,412,600 4,515 1,384,000 1,247 352,250 1,673 557,750 9,486 3,111,190 813 163,400 1,782 129,294 6,766 956,550 3,809 1,156,149 4,920 1,224,280 4,037 466,350 1,687 405,850 5,361 651,713 9,553 1,241,069 2,413 368,816 3,842 492,920 5,126 1,035,200 1,599 249,800 2,064 359,150 31,113 3,640,080 2002 TAX RATE 1.1011 0.3708 0.3680 0.3025 0.6881 0.6489 0.9797 0.8269 0.4223 0.5710 0.5553 0.9538 0.5614 1.4079 1.8051 0.7900 0.4134 0.4808 0.2904 0.7119 0.5413 0.4222 0.3976 0.4079 0.1982 0.2445 0.4146 0.3058 0.5004 0.7938 0.4125 0.3294 0.4187 0.3262 0.3540 0.3000 0.3049 0.4976 1.3783 0.7073 0.3295 0.4019 0.8657 0.4157 0.8226 0.7697 0.6543 0.7794 0.4952 0.6401 0.5747 0.8547 Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DESCRIPTION Dreamland Villa Dreamland Villa 02 Dreamland Villa 03 Dreamland Villa 04 Dreamland Villa 05 Dreamland Villa 06 Dreamland Villa 07 Dreamland Villa 08 Dreamland Villa 09 Dreamland Villa 10 Dreamland Villa 11 Dreamland Villa 12 Dreamland Villa 14 Dreamland Villa 15 Dreamland Villa 16 Dreamland Villa 17 Dreamland Villa-19 Empire Gardens 2 Empire Gardens 3 Empire Gardens 4 Esquire Villa 1 Estate Ranchos Glenmar Golden West 2 Granite Reef Vista Park Hallcraft 1 Hallcraft 2 Hallcraft 3 Hidden Village Holiday Gardens 1 Hopeville J & O Frontier Place Knott Manor La Casa Bonita Linda Vista Linda Vista 2 Litchfield Park 17 Litchfield Park 18 Litchfield Park 19 Litchfield Vista Views II Lucy T. Homesites 2 Luke Field Homes McAfee Mobile Manor McCormick Estates 1 Melville 1 Mereway Manor Mesa Country Club Park Mesa East Mesquite Trails Oasis Verde Pinnacle Ranch at 83rd Ave Pomeroy Estates Queen Creek Plaza Rancho Del Sol 2 Rancho Grande Tres Rio Vista West Rio Vista West 2 Scottsdale Cntry Acres 2002-03 BUDGET $ 1,692 2,472 4,824 2,136 5,424 3,840 5,964 4,116 5,784 5,400 7,836 6,540 12,528 8,208 9,732 2,952 768 960 972 1,128 4,932 876 1,860 7,836 804 25,332 15,252 10,596 1,512 156 1,104 2,388 1,752 1,224 3,432 2,880 3,168 3,300 3,780 1,896 2,736 7,332 1,500 1,440 5,412 5,112 3,036 18,276 3,372 6,384 2,628 2,172 1,728 2,868 6,384 4,560 540 3,600 DIRECT 2002 TAX NET ASSESSED LEVY VALUATION $ 1,830 $ 278,750 2,667 1,258,013 5,241 815,925 2,251 406,750 6,028 963,500 4,125 867,650 6,464 1,228,550 4,400 983,200 6,295 1,184,950 5,737 1,104,750 8,482 1,585,005 7,039 1,251,250 13,454 3,007,570 8,661 1,853,172 10,492 2,056,020 3,129 656,700 803 328,950 1,087 195,900 1,093 207,700 1,221 231,650 5,280 790,230 922 406,690 1,999 374,400 8,334 1,593,450 866 192,800 26,946 7,518,220 16,272 4,516,770 11,286 6,610,000 1,631 933,350 0 419,300 741 75,029 2,481 856,324 1,566 207,750 967 127,960 3,825 525,650 3,028 531,530 3,527 694,400 3,842 1,004,600 4,339 1,779,400 2,051 992,190 2,978 531,104 7,354 514,069 1,669 236,331 1,619 280,585 5,799 1,334,350 5,729 1,740,490 3,401 597,250 19,746 2,787,541 3,597 615,686 6,898 1,066,250 2,785 943,090 2,244 519,993 1,751 248,500 3,144 1,080,270 6,860 1,323,437 4,966 638,270 599 207,820 3,983 1,299,850 2002 TAX RATE 0.6565 0.2120 0.6423 0.5534 0.6256 0.4754 0.5261 0.4475 0.5312 0.5193 0.5351 0.5626 0.4473 0.4674 0.5103 0.4765 0.2441 0.5549 0.5262 0.5271 0.6682 0.2267 0.5339 0.5230 0.4492 0.3584 0.3603 0.1707 0.1747 0.0000 0.9876 0.2897 0.7538 0.7557 0.7277 0.5697 0.5079 0.3824 0.2438 0.2067 0.5607 1.4305 0.7062 0.5770 0.4346 0.3292 0.5694 0.7084 0.5842 0.6469 0.2953 0.4315 0.7046 0.2910 0.5183 0.7780 0.2882 0.3064 107 Summary Schedules DIST # 13836 13840 13859 13872 13890 13909 13919 13921 13930 13937 13943 13951 13973 13995 13452 13453 13191 13010 13287 13288 13844 13079 13855 13005 13437 13874 13875 13876 13820 13913 13184 13869 13343 13478 13424 13454 13128 13386 13075 23145 13455 13456 13459 13870 13810 13884 13825 13352 13271 13371 23076 13311 13325 13402 13460 13326 13312 13837 2001-02 BUDGET $ 1,683 2,456 4,798 2,122 5,395 3,823 5,931 4,092 5,749 5,374 7,794 6,502 12,462 8,160 9,677 2,933 762 955 965 1,119 4,902 876 1,853 7,792 799 25,183 15,172 10,541 1,507 155 1,086 2,374 1,742 1,215 3,409 2,869 3,125 3,214 3,717 1,878 2,719 7,374 1,492 1,426 5,379 5,085 3,017 18,167 3,350 6,354 2,607 2,162 1,713 2,785 6,350 4,514 534 3,578 Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13882 13801 13816 13821 13812 13827 13849 13848 13850 13851 13868 13802 13813 13864 13896 23324 13991 13935 13917 13916 13923 13924 13925 13926 13927 13928 13263 13281 13931 13952 13932 13964 13933 13938 13953 13372 13970 13934 13940 13941 13404 13432 13939 13942 13950 13954 13965 13944 13985 13992 13999 13966 13967 13986 13989 13968 13993 108 DESCRIPTION Scottsdale Cntry Acres 2 Scottsdale Estates 01 Scottsdale Estates 02 Scottsdale Estates 03 Scottsdale Estates 04 Scottsdale Estates 05 Scottsdale Estates 06 Scottsdale Estates 07 Scottsdale Estates 08 Scottsdale Estates 09 Scottsdale Estates 16 Scottsdale Highlands 1 Scottsdale Highlands 2 Scottsdale Highlands 4 Scottsdale Highlands 5 SCW Expansion 17 Suburban Ranchettes Sun City 01 Sun City 05 Sun City 06 Sun City 06C Sun City 06D Sun City 06G Sun City 07 Sun City 08 Sun City 09 Sun City 10 Sun City 10A Sun City 11 Sun City 11A Sun City 12 Sun City 14 Sun City 15 Sun City 15B Sun City 15C Sun City 15D Sun City 16 Sun City 17 Sun City 17A Sun City 17B & 17C Sun City 17E F&G Sun City 17H Sun City 18 & 18A Sun City 19 & 20 Sun City 21 & 21A Sun City 22 & 22A Sun City 22B Sun City 23 Sun City 24 Sun City 24B Sun City 24C Sun City 25 Sun City 25A Sun City 26 Sun City 26A Sun City 27 Sun City 28 2001-02 BUDGET $ 5,884 4,700 4,924 6,672 12,281 10,041 10,527 10,364 6,820 4,355 5,649 1,700 1,878 1,153 1,502 76,225 3,881 238,234 14,601 34,962 26,457 24,355 10,048 8,364 10,216 8,355 18,737 17,479 35,940 8,707 27,194 5,111 3,162 4,807 10,278 4,258 19,538 3,996 2,433 6,848 7,828 3,608 27,107 30,637 26,647 24,226 7,649 16,724 6,406 6,489 4,188 30,251 16,279 14,854 12,609 7,981 2,783 2002-03 BUDGET $ 5,916 4,728 4,956 6,708 12,348 10,092 10,584 10,416 6,864 4,380 5,676 1,704 1,884 1,164 1,512 75,120 3,360 238,224 14,772 34,968 26,652 24,348 10,128 8,340 10,296 8,424 18,672 17,640 35,364 8,748 27,456 5,160 3,156 4,848 10,368 4,212 18,900 4,032 2,568 6,912 7,812 3,636 28,008 31,392 26,748 24,612 7,716 16,908 6,456 6,600 4,224 30,528 16,536 14,976 12,744 8,040 2,832 DIRECT 2002 TAX NET ASSESSED LEVY VALUATION $ 6,399 $ 1,909,350 5,307 1,327,026 5,389 1,527,048 7,133 2,457,400 13,260 3,170,450 10,621 3,351,320 11,302 3,147,057 11,228 3,069,658 7,432 2,224,650 4,640 1,155,350 5,904 1,449,500 1,854 686,150 2,033 618,900 1,256 382,100 1,692 383,450 80,253 13,872,218 2,645 940,130 274,166 31,354,796 15,759 2,822,553 37,676 5,202,175 28,597 4,318,344 26,054 3,519,711 11,162 2,039,047 9,654 1,796,829 11,558 2,168,398 9,648 1,525,849 21,621 3,823,622 20,538 3,582,735 39,977 6,098,340 9,891 1,221,959 30,740 4,230,197 5,653 577,897 3,452 1,107,678 5,020 1,004,229 11,370 3,245,754 4,327 347,387 18,698 7,280,580 4,263 570,027 2,782 375,850 7,611 1,457,936 8,885 2,275,256 3,929 932,854 31,264 4,899,354 34,654 4,975,314 30,069 4,547,097 27,351 3,263,965 8,545 2,359,220 18,821 3,152,240 7,382 2,030,590 7,312 2,306,180 4,821 1,664,350 34,830 6,253,644 18,868 3,044,567 16,878 3,648,966 14,327 2,237,531 8,378 1,782,567 3,061 757,663 2002 TAX RATE 0.3351 0.3999 0.3529 0.2903 0.4182 0.3169 0.3591 0.3658 0.3341 0.4016 0.4073 0.2702 0.3285 0.3287 0.4413 0.5785 0.2813 0.8744 0.5583 0.7242 0.6622 0.7402 0.5474 0.5373 0.5330 0.6323 0.5655 0.5732 0.6555 0.8094 0.7267 0.9782 0.3116 0.4999 0.3503 1.2456 0.2568 0.7479 0.7402 0.5220 0.3905 0.4212 0.6381 0.6965 0.6613 0.8380 0.3622 0.5971 0.3635 0.3171 0.2897 0.5570 0.6197 0.4625 0.6403 0.4700 0.4040 Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DESCRIPTION Sun City 28A Sun City 28B Sun City 30 Sun City 31 Sun City 31A Sun City 32 Sun City 32A Sun City 33 Sun City 34 Sun City 34A Sun City 35 Sun City 35A Sun City 36 Sun City 37 Sun City 38 Sun City 38A Sun City 38B Sun City 39 Sun City 40 Sun City 41 Sun City 42 Sun City 43 Sun City 44 Sun City 45 Sun City 46 Sun City 47 Sun City 48 Sun City 49 Sun City 50 Sun City 50A Sun City 51 Sun City 52 Sun City 53 Sun City 54 Sun City 55 Sun City 56 Sun City 57 Sun City West Sun City West Expansion Sun Lakes 01 Sun Lakes 02 Sun Lakes 03 Sun Lakes 03A Sun Lakes 04 Sun Lakes 05 Sun Lakes 06 Sun Lakes 07 Sun Lakes 08 Sun Lakes 09 Sun Lakes 10 Sun Lakes 11 & 11A Sun Lakes 12 Sun Lakes 14 Sun Lakes 15 Sun Lakes 16 &16A Sun Lakes 17 2002-03 BUDGET $ 2,088 2,280 30,252 11,712 20,184 11,544 15,336 19,068 3,204 15,024 22,860 14,844 5,088 13,236 2,724 2,772 2,544 9,216 5,388 9,960 8,580 16,680 15,180 11,808 7,572 16,920 13,356 17,448 6,924 3,444 10,824 10,104 24,120 14,652 16,020 3,552 8,388 686,976 130,884 5,640 5,904 9,384 1,800 5,748 11,172 9,192 3,144 3,060 2,220 6,996 1,308 7,128 5,820 5,508 9,192 10,080 DIRECT 2002 TAX NET ASSESSED LEVY VALUATION $ 2,347 $ 685,546 2,685 418,159 32,084 5,449,646 13,138 2,243,017 21,624 3,891,217 12,373 2,202,416 17,565 3,717,767 20,124 3,539,374 3,571 735,899 15,896 3,511,585 24,355 4,206,751 15,787 2,970,824 5,687 3,434,154 13,962 2,122,546 3,024 274,161 3,073 284,551 2,756 736,157 10,138 3,110,907 5,927 1,847,989 10,829 1,907,652 9,330 1,423,030 17,996 2,644,370 16,297 2,521,324 12,634 2,373,302 8,628 1,731,091 18,068 2,929,974 14,377 3,316,010 18,577 3,523,884 7,407 1,800,872 3,345 527,510 11,610 2,166,254 10,851 2,361,328 25,820 6,693,393 15,837 3,758,508 17,298 3,203,170 3,686 925,938 9,124 1,805,269 744,386 178,524,786 140,240 30,651,823 6,063 1,076,421 6,268 1,045,232 9,996 1,430,336 1,921 534,230 6,232 2,525,942 12,179 2,130,224 9,834 3,091,405 3,682 954,450 3,295 685,100 2,397 776,250 7,513 3,258,063 1,404 1,060,650 7,684 2,623,461 6,257 2,266,290 6,028 2,397,530 9,958 3,373,324 19,592 3,346,450 2002 TAX RATE 0.3424 0.6421 0.5887 0.5857 0.5557 0.5618 0.4725 0.5686 0.4853 0.4527 0.5790 0.5314 0.1656 0.6578 1.1030 1.0799 0.3744 0.3259 0.3207 0.5677 0.6556 0.6805 0.6464 0.5323 0.4984 0.6167 0.4336 0.5272 0.4113 0.6341 0.5359 0.4595 0.3858 0.4214 0.5400 0.3981 0.5054 0.4170 0.4575 0.5633 0.5997 0.6989 0.3596 0.2467 0.5717 0.3181 0.3858 0.4810 0.3088 0.2306 0.1324 0.2929 0.2761 0.2514 0.2952 0.5855 109 Summary Schedules DIST # 13421 13499 13969 13990 13486 13994 13485 13401 13438 13439 13419 13440 13441 13494 13351 13358 13001 13487 13488 13392 13495 13496 13316 13330 13331 13349 13364 13354 13376 13291 13374 13375 13393 13394 13395 13397 13247 13298 13383 13433 13434 13463 13264 13361 13362 13363 13122 13268 13069 13178 13226 13219 13220 13290 13221 13303 2001-02 BUDGET $ 2,065 2,254 30,529 11,623 20,154 11,443 15,215 18,887 3,210 14,892 22,682 14,888 4,984 13,244 2,431 2,489 2,630 9,115 5,336 9,885 8,507 16,506 15,056 11,759 7,508 16,782 13,236 17,290 6,829 3,408 10,899 9,990 23,896 14,524 15,848 3,822 8,292 694,301 131,899 5,605 5,876 9,335 1,789 5,711 11,106 9,136 3,121 3,045 2,207 6,959 1,298 7,093 5,783 5,471 9,137 10,021 Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13223 13203 13188 13169 13078 13003 13147 13056 13862 13051 13830 13865 13132 13922 13901 13911 13912 13929 13962 13444 13422 13423 13359 13936 13176 13417 13465 DESCRIPTION Sun Lakes 18 Sun Lakes 19 Sun Lakes 21 Sun Lakes 22 Sunrise Meadows 1 Sunrise Unit 5 Ph 2 Superstition View #1 The Vineyards of Mesa Town & Country Scottsdale Towne Meadows Trail West Trail West 2 Valencia Village Velda Rose Cntry Club Add Velda Rose Estates 1 Velda Rose Estates 2 Velda Rose Estates 3 Velda Rose Estates 4 Velda Rose Estates East Velda Rose Estates East 2 Velda Rose Estates East 3 Velda Rose Estates East 4 Velda Rose Estates East 5 Velda Rose Gardens Villa Royale Western Ranchettes Western Ranchettes 2 2001-02 BUDGET $ 12,303 4,800 10,200 3,937 190 2,692 3,198 8,591 2,004 17,246 1,502 1,883 6,373 2,386 1,112 1,683 1,853 1,853 3,336 1,488 927 1,297 2,224 3,576 571 2,835 2,815 $ 13435 23104 110 Az Skies Mobile Est. W 2 Litchfield Vista Views $ $ 3,112,985 1,868 1,677 2002-03 BUDGET $ 12,372 4,824 10,260 3,960 192 2,160 3,216 8,640 2,016 17,340 1,512 1,896 6,420 2,400 1,116 1,692 1,860 1,860 3,360 1,500 936 1,308 2,232 3,600 576 2,856 2,832 $ $ $ 3,131,016 1,884 1,692 DIRECT 2002 TAX NET ASSESSED LEVY VALUATION $ 13,369 $ 4,055,150 5,262 2,285,400 11,073 4,947,649 4,204 3,436,247 0 5,269,789 2,160 719,450 3,645 489,090 9,079 1,762,800 2,191 593,650 18,579 6,286,989 1,627 523,850 2,089 672,800 6,968 1,195,909 2,580 287,582 1,247 207,950 1,857 258,450 2,006 505,050 2,007 470,400 3,890 463,400 1,598 329,700 974 256,200 1,462 186,800 2,425 514,250 3,766 326,720 632 675,955 3,137 461,880 3,072 484,150 $ $ $ 3,472,667 2,248 1,818 $ 2002 TAX RATE 0.3297 0.2302 0.2238 0.1223 0.0000 0.3002 0.7453 0.5150 0.3691 0.2955 0.3106 0.3105 0.5827 0.8971 0.5997 0.7185 0.3972 0.4267 0.8394 0.4847 0.3802 0.7827 0.4716 1.1527 0.0935 0.6792 0.6345 696,116,806 2002 SQUARE FOOTAGE 314,226 1,351,641 0.7154 0.1345 Personnel Plan Introduction Achieving Countywide strategic performance results, increasing employee job satisfaction and providing a better quality of life for employees and citizens alike, requires successful financial and personnel resource accountability. This Personnel Plan section provides management with the tools necessary to achieve organization objectives and measurable results in order to assess emerging personnel trends and make informed decisions. Accomplishing personnel strategies and improving accountability processes requires successful management of funded positions, administration and control of staffing resources and financial and personnel decision-making based upon accurate and timely data. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) works to provide this information and ensure full funding for all positions through the Funded Position Policy, Budgeting for Results Policy, and the Lump Sum Budgeting Guidelines used in preparation of the annual budget. Maricopa County’s financial and personnel resource strategies focus on the recruitment and retention of productive employees. Retaining highly productive and accomplished employees requires alignment of employee performance with a personal commitment and cooperation in attaining Countywide objectives. Crucial elements of these processes include: Compensation, including wages, benefits and employee leave programs. Development of employee relations programs. Ongoing development and maintenance of programs, processes, services, resources, and training to enhance the health, morale, productivity, and organizational knowledge of employees Countywide. • • • • • Highlights Personnel Costs & Savings Attrition (Turnover Rates) & Vacancy Rates Employee Retention New Directions Information concerning departments with small numbers of employees (less than 25) should be used with extreme caution. A change of one or two vacancies, positions or terminations reflects a higher percentage change than those same movements within larger departments. These higher percentage changes may or may not reflect significant issues within these smaller departments. Highlights Maricopa County maintained its strategic position as a leader in the local labor market during FY 2001-02, despite a sagging economy, further compounded by the events of September 11, 2001. The success of Maricopa County’s FY 2001-02 personnel strategies are attributed, in part, to the Countywide Managing for Results endeavors to align employees to organizational achievements. The leading performance indicators used to determine Maricopa County’s success in managing financial and personnel resources are personnel savings, employee satisfaction and employee retention. 111 Personnel Plan The operational and financial impact of human resources issues, trends, position control, recruitment and staff retention are contained in the following sections: Personnel Plan Countywide FY 2001-02 gross personnel savings for all funds1, excluding grants, totaled $37.9 million or 6.2% of total budgeted personnel costs. FY 2001-02 General Fund gross personnel savings totaled $28.5 million or 10.5% of total budgeted personnel costs. Departments with the highest gross personnel savings rate (for all funds excluding grants), i.e., percent gross actual variance to budget, are shown on the chart at left. Also shown are the corresponding attrition rates. The table below shows the actual dollar amount of gross personnel savings (all funds excluding grants) for the departments represented in the above chart. DEPARTMENT Transportation Correctional Health Public Health Recorder Medical Examiner Elections Health Care Mandates Superintendent of Schools 1 GROSS PERSONNEL SAVINGS $ 3,343,800 $ 2,181,144 $ 864,141 $ 600,979 $ 497,621 $ 476,002 $ 373,515 $ 257,756 Personnel savings are grouped by fund in this document. The General Fund is a general operating fund set-up to account for the resources and uses of general governmental operations of the County. Taxes provide most of these resources. Enterprise funds are accounted for in a method similar to private business enterprise, where user fees are intended to recover expenditures. Special Revenue Funds are restricted to use by statute and local policy. The personnel costs and savings section of this document places emphasis upon General Fund personnel savings. This fund has the greatest impact upon the citizens of Maricopa County. All other sections of this document which make reference to personnel savings include all funds (excluding grants). 112 Attrition is an indication of how well employers hold on to their employees. FY 2001-02 Countywide attrition, or turnover, of 16.1% increased by 1/2 basis point over FY 2000-01 of 15.6%. This slight increase in attrition, as compared to previous years’ movements shown on the chart at left, may indicate that employee turnover is stabilizing. The formula for calculating attrition compares the number of employee separations to the number of positions filled and annualized. This formula does not include reductions-in-force or the move of nearly 300 employees from Maricopa County’s Department of Medical Eligibility to the State of Arizona in October 2001. Additional detail is provided in the Attrition (Turnover Rates) & Vacancy Rates section of this personnel plan. Employee separations refer to permanent separations from County employment. Separations are categorized as either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary separations may result due to employee satisfaction issues. The higher the voluntary separation rates the higher the financial and operational impact to County departments. Involuntary separation increases may reflect personnel training, recruitment or performance issues. Personnel Plan The chart at right shows the distribution of FY 200102 employee separations by category. Voluntary separations represent 78% of all employee separations versus 22% involuntary separations. 113 During FY 2001-02, 35% of employees leaving gave no reason for separation. 15% of total separations represent employees released while on initial probation or involuntary leave from unclassified status. Other major separation reasons were for more pay, more responsible jobs, retirement, relocation, misconduct or violation of rules, medical reasons, domestic obligations, quitting without giving a 3 day notice, reductions-in-force and for a similar job with less pay. The breakdown is provided on the chart at left. Personnel Plan Vacant positions may indicate how well employers utilize employees in relationship to results achieved. High vacancy rates may indicate recruitment issues. Maricopa County continues to assess staffing levels and vacancy rates in order to determine whether operational issues are adequately addressed. Maricopa County’s FY 2001-02 vacancy rate was 12.3%. This represents an increase of 3.4 basis points over FY 2000-01 vacancy rate of 8.9%. The increase in vacant positions is partially due to the Board of Supervisors approved Budget Balancing Plan established in October 2001 to offset the effects of the recessionary economy and the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The Plan encouraged managers to leave non-critical positions vacant through year-end, thus, creating vacancy savings. Recruitment complexities may also be a cause for high vacancy rates. The chart at right shows year-over-year incremental vacancy rate growth along with the actual fiscal year vacancy rates for Maricopa County. 114 Departments with vacancy rates for FY 2001-02 that are higher than the Countywide vacancy rate of 12.3% are shown on the table below. Keep in mind that departments with fewer than 25 employees are not included in this table, but they are shown in the Attrition (Turnover Rates) & Vacancy Rates section. DEPARTMENT Maricopa Health Delivery System Correctional Health Health Plans Housing Animal Care and Control Superintendent of Schools Human Services Treasurer Public Health Transportation Medical Examiner FY 2001-02 VACANCY RATE 26.2% 23.0% 18.7% 16.9% 15.9% 15.6% 15.2% 14.1% 14.0% 12.9% 12.7% Maricopa County continues to focus on Managing for Results (MfR) in order to assist management in identifying trends before they happen. Tracking performance results provides information vital to decision-making. The Board of Supervisors approved 13,720 salary advancements with an annualized cost of $19.5 million or an average 6.3% for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. The annualized cost to the FY 2002-03 budget was $26.3 million. Salary advancements, which contribute to the retention of quality employees, include all personnel actions, such as job reclassifications, performance increases, grade adjustments, special salary advancements, etc., and also provide the means for maintaining labor market equity. 115 Personnel Plan The results of Maricopa County’s belt-tightening may be viewed on the chart at right. The total numbers of positions recruited quarterly continue on a downward trend from the 1st quarter through the 4th quarter FY 2001-02. This may be a reflection of the County’s cost cutting measures instituted during October 2001. The total numbers of positions filled follow the same trend as those recruited. The raw numbers of positions filled, as shown on the chart, suggest that the job market may be shrinking. This issue requires further investigation. The drop in the numbers of positions separated during the 2nd quarter may be due to the affects of the events of September 11, 2001. Increases in the number of separations during the 4th quarter appear to be mainly due to a 59% increase in employees retiring, 63% increase in involuntary separations due to misconduct and violation of rules, and a 100% increase in reductions-in-force. These separation reasons are not a reflection of dissatisfaction on the part of employees. Personnel Plan FY 2001-02 salary advances completed and annualized cost to the FY 2002-03 budget are listed on the table below: DEPARTMENT NAME Adult Probation Animal Care and Control Assessor Board Of Supervisors District 1 Board Of Supervisors District 2 Board Of Supervisors District 3 Board Of Supervisors District 4 Board Of Supervisors District 5 Chief Information Officer Clerk of Board of Supervisors Clerk of Superior Court Community Development Constables Correctional Health County Administrative Officer County Attorney County Call Center Criminal Justice Facilities Development Elections Emergency Management Svcs Environmental Services Equipment Services Facilities Management Finance Flood Control District Health Care Mandates Health Delivery System Health Plans Housing Human Resources Human Services Indigent Representation Integrated Criminal Justice Info System Internal Audit Judicial Mandates Justice Courts Juvenile Probation Library District Management & Budget Materials Management Medical Examiner Parks & Recreation Planning & Development Public Fiduciary Public Health Recorder Research & Reporting Risk Management Sheriff Solid Waste Management Stadium District MLB Superintendent of Schools Superior Court Telecommunications Transportation Treasurer TOTALS 116 NUMBER OF ADVANCEMENTS 984 180 300 4 2 1 3 58 6 627 13 6 179 19 966 26 8 66 15 275 65 175 3 179 2 2,045 329 37 81 307 486 13 16 38 223 638 172 16 30 64 70 100 31 636 69 25 2,502 3 3 16 756 40 556 54 13,720 FY 2001-02 COST OF ANNUALIZED COST TO FY ADVANCEMENTS 2002-03 BUDGET $ 735,643 $ 1,123,031 46,269 274,551 213,810 303,303 8,249 17,894 13,476 18,103 3,237 10,022 1,377 13,990 84,054 137,724 3,608 11,860 663,621 1,009,925 25,845 39,317 5,309 6,890 180,515 341,246 16,206 41,614 2,379,633 3,112,559 30,664 42,700 12,006 29,002 118,223 184,725 15,894 26,580 322,731 597,815 77,261 94,649 218,153 302,866 5,516 11,004 194,587 283,759 7,516 11,129 3,288,604 4,053,191 555,091 659,822 23,738 54,204 86,887 115,278 613,338 698,707 1,291,075 1,561,202 11,044 24,263 9,081 17,414 91,229 108,639 133,832 191,214 499,378 780,703 449,794 608,658 21,848 37,020 30,820 38,022 113,065 178,127 81,711 137,202 100,419 168,090 12,181 33,408 406,813 1,003,785 120,849 191,073 28,202 48,358 4,335,669 4,990,821 3,851 4,489 5,046 7,392 22,194 39,505 878,038 1,012,157 62,820 105,945 524,923 971,519 59,417 82,225 $ 19,565,497 $ 26,344,618 AVERAGE INCREASE 3.3% 5.2% 3.3% 12.1% 22.2% 16.6% 0.0% 12.7% 4.2% 6.1% 5.5% 8.3% 3.6% 5.7% 4.5% 8.4% 6.6% 5.5% 9.5% 5.2% 6.2% 4.3% 5.1% 6.3% 3.5% 16.2% 5.4% 6.8% 4.8% 3.8% 9.4% 7.8% 2.4% 2.1% 6.5% 3.2% 3.7% 14.5% 4.2% 3.5% 5.9% 5.7% 4.5% 2.9% 5.5% 9.2% 0.0% 4.9% 5.9% 3.0% 4.6% 5.0% 4.3% 6.8% 4.9% 4.0% 6.3% Maricopa County strives to meet staffing objectives while increasing resource accountability through an ongoing commitment to attract and retain highly qualified, diversified and satisfied employees. The County maintains a value-added compensation plan, leave plan and employee programs that provides competitive salary, wages and benefits, creative recruitment and innovative retention strategies. One of the major areas recently addressed focuses upon employee benefits, in order to increase employee satisfaction and maintain a competitive edge. Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction Surveys provide management with critical information necessary to recruit and retain productive employees. Valuable experience is lost when employee separations increase. This results in costly recruitment and training, while adversely impacting customer confidence. Maricopa County’s emphasis on employee satisfaction is geared to stem the flow of quality individuals leaving its employ. Successes in the areas of retention are evidenced by annual increases in overall employee satisfaction. Personnel Costs & Savings FY 2001-02 actual personnel costs for all funds (excluding grants) totaled $612.9 million and gross actual personnel savings for all funds totaled $37.9 million. Gross actual personnel savings represent 6.2% of total personnel costs. The table below compares FY 2001-02 actual personnel costs and savings to budget. MARICOPA COUNTY FY 2001-02 PERSONNEL SAVINGS - ALL FUNDS EXCLUDING GRANTS % Gross % Net Actual Total Budget Actual Gross Actual Actual Budgeted Net Actual Savings/ Personnel Personnel Personnel Savings/ Personnel Savings (Above Budgeted Costs Costs Savings Total Budget Savings Budget) Savings $612,866,390 $575,029,695 $37,936,695 6.2% $32,325,552 $5,511,143 17.1% Current declining revenues and an expanding population affects Maricopa County’s ability to provide quality services to its citizens. The sagging economy impacts financial and personnel resources in the areas of employee turnover, retention, productivity, hiring, training and development, and compensation. Through wise management of personnel resources, Maricopa County may reduce the impact of a possible degradation of services during this economic slump. 117 Personnel Plan Maricopa County’s focus upon Managing for Results enables management to place a high value on its employees, provide quality customer directed services and achieves organization-wide objectives. Providing diversified employee compensation options along with competitive salaries in this tightening economy are key to retaining employees. Personnel savings result when positions remain vacant, the actual pay of a position’s incumbent is lower than budgeted, or when compensation plan funding remains unused. The chart at right shows the FY 2001-02 major gross personnel savings compared to net personnel savings by department for all funds excluding grants. The table below compares number of employees, actual personnel costs, total salary advancements, and gross personnel savings based upon major departmental gross personnel savings. Personnel Plan DEPARTMENT Sheriff Juvenile Probation Transportation Clerk of Court County Attorney Correctional Health Superior Court Indigent Representation Justice Courts Adult Probation Public Health Library District Facilities Management Recorder Flood Control Assessor GROSS PERSONNEL SAVINGS $ 10,528,183 3,529,528 3,343,800 2,519,398 2,494,852 2,181,144 1,328,083 1,175,311 1,106,908 897,761 864,141 648,214 636,273 600,979 582,234 552,135 PERSONNEL COSTS SALARY ADVANCEMENTS $ 105,184,932 33,436,775 21,765,229 19,791,419 35,451,397 9,652,738 37,836,507 27,209,985 11,842,043 17,831,013 5,900,465 5,443,239 8,521,781 3,053,113 11,815,528 12,178,181 $ 4,335,669 499,378 524,923 663,621 2,379,633 180,515 878,038 1,291,075 133,832 735,643 406,813 449,794 218,153 120,849 194,587 213,810 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 2,238 793 443 638 864 204 815 504 270 1,065 461 126 222 64 214 311 The Health Delivery System represents 24% of Maricopa County’s FY 2001-02 actual personnel costs for all funds excluding grants. The table below provides FY 2001-02 personnel results for the Health Delivery System. HEALTH DELIVERY SYSTEM FY 2001-02 PERSONNEL RESULTS Budget Personnel Costs Actual Personnel Costs Gross Personnel Savings to Budget % Gross Personnel Savings to Budget $128,569,562 $137,447,735 ($8,878,173) (6.9%) 118 Due to the high vacancy rates and attrition in the health care industry, the County must continue to rely upon more costly and erratic contract labor to meet customer demands. As shown on the chart at left, total contract labor FY 2001-02 represents 5.6% of the Health Delivery System workforce. The table below shows the General Fund FY 2001-02 Personnel Savings by department, excluding General Government and Medical Eligibility. FY 2001-02 GENERAL FUND PERSONNEL SAVINGS Excluding General Government and Medical Eligibility TOTAL Personnel Plan AGENCY NAME ADULT PROBATION ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES ASSESSOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 5 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT CONSTABLES COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY CALL CENTER ELECTIONS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FINANCE HEALTH CARE MANDATES HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN SERVICES INDIGENT REPRESENTATION INTERNAL AUDIT JUDICIAL MANDATES JUSTICE COURTS JUVENILE PROBATION MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MATERIALS MANAGEMENT MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION PUBLIC FIDUCIARY PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER SHERIFF SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SUPERIOR COURT TREASURER GROSS GROSS BUDGET ACTUAL GROSS BUDGETED NET ACTUAL ACTUAL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL VARIANCE COSTS COSTS SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS TO BUDGET 10,612,207 10,136,466 475,741 398,639 77,102 4.5% 197,954 197,973 (19) (19) (0.0%) 12,730,316 12,178,181 552,135 622,890 (70,755) 4.3% 377,731 357,323 20,408 20,408 5.4% 213,954 204,833 9,121 9,121 4.3% 202,985 185,273 17,713 17,713 8.7% 212,360 196,938 15,422 15,422 7.3% 201,088 176,695 24,393 24,393 12.1% 213,689 212,236 1,453 1,453 0.7% 3,998,397 3,757,458 240,939 240,298 641 6.0% 20,233,783 18,450,687 1,783,096 1,118,479 664,617 8.8% 1,458,180 1,461,638 (3,458) (3,458) (0.2%) 1,134,235 933,126 201,109 33,243 167,866 17.7% 37,946,249 35,451,397 2,494,852 1,644,634 850,218 6.6% 1,131,964 1,040,154 91,810 49,389 42,421 8.1% 3,020,311 2,544,309 476,002 116,166 359,836 15.8% 68,402 50,435 17,967 10,185 7,782 26.3% 569,327 566,195 3,132 9,235 (6,103) 0.6% 9,158,054 8,521,781 636,273 600,117 36,156 6.9% 1,932,194 1,659,557 272,637 90,253 182,384 14.1% 2,017,217 1,643,702 373,515 76,630 296,885 18.5% 3,702,133 3,540,514 161,619 107,629 53,990 4.4% 364,735 370,169 (5,434) (5,434) (1.5%) 28,385,296 27,209,985 1,175,311 986,929 188,382 4.1% 975,987 936,893 39,094 18,000 21,094 4.0% 2,227,914 2,096,006 131,908 151,926 (20,018) 5.9% 12,834,532 11,773,279 1,061,253 532,958 528,295 8.3% 9,757,806 9,233,099 524,707 278,839 245,868 5.4% 1,537,943 1,402,244 135,699 118,708 16,991 8.8% 1,323,277 1,302,556 20,721 104,426 (83,705) 1.6% 3,492,666 2,995,045 497,621 202,825 294,796 14.2% 1,252,457 1,107,125 145,332 68,481 76,851 11.6% 1,621,534 1,571,030 50,504 84,943 (34,439) 3.1% 5,148,452 4,581,318 567,134 415,477 151,657 11.0% 1,542,052 1,456,616 85,436 85,011 425 5.5% 37,041,981 32,350,941 4,691,040 3,124,757 1,566,283 12.7% 1,549,125 1,291,369 257,756 60,586 197,170 16.6% 34,920,859 34,352,667 568,192 1,298,984 (730,792) 1.6% 2,869,565 2,628,322 241,243 125,161 116,082 8.4% 271,812,800 243,273,259 28,539,541 21,095,846 7,443,695 10.5% 119 General Fund FY 2001-02 actual personnel costs totaled $243.3 million and gross actual personnel savings totaled $28.5 million. Gross actual personnel savings represent 11.7% of total personnel costs. The table below compares FY 2001-02 actual personnel costs and savings to budget. Total Budget Personnel Costs $271,812,800 MARICOPA COUNTY FY 2001-02 GENERAL FUND PERSONNEL SAVINGS % Gross Actual Gross Actual Actual Budgeted Net Actual Personnel Personnel Savings/ Personnel Savings (Above Costs Savings Total Budget Savings Budget) $243,273,259 $28,539,541 10.5% $21,095,846 $7,443,695 % Net Actual Savings/ Budgeted Savings 35.3% Personnel Plan The chart at right shows the major General Fund FY 200102 gross personnel savings by department. Excluded from the chart are General Government, which has no staff, and Medical Eligibility, which was transferred to the State of Arizona in October 2001. Changes in the number of authorized positions, vacant positions, employee turnover, timing issues related to filing newly created positions, recruitment efforts, employee satisfaction, and the state of the economy potentially impact personnel savings. Through Managing for Results initiatives, departments are better able to measure their personnel costs and associated personnel savings results in terms of attaining strategic objectives, thus improving financial accountability to employees and citizens alike. Attrition & Vacancy Rates Employee attrition, or turnover, results from employee separations and remains a major concern for employers nationwide. Replacing quality employees may involve additional hiring and training costs, possible service disruptions, and increased workloads for existing employees. Maricopa County utilizes the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., (BNA, Inc.), formula for calculating attrition and annualizes the result in order to compare itself to other public and private sector organizations. The BNA, Inc. calculated attrition formula compares the number of separating employees (true attrition based upon employees leaving the County) to the total number of filled positions. Maricopa County’s FY 2001-02 attrition, or turnover, stands at 16.1%. EMPLOYER ATTRITION RATE COMPARISONS Maricopa County State of Arizona U.S. Public Sector 16.1% 23.0% 15.2% 120 The chart at left compares Maricopa County’s attrition rates to that of the public sector and western region of the nation. Normally, during times of recession, attrition tends to decrease. Employees may be hesitant to pursue new employment opportunities, possibly due to higher unemployment rates and a less certain job market. Alternatively, Maricopa County’s rate of attrition increased over the past fiscal year. This may be attributed to employee retirement increases of nearly 60% and 11% increases in employee misconduct or violation of rules over the past year. Personnel Plan Departments with more than 25 employees, showing the highest rates of attrition are provided on the chart at right. These departments have the highest rate of employee separations compared to the total number of filled positions. A critical shortage of technical staff, mainly related to nursing, adversely impacts the health care industry. Contract labor represents $8.2 million or 5.6% of FY 2001-02 personnel costs in the Maricopa County Health Delivery System. Maricopa County’s incremental population growth has sustained an approximate 2.7% annual expansion versus its employment growth of approximately 1.2%. July 1, 2000 % Growth July 1, 2001 % Growth July 1, 2002 % Growth July 1, 2003 % Growth Population 2,954,157 3.0% 3,029,150 2.6% 3,104,077 2.5% 3,179,155 2.5% Employment 1,516,300 3.6% 1,562,358 0.8% 1,570,170 0.0% 1,617,275 0.3% 121 The incremental population growth trends and incremental employment trends for Maricopa County are shown on the chart at left. Population continues to grow at a faster pace, approximately 3.5% annually, versus employment at 2.3% annually. These expansions affect attrition by creating a highly competitive job market, which drives up the cost of labor. The recessionary economy drives up unemployment, thus increasing an already competitive job market. Personnel Plan During the annual budget cycle, Maricopa County’s Office of Management and Budget certifies that department budgets and funding are adequate to support all authorized positions. The County’s Budgeting for Results process utilizes department attrition and vacancy rates in order to successfully manage staffing resources and evaluate personnel trends as they develop. High attrition rates may indicate possible retention issues, whereas, high vacancy rates may indicate recruiting issues. Employee Satisfaction Surveys provide information that is critical to resolving high attrition and vacancy rate trends. The chart at right provides the Maricopa County attrition rate trend through the end of FY 2002-03, and actual attrition rates by quarter from the 1st quarter of FY 2000-01. The significant drop in attrition during the 2nd quarter of FY 200102 appears to be due primarily to the events of September 11, 2001. The chart at left shows the average probationary turnover, or attrition, by major department for FY 200102. Probationary turnover represents the percent of turnover during the first six months of the initial probationary period. The formula compares the number of individuals that left County service (either voluntarily or involuntarily) during the first six months of their 122 initial probation to the total new hires. This data is reviewed in an effort to identify trends. In those instances where turnover appears excessive, research is conducted and conversations with hiring authorities (or designees) are initiated in an effort to discover the cause(s) and to develop strategies to decrease future turnover rates. The table below compares FY 2001-02 average annual probationary turnover to average annual turnover for the same period. High probationary turnover may indicate hiring and training issues, whereas, annual turnover may indicate retention issues. Departments that have no probationary turnover, including the Maricopa Integrated Health System that does not track probationary turnover, are not shown on the chart below. DEPARTMENT TOTAL FY 2001-02 AVERAGE ANNUAL TURNOVER 11.6% 31.1% 9.8% 16.7% 14.6% 6.5% 9.3% 10.0% 17.8% 12.1% 5.6% 16.7% 12.5% 23.8% 54.2% 57.1% 16.2% 6.4% 6.3% 19.4% 7.1% 12.5% 11.9% 33.3% 11.4% 7.0% 6.0% 12.2% 13.2% 45.5% 8.2% 29.1% 19.8% 29.9% 14.9% 22.8% 9.6% 14.5% 7.2% 30.1% 11.7% 19.1% 8.9% 23.6% 16.6% 12.5% 10.1% 26.4% 17.4% 8.8% 14.3% 10.7% 14.8% 15.3% 11.7% 16.3% Personnel Plan ADULT PROBATION ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL ASSESSOR CALL CENTER CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ATTORNEY ELECTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT HOUSING HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN SERVICES INDIGENT REPRESENTATION JUDICIAL MANDATES JUSTICE COURTS JUVENILE PROBATION LIBRARY DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER SHERIFF SUPERIOR COURT TRANSPORTATION FY 2001-02 AVERAGE ANNUAL PROBATIONARY TURNOVER Vacant positions are examined to ensure correct funding levels. The chart at right demonstrates those departments with the greatest number of vacant positions as of June 30, 2002, with the number of vacancies expressed as a percent of total vacancies. A total of 9 departments made up roughly 83% of total vacancies at fiscal yearend 2002. The remaining 48 departments comprised 17% of the total vacant positions at fiscal yearend 2002. 123 Managing vacancies is a results oriented strategic activity. Goals need to be identified and achievements measured to determine if the workforce delivers the programs, activities and services in achieving desired results at a desired level of employment. Maricopa County quarterly vacancy rates are provided on the chart at right. High vacancies alone do not equate to high vacancy rates. The number of vacant positions as compared to the total number of positions authorized in the budget process completes the vacancy rate equation. Approximately 1,004 positions were vacated Countywide during FY 2001-02, not including the Department of Medical Eligibility, and a total of 2,246 employee separations took place during the same period. A position is vacated when an employee leaves one department for another. Separations represent employees leaving the service of Maricopa County. Personnel Plan Employee Retention Faced with a sluggish economy and tight budgetary restraints, voluntary separations remain a major concern for Maricopa County. Voluntary separations impose significant financial and operational impacts to County departments. Recruiting, selecting, hiring, and training new employees involve costs other than time and money. Employee morale may nose-dive as remaining employees attempt to fill-the-gap. Customer and employee satisfaction may suffer as well as productivity. Separation information is vital to improving the quality of working life as well as solving attrition issues. Voluntary separations remain a key indicator of employee satisfaction. The information obtained via the exit interview process provides management with an opportunity to assess and resolve retention issues. Emphasis is placed upon voluntary separations due to their greater impact on retention, attrition, employee morale, and customer service. 124 Management may be in a position to increase retention by addressing employee satisfaction issues and reduce the number of employees leaving the County voluntarily. Resolving work environment issues, addressing quality issues and assessing customer satisfaction may reduce employee retention. The chart at right compares annual voluntary and involuntary separation trends. Involuntary separations increased during FY 2001-02 primarily due to increases in misconduct or violation of rules, and medical releases. Although voluntary separations decreased from FY 200001, more employees separated for reasons of retirement, more pay, and leave expirations (separation without prejudice). Employee separation reasons play a major role in retaining quality employees. Employee Satisfaction Surveys continue to provide management with separation data that is critical to resolving employee issues. The growth or decline of the economy affects attrition. Increases in population place demands upon the supply side of employment and may result in a decline in the number of employees leaving the County. 125 Personnel Plan Departments showing the highest number of separations during FY 2001-02 are shown on the chart at left. Both voluntary and involuntary separation numbers are provided. Personnel Plan The table below provides Maricopa County’s FY 2001-02 vacancy rates and attrition rates by department, including detailed position information. DEPARTMENT ADULT PROBATION ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL ASSESSOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 5 CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY CALL CENTER CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITIES DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ELECTIONS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT HEALTH CARE MANDATES HOUSING HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN SERVICES INDIGENT REPRESENTATION INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM INTERNAL AUDIT JUDICIAL MANDATES JUSTICE COURTS JUVENILE PROBATION LIBRARY DISTRICT MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MARICOPA HEALTH PLAN MARICOPA HEALTH SYSTEM MATERIALS MANAGEMENT MEDICAL EXAMINER OFFICE OF THE CIO PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC FIDUCIARY PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER RESEARCH & REPORTING RISK MANAGEMENT SHERIFF SOLID WASTE GENERAL STADIUM DISTRICT MLB SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SUPERIOR COURT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSPORTATION TREASURER As of 6/30/02 POSITIONS AUTHORIZED 1,179 138 322 8 3 3 4 4 4 672 10 30 265 18 841 33 7 43 54 15 283 63 233 223 36 65 82 368 585 14 16 42 306 828 140 19 428 3,360 39 63 65 100 106 35 534 71 12 19 2,466 12 4 32 971 43 505 64 15,887 As of 6/30/02 POSITIONS FILLED 1,053 116 310 7 3 3 4 3 4 636 9 29 204 16 782 31 6 40 53 15 265 59 220 214 33 54 75 312 579 14 15 39 291 786 127 15 348 2,481 38 55 63 92 101 33 459 65 8 16 2,232 11 3 27 932 42 440 55 13,925 As of 6/30/02 POSITIONS VACANT 126 22 12 1 1 36 1 1 61 2 59 2 1 3 1 18 4 13 9 3 11 7 56 6 1 3 15 42 13 4 80 879 1 8 2 8 5 2 75 6 4 3 234 1 1 5 39 1 65 9 1,962 YTD 4TH QTR POSITIONS SEPARATED 138 56 25 2 3 118 2 2 59 2 121 9 5 11 1 24 6 31 15 10 16 9 68 40 1 1 9 47 85 10 1 58 586 3 15 3 15 9 3 64 7 3 341 1 1 6 144 1 56 3 2,246 FY 2002 FY 2002 VACANCY BNA CALCULATED RATE ATTRITION 10.7% 13.1% 15.9% 48.3% 3.7% 8.1% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 18.6% 10.0% 22.2% 3.3% 6.9% 23.0% 28.9% 11.1% 12.5% 7.0% 15.5% 6.1% 29.0% 14.3% 0.0% 7.0% 12.5% 1.9% 20.8% 0.0% 6.7% 6.4% 9.1% 6.3% 10.2% 5.6% 14.1% 4.0% 7.0% 8.3% 30.3% 16.9% 29.6% 8.5% 12.0% 15.2% 21.8% 1.0% 6.9% 0.0% 7.1% 6.3% 6.7% 7.1% 23.1% 4.9% 16.2% 5.1% 10.8% 9.3% 7.9% 21.1% 6.7% 18.7% 16.7% 26.2% 23.6% 2.6% 7.9% 12.7% 27.3% 3.1% 4.8% 8.0% 16.3% 4.7% 8.9% 5.7% 9.1% 14.0% 13.9% 8.5% 10.8% 33.3% 0.0% 15.8% 18.8% 9.5% 15.3% 8.3% 9.1% 25.0% 33.3% 15.6% 22.2% 4.0% 15.5% 2.3% 2.4% 12.9% 12.7% 14.1% 5.5% 12.3% 16.1% The financial and personnel resources of the County are impacted when labor demands exceed supply. Resourceful recruitment strategies combined with creative employee oriented compensation, benefit and rewards programs, and job satisfaction assist to curb the tide of employee attrition. Voluntary separations by reason, as provided by departments at the time of employee separation, provide valuable information. Departments collect separation data upon termination of employment for reporting purposes. Maricopa County’s Research and Reporting department conducts confidential exit interviews shortly after an employee separates. The result of the interviews is compiled and reported in such a way as to maintain the privacy of the individuals interviewed. It is believed that this information is more accurate than the information obtained by the department due to the ability to maintain anonymity. 126 The chart at right provides FY 2001-02 major voluntary separations by reason as provided by departments at the time of employee separation. All voluntary separation reasons are represented on the chart except for the remaining 17%, which include dissatisfaction with work conditions, dissatisfaction with management practices, quit to seek political position and the military. A comparison of the major employee voluntary separation reasons is provided on the table below. Comparable reasons are listed first followed by the highest remaining non-comparable reasons. Employee Voluntary Separation Reason Given No Reason Given More Pay Working Conditions Dissatisfaction With Management & Practices Retirement Growth & Advancement Effectiveness and Efficiency Other Benefits By Department 44% 11% 1% 1% 10% No Comparable No Comparable No Comparable By Exit Interview 41% 34% 22% 27% 4% 30% 16% 8% Management may address the issues evidenced by employee separation reasons in order to achieve a higher retention rate and improve employee satisfaction. 127 Personnel Plan The chart at left provides exit interview voluntary separation reasons as obtained by Maricopa County’s Research and Reporting department. New Directions Maricopa County embraced Managing for Results (MfR) during FY 1999-00. MfR strategies have been absorbed into Maricopa County’s culture since that time. Through MfR, financial and personnel resources have been aligned to achieve successful results in the areas of accountability, administration and control of staffing resources, management of funded positions, improved employee satisfaction, and the recruitment and retention of accomplished employees. Personnel Plan The chart at right provides employee satisfaction results for the fiscal years 1997-98, 2000-01, and 2001-02. All of the areas shown, including overall employee satisfaction, have increased steadily. Several areas of employee satisfaction relating to MfR initiatives are provided on the chart at left. Customer Service refers to how the County and the employee unit focus’ on customer service and provide good value for tax dollars. Training and Development refers to the department unit and supervisor emphasis on training, whether performance management plans include employee training, and whether tuition reimbursement encourages continued education. The work environment covers not only the safety of employees, but also the treatment of employees by supervisors and managers, the work atmosphere, and whether the employee is prepared for public contact. Performance management refers to the employee’s participation in their performance plan, that employee’s work is monitored regularly, and that employee’s have annual performance reviews. The mission, vision and values relate to the 128 employee’s understanding of Countywide and department statements. The employee satisfaction survey results score on the detailed chart refer only to the areas outlined on that chart. FY 2001-02 brought about the alignment of employee performance plans with Managing for Results. FY 2002-03 begins the first full-year of implementation of these newly aligned performance plans. Employee performance plans no longer emphasize tasks completed. Employees are able to see how their work, actions and behaviors support the strategic direction and business success of their department’s strategic goals and operational results. Employees are encouraged to get directly involved in managing their individual performance. Classes are available to assist employees in developing their own performance plans. Maricopa County’s financial and personnel resource strategies align employee performance with a personal commitment and cooperation in attaining Countywide objectives. Maricopa County continues to develop programs to enhance employee satisfaction and motivation in order to attract and retain a quality workforce. Position Control Re OMB Denies su bm it OMB returns request to department Request is forwarded to Human Resources for processing Position database is updated Department authorized to hire Another key element in position control is the historical tracking of funded positions and their fulltime equivalent (FTE) status. A trend view of FTE levels puts into perspective the prior year’s staffing (and consequently service) funding decisions. The chart below represents a ten-year historical look at the County’s FTE levels, summarized for the Judicial and Elected Offices, Appointed Departments and Special Districts. Department Judicial Elected Appointed Special District Total FY 1993-94 FY 1994-95 FY 1995-96 FY 1996-97 FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate Adopted 1,937.00 2,107.00 2,218.11 2,297.35 2,534.00 2,741.00 2,992.00 3,101.71 3,207.01 3,314.56 3,930.00 3,662.00 3,859.75 3,938.55 4,058.00 4,160.00 4,393.00 4,490.50 4,559.50 4,596.30 7,134.00 7,400.00 6,895.38 6,556.56 6,125.00 5,687.00 5,864.00 7,181.09 7,415.95 7,477.57 353.00 374.00 381.48 373.66 382.00 375.00 373.00 344.25 342.50 363.00 13,354.00 13,543.00 13,354.72 13,166.12 13,099.00 12,963.00 13,622.00 15,117.55 15,524.96 15,751.43 129 Personnel Plan Throughout the year, departmental staffing needs Department submits change. These changes are budgeted position request to OMB handled through the Position Request/Delete (PRD) process. This process requires that departments submit detailed requests to add and/or delete positions with full funding OMB reviews request to verify funding identified by source. Position availability description and market range information is verified by Human OMB Resources while Budget Concurs Analysts verify that all authorized positions are fully OMB signs request and issues new funded on an annualized basis. Position Control Number Once approved, the position changes are entered into the HRMS position database through one central point. Budgeted FTE Summary In order to more accurately follow past staffing and human resource allocation decisions by program, a ten-year history of full-time equivalents by department is presented in the chart below. FTEs reflect the hours budgeted for part-time positions converted to an equal number of full-time positions (based on a standard of 40 hours per week.) Personnel Plan Budgeted FTEs ADULT PROBATION ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE ASSESSOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 CALL CENTER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY COUNSEL CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV ELECTIONS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FINANCE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT GENERAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM HEALTH CARE MANDATES HEALTH PLANS HOUSING HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN SERVICES INDIGENT REPRESENTATION INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO INTERNAL AUDIT JUDICIAL MANDATES JUSTICE COURTS JUVENILE PROBATION LEGAL ADVOCATE LEGAL DEFENDER LIBRARY DISTRICT MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MATERIALS MANAGEMENT MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC FIDUCIARY PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER RESEARCH & REPORTING RISK MANAGEMENT SHERIFF SHERIFF DETENTION SOLID WASTE STADIUM DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SUPERIOR COURT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION TRANSPORTATION TREASURER Total FY 1993-94 FY 1994-95 FY 1995-96 FY 1996-97 FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate Adopted 643.00 740.00 775.69 851.00 937.00 949.00 1,045.00 1,120.50 1,167.00 1,174.00 116.00 114.00 113.00 120.00 125.00 135.00 130.00 146.00 141.00 130.50 1.00 622.00 300.00 308.00 297.00 334.00 329.00 325.00 326.00 322.00 321.80 7.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 10.00 20.00 20.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 189.00 72.00 100.00 106.00 70.00 64.00 62.00 67.00 64.00 64.00 563.00 653.00 606.04 596.25 589.00 596.00 599.00 620.00 649.00 677.00 13.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 28.00 25.00 28.00 26.00 27.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 7.83 8.41 139.00 26.00 133.00 135.78 165.00 177.00 223.00 220.40 244.65 265.83 30.00 14.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 15.00 13.00 16.00 15.00 14.33 563.00 600.00 676.71 737.30 742.00 796.00 831.00 850.00 830.92 821.25 76.33 86.50 4.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 61.00 57.00 57.00 57.00 55.00 53.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 14.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 63.00 151.00 229.00 238.60 245.00 272.00 267.00 266.75 284.25 273.50 78.00 60.00 64.00 63.00 65.00 60.00 60.00 62.00 63.00 63.00 183.00 139.00 219.00 183.40 158.00 158.00 184.00 196.50 219.50 239.00 80.00 70.00 57.00 53.00 49.00 46.00 42.00 36.00 35.00 43.00 257.00 244.00 240.00 240.00 241.00 222.00 222.00 222.25 222.50 223.50 1.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 11.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 2,786.00 3,718.00 2,974.75 2,630.50 2,099.00 1,812.00 1,766.00 3,013.25 3,040.21 3,326.01 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.00 78.00 34.00 826.00 372.00 378.00 377.50 444.00 361.00 353.00 345.70 361.73 357.47 60.00 64.00 63.00 64.00 63.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 129.00 73.00 100.00 96.00 81.00 82.00 79.00 81.00 65.37 65.50 207.00 301.00 273.00 256.00 286.00 281.00 295.00 287.00 309.00 360.00 320.00 327.00 357.34 349.19 421.00 459.00 446.00 466.25 1.00 13.80 14.00 8.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 36.00 197.00 211.00 236.02 228.75 244.00 294.00 280.00 287.01 293.01 299.06 502.00 539.00 538.00 540.00 589.00 679.00 794.00 784.00 794.00 862.50 51.89 51.34 67.56 69.00 96.00 121.00 134.48 126.66 134.00 146.00 143.00 118.00 116.00 135.50 22.00 19.00 23.00 22.00 21.00 22.00 24.00 18.00 20.00 18.00 90.00 75.00 53.00 53.00 47.00 38.00 39.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 332.00 335.00 336.31 337.50 342.00 263.00 298.00 292.50 291.50 0.00 15.00 27.00 44.00 45.50 47.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 62.00 62.00 85.00 78.00 72.89 76.84 77.00 74.00 80.00 86.50 96.50 103.00 61.00 54.00 55.00 54.00 66.00 65.00 93.00 108.00 106.00 107.00 423.27 430.46 41.00 36.00 37.00 41.00 37.00 33.00 33.00 35.00 34.00 35.00 510.00 504.00 507.09 503.25 460.00 441.00 479.00 459.24 469.39 522.71 65.00 66.00 65.00 63.00 66.00 65.00 69.00 69.00 69.75 69.75 12.00 14.50 14.00 8.00 7.00 34.50 9.50 6.75 32.00 18.00 12.00 12.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 20.00 19.00 1,970.00 1,858.00 2,053.00 2,108.00 2,188.00 2,235.00 2,428.00 2,482.50 1,022.45 1,007.50 1,448.05 1,472.50 51.00 50.00 31.00 45.00 19.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 13.00 12.00 * 9.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 26.00 35.00 29.00 28.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 595.00 617.00 668.40 677.60 764.00 819.00 873.00 910.20 953.00 979.00 50.00 107.00 39.00 42.00 45.00 41.00 42.00 42.00 40.00 42.00 15.00 15.00 536.00 495.00 500.00 511.00 522.00 512.00 511.00 511.50 509.00 478.75 74.00 109.00 75.00 66.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 13,354.00 13,543.00 13,354.72 13,166.12 13,099.00 12,963.00 13,622.00 15,117.55 15,524.96 15,751.43 Within each department, positions may be budgeted from a variety of funding sources. In general, as discussed earlier in this document, the General Fund covers the bulk of Personnel Services, with 130 monies from Special Revenue, Capital Project, Enterprise and Internal Service funds covering the rest. The following chart displays this breakdown. FTE DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDING SOURCE - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED BUDGETED FTE GENERAL FUND 227.50 321.80 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.50 33.00 64.00 7.00 552.00 30.00 8.41 14.33 686.05 86.50 54.00 1.10 13.10 239.00 43.00 1.00 34.00 65.50 5.00 16.00 292.06 223.00 51.34 68.60 18.00 28.00 62.00 31.00 406.96 35.00 96.00 43.75 872.50 30.00 813.00 15.00 64.00 5,668.50 SPECIAL REVENUE 946.50 130.50 125.00 10.00 262.25 135.20 13.90 260.40 223.50 64.00 355.00 14.00 7.00 627.50 0.40 135.50 40.50 72.00 107.00 23.50 426.71 26.00 6.75 135.00 1,447.50 6.50 4.00 166.00 478.75 6,250.86 DEBT SERVICE - CAPITAL PROJECTS ENTERPRISE 3.58 7.00 12.00 316.97 3,326.01 25.00 5.50 47.58 3,648.48 INTERNAL SERVICE 63.00 12.00 19.00 42.00 136.00 TOTAL FUNDS 1,174.00 130.50 321.80 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.50 33.00 64.00 7.00 677.00 10.00 30.00 8.41 265.83 14.33 821.25 86.50 7.00 54.00 15.00 273.50 63.00 239.00 43.00 223.50 1.00 34.00 64.00 65.50 360.00 14.00 16.00 299.06 862.50 51.34 69.00 135.50 18.00 357.47 3,326.01 40.00 62.00 103.00 107.00 430.46 35.00 522.71 69.75 6.75 19.00 1,007.50 1,472.50 12.00 4.00 30.00 979.00 42.00 15.00 478.75 64.00 15,751.43 131 Personnel Plan DEPARTMENT ADULT PROBATION ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE ASSESSOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 CALL CENTER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE BOARD CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY COUNSEL CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV ELECTIONS ELIMINATIONS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FINANCE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT GENERAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE MANDATES HOUSING HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN SERVICES INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO INTERNAL AUDIT JUSTICE COURTS JUVENILE PROBATION LEGAL ADVOCATE LEGAL DEFENDER LIBRARY DISTRICT MANAGEMENT & BUDGET HEALTH PLANS HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM MATERIALS MANAGEMENT MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC FIDUCIARY PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER RESEARCH & REPORTING RISK MANAGEMENT SHERIFF SHERIFF DETENTION SOLID WASTE STADIUM DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SUPERIOR COURT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION TRANSPORTATION TREASURER Total Departments Personnel Plan Countywide staffing from FY 2001-02 to FY 2002-03 increased by 226.5 full-time equivalents (FTE’s), or 1.5%. Significant changes in staffing levels from FY 2001-02 to FY 2002-03 are provided by department on the table below, including variance explanations. FY 2002-03 SIGNIFICANT STAFFING VARIANCES % VARIANCE DEPARTMENT VARIANCE COMMENTARY Increase/(Decrease) Transfer of collections unit from Superior Court Finance 23% to the Department of Finance. Additional staffing needs for new library opening Library District 20% in Surprise in FY 2003. Received additional grant funding for staffing of Human Services 17% programs. Opening of new build-out of Comprehensive Healthcare Center (CHC); opening of new Health Care Delivery 10% dialysis center in Sunnyslope, increases in System patient census at Maricopa Medical Center and the Family Health Centers (FHCs). New bio-terrorism positions needed and additional grant funded positions, many with Public Health 9% tobacco settlement funding for educational programs and other health program support. Additional staffing needs for new facilities Facilities Management 9% opening FY 2003. Staffing needed to accommodate the new Juvenile Probation 9% Residential Treatment Center (RTC) opening in FY 2003. Reorganization – department converting higher paid positions to lower paid positions in order to Correctional Health 8% increase and accommodate additional staffing requirements. Clerk of Superior FTEs needed for electronic document 8% Court management system. Notes: • • • Staffing of Indigent Representation reorganized into four separate units, i.e., Contract Counsel, Legal Advocate, Legal Defender and Public Defender. "Indigent Representation" will still be considered one appropriation. Staffing of the County Attorney changed in order to separate the Division of County Counsel from the County Attorney’s budget. The Department of Medical Eligibility transferred to the State of Arizona in October 2001. 132 Capital Improvement Program Executive Summary The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a plan that identifies capital projects to be completed over the next five years. The CIP outlines project costs, funding sources and future operating costs associated with each capital improvement. Because these projects typically span more than one fiscal year, the plan is updated annually to track existing projects, identify new projects and to update funding estimates and forecasts. Capital Improvement Projects A Capital Improvement Project is defined by County policy as a non-recurring project costing more than $150,000, resulting in the construction, renovation or acquisition of land, infrastructure and/or building(s) with an expected useful life of many years. The most common examples include purchase of land and buildings as well as construction of buildings, roads and flood control improvements. Sources of funding for Capital Improvement Projects include voter-approved bonds, other forms of long-term financing such as Certificates of Participation (COPs), voter-authorized taxes, operating funds, contributions from other public and private entities and grants. Capital Improvement Program FY 2002-03 through FY 2006-07 ALL FUNDS Maricopa County, Flood Control District, Stadium District and Library District $496,902,325 $158,941,730 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 $108,207,684 $113,875,184 $117,122,000 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 The largest portion of expenditures for the County’s five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is in the Department of Transportation with 33.6%. Detention Fund Projects are next with 28%, then the Flood Control District with 25.9%; followed by the General Government Projects with 9.4% and all Other Funds comprise the remaining 3.1% of the five-year CIP (see chart, below). 133 Capital Improvement Program The CIP spans a five-year period beginning with FY 2002-03 and ending FY 2006-07. The total anticipated cost for projects presented in the FY 2002-03 CIP is $995 million with the largest amount of planned spending in FY 2002-03 (see table, below) due to the culmination of the jail and juvenile detention program approved by voters in 1998. FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement Program Distinction by Fund Transportation 33.6% Other Funds 3.1% Flood Control District 25.9% General Fund/COPs 9.4% Detention Fund 28.0% Capital Improvement Program It should be noted that over the five-year period, the cost of a project and its projected completion date could vary from the initial plan, due to changes in Board priorities, greater than anticipated costs, unforeseen events and/or changes in funding assumptions. The following table highlights significant changes from the FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program. FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement Program Five-year Total By Fund CIP Allocation by Fund FIVE-YEAR TOTAL FY 2001-02 through FY 2002-03 through FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund County Improvements Fund $ Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund Subtotal General Fund $ 194,216,066 194,216,066 $ $ 17,505,000 $ Special Revenue Detention Fund Environmental Services* Animal Care & Control Services Transportation Capital Projects Subtotal Special Revenue $ 451,571,816 3,400,000 6,000,000 298,221,813 759,193,629 Maricopa County Total $ Enterprise Funds Maricopa Integrated Health System $ 93,100,183 28,527,000 121,627,183 - (Increase)/ Decrease $ 101,115,883 (28,527,000) $ 72,588,883 $ 17,505,000 $ 278,563,676 334,702,927 613,266,603 173,008,140 3,400,000 6,000,000 (36,481,114) $ 145,927,026 970,914,695 $ 734,893,786 $ 236,020,909 Special Districts Library District Capital Projects $ Flood Control District Capital Projects Special Districts Total $ 265,695,292 265,695,292 $ $ 2,550,640 257,604,497 260,155,137 $ (2,550,640) 8,090,795 $ 5,540,155 Total--County plus Districts $ 1,236,609,987 $ 995,048,923 $ 241,561,064 *FY 2002-03 CIP costs included in Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund 134 Capital Projects Budget The capital project budget is the first year of the CIP. The recommended FY 2002-03 Maricopa County and Special Districts’ capital project budget is $496.9 million and is comprised of projects for which funding has been clearly identified for the duration of the projects. Total budgeted expenditures by fund source compared with FY 2001-02 are shown in the table below: CAPITAL BUDGET BY FUND FY 01-02 Revised FY 01-02 Projected FY 02-03 Adopted General Fund County Improvements Fund $ 66,003,562 Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund Subtotal General Fund $ 66,003,562 $ 65,103,562 $ 65,103,562 $ 28,784,076 $ 28,784,076 $ 88,867,183 21,915,097 $ 110,782,280 Enterprise Funds Maricopa Integrated Health System $ 17,505,000 $ 17,505,000 $ $ Special Revenue Detention Fund $ 242,997,677 Environmental Services* 3,400,000 Animal Care & Control Services Transportation Capital Projects 56,017,647 Subtotal Special Revenue $ 302,415,324 $ 242,997,677 2,450,000 56,017,647 $ 301,465,324 $ 175,763,386 46,851,475 $ 222,614,861 $ 252,006,605 84,306,743 $ 336,313,348 Maricopa County Total $ 385,923,886 $ 384,073,886 $ 251,398,937 $ 447,095,628 $ 57,946,292 $ 57,946,292 $ 49,318,441 $ 49,318,441 $ $ 442,020,178 $ 300,717,378 $ 496,902,325 Fund FY 01-02 Adopted Total--County plus Districts $ 443,870,178 - 1,102,200 48,704,497 $ 49,806,697 *FY 2002-03 CIP costs included in Intergovernm entalCapitalProjects Fund Operating & Capital Budgets – Their Relationship A direct relationship exists between Maricopa County’s capital and operating budgets. Operating cost estimates are the anticipated annual costs to operate facilities and improvements upon completion or acquisition. Capital projects completed generally require additional operating budget resources for upkeep, maintenance, security and other costs associated with additional acreage, mileage or square footage. Future operating costs related to new facilities constructed or acquired through the CIP are carefully considered before project commitments are made. This is a particularly important budgetary consideration with the new jail and juvenile detention facilities. It is the County’s philosophy and policy that new capital projects will be undertaken only if future operating revenues are reasonably estimated to be sufficient to support associated future operating costs. Operating costs associated with new facilities are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department. Estimated operating costs, as well as anticipated savings in lease costs 135 Capital Improvement Program Special Districts Library District Capital Projects $ Flood Control District Capital Projects 57,946,292 Special Districts Total $ 57,946,292 - and operating costs of facilities to be replaced, are factored into the County’s 10-year financial forecast. The estimated annual operating costs for the new general fund and detention facilities include utility costs, housekeeping staff, general maintenance commodities (e.g., janitorial supplies), and miscellaneous contract costs (e.g. janitorial contracts). The following table illustrates the estimated ongoing operating costs associated with the new facilities constructed or acquired through the CIP: Capital Improvement Program NEW FACILITY OPERATING COSTS FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 General Fund Projects Forensic Science Center $ 482,162 $ 496,627 New Administrative Services Facility Parking 196,394 202,286 Public Health Clinic Environmental Services Facility Human Services Campus Elections Facility 402,005 Downtown Property Development/Acquisition 3,590,839 3,380,951 Buckeye Hills Shooting Range 231,501 Justice Courts 233,199 Sheriff's Property & Evidence Warehouse 380,370 Subotal General Fund $ 4,269,395 $ 5,326,940 511,526 208,354 425,942 73,148 241,550 414,065 3,391,094 134,414 85,695 391,781 $ 5,877,570 526,871 214,605 434,404 74,286 248,795 426,487 3,401,267 138,444 88,266 403,535 $ 5,956,960 221,043 443,107 75,454 256,259 439,282 3,411,471 142,596 90,914 415,641 $ 6,038,444 Detention Fund Projects 4th Avenue Jail $ Lower Buckeye Jail FMD Maintenance Facility Sheriff's Training Facility Juvenile Durango Juvenile Mesa Southeast Courtroom Buildout Subtotal Detention Fund $ - $ 3,116,442 3,692,880 102,857 440,172 1,518,422 480,806 125,024 $ 6,360,161 $ 3,209,934 3,803,667 105,942 453,378 1,563,974 495,230 128,775 $ 6,550,966 $ 3,250,940 3,853,659 109,121 466,978 1,584,892 501,823 132,638 $ 6,649,111 $ 3,346,949 3,967,506 112,394 480,988 1,631,724 516,641 136,617 $ 6,845,870 Other Projects Library District Administration Building - $ $ $ $ $ - TOTAL FUNDS $ 4,269,395 34,250 $ 11,721,351 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 $ $ 84,350 $ 12,512,886 86,880 $ 12,692,951 FY 2006-07 542677 89,550 $ 12,973,865 Some new facilities, particularly jails and juvenile detention centers, will also require significant additional staffing to operate. The costs are also included in the 10-year financial forecast, which can be found under the financial forecast tab in this document. Additional staffing requirements for operating the FY 2002-03 new facilities follows: NEW FACILITY OPERATING COSTS STAFFING SUMMARY - FY 2002-03 Salary/ FTE Benefits Costs Forensic Science Center 0.35 $ 12,600 New Administrative Services Facility Parking 2.35 75,205 Downtown Property Development/Acquisition 25.00 841,240 Total Projects Opening FY 2002-03 27.70 $ 929,044 136 County Departments General Fund / Special Revenue Funds Summary In general, capital projects are budgeted separately from the operating budget in a series of capital project funds. During FY 1999-2000, the Board adopted a new policy (A1920, which may be found online at www.maricopa.gov/budget/policies/pdf/a1920.pdf) establishing a formal review and approval process for Capital Improvement Projects requests (excluding Transportation and the Flood Control District. This policy requires each department to submit to the Facilities Review Committee (FRC) proposals for potential projects that may be undertaken during the next five-year period, regardless of the source of funds or building delivery method. The FRC is comprised of the Facilities Management Director, senior representatives from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), representatives from the Judicial Branch and elected offices and the Chief Financial Officer. The committee also includes an elected official and an at-large representative, both of whom are committee appointees. (Its should be noted that, specifically excluded from this policy are the previously established processes for the capital improvement plans of the Flood Control District and the Department of Transportation.) There are five phases in the Capital Budget and Planning Process: 1) Justification Phase; 2) Conceptual Phase; 3) Design Phase; 4) Construction Phase and 5) Occupancy Phase. There are specific requirements for each phase outlines in the aforementioned policy. Recommended projects are entered into the CIP in the latter portion of the conceptual phase and before the design phase. The new policy has resulted in more consistency and efficiency in capital project planning and implementation and ensure that projects are congruent with County wide long-term goals and initiatives. 137 Capital Improvement Program The process begins with the FRC approving instructions to be used for Capital Improvement Project requests for the coming year; the instructions are typically provided no later than June 30th. By September 1st of each year, departmental requests need to be submitted to the FRC using the Justification Approval Request format. Departmental requests are not considered without an approved facilities master plan. Project Detail A total of nine (9) capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board for support from the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). A total of eight (8) capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board for support from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435) by the Facilities Review Committee in the proposed CIP. The recommended projects are as follows. PRIOR YEARS FY 2002-03 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ CONTINUING PROJECTS BUCKEYE HILLS SHOOTING RANGE * $ ELECTIONS FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FACILITY HUMAN SERVICES CAMPUS NE (SCOTTSDALE) REGIONAL CENTER NW (SUPRISE) REGIONAL CENTER SHERIFF'S PROPERTY & EVIDENCE WAREHOUSE SHERIFF'S TRAINING FACILITY ** W (AVONDALE) REGIONAL CENTER SUBTOTAL CONTINUING PROJECTS $ 2,838 1,935,301 1,938,139 $ TOTAL FUND 422 $ 1,938,139 FY 2003-04 $ $ 1,000,000 3,300,000 2,237,992 1,710,804 2,000,000 300,000 5,000,000 3,666,301 2,700,000 21,915,097 $ 21,915,097 FY 2004-05 $ $ 1,000,000 262,008 3,092,211 2,000,000 6,354,219 $ 6,354,219 FY 2005-06 $ $ 257,684 257,684 $ 257,684 5-YR TOTAL (FY 2003-07) FY 2006-07 $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - TOTAL PROJECT $ 2,000,000 3,300,000 2,500,000 5,060,699 2,000,000 2,300,000 5,000,000 3,666,301 2,700,000 28,527,000 $ 2,000,000 3,300,000 2,502,838 6,996,000 2,000,000 2,300,000 5,000,000 3,666,301 2,700,000 30,465,139 $ 28,527,000 $ 30,465,139 * 27% funded by the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) federal program grant funds; balance funded by Detention Fund Capital Projects (Fund 455). ** $500,000 of total project cost from private developer contributions; $400,000 from General Government; balance from SCAAP. Capital Improvement Program PRIOR YEARS 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND NEW PROJECTS DOWNTOWN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT/ACQUISITION JUSTICE COURTS SOUTHEAST REGIONAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS SUBTOTAL NEW PROJECTS CONTINUING PROJECTS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BLDG 401 JEFFERSON FORENSIC SCIENCE CENTER NEW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FACILITY NEW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FACILITY PARKING PUBLIC HEALTH CLINIC SECURITY BUILDING SUBTOTAL CONTINUING PROJECTS PROJECT RESERVE $ 11,000 11,000 $ 2,358,980 15,907,519 7,836,240 8,598,211 98,180 8,858,484 $ 43,657,614 $ FY 2003-04 $ 50,000,000 2,500,000 $ 52,500,000 $ $ $ 3,328,298 6,128,704 1,881,261 11,428,920 3,600,000 $ 26,367,183 $ $ FY 2004-05 1,500,000 633,000 2,133,000 $ $ $ $ FY 2005-06 200,000 200,000 $ $ $ $ 5-YR TOTAL (FY 2003-07) FY 2006-07 1,900,000 1,900,000 $ $ $ $ - $ 50,000,000 2,500,000 $ 52,500,000 - $ 3,328,298 6,128,704 1,881,261 12,928,920 6,333,000 $ 30,600,183 TOTAL PROJECT $ 50,000,000 2,500,000 11,000 52,511,000 $ 2,358,980 19,235,817 13,964,944 10,479,472 13,027,100 15,191,484 74,257,797 - $ 10,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 TOTAL FUND 435 $ 43,668,614 $ 88,867,183 $ 2,133,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,900,000 $ - $ 93,100,183 $ 136,768,797 * Total Admin Services Facility close-out costs. 138 $ FY 2002-03 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Forensic Science Center 6 Criminal Justice Facilities Development Project Narrative This project will result in an approximately 62,000 square foot Forensic Science Center located south of Jefferson Street between 7th and 8th Avenues in downtown Phoenix. The three-level building, with one below grade level, is affixed to the Jefferson Street Parking Structure, completed in 2002. The new facility will house autopsy suites, labs and administrative offices. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $19.2 million with $15.9 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $3.3 million. Construction began in 2001 with completion in 2002. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land $ 1,870,331 Construction 12,403,910 Other Costs 1,633,278 Project Total $ 15,907,519 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,662,639 2,662,639 665,659 665,659 $ 3,328,298 $ $ $ $ $ 3,328,298 Total Project $ 1,870,331 15,066,549 2,298,937 $ 19,235,817 This project is funded 100% from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department. The Forensic Science Center is scheduled for completion in FY 2002-03. The estimated operating costs upon completion in total $482,162. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ 18,256 89,000 107,256 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ Net Impact $ 107,256 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ $ - Year 2 FY 03-04 Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 13,104 469,058 482,162 $ 13,497 483,130 $ 496,627 $ 13,902 497,624 $ 511,526 $ 14,319 512,552 $ 526,871 $ 14,748 527,929 $ 542,677 $ 482,162 $ 496,627 $ 511,526 $ 526,871 $ 542,677 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Construct on schedule and within budget a Parking Structure with 985 parking spaces and a Forensic Science Center and laboratory facility by the end of FY 2003. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Forensic Science Center Construction project completion as compared to budget 139 Capital Improvement Program Funding Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: New Admin Services Facility Parking 5 Criminal Justice Facilities Development Project Narrative This project will result in the construction of an 8-level, 985-space parking structure. The New Administration Building has 903 dedicated parking spaces and the Forensic Science Center has 82 spaces. Construction begins in 2001 and completes in 2002. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $10.4 million with $8.5 million expended through FY 200102. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.8 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 3,083,927 Construction 5,144,898 Other Costs 369,386 Project Total $ 8,598,211 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,693,134 188,127 $ 1,881,261 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,693,134 188,127 $ 1,881,261 Total Project $ 3,083,927 6,838,032 557,513 $ 10,479,472 Capital Improvement Program Funding Summary This project is funded 100% from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2002-03 total $196,394. Current Year Year 1 FY 02-03 Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - $ Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - $ - Net Impact $ $ - Year 2 FY 03-04 Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 77,461 118,933 196,394 $ 79,785 122,501 $ 202,286 $ 82,178 126,176 $ 208,354 $ 84,644 129,961 $ 214,605 $ 87,183 133,860 $ 221,043 $ 196,394 $ 202,286 $ 208,354 $ 214,605 $ 221,043 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Construct on schedule and within budget a Parking Structure with 985 parking spaces and a Forensic Science Center and laboratory facility by the end of FY 2003. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Jefferson Street Parking Structure Construction project completion as compared to budget 140 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: New Admin Services Facility (Close-out Costs) 1998937402 Facilities Management Project Narrative The total amount budgeted in FY 2002-03 will be used to close-out open architectural, project management and related contracts as of the date of the stop work order for the project. In addition, a portion of the funding will be used for the demolition of the former Medical Examiner facility. The project was originally to be developed into four buildings, three of which would be attached by an atrium and a detached building on a 10-acre site. Building A was to be the high rise portion at 23 stories in height and was to contain about 620,000 square feet. Building B was designed to be three stories in height and contain a board of Supervisors Auditorium and meeting rooms for the departments in building A as well as general usage by outside and county campus employees. Building C, known as the employee amenities building, was to contain functions such as a fitness center, food court, Maricopa County Credit Union, and an MIHS clinic. Building D was to house a childcare facility. The contiguous four square block area was created by agreement with the city of Phoenix to abandon all streets and alleys. This project has been postponed indefinitely due to fiscal constraints. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 6,836,240 Construction 850,000 Other Costs 150,000 Project Total $ 7,836,240 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 5,828,704 300,000 $ 6,128,704 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ 5,828,704 300,000 $ $ $ 6,128,704 Total Project $ 12,664,944 1,150,000 150,000 $ 13,964,944 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Operating Cost Summary Not applicable Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Consolidation of employees in downtown campus, reduce travel time between offices, consolidated government at one location for most public access departments, one stop shopping for public, reduce long term facilities costs, amenities help retain as well as attract existing and new employees. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of project work done in FY 141 Capital Improvement Program The total estimated cost of this project is $13.9 million with $7.8 million expended through FY 200102. The FY 2002-03 budget is $6.1 million. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Security Building N/A Facilities Management Project Narrative This building was purchased during FY 2000-01 for $8,930,000, using funds allocated from the project reserve. The building is located at 222-234 North Central Avenue and includes approximately 230,000 square feet of space that is jointly occupied by County and private tenants. The County will assume additional square footage as tenant leases expire. This project will cover tenant improvements within the Security Building that are necessary to modify the current vacant space, the space that could be vacated by relocating existing County tenants and space that will be vacated when existing non-County tenants leave the building so that new or relocated County tenants are no longer in overcrowded and/or lease space and have efficient facilities from which they can provide “Best in Class” services to Maricopa County residents. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $15.1 million with $8.8 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $3.6 million. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2002 with final completion in FY 2006-07. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 8,858,484 Construction Other Costs Project Total $ 8,858,484 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 263,917 2,969,166 366,917 $ 3,600,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 51,890 518,896 62,214 $ 633,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 16,007 159,983 24,010 $ 200,000 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 153,192 $ $ 485,006 1,517,019 5,165,064 229,789 682,930 $ 1,900,000 $ $ 6,333,000 Total Project $ 9,343,490 5,165,064 682,930 $ 15,191,484 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Tenant improvement costs are to include demolition, new walls, doors, windows, ceilings, flooring and special systems such as basic security. Infrastructure improvements such as new ADA restrooms, new mechanical ductwork, asbestos abatement, telecom switching, etc. will be funded from Major Maintenance funds or other sources to be identified as necessary. Operating Cost Summary The estimated annual operating costs for this facility total $1.4 million. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of space plans completed on time 142 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Public Health Clinic 2001202342 Facilities Management Project Narrative The Purpose of the Public Health Clinic is to upgrade and replace an aging and decrepit clinical facility for Public Health so that the public can receive services and County employees can work in a safe, space-effective, operationally efficient environment. Geographically, the site is located near the current public health facility, which is ½ mile south of the freeway and in close proximity to other downtown facilities. Client visits to the Public Health Clinic are high volume year-round, peaking June through September for childhood immunizations. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $13 million with $98,180 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $11.4 million. Construction will begin in 2003 with completion in 2004. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 98,180 Construction Other Costs Project Total $ 98,180 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 2,607,230 8,821,690 $ 11,428,920 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,607,230 10,321,690 $ 12,928,920 Total Project $ 2,705,410 10,321,690 $ 13,027,100 This project is funded 100% from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with Facilities Management. Estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2003-04 total $425,942. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ 77,303 Supplies & Services 179,607 Subtotal $ 256,910 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - Net Impact $ 256,910 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ $ $ $ 77,303 179,607 256,910 256,910 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ $ $ $ 77,303 179,607 256,910 256,910 Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 120,074 305,868 $ 425,942 $ 123,677 310,727 $ 434,404 $ 127,387 315,720 $ 443,107 $ 425,942 $ 434,404 $ 443,107 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 143 Capital Improvement Program Funding Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Southeast Regional Property Acquisitions TBD Facilities Management Project Narrative This project involves strategic property acquisitions adjacent to the existing Southeast Regional Complex. Acquisitions will allow for needed growth in facilities to handle increasing court caseloads and to provide office space for various County agencies. Project Cost Summary A total of $10 million was allocated to this project in FY 2001-02, of which an estimated $11,000 was spent on preliminary programming and design. The FY 2002-03 capital project budget is $0. Continued funding for this project is subject to revenue covering the debt service and Board approval of the funding plan. Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 11,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $11,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ - Total Project $ 11,000 $ 11,000 Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be identified once the project scope is determined. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 144 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Downtown Property Development/Acquisition TBD Facilities Management Project Narrative This project involves the purchase of a 31 story high-rise building containing 390,993 square feet of office and retail space and 182,000 square feet of parking (487 parking spaces) and storage space. Acquiring the property will allow County services to be located within County owned property, therefore, reducing the amount of costly lease space currently used. This purchase will provide adequate space for current and future departments. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $50 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $50 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 26,000,000 23,800,000 200,000 $ 50,000,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 26,000,000 23,800,000 200,000 $ 50,000,000 Total Project $ 26,000,000 23,800,000 200,000 $ 50,000,000 This project is funded 100% by the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Operating Cost Summary The estimated operating costs upon acquisition in FY 2002-03 total $3.5 million. The first year estimate includes $220,000 in one-time transition costs for a building security system. Current Year Year 1 FY 02-03 Year 2 FY 03-04 Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 Current Operating Costs Subtotal $ - $ Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - $ 893,739 2,697,100 $ 3,590,839 $ 896,420 2,484,531 $ 3,380,951 $ 899,109 2,491,985 $ 3,391,094 $ 901,806 2,499,461 $ 3,401,267 $ Net Impact $ - $ 3,590,839 $ 3,380,951 $ 3,391,094 $ 3,401,267 $ 3,411,471 - $ - $ - $ - $ - 904,512 2,506,959 $ 3,411,471 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 145 Capital Improvement Program Funding Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Justice Courts TBD Facilities Management Project Narrative This project involves the relocation of the North Mesa Justice Court to a new modular constructed County-owned facility within its Precinct boundaries. This will improve the space deficiencies, ADA violations, and strategic location of the North Mesa Justice Court, and save in excess of $200,000/yr for lease costs. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $2.5 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.5 million. Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 525,000 1,920,600 54,400 $ 2,500,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ - Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ 525,000 1,920,600 54,400 $ $ $ $ 2,500,000 Total Project $ 525,000 1,920,600 54,400 $ 2,500,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Operating Cost Summary The estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2002-03 total $3.5 million. The first year estimate includes $150,000 in one-time transition costs. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services 200,000 Subtotal $ 200,000 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ Net Impact $ 200,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 Year 2 FY 03-04 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ 23,389 209,810 $ 233,199 $ 24,091 61,604 $ 85,695 $24,814 63,452 $88,266 $25,558 65,356 $90,914 $ 233,199 $ 85,695 $88,266 $90,914 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 146 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Environmental Services Facility 2001202342 Facilities Management Project Narrative This project will result in an approximately 5,000 square foot facility. The purpose of the Environmental Services Facility project is to improve upon delivery of services to the public and to provide County workers with a safe, space-effective, operationally efficient environment. Geographically, the site is located near the current Environmental Services site, which is ideal for air-monitoring equipment currently in use and is ½ mile south of the freeway and close to other downtown facilities. The mobile food inspection component of the project provides a safe access site for both large and small vehicles. The parking structure, co-located on the site, provides the opportunity to purchase a smaller parcel of land and still handle a higher volume of vehicles. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.5 million with $2,838 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.2 million. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2003 with completion in 2004. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 365,024 1,333,063 539,905 $ 2,237,992 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 262,008 $ 262,008 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 365,024 1,595,071 539,905 $ 2,500,000 Total Project $ 367,862 1,595,071 539,905 $ 2,502,838 Funding Summary This project is budgeted in the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Funding for this project will come from Environmental Services appropriated fund balance and be transferred to Fund 422. Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with Facilities Management. Estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2004-05 total $73,148. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ Net Impact $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ - $ $ 9,973 63,175 $ 73,148 $ 10,272 64,013 $ 74,286 $ 10,580 64,874 $ 75,454 $ 73,148 $ 74,286 $ 75,454 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - 147 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/RO $ 2,838 Construction Other Costs Project Total $ 2,838 Project Title: Environmental Services Facility (continued) Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Implement the Department's business plan, staffing, and space requirements, while maintaining an annual productivity rate sufficient to meet the mandated State Implementation Plan, statutory and State delegation agreement levels while staying within budget limits. Key Performance Result Measure(s) Capital Improvement Program % of Environmental Health Plans Reviewed Within One County Fiscal Year 148 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Human Services Campus 2000120940 Facilities Management Project Narrative The Human Services Campus will be an integrated service delivery facility located in downtown Phoenix designated to serve the homeless and the working poor. A group comprised of faith-based, non-profit, private, community, and governmental organizations working together to provide services for the most needy within the community is completing planning. This project will take the current dilapidated and unsafe human services facilities located in downtown Phoenix to a standard that will serve persons in need in a more consolidated, efficient, and cost effective manner. Cooperation among and between the providers and the private and public sectors has been and will continue to be a key component of success. The concept of a campus emerged based upon thorough research and a review of best practices in other communities. An integrated approach is required to improve the existing, uncoordinated, multiple service providers that exist in downtown Phoenix. The essential idea is for independent and varied service providers to coexist in a coordinated fashion and to deliver services in a welldesigned setting. The campus will be managed in a coordinated fashion, allowing the independent entities to retain their identity, much like a campus, shopping mall, or condominium environment. Maricopa County’s portion of the project will include a new Public Health Homeless Clinic. The total estimated cost for Maricopa County’s portion of this project is $6.9 million with $1.9 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.7 million. Construction will begin in 2003 with completion in 2004. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/RO $ Construction 1,935,301 Other Costs Project Total $ 1,935,301 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,610,804 100,000 $ 1,710,804 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 3,092,211 $ 3,092,211 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 257,684 $ 257,684 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ 4,960,699 100,000 $ $ $ 5,060,699 Total Project $ 6,896,000 100,000 $ 6,996,000 Funding Summary Total funding for the Human Services Campus is as follows: Organization/Entity: Private foundations, grants, etc. $ 13,506,000 St. Vincent de Paul 2,362,000 Andre House 1,785,000 Maricopa County 6,996,000 Total $ 24,649,000 Maricopa County’s portion of this project will be funded 100% from the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). In FY 2001-02, $2.1 million was allocated from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). 149 Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary Project Title: Human Services Campus (continued) Operating Cost Summary Maricopa County will be responsible only for operating costs associated with the Public Health Homeless Clinic. The estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2004-05 total $241,550. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ 49,728 36,541 86,269 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ Net Impact $ 86,269 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ 49,728 36,541 86,269 $ Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ $ $ - $ 86,269 49,728 36,541 86,269 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ $ $ - $ 86,269 - Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ - $ - $ 49,728 191,822 241,550 $ 51,219 197,576 $ 248,795 $ 52,756 203,503 $ 256,259 $ 241,550 $ 248,795 $ 256,259 Capital Improvement Program Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 150 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Sheriff’s Training Facility 2000117080 Facilities Management Project Narrative This project will provide a new building for the Sheriff’s Training and Development Division to train new detention and sworn officers. The envisioned project comprises 7-acres site development and a 2-story 71,000 sq. ft. structure, including open retention areas, paved circulation, exterior physical training facilities, an exercise mock-up structure and other exterior training related functional areas. The site includes a 300-space parking lot. The 1st floor will include assembly rooms, offices, reception, physical training facilities, showers and lockers. The 2nd floor will contain administrative and teaching offices as well as the majority of classrooms. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $15.9 million with $1.2 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $14.3 million. Construction will begin in 2002 with completion in 2003. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 13,940,547 400,000 $ 14,340,547 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 371,155 $ 371,155 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 14,311,702 400,000 $ 14,711,702 Total Project $ 1,251,607 14,311,702 400,000 $ 15,963,309 Funding Summary This project was initially included in the FY 2001-02 CIP. The project will be funded by a combination of Detention Capital Project funds (Fund 455) at 73% with 27% funded by SCAAP through a transfer to the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). The Project Cost Summary, above, includes budgeted amounts for both funds. Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with Facilities Management. The estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2002-03 total $440,172. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ 30,687 Supplies & Services 116,310 Subtotal $ 146,997 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - Net Impact $ 146,997 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ $ $ $ 30,687 116,310 146,997 146,997 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 96,322 343,850 440,172 $ 99,212 354,166 $ 453,378 $ 102,188 364,790 $ 466,978 $ 105,254 375,734 $ 480,988 $ 440,172 $ 453,378 $ 466,978 $ 480,988 151 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,251,607 Construction Other Costs Project Total $1,251,607 Project Title: Sheriff’s Training Facility (continued) Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed By FY 2004, MCSO will achieve 100% staffing of current Detention positions and 85% of support staff positions, while maintaining Enforcement staff levels. Additionally, all required positions for opening the new jail will be hired, trained and ready to report according to established schedules. Key Performance Result Measure(s) Capital Improvement Program % of employees that meet performance standards 152 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Buckeye Hills Shooting Range BH03-01 Parks & Recreation Project Narrative The purpose of the Buckeye Hills Shooting Range is to develop a regional facility to be used by the Sheriff’s department, the Parks and Recreation Department and other regional law enforcement agencies for training and law enforcement certification. The scope of work for the shooting range project includes the design and construction of the following: pistol bays, rifle bays, tactical shooting house, munitions storage and classrooms. Del Webb Corporation/Pulte Homes, a builder of residential communities, is attempting to relocate the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Sun City shooting range to the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area. Del Webb is interested in this relocation due to the fact that there is a noise conflict between residential areas and the Sun City shooting range. Del Webb/Pulte Homes will financially assist Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department in the development of the shooting range. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.6 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $1 million. Construction will begin in 2003 with completion in 2004. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 250,000 750,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 250,000 1,750,000 $ 2,000,000 Total Project $ 250,000 1,750,000 $ 2,000,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by SCAAP through a transfer to the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Del Webb/Pulte Homes will contribute $500,000 to the project. Operating Cost Summary The estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2003-04 total $231,501. The FY 2003-04 estimated includes $101,000 in transition costs. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services 28,635 Subtotal $ 28,635 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - Net Impact $ 28,635 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ Year 2 FY 03-04 28,635 $ 28,635 $ $ $ $ - $ 28,635 $ - $ 36,249 195,252 231,501 $ 231,501 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ - $ - $ 37,335 97,079 134,414 $ 38,455 99,989 $ 138,444 $ 39,608 102,988 $ 142,596 $ 134,414 $ 138,444 $ 142,596 153 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Project Title: Buckeye Hills Shooting Range (continued) Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed By July 2003 we will identify and fund the additional needed facilities and operational costs for each park for the next five years. Key Performance Result Measure(s) Capital Improvement Program % of park user satisfaction as related to facilities 154 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Sheriff’s Property & Evidence Warehouse 2000120940 Facilities Management Project Narrative The Property and Evidence Storage Division holds all crime scene evidence for all County cases. This is also where the personal property of convicted persons is held until their release or they are otherwise no longer in the system. Currently, the MCSO Property and Evidence Storage is located in the lower level of the Central Court Building and on the third floor of the First Avenue Jail. The current storage facility is antiquated, inadequate, inefficient and unsafe. This location is detrimental for various reasons, with the most serious being leaks from the plumbing on the upper floors allowing the possibility of evidence contamination. Modern scientific advances have placed greater demands on the storage of evidence requiring an increasing amount of both refrigerated and frozen cold storage. This project will develop a modern storage facility, utilizing up-to-date storage and retrieval technology to store property and evidence in a safe and secure environment. The new facility will provide maximum efficiency for both the storage and retrieval of materials. The new facility will be built on the Durango Campus; integrated with the Durango Masterplan so that future projects to develop related MCSO facilities will be compatible with this project. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $5 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.6 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 FY 02-03 320,000 $ 4,680,000 $ 5,000,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 320,000 4,680,000 $ 5,000,000 Total Project $ 320,000 4,680,000 $ 5,000,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by SCAAP through a transfer to the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). 155 Capital Improvement Program The new Property and Evidence Storage facility will comprise approximately 45,000 square feet including administrative offices, evidence storage, cooler and freezer storage, money vault, drug vault, gun/ammunition room, processing areas, night drop, viewing rooms, and staff support functions. Additionally, there will be parking for staff, public and the night drop off. Project Title: Sheriff’s Property & Evidence Warehouse (continued) Operating Cost Summary The estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2003-04 total $380,370. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ 31,431 Supplies & Services 90,500 Subtotal $ 121,931 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - Net Impact $ 121,931 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ $ $ $ 31,431 90,500 121,931 121,931 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 115,120 265,250 380,370 $ 118,574 273,208 $ 391,781 $ 122,131 281,404 $ 403,535 $ 125,795 289,846 $ 415,641 $ 380,370 $ 391,781 $ 403,535 $ 415,641 Performance Impact Capital Improvement Program Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Based on baseline data to be available in spring 2003, increase the clearance rate for violent crimes over the next 2-5 years through innovative investigation, enforcement and detention strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of property made available on demand in preserved condition 156 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Elections Facility TBD Facilities Management Project Narrative The Elections Department will move to the existing County owned warehouse at 319 West Buchanan Street to provide adequate space for current and future operations. The program includes admin offices, ballot mgmt and tabulation facilities, warehousing space for voting machines, election supplies and ballots, ballot vault storage and general building spaces. In addition, parking will be provided to accommodate maximum parking demand and secure loading areas for ballot delivery vehicles. The project will entail relocating existing warehouse functions and renovating the facility to accommodate the needs of the Department. Sheriff’s Storage, Materials Management offices, Surplus Storage and miscellaneous department storage will be relocated. The Sheriff’s Storage will be relocated to Durango upon completion of the Central Services Facilities; other functions will be relocated to sites yet to be determined. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $3.3 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $3.3 million. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 500,000 2,800,000 . $ 3,300,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 5-Year FY 06-07 Total $ $ 500,000 2,800,000 $ $ 3,300,000 Total Project $ 500,000 2,800,000 $ 3,300,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by SCAAP through a transfer to the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Operating Cost Summary The estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2003-04 total $461,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services 401,307 Subtotal $ 401,307 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ Net Impact $ 401,307 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ $ $ 402,005 402,005 $ 402,005 - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - $ 426,487 $ 426,487 $ $ 414,065 414,065 439,282 $ 439,282 $ 414,065 $ 426,487 $ 439,282 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • Decrease the percentage of voters traveling to the polls by 5% by 2003. • Reduce the rate of increase in mandated costs by 10%. Key Performance Result Measure(s) Reduction in the number of complaints about polls per vote cast at polls 157 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Northwest (Surprise) Regional Center TBD Facilities Management Project Narrative The population of Maricopa County is expected to double by the year 2040. This continuing growth has created a need for County regional service centers to serve the expanding population through improved access to County facilities. In September 2001 the Maricopa County BOS approved the BRW/Elliot Pollack and Co recommendations to pursue the initiation of IGA’s with the City of Surprise for acquisition of land within the city’s center for a regional center site. The first phase of the development of the Northwest Regional Center was carried out in conjunction with the city of Surprise through an IGA. Temporary court facilities are under construction and are to be completed by July 2002. A second IGA was initiated to share the cost and the efforts for a site planning study. The study is due to be completed by the end of June 2002. A third IGA is being developed in which the city of Surprise will donate approximately 20 acres of land located in the city center to the County, for the development of the county facilities. In return, the County will share in the cost of the site infrastructure. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $2.3 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $300,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ $ 2,000,000 2,300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ $ $ $ 2,300,000 Total Project $ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% through the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Operating Cost Summary This project is in the planning stage; therefore, operating costs are not yet available. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 158 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: West (Avondale) Regional Center TBD Facilities Management Project Narrative Maricopa County has experienced tremendous growth in the last decade, primarily on the fringes of the urban area. The population of the West Region is expected to increase to 500,000 by the year 2020. This expected continuing growth has prompted the County to consider a regional service center facility in the west to accommodate the expanding population through improved access to County facilities. In September 2001 the Maricopa County BOS approved the BRW / Elliot Pollack and Co recommendations to pursue the initiation of IGA’s with the city of Avondale to acquire a site within their proposed city center. Also, to conduct a preliminary site planning study jointly with the City of surprise, and determine County departments need for space in the Western region. An IGA was initiated with the city of Avondale to share in the cost of the site planning. The study is to be completed by the end of May, 2002. The study concluded the County need at 18Acres out of the 60 Acres site acquired by the City of Avondale for its future center. A second IGA is being prepared for the acquisition of the land and the sharing in the cost of the infrastructure. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 2,700,000 $ 2,700,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ - Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ 2,700,000 $ $ $ $ 2,700,000 Total Project $ 2,700,000 $ 2,700,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% through the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Operating Cost Summary This project is in the planning stage; therefore, operating costs are not yet available. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 159 Capital Improvement Program The total estimated cost of this project is $2.7 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.7 million. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Northeast (Scottsdale) Regional Center TBD Facilities Management Project Narrative The Northeast region of Maricopa County has been experiencing rapid population and employment growth. Population and employment densities in the region are much higher than in those of the county as a whole. These densities are forecast to double by 2020 (Maricopa County site evaluation study). In September 2001 the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved the BRW/Elliot Pollack and Co) recommendations to negotiate with Westcor Partners to reserve a site within the Chauncey ranch development for a Northeast regional center. The site is located at a geographic concentration of future development and has excellent accessibility from the 101 freeway and Scottsdale Road. The project staff has had numerous communications with both Westcor and the Chauncey family, and as a result they have shown a strong interest in having the County regional center as part of their development, and thus are offering to facilitate the acquisition through creative methods of financing. The acquisition of a 17acre parcel will accommodate the long-term county needs and will satisfy the Superior Court’s immediate need for Northeast facilities. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $2 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ $ 2,000,000 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ $ $ $ $ 2,000,000 Total Project $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% through the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Operating Cost Summary This project is in the planning stage; therefore, operating costs are not yet available. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 160 Detention Capital Projects Fund Summary Criminal Justice Facilities Capital Improvement Projects for adult jails and juvenile detention total $278.5 million of the new five-year CIP; these projects are funded by a sales tax increase approved by voters in November 1998. The programming phase, based on the Jail Master Plan, was finalized in July 1999 and the design phase was completed in 2001. The construction closeout phase continues into 2004 and includes completion of all work and closeout of contracts. In addition to the Facilities Review Committee (FRC) process, projects funded by the Jail Excise Tax are reviewed by a Citizens’ Jail Oversight Committee (CJOC). In 1997, a nine-member Citizens Advisory Committee on Jail Planning was appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the County Attorney, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and the Sheriff, for the purpose of conducting a criminal justice system Master Plan. The Committee selected a nationally-recognized jail-planning consultant to assist in studying the area of the Committee’s charge. RNL Design in association with Chinn Planning, Inc. and Liebert & Associates were contracted by Maricopa County to do a needs assessment and master plan of the adult and juvenile criminal justice detention system. Project Detail A total of seven (8) capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board for support from the Detention Fund by the Facilities Review Committee in the proposed CIP. The recommended projects are as follows. PRIOR YEARS 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTINUING PROJECTS FMD MAINTENANCE FACILITY $ JACKSON STREET GARAGE JUVENILE DURANGO JUVENILE MESA LOWER BUCKEYE JAIL SOUTHEAST COURTROOM BUILDOUT 4TH AVENUE JAIL SHERIFF'S TRAINING FACILITY SUBTOTAL CONTINUING PROJECTS $ PROJECT RESERVE FY 2002-03 114,288 11,372,401 40,614,847 11,499,316 127,238,635 434,164 54,543,841 1,251,607 247,069,099 $ $ - TOTAL FUND 455 $ 247,069,099 FY 2003-04 4,785,712 42,665,497 8,160,328 90,563,969 2,065,836 83,091,017 10,674,246 242,006,605 $ $ 10,000,000 $ 252,006,605 $ FY 2004-05 100,000 7,693,622 2,174,220 6,866,280 9,351,794 371,155 26,557,071 $ $ - $ 26,557,071 $ FY 2005-06 - $ $ $ $ 5-YR TOTAL (FY 2003-07) FY 2006-07 $ $ - $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - - $ - TOTAL PROJECT 4,885,712 50,359,119 10,334,548 97,430,249 2,065,836 92,442,811 11,045,401 268,563,676 $ $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 278,563,676 $ 525,632,775 $ 5,000,000 11,372,401 90,973,966 21,833,864 224,668,884 2,500,000 146,986,652 12,297,008 515,632,775 161 Capital Improvement Program The Committee met fifteen times from March 21, 1997 to November 13, 1997. Meetings were conducted in each of the Board Districts. In the fall of 1997, RNL Design completed its final report, The Maricopa County Report on Jail Planning, dated November 12, 1997. This comprehensive planning effort covered 15 years and identified some $1.4 billion in needs. The Committee then used this report as the basis for four hearings conducted throughout the County. The final report of the Committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee Report on Jail Planning dated November 18, 1997 is based on the Executive Summary of the consultants' final report. The consultants gave the Committee permission to revise the Executive Summary to reflect the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations. The Committee made certain changes and modifications to the consultants work, which are reflected in its Final Report and in the budget figures attached to its Final Report. The consultants' work is contained in Volumes 1 – 5 that are part of the Committee’s Final report, and constitute the Maricopa County Criminal Justice System Master Plan. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 4th Avenue Jail 1 Criminal Justice Facilities Development Project Narrative This project will result in an approximately 560,000 square foot mid-rise building in downtown Phoenix that will consist of a basement, ground level and three mezzanines. The jail will accommodate 1,360 maximum custody pre-trial jail beds, an intake processing center, two initial appearance courtrooms, two early disposition courtrooms and administrative support space. A tunnel system will connect the new facility with the existing Madison Street Jail and Courts. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $146.9 million with $54.5 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $83 million. Construction began in 2001 and is scheduled for completion in 2003. Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 12,735,949 Construction 34,358,613 Other Costs 7,449,279 Project Total $ 54,543,841 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 70,800,918 12,290,099 $ 83,091,017 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 8,074,581 1,277,213 $ 9,351,794 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 78,875,499 13,567,312 $ 92,442,811 Total Project $ 12,735,949 113,234,112 21,016,591 $ 146,986,652 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department. The 4th Avenue Jail is scheduled for completion in FY 200203. The estimated operating costs upon completion total $3.1 million. Current Year Year 1 FY 02-03 Year 2 FY 03-04 Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 Current Operating Costs Subtotal $ - $ - $ Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - $ $ 784,564 2,331,878 $ 3,116,442 $ 808,100 2,401,834 $ 3,209,934 $ 832,343 2,418,597 $ 3,250,940 $ $ - - $ - $ 3,116,442 $ 3,209,934 $ 3,250,940 $ 3,346,949 Net Impact $ - $ - $ - $ - 857,314 2,489,635 $ 3,346,949 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Construct on schedule and within budget 3,139 adult detention beds of the required custody classification and all necessary support facilities at a downtown location and the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % 4th Avenue Jail Construction project completion as compared to budget 162 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Lower Buckeye Jail 2 Criminal Justice Facilities Development Project Narrative This project will result in an approximately 825,000 square foot campus located on Lower Buckeye Road just east of 35th Avenue in Phoenix. The Lower Buckeye Jail will contain 1,808 beds including 576 maximum custody adult beds, 400 minimum custody adult beds, 504 remanded juvenile beds, 268 psychiatric beds and 60 infirmary beds. The jail will also include intake, jail command offices, Correctional Health Services offices, a central infirmary and a pharmacy. The campus also includes Central Services, consisting of a laundry, stores warehouse/food factory and central plant. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $223.9 million with $127.2 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $90.5 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 16,744,902 Construction 88,469,651 Other Costs 22,024,082 Project Total $ 127,238,635 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 74,256,273 16,307,696 $ 90,563,969 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 5,677,777 1,188,503 $ 6,866,280 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 79,934,050 17,496,199 $ 97,430,249 Total Project $ 16,744,902 168,403,701 39,520,281 $ 224,668,884 This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Operating Cost Summary The estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 2003-04 total $3.6 million. The utility costs for the Lower Buckeye Central Services facility are greater as this facility includes a kitchen and freezer to service the other jail facilities. Current Year Year 1 FY 02-03 Year 2 FY 03-04 Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 Current Operating Costs Subtotal $ - $ - $ Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - $ $ $ - 986,222 2,706,658 $ 3,692,880 $ 1,015,809 2,787,858 $ 3,803,667 $ 1,046,283 2,807,376 $ 3,853,659 $ 1,077,671 2,889,835 $ 3,967,506 Net Impact $ - $ - $ 3,692,880 $ 3,803,667 $ 3,853,659 $ 3,967,506 - $ - $ - $ - Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Construct on schedule and within budget 3,139 adult detention beds of the required custody classification and all necessary support facilities at a downtown location and the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Lower Buckeye Jail Construction project completion as compared to budget 163 Capital Improvement Program Funding Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: FMD Maintenance Facility 2000106346 Facilities Management Project Narrative This project involves site development of a 5.58-acre site with circulation access roads, site improvements including water line, sanitary sewer line, natural gas, site electric power, and telephone and data service extensions onto the site from adjacent sources. This project will result in the creation of a building pad and development of a full service Maintenance Facility of 25,540 square feet with a 2,000 square foot outdoor covered storage structure. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $5 million with $114,288 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $4.7 million. Construction will begin in 2002 with completion in 2003. Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Lan $ 114,288 Construction Other Costs Project Total $114,288 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 4,785,712 $ 4,785,712 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ 4,885,712 $ $ $ 4,885,712 Total Project $ 114,288 4,885,712 $ 5,000,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Operating Cost Summary The FMD Maintenance Facility is scheduled for completion in FY 2002-03. The estimated operating costs upon completion total $102,857. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ 8,973 Supplies & Services 57,947 Subtotal $ 66,920 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 8,973 57,947 $ 66,920 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ $ Net Impact $ 66,920 - $ 66,920 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 9,242 96,700 $ 105,942 $ $ 8,973 93,884 102,857 9,520 99,601 $ 109,121 $ 9,805 102,589 $ 112,394 $ 102,857 $ 105,942 $ 109,121 $ 112,394 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Value of Project Completion to Project Budget 164 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Durango Juvenile Detention 3 Criminal Justice Facilities Development Project Narrative This project will result in an approximately 270,000 square foot campus located south of Durango Street between 27th and 35th Avenues in Phoenix. The facility will include housing, courts and support space. The housing areas have a mezzanine level and provide 220 beds. A new three-story Juvenile Court Center adds 12 new courts with judicial suites and associated office space for support staff and related functions. A single-level approximately 28,000 square foot 48-bed residential treatment facility will be located at the corner of Durango and 35th Avenue, just west of the new and existing Durango Juvenile Court Center. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $90.3 million with $40.6 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $42.6 million. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 37,426,137 5,239,360 $ 42,665,497 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 6,855,775 837,847 $ 7,693,622 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 44,281,912 6,077,207 $ 50,359,119 Total Project $ 7,410,230 71,967,731 11,596,005 $ 90,973,966 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with Facilities Management. The Juvenile Durango facility is scheduled for completion in FY 2003-04. The estimated operating costs upon completion total $1.5 million. Current Year Current Operating Costs Subtotal $ - Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ Net Impact $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 Year 2 FY 03-04 - Year 3 FY 04-05 $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ - $ $ - $ $ 373,674 1,144,748 $ 1,518,422 $ 384,884 1,179,090 $ 1,563,974 $ 396,430 1,188,462 $ 1,584,892 $ $ - $ - $ 1,518,422 $ 1,563,974 $ 1,584,892 $ 1,631,724 408,323 1,223,401 $ 1,631,724 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Construct on schedule and within budget 388 juvenile detention beds and all necessary support facilities at the Durango Complex and the Southeast Regional Facility including expansion of juvenile court facilities at the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Juvenile Durango Construction project completion as compared to budget 165 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 7,410,230 Construction 27,685,819 Other Costs 5,518,798 Project Total $ 40,614,847 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Mesa Juvenile Detention 4 Criminal Justice Facilities Development Project Narrative This project will result in an approximately 80,000 square foot building located at the County’s existing Southeast Facilities complex in Mesa. The single-level facility will provide an additional 120-beds of housing with mezzanine levels. It will also provide supporting educational, program and administrative space. The project includes the remodeling of existing space to add one new courtroom. A 400-space parking structure, located southeast of the existing and future juvenile detention facilities, was completed in May 2001. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total estimated cost of this project is $21.6 million with $11.4 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $8.1 million. Construction began in 2001 and is scheduled for completion in 2003. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,983,551 Construction 9,111,734 Other Costs 404,031 Project Total $ 11,499,316 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 7,109,338 1,050,990 $ 8,160,328 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,932,158 242,062 $ 2,174,220 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 9,041,496 1,293,052 $ 10,334,548 Total Project $ 1,983,551 18,153,230 1,697,083 $ 21,833,864 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department. The Juvenile Mesa facility is scheduled for completion in FY 200304. The estimated operating costs upon completion total $480,806. Current Year Year 1 FY 02-03 Year 2 FY 03-04 Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ Current Operating Costs Subtotal $ - $ - $ Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - $ $ $ - Net Impact $ - $ - - $ 103,298 377,508 480,806 $ 480,806 $ $ - - - $ 106,397 388,833 495,230 $ 109,598 392,225 $ 501,823 $ 112,877 403,764 $ 516,641 $ 495,230 $ 501,823 $ 516,641 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Construct on schedule and within budget 388 juvenile detention beds and all necessary support facilities at the Durango Complex and the Southeast Regional Facility including expansion of juvenile court facilities at the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % Juvenile Mesa Construction project completion as compared to budget 166 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Southeast Courtroom Buildout 2000135772 Facilities Management Project Narrative This project was initiated as a means of providing more space for courtrooms in the Maricopa County Southeast Regional Campus. Initially the Early Disposition Court (EDC) was going to be developed in the main courts building at the Southeast Campus, However, by locating this EDC Court in the vacant detention area of the Sheriff’s Substation No. 1, more space is provided for Superior Court Courtrooms in the main Courts building, and vacant space is fully utilized. The proposed facility will provide an Early Disposition Courtroom, a full Judicial Suite, ample detention and public waiting areas, offices for the County Attorney, P8ublic Defender, Adult Probation, Clerk of the Court and TASC Office’s. The facility will occupy approximately 14,000 square feet of fully renovated detention areas of the Substation. In addition, the project will also provide storage facilities for the Sheriff’s department in the second floor of the detention pods. Project Cost Summary The total estimated cost of this project is $2.5 million with $434,164 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2 million. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 2,065,836 $ 2,065,836 Year 2 FY 03-04 - $ Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,065,836 $ 2,065,836 Total Project $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department. The Southeast Courtroom buildout is scheduled for completion in FY 2002-03. The estimated operating costs upon completion total $125,024. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services $ 8,973 Supplies & Services 66,831 Subtotal $ 75,804 Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ Net Impact $ 75,804 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ Year 2 FY 03-04 8,973 66,831 75,804 $ $ $ - $ 75,804 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 04-05 Year 4 FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 9,242 119,533 $ 128,775 $ 9,520 123,119 $ 132,638 $ $ 8,973 116,051 125,024 9,805 126,812 $ 136,617 $ 125,024 $ 128,775 $ 132,638 $ 136,617 167 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 434,164 Other Costs Project Total $434,164 Project Title: Southeast Courtroom Buildout (continued) Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Key Performance Result Measure(s) Capital Improvement Program % Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget 168 Transportation Summary The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) employs a separate planning procedure than those utilized by the County at large. These include intergovernmental agency collaboration and prioritization based on an established list of ranking criteria for designated types of projects. Ranking criteria used by the Department of Transportation for roadway improvements include: • Safety • Land use, regional travel usage and environmental factors • Traffic volume compared to capacity of roadway • Cost/benefit ratio • Joint sponsorship • Bonus points for intelligent transportation systems, alternative mode and environmental enhancements MCDOT annually develops a five-year Transportation Improvements Program (TIP), which is approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS). This annual approval authorizes expenditures by MCDOT for making transportation improvements to roadways and bridges, acquiring right-of-way, developing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and implementing the County’s Bicycle Plan. MCDOT staff, representatives from cities and towns, and the general public recommend projects for inclusion in the TIP. A multi-divisional MCDOT review group annually ranks the proposed projects according to adopted criteria using an extensive prioritization process. Funding from all available sources is then matched against the proposed projects. The highest rated and most beneficial projects are subsequently recommended to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) for consideration and public review. The BOS makes the final decision regarding projects to be included in the TIP. MCDOT funds the TIP through several resources. The primary source is the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). The County must spend these funds only on transportation-related items. In addition, the County occasionally receives funds from several federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). Other funding sources arise through partnerships with local jurisdictions, federal, state agencies or private corporations. Project Detail A total of 104 capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board from MCDOT. The recommended projects are as follows: 169 Capital Improvement Program Separate ranking systems exist for evaluating potential bridges, channel upgrades, bicycle, pedestrian and other multi-modal improvements. 170 Capital Improvement Program Capital Improvement Program 171 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 107th Ave: Rose Garden to Jomax 68932 Transportation Project Narrative This project will construct a new two-lane roadway for dust control and connection to Estrella Roadway (Loop 303). The purpose of this project is to pave the road and make a connection to Loop 303 for travelers on the road so that the cost to travel the road will be reduced, dust problems will be reduced and the road will be safer. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.1 million with $946,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.3 million. Prior Years $ 928,000 18,000 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs Project Total $946,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,275,000 110,000 $ 1,385,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 855,000 $ $ $ $ 2,130,000 110,000 $ 855,000 $ $ $ $ 2,240,000 Total Project $ 3,058,000 128,000 $ 3,186,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 172 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 27th Ave: Twin Peaks to New River 16100 Transportation Project Narrative This project will improve the vertical alignment as well as grade, drain and pave the existing gravel road between Twin Peaks Lane and New River Road. The proposed improvements will enhance safety, ride-ability and air quality. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $573,344 with $278,344 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $195,000. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 55,000 $ $ $ $ $ 55,000 140,000 140,000 $ 195,000 $ $ $ $ $ 195,000 Total Project $ 337,344 236,000 $ 573,344 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 173 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 282,344 Construction 96,000 Other Costs Project Total $378,344 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 51st Ave: Broadway to Baseline 68943 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design the road with two additional through lanes and a center leftturn lane for the traveling public so that an effective roadway design will be developed so that when constructed, the improved roadway will reduce congestion and increase safety. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $11.7 million with $1.9 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $177,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,452,948 Construction 533,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 1,985,948 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 $ 177,000 $ 20,000 $ 60,000 3,200,000 $ 177,000 $ 20,000 $ 3,260,000 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 100,000 $ $ 357,000 6,250,000 9,450,000 $ 6,350,000 $ $ 9,807,000 Total Project $ 1,809,948 9,983,000 $ 11,792,948 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 174 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 51st Ave: GRIC Bdry to Baseline 68913 Transportation Project Narrative This project will widen 51st Avenue from Baseline to Elliot Road from a two lane major arterial to a three lane major arterial south of Dobbins, a five lane arterial from Dobbins to Baseline, plus increasing the turning radii at the intersection. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.4 million with $1.1 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $180,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 5,000 300,000 $ 305,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 5,000 597,000 $ 602,000 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ 190,000 1,150,000 2,047,000 $ 1,150,000 $ $ 2,237,000 Total Project $ 1,351,000 2,058,000 $ 3,409,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 175 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,161,000 Construction 11,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 1,172,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 56th St to Carefree Hwy 12562 Transportation Project Narrative This purpose of this project is to install traffic signals for the traveling public so that congestion will be reduced and safety will be improved. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 50% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $340,000 with $10,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $330,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 10,000 Other Costs Project Total $10,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 300,000 $ $ $ $ $ 300,000 30,000 30,000 $ 330,000 $ $ $ $ $ 330,000 Total Project $ 300,000 40,000 $ 340,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction tin accidents % reduction in travel time 176 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 75th Ave: MC 85 to Van Buren 68986 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in a 30% design for the reconstruction of 75th Avenue from two lanes to five lanes including a continuous left-turn lane. It also includes possible utility relocations and upgrades to the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing. The design concept report will minimize the costs of improving the road for Maricopa County citizens by finding the best possible alternatives for the road’s design. This design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 144,000 $ 210,000 $ $ $ $ $ Construction 7000 Other Costs $ $ $ $ 210,000 Project Total $151,000 $ 210,000 $ Total Project $ 144,000 7,000 $ 361,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 177 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $361,000 with $151,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $210,000. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 83rd Ave: Northern to Olive 68972 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a project design to widen the road for the traveling public so that an effective roadway design will be developed so that when constructed, the improved roadway will reduce congestion and increase safety. This project design will minimize the cost to Maricopa County citizens of improving the road by establishing a roadway structure that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. This project design was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $604,000 with $594,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $10,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 537,000 $ 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ 10,000 Construction 57,000 Other Costs Project Total $594,000 $ 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ 10,000 Total Project $ 547,000 57,000 $ 604,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 178 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 87th Ave Channel: Deer Valley to Williams Rd 68961 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to pave the road and make drainage improvements for the traveling public and area residents so that safety will be improved and dust problems will be reduced. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $930,000 with $70,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $10,000. Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 135,000 $ $ $ 252,000 500,000 608,000 $ 635,000 $ $ $ 860,000 Total Project $ 322,000 608,000 $ 930,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 179 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 70,000 $ 10,000 $ 107,000 Construction 108,000 Other Costs Project Total $70,000 $ 10,000 $ 215,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: 99th Ave: McDowell to Glendale 68974 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a design concept report to add a continuous center-turn lane for the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and planned, and accurate cost estimates can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1.3 million with $1.2 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $100,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,256,000 Construction 2,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 1,258,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 100,000 $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 Total Project $ 1,356,000 2,000 $ 1,358,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 180 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Alma School Rd: McLellan to McKellips 68931 Transportation Project Narrative This project will widen the south bridge over the Salt River on Alma School Road from McLellan Road to the North Bridge. This project will consist of an expansion and overhaul of an existing structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.7 million with $723,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $5,000. Total Project $ 755,000 1,974,000 $ 2,729,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 181 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 721,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 24,000 $ $ $ 34,000 Construction 2,000 1,972,000 1,972,000 Other Costs $ $ 2,006,000 Project Total $723,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,996,000 $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Alma School Rd: North Bridge Grade Control Structure 80408 Transportation Project Narrative The project will redesign the existing grade control structure, which is needed to protect the Alma School Road Bridge foundations from floodwater eroding the soil. This project will involve the replacement of an existing structure and, when complete, will enhance the safety of county citizens by reducing the risk of serious injury or death caused by the existing grade control structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $3.9 million with $221,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $5,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 220,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Construction 1,000 2,597,000 Other Costs Project Total $221,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,602,000 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 5,000 $ $ 20,000 1,083,000 3,680,000 $ 1,088,000 $ $ 3,700,000 Total Project $ 240,000 3,681,000 $ 3,921,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 182 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: AzTech Smart Corridors 68989 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) “Smart Instrumentation” for 10 arterial corridors in one phase. The project will involve design of vehicle detection systems (VDS), closed circuit TV (CCTV) and changeable message sign (CMS) and communications along the 10 smart corridors. This project will provide technological improvements to county roads for the traveling public so that congestion will be reduced and safety will be improved. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 10% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 90% from Federal monies. The total budget for this project is $2.5 million with $431,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $825,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 53,000 Construction 378,000 Other Costs Project Total $431,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 820,000 5,000 $ 825,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 1,180,000 $ $ $ $ 2,000,000 15,000 20,000 $ 1,195,000 $ $ $ $ 2,020,000 Total Project $ 2,053,000 398,000 $ 2,451,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in accidents per intersection or roadway segment 183 Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Bartlett Lake Rd: Cave Creek to Horseshoe 68967 Transportation Project Narrative This project is to prepare design plans that will realign the existing two-lane roadway and widen the pavement from 28 to 34 feet to provide two travel lanes with bicycle lanes. Additional improvements include passing lanes on segments with sustained grades, 25-year storm event drainage crossings, an elevated section with multiple box culverts at Camp Creek and widening of the intersection at Cave Creek Road. MCDOT will seek federal funds to assist in construction. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $704,000 with $679,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $25,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW 660,000 25,000 $ $ $ $ $ Construction 19000 Other Costs Project Total $679,000 $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ $ 25,000 Total Project $ 660,000 19,000 $ 704,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed - MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. - MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 184 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Baseline Rd: 7th Ave to 43rd Ave 68914 Transportation Project Narrative The project will widen Baseline road from two lanes to four lanes plus a continuos left-turn lane, construction of a storm drain system and realignment of the 19th, 27th and 43rd Avenue intersections. Construction is currently in progress and is planned for completion in FY 2002-03. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $26.6 million with $26.5 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $20,000. Total Project $ 17,709,000 8,896,000 $ 26,605,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 185 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 17,709,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ Construction 8,876,000 20,000 20,000 Other Costs $ $ $ $ 20,000 Project Total $ 26,585,000 $ 20,000 $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Bell Rd at R H Johnson 69041 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design a dedicated right-turn lance and other safety improvements for the traveling public so that an effective roadway design will be developed so that when constructed, the improved roadway will reduce congestion and increase safety. This project design was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $175,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $85,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 10,000 $ $ $ 170,000 5,000 5,000 $ 85,000 $ 80,000 $ 10,000 $ $ $ 175,000 Total Project $ 170,000 5,000 $ 175,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 186 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Brown Rd: Ellsworth to Crismon 69044 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a design concept report for widening the road from two to four lanes for the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and planned and accurate cost estimates can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. The design concept report will minimize the cost of improving the road for Maricopa County citizens by finding the best possible alternatives for the road’s design. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ 80,000 10,000 10,000 $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ 90,000 Total Project $ 80,000 10,000 $ 90,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 187 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $90,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $50,000. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Bush Hwy II: McKellips to McDowell 68261 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to widen the road from four lanes to six lanes for the traveling public so that traffic congestion will be reduced. The project will result in the expansion and overhaul of an existing structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 50% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $717,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $0. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ 717,000 $ $ $ $ 717,000 $ $ 717,000 $ $ $ $ 717,000 Total Project $ 717,000 $ 717,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 188 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Camelback Rd: Litchfield to El Mirage 68227 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to pay the remaining right-of-way condemnation costs from right-ofway purchased for the widening of the road for individuals who are still owed money for the condemnation actions so that the project can be finalized. This Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $8.1 million with $7.9 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $200,000. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 200,000 $ $ $ $ $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ $ $ $ $ 200,000 Total Project $ 2,625,000 5,526,000 $ 8,151,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of land rights acquired by bid date within budget 189 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 2,425,000 Construction 5,526,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 7,951,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Cave Creek: Lone Mountain to Carefree Hwy 68834 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to pay the City of Phoenix a portion of the money needed to add additional through lanes for the traveling public and the City of Phoenix so that the City of Phoenix can proceed with the project and congestion will be reduced. The City of Phoenix is responsible for the design and construction of this project. This project will involve the expansion and overhaul of an existing structure. To date, MCDOT has contributed $170,000 for design and $4,748,000 for construction. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary Capital Improvement Program This project will be funded 93% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 7% from an IGA partner (City of Phoenix). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $5.4 million with $5.3 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $100,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 5,357,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $ 5,357,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 100,000 $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 Total Project $ 5,457,000 $ 5,457,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 190 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Small Cities CDBG (CDAD) Assistance Program 68872 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to provide transportation project funding to smaller cities and towns for the residents of the county, smaller cities and towns so that a seamless transportation system will exist between jurisdictions and help poorly funded towns to improve their transportation systems. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.1 million with $1.6 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $300,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 5-Year Total $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Total Project $ 3,175,000 $ 3,175,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 191 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,675,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $ 1,675,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Chandler Blvd: West of Gilbert Rd 69021 Transportation Project Narrative This project will seek the purchase of right-of-way in a county island in the intersection of Chandler Boulevard and Gilbert Road. The right-of-way will be needed to complete full improvements to the intersection. The City of Chandler will construct the road improvements when right-of-way is obtained. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $723,000 with $693,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $30,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 693,000 $ 30,000 $ $ $ $ $ 30,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $693,000 $ 30,000 $ $ $ $ $ 30,000 Total Project $ 723,000 $ 723,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of land rights acquired by bid date within budget 192 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Chandler Heights Rd at Sanoki Wash 69026 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a project design for building a five-lane bridge (68’ wide) over Sanoki Wash, replacing the existing un-bridged (dip) crossing for the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and planned, and accurate cost estimates can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. This design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $170,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $170,000. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 170,000 $ $ $ $ $ 170,000 $ 170,000 $ $ $ $ $ 170,000 Total Project $ 170,000 $ 170,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 193 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Chandler Heights Rd: Culvert at Eastern Canal 68975 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to replace the existing inadequate pipe with a wider box culvert to allow future widening of the road. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 92% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 8% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $254,000 with $31,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $0. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 31,000 $ $ $ $ 22,000 $ $ 22,000 Construction 201,000 201,000 Other Costs $ $ $ 223,000 $ $ 223,000 Project Total $31,000 $ Total Project $ 53,000 201,000 $ 254,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 194 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Deer Valley Rd Bridge at New River 68982 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to replace the existing two-lane dip crossing on Deer Valley Road at New River with a four-lane bridge for the traveling public so that road closures when the river is running will be reduced eliminating the need for drivers to find alternative routes. This project will enhance and enrich the travel opportunities of county citizens by providing a bridge that is safer and more economical to travel. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 52% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 48% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,376,000 Construction 547,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 1,923,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 30,000 $ $ $ $ $ 30,000 4,085,000 4,085,000 $ 4,115,000 $ $ $ $ $ 4,115,000 Total Project $ 1,406,000 4,632,000 $ 6,038,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in bridges classified as deficient 195 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $6 million with $1.9 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $4.1 million. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Dysart Rd: Cactus to Greenway 68968 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design safety and congestion reduction improvements for the intersection on Dysart Rd from Cactus to Greenway. Upon completion of the design phase, the Town of El Mirage will manage the construction of the intersection improvements. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $115,000 with $75,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $40,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 75,000 $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ $ 40,000 Construction Other Costs $ $ $ $ 40,000 Project Total $75,000 $ 40,000 $ Total Project $ 115,000 $ 115,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 196 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: El Mirage Rd: Beardsley to Loop 303 68995 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design a new four-lane road and establish future roadway needs for the traveling public so that an effective roadway design will be developed. This project will result in the construction of a new four-lane road between Beardsley road and the future Loop 303 and includes intersection and drainage improvements. This project design was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.5 million with $635,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $59,000. Total Project $ 2,464,000 40,000 $ 2,504,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 197 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 610,000 $ 44,000 $ 1,810,000 $ $ $ $ 1,854,000 Construction 25,000 15,000 15,000 Other Costs Project Total $635,000 $ 59,000 $ 1,810,000 $ $ $ $ 1,869,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: El Mirage Rd: Bell to Beardsley 68993 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design a new four-lane road and establish future roadways needs so that an effective roadway design will be developed. This project will result in the construction of a new four-lane road to meet projected traffic demands. Signalization will also be installed on El Mirage at Beardsley Roads. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $873,000 with $598,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $255,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 575,000 Construction 23,000 Other Costs Project Total $598,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 255,000 $ 20,000 $ $ $ $ 275,000 $ 255,000 $ 20,000 $ $ $ $ 275,000 Total Project $ 850,000 23,000 $ 873,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 198 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Elliot Rd: Val Vista to Green field 68929 Transportation Project Narrative This project will widen Elliot Road from two through-lanes to four. This project involves the expansion and overhaul of an existing structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 50% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $680,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $0. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ 680,000 $ $ $ $ 680,000 $ $ 680,000 $ $ $ $ 680,000 Total Project $ 680,000 $ 680,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 199 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Ellsworth Rd: Germann to Baseline 68927 Transportation Project Narrative This project will reconstruct and widen the existing two-lane road to provide four travel lanes with a raised median. The west half of the roadway between Pecos Road and the Powerline Floodway will be constructed with a third travel lane in the southbound direction. Other improvements include box culverts, a storm drain system, landscaping and two fully signalized intersections (one at Elliot Road and one at Germann Road). Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 60% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 49% from an IGA partner. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $29 million with $8.2 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.4 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 8,273,000 Construction 1,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 8,274,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 985,000 1,450,000 $ 2,435,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 614,000 8,160,000 $ 8,774,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 594,000 $ $ $ 2,193,000 9,010,000 18,620,000 $ 9,604,000 $ $ $ 20,813,000 Total Project $ 10,466,000 18,621,000 $ 29,087,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 200 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Ellsworth Rd: University to McLellan 68902 Transportation Project Narrative This project will reconstruct and widen the existing two-lane road to provide four travel lanes (two in each direction) with a raised center median. Selected segments fronting new residential development will be constructed with a third travel lane in either the north or southbound direction, ass appropriate. Additional improvements include a traffic signal at Brown Road, a storm drain system, street lighting, curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. This will also reconstruct ¼ mile of Adobe Road. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 57% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 43% from an IGA partner. The total budget for this project is $7.5 million with $1.1 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $200,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,104,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $ 1,104,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 8,000 2,059,000 $ 2,067,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 10,000 $ $ $ 218,000 4,139,000 6,198,000 $ 4,149,000 $ $ $ 6,416,000 Total Project $ 1,322,000 6,198,000 $ 7,520,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 201 Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Estrella Interim Loop 303(II) 68840 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to build a new four-lane road from US 60 to Lake Pleasant Road with a bridge across the Agua Fria River for the traveling public and property owners along the proposed route so that traffic congestion will be reduced, property owners will have access to their properties and travel times will be reduced. This project involves the construction of a new structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 51% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), 5% from an IGA partner and 44% from other sources. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $40.5 million with $8.8 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $18.2 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 7,099,000 Construction 1,723,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 8,822,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 468,000 17,750,000 $ 18,218,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 100,000 $ $ $ $ 568,000 13,431,000 31,181,000 $ 13,531,000 $ $ $ $ 31,749,000 Total Project $ 7,667,000 32,904,000 $ 40,571,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 202 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Estrella Parkway: Yuma to McDowell 68950 Transportation Project Narrative This project involves the reconstruction of Estrella Parkway to a four-lane rural principal arterial section with a raised median and signalized intersections. Construction of this project will result in decreased congestion and traffic accidents and will improve roadway continuity. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 13% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 87% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $6.5 million with $2.1 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $513,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 80,000 433,000 $ 513,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 81,000 $ $ $ $ 161,000 3,736,000 4,169,000 $ 3,817,000 $ $ $ $ 4,330,000 Total Project $ 2,321,000 4,186,000 $ 6,507,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement. 203 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 2,160,000 Construction 17,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 2,177,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: GDACS: Geodetic Densification & Cadastral Surveys 69012 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to provide more and better land survey points and a better overall land survey system in Maricopa County for county, city, town, state and private surveyors so that survey costs and the time required to complete land surveys is decreased. This project will enrich county citizens by reducing the cost of surveying properties including road projects. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 78% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 22% from other sources. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $8 million with $2 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 594,000 Construction 1,493,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 2,087,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 177,000 2,000,000 $ 2,177,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 176,000 2,000,000 $ 2,176,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 150,000 $ $ $ 503,000 1,472,000 5,472,000 $ 1,622,000 $ $ $ 5,975,000 Total Project $ 1,097,000 6,965,000 $ 8,062,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • By 2003, MCDOT will be the regional transportation authority, responsible and accountable for the development and operation of a regional transportation system, which is integrated with land use and the environment. • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement % of transportation systems coordinated and managed in accordance to the approved (5-year plan) Regional Plan 204 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: General Civil Engineering 68888 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to reserve monies for hiring on-call civil engineering consultants for MCDOT project designers do that project designs won’t be delayed due to the need for unforeseen civil engineering work. This project will enrich county citizens by reducing costly delays in projects. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $8.8 million with $361,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $150,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,150,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 5-Year Total $ 8,450,000 $ 8,450,000 Total Project $ 8,811,000 $ 8,811,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of projects bid that were planned to be bid 205 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 361,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $361,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Gilbert Rd: McDowell to SR 87 w/ LWC 68957-1 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of Gilbert Road from McDowell Road to Stare Route 87. The roadway is to be built to the “Road of Regional Significance” standard, which is seven lanes with a curbed median or continuous two way left-turn lane. This project includes a low-water crossing over the Salt River. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 90% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), 4% from an IGA partner and 6% from Federal monies. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $21.1 million with $7.7 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $6.1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 7,168,000 Construction 577,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 7,745,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 565,000 5,600,000 $ 6,165,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ 185,000 $ $ $ 1,200,000 5,870,000 $ 6,055,000 $ $ $ 1,200,000 5-Year Total $ 1,950,000 11,470,000 $ 13,420,000 Total Project $ 9,118,000 12,047,000 $ 21,165,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 206 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Gilbert Rd: Pecos to Williams Field 68983 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a design concept report to study the widening of the road for project designers and the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and planned, and accurate cost estimates can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $138,000 with $118,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $10,000. Total Project $ 138,000 $ 138,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 207 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 118,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ $ $ $ 20,000 Construction Other Costs $ $ $ 20,000 Project Total $118,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Gilbert Rd: Warner to Water Tank 69043 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a design concept report to study the widening of the road for project designers and the traveling public so that an effective roadway design will be developed so that when constructed, the improved roadway will reduce congestion and increase safety. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $50,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $25,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ 50,000 Total Project $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 208 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Gilbert Rd: Williams Field to Ray 68956 Transportation Project Narrative This is a project to improve Gilbert Road to the Town of Gilbert standards. The Town of Gilbert is the lead agency. Maricopa County will participate under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Participation will be financial and costs will be those that would equate to MCDOT standard improvements. This project will result in the widening of the road to six through-lanes with a continuous center-turn lane. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 129,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $129,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 2,214,000 $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ 2,219,000 $ 2,214,000 $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ 2,219,000 Total Project $ 2,348,000 $ 2,348,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of project expenditures that MCDOT saved through partnerships 209 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $2.3 million with $129,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.2 million. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Jackrabbit Tr: Yuma to Thomas 69039 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a design concept report to study the need to widen the road for project designers and the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and planned, and accurate cost estimates can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $620,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $420,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 400,000 20,000 $ 420,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 200,000 $ $ $ $ 600,000 20,000 $ 200,000 $ $ $ $ 620,000 Total Project $ 600,000 20,000 $ 620,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 210 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Laveen Area Conveyance Channel 69036 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to correct drainage problems at 51st Avenue and Baseline Road. This is a joint project through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Flood Control District. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1 million with $500,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $0. Total Project $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of project expenditures that MCDOT saved through partnerships 211 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 500,000 $ $ 500,000 $ $ $ $ 500,000 Construction Other Costs $ 500,000 $ $ $ $ 500,000 Project Total $500,000 $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Lindsay Rd: Williams Field to Ray Rd 68997 Transportation Project Narrative This project will construct a five-lane section to ease congestion and increase traffic safety. This project involves the expansion and overhaul of an existing structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 50% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $2.6 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $0. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ 2,600,000 $ $ $ 2,600,000 $ $ $ 2,600,000 $ $ $ 2,600,000 Total Project $ 2,600,000 $ 2,600,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 212 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Loop 303 Intersection Improvements 69030 Transportation Project Narrative This project will provide improvements to the intersections of Loop 303 with Indian School Road, Northern Avenue and Olive Avenue. The approaches at the intersections will be widened to accommodate left turn lanes on both the 303 and the intersecting roadways and traffic signals. Intersection lighting will also be provided. This project involves the expansion and overhaul of an existing project. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 13% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 87% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 442,000 $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ 5,000 Construction 1,200,000 Other Costs $ $ $ $ 5,000 Project Total $ 1,642,000 $ 5,000 $ Total Project $ 447,000 1,200,000 $ 1,647,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in accidents per intersection or roadway segment 213 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1.6 million with $1.6 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $5,000. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Loop 303: Indian School to Clearview 69016 Transportation Project Narrative This purpose of this project is to prepare a design concept report to establish design parameters for the construction of an interim four lane divided highway as the first phase of the ultimate six lane divided urban freeway. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1.6 million with $1.2 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $450,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,245,500 Construction Other Costs Project Total $ 1,245,500 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 450,000 $ $ $ $ $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ $ $ $ $ 450,000 Total Project $ 1,695,500 $ 1,695,500 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 214 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Loop 303: McDowell to ¾ mi. N. of Thomas 68965 Transportation Project Narrative This project will extend Loop 303 south from its current termini at Thomas Road to McDowell Road at Cotton Lane. The improvement will construct four lanes and eliminate the two 90 degree turns currently required to access or exit Loop 303. Cotton Lane south of Thomas Road will be reconfigured to a cul-de-sac. This project involves the replacement of an existing structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 58% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), 34% from an IGA partner and 8% from other sources. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 518,000 Construction 406,000 Other Costs Project Total $924,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 40,000 $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ 45,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 $ 3,290,000 $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ 3,295,000 Total Project $ 563,000 3,656,000 $ 4,219,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 215 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $4.2 million with $924,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $3.2 million. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: MC 85 at Agua Fria/Bridge Scour 68933 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to provide 100-year scour protection for the existing bridge to prevent damage during severe flooding. This project will result in increased safety and a reduction in the chances of the bridge falling during flood events. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 59% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 41% from Federal monies. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $4.1 million with $35,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.7 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 30,000 Construction 5,000 Other Costs Project Total $35,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 15,000 $ 5,000 $ 167,000 $ $ $ 187,000 1,725,000 2,245,000 3,970,000 $ 1,740,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,412,000 $ $ $ 4,157,000 Total Project $ 217,000 3,975,000 $ 4,192,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in bridges classified in deficient 216 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: MC 85 at Avondale Wash 68820 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to replace the insufficient bridge with a new, wider bridge. This project will result in increased safety and a reduction in the chances of the bridge falling during flood events Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 60% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 40% from Federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $453,000 with $328,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $125,000. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ $ 25,000 100,000 100,000 $ 125,000 $ $ $ $ $ 125,000 Total Project $ 156,000 297,000 $ 453,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in bridges classified as deficient 217 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 131,000 Construction 197,000 Other Costs Project Total $328,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: MC 85: Airport to Jackrabbit Tr 69040 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design the project to 30% plans for MCDOT roadway designers and decision-makers so that an effective roadway design will be developed. The project design process was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $190,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $105,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ $ $ $ 170,000 20,000 20,000 $ 105,000 $ 85,000 $ $ $ $ 190,000 Total Project $ 170,000 20,000 $ 190,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 218 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: MC 85: Cotton Lane to Estrella Pkwy 68960 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of the MC 85 from a two-lane arterial roadway to four lanes with a continuous left-turn lane and bike lane. This project involves the expansion of an existing structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 73% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 27% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $6.4 million with $659,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $725,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 725,000 $ 725,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 10,000 700,000 $ 710,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 100,000 3,125,000 $ 3,225,000 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 30,000 $ $ 865,000 1,060,000 4,885,000 $ 1,090,000 $ $ 5,750,000 Total Project $ 1,454,000 4,955,000 $ 6,409,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 219 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 589,000 Construction 70,000 Other Costs Project Total $659,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: MC 85: El Mirage to 115th Ave 69042 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a design concept report for MCDOT roadway designers and decision-makers so that right-of-way needs can be identified and planned, and accurate cost estimates can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $90,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $50,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ 80,000 10,000 10,000 $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ 90,000 Total Project $ 80,000 10,000 $ 90,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 220 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: MC 85: Estrella Pkwy to Litchfield 68959 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of the road from two to four lanes with a continuous left-turn lane. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 83% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 17% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.9 million with $1.7 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $70,000. Total Project $ 1,276,000 2,637,000 $ 3,913,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 221 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,146,000 $ 70,000 $ 60,000 $ $ $ $ 130,000 Construction 24,000 2,613,000 2,613,000 Other Costs $ $ $ 2,743,000 Project Total $ 1,170,000 $ 70,000 $ 2,673,000 $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: MC 85: 107th Ave to 91st Ave 69024 Transportation Project Narrative This project will see the preparation of a design to the 30% plan stage to establish design parameters for the eventual construction of a four-lane roadway with a raised center median. The project design was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $70,000 with $0 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $70,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 70,000 $ $ $ $ $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ $ $ $ $ 70,000 Total Project $ 70,000 $ 70,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 222 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: MC 85: 91st Ave to 75th Ave 69025 Transportation Project Narrative The project will see the preparation of a design to the 30% plan stage for the eventual construction of a four-lane roadway with a raised center median. The project design was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $400,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $200,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 200,000 $ $ $ $ 400,000 $ 200,000 $ $ $ $ 400,000 Total Project $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 223 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: McDowell Mountain Rd: Shoulders Widening 69007 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of widening the existing pavement by five feet on each side of the roadway from Fountain Hills City Limits to Forest Road. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1.3 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $50,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 50,000 $ 30,000 $ 10,000 $ 105,320 $ $ 195,320 942,864 942,864 $ 50,000 $ 30,000 $ 10,000 $ 1,048,184 $ $ 1,138,184 Total Project $ 195,320 942,864 $ 1,138,184 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 224 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: McDowell Rd: Pima Fwy to Alma School 68897 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the reconstruction of McDowell Road with four through-lanes and a continuous center-lane. As part of the project, the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community will install a sanitary sewer. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 93% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 7% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $11 million with $3.3 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $5.7 million. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 20,000 5,758,000 $ 5,778,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ 60,000 1,848,000 7,606,000 $ 1,888,000 $ $ $ $ 7,666,000 Total Project $ 2,080,000 8,948,000 $ 11,028,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 225 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 2,020,000 Construction 1,342,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 3,362,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: McQueen Rd: Queen Creek to Pecos 68949 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the reconstruction and widening of the existing road from two to four travel lanes and provide a flush median. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 73% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 27% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $11.6 million with $341,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $50,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 338,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,023,000 Construction 3,000 Other Costs Project Total $341,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,023,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 30,000 500,000 $ 530,000 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 50,000 $ $ 1,153,000 9,660,000 10,160,000 $ 9,710,000 $ $ 11,313,000 Total Project $ 1,491,000 10,163,000 $ 11,654,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 226 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Northeast Maintenance Facility 68895 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to purchase property for the new Northeast Maintenance facility. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.4 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $0. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 1,000,000 $ $ $ 1,000,000 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 1,400,000 $ $ 2,400,000 $ 1,400,000 $ $ 2,400,000 Total Project $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of road mileage with pavement condition rating of “good” or better 227 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Northern Ave: 95th Ave to 71st Ave 68915 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the construction of five travel lanes, including a continuous left turn lane with curb and gutter, and storm drains. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 64% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 36% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $14.4 million with $14.4 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $4,500. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,990,000 $ 4,500 $ $ $ $ $ 4,500 Construction 12,432,000 Other Costs $ $ $ $ 4,500 Project Total $ 14,422,000 $ 4,500 $ Total Project $ 1,994,500 12,432,000 $ 14,426,500 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 228 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Ocotillo: EOM to Palo Verde 68987 Transportation Project Narrative This project is currently programmed for a design concept report only. If constructed, this project would place a penetration and double chip seal on approved road base, provide roadside ditches and post a 25 mph speed limit sign. The project will reduce dust and increase pedestrian travel safety. Potential exists for the project to be handled as a Special Improvement District. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $174,000 with $152,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $22,000. Total Project $ 169,000 5,000 $ 174,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 229 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 152,000 $ 17,000 $ $ $ $ $ 17,000 Construction 5,000 5,000 Other Costs $ $ $ $ 22,000 Project Total $152,000 $ 22,000 $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Ocotillo Rd: Basha to Arizona Ave 68988 Transportation Project Narrative This project is to prepare design plans to widen the existing two lane road to provide four travel lanes (two in each direction) with a raised center median. Additional improvements include a storm drain system with linear retention basins and widening of the intersection at Basha Road to enhance safety and capacity. The design of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $139,000 with $99,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $40,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 99,000 $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ $ 40,000 Construction Other Costs $ $ $ $ 40,000 Project Total $99,000 $ 40,000 $ Total Project $ 139,000 $ 139,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 230 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Old US 80 at Hassayampa/Scour 68934 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to provide 100-year scour protection for the bridge to prevent damage during severe flooding. This project involves the overhaul of an existing structure. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.4 million with $131,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $6,000. Total Project $ 167,000 1,290,000 $ 1,457,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in bridges classified as deficient 231 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 84,000 $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 72,000 $ $ $ 83,000 Construction 47,000 1,243,000 1,243,000 Other Costs Project Total $131,000 $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,315,000 $ $ $ 1,326,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Pinnacle Peak Rd: Lake Pleasant to 83rd Ave 69045 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a design concept report so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and planned, and accurate cost estimates can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. The design concept report was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $150,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $75,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ $ $ $ 150,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ $ $ $ 150,000 Total Project $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 232 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Program 16200 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. The design of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $10.5 million with $163,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $700,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 200,000 500,000 $ 700,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 200,000 3,000,000 $ 3,200,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 200,000 3,000,000 $ 3,200,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 150,000 3,000,000 $ 3,150,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 5-Year Total $ 900,000 9,500,000 $ 10,400,000 Total Project $ 1,063,000 9,500,000 $ 10,563,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 233 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 163,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $163,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 2) in NE Area (Grp 1) 16205 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 7th Avenue, 11th Avenue, 12th Street, 16th Street, Irvine Road, Old Mine Road and Saddle Mountain Road. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.2 million with $312,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $910,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 309,000 Construction 3,000 Other Costs Project Total $312,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 40,000 $ $ $ $ $ 40,000 870,000 870,000 $ 910,000 $ $ $ $ $ 910,000 Total Project $ 349,000 873,000 $ 1,222,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 234 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 2) in NE Area (Grp 2) 16206 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 3rd Street, 10th Street, 12th Street, 49th Street, 42nd Street, 44th Street and Galvin Street. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 271,000 Construction 3,000 Other Costs Project Total $274,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ 905,000 905,000 $ 905,000 $ $ $ $ $ 905,000 Total Project $ 271,000 908,000 $ 1,179,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 235 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1.1 million with $274,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $905,000. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 2) in NE Area (Grp 3) 16207 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 53rd Street, Ashler Hills Drive, Dale Lane, Forest Pleasant and Pinnacle Vista. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.5 million with $371,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.2 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 365,000 Construction 6,000 Other Costs Project Total $371,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ 10,000 1,203,634 1,203,634 $ 1,213,634 $ $ $ $ $ 1,213,634 Total Project $ 375,000 1,209,634 $ 1,584,634 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 236 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 3) in NE Area 16208 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 87th Avenue, Bullard Avenue and Circle Mountain Road. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 550,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $550,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ 5,000 2,488,992 2,488,992 $ 2,493,992 $ $ $ $ $ 2,493,992 Total Project $ 555,000 2,488,992 $ 3,043,992 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 237 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $3 million with $550,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.4 million. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 2) in NW Area (Grp 1) 16209 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 87th Avenue, 192nd Avenue, Crozier Road, Dixileta Drive, Dove Valley Road and Norwich Drive. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.5 million with $245,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.3 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 245,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $245,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ 5,000 1,341,579 1,341,579 $ 1,346,579 $ $ $ $ $ 1,346,579 Total Project $ 250,000 1,341,579 $ 1,591,579 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 238 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 2) in NW Area (Grp 2) 16210 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 88th Avenue and 89th Avenue. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 228,000 Construction 7,000 Other Costs Project Total $235,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ 10,000 1,167,806 1,167,806 $ 1,177,806 $ $ $ $ $ 1,177,806 Total Project $ 238,000 1,174,806 $ 1,412,806 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 239 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1.4 million with $235,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.1 million. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 2) in SW Area 16212 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 47th Avenue, 133rd Avenue, 175th Avenue, 177th Avenue, Carver Road, Cheyenne Road, Durango Street, Olney Avenue and Telegram Path. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.4 million with $292,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 292,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $292,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,165,000 1,165,000 $ 1,165,000 $ $ $ $ $ 1,165,000 Total Project $ 292,000 1,165,000 $ 1,457,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 240 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 2) in SE Area 16213 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 78th Street, 96th Way, 102nd Street, 110th Street, 154th Street, Boise Street, Boulder Drive, Brooks Farm Road, Decatur Street, Jarvis Street and Malcom Drive. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 289,000 Construction 5,000 Other Costs Project Total $294,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ 10,000 894,000 894,000 $ 904,000 $ $ $ $ $ 904,000 Total Project $ 299,000 899,000 $ 1,198,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 241 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1.1 million with $294,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $904,000. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 3) in SE Area 16214 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of 77th Place, 78th Street, 82nd Street, 95th Street, Culver Street, Hermosa Vista Drive, Jensen Street, Melody Drive, Quarterline Road and Range Rider. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.3 million with $376,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 376,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $376,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 20,000 $ $ $ $ $ 20,000 1,997,000 1,997,000 $ 2,017,000 $ $ $ $ $ 2,017,000 Total Project $ 396,000 1,997,000 $ 2,393,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 242 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: PM 10 Roads (Ph 3) in SW Area 16215 Transportation Project Narrative This project consists of portions of Acoma and Elliot Road. The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM 10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM 10 area so that dust related health problems are reduced and to ensure compliance with federal mandates. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 271,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $271,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 30,000 $ $ $ $ $ 30,000 790,000 790,000 $ 820,000 $ $ $ $ $ 820,000 Total Project $ 301,000 790,000 $ 1,091,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 243 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1 million with $271,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $820,000. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Power Road Bridge at Queen Creek Wash 68976 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the replacement of an existing, structurally deficient, scour critical bridge with a new six-lane structure to accommodate an urban principal arterial roadway. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 9% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), 32% from an IGA partner and 59% from federal monies. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $3.5 million with $1.9 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.5 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 774,000 Construction 1,220,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 1,994,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 60,000 $ $ $ $ $ 60,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 $ 1,510,000 $ $ $ $ $ 1,510,000 Total Project $ 834,000 2,670,000 $ 3,504,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in bridges classified as deficient 244 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Power Rd: Guadalupe to Baseline 68969 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design the roadway improvements for MCDOT roadway designers and decision-makers so that an effective roadway design will be developed so that when constructed, the improved roadway will reduce congestion and increase safety. The project design was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.07 million with $1.06 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $5,000. Total Project $ 756,000 321,000 $ 1,077,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 245 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 741,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ $ $ 15,000 Construction 321,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 1,062,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ $ $ 15,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Power Rd: Williams Field to Ray 69038 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design the roadway improvements for MCDOT roadway designers and decision-makers so that an effective roadway design will be developed so that when constructed, the improved roadway will reduce congestion and increase safety. The project design was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $210,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $150,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 130,000 $ 60,000 $ $ $ $ 190,000 20,000 20,000 $ 150,000 $ 60,000 $ $ $ $ 210,000 Total Project $ 190,000 20,000 $ 210,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 246 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: General Civil Engineering 68884 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to reserve monies for developing planning studies for projects for MCDOT roadway designers and decision-makers so that deficient roads can be identified and studied, and sufficient information is developed to make further project development decisions. This project design was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $8.8 million with $361,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $150,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,150,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 5-Year Total $ 8,450,000 $ 8,450,000 Total Project $ 8,811,000 $ 8,811,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % dollar value of investments with benefit-cost ratios greater than 2.0 % dollar value of investments that meet safety, congestion, regulatory and/or other established criteria 247 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 361,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $361,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Project Reserves 69998 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to reserve monies to cover project costs increases so that county citizens receive new and improved roads on schedule. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The 5-year budget for this project is $72.7million. The FY 2002-03 budget is $5.7 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 5,713,232 $ 5,713,232 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 14,000,000 $ 14,000,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 45,000,000 $ 45,000,000 5-Year Total $ 72,713,232 $ 72,713,232 Total Project $ 72,713,232 $ 72,713,232 Operating Cost Summary Not applicable. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of architectural and engineering contracts delivered within 100 calendar days from date of initiation 248 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Property Management on Prior Years CIP Projects 69022 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to pay for land acquisition related expenses that occurred in previous fiscal years so that prior fiscal year contractual debts are paid. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $410,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $130,000. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 130,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 410,000 $ 130,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 410,000 Total Project $ 410,000 $ 410,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of land rights acquired by bid date within budget 249 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Queen Creek Rd: Culvert at Eastern Canal 68962 Transportation Project Narrative This project will replace the existing inadequate pipe with a box culvert to allow future widening of the road and increase the water flow capacity of the RWCD Canal (Eastern Canal) Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $334,000 with $74,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $10,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 67,000 $ 10,000 $ 230,000 $ $ $ $ 240,000 Construction 7,000 20,000 20,000 Other Costs Project Total $74,000 $ 10,000 $ 250,000 $ $ $ $ 260,000 Total Project $ 307,000 27,000 $ 334,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in bridges classified as deficient 250 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Queen Creek Rd: Arizona Avenue to McQueen 68966 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of Queen Creek Road from four to six lanes. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 43% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 57% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $8.4 million with $540,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $5,000. Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 5,000 3,500,000 $ 3,505,000 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 362,000 $ $ 1,198,000 3,162,000 6,662,000 $ 3,524,000 $ $ 7,860,000 Total Project $ 1,725,000 6,675,000 $ 8,400,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 251 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 527,000 $ 5,000 $ 826,000 Construction 13,000 Other Costs Project Total $540,000 $ 5,000 $ 826,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Previous Year’s Projects 68719 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to pay for project related expenses that occurred in the previous fiscal year so that prior year contractual debts are paid. This includes utility relocations, right-of-way and construction backcharges. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $1.7 million with $14,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $350,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 14,000 Other Costs Project Total $14,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 5-Year Total $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000 Total Project $ 1,764,000 $ 1,764,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of projects bid that were planned to be bid % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 252 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: R.O.W. In-fill on Road Inventory System 69010 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to obtain fee title on existing roads so that the traveling public has continued access to the existing roadway system. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $24.9 million with $7.6 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $3.2 million. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 3,292,000 $ 3,292,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 5-Year Total $ 17,292,000 $ 17,292,000 Total Project $ 24,945,000 $ 24,945,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of land rights acquired by bid date within budget 253 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 7,653,000 Construction Other Costs Project Total $ 7,653,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Ray Rd: Lindsay to Greenfield 68919 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of the roadway from two to four lanes. The construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 50% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $550,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $0. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ 550,000 $ $ $ $ 550,000 $ $ 550,000 $ $ $ $ 550,000 Total Project $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 254 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Riggs Rd: Arizona Ave to Gilbert Rd 68998 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of Riggs Road from two to six lanes. The City of Chandler is the lead agency on this project. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 50% from an IGA partner (City of Chandler). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.5 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. Total project expenditures are scheduled for FY 2003-04. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 4,500,000 $ $ $ $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ $ $ $ 4,500,000 Total Project $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of project expenditures that MCDOT saved through partnerships 255 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Riggs Rd: I-10 to Price 68450-2 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of the existing two-lane roadway to include two travel lanes in each direction with a continuous left-turn lane. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $2 million with $303,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $925,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 302,000 Construction 1,000 Other Costs Project Total $303,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 10,000 915,000 $ 925,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 20,000 $ $ $ $ 30,000 810,000 1,725,000 $ 830,000 $ $ $ $ 1,755,000 Total Project $ 332,000 1,726,000 $ 2,058,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 256 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Signal Modernization 69033 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to upgrade the software and hardware on county traffic signals so that there will be a more efficient flow of traffic and a reduction in travel costs. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.3 million with $750,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $55,000. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ 550,000 550,000 $ 550,000 $ $ $ $ $ 550,000 Total Project $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of travel delays minimized 257 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 750,000 Other Costs Project Total $750,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Special Projects 99999 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to reserve monies for special needs projects recommended by Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) members so that MCDOT can take advantage of project and cost-sharing opportunities that may not be available in the future. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $5 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 5-Year Total $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Total Project $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 258 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Tuthill Rd at Gila River/Scour 68988 Transportation Project Narrative This project will provide scour protection to the bridge to prevent damage during severe flooding. The initial cost of the scour protection was excessive for this two-lane bridge. Scour monitoring sensors will be installed and bridge replacement evaluated annually. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $342,000 with $92,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $0. Total Project $ 92,000 250,000 $ 342,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 259 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 92,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ Construction 250,000 250,000 Other Costs $ $ 250,000 $ $ $ 250,000 Project Total $92,000 $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Utility Locating (Pot-hole) Annual Contract 68829 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to supply utility locating services for MCDOT project managers so that damages to unidentified utilities won’t cause projects to be delayed or costs increased. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $267,000 with $17,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $50,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Construction 17,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Other Costs Project Total $17,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 Total Project $ 267,000 $ 267,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 260 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Val Vista Dr: Ray to Warner 68955 Transportation Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of the roadway from four to six lanes. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 50% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $530,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $0. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ 530,000 $ $ $ $ 530,000 $ $ 530,000 $ $ $ $ 530,000 Total Project $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 261 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Val Vista Dr: Riggs to ½ mi. south 16096 Transportation Project Narrative This project will grade, drain and pave the existing gravel road to provide a three-lane section, including one travel lane in each direction with a center left-turn lane) between San Tan Boulevard and Riggs Road. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $100,000 with $97,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $3,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 97,000 $ 3,000 $ $ $ $ $ 3,000 Construction Other Costs $ $ $ $ 3,000 Project Total $97,000 $ 3,000 $ Total Project $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 262 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Warner Rd: Lindsay to Greenfield 68404 Transportation Project Narrative The project will result in the reconstruction and widening of Warner Road from four lanes to six lanes. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 50% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $530,000 with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $0. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ 530,000 $ $ $ $ 530,000 $ $ 530,000 $ $ $ $ 530,000 Total Project $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 263 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Warranted Traffic Improvements (as needed) 68988 Transportation Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to reserve money for safety projects that are immediately needed. This project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $3.6 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $650,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs Project Total $ Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 5-Year Total $ 3,650,000 $ 3,650,000 Total Project $ 3,650,000 $ 3,650,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % reduction in accidents per intersection or roadway segment 264 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Williams Field at Higley 68991 Transportation Project Narrative This project will widen Williams Field Road at the Higley Road intersection and upgrade signals at the intersection. Also included will be the installation of curb on the south side of Williams Field Road to control parking in the vicinity of the intersection. The north side utilities will be relocated and a drainage basin will be installed to address intersection drainage issues. Construction of this project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.3 million with $284,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $60,000. Total Project $ 409,000 951,000 $ 1,360,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 265 Capital Improvement Program Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 265,000 $ 60,000 $ 20,000 $ 64,000 $ $ $ 144,000 Construction 19,000 932,000 932,000 Other Costs $ $ 1,076,000 Project Total $284,000 $ 60,000 $ 20,000 $ 996,000 $ Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Williams Field Rd: Gilbert to Lindsay 68985 Transportation Project Narrative This is a design project to reconstruct and widen the existing four lane roadway to provide either six travel lanes with raised center median or four travel lanes with raised center median and a frontage road in each direction. Additional improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk, a storm drain system, widening of the Eastern Canal Bridge and a traffic signal at the Lindsay Road intersection. This design project was recommended by the MCDOT Transportation Improvement Program Review Committee, the MCDOT Project Review Committee and the Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $650,000 with $105,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $45,000. Prior Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Years FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 105,000 $ 35,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 440,000 $ 20,000 $ 535,000 Construction 10,000 10,000 Other Costs Project Total $105,000 $ 45,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 440,000 $ 20,000 $ 545,000 Total Project $ 640,000 10,000 $ 650,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • MCDOT will increase safety and capacity of the existing transportation system, while reducing congestion through the development of regional congestion mitigation strategies. • MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement 266 Special Districts - Flood Control District Summary As noted above, the Flood Control District employs a separate planning procedure than those utilized by the County at large. These include intergovernmental agency collaboration and prioritization based on an established list of ranking criteria for designated types of projects. The Flood Control District project ranking criteria include the following: Submitting agency priority Master Plan Element Hydrologic/hydraulic significance Level of protection Area protected Environmental quality Area-wide benefits Total projected cost Level of partner(s) participation Operational and maintenance costs Operational and maintenance responsibility The Prioritization Procedure used by the Flood Control District is a multi-step decision process intended to implement previously approved fiscal policies from the District’s Strategic Plan. Potential CIP projects are identified primarily through agency requests and/or the Area Drainage Master Studies/Area Drainage Master Plans (ADMS/ADMP), Flood plain Delineation of other District Programs. As ADMPs are completed and adopted, it is anticipated that a significant number of future CIP project requests will be generated through this program. Input received annually concerning project priorities coming from these, or other plans, as well as other potential projects, will continue to be sought and prioritized on a County-wide basis using this procedure. The Flood Control District utilizes its CIP prioritization procedure to limit future structural maintenance responsibility to only those projects that are multi-jurisdictional and regional in nature and involve main watercourses. The Flood Control District’s proposed CIP is consistent with the District’s 10-year financial forecast. 267 Capital Improvement Program • • • • • • • • • • • Project Detail A total of 27 capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board by the Flood Control District. The recommended projects are as follows: Capital Improvement Program PRIOR YEARS FY 2002-03 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECTS (Fund 990) FCD Operations $ 420,000 $ 204,000 Central Chandler Area Drainage System 2,042,000 448,000 Town Of Guadalupe 2,316,000 2,132,000 Dam Safety Project 1,516,000 1,677,000 Candidate Assessment Reports 55,000 155,000 South Phoenix Drainage Improvement 4,040,000 9,145,000 Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Phoenix 20,000 105,000 East Maricopa Floodway 6,942,000 1,774,000 Salt River 10,000 125,000 Arlington Valley 10,000 55,000 Buckeye/ Sun Valley ADMP 480,000 1,180,000 Wittmann ADMP 567,000 1,135,000 Aguila ADMP 910,000 455,000 Skunk Creek 50,000 55,000 Skunk Creek / New River 310,000 400,000 Spook Hill ADMP 486,000 East Mesa ADMP 7,041,000 8,763,000 Glendale / Peoria ADMP 620,000 White Tanks ADMP 2,724,000 1,135,000 Queen Creek ADMP 105,000 1,965,000 Gilbert / Chandler ADMP 111,000 25,000 Higley ADMP 4,789,000 270,000 Adobe Dam ADMP 403,000 3,096,000 Durango ADMP 178,000 310,000 ACDC ADMP 5,804,000 Maryvale ADMP 2,123,000 7,039,000 Metro ADMP 180,000 Subtotal Flood Control $ 52,194,000 $ 47,632,000 Project Reserve $ - TOTAL FUND 990 $ 52,194,000 268 $ 1,072,497 $ 48,704,497 FY 2003-04 $ FY 2004-05 1,500,000 100,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 1,400,000 7,200,000 2,450,000 9,000,000 4,700,000 2,250,000 6,000,000 8,400,000 $ 50,500,000 5,000,000 100,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 3,485,000 9,600,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 5,250,000 $ 51,935,000 204,000 3,458,000 2,507,000 10,427,000 555,000 18,533,000 3,330,000 15,974,000 125,000 1,255,000 2,280,000 1,623,000 605,000 775,000 8,050,000 5,800,000 34,403,000 6,085,000 30,765,000 12,665,000 25,000 8,870,000 4,046,000 20,210,000 12,404,000 37,294,000 3,530,000 $ 245,798,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ 49,800,000 $ 51,400,000 2,500,000 $ 53,000,000 $ 5-YR TOTAL (FY 2003-07) 375,000 1,150,000 100,000 200,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 400,000 9,090,000 150,000 8,780,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,900,000 4,515,000 3,100,000 $ 48,760,000 2,640,000 $ FY 2006-07 3,010,000 1,100,000 100,000 4,188,000 225,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 488,000 150,000 720,000 1,650,000 5,350,000 2,250,000 1,000,000 350,000 950,000 3,000,000 6,600,000 12,090,000 250,000 $ 46,971,000 2,829,000 $ FY 2005-06 2,765,000 $ 54,700,000 $ 11,806,497 $ 257,604,497 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Flood Control District Operations 001 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Ortho Aerial Photography The District is acquiring digital aerial ortho-photography for the whole of Maricopa County. During previous years, the District has acquired semi-rectified aerial photography with a horizontal accuracy of +/- 25 feet in urban areas and +/- 300 feet in rural areas. This accuracy has presented a problem when depicting floodplains or overlaying any other available data at the District. It has been determined that a better accuracy is necessary for the District’s regulatory and technical responsibilities an ortho-photography digital aerial contract was specified with horizontal accuracy of +/- 5 feet and vertical accuracy of +/- 5 feet. Aerial photographs of Maricopa County were taken during the months of December 2001 and January 2002. The ground control used for the project is the Geodetic Densification and Cadastral Survey generated by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Airborne GPS was used to control the project. A ground size pixel of one square foot was specified. When the project is completed it will be used for Zone A floodplain determinations, for accurately depicting features on the ground and for floodplain determination on the District web site. This project will be funded 10% by the Maricopa County Assessor’s office, 35% by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation and 55% by the Flood Control District. This data will also be sold to other cities and communities as well as private parties. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $624,000 with $420,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $204,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 389,000 Construction Other Costs- Force Acct Labor 31,000 Project Total $ 420,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 $ 164,000 $ $ $ 40,000 $ 204,000 $ $ $ - Year 5 5-Year FY 06-07 Total $ $ 164,000 40,000 $ $ 204,000 Total Project $ 553,000 71,000 $ 624,000 Operating Cost Summary This is a non-structural project; therefore, additional operating costs will be minimal. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will initiate at least one project each year for the next five years that uses innovative and resourceful operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of cumulative linear miles of Zone A watercourses requiring delineation that were delineated and submitted to FEMA 269 Capital Improvement Program Funding Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: City of Chandler 022 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Central Chandler Area Drainage System The City of Chandler’s central area was developed prior to the implementation of required drainage standards. The City of Chandler previously developed and implemented a storm water master plan for the central area. The City updated the plan and requested that the District cooperate and cost share the modification and enhancement of the existing facilities to provide a 100-year level of protection and a regional outfall for the system. Five improvements have been identified that would help the City accomplish its goal of alleviating the flooding problems in Chandler’s central area: Phase 1 – Ivanhoe and Erie Storm Drains Phase 2 – Arrowhead Pump Station and Force Main Phase 3 – Galveston Basin and Erie Drains Capital Improvement Program Phase 4 – Denver Basin Pump Station Phase 5 – Hartford Force Main and Pecos Road Drain The design of Phase 3 is currently underway. The total project is scheduled for completion in FY 03-04. Funding Summary The City of Chandler and the Flood Control District are each cost sharing 50% on this project. The City of Chandler is the lead agency. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $5.5 million with $2 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $448,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 678,002 Construction 1,333,477 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 30,521.00 Project Total $ 2,042,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 13,000 335,000 100,000 $ 448,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ 250,000 $ $ $ 2,760,000 $ 3,010,000 $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 263,000 3,095,000 100,000 $ 3,458,000 Total Project $ 941,002 4,428,477 130,521 $ 5,500,000 Operating Cost Summary The City of Chandler and the Flood Control District are each cost sharing 50% on this project. The City is the lead agency for design, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, construction, construction management and operation and maintenance of the system. The District’s role is to participate in the consultant selection process, pre-construction meetings, provide technical assistance and review of the design and construction phases for the project. 270 Project Title: City of Chandler (continued) Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed % of Projects in Plan Capital Improvement Program 271 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Town of Guadalupe 035 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project will provide a storm drain collection system and four retention basins located along the Highline Canal that will capture and convey the 10-year storm event within the Town of Guadalupe and east of Avenida Del Yaqui. Runoff from within the Town results in flooding of low-lying houses and collects along the Highline Canal where it eventually overtops the canal and causes damage to downstream properties within Tempe. Three of the basins are located within the Town, and one along the east side of the canal in Tempe. Three of the basins within the Town will be landscaped and become Town parks after construction. The basin in Tempe, because of its small size and relocation, environmental studies and construction of the project are estimated to be $7 million. Land acquisition of three of the basins has been completed. Additionally, the Town will seek grants and other means to participate in the construction of drainage improvements. The Town also is actively pursuing advance excavation of the basins at no cost to the project. Capital Improvement Program This project has been presented to the Flood Control Advisory Board (FCAB) and the Board of Directors (BOD) as a critical element of the District’s long term mission to reduce flood damages and provide safety for the County’s residents and property. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.8 million with $2.3 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $2.1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,490,312 Construction 766,490 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 59,197 Project Total $ 2,316,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 20,142 $ $ $ $ $ 20,142 1,945,689 375,000 2,320,689 166,169 166,169 $ 2,132,000 $ $ 375,000 $ $ $ 2,507,000 Total Project $ 1,510,454 3,087,179 225,366 $ 4,823,000 Operating Cost Summary The Town of Guadalupe is not able to contribute financially to the project but will own, operate and maintain the storm drain system and the four basins. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 272 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Dam Safety Project (Structure Assessment) 050 Flood Control District Project Narrative The Flood Control District of Maricopa County owns, operates and maintains 22 Flood Control Dams and is mandated by state and federal law to comply with dam safety regulations. The District has initiated a program called the Structures Assessment Program to assess and evaluate these structures and related features due to an ever-increasing urbanized environment and to assure continued compliance with current standards and guidelines. The Structures Assessment Program is intended to address issues related to urbanization and dam safety as well as to enhance and improve the District’s ongoing Dam Safety Program. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project fund (Fund 990). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $11.9 million with $1.5 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.6 million. Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,477,000 200,000 $ 1,677,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 600,000 500,000 $ 1,100,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,150,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 250,000 1,250,000 $ 1,500,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 5-Year Total $ 3,477,000 6,750,000 200,000 $ 10,427,000 Total Project $ 4,739,441 6,810,711 392,848 $ 11,943,000 Operating Cost Summary This is a non-structural project; therefore, additional operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Each year for the next 5 years the Flood Control District will evaluate five existing flood control facilities' safety monitoring procedures, District owned flood control facilities and begin plans to mitigate, upgrade or redesign these facilities to reduce the risk and liability associated with them. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of dams evaluated under Phase I of the structures assessment endeavor during the fiscal year % of dam safety issues investigated/repaired under phase II of the structures assessment endeavor during the fiscal year 273 Capital Improvement Program Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,262,441 Construction 60,711 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 192,848 Project Total $ 1,516,000 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Candidate Assessment Reports (CARs) 051 Flood Control District Project Narrative Annually, Cities and Towns within Maricopa County submit requests to the District for inclusion of proposed projects into the District’s CIP. The District has developed a process that includes evaluation and ranking of the candidate projects based upon specific evaluation criteria. A Candidate Assessment Report (CAR) is recommend when the review committee feels that the material submitted for the proposed project is insufficient to support the ranking of there is insufficient project detail to implement the project. The CAR studies are used to document the project requirements, benefits and costs. The studies are generally limited to an assessment of existing data. The study purpose is to confirm or expand on the information provided for the project prioritization and to document the requirements for implementation of the project. Capital Improvement Program Upon completion of the annual CIP prioritization, the list of projects submitted which require a CAR study is completed ad the CAR study is initiated. If the CAR findings indicate that the project benefits or costs are substantially different that the project data originally submitted of the CIP prioritization, the project may be resubmitted for another evaluation and rankings by the CIP review committee. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project Fund (Fund 990). Project Cost Summary An estimated $100,000 is budgeted in each fiscal year. A total of $55,000 was expended in FY 0102. The FY 2002-03 budget is $155,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 40,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 15,000 Project Total $ 55,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 120,000 35,000 $ 155,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 5-Year Total $ 520,000 35,000 $ 555,000 Total Project $ 560,000 50,000 $ 610,000 Operating Cost Summary This is a non-structural project; therefore, additional operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will initiate at least one project each year for the next five years that uses innovative and resourceful operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of completed capital projects in current 5-year capital projects plan 274 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: South Phoenix Drainage Improvements 117 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): 43rd Ave/Southern Ave Detention Basin The detention basin has been designed by the Flood Control District. The detention basin site has been acquired by the Flood Control District, and is located at the southeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Southern Avenue. The basin is now an integral component of and will be constructed as a part of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, and construction will be cost-shared among the District, City of Phoenix, and MCDOT. The basin will have 5:1 side slopes and will be surfaced with grass for erosion control and aesthetic purposes. The City of Phoenix plans to use the basin as a park facility, and will own and maintain the basin upon completion of construction. The basin includes an inlet structure, an inlet spillway, an outlet spillway, and an outlet structure which will carry flood water to the existing 43rd Avenue storm drain, which outfalls to the Salt River. Laveen Area Conveyance Channel Based on previous evaluations of flood hazards within this area, significant floodwater from large storm events pond along the existing Maricopa Drain. This project will eliminate the potential flood hazard and reduce and/or eliminate potential flood damages. This project consists of channel excavation, road crossings, drop structures, tiling and filling in the existing Maricopa Drain, and construction of an earthen low-flow channel. The channel and basin will be grass-lined to reduce and/or eliminate erosion and sediment transport and to provide landscaping and aesthetics. The peak discharge at the outfall of the channel for the 100-year storm event is estimated to be 2800 cfs. The existing Maricopa Drain has the capacity for about 20-50 cfs. The existing Maricopa Drain carries agricultural tailwater continually to the Gila River Indian Reservation, and some of this water outfalls to the Salt River. This water will be carried in the Project’s low-flow channel, and outfall near the existing outfall location. The IGA between the District, City of Phoenix, MCDOT, and SRP was approved by the FCAB on May 23rd, 2001. Construction for the Project is anticipated to commence in summer 2002. Funding Summary The City of Phoenix, MCDOT and the Flood Control District are project partners. The cost breakdown consists of 47% funded by the City of Phoenix, 6% funded by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation and 47% funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). 275 Capital Improvement Program This project includes the design and construction of a conveyance channel capable of containing a 100-year flood event in the vicinity of the existing Maricopa Drain from 43rd Avenue to the Salt River for a length of approximately 5.8 miles. A flood detention basin at 43rd Avenue and Southern Avenue will mitigate peak flood flows getting to the conveyance channel. Project Title: South Phoenix Drainage Improvements (continued) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $36 million with $17.5 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $9.1 million. Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 10,730,000 6,019,000 753,000 17,502,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 30,000 8,940,000 175,000 $ 9,145,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 15,000 4,173,000 $ 4,188,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ $ 5-Year Total 245,000 18,113,000 175,000 18,533,000 $ $ Total Project 10,975,000 24,132,000 928,000 36,035,000 Operating Cost Summary 43rd Ave/Southern Ave Detention Basin The City of Phoenix plans to use the basin as a park facility, and will own and maintain the basin upon completion of construction. Laveen Area Conveyance Channel Operating costs will be negligible. Capital Improvement Program Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will initiate at least one project each year for the next five years that uses innovative and resourceful operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of completed capital projects in current 5 year capital projects plan 276 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Phoenix 120 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Scottsdale Road Corridor Drainage The first phase of this project is to identify the drainage problems and develop cost effective solutions for a storm water collection system for the Scottsdale Road corridor area from Thunderbird Road and Mountain View Roads. Based on the preferred alternative, the project will move forward into the design and construction phase. Funding Summary The City of Scottsdale will contribute 50% and the Flood Control District will contribute 50% from the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). The Town of Paradise Valley is a potential partner. Project Cost Summary Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 20,000 Project Total $ 20,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 75,000 30,000 $ 105,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ 300,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 30,000 $ 3,000,000 $ $ $ 3,330,000 Total Project $ 300,000 3,000,000 50,000 $ 3,350,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 277 Capital Improvement Program The total budget for this project is $3.3 million with $20,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $105,000. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: East Maricopa Floodway 121 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): EMF Capacity Mitigation The East Maricopa Floodway (EMF) Capacity Mitigation Plan will increase the capacity of the Floodway to convey the 100-year flows originating within the East Mesa watershed. The plan includes in-line and/or off-line detention with channel improvements between Broadway Road and Main Street. The channel improvements, scheduled to be completed during FY 2002-03, will include increasing the bank height by raising the maintenance roads on both sides of the channel between Rittenhouse Road and Warner Road. Capital Improvement Program EMF Rittenhouse & Chandler Heights Basin The East Maricopa Floodway (EMF) Capacity Mitigation Plan will increase the capacity of the Floodway to convey the 100-year flows originating within the East Mesa watershed. The plan includes in-line and/or off-line detention basins with channel improvements between Broadway Road and Main Street. The channel improvements, scheduled to be completed during FY 2002-03, will include increasing the bank height by raising the maintenance roads on both sides of the channel between Rittenhouse Road and Warner Road. The project consists of a pre-design, and a final design to include; preparation of construction plans, special provisions and engineer’s estimates. The design cost is currently estimated at $2 million. The preliminary construction cost is estimated to be $26 million. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project fund (Fund 990). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $22.9 million with $6.9 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.7 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 445,160 Construction 6,358,286 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 138,554 Project Total $ 6,942,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,564,000 100,000 110,000 $ 1,774,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 5-Year Total $ 1,564,000 14,300,000 110,000 $ 15,974,000 Total Project $ 2,009,160 20,658,286 248,554 $ 22,916,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will conduct two studies each year for the next five years to identify flood prone areas, limit growth in those areas, and establish plans for the required drainage infrastructure. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 278 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Salt River Channel 125 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Tempe/Mesa Habitat Mitigation This project includes a study of the vegetation maintenance alternatives to maintain conveyance capacity of the Salt River Channel upstream of the existing Tempe Town Lake. Possible environmental and recreational amenities that could be incorporated into the reach of the Salt River will also be studied. Urban runoff from wastewater treatment facilities and urban storm water drainage accumulates in the Salt River Channel upstream of the Tempe Town Lake resulting in increased vegetation growth in the area. The increased vegetation could result in decreased capacity of the channel to convey flood flows. Stagnate water also creates vector breeding areas and is a public health problem. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project fund (Fund 990). There is a future potential for cost-sharing partners The total budget for this project is $135,000 with $10,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $125,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 10,000 Project Total $ 10,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 100,000 25,000 $ 125,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 100,000 25,000 $ 125,000 Total Project $ 100,000 35,000 $ 135,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will initiate at least one project each year for the for the next five years that uses innovative and resourceful operational and financial strategies. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed % of Projects in Plan 279 Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Arlington Valley 129 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Arlington Valley Floodplain Acquisition The goal of the Arlington Floodplain Acquisition project is to purchase 17.34 acres of property and buildings that are currently occupied by the Arlington School. This property currently lies within the 100-year floodway of the Gila River. The school has been subject to repeated flood losses over the past twenty-five years and will continue to be flooded in the future unless something is done. The Flood Control District, the Arlington School District and the State Facilities Board have agreed in principle that the Flood Control District will purchase the school property for $1,000,000. The Arlington School is planning on rebuilding the elementary school in a location outside the floodplain. Once the property is purchased the school will be demolished or will be converted to an acceptable use within a floodplain. Capital Improvement Program Funding Summary The State Facilities Board is contributing $200,000 to the cost of the property. The Flood Control District is contributing $1,000,000 to this project from the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). There will be a new building project that will be managed and funded by the State Facilities Board. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.2 million with $10,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $55,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 10,000 Project Total $ 10,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 35,000 20,000 $ 55,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 35,000 1,200,000 20,000 $ 1,255,000 Total Project $ 35,000 1,200,000 30,000 $ 1,265,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 280 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Buckeye/Sunvalley ADMP 211 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Buckeye/Sunvalley ADMP Buckeye FRS 1,2,3 This project is for the purchase in fee of the underlying property on which Buckeye FRSs No. 1, 2 and 3 and their corresponding pool areas and floodways are located. The District currently has an easement for these properties. The Arizona Department of Transportation has agreed in principle to sell in fee these properties to the District. Owning the land in fee will allow the District to manage the development of infrastructure on these properties. This will reduce the long-term risk of developments that could be adversely affected by inundation within the pool areas and to reduce the risk of development upstream of the structures from adversely affecting the flood retarding structures. The cost is for the residual value of the land in fee versus existing District easement. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project fund (Fund 990). Proposed drainage features will be cost-shared through potential partnering. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.7 million with $480,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 430,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 50,000 Project Total $ 480,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,070,000 110,000 $ 1,180,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,170,000 110,000 $ 2,280,000 Total Project $ 2,600,000 160,000 $ 2,760,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be negligible. 281 Capital Improvement Program Current and projected District CIP expenditures can be divided into two parts: a planning study that will lay the groundwork for further flood control activities; and a design and construction phase that will address flooding issues. The planning study consists of providing professional engineering services necessary for developing an area drainage master plan to determine guidelines for stormwater management and mitigate flooding for the Buckeye/Sun Valley area. The study will include analysis of approximately 280 square miles of watershed for the eastern contributing watershed for the Hassayampa River from approximately the Morristown Highway (SR 74) south to the Gila River and from the White Tank Mountains west to the Hassayampa River. The study will identify drainage problems, update the existing hydrology due to development and new hydrologic methodology, and develop cost effective solutions for a storm water collection and disposal system and will further identify potential outfall alternatives. The design and construction phase will involve the implementation of solutions to flooding that are identified once the planning and conceptual design phases have been completed, and remedial actions have been specified. Future CIP budgets may include projects identified in the study. Project Title: Buckeye/Sunvalley ADMP (continued) Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will conduct two studies each year for the next five years to identify flood prone areas, limit growth in those areas, and establish plans for the required drainage infrastructure. Key Performance Result Measure(s) Capital Improvement Program % of Projects Completed 282 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Wittmann ADMP 344 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Wittmann ADMP Update Current and projected District CIP expenditures can be divided into several parts: a drainage mapping, a structures study, a planning study that will lay the groundwork for further flood control activities, and a design and construction phase that will address flooding issues. The planning study consists of providing professional engineering services necessary for developing an area drainage master plan to determine guidelines for stormwater management and mitigate flooding within the Wittmann area. The study will include analysis of approximately 300 plus square miles of watershed. The study will identify drainage problems, update the existing hydrology due to development and new hydrologic methodology, and develop cost effective solutions for a storm water collection and disposal system and will further identify potential outfall alternatives. The planning study is budgeted at $ 1.9 million dollars and is included in the CIP Budget for FY 02/03 and future years. The design and construction phase will involve the implementation of solutions to flooding that are identified once the planning and conceptual design phases have been completed, and remedial actions have been specified. This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project fund (Fund 990). Potential partnering exists for future projects to be identified in the study. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.1 million with $567,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 517,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 50,000 Project Total $ 567,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,000,000 135,000 $ 1,135,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 488,000 $ 488,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,488,000 135,000 $ 1,623,000 Total Project $ 2,005,000 185,000 $ 2,190,000 Operating Cost Summary This is a non-structural project; therefore, additional operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will study each year for the next five years two major areas of Maricopa County that are not yet under development but are expected to be according to the Maricopa Association of Governmentsprojections. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 283 Capital Improvement Program Funding Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Aguila ADMP 345 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Aguila ADMP The purpose of the ADMP is to develop solutions to flooding damage similar to the floods that occurred in this area in Sept 1997 and again in Oct 2000. Numerous homes were flooded and streets were washed out due to the excessive flow. The ADMP limits will be the Yavapai County boundary limits to the north, approximately Effus Ranch Road alignment to the east, the Vulture Mountains to the south and La Paz County boundary limits to the west. Structural and nonstructural alternatives will be evaluated to determine the best solution for the area. This project may be expanded to include a portion of La Paz County if funding from La Paz County is procured. Capital Improvement Program Aguila Floodplain Delineation The purpose of the ADMP is to develop solutions to flooding damage similar to the floods that occurred in this area in Sept 1997 and again in Oct 2000. Numerous homes were flooded and streets were washed out due to the excessive flow. The ADMP limits will be the Yavapai County boundary limits to the north, approximately Effus Ranch Road alignment to the east, the Vulture Mountains to the south and La Paz County boundary limits to the west. Structural and nonstructural alternatives will be evaluated to determine the best solution for the area. This project may be expanded to include a portion of La Paz County if funding from La Paz County is procured. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project fund (Fund 990). Potential partners will be identified in Phase I of the study. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.3 million with $1.7 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $455,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,575,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 195,000 Project Total $ 1,770,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 395,000 60,000 $ 455,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 545,000 60,000 $ 605,000 Total Project $ 2,120,000 255,000 $ 2,375,000 Operating Cost Summary This is a non-structural project; therefore, additional operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will conduct two studies each year for the next five years to identify flood prone areas, limit growth in those areas, and establish plans for the required drainage infrastructure. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 284 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Skunk Creek Channelization 362 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Skunk Creek Low Flow Channel This Project will provide a low flow channel (LFC) within the limits of Skunk Creek from 75th Avenue to the New River confluence. Additionally, a LFC shall be constructed in the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel (ACDC) from 73rd Avenue to the confluence with Skunk Creek This Project will be undertaken with participation from the City of Peoria. The low flow channel will: (1) provide for better conveyance of nuisance flows in the Skunk Creek, (2) reduce operation and maintenance costs, (3) reduce vector control problems while protecting habitat. The District will be the lead agency for design, construction, and construction management of the project. Funding Summary City of Peoria 50%; Flood Control District 50% from the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). The Flood Control District is the lead agency. The total budget for this project is $825,000 with $50,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $55,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 40,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 10,000 Project Total $ 50,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 40,000 15,000 $ 55,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 720,000 $ 720,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 40,000 720,000 15,000 $ 775,000 Total Project $ 80,000 720,000 25,000 $ 825,000 Operating Cost Summary The City of Peoria will assume ownership and the operation and maintenance for the completed Project. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 285 Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Skunk Creek/New River 400 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): New River (Grand to Skunk Creek) The Middle New River Watercourse Master Plan (MNRWCMP) study undertaken by the District identified projects to improve the conveyance capacity and provide bank protection along the New River. One of the recommended project areas is the reach of New River from the Outer Loop 101 and Skunk Creek confluence with New River, south to Grand Avenue. Recommended improvements include channelization and bank protection. Potential project partners include the City of Peoria and ADOT. The City and ADOT, along with the District are property owners along and within the New River alignment. The northerly portion of this project reach, along the west bank would include improvements along the Desert Harbor development that would be accomplished by the City. Further analysis of the recommendations and development of intergovernmental agreements are necessary before the project(s) can move forward. Capital Improvement Program New River (83rd Avenue/GCS) The Middle New River Watercourse Master Plan (MNRWCMP) study undertaken by the District identified projects to improve the conveyance capacity and provide bank protection along the New River. One of the recommended projects is channel improvements near the 83rd Avenue New River crossing. The constructed improvement would be a grade control structure and channelization near the 83rd Avenue crossing. Glendale had already identified the need for a bridged crossing at 83rd Avenue and New River. The need for channel improvements associated with the bridge, and the MNRWCMP recommendation for channel improvements, resulted in a project partnership between the District and the City of Peoria and the City of Glendale. Intergovernmental Agreements were developed among these three partners to identify project responsibilities for the design and construction of the bridge, grade control structure and channel improvements. The City of Glendale will provide for design and construction of the bridge and the grade control structure and associated channel improvements. The District will provide construction management services for the project. All three partners will share in the total project costs. Construction is expected to be completed in 2002. Funding Summary 25% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990) and 50% will be paid by the City of Glendale. The City of Peoria will pay for 25% of the total project cost. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $8.3 million with $310,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $400,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 72,000 Construction 193,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 45,000 Project Total $ 310,000 286 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 200,000 145,000 55,000 $ 400,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,350,000 300,000 $ 1,650,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 Year 4 Year 5 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,550,000 6,445,000 55,000 $ 8,050,000 Total Project $ 1,622,000 6,638,000 100,000 $ 8,360,000 Project Title: Skunk Creek/New River (continued) Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed Capital Improvement Program 287 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: East Mesa ADMP 442 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Capital Improvement Program Elliot Basin & Channel The Elliot Road Channel and Basins are projects that are identified in the East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan. The East Mesa ADMP identifies drainage problems and develops solutions for a storm water collection and basin system for eastern Maricopa County including portions of the City of Mesa, the Town of Gilbert, the Town of Queen Creek, and unincorporated Maricopa County. The Elliot Road Basins are located at the corner of Elliot Road and the Crismon Road alignment. They collect runoff from the Crismon Channel, which extends along Crismon Road north of Elliot Road and from the Elliot Road Channel extending along Elliot Road to the east. The basins attenuate peak flows to reduce the size and cost of required downstream improvements. The basins are anticipated to become a multi-use facility, being improved and maintained as City of Mesa parks. The channel conveys discharge from the Elliot Road Basins, from the Elliot Road Channel, Phase 2 (extending east along Elliot Road to a basin at Meridian Road). The Elliot Road Channel, Phase 1A, extends west along Elliot Road, day-lighting west of Ellsworth Road in six natural washes. The future Phase 1B will extend from this point to the East Maricopa Floodway. The City of Mesa may be interested in creating a joint use for the channel as a linear park. Hawes Road Channel The Hawes Road Drainage Improvements Project (Project) is a project that is identified in the East Mesa Area Master Drainage Master Plan (ADMP). The East Mesa ADMP identifies drainage problems and develops solutions for eastern Maricopa County, which includes portions of Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek. The Project will resolve many of the existing drainage problems along Hawes Road within the City of Mesa. The Project will consist of channel and culvert improvements from Apache Trail to Emelita Avenue, which is approximately 0.4 miles north of Southern Avenue. The length of the Project is approximately 1.1 miles and will tie into an existing improved gunite lined channel on the west side of Hawes Road. The estimated cost for the Project is $4,000,000 which, includes the, design, rights-of way acquisition, utility relocations, construction, and construction management. The City will fund non-flood control features. The City will assume ownership and the operation and maintenance for the completed Project. The Project will be cost shared by the City of Mesa and the District as follows: The City shall contribute 35% of the Project cost (estimated to be $1,400,000), and the District shall contribute 65% of the Project cost (estimated to $2,600,000). Ellsworth Channel This project was prioritized in the East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan, and includes construction of a flood control channel to mitigate existing and future flooding along Ellsworth Road, adjacent to General Motors Proving Ground and Williams Gateway Airport. Flooding occurs frequently at five dip crossings on the existing roadway. The channel project will be constructed in conjunction with MCDOT’s upgrades to Ellsworth Road from Germann Road to 1/3 mile south of Guadalupe Road, and will provide drainage for the road and capacity for the 100-year flood. On June 21st 2000, the Board of Directors approved IGA FCD 2000A002, among the District, MCDOT, and Mesa, to design and construct the Ellsworth Road Channel Project. The design for the channel included an alternatives analysis. The design for the channel will include reconstruction of 1-½ miles of the existing Powerline Floodway. The design for the roadway upgrades and channel is scheduled to be complete by October 2002, and the Project is scheduled to begin construction by summer 2003. The cost for the channel project is estimated to be $9,000,000, with the District’s share equal to 50 percent or $4,500,000. 288 Project Title: East Mesa ADMP (continued) Elliot Channel (Ellsworth to EMF) The project includes a study to evaluate potential for combining flows from the proposed Elliot Road Channel and Basin with drainage facilities for the proposed San Tan Freeway. The Elliot Basin and Channel project (see Elliot Basin and Channel, PCN 442.04.31) will cross the alignment of the proposed San Tan Freeway. ADOT is conducting a study to evaluate a drainage channel located along the eastern side of the Freeway alignment that would convey flows from the Elliot Basin and Channel project and the flows intercepted by the Freeway to the District's East Maricopa Floodway. Elliot Channel (East of Crismon) This channel is located north of Elliot Road between Meridian Road and 104th Street alignment. The channel consists of a trapezoidal earthen channel north of Elliot Road. Box culverts will be needed at Meridian, Mountain and Elliot Roads. The Channel will cross Elliot Road from the north to the south to discharge into the pipes that were designed for Elliot Channel (Phase I). Sunland Springs/Siphon Draw Funding Summary Elliot Basin & Channel 50% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990), the City of Mesa will contribute 35% and the Maricopa County Department of Transportation will fund 15% from the Transportation Capital Projects Fund (Fund 234). Hawes Road Channel The City will fund non-flood control features. The City will assume ownership and the operation and maintenance for the completed Project. The Project will be cost shared by the City of Mesa and the District as follows: The City shall contribute 35% of the Project cost (estimated to be $1,400,000), and the District shall contribute 65% of the Project cost (estimated to $2,600,000) from the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). Ellsworth Channel The cost for the channel project is estimated to be $9,000,000. The District’s share is 50% or $4,500,000 to be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). Elliot Channel (Ellsworth to EMF) This project is currently funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project fund (Fund 990). Potential partnering exists between the Flood Control District, ADOT, and the City of Mesa. Elliot Channel (East of Crismon) 50% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990) and the City of Mesa will contribute 50%. 289 Capital Improvement Program The Siphon Draw Detention Basin is located east of Meridian Road in Pinal County, and north of the Elliot Road alignment. The Sunland Springs Channel follows the Meridian Road alignment north of the Siphon Draw Basin, adjacent to the 890 acre Sunland Springs Village Development. The Sunland Springs Channel is a concrete channel with 8 drop structures extending 6800 feet north of the Siphon Draw Detention Basin. The channel acts as a flow-by channel that conveys discharges up to 434 cfs past the basin. Discharges in excess of 434 cfs spill into the basin through a side channel spillway. The Siphon Draw Detention Basin collects the overflow from the Sunland Springs Channel and surface runoff from Siphon Draw at two additional locations that will require inflow spillways. This basin provides 95 acre-feet of storage volume. Project Title: East Mesa ADMP (continued) Sunland Springs/Siphon Draw 50% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990) and the City of Mesa will contribute 50%. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $41.4 million with $7 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $8.7 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 783,744 Construction 5,768,622 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 488,634 Project Total $ 7,041,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 1,290,000 7,183,000 290,000 $ 8,763,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 4,350,000 1,000,000 $ 5,350,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 3,600,000 5,490,000 $ 9,090,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 7,200,000 $ 7,200,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 5-Year Total $ 9,240,000 24,873,000 290,000 $ 34,403,000 Total Project $ 10,023,744 30,641,622 778,634 $ 41,444,000 Operating Cost Summary Elliot Basin & Channel Operating costs will be negligible. Hawes Road Channel Capital Improvement Program The City will assume ownership and the operation and maintenance for the completed Project. Ellsworth Channel Operating costs will be negligible. Elliot Channel (Ellsworth to EMF) Operating costs will be negligible. Elliot Channel (East of Crismon) Operating costs will be negligible. Sunland Springs/Siphon Draw Operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 290 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: White Tanks-Agua Fria ADMP 470 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): White Tanks #3 Bullard Wash Phase II Bullard Wash is included within the Loop 303 Corridor/White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP), which recommends improvements be made to the wash. Phase I of the Bullard Wash Improvements Project was constructed as a previous District/City of Goodyear project. Phase I included construction of an earthen and gabion basket lined channel from the Gila River to Lower Buckeye Road. Phase II includes an earthen/greenbelt channel along the Bullard Wash alignment from Lower Buckeye Road to McDowell Road. A diversion channel will take high storm flows from Bullard Wash south of McDowell Road through detention basins north of I-10 and west of Dysart Road, to an outlet at the Agua Fria River. Landscaping, fencing and other multi-use facilities are anticipated along the channel alignment and within the basins. The estimated cost of the project for the design, rights-of-way acquisition, public involvement, utility relocations, construction, and construction management is $25 million, based on current estimates. The project will channelize the floodplain north of the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport. It will reduce the floodplain width and protect the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport and nearby development from flooding. For the area north of I-10, the project will collect and convey storm-water currently draining by sheet flow to Bullard Wash. This storm water will otherwise collect in streets, businesses, farm fields, and residential areas. Funding Summary White Tanks #3 The District is currently seeking federal funding participation for this project. Potential partners are the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) and local stakeholders (for the channel improvements). 291 Capital Improvement Program The White Tanks Flood Retarding Structure #3 (White Tanks #3), owned and operated by the District, requires corrective action to bring the structure into compliance with dam safety standards and requirements. Dam modification studies completed by the Flood Control District under Contract FCD 98-11 have estimated the total project cost to rehabilitate the dam at $13 million. This estimate includes land acquisition costs. Alternatives to dam rehabilitation have recently been completed by the District involving various combinations of large regional flood control basins, flood control channels and upstream channel improvements. All of these alternatives would allow for removal of the dam while replacing the flood control function provided by the existing dam. Opportunities for multi-use features were evaluated primarily based on the potential for others to develop recreational components. The total project cost for a basin project to replace the dam is estimated at $20 million. Although more costly, it appears that a basin project provides significant long term advantages over dam rehabilitation. Replacement of the dam would eliminate the high hazard dam classification, eliminate required dam monitoring and maintenance activities and provide more opportunities for community based multi-use activities. The District is currently seeking federal funding participation for this project. The schedule for implementation is contingent upon and timing of federal funding assistance under an agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Several interim corrective measures at the dam are in the process of being implemented this fiscal year. An upstream channel into White Tanks #3 is being evaluated for improvements to prevent upstream flooding breakouts. Project Title: White Tanks-Agua Fria ADMS (continued) Bullard Wash Phase II 50% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990) and the City of Goodyear will contribute 50%. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $70.8 million with $40 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 13,823,000 Construction 25,048,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 1,209,000 Project Total $ 40,080,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 950,000 185,000 $ 1,135,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 750,000 1,500,000 $ 2,250,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,280,000 7,500,000 $ 8,780,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 9,600,000 $ 9,600,000 5-Year Total $ 2,980,000 27,600,000 185,000 $ 30,765,000 Total Project $ 16,803,000 52,648,000 1,394,000 $ 70,845,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be negligible. Capital Improvement Program Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 292 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Queen Creek ADMP 480 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Queen Creek Channel (Hawes to Power) The proposed plan is to channelize Queen Creek Wash from Hawes Road northwesterly to Power Road for a distance of approximately two and one half- (2.5) miles. Based on the Flood Insurance Study on Queen Creek Wash, there are areas of significant breakouts particularly along the north bank of this reach of the wash. The most feasible solution for preventing the breakouts from occurring along Queen Creek Wash in this area is to increase the cross section of the wash to contain the 100-year flows. This Project consists of channel construction and improvement of the Sossaman Road Crossing. The Town will be the lead agency for design, rights-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, construction, construction management and operation and maintenance of the Project. The Town is to complete all the phases of the Project. The District shall review and approve the design plans and the bid and construction documents prior to bid. The District shall also approve any future landscape amenities to assure hydraulic conveyance within the Project. The total cost of the project is estimated at $6.0 million with District’s contribution of $2.42 million for this project. The planning study of Queen Creek and Sanokai Wash Hydraulic Master Plan developed a master plan to maintain the hydraulic conveyance capacity of both Queen Creek and Sanokai Wash. The Sanokai Wash was analyzed from Ellsworth Road and Riggs Road to its outfall into Queen Creek. Channelization of portions of Sanokai Wash was recommended. Developers will construct portions of Sanokai Wash and the remaining portions will be completed by the District jointly with the Towns of Gilbert and Queen Creek. Design and construction of the portion to be completed jointly is currently scheduled to begin FY 2002-03. Funding Summary Queen Creek Channel (Hawes to Power) 40% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990) and the Town of Queen Creek will contribute 60%. The Town of Queen Creek is the lead agency. Sanokai Wash Channelization (EMF to Power) There is potential cost-sharing to be negotiated with the Town of Queen Creek and the Town of Gilbert. The District has proposed paying 50% of the project costs from the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $12.7 million with $105,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $1.9 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 105,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 105,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 570,000 1,250,000 145,000 $ 1,965,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 4,700,000 $ 4,700,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 5-Year Total $ 1,570,000 10,950,000 145,000 $ 12,665,000 Total Project $ 1,675,000 10,950,000 145,000 $ 12,770,000 293 Capital Improvement Program Sanokai Wash Channelization (EMF to Power) Project Title: Queen Creek ADMP (continued) Operating Cost Summary Queen Creek Channel (Hawes to Power) The Town will be the lead agency for design, rights-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, construction, construction management and operation and maintenance of the Project.. Sanokai Wash Channelization (EMF to Power) Currently, this project is in the planning phase; therefore, additional operating costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) Capital Improvement Program % of Projects Completed 294 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Higley ADMP 491 Flood Control District Project Narrative The Higley Outfall Channel is a project that was identified in the Higley Area Drainage Master Plan. Runoff reaching the Eastern and Consolidated Canals accumulates along the upstream face of the embankments and is diverted southerly. The Higley ADMP has identified features to mitigate the flooding along the Eastern Canal, the Consolidated Canal, and the Southern Pacific railroad adjacent to Arizona Ave. as well flooding west of these features caused by overtopping of the canal or railroad. The recommended plan in the southern portion of the study area includes channels along the eastern side of the Eastern and Consolidated Canals extending south from the proposed San Tan Freeway. The proposed channels will convey flood flows across the Gila River Indian Community southerly to the East Maricopa Floodway. Five detention basins are also proposed to reduce the size of the channels. Acquisition of land for the channel and basins is currently scheduled to begin during FY 2001-02. Funding Summary Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $13.6 million with $4.7 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $270,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 4,670,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 119,000 Project Total $ 4,789,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 210,000 60,000 $ 270,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 5-Year Total $ 1,560,000 7,250,000 60,000 $ 8,870,000 Total Project $ 6,230,000 7,250,000 179,000 $ 13,659,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 295 Capital Improvement Program This project is currently supported by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). There is potential cost-sharing to be negotiated with the City of Chandler, the Town of Gilbert and the Gila River Indian Community. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Adobe Dam ADMP 520 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Adobe Dam/Desert Hills The purpose of the Adobe Dam/Desert Hills Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) is to identify flooding risks and establish prudent policies for the Adobe Dam/Desert Hills ADMP area. The study will be done to quantify the extent of flooding problems, incorporate existing drainage structures into the model and develop alternative solutions to flooding problems for the entire Adobe Dam/Desert Hills Watershed. In addition, successful implementation of the Skunk Creek Watercourse Master Plan (WCMP) is dependent upon prudent and ongoing management of the watershed through the Adobe Dam/Desert Hills ADMP and Cave Creek/Apache Wash WCMP. Capital Improvement Program The Adobe Dam/Desert Hills ADMP will also link management of the watershed to implementation of the Skunk Creek and Cave Creek/Apache Wash WCMPs. The Adobe Dam/Desert Hills ADMP will provide a tool to assess proposed development and identify existing and future public safety problems and recommend solutions. The Adobe Dam ADMP will provide the critical link between the Skunk Creek and Cave Creek/Apache Wash WCMPs and the watershed to assure effective floodplain management. The two major objectives of the study are to develop a plan to control runoff to prevent flood damage within the watershed, and to mitigate the potential increase in runoff due to development and to preserve the ability of Skunk Creek and Apache and Paradise Washes to convey storm water. This must be accomplished while providing protection to lands downstream and maintaining the low impact structural implementation strategy established in the Skunk Creek WCMP and the non-structural implementation strategy established in the Cave Creek/Apache Wash WCMP. The approximate watershed area is more than 73 square miles. Skunk Creek Floodprone Property Acquisition Several homes in the Skunk Creek corridor, north of Carefree Highway, were constructed prior to the FEMA 100-year Floodplain mapping in 1987. Once mapping was complete, several of these residents learned that their homes were within a FEMA 100-year Floodway. These homes have a higher risk for flooding than those outside the floodway and, when the floodplain is active, the presence of these structures in the floodway can create adverse impacts to adjacent homeowners. In other circumstances, residents were outside the regulatory floodway, but found themselves in designated areas of severe erosion hazard due to unique local geologic characteristics. All of these structures would be susceptible to varying degrees of damage from water and waterborne sediments, and may be threatened by erosion of the stream banks caused by high water flows. In fact, a hazard analysis shows that these residents have a relatively high risk of injury, death, and/or property damage due to flooding and/or erosion. Most important, perhaps, is the very short time interval between the most intense watershed precipitation and when the flow reaches hazardous levels at the effected residences, referred to as the Emergency Response Time (ERT). This time interval is the time available to effect a coordinated flood warning and response. With an ERT of less than one hour, these residents are at a substantially increased risk for injury or death. The goal of the Skunk Creek Floodprone Properties Acquisition Project is to reduce the risk of injury, death, and property damage due to flooding of Skunk Creek north of Carefree Highway by providing flood or erosion hazard remediation in the form of acquisition or on-site relocation. 296 Project Title: Adobe Dam ADMP (continued) Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% by the Flood Control District Capital Project fund (Fund 990). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.4 million with $403,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $3 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 321,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 82,000 Project Total $403,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 3,021,000 75,000 $ 3,096,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ 3,971,000 75,000 $ $ $ 4,046,000 Total Project $ 4,292,000 157,000 $ 4,449,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs are negligible. Performance Impact The Flood Control District will conduct two studies each year for the next five years to identify flood prone areas, limit growth in those areas, and establish plans for the required drainage infrastructure. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 297 Capital Improvement Program Strategic Goal(s) Addressed Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Durango ADMP 565 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Durango Regional Outfall Project This project consists of a principal outlet channel located north of the Union Pacific Rail Road (just north of MC 85) from approximately 85th Avenue westward to the Agua Fria River. Additionally, the project will include three basins and two auxiliary channels. The auxiliary channels located on 91st Avenue and 99th Avenue will intercept and divert the storm water runoff, which accumulates and floods Van Buren Street. The basins will be sited along the principal channel to reduce the storm water peak flows. Funding Summary 50% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990), 30% by the City of Tolleson and 20% by the Town of Avondale. Capital Improvement Program Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $20.3 million with $178,000 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $310,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 178,000 Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 178,000 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 250,000 60,000 $ 310,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 3,700,000 3,200,000 $ 6,900,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 2,000,000 4,000,000 $ 6,000,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ $ 5-Year Total 8,950,000 11,200,000 60,000 20,210,000 $ $ Total Project 9,128,000 11,200,000 60,000 20,388,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs are negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 298 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: ACDC ADMP 580 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Doubletree Ranch Road Drainage System Funding Summary 60% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990) and 40% will be funded by the Town of Paradise Valley. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $12.4 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $5.8 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 113,000 5,691,000 $ 5,804,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 6,600,000 $ 6,600,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ 113,000 12,291,000 $ $ $ $ 12,404,000 Total Project $ 113,000 12,291,000 $ 12,404,000 Operating Cost Summary The Town of Paradise Valley will operate and maintain the constructed facility. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 299 Capital Improvement Program This project will provide solutions for the flooding problems that exist within a mostly built out residential area in the Town of Paradise Valley. Several homes along Doubletree Ranch Road have experienced flooding during recent storms, and children have been stranded at a local grade school, whose access becomes inaccessible during heavy rains. Two major watersheds, Doubletree Ranch Road and Cherokee Wash, exist within the project area. The Doubletree Ranch Road watershed begins in the Phoenix Mountain Preserve west of Tatum Boulevard and flows eastward along Doubletree Ranch Road to Indian Bend Wash. Cherokee Wash, which is located south of the Doubletree Ranch Road watershed, also begins in the Phoenix Mountain Preserve west of Tatum Boulevard, but then flows northeast to Indian Bend Wash. The project consists of a 10-year storm drain system in Doubletree Ranch Road, with storm drain laterals extending along the adjacent streets. In addition, surface flows greater than the 10-year flows will be to be conveyed on the surface of Doubletree Ranch Road. The cost of the drainage improvements is estimated at $10.3 million. An IGA (FCD 1999A026) identifies the District lead in the construction, construction management and rights-of-way acquisition. The Town may elect to construct improvements to Doubletree Ranch Road, as part of the project, at Town cost. Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Maryvale ADMP 620 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Bethany Home Outfall Channel The Bethany Home Road Outfall Channel was identified in the Maryvale Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP). The project includes a linear basin and channel along the Grand Canal extending westerly from 64th Avenue to the New River. The project will have a 100-year capacity removing approximately 745 structures from the floodplain. Capital Improvement Program The channel will receive storm water from portions of Peoria, Glendale, Phoenix, and unincorporated Maricopa County. The channel alignment (Phase I and II) is in Phoenix, Glendale, and unincorporated Maricopa County. Phase I of the project has been completed by ADOT, with District participation. This reach extends west from the Agua Fria Freeway to the New River following the Bethany Home Road Alignment. ADOT increased the size of their channel to accommodate additional flows from the Maryvale area. Phase II of the project will extend along Bethany Home Road easterly from the Agua Fria Freeway and along the Grand Canal to 64th Avenue. This phase of the project will include a channel from the Agua Fria Freeway alignment to 73rd Avenue and an earthen, linear, on-line detention basin from 67th Avenue to 73rd Avenue. The ADMP also recommends ten year capacity storm drains, located within Bethany Home Road and Camelback Road, extending from 59th Avenue to the Outfall Channel. Preliminary estimates indicate that the cost to construct this 100-year channel and 10-year storm drains is approximately $67 million. The Cities of Glendale and Phoenix will be required to cost share the project and sign IGAs with the District. The project is currently being designed and rights of way are being acquired. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990), 25% will be contributed by the City of Glendale and 25% will be contributed by the City of Phoenix. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $39.4 million with $2.1 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $7 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 1,734,515 Construction 324,481 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 64,004 Project Total $ 2,123,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs are negligible. 300 Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 3,599,000 3,225,000 215,000 $ 7,039,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 5,850,000 6,240,000 $ 12,090,000 Year 3 FY 04-05 $ 1,500,000 3,015,000 $ 4,515,000 Year 4 FY 05-06 $ 8,400,000 $ 8,400,000 Year 5 FY 06-07 $ 250,000 5,000,000 $ 5,250,000 5-Year Total $ 11,199,000 25,880,000 215,000 $ 37,294,000 Total Project $ 12,933,515 26,204,481 279,004 $ 39,417,000 Project Title: Maryvale ADMP (continued) Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will implement the Board Approved Capital Improvement Program within the stated time schedule and within Budget Guidelines. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed Capital Improvement Program 301 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Metro ADMP 625 Flood Control District Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): 24th Avenue/Camelback Basin The purpose of the Drainage Study is to identify the extent of flooding problems, and to provide flood protection and public safety of the local residents and adjacent businesses, in the vicinity of 24th Avenue and Camelback Road. There are two major objectives of the study. The first is to develop a comprehensive list of known flooding problems impacting the study area to document need and necessity for the project, and public information. The second is to develop a plan to reduce the flooding for the area. The City of Phoenix funding is included in its recently passed bond program. The District and Phoenix will cost share this project and responsibility will be included in the Memorandum of Understanding and future IGA. Phoenix will be the lead agency for this project. Funding Summary Capital Improvement Program Potential cost-sharing with the City of Phoenix contributing 50% and the Flood Control District contributing 50% from the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.5 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $180,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 150,000 30,000 $ 180,000 Year 2 FY 03-04 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ $ $ $ 400,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 30,000 $ 3,100,000 $ $ $ 3,530,000 Total Project $ 400,000 3,100,000 30,000 $ 3,530,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating costs will be negligible. Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed The Flood Control District will conduct two studies each year for the next five years to identify flood prone areas, limit growth in those areas, and establish plans for the required drainage infrastructure. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Projects Completed 302 Special Districts - Library District Summary The Library District must submit all proposals for potential projects to the Facilities Review Committee (FRC). Please refer to pages 4 – 5 for a full explanation of the FRC process. The Library District’s proposed capital improvement project is consistent with the District’s 10-year financial forecast. Project Detail Capital Improvement Program 303 Project Title: Project No: Managing Dept: Library District Administration Building 2000128127 Library District Project Narrative This project will result in the construction of an admin building for the Library District to house the District’s Administration, Outreach and Information Technology functions. Land is to be purchased from the Parks and Recreation Department (Enhancement Fund). Also, located within this facility will be offices for the Flood Control District and a “One-Stop Shop” for Planning & Development. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.5 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 200203 budget is $1.1 million. Construction will begin in 2003 with completion in 2004. Prior Years Capital Improvement Program Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ 497,500 $ 604,700 $ 1,102,200 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total $ 37,500 $ $ $ $ 535,000 $ 1,410,940 2,015,640 $ 1,448,440 $ $ $ $ 2,550,640 Total Project $ 535,000 2,015,640 $ 2,550,640 Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Library District appropriated fund balance and budgeted in the Library District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 440). Operating Cost Summary Operating costs associated with the facility are budgeted by the user department in conjunction with Facilities Management. The estimated operating costs upon completion in FY 03-04 total $34,250. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services $ Subtotal $ - Post Construction Operating Costs Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Subtotal $ - Net Impact $ - Year 1 FY 02-03 $ $ $ - $ - $ - Year 2 FY 03-04 $ $ $ - Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ 84,350 $ 84,350 $ $ 34,250 34,250 86,880 $ 86,880 $ 89,550 $ 89,550 $ 34,250 $ 84,350 $ 86,880 $ 89,550 Performance Impact Strategic Goal(s) Addressed • 304 By June 2003, reduce annual turnover of regular status staff to 10% or less through targeted recruitment, appropriate placement of staff, improved reward and recognition systems, enhanced training and market-based compensation (as verified on an annual basis). Project Title: • Library District Administration Building (continued) By January 2003, develop and implement a comprehensive and on-going marketing and public relations campaign that provides current and in-coming residents with info about our services and presents MCLD locations as inviting places to visit, work and/or volunteer. Key Performance Result Measure(s) % of Department Employees reporting satisfaction with Management Practices and Effectiveness/Efficiency % of Department Employees reporting satisfaction with Department Capital Improvement Program 305 Capital Improvement Program This Page Intentionally Left Blank 306 Debt Service Debt Management Plan Introduction to Debt The purpose of Maricopa County’s debt management plan is to set forth the parameters for issuing debt and to manage the debt portfolio and provide guidance to decision makers regarding the timing and purposes for which debt may be issued. Provisions of the debt plan must be compatible with the County’s goals pertaining to the capital program and budget, the financial plan, and the operating budget. The County’s debt plan strikes an appropriate balance between establishing limits on the debt program and providing sufficient flexibility to enable the County to respond to unforeseen circumstances and new opportunities that may benefit the County. This document is not intended to review the County’s total financial position. It is a study of the County’s debt position, as growth in the County could result in an increased need for capital financing. The County’s debt issuance program should be driven by revenues, as well as needs. Decisions regarding the use of debt will be based in part on the long-term needs of the County and the amount of equity (cash) dedicated in a given fiscal year to capital outlay. A disciplined, systematic approach to debt management should allow the County to enhance its credit ratings. The information contained herein reflects the current debt status of Maricopa County for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. The tables have been compiled by the Department of Finance. Portions of this Debt Management Plan are contained in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. A copy of the CAFR can be viewed at: http://www.maricopa.gov/finance. It is recognized that all debt, regardless of the source of revenue pledged for repayment, represents some sort of cost to taxpayers or ratepayers. Therefore, all types of County debt/obligations are considered herein. While lease-secured and certificate of participation obligations may not be debt under strict legal definitions, they still require future appropriations, and are a fixed charge. These lease payments and other non-bond obligations are added as defacto debt by most security analysts when calculating an issuers debt ratios. Debt Issuance History The County has used debt financing for many years to finance infrastructure. The following chart illustrates the amount of debt, as well as, categories of outstanding debt for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. The amounts shown as outstanding are after the July 1, 2001, accrual for payment of principal and interest (if applicable). The debt service expenditures are accrued in the current period (before they are due and payable) because the resources are available in a dedicated debt service fund and the interest and principal payments are due and payable early in the following fiscal year. 307 Debt Service Current Debt Situation DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY All Categories of Debt Principal and Interest Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2001 Debt Service Fiscal Year Ended June 30th Category of Bonds 1997 1998 1999 BONDS General Obligation $168,431,175 $142,506,430 $116,542,735 Stadium District (1 & 2) 76,633,420 72,270,175 67,909,481 Special Assessment (1) 843,895 696,604 1,264,278 Housing Department 160,543 144,220 125,568 Certificates of Participation (3) 36,344,399 32,919,169 26,205,737 NOTES PAYABLE Housing Department (4) 17,973,888 17,973,888 17,973,888 LOANS PAYABLE Housing Department 3,749,800 3,490,206 3,243,884 CAPITAL LEASE Enterprise Funds 2,964,566 2,137,120 1,191,850 Long-Term Debt Acct. Group 10,459,924 20,459,172 20,295,592 LEASE REVENUE BONDS Enterprise Funds 0 0 0 Long-Term Debt Acct. Group 0 0 0 INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENTS Enterprise Funds TOTAL $317,561,610 $292,596,984 $254,753,013 2000 2001 $90,592,460 63,543,961 961,761 107,460 28,157,581 $64,650,785 59,186,805 789,314 89,900 32,001,120 0 0 2,997,562 2,751,240 633,070 21,335,458 232,792 16,626,805 0 0 28,411,555 144,628,686 $208,329,313 3,527,300 $352,896,302 Notes: (1) Does not represent an obligation of the County. (2) The principal and interest on the Second Subordinate Capital Appreciation Net Revenue Bonds ($6,137,043) and the IGA City of Mesa Municipal Development Corporation Revenue Bonds Series 1996B ($8,605,000) have been excluded from the above schedule as the timing of the repayments cannot be determined due to these bonds having variable interest rates and other factors affecting future payments. Included in the Stadium District revenue bonds are Stadium District debt with governmental commitment (IGA Peoria Sports Complex Series 1993A) which are obligations issued by other municipalities on behalf of the Stadium District. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the Stadium District has agreed to pay principal and interest due on the bonds from Stadium District revenue. (3) Includes amounts applicable to the Enterprise Funds and the General Fund. (4) Under the direction of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Public Housing Authority GAAP Conversion Guide dated January 1, 2000, Maricopa County will no longer report a liability for the $17,973,888 of Housing Department permanent notes and interest. Financing Alternatives The County evaluates all potential funding sources before considering which method of financing may be the most appropriate. Sources of funding may include: current revenues and fund balances; intergovernmental grants from federal, state or other sources; state revolving funds or loan pools; private sector contributions through impact fees or public/private partnerships; and leasing. There are many sources of funding, depending on the type of debt to be incurred and the length of time for repayment. Short-term financing is defined as debt maturing not later than one year after the date of its issuance. There are basically three reasons for using short-term debt: ! A vehicle to deal with temporary cash flow difficulties. This arises when cash receipts do not follow the same pattern as cash outlays. 308 ! ! To handle unexpected costs resulting from natural emergencies or other significantly unexpected events. In anticipation of issuing a long-term bond for capital financing. This form of financing offers an opportunity to borrow for short periods until the true, final costs of a project are known. Pay-As-You-Go Financing This method means that capital projects are paid for from the government’s current revenue base. The County does not issue bonds and does not have to repay the borrowings over time. There are several advantages to this method. For example, pay-as-you-go financing will save the amount of interest which otherwise would be paid on bonds issued to finance the program. The County is not encumbered by as much debt service when economic conditions deteriorate due to normal business cycles. Since contributions can be reduced in a given budget year, pay-as-you-go contributions provide greater budgetary flexibility than does a debt issue. The County’s long-term debt capacity is preserved for the future. Finally, lower debt ratios may have a positive effect upon the County’s credit rating. Relying on current revenues to finance capital improvements also presents several disadvantages. Exclusive reliance upon pay-as-you-go funds for capital improvements means that existing residents are obliged to pay for improvements that will benefit new residents who relocate to the area after the expenditure is made. If a jurisdiction is forced to finance the expenditure within a single budget, the large capital outlay required for some projects may result in an onerous tax burden. The County must be careful to ensure that the use of current revenues for capital projects does not diminish its availability to respond to emergencies. Grants Short-Term Borrowing (Notes) Tax Anticipation Notes (TAN’s) are notes issued in anticipation of the collection of taxes, as referenced in the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), Title 35, Chapter 3, Article 3.1. They provide operating moneys to meet regular payroll and other operating expenses. During the fiscal year when tax payments are received, sufficient sums are used to retire the note. The timing of the note sale, the note’s due date, and repayment of funds are all components of cash flow and cash management analysis. Lines and Letter of Credit – Where their use is judged by the Chief Financial Officer to be prudent and advantageous to the County, the County has the power to enter into agreements with commercial banks or other financial entities for purposes of acquiring lines or letters of credit. Any agreement with financial institutions for the acquisition of lines or letters of credit shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The County last issued a TAN in August 1995 for $40 million which matured on July 31, 1996. The TAN was retired and the County has not needed to issue additional TAN’s. 309 Debt Service Government grants stem from a variety of sources, but the majority of grant revenues for capital projects come from the federal and state governments. Often they require a County matching contribution. Most grants require an application from the County, identifying specific improvements or equipment that will be purchased with the grant money. General Obligation Bonds (Go) Bond security is the taxing power of the state or local government, as referenced in the A.R.S., Title 35, Chapter 3, for new GO bonds and Title 35, Chapter 3, Article 4 for refunding bonds. An issuer selling a GO bond secured by its full faith and credit attaches to that issue its broadest pledge. This makes the security of these bonds very high. The full faith and credit backing of a GO bond includes the pledge of all general revenues, unless specifically limited, as well as, the legal means to raise tax rates to cover debt service. The public entity is authorized to levy property taxes or to draw from other unrestricted revenue streams such as sales or income taxes to pay the bond’s principal and interest. Interest rates on these bonds are generally lowest of any public securities due to this superior security. Prior to issuance, Arizona GO bonds must have a majority vote approval from the residents of the County. Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are long-term debt instruments retired by specific dedicated revenues, often revenues generated by a project funded out of debt proceeds. Revenue bonds are designed to be self-supporting through user fees or other special earmarked receipts. The general taxing powers of the jurisdiction are not pledged. The debt created through the issuance of revenue bonds is to be repaid by the earnings from the operations of a revenue producing enterprise, from special taxes, or from contract leases or rental agreements. County revenue bonds do not burden the constitutional or statutory debt limitation placed on the County because they are not backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer. The underlying security is the only revenue stream pledged to pay the bond principal and interest. Debt Service Certificates of Participation (COP) COP’s represent proportionate interests in semiannual lease payments. Participation in the lease is sold in the capital markets. The County’s obligation to make lease payments is subject to annual appropriations being made by the County for that purpose. Rating agencies typically give COP issues a grade below that of General Obligation Bonds. A.R.S., Title 11, Chapter 2, Article 4, §11251, Paragraph 46, provides for a maximum repayment term of twenty-five years for the purchase or improvement of real property. Lease-Purchase Lease-Purchase financing provides long-term financing through a lease (with a mandatory purchase provision). This method does not constitute indebtedness under a state or local government’s constitutional debt limit and does not require voter approval. In a lease-purchase transaction, the asset being financed can include new capital asset needs or assets under existing lease agreements. Installment Purchase Agreement Same as a lease purchase agreement with the exception that the County takes title to the property up front. Special Assessment Bonds Special Assessment Bonds are issued to districts that are within a legally designated geographic area located within the County, which through the consent of the affected property owners, pay for basic infrastructure and public improvements to the area through a supplemental assessment. This 310 financing approach achieves the objective of tying the repayment of debt to those property owners who most directly benefit from the improvements financed. Debt Limit The Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 8, states that a County may become indebted for an amount not to exceed fifteen percent of taxable property. The following table represents the County’s outstanding general obligation indebtedness with respect to its constitutional general obligation debt limitation. 2000-01 Constitutional General Obligation Bonding Capacity Maricopa County, Arizona 2000-01 Secondary Assessed Valuation $ 20,877,715,546 15% of Secondary Assessed Valuation Less: GO Bonded Debt Outstanding Plus: GO Debt Service Fund Balance Unused Fifteen Percent Borrowing Capacity $ 3,131,657,332 (58,205,000) 0 3,073,452,332 $ Rating Agency Analysis An independent assessment of the relative credit worthiness of municipal securities is provided by rating agencies. They furnish letter grades that convey each company’s assessment of the ability and willingness of a borrower to repay its debt in full and on time. Credit ratings issued by these agencies are a major function in determining the cost of borrowed funds in the municipal bond market. ! ! ! ! ! Economic conditions – stability of trends, Debt-history of County – debt and debt position, Governmental/administration – organizational structure of the County, Financial performance – current financial status and the history of financial reports, Debt Management – debt policies, including long-term planning. Each of the rating agencies has their own method of assigning a rating on the ability and willingness of a borrower to repay in full and on time. Issuers must pay a fee for the opportunity to have one or more rating agencies rate the proposed debt issuance. The following shows how the ratings reflect creditworthiness, ranging from very strong securities to speculative and default situations. 311 Debt Service Moody’s Investors Service, Standard and Poor’s Corporation, and Fitch IBCA are the three major rating agencies that rate municipal debt. The rating agencies provide a rating assessment of credit worthiness for Maricopa County. There are five primary factors that comprise their ratings: Examples of the rating systems are: BOND RATINGS Explanation of corporate/municipal bond ratings Premium quality High quality Medium quality Medium grade, lower quality Predominantly speculative Speculative, low grade Poor to default Highest speculation Lowest quality, no interest In default, in arrears Questionable value RATING AGENCIES Fitch AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC CC C DDD DD D Moody’s Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa Ca C Standard & Poor’s AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC CC C DDD DD D Note: Fitch and Standard & Poor’s may use “+” or “-” to modify ratings while Moody’s may use numerical modifiers such as 1 (highest), 2, or 3. Debt Service History of Debt Rating Maricopa County received bond ratings from Fitch IBCA and Moody’s Investors Service on December 4, 2001, and December 6, 2001, respectively. Moody’s Investors Service Press Release dated December 6, 2001, states that the bond rating “reflects the county’s well managed financial position, a large and diverse economic base, which continues to experience significant growth but at a slower rate than previously, a low debt position and continued exposure to operational risk at Maricopa Integrated Health Systems. The stable rating outlook reflects our belief that the county will continue to implement prudent strategies designed to limit its financial exposure to the medical center as well as maintain stable operations through careful financial planning.” The following illustrates a history of the County’s various debt ratings. Type of Debt General Obligation Fitch AA AA Date Rating Assigned 12/4/01 4/5/00 Moody's Aa3 Aa3 A-1 A-2 A Aa Aa-1 Aa Date Rating Assigned 12/6/01 5/26/00 11/6/98 3/17/97 6/13/94 7/26/93 8/21/81 12/6/72 Standard & Poor's A+ A AA Date Rating Assigned 4/11/97 5/27/94 6/2/76 Stadium District Aaa (1) AAA (1) Revenue Bonds (1) First lien bonds are insured, no underlying rating. Second subordinate capital appreciation bonds were a private placement, therefore, they were not rated or insured. 312 Ratio Analysis Rating analysts compare direct net debt to the population in order to measure the size or magnitude of the County’s debt. This ratio is referred to as the Direct Net Debt Per Capita Ratio. The same ratio is applied to all debt within the County, which includes School Districts, Cities and Towns, and Special Districts. This ratio is referred to as the Overall Net Debt Per Capita Ratio. The taxable value of the County is a measure of the County’s wealth. It also reflects the capacity of the County’s ability to service current and future debt. The ratio of Direct Net Debt as a percentage of Full Value (FV) Property is the comparison of direct net debt to the County's taxable value. The same ratio is applied to all debt within the County and is referred to as the Overall Net Debt as a percentage of Full Value Property. The Full Value Property Per Capita ratio represents the per capita value of taxable property in the County. An explanation of how each ratio is calculated is included in the notes. There are an infinite number of ratios, which could be calculated to measure the County’s debt burden. This analysis focuses on commonly used ratios instead of creating customized ones. DIRECT AND OVERALL NET DEBT MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA Audited Audited OUTSTANDING DEBT 6/30/00 6/30/01 General Obligation $79,595,000 $58,205,000 Less: Amount avail. for Retirement 0 0 of General Obligation Debt Capital Lease - General Long Term Debt Account Group (GLTDAG) 18,121,511 14,225,356 Certificate of Participation 17,222,210 13,575,119 (GLTDAG) Lease Revenue Bonds (GLTDAG) 104,355,000 Direct Net Debt $114,938,721 $190,360,475 Overlapping Debt (1) 5,159,228,001 4,999,831,866 Overall Net Debt $5,274,166,722 $5,190,192,341 Ratios (4) Direct Net Debt Per Capita Overall Net Debt Per Capita Direct Net Debt As Percentage Of Full Value Property Overall Net Debt As % Of FV Property FV Property Per Capita Projected 6/30/03 $20,000,000 0 11,353,090 9,804,315 8,828,270 5,808,084 91,558,756 $151,066,161 5,000,000,000 $5,152,066,161 78,031,179 $112,667,533 5,000,000,000 $5,112,667,533 2,879,492 $142,792,237 3,072,149 $160,906,987 3,179,674 $175,388,616 3,290,963 $191,173,591 $39.92 $61.96 $47.82 $34.24 $1,831.63 $1,689.43 $1,620.31 $1,553.55 .0805% .1183% .0867% .0589% 3.69% 3.23% 2.94% 2.67% $49,589.38 $52,376.04 $55,159.31 $58,090.47 Notes: (1) Projected overlapping debt was based on a 0% increase for 2002 and 2003, and rounded to $5 million. (2) Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security. Projection for 2002 and 2003 was based on a 3.50% growth rate. (3) Taxable Property Estimates: 2001 provided by the Assessor’s Office; 2002 and 2003 based on 9% estimated annual growth; amounts are in billions (000’s omitted). (4) Summary of Debt Ratios: ! Direct net debt per capita = Direct net debt/Population 313 Debt Service Population Estimate (2) Full Value of Taxable Property (3) Projected 6/30/02 $39,350,000 0 ! ! ! ! Overall net debt per capita = Overall net debt/Population Direct net debt as a percentage of full value property (FV) = Direct net debt/FV property Overall net debt a percentage of FV property = Overall net debt/FV property FV property per capita = FV property/Population The following sections of the Debt Management Plan contain information on the obligations of Maricopa County by debt type. General Obligation Bonds Long-term General Obligation Bonds shall be issued to finance significant capital improvements for purposes set forth by voters in bond elections. Interest rates on these bonds are generally lowest of any public securities. Prior to issuance, Arizona GO Bonds must have a majority vote approval from the residents of the County. The County’s General Obligation Bonds currently outstanding were the result of the 1986 general election where the voters authorized the County to issue long term debt. The resulting proceeds from the sale of the bonds were used for the purpose of making improvements in the County which included Criminal and Civil Courts Facilities, Juvenile Court – Juvenile Treatment and Detention Facilities, Law Enforcement and Public Safety, Regional Park Improvements, Environmental Protection, Sanitary Landfill, Public Health Facilities, Infrastructure, Communication Improvements, etc. The following tables and chart illustrate the existing debt service for the outstanding general obligation bonded debt currently paid by ad valorem taxes. Debt Service DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY General Obligation Bonds Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2001 FY End June 30th 2002 2003 2004 TOTAL Principal $ 18,855,000 19,350,000 20,000,000 $ 58,205,000 $ $ Interest 3,305,035 2,165,750 975,000 6,445,785 Debt Service $ 22,160,035 21,515,750 20,975,000 $ 64,650,785 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2001 Bond Issue 1992 Bond Issue – Refunding $ 1992 Bond Issue – Refunding 1986 Bond Issue – Series D (1993) 1994 Bond Issue – Refunding (1994A Tax Exempt) 1995 Bond Issue – Refunding TOTAL $ 314 Amount 950,000 34,250,000 22,000,000 335,000 670,000 58,205,000 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Interest Principal $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 2002 2003 2004 General Obligation Bonds Stadium District ! ! To oversee the operation and maintenance of Bank One Ballpark, a major league baseball stadium, and Enhance and promote major league baseball spring training in the County through the development of new, and the improvement of, existing baseball training facilities. To accomplish this purpose, the Stadium District possesses the statutory authority to issue special obligation bonds to provide financial assistance for the development and improvement of baseball training facilities located within the County. Ten major league baseball teams hold spring training in Arizona as part of the Cactus League: California Angels, Chicago Cubs, Colorado Rockies, Milwaukee Brewers, Oakland Athletics, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants, Seattle Mariners, Chicago White Sox and Arizona Diamondbacks. The Stadium District Revenue Bonds are special obligations of the District. The bonds are payable solely from pledged revenues, consisting of car rental surcharges levied and collected by the District pursuant to A.R.S., Title 48, Chapter 26, Article 2, §48-4234. Under the statute, the District may set the surcharge at $2.50 on each lease or rental of a motor vehicle licensed for hire, for less than one year, and designed to carry fewer than 15 passengers, regardless of whether such vehicle is licensed in the State of Arizona. The District Board of Directors initially levied a surcharge at a rate of $1.50 beginning in January 1992. The District Board of Directors increased the surcharge to $2.50, the maximum amount permitted by statute, in January 1993. The bonds do not constitute a debt or a pledge of the faith or credit of Maricopa County, the State of Arizona, or any other political 315 Debt Service The Stadium District was formed through action of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in September 1991 pursuant to the A.R.S., Title 48, Chapter 26. The Stadium District has two purposes: subdivision. The payment of the bonds is enforceable solely out of the pledged revenues and no owner shall have any right to compel any exercise of taxing power of the District, except for surcharges. The following provides additional information regarding the Stadium District’s Subordinate Debt and Second Subordinate Debt. Subordinate Debt On June 1, 1993, the City of Peoria issued $24,160,000 of 1993 Series A Bonds on behalf of the Stadium District to construct the Peoria Sports Complex for use by the San Diego Padres and the Seattle Mariners. The Stadium District entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Peoria and the City of Peoria Municipal Sports Complex Authority, pursuant to which the Stadium District has agreed to pay the principal and interest payments due on the bonds from Stadium District Revenues. Stadium District Revenues in the Peoria Subordinated Obligation Subaccount remain subject to the pledge and priority lien of the Stadium District Bonds. Second Subordinate Debt On April 1, 1996, the City of Mesa Municipal Development Corporation issued $10,000,000 of Revenue Bonds Series 1996B on behalf of the Stadium District. Pursuant to the terms of an IGA with the City of Mesa, the Stadium District will, as certain specified revenues become available in the future, repay the City of Mesa an amount equal to the debt service associated with the Series 1996B Bonds, plus certain expenses relating thereto. Debt Service The bonds are secured solely by the City of Mesa’s obligation to make payments under the lease and its pledge of excise taxes to secure such obligation. The bonds are re-marketed by their remarketing agent at an annual interest rate necessary to market such bonds at prices equal to 100% of the principal amounts thereof, which is not to exceed 15%. On March 10, 1997, the Stadium District issued $10,000,000 in Second Subordinate Capital Appreciation Net Revenue Bonds to assist in the construction of the City of Phoenix Maryvale Baseball Park for use by the Milwaukee Brewers. Pursuant to terms of the agreement, the Stadium District will, as certain specified revenues become available in the future, prepay the bonds. The following tables illustrate the existing debt service for the outstanding Stadium District Revenue Bonds and Second Subordinate Bonds. 316 FY End June 30th 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Stadium District Revenue Bonds Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2001 Principal Interest $ 1,875,000 $ 2,470,683 1,985,000 2,361,105 2,105,000 2,242,300 2,240,000 2,111,295 2,390,000 1,970,037 2,550,000 1,817,592 2,720,000 1,652,818 2,905,000 1,476,108 3,110,000 1,280,378 3,325,000 1,070,388 3,560,000 845,322 3,810,000 604,118 1,880,000 345,287 2,000,000 237,187 2,125,000 122,187 $ 38,580,000 $ 20,606,805 Debt Service $ 4,345,683 4,346,105 4,347,300 4,351,295 4,360,037 4,367,592 4,372,818 4,381,108 4,390,378 4,395,388 4,405,322 4,414,118 2,225,287 2,237,187 2,247,187 $ 59,186,805 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2001 Second Subordinate Obligation: Capital Appreciation Bonds IGA Mesa Municipal Development Corporation Series 1996B Sub-Total TOTAL Amount 10,265,000 1,375,000 8,565,000 18,375,000 $ 38,580,000 $ $ $ 6,137,043 8,605,000 14,742,043 53,322,043 317 Debt Service Bond Issue Series 1993A Series 1993B Series 1996 IGA Peoria Sports Complex Series 1993A Sub-Total DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Stadium District Revenue Bonds Interest Debt Service 2116 2114 2112 2110 2008 2006 2004 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 2002 Principal Note: The principal and interest on the Second Subordinate Capital Appreciation Net Revenue Bonds ($6,137,043) and the IGA City of Mesa Municipal Development Corporation Revenue Bonds Series 1996B ($8,605,000) have been excluded from the Debt Service Requirements To Maturity and the Debt Service Requirements graph as the timing of the repayments cannot be determined due to these bonds having variable interest rates and other factors affecting future payments. Included in the Stadium District revenue bonds are Stadium District debt with governmental commitment (IGA Peoria Sports Complex Series 1993A) which are obligations issued by other municipalities on behalf of the Stadium District. Under an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the Stadium District has agreed to pay principal and interest due on the bonds from Stadium District revenue.. Special Assessment Districts A Special Assessment District (Improvement District) process begins with the circulation of a petition. The petition must be signed by either a majority of the persons owning real property or by the owners of fifty-one percent or more of the real property within the limits of the proposed district. With the approval of the petition by the Board of Supervisors, a new improvement district is established. County Improvement Districts are further described in A.R.S., Title 48, Chapter 6, Article 1. With the Board of Supervisors acting as the Board of Directors for each district, approval of an engineer, and the approval of plans, specifications and cost estimates soon follow. Each of these early phases of the improvement district process contains regulations for public notification through posting of the property, publication in the local newspaper, and the set up of a protest period. Once the Board approves the awarding of the bid, construction follows. Since the residents pay these improvements, an assessment is levied against each property owner. Depending on the type 318 of improvement, some assessments are carried on the property tax roll, while others are collected through the Improvement District Office. If the property owners are unable to prepay the improvement assessment within 30 days after the completion of the work, bonds are sold for the balance of the construction amount. The bonds are collateralized by properties within the district. The receivable is held by the Improvement District, and billed on a semi-annual basis. In cases of a delinquent payment of an assessment, the lien including penalty and interest may be sold at a public auction. If there is no purchaser for the lien, the District (not the County) will assume, as a general obligation, the amount of the assessment and interest accruing thereon. The following table illustrates the outstanding principal amount by issue for the Assessment District Bonds. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2001 Bond Issue Amount Boulder $ 3,265 158th Street 600 Grandview Manor 41,600 Queen Creek Water 242,009 Fairview Lane 8,346 East Fairview Lane 21,164 White Fence Farms 55,053 104th Place/University Drive 27,212 Central Avenue 161,215 Billings Street 5,096 TOTAL $ 565,560 Housing Department The Housing Department loans payable at June 30, 2001, consisted of the following outstanding notes. The Department sold notes to the Federal Financing Bank. These notes will be repaid through Federal government subsidies. 319 Debt Service These bonds are due annually in varying principal and interest amounts, and are payable from Federal government subsidies. DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Housing Department Loans Payable Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2001 FY End June 30th 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL Principal $ 106,577.64 113,611.76 121,110.14 128,828.52 137,606.09 146,688.09 156,369.50 166,517.98 177,680.08 189,406.96 201,907.82 215,194.86 $ 1,861,499.44 Total Debt Service $ 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 229,436.60 $ 2,751,239.20 Interest $ 122,858.96 115,824.84 106,326.46 100,608.08 91,830.51 82,748.51 73,067.10 62,918.62 51,756.52 40,029.64 27,528.78 14,241.74 $ 889,739.76 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Housing Department Loans Payable Interest Principal $250,000 Debt Service $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 320 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 $0 2002 $50,000 The following illustrates the debt service for the outstanding Public Housing bonds which are payable from Federal government subsidies. DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Housing Department Bonds Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2001 FY End June 30th 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL Principal $ 16,936.81 14,114.01 16,936.81 16,936.81 16,936.84 $ 81,861.28 Total Debt Service $ 19,780.79 16,356.38 18,577.57 17,921.27 17,264.99 $ 89,901.00 Interest $ 2,843.98 2,242.37 1,640.76 984.46 328.15 $ 8,039.72 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Housing Department Bonds Interest Principal $20,000 $15,000 Debt Service $10,000 $5,000 $0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation represent proportionate interests in semiannual lease payments. The County’s obligation to make lease payments are subject to annual appropriations being made by the County for that purpose. On August 1, 1993, Maricopa County issued $3,850,000 of Certificates of Participation to assist in the acquisition, construction and equipping of the County’s West Mesa Justice Court and Northwest Regional Probation Center facilities. Additionally, the proceeds were used for an advance refunding 321 of the Certificates of Participation Series 1989 and to prepay land purchase agreements the County had previously executed with the State of Arizona. On August 1, 1994, Maricopa County Public Finance Corporation issued $30,000,000 of Certificates of Participation to assist in the acquisition of the County’s Southeast Juvenile Court and Detention Center and its adult detention facility know as the Estrella Jail Complex. On August 1, 1996, Maricopa County Public Finance Corporation issued $2,500,000 of Certificates of Participation to pay for the cost of a building for Maricopa County Regional School District 509. On February 1, 2000, Maricopa County Public Finance Corporation issued $5,300,000 of Certificates of Participation to pay for the cost of construction for the Avondale Family Health Center. On November 1, 2000, Maricopa County Public Finance Corporation issued $6,975,000 of Certificates of Participation to pay for the cost of construction for the Desert Vista Health Center. Debt Service The following illustrates the debt service for the outstanding Certificates of Participation. DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Certificates of Participation Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2001 General Long Term Account FY End Enterprise June 30th Funds Group 2001 – 02 $ 1,463,133 $ 4,579,683 2002 – 03 1,462,988 4,580,727 2003 – 04 1,468,532 4,482,259 2004 – 05 1,426,888 326,120 2005 – 06 1,424,465 326,695 After 2006 9,035,880 1,423,750 Total principal and interest 16,281,886 5,719,235 Amount representing interest (4,457,033) (2,144,116) Total payable at June 30, 2001 $ 11,824,853 $ 13,575,118 $ $ Total Debt Service 6,042,816 6,043,715 5,950,791 1,753,009 1,751,160 10,459,630 32,001,120 (6,601,149) 25,399,971 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2001 Certificate of Participation Issues Amount Series 1993 Certificates of Participation $ 990,000 Series 1994 Certificates of Participation 10,995,000 Series 1996 Certificates of Participation 1,868,971 Series 2000 Certificates of Participation 5,006,000 Series 2000 Certificates of Participation 6,540,000 TOTAL $ 25,399,971 Lease Revenue Bonds On June 1, 2001, Maricopa County Public Finance Corporation issued $124,855,000 of Lease Revenue Bonds to pay for the acquisition, construction and equipment for the Public Service Building, Forensic Science Center, Superior Court Customer Service Center, parking garages and related projects. Under the terms of the bond indentures, the Corporation received the proceeds to construct and purchase these assets and the County will make lease payments to extinguish the debt. Lease payments will equal the aggregate amount of principal and interest due at the date. 322 Upon the final lease payment, the title to the assets will transfer to the County. The County’s obligation to make lease payments will be subject to and dependent upon annual appropriations being made by the County. Lease Revenue Bonds FY End June 30th 2001 – 02 2002 – 03 2003 – 04 2004 – 05 2005 – 06 After 2006 Total principal and interest Amount representing interest Total payable at June 30, 2001 General Long- Term Enterprise Funds Debt Account Group $ 3,636,937 $ 18,513,782 3,593,655 18,293,455 1,752,381 8,920,479 1,754,779 8,932,681 1,758,194 8,950,066 15,915,609 81,018,223 28,411,555 144,628,686 (7,911,555) (40,273,686) $ 20,500,000 $ $104,355,000 $ $ Total Debt Service 22,150,719 21,887,110 10,672,860 10,687,460 10,708,260 96,933,832 173,040,241 (48,185,241) 124,855,000 Capital Leases (Lease-Purchase Obligations) Maricopa County uses lease-purchase financing to expand its borrowing power. This financing technique provides long-term financing through a lease (with a mandatory purchase provision). Lease-purchase agreements use non-appropriation clauses to avoid being classified as long term debt, which might be subject to State legal restrictions. This clause allows the government to terminate the lease without penalty. However, because it is not likely that the County would be willing to forego the property, lease-purchase agreements are considered long-term obligations for policy planning purposes, regardless of the legal structure. Capital Leases Maricopa County, Arizona Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Thereafter Total minimum lease payments Less: Amount representing interest Present value of net minimum lease payments $ 3,770,057 3,052,467 2,585,217 2,523,711 2,277,800 2,650,345 16,859,597 (2,405,082) 14,454,515 Installment Purchase Contracts Payable The County has entered into installment purchase contracts payable for the acquisition of medical equipment used in the Medical Center Fund (Enterprise Fund), at a total purchase price of $3,278,464. 323 Debt Service The security for lease-purchase financing is the lease payments made by the County and, where legally permitted, also the asset being financed. The following schedule shows all outstanding capital leases as of June 30, 2001. The future minimum payments required under the contracts at June 30, 2001, including interest varying from 4.50 to 5.82 percent, are as follows. Installment Purchase Contracts Payable Maricopa County, Arizona Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 $ 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Thereafter Total minimum lease payments Less: Amount representing interest Present value of net minimum lease payments $ 555,306 555,306 555,306 555,306 555,306 750,770 3,527,300 (504,189) 3,023,111 Debt Policies The County regularly updates its debt policies as an important tool to ensure the use of the County’s resources meet its commitments to provide needed services to the citizens of Maricopa County and to maintain sound financial practices. Debt Service Administration of Policy The Chief Administrative Officer is the Chief Executive of the County. With the exception of those responsibilities specifically assigned by state statute to the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Administrative Officer is ultimately responsible for the approval of any form of County borrowing. The Chief Financial Officer coordinates the administration and issuance of debt, as designated by the Chief Administrative Officer. The Chief Financial Officer is also responsible for attestation of disclosure and other bond related documents. References to the “Chief Administrative Officer or his designee” in bond documents are hereinafter assumed to assign the Chief Financial Officer as the “designee” for administration of this policy. Use of Debt Financing Debt financing includes General Obligation Bonds, Revenue Bonds, Certificates of Participation, Lease/Purchase agreements, and other obligations permitted to be issued or incurred under Arizona law. Method of Sale Debt issues of the County may be sold by competitive, negotiated, or private placement sale methods unless otherwise limited by state law. The selected method of sale will be the option which is expected to result in the lowest cost and most favorable terms given the financial structure used, market conditions, and prior experience. 324 Competitive Sale The County will use the competitive sale method unless indicate that a negotiated sale or private placement would prevailing conditions in the market, a financing structure efforts, or factors are present that are expected to result in bids. there are compelling reasons which have a more favorable result due to which requires special premarketing an insufficient number or competitive Negotiated Sale When determined appropriate, the County may elect to sell its debt obligations through a negotiated sale. Such determination may be made on an issue by issue basis, for a series of issues, or for part or all of a specific financing program. Negotiated underwriting may be considered upon recommendation of the Chief Financial Officer. Use of Bond Insurance This is an insurance policy purchased by an issuer or an underwriter for either an entire issue or specific maturities. It will guarantee the payment of principal and interest, which in turn provides a higher credit rating and thus a lower borrowing cost for an issuer. The present value of the estimated debt service savings from insurance should be at least equal to or greater than the insurance premium when insurance is purchased directly by the County. The bond insurance company will usually be chosen based on an estimate of the greatest net present value insurance benefit (present value of debt service savings less insurance premium). Arbitrage Liability Management Arbitrage profits are made by selling tax-exempt bonds and investing the proceeds in higheryielding taxable securities, when referencing municipal bonds. Municipal issuers are allowed to make arbitrage profits under certain restricted conditions. The sale of tax-exempt bonds primarily for the purpose for making arbitrage profits is prohibited by Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Debt Management Division of the Department of Finance has established a system of record keeping and reporting to meet the arbitrage rebate compliance requirements of the federal tax code. This includes tracking investment earnings on bond proceeds, using outside experts to assist in calculating rebate payments, preparing returns, and making payments in a timely manner in order to preserve the tax exempt status of the County’s outstanding debt issues. Additionally, general financial reporting and certification requirements embodied in bond covenants are monitored to ensure that all covenants are met. The County structures its financing in such a way as to reduce or eliminate future Arbitrage Rebate liability, wherever feasible. Selection of Professional Services The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for establishing a solicitation and selection process for securing professional services that are required to develop and implement the County’s debt program. Goals of the solicitation and selection process include encouraging participation from qualified service providers, both local and national, and securing services at competitive prices. 325 Debt Service Arbitrage is defined as the practice of simultaneously buying and selling an item in different markets in order to profit from a spread in prices or yields resulting from market conditions. Bond Counsel – To render opinions on the validity, enforceability and tax exempt status of the debt and related legal matters, and to prepare the necessary resolutions, agreements and other documents. Financial Advisor – To advise on the structuring of obligations to be issued, inform the County of various options, advise the County as to how choices will impact the marketability of County obligations and provide other services as defined by contract. To ensure independence, the financial advisor will not bid on nor underwrite any County debt issues. Competitive proposals will be taken periodically for services to be provided over a period of one year with annual renewal options. Other professional services will be retained, when required, including managing underwriters, credit agencies, escrow agents, trustees, printers, and others. These services will be procured when in the best interest of the County by a competitive selection process. Continuing Disclosure of County Financial Information Annual financial statements and other pertinent credit information, including the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), will be provided by the County upon request. A copy of the CAFR can be viewed from the Maricopa County home page at: http://www.maricopa.gov/finance/. All material that has a pertinent bearing on County finances will be provided to the agencies that maintain a rating on County securities. The Chief Financial Officer shall be responsible for providing ongoing disclosure information to established national information repositories and for maintaining compliance with disclosure standards dictated by state and national regulatory bodies. Debt Service Copies of official statements for future issuance’s of its bonds will be available through the following recognized municipal repositories: Bloomberg Municipal Repositories 100 Business Park Drive Skillman, NJ 08558 Phone: (609) 279-3225 Fax: (609) 279-5962 Internet: munis@bloomberg.com DPC Data Inc. One Executive Drive Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 346-0701 Fax: (201) 346-0107 Internet: nrmsir@dpcdata.com Interactive Data Attn: NRMSIR 100 Williams Street New York, NY 10038 Phone (212) 771-6899 Fax: (212) 771-7390 Email: nrmsir@ftid.com Standard & Poor’s J.J. Kenny Repository 55 Water Street – 45th Floor New York, NY 10041 Phone: (212) 438-4595 Fax: (212) 438-3975 Email: nrmsir_repository@sandp.com The Securities and Exchange Commission released final “continuing disclosure” rules (the “Rules”) for municipal bond issues on November 10, 1994, (amended existing Rule 15c2-12). The Rules, which in general were effective on July 3, 1995, impact nearly every issuer of municipal securities. The stated purpose of the Rules is to deter fraud and manipulation in the municipal securities market by prohibiting the underwriting and subsequent recommendation of securities for which adequate information is not available. No underwriter can purchase or sell bonds in an offering of more than $1,000,000 after July 3, 1995, unless it has reasonably determined that an issuer has 326 undertaken to provide to the public information repositories on a continuing basis both annual financial information and notices of specified material events affecting the issuer or its securities. This is applicable unless an exemption applies. “continuing disclosure” rules. The County intends to fully comply with the Maturity Structures Principal payment schedules should not extend beyond the economic life of the project or equipment financed. The structure of debt issued by the County should be to provide for either level principal or level debt service. Except in select instances, deferring the repayment of principal should be avoided. Ratings The County’s goal is to maintain or improve its bond ratings. To that end, prudent financial management policies will be adhered to in all areas. The Chief Financial Officer shall be responsible for maintaining relationships with the rating agencies that currently assign ratings to the County’s various debt obligations. The County will maintain a line of communication with the rating agencies informing them of major financial events in the County as they occur. Full disclosure of operations will be made to the bond rating agencies. County staff, with the assistance of the financial advisor and bond counsel, will prepare the necessary materials for presentation to the rating agencies. A personal meeting with representatives of the rating agencies will be scheduled every few years or whenever a major project is initiated. Modification to Policies 327 Debt Service These policies will be reviewed annually and significant changes may be made with the approval of the County Administrative Officer. Significant policy changes will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Debt Service This Page Intentionally Left Blank 328 County At A Glance Profile Created in 1871 Maricopa County is named after the Maricopa Indian Tribe that is known to have inhabited the area as early as 1775. Today, Indian Reservations make-up 5% of total land ownership while individuals and corporations own 29%, the Bureau of Land Management 28%, the U.S. Forest Service 11%, the State of Arizona 11%, leaving the remaining 16% publicly owned land. 7,781 square miles of Maricopa County’s total size of 9,222 square miles are unincorporated versus 1,441 incorporated square miles. The County is responsible for maintaining over 2,800 miles of roadway. Maricopa County houses the capital of the State of Arizona, Phoenix, and 28 additional cities within the County’s outer boundaries. The County’s boundaries have not changed since 1881. The County measures 132 miles from east to west and 103 miles from north to south. Within the boundaries are 9,124 square miles of land and 98 square miles of water, making it the 14th largest county in size in the United States. Maricopa County is larger than seven states (New Hampshire, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia. It is also home to the nation’s largest regional parks system measuring over 120,000 acres. 329 County At A Glance As one of the fastest growing counties in the nation, with a population of over 3.1 million, the County faces many challenges. These challenges may be viewed through Maricopa County’s mission, to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities. The County seal shown on the chart at right provides a glimpse of the major public services provided to its citizens. County At A Glance Maricopa County is Arizona's largest local government; it operates without powers of selfgovernment. Accordingly, the State Legislature represents a key external factor whose actions greatly influence County finances and operations in five major areas: 1) State shared revenues; 2) State budget; 3) Tax law changes; 4) Mandates; and 5) County powers. Maricopa County has the largest population of the 15 counties in the State of Arizona. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is the governing body for the county. Each member represents one of the five supervisorial districts, which are divided geographically and by population to include a mix of urban and rural constituencies. Members are elected to four-year terms and may serve an unlimited number of terms. A County Administrative Officer, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, is responsible for the administration of Maricopa County. The State Capital and County seat are located in Phoenix. As demonstrated on the Maricopa County Supervisorial District Map above, Maricopa County has five supervisorial districts and twenty-five incorporated municipalities. The table below lists each supervisorial district of Maricopa County, the Board member, or Supervisor, population of each district, and incorporated municipalities. District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 SUPERVISOR Fulton Brock Chairman, Don Stapley Andrew Kunasek Max W. Wilson Mary Rose Wilcox POPULATION 597,949 609,493 607,783 629,606 627,318 Tempe Chandler Guadalupe Queen Creek Scottsdale Paradise Valley Cave Creek Carefree Fountain Hills Mesa Gilbert Apache Junction Phoenix Glendale Peoria El Mirage Surprise Youngtown Litchfield Park Wickenburg Gila Bend Avondale Buckeye Goodyear Tolleson INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITIES Overlapping of district boundaries occurs in the following municipalities: Phoenix, Guadalupe, and Glendale. 330 Collectively, the cities of Maricopa County make up what is known as the Valley of the Sun. Maricopa County enjoys an average annual daily temperature of 72 degrees with 300 days of sunshine per year. Rainfall averages only 7.6 inches per year. The monthly average temperatures are listed below. Avg. Temp. (F) Avg. Max. Temp. (F) Avg. Min. Temp. (F) MARICOPA COUNTY MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURES Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. 53 57 62 69 78 88 93 91 85 66 71 76 85 94 104 106 104 98 41 45 49 55 64 73 81 79 73 Oct. 74 88 61 Nov. 61 75 49 Dec. 54 66 42 Maricopa County offers a broad range of community and cultural facilities and activities. Professional sports prosper in Maricopa County. Teams include the Phoenix Suns of the National Basketball Association; the Phoenix Mercury of the Women’s National Basketball Association; Arizona Diamondbacks of Major League Baseball; the Phoenix Coyotes of the National Hockey League; and the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League. Maricopa County is home to many other professional sports and events including arena football, indoor soccer, roller hockey and thoroughbred and greyhound racing. College fans can enjoy inter-collegiate athletics also. There are golf tournaments sanctioned by the Professional Golf Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association and the Senior Professional Golf Association, such as the Phoenix Open. Maricopa County is home to the Phoenix International Raceway Indy and Sprint car racing, and the NASCAR Winston Cup race. Maricopa County owns several baseball stadiums, including the Bank One Ballpark, home to the 2001 World Series Major League Baseball team the Arizona Diamondbacks. The spring training baseball parks, located within the boundaries of Maricopa County, provide the majority of the Major League spring training games for Arizona’s Cactus League. Economy As one of the fastest growing counties in the nation, Maricopa County must sustain it’s ability to meet an ever-growing demand for services. The post September 11, 2001 events continue to impact Maricopa County’s recessionary economy. The major areas hit hardest by the recession include manufacturing, transportation, tourism, construction and retail sales. According to the Economic Outlook 2002-03, a publication of the University of Arizona, nearly 10,000 manufacturing jobs were lost Countywide since the beginning of the recession, in March 2001. Major airlines, such as America West Airlines, have suffered significant revenue losses. Private industry continues to suffer from unprecedented drops in corporate profits necessitating continued layoffs, cost-control programs and deep reductions in capital spending. Businesses resort to slashing prices in order to attract customers. These business decisions negatively impact profits. 331 County At A Glance There are 26 major hospitals within the County including the County-owned Maricopa Medical Center that offers the only regional burn center in the State of Arizona. Maricopa County’s Library District offers a North Central Regional Library, Southeast Regional Library, Northwest Regional Library, 10 branch libraries, a bookmobile, outreach services and books-by-mail for the homebound and visually impaired. There are 9 community colleges and 13 colleges and universities within the boundaries of Maricopa County. The return to levels of “normalcy” appears to be on a slow track. Tourism including convention business remain below levels of a year ago in spite of the boost from four World Series games in Phoenix. Retail sales estimates are forecast to bottom-out during 2002. The 2nd quarter of FY 2001-02 retail sales represents the sharpest drop since the recessions of the early 1980s. The homebuilding industry remains strong due to reductions in interest rates, but, according to the Economic Outlook 2002-03, the industry is expected to soften in the coming months. Commercial construction vacancies are rising and construction activity is forecast to fall once new projects underway are completed. According to local economist, Elliott D. Pollack & Co., factors that effect the County’s current economic condition include population, wage and salary employment, personal income and retail sales. The growth of these indicators is shown on the chart at left. County At A Glance Population continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate. Local employment and retail sales have plunged. Reductions in the growth of personal income continue through the end of 2002. Arizona’s Economy April 2002 spring issue, as published by the University of Arizona, states that total nonagricultural employment acts as the single best measure of state and local economic conditions. According to their analysis, the recession in Arizona began in March 2001. Utilizing their economic measure, the recession in Maricopa County began in January 2001. In either case, the forecast chart above calls for sharp reductions in employment, personal income and retail sales during 2002. Population growth appears to continue its slowing trend. Maricopa County’s employment growth year-over-year spiraled with the onset of the recession and the events of September 11th, as shown on the chart at right. Although the County maintains a mix of employment as diversified as any county in the nation, 43% of all the manufacturing jobs are related to high-tech activity. Nationally, less than 15% of manufacturing is high-tech related. Maricopa County also depends heavily upon tourism, more so than the rest of the nation. Tourism and associated businesses, such as the hotel and travel industry came to a halt after the events of September 11th. 332 According to the Arizona State University Center for Business Research, Maricopa County’s annual population growth rate exceeded that of any county within the State of Arizona since 1980. It’s share of Arizona’s population increased from 56% in 1980 to over 63% at the beginning of 2002. Over the last ten years 65% of Arizona’s population increases occurred in Maricopa County. The chart at left compares the current population distribution to that of employment in the State of Arizona by largest counties. The two largest counties in the state are Maricopa County (encompassing the greater Phoenix area) and Pima County (encompassing the greater Tucson area). Real gross domestic product (GDP) represents the output of goods and services produced by labor and property in the United States. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis preliminary estimates, real GDP increased at an annual rate of 5.6% in the first quarter of 2002. In the fourth quarter of 2001, real GDP increased 1.7%. County At A Glance The Bureau of Economic Analysis states that the foremost contributors to real GDP in the first quarter resulted from private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures, government spending, residential fixed investment, and increased imports and exports. The chart at right demonstrates the impact that the events of September 11, 2001 combined with a national recession have on real GDP. Population According to the Arizona Department of Economic Security, Maricopa County’s estimated population as of July 1, 2002, stands at 3,104,077. Of the 3,141 counties in the nation, Maricopa County ranks 4th in population. Maricopa County’s population exceeds the population of 21 states including the District of Columbia. 63.5% of Arizona’s population reside in Maricopa County. 333 County At A Glance As reported in the Arizona Republic dated April 30, 2002, “Maricopa County gained more residents in the 15 months after the 2000 census than any other county, Census Bureau figures show. That means the county faces state-sized demands for needs as varied as roads, affordable housing, schools, parks and social services.” The newspaper reported that Eric Anderson, transportation manager for the Maricopa Association of Governments, was quoted as saying, "We're assuming that the metro (Phoenix) area will probably double in population over the next 30 years." The chart at right compares Maricopa County’s incremental population growth to that of Arizona and the United States. The County’s rate of growth shows a slowing trend, as does that of the United States and the State of Arizona. Maricopa County gained 74,927 citizens in the past year, reflecting a 2.48% increase in population. Maricopa County’s actual population including projections through the year 2010 are displayed on the chart at left. Births, deaths and net migration constitute the three major population growth components of Maricopa County. The County’s growth reflects a national trend of population shifts to the Sunbelt states. Employment opportunity in Maricopa County is the most important factor explaining the high influx of people to the County. Immigration and emigration contributes to Maricopa County’s net migration, but information is limited. 334 According to the Arizona State University Center for Business Research (CBR), the number of births in Maricopa County is expected to rise due to the increase in migration by women of childbearing age. Net migration is projected to rise over the next 10 years due to increases in the national population, changes in the age structure of the population, along with slight increases in migration rates, and net natural increases (the difference between births and deaths). Net migration as used within this document represents the difference between the number of people moving into Maricopa County and those moving out of the County. Migration flows to and from Maricopa County are primarily with other U.S. states, mainly California and neighboring states, or more distant but populous states such as New York and Illinois. As provided on the chart at left, the largest portion of our current population lies in the 0-9 and 30-39 age groups. Significant growth is projected in the 50-59 and 60-69 age groups by 2010. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a comparison of estimated population by race for all persons over the age of 18 residing in Maricopa County shows the following distributions and growth: RACE White Persons Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin Other Origins Black or African American Persons Asian Persons American Indian and Alaska Native Persons % AS OF JULY 1, 2000 62.5% 19.4% 10.7% 3.4% 2.1% 1.9% % AS OF JULY 1, 2001 63.4% 20.4% 9.8% 3.1% 1.8% 1.5% INCREASE/(DECREASE) 0.9% 1.0% (0.9%) (0.3%) (0.3%) (0.4%) Employment Maricopa County makes up 70.2% of the state’s employment base. According to the April 2002 edition of Arizona’s Economy, the number of employees on non-farm payrolls in Maricopa County as well as the State of Arizona increased 0.5% between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2002. 335 County At A Glance The age mix of a population may affect revenues such as sales taxes (consumer spending), residential property taxes and vehicle license taxes due to the migration factor in population growth. The aging of Maricopa County affects both revenue and expenditure profiles. The chart at left compares the composition of Maricopa County’s nonfarm wage and salary employment to that of Arizona and the United States. According to Elliott D. Pollack & Co., Maricopa County is over-weighted in high-tech, tourism, business services and defense related industries. All of these industries except defense were hit hard by the events of September 11, 2001. County At A Glance Examples of Maricopa County hightech industries include Motorola, Intel, Honeywell, Boeing, etc. Non-high-tech manufacturing industries include Phelps Dodge, Simula, Ping, etc. According to the Arizona Business Journal Book of Lists 2001 and Elliott Pollack & Co., of the major employers in Maricopa County, Maricopa County government is the Maricopa 4th largest employer. County employment figures are based upon actual number of regular employees. The employers showing more than 10,000 employees working within Maricopa County are listed on the chart at right. The trends in population and employment growth continue to increase, although at a slower rate than that of a decade ago. 336 The decrease in the rate of growth in personal income stems from the current recession and events of September 11th. According to the University of Arizona Economic Outlook, 2003 will usher in a recovery from the current downturn. Retail Sales Maricopa County’s retail sales continue to expand at a greater rate than that of Arizona as a whole. Maricopa County’s retail sales represent nearly 70% of total retail sales in the state. Elliott D. Pollack & Company estimate Maricopa County’s annual retail sales growth for FY 2001-02 to be approximately $0.6 million. Aggregate annual retail sales for Maricopa County are provided on the chart below. The year-over-year retail sales growth trendline shows moderate growth through FY 2007-08. 337 County At A Glance Maricopa County’s unemployment rate remains consistently below that of Arizona and the U.S. As of April 2002, Maricopa County’s unemployment rate was 5.1% as compared to 5.7% and 6.0% for Arizona and the United States respectively. Construction and Real Estate Market Maricopa County residents continue to benefit from low interest rates and affordable housing. The chart at right indicates the affordability and availability of Countywide housing. County At A Glance Maricopa County is part of the Arizona Affordable Housing Profile to determine the affordability of housing and efforts undertaken to produce new affordable units by community, county and statewide. One of the study’s objectives, as explained in an April 2002 draft report by Elliott D. Pollack & Co., identifies the “affordability gap” within Maricopa County. The “gap” is defined as the difference between the number of households within each income range and the number of housing units affordable to those households. Households within the “gap” pay more than 30% of their income toward shelter. Maricopa County’s affordability gap, expressed as a percentage of total households, is stated to be 10.3%, one of the lowest rates in the state. As indicated on the chart at left, the median price of new single family homes in Maricopa County has decreased and resale homes have increased by approximately 0.5% each from January 2001 through December 2001. This quarterly trend may be the result of the recession since median home sales prices showed steady increases over the past decade in both new and resale homes. 338 Prior to the affects of the recession and the events of Maricopa September 11th, County’s housing permits reached near record levels. Of the 48,963 single-family housing units authorized in Arizona during FY 2000-01, 32,790 or 67% were authorized for Maricopa County. 3,181 County units or nearly 10% of Maricopa County’s total singlefamily housing units were authorized for unincorporated areas. Multi-family housing inventory grew by 2.1% during the year 2001, whereas, single family units constructed declined by 3.3%. Single family housing appears to have been hit harder, but with a vacancy rate of 8.2% for multi-family housing, that may not be the case. The economic indicators provided in the Economic Outlook 2002/03 forecast declining single family residential units by 10.8% in the year 2002 and multi-family units declining by 49.4%. An increased supply of available office space through new construction, sublease and direct lease during 2001 hit all time highs in Maricopa County. Over-supplies of new buildings coming online and lack of demand put vacancy rates at 16%. According to a Grubb & Ellis Company 1st quarter 2002 report, overall vacancy rates reached their highest peak (20.4%) since the 2nd quarter of 1993. 339 County At A Glance Between 1994 and 2001, multi-family unit inventories have increased by 18.2% and vacancy rates have increased by 4.4%. The chart at left shows the growth pattern. Contributing to the rise in vacancy rates may be the national economy, the events of September 11th and a lower level of actual pre-leasing in new space that has come online. Grubb & Ellis Company predict that as current projects under construction enter the market during 2002, the vacancy rate will continue to rise. Tenants may have many opportunities in newer facilities and landlords and developers may see the movement of large corporate tenants moving from leased space to owner-occupied buildings. County At A Glance Health Care For nearly 125 years, Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) has been serving the health care needs of our community. From our modest roots in 1877 as a “pest house” providing care to tuberculosis patients, to today’s fully integrated academic health system, MIHS has remained constant in its mission in the community – to provide quality health care in an environment of cultural sensitivity and compassion. With a network of a Level I academic hospital, 13 family health care clinics located throughout the Valley, four health plans, over 250 physicians, and 4,000 employees, we serve everyone who walks through our doors regardless of lack of health insurance, medical condition or socioeconomic situation. In 2001, we provided approximately $700 million of health care services for our community, including nearly $80 million of uncompensated care. We provide an extensive range unique of specialized services for our community. Among these are the costly services associated with trauma care, burn care, neonatal and pediatric intensive care, high risk obstetric services, health care for the correctional population, and behavioral health care. MIHS is the only provider of intensive burn care in the state and regional Southwest, one of only five Level I trauma centers in the county, and one of only three neonatal intensive care units in the community, and the largest provider of inpatient behavioral health care for the Valley. MIHS also plays a significant role in the 340 Valley for patients with HIV/AIDS through its specialized clinic. Through the four health plans that MIHS offers – Maricopa Health Plan, an AHCCCS plan; Maricopa Long Term Care Plan, an AHCCCS plan; Maricopa Senior Select Plan, a Medicare+ Choice Plan; and HealthSelect, a plan for County employees -- we provide health care to 63,000 members. As with the past several years, extensive growth again defined MIHS during FY 2002. The chart at left shows a synopsis of the care and services we provided to our community. MIHS also offers a separate pediatric emergency department staffed by board-certified pediatric emergency physicians, open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. MIHS also plays a significant role in teaching and shaping the future physicians of our community. The health system has the largest medical teaching program in Maricopa County, and second only to The University of Arizona statewide. Approximately 200 residents from across the country participate in the coveted graduate medical education programs, and third- and fourth-year medical student electives also are available through each clinical department. In Managing for Results, MIHS has set forth long-range strategic development and growth initiatives for FY02/03, including: Enrollment And Retention Strategies For Health Plan Membership Assessment And Identification Of Opportunities To Improve The Financial Performance Of The Delivery System Through Expense Reduction, Revenue Enhancement, And More Continuous Improvement Of Customer Service Throughout The Health System Continue Securing Accreditation/Compliance From The Residency Review Committee (RRC), Joint Commission On Accreditation Of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO), And Centers For Medicare And Medicaid Services (CMS) Assessment Of Governance Options To Support The Financial Viability Of MIHS And Continue Serving The Community’s Health Care Needs Enhanced Improvement Of Workplace Environment And Competitive Wages And Benefits 341 County At A Glance In addition to the growth in volume of service we provide, MIHS also expanded through addition of lifesaving equipment and physical facility growth. The completion of the Comprehensive Health Care Center build-out of the second and third floors was completed this year. This expansion (over 160,000 square feet) provides enhanced outpatient clinical to include significant expansion in the delivery of women’s and pediatric services, dialysis, pharmacy, laboratory, internal medicine and medicine subspecialties, medical oncology, antepartum testing, ophthalmology, optical shop, dental, ear/nose/throat, surgery, radiology, cardiac rehabilitation, orthopedics, breast center and rehabilitation services. Criminal Justice Sheriff’s Office The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, a fully integrated law enforcement agency, provides professional law enforcement, detention, and support services to the citizens of Maricopa County and to other criminal justice agencies, including cities that contract with the Sheriff’s Office for service 24-hours per day, 365-days per year. Maricopa County is committed to ensuring public safety. The Sheriff’s Office houses one of the largest county jail systems operated by a sheriff in the nation. Maricopa County’s detention facilities house an average of over 8,300 inmates daily. Last year the Sheriff’s Office booked 121,000 adult inmates. County At A Glance The Sheriff’s Office houses 1,200 convicts in tents, both men and women. A gleaning program results in costs of less than 45 cents per inmate meal served. The Sheriff’s Office utilizes men and women on chain gangs, and has a volunteer posse of 3,200 men and women, which are people from the community who spend their time and money to train to be volunteers helping to keep the county free from crime. During FY 2002-03, a new food processing plant is planned to open containing an ice plant, dehydration plant, canning plant, cook-chill plant, meat cutting plant, frozen storage plant, donated food processing plant, cold storage and dry goods storage. This factory will reduce our current cost of less than 45 cents per meal significantly. The food factory will also have a new truck washing area to sanitize the distribution trucks used to move the food from the factory to the facilities. The area will also house a new laundry building, inmate library, canteen, property and evidence storage facilities and a central plant to power and support several new facilities. Adults make-up 94% of Maricopa County’s inmate population, while juveniles comprise 6%. The average daily jail population for adult offenders of 7,938 currently exceeds jail capacity of 5,600 by 29.5%. Construction is underway for a new mid-rise high-security jail. This facility will contain 1,360 cells, including 144 special management cells for the close custody (Super Max) inmates. The facility will also house the new Central Intake facility, capable of handling 600 bookings every 12 hours. Two 342 Initial Appearance courts, one for the County and one for the City of Phoenix, as well as a highsecurity Superior Court room and a new Early Felony Disposition courtroom. Notable programs introduced by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office include: Instituted Community Gleaning Program Girl Scouts Beyond Bars (first jail to initiate) Jail High School (Hard Knocks High) Job Placement Program (WIRC) Stripes Program (inmates assisting Elections Department) Adult Education Program Licensed Substance Abuse Program Female Chain Gang (first and only) The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office shows a total increase in the adult felony crime rate by 3.0% or an additional 743 reported felonies between FY 1998-99 and FY 2000-01. Drug related and other crimes comprise the greatest number of adult felony case filings, followed by driving under the influence, aggravated assault, burglary, and vehicular theft. The number of vehicular theft felony case filings increased nearly 95% from FY 1999-00 to FY 2000-01. The actual case defendant analysis for adult felony case filings is provided below. FY 1998-99 114 88 314 748 41 2,146 1,725 36 789 2,816 1,170 11,018 4,569 25,574 Superior Court The Superior Court in Maricopa County integrates the use of cutting edge technology in the courtroom. By operating new, high tech e-courtrooms offering state-of-the-art equipment and technology, the Superior Court reduces court times, court costs and complications for court customers. Each e-courtroom features flat-screen video monitors for jurors, listening enhancement devices for hearing impaired, instant video recording, and monitors throughout the courtroom for evidence display and presentations. 343 County At A Glance OFFENSE TYPE Homicide Sexual Assault Child Molestation Robbery Vehicular Homicide Aggravated Assault Burglary Arson Vehicular Theft Driving Under the Influence Theft Drug Related Other Offenses TOTAL ADULT FELONY CASE FILINGS % CHANGE FY 1999 TO 2001 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 INCREASE (DECREASE) 185 127 11.5% 111 94 6.9% 365 364 16.0% 691 703 (6.1%) 36 51 24.4% 2,589 2,825 31.7% 1,699 1,627 (5.7%) 53 36 0.0% 1,401 1,536 94.7% 2,843 3,027 7.5% 936 878 (25.0%) 11,085 9,863 (10.5%) 4,836 5,186 13.6% 26,830 26,317 3.0% During FY 1999-00 116,667 cases were filed in Superior Court versus 115,762 cases filed in FY 2000-01 representing a 0.7% decrease over FY 1999-00. Superior Court criminal cases increased 10.9%, while civil cases decreased 8.1%, and family court cases decreased by 10.5%. Juvenile Probation County At A Glance The Juvenile Court no longer has exclusive jurisdiction over the illegal acts of juveniles. After July 1997 juveniles 15 years and older accused of committing homicide, aggravated assault and other violent crime were charged as adults under the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office shows a decrease in juvenile criminal case filings by 8.8% between FY 1998-99 and FY 2000-01. The statistics are provided on the case defendant analysis below. JUVENILE CASE FILINGS OFFENSE TYPE Homicide Sexual Assault Child Molestation Robbery Vehicular Homicide Aggravated Assault Burglary Arson Vehicular Theft Driving Under the Influence Theft *Drug Related *Other Offenses TOTAL FY 1998-99 7 9 72 98 0 609 924 36 554 13 1,816 1,674 4,071 9,883 FY 1999-00 1 4 75 90 0 595 895 24 656 40 1,804 1,406 4,299 9,889 FY 2000-01 1 8 84 703 0 532 863 47 655 43 1,481 1,580 3,657 9,017 % CHANGE FY 1998 TO 20001 INCREASE (DECREASE) (85.8%) (11.2%) 16.7% 617.4% 0.0% (12.7)% (6.7%) 30.6% 18.3% 230.8% (17.5) (5.7%) (10.2%) (8.8%) *U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Report 344 Consistently over the last nine years, the number of juveniles detained has exceeded the detention capacity. During 1993, detainees exceeded capacity by an average of 31 per day versus 83 per day in 2001. The detention capacity of 277 increased at year-end 1999 to 317. The solution to overcrowding lies with the newly planned 504-cell juvenile remand facility that is part of the planned Lower Buckeye Jail complex scheduled to open during FY 2003-04. The Juvenile Detention program will open an innovative and important new building in January of 2003. The Juvenile Residential Treatment Center, a single-level, 28,000 square foot structure will provide 48 treatment beds for juveniles. Since 60% of juveniles that enter the detention system has substance abuse issues, this new service is expected to have measurable results for the community, such as: Reducing the waiting time for juveniles to receive substance abuse treatment (currently averaging 4-6 months); and • Increasing the likelihood of juveniles remaining free of illegal substances, therefore increasing the likelihood that they will successfully complete their term of probation. Justice Courts Maricopa County’s 23 Justice Courts are limited jurisdiction courts that process traffic and civil cases, and are responsible for criminal misdemeanors and felonies through preliminary hearing. Statistics regarding Justice Court case filings are demonstrated on the chart provided. 345 County At A Glance • Legislative Strategies 2002 Legislative Session When the 45th Arizona Legislature opened its Second Regular Session on January 14th of this year, Maricopa County had two primary objectives going into the session. The first was to gain passage of as many of the priority and secondary bills contained in the Board of Supervisors’ legislative package as possible. The second was to work to mitigate the expected negative fiscal impacts on counties as a result of the State’s almost billion-dollar revenue shortfall. This session undoubtedly marked one of the most challenging sessions in years, for local governments in general, and for the two large urban counties, in particular. As legislators dealt with one of the worst fiscal crises in state history, it was apparent that revenue-sharing changes, program and formula alterations, cost shifts, and outright, wholesale shifting of responsibilities from the state to counties were all to be considered. Every governmental entity was at risk as the Legislature sought to “spread the pain around”. County At A Glance Counties were particularly troubled by the extent to which the various budget proposals sought to solve state budget problems at county expense. In adopting a state budget under such dire circumstances, there is little opportunity, unfortunately, for legislators to look at the core responsibilities of government and how they are funded, including the fiscal relationship between the state and counties, and the mandated responsibilities each have. Making major policy decisions, program alterations, or cost shifts hastily and with little thought -- changes that will affect the state and local governments for years to come -- as a byproduct of a state budget shortfall, only results in even greater financial impacts to county taxpayers. The Legislature passed a budget to address the $930 million shortfall, but it was passed and signed amid fears that legislators may have to come back into session during the summer or fall for adjustments to the 2003 budget if state revenues continue to lag. The budget includes cuts of 3.125% to most state agencies, use of the budget stabilization (“rainy day”) fund, a rollover of $191million in K-12 state aid to schools payments into the next fiscal year, a diversion of cash from a variety of accounts, and the use of a new and somewhat controversial lease-purchase program that allows developers to pay up-front costs of construction, who are then reimbursed through years of lease payments. This budget is largely viewed as a “stop-gap” measure, for the state is anticipating at least a $500 million deficit next year unless revenues greatly improve, and quickly. Specifically for Maricopa County, the changes to programs and budget cuts are supposedly one time only. The cumulative impact is approximately $16 to $17 million, depending on the cost of private prison contracts. When Arnold v. Sarn IGA payments are renegotiated there may be an additional impact of up to $4 million. 346 The primary areas affected include: Shifting to counties 86% of the costs of restoration to competency for jail prisoners awaiting trial; Freezing for one year the state’s responsibility to pay for 50% of the cost of the growth of the Arizona Long-Term Care System (ALTCS) program; Shifting to counties an additional 3% of the cost of probation, and funding supplemental appropriations for adult and juvenile probation costs from the counties’ share of Vehicle License Tax revenues; Suspending “Fill the Gap” funding for the courts, county attorneys and public defenders, monies which have been very successfully used to speed up criminal court case processing; Requiring Maricopa and Pima counties to pay for a portion of the cost of private prison contracts in order to house state Department of Corrections prisoners; Shifting a portion of the cost of justice of the peace salaries to counties; Suspending funding for county public health grants; Suspending funding for GITEM, the Gang Intelligence and Team Enforcement Mission; and Suspending funding for SLIF, the State Lake Improvement Fund. Another extremely unfavorable last-minute budget proposal involved a wholesale transfer of all responsibilities for community supervision and the work of the Board of Executive Clemency to counties. Counties immediately mobilized to defeat this proposal, as there had been no public discussions or hearings of any kind regarding such a major state policy and program change. Overall, Maricopa County had a successful year in terms of passing all of the bills in the Board’s legislative package, with the exception of a bill authorizing creation of a special hospital/health care district, which the County itself withdrew from consideration during the legislative process. It was determined that additional study would be necessary to decide what the best course of action would be with regard to the future of the county hospital, and the extensive renovation and refurbishment it requires. The County’s top priority bill, HB 2313, was passed and signed by the Governor this year. This legislation enables Maricopa County to ask voters for an extension of up to twenty years of the current 1/5 cent jail sales tax when it expires in 2007. Voters had previously overwhelmingly approved this jail tax for construction and operation of new Maricopa County medium and maximum-security jail facilities and juvenile detention facilities in the 1998 general election. The tax was approved for nine years, or $900 million, whichever came first. At the time that authorizing legislation for the 1998 ballot measure was passed, the Citizens Advisory Committee on Jail Planning strongly recommended that the voters be asked for an on347 County At A Glance The most important favorable change for Maricopa County during the course of negotiations on the budget was the elimination of a potentially very costly proposal. This provision would have required, in Maricopa and Pima counties, every person who is convicted of any offense and who receives a sentence of one year or less to serve the sentence in county jails. Budget bill HB 2708 was successfully amended to say that the state would pay the first $3.6 million cost of the private prison contracts (in state or out-of-state) for 89 inmates a month starting in October. Maricopa and Pima counties (on an 82% - 18% ratio) would be responsible for any additional amount up to a cap of $1.6 million. This would be session law only with a repeal for FY 2002-03. The issue would then be revisited for the 2003-04 budget as part of the annual budget process. going tax of 1/3 of a cent. The nine-year, 1/5 of a cent tax was a necessary legislative compromise at the time, and it was always recognized that what the voters passed in 1998 would not be enough to cover on-going operational costs. Pursuant to the voters’ directive in 1998, jail construction is currently underway, on time and within budget. An extension of this tax by voters would provide a critically-needed, dedicated funding source for escalating operating, maintenance and renovation costs of jails in Maricopa County. Operating costs alone are estimated by a private consultant at approximately $85 million per year. Like the 1998 measure, jail tax revenues received through a voter-approved extension must also only be used for jail and criminal justice purposes. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is presently deliberating as to which general election ballot to place this question. It appears likely that the Board will decide to refer this question to voters in conjunction with the November 2002 general election ballot, in an attempt to secure at least the near-term future fiscal certainty necessary as Maricopa County opens its new adult and juvenile jail facilities next year. All other bills contained in the Board’s legislative package were passed and signed by the Governor, including: making important changes to the laws governing county housing authorities and how they are able to finance low-income housing using federal tax credits; setting a limit on the amount of money that can be used for repair and retrofit of fleet diesel vehicles under the county’s voluntary vehicle repair and retrofit program; County At A Glance changing the laws pertaining to municipal annexation of county-owned or county-operated park or flood control district lands; Helping to ensure the public’s health by strengthening county health officers’ authority to enforce sanitary regulations; Making changes to the statutes governing stadium district investments to maximize the interest rate of return on taxpayer dollars; Securing appropriations for a variety of county air quality-related measures; Amending the statutes to allow for the creation of a park improvement district with an eye toward San Tan Park improvements and maintenance; Modifying counties’ jurisdiction authority pertaining to the issuance of operating permits for air pollution sources under the federal Clean Air Act Title V program; and Allowing County Boards of Supervisors to establish a cost recovery fee for kennel permits. 2003 Legislative Session Maricopa County’s biggest challenge in the next legislative session will be to try to ensure that all of the state budget cuts and cost-shifts visited upon the county will be for one year only and do not become permanent in the years ahead. Clearly, given the state’s continuing difficult economic circumstances and the fact that legislators are relatively limited in what they can cut because so much of the budget is voter-protected or court-mandated, this will not be an easy task. The state could still be facing a deficit of anywhere from $500 million to $1.3 billion when legislators begin work on the FY 2004 budget. The elections and redistricting processes dominated the political landscape during the session. This year marked the first time that congressional and legislative district lines were drawn, not by the Legislature, but by a five-member Citizens’ Independent Redistricting Commission put into 348 place by a citizens’ initiative in 2000, and it proved to be a thorny process. Additionally, the future of the whole public funding concept for candidates through the Citizens’ Clean Elections Commission, also put into place by initiative, is now up in the air as a result of a lawsuit. Next year, many veteran and experienced legislators will be gone under term limits, or will be seeking seats in the opposite legislative chamber. Many sitting incumbents find themselves running against each other in the newly redrawn districts. As much as 40% or more of the House will be new, and half of the Senate will be new or comprised of members coming over from the House. All state executive office positions and leadership in both the House and the Senate will be new. Two brand-new congressional districts have been created, bringing the number to eight. In addition, the retirement of longtime Congressman Bob Stump has opened up another seat. Two new seats on the Corporation Commission, added by initiative, will increase the number of members from three to five, and will be filled this election. There will be a thick slate of competing ballot propositions in November, as well, dealing with Indian and racetrack gaming, extension of the lottery, medical use of marijuana, legislative salary increases, a proposed 60 cent increase in the tobacco tax, a possible stadium question, and most likely the jail tax extension question will be put before Maricopa County voters, to note just a few. Planning for the next legislative session has already commenced. The issues of regional transportation authority and governance, and staving off new or continued state budget cuts or costshifts that severely threaten the county’s hard-won fiscal stability, will be high on Maricopa County’s legislative agenda. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors views the county’s relationship with the state Legislature as an extremely important one. The Board realizes that the County’s successes or failures in the Legislature can make a great deal of difference in how well the County can serve and respond to the needs of it’s citizens. Working closely and well with a new Governor and a newly constituted Legislature will be a major priority. County At A Glance 349 Information Technology Strategies Information Technology will champion Maricopa County into Information Age Government by... ENHANCING BUSINESS MODELS: County Personal Services On-line Citizen Self-sufficiency Internal Department Services Employee Self-sufficiency Paper / Phone-based Services Electronic Government Varying Technical Skills Full Technology Literacy Solid Department Boundaries Flexible Public/Private Boundaries 8 x 5 Service 7 x 24 Service County At A Glance CONVERTING TO A DIGITAL MEDIUM: Silo-bound Paper Processes Horizontal Digital Workflow & Forms Paper Archiving Electronic Document Image Archives Videoconference Rooms Desktop Video Serial Comment & Approval Concurrent Collaboration Group Classroom Training Real-time On-line / Video Training ENABLING A MOBILE WORKFORCE: Limited Dial-up Services Extensive Mobile Infrastructure Discrete PDA/Pager/Cell Phone Integrated Remote Device Discrete Mail Systems Integrated Voice, E-Mail & Publishing Facsimile Machines Internet-directed Retrieval & Printing INCREASING EFFICIENCY: Departmental Data Centers Shared Service Bureaus Insourced Technology Services External Service Providers Multiple Microcomputer Vendors Consolidated Purchasing Portal INTEGRATING SYSTEMS: Discrete E-mail / Web / GIS Integrated Desktop Services Discrete Resource Directories Universal Resource Directory Discrete Office Equipment Networked Office Devices 350 IT Mission The Mission of Information Technology is to provide strategic vision, leadership, and enterprise solutions to County leaders and staff so they can meet their goals and deliver results to the Public. IT Values We understand and enhance our clients business operations. We are dependable and follow through on commitments. We proactively make things happen and seek opportunities for improvement. We progressively innovate while maintaining a stable operating environment. We cooperate and work well with teammates, clients and business partners. We accept accountability to educate ourselves and maintain superior technical skills. County At A Glance IT Strategic Goals County employees will have the flexibility to do their jobs from anywhere in the County at any time. (July 2006) The Public and outside organizations will be able to obtain services and transact business electronically from any location at any time. (July 2006) Operational and strategic decision-makers will be able to readily and easily access information they need to make informed decisions. (July 2005) Streamlining business operations through the use of technology will reduce the cost and time to deliver services. (July 2006) Through countywide technology standardization, we will optimize the use of resources so that the information technology department strategic goals will be achieved. (July 2004) The Highest Purpose of the Office of the Chief Information Officer Implement Best Information Technology Management Practices Maximize Investment of Information Technology for the Public Advance the e-Government Agenda Enhance Inter-Agency Communication & Collaboration 351 County At A Glance This Page Intentionally Left Blank 352 Managing For Results Introduction By the mid-1990’s, Maricopa County had achieved solid success in managing its budget and finances and began to realize the fruits of its efforts. The public’s confidence in Maricopa County’s fiscal management was affirmed in 1998 by the overwhelming vote to approve a new sales tax for jail and juvenile detention facilities, and the County’s bond ratings were upgraded as well. Resources were available to invest in improved County services, but additional accountability was needed to ensure that these resources were used efficiently and effectively. In 1998, after a review of “best practices” in the field of performance measurement and performance-based budgeting, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began to develop a proposal for strategic budgeting, in which strategic planning, budgeting and performance measurement would be aligned in a unified process. These initial concepts came together in the Resource Accountability Project (RAP). A RAP steering committee was organized, and six pilot departments attempted to develop strategic plans with fully aligned performance measures. These initial efforts generated significant momentum and taught valuable lessons – positioning the County to move forward. In the summer and fall of 2000, Maricopa County began to implement Managing for Results (MfR) by developing departmental strategic plans that integrated planning with budgeting and performance measurement. This effort created powerful tools for making good business decisions and achieving department and corporate goals and priorities. An important milestone was the adoption of the Managing for Results Policy (located in the Attachments section of this document) by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in September 2000. The policy confirmed the Board’s support for Managing for Results by making it clear that participation would be a requirement for future funding. Departments were provided with a Strategic Planning Resource Guide, along with extensive staff training that equipped them with the resources and tools needed to develop high quality strategic plans that managers could use to manage. The Resource Guide provided information and timelines for the County’s move toward performance-based budgeting and the integration of resultsoriented performance information in every individual employee’s performance plan and subsequent evaluations. By February 2001, most departments had completed their strategic planning documents. Each department’s plan was reviewed and accepted by a corporate-level review team. The Corporate Review Team highlighted a broad scope of issues facing all lines of business in Maricopa County. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ planning process began with a review of those issues. The Board’s discussion included whether or not these issues would impact the established budget priorities. The Board’s planning process culminated in the adoption of a new mission statement and a set of corporate strategic priorities on February 21, 2001: Maricopa County Mission Statement: The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities. 353 Managing For Results In 2000 the County sought to broaden the RAP to include all departments. An outside firm, Weidner Consulting, was retained by the Office of Management and Budget to assist in this effort by reviewing Maricopa County’s progress to date, recommending improvements, and assisting in implementation. Based in part on the consultants’ recommendations, the Resource Accountability Project evolved into “Managing for Results” – a fully integrated management system focused on results for Maricopa County’s citizens. Strategic Priorities: • • • • • • • Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas in a fiscally responsible manner. Minimize the burden on the property taxpayer through rate reductions. Healthy community and solvent healthcare system. Safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal justice system. Provide regional leadership for a regional transportation system. Land use will be planned, managed and funded responsibly; Luke AFB will be preserved. Maricopa County will continue to improve its positive public image based on results achieved. Managing for Results was front and center in the Fiscal Year 2001-02 budgeting process. Departmental funding requests were evaluated by the Office of Management and Budget based on the Board of Supervisors’ strategic direction and budget goals, and focused on ensuring that requests aligned with departments' strategic plans. The financial cost accounting system was enhanced to parallel the Programs, Activities, and Services (PAS) delineated within each department strategic plan and became operational July 1, 2001. Managing For Results On a quarterly basis beginning in the fall of 2001, departments have reported performance measurement data and provided commentary on their progress. During the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget preparation process, departments allocated the Recommended budget by Programs and Activities defined within their departmental strategic plans, setting the stage for budgeting for results in FY 2003-04. The Government Performance Project (GPP) is a national project conducted by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in partnership with Governing magazine. The study collects, evaluates, and compares information about how well governmental jurisdictions are managed in five key areas: financial management, human resources, information technology, capital management, and managing for results. Since the time of the project’s initiation in 1996, four studies have been conducted at the county, state, and city level. In 2001, Maricopa County was selected as one of the 40 leading counties to participate in the project. The comparative results of the study were published in a special issue of Governing in February 2002. Maricopa County was identified as one of the best-run counties in the country and was one of only two counties in the nation to receive the highest overall scores of “A-“ in the Managing for Results area. Why Are We Doing This? Strategic plans are developed to support good management practice by: • • • Providing the right information to make good decisions; Aligning every employee to organizational success; and Compiling and reporting information needed to tell customers what they are getting for their investment (taxes). The Managing for Results management system is designed to allow employees in Maricopa County to make the following three statements: • • • What we are doing today contributes to our strategic direction. (Every department has a strategic plan linked to their operational plan and every employee’s performance plan.) We know what we have done has been effective. (Performance measures are identified and managed by every activity demonstrating the results produced.) We know how much it costs to deliver our programs efficiently. (All human and financial resources are tied to the services delivered and we can tell how much they cost and how efficiently services are delivered. 354 Managing for Results System Maricopa County’s Managing for Results initiative provides the foundation for a highly integrated management system focused on results for customers. This on-going and cyclical system is depicted below: Decision Making Planning for Results • Future Demand • Vision & Mission • Performance Targets • Strategic - Goals • Adjust Allocations If Required • Operational - Results • Operational/Process Improvement • Family of Measures per Activity Evaluating Results • Employee Performance Plans • Performance Audit • Employee Evaluations • Resources Consumed • Citizen Survey & Input Reporting Results • Actuals vs. Forecasts • Baselines & Benchmarks • All Customers Included Collect Data Budgeting for Results • Demand for Services • Performance Budget • Resource Allocation Through the Managing for Results system, Maricopa County has engaged in substantive planning and performance measurement. This comprehensive planning methodology supports the: • • • Systematic creation of strategic goals that link to programs; Use of measures to track performance, support operational improvement, and inform resource allocation decisions; and Communication of goals and progress to both employees and the public. Planning for Results A well-executed strategic plan promotes a common understanding of the department’s/agency’s overall direction and purpose so that individual employees can readily determine how their work, actions and behaviors support the strategic direction and business success. In Planning for Results, current and future trends are examined in terms of how they may affect the business. Strategic goals and operational results are developed to best manage these anticipated challenges. Results are projected based on demand and internal capacity. Each departmental strategic plan includes three key strategic elements: Environmental Assessment and Issue Statements, Mission Statement, and Strategic Goals. Operationally, departmental strategic plans organize how the department will deliver results into three levels: Services, Activity, 355 Managing For Results • Data Verified Deliver Services and Program. Services describe the deliverables that the customer receives and, as such, are quantifiable. An activity is a set of services grouped together around a common output, as well as a common purpose or result. A set of activities that have a common purpose or result are then grouped into programs. Programs provide operational and performance information for strategic decision-making. Defining the levels of operations in this manner makes it possible to demonstrate how each level contributes to results at the next higher level, creating an aligned organization. The following table depicts this alignment strategy: ALIGNMENT BY ACTIVITY Strategic Plan Element Managing For Results Maricopa County Vision Maricopa County Mission Department Vision (optional) Department Mission Department Strategic Goals Program Program Purpose Statement Key Result(s) Activity Activity Purpose Statement Services that comprise the Activity Activity Performance Measures Result Results: Outputs: Demand: Efficiency: Responsible Employee Activities and programs have a purpose statement that readily identifies the customer and the intended results for that customer. Managers are thereby able to make day-to-day decisions about resource allocation and service improvements in ways that align with the next higher level of results and ultimately ensuring alignment with the department’s mission and goals. Budgeting for Results Maricopa County is committed to developing a budget system that provides financial and performance information to help decision-makers make good, informed business decisions that achieve results. The County uses the operational structure developed in the strategic plan to structure financial planning and reporting for each department/agency. This ensures that the budget is driven by policy and customers’ needs. Integrating Budgeting for Results with strategic planning is critical in creating an integrated management system where financial resources, policy, department operations, and County staff are all aligned to achieve results. Based on the Board of Supervisors’ strategic direction and budget goals, the Office of Management and Budget evaluates departmental funding requests and ensures that requests align with departments’ own strategic plans. Budgeting for Results is linked to and informed by performance measurements. Budgets are developed to provide resources to achieve desired levels of output to meet anticipated service demand. The expected output is directed to achieve desired measurable results. 356 Delivering Services & Collecting Data Based on available resources established through the budgeting process, departments then deliver services and collect data about their performance. The financial cost accounting system parallels the Programs, Activities and Services (PAS) delineated within each department’s strategic plan. This allows departments to collect expenditure and revenue data associated with their Services, Activities and Programs. Along with collection of financial information, or inputs, departments also collect non-financial performance data related to demand, output, and results. Input data, or cost, is combined with output data to measure efficiency. Reporting Results Maricopa County is accountable to its residents by communicating what it does or doesn not achieve. The strategic plans, and the performance measures included within the plans, provide information about results that are meaningful to both employees and the public. During the planning process, departments develop a family of performance measures for each Activity. Each Activity includes at least one of each of the following performance measurements: Result: Output: Demand: Countywide, on a quarterly basis, departments report performance data via the Managing for Results database. This strategy provides an efficient and timely vehicle to ensure that data is complete or to identify incomplete reporting. In addition to specialized performance data created by individual departments, the Administrative Services Program provides standardized performance data on a variety of internal administrative and support services. This comprehensive, standardized Program is included within each departmental plan and ensures consistent data collection, measurement, and reporting of key administrative functions, including human resources, risk management, budgeting, financial services, procurement, and the office of the director/elected official Activities. Through the quarterly web-based reporting, performance data can be viewed on an individual department basis and can be consolidated to obtain Countywide results, outputs, demands and efficiencies. Individual departments may also use the data to benchmark their results against other County departments and agencies. Evaluating Results The integrity of the Managing for Results process and the information produced by the planning and budgeting systems are critical to the County’s efforts in Managing for Results and in sustaining public support. Maricopa County is committed to a management system founded on accurate information. Departments evaluate results, then external evaluators, such as the Maricopa County Internal Audit Department have established specific procedures to ensure that departments’ performance 357 Managing For Results Efficiency: The impact or benefit customers receive from the Activity; expressed as a percentage or rate. The number of units or services or delivered or products produced for the customer; expressed as a number. The number of total units of service or product demanded or needed by the customer; expressed as a number. The average Activity cost per Output or Result; expressed as a dollar cost or man hours expended. information is sufficiently complete, accurate, valid and consistent. Performance audits provide assurance that reported data can be relied upon for decision-making purposes. In addition, taxpayers and other organizations are interested in determining the effectiveness of results produced by governments. One well-known evaluation of governments is the Government Performance Project (GPP). The GPP is a national project conducted by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in partnership with Governing magazine. The study collects, evaluates, and compares information about how well governmental jurisdictions are managed in five key areas: financial management, human resources, information technology, capital management, and managing for results. Managing For Results The specific criteria evaluated within the managing for results section of the study included: • Does the government engage in results-oriented strategic planning in which strategic objectives are identified and provide a clear purpose; government leadership effectively communicates objectives to employees; government plans are responsive to input from citizens and other stakeholders including employees; agency plans are coordinated with central government plans? • Does the government develop indicators and evaluative data that can measure progress toward results and accomplishments and does it take steps to ensure that these data are valid and accurate? • Do leaders and managers use results data for policy making, budgeting, management and evaluation of progress? • Are there organizations within the government whose responsibility it is to evaluate programs or agencies, and are their conclusions utilized? • Does government communicate the results of its activities to stakeholders? Since the time of the project’s initiation in 1996, four studies have been conducted at the county, state, and city level. In 2001, Maricopa County was selected as one of the 40 leading counties to participate in the project. The comparative results of the study were published in a special issue of Governing in February 2002. Maricopa County was identified as one of the best-run counties in the country and was one of only two counties in the nation to receive the highest overall scores of “A-“. One of the most powerful tools available to high-performing organizations is the employee performance management system. Maricopa County uses this system to make it possible for employees to see how they contribute at the operational, departmental and corporate levels. Performance measures are used to develop the performance standards for individual employees as depicted in the following Employee Performance Results Planning & Alignment Worksheet: 358 Employee Performance Results Planning & Alignment Worksheet Name: Period Covered: Date: Department: Office of Management & Budget Department Mission: The mission of the Office of Management and Budget is to provide organizational and strategic leadership and consultation for the Board of Supervisors so that they can make well-informed policy and budgetary decisions. Department Strategic Goals Related to Position • • Maintain County expenditures within the Management will use results-based performance information constitutional limits set by the voters in 1998 to make program and policy decisions by FY 2002 through FY 2004 • • 100% of County departments/agencies will be The entire County will be fully engaged in Budgeting for actively Managing for Results by CY 2002 Results by FY 2003 Program and Purpose MULTI-YEAR PLANNING PROGRAM -- The purpose of this program is to provide forecasting and strategic planning services to the Board of Supervisors so they can set policy and make strategic decisions. Individual Results Activity, Purpose & Individual Performance Goals/ Expectations Evaluation Review Related Measures Purpose Statement (Measures & Targets) Comments ______’s role in the Strategic Planning Activity is to provide the following services so that the strategic plans of assigned departments are aligned with the County strategic plan and with the Boards’ priorities: • Facilitated sessions • Planning consultations • Planning tools • Planning reviews • • • Contributes to 100% of assigned departments having successfully submitted amended/ updated strategic plans. Demonstrates awareness of assigned agencies’ families of measures in order to analyze how they compare with actual measures. Utilizes MfR and strategic plans as the basis for making recommendations. Contributions to the achievement of departmental strategic goals and performance measures are the cornerstones of Maricopa County’s employee performance management and evaluation system. The Managing for Results process strengthens the alignment from the County’s strategic goals through the department’s strategic goals. This alignment, in turn, directly links to the performance expectations of each employee. Employee performance ratings are based on the employee’s contributions to the department’s performance results. Decision Making Based on the validated performance information gathered, decisions can be made more logically and rationally. Having supportable data allows the County to make decisions about resource allocation adjustments based on changes in demand or service delivery. If performance targets are not met, the County has information it needs to decide if those targets were set appropriately or if there is a need for operation or process improvements. In July of 2001, Maricopa County implemented an enhanced Board agenda process, which aligned it with the County’s Managing for Results (MFR) initiative. This process mandated that departments include performance-related information from their strategic plans within each of their agenda items being presented for Board approval. The Board then had this performance information on which to base their decisions, as well as the projected results to be achieved. Implementation of this 359 Managing For Results STRATEGIC PLANNING: The purpose of this activity is to provide planning services, tools and reviews to County departments, agencies and the Board of Supervisors so that they develop strategic plans that are aligned with the County strategic plan and with the Board of Supervisors’ priorities. Result: % of strategic • plans accepted through corporate review Employee ID: enhanced process further aligned the actions of the Board with Managing for Results. Decision making at all levels of the County organization has become results based. Managing For Results We must plan ahead to make the best business decisions possible concerning future uses of all of our limited resources. Good decisions produce results that make a difference in people’s lives and give taxpayers value for their money. In order to make the best business decisions, citizens and County government need the highest quality of performance information available. Department strategic plans provide the essential information for making policy and budget decisions that produce a high return on taxpayer dollars. 360 Financial Forecast Executive Summary Since 1994, the Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget has developed a financial forecast to assist in both short and long range financial planning. The FY 2002-03 version forecasts revenues, expenditures and ending fund balances for ten years, beginning with the current fiscal year. Following is a summary and detailed narrative description of the assumptions used in this forecast. Two forecast scenarios are developed, “Most Likely” and “Pessimistic” Schedules for the “Most Likely” are included for the following major funds: • • • • • General Fund Detention (Jail Excise Tax) Fund – Operating and Capital Projects Transportation - Operating and Capital Projects Flood Control District - Operating and Capital Projects Library District - Operating and Capital Projects “Pessimistic” versions of these schedules are not published in this document, but may be provided on request. General Assumptions • • • • The Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) will continue to operate as a part of County government. The County will continue to fund the Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) operating subsidy in lieu of the prior Disproportionate Share transfer, plus additional amounts as necessary to maintain the financial solvency of the system. The forecast does not assume extension of the Jail Excise Tax, which has been referred to the voters of Maricopa County consideration in the November 2002 election. The forecast therefore assumes continuation of the policy of avoiding use of the existing jail excise tax for ongoing jail operating costs. General Fund surpluses, if any, will be reserved to repay debt used to complete the current capital improvement program (CIP) for general government facilities. No further capital improvements or debt issues are assumed in the forecast. Overall Fiscal Position The overall forecast is based on econometric forecasts of major revenues and demographic/economic cost drivers developed for Maricopa County by the consulting firm of Elliott D. Pollack and Company. In keeping with conservative planning practices, forecast information is provided to the County under both “most likely” and “pessimistic” scenarios; a “high” scenario is not considered. The key issues in the latest forecast update are the jail and juvenile detention program, the impact of escalating costs for indigent health care, and funding requirements for the CIP. A tenyear forecast horizon is used to assess the impact of the expiration of the jail tax, which is limited to nine years or $900 million in total collections. 361 Financial Forecast This forecast provides a conservative estimate of the County’s fiscal condition through the next ten years given realistic economic forecasts, current Board policies and existing laws. The forecast does not incorporate anticipated policy changes, spending priorities, or proposed new revenue sources. The forecast is based on the following assumptions: The current forecast is much less favorable than last year’s due to the economic downturn, significant costs shifted to Maricopa County by the State of Arizona, and potential operating losses in the Maricopa Integrated Health System. Both the Most Likely and Pessimistic scenarios now indicate that Maricopa County will not be able to absorb the full cost of operating new jail and juvenile detention facilities with existing General Fund revenues. In the Most Likely scenario, annual General Fund revenue growth ranges from approximately 4.5% to 6.5% after FY 2003-04, while expenditures and fund transfers increase from approximately by 9.7%, 8.3%, and 8.9% from FY 2004-05 through FY 2006-07, while new detention facilities come on-line and phase into full operation. Expenditures and fund transfers increase by 4.5% to 5.5% through the remainder of the forecast period. Operating deficits reach nearly $80 million in FY 2006-07 and level off thereafter. In the Pessimistic scenario, General Fund revenue growth rates are lower while expenditure increases are higher, creating greater operating deficits that reach nearly $350 million by Year 10. The Most Likely scenario indicates that the Criminal Justice Facility Capital Plan will require a shortterm borrowing to bridge a temporary funding gap beginning in Fiscal Year 2002-03. The scenario assumes the short-term debt is entirely repaid by the end of Fiscal Year 2004-05. Revenue Financial Forecast The Board of Supervisors adopted a flat combined property tax rate for FY 2002-03, and the forecast assumes continued reduction in the combined rates for the Primary, Debt Service, Flood Control District, and Library District levies. The primary rate is held at the FY 2002-03 level, while the Debt Service levy and rate are eliminated after FY 2003-04 when the County’s outstanding general obligation bonds are repaid. The Library District rate is held at the current rate of $.0421 through the forecast horizon, while the Flood Control District levy (plus Salt River Project Payments in Lieu of Taxes) is held flat at $45 million, thus causing the tax rate to decline. The forecast predicts slower growth in primary net assessed value; assessed value growth due to market changes and new construction are projected to subside to lower levels after a drop in FY 2004-05 due to the delayed impact of the 2001-2002 recession. Estimated growth rates are conservative; market and growth estimates are based on local historical trends. However, assessed value could very well experience lower or no growth if the State Legislature makes further changes in the property tax system. Forecasts of other revenue sources are based on economic forecasts and historical trends. The forecast continues Disproportionate Share payments and General Fund State Shared Sales Tax withholding at FY 2002-03 levels. Expenditures Expenditure projections include relatively small increases in the cost of existing programs, plus estimated annual increases in staffing levels consistent with population growth. Projections include funding for pay increases that are in line with inflation; the base inflation rate is adjusted 1-2% higher than for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 to catch up with market salary disparities created by the FY 2002-03 freeze in salaries. Major maintenance for current facilities and park enhancements continues through the end of the forecast period. Major maintenance for future general government and jail facilities begins in FY 2002-03 and increases each year thereafter as new facilities are placed in service. County contributions to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) and the Arizona Long-Term Care System (ALTCS) are projected to increase in line with State forecasted growth. The forecast assumes that the County will continue to be required to pay for the full impact 362 of increases in the non-Federal portion of ALTCS, as well as 86% of the cost of restoration to competency costs, both of which resulted from cost-shifts in the State’s FY 2002-03 budget. The forecast assumes that MIHS will begin to require a General Fund subsidy above and beyond the current base of $13.1 million. Revenue Assumption Detail Net Assessed Value: Net assessed value includes: • • • locally assessed real property and improvements, secured and unsecured personal property, and centrally assessed real property and improvements The assessed value of each of these elements changes from year to year due to market trends, legislative changes and addition of new taxable property. For purposes of this forecast, each component of change was projected separately for each category of property. Market and growth estimates are based on historical trends; the impacts of legislative changes are also factored in where they are known. The forecasts should be considered conservative. Penalties and Interest: The base forecast assumes that revenue from this source will remain at current levels relative to property tax collections. Licenses and Permits: Overall, license and permit revenue is forecast to grow in line with economic factors. The two sources of General Fund license and permit revenue are liquor licenses and fiber optic franchise permits. State Shared Sales Taxes: Based on econometric forecasts, growth in state shared sales tax revenue is expected to slow to lower levels of 4.5% to 5.6%, depending on the forecast scenario. State Shared Vehicle License Taxes: Vehicle License Tax (VLT) revenue had grown rapidly over the past two years due to biennial registration and the strong economy, and have held over the last year due to special financing incentives. Both VLT forecast scenarios assume that fewer vehicle owners will register on a biennial basis, and that new vehicle sales will eventually slow. Because the existing stock of vehicles continually depreciates, growth in VLT is dependent on sales of new vehicles and importation of existing vehicles from out of state by new residents. Movements to cut or eliminate VLT by the State Legislature could reduce the amount of revenue to Maricopa County. Charges for Services: Major sources of charges for services are recording fees, court fees, and tax sale fees. Most charges for service are expected to increase in line with County population growth. The forecast assumes no increase in fee rates. Fines and Forfeits: General Fund fine and forfeit revenue is primarily from Justice Court traffic fines. Fines are expected to grow in line with County population growth. The forecast assumes no change in fine rates. Patient Revenue: Patient charges collected in the General Fund consist of partial reimbursements by County residual long-term care patients for their cost of care. These revenues are projected to decline gradually in line with expenditures for residual long-term care, which are decreasing as the capped patient population decreases. 363 Financial Forecast Intergovernmental Revenue (Excluding State Shared Sales Tax and Vehicle License Tax): Intergovernmental revenue is projected to grow in line with inflation. The major sources of intergovernmental revenue are Sheriff’s Office Patrol Service reimbursements, election reimbursements, and Justice of the Peace salary reimbursements. Election reimbursements are adjusted to coincide with the timing of primary and general elections. Interest Earnings: Interest Earnings are forecasted proportionate to historical interest earnings relative to total revenue and fund balances. Miscellaneous Revenue: Major sources of miscellaneous revenue include Facilities Management Security Building lease revenue from Non-County organizations, Recorder fees for micro-graphics and Assessor Map and Copy fees. The forecast assumes that Facilities Management will phase out Non-County Security Building leases over the next five years. The forecast assumes no change in current miscellaneous fee rates. Sale of Fixed Assets: No major property liquidations are anticipated through the forecast period. Minimal revenue is projected through the forecast period. Operating Transfers-In: Operating transfers-in represent General Fund Departments’ central service cost allocation, along with reimbursement from the Maricopa Integrated Health System for Disproportionate Share withholding. The forecast assumes that Central Service transfers-in will increase with inflation. Expenditure Assumption Detail Wages & Salaries: Wages and salaries are projected to increase at the anticipated rates of inflation and population growth. For FY 2003-04 and 2004-05, an additional 1-2% is added to account for the lack of adjustments relative to the salary market in FY 2002-03. Employee Benefits: Beginning in Fiscal Year 2003-04 forecasted benefit costs include the projected impact of increasing ASRS contributions, as well as employee health and dental insurance costs. Financial Forecast Supplies and Services: Supplies and services are projected to increase at the anticipated rates of inflation and population growth. Capital Outlay: Capital outlay expenditures are projected to increase at the anticipated rates of inflation and population growth. General Government: General Government is presented as a separate item because it is comprised of many program elements that must be projected individually. These programs include the following: • • • General Contingency - the FY 2002-03 budget of $20 million increases each year in line with increases in the overall General Fund budget. Major maintenance for current facilities and park enhancements continues through the end of the forecast period. Major maintenance for future general government facilities begins in Fiscal Year 2002-03 and increases each year thereafter as new facilities are placed in service. Vehicle Replacement - replacement of vehicles operated by General Fund departments is projected to increase with inflation and population growth through the forecast period. Jail/Juvenile Detention Maintenance of Effort: The forecast assumes no extension of the Jail Excise Tax, and that the General Fund will therefore continue to support ongoing existing and future detention facility operating costs. The General Fund contribution fully covers all existing and future detention facility operating costs through the forecast period. Current estimated costs of operating new facilities are assumed to be phased in over four fiscal years starting in FY 2003-04. Election Costs: The incremental cost of administering primary and general elections is cyclical in nature. Health Care Mandates: Health Care Mandates include a variety of mandated and Boardsponsored health care related costs: the Arnold v. San Court Order requirements for treatment of the seriously mentally ill, an intergovernmental agreement for general mental health assistance, and 364 the Long Term Care Residual program. The Arnold v. Sarn Court Order forecast includes anticipated medical inflation and an additional 2% inflation to account for a possible change in the pharmaceuticals weighting in future Intergovernmental Agreement formulae. For certain programs in Health Care Mandates, no growth is projected, while costs for some programs are projected to increase based on population growth and medical inflation. The forecast assumes continuation of the new requirement for County payments to the Arizona State Hospital for 86% of costs or restoration of mental competency of criminal defendants. AHCCCS/ALTCS Contributions: County contributions to AHCCCS and ALTCS are projected to increase in line with State forecasted growth. The forecast assumes that the County will continue to cover the full impact of increases in the non-federal portion of the ALTCS program, as provided in the FY 2002-03 State budget. Capital Projects Capital Project expenditures are forecast based on the current approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. For General Fund, Detention Fund and Library District projects, no additional spending is forecasted beyond the current five-year program. For Transportation and Flood Control District, capital project expenditures are assumed to remain at the level planned for Year 5, adjusted for availability of resources. Financial Forecast 365 General Fund Adopted FY 2002-03 Most Likely Sources of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Tax Penalties & Interest Licenses & Permits Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes State Shared Sales Tax State Shared Vehicle License Tax Other Charges for Services Patient Service Revenue Fines & Forfeits Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Revenue Gain On Fixed Assets Total Revenue Net Growth Rate Fund Transfers-In Disproportionate Share Match Central Service Allocation Total Transfers In Financial Forecast Total Sources Net Growth Rate Uses of Funds: Expenditures: Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay General Government AHCCCS/ALTCS Contributions Transfer Out to Detention Fund Other Mandated Health Care MIHS Subsidy Disproportionate Share Match Total Uses Net Growth Rate Projected Surplus/Deficit: Percent of Total Expenditures $ $ $ $ 2 FY 2003-04 4 FY 2005-06 5 FY 2006-07 277,949,612 $ 8,000,000 428,970 7,181,221 6,929,684 335,423,506 101,980,938 18,518,283 52,848 10,718,820 12,001,580 2,595,685 50,000 781,831,147 $ 4.00% 295,649,334 $ 8,940,000 432,089 6,089,772 6,929,684 364,660,132 115,477,419 19,005,686 42,278 11,040,310 12,667,169 2,414,201 50,000 843,398,075 $ 7.87% 302,029,434 $ 9,509,000 435,302 7,740,403 6,929,684 385,081,099 123,560,838 19,565,686 31,709 11,371,444 13,034,381 2,247,740 50,000 881,586,720 $ 4.53% 321,876,097 $ 9,714,000 438,611 6,518,772 6,929,684 406,645,640 132,210,097 20,135,686 21,139 11,712,512 14,686,720 2,079,385 50,000 933,018,343 $ 5.83% 345,622,168 10,352,000 442,019 8,353,511 6,929,684 429,417,797 141,464,804 20,735,686 10,570 12,063,813 16,536,351 1,918,744 50,000 993,897,147 6.52% 101,760,800 7,866,687 109,627,487 101,760,800 8,060,000 109,820,800 101,760,800 8,260,000 110,020,800 101,760,800 8,470,000 110,230,800 101,760,800 8,680,000 110,440,800 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 891,458,634 $ 10.63% 953,218,875 $ 6.93% 991,607,520 $ 4.03% 1,043,249,143 $ 5.21% 1,104,337,947 5.86% $ 250,075,279 69,903,805 2,272,760 81,975,405 160,841,812 120,866,924 69,505,398 13,140,300 101,760,800 870,342,483 273,030,178 $ 72,363,138 2,399,466 68,884,926 178,711,004 157,090,762 48,252,501 13,140,300 101,760,800 915,633,075 $ 5.20% 292,438,970 $ 80,349,714 2,533,237 65,397,734 197,801,612 196,037,599 50,743,878 17,140,300 101,760,800 1,004,203,845 $ 9.67% 307,823,536 $ 80,983,677 2,674,465 68,882,611 218,197,509 235,385,177 53,268,080 18,140,300 101,760,800 1,087,116,154 $ 8.26% 326,525,055 89,558,439 2,823,566 71,598,402 239,988,340 272,827,663 55,943,307 23,140,300 101,760,800 1,184,165,873 8.93% $ $ $ $ 21,116,151 $ 2.43% 37,585,800 $ 4.10% (12,596,325) $ -1.25% (43,867,011) $ -4.04% (79,827,926) -6.74% $ 150,500,000 $ (98,900,000) (53,000,000) (1,400,000) $ 37,585,800 (46,375,000) (10,189,200) $ 141,710,800 $ (101,000,000) (53,000,000) (12,289,200) $ (12,596,325) (30,280,000) (55,165,525) $ 98,834,475 $ (107,600,000) (53,000,000) (61,765,525) $ (43,867,011) (26,690,000) (132,322,536) $ 28,277,464 (115,500,000) (53,000,000) (140,222,536) (79,827,926) (21,020,000) (241,070,462) 141,710,800 Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Designation for Cash Flow Designation for MIHS Designation for Capital Projects Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Appropriated Fund Balance Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. $ 223,944,803 $ (93,000,000) (53,000,000) (4,500,000) 73,444,803 $ 21,116,151 (94,560,954) $ Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ 150,500,000 366 3 FY 2004-05 $ $ $ 98,834,475 $ 28,277,464 $ (72,570,462) General Fund (Continued) 6 FY 2007-08 Most Likely Sources of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Tax Penalties & Interest Licenses & Permits Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes State Shared Sales Tax State Shared Vehicle License Tax Other Charges for Services Patient Service Revenue Fines & Forfeits Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Revenue Gain On Fixed Assets Total Revenue Net Growth Rate Fund Transfers-In Disproportionate Share Match Central Service Allocation Total Transfers In Total Sources Net Growth Rate Projected Surplus/Deficit: Percent of Total Expenditures $ $ $ 372,540,620 $ 11,116,000 445,530 6,984,772 6,929,684 453,465,193 151,367,340 21,335,686 12,425,652 18,475,548 1,761,484 50,000 1,056,897,509 $ 6.34% 101,760,800 8,900,000 110,660,800 $ $ 8 FY 2009-10 392,060,639 $ 11,982,000 449,146 9,023,541 6,929,684 478,859,244 161,963,054 21,975,686 12,798,347 20,466,507 1,815,318 50,000 1,118,373,165 $ 5.82% 101,760,800 9,120,000 110,880,800 $ $ 9 FY 2010-11 418,390,504 $ 12,610,000 452,870 7,493,772 6,929,684 505,675,362 173,300,468 22,625,686 13,182,222 22,443,231 1,870,575 50,000 1,185,024,374 $ 5.96% 101,760,800 9,350,000 111,110,800 $ $ 10 FY 2011-12 440,775,715 $ 13,457,000 456,706 9,758,663 6,929,684 533,993,182 185,431,500 23,285,686 13,577,614 23,173,353 1,927,279 50,000 1,252,816,382 $ 5.72% 101,760,800 9,580,000 111,340,800 $ $ 470,989,999 14,177,000 460,657 8,045,772 6,929,684 563,896,800 198,411,705 23,985,686 13,984,867 23,971,156 1,986,454 50,000 1,326,889,780 5.91% 101,760,800 9,820,000 111,580,800 $ 1,167,558,309 $ 5.72% 1,229,253,965 $ 5.28% 1,296,135,174 $ 5.44% 1,364,157,182 $ 5.25% 1,438,470,580 5.45% $ 343,710,442 $ 90,265,060 2,980,980 73,184,351 263,269,930 280,557,752 58,778,747 23,140,300 101,760,800 1,237,648,361 $ 4.52% 364,595,415 $ 99,822,559 3,147,169 76,362,984 288,144,703 288,488,997 61,820,218 23,140,300 101,760,800 1,307,283,145 $ 5.63% 383,793,140 $ 100,610,163 3,322,624 79,702,397 314,722,141 296,627,070 63,180,139 25,140,300 101,760,800 1,368,858,774 $ 4.71% 407,117,275 $ 111,263,029 3,507,860 83,231,587 343,027,864 304,977,808 66,546,739 25,140,300 101,760,800 1,446,573,263 $ 5.68% 428,563,797 112,140,899 3,703,424 86,955,409 369,200,042 313,686,930 70,115,209 28,140,300 101,760,800 1,514,266,810 4.68% $ (70,090,052) $ -5.66% (78,029,179) $ -5.97% (72,723,600) $ -5.31% (82,416,080) $ -5.70% (75,796,230) -5.01% $ (160,660,514) $ (131,000,000) (53,000,000) (344,660,514) $ (78,029,179) (18,000,000) (440,689,693) $ (256,689,693) $ (139,800,000) (53,000,000) (449,489,693) $ (72,723,600) (18,000,000) (540,213,293) $ (347,413,293) $ (147,300,000) (53,000,000) (547,713,293) $ (82,416,080) (18,000,000) (648,129,373) $ (447,829,373) (157,400,000) (53,000,000) (658,229,373) (75,796,230) (18,000,000) (752,025,603) (256,689,693) $ (347,413,293) $ (447,829,373) $ (541,625,603) $ Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Designation for Cash Flow Designation for MIHS Designation for Capital Projects Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Appropriated Fund Balance Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. $ (72,570,462) $ (124,500,000) (53,000,000) (250,070,462) $ (70,090,052) (18,000,000) (338,160,514) $ Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ (160,660,514) $ $ 367 Financial Forecast Uses of Funds: Expenditures: Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay General Government AHCCCS/ALTCS Contributions Transfer Out to Detention Fund Other Mandated Health Care MIHS Subsidy Disproportionate Share Match Total Uses Net Growth Rate $ 7 FY 2008-09 Transportation Adopted FY 2002-03 2 FY 2003-04 3 FY 2004-05 4 FY 2005-06 5 FY 2006-07 OPERATIONS (FUND 232) Most Likely Sources of Funds: Revenue Licenses & Permits Other Intergovernmental State Shared Highway User Rev. State Shared Vehicle License Taxes Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Revenue Gain on Fixed Assets $ 1,700,000 1,376,624 77,933,792 6,682,872 400,000 73,600 230,000 $ 1,794,775 1,411,040 81,299,101 7,184,087 367,925 75,440 235,750 $ 88,396,888 $ 89,162,304 $ 0.87% 93,197,164 $ 4.53% 97,511,087 $ 4.63% Uses of Funds: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 18,217,356 24,097,958 3,300,608 $ 19,404,943 25,441,419 3,383,123 $ 20,404,991 26,859,778 3,467,701 $ 21,265,792 28,357,211 3,554,394 $ 22,163,439 29,938,125 3,643,254 Total Expenditures $ 45,615,922 $ 48,229,485 $ 50,732,471 $ 53,177,397 $ 55,744,818 Total Sources Net Growth Rate Net Growth Rate Financial Forecast Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Debt Service Allocation Capital Projects Fund $ 5.73% 1,894,834 1,446,316 84,811,353 7,686,974 379,867 77,326 241,644 $ 5.19% 2,000,471 1,482,473 88,559,609 8,225,062 399,473 79,259 247,685 $ 4.82% 2,111,997 1,519,535 92,615,263 8,800,816 419,386 81,241 253,877 102,170,582 4.78% 4.83% $ 1,647,240 277,765 53,000,000 $ 1,785,159 275,000 40,000,000 $ 1,924,749 40,000,000 $ 2,067,946 42,000,000 $ 2,221,981 44,000,000 Total Transfers Out $ 54,925,005 $ 42,060,159 $ 41,924,749 $ 44,067,946 $ 46,221,981 Total Uses $ 100,540,927 $ 90,289,644 $ 92,657,220 $ 97,245,342 $ 101,966,799 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (12,144,039) $ (1,127,341) $ 539,944 $ 265,745 $ 203,783 Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Net Surplus/Deficit $ 13,525,279 $ (12,144,039) 1,381,240 $ (1,127,341) 253,899 539,944 $ 793,844 265,745 $ 1,059,589 203,783 Ending Balance $ 1,381,240 253,899 $ 793,844 $ 1,059,589 $ 1,263,372 $ 31,578,721 53,000,000 $ 22,662,621 40,000,000 $ 9,448,121 40,000,000 $ 6,724,121 42,000,000 $ 1,569,124 44,000,000 Total Sources $ 84,578,721 $ 62,662,621 $ 49,448,121 $ 48,724,121 $ 45,569,124 Uses of Funds: $ 84,306,743 $ 69,649,000 $ 51,350,000 $ 44,975,184 $ 40,422,000 $ 223,620 271,978 495,598 $ CAPITAL PROJECTS (FUND 232) M ostLikely Sources of Funds: Revenue Fund Transfers In Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Sources Less Uses Ending Unreserved Fund Balance 368 $ $ $ 495,598 $ (6,986,379) (6,490,781) $ (6,490,781) $ (1,901,879) (8,392,660) $ (8,392,660) $ 3,748,937 (4,643,723) $ (4,643,723) 5,147,124 503,401 Transportation (Continued) 6 FY 2007-08 7 FY 2008-09 8 FY 2009-10 9 FY 2010-11 10 FY 2011-12 OPERATIONS (FUND 232) Most Likely Sources of Funds: Revenue Licenses & Permits Other Intergovernmental State Shared Highway User Rev. State Shared Vehicle License Taxes Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Revenue Gain on Fixed Assets Total Sources Net Growth Rate $ $ 2,229,741 1,557,524 96,596,485 9,416,873 438,948 83,272 260,224 $ 106,795,802 $ 4.53% 2,354,049 1,596,462 100,979,901 10,076,054 459,364 85,353 266,729 $ 111,867,401 $ 4.75% 2,485,287 1,636,373 105,498,294 10,781,378 480,767 87,487 273,398 $ 117,121,324 $ 4.70% 2,623,842 1,677,283 110,218,864 11,536,074 503,542 89,674 280,233 $ 122,628,388 $ 4.70% 2,770,121 1,719,215 115,150,659 12,343,600 528,089 91,916 287,238 128,401,503 4.71% Uses of Funds: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 23,099,539 31,607,176 3,734,335 $ 24,075,769 33,369,276 3,827,693 $ 25,093,883 35,229,613 3,923,386 $ 26,155,710 37,193,664 4,021,470 $ 27,263,163 39,267,211 4,122,007 Total Expenditures $ 58,441,050 $ 61,272,738 $ 64,246,882 $ 67,370,844 $ 70,652,381 Net Growth Rate Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Debt Service Allocation Capital Projects Fund 4.84% 4.85% 4.85% 4.86% 4.87% 2,387,689 46,000,000 $ 2,565,966 48,000,000 $ 2,757,779 50,000,000 $ 2,964,172 52,000,000 $ 3,186,266 55,000,000 Total Transfers Out $ 48,387,689 $ 50,565,966 $ 52,757,779 $ 54,964,172 $ 58,186,266 Total Uses $ 106,828,738 $ 111,838,704 $ 117,004,661 $ 122,335,016 $ 128,838,647 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (32,936) $ 28,697 $ 116,663 $ 293,372 $ (437,144) Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Net Surplus/Deficit $ 1,263,372 $ (32,936) 1,230,436 28,697 $ 1,259,133 116,663 $ 1,375,796 293,372 $ 1,669,168 (437,144) Ending Balance $ 1,230,436 $ 1,259,133 $ 1,375,796 $ 1,669,168 $ 1,232,024 Sources of Funds: Revenue Fund Transfers In $ 46,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 50,000,000 $ 52,000,000 $ 55,000,000 Total Sources $ 46,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 50,000,000 $ 52,000,000 $ 55,000,000 Uses of Funds: $ 46,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 50,000,000 $ 52,000,000 $ 55,000,000 $ 503,401 503,401 $ 503,401 503,401 $ 503,401 503,401 $ 503,401 503,401 $ 503,401 503,401 CAPITAL PROJECTS (FUND 232) M ostLikely Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Sources Less Uses Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ $ $ $ $ 369 Financial Forecast $ Flood Control District Adopted FY 2002-03 2 FY 2003-04 3 FY 2004-05 4 FY 2005-06 5 FY 2006-07 OPERATIONS (FUND 991) Most Likely Sources of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Licenses & Permits Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes Interest Earnings Miscellaneous $ 44,868,061 1,800,700 15,073,000 134,393 850,000 8,305,700 $ 44,868,094 1,890,735 5,199,825 128,131 856,432 825,843 $ 71,031,854 $ 53,769,060 $ -24.30% 53,980,022 $ 0.39% 54,193,147 $ 0.39% 54,432,497 0.44% $ 9,737,682 10,260,329 686,881 20,684,892 $ 10,373,023 $ 10,680,126 718,134 21,771,283 $ 5% 10,905,717 $ 11,166,072 750,809 22,822,599 $ 5% 11,362,230 $ 11,674,129 784,971 23,821,330 $ 4% 11,838,093 12,205,301 820,687 24,864,081 4% $ $ 1,392,545 29,000,000 30,392,545 $ $ 1,301,621 29,000,000 30,301,621 $ $ 1,211,377 39,000,000 40,211,377 $ $ 1,122,858 49,000,000 50,122,858 $ 1,489,839 28,000,000 29,489,839 Total Uses $ 70,807,750 $ 61,982,661 $ 53,124,219 $ 54,213,875 $ 54,353,921 Projected Surplus/(Deficit): $ 224,104 $ (8,213,601) $ 855,803 $ (20,728) $ 78,577 Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Fund Balance Designations $ 16,809,114 $ (8,000,000) 17,033,218 $ (8,400,000) 8,819,617 $ (8,700,000) 9,675,420 $ (9,000,000) 8,633,218 $ (8,213,601) 419,617 $ 119,617 855,803 975,420 $ 9,675,420 $ Total Sources Net Growth Rate Uses of Funds: Expenditures: Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Financial Forecast Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out $ $ Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. $ Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ $ $ 8,809,114 224,104 9,033,218 $ 17,033,218 $ $ 8,819,617 $ $ 44,869,829 1,947,457 5,329,821 125,144 861,283 846,489 $ $ 44,873,744 2,005,881 5,463,066 116,636 866,169 867,651 $ 675,420 $ (20,728) 654,692 $ 9,654,692 $ 44,899,863 2,066,057 5,599,643 106,180 871,412 889,342 9,654,692 (9,300,000) 354,692 78,577 433,268 9,733,268 CAPITAL PROJECTS (FUND 990) M ostLikely Sources of Funds: Revenue Fund Transfers In Total Sources Uses of Funds: Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Sources Less Uses Ending Unreserved Fund Balance 370 $ 49,000,000 $ 49,000,000 $ 18,110,000 39,000,000 $ 57,110,000 $ 23,151,000 29,000,000 $ 52,151,000 $ 23,525,000 29,000,000 $ 52,525,000 $ 19,820,000 28,000,000 $ 47,820,000 $ 48,704,497 $ 49,800,000 $ 51,400,000 $ 53,000,000 $ 54,700,000 $ $ $ $ $ 178,414 295,503 473,917 $ 473,917 7,310,000 7,783,917 $ 7,783,917 751,000 8,534,917 $ 8,534,917 $ (475,000) 8,059,917 $ 8,059,917 (6,880,000) 1,179,917 Flood Control District (Continued) 6 FY 2007-08 7 FY 2008-09 8 FY 2009-10 9 FY 2010-11 10 FY 2011-12 OPERATIONS (FUND 991) Most Likely Sources of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Licenses & Permits Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes Interest Earnings Miscellaneous 44,897,146 2,128,039 5,739,634 97,933 876,192 911,576 $ 54,650,519 $ 0.40% 54,901,221 $ 0.46% 55,121,356 $ 0.40% 55,393,650 $ 0.49% 55,544,214 0.27% $ 12,334,136 $ 12,760,643 858,028 25,952,807 $ 4% 12,851,232 $ 13,341,252 897,069 27,089,552 $ 4% 13,390,286 $ 13,948,279 937,885 28,276,450 $ 4% 13,952,247 $ 14,582,925 980,559 29,515,732 $ 4% 14,538,105 15,246,449 1,025,175 30,809,728 4% $ $ 1,952,163 24,000,000 25,952,163 $ $ 1,824,583 25,000,000 26,824,583 $ $ 1,705,362 25,000,000 26,705,362 $ $ 1,593,952 27,000,000 28,593,952 $ 2,088,691 22,000,000 24,088,691 Total Uses $ 54,546,759 $ 53,794,914 $ 55,101,033 $ 55,467,895 $ 54,898,420 Projected Surplus/(Deficit): $ 103,760 $ 1,106,307 $ 20,324 $ (74,245) $ 645,795 Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Fund Balance Designations $ 9,733,268 $ (9,600,000) 9,837,028 $ (9,900,000) 10,943,335 $ (10,200,000) 10,963,659 $ (10,500,000) Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. $ $ (62,972) $ 1,106,307 1,043,335 $ 743,335 20,324 763,659 $ $ 133,268 103,760 237,028 Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ 9,837,028 $ 10,963,659 $ Total Sources Net Growth Rate Uses of Funds: Expenditures: Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out $ $ $ $ 44,917,703 2,191,880 5,883,125 92,802 881,346 934,365 10,943,335 $ $ 44,903,223 2,257,636 6,030,203 86,633 885,937 957,724 $ $ 44,932,343 2,325,366 6,180,958 82,087 891,229 981,667 $ 463,659 $ (74,245) 389,414 $ 10,889,414 $ 44,909,726 2,325,366 6,335,482 76,567 890,865 1,006,209 10,889,414 (10,500,000) 389,414 645,795 1,035,208 11,535,208 CAPITAL PROJECTS (FUND 990) M ostLikely Sources of Funds: Revenue Fund Transfers In Total Sources Uses of Funds: Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Sources Less Uses Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ 20,000,000 27,000,000 $ 47,000,000 $ 20,000,000 25,000,000 $ 45,000,000 $ 20,000,000 25,000,000 $ 45,000,000 $ 20,000,000 24,000,000 $ 44,000,000 $ 20,000,000 22,000,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 48,000,000 $ 45,000,000 $ 45,000,000 $ 44,000,000 $ 42,000,000 $ $ $ $ $ 1,179,917 $ (1,000,000) 179,917 $ 179,917 179,917 $ 179,917 179,917 $ 179,917 179,917 $ 179,917 179,917 371 Financial Forecast $ Library District Adopted FY 2002-03 2 FY 2003-04 3 FY 2004-05 4 FY 2005-06 5 FY 2006-07 OPERATIONS (FUND 244) Most Likely Source of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes Fines & Forfeits Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Total Sources $ 10,296,417 12,000 189,085 260,000 216,000 76,467 $ 10,956,259 12,000 187,436 267,800 205,142 78,379 $ 11,193,492 12,000 187,436 275,834 189,361 80,338 $ 11,928,771 12,000 187,436 284,109 187,821 82,347 $ 13,000,131 12,000 187,436 292,632 195,421 84,405 $ 11,049,969 $ 11,707,016 $ 11,938,461 $ 12,682,483 $ 13,772,026 5.95% Net Growth Rate 6.23% 8.59% Uses of Funds: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 6,277,512 4,332,665 270,600 $ 6,804,910 3,764,482 564,365 $ 7,610,775 4,150,719 342,724 $ 7,812,172 4,254,487 351,292 $ 8,019,061 4,360,849 360,075 Total Expenditures $ 10,880,777 $ 11,133,757 $ 12,104,217 $ 12,417,951 $ 12,739,984 Net Growth Rate Financial Forecast 1.98% Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Debt Service Allocation Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out 2.33% $ $ 592,619 2,147 1,102,200 1,696,966 Total Uses $ 12,577,743 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (1,527,774) $ (1,498,739) $ Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Fund Balance Designations $ 6,969,839 $ (1,700,000) $ 5,269,839 $ (1,527,774) 3,742,065 $ Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. $ Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ 372 5,442,065 $ $ 621,557 2,000 1,448,440 2,071,997 $ 13,205,754 8.72% $ $ 692,628 692,628 $ 12,796,846 $ $ 765,914 765,914 $ 13,146,296 $ 13,505,898 (858,385) $ (463,813) $ 266,128 5,442,065 $ (1,700,000) 3,943,326 $ (1,700,000) 3,084,942 $ (1,700,000) 2,621,129 (1,700,000) 3,742,065 $ (1,498,739) 2,243,326 $ 2,243,326 $ (858,385) 1,384,942 $ 1,384,942 $ (463,813) 921,129 $ 921,129 266,128 1,187,257 3,084,942 2,621,129 2,887,257 $ $ 2.59% 728,345 728,345 3,943,326 $ 2.59% $ $ $ Library District (Continued) 6 FY 2007-08 7 FY 2008-09 8 FY 2009-10 9 FY 2010-11 10 FY 2011-12 OPERATIONS (FUND 244) Most Likely Source of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes Fines & Forfeits Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Total Sources $ 14,009,307 12,000 187,436 301,411 211,375 86,515 $ 14,750,714 12,000 187,436 310,454 232,310 88,678 $ 15,738,220 12,000 187,436 319,767 261,236 90,895 $ 16,588,082 12,000 187,436 329,360 296,396 93,168 $ 17,721,076 12,000 187,436 339,241 341,269 95,497 $ 14,808,045 $ 15,581,592 $ 16,609,555 $ 17,506,442 $ 18,696,519 7.52% Net Growth Rate 5.22% 6.60% 5.40% 6.80% Uses of Funds: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 8,231,596 4,469,870 369,076 $ 8,449,940 4,581,617 378,303 $ 8,674,257 4,696,157 387,761 $ 8,904,717 4,813,561 397,455 $ 9,141,497 4,933,900 407,391 Total Expenditures $ 13,070,543 $ 13,409,860 $ 13,758,175 $ 14,115,733 $ 14,482,788 Net Growth Rate $ 805,431 805,431 Total Uses $ Projected Surplus/Deficit: Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Fund Balance Designations Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ 2.60% $ 846,999 846,999 13,875,974 $ $ 932,071 $ $ 2,887,257 $ (1,700,000) $ $ 1,187,257 932,071 2,119,328 $ 3,819,328 $ $ 2.60% $ $ 890,725 890,725 14,256,859 $ 1,324,733 $ 3,819,328 $ (1,700,000) $ 2,119,328 1,324,733 3,444,061 $ 5,144,061 $ 2.60% $ 2.60% $ 936,721 936,721 $ 985,105 985,105 14,648,900 $ 15,052,454 $ 15,467,894 1,960,655 $ 2,453,988 $ 3,228,625 5,144,061 $ (1,700,000) $ 3,444,061 1,960,655 5,404,716 $ 7,104,716 $ $ 7,104,716 $ (1,700,000) $ 9,558,704 (1,700,000) $ 5,404,716 2,453,988 7,858,704 $ 7,858,704 3,228,625 11,087,328 $ 9,558,704 $ 12,787,328 373 Financial Forecast Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Debt Service Allocation Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out 2.59% Detention Fund - Operations Adopted FY 2002-03 2 FY 2003-04 3 FY 2004-05 4 FY 2005-06 5 FY 2006-07 OPERATIONS (Fund 255) Most Likely Sources of Funds Revenues: Jail Excise Tax Jail Per Diem & Miscellaneous Interest Income Total Revenues $ $ 101,691,796 14,513,461 116,205,257 $ $ 110,555,591 14,513,461 125,069,052 $ $ 116,746,704 14,513,461 131,260,165 $ $ 123,284,519 14,513,461 137,797,980 $ $ 116,789,877 14,513,461 131,303,338 Fund Transfers In: Base Maintenance of Effort Above Base Maintenance of Effort Total Transfers In Total sources Total Operating (exc. Jail Excise) $ $ 111,051,923 9,815,001 120,866,924 $ 237,072,181 $ $ $ $ 118,534,727 38,556,035 157,090,762 $ 282,159,813 135,380,385 $ 99,272,076 22,174,582 558,763 122,005,421 $ $ $ 126,130,977 69,906,622 196,037,599 $ 327,297,764 171,604,223 $ 106,084,443 21,878,570 3,403,312 131,366,325 $ $ $ 128,862,060 106,523,117 235,385,177 $ $ 137,326,764 135,500,899 272,827,663 $ 373,183,157 $ 404,131,001 210,551,060 $ 249,898,638 $ 287,341,124 110,679,567 22,425,534 3,488,395 136,593,496 $ 114,638,329 22,986,172 3,575,605 141,200,106 $ 117,740,182 23,560,826 3,664,995 144,966,003 Uses of Funds: Operating Expenditures - Existing Facilities Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal - Current Operations $ Financial Forecast Operating Expenditures - New Facilities Personal Services Supplies & Services Subtotal - New Facilities $ $ $ 21,308,720 5,661,932 26,970,652 $ $ $ 44,519,446 11,606,960 56,126,406 $ $ $ $ 69,133,144 17,845,701 86,978,845 $ $ 94,612,841 24,389,124 119,001,966 Integ. Criminal Justice Info. System $ 4,541,898 $ 3,057,451 $ 1,123,722 $ 1,837,860 $ 1,692,177 Non-Departmental/Contingencies (Includes Major Maitenance) $ 8,829,000 $ 13,267,246 $ 17,831,158 $ 21,719,687 $ 23,373,155 Total Operating Expenditures $ 135,376,319 $ 171,604,223 $ 210,551,060 $ 249,898,638 $ 287,341,124 Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $ 4,066 $ $ - $ Non-Recurring Expenditures ICJIS - Phase II ICJIS - Phase IIII Subtotal ICJIS Phases II & III $ Appropriated Fund Balance Sub-Total Non-Recurring $ $ 27,707,666 27,707,666 Transfer to Detention Capital Projects $ - $ $ $ 3,408,922 3,408,922 $ $ 98,138,712 - $ $ $ 2,722,453 2,722,453 46,000,000 49,408,922 $ $ $ 60,000,000 . $ - $ - $ $ 7,158,582 7,158,582 $ 6,653,060 6,302,658 12,955,718 58,950,000 61,672,453 $ $ 33,350,000 40,508,582 $ $ 40,350,000 53,305,718 $ 55,000,000 $ 5,536,100 $ 109,408,922 $ 116,672,453 $ 46,044,682 $ 53,305,718 1,146,669 $ 74,251 $ 77,239,837 $ 63,484,159 - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 125,846,378 Non-Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $ (24,154,582) $ Total Expenditures (Operating Plus Non-Operating) $ 261,222,697 $ 281,013,145 $ 327,223,513 $ 295,943,319 $ 340,646,842 Total Projected Surplus/Deficit (Operating Plus NonOperating) $ (24,150,516) $ 1,146,669 $ 74,251 $ 77,239,837 $ 63,484,159 Fund Balance: Beginning Fund Balance Projected Surplus/Deficit $ 24,545,729 $ (24,150,516) 395,213 1,146,669 $ 1,541,882 74,251 $ 1,616,133 77,239,837 $ 78,855,970 63,484,159 Ending Fund Balance $ 395,213 1,541,882 $ 1,616,133 $ 78,855,970 $ 142,340,129 374 $ Detention Fund – Operations (Continued) 6 FY 2007-08 7 FY 2008-09 8 FY 2009-10 9 FY 2010-11 10 FY 2011-12 OPERATIONS (Fund 255) Most Likely Sources of Funds Revenues: Jail Excise Tax Jail Per Diem & Miscellaneous Interest Income Total Revenues $ $ 14,513,461 14,513,461 $ $ 14,513,461 14,513,461 $ $ 14,513,461 14,513,461 $ $ 14,513,461 14,513,461 $ $ 14,513,461 14,513,461 Fund Transfers In: Base Maintenance of Effort Above Base Maintenance of Effort Total Transfers In Total sources Total Operating (exc. Jail Excise) $ $ 280,557,752 280,557,752 $ 295,071,213 $ $ $ $ 288,488,997 288,488,997 $ 303,002,458 295,071,213 $ 120,929,254 24,149,847 3,756,620 148,835,721 $ $ $ 296,627,070 296,627,070 $ 311,140,531 303,002,458 $ 124,208,121 24,753,593 3,850,535 152,812,249 $ $ $ 304,977,808 304,977,808 $ $ 313,686,930 313,686,930 $ 319,491,269 $ 328,200,391 311,140,531 $ 319,491,269 $ 328,200,391 127,579,440 25,372,433 3,946,799 156,898,672 $ 131,045,953 26,006,744 4,045,468 161,098,165 $ 134,610,487 26,656,913 4,146,605 165,414,005 Uses of Funds: Operating Expenditures - Existing Facilities Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal - Current Operations Operating Expenditures - New Facilities Personal Services Supplies & Services Subtotal - New Facilities $ Integ. Criminal Justice Info. System $ Non-Departmental/Contingencies (Includes Major Maitenance) $ 99,684,096 25,623,824 125,307,920 1,091,951 $ $ 24,122,233 Total Operating Expenditures $ 295,071,213 Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $ $ - $ $ $ $ 1,126,603 $ 1,162,914 $ $ 24,882,289 $ 25,653,596 $ 26,436,436 $ 27,370,802 $ 303,002,458 $ 311,140,531 $ 319,491,269 $ 328,200,391 - $ 5,260,000 12,873,175 - $ - $ - $ $ 5,130,000 10,017,544 Transfer to Detention Capital Projects $ Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ Non-Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $ (10,017,544) $ (12,873,175) $ Total Expenditures (Operating Plus Non-Operating) $ 305,088,757 315,875,633 Total Projected Surplus/Deficit (Operating Plus NonOperating) $ (10,017,544) $ (12,873,175) $ (6,471,348) $ (6,643,959) $ (5,660,000) Fund Balance: Beginning Fund Balance Projected Surplus/Deficit $ 142,340,129 $ (10,017,544) 132,322,585 $ (12,873,175) 119,449,410 $ (6,471,348) 112,978,062 $ (6,643,959) 106,334,103 (5,660,000) Ending Fund Balance $ 132,322,585 119,449,410 112,978,062 106,334,103 100,674,103 $ $ $ 12,873,175 5,390,000 6,471,348 $ Appropriated Fund Balance Sub-Total Non-Recurring - $ $ - $ 107,821,529 27,594,056 135,415,584 $ $ $ $ 531,253 550,095 1,081,348 - $ $ 10,017,544 $ $ $ 105,035,638 26,921,030 131,956,668 4,215,028 672,517 4,887,544 - $ $ 7,079,102 534,072 7,613,175 - $ $ 102,323,843 26,264,419 128,588,263 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,471,348 $ 557,362 566,597 1,123,959 $ $ $ 5,520,000 6,643,959 $ $ $ $ (6,471,348) $ 317,611,879 $ $ 6,643,959 $ $ (6,643,959) $ 326,135,228 $ $ 5,660,000 5,660,000 5,660,000 (5,660,000) 333,860,391 375 Financial Forecast $ 97,114,406 24,998,853 122,113,259 Non-Recurring Expenditures ICJIS - Phase II ICJIS - Phase IIII Subtotal ICJIS Phases II & III $ $ Detention Fund - Capital Projects Adopted FY 2002-03 2 FY 2003-04 3 FY 2004-05 4 FY 2005-06 5 FY 2006-07 CAPITAL PROJECTS (Fund 455) Most Likely Sources of Funds: Transfer-In from Detention Operating Fund Total Sources $ $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ $ 60,000,000 60,000,000 $ $ Uses of Funds $ 252,006,605 $ 26,557,071 $ Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (153,867,893) $ 33,442,929 $ $ 59,888,864 $ (153,867,893) (93,979,029) $ Financial Forecast Unreserved Fund Balance: Beginning Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Balance 376 $ (93,979,029) $ 33,442,929 (60,536,100) $ 55,000,000 55,000,000 55,000,000 $ $ $ $ (60,536,100) $ 55,000,000 (5,536,100) $ 5,536,100 5,536,100 $ $ - $ - $ - (5,536,100) $ 5,536,100 $ - 5,536,100 Mandates Introduction Maricopa County faces major issues relating to the vast growth in and significant cost of providing mandated services. Mandates provide critical insights and justification of the County’s use of funds. Disconcerting portions of the County’s revenue sources are committed to satisfying unfunded mandates. Mandated services drive Maricopa County’s strategic planning process, operating policies and financial structure. Mandates, as defined for this study, are functions or services that meet constitutional, statutory or court-ordered requirements from either Federal or State entities. These create expenditures Maricopa County might not otherwise incur. They represent the portion of the County budget over which the Board of Supervisors has little or no discretion. Administrative mandates, as used throughout this document, refers to functions that provide essential support to State or Federally mandated programs, without which, those mandated provisions would either cease to exist, or function in a less than complete capacity. Due to the necessity of administrative mandates in support of mandated services, summary schedules, charts and tables provided within this section consolidate both mandates and administrative mandates. In preparation for the FY 2002-03 budget process, the Office of Management and Budget surveyed every County department in order to update the mandate study performed during FY 2001-02. County departments supplied all of the information contained herein. Mandate financials provided within this document do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Individual mandated programs and administrative mandates including their associated costs are located in the Department Summaries section of this Annual Business Strategies document. Please refer to the table of contents to find specific department information. Maricopa County’s unfunded mandates increased substantially for FY 2002-03 as a result of the State of Arizona’s budget shortfall of nearly $1 billion. The 2002 Arizona Legislature focused upon solving one of the worst fiscal crises in state history by shifting mandated responsibilities to county taxpayers without appropriate funding. The State of Arizona mandated the largest single area of increase in Maricopa County’s FY 2002-03 budget, 4.1%. State mandated health care and other state cost shifts account for approximately $91 million in budget increases. In addition, Maricopa County faces more challenges due to the current recession. Increased demands in basic services continue to expand as the County’s population increases. Maricopa County remains one of the fastest growing counties in the nation in terms of population, employment and personal income. County efforts to meet ever-growing citizen needs are undermined by the vast growth in and significant cost of providing mandated services, many of which are unfunded. These services include, but are not limited to, the cost of energy, water, land, building and infrastructure services, as well as the number and cost of crimes committed and the cost of health care to its citizens. As demonstrated on the table below, County expenditure growth expands at a faster rate than the population increases. Revenues cannot keep pace with the growing demands for, and increased costs of providing citizen services. Population Expenditures MARICOPA COUNTY POPULATION & EXPENDITURE GROWTH COMPARISON FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 2,837,000 2,954,000 4% 3,029,000 3% 3,104,000 3% 1,682,000 1,842,000 10% 2,025,000 10% 2,143,000 6% FY 2003 3,179,000 3% 2,464,000 15% 377 Mandates Executive Summary Nearly $20 million of the state’s $91 million budget shortfall that was shifted to Maricopa County is shown on the chart at right. This FY 2002-03 mandate summary section provides the citizens of Maricopa County with a comprehensive understanding of the County’s use of funds while ensuring that mandate compliance is maintained at a minimum service level. Summary mandate study results are presented on the following pages. Mandates As demonstrated on the table below, $1,727,162,979 or 60.5% of the Maricopa County FY 2002-03 budget expenditures of $2,855,404,983 (not including appropriated beginning fund balance of $220,405,332, debt service of $43,880,899, and eliminations of $602,949,306) are committed to satisfying mandated services. In addition, $133,330,112 or 4.7% in administrative mandates provides essential support to mandated services. Consolidating budgeted mandates with administrative mandates total $1,860,493,091 or 65.2% of the FY 2002-03 budget. The remaining expenditures of $994,911,892 or 34.8% are non-mandated. FY 2002-03 BUDGET EXPENDITURES PERCENT ADMINISTRATIVE PERCENT FUND MANDATES OF BUDGET MANDATES OF BUDGET General Fund $ 748,386,776 26.2% $ 102,742,467 3.6% Special Revenue 482,976,077 16.9% 0.0% Capital Projects 495,800,126 17.4% 0.0% Enterprise 0.0% 0.0% Internal Service 0.0% 30,587,645 1.1% Total All Funds $ 1,727,162,979 60.5% $ 133,330,112 4.7% NONPERCENT MANDATED OF BUDGET $ 19,213,240 0.7% 122,858,736 4.3% 2,105,200 0.1% 827,336,333 29.0% 23,398,383 0.8% $ 994,911,892 34.8% The table below breaks-out FY 2002-03 consolidated mandates by fund as a percent of total mandates. Consolidated General Fund mandates of $851.1 million represents 45.7% of all mandated expenditures. Consolidated Special Revenue Fund mandates of $482.9 million represents 26.0% of all mandated expenditures. Consolidated Capital Projects Fund mandates of $495.8 million represents 26.6% of all mandated expenditures. Consolidated Internal Service Fund mandates of $30.5 million represents 1.6% of all mandated expenditures. FY 2002-03 CONSOLIDATED MANDATES BY FUND FUND GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND INTERNAL SERVICE FUND 378 $ $ $ $ MANDATES 851,129,243 482,976,077 495,800,126 30,587,645 PERCENT OF TOTAL MANDATES 45.7% 26.0% 26.6% 1.6% The chart at left shows the breakout of mandates and nonmandated expenditures by fund in the FY 2002-03 budget. Expenditures and mandated expenditures are categorized as Education, Culture & Recreation, General Government, Highways and Streets, Health, Welfare and Sanitation, or Public Safety. There are no mandates that fall under the Culture & Recreation category. Therefore, Culture and Recreation is not seen in this document, except as an expenditure. The bulk of mandated expenditures fall in the areas of Public Safety, General Government and Health, Welfare and Sanitation. Mandates Maricopa County FY 2002-03 mandated versus nonmandated expenditures as a percent of budget are shown on the chart at right. The expenditures are presented by category and include all funds. FY 2002-03 Mandates For All Funds Mandated services benefit residents as well as visitors to Maricopa County by affording a better way of life in a safer environment. Maricopa County’s FY 2002-03 budget, including all funds, is 379 comprised of 65.2% mandated services. The following tables below show budgeted expenditures versus mandated expenditures by expenditure category. MANDATED EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY AND TYPE FOR ALL FUNDS Expenditure Category Judicial Branch Elected Officials Education $ - $ 1,651,193 General Government 37,919,782 Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety 171,295,926 224,081,660 Totals $ 171,295,926 $ 263,652,635 Appointed Departments Special Districts $ - $ 415,789,054 184,847,670 390,156,419 323,001,635 111,749,752 $ 1,313,794,778 $ 111,749,752 $ $ $ $ $ $ Totals 1,651,193 453,708,836 184,847,670 390,156,419 830,128,973 1,860,493,091 FY 2002-03 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES VS. MANDATED EXPENDITURES FOR ALL FUNDS Mandates Expenditure Category Education Culture & Recreation General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Totals Budgeted Expenditures FY 2002-03 $ 15,356,136 14,009,214 482,861,061 185,529,670 1,316,123,743 841,525,159 $ 2,855,404,983 Mandated Expenditures % Mandates Of FY 2002-03 Total Expenditures $ 1,651,193 0.06% 0.00% $ 453,708,836 15.97% $ 184,847,670 6.47% $ 390,156,419 13.59% $ 830,128,973 29.07% $ 1,860,493,091 65.16% % Mandates Of Total Mandates 0.09% 0.00% 24.51% 9.94% 20.85% 44.62% 100.00% The chart at right compares population growth for the United States, Arizona and Maricopa County. Maricopa County’s population growth continues to expand. Maricopa County’s population grew by nearly 75 thousand or 2.5% during 2001 while the state’s population increased more slowly, at 2.3%, and the nation’s population increased by 0.9%. Growth of this magnitude requires additional resources to support infrastructure and provide a safety net for the welfare and protection of its citizens. Maricopa County’s budgeted expenditures increased $321 million or 12% from FY 2001-02, and mandated expenditures alone increased by $541 million or 41% over the same period of time. These increases place added demands on fiscal operations for expanded and new services. The lack of funding and ability to keep up with a growing population base poses potential threats to public health and safety. 380 As shown on the chart at left, Maricopa County’s population increased 8.1% since FY 1998. The population increase has spurred an 11.9% increase in new criminal cases initiated, a 17.5% increase in the average daily jail population, a 39.4% increase in health care members, and a 13.2% increase in the number of parcels of land to be assessed. Mandates The chart at right shows mandated dollar and percent splits for the FY 2002-03 expenditure budget. FY 2002-03 General Fund Mandates The FY 2002-03 General Fund budget totals $870,342,483, (excluding appropriated fund balances, eliminations and debt service). General Fund mandates total $851,129,243, or 97.8% of the General Fund budget. Maricopa County’s General Fund budgeted expenditures increased $68,829,859 or 8.6% from FY 2001-02, and mandated expenditures increased by $146,484,549 or 20.8% over the same period of time. The significant growth in General Fund mandated expenditures within the FY 2002-03 budget placed heavy burdens upon management to ensure adequate funding. Expenditure allocations and reductions to expenditure budgets were necessary to meet new unfunded mandates while maintaining a minimum level of service on existing mandates. 381 The following tables provide General Fund mandated expenditures by category and type, and a General Fund expenditure and mandate summary: MANDATED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY AND TYPE EXPENDITURE CATEGORY JUDICIAL BRANCH Education $ General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety 83,125,849 Totals $ 83,125,849 ELECTED OFFICIALS $ 1,651,193 33,174,258 102,085,600 $ 136,911,051 APPOINTED DEPARTMENTS $ 244,778,317 344,781,524 41,532,502 $ 631,092,343 SPECIAL DISTRICTS $ - $ $ - $ TOTALS 1,651,193 277,952,575 344,781,524 226,743,951 851,129,243 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE & MANDATE SUMMARY FY 2002-03 BUDGET FY 2002-03 BUDGET % VARIANCE FY 2002-03 BUDGET % VARIANCE EXPENDITURES MANDATES TOTAL BUDGET NON-MANDATED TOTAL BUDGET Judicial Branch $ 83,125,849 $ 83,125,849 9.6% $ 0.0% Elected Officials 136,911,051 136,911,051 15.7% 0.0% Appointed Departments 650,305,583 631,092,343 72.5% 19,213,240 2.2% Totals $ 870,342,483 $ 851,129,243 97.8% $ 19,213,240 2.2% The chart at left provides a breakout of the General Fund mandated and non-mandated expenditures over time. FY 2002-03 General Fund mandates represent 97.8% and non-mandated expenditures represent 2.2% of total General Fund expenditures budgeted. Mandates General Fund mandates of $851.1 million equate to 29.8% of all funds budgeted for FY 2002-03; and total 45.7% of FY 2002-03 budgeted mandates for all funds. General Fund non-mandated expenditures represent $19.2 million, or 2.2% of the FY 2002-03 General Fund budget, as outlined on the table at right. FY 2002-03 General Fund Non-Mandated Expenditures General Government Health Care Mandates Human Services Parks & Recreation Total Non-Mandated Expenditures $ 3,065,433 13,140,300 1,267,103 1,740,404 $ 19,213,240 Just over $13 million of FY 2002-03 General Fund non-mandated expenditures fall under Health Care Mandates and represent the Health Care Delivery System subsidy budgeted for FY 2002-03. 382 General Fund Health, Welfare & Sanitation Mandates The largest group of General Fund mandated activities fall under the category of Health, Welfare & Sanitation. $337.2 million or 45.1% of General Fund mandates fall in this category. Health Care Mandates make up the majority of non-mandated expenditures at $13.1 million for FY 2002-03. The breakout of mandates in the FY 2002-03 General Fund budget for Health, Welfare & Sanitation is shown on the chart at left. Of $357.8 million in total Health, Welfare & Sanitation General Fund expenditures, $344.8 million are mandated and $14.4 million are nonmandated. 100% of all General Fund expenditures in Animal Care & Control, Environmental Services, Medical Examiner and Public Health departments are mandated. 96% of the Health Care Mandates department General Fund Expenditures are mandated, with the remaining 4% non-mandated. General Fund Public Safety Mandates General Fund Public Safety mandates total $226.7 million or 30.3% of total General Fund mandates. 100% of all General Fund Public Safety expenditures in the FY 2002-03 budget are mandated. These expenditures provide for the safety of Maricopa County citizens while protecting their unalienable rights, and provide due process of law. The greatest resource used protects citizen rights and falls under the umbrella of the Criminal Justice System. Maricopa County funds prosecutors, defenders, the Judicial Branch, jails and policing activities, to name a few Criminal Justice activities. General Fund Public Safety mandate expenditures are included in the departments of Contract Counsel, Emergency Management, Legal Defender, Office of Legal Advocate, Public Defender, Clerk of Superior Court, Constables, County Attorney, Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, Justice Courts, Superior Court, and the Sheriff’s Office. 383 Mandates Maricopa County is responsible for the protection of the food and water supplies, the detection and abatement of environmentally transmitted disease and public health nuisances, and the institution of programs that control the release into the atmosphere of hazardous air pollutants. Maricopa County is required to provide for the indigent sick and general mental health of its’ indigent population. The County is mandated to provide for the safety of Maricopa County citizens by handling bite animals and vicious dogs while enforcing rabies quarantine and vaccine requirements. Maricopa County’s population growth impacts public safety, particularly in the unincorporated areas of the County. General Fund Public Safety mandates represent 26.1% of the total FY 2002-03 General Fund budget and 26.6% of General Fund mandates. The chart at right shows the trend in the average daily adult jail population in Maricopa County. Since 1990, Maricopa County’s adult jail population has doubled. General Fund General Government Mandates Mandates The General Government category includes a broad range of mandated citizen oriented services. Taxation, elections, property assessment, revenue and expenditure accountability, support and care of persons, and legal proceedings make up the majority of these services. The governing body of the County, the Board of Supervisors, is also a mandated function. The General Fund County departments that provide General Government mandated services are shown on the chart at right. The General Government category includes a department called General Government. The majority of the General Fund General Government expenditures reside in the General Government department. General Government department expenditures benefit the County as a whole and do not relate to any particular department or program. Examples of these General Government department expenditures include: Major Maintenance, $7.9 Million; Debt Service, $6.4 Million; State of Arizona Budget Cuts, $1.9 Million; Outside Legal Counsel, $1.5 Million; Tax Appeals, $1.3 Million; and Indigent Burials, $0.4 Million 384 General Fund Education Mandates The Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools is responsible for providing mandated services to the school districts within the County. Maricopa County’s Superintendent of Schools supports Accommodation Schools through a Special School Reserve Fund. Expenses are set aside annually for the establishment and conducting of schools in the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. The department of Superintendent of Schools is the only department within the education category. FY 2002-03 Mandates Excluding the General Fund The rapid population growth as experienced in Maricopa County over the past decade continues to place increased demands for services on County government. Excluding the General Fund, all other mandates total $978.8 million. The table below provides a breakout of these mandates. Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Total Mandates $ 482,976,077 495,800,126 30,587,645 $ 978,776,203 % Budget 79.7% 99.6% 0.0% 56.7% 34.3% Non-Mandated $ 122,858,736 2,105,200 827,336,333 23,398,383 $ 975,698,652 % Budget 20.3% 0.4% 100.0% 43.3% 34.2% Mandate Study - Summary Schedules Consolidated Mandates – Including All Funds CONSOLIDATED MANDATES - INCLUDING ALL FUNDS BY CATEGORY FY 2002-03 Budget $ 3,238,553 14,009,214 485,161,976 185,529,670 1,316,079,149 851,386,421 $ 2,855,404,983 FY 2002-03 Mandates $ 1,651,193 453,708,836 184,847,670 390,156,419 830,128,973 $ 1,860,493,091 $ Variance % Variance $ 1,587,360 49.0% 14,009,214 100.0% 31,453,140 6.5% 682,000 0.4% 925,922,730 70.4% 21,257,448 2.5% $ 994,911,892 34.8% CONSOLIDATED MANDATES - INCLUDING ALL FUNDS BY TYPE Expenditure Type Judicial Branch Elected Officials Appointed Departments Special Districts Totals FY 2002-03 Budget $ 171,295,926 263,652,635 2,300,944,175 119,512,247 $ 2,855,404,983 Expenditure Type General Fund Special Revenue Fund Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Fund Totals FY 2002-03 Budget $ 870,342,483 605,834,813 497,905,326 827,336,333 53,986,028 $ 2,855,404,983 FY 2002-03 Mandates $ 171,295,926 263,652,635 1,313,794,778 111,749,752 $ 1,860,493,091 $ Variance $ $ 987,149,397 7,762,495 994,911,892 % Variance 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 6.5% 34.8% CONSOLIDATED MANDATES - BY FUND FY 2002-03 Mandates $ 851,129,243 482,976,077 495,800,126 30,587,645 $ 1,860,493,091 $ Variance % Variance 19,213,240 2.2% 122,858,736 20.3% 2,105,200 0.4% 827,336,333 100.0% 23,398,383 43.3% $ 994,911,892 34.8% $ 385 Mandates Expenditure Category Education Culture & Recreation General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Totals FY 2002-03 Budgeted Mandates By Department And Fund Mandates Department Judicial Branch Adult Probation Justice Courts Juvenile Probation Superior Court Sub-Total General Fund Special Revenue 14,210,964 15,710,924 11,608,350 41,595,611 83,125,849 41,973,567 1,475,273 34,183,714 9,757,277 87,389,831 Elected Departments Assessor Board Of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Superior Court Constables County Attorney Elections Internal Audit Recorder Sheriff Superintendent Of Schools Treasurer Sub-Total 14,791,846 1,186,825 496,686 21,020,241 1,573,243 42,352,207 10,135,373 1,014,158 1,870,954 37,139,909 1,651,193 3,678,416 136,911,051 8,510,881 Appointed Departments Animal Care & Control Call Center Chief Information Officer Community Development Contract Counsel Correctional Health County Administrative Officer Criminal Justice Facilities Development Emergency Management Environmental Services Equipment Services Facilities Management Finance General Government Health Care Delivery System Health Care Mandates Health Plans Housing Human Resources Human Services Integrated Criminal Justice Information Sys Legal Defender Library District Management & Budget Materials Management Medical Examiner Office of Legal Advocate Parks & Recreation Planning & Development Public Defender Public Fiduciary Public Health Research & Reporting Risk Management Solid Waste Stadium District Telecommunications Total Compensation Transportation Sub-Total 304,041 1,323,313 5,263,577 5,411,936 1,458,476 77,108 737,332 26,370,075 2,289,162 199,776,896 332,108,010 3,844,842 4,997,933 1,587,360 1,380,984 3,888,275 3,828,839 27,216,686 1,820,125 6,362,882 1,044,491 631,092,343 1,086,782 19,711,105 30,501,615 2,500,000 4,541,898 80,000 14,842 4,839,177 1,571,379 9,784,584 3,472,515 100,540,927 207,505,189 851,129,243 Special Districts Flood Control District Sub-Total TOTAL MANDATES 386 Enterprise Funds Capital Projects - Internal Service Total Mandates 780,246 - - 56,184,531 17,186,197 46,572,310 51,352,888 171,295,926 10,395,192 4,745,524 101,384,205 125,035,802 1,705,782 1,705,782 - - 14,791,846 1,186,825 496,686 29,531,122 1,573,243 52,747,399 10,135,373 1,014,158 6,616,478 140,229,896 1,651,193 3,678,416 263,652,635 9,045,888 19,814,477 194,783 110,782,280 - - 8,923,046 - - - 860,803 - - - - - - - 84,306,743 444,609,601 - 12,875,220 7,928,576 30,587,645 9,349,929 1,323,313 5,263,577 5,411,936 20,009,260 1,458,476 249,325,795 1,163,890 20,448,437 8,923,046 26,370,075 2,289,162 341,060,791 334,608,010 3,844,842 4,541,898 5,077,933 1,587,360 2,241,787 3,888,275 3,843,681 4,839,177 28,788,065 1,820,125 16,147,466 3,472,515 12,875,220 8,973,067 184,847,670 1,313,794,778 63,045,255 63,045,255 48,704,497 48,704,497 - - 111,749,752 111,749,752 482,976,077 495,800,126 - 30,587,645 1,860,493,091 780,246 249,325,795 Departments with the greatest allocation of mandated dollars budgeted include General Government with $341 million, Health Care Mandates with $334 million, Criminal Justice Facilities Development with $249 million, Transportation with $184 million, the Sheriff’s Office with $140 million, and the Flood Control District with $111 million. The chart at right compares mandated FY 2001-02 budget expenditures for all funds, to those of FY 2002-03, by category. Mandates have increased by over 41% from FY 2001-02. The largest increases occurred in General Government, followed closely by Health, Welfare & Sanitation, Public Safety, and Highways & Streets. Increases in the General Government mandates were primarily due to infrastructure improvements, the state budget cuts and other state cost shifts. Health, Welfare & Sanitation mandate increases were due to increases in Health Care Mandates. Nearly every department within the Public Safety category showed increases in mandates year-over-year. FY 2002-03 MANDATED EXPENDITURES BY TYPE FOR ALL FUNDS Mandate Type Total Mandates $ $ $ $ $ 171,295,926 263,652,635 1,313,794,778 111,749,752 1,860,493,091 Mandates Judicial Branch Elected Officials Appointed Departments Special Districts Total The chart at left provides mandated expenditures by type for all funds as a percent of total mandates. 387 FY 2002-03 Budget And Mandate Comparison By Category For All Funds Budgeted Expenditures FY 2002-03 Expenditure Category Culture & Recreation Parks & Recreation Stadium District Culture & Recreation Total $ Education Library District Superintendent Of Schools Education Total General Government Assessor Board Of Supervisors Call Center Chief Information Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Elections Equipment Services Facilities Management Finance General Government Human Resources Internal Audit Management & Budget Materials Management Public Fiduciary Recorder Research & Reporting Risk Management Telecommunications Total Compensation Treasurer General Government Total 9,432,036 4,577,178 14,009,214 Mandated Expenditues FY 2002-03 $ Administrative Mandates FY 2002-03 - 13,704,943 1,651,193 15,356,136 1,651,193 1,651,193 14,791,846 1,186,825 1,323,313 5,263,577 496,686 1,458,476 10,135,373 8,923,046 26,370,075 2,289,162 344,126,224 3,844,842 1,014,158 1,587,360 2,241,787 1,820,125 6,616,478 446,622 23,398,383 12,875,220 8,973,067 3,678,416 482,861,061 14,791,846 1,186,825 1,323,313 496,686 10,135,373 288,718,645 10,000 1,820,125 6,616,478 3,678,416 328,777,707 185,529,670 185,529,670 184,847,670 184,847,670 9,349,929 15,861,375 20,448,437 399,029,048 347,748,310 429,420,684 11,435,849 30,866,842 3,888,275 43,903,415 4,171,579 1,316,123,743 9,349,929 20,448,437 330,891,672 3,888,275 13,706,608 3,472,515 381,757,436 Public Safety 56,184,531 29,531,122 1,573,243 5,411,936 20,009,260 52,747,399 249,325,795 1,163,890 119,512,247 4,541,898 17,186,197 46,572,310 3,843,681 5,077,933 8,472,868 28,788,065 140,229,896 51,352,888 841,525,159 56,184,531 29,531,122 1,573,243 5,411,936 20,009,260 52,747,399 249,325,795 1,163,890 111,749,752 4,541,898 17,186,197 46,572,310 3,843,681 5,077,933 4,839,177 28,788,065 140,229,896 51,352,888 830,128,973 $ - Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2002-03 $ - 5,263,577 1,458,476 8,923,046 26,370,075 2,289,162 52,342,146 3,844,842 1,004,158 1,587,360 2,241,787 12,875,220 8,973,067 127,172,916 % Mandates of Total Expenditures % Consolidated Mandates of Total Mandates 9,432,036 4,577,178 14,009,214 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13,704,943 13,704,943 0.00% 0.06% 0.06% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 3,065,433 446,622 23,398,383 26,910,438 0.52% 0.04% 0.05% 0.18% 0.02% 0.05% 0.35% 0.31% 0.92% 0.08% 11.94% 0.13% 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.06% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45% 0.31% 0.13% 15.97% 0.86% 0.07% 0.08% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 19.04% 682,000 682,000 6.47% 6.47% 10.70% 10.70% 15,861,375 399,029,048 13,140,300 429,420,684 11,435,849 30,866,842 27,755,949 699,064 928,209,111 0.33% 0.00% 0.72% 0.00% 11.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.57% 0.12% 13.59% 0.54% 0.00% 1.18% 0.00% 19.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.79% 0.20% 22.10% 7,762,495 3,633,691 11,396,186 1.97% 1.03% 0.06% 0.19% 0.70% 1.85% 8.73% 0.04% 3.91% 0.16% 0.60% 1.63% 0.13% 0.18% 0.17% 1.01% 4.91% 1.80% 29.07% 3.25% 1.71% 0.09% 0.31% 1.16% 3.05% 14.44% 0.07% 6.47% 0.26% 1.00% 2.70% 0.22% 0.29% 0.28% 1.67% 8.12% 2.97% 48.06% 994,911,892 65.16% 100.00% Highways & Streets Transportation Mandates Highways & Streets Total Health, Welfare & Sanitation Animal Care & Control Community Development Environmental Services Health Care Delivery System Health Care Mandates Health Plans Housing Human Services Medical Examiner Public Health Solid Waste Health, Welfare & Sanitation Total Adult Probation Clerk of the Superior Court Constables Contract Counsel Correctional Health County Attorney Criminal Justice Facilities Development Emergency Management Flood Control District Integrated Criminal Justice Information Sys Justice Courts Juvenile Probation Office of Legal Advocate Legal Defender Planning & Development Public Defender Sheriff Superior Court Public Safety Total Grand Total 388 $ 2,855,404,983 $ 1,727,162,979 - 3,716,338 2,440,858 6,157,196 $ 133,330,112 $ The table below compares year-over-year budget expenditures and year-over-year mandate expenditures for all funds. The total FY 2002-03 expenditure budget for all funds increased by 11.6% from FY 2001-02, whereas mandates increased by 41.0% over the same period of time. Expenditure Category Education Culture & Recreation General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Totals Budget Expenditures FY 2001-02 12,133,721 28,123,445 583,972,132 106,159,810 1,065,703,158 762,764,106 2,558,856,372 Budget Expenditures % Budget FY 2002-03 Variance 15,356,136 26.6% 14,009,214 (50.2%) 482,861,061 (17.3%) 185,529,670 74.8% 1,316,123,743 23.5% 841,525,159 10.3% 2,855,404,983 11.6% Mandate Expenditures FY 2001-02 1,637,442 198,385,688 105,859,810 269,914,290 743,701,502 1,319,498,732 Mandate Expenditures % Mandate FY 2002-03 Variance 1,651,193 0.8% 453,708,836 128.8% 184,847,670 74.6% 390,156,419 44.6% 830,128,973 11.6% 1,860,493,091 41.0% General Fund Mandates The FY 2002-03 General Fund budget totals $870.3 million of which $851.1 or 97.8% is mandated. The chart at right compares yearover-year General Fund mandates and non-mandated budget expenditures. Mandates FY 2002-03 General Fund mandated expenditures by major department are shown on the chart at left. 389 GENERAL FUND MANDATES FY 2002-03 GENERAL FUND BUDGETED MANDATES FY 2002-03 BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT Mandates Administrative Mandates Consolidated Mandates Education Superintendent Of Schools 1,651,193 1,651,193 Sub-Total 1,651,193 1,651,193 General Government Assessor 14,791,846 14,791,846 Board Of Supervisors 1,186,825 1,186,825 Call Center 1,323,313 1,323,313 Chief Information Officer 5,263,577 5,263,577 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 496,686 496,686 County Administrative Officer 1,458,476 1,458,476 Elections 10,135,373 10,135,373 Facilities Management 26,370,075 26,370,075 Finance 2,289,162 2,289,162 General Government 147,434,750 52,342,146 147,434,750 Human Resources 3,844,842 3,844,842 Internal Audit 10,000 1,004,158 1,014,158 Management and Budget 1,587,360 1,587,360 Materials Management 1,380,984 1,380,984 Public Fiduciary 1,820,125 1,820,125 Recorder 1,870,954 1,870,954 Total Compensation 1,044,491 1,044,491 Treasurer 3,678,416 3,678,416 Sub-Total 182,748,288 96,585,271 279,333,559 Mandates Health, Welfare & Sanitation Animal Care & Control Environmental Services Health Care Mandates Medical Examiner Public Health Sub-Total 304,041 737,332 328,391,672 3,888,275 3,922,024 337,243,344 3,716,338 2,440,858 6,157,196 304,041 737,332 332,108,010 3,888,275 3,922,024 343,400,540 Sub-Total 14,210,964 21,020,241 1,573,243 5,411,936 42,352,207 77,108 15,710,924 11,608,350 4,997,933 3,828,839 27,216,686 37,139,909 41,595,611 226,743,951 -- 14,210,964 21,020,241 1,573,243 5,411,936 42,352,207 77,108 15,710,924 11,608,350 4,997,933 3,828,839 27,216,686 37,139,909 41,595,611 226,743,951 748,386,776 102,742,467 851,129,243 Public Safety Adult Probation Clerk of the Superior Court Constables Contract Counsel County Attorney Emergency Management Justice Courts Juvenile Probation Legal Defender Office of Legal Advocate Public Defender Sheriff Superior Court TOTAL GENERAL FUND MANDATES 390 GENERAL FUND MANDATE COMPARISON General Fund Budgeted Mandates FY 2001-02 General Fund Budgeted Mandates FY 2002-03 $ Variance Increase (Decrease) % Variance Increase (Decrease) Judicial Branch Adult Probation Justice Courts Juvenile Probation Superior Court Sub-Total 11,605,000 15,494,859 10,956,082 41,784,929 79,840,870 14,210,964 15,710,924 11,608,350 41,595,611 83,125,849 2,605,964 216,065 652,268 (189,318) 3,284,979 22.5% 1.4% 6.0% (0.5%) 4.1% Sub-Total 14,453,030 1,163,725 528,574 19,968,254 1,541,266 41,383,645 6,069,510 10,000 1,847,713 36,831,132 1,637,442 3,735,313 129,169,604 14,791,846 1,186,825 496,686 21,020,241 1,573,243 42,352,207 10,135,373 10,000 1,870,954 37,139,909 1,651,193 3,678,416 135,906,893 338,816 23,100 (31,888) 1,051,987 31,977 968,562 4,065,863 23,241 308,777 13,751 (56,897) 6,737,289 2.3% 2.0% (6.0%) 5.3% 2.1% 2.3% 67.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.8% 0.8% (1.5%) 5.2% Sub-Total 304,041 1,281,308 5,533,466 86,179 763,915 232,438,891 206,911,606 1,963,371 3,690,009 4,751,094 3,693,196 26,433,918 1,808,600 3,480,936 493,140,532 304,041 1,323,313 5,411,936 77,108 737,332 147,434,750 328,391,672 3,828,839 4,997,933 3,888,275 27,216,686 1,820,125 3,922,024 529,354,034 42,005 (121,530) (9,071) (26,583) (85,004,141) 121,480,066 (1,963,371) 138,830 246,839 195,079 782,768 11,525 441,088 35,408,226 702,956,282 87.9% 748,386,776 86.0% 45,430,494 6.5% 5,339,528 15,372,897 1,307,854 1,749,747 23,770,026 3,065,433 13,140,300 1,267,103 1,740,404 19,213,240 (2,274,095) (2,232,597) (40,751) (9,343) (4,556,786) (42.6%) (14.5%) (3.1%) (0.5%) (19.2%) 23,770,026 3.0% 19,213,240 2.2% (4,556,786) (19.2%) 5,423,007 1,455,275 22,825,295 2,060,231 35,234,127 2,062,356 984,722 1,690,749 1,362,142 805,278 73,097,904 5,263,577 1,458,476 26,370,075 2,289,162 52,342,146 3,716,338 3,844,842 1,004,158 1,587,360 1,380,984 2,440,858 1,044,491 102,742,467 (159,430) 3,201 3,544,780 228,931 17,108,019 3,716,338 1,782,486 19,436 (103,389) 18,842 2,440,858 239,213 29,644,563 (2.9%) 0.2% 15.5% 11.1% 48.6% 100.0% 86.4% 2.0% (6.1%) 1.4% 100.0% 29.8% 40.6% 73,097,904 9.1% 102,742,467 11.8% 29,644,563 40.6% 799,824,212 870,342,483 70,518,271 8.8% Elected Officials Assessor Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Superior Court Constables County Attorney Elections Internal Audit Recorder Sheriff Superintendent Of Schools Treasurer Appointed Departments Animal Care & Control Call Center Contract Counsel Emergency Management Environmental Services General Government Health Care Mandates Human Resources Legal Advocate Legal Defender Medical Examiner Public Defender Public Fiduciary Public Health Total Mandated Services Percent of General Fund Expenditures Sub-Total Total Non-Mandated Services Percent of General Fund Expenditures Administrative Mandates Chief Information Officer County Administrative Officer Facilities Management Finance General Government Health Care Mandates Human Resources Internal Audit Management & Budget Materials Management Public Health Total Compensation Sub-Total Total Administrative Mandates Percent of General Fund Expenditures Grand Total General Fund Expenditures 391 Mandates Non-Mandated Services General Government Health Care Mandates Human Services Parks & Recreation 0.0% 3.3% (2.2%) (10.5%) (3.5%) (36.6%) 58.7% (100.0%) 3.8% 5.2% 5.3% 3.0% 0.6% 12.7% 7.2% Mandates THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 392 Departmental Budget Schedules Maricopa County Organization Maricopa County is organized according to its accountability to the citizens it serves. There are Elected Officials, Appointed Departments and Special Districts. There is also a Judicial Branch, which includes the new Trial Courts organization structure made up of Adult Probation, Justice Courts, Juvenile Probation, and Superior Court departments. Within the Judicial Branch are elected Superior Court Judges and Justices of the Peace. The citizens of Maricopa County elect a Board of Supervisors who serve as the responsible governing body, and a County Attorney, Sheriff, Clerk of the Superior Court, Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Superintendent of Schools and 23 Constables. There are 48 appointed departments, including 3 Special Districts, for which the County Board of Supervisors acts as the Board of Directors. Countywide Organization Chart Elected Maricopa County Citizens Constables (23) County Attorney Board of Supervisors, Borad of Directors for Flood Control, Library and Stadium Districts Sheriff Clerk of the Court Assessor Treasurer STAR Call Center Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer Recorder Elections Internal Audit Deputy County Administrator Legal Defender Deputy County Administrator Contract Counsel Public Defender Chief Health Services Officer Legal Advocacy Chief Financial Officer Maricopa Integrated Health System Chief Community Services Officer Chief Public Works Officer Chief Information Officer Management and Budget Public Health Finance Parks and Recreation Criminal Justice Facilities Development Office of the CIO Human Resources Human Services Risk Management Library District Transportation Telecommunications Research and Reporting Medical Examiner Materials Management Public Fiduciary Flood Control District General Governemnt Correctional Health Planning and Development Emergency Management Health Care Mandates Animal Care & Control Services Housing Facilities Management Total Compensation Environmental Services Community Development Equipment Services Stadium District Solid Waste 393 Departmental Budget Schedules Superintendent of Schools Appointed Countywide Organization Chart (Continued) Arizona Courts in Maricopa County Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk of Superior Court Trial Courts, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Superior Court Judges and Commissioners Juvenile Court Center Adult Probation 394 Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Maricopa County Justice Courts Superior Court Administration Justice Court Administration Elected Officials Maricopa County Citizens Superintendent of Schools Dr. Sandra Dowling Constables (23) Sheriff Joe Arpaio Board of Supervisors, Clerk of the Court Michael Jeanes Treasurer Doug Todd County Attorney Richard Romley Don Stapley, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Assessor Kevin Ross Recorder Helen Purcell Board of Supervisors The five-member Board of Supervisors is the governing body of Maricopa County. Members are elected to four-year terms and the supervisors elect a chairman during their first meeting each January. Appointed by the Board are the Internal Auditor, the Clerk of the Board, and the County Administrative Officer. The board holds statutory and formal meetings that generally are scheduled twice each month on Wednesdays. Informal meetings generally are held on the Monday preceding the formal meetings. Although the adopted schedule can change, meetings are posted at least 24 hours in advance, in compliance with Arizona’s Open Meeting Law. Citizens are encouraged to attend. All meetings are videotaped and air on local government access channels throughout Maricopa County. Check your nearest cable company or city office for scheduling information. 395 Departmental Budget Schedules Special functions of the Board of Supervisors are to also serve as the Board of Directors for the Flood Control District, the Library and Stadium Districts. Other duties include the Board of Equalization and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Elected Officials (Continued) Elected Biographies Fulton Brock District 1 (Republican) Fulton Brock was elected to the Board of Supervisors in November 1996. He was elected Chairman in 1999. In January 2000, Supervisor Brock was appointed Chairman of the Maricopa County Trails Commission. As a former State Representative of District 6 in the Arizona House of Representatives, Supervisor Brock served as Vice-Chairman of the Commerce Committee and member of the Economic Development, International Trade and Tourism, Banking and Insurance and Rules Committees. Supervisor Brock is a graduate of Centre College of Kentucky. In 1982, Supervisor Brock Founded LDC, Inc. a privately-held telephone/operator service company. Supervisor Brock, his wife Susan, and their three 3 daughters are residents of Chandler. Departmental Budget Schedules Don Stapley - Chairman District 2 (Republican) Don Stapley was first elected to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in November 1994 and re-elected for a four-year term in November 1996 and November 2000. Stapley was elected as the 1997and 2002 Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. He served as a member of the Board of Directors and Fiscal Affairs Committee of the Lutheran Health Care Network for more than 10 years and is an honorary member of the Mesa Baseline Rotary Club, having previously served as club director and president. Stapley and his wife Kathy have four children and are actively involved in the East Valley. Andrew Kunasek District 3 (Republican) Andrew Kunasek was appointed to the Board in September of 1997, and was subsequently elected by the constituency of District 3 to a two-year term in 1998 and a four-year term in 2000. Supervisor Kunasek served as the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 2000. Supervisor Kunasek is an Arizona native and earned a degree in management from Arizona State University. He owns interest in farming, citrus and cattle operations, and is president of Mercado Management, a land acquisition and real estate management company. Kunasek has served as treasurer of the Maricopa County Republican Party; Maricopa County Trial Court Selection Committee; Maricopa County Charter Committee; and the Maricopa County Citizens Judicial Advisory Council. He was also a Delegate to the 1996 Republican National Convention. Kunasek, wife Kim and daughters Emily and Kathryn live in North Phoenix. 396 Elected Officials (Continued) Max W Wilson District 4 Mr. Wilson has lived and worked in Maricopa County for the past thirty five years. His efforts have met with a great deal of success and he has had wonderful experiences along the way. Mr. Wilson’s management skills have been honed even further by his election to the Litchfield Park City Council. He now believe it is time to give back to the state and county he has enjoyed for so long, and he thinks the experience and knowledge he has gained over the years has put him in a position to do that. Mr. Wilson was born in Salt Lake City, Utah and has attended Glendale Community College in Glendale, Arizona. He is married to Judith and has five children and eight grandchildren. Mr. Wilson currently serves on the Arizona Board of Realtors, the Southwest Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the Peeples Valley/Yarnell Historical Society Board of Directors. He has recently served on the Arizona Diamondbacks Charity Board of Directors and the Sun Health La Loma Board of Directors. (Democrat) Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox was born in Superior, Arizona and is a fourth generation Arizona native from a pioneer Mexican-American family. Mary Rose was re-elected to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in 2000 for a third four-year term. Mary Rose previously served on the Phoenix City Council for nine years. Ms. Wilcox was honored as being the first Hispanic woman ever to serve on the Phoenix City Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Mary Rose has been involved with numerous boards and commissions, including her membership on the boards of the Phoenix Economic Growth Corporation, Downtown Phoenix Partnership, and the Arizona Hispanic Women’s Corporation. She is the National President for National Association of Latino Elected OfficialsEducation Fund. Mary Rose and her husband Earl have a daughter and five grandsons. Kevin M Ross Assessor Kevin Ross was elected to serve as Maricopa County Assessor in November of 1996 and re-elected in November 2000. Mr. Ross is a native of a small farming community in south central Minnesota. He earned his bachelor's degree at the University of Minnesota. Kevin trained from 1986 through 1989 in commercial and residential lending. In 1990, Kevin founded his own mortgage company in Tempe, specializing in Commercial and Residential accounts. He is a current member of the International Association of Assessing Officers, a member of the Board of Directors of the Father Joseph Patterson Foundation and is a past member of the National and State Associations of Mortgage Brokers. Kevin has been active in a variety of independent businesses and charitable causes. Kevin and his wife, Lisa, reside in Gilbert, Arizona. 397 Departmental Budget Schedules Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox District 5 Elected Officials (Continued) Richard Romley Attorney Departmental Budget Schedules (Republican) Richard M. Romley began his first term as County Attorney on January 1, 1989. Now serving his fourth consecutive term, Romley has taken a leadership position on many criminal justice issues, including victims rights, DUI legislation, domestic violence, slumlord abatement, and illegal drugs. During his tenure, the Office has received national recognition and numerous rewards for leadership and innovation. Last year (2001), the Disabled American Veterans presented Romley with the National Commander’s Award as the Outstanding Disabled Veteran of the Year. He was subsequently honored in Washington, D.C., with LIFE’s Presidential Unsung Hero Award. An Arizona native, born in Tucson, he served two years as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam. Afterwards, he enrolled in Arizona State University, earning both a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business and a Law Degree. In 1980, Romley began his career as a prosecutor with the City of Phoenix. In 1982, he joined the Maricopa County Attorney's Office as a Deputy County Attorney, resigning in 1988 to make his successful run for County Attorney. He and his wife, Carol, live in Scottsdale. They have three grown sons. Michael K Jeanes Clerk of the Superior Court (Republican) Michael K. Jeanes was elected by the voters of Maricopa County in November 1998 to serve a four-year term. He earned his Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from Loyola University of Chicago and a Master of Public Administration Degree from Arizona State University. He has 22 years of court/county management experience, which include 15 years with the Clerk’s Office. As Clerk of the Court, Mr. Jeanes is the official record keeper and financial officer for the Superior Court and is responsible for administering a $20+ million budget. Mr. Jeanes is active in many local and national professional organizations. Michael and his wife, Jill, have three sons. Helen Purcell Recorder (Republican) was elected to the Office of Maricopa County Recorder in November 1988, re-elected in 1992, 1996, and 2000. She has been a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Counties since 1997, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Kids VotingArizona. In 2002 she received three awards for her redistricting internet sites: a NACo eGovernance Award of Merit, a NACo Achievement Award, and a Special Achievement in GIS award from Enviornmental Systems Research Institute. In 2000 she was presented with an award designating the Elections Department Vote-by-Mail technology as part of the 2000 Computerworld Collection at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. In July of 2001 she received the 398 Elected Officials (Continued) NACo Achievement Award for Digital Recording. Her responsibilities include recording and maintaining 4,500 to 10,000 documents for public record per day and administering the Elections Department that conducts all national, state and countywide elections, and provides support for cities, towns, schools, and other jurisdictions. She has two sons, Mark and Todd, and four grandsons. Joseph M Arpaio Sheriff Sandra Dowling, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools (Republican) was first elected School Superintendent in 1988. She was reelected by a wide margin in 1992, 1996 & 2000. As Superintendent, her responsibilities include serving as fiscal agent for 41 school districts, providing educational programs, maintaining payroll services for 17,000 school district employees, conducting school district elections and technological support for school districts. Dr. Dowling is a member of over two dozen civic, educational, county and state organizations. Dr. Dowling earned a Bachelor’s degree in secondary education and a master’s in educational administration from ASU. In 1994, she received her doctorate degree in school finance and education law from NAU. Dr. Dowling and her husband Dennis live in Peoria. They have four children. Doug Todd Treasurer (Republican) Doug Todd was (Republican) Doug Todd was in November 1992. Mr. Todd is a 14-year veteran of the Arizona Legislature, having served 4 terms as a member of the House of Representatives and 3 terms as State Senator from Legislative District 27 (Tempe). Doug was born in Prescott, and moved to attend Arizona State University, where he graduated in 1951 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Agronomy. He farmed 320 acres south of Tempe, raising alfalfa, cotton, barley, a small herd of Registered Hereford cattle retiring from all farming operations in 1974. Doug lives in Tempe with his wife, Mary Anne Corbell Todd. They have five children and many grandchildren. 399 Departmental Budget Schedules (Republican) Joseph M. Arpaio took office as Sheriff of Maricopa County in January 1993 and won re-election in 1996 and 2000. Labeled “the toughest Sheriff in America” after he opened the largest tent city jail in the U.S. and demanded spartan conditions in all county jails, Sheriff Arpaio is equally renowned for his extensive use of posse volunteers in major law enforcement operations. A distinguished law enforcement career spanning more than 45 years, primarily with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, shaped the philosophy that guides his actions as Sheriff. Programs that have made him a national and international leader in the anti-crime movement have simultaneously saved the county taxpayers millions of dollars. Assessor Assessor Assessor Kevin Ross, Kevin Ross,County CountyAssessor Assessor Administration Personal Property Real Property Support Services Information Services GIS/ Mapping CAMA Modeling Mission Departmental Budget Schedules The Mission of the Maricopa County Assessor's Office is to efficiently administer state property tax laws and to provide quality information to the taxpayers and various taxing jurisdictions to assure that all county property is valued fairly and equitably. Vision To be the best Assessor organization in the country by being efficient, timely, accurate and public service oriented. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! Maintaining an employee retention rate of at least 95% of quality, experienced employees exclusive of retirees. Fair and equitable valuation of property that continues to meet or exceed Department of Revenue guidelines. Quality customer service and information that "more than satisfies" the public and taxing jurisdictions based upon satisfaction surveys. Timely and accurate identification of property owners that is 99.5% consistent with recorded documents and is updated within 30 days of a recorded change. Utilization and implementation of technology that allows our results to be efficient, timely, accurate and public service oriented based on annual internal and external satisfaction surveys. Full quality controlled digitization of county parcels by April 2002. Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! A competitive market for quality employees will continue to create a problem of retaining qualified and experienced staff. The county's economic health will continue to stretch our resources in keeping up with new construction and property, splits, sales, appeals and other growth issues. Legislative changes, unfunded mandates, will continue to demand more resources, specifically staffing and technology. Technological advancements and opportunities will allow for more efficient work processes in every department and provide additional sources of analysis and information for the public. Budgetary constraints may limit our technological advancements and level of services available. Demographic shifts will create a larger population eligible for exemption benefits and a change in population and land use densities. 400 Assessor (Continued) ! Inter-operability of county and other government agencies will impact departments' abilities to achieve objectives. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED ASSESSOR TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity INFORMATION RESOURCE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 1,327,494 $ 127,483 $ 9,853,508 790,313 669,628 102,821 634,749 49,800 105,760 1,025,382 Total $ 12,591,139 $ 2,095,799 $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 2,541 $ 1,457,518 $ 133,669 10,643,821 3,623 776,072 45,742 730,291 53,002 1,184,144 104,908 $ 14,791,846 $ 133,669 Key Performance Measures Information Resource Program Purpose: The purpose of the Information Resource program is to provide quality customer service and reliable data to the public, government agencies and internal customers so that they can utilize our broad base of property information. Key Results: Percent of public and other government agencies that rate our quality customer service as "more than satisfies" Percent of satisfied data distribution customers FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 86 83 N/A 90 N/A N/A N/A 100 Program Name: Property Assessment Program Purpose: The purpose of the Property Assessment program is to provide ownership, mapping, property characteristics and valuation information to the public, government agencies and internal customers so that they can be assured that our valuations are fair and equitable. Key Results: Percent of accurate and timely ownership and exemption information Percent of accurate and timely digitized maps Percent of updated and accurate property characteristics of all new or changed real and personal property Percent of fair and equitable valuations that meet or exceed DOR guidelines Percent of accurate and informative notifications Percent of property owners satisfied with their valuations Percent of Property Assessment services reviewed within a two year cycle FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 96 N/A N/A N/A 98 N/A N/A N/A 99.5 100 100 N/A 100 N/A 97 N/A 98.5 N/A 97.47 N/A 95.5 N/A N/A N/A 100 401 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Assessor (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 13,311,601 $ 13,921,894 $ 14,354,295 $ 14,482,021 $ 14,791,846 $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,311,601 13,921,894 14,354,295 14,482,021 14,791,846 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 13,311,601 $ 13,311,601 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 13,921,894 $ 13,921,894 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 14,354,295 $ 14,354,295 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 14,482,021 $ 14,482,021 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 14,791,846 $ 14,791,846 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 402 Assessor (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Assessor A.R.S. § 11-401 Enumeration Of Officers; A.R.S. § 11-541 Powers And Duties Generally; A.R.S. § 11-542 Bond, Oath; A.R.S. § 11-401; Liability For Taxes On Property Unassessed Through Negligence; A.R.S. § 42 Taxation. The County Assessor is an elected official of Maricopa County. The Assessor will to the best of his knowledge and ability, truly and fairly determine the valuation, without favor or partiality of all the taxable property in the County at its full cash value. The Assessor and his sureties shall be liable for all taxes on taxable property within the County, which through the neglect of the Assessor remains unassessed. The primary duties are dictated by ARS 42, Chapters 11-17 and include, but are not limited to the following: The County Assessor shall prepare the assessment roll in the form and containing the information prescribed by the department. On or before December 1 of each year, the County Assessor shall complete property and mines listed in the roll, showing the ownership of the real property and mines and all assessment lists from which the roll was compiled. The Assessor shall deliver the list and certified roll to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors who shall file them in the Clerk's office. On or before February 10 of the tax year, the county assessor shall transmit and certify to the property tax oversight commission and to the governing body of the political subdivision or district in the county the values that are required to compute the levy limit prescribed by section 42-17051. On or before February 10 of the tax year, the county assessor shall determine the limited property value for the current tax year of each school district in the county and shall transmit the values to the county school superintendent to assist the superintendent in computing equalization assistance for education as provided in section 15-991. On or before February 10 of the tax year, the county assessor shall transmit to the staff of the joint legislative budget committee and to the governor's office of strategic planning and budgeting the values that are required to compute the truth in taxation rates prescribed by section 41-1276 403 Departmental Budget Schedules On any date before March 1 of each year the County Assessor shall notify each owner of record, or purchaser under a deed of trust or an agreement of sale, of property that is valued by the Assessor as to the property's full cash value and the limited value, if applicable, to be used for assessment purposes. For property that is valued by the Assessor, in the case of new construction, additions to or deletions from assessment parcels and changes in property use that occur after January 1 of the valuation year, the Assessor shall notify the owner of the property of any change in valuation on or before September 30 of the valuation year. Assessor (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 120 ASSESSOR FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 12,591,139 $ 2,095,799 $ 104,908 $ 14,791,846 $ 133,669 $ 12,591,139 $ 2,095,799 $ 104,908 $ 14,791,846 $ 133,669 $ 12,591,139 $ 2,095,799 $ 104,908 $ 14,791,846 $ 133,669 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 120 ASSESSOR Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 123,543 123,543 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 9,354,257 195,340 73,471 2,000,885 11,648 11,635,601 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ SubTotal $ 486,715 19,722 1,921 70,327 1,052,186 395,800 160,277 50,056 199,308 37,990 2,474,302 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 404 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ $ 100,000 100,000 9,521,339 170,000 65,066 2,345,173 12,000 12,113,578 $ 388,000 20,005 2,496 67,667 578,048 457,792 178,992 24,000 192,500 193,952 40,000 2,143,452 219,973 24,421 244,394 14,354,297 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ 9,600,006 114,178 41,200 2,342,035 10,000 12,107,419 $ 359,940 14,000 2,110 7,523 517,000 399,000 219,295 36,556 211,856 327,614 39,036 2,133,930 $ 5,000 28,000 163,000 196,000 $ 14,453,030 (14,230,754) $ $ 133,669 133,669 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ 9,676,935 163,651 44,078 2,269,691 6,251 12,160,606 $ 360,584 14,213 2,184 527,584 399,000 181,625 42,512 207,716 365,481 39,209 2,140,108 $ 5,000 10,081 196,600 211,681 $ 14,453,030 (14,353,030) $ $ 133,669 133,669 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ 9,729,272 114,000 45,000 2,597,577 6,000 12,491,849 $ $ 133,669 133,669 0% 0% $ 332,000 12,000 2,100 485,999 413,437 168,200 45,807 210,200 386,060 39,996 2,095,799 $ 5,000 10,081 91,692 106,773 $ (338,816) -2% (14,658,177) $ (338,816) -2% $ 2,498 178,809 181,307 $ 104,908 104,908 $ 104,908 104,908 $ 14,482,021 $ 14,716,557 $ 14,791,846 (14,582,888) $ $ - $ $ (14,348,352) $ $ % 9,952,268 97,600 30,000 2,505,271 6,000 12,591,139 332,000 12,000 2,100 486,000 413,437 192,200 45,807 210,200 386,060 39,996 2,119,800 (14,319,361) $ $ 133,669 133,669 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ (352,262) 16,578 11,200 (163,236) 4,000 (483,720) -4% 15% 27% -7% 40% -4% $ 27,940 2,000 10 7,523 31,001 (14,437) 51,095 (9,251) 1,656 (58,446) (960) 38,131 8% 14% 0% 100% 6% -4% 23% -25% 1% -18% -2% 2% 100% 100% 47% 50% Assessor (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 120 ASSESSOR WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT LEAD/SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATOR APPLICATIONS SERVICES MANAGER APPRAISER APPRAISER MANAGER AREA SUPERVISOR ASSESSOR AUDITOR APPRAISER AUDITOR APPRAISER SUPERVISOR BUSINESS ANALYST CAMA MODELER CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST COMPUTER OPERATOR COMPUTER OPERATOR - LEAD COURIER DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT GIS MANAGER GIS PROGRAMMER/ANALYST GIS TECHNICIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR NETWORK SERVICES MANAGER OPERATIONS SERVICES MANAGER PAYROLL COORDINATOR PC TECHNICIAN PERSONNEL COORDINATOR PRODUCTION CONTROL ANALYST PROJECT MANAGER PURCHASING COORDINATOR REGRESSION MODELER SPLITS TEAM SUPERVISOR SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER SYSTEM ANALYST TITLE EXAMINER FTE 81.0 16.0 Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 2.0 1.0 133.0 3.0 8.0 1.0 3.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 14.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 14.0 321.8 405 Attorney County Attorney County Attorney Richard M. Romley Richard M. Romley Southeast Division Investigation Division Executive Division Major Crimes Division Juvenile Division Victim Witness Division Training and Development Division Criminal Trials Division Pre-Trial Division Administration Division Information Technology Division Support Services Division Paralegal Division County Counsel Division Appeals Division Mission The mission of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office (MCAO) is to provide quality prosecution, victim services, crime prevention and legal counsel for county government on behalf of the people of Maricopa County so that they can live in a safe and well-governed community. Goals Departmental Budget Schedules • • • • • • • By 2003, identify and implement strategies that provide market appropriate salaries for employees, salary advancements commensurate with performance and experience, career development counseling, training and other employee benefits and work/personal life balance issues to reduce turnover. Annually assess crime distribution trends and legislative changes to determine if additional enforcement initiatives and/or prosecution programs are needed, if staffing resources and facilities are required, and if changes to state statutes or court rules are needed; and analyze the need for enhanced victim services and community interaction in order to incorporate this information into future strategic plans. Reduce the percentage of criminal cases open longer than 180 days each year over the next five years while adhering to MCAO policies & procedures, quality standards and attorney ethics. By 2003, implement computer applications that will integrate existing applications internal to MCAO in order to reduce redundant data entry, ensure data integrity, improve the MCAO's ability to adhere to statutory and county mandated deadlines, and enhance management processes and reports. By 2002, ensure that access to the MCAO network, applications and data is secured in accordance with projected state and federal requirements By 2005, implement designated projects in accordance with the Maricopa County Integrated Criminal Justice System strategic business plan to share case information data between other criminal justice agencies in a timely, secured manner in order to increase data integrity and reduce redundant data entry. By 2003, develop and implement a case tracking system for the Division of County Counsel to track and report information concerning civil lawsuits and advisory matters for Maricopa County, which will enable the Division to formulate and track measurable goals to increase the quantity and quality of legal services delivered, reduce the response time and/or completion time for the legal services delivered, and improve client satisfaction. Issues • Competition in the marketplace will affect our ability to attract and retain quality employees with the skills necessary to complete our mission. 406 Attorney (Continued) • • • • Legislative and Judicial mandates (including service expectations from community groups, victims, businesses, law enforcement and a broader community focus on crime deterrence), will place an increased burden on available resources including time, money and equipment, and require an increased need to respond. Changes in population and demographics such as the aging population, juvenile crime, and population diversity, will result in an increase in the number, type and complexity of prosecutions and victim services required. The population growth (and resulting growth in county government) coupled with the trend toward increased professionalism in County management, will challenge the ability of the County Attorney's Office to meet the quantity and quality demands of a larger practice and a more sophisticated client base. The rapid growth of advancing technology and public demand for it will challenge the Department to meet the increasing demand for technical support, make high quality decisions and improve productivity in certain areas for availability and access. Total Budget by Program Program Activity CIVIL LEGAL SERVICESPROGRAM COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM PUBLIC POLICY AND PLANNING PROSECUTION PROGRAM TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Supplies & Services Services 1,304,895 $ 173,260 607,032 1,538,012 (6,870) 34,707,242 5,460,736 415,635 63,453 2,381,264 320,651 1,604,914 945,470 962,574 50,583 41,976,686 $ 8,552,165 Capital Outlay $ $ 868 145 311,864 289 868 434 231,599 546,067 Total Expenditures $ 1,479,023 $ 2,145,189 (6,870) 40,479,842 479,377 2,702,783 2,550,818 1,244,756 $ 51,074,918 $ Total Revenue 1,779,953 5,037,164 3,224,451 10,041,568 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED COUNTY COUNSEL TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity CIVIL LEGAL SERVICESPROGRAM Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 1,563,065 $ 99,627 $ Total $ 1,563,065 $ 99,627 $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 9,789 $ 1,672,481 $ 9,789 $ 1,672,481 $ - 407 Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED COUNTY ATTORNEY TOTAL FUNDS Attorney (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Civil Legal Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Civil Legal Services Program is to provide legal advice and representation to County officers, administrators and managers so that they can manage the affairs of the County with the benefit of timely and responsive legal advice and representation. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Community Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community Services Program is to provide a variety of special services and assistance to people in Maricopa County so that the office fulfills its statutory mandates. Key Results: Percent of uncontested adoptions cases completed Percent of victim compensation claims completed Percent of sexually violent predator cases completed FY 00 Actual 97.7 84 FY 01 Actual 82.2 60 FY 02 Actual 87.3 94 FY 03 Projected 91.9 95 40.7 35.8 52 35 Program Name: Employee Training and Development Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Employee Training and Development Program is to provide training, education and career development to MCAO employees so that they can have the training, skills and support necessary to efficiently and effectively perform their job functions. Key Results: Percent of MCAO employees who received training FY 00 Actual 95 FY 01 Actual 88 FY 02 Actual 73 FY 03 Projected 73 Program Name: Prosecution Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Prosecution Program is to provide comprehensive felony, misdemeanor, delinquency and incorrigibility prosecution in the adult and juvenile courts on behalf of the people of Maricopa County so that they can be assured that justice has been served and offenders are held accountable for their criminal or delinquent acts. Key Results: None Reported 408 Attorney (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 39,467,131 $ 38,492,972 $ 40,119,027 $ 39,309,053 $ 42,352,207 Special Revenue $ 6,295,403 $ 7,892,423 $ 8,935,582 $ 10,077,312 $ 10,395,192 $ $ $ $ $ Total 45,762,534 46,385,395 49,054,609 49,386,365 52,747,399 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 39,467,131 $ 6,295,403 $ 45,762,534 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 38,492,972 $ 7,892,423 $ 46,385,395 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 40,119,027 $ 8,935,582 $ 49,054,609 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 39,309,053 $ 10,077,312 $ 49,386,365 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 42,352,207 $ 10,395,192 $ 52,747,399 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Departmental Budget Schedules 409 Attorney (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION County Attorney Powers And Duties, Victims' Bill Of Rights, Crime Victim's Rights, Organized Crime And Fraud, And Juvenile Victim's Rights. Constitutional Article 2-1, Victims' Bill of Rights; A.R.S. § 11-532 Powers and Duties; A.R.S. § 13-4400 et seq. Crime Victim's Rights; A.R.S. § 13-2314.03 County Anti-racketeering Revolving Fund; A.R.S. § 8-381 et seq. Juvenile Victim's Rights. The County Attorney is a constitutional officer. The County Counsel function is one of the original duties of the County Attorney. The Constitution of Arizona was amended by voter initiative to include a "Victims' Bill of Rights" in 1990. A Victims' Rights Implementation Act adding A.R.S. § 13-4400 et seq. was approved by the Legislature in 1991 and took effect in 1992. In 1994, the County anti-racketeering revolving fund was amended to require the County Attorneys Office to administer the fund. In 1995, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1149, which extended the Act to victims of juvenile crime. In 1998, Juvenile Victim's Rights for juvenile offenses were amended. Prosecute Criminal Cases: Attend courts and conduct prosecutions of all misdemeanors in Justice Courts, felonies, delinquencies and incorrigible offenses in Superior Court. Seek arrest warrants from magistrates for persons suspected of committing crimes. Attend and advise Grand Jury. Draw indictments and informations. Inform victims about the progress of the cases and expected outcomes. Represent Board of Supervisors and County in civil matters: Provide written opinions to County officers on legal matters related to their duties. Act as legal advisor to the Board of Supervisors. Act as attorney for school districts and community college districts. Defend all locally valued and assessed property tax appeals. 410 Attorney (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED COUNTY ATTORNEY FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 36,955,728 $ 5,140,619 $ 255,860 $ 42,352,207 $ 12,000 6,584,023 3,511,173 299,996 10,395,192 10,029,568 $ 43,539,751 $ 8,651,792 $ 555,856 $ 52,747,399 $ 10,041,568 $ 43,539,751 $ 8,651,792 $ 555,856 $ 52,747,399 $ 10,041,568 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT COUNTY ATTORNEY FY 2000-01 Actual 6,694,761 2,149,605 342,480 9,186,846 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 35,342,709 $ 245,150 368,801 6,145,473 121,339 (778) 42,222,694 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 855 INTEREST EXPENSE SubTotal $ 1,101,611 $ 47,768 885,831 721,977 2,218,484 (3,805,777) 1,440,656 364,184 498,644 2,229,808 420,277 150 1,126 6,124,739 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 331,420 358,873 16,884 707,176 $ 49,054,609 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (39,867,763) $ 5,832,066 1,875,000 1,962,015 1,248,000 10,917,081 FY 2001-02 Revised $ 37,961,706 $ 21,748 7,293,688 43,923 (3,264,715) 42,056,350 $ 591,966 37,000 517,243 2,058,446 720,152 2,745,297 1,288,145 240,984 528,267 202,062 322,000 58,186 6,000 9,315,748 $ 6,011,808 1,875,000 1,962,015 1,248,000 11,096,823 $ 40,169,297 $ 25,000 16,500 7,492,945 37,096 (4,011,858) 43,728,980 $ $ 846,100 171,648 1,765,777 759,690 2,128,261 1,240,645 271,406 512,385 239,988 369,407 73,561 6,000 86,768 8,471,636 515,057 200,000 211,099 926,156 $ 52,298,254 $ (41,381,173) $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 6,554,737 937,490 2,267,709 82,428 31,998 9,874,362 $ 37,954,917 $ 323,593 20,519 7,183,749 448,136 (4,172,584) 41,758,330 $ $ 1,097,847 34,819 145,646 529,324 2,105,681 2,240,145 1,273,050 241,672 404,818 181,298 250,684 137,005 21,817 8,663,806 455,990 200,000 515,464 1,171,454 $ 53,372,070 $ (42,275,247) $ FY 2002-03 Requested $ 5,699,485 1,875,000 1,912,013 812,000 10,298,498 $ 178,355 232,521 100,000 5,310 516,186 $ 50,938,322 $ (41,063,960) $ $ 39,704,951 $ 15,000 40,000 8,203,504 (4,462,359) 43,501,096 $ 1,399,813 42,000 193,460 490,655 2,232,122 1,874,362 1,254,404 278,070 431,983 600,381 312,524 100,181 3,498 9,213,453 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 5,301,701 1,857,309 879,998 2,002,560 10,041,568 $ (710,107) (17,691) (1,082,017) 754,560 (1,055,255) 39,958,786 $ 38,619 7,862,698 2 (4,700,318) 379,964 43,539,751 $ 210,511 25,000 (22,119) (369,753) 37,094 688,460 (379,964) 189,229 1% 100% -134% -5% 100% 17% (79,336) (41,757) 121,648 1,424,154 (1,459,375) (411,717) 12,317 (28,665) 80,402 65,587 102,430 (55,114) 2,502 86,768 (180,156) -9% $ 925,436 41,757 50,000 341,623 2,219,065 2,539,978 1,228,328 300,071 431,983 174,401 266,977 128,675 3,498 8,651,792 435,000 649,998 99,998 1,184,996 $ 199,998 99,998 255,860 555,856 $ 53,899,545 $ 52,747,399 $ (43,601,047) $ % $ (42,705,831) $ 255,992 100,002 259,604 615,598 -12% -1% -55% 60% -10% 0% 71% 81% -192% -19% 1% -11% 16% 27% 28% -75% 42% 100% -2% 56% 50% 50% 53% 624,671 1% (430,584) -1% 411 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Attorney (Continued) DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 35,392,663 $ 5,040,992 $ 246,071 $ 40,679,726 $ 12,000 6,584,023 3,511,173 299,996 10,395,192 10,029,568 $ 41,976,686 $ 8,552,165 $ 546,067 $ 51,074,918 $ 10,041,568 $ 41,976,686 $ 8,552,165 $ 546,067 $ 51,074,918 $ 10,041,568 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY FY 2000-01 Actual Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ $ 5,832,066 1,875,000 1,962,015 1,248,000 10,917,081 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT SubTotal $ 31,707,158 $ 231,014 355,653 5,550,094 102,512 (778) 37,945,653 $ 33,985,236 15,000 6,576,274 43,923 40,620,433 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 855 INTEREST EXPENSE SubTotal $ 1,002,270 47,768 850,731 631,839 2,218,484 1,099,132 1,190,100 363,961 498,644 2,229,808 393,642 150 1,126 10,527,655 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 412 6,694,761 2,149,605 342,480 9,186,846 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ 575,421 37,000 517,243 2,056,202 720,152 2,628,888 1,264,923 238,600 528,267 202,062 314,988 56,784 6,000 9,146,530 331,420 349,301 16,884 697,604 49,170,912 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 35,749,985 $ 15,000 6,736,800 37,096 (327,796) 42,211,085 $ $ 829,555 171,648 1,763,533 759,690 2,011,852 1,217,423 269,022 512,385 239,988 362,395 72,159 6,000 86,768 8,302,418 $ 480,000 200,000 211,099 891,099 $ 50,658,062 (39,984,066) $ $ 6,011,808 1,875,000 1,962,015 1,248,000 11,096,823 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 34,030,996 $ 307,602 20,367 6,453,919 268,337 (409,746) 40,671,475 $ $ 1,027,847 34,819 145,646 528,474 2,105,681 1,912,349 1,258,421 241,672 402,248 178,298 229,682 129,575 21,517 8,216,229 $ 454,691 200,000 515,464 1,170,155 $ 51,683,658 (39,740,981) $ $ 6,554,737 937,490 2,267,709 82,428 31,998 9,874,362 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 35,387,356 $ 15,000 15,000 7,363,329 (397,781) 42,382,904 $ $ 1,272,526 42,000 193,460 482,655 2,232,122 1,855,362 1,224,404 269,570 431,983 202,750 287,524 95,181 3,498 8,593,035 $ 178,355 214,996 100,000 5,310 498,661 $ 49,386,365 (40,586,835) $ $ 5,699,485 1,875,000 1,912,013 812,000 10,298,498 5,301,701 1,857,309 879,998 2,002,560 10,041,568 $ 35,602,273 $ 13,619 7,048,718 2 (687,926) 41,976,686 $ 147,712 1,381 (311,918) 37,094 360,130 234,399 9% -5% 100% 110% 1% (69,234) (41,757) 121,648 1,422,761 (1,459,375) (509,126) 3,724 (22,549) 80,402 65,587 120,418 (51,516) 2,502 86,768 (249,747) 71% 81% -192% -25% 0% -8% 16% 27% 33% -71% 42% 100% -3% $ $ 435,000 524,998 99,998 1,059,996 $ 199,998 99,998 246,071 546,067 $ 52,035,935 $ 51,074,918 (41,737,437) $ % (710,107) (17,691) (1,082,017) 754,560 (1,055,255) 898,789 41,757 50,000 340,772 2,219,065 2,520,978 1,213,699 291,571 431,983 174,401 241,977 123,675 3,498 8,552,165 (39,512,003) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ -12% -1% -55% 60% -10% 0% -8% $ 254,693 100,002 269,393 624,088 56% 50% 52% 53% $ 608,740 1% (446,515) -1% (41,033,350) $ Attorney (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY FTE TOTAL 55.8 1.0 284.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 52.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 24.0 26.0 87.0 8.0 3.0 99.0 43.0 7.0 31.0 3.0 1.0 65.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 821.3 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADVOCATE APPLICATIONS MANAGER ATTORNEY BUSINESS ANALYST CHIEF ADVOCATE CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF INVESTIGATOR CHIEF PARALEGAL CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST COUNTY ATTORNEY HELP DESK COORDINATOR HELP DESK MANAGER INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR INVESTIGATOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR - LEAD LAN ADMINISTRATOR - SPECIALIST LAN MANAGER LAN TECHNICIAN LEAD TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANALYST LEGAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT - AA LEGAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT - CLERK LEGAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT - DES LEGAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT - RECP LEGAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT - TRAINEE LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST LEGAL SUPPORT SUPERVISOR MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST SUPERVISOR OPERATIONS ANALYST PARALEGAL PC LAN TECHNICIAN PC SUPPORT SPECIALIST PC TECHNICAL WRITER PC TECHNICIAN SENIOR SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER SOFTWARE ENGINEER - CONSULTANT SYSTEM ANALYST II 413 Attorney (Continued) DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 320 COUNTY COUNSEL FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,563,065 $ 99,627 $ 9,789 $ 1,672,481 $ $ 1,563,065 $ 99,627 $ 9,789 $ 1,672,481 $ $ 1,563,065 $ 99,627 $ 9,789 $ 1,672,481 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 320 COUNTY COUNSEL FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 3,635,551 14,136 13,148 595,379 18,827 4,277,041 $ 3,976,470 $ 6,748 717,414 (3,264,715) 1,435,917 $ 4,419,312 $ 25,000 1,500 756,145 (3,684,062) 1,517,895 $ 3,923,921 $ 15,991 152 729,830 179,799 (3,762,838) 1,086,855 $ 4,317,595 $ 25,000 840,175 (4,064,578) 1,118,192 $ 4,356,513 $ 25,000 813,980 (4,012,392) 379,964 1,563,065 $ 62,799 25,000 (23,500) (57,835) 328,330 (379,964) (45,170) 1% 100% -1567% -8% 16,545 2,244 116,409 23,222 2,384 7,012 1,402 169,218 $ 70,000 850 327,796 14,629 2,570 3,000 21,002 7,430 300 447,577 $ 127,287 8,000 19,000 30,000 8,500 397,631 25,000 5,000 620,418 $ 26,647 851 19,000 14,629 8,500 25,000 5,000 99,627 $ (10,102) 1,393 97,409 8,593 (6,116) (17,988) (3,598) 69,591 -61% $ 16,545 2,244 116,409 23,222 2,384 7,012 1,402 169,218 $ 35,057 35,057 $ 1,299 1,299 $ 17,525 17,525 $ 125,000 125,000 $ 9,789 9,789 $ 1,299 (9,789) (8,490) (116,303) $ 1,640,192 $ 1,688,412 $ 1,551,957 $ 1,863,610 $ 1,672,481 $ 15,931 1% (1,672,481) $ 15,931 1% $ 99,341 $ 35,100 90,138 (4,904,909) 250,556 223 26,635 (4,402,916) $ 9,572 9,572 116,303 $ $ (1,640,192) $ $ (1,688,412) $ $ (1,551,957) $ (1,863,610) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 320 COUNTY COUNSEL WORKING TITLE ATTORNEY LEGAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT - AA LEGAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT - CLERK LEGAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT - DES LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST LEGAL SUPPORT SUPERVISOR MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST PARALEGAL TOTAL 414 FTE 37.0 1.0 3.5 10.0 11.0 4.0 1.0 19.0 86.5 9% -3% 62% 84% 37% -257% -257% -257% 41% 100% -654% Board of Supervisors Maricopa County Citizens Board Boardof ofSupervisors Supervisors District 2 - Don Stapley - Chairman District 2 - Don Stapley - Chairman District 1 - Fulton Brock District 1 - Fulton Brock District 3 - Andrew Kunasek District 3 - Andrew Kunasek District 4 - Max W. Wilson District 4 - Max W. Wilson District 5 - Mary Rose Wilcox District 5 - Mary Rose Wilcox Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer Internal Audit The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities. Strategic Priorities ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas in a fiscally responsible manner. Minimize the burden on the property taxpayer through rate reductions. Healthy community and solvent healthcare system. Safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal justice system. Provide regional leadership for a regional transportation system. Land use will be planned, managed and funded responsibly; Luke AFB will be preserved. Maricopa County will continue to improve its positive public image based on results achieved. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ Total $ Personal Services 225,165 225,165 Supplies & Services $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ $ Capital Outlay 2,200 2,200 Total Expenditures $ 237,365 $ 237,365 $ $ Total Revenue - 415 Departmental Budget Schedules Mission Statement Board of Supervisors (Continued) TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ Personal Services 208,311 Total $ 208,311 Supplies & Services $ 29,054 $ $ $ 29,054 Capital Outlay - Total Expenditures $ 237,365 $ Total Revenue - - $ $ - $ Total Revenue - $ - 237,365 Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA $ Personal Services 223,005 Total $ 223,005 Supplies & Services $ 13,560 $ 800 Total Expenditures $ 237,365 $ $ 800 $ $ Total Revenue - $ - 13,560 Capital Outlay 237,365 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA $ Personal Services 209,190 Total $ 209,190 Supplies & Services $ 28,175 $ - Total Expenditures $ 237,365 $ $ - $ $ Total Revenue - $ - 28,175 Capital Outlay 237,365 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA $ Personal Services 221,693 Total $ 221,693 416 Supplies & Services $ 15,672 $ - Total Expenditures $ 237,365 $ $ - $ 15,672 Capital Outlay 237,365 Board of Supervisors (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data (Board of Supervisors) Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 1,023,980 1,017,517 1,056,671 1,041,302 1,186,825 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,023,980 1,017,517 1,056,671 1,041,302 1,186,825 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,023,980 $ 1,023,980 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,017,517 $ 1,017,517 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,056,671 $ 1,056,671 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,041,302 $ 1,041,302 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,186,825 $ 1,186,825 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Departmental Budget Schedules 417 Board of Supervisors (Continued) Mandate Information (Each District Office) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION 418 Board of Supervisors A.R.S. §11-201 Powers of county; A.R.S. §11-251 Powers of board; A.R.S. §11214 Regular and special meetings. There are other statutory references regarding the Board of Supervisors, far too many to detail in this type of report. Everything the Board does is in some way mandated by statute; A.R.S. §11-251 lists some sixty (60) powers and duties of the Board. The Board of Supervisors are also the Board of Directors of the Flood Control District A.R.S. § 48-3602, Library District A.R.S. § 48-3901, and the Stadium District A.R.S. § 48-4202, as well as numerous special districts. The Board of Supervisors is the governing body of Maricopa County with specific statutory duties. Boards of Supervisors in general and Maricopa County jurisdiction boundaries are delineated in A.R.S. § 11-211 and 11-109. The powers of a County shall be exercised only by the Board of Supervisors or by agents and officers acting under its authority and authority of law. Action of the Board of Supervisors shall determine the budgets of all elected and appointed county officers. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held each month as designated by the Board. Special meetings may also be called with appropriate notice. Powers of the Board include, but are not limited to the following: supervise the official conduct of all county officers and officers of all districts; divide the counties into such districts as required by law; establish, abolish, and change election precincts; lay out, maintain, control and manage public roads; provide for the care and maintenance of the indigent sick of the county; cause to be erected and furnished buildings as necessary including jails; sell at public auction property of the county as may be necessary to defray general current expenses thereof; and direct and control prosecution and defense of all actions to which the county is a party. District 1 DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 225,165 $ 10,000 $ 2,200 $ 237,365 $ $ 225,165 $ 10,000 $ 2,200 $ 237,365 $ $ 225,165 $ 10,000 $ 2,200 $ 237,365 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % REVENUE 176,011 37,257 213,268 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING SubTotal $ 1,199 18 1,251 159 3,334 2,374 8,335 - CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 221,603 $ $ $ 182,467 41,210 223,677 $ 1,800 2,100 348 300 20 2,900 1,500 100 9,068 $ - $ (221,603) $ 232,745 $ $ $ 174,344 1,400 37,892 323 213,959 $ $ $ $ 178,113 37,434 9,618 225,165 6,183 $ 932 322 305 (10) 2,971 989 90 11,782 $ $ $ 178,113 37,434 9,618 225,165 $ $ (3,769) 1,400 458 (9,295) (11,206) -2% 100% 1% -2878% -5% 3,700 1,600 400 600 3,100 500 100 10,000 $ 3,700 1,600 400 600 3,100 500 100 10,000 $ 5,521 884 (710) 50 (280) 220 980 105 6,770 60% $ 9,221 884 890 450 320 3,320 1,480 205 16,770 $ $ 2,016 2,016 $ 1,728 1,728 $ 2,200 2,200 $ 2,200 2,200 $ (184) (184) -9% -9% $ 232,745 $ 224,342 $ 237,365 $ 237,365 $ (4,620) -2% (237,365) $ (4,620) -2% (232,745) $ $ 169,787 36,715 4,330 210,832 (232,745) $ (224,342) $ (237,365) $ 100% -80% 11% -88% 7% 66% 51% 40% Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 WORKING TITLE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY - OFFICE MANAGER II TOTAL FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 419 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ District 2 DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 208,311 $ 29,054 $ $ 208,311 $ 29,054 $ $ 208,311 $ 29,054 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 237,365 $ $ 237,365 $ $ 237,365 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % REVENUE EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS $ Departmental Budget Schedules SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ SubTotal $ 142,732 7,931 2,500 28,463 181,626 $ $ 804 3,583 4,443 115 5,018 8,900 22,863 $ $ 204,489 $ 159,468 12,000 32,818 204,286 $ $ 1,500 5,992 947 500 120 9,600 9,500 300 28,459 $ $ 232,745 $ 159,467 12,000 32,819 204,286 $ $ 3,150 3,497 1,347 645 120 9,200 10,200 300 28,459 $ $ 232,745 $ 152,977 4,427 31,692 189,096 $ $ 1,985 2,994 796 432 54 7,649 6,217 156 20,283 $ $ 209,379 $ 160,679 12,000 35,632 208,311 $ $ 160,679 12,000 35,632 208,311 $ $ (1,212) (2,813) (4,025) -1% 0% -9% -2% 5,748 1,347 645 120 9,200 11,694 300 29,054 $ 5,748 1,347 645 120 9,200 11,694 300 29,054 (2,598) 3,497 (1,494) (595) -82% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% -15% 0% -2% $ 237,365 $ 237,365 $ (4,620) -2% (237,365) $ (4,620) -2% CAPITAL OUTLAY Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (204,489) $ (232,745) $ (232,745) $ (209,379) $ (237,365) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 WORKING TITLE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY - OFFICE MANAGER II TOTAL 420 FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 District 3 DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 223,005 $ 13,560 $ 800 $ 237,365 $ $ 223,005 $ 13,560 $ 800 $ 237,365 $ $ 223,005 $ 13,560 $ 800 $ 237,365 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % REVENUE 162,425 4,500 29,653 196,578 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING SubTotal $ 1,243 5,300 1,094 178 2,579 1,839 12,233 - CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 208,811 $ $ $ 174,491 9,600 31,298 215,389 $ 1,200 3,996 1,490 500 120 2,450 7,300 300 17,356 $ - $ (208,811) $ 232,745 $ $ $ 174,890 9,600 30,936 215,426 $ $ $ $ 175,139 9,600 34,336 3,930 223,005 $ $ 175,139 9,600 34,336 3,930 223,005 5,760 1,540 620 120 2,450 2,395 675 13,560 $ $ (249) (3,400) (3,930) (7,579) 0% 0% $ (2,797) 1,931 350 800 2,775 3,059 -94% 100% 19% 0% 0% $ 5,760 1,540 620 120 2,450 2,395 675 13,560 -11% -4% $ 2,963 1,931 1,890 620 120 3,250 5,170 675 16,619 $ 5,411 $ 1,398 818 402 56 (74) 2,661 1,702 567 12,941 $ $ 700 700 $ 600 600 $ 800 800 $ 800 800 $ (100) (100) -14% -14% $ 232,745 $ 217,290 $ 237,365 $ 237,365 $ (4,620) -2% (237,365) $ (4,620) -2% (232,745) $ $ 170,173 2,383 31,193 203,749 (232,745) $ (217,290) $ (237,365) $ 25% 54% 0% 18% Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR TOTAL FTE 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 3.5 421 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ District 4 DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 209,190 $ 28,175 $ $ 209,190 $ 28,175 $ $ 209,190 $ 28,175 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 237,365 $ $ 237,365 $ $ 237,365 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 150,732 5,000 25,581 181,313 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING SubTotal $ 667 5,375 2,453 142 1,849 11,873 22,358 203,671 $ $ $ 156,812 12,500 27,558 196,870 $ 4,455 7,700 2,500 300 120 4,300 16,000 500 35,875 $ 232,745 $ $ $ 162,712 10,422 27,954 201,088 $ $ $ 9,437 7,700 2,500 500 120 4,800 5,000 1,600 31,657 $ $ $ 232,745 $ 148,313 9,192 24,741 182,246 $ $ 160,096 12,500 28,497 8,097 209,190 13,522 $ 3,831 1,293 335 56 (33) 3,022 3,132 515 25,673 $ $ $ 160,096 12,500 28,497 8,097 209,190 $ 2% -20% $ 2,616 (2,078) (543) (8,097) (8,102) 14,955 2,500 500 120 4,300 4,900 900 28,175 $ 14,955 2,500 500 120 4,300 4,900 900 28,175 $ (5,518) 7,700 500 100 700 3,482 -58% 100% 0% 0% 0% 237,365 $ 237,365 $ (4,620) -2% (237,365) $ (4,620) -2% -2% -4% 10% 2% 44% 11% CAPITAL OUTLAY Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (203,671) $ (232,745) $ (232,745) $ 207,919 $ (207,919) $ (237,365) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 WORKING TITLE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY - OFFICE MANAGER II TOTAL 422 FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 District 5 DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 221,693 $ 15,672 $ $ 221,693 $ 15,672 $ $ 221,693 $ 15,672 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 237,365 $ $ 237,365 $ $ 237,365 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % REVENUE 144,468 18,483 4,050 33,958 200,960 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS SubTotal $ 2,703 3,196 3,300 433 2,588 4,917 17,137 218,097 $ $ $ 158,773 7,000 39,962 3,000 208,735 $ 3,000 4,000 3,310 500 100 3,000 9,500 600 24,010 $ 232,745 $ $ $ 158,775 12,859 40,409 750 212,793 $ 5,089 1,152 3,310 793 100 4,700 4,078 700 30 19,952 $ 232,745 $ $ $ 156,632 11,369 39,062 207,063 $ $ $ 159,366 18,000 44,327 221,693 $ 5,556 2,884 1,920 557 48 3,768 2,114 627 17,474 $ 3,000 3,310 793 100 3,000 4,769 700 15,672 $ 224,537 $ 237,365 $ $ 159,366 18,000 44,327 221,693 $ $ (591) (5,141) (3,918) 750 (8,900) 0% -40% -10% 100% -4% $ 3,000 3,310 793 100 3,000 4,769 700 15,672 $ 2,089 1,152 1,700 (691) 30 4,280 41% 100% 0% 0% 0% 36% -17% 0% 100% 21% $ 237,365 $ (4,620) -2% (237,365) $ (4,620) -2% CAPITAL OUTLAY Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (218,097) $ (232,745) $ (232,745) $ (224,537) $ (237,365) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 WORKING TITLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY - OFFICE MANAGER II TOTAL FTE 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 423 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ Clerk of Superior Court Clerk of the Superior Court Clerk of the Superior Court Michael K. Jeanes Michael K. Jeanes Assistant to the Clerk Customer Service Family Support Center Administrative Services Financial Services Mission Departmental Budget Schedules The Mission of the Clerk of the Superior Court (COC) is to provide court related records management, financial, and family support services to the public, the legal community, and the Superior Court so they can have effective access to the legal process. Vision We will excel in service to our customers, and innovation in government. Goals ! ! ! By January 2002, the Clerk of the Superior Court will implement a comprehensive development program to ensure adequate staffing resources are available to significantly reduce major process interruptions, handle continually increasing court activity workload, and meet the escalating service delivery expectations of our internal and external customers. By July 2002, the Clerk of the Superior Court will realize an increase in overall customer satisfaction over the previous year by expanding public and legal community access to court information and services. By July 2002, The Clerk of the Superior Court will implement the initial phase of an electronic document management system to reduce file storage requirements, improve file access, and reduce work processing. Completion of the phase includes replacement of current imaging system, establishing imaging for all active cases, and providing electronic routing and processing. Issues ! ! ! The growing workload demands continue to tax present personnel and facility space resources, resulting in many internal process delays and system breakdowns. Results include high staff turnover rates, particularly in key skill positions; processes dependent on manual efforts require high maintenance to ensure data integrity; and the increasing requirement for facilities to warehouse the continual growth of documentation In addition to the workload volume demands in the issue above, internal customer (court) expectations of improved quality, response time, and completeness of information continue to increase (effectively to have COC provide more / better / faster). External customer requirements of increased accountability and service have become directives through legislative measures, administrative orders, and federal / state mandates. 424 Clerk of Superior Court (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ADMINISTRATIVE / TECHNICAL COURT RECORDS FIDUCIARY SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 373,397 16,501,179 1,211,306 181,734 1,461,542 949,754 4,002,582 24,681,494 Supplies & Services $ 81,392 2,962,168 359,745 12,917 197,229 252,562 768,381 $ 4,634,394 Capital Outlay $ $ 450 165,016 5,547 284 8,662 3,348 31,927 215,234 Total Expenditures $ 455,239 19,628,363 1,576,598 194,935 1,667,433 1,205,664 4,802,890 $ 29,531,122 $ $ Total Revenue 5,564,992 217,567 36,200 144,800 6,706,397 12,669,956 Key Performance Measures Administrative / Technical Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Administrative / Technical Services Program is to provide centralized administrative and technical support services to Clerk's Office divisions and other court departments so they can conduct their business operations in a fiscally responsible manner. Key Results: Percent Improvement in employee turnover rate (Service # 21) FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 26 N/A 22 Program Name: Court Records Program Purpose: The purpose of the Court Record Program is to provide access to the judicial system and related public records to the public, legal community, courts, and County / other governmental agencies so they can pursue legal processes and / or obtain and maintain legal and financial records and information. Key Results: Percent Minute Entries completed within established time standards (Service # 01) Percent Items docketed within established time standards (Service # 06) Percent Records delivered within established time standards (Service #10) Percent Cases microfilmed within established time standards (Service # 33) FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 30 25 25 N/A 45 90 90 N/A 95 100 100 N/A 100 425 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Clerk of Superior Court (Continued) Program Name: Fiduciary Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Fiduciary Services Program is to provide financial account services and fund oversight to the public, legal community, courts and County / other governmental agencies so they can be assured all monies are properly receipted, accounted for, and disbursed. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent Remittances processed within established time standards (Service # 31) Percent Deposits made within established time standards (Service # 32) Percent Reconciliations completed within established time standards (Service # 36) FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 47 52 N/A 75 93 94 N/A 96 85 88 N/A 98 Program Name: Public Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Public Services Activity is to provide access to the public so they can obtain documentation and information to complete applications for certification or licensing. Key Results: Percent Marriage licenses completed within established time standards (Service # 04) Percent Passport applications processed within established time standards (Service # 05) Percent Notary Bond Certificates completed within established time standards (Service # 28) Percent Requests for information completed within established time standards (Service # 17) FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 95 N/A N/A N/A 95 N/A N/A N/A 95 N/A N/A N/A 95 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 17,617,816 18,499,955 19,302,059 19,266,982 21,020,241 Special Revenue $ 1,944,172 $ 3,049,554 $ 4,433,863 $ 6,958,693 $ 8,510,881 $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,561,988 21,549,509 23,735,922 26,225,675 29,531,122 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 17,617,816 $ 1,944,172 $ 19,561,988 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 18,499,955 $ 3,049,554 $ 21,549,509 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 19,302,059 $ 4,433,863 $ 23,735,922 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 19,266,982 $ 6,958,693 $ 26,225,675 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 21,020,241 $ 8,510,881 $ 29,531,122 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 426 Clerk of Superior Court (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY MANDATE DESCRIPTION 427 Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Clerk of the Superior Court Arizona Constitution, Article VI, Section 23 – Superior Court Clerk, Arizona Revised Statutes. Supreme Court Administrative Orders. Local Rules. The Clerk of the Superior Court is an elected office established by the Arizona Constitution, Article VI, Section 23. Prior to 1982, the Clerk of Superior Court was defined as a “county officer.” In Laws 1982, Chapter 168, Section 1 amended A.R.S. Section 11-401 to delete the Clerk of the Superior Court from that statute. The duties of Superior Court Clerks was moved to Title 12 which relates to the courts, recognizing the Clerk as a judicial officer. Duties and responsibilities of this Constitutional Office are prescribed in state statute, court rule, and case law. Supreme Court Administrative Order 93-30 provides that the Presiding Judge may prescribe powers and duties of the Clerk of the Court, in addition to those prescribed by the Supreme Court. State law (A.R.S. 12-283) was further amended to clarify the Clerk authority to manage its own staff and operations. The Clerk of the Court’s Office serves one of the largest and fastest growing counties in the nation. The Clerk of the Superior Court is mandated to be the official record-keeper of the court and acts as a safeguard and processor of all monies collected. The functions of the Clerk of the Court satisfy more than 500 state statutes and court rules, i.e., provide public access to the records of the Superior Court in Maricopa County; attend each Superior Court session to record the actions of the court; be the first stop in initiating any Superior Court action in civil, criminal, probate, juvenile, tax, or family court matters; collect and disburse court-ordered fees, fines, and victim restitution in an expedient manner; provide various family support services to the public; receive, distribute and preserve official court documents; provide minute entries to all parties in a case; keep a docket of all actions and proceedings; process records in juvenile dependency, delinquency, severance, and adoption cases; process applications for certification to adopt and store these confidential records; issue and record marriage licenses; process passport application; and store exhibits for all court cases. Clerk of Superior Court (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 19,650,920 $ 1,316,515 $ 52,806 $ 21,020,241 $ 5,250,000 5,030,574 3,317,879 162,428 8,510,881 7,419,956 $ 24,681,494 $ 4,634,394 $ 215,234 $ 29,531,122 $ 12,669,956 $ 24,681,494 $ 4,634,394 $ 215,234 $ 29,531,122 $ 12,669,956 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 1,330,912 1,013,763 6,479,960 3,011,127 360,309 12,196,071 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 15,567,802 $ 180,858 527,024 3,459,580 24,456 (239,618) 226,759 19,746,861 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ SubTotal $ 1,672,824 10,450 85,471 12,532 853,513 591,614 84,387 259,218 1,362 1,593 3,572,964 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ 105,634 4,294,068 5,202,998 1,615,000 40,172 11,257,872 $ 17,661,864 $ 10,955 359,692 4,464,886 (828,729) 828,729 22,497,397 $ $ 905,838 500 759,784 2,732,002 459,272 102,406 110,715 5,070,517 394,381 21,718 416,099 $ 23,735,924 $ (11,539,853) $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ 105,634 4,294,068 5,202,998 1,615,000 40,172 11,257,872 $ 18,951,523 $ 13,931 219,821 4,559,637 (849,014) 828,729 23,724,627 $ $ 842,149 500 737,109 2,122,291 315,051 54,548 86,879 4,158,527 376,750 140,000 516,750 $ 28,084,664 $ (16,826,792) $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 2,548,378 814,070 5,816,348 3,912,903 31,330 25,255 13,148,284 $ 16,296,064 $ 241,306 292,038 4,239,911 210,236 (554,189) 464,310 21,189,676 $ $ 863,341 10,524 499,041 7,558 875 1,993,425 182,565 380,543 165,790 175,471 315,914 802 4,595,849 376,750 100,000 476,750 $ 28,359,904 $ (17,102,032) $ FY 2002-03 Requested $ 2,567,634 1,216,287 5,804,661 1,616,000 41,954 23,420 11,269,956 $ 19,347,683 $ 30,087 165,464 5,365,176 (887,117) 753,023 24,774,316 $ $ 966,431 1,200 330,483 12,000 1,929,168 157,700 479,493 106,960 113,989 313,562 4,410,986 90,150 350,000 440,150 $ 26,225,675 $ (13,077,391) $ 2331% -72% 38% 0% $ 19,151,852 $ 30,087 165,464 5,056,277 327,814 (887,117) 837,117 24,681,494 $ (200,329) (16,156) 54,357 (496,640) (327,814) 38,103 (8,388) (956,867) -1% -116% 25% -11% -32% -140% 52% $ (272,444) (700) 380,131 (7,558) (87,811) (249,801) 103,364 (52,912) 12,549 (300,685) (475,867) -65% 55% -4% 50,600 50,600 $ 50,000 165,234 215,234 $ 326,750 (65,234) 261,516 29,235,902 $ 29,531,122 $ (1,171,218) (17,965,946) $ FTE 3.0 19.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 % 2,462,000 (3,077,781) 2,001,663 1,000 41,954 (16,752) 1,412,084 $ POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 428 2,567,634 1,216,287 7,204,661 1,616,000 41,954 23,420 12,669,956 1,114,593 1,200 356,978 7,558 2,210,102 249,801 211,687 107,460 74,330 300,685 4,634,394 Position Distribution WORKING TITLE ACCOUNT SERVICING ANALYST ACCOUNT SERVICING SPECIALIST ACCOUNTANT - LEAD ACCOUNTING CLERK ADDITIONS & CORRECTIONS CLERK Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted (16,861,166) $ 240,866 -42% 13% 4% -1% -4% -4% 33% -97% 14% -11% 87% 1% Clerk of Superior Court (Continued) FTE 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 12.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 15.0 1.0 7.0 185.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE RECEPTIONIST ADMINISTRATOR, COURT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR, FAMILY SUPPORT ADMINISTRATOR, JUVENILE SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, PUBLIC RECORDS APPEALS ASSOCIATE APPEALS AUDITOR/TRAINER APPEALS POST-CONVICTION RELIEF CLERK APPEALS TYPIST APPOINTMENT-TRACKING SPECIALIST ASSISTANT TO CLERK OF COURT ASSOCIATE CLERK, ADMIN SERVICES ASSOCIATE CLERK, CUSTOMER SVCS ASSOCIATE CLERK, FAMILY SUPPORT SV ASSOCIATE CLERK, FINANCIAL SERV AUDITOR/TRAINING COORDINATOR AUTO DOCKET/CRIMINAL TEAM LEADER BUSINESS ANALYST CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION SPECIALIST CHILD SUPPORT REPORTING/TRACKING CLERK CIVIL RIGHTS DESK CLERK CLERICAL SUPPORT CLERK CLERK OF THE COURT CLIENT SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST COLLECTIONS OFFICER I COLLECTIONS OFFICER II COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CONFERENCE OFFICER COURT CLERK COURT COURIER COURTROOM CLERK COURTROOM SERVICES TRAINING COORDINATOR COURTROOM SERVICES TRANSCRIBER CRIMINAL CASE PROJECT MANAGER CRIMINAL DIRECT COMPLAINT CLERK CRIMINAL FILING COUNTER CLERK CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION & SYSTEMS SPECIALIST CRIMINAL SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT ASSOCIATE CRIMINAL TEAM ASSOCIATE CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE DATA ENTRY SPECIALIST DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR DEPOSIT CLERK DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES DIRECTOR, CUSTOMER RELATIONS DIRECTOR, DOCUMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GROUP DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT RESOURCES DISBURSEMENT CLERK DISPOSITION CLERK DISPOSITION/ABSTRACT CLERK DISTRIBUTION CLERK DISTRIBUTION TEAM LEADER DOCKET AUDITOR/TRAINING COORD DOCKET SPECIALIST DOCKET SPECIALIST & ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT REP I DOCUMENT MGMT TRAINING/PROJECT SPEC DOCUMENT PREPARATION ASSOCIATE DOCUMENT PREPARATION SPECIALIST DOMESTIC RELATIONS FILE COUNTER SPECIALIST EARLY DISPOSITION CLERK EDM PROJECTS SPECIALIST 1.0 2.0 12.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 20.0 1.0 18.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 429 Clerk of Superior Court (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SPECIALIST EXHIBITS ASSOCIATE EXHIBITS GROUP LEADER EXHIBITS TEAM LEADER FAMILY COURT FILE COUNTER SPECIALIST FILE COUNTER SPECIALIST-FAMILY COURT FILE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATE FILE ROOM ASSOCIATE FILE ROOM ASSOCIATE-EV FILE ROOM COURIER FILING COUNTER SPECIALIST FILING COUNTER SPECIALIST - CIVIL FILING COUNTER SPECIALIST-PROBATE FINANCIAL ANALYST I FINANCIAL BUSINESS COORDINATOR FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR GRAND JURY CLERK INFORMATION SPECIALIST INMATE CORRESPONDENCE SPECIALIST IT DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR ITG HELP DESK COORDINATOR JUVENILE OFFICE ASSOCIATE LEAD LAN ADMINISTRATOR LICENSE SERVICES ASSOCIATE MAILROOM ASSOCIATE MANAGER, ACCOUNTING OPERATIONS MANAGER, APPLICATIONS MANAGER, APPLICATIONS SUPPORT MANAGER, COURTROOM SERVICES MANAGER, CRIMINAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS MANAGER, MICROCOMPUTER TECHNOLOGY MANAGER, OFFICE STAFF MANAGER, TRAINING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT MANAGER,CENTRALIZED SERVICES MICROGRAPHIC TEAM LEADER NOVELL NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR NT ADMINISTRATOR OPERATIONS TEAM LEADER PAYROLL COORDINATOR PC SOFTWARE TECHNICIAN PC SUPPORT SPECIALIST PERSONNEL ASSISTANT PROBATE DOCUMENT CLERK PROCUREMENT COORDINATOR PRODUCTION CONTROL ANALYST PROGRAM ASSISTANT PROGRAMMER ANALYST PROGRAMMER ANALYST TRAINEE PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT SPECIALIST PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER PUBLIC RECORDS ASSOCIATE PUBLIC RECORDS SPECIALIST QUALITY ASSURANCE ANALYST QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITOR QUALITY REVIEW/TRAINING COORDINATOR RECEPTIONIST, EXPEDITED SERVICES RECORDS AUDITOR RECORDS PROCESSOR SECURITY/TELECOMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR SOFTWARE APPLICATION SPECIALIST SOFTWARE SUPPORT SPECIALIST SPECIAL PROJECTS RECORDS PROCESSOR SUN/UNIX SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR SUPERVISOR, APPEALS/DISPOSITION CLERKS SUPERVISOR, CIVIL DOCKET/FILING COUNTER 430 FTE 1.0 1.0 12.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 1.0 32.5 0.5 1.0 10.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 18.0 1.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 14.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 13.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Clerk of Superior Court (Continued) FTE 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 16.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 674.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE SUPERVISOR, COLLECTIONS SUPERVISOR, COURT SERVICES SUPERVISOR, COURTROOM CLERKS SUPERVISOR, DOCKET SERVICES/CRIMINAL FILE COUNTER SUPERVISOR, DOMESTIC RELATIONS FILE COUNTER SUPERVISOR, EXHIBITS/CLASS MATERIAL SUPERVISOR, EXPEDITED SERVICES SUPERVISOR, FILE COUNTER SUPERVISOR, FILE DELIVERY SUPERVISOR, FILE MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR, JUVENILE OFFICE STAFF SUPERVISOR, LICENSE SERVICES SUPERVISOR, MAILROOM SUPERVISOR, PAYROLL/PERSONNEL SUPERVISOR, PUBLIC RECORDS SUPERVISOR, SOUTHEAST COURT OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR, SOUTHEAST FAMILY SUPPORT SUPERVISOR, SUPPORT SERVICES ORDERS SUPERVISOR,DOCUMENT SERVICES SUPERVISOR,FILE ROOM EVENING SUPPORT SERVICES FINANCE SUPPORT SERVICES RESEARCH SPEC SUPPORT SERVICES SPECIALIST SYSTEM CONSULTANT TEAM LEADER TEAM LEADER/QUALITY CONTROL CLERK TRADES GENERALIST TRADES LEAD TRAINING ASSISTANT TRAINING CONSULTANT TRUST DEPOSIT CLERK VOICE COMMUNICATION COORDINATOR WAGE ASSIGNMENT SPECIALIST TOTAL 431 Constables Citizens of Maricopa County Constables Departmental Budget Schedules Constable Joe Arredondo Constable Frank Canez Constable Alfredo Gamez Constable Phillip Hazlett Constable Tony Martineau Constable Joe Reyes Constable John Powers Constable Armando Saldato Jr. Constable Murel Stephens Constable Bill Taylor Constable Bob Weaver Constable Fred Arnett Constable Harrell Boyster Constable Clarice Davis Constable Don Calender Constable Kevin Jones Constable Doug Middleton Constable Frank Outcalt Constable Joe Reyes Constable Carol Sly Constable Bill Stout Constable Amy Travers Constable Annette Clark Constable Administrator Susan Roughan Mission The mission of the Constables is to provide execution of mandated civil and criminal processes to citizens of Maricopa County so they can receive timely, cost effective and professional service. Goals ! ! ! ! By FY 02, the Office of the Constables will be able to train, compensate and retain enough personnel in order to meet the growing demands and needs of increasing population and demographics. By FY 04, the Constables will be fully automated, enabling the interface of court records and documents, ensuring accountability for services and fees. By FY 02, the Constables will increase revenues received from mandated service fees by the addition of surcharges in order to offset increasing operational costs and while maintaining the current level of service. By FY 02, the Constables Administrator will certify that each Constable has received the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training (AZPOST) mandated 24 hour Civil Process Training and will develop an additional eight hours of annual in-service training. Issues ! ! ! Continuing change in population and demographics determines where, how, and when Constables Office services may be provided and at what cost with available personnel. The anticipated improvements in various technology formats will improve the ability of the Office of the Constable to improve accountability for services and fees. Increasing operational cost due to mandated services, without increasing resources will decrease the department's ability to provide professional and timely service. 432 Constables (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED CONSTABLES TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity COMM/PUBLIC RELATIONS PROG. SERVICE OF PROCESS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 303,243 $ 7,023 $ 967,455 2,325 199,471 20,942 46,033 26,751 Total $ 1,516,202 $ 57,041 $ Capital Outlay - Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 310,266 $ 220,002 969,780 879,998 220,413 72,784 $ 1,573,243 $ 1,100,000 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Community/Public Relations Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community/Public relations Program is to provide/share information, resources and assistance to local community, general public and private agencies so they can better address their specific needs. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 N/A 98 Program Name: Service of Process Program Purpose: The purpose of the Service of Process Program is to provide the distribution of court documents to public and governmental agencies so they can proceed with litigation. Key Results: Writs of Restitution are served within five working days Writs of Execution are served withing sixty days of issue FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 N/A 3 0 0 N/A 40 433 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent Of public/private organizations receive information and assistance within specified time requested Constables (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,438,872 $ 1,473,894 $ 1,482,054 $ 1,517,989 $ 1,573,243 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,438,872 1,473,894 1,482,054 1,517,989 1,573,243 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,438,872 $ 1,438,872 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,473,894 $ 1,473,894 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,482,054 $ 1,482,054 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,517,989 $ 1,517,989 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,573,243 $ 1,573,243 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 434 Constables A.R.S. § 22-101 Justice Precincts; A.R.S. § 22-102 Officers and Term of Office; A.R.S. § 22-131 Powers and Duties; A.R.S. § 22-132 Expenses The Constables were among the original elected County officers. The law provides for establishment of Justice precincts in each county. The officers of a justice precinct are the Justice of the Peace and the Constable. The Board of Supervisors can establish, change or abolish justice precincts, but cannot abolish them until the end of the term of the Justice of the Peace and Constable. The Board of Supervisors sets Constables' salaries within specific ranges according to the number of registered voters in the precincts (A.R.S. § 11-424.01). The Constables are mandated to: 1) Attend Justice Courts when required. 2) Execute, serve and return all processes and notices directed or delivered to them by a Justice of the Peace of the county or by other competent authority. Constables (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 250 CONSTABLES FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 1,516,202 $ 57,041 $ $ 1,516,202 $ 57,041 $ $ 1,516,202 $ 57,041 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,573,243 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,573,243 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,573,243 $ 1,100,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 250 CONSTABLES FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted 619,842 251 620,092 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 1,178,822 9,573 11,130 201,098 174 1,400,797 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING SubTotal $ 5,870 25,524 145 3,931 25,959 19,827 81,257 $ 1,482,054 $ $ $ $ $ 509,872 509,872 1,224,324 10,221 2,160 221,466 1,458,171 6,179 25,168 4,545 26,150 3,740 17,313 83,095 1,541,266 $ $ $ 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,224,322 10,221 2,160 221,478 1,458,181 $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 5,219 24,118 4,545 21,050 740 17,313 72,985 $ $ $ 1,531,166 $ 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,220,030 10,171 227,120 1,457,321 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ 3,100 $ 22,878 1,000 1,000 (453) 21,919 11,224 60,668 $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,229,144 10,283 249,971 2,732 1,492,130 $ $ 1,100,000 1,100,000 $ $ - % 0% 0% $ 1,229,061 252,376 34,765 1,516,202 0% 100% 100% -14% $ (4,739) 10,221 2,160 (30,898) (34,765) (58,021) 3,100 22,878 2,533 1,000 (452) 21,919 18,840 69,818 $ 3,100 22,878 1,079 1,000 21,919 7,065 57,041 2,119 1,240 3,466 (1,000) (869) (6,325) 17,313 15,944 41% 5% $ 1,573,243 $ (42,077) -3% (473,243) $ (42,077) -10% -4% 76% -4% -855% 100% 22% CAPITAL OUTLAY Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (861,961) $ (1,031,394) $ (431,166) $ 1,517,989 $ (417,989) $ 1,561,948 $ (461,948) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 250 CONSTABLES WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR I CONSTABLE DEPUTY CONSTABLE PROCESS SERVER FTE TOTAL 1.0 23.0 4.0 2.0 30.0 435 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Revised Recorder Recorder Recorder Helen Purcell, County Recorder Helen Purcell, County Recorder Micrographics Administration Public Records Mailout Recorder’s Information System Document Processing Southeast Office Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Recorders Office is to maintain a perpetual, comprehensive set of public records consisting of all documents appropriately presented for recording for the public so that any member of the public can readily access the information to conduct their personal and business activities with the assurance that, where appropriate, privacy will be protected and that their transactions were executed in accordance with the law. Vision Our vision is to be the most productive recording office with the best customer service and the best solutions for recording documents and accessing public records. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! Increase the percentage of recording and retrieval of documents by individual citizens by 20% by 2004. Increase the percentage of recording and retrievals of documents from offsite locations by corporate clients by 25% by 2003. By 2001, have a plan in place to selectively block information from public viewing and to inform the public of our policies. Implement the plan by 2002. Reduce the complaints about the need to visit multiple County offices by 50% by 2002. Input legal descriptions, parcel #s and addresses on all recordings and make that data available to the public in a searchable format by 2005. Reduce the space needed for document storage by 50% by 2004. Issues ! ! ! Our sprawling population demanding easier commutes for recording and access to records will challenge the department to develop satellite facilities over the next few years. The customers’ demand to accept digital signatures in lieu of handwritten signatures on recorded documents will challenge the Department’s ability to set up security and authenticity procedures needed to verify the digital signature. The public demand for exclusion of personal data from the Internet versus the requirement that recording be public will need a creative solution. 436 Recorder (Continued) ! ! ! ! For the convenience of the public, we need to create an adequate floor plan encompassing representatives from the Assessor and Treasurer, making the office customer friendly, and eliminating the need for customers to go from floor to floor. With customer expectations rising, the department will need the ability and workforce to deliver more data, increasing the usefulness of the information to the customer. Storage of records will become an internal issue due to the scarcity of storage space, creating the need for an external plan coordinated with the State Archivist and for new legislation. Pressure by customers for streamlined information will require more communication and sharing of information between the Recorder’s, Assessor’s and Treasurer’s Offices. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RECORDER TOTAL FUNDS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 1,187,774 $ 884,490 $ 374,148 10,006 1,640,210 2,001,427 43,808 139,615 Total $ 3,245,940 $ 3,035,538 $ Capital Outlay 335,000 335,000 Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 2,072,264 $ 384,154 3,976,637 183,423 11,644,388 $ 6,616,478 $ 11,644,388 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Recorder’s Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Recorders program is to maintain a perpetual, comprehensive set of public records consisting of all documents appropriately presented for recording for the public so that any member of the public can readily access the information to conduct their personal and business activities with the assurance that, where appropriate, privacy will be protected and that their transactions were executed in accordance with the law. Key Results: The percentage of documents presented over the counter which are recorded on the same day Percentage of documents recorded returned within ten business days The percentage of documents presented for scanning which are scanned by the end of the next day The percentage of all copy requests of fewer than 10 pages completed within one hour and of all larger requests completed within 24 hours FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 100 100 100 100 0 0 29.51 90 0 0 100 100 0 0 99.88 99.5 437 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Activity RECORDER'S PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Recorder (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,612,556 $ 1,771,304 $ 1,609,897 $ 1,838,424 $ 1,870,954 Special Revenue $ 3,946,633 $ 4,703,406 $ 3,870,543 $ 4,315,997 $ 4,745,524 $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,559,189 6,474,710 5,480,440 6,154,421 6,616,478 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,612,556 $ 3,946,633 $ 5,559,189 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,771,304 $ 4,703,406 $ 6,474,710 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,609,897 $ 3,870,543 $ 5,480,440 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,838,424 $ 4,315,997 $ 6,154,421 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,870,954 $ 4,745,524 $ 6,616,478 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 438 Office Of The County Recorder A.R.S. §§ 11-461 through 11-483 County Recorder. The Office of the County Recorder and its records date back to 1871 during the territorial days. However, the office, duties, powers, and qualifications of the County Recorder as they exist today were created in 1910 by Article XII § 3 of the State Constitution. The Recorder is mandated to record, index, and preserve certain documents as a permanent public record. The recorder is also required to register all voters, maintain voter registration rolls and perform election-related duties. Recorder (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 360 RECORDER FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,544,261 $ 326,693 $ $ 1,870,954 $ 8,000,000 1,701,679 2,708,845 335,000 4,745,524 3,644,388 $ 3,245,940 $ 3,035,538 $ 335,000 $ 6,616,478 $ 11,644,388 $ 3,245,940 $ 3,035,538 $ 335,000 $ 6,616,478 $ 11,644,388 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 360 RECORDER FY 2000-01 Actual 11,659,381 1,043,379 12,702,760 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 2,073,513 12,998 57,941 411,517 820 2,556,789 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS $ SubTotal $ 539,701 252,388 84 774,012 22,286 126,026 41,231 31,628 1,333 1,156 1,789,845 SubTotal $ $ $ $ 2,439,093 46,145 560,413 8,000 3,053,651 $ 1,410,687 575,000 1,120,154 25,400 83,660 10,100 210,850 235,000 1,850 3,672,701 1,133,808 1,133,808 $ Total Expenditures $ 5,480,442 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 7,222,318 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $ 9,472,800 901,839 10,374,639 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 10,961,313 909,868 11,871,181 2,779,018 37,007 609,038 8,000 3,433,063 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 13,378,138 92,671 820,298 14,291,107 2,388,421 112,636 34,162 534,144 14,456 3,083,819 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ 9,509,800 111,588 759,000 10,380,388 $ 2,533,949 7,684 20,000 712,739 8,000 3,282,372 1,587,249 $ 152 165,619 711,461 21,407 78,354 13,600 31,949 229,620 1,242 (121) 2,840,532 $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 10,773,800 111,588 759,000 11,644,388 % (187,513) 111,588 (150,868) (226,793) -17% -2% $ 254,916 (7,684) 17,007 (77,116) 187,123 46% -13% 0% 5% $ $ 2,524,102 7,684 20,000 686,154 8,000 3,245,940 $ 1,850,778 160,000 638,207 5,400 108,750 11,400 69,850 189,653 1,500 3,035,538 $ 1,850,778 160,000 638,207 5,400 108,750 11,400 69,850 189,653 1,500 3,035,538 $ (440,091) 415,000 102,535 20,000 (25,090) (1,300) 141,000 45,347 350 257,751 -2% 9% $ 1,410,687 575,000 740,742 25,400 83,660 10,100 210,850 235,000 1,850 3,293,289 -31% $ 410,000 410,000 $ 410,000 410,000 $ 230,070 230,070 $ 335,000 335,000 $ 335,000 335,000 $ 75,000 75,000 18% 18% $ 7,136,352 $ 7,136,352 $ 6,154,421 $ 6,652,910 $ 6,616,478 $ 519,874 7% $ 3,238,287 $ 4,734,829 $ 8,136,686 $ 3,727,478 $ 5,027,910 $ 293,081 6% 72% 14% 79% -30% -13% 67% 19% 19% 8% 439 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Recorder (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 360 RECORDER Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III COMPUTER OPERATOR III COMPUTER SYSTEM OPERATIONS MANAGER I DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY - OFFICE MANAGER II INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR INTEGRATED SYSTEMS DESIGN ANALYST II INTERNET PROGRAMER ANALYST LAN SUPPORT ADMINISTRATOR LEAD COMPUTER OPERATOR LEAD INTEGRATED SYSTEM DESIGN ANALYST LEAD PROGRAMMER-ANALYST LEAD SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER MICROGRAPHIC TECHNICIAN OFFICE SUPERVISOR II PRODUCTION CONTROL ANALYST PROJECT LEADER PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT MANAGER, APPLICATIONS RECORDER RECORDER CHIEF DEPUTY RECORDING SUPERVISOR RECORDS PROCESSOR SENIOR CLIENT SERVER PROGRAMER SENIOR COMPUTER OPERATOR SENIOR PROGRAMMER ANALYST SYSTEMS SOFTWARE CONSLTNT WEB AUTHOR TOTAL 440 FTE 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 30.8 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 69.8 Sheriff’s Office Sheriff Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, County Sheriff Office of Public Information Intergovernmental Liaison Chief of Operations Administration Financial Management Administration Management Technology Management Special Operations Criminal Investigations Criminal Intelligence Professional Standards Patrol ICJIS Agency Chief of Custody Custody Support Custody Programs Custody Operations Mission Goals • • • • • • • By FY 2004, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office will achieve 100% staffing of current Detention positions and 85% of support staff positions, while maintaining Enforcement staff levels. Additionally, all required positions for opening the new jail will be hired, trained and ready to report according to established schedules. Based on baseline data to be available in Spring 2003, reduce the response time to Priority 1 calls over the next 2-5 years in areas served by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office through innovative detention (jail intelligence and crimes unit) and enforcement strategies. Based on baseline data to be available in Spring 2003, increase the clearance rate for violent crimes over next 2-5 years through innovative investigation, Enforcement and Detention (jail intelligence and crimes unit) strategies. Within the next 2 fiscal years, the MCSO will reduce work -related injuries and illnesses from FY 2002 levels. Within the next 4 fiscal years, the MCSO will significantly reduce identified criminal activity in response to neighborhood requests and concerns, such as: Drug activity; prostitution activity; mall patrol; animal abuse; DUI task force; and selected traffic environment. The Sheriff’s Office will always meet constitutional standards for care, custody and control of inmates as well as a safe environment for staff. To the extent County funding is made available, within the next 3 fiscal years, the MCSO competitiveness of its compensation and benefits packages for all classifications will be increased from FY 2002 levels so they become within 10% of regional law enforcement average. 441 Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) is to provide law enforcement, detention and crime prevention services to the public so they can be safe and secure in our community. Sheriff’s Office (Continued) Issues • • • • Departmental Budget Schedules • MCSO pay and benefits are less than those of other law enforcement agencies. As a result, MCSO has experienced difficulty in recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce, which could affect our ability to staff new jail facilities, maintain safety and security in jail facilities, reduce crime, and contain liability exposure. The MCSO’s desire to provide high quality service that meets the needs and expectations of our citizens sometimes seems at odds with County management’s policies and funding decisions. This has resulted in political in-fighting and a rising concern that we cannot meet the demands and needs of the citizens. The MCSO is challenged to maintain and constantly improve its technical skills and tools in order to keep pace with evolving technical sophistication with corresponding law enforcement agencies. Operation Homeland Security (following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001) has increased expectations for MCSO to provide traditional and non-traditional services within its current budget appropriation. As new jail facilities come on line over the next decade, a 40% increase in jail population will require a substantial increase in staff (60-80%) and ancillary services. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED SHERIFF TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity CUSTODY MANAGEMENT CENTRALIZED MCSO OPERATIONS COMMUNITY SERVICES ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 1,241,928 5,594,131 1,100,067 16,789,727 10,524,991 1,573,123 630,130 15,428,998 52,883,095 Supplies & Services $ 25,429 1,631,805 78,570 1,177,854 614,438 215,783 190,721 6,560,258 $ 10,494,858 Capital Outlay $ $ 292,163 139,251 431,414 Total Expenditures $ 1,267,357 7,518,099 1,178,637 17,967,581 11,139,429 1,788,906 820,851 22,128,507 $ 63,809,367 $ $ Total Revenue 61,702 3,148,537 531,324 239,512 53,340 5,120,157 9,154,572 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED SHERIFF DETENTION TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity COST ABATEMENT CUSTODY MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES INMATE SERVICES UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ 442 Personal Services 2,786,994 48,697,215 1,192,764 6,244,432 4,538 58,925,943 Supplies & Services $ 1,778,390 4,788,668 8,515 8,203,217 77,573 $ 14,856,363 Capital Outlay $ $ 1,719,782 753,441 165,000 2,638,223 Total Expenditures $ 4,565,384 55,205,665 1,201,279 15,201,090 247,111 $ 76,420,529 $ $ Total Revenue 15,221,687 9,510,624 56,800 24,789,111 Sheriff’s Office (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Centralized Mcso Operations Program Purpose: The purpose of the Centralized MCSO Operations is to provide a qualified and productive workforce (detention, enforcement and civilian), legal and loss prevention services to Sheriff’s Command staff so they can achieve their goals in compliance with all legal standards. Key Results: Employee Performance Enhancement - Percent of employees that meet performance standards Percent of retirement packets prepared for the boards within one month of hire date FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 99 99 N/A N/A 88.73 95 Community Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community Services Program is to provide crime prevention information to the general public and increase public involvement so that they can be more aware of public safety issues and can better protect themselves from criminal elements. Key Results: Percent of volunteer cost vs. compensated deputy cost for public safety services FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 6 6 Program Name: Cost Abatement Program Purpose: The purpose of the Cost Abatement Program is to provide inmate labor services to MCSO and various agencies so that they can provide necessary services at a reduced or no cost to the public. Key Results: Percent of meal cost subsidized by donated food Percent of total labor costs at no cost to the County FY 00 Actual N/A N/A FY 01 Actual N/A N/A FY 02 Actual N/A 100 FY 03 Projected 40 100 Program Name: Custody Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Custody Management Program is to provide a safe and secure environment to inmates and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office staff so that the inmates can be properly and expeditiously processed through the system. Key Results: Percent of inmates who make their appointment FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual N/A FY 02 Actual 100 FY 03 Projected 100 443 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Sheriff’s Office (Continued) Program Name: Enforcement Program Purpose: The purpose of the Enforcement Program is to provide law enforcement response and preventative services to the general public within Maricopa County so that they feel safe and secure in the community. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of arrests completed in compliance with pertinent laws Percent of requested missions completed Percent of zero injury incidents Percent of incidents that are resolved within acceptable standards Percent of incidents where MCSO employees are injured while using new equipment FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 92 100 92.7 100 N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A 0 0 Program Name: Inmate Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Inmate Services Program is to provide mandated programs -education, behavior modification, and health -- and other services to inmates so that they can gain basic skills and knowledge to become more productive members of society. Key Results: Percent of program graduates that do not return to jail within two years Percent of juvenile inmates participating in Hard Knocks High FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 83.75 N/A N/A N/A 94 94 Program Name: Investigative Program Purpose: The purpose of the Investigative Program is to provide investigative reports and evidence collection services for prosecuting agencies so the prosectuion has sufficient information to decide legal actions. Key Results: None Reported Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 96,210,610 34,873,554 39,261,813 37,767,028 37,139,909 Special Revenue $ 15,233,122 $ 72,446,126 $ 88,924,310 $ 94,485,790 $ 101,384,205 Capital Projects $ 2,806,315 $ $ $ 1,299,061 $ 1,705,782 $ $ $ $ $ Total 114,250,047 107,319,680 128,186,123 133,551,879 140,229,896 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 96,210,610 34,873,554 39,261,813 37,767,028 37,139,909 Special Revenue $ 15,233,122 $ 72,446,126 $ 88,924,310 $ 94,485,790 $ 101,384,205 Capital Projects $ 2,806,315 $ $ $ 1,299,061 $ 1,705,782 $ $ $ $ $ Total 114,250,047 107,319,680 128,186,123 133,551,879 140,229,896 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 444 Sheriff’s Office (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY MANDATE DESCRIPTION 445 Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Sheriff's Office – Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the County A.R.S §11-441 Powers and duties; A.R.S. §11-444 Expenses of sheriff as county charge; expense fund; A.R.S. §31-101, Common jails; duty of sheriff; use of jails; A.R.S. §31-121, Duty of Sheriff to receive and provide for prisoners; contracts for furnishing food; city or town prisoners; employment; A.R.S. §31-122; Receiving and keeping federal prisoners; Hart v. Hill amended Judgement; Arnold v. Sarn; Prop 102 Juvenile/Adult Special Education; A.R.S § 15-913.01 Juvenile Education; A.R.S §36-3701 to 36-3716, Sexually Violent Persons. The Primary focus for the Sheriff's law enforcement activities has been the unincorporated areas of the County and those cities and towns that contract for service. The population of the unincorporated areas has grown as quickly as Phoenix, Tempe and other large cities. The changing characteristics of that population affect the demand for service. The Sheriff has called on his Reserve Officers and the Posse members, which numbers over 3,000, to assist in the keeping the citizens of Maricopa County safe. The County jail population has grown steadily over the years. The 1981 Hart v. Hill judgement placed more stringent standards on housing of pre-sentenced prisoners. The Sheriff as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the county shall preserve the peace. Arrest and take before a magistrate all persons suspected of committing crimes. "Prevent or suppress all affrays, breaches of peace, riots, and insurrections which may come to the knowledge of the Sheriff." Provide security in Superior Court when requested by the presiding judge. Serve Processes. "Take charge of and keep the county jail, including a county jail under the jurisdiction of a county jail district, and the prisoner therein." Receive all persons committed by competent authority and provide food, clothing, and bedding at cost to the county. May charge cities and town for inmates detained solely for violations of city or town ordinances. Accept federal prisoners, and the Sheriff may obtain reimbursement from the federal government. Transport and maintain prisoners for appearance as witnesses. Sheriff’s Office (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED SHERIFF FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 32,971,166 $ 3,876,580 $ 292,163 $ 37,139,909 $ 4,094,415 78,837,872 21,474,641 1,071,692 101,384,205 29,849,268 1,705,782 1,705,782 $ 111,809,038 $ 25,351,221 $ 3,069,637 $ 140,229,896 $ 33,943,683 $ 111,809,038 $ 25,351,221 $ 3,069,637 $ 140,229,896 $ 33,943,683 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT SHERIFF Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 71,425 4,752,393 15,131,180 3,226,178 68,960 6,416,449 77,145 29,743,730 FY 2001-02 Adopted -4% 12% 54% -12% 62% 9% 1% 1% SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES SubTotal $ 7,840,442 59,424 1,520,517 1,148,721 95,366 18,559 3,157,589 2,912,036 2,048,344 539,388 1,050,944 218,750 53,922 296,050 20,960,052 -41% 28% 22% -47% 24% -136% 33% -32% 2% $ (3,333,637) 19,694 311,302 (138,075) 20,258 (120,512) 1,369,375 (632,031) 23,342 410,099 138,921 (515,515) 6,664 (94,763) (2,534,878) CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 81,326 1,640,400 18,308 18,051 1,758,085 Total Expenditures $ 128,186,131 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 446 $ $ 7,385,002 77,190 1,443,160 292,417 40,700 89,710 3,421,433 1,689,776 1,565,750 3,875,959 842,048 56,487 8,864 106,998 20,895,494 $ 9,592 221,860 122,000 591,000 944,452 $ 130,579,426 (98,442,401) $ $ $ 8,190,011 70,590 1,443,160 292,417 84,618 88,920 4,131,079 1,997,663 1,546,947 3,875,959 832,149 56,384 6,664 199,782 22,816,343 $ 9,592 221,860 122,000 591,000 944,452 (97,398,777) $ $ 9,677,839 55,817 1,239,802 476,782 122,335 7,328 1,826,800 1,705,806 1,721,470 19,689 3,636,789 797,838 465,358 14,850 306,714 22,075,217 $ 18,381 273,468 1,248 1,195,378 1,488,475 $ 11,900,176 50,896 1,167,338 3,996,925 64,360 206,488 3,636,639 2,437,335 1,523,605 3,735,692 1,181,228 511,459 294,545 30,706,686 $ 3,978,325 6,870,585 269,038 806,207 11,924,155 15% 47% -7% $ $ 1,819,782 662,897 136,048 450,910 3,069,637 $ (1,810,190) -18872% (441,037) -199% (14,048) -12% 140,090 24% (2,125,185) -225% $ 140,229,896 $ (4,074,797) -3% (99,581,771) $ (100,401,616) $ (122,903,351) $ (106,286,213) $ (6,704,442) -7% $ 133,458,401 $ -24% -17% 11,523,648 50,896 1,131,858 430,492 64,360 209,432 2,761,704 2,629,694 1,523,605 3,465,860 693,228 571,899 294,545 25,351,221 $ 136,155,099 $ $ 53,970 6,706,367 17,934,302 416,682 68,896 47,200 8,716,266 33,943,683 % (3,081,857) 83,763 1,635,359 (2,493,383) 3,067,999 1,213,666 159,719 585,266 $ 53,970 5,219,265 17,633,897 440,572 68,896 47,200 9,007,948 32,471,748 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 81,793,898 $ 80,605,768 $ 83,707,699 $ 84,797,898 $ 83,519,605 $ 86,789,556 $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 758,644 815,824 692,037 581,439 737,037 608,274 710 OVERTIME 5,889,849 3,002,570 3,022,762 1,490,028 2,972,052 1,387,403 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 17,456,960 21,197,701 20,586,257 20,727,676 23,742,267 23,079,640 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 223,540 3,674,695 4,942,628 3,387,198 2,330,340 1,874,629 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT (13,669,328) (16,392,699) (14,235,894) (14,265,539) (15,576,178) (15,449,560) 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN 13,014,431 15,835,621 13,678,815 13,176,009 15,019,135 13,519,096 SubTotal $ 105,467,994 $ 108,739,480 $ 112,394,304 $ 109,894,709 $ 112,744,258 $ 111,809,038 $ $ 48,700 6,395,456 18,187,152 372,007 64,958 68,697 7,919,815 33,056,785 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ 8,858,762 21,732,810 60,000 5,921,756 36,573,328 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act 53,970 (2,152,395) (3,798,508) 416,682 8,896 47,200 2,794,510 (2,629,645) $ 5,471,639 21,732,810 60,000 5,916,200 33,180,649 FY 2001-02 Revised $ 155,375,099 11% 17% -914% 100% -47% -11% Sheriff’s Office (Continued) DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 500 SHERIFF FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 32,971,166 $ 3,876,580 $ 292,163 $ 37,139,909 $ 4,094,415 19,911,929 6,618,278 139,251 26,669,458 5,060,157 $ 52,883,095 $ 10,494,858 $ 431,414 $ 63,809,367 $ 9,154,572 $ 52,883,095 $ 10,494,858 $ 431,414 $ 63,809,367 $ 9,154,572 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 500 SHERIFF FY 2000-01 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 71,425 3,560,504 3,226,178 434,637 77,145 7,369,889 38,050,600 $ 522,528 2,882,113 8,231,686 115,566 (13,045,880) 13,014,431 49,771,044 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES SubTotal $ 2,388,843 17,274 1,519,511 847,572 93,283 10,836 1,027,953 1,961,179 1,359,711 533,137 696,343 8,574 873 112,651 10,577,740 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ 4,410,255 3,014,810 216,200 7,641,265 $ 37,000,323 $ 581,990 2,381,533 8,959,735 2,449,529 (14,551,022) 14,551,022 51,373,110 $ $ 1,967,571 39,218 886,675 242,417 39,300 7,180 857,522 1,503,811 989,199 642,161 793,538 35,006 8,396 75,803 8,087,797 77,993 1,382,658 18,308 1,478,959 $ 61,827,743 $ (54,457,854) $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ 6,911,413 3,014,810 221,756 10,147,979 $ 39,695,261 $ 501,718 2,227,201 9,177,694 2,936,362 (12,455,416) 12,394,216 54,477,036 $ $ 3,619,092 32,618 876,938 242,417 83,218 6,390 1,239,750 1,572,751 975,591 642,161 785,738 34,904 6,196 74,703 10,192,467 96,000 70,000 591,000 757,000 $ 60,217,907 $ (52,576,642) $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 48,700 4,665,132 3,067,001 372,007 12,457 479,738 8,645,035 $ 39,854,584 $ 434,667 1,069,068 9,199,204 1,581,434 (12,725,321) 12,100,827 51,514,463 $ $ 2,444,148 18,613 926,855 405,402 123,137 3,056 730,959 1,343,182 1,034,850 19,689 501,629 773,264 58,562 777 143,428 8,527,551 96,000 70,000 591,000 757,000 $ 65,426,503 $ (55,278,524) $ FY 2002-03 Requested $ 53,970 4,109,919 3,148,132 440,572 400 482,908 8,235,901 $ 273,468 1,248 1,195,378 1,470,094 $ 61,512,108 $ (52,867,073) $ $ 40,483,889 $ 501,718 2,176,759 10,586,100 822,426 (13,768,444) 13,734,536 54,536,984 $ 3,736,260 22,640 802,826 197,778 63,660 1,330,859 2,114,767 1,198,628 422,449 893,780 54,848 156,927 10,995,422 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 53,970 5,043,757 3,448,537 416,682 400 191,226 9,154,572 % $ 53,970 (1,867,656) 433,727 416,682 400 (30,530) (993,407) -10% 40,672,231 $ 462,924 892,820 10,126,324 822,427 (13,612,727) 13,519,096 52,883,095 $ (976,970) 38,794 1,334,381 (948,630) 2,113,935 1,157,311 (1,124,880) 1,593,941 -2% 8% 60% -10% 72% 9% -9% 3% 19% 31% 18% 29% 24% 100% -64% -31% -23% $ 679,852 9,978 154,175 70,187 19,558 6,373 (791,891) (482,284) (223,037) 219,712 130,958 (19,944) 6,196 (82,224) (302,391) 34% 17% -57% 100% -110% -3% 100% 100% 27% 43% -27% 14% -14% $ 2,939,240 22,640 722,763 172,230 63,660 17 2,031,641 2,055,035 1,198,628 422,449 654,780 54,848 156,927 10,494,858 115,500 72,800 792,207 980,507 $ 431,414 431,414 $ 96,000 70,000 159,586 325,586 66,512,913 $ 63,809,367 $ 1,617,136 2% (54,654,795) $ 623,729 1% (58,277,012) $ 447 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Sheriff’s Office (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 500 SHERIFF Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT I ACCOUNTANT II ACCOUNTANT III ACCOUNTANT IV ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR I ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR V ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR VI ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT MANAGER ADMINISTRATOR I ADMINISTRATOR II ADMINISTRATOR III AFIS SUPERVISOR AVIATION MECHANIC BUSINESS ANALYST LEAD CAPTAIN CENTRAL STORE DISTRIBUTOR CHIEF ARCHITECT CHIEF AVIATION MECHANIC CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CHIEF OPERATIONS CLERK III CLERK IV CLIENT SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST-LEAD COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS MANAGER COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR COMPUTER OPERATIONS MANAGER COMPUTER OPERATOR COMPUTER OPERATOR-SENIOR COUNSELOR III CRIME LAB ANALYST I CRIME LAB ANALYST II DATA ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF DETENTION IDENTIFICATION TECHNICIAN DETENTION OFFICER DETENTION OFFICER CAPTAIN DETENTION OFFICER LIEUTENANT DETENTION OFFICER SERGEANT DIRECTOR DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMMER ANALYST-LEAD ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SPECIALIST FACILITIES PROJECT COORDINATOR II FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ANALYST FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR III FINGERPRINT ANALYST FINGERPRINT UNIT MANAGER GIS DATA MANAGER HELP DESK COORDINATOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS HELP DESK COORDINATOR - SENIOR INVENTORY CONTROL MANAGER 448 FTE 9.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 17.0 23.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 10.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 1.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 19.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 7.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 413.0 2.0 97.5 3.0 6.0 12.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Sheriff’s Office (Continued) FTE 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 30.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE INVESTIGATOR SUPERVISOR IT CONSULTANT LAN SUPPORT ADMINISTRATOR LEAD BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANLYST LIEUTENANT MAINFRAME PROGRAMMER/ANALYST MAJOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST IV MATERIALS HANDLING SPECIALIST MECHANIC II MEDIA PRODUCTION SPECIALIST MICRO TECH MGR PC SUPPORT SPECIALIST PC TECH SUPPORT PC/OFFICE MANAGER PILOT POLICY ANALYST POLYGRAPH EXAMINER POLYGRAPH EXAMINER SUPERVISOR PRODUCTION CONTROL ANALYST PROGRAM ANALYST PROGRAMMER PROJECT MANAGER PSYCHOLOGIST I PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT COORDINATOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS MANAGER SECRETARY SERGEANT SERVICE WORKER I SERVICE WORKER III SHERIFF SHERIFF CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF'S EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT SHERIFF'S FUND ADMINISTRATOR SHERIFF'S PROPERTY CUSTODIAN SHERIFF'S PSYCHOLOGY ASSISTANT SHERIFF'S RECORD CLERK I SHERIFF'S RECORD CLERK II SHERIFF'S RECORD CLERK III SYSTEM ANALYST SYSTEM ANALYST - LEAD SYSTEM PROGRAM MANAGER SYSTEM SUPPORT SPECIALIST SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER - LEAD SYSTEMS SOFTWARE CONSLTNT TELECOMMUNICATIONS OPERATOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SHIFT SUPERVISOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN WEB DEVELOPER TOTAL 1.0 2.0 71.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 41.0 6.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1,007.5 449 Sheriff’s Office (Continued) DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 510 SHERIFF DETENTION FUND TYPE Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue SPECIAL REVENUE 58,925,943 14,856,363 932,441 74,714,747 24,789,111 CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,705,782 1,705,782 SUB-TOTAL $ 58,925,943 $ 14,856,363 $ 2,638,223 $ 76,420,529 $ 24,789,111 TOTAL FUNDS $ 58,925,943 $ 14,856,363 $ 2,638,223 $ 76,420,529 $ 24,789,111 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 510 SHERIFF DETENTION Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 1,191,889 15,131,180 68,960 5,981,812 22,373,841 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 43,743,298 $ 236,116 3,007,736 9,225,274 107,974 (623,448) 55,696,950 $ 43,605,445 $ 233,834 621,037 12,237,966 1,225,166 (1,841,677) 1,284,599 57,366,370 $ 44,012,438 $ 190,319 795,561 11,408,563 2,006,266 (1,780,478) 1,284,599 57,917,268 $ 44,943,314 $ 146,772 420,960 11,528,472 1,805,764 (1,540,218) 1,075,182 58,380,246 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES SubTotal $ 5,451,599 42,150 1,006 301,149 2,083 7,723 2,129,636 950,857 688,633 6,251 354,601 210,176 53,049 183,399 10,382,312 $ 5,417,431 37,972 556,485 50,000 1,400 82,530 2,563,911 185,965 576,551 3,233,798 48,510 21,481 468 31,195 12,807,697 $ 4,570,919 37,972 566,222 50,000 1,400 82,530 2,891,329 424,912 571,356 3,233,798 46,411 21,480 468 125,079 12,623,876 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 3,333 257,742 18,051 279,126 $ 9,592 125,860 52,000 187,452 Total Expenditures $ 66,358,388 $ 70,361,519 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 450 $ $ (43,984,547) $ 1,061,384 18,718,000 60,000 5,700,000 25,539,384 -15% -23% 15% $ 43,035,716 $ 235,319 795,293 13,156,167 1,507,914 (1,807,734) 1,284,599 58,207,274 $ 46,117,325 $ 145,350 494,583 12,953,316 1,052,202 (1,836,833) 58,925,943 $ (2,104,887) 44,969 300,978 (1,544,753) 954,064 56,355 1,284,599 (1,008,675) -5% 24% 38% -14% 48% 3% 100% -2% $ 7,233,691 $ 37,204 312,947 71,380 (802) 4,272 1,095,841 362,624 686,620 3,135,160 24,574 406,796 14,073 163,286 13,547,666 $ 8,163,916 28,256 364,512 3,799,147 700 206,488 2,305,780 322,568 324,977 3,313,243 287,448 456,611 137,618 19,711,264 $ 8,584,408 28,256 409,095 258,262 700 209,415 730,063 574,659 324,977 3,043,411 38,448 517,051 137,618 14,856,363 $ (4,013,489) 9,716 157,127 (208,262) 700 (126,885) 2,161,266 (149,747) 246,379 190,387 7,963 (495,571) 468 (12,539) (2,232,487) -88% 26% 28% -417% 50% -154% 75% -35% 43% 6% 17% -2307% 100% -10% -18% $ 9,592 125,860 52,000 187,452 $ 18,381 18,381 $ 3,978,325 6,755,085 196,238 14,000 10,943,648 $ 1,819,782 662,897 136,048 19,496 2,638,223 $ (1,810,190) -18872% (537,037) -427% (84,048) -162% (19,496) (2,450,771) -1307% $ 70,728,596 $ 71,946,293 $ 88,862,186 $ 76,420,529 $ (5,691,933) -8% (51,631,418) $ (7,328,171) -17% $ (44,822,135) $ $ $ (44,303,247) $ 1,730,324 15,120,151 64,958 56,240 7,440,077 24,411,750 $ (47,534,543) $ 1,109,346 14,485,765 68,896 46,800 8,525,040 24,235,847 $ (64,626,339) $ 1,662,610 14,485,765 68,896 46,800 8,525,040 24,789,111 % (284,739) (4,232,235) 8,896 46,800 2,825,040 (1,636,238) $ 1,947,349 18,718,000 60,000 5,700,000 26,425,349 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 50% -6% Sheriff’s Office (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 510 SHERIFF DETENTION FTE 2.5 1.0 24.0 50.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 7.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 146.0 2.0 933.5 6.0 30.0 2.0 90.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 21.0 1.0 13.0 21.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 12.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 7.5 1.0 1,450.5 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNT CLERK III ACCOUNTANT I ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR I ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR VI ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT MANAGER ADMINISTRATOR I ADMINISTRATOR II CANTEEN ADMINISTRATOR CAPTAIN CHAPLAIN SUPV CHIEF OF CUSTODY CLERK III COUNSELOR III DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF DETENTION DIRECTOR DETENTION OFFICER DETENTION OFFICER CAPTAIN DETENTION OFFICER LIEUTENANT DETENTION OFFICER MAJOR DETENTION OFFICER SERGEANT DETENTION SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER DIETITIAN II EDUCATION COORDINATOR FOOD SERVICE COORDINATOR FOOD SERVICE CREW LEADER FOOD SERVICE MANAGER FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR INMATE CLASSIFICATION COUNSELOR I INMATE CLASSIFICATION COUNSELOR II INMATE CLASSIFICATION COUNSELOR III INMATE PHONE MANAGER INSTITUTIONAL CHAPLAIN LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL SECRETARY LIBRARIAN LIBRARY SENIOR ASSISTANT LIEUTENANT PROG PROV MGR SECRETARY SERGEANT SERVICE WORKER IV SHERIFF'S DELIVERY DRIVER II SHERIFF'S DELIVERY DRIVER III SHERIFF'S DELIVERY DRIVER SUPERVISOR SHERIFF'S LAUNDRY MANAGER SHERIFF'S LEGAL CLERK II TEACHER'S AIDE TEACHER'S ASSISTANT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN TOTAL 451 Superintendent of Schools Superintendent of Schools Superintendent of Schools Sandra E. Dowling, Ed.D. Sandra E. Dowling, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent of Schools Administration Education Services Technology Finance Mission The mission of the Superintendent of Schools (MCSOS) is to provide fiscal and educational services to school districts and the community so they can ensure that students receive the best possible education in order to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Departmental Budget Schedules Vision The Superintendent of Schools will provide cost-effective leadership and support services to school districts and the community to ensure that students meet their future educational challenges and become contributing members of society. Goals ! ! ! ! ! By July 2002, each employee’s performance plan will be aligned with the MCSOS mission and include an individual growth plan, resulting in a 30% increase in employee satisfaction ratings on internal employee surveys. By December 2001, MCSOS will develop a comprehensive technology plan that will identify current and future school district and internal technology needs. By December 2001, MCSOS will develop and implement a public relations strategy that will provide to the community, school district, and other government agencies, an awareness of programs and services available through MCSOS. By January 2002, MCSOS will develop and implement a small schools administration program that will support the educational and administrative needs of the small and rural school districts. By January 2002, MCSOS will identify and develop training courses in each functional area to provide school district personnel with information necessary to serve the needs of their staff and students. Issues ! ! ! ! Without qualified staff and state of the art systems, we cannot deliver support and direction needed by the school districts. Poor internal communications and lack of adequate training leads to low morale, perceived pay inequities, and lack of understanding of their role in fulfilling department mission and goals. Lack of adequate resources results in an inability to meet the needs of the small and rural school districts. Lack of community and school districts’ awareness of the services available through the County Superintendent of Schools' office, results in students not receiving the full benefits of the educational opportunities available to them. 452 Superintendent of Schools (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Program Activity SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRAM INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Services $ 1,317,475 89,007 14,835 90,838 Total $ 1,512,155 Supplies & Services $ 132,307 3,881 $ 136,188 Capital Outlay $ $ 2,850 2,850 Total Expenditures $ 1,449,782 89,007 14,835 97,569 $ 1,651,193 Total Revenue $ 153,050 $ 153,050 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Schools Program Purpose: The purpose of the schools program is to provide fiscal and education services to school districts and the community so that students receive quality education. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 75 94 85 0 0 94 85 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,288,460 $ 1,372,766 $ 1,573,130 $ 1,426,911 $ 1,651,193 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,288,460 1,372,766 1,573,130 1,426,911 1,651,193 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,288,460 $ 1,288,460 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,372,766 $ 1,372,766 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,573,126 $ 1,573,126 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,436,000 $ 1,436,000 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,651,193 $ 1,651,193 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 453 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of customers who report good/excellent service on semi-annual survey Percent of customers reporting good or excellent service on the semi-annual survey Superintendent of Schools (Continued) Mandate Information Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 454 Superintendent of Schools A.R.S. §11-511 Powers And Duties; A.R.S. §15-301-§15-310 Local Governance Of Schools-County School Superintendent. The County Superintendent of Schools is an elected officer of the county. The first County School Superintendent in Maricopa County was elected in 1871. Distribute all laws, reports, circulars, instructions and forms received for the use of school officers. Record all official acts. Appoint governing board members of school districts to fill all vacancies for the remaining portion of the term. Make reports, when directed by the superintendent of public instruction, showing matters relating to schools in his county as may be required on the forms furnished by the superintendent of public instruction, including a yearly report indicating the amount of monies received from state school funds, special school district taxes and other sources, the total expenditures for school purposes and the balance on hand to the credit of each school district at the close of the school year. Contracts with the Board of Supervisors to conduct all regular school district elections. Be responsible, in cooperation with the governing boards and the Board of Supervisors, for all special school district elections. Maintain teacher and administrator certification records of effective dates and expiration dates of teachers' and administrators' certificates in compliance with state guidelines. Adhere to the uniform system of financial records and accounting procedures proscribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Auditor General and, for those school districts for which the county school superintendent is the fiscal agent, draw warrants on the County Treasurer for all necessary expenses against the school funds of the districts. Keep a register of warrants showing the funds upon which the warrants have been drawn. May provide educational services of an accommodation school using the facilities of the accommodation school or school district and determine the per student cost of such services which shall be reimbursed by the school district. File in writing with the governing board of each school district in the county and the Board of Supervisors an estimate of the amount of school moneys required by each school district for the ensuing year, including: student count; total amount to be reviewed for each school district from the county school fund and the special county school reserve fund; ending cash balance from the previous year; anticipated interest earnings; and an estimate of additional amounts needed for each school district from the primary property tax and secondary property tax. Notify a school district Superintendent of Schools (Continued) three years before the expiration of a revenue control limit override that the school district's budget must be adjusted in the final two years of the override if the voters do not approve another override. Provide assistance to school districts and charter schools on the use of student data, staff development, curriculum alignment and technology to improve student performance. Assist schools in meeting yearly adequate progress goals as defined by criteria established by the state board of education and implemented by the department of education. Designated as a local education service agency eligible to receive and spend local, state and federal monies to provide programs and services to school districts and charter schools within the county. Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,512,155 $ 136,188 $ 2,850 $ 1,651,193 $ 153,050 $ 1,512,155 $ 136,188 $ 2,850 $ 1,651,193 $ 153,050 $ 1,512,155 $ 136,188 $ 2,850 $ 1,651,193 $ 153,050 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 75,367 35,942 990 112,299 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 1,122,434 27,138 32,988 220,347 1,402,907 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ SubTotal $ 47,551 11,285 120 21,706 3,534 30,775 26,958 15,793 157,722 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ 1,178,794 21,366 265,944 6,873 1,472,977 $ 28,703 5,350 24,400 4,700 47,900 22,090 14,500 2,400 150,043 SubTotal $ 12,501 12,501 Total Expenditures $ 1,573,130 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ 78,000 35,000 113,000 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ 1,181,436 21,366 264,358 21,379 1,488,539 $ 28,703 5,350 24,400 4,700 47,900 22,090 14,500 2,400 150,043 $ 10,172 4,250 14,422 $ 1,637,442 (1,460,831) $ $ 78,000 35,000 113,000 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ 1,028,004 16,794 278 232,913 5,174 1,283,163 $ 20,369 500 23,570 5,200 47,900 22,090 12,673 10,246 142,548 $ 10,172 1,400 11,572 $ 1,650,154 (1,524,442) $ $ 72,250 33,726 98 106,074 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ 1,197,932 21,336 296,747 4,494 1,520,509 $ $ 118,050 35,000 153,050 $ 1,202,638 21,336 283,687 4,494 1,512,155 $ 29,852 750 13,216 5,400 45,000 21,570 10,000 10,400 136,188 $ 36,000 750 13,215 5,400 51,400 25,100 16,500 10,400 158,765 $ 1,200 1,200 $ 2,850 2,850 $ 2,850 2,850 $ 1,426,911 $ 1,682,124 $ 1,651,193 (1,537,154) $ $ 118,050 35,000 153,050 (1,320,837) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted (1,529,074) $ $ $ 40,050 40,050 % 51% 0% 35% $ (21,202) 30 (19,329) 16,885 (23,616) $ (1,149) 4,600 11,184 (700) 2,900 520 4,500 (8,000) 13,855 46% -15% 6% 2% 31% -333% 9% $ 10,172 (1,450) 8,722 100% -104% 75% $ (1,039) 0% 39,011 3% (1,498,143) $ -2% 0% -7% 79% -2% -4% 86% 455 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT Superintendent of Schools (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT I ACCOUNTANT II ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN I ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR I ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE LEAD SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER PC SUPPORT SPECIALIST PROGRAMMER ANALYST II SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT CHIEF DEPUTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT SENIOR NETWORK ENGINEER TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR FTE 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 TOTAL 456 1.0 1.0 30.0 Treasurer Treasurer Treasurer Doug Todd, County Treasurer Doug Todd, County Treasurer Internal Auditor Client Services Administration Accounting Services Chief Deputy Investments Information Systems Technical Services Tax Services Mission The mission of the Maricopa County Treasurer is to provide both the administration of property taxation for the County's residents and the accounting and investment of public monies for county agencies, school districts and other sub-political jurisdictions, as mandated by state and federal law, so that they can provide appropriate services to the County's residents. ! ! ! By FY 2005, the Treasurer will excel in customer service using technological advances to provide taxpayers with access to all tax information via the Internet. By FY 2005, the Treasurer will improve and refine all tax collection and revenue apportionment functions by upgrading software related to these procedures. Per House Bill 2428 Legislation, by FY 2004, the Treasurer will have fully integrated all tax billing and collecting procedures for Unsecured Personal Property (e.g. commercial office equipment, heavy construction equipment and mobile homes) into the existing Treasurer's Secured Property tax activities (those which relate to real estate), thereby streamlining Unsecured Personal Property operations and enhancing collective Treasurer's Office customer services. Issues ! ! ! ! Continuous population growth of Maricopa County will result in increased service demands for the Treasurer by County property owners. Commercial and residential parcel count growth within Maricopa County will require more efficient methods of property tax payment processing by the Treasurer. The Treasurer's Office operating from one, non-central location in the County is challenged to find more efficient/convenient methods of servicing customers. House Bill 2428 Legislation, that will merge Unsecured Personal Property with Secured Property activities in FY 2004, will result in an increased workload for the Treasurer in billing and collecting Unsecured Property taxes, functions previously performed by the Assessor and the Sheriff. 457 Departmental Budget Schedules Goals Treasurer (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED TREASURER TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity PROPERTY TAX PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 85,905 $ 355,535 $ 306,940 405,003 116,226 126,070 2,282,737 Total $ 2,791,808 $ 886,608 $ - Total Total Expenditures Revenue - $ 441,440 $ 711,943 5,686 242,296 2,282,737 $ 3,678,416 $ 5,686 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Performance Measures Program Name: Accounting Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Accounting Program is to provide accounting and investment services for the Treasurer and Maricopa County and its political subdivisions so that there is fiscal accountability to county residents. Key Results: Percent of Treasurer's Journal Entries created by month-end Tax Apportionments - Percent of Levy apportioned Month-end Closings - Percent time month-end balance/close by due date Percent of Cash Receipts Actually Processed FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 100 100 100 100 97.1 97.15 96.8 97.15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Program Name: Property Tax Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Property Tax Program is to provide tax information for owners of property in Maricopa County so that they may pay their taxes in an accurate and prompt fashion and that their payments are accurately posted (applied). Key Results: Percent of Tax Bills Correctly Mailed Payments Posted - Percent of Levy collected Percent of levy collected by LockBox (LB) facility Back Tax Sale - Percent of BTX Collected 458 FY 00 Actual N/A 97.1 42.49 42.06 FY 01 Actual N/A 97.15 39.68 45.26 FY 02 Actual N/A 96.8 37.95 N/A FY 03 Projected 80 97.25 34.7 45.2 Treasurer (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 3,504,370 $ 3,336,300 $ 3,475,408 $ 3,501,641 $ 3,678,416 $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,504,370 3,336,300 3,475,408 3,501,641 3,678,416 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 3,504,370 $ 3,504,370 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 3,336,300 $ 3,336,300 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 3,475,408 $ 3,475,408 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,501,641 $ 3,501,641 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,678,416 $ 3,678,416 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION County Treasurer Responsibilities And Reporting A.R.S. § 11-491; A.R.S. § 11-494; A.R.S. § 11-604-605; A.R.S. § 11-484; A.R.S. § 15-996; A.R.S. §§ 35-323 through 35-327; A.R.S. § 41-1285.21; A.R.S. § 42; IRC150,148. The County Treasurer is an elected official whose duties are to enhance the accountability of public monies to the citizens at large and act as the ex-officio tax collector. The Office of the Treasurer of Maricopa County was established on February 14, 1871. The Maricopa County Treasurer provides both the administration of property taxation for the County’s residents and the accounting and investment of public monies for County agencies, school districts, and other sub-political jurisdictions as mandated by state and federal law, so that they can provide appropriate services to the County’s residents. 459 Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Information Treasurer (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 430 TREASURER FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 2,791,808 $ 886,608 $ $ 2,791,808 $ 886,608 $ $ 2,791,808 $ 886,608 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 3,678,416 $ 5,686 $ 3,678,416 $ 5,686 $ 3,678,416 $ 5,686 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 430 TREASURER Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 5,747 5,747 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 1,995,528 6,200 78,434 381,302 2,461,464 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE $ $ 6,000 6,000 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ 2,218,216 5,500 471,542 2,695,258 $ 136,628 $ 268 (5,094) 574,466 65,451 118,268 15,650 46,372 245 767 953,021 $ 186,089 300 375,000 96,000 180,000 10,542 55,000 100,000 1,000 1,003,931 $ $ $ SubTotal $ 60,923 60,923 $ 6,124 30,000 36,124 $ Total Expenditures $ 3,475,408 $ 3,735,313 $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 460 FY 2001-02 Adopted (3,469,661) $ (3,729,313) $ 6,000 6,000 2,257,447 7,732 475,694 2,912 2,743,785 116,179 300 370,993 83,000 136,490 19,013 57,000 170,000 1,200 954,175 3,697,960 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ 5,320 20 5,340 $ $ $ 53,181 $ 258 (2,522) 260,656 77,181 161,748 12,500 48,500 162,000 1,317 774,819 $ 111,500 300 392,670 81,238 132,500 20,000 35,000 188,000 1,400 962,608 $ - $ $ (3,691,960) $ 3,425,336 $ 5,686 5,686 2,249,600 6,799 1,530 534,387 2,912 2,795,228 $ 2,183,406 6,964 5,490 451,745 2,912 2,650,517 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ (3,419,996) $ 3,757,836 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 5,686 5,686 $ 2,249,600 5,500 1,530 535,178 2,791,808 $ 111,500 300 322,670 81,238 132,500 14,000 35,000 188,000 1,400 886,608 $ $ (3,752,150) $ $ -5% -5% $ 7,847 2,232 (1,530) (59,484) 2,912 (48,023) $ 4,679 48,323 1,762 3,990 5,013 22,000 (18,000) (200) 67,567 $ - $ 19,544 1% (3,672,730) $ 19,230 1% 3,678,416 $ (314) (314) % 0% 29% -13% 100% -2% 4% 0% 13% 2% 3% 26% 39% -11% -17% 7% Treasurer (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 430 TREASURER FTE 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 64.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT I ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR I ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT ENTRY ASSISTANT MANAGER ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR BUDGET LIAISON RECRUIT BUSINESS ANALYST CASHIERING LINE SUPERVISOR CHIEF AUDITOR CHIEF DEPUTY TREASURER CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER CLIENT SERVICES COORDINATOR CLIENT SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE CORPORATE SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR CUSTOMER SERVICE OPERATIONS LEAD DIVISION MANAGER EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FACILITIES COORDINATOR HUMAN RESOURCES LIAISON INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR LEAD COMPUTER OPERATOR LEAD INTEGRATED SYSTEMS DESIGN ANALYST LITIGATION COORDINATOR LOCKBOX PAYMENT SPECIALIST MAIL COORDINATOR MANAGER OF SYSTEMS & PROGRAMS OPERATIONS ANALYST OPERATIONS SITE MANAGER POSTING ADMINISTRATOR PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST PROGRAMMER ANALYST RECEPTIONIST RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR TAX LIEN SPECIALIST TREASURER TREASURER'S RECEIPT ADMINISTRATOR UNSECURED PERSONAL PROPERTY SPECIALIST WARRANT RECONCILIATION ADMINISTRATOR TOTAL 461 Judicial Branch Judicial Organizational Chart New Trial Courts Organization Structure Integrated Trial Courts in Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Justice Municipal Superior Court Judges Justices of the Peace Limited Jurisdiction Court Oversight Council Departmental Presiding Judges and Administration Justice Court Executive Committee Presiding Judge Trial Courts Judicial Executive Committee (JEC) Associate Presiding Judge Superior Court Municipal Court Presiding Judges Associate Presiding Judge Limited Jurisdiction Court Court Administrator Trial Courts Protems Mgmt Hearing Officer / Commissioner Recruitment Protems Mgmt Hearing Officer / Commissioner Recruitment Court Administrator Superior Court Court Administrator Limited Jurisdiction Courts Departmental Budget Schedules Courtwide Enterprise Support Services Court Operations & C aseflow ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ Court D epartm ents: ♦ Fam ily C ourt ♦ Civil & T ax ♦ Crim inal ♦ Probate / M ental H ealth ♦ Juvenile Res earc h & M anagem ent Analys is Offic e of Court Interpreter Pretrial Serv ices Agency Law Library Conc iliation Servic es Alternative D is pute Res olution Elec tronic Rec ording Regional C ourts -Southeast -N orthw est Judicial Information Systems (JIS) Court Communications and Public Information Office Self-Service Center Budget / Finance Procurement Space & Facilities Intergovernmental Relations Jury Systems Litigation Support Services * Interpreters * Court Reporters Training *Judicial *Staff Court Human Resources Court Operations & C aseflow ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ ✐ Chief Clerk s Regional Adm inistrators Audit Cas eflow : Statistics & Analys is Defens ive D riving- C ontract M anagem ent Fines M anagement Operati onal F inance - Payroll Chief Financ ial O ffic er Alternative D is pute Res olution Speci al Projects, e.g.: ♦ Dom es tic V iolence ♦ Uniform Bond Sc hedule ♦ Video H earings ♦ Cas e Aging Statis tics ♦ Judicial P erform anc e Rev iew Courts U nder Interim Managem ent September 05, 2002 Court Jurisdiction The Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County is a general jurisdiction court handling criminal felonies, juvenile, family, probate/mental health, civil matters over $10,000 and statewide tax cases. Jurisdiction also extends to appeals from limited jurisdiction courts. The Superior Court is part of an integrated judicial system in the State under the administrative authority of the Arizona Supreme Court. Maricopa County Over 3 million of Arizona’s 5 million people reside in Maricopa County. It is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the country. The County, one of 15 in the state, encompasses almost 10,000 square miles. The Court conducts its business in four primary locations: a complex of buildings in downtown Phoenix; a Juvenile Court Center on Durango Avenue, southwest of downtown Phoenix; a Southeast Valley facility in Mesa with juvenile and adult court buildings; and a Northwest Regional Center in Surprise. Judges Of The Court Currently, 91 Superior Court judges, 11 court commissioners and 22 hearing officers staff the Court. All judicial officers are lawyers. Judges are appointed by the Governor after a selection process by 462 a Qualifications Commission. The Merit Selection System is patterned after the “Missouri Plan” and applies only in Arizona's two most populous counties: Maricopa (Phoenix) and Pima (Tucson). Judges stand for election every four years on a yes-no retention ballot. Judges in Superior Court are full-time Constitutional “divisions” created by the State and standing for election. The Court also can have judges pro tempore. Judge pro tempores are lawyers appointed by the Court with the full powers of a constitutional division serving temporarily at the pleasure of the Court. Judge pro tempores are used sparingly as adjuncts to constitutional divisions. Court commissioners and hearing officers are appointed by the Court’s presiding judge. Court Judicial Departments The Court performs its work by departments, each headed by a departmental presiding judge selected by the Court's Presiding Judge. Departmental presiding judges generally serve in that capacity for two to four years. Trial judges of the Court rotate from one department to another, as assigned by the Presiding Judge, generally on two-year cycles. Commissioners and hearing officers serve a variety of assignments. Judicial officers attend departmental meetings and as a full bench en banc once a month. Most of the calendars are structured on an individual basis, meaning that once a case is assigned to a judge early in the process, it stays with that judge until resolved. The Court’s Presiding Judge oversees the Superior Court and its departments and has superintendent responsibilities over the limited jurisdiction courts in the County. The Presiding Judge, appointed to his administrative position by the Supreme Court, serves in that position at the pleasure of the Supreme Court. The Presiding Judge appoints an Associate Presiding Judge to serve as an assistant. The Court Administrator A Court Administrator, appointed by the Court, functions as the Chief Executive Officer providing management support to each of the judicial departments and coordinating, together with the Presiding Judge, the work of the Superior Court and its departments, and the limited jurisdiction courts in Maricopa County. A number of standing committees, staffed by Court Administration, are utilized to perform the policy and program planning work of the Court. Non-Judicial Staffing Four major staffing units support the Court: Court Administration, Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, and the Clerk of the Court. Also providing support to the Court is a small group of special-purpose court agencies: Judicial Information Systems, Conciliation Services and the Law Library. The Court operates its own Judicial Personnel Merit System, working in close harmony with the County of Maricopa. 463 Departmental Budget Schedules The Presiding Judge Superior Court Judges – Biographies Hon. Colin F Campbell Presiding Judge - Superior Court Departmental Budget Schedules Judge Colin F Campbell has been Presiding Judge of Superior Court in Maricopa County since July 1, 2000. During his judicial career, he has presided over cases in each of the court’s divisions, including juvenile, family court, special assignment, probate, criminal and civil. Judge Campbell graduated from Northwestern University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in economics. He received his law degree from the University of Arizona where he graduated Summa Cum Laude. Upon graduation he served as the law clerk for United States District Judge William Copple. In 1978 he became an associate with the Phoenix law firm of Martori, Meyer, Hendricks & Victor. From 1981 to 1983 he served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender. From 1984 until 1990, he was a partner with Meyer, Hendricks, Victor, Osborn & Maledon. In 1990, he was appointed to the Superior Court Bench. Judge Campbell is deeply committed to his profession and his community. From 1988 to 1990, he was a member of the Maricopa County Community Punishment Committee. He has served in a leadership capacity for numerous State Bar committees including the Legal Services Committee and the Committee on Professional Rules of Conduct. He formerly served as a board member and president of Community Legal Services and the Arizona Bar Foundation. Judge Campbell also served as an Advisory Board member of the Volunteer Lawyer Program. He was on the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee. As Presiding Judge, he sits on the Arizona Judicial Council, the StateFederal Judicial Council and the board of the Arizona Judicial College. He is a member of the Board of Visitors for the University of Arizona College of Law and has taught as an Adjunct Professor at Arizona State University’s College of Law. In 1990, the University of Arizona presented him with its Outstanding Graduate Award. Judge Campbell is former president of the Greater East Phoenix Neighborhood Association and also was president of the St. Thomas More Society and board member of the Malta Center. He served as a member and chairman of the Youth at Risk Task Force of the Arizona Coalition for Tomorrow. Judge Campbell is president of the Southwest Phoenix Community Center and formerly served on the board of directors of the Phoenix Natural Family Planning Center and Child and Family Resources, Inc. He currently serves on the board of directors of Ville de Marie - a private, non-profit school. 464 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) DIV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 JUDGE MUNDELL, BARBARA A (g) YARNELL, MICHAEL A TOPF, WILLIAM L DAIRMAN, DENNIS W JARRETT, BARBARA M KAUFMAN, ROGER W MCVEY, MICHAEL R ARANETA, LOUIS A BACA, ANNA MARIA ISHIKAWA, BRIAN K DAVIS, NORMAN J ACETO, MARK F JONES, MICHAEL D HOAG, MARION J KEPPEL, JAMES H AKERS, LINDA A MCCLENNEN, CRANE BALLINGER, EDDWARD P. OBERBILLIG, ROBERT H REINSTEIN, PETER C TALAMANTE, DAVID M HICKS, BETHANY G GAINES, FRANCIS P BURKE, EDWARD O (d) HOLT, CATHY M VERDIN, MARIA WILLRICH, PENNY ANDERSON, ARTHUR T HEILMAN, JOSEPH B WILLETT, EILEEN S FENZEL, ALFRED M DIV 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 JUDGE PADISH, JAMES E O'CONNOR, KAREN L GRANVILLE, WARREN J GAYLORD, JOHN M DOWNIE, MARGARET H RONAN, EMMET J RAYES, DOUGLAS L GAMA, JOE R DONAHOE, GARY BARTON, JANET BUDOFF, ROBERT HYATT, CAREY SANTANA, MARK TREBESCH, DEAN MCNALLY, COLLEEN STEINLE, ROLAND DITSWORTH, JOHN BUTTRICK, JOHN HARRISON, CARI STEPHENS, SHERRY KLEIN, ANDREW SANDERS, TERESA TRUJILLO, RICHARD UDALL, DAVID CONTES, CONNIE BLAKEY, A. CRAIG MILES, LINDA MAHONEY, MARGARET VACANT DIV 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Presiding Judge Associate Presiding Judge Presiding Judge - Juvenile Court Presiding Judge - Civil Dept. Presiding Judge - Criminal Dept. Presiding Judge - Family Court Dept. Presiding Judge - Probate/Mental Health Dept. Presiding Judge - Tax Court JUSTICE OF THE PEACE G. Michael Osterfeld C. Steven McMurry Ronald D. Johnson R. Wayne Johnson Adelita Villegas Michael W. Orcutt John R. Ore Joe Getzwiller Quentin V. Tolby Andy V. Gastelum Lester Pearce Kenneth Warren PRECINCT Buckeye Central Phoenix Chandler East Mesa East Phoenix #1 East Phoenix #2 East Tempe Gila Bend Glendale Maryvale North Mesa North Valley JUSTICE OF THE PEACE Jacqueline McVay Barbara Watkins Lex E. Anderson Gerald Porter Tom Freestone Pamela C. Gutierrez Joseph Guzman Clayton Hamblen Rachel Carrillo Victor Wilkins John Henry PRECINCT Northeast Phoenix Northwest Phoenix Peoria Scottsdale South Mesa/Gilbert South Phoenix Tolleson West Mesa West Phoenix West Tempe Wickenburg 465 Departmental Budget Schedules JUDGE CATES, JEFFREY S GOTTSFIELD, ROBERT L KAMIN, ALAN S GERST, STEPHEN A SCOTT, LINDA K (c) O'TOOLE, THOMAS W (e) O'MELIA, MICHAEL J ALBRECHT, REBECCA A FOREMAN, JOHN F GALATI, FRANK T REINSTEIN, RONALD S HILLIARD, RUTH H SCHNEIDER, BARRY C SARGEANT, WILLIAM HOTHAM, JEFFREY A WILKINSON, MICHAEL O ARMSTRONG, MARK W (b) (f) FIELDS, KENNETH L FRANKS, PAMELA J COLE, DAVID R MYERS, ROBERT D DUNEVANT, THOMAS MARTIN, GREGORY H KATZ, PAUL A (h) SHELDON, STEVEN D CAMPBELL, COLIN F (a) ARELLANO, SILVIA R MANGUM, J.KENNETH PORTLEY, MAURICE SCHWARTZ, JONATHAN H HAUSER, BRIAN R Adult Probation Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Adult Probation Adult Probation Barbara Broderick Barbara Broderick Chief Probation Officer Chief Probation Officer Administration, Budget & Finance Community Supervision Assessment & Development Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department is to provide assistance and adult probation services to neighborhoods, courts, adult probationers and victims so that they experience enhanced safety and well being. Departmental Budget Schedules Vision An agency of professionals committed to continuous improvement in the quality of community life by offering hope to neighborhoods, victims and offenders. Goals • • • • MCAPD will enhance public safety by: Reducing the number of probationers committed to the Department of Corrections to 2 out of every 10 by the end of fiscal year 2002. Reducing the number of probationers convicted of a new felony offense by 2% by the end of fiscal year 2002. (It is assumed 10% of probationers will be convicted of a new felony during the fiscal year). By fiscal year 2004, employee resignations from MCAPD because of pay (51% - as of September 2000) will be reduced to the Maricopa County average (34% - as of September 2000). By fiscal year 2004, MCAPD will improve case processing as evidenced by: - A 10% (2.8 day) reduction in the time needed to submit a pre-sentence report to the court. - A 10% increase in the rate of successful completions from probation by using technological risk/needs assessment tools. - A 10% increase in the rate of restitution collected. MCAPD will provide excellence in customer service as evidenced by a measurable increase in the number of customers who report increasing satisfaction. - By 2005, 75% of victims will be satisfied with services provided by MCAPD. - By 2005, 67% of offenders will be satisfied with services provided by MCAPD. - By 2005, 75% of criminal court judges will be satisfied with services provided by MCAPD. - By fiscal year 2003, establish a baseline of the number of staff satisfied with MCAPD. By fiscal year 2005, the number of staff satisfied with MCAPD will improve by 10%. - By fiscal year 2003, establish a baseline for community partner satisfaction with MCAPD. By fiscal year 2005, the number of community partners satisfied with MCAPD will improve by 5%. - By fiscal year 2003, establish a baseline for criminal justice agency partner satisfaction with MCAPD. By fiscal year 2005, the number of criminal justice partners satisfied with MCAPD will improve by 5% 466 Adult Probation (Continued) • By 2003, MCAPD will have the equipment, facilities, support services and technological interconnectivity with agencies to provide efficient and effective probation services as evidenced by: A minimum mean score of 5 on a scale of 2 to 8 on employee surveys that rate staff's satisfaction level with equipment, facilities and support services. A 20% increase in the number of targeted agencies that are interconnected with Adult Probation. Issues • • • • • • • Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED ADULT PROBATION TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity BEHAVIORAL CHANGE COMMUNITY JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 3,890,278 41,256,488 2,360,376 1,742,026 1,258,397 50,507,565 Supplies & Services $ 355,696 2,385,941 2,030,862 77,815 720,110 $ 5,570,424 Capital Outlay $ $ 106,542 106,542 Total Expenditures $ 4,245,974 43,642,429 4,391,238 1,819,841 2,085,049 $ 56,184,531 $ $ Total Revenue 2,921,289 33,812,721 1,904,879 1,080,573 2,254,105 41,973,567 467 Departmental Budget Schedules • The high demand for educated and skilled staff is placing additional responsibilities upon the agency to use new and innovative practices to recruit, retain and reward staff. The trend to treat substance abuse offenses as a public health issue within the criminal justice system requires partnerships and new methods of supervision and treatment. The growing population and increases in police, courts and offenders are stretching the agency’s resources and ability to meet the demand for effective services. Organizations are increasingly turning to technology to use, share and manage information, which requires the agency to obtain more resources, allocate resources differently and shift current resources to acquire, use, stay current and maintain the technologies. Changes in laws, societal demands, criminal justice practices and demographic shifts in offender populations are causing criminal justice agencies to develop specialization and expertise in managing and providing services to offenders. Criminal justice agencies are relying more upon collaborations and partnerships with both public and private agencies to enhance the safety and well being of our neighborhoods. Our agency is committing additional resources and expertise to develop and sustain these relationships. The public demands that agencies and staff be held accountable for their practices and show positive results which requires the agency to allocate more resources to develop methods to monitor and use performance measures. An increase in expectations that criminal justice agencies be more responsive to victims’ needs and rights requires the agency to develop new and provide additional victim services. Adult Probation (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Behavioral Change Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Behavioral Change Program is to provide education and treatment to probationers so that they can remain law-abiding and successfully complete probation. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of probationers who successfully completed education/treatment classes operated by MCAPD. Percent of probationers terminated from probation who successfully completed MCAPD operated education/treatment classes and are not committed to the Department of Corrections FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 49 60 51 55 N/A N/A 98 N/A Program Name: Community Justice Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community Justice Program is to provide public safety through offender accountability and restoration to victims and community members so that they can live in revitalized, restored and safer neighborhoods. Key Results: Percent of probationers performing required community service hours who are meeting or exceeding monthly obligations Percent of probationers who successfully complete probation Percent of opted-in victims receiving services who are satisfied with services. Percent of probationers who are compliant paying restitution 468 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 69 54 38 58 65 62 61 62 52 49 54 57 61 55 48.2 61 Adult Probation (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 9,716,296 10,834,886 11,619,113 12,094,117 14,210,964 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 34,440,477 39,618,900 39,165,557 40,279,242 41,973,567 $ $ $ $ $ Total 44,156,773 50,453,786 50,784,670 52,373,359 56,184,531 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimated FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 9,716,296 10,834,886 11,610,956 12,094,117 14,210,964 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 34,440,477 39,618,900 39,111,694 40,279,242 41,973,567 $ $ $ $ $ Total 44,156,773 50,453,786 50,722,650 52,373,359 56,184,531 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 491,630 19,851 8,157 - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 2,934,530 56,643 53,863 - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,426,160 76,494 62,020 - Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Community Punishment Program, Literacy Programs ARS §12-299.01 Community Punishment Programs, Submission Of Plan; Use Of Monies; Prohibitions This statute created probation treatment programs to both enhance the supervision of offenders and present an alternative to prison commitments for class 4,5, and 6 felonies. Enhance the adult probation services system by developing additional probation conditions, programs and services for offenders placed on supervised probation and intensive probation. Provide programs, services and increased supervision, surveillance and control to special probation populations. Community Punishment Program, Literacy Programs FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 32,226 267,489 311,218 330,000 335,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 2,181,240 3,008,717 3,253,054 3,300,000 3,350,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,213,466 3,276,206 3,564,272 3,630,000 3,685,000 469 Departmental Budget Schedules NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Adult Intensive Probation A.R.S. §§ 13-913 through 13-918 Intensive Probation Based on programs in Georgia, the legislature created another level of probation intensity. Intensive Probation (IPS) was a last chance effort for those who failed on standard probation. A two-person intensive probation team shall supervise no more than twenty-five persons at one time, and a three-person intensive probation team shall supervise no more than forty persons at one time. The intensive probation team shall…exercise close supervision and observation over persons sentenced to intensive probation including (a) visual contact with each probationer at least 4 times per week, and (b) weekly contact with the employer of the probationer. Adult Intensive Probation FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION General Fund 428,995 567,064 587,281 655,000 675,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 7,193,974 8,562,119 7,868,708 7,950,000 8,080,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,622,969 9,129,183 8,455,989 8,605,000 8,755,000 Victim Notification A.R.S. § 13-4415 Notice Of Probation Modification, Termination Or Revocation Disposition Matters; Notice Of Arrest This mandate was a major portion of the victims' rights legislation. Probation has a duty to inform opted-in victims at every step of the process. On request of the victim, the court shall notify the victim of any probation revocation disposition proceeding or any proceeding in which the court is asked to terminate the probation or intensive probation of a person who is convicted of committing a criminal offense against the victim. On request of the victim, the court shall notify the victim of a modification of the terms of probation or intensive probation of a person only if the modification will substantially affect the persons; contact with or safety of the victim or if notification affects restitution or incarceration status. On request of the victim, the court shall notify the victim of the arrest of a person who is on supervised probation and who is arrested pursuant to a warrant issued for a probation violation. Victim Notification FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 470 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 8,103 11,609 25,942 30,000 35,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 104,832 125,714 148,229 155,000 175,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 112,935 137,323 174,171 185,000 210,000 Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION DNA Testing A.R.S. § 13-4438 © Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Testing; Exception The legislature decided that sex offenders' DNA needed to be recorded for future investigation of offenses. Probation was viewed as an ideal point to enforce compliance. The County Probation Department shall secure a blood sample sufficient for DNA testing ad extraction within 15 days after a person is convicted or adjudicated delinquent of a sexual offense* and is sentenced to a term of probation and within thirty days after the arrival of a person who is accepted under the interstate compact for the supervision of probationers. The County Probation Department shall secure a blood sample sufficient for deoxyribonucleic acid testing as extraction. The County department shall transmit the sample to the Department of Public Safety. DNA Testing FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 50,000 Total $ $ $ $ $ 50,000 Drug Treatment and Education Fund A.R.S. § 13-3422 Drug Court Programs; Establishment; Participation This mandate was passed as a voter initiative. The proposition mandates treatment of drug offenders rather than incarceration, and provides funding for treatment. To cover the costs of placing persons in drug education and treatment programs administered by a qualified agency or organization that provides such programs to persons who abuse controlled substances. Drug Treatment and Education Fund FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 25,468 25,273 39,607 45,000 50,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 2,011,449 1,617,381 1,001,093 1,200,000 1,290,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,036,917 1,642,654 1,040,700 1,245,000 1,340,000 471 Departmental Budget Schedules *Since the inception of this statute the legislature has broadened the groups of offenses for which DNA testing is mandated. In addition to sex offenders, those convicted of burglary, use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or knowing infliction of serious physical injury have been added to the mandate. Beginning January 1, 2003, those convicted of drug offenses will be required to submit to DNA testing. Beginning January 1, 2004, all felons will be required to submit to DNA testing. Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Community Service A.R.S. § 12-299.01 Community Punishment Program; A.R.S. § 13-914 Intensive Probation; Evaluation; Sentence; Criteria; Limit; Conditions; Court Order Community service is a politically popular and a good public relations program. It is a good example of Restorative Justice. It contributes extensively to the improvement of the community. Clean up and graffiti abatement programs have a major impact on our neighborhoods. The concept of giving "giving back to society" by those who have violated the law is its objective. The Chief Justice has incorporated community service into his "2002 Initiative." Intensive probation shall be conditioned on the offender…being involved in…community service work at least six days a week throughout his term of intensive probation…performing not less than forty hours of community service each month. Promote accountability of offenders to their local community by requiring…community work service to local governments and community agencies. Departmental Budget Schedules Community Service FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION General Fund 106,630 92,179 135,853 145,000 150,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 264,281 383,646 462,952 475,000 495,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 370,911 475,825 598,805 620,000 645,000 Community Notification Of Sex Offenders A.R.S. § 13-3825 Community Notification Responding to the massive public pressure, the legislature decided that the community needed to be notified of sex offender residence. Probation and law enforcement are held responsible. Within seventy-two hours after a person who was accepted under the interstate compact for the supervision of probationers has arrived in the state, the agency that has accepted supervision shall provide information to the department of public safety. A law enforcement agency may delegate all or part of the notification process for offenders on community supervision to the county probation department as appropriate. Community Notification of Sex Offenders FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 472 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ Total - $ $ $ $ $ - Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Drug Court A.R.S. § 13-3422 Drug Court Programs; Establishment; Participation The Drug Court was created because of the success of Drug Courts in other jurisdictions in dealing with first time drug offenders. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in each county may establish a drug court program. Cases assigned to a drug court program shall consist of defendants who are drug dependent persons and who are charged with a probation eligible offense under this chapter, including preparatory offenses. The terms and conditions of probation shall provide for the treatment of the drug dependent person and shall include any other conditions and requirements that the court deems appropriate. Drug Court FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY MANDATE DESCRIPTION General Fund 80,470 93,189 111,910 125,117 135,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 493,283 844,799 658,070 675,000 720,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 573,753 937,988 769,980 800,117 855,000 Field Services Supervision A.R.S. § 12-251 (A) Adult Probation Officers and support staff; appointment; qualifications Why is the service level at 60:1? In order to be effective, the probation officer must have the time to effectively manage offenders. In many states, where the ratio is much higher, probation has become purely a prison diversion. The Chief Adult Probation Officer, with the approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, shall appoint such deputy adult probation officers and support staff as are necessary to provide presentence investigations and supervision services to the court. Those deputy adult probation officers engaged in case supervision shall supervise no more than an average of sixty adults who reside in the county on probation to the court. Field Services Supervision FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 5,085,518 5,512,076 5,965,865 6,169,000 6,248,667 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 14,795,404 18,787,651 20,024,684 20,544,242 21,100,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,880,922 24,299,727 25,990,549 26,713,242 27,348,667 473 Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND $ $ $ $ $ Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Indirect Services A.R.S. § 31-461 through 31-466 (A) Compact Agreement/Adult Probation Procedures The Indirect Services Unit manages felony offenders who are sentenced in Maricopa County and leave the state to reside elsewhere, and supervises felons sentenced in another state who come to reside in Maricopa County. The objective is to protect the community from and provide treatment resources to felony offenders whom, if not for the Interstate Compact Agreement, would be residing in Maricopa County without the knowledge or consent of the authorities or citizens of the County. That each receiving state will assume the duties of visitation of and supervision over probationers or parolees of any sending state and in the exercise of those duties will be governed by the same standards that prevail for its own probationers and parolees. Departmental Budget Schedules Indirect Services FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION General Fund 13,339 88,827 91,632 100,000 110,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 918,043 1,215,625 1,121,709 1,150,000 1,172,666 $ $ $ $ $ Total 931,382 1,304,452 1,213,341 1,250,000 1,282,666 Presentence Investigations A.R.S. § 12-251 (A) Adult Probation Officers And Support Staff; Appointment; Qualifications; A.R.S. § 12-253 (4) Adult Probation Officers Powers And Duties; A.R.S. § 13-914 (A) Intensive Probation; Evaluation; Sentence; Criteria; Limit; Conditions; A.R.S. § 13-701 (B) Sentence Of Imprisonment For Felony; Presentence Report; Rule 26.4 - Rules Of Criminal Procedure A 1988 amendment included all class felonies. In 1993, it was mandated that any person who committed a felony after January 1, 1994 needed a copy of a recent Presentence Investigation (PSI) report when transferring to the Department of Corrections. An Adult Probation Officer shall investigate cases referred to him for investigation by the court in which he is serving and report thereon to the court. An Adult Probation Officer shall prepare a presentence report for every offender who has either been convicted of a felony and for whom the granting of probation is not prohibited by law, or violated probation by commission of a technical violation that was not chargeable or indictable as a criminal offense. No prisoner shall be transferred to the custody of the State Department of Corrections without a copy of a recent PSI report unless the court has waived preparation of the report. Presentence Investigations FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 474 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 2,871,024 3,418,922 3,761,388 3,900,000 3,950,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 2,980,485 3,567,665 3,856,100 4,100,000 4,150,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,851,509 6,986,587 7,617,488 8,000,000 8,100,000 Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Warrants A.R.S. § 13-901 (C) (D) Probation The Warrants Locator Unit was created due to the safety risks posed to the community of leaving individuals, for whom warrants have been issued, to exist in the community without consequence. The court may in its discretion issue a warrant for the re-arrest of the defendant. At any time during the probationary term of the person released on probation, any probation officer may, without warrant or other process, at any time until the final disposition of the case, re-arrest any person and bring the person before the court. Warrants FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE/DESCRIP TION $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 404,222 489,326 429,947 440,000 460,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 658,517 772,362 665,937 685,000 715,000 Work Furlough Court Order Work Furlough reduces full time jail bed occupancy and allows an offender to serve jail term as part of probation, yet be employed, pay restitution to victim and to be assessed a Work Furlough fee to offset part of the cost of the Work Furlough program. Work Furlough FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY General Fund 254,295 283,036 235,990 245,000 255,000 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 318,598 329,456 344,270 350,000 360,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 158,734.00 269,112.00 287,148.00 290,000.00 350,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ Total 477,332 598,568 631,418 640,000 710,000 Officer Safety/Arming A.R.S. 12-253 Probation Officer’s Peace Officer status, Supreme Court Administrative Orders 2002–7, 2002-55, and 2002-70 The statute describing the duties of a probation officer as a peace officer authorizes the carrying of a firearm in the performance of the duties of an officer. During the last legislative session, a strong push was made to authorize any probation officer to carry a weapon without the department’s authorization while on duty. A compromise was reached stating that the AOC would create a Safety Committee with the purpose of establishing statewide policies on safety, use of force, firearms, and safety training. The Administrative Orders allow any probation of surveillance officer who can qualify according to stated standards and training to request permission to carry a department authorized weapon in the performance of their duties. The orders also outline the specifics and required hours of training which the department must provide not only for firearms but in defensive tactics and safety. There is an increased cost to provide the training armory, and ongoing certification as well as to purchase firearms, ammunition, and to provide a shooting range for target practice. Officer Safety/Arming FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 150,000.00 Total $ $ $ $ $ 150,000 475 Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND $ $ $ $ $ Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Mandatory Payment to Arizona State Public Finances (Laws 2002, Chapter 328, H.B. 2708, General Appropriations (Laws 2002, Chapter 327, H.B. 2706 During the 2002 legislative session, the legislature agreed that for public safety reasons juvenile and adult probation supervision should not be cut beyond those cuts already imposed in FY 2002. However, the legislature also decided that the state would reduce its percentage of probation state aid to Maricopa and Pima counties by transferring a portion of current state funding to the counties. The net affect of this “shift” is to require the two urban counties to pay a slightly higher percentage of the total cost of probation operations. During fiscal year 2002-03, a total of $2,388,198 is to be paid to the Administrative Office of the Courts in quarterly payment of $597,049.50 by August 22, 2002, October 1, 2002, January 1, 2003, and April 1, 2003. Departmental Budget Schedules Mandatory Payment to State of Arizona FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 476 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 1,907,297 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 480,901.00 Total $ $ $ $ $ 2,388,198 Adult Probation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 110 ADULT PROBATION FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 10,429,048 $ 3,675,374 $ 106,542 $ 14,210,964 $ 40,078,517 1,895,050 41,973,567 41,973,567 $ 50,507,565 $ 5,570,424 $ 106,542 $ 56,184,531 $ 41,973,567 $ 50,507,565 $ 5,570,424 $ 106,542 $ 56,184,531 $ 41,973,567 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 110 ADULT PROBATION FY 2000-01 Actual 33,647,565 7,155,026 127,497 363,050 41,293,138 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 36,389,181 841,170 455,952 7,138,150 26,627 7,000 44,858,080 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS SubTotal $ 653,393 6,649 17,305 858,883 31,947 220,854 2,121,749 765,020 400,212 321,676 359,803 11,005 213,965 18,949 6,001,410 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ $ 38,473,935 7,026,902 45,500,837 FY 2001-02 Revised $ 40,483,108 $ 590,004 50,000 8,644,662 34,367 (60,000) 60,000 49,802,141 $ $ 3,088,421 10,000 15,682 258,516 60,000 305,000 3,230,357 931,593 600,000 1,500 381,644 485,000 65,000 92,678 9,525,391 189,660 17,182 206,842 51,066,332 $ 41,486,729 $ 590,004 50,000 8,782,865 34,367 (60,000) 60,000 50,943,965 $ $ 2,012,941 10,000 15,682 258,516 60,000 305,000 3,143,857 931,593 580,000 1,500 381,644 485,000 65,000 92,678 8,343,411 $ 60,000 18,500 78,500 $ 60,000 18,500 78,500 $ $ 59,406,032 $ 59,365,876 $ (9,773,194) $ $ 38,473,935 7,026,902 45,500,837 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act (13,905,195) $ $ $ (13,865,039) $ 31,246,714 6,932,460 513,540 103,865 38,796,579 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 38,860,712 $ 926,789 106,132 8,420,708 1,129,916 (15,000) 22,000 49,451,257 $ 725,226 4,044 13,774 229,056 69,988 94,351 712,668 835,303 431,720 477 554,198 396,260 83,166 55,162 86 1,703 4,207,182 53,658,439 $ $ 32,040,428 7,630,077 16,546 39,687,051 $ (14,861,860) $ $ 38,561,858 $ 80,712 41,352 9,724,722 50,898 (40,000) 47,000 48,466,542 $ 376,900 5,000 17,626 681,813 80,419 150,000 2,343,049 862,225 274,443 531,343 333,500 56,558 65,000 5,777,876 - $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 54,244,418 33,189,126 8,622,305 120,000 42,136 41,973,567 -14% 23% $ (5,284,809) 1,595,403 120,000 42,136 (3,527,270) 38,929,114 $ 80,712 41,352 9,199,017 2,174,819 (40,000) 122,551 50,507,565 $ 2,557,615 509,292 8,648 (416,152) (2,140,452) (20,000) (62,551) 436,400 6% 86% 17% -5% -6228% -33% -104% 1% $ 296,000 5,000 17,325 70,024 25,000 768,535 862,225 213,575 2,519,525 531,343 140,314 56,558 65,000 5,570,424 $ 106,542 106,542 $ $ 56,184,531 $ (14,557,367) $ % $ (14,210,964) $ -8% 1,716,941 85% 5,000 50% (1,643) -10% 258,516 100% (10,024) -17% 280,000 92% 2,375,322 76% 69,368 7% 366,425 63% (2,518,025) -167868% (149,699) -39% 344,686 71% 8,442 13% 27,678 30% 2,772,987 33% 60,000 18,500 (106,542) (28,042) 3,181,345 (345,925) 100% 100% -36% 5% -2% Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 110 ADULT PROBATION WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III FTE 13.0 24.0 477 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Adult Probation (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR V ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR VI ADMINISTRATOR III ADULT EDUCATION INSTRUCTOR II ADULT EDUCATION INSTRUCTOR III ADULT PROBATION CHIEF OFFCR ADULT PROBATION DEPUTY CHIEF OFFICER ADULT PROBATION OFFICER II ADULT PROBATION OFFICER III ADULT PROBATION OFFICER IV ADULT PROBATION OFFICER V ADULT PROBATION SURVEILLANCE OFFICER II ADULT PROBATION SURVEILLANCE OFFICER III ADULT PROBATION TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR BUSINESS ANALYST LEAD CASE ADMINISTRATOR CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST - LEAD COLLECTOR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS OPERATOR COUNSELOR II COUNSELOR III COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR III COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR IV COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR V DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR FACILITIES PROJECT COORDINATOR I HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER INFORMATION COORDINATOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS HELP DESK COORDINATOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS HELP DESK COORDINATOR I INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINER - SENIOR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR II JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR III JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR IV JUDICIAL ASSISTANT II JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR II JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR III JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR V LAN ADMININISTRATOR - LEAD LAN ADMINISTRATOR - SENIOR LAN MANAGER LEAD COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS OPERATOR LEGAL ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT ANALYST III MANAGEMENT ANALYST IV MANAGER, HELP DESK MANAGER, MICROCOMPUTER TECHNOLOGY PC LAN TECHNICIAN II PC LAN TECHNICIAN III PRESENTENCE SCREENER I PROGRAM COORDINATOR I PROGRAM COORDINATOR II PROGRAMMER ANALYST II PROJECT LEADER PROJECT MANAGER, APPLICATIONS PUBLIC WORKS LEAD SERVICE WORKER IV VICTIM WITNESS ADVOCATE TOTAL 478 FTE 7.0 4.0 9.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 596.5 72.0 9.0 6.0 116.0 1.0 2.0 13.0 2.0 13.0 12.0 34.0 2.0 110.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 45.0 3.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1,174.0 Justice Courts Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Presiding Justice of the Peace Presiding Justice of the Peace Mission The mission of the Maricopa County Justice Courts is to provide professional judicial services for court customers so they can obtain timely and economical justice within their community. Vision The vision of the Maricopa County Justice Courts is to provide community-based, user-friendly, efficient and professional justice. Goals ! ! ! ! ! Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! ! The increase in the population will increase the demand for Justice Court services. Increasing technology will reduce personal contact with customers, while placing additional demands on staff and facilities. The increasing demand for Justice Courts Services will challenge us to deliver services more efficiently. An integrated court/law enforcement information system will improve information sharing and improve service throughout the court and law enforcement community. A diverse array of unmet customer expectations leads to dissatisfaction, but presents opportunities for Justice Courts to enhance service delivery. Funding limitations and associated resource management challenges may reduce the Justice Courts capacity to properly serve the community. The potential implementation of initiatives reducing individual justice courts' autonomy will create new challenges for the department to ensure that their customers can access a swift and economical forum of justice within the community. 479 Departmental Budget Schedules ! By January 2002, the Justice Courts will produce educational programs to educate the public about the unique services provided by the Justice Courts. By June 2002, the Justice Courts will implement a comprehensive security program at all Justice Court locations, thus reducing the threat of harm to staff and court users. By July 2002 we will identify and maintain an appropriate staffing level for the Justice Court system to support justice court processes. By July 2002, enhance service delivery through a comprehensive volunteer program which measures volunteer hours and additional services rendered. By December 31, 2002, develop a formula for and identify sites for Justice Court locations based on population and corresponding demographics for an appropriate number of additional Justice Courts by 2006. By July 2003, process all case types within timeframes established by the National Trial Court Performance Standards and or statutory requirements. Justice Courts (Continued) ! ! The challenges of attracting and retaining a qualified workforce will impact adversely the ability of the Justice Courts to deliver services. The volatile and emotional nature of the issues handled by the Justice Courts may threaten court security and employee/customer safety. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED JUSTICE COURTS TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity CASE PROCESSING COURT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 7,514,463 1,363,774 1,463,754 2,342,936 12,684,927 Supplies & Services $ 377,671 209,666 3,407,825 18,071 261,139 $ 4,274,372 Capital Outlay $ $ 208,000 18,898 226,898 Total Expenditures $ 7,892,134 1,573,440 4,871,579 226,071 2,622,973 $ 17,186,197 $ $ Total Revenue 8,334,627 608,633 1,706,187 3,253,952 13,903,399 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Performance Measures Program Name: Case Processing Program Purpose: The purpose of the Case Processing program is to provide adjudication for affected parties so they can have legal resolution to the issues confronting them. Key Results: Percent of civil cases adjudicated within a specified time period Percent of civil cases that go to trial Percent of civil traffic cases adjudicated within a specified time period Percent of civil traffic cases filed that go to hearing Percent of felony cases processed within a specified time period Percent of landlord/tenant dispute cases adjudicated within a specified time period (commercial and residential) Percent of misdemeanor cases adjudicated within a specified time period Percent of small claim cases adjudicated within a specified time period Percent of protective injunction cases with orders issued ex parte 480 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 12.5 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 3.5 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 86 Justice Courts (Continued) Program Name: Court Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Court Services program is to provide non-case processing services for the Justice Courts and court customers so that they can be obtain other services that are reliable, timely, convenient, and within a safe environment. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 96 100 N/A 100 99 100 N/A 100 47 49 N/A N/A 90 93 N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 12,887,250 $ 332,830 $ 14,767,834 $ 1,444,760 $ 14,876,927 $ 986,865 $ 15,309,720 $ 985,846 $ 15,710,924 $ 1,475,273 Total $ 13,220,080 $ 16,212,594 $ 15,863,792 $ 16,295,566 $ 17,186,197 Total Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 12,887,250 $ 332,830 $ 13,220,080 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 14,767,834 $ 1,444,760 $ 16,212,594 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 14,876,927 $ 986,865 $ 15,863,792 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 15,309,720 $ 985,846 $ 16,295,566 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 15,710,924 $ 1,475,273 $ 17,186,197 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 481 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of Justices of the Peace that meet the training requirements mandated by the Arizona Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Education and Training (COJET) Percent of Justice Court Staff meeting the training requirements mandated by the Arizona Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Education and Training (COJET) Percent of total marriage licenses issued by the Justice Courts as compared to those issue by Clerk of the Court Percent of Financial Reports completed on-time Percent of court customers prevented from entering the court with weapons Justice Courts (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION Justices of the Peace Constitution Article 6, § 32 Superior and other courts; qualification of judges; A.R.S. §§ 22-101 through 22-125 Justice Precincts and Precinct Officers; A.R.S. §§ 22-201 through 22-284 Civil Proceedings in Justice Courts; A.R.S. §§ 22-301 through 22-375 Criminal Proceedings in Justice Courts, and Small Claims A.R.S. §§ 22-501 through 22-524 The office of the Justice of the Peace is established in the Arizona Constitution. The Constitution was amended in 1990 to increase Civil Jurisdiction to $10,000 or less. The Board of Supervisors can create, change and abolish justice precincts, but may not abolish a precinct until the expiration of terms of office of the present Justice and Constable. Justices of the Peace may act in other precincts within the County. The County must pay for office rent, stationary, telephone, lights, official travel expenses when the Justice of the Peace is outside of h/her precinct and 60% of the salary and benefits of the Justice. Justices of the Peace salaries are established by judicial productivity credits, which entitle them to varying percentages of the salary of the Superior Court Judge ranging from 25% to 70% (A.R.S §§ 22-125). Justices of the Peace are required to prepare a schedule of misdemeanor traffic violations and specific amounts of bail each; they are also required to prepare a schedule of civil traffic violations and the specific amount of deposit for each. The Superior Court Presiding Judge may appoint Justices of the Peace Pro Tempore with approval of the Board of Supervisors. Justices Pro Tempore are entitled to compensation as set for elected Justices in the precincts in which they serve. The County must pay the cost of their salaries plus facilities, staff, and supplies. Justices of the Peace are required to keep civil and criminal dockets. 482 Justice Courts (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 240 JUSTICE COURTS FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 12,448,828 $ 3,262,096 $ $ 15,710,924 $ 12,633,446 236,099 1,012,276 226,898 1,475,273 1,269,953 $ 12,684,927 $ 4,274,372 $ 226,898 $ 17,186,197 $ 13,903,399 $ 12,684,927 $ 4,274,372 $ 226,898 $ 17,186,197 $ 13,903,399 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 240 JUSTICE COURTS FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted (15,158) 517,867 2,787,382 9,434,696 222,847 12,947,634 $ 833,871 2,753,395 9,176,314 123,858 12,887,438 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 8,851,948 $ 566,104 166,342 1,819,331 16,224 (250) 11,419,699 $ 9,279,992 607,580 98,363 2,179,281 12,165,216 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES SubTotal $ $ 410,342 500 86,355 202,400 120,688 2,584,816 91,750 32,146 175,810 223,582 130,400 45,000 4,103,789 SubTotal $ 292,132 292,132 Total Expenditures $ 15,863,792 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 327,090 1,184 108,117 298,303 476,680 2,472,127 58,861 258,863 107,374 11,616 31,747 4,151,960 $ $ $ $ 9,717,419 589,762 95,504 2,242,780 14,754 12,660,219 $ 406,942 500 71,355 202,400 119,689 2,623,779 91,750 32,146 173,320 203,257 122,900 45,000 4,093,038 $ 415,729 415,729 $ 16,684,734 (2,916,158) $ $ 265,500 833,871 2,753,395 9,176,314 123,858 13,152,938 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 265,500 783,261 2,967,167 9,336,126 17,320 139,638 13,509,012 9,290,433 $ 502,144 26,247 2,026,598 18,756 (866) 4,346 11,867,658 $ 9,827,788 425,674 98,362 2,587,011 119,587 13,058,422 $ 379,788 650 48,215 363,020 127 130,626 2,654,515 81,252 16,074 166,283 143,220 121,374 38,956 4,144,100 $ 415,729 415,729 $ 17,168,986 (3,797,296) $ $ 84,894 833,871 2,954,906 9,060,671 5,899 136,631 13,076,872 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ 247,769 895,185 2,967,167 9,636,320 17,320 139,638 13,903,399 13% 6% $ 288,206 650 55,201 228,079 174,168 3,051,969 81,250 159,896 109,543 115,410 10,000 4,274,372 $ 188,831 188,831 $ (17,211) 0% 733,250 18% $ 200,808 83,000 283,808 $ 131,898 78,000 209,898 $ 226,898 226,898 $ 16,295,566 $ 17,630,762 $ 17,186,197 (4,121,750) $ $ -7% 7% 8% 5% $ $ (3,218,694) $ $ (17,731) 61,314 213,772 460,006 17,320 15,780 750,461 % 9,797,336 425,675 30,000 2,426,317 5,599 12,684,927 288,206 70,200 228,079 174,169 3,051,968 112,250 172,617 139,543 115,410 10,000 4,362,442 (4,016,048) $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted -1% 28% 69% -8% 62% $ (79,917) 164,087 65,504 (183,537) 9,155 (24,708) 29% -30% 23% -13% $ 118,736 (150) 16,154 (25,679) (54,479) (428,190) 10,500 32,146 13,424 93,714 7,490 35,000 (181,334) 45% (3,282,798) $ 0% -46% -16% 11% 100% 8% 46% 6% 78% -4% 45% 483 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Revised Justice Courts (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 240 JUSTICE COURTS Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT II ACCOUNTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR V BUSINESS ANALYST LEAD CLIENT SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST-LEAD COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR II COURT SECURITY SUPERVISOR EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MANAGER FISCAL MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR HELP DESK COORDINATOR HUMAN RESOURCES COORDINATOR IT MANAGER JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR IV JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR III JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR V JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR JUSTICE COURT CLERK I JUSTICE COURT CLERK II JUSTICE COURT CLERK III JUSTICE COURT CLERK IV JUSTICE COURT CLERK V JUSTICE COURT COLLECTOR JUSTICE COURT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR JUSTICE OF THE PEACE MANAGEMENT ANALYST IV PC LAN TECHNICIAN PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SECURITY GUARD SECURITY GUARD I SENIOR MAINFRAME ANALYST SYSTEM/NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING & DOCUMENTATION SPECIALIST TOTAL 484 FTE 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 87.3 14.0 53.0 22.0 23.0 20.0 1.0 23.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 27.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 299.1 Juvenile Probation Superior Court Presiding Judge Juvenile Court Honorable Linda K. Scott Presiding Judge Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Cheryln K. Townsend Cheryln K. Townsend Court Services Administrative Services Research & Planning Services JIPS Services Community Services Probation Services - SEF Probation Services - DUR Juvenile Detention Detention Services The Mission of the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department is to provide information, services, and programs to county residents so they can resolve problems associated with juvenile crime. Vision We envision Maricopa County as being a place where: Juveniles who come into contact with the Department become responsible citizens; Victims of juvenile crime experience justice; The Public feels safer. Goals • • • • At each step of involvement with the Probation Department where over-representation or differential treatment is noted, starting in FY 2002, we will institute training programs and/or services to reverse the trend. We will recruit and fund staff positions that, by FY 2003 result in the following retention rates: YS: 0 - 2 years @ 85% 3 - 5 years @ 90% Over 5 years @ 95% All Other Positions: 0 - 2 years @ 90% 3 - 5 years @ 90% Over 5 years @ 95% and acheive and maintain an average staffing of 96.5% filled positions by July, 2003. Analyze and evaluate current and projected client service needs by June, 2002. By February 2003, a departmental plan will be developed in conjunction with other governmental and community based agencies that will identify a continuum of service delivery options. By June 30, 2004 we will have implemented at least 50% of the continuum in alignment with available research and “Best Practice.” Eighty five percent of our employees will be satisfied or very satisfied with their employment at MCJPD by FY 2004. 485 Departmental Budget Schedules Mission Juvenile Probation (Continued) • In FY 2001 determine (a) the amount of undistributed Restitution funds, and (b) the average number of days it takes to distribute funds. In FY 2002, decrease by 20% the number of days it takes to distribute the funds. Issues ! ! ! ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! ! ! ! ! The need to recruit qualified staff is impacted by increased competition among the public and private sector. This will challenge the department's ability to staff the expansion of the agency. A large percentage of juveniles and families referred to the Court experience psychological, behavioral, educational and social problems in addition to delinquency. The impact on our department is that we must develop and fund programs that meet these needs in order to change behavior. Communities perceive that there is little or no connection between their lives and "The Justice System". This creates a situation of reduced community support and approval of our efforts. Maricopa County is the fastest growing county in the United States. The impact on the probation department has been unprecedented growth an decentralization resulting in staff feeling separated and isolated from each other and lacking purpose. Research results leading toward better diagnostics and treatment, political forces, and other forces combine to create a situation in which our personnel require more and more specialized knowledge. The over-representation of minorities throughout the juvenile justice system results in resentment, hostility, and distrust of our Department. Other political and legislative agendas require resources from our department and impact our ability to focus on our identified goals and priorities. Treatment funding is not going to rise to the level needed to properly serve our juvenile population. Our department is challenged to do more with less. The Court has undistributed funds allocated for victim restitution. This negatively affects public perception of the court, probation, and the juvenile justice system. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED JUVENILE PROBATION TOTAL FUNDS Program COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROGRAM DETENTION PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ 486 Personal Services 17,818,734 11,366,310 287,702 1,398,263 1,074,138 5,382,842 37,327,989 Supplies & Services $ 927,431 1,380,929 10,253 4,332,178 174,810 1,378,733 $ 8,204,334 Capital Outlay $ $ 908,821 23,750 107,416 1,039,987 Total Expenditures $ 18,746,165 13,656,060 297,955 5,730,441 1,272,698 6,868,991 $ 46,572,310 Total Revenue $ $ 19,072,563 18,002 19,090,565 Juvenile Probation (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Community Justice Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community Justice Program is to provide the residents of Maricopa County a juvenile justice system in which: offenders are held accountable and given the opportunity and encouragement to change; victims are acknowledged and compensated; and the community is actively involved, so that juveniles become personally responsible and community safety is enhanced. Key Results: Percent of juveniles completing probation successfully Percent of juveniles who complete programs without reoffending Percent of juveniles successfully completing diversion programs Percent reduction in number of days to distribute restitution FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 87 89 91.7 91 N/A N/A 79.02 78 N/A N/A 80.7 79 N/A N/A 4.8 8 Detention Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Detention Program is to provide a secure and safe custody in an environment that promotes skill-building, accountability, and responsible citizenship to detained juveniles, so they can become responsible citizens and the public safety is enhanced. Key Results: Percent of detainees requiring Class I Incident Reports Percent of detainees completing cognitive skills programs FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 3.1 3.1 N/A N/A 60.5 60.5 Program Name: Operational Support Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Operational Support Program is to provide our employees with intellectual and emotional support so they will grow professionally. Key Results: Percent of employees who report they feel safe in doing their job Amount of revenue collected from Probation and Diversion Fees FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 71 75 N/A N/A 1,199,531 1,199,531 487 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Juvenile Probation (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 17,115,615 $ 17,538,982 $ 10,577,644 $ 10,532,920 $ 11,608,350 Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 11,312,751 $ $ 24,955,845 $ $ 26,938,197 $ $ 27,550,203 $ 350,185 $ 34,183,714 $ 780,246 $ $ $ $ $ Total 28,428,366 42,494,827 37,515,841 38,433,308 46,572,310 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 17,115,615 $ 17,538,982 $ 10,577,644 $ 10,532,920 $ 11,608,350 Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 11,312,751 $ $ 24,955,845 $ $ 26,938,197 $ $ 27,550,203 $ 350,185 $ 34,183,714 $ 780,246 $ $ $ $ $ Total 28,428,366 42,494,827 37,515,841 38,433,308 46,572,310 Departmental Budget Schedules NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 488 Juvenile Court* Constitution Article 6 § 15 Superior Court ; Procedures Affecting Children; A.R.S. §§ 8-101 Through 8-863 Juvenile Court The Juvenile Court is a part of the Superior Court, headed by a Juvenile Presiding Judge. While most of the funding for Juvenile Court is provided by County revenue sources, a significant portion is funded through Federal and State grant awards. The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over all cases involving crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age, including some traffic offenses. The Juvenile Court also has jurisdiction over all adoptions, cases of neglect and abuse, termination of parental rights, Title 8 guardianships and other child-related matters. Juvenile Probation: The number of deputy probation officers must not exceed one for every thirty-five children under protective supervision or probation. Juvenile Detention: The Board of Supervisors is required to "maintain a detention center separate and apart from a jail or lock-up in which adults are confined where children alleged to be delinquent or incorrigible…shall, when necessary before or after hearing, be detained." The Juvenile Intensive Probation program is also required by statute, but is fully funded by the State. Juvenile Probation (Continued) * The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over all cases involving crimes committed by juveniles, therefore, total mandated expenditures for the Juvenile Court program is considered to be the consolidated Juvenile Probation department expenditures. In order to avoid double counting, the Juvenile Court program mandate calculation equals total department expenditures minus all other Juvenile Probation mandated program expenditures. General Fund $ 1,015,176 $ 1,099,238 $ 1,159,327 $ 1,683,436 $ 1,845,717 Special Revenue $ 3,468,096 $ 4,450,762 $ 4,762,544 $ 5,369,456 $ 5,222,023 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,483,272 5,550,000 5,921,871 7,052,892 7,067,740 Probation Services FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 5,901,254 $ 6,496,986 $ 6,996,465 $ 6,406,049 $ 6,258,601 Special Revenue $ 6,387,759 $ 7,070,617 $ 5,138,255 $ 5,335,847 $ 4,131,038 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 12,289,013 13,567,603 12,134,720 11,741,896 10,389,639 Juvenile Detention Center FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 7,746,801 $ 1,534 $ 91,296 $ 74,988 $ 65,478 Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 715,369 $ $ 12,464,294 $ $ 12,605,830 $ $ 12,040,717 $ 350,185 $ 14,154,231 $ 780,246 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,462,170 12,465,828 12,697,126 12,465,890 14,999,955 Research and Planning Services (RAPS) FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,020,549 $ 1,176,896 $ 1,412,601 $ 946,701 $ 1,311,807 Special Revenue $ 428,217 $ 506,433 $ 224,109 $ 350,910 $ 346,517 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,448,766 1,683,329 1,636,710 1,297,611 1,658,324 Executive Services FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 270,809 $ 289,806 $ 295,852 $ 254,178 $ 331,129 Special Revenue $ 76,130 $ 109,176 $ 137,566 $ 186,772 $ 224,486 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 346,939 398,982 433,418 440,950 555,615 Administrative Services FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,584,393 $ 481,564 $ 622,103 $ 1,167,568 $ 1,795,619 Special Revenue $ 237,180 $ 354,563 $ 433,037 $ 584,816 $ 6,438,146 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,821,573 836,127 1,055,140 1,752,384 8,233,765 JIPS FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ 3,636,856 $ 3,681,685 $ 3,667,273 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,636,856 3,681,685 3,667,273 489 Departmental Budget Schedules Community Services FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Juvenile Probation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 270 JUVENILE PROBATION FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 9,443,369 $ 2,058,036 $ 106,945 $ 11,608,350 $ 18,000 27,884,620 6,146,298 152,796 34,183,714 19,072,565 780,246 780,246 $ 37,327,989 $ 8,204,334 $ 1,039,987 $ 46,572,310 $ 19,090,565 $ 37,327,989 $ 8,204,334 $ 1,039,987 $ 46,572,310 $ 19,090,565 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 270 JUVENILE PROBATION Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 13,015,231 1,322,270 1,132,142 15,469,643 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 24,924,175 $ 795,574 868,724 5,089,444 58,719 (898,879) 898,580 31,736,337 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS SubTotal $ 2,067,286 8,555 33,972 491,287 3,037 85,973 1,877,269 296,333 174,621 230,020 298,152 32,700 4,858 5,604,063 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 50 78,223 97,169 175,442 Total Expenditures $ 37,515,842 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 490 $ $ $ $ 14,504,816 31,200 1,028,727 51,400 15,616,143 $ 27,271,901 $ 700,271 446,200 6,225,834 611,028 (918,784) 918,784 35,255,234 $ 3,259,130 7,100 33,546 361,976 6,800 3,400 834,835 164,400 155,400 143,869 249,193 116,500 19,491 5,355,640 $ 5,000 19,000 976 24,976 $ 40,635,850 (22,046,199) $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ 18,197,057 31,200 1,028,727 51,400 19,308,384 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 28,144,881 $ 696,736 446,200 6,676,577 263,920 (918,785) 918,784 36,228,313 $ 6,124,858 7,100 33,538 286,072 6,800 3,393 839,224 164,400 155,400 143,863 249,142 116,798 19,501 8,150,089 $ $ $ 17,500 24,000 20,060 61,560 $ $ 44,439,962 $ (25,019,707) $ $ (25,131,578) $ 13,974,885 15,600 1,087,238 10,679 12,218 15,100,620 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 26,138,874 $ 919,175 232,638 5,873,022 322,403 (897,992) 907,308 33,495,428 $ 2,306,714 2,887 30,716 64,021 2,680 47,309 1,351,085 215,726 175,966 64,456 183,520 385,530 77,481 11,352 555 4,919,998 $ $ (18,800) 36,682 17,882 $ 113,000 240,676 353,676 47,343,012 $ (23,332,688) $ $ 28,804,371 $ 1,117,224 187,996 7,110,781 165,278 (989,465) 1,251,292 37,647,477 $ 7,213,350 7,403 43,767 29,113 5,900 5,850 1,038,272 155,855 189,800 236,998 275,950 113,600 26,001 9,341,859 38,433,308 $ 18,700,728 1,118,545 50,000 19,869,273 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 17,852,661 18,000 1,169,904 50,000 19,090,565 % -2% -42% 14% $ (344,396) (13,200) 141,177 (1,400) (217,819) 28,614,940 $ 1,061,202 183,630 7,047,793 462,029 (1,588,148) 1,546,543 37,327,989 $ (470,059) (364,466) 262,570 (371,216) (198,109) 669,363 (627,759) (1,099,676) -2% -52% 59% -6% -75% 73% -68% -3% 1,800,140 (4,404) (2,881) 286,072 1,120 (68,457) (770,448) (201,543) (21,555) (668,600) (217,735) (199,771) (1,202) 15,019 (54,245) 29% -62% -9% 100% 16% -2018% -92% -123% -14% 100% -698% -1589% 4,324,718 11,504 36,419 5,680 71,850 1,609,672 365,943 176,955 668,600 361,598 448,913 118,000 4,482 8,204,334 $ -151% -80% -1% 77% -1% $ 766,926 113,000 160,061 1,039,987 $ 17,500 (766,926) 24,000 (113,000) (140,001) (978,427) $ 46,572,310 $ (2,132,348) -5% (27,481,745) $ (2,350,167) -9% (27,473,739) $ $ -3% -1% 100% Juvenile Probation (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 270 JUVENILE PROBATION FTE 1.0 12.0 6.0 14.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 51.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV BUSINESS ANALYST LEAD BUYER II BUYER III COLLECTOR COMPUTER OPERATOR III COUNSELOR II COUNSELOR III COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR III CUSTODIAN III DATABASE ANALYST LEAD FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR III GRAPHICS EQUIPMENT TECHNICIAN II INFORMATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATORJUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS HELP DESK COORDINATOR III JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR III JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR III JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR IV JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR V JUVENILE COURT SERVICES ASSISTANT DIRECTOR JUVENILE COURT SERVICES DIRECTOR JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER II JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER III JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER IV JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER V LAN ADMINISTRATOR LAUNDRY WORKER II MANAGEMENT ANALYST IV MIDRANGE PA SENIOR MIDRANGE PROGRAM ANALYST - LEAD PHYSICAL EDUCATION-RECREATION COORDINATOR PROJECT MANAGER APPLICATIONS PROJECT MANAGER, DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS PSYCHOLOGIST SERVICE WORKER IV YOUTH SUPERVISOR TOTAL 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 363.0 42.0 5.0 3.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 270.0 827.5 491 Superior Court Superior Court Judges Superior Court Judges in Maricopa County in Maricopa County Judges Executive Committee Presiding Judge -------------------------Assoc. Presiding Judge Judges Administrative Advisory Committees Family Court Department Northwest Branch Superior Court Administration/ Court Administrator Southeast Branch Tax Court Special Assignment Department Civil Department Juvenile Court Department Probate/ Mental Health Department Criminal Department Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County is to provide access to a public forum for dispute resolution and court services to the public so they can realize timely, fair and individualized justice. Vision The Superior Court continually explores ways to improve by experimenting with better methods to resolve disputes and program designs that address civil and criminal issues fairly and without undue delay. We focus on how to be the best at what we do, whether providing a judicial forum or specific customer-centered programs and how to position ourselves to anticipate change, rather than react to it. Goals ! ! ! ! ! By December 2003, the Court will provide speedy and fair justice in case processing as follows: -95% of cases shall be disposed in compliance with established trial court standards; -case terminations shall equal or exceed case filings; -pending case inventories shall be reduced by 3%. To prevent delay in judicial decisions, by December 2003, 90% of needs assessments and evaluative reports will be made to judges within guidelines adopted by the court. Individuals are held accountable and the integrity of the court maintained through monitoring: 100% of probate cases requiring audits and financial accounting within a two year cycle; -80% of court-supervised defendants to comply with pretrial release conditions; -18% of cases complying with court collections orders. Families will experience sustainable resolution of their issues through earlier assessment, more individualized, appropriate decision-making, and coordinated use of available resources and court services as evidenced by: -70% cases referred to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) will be resolved by ADR; -50% of cases resolved through ADR will not require further court intervention for two years thereafter. The public will experience increased access to the court system through improved affordability, convenience and understanding of court processes, while maintaining the efficiency and quality of court services. 492 Superior Court (Continued) ! By July 2003, the court and justice agencies will make informed decisions using timely, accurate and comprehensive information provided through an integrated management information system. -100% of information systems with integrated databases by December 2003. -100% of targeted justice and law enforcement business processes that share data by December 2002. Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 493 Departmental Budget Schedules ! Delays in case processing negatively impact the purposes of the Court: 1. To do individual justice in individual cases. 2. To appear to do justice. 3. To provide a forum for the resolution of legal disputes. 4. To protect individuals from the arbitrary use of government power. 5. To provide a formal record of legal status. 6. To deter criminal behavior. 7. To rehabilitate persons convicted of crime. 8. To separate convicted persons from society. 9. To protect the vulnerable. The growing complexity of the Court's case processing demands, user needs, and the immediate need for information for decision-making requires an increasingly more sophisticated application of technology in the delivery of system integration, data sharing among justice agencies, and information access by the public. The trend toward an increase in workload and case complexity will magnify the need for additional resources and re-engineering of case processing to avoid delay and maintain public trust and confidence in the justice system. Increased internal and external demand for improved case monitoring and auditing systems and procedures impact on the Court's ability to meet its mandatory obligations. Increasing complexity of court cases, legislative decisions, an expanded definition of family, and a desire by a judiciary unfamiliar with diagnostic adjudication to provide litigants and families with a more meaningful outcome, all drive the Court to provide expert ancillary services, thus taxing the current limited resources and available physical space. Population growth, complexity of the justice system, citizen diversity, and the transitory nature of the Maricopa County population have increased the demand for existing and new court services, while available court space, staff, and physical infrastructure have failed to support expansion of court programs or diversification of customer services. The public's increasing expectations for the court to provide social and customer services may be inconsistent with the court's role or ability, resulting in continued erosion of public trust in the judicial system. Court reform will cause the court to examine and re-evaluate its role and organizational boundaries. An uncertain economy, low unemployment, Maricopa County's compensation policies, and a lack of training make it increasingly difficult for the Court to attract and retain a qualified workforce. Superior Court (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED SUPERIOR COURT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity PRE-ADJUDICATION PROGRAM COURT INFORMATION SERVICES CASE MANAGEMENT ADR/EARLY ASSESSMENT MONITORING/ENFORCEMENT COURT OPERATIONS SUPPORT TRIAL DELIVERY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 160,193 51,001 71,621 57,271 3,450 36,738 213,198 88,758 30,658 41,129,308 41,842,196 Supplies & Services $ 105,275 24,845 51,441 1,917 544 7,862 74,455 16,612 22,171 8,483,184 $ 8,788,306 Capital Outlay $ $ 111,223 611,163 722,386 Total Expenditures $ 265,468 75,846 123,062 59,188 3,994 44,600 287,653 105,370 164,052 50,223,655 $ 51,352,888 $ $ Total Revenue 140,579 18,627 170,078 110,179 8,333 6,661 86,226 17,311 87,309 9,443,070 10,088,373 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Performance Measures Program Name: Case Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Case Management program is to provide caseflow management services to the court so it can advance case progress in a timely manner. Key Results: Percent of criminal cases resolved within established trial court standards Percent of civil cases resolved within established trial court standards Percent of Family Court cases (pre-decree) resolved within established trial court standards FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 78 77 N/A 90 70 74 71 85 83 85 85 90 Program Name: Court Information Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Court Information Services program is to provide court, legal and community information resources and services to the public and the court so they can better understand the law and the courts. Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Court Operations Support Program Purpose: The purpose of the Court Operations Support program is to provide internal services to the court and interested parties so they can efficiently resolve court cases in a safe and productive work environment. Key Results: None Reported 494 Superior Court (Continued) Program Name: Early Assessment And Adr Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Early Assessment and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program is to provide screening, intervention and dispute resolution alternatives to litigants and interested parties so they can resolve case-related issues in a timely and appropriate manner. Key Results: Percent cases referred to ADR reach resolution through ADR services provided FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 65 80 Program Name: Monitoring/Enforcement Program Purpose: The purpose of the Monitoring/Enforcement program is to provide probate oversight and enforcement services to the court and interested parties so they can assure compliance with judicial reporting and collection requirements and court orders. Key Results: None Reported Pre-Adjudication Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Pre-Adjudication program is to provide pre-file information services and monitoring activity to the court, defendants and interested parties so they can initiate case activity and monitor case progress. Key Results: Percent of in-custody cases processed within 24 hours of arrest, including advisements of allegations and determinations on release conditions, attorney status and interpreter needs FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 100 100 N/A 100 Program Name: Trial Delivery Program Purpose: The purpose of the Trial Delivery program is to provide adjudication services to litigants and jurors to the court so that cases can proceed to trial and resolution without delay. Key Results: Percent judges receiving Judicial Performance Report with a minimum 80% approval rating FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 91 N/A 93 95 Program Name: Trial Delivery Program Purpose: The purpose of the Trial Delivery program is to provide adjudication services to litigants and jurors to the court so that cases can proceed to trial and resolution without delay. Key Results: Percent of jurors reporting for service that are sent to a courtroom FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 64 N/A 80 495 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Superior Court (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 34,312,503 $ 36,925,166 $ 39,557,639 $ 41,701,009 $ 41,595,611 Special Revenue $ 5,491,186 $ 5,859,134 $ 7,734,379 $ 8,555,865 $ 9,757,277 $ $ $ $ $ Total 39,803,689 42,784,300 47,292,018 50,256,874 51,352,888 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 34,312,503 $ 5,491,186 $ 39,803,689 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 36,925,166 $ 5,859,134 $ 42,784,300 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 39,557,639 $ 7,734,379 $ 47,292,018 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 41,701,009 $ 8,555,865 $ 50,256,874 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 41,595,611 $ 9,757,277 $ 51,352,888 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 496 Superior Court (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY 497 Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Superior Court Constitution Article VI. §10 Superior Court; Number Of Judges; Constitution Article VI. §11 Superior Court; Presiding Judges; Duties Constitution Article VI. §24 Superior Court; Court Commissioners, Masters And Referees; Constitution. Article VI. §31 Judges Pro Tempore; A.R.S. §12-128 Salary Of Judges; Payment By State And Counties; A.R.S. §12-141 Appointment Of Judges Pro Tempore; A.R.S. §12-143 Payment Of Salaries And Other Expenses; Providing Facilities; Judicial Employees; A.R.S. §12-161 Definition Of Tax Court; A.R.S.§12-162 Administration Of The Tax Court; Principal Office; Travel Expenses; Facilities; Employees; A.R.S. §12-211, Appointment; Qualifications And Residence (Court Commissioners); A.R.S. §12-213 Commissioners In Certain Counties; Appointment; Powers And Duties; Salary; A.R.S. §12-221, Appointment And Oath (Court Reporter); A.R.S. §12-223 Attendance At And Report Of Proceedings; Sale Of Transcripts; A.R.S. §12-224 Salary; Fees For Transcripts; Free Transcripts; Office Supplies; A.R.S. §12-225 Appointment Of Deputies; Compensation; A.R.S. §12-231 Appointment And Duties (Bailiff); A.R.S. §12-241 Appointment; Court Attendance (Interpreters); A.R.S. §12-242 Interpreters For Deaf Persons; Proceedings; Definitions. The status of the courts as a separate branch of the government is established by the Federal and state constitutions. Judges/Commissioners/Pro Tems: Every county must have at least one judge of the superior court, and may have additional judges up to a limit of one judge per 30,000 county residents. Superior Court judges may appoint court commissioners, masters, and referees; the presiding judge in counties with three or more superior court judges can appoint commissioners. Judges Salaries are set by the legislature and paid one half by the state and one half by the counties. The presiding judge can request authority from the chief justice of the supreme court to appoint judges pro tempore "subject to the approval of the board of supervisors of the county." The associated support personnel and other operating costs of judges pro tempore must be paid by the county. Tax Court: The Arizona Tax Court is required to be in the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The "county shall fund the personnel and budget requirements' of the Tax Court "as determined by the presiding Judge." Court Reporters: The statutes specify that "each judge of the superior court shall appoint a court reporter." Court Reporters' salaries are fixed by the presiding judge with the approval of the board of supervisors, and must be funded by the county. Bailiffs: "Each Judge … may appoint such bailiffs as necessary to ensure the orderly transaction of the business court." Interpreters: The court is required to provide interpreters for witness and defendants. Aside from the above, a number of laws, court rules, and judicial orders regulate the policies and procedures followed by the Superior Court. Superior Court (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 380 SUPERIOR COURT FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 34,581,113 $ 6,831,398 $ 183,100 $ 41,595,611 $ 293,132 7,261,083 1,956,908 539,286 9,757,277 9,795,241 $ 41,842,196 $ 8,788,306 $ 722,386 $ 51,352,888 $ 10,088,373 $ 41,842,196 $ 8,788,306 $ 722,386 $ 51,352,888 $ 10,088,373 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 380 SUPERIOR COURT Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ $ 3,756,054 1,193,318 5,503,037 148,500 10,600,909 FY 2001-02 Revised $ 3,756,054 1,193,318 5,503,037 148,500 10,600,909 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 3,010,015 1,178,286 5,087,713 1,052 17,566 110,644 9,405,276 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 30,303,224 $ 410,608 453,394 4,970,239 11,794 (598,840) 589,788 36,140,206 $ 33,582,113 $ 5,979,662 1,264,926 (1,048,799) 701,719 40,479,621 $ 33,926,536 $ 6,067,098 1,297,429 (937,159) 701,719 41,055,623 $ 33,285,174 $ 371,107 192,660 6,102,620 217,878 (768,782) 637,840 40,038,497 $ SubTotal $ 1,535,411 $ 2 2,561 388,176 4,620,447 306,302 2,347,088 773,004 416,403 357,315 294,872 40,451 (9) 11,082,023 $ 2,635,182 666,330 4,183,030 283,900 1,140,784 874,154 651,750 272,301 308,500 338,109 11,354,040 $ 2,635,534 2,400 470,895 4,077,228 336,640 947,212 653,545 602,284 292,441 274,229 341,010 10,633,418 $ 2,736,839 $ 909 361,111 3,838,705 305,064 658,137 696,193 318,582 432,266 336,026 365,258 (10) 10,049,080 $ SubTotal $ 69,774 69,774 $ $ 7,305 252,104 259,409 $ 7,303 161,994 169,297 Total Expenditures $ 47,292,003 $ $ 51,948,450 $ 50,256,874 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 498 2,077,947 980,880 4,843,947 5,009 230,900 8,138,682 FY 2001-02 Adopted (39,153,321) $ 51,833,661 $ (41,232,752) $ $ (41,347,541) $ 4,122,521 1,304,721 5,314,159 571 54,298 230,439 11,026,709 $ 34,195,484 $ 13,227 5,684 7,038,182 863,837 (899,024) 823,474 42,040,864 $ 2,312,162 1,304,719 5,986,184 571 54,298 430,439 10,088,373 $ (1,443,892) 111,401 483,147 571 54,298 281,939 (512,536) 34,045,649 $ 13,227 5,687 6,691,575 1,161,606 (1,201,140) 1,125,592 41,842,196 $ (119,113) (13,227) (5,687) (624,477) 135,823 263,981 (423,873) (786,573) % -38% 9% 9% 190% -5% 0% -10% 10% 28% -60% -2% $ 2,297,949 610 128,856 3,711,478 283,956 846,836 54,971 467,542 394,419 256,537 345,152 8,788,306 $ 535,000 535,000 $ 722,386 722,386 $ 7,305 (470,282) (462,977) $ 52,514,268 $ 51,352,888 $ 595,562 1% (41,264,515) $ 83,026 0% (40,851,598) $ 2,270,590 610 406,191 4,023,047 328,183 869,105 426,779 572,066 394,153 294,125 353,555 9,938,404 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted (41,487,559) $ 75% 73% 9% 16% 11% 92% 22% -35% 6% -1% $ 337,585 1,790 342,039 365,750 52,684 100,376 598,574 134,742 (101,978) 17,692 (4,142) 1,845,112 13% 100% -187% -178% 17% Superior Court (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 380 SUPERIOR COURT FTE 2.0 1.0 9.0 9.0 27.0 21.0 18.0 5.0 85.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT I ACCOUNTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR V BAILIFF BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT BUSINESS ANALYST LEAD BUYER I BUYER III BUYER IV CASE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER CLIENT SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST-LEAD CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST TOP TECH CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST-SENIOR COMPUTER CENTER DIRECTOR COMPUTER OPERATIONS MANAGER COMPUTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR COMPUTER OPERATOR II COMPUTER OPERATOR III CONCILIATION SERVICES DIRECTOR COURT COMMISSIONER COURT CONCILIATOR II COURT CONCILIATOR III COURT CONCILIATOR IV COURT CONCILIATOR V COURT HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR II COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR III COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR IV COURT INFORMATION PROCESSOR V COURT INTERPRETER COORDINATOR COURT INTERPRETER I COURT INTERPRETER II COURT INVESTIGATOR II COURT REPORTER COURT SECURITY SUPERVISOR COURT SPECIALIST COURT TRAINING & EDUCATION DIRECTOR DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR FACILITIES PROJECT COORDINATOR I GRAPHICS EQUIPMENT TECHNICIAN II HUMAN RESOURCES SENIOR ANALYST INFORMATION SYSTEMS HELP DESK COORDINATOR I INFORMATION SYSTEMS HELP DESK COORDINATOR III INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINER - SENIOR INITIAL APPEAR. COURT ASST. I INITIAL APPEAR. COURT ASST. II INITIAL APPEAR. COURT DEPUTY SUPERVISOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 32.0 13.0 15.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 100.0 34.5 5.0 1.0 7.0 14.0 4.0 79.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 499 Superior Court (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE INITIAL APPEAR. COURT SUPERVISOR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR I JUDICIAL ASSISTANT JUDICIAL ASSISTANT II JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR II JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR III JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR IV JUDICIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR V JUDICIAL SPECIALIST LAN ADMINISTRATOR - SENIOR LAW LIBRARIAN II LAW LIBRARIAN III LAW LIBRARY AIDE LAW LIBRARY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LAW LIBRARY ASSISTANT I LAW LIBRARY ASSISTANT II LAW LIBRARY ASSISTANT III LAW RESEARCHER MAINFRAME PROGRAMMER/ANALYST MAINFRAME PROGRAMMER/ANALYST - LEAD MAINFRAME PROGRAMMER/ANALYST - SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST II MANAGEMENT ANALYST III MANAGEMENT ANALYST IV MANAGER, APPLICATIONS OFFICE SUPERVISOR I PC LAN TECHNICIAN III PRETRIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER I PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER II PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER III PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER IV PROBATE EXAMINER PROBATE REGISTRAR PRODUCTION CONTROL ANALYST PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT MANAGER APPLICATIONS PSO II/PSO III PSO I/PSO III SECURITY GUARD I SECURITY GUARD II SECURITY MANAGER SENIOR LAW RESEARCHER SERVICE WORKER IV SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR SUPERIOR COURT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR - SENIOR SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER - TOP TECH. TRADES GENERALIST UNIX ADMINISTRATOR WEB DEVELOPER WEB SITE MANAGER - DEPT. TOTAL 500 FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 114.0 2.0 15.0 7.0 8.0 20.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 12.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 11.0 5.0 74.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 91.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 979.0 Appointed Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Elected Board of Supervisors Don Stapley, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer Appointed Internal Audit Deputy County Administrator Legal Advocacy Chief Public Works Officer Bob Williams Chief Financial Officer Tom Manos Public Defender Chief Community Services Officer William Scalzo Contract Counsel Chief Information Officer Lin Thatcher Maricopa Integrated Health System Mark Hillard Departmental Budget Schedules Chief Health Services Officer Dr. Jonathan Weisbuch Legal Defender 501 Animal Care and Control Services County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Animal Care & Control Animal Care & Control Ed Boks, Director Ed Boks, Director Public Programs Administration Care Centers Business Offices Adoption Center Controller Licensing IT Coordinator Human Resources Field Services Dispatch Call Center Departmental Budget Schedules Clinics Mission The mission of the Animal Care & Control (ACCS) department is to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of pets and people in Maricopa County so that citizens can be free from nuisances, diseases and other dangers caused by animals. Vision Animal Care and Control Services envisions the day when residents, their property and neighborhoods will be free from the dangers and nuisances of irresponsible pet ownership and when every pet born will be assured of a good home and care all its natural life and will not suffer due to abuse, neglect or ignorance. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Achieve a "no kill" environment by FY2006 (euthanasia rate of 3 adoptable animals per human population of 1,000). Maintain ACCS personnel vacancy rate at less than or equal to the average County vacancy rate. Increase customer satisfaction by 5% by FY 2005 based on the FY 2000 ACCS customer service survey. Design, develop and implement a public information, education and volunteer program by FY 2005. Design, develop and implement an animal cruelty program that will serve the needs of the citizens of Maricopa County on a cost-effective basis by FY 2004. Increase alternative funding to 5% of total ACCS revenue by 2005. Achieve a 2-week turnaround for dog license issuance (turnaround defined as time between Maricopa County receiving license renewal and issuance of dog license). 502 Animal Care and Control Services (Continued) Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! Due to the demand for quality pet adoption, licensing, and contractual field services with the cities and towns, there is substantial pressure on Animal Care & Control to provide high quality, cost-effective and timely animal care and control services. Many individuals and agencies have indicated that they welcome opportunities to support progressive ACCS programs involving animal welfare issues. However, a substantial number of valley residents are unaware of these issues and the action Animal Care and Control takes in addressing them. Therefore, Animal Care and Control will continue to be viewed as a refuge for unwanted animals and criticized for destroying adoptable animals. There is rapid population growth in Maricopa County which is coupled with the national trend toward "no-kill " animal care programs. Animal Control will increasingly depend on grants and donations as alternative funding sources to enhance the scope and delivery of Public Programs. Due to market pressure, ACCS will continue to experience problems hiring and retaining quality staff. Due to customer complaints on the timeframe for receiving dog licenses, there is significant pressure on the licensing department of Animal Care and Control to increase its ability to issue licenses in a timely manner. TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM SHELTERING AND ADOPTION PROGRA ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Capital Total Total Services Services Outlay Expenditures Revenue $ 1,922,007 $ 374,285 $ - $ 2,296,292 $ 2,373,643 2,115,103 1,438,253 3,553,356 3,701,009 697,716 110,904 808,620 77,526 12,323 89,849 129,389 2,186,038 286,385 2,601,812 3,689,102 4,941,741 $ 4,121,803 $ 286,385 $ 9,349,929 $ 9,763,754 Total $ Key Performance Measures Program Name: Field Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Field Services Program is to provide animal control services to the citizens of Maricopa County through contracts with participating Cities and Towns and the unincorporated areas within the County so the citizens can be free from the health and safety dangers of stray dogs and cats. Key Results: Percent of calls dispatched to Animal Control Officers within 10 minutes Percent of Maricopa County citizens satisfied with the field call Percent of calls made to the call center that are answered FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 98 N/A N/A N/A 98 N/A N/A N/A 98 503 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Budget by Program Animal Care and Control Services (Continued) Program Name: Sheltering And Adoption Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Sheltering and Adoption Program is to provide modern humane sheltering and professional adoption services to the people of Maricopa County so that they can manage animal issues in a humane, caring manner and adopt healthy well adjusted animals. Key Results: Percent of animals euthanized due to illness contracted in the kennel Percent of animals receiving spay/neuter surgeries and the proper medicines in the clinic Departmental Budget Schedules Percent of impounded dogs and cats adopted Percent of dog licenses issued within two weeks(after receipt of renewal) Percent of walk-in customers served on a timely bais (within 15 minutes) FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 90 N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 85 N/A N/A N/A 95 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 228,571 $ 243,938 $ 228,096 $ 304,041 $ 304,041 Special Revenue $ 4,867,188 $ 5,944,584 $ 6,536,887 $ 6,604,265 $ 9,045,888 $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,095,759 6,188,522 6,764,983 6,908,306 9,349,929 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 228,571 $ 4,867,188 $ 5,095,759 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 243,938 $ 5,944,584 $ 6,188,522 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 228,096 $ 6,536,887 $ 6,764,983 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 304,041 $ 6,604,265 $ 6,908,306 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 304,041 $ 9,045,888 $ 9,349,929 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 504 Animal Care and Control Services (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Animal Control In Cities and Towns (Incorporated Areas) and Unincorporated Areas A.R.S. § 11, Chapter 7, Article 6 - Animal Control Maricopa County has the responsibility to enforce State legislation and County ordinances for the unincorporated areas within the County. Maricopa County is also mandated with enforcing State legislation for those municipalities that do not enact local ordinances that are equal to or more stringent than State Statutes. Animal Control Services is mandated to (1) provide dog licensing, durable dog tags, and enforce the laws and ordinances that govern anti-rabies vaccinations, (2) humanely shelter and, if necessary, euthanize unwanted dogs and cats, and to provide an opportunity for citizens to reclaim and/or adopt pets, (3) make provisions for the spaying and neutering of all adopted animals, (4) impound stray dogs, (5) control the handling and disposition of bite animals and vicious dogs, and (6) issue citations and license violation warnings to violators. Departmental Budget Schedules 505 Animal Care and Control Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 304,041 $ $ $ 304,041 $ 4,637,700 4,121,803 286,385 9,045,888 9,763,754 $ 4,941,741 $ 4,121,803 $ 286,385 $ 9,349,929 $ 9,763,754 $ 4,941,741 $ 4,121,803 $ 286,385 $ 9,349,929 $ 9,763,754 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 601 PROPERTY TAXES $ 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 3,398,130 546,811 1,518,203 3,783 39,948 142,556 5,649,430 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 3,376,991 19,627 112,386 761,096 18,091 2,078 4,290,269 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 4,117,352 2,373,643 1,518,600 7,064 258,818 1,488,277 9,763,754 $ 792,888 402,135 (7,183) 2,464 (61,593) 1,488,277 2,616,988 3,499,010 $ 20,000 64,889 1,038,483 32,575 (227,954) 197,954 4,624,957 $ 3,481,796 $ 20,000 64,889 1,026,359 32,575 (272,199) 197,954 4,551,374 $ 3,439,854 $ 96,194 119,486 949,900 20,232 (442,403) 350,200 4,533,463 $ 3,531,709 $ 14,997 51,514 1,002,219 23,314 (486,370) 426,357 4,563,740 $ 3,492,509 $ 14,997 51,514 919,419 523,314 (486,370) 426,358 4,941,741 $ (10,713) 5,003 13,375 106,940 (490,739) 214,171 (228,404) (390,367) 0% 25% 21% 10% -1506% 79% -115% -9% 295,257 170,000 41,009 2,450 20,000 216,400 38,308 61,910 421,497 45,450 71,800 160,500 548,707 2,093,288 313,189 317,672 29,804 204 24,259 422,539 22,270 45,200 377,855 18,475 108,414 146,255 548,707 2,374,843 $ 211,820 237,195 82,785 13,072 913,593 24,667 47,412 433,585 2,000 25,490 160,204 490,560 2,642,383 $ 211,820 237,195 82,785 13,072 918,330 24,667 47,412 423,381 3,347 25,490 160,204 1,974,100 4,121,803 $ 258,926 52,055 (41,776) 2,450 9,524 (701,930) 13,641 16,498 1,746 42,103 46,310 296 (1,425,393) (1,725,550) 55% 18% -102% 100% $ 470,746 289,250 41,009 2,450 22,596 216,400 38,308 63,910 425,127 45,450 71,800 160,500 548,707 2,396,253 42% -324% 36% 26% 0% 93% 64% 0% -260% -72% $ 40,000 40,000 $ $ 126,385 126,385 $ 160,000 126,385 286,385 $ (160,000) (86,385) (246,385) -616% (2,362,302) -34% SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 33,290 19,416 358,427 29,887 441,020 $ Total Expenditures $ 6,764,980 $ 6,718,245 $ 6,987,627 $ 6,908,306 $ 7,332,508 $ 9,349,929 $ (1,115,550) $ 159,139 $ 159,139 $ 68,656 $ 817,399 $ 413,825 $ 506 $ - $ $ - $ $ % (10) $ 4,117,352 2,248,083 1,518,600 7,064 258,818 8,149,907 $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Requested (10) $ 3,272,269 2,006,839 1,505,268 4,762 (6,038) 193,872 6,976,962 $ $ 3,324,464 1,971,508 1,525,783 4,600 320,411 7,146,766 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act 331,039 173,628 74,800 474 73,480 349,928 22,350 36,449 384,524 9,460 169,715 407,846 2,033,691 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ 3,324,464 1,971,508 1,525,783 4,600 51,029 6,877,384 FY 2001-02 Revised 254,686 24% 20% 0% 54% -19% 37% -216% 160% Animal Care and Control Services (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL FTE TOTAL 17.5 27.0 2.0 10.0 31.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 130.5 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ANIMAL CARE CLERK ANIMAL CARE OFFICER ANIMAL CARE SUPERVISOR ANIMAL CONTROL CLERK ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER ANIMAL CONTROL SERGEANT ANIMAL CONTROL SUPERVISOR AUTOMATION TRAINER BUSINESS OFFICE SUPERVISOR CLINIC MANAGER CLINIC SUPERVISOR CLINIC TECHNICIAN DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FACILITIES MANAGER FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER GRANT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HUMAN RESOURCES CLERK HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER LEAD RADIO DISPATCHER LEAD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CLERK LICENSING SUPERVISOR PROGRAMS MANAGER RADIO DISPATCHER SENIOR CLINIC TECHNICIAN SENIOR CONTROLLER SHELTER DIRECTOR SHELTER OPERATIONS MANAGER SHELTER SERGEANT SHELTER SUPERVISOR VETERINARIAN VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR 507 Appropriated Fund Balance DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services $ $ $ - Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 83,631,521 $ 10,929,433 $ 94,560,954 $ 114,199,727 11,644,651 125,844,378 101,691,796 $ 197,831,248 $ 22,574,084 $ 220,405,332 $ 101,691,796 $ 197,831,248 $ 22,574,084 $ 220,405,332 $ 101,691,796 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE FY 2000-01 Actual Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 606 SALES TAXES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ 2,707,200 2,707,200 18,588 6,001 1,881 26,470 FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested FY 2002-03 Adopted 103,017,791 100,000 $ 103,117,791 103,017,791 100,000 $ 103,117,791 98,729,899 4,600,000 $ 103,329,899 102,679,095 $ 102,679,095 101,691,796 $ 101,691,796 $ - SubTotal $ 990,975 1,425,507 1,413,449 1,656,568 92,227 539,120 63,383 11,130 83,843,345 90,035,704 56,551 14,000 7,558,840 3,910,946 166,466,534 $ 178,006,871 56,551 14,000 7,066,508 3,910,946 166,466,534 $ 177,514,539 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 7,470,650 2,843,903 509,675 10,824,228 21,673,679 828,118 406,400 600,000 23,508,197 21,018,428 1,311,918 406,400 600,000 1,035,332 24,372,078 Total Expenditures $ 100,886,402 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 508 $ $ - $ $ 201,515,068 (98,179,202) $ $ $ $ 201,886,617 (98,397,277) $ $ $ - $ - $ 15,260 1,493,892 1,600,000 84,726,011 87,835,163 3,721,824 99,722,011 $ 103,443,835 10,097,692 51,986,815 750,000 12,029 134,984,712 $ 197,831,248 $ 10,734,510 828,118 152,184 600,000 1,000,000 13,314,812 12,495,000 12,495,000 12,595,000 8,934,204 1,000,000 44,880 22,574,084 $ 220,405,332 $ 101,149,975 (98,768,826) $ 2,179,924 $ $ - $ $ $ $ (1,325,995) (100,000) (1,425,995) % -1% -100% -1% - (10,041,141) -17756% 14,000 100% (44,920,307) -636% 3,160,946 81% (12,029) 31,481,822 19% (20,316,709) -11% $ 8,423,428 (7,622,286) 406,400 (400,000) 990,452 1,797,994 40% -581% 100% -67% 96% 7% $ (18,518,715) -9% (13,259,740) $ (118,713,536) $ (19,944,710) -20% $ 115,938,835 $ Adopted vs Revised Variance $ Board of Supervisors Clerk Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Fran McCarroll Fran McCarroll Executive Assistant to Clerk of the Board Deputy Clerk of the Board Licenses/ Permits Agenda Processing Information/ Public Records Statutory Services Minutes Special Districts Agenda Preparation Administration The mission of the Office of the Clerk of the Board is to provide official record keeping and other statutory and policy-related services for the Board of Supervisors (BOS), other County Agencies, Special Districts, and the general public, so they can make informed decisions and conduct business affairs. Vision The vision of the Office of the Clerk of the Board is to be recognized as a leader in the field of statutory and policy record keeping and procedures for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Goals ! ! ! ! By June 2002, provide all Clerk's Office forms and all County ordinances to citizens via the Internet. By June 2002, add document-scanning capabilities to Agenda Central for additional expeditious handling of agenda items, e.g., backup documents. By June 2003, pursue legislative corrections and changes to the statutes to reduce and/or eliminate unnecessary or redundant processes mandated to the Clerk of the Board: 1) eliminate the requirement to publish BOS minutes in a newspaper; 2) modify the timeframe or approval level for certain types of liquor license and permit applications (BOS delegate approval authority responsibility to another); and 3) have copies of disciplinary / dismissal letters sent to Human Resources rather than to the Clerk's Office for filing. By June 2005, move the record filing system in the Clerk's Office to imaged / stored documents versus paper copies in concert with a countywide effort. 509 Departmental Budget Schedules Mission Board of Supervisors Clerk (Continued) Issues ! ! ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! ! ! An increase in management demands and an increase in Board directives, reviews, reports, and official appointments has resulted in a significant increase in staff time devoted to administrative reporting and follow-up action. An increase in the types and amounts of documents retained in the Clerk’s Office and the number of public records requests has revealed inadequate storage space and an inadequate records documentation and tracking system which results in the frequent redistribution of documents and an increase in staff time devoted to research. Recent changes in the Procurement Code signing authority has resulted in an increase in confusion regarding Bid Serials, Agenda Information Forms (AIFs), and renewal of contracts and has led to inconsistencies in the processing and filing of documents. An increase in Countywide and department policy violations, and an increase in incomplete and incorrect Agenda Information Form documentation, has resulted in an increase in staff time devoted to researching, reconciling, correcting, and processing documents. This causes a much longer than necessary turn-around time in getting documents processed and returned to initiating departments. An increase in the use of Agenda Central by departments has resulted in a decrease in the use of agenda related paper; and a decrease in department requests (phone and e-mail) for agenda information has resulted in more efficient and expeditious processing of the agenda. An increase in new legislation, as well as an increase in legislative changes and amendments, has resulted in an increase in the number of statutory mandates required to be performed by the Clerk’s Office. As legislation is added, old or obsolete legislation is not necessarily removed from the statutes. The overlap of new and old legislation results in certain mandated processes that are unnecessary or redundant, thus causing an increase in the workload of the Clerk’s Office. An increase in the broad uses of computer technology has resulted in an increased need for staff technology training. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED CLERK OF THE BOARD TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity EXECUTIVE SERVICES INFORMATION RESOURCES STATUTORY SERVICES PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS 510 Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 82,581 $ $ 130,917 28,000 43,621 109,098 70,430 7,274 7,536 17,229 381,027 $ 115,659 $ Total $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 82,581 $ 158,917 43,621 179,528 7,274 24,765 $ 496,686 $ - Board of Supervisors Clerk (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Executive Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Executive Services Program is to provide information and specialized assistance to elected and appointed officials and the public so they can make informed decisions, and understand and comply with County processes and protocol. Key Results: Percent of customers reporting they received the advice, answers, and assistance they needed Percent of elected and appointed officials who received materials and support within statutory or specified time frames FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 95 100 100 N/A 100 Information Resources Program Purpose: The purpose of the Information Resources Program is to provide research, compilation, and management of official records for County staff and the public so they can store and access information. Key Results: Percent of documents managed in accordance with retention schedule Percent of requestors who are able to access the information they asked for in a specified time period FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A 91 95 Program Name: Statutory Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Statutory Services Program is to provide applications processing and assistance for statutorily mandated procedures to applicants and/or requestors so they can conduct or maintain community related activities as needs arise. Key Results: Percent of applicants who obtain a fully processed license or permit application within the statutory time frame FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 100 100 511 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Board of Supervisors Clerk (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 382,036 446,157 414,579 427,717 496,686 $ $ $ $ $ Total 382,036 446,157 414,579 427,717 496,686 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 382,036 $ 382,036 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 446,157 $ 446,157 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 414,579 $ 414,579 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 427,717 $ 427,717 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 496,686 $ 496,686 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 512 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors A.R.S. §11-201 Powers of county; A.R.S. §11-251 Powers of board; A.R.S. §11241 Clerk of Board appointment; duties; A.R.S. §11-214 Regular and special meetings. There are other statutory references regarding the Clerk of the Board, far too many to detail in this type of report. Because the Clerk of the Board works directly with and for the Board of Supervisors, everything the Clerk does is in some way mandated by statute, particularly recording all proceedings of the board, recording the vote of each member on every question, and preserving and filing all accounts and actions of the Board. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is also the Clerk of the Flood Control District A.R.S. § 48-3602, Library District A.R.S. § 48-3901, and the Stadium District A.R.S. § 48-4202, as well as numerous special districts. The Clerk of the Board is an Officer of the County, appointed by the Board of Supervisors to perform all mandated statutory services for the Board of Supervisors, Flood Control District, Library District, Stadium District, and Special Districts, and to be the official recordkeeper for these Boards. The Clerk of the Board has numerous statutory and constitutional duties including signing all orders made and warrants issued by order of the board for payment of money, publishing minutes, accepting notices of claim for the county, assisting in Board of Supervisors Clerk (Continued) formation of special districts, special district annual reports, processing annexations and franchise applications, and licensing and permitting for certain special events. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held each month as designated by the Board; each meeting to be posted and conducted in accordance with the Arizona Open Meeting Law statute A.R.S. § 38-431. Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 381,027 $ 115,659 $ $ 381,027 $ 115,659 $ $ 381,027 $ 115,659 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 496,686 $ $ 496,686 $ $ 496,686 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ 266,417 2,927 9,937 47,079 326,360 SubTotal $ 8,744 15,751 20,539 35,113 2,520 1,908 2,097 1,548 88,220 Total Expenditures $ 414,580 $ $ $ 289,788 7,000 51,331 10,000 358,119 $ 12,500 7,500 37,000 94,500 9,000 1,700 3,955 3,500 800 170,455 $ 528,574 $ $ $ 303,078 7,000 52,678 10,000 372,756 $ 17,278 1,877 26,900 54,524 8,750 1,539 3,830 3,100 1,020 118,818 $ 491,574 $ $ $ 293,355 6,032 54,027 2,490 355,904 $ $ $ 310,789 55,432 32,035 398,256 $ 9,707 6,239 25,346 47,391 5,481 816 2,362 1,631 692 99,665 $ 10,291 28,000 42,000 8,750 1,539 3,830 3,100 920 98,430 $ 455,569 $ 496,686 $ $ 310,789 7,000 55,983 7,255 381,027 $ $ (7,711) (3,305) 2,745 (8,271) -3% 0% -6% 27% -2% $ 13,888 28,000 55,617 8,750 1,539 3,845 3,100 920 115,659 $ 3,390 1,877 (1,100) (1,093) (15) 100 3,159 20% 100% -4% -2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 3% $ 496,686 $ (5,112) -1% (496,686) $ (5,112) -1% CAPITAL OUTLAY Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (414,580) $ (528,574) $ (491,574) $ (455,569) $ (496,686) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD WORKING TITLE ADMIN OFFICE SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION COORDINATOR III CLERK OF THE BOARD DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTANT/BUDGET MANAGER DEPUTY CLERK OF THE BOARD RECORDS MANAGER FTE 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 TOTAL 1.0 1.0 7.0 513 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE Chief Information Officer County Administrative Officer Chief Information Officer Chief Information Officer Linden Thatcher Linden Thatcher Office of the Chief Information Officer Electronic Government Technology Telecommunications Infrastructure Technology Center Customer Support Center Mission The Mission of the Information Technology (IT) Department is to provide strategic vision, leadership, and enterprise solutions to County leaders and staff so they can meet their goals and deliver results to the Public. Departmental Budget Schedules Vision Information Technology will champion Maricopa County into Information-Age Government Goals ! ! ! ! ! County employees will have the flexibility to do their jobs from anywhere in the County at any time by July, 2005. The Public and outside organizations will be able to obtain services and transact business electronically from any location at any time by July, 2006. Operational and strategic decision-makers will be able to readily and easily access information they need to make informed decisions by July, 2005. The cost and time to deliver services will be reduced by streamlining business operations through the use of technology by July, 2006. Through county-wide technology standardization, we will optimize the use of resources so that the information technology department strategic goals will be achieved by July, 2003. Issues ! ! ! ! ! As the County increasingly depends upon collaboration in the workplace, supporting the process will be impossible if the technology infrastructure is inadequately funded and allowed to stagnate. The lack of robust tools to manage, organize, maintain and catalog data will negate the usefulness of the constantly increasing supply of and demand for web-based information. Increased demand for video, imaging, and other high bandwidth applications to support business processes are greater than what current network capacity and flexibility can provide. The lack of competitive compensation, education, and career development opportunities for IT staff will make it difficult to attract and retain skilled employees. If IT doesn’t pursue alternative service delivery models, the shortage of IT talent may result in the inability to meet our customers’ demands for services. 514 Chief Information Officer (Continued) ! ! ! Current development methodologies, tools, infrastructure, and organizational models won’t be able to support the Public’s demand for easy, online, 7X24 access to all government services from any location. Existing systems are being challenged to present decision-making information to county staff, management, and citizenry to meet current and anticipated increase in demand. The changing work environment and growth in population require county employees to perform their jobs from remote locations, seriously challenging the County telecommunications system, which was designed primarily to serve centralized locations. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER TOTAL FUNDS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 987,443 $ 32,336 $ 37,793 48,992 284,032 12,647 423,393 21,514 1,818,464 1,049,170 215,248 48,113 3,766,373 $ 1,212,772 $ Total $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 18,930 $ 1,038,709 $ 86,785 296,679 444,907 265,502 3,133,136 263,361 284,432 $ 5,263,577 $ - Key Performance Measures Program Name: Information Technology Application Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the IT Application Program is to provide County-wide solutions on behalf of administrative departments so that they can meet their goals and deliver maximum benefit from their technology investments. Key Results: Percent Customers Satisfied with Budget & MFR Applications Development Service Request Outcome Percent Customers Satisfied with Financial Applications Development Service Request Outcome Percent Customers Satisfied with HR Applications Development Service Request Outcome FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A 83 85 N/A N/A 85.7 85 515 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Activity IT APPLICATION IT INFRASTRUCTURE IT MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Chief Information Officer (Continued) Program Name: Information Technology Infrastructure Program Purpose: The purpose of the IT Infrastructure program is to provide an integrated, robust, electronic platform to County departments, participating jurisdictions and the Public so that they can conveniently and dependably conduct business regardless of location. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of time we complete work orders to our customers' satisfaction and within our committed time frames FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 98.24 95 Program Name: Information Technology Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the IT Management program is to provide vision, direction, leadership and IT oversight to County senior management so that they can effectively plan for and obtain maximum benefit from the IT resource. Key Results: Dollars saved by Enterprise Contracts/Agreements Percent Increase in the Number of IT Management Activities Over the Previous Year FY 00 Actual 0 FY 01 Actual 1,130,000 FY 02 Actual 1,471,100 FY 03 Projected 1,230,000 0 N/A 660 20 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 4,651,613 5,072,766 5,175,454 5,157,517 5,263,577 $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,651,613 5,072,766 5,175,454 5,157,517 5,263,577 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 4,651,613 $ 4,651,613 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 5,072,766 $ 5,072,766 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 5,175,454 $ 5,175,454 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 5,157,517 $ 5,157,517 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 5,263,577 $ 5,263,577 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 516 Chief Information Officer (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 3,766,373 $ 1,212,772 $ 284,432 $ 5,263,577 $ $ 3,766,373 $ 1,212,772 $ 284,432 $ 5,263,577 $ $ 3,766,373 $ 1,212,772 $ 284,432 $ 5,263,577 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % REVENUE 3,290,027 $ 9,290 84,738 543,804 3,652 (335,178) 3,596,333 $ 3,346,331 $ 23,228 13,200 613,676 (210,108) 3,786,327 $ 3,470,928 $ 19,905 9,038 594,885 (336,652) 3,758,104 $ 3,453,748 $ (7,651) 5,150 595,135 16,387 (322,253) 3,740,516 $ 3,457,089 $ 14,239 8,700 652,779 (392,362) 3,740,445 $ 3,408,622 $ 5,573 8,700 637,577 18,780 (312,879) 3,766,373 $ 62,306 14,332 338 (42,692) (18,780) (23,773) (8,269) 2% 72% 4% -7% $ 965,164 55,000 20,000 24,450 8,500 74,832 24,180 65,500 1,610 1,239,236 $ 932,881 70,000 17,657 8,500 73,982 24,180 45,160 1,610 1,173,970 $ 881,348 37,365 115,149 7,295 63,995 23,424 35,253 137 1,163,966 $ 999,043 70,013 23,536 8,428 106,406 31,175 45,500 1,861 1,285,962 $ 947,503 70,013 23,536 8,428 96,419 31,175 35,499 199 1,212,772 $ (14,622) (13) (5,879) 72 (22,437) (6,995) 9,661 1,411 (38,802) -2% SubTotal $ 843,754 66 185,284 103,445 14,375 74,605 11,962 67,406 1,300,897 -33% 1% -30% -29% 21% 88% -3% SubTotal $ 278,238 278,238 $ 170,000 227,444 397,444 $ 65,000 271,444 336,444 $ 15,740 197,194 212,934 $ 284,432 284,432 $ 284,432 284,432 $ 65,000 (12,988) 52,012 100% -5% 15% Total Expenditures $ 5,175,468 $ 5,423,007 $ 5,268,518 $ 5,117,416 $ 5,310,839 $ 5,263,577 $ 4,941 0% (5,263,577) $ 4,941 0% SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ (5,175,468) $ $ (5,423,007) $ $ (5,268,518) $ $ (5,117,416) $ (5,310,839) $ -7% 0% 0% 517 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT SubTotal $ Chief Information Officer (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT APPLICATIONS MANAGER BUSINESS ANALYST CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLIENT SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST-LEAD CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST COMPUTER OPERATOR DATA SECURITY ANALYST DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER ANALYST FINANCIAL BUSINESS MANAGER GROUPWARE ADMINISTRATOR HELP DESK COORDINATOR HELP DESK MANAGER IT CONSULTANT LAN ADMINISTRATOR LAN MANAGER MAINFRAME PROGRAMMER/ANALYST MANAGER, COMPUTER OPERATIONS OPERATIONS ANALYST PC ANALYST PC SUPPORT SPECIALIST PROJECT MANAGER, DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS SENIOR SYSTEMS SUPPORT SPECIALIST SENIOR WEB DEVELOPER SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR, ANTI-VIRUS SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR TRAINING COORDINATOR/ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT WEB DEVELOPER TOTAL 518 FTE 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 64.0 Community Development County Administrative Officer Chief Community Services Officer Community Development Community Development Isabel McDougall, Director Isabel McDougall, Director Project Mgmt. Finance Asst. Director Monitoring Mission Vision Develop viable communities through the provision of affordable housing, suitable living environments and expansion of strong economic bases, principally for persons of low and moderate income. Goals ! ! Develop capacity to meet an increased demand for administrative services generated from population growth and anticipated new HUD grant requirements with a reduction in funding for such administrative services. Maintain compliance with all HUD CDBG and HOME Program grant requirements each year. Issues ! ! ! The increasing population growth of Maricopa County will lead to a reduction of urban county participating municipalities and a corresponding increase of Maricopa HOME Consortium members, which results in an increased demand for administrative services while funding for these services will be decreased. Anticipated new HUD requirements will require more administrative ability and expertise while administrative funding is decreasing. Expanding County-required non-grant tasks impacts Community Development's ability to administer HUD grants. 519 Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of Community Development is to provide Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Program funding to municipalities and other sub-recipients not eligible for direct United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding so they can develop viable communities to primarily benefit low and moderate income people. Community Development (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity GRANT MANAGEMENT Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 591,273 $ 15,270,102 $ 591,273 $ 15,270,102 $ Total $ Capital Outlay - Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 15,861,375 $ 15,861,375 $ 15,861,375 $ 15,861,375 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Performance Measures Program Name: Grant Management Program Purpose: The purpose of Grant Management is to provide continuing CDBG and HOME Program funding to qualified municipalities and other subrecipients so that they can provide community improvements and expand/maintain housing stock according to locally prioritized community needs. Key Results: Percent County General Fund cost to float grant reimbursements FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 1 1 1 1 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 8,791,847 6,946,804 7,862,319 11,627,114 15,861,375 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,791,847 6,946,804 7,862,319 11,627,114 15,861,375 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 8,791,847 $ 8,791,847 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 6,946,804 $ 6,946,804 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 7,862,319 $ 7,862,319 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 11,627,114 $ 11,627,114 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 15,861,375 $ 15,861,375 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 520 Community Development (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay 591,273 15,270,102 $ 591,273 $ 15,270,102 $ $ 591,273 $ 15,270,102 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue 15,861,375 15,861,375 $ 15,861,375 $ 15,861,375 $ 15,861,375 $ 15,861,375 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ FY 2001-02 Adopted 7,772,590 89,731 7,862,321 $ 15,871,627 15,871,627 439,605 $ 716 83,444 (8,325) 515,440 $ 453,816 11,300 90,629 555,745 11,176 88 1,541 32,267 95,961 72,606 203 7,068,715 35,589 4,233 67 24,432 7,346,878 Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ 17,500 1,173 15,000 2,000 140,000 75,307 2,000 15,001,867 21,622 9,000 200 30,213 15,315,882 7,862,318 $ 15,871,627 3 $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 15,871,627 15,871,627 490,177 11,300 94,316 595,793 $ 17,500 1,173 15,000 2,000 140,000 75,307 2,000 14,961,819 21,622 9,000 200 30,213 15,275,834 $ 15,871,627 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 11,627,114 11,627,114 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 470,214 $ 93,449 (1,992) 561,671 $ $ 15,187 187 1,054 998 132,217 77,034 2,064 10,780,471 20,054 5,450 514 30,213 11,065,443 $ 11,627,114 $ 15,861,375 15,861,375 $ 476,732 $ 9,900 104,641 222,486 (222,486) 591,273 $ $ 17,500 1,300 15,000 1,000 125,000 82,817 3,000 14,950,000 28,928 9,000 1,000 35,557 15,270,102 $ 15,861,375 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 15,861,375 15,861,375 $ (10,252) (10,252) 476,732 $ 9,900 104,641 (222,486) 222,486 591,273 $ 13,445 1,400 (10,325) 222,486 (222,486) 4,520 $ 17,500 1,300 15,000 1,000 126,568 82,817 3,000 14,950,000 28,928 9,000 1,000 33,989 15,270,102 $ (127) 1,000 13,432 (7,510) (1,000) 11,819 (7,306) (800) (3,776) 5,732 $ 15,861,375 $ 10,252 $ - % 0% 0% 3% 12% -11% 1% 0% -11% 0% 50% 10% -10% -50% 0% -34% 0% -400% -12% 0% CAPITAL OUTLAY - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 521 Departmental Budget Schedules FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Community Development (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR PROJECT MANAGER FTE Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 522 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 10.0 Contract Counsel County Administrative Officer Contract Counsel Contract Counsel Mark Kennedy, Director Mark Kennedy, Director Mission The mission of the Office of Contract Counsel is to provide the highest quality legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. Goals ! ! ! Issues ! ! ! ! ! The courts’ continued emphasis on moving cases more quickly will reduce efficiency, resulting in less time and resources available to assist clients, reducing the quality of legal representation, and increasing stress and staff turnover. The County’s pay and benefits have not kept pace with the private sector, resulting in fewer qualified applicants and increased turnover. The rapid increase in population and increased emphasis on law enforcement will increase the number of indigent defendants, resulting in more cases for the office. Rapid changes in technology and increased sharing of case information within the system will increase administrative efficiencies and reduce duplication of data entry. The current budget structure for the indigent defense agency creates potential ethical conflicts, reduces efficiencies, promotes confusion, and generates inappropriate competition for available funds. 523 Departmental Budget Schedules ! The goal of the Office of Contract Counsel is to provide the highest quality legal representation to our clients while increasing efficiency and meeting the relevant rules of procedure. By FY 2003, the goal of the Office of Contract Counsel is to revise fixed price contracts for lawyers to provide cost-effective legal representation in criminal, delinquency, dependency, probate and sexually violent persons cases including development of a two-tiered compensation rate based on years of experience and seriousness of charges. By FY 2003, the goal of the Office of Contract Counsel is to develop systems to control expert witness fees. By FY 2002, the goal of the Office of Contract Counsel is to establish uniform standards for contract counsel timekeeping and reporting. Contract Counsel (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED CONTRACT COUNSEL TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity CRIMINAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Total Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 98,298 $ 4,609,110 211,394 13,235 47,850 432,049 $ 357,542 $ 5,054,394 Capital Outlay $ - $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 4,707,408 $ 224,629 479,899 248,109 $ 5,411,936 $ 248,109 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Performance Measures Program Name: Criminal Defense Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Criminal Defense Program is to provide legal defense services to assigned indigent clients charged with criminal offenses so that they can obtain the most favorable result under the circumstances. Key Results: Percent of Appeals Briefs Completed Within 45-Day Due Date FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 46.44 47 Program Name: Non-Criminal Representation Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Non-Criminal Representation Program is to provide legal representation to assigned indigent persons in non-criminal matters so that their legal interests are protected. Key Results: Percent of Superior Court Mental Health Matters Concluded Within 30 Days FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 99.9 99.9 Program Name: Pd Juvenile Adjudication And Incorrigibility Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the PD Juvenile Adjudication and Incorrigibility Program is to provide legal representation to indigent juvenile clients accused of delinquent or incorrigible acts so they can obtain the most favorable resolution to their cases under the circumstances. Key Results: Percent of Cases with a Disposition Less Than the Original Charge 524 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 80.3 80 Contract Counsel (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A N/A $ 7,503,463 $ 5,411,936 Special Revenue N/A N/A N/A $ 7,420 $ 14,842 Total N/A N/A N/A $ 7,510,883 $ 5,426,778 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 7,503,463 $ 7,420 $ 7,510,883 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 5,411,936 $ 14,842 $ 5,426,778 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Legal Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants and Delinquent or Incorrigible Juveniles U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution, Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-581 to 587; Rule 6, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. The United States and Arizona Constitutions provide that an individual facing criminal charges has a right to the assistance of counsel. The United States and Arizona Supreme Courts have interpreted these provisions as requiring that counsel be provided, at government expense, for individuals facing loss of liberty who cannot afford to hire counsel. Historically, in Maricopa County, indigent defendants charged in criminal cases, and juveniles accused of delinquency or incorrigibility, were assigned to private attorneys who contracted to provide those services. In order to maximize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of services mandated, Maricopa County has since funded the creation of three on-staff public defender offices (Offices of the Public Defender, Legal Defender, and Legal Advocate). Contract private attorneys continue to be assigned to a lesser number of cases, specifically those that the other offices are unable to handle (typically due to conflicts of interest). Those contract assignments continue to be managed and monitored by the Office of Contract Counsel. 525 Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Information Contract Counsel (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION Legal defense of indigent criminal defendants at risk of loss of liberty in criminal proceedings, including felony, misdemeanor, and probation violation cases. Legal defense of indigent criminal defendants in appeals and post-conviction relief cases. Legal representation of juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. Legal representation of defendants opposing extradition. Legal representation in post-conviction relief cases of persons sentenced to death. Legal representation of witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court. TITLE AUTHORITY Judicial Mandates A.R.S. §§ 36-528(D), 36-536(A), 36-537, 8-221. U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-584 to 587. Historically, Public Defenders have not had the authority to handle civil proceedings. As a result, in Maricopa County, private attorneys who contracted to provide these services were used almost exclusively. Due to changes in legislation, Maricopa County became responsible to provide representation to indigent individuals facing mental health commitments and to those involved in child dependency and severance proceedings. In order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of services mandated, Maricopa County has funded the creation of two on-staff dependency units (Offices of the Legal Defender and Legal Advocate) and one on-staff mental health unit (Public Defender). In addition, contracted private attorneys are assigned to cases that the other offices are unable to handle (typically due to conflicts of interest). Legal representation of indigent persons at risk of a loss of liberty in civil mental health proceedings. Legal representation of indigent individuals involved in civil child dependency or severance proceedings, including the minor children in question. Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 526 Contract Counsel (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 357,542 $ 5,054,394 $ $ 357,542 $ 5,054,394 $ $ 357,542 $ 5,054,394 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 5,411,936 $ 248,109 $ 5,411,936 $ 248,109 $ 5,411,936 $ 248,109 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES Total Revenue $ $ SubTotal $ 68,166 $ 1,438 4,044,252 5,305,882 45,000 1,400 (1,326) 8,116 9,472,928 $ 11,762 997,594 136,267 4,837,383 45,000 384 597 300 3,050 6,032,337 SubTotal $ - $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 9,798,668 $ 100,000 100,000 225,087 69,584 294,671 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 212,360 1,197 56,670 55,513 325,740 $ $ $ (9,798,668) $ 6,327,008 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ $ 205,000 205,000 279,478 77,636 357,114 11,762 367,088 136,267 4,615,192 41,712 384 597 300 3,050 5,176,352 - $ $ (6,227,008) $ 5,533,466 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ $ 164,627 83,482 248,109 230,424 3,292 2,757 54,307 290,780 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ 289,846 62,824 352,670 $ 8,024,107 (483,129) (383,427) 41,712 192 483 10,221 2,224 7,212,383 $ 11,762 1,220,608 619,396 3,183,538 41,713 384 597 3,050 5,081,048 $ 300 300 $ $ 7,503,463 $ (5,328,466) $ 164,627 83,482 248,109 (7,255,354) $ 5,433,718 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 164,627 83,482 248,109 $ 288,266 69,276 357,542 $ 11,241 5,023,542 15,580 384 597 3,050 5,054,394 $ $ (5,185,609) $ 5,411,936 % (40,373) 83,482 43,109 -20% -3% $ (8,788) 8,360 (428) $ 521 (4,656,454) 136,267 4,615,192 26,132 300 121,958 $ $ $ 21% 11% 0% 4% -1268% 100% 100% 63% 0% 0% 100% 0% 2% - $ 121,530 2% (5,163,827) $ 164,639 3% Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR BUDGET CONTROLLER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR DEFENDER ATTORNEY LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL SECRETARY FTE TOTAL 4.0 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.0 8.4 527 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ - FY 2001-02 Adopted Correctional Health Services County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Correctional Health Services Correctional Health Services Joseph Scalzo, DDS, Director Joseph Scalzo, DDS, Director Quality Management Dental Services Business Systems Mental Health Services Ancillary Services Medical Services Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Correctional Health Services Department (CHS) is to provide medically necessary health care to persons in County correctional facilities in order to protect the health and safety of the community. Vision Correctional Health Services will demonstrate excellence in correctional health care and be an integral part of the health and safety of the community. Goals ! ! ! ! ! CHS will redesign its work force and improve employee morale by maintaining a filled rate of 95% of budgeted positions, on the average, per month and by retaining 88% of all new hires for at least 6 months from their hire date by the end of FY 2002. CHS will annually achieve and maintain a community standard of care in a correctional setting, as defined by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC). CHS will achieve efficiencies in the provision of services as determined by cost per inmate per day and demonstrate enhanced accountability for resources through the implementation of an automated information system by 2004. CHS will protect the community’s health and safety by providing leadership to establish continuity of care for inmates as they are released from jail who are seriously mentally ill (SMI), have communicable diseases and/or are pregnant. CHS will control costs of specialty health care services and hospitalizations through the use of effective utilization management guidelines and resource allocation practices. Issues ! Increasing inmate litigation will drain CHS and County resources in the form of cash awards, increased staff time preparing and attending depositions and trials, cost of legal representation and fosters additional litigation. This negativity impacts CHS's quality of care, public image and the ability to recruit and retain staff. 528 Correctional Health Services (Continued) ! ! ! ! ! ! The shortage of health care personnel and our inability to competitively recruit and retain quality clinical personnel will increase our financial/legal risks, adversely affect our morale and the delivery of quality results. The transition from a capped outside services costs to fee-for-service will necessitate use of new utilization management and other "managed-care" functions, drive the implementation of physician/provider guidelines and require expanded data collection and analysis capability, effecting an unknown level of savings and requiring an unknown business investment cost. Lack of automation and IT results in: poor decision making, poor data mining, poor performance measuring, inability to defend use of resources, lack of communication between agencies and internally, and lower staff morale due to inefficiencies and prehistoric systems. The Department is receiving a proportionately increasing share of County dollars, which will increase accountability for use of resources and diminish our image. Decreasing community mental health services and criminalization of the mentally ill will continue to increase the number of incarcerated SMI's and cost associated with staffing, acuity, level of care, medications, advocacy and risk management. Inadequate facilities, equipment and trained detention officers, along with an increase in inmate population, will result in an increase in the delay of treatment, an increase in the risk of an adverse outcome and diminish staff morale. TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED CORRECTIONAL HEALTH TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity DENTAL SERVICES HEALTH RECORD SERVICES MEDICAL PAHRMACY PSYCHIATRIC QUALITY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 217,254 $ 156,664 $ 324,869 34,435 9,507,172 1,920,498 687,018 1,481,268 1,496,035 1,192,376 410,525 1,816,715 1,285,856 118,750 203,725 25,712 (2,262,790) 548,617 11,869,664 $ 7,295,035 $ Total $ Capital Outlay Total Total Expenditures Revenue - $ 373,918 $ 359,304 11,427,670 1,047,151 2,168,286 2,688,411 2,227,240 1,404,606 229,437 844,561 (869,612) 8,901 844,561 $ 20,009,260 $ 1,056,052 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Dental Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Dental Program is to provide inmates with necessary emergency dental care so they may be relieved of debilitating dental pain. Key Results: Percent of inmates receiving an initial dental assessment by a dentist Percent of inmates treated Percent of inmates treated by oral surgical specialists FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 10.4 30 N/A N/A 70 81 N/A N/A 84 60 529 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Budget by Program Correctional Health Services (Continued) Program Name: Health Record Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Health Record Services Program is to provide a complete account of health care events for CHS health care providers and staff so that they have the information needed for continuity of inmate care or legal proceedings. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of inmates who have a duplicate health record Percent health records established Percent times health records are available to providers FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 38.25 22 N/A N/A 57.25 95 N/A N/A 88 95 Program Name: Medical Program Purpose: The purpose of the Medical program is to provide medically necessary health care to persons in County correctional facilities in order to protect the health and safety of the community. Key Results: Percent Patients who choose and accept recommended treatment Percent of patients with chronic disease receiving treatment as defined by Special Needs Treatment Plans (SNTP) Percent Patient-days in hospital of the incarcerated individuals (mandays in jail) FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 56 N/A N/A 11 18 N/A N/A 0.08 N/A Program Name: Pharmacy Program Purpose: The purpose of CHS pharmacy program is to provide medications and medication use expertise to persons and healthcare providers in County Correctional facilities to minimize patients’ adverse health consequences as related to drug therapies. Key Results: Percent change in # reviews of non-formulary requests Percent released SMI inmates received discharge medications Percent inmates receiving mental health medications 530 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 208 55 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 N/A N/A 50.5 16 Correctional Health Services (Continued) Program Name: Psychiatric Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Psychiatric Program is to identify and treat persons in county correctional facilities that request or need mental health services to maintain or restore mental health and to successfully reintegrate into the community. Key Results: Percent Of treatment initiated as defined by all the components of the Special Needs Treatment plan. (inpatient) Percent Of individuals that are discharged from the Inpatient Psych. units to General Population (least restrictive environment) FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 31.67 N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A Program Name: Quality Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Quality Management Program is to provide reports, analyses, and recommendations regarding Infection Control, Continuous Quality Improvement, Risk Management, and Utilization Management to the CHS Director so he/she can evaluate CHS performance and take action to improve health services. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A 89.6 90 N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A 94.75 N/A Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 15,622,026 $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ 12,848,307 $ 18,356,743 $ 18,193,516 $ 19,814,477 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ 194,783 $ $ $ $ $ Total 15,622,026 12,848,307 18,356,743 18,193,516 20,009,260 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 15,622,026 $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue Capital Projects $ $ $ 12,848,307 $ $ 18,356,743 $ $ 18,193,516 $ $ 19,814,477 $ 194,783 $ $ $ $ $ Total 15,622,026 12,848,307 18,356,743 18,193,516 20,009,260 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 531 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent QI recommendations that lead to improvements of health services and/or achieve compliance with NCCHC standards, licensure regulations and legal mandates Percent communicable disease reports processed within specified time frames Percent positive patient and legal outcomes, such as analysis, grievances without adverse outcomes, claims denied by Risk Management, litigation decided in the CHS' favor, suicide attempts rate and suicide death rates Percent of specialty health care services provided that meet CHS UM guidelines Correctional Health Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 532 Health Care to Indigents in County Correctional Facilities A.R.S. § 11-291 Hospitalization and Medical Care of Indigent Sick The State has historically placed the burden of indigent care at the county level. The Board of Supervisors has the sole and exclusive authority to provide for the hospitalization and medical care of the indigent sick in the county, including indigent persons under the supervision of a county corrections agency, to the extent such expenses are not covered by a third party payor. Third party payor does not include the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) or the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS). Correctional Health Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 11,869,664 7,295,035 649,778 19,814,477 1,056,052 194,783 194,783 $ 11,869,664 $ 7,295,035 $ 844,561 $ 20,009,260 $ 1,056,052 $ 11,869,664 $ 7,295,035 $ 844,561 $ 20,009,260 $ 1,056,052 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted 81,112 6,389 242 87,743 $ 72,913 72,913 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 5,766,922 $ 737,102 953,358 1,237,068 35,913 (81,354) 104,740 8,753,748 $ 7,590,958 445,550 337,940 1,690,223 313,400 26,987 10,405,058 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES SubTotal $ 133,102 2,022,964 2,763 77,835 7,143,570 183,646 1,958 36,390 60,953 11,499 247 10,980 9,685,908 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ 72,532 1,328,050 2,526 38,500 4,216,063 240,183 48,250 464,364 34,500 5,600 6,450,568 4,799 4,799 18,444,456 $ $ $ 8,369,528 445,541 337,940 1,779,634 313,400 26,987 11,273,030 $ $ $ $ 85,095 1,328,050 2,526 56,850 3,846,475 189,466 48,250 464,364 39,834 5,933 6,066,843 $ 26,838 26,838 $ 26,838 26,838 $ $ 16,882,464 $ 17,366,711 $ (18,356,713) $ $ 72,913 72,913 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act (16,809,551) $ $ $ (17,293,798) $ FY 2002-03 Requested 73,122 8,900 (37) 81,985 $ 6,325,754 $ 839,169 556,011 1,458,437 376,537 (80,922) 92,859 9,567,845 $ 61,418 1,659,714 2,490 14,370 5,443,366 120,000 4,000 7,672 3,228 489,778 15,740 3,428 23,800 7,849,004 17,416,849 $ 65,151 65,151 $ 8,159,672 $ 428,652 309,901 1,961,574 290,922 (65,150) 54,000 11,139,571 $ $ 109,444 1,271,000 2,949 144,600 4,136,297 228,103 32,012 149,600 1,894,536 39,700 2,500 15,200 8,025,941 1,047,152 8,900 1,056,052 $ 8,546,647 $ 815,131 499,997 1,861,400 397,052 (250,563) 11,869,664 $ $ 110,534 1,930,003 2,500 136,598 2,830,003 170,001 29,992 146,522 1,864,084 49,998 3,300 21,500 7,295,035 $ 636,000 13,001 649,001 $ 19,814,513 (17,334,864) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 974,239 8,900 983,139 (177,119) (369,590) (162,057) (81,766) (83,652) 250,563 26,987 (596,634) % 1336% 1348% -2% -83% -48% -5% -27% 100% -5% $ (25,439) (601,953) 26 (79,748) 1,016,472 19,465 (29,992) (98,272) (1,399,720) (10,164) (3,300) (15,567) (1,228,192) $ 194,783 636,000 13,778 844,561 $ (194,783) (636,000) 13,060 (817,723) 49% -3047% $ 20,009,260 $ (2,642,549) -15% (18,953,208) $ (1,659,410) -10% (19,749,362) $ -30% -45% 1% -140% 26% 10% -204% -301% -26% -262% -20% 533 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Revised Correctional Health Services (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMIN SYSTEMS MANAGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST BUYER CERTIFIED DENTAL ASSISTANT CERTIFIED MEDICAL ASSISTANT CLINIC SUPERVISOR CLINICAL PHARMACIST CLINICAL SYSTEMS EDUCATOR COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR CONTRACT SPECIALIST COORDINATOR COUNSELOR COUNSELOR COORDINATOR DATA ENTRY CLERK DATA SPECIALIST DENTIST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR EDUCATION SPECIALIST EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCE MANAGER HEALTH RECORDS LEAD HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER INFECTION CONTROL COORDINATOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR IT TECHNICIAN LEAD / CHARGE NURSE LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE MEDICAL DIRECTOR MEDICAL RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR MEDICAL RECORDS TECHNICIAN MENTAL HEALTH SVCS ADMINISTRATOR NIGHT SHIFT SUPERVISOR NURSE PRACTITIONER OFFICE ASSISTANT/RECEPTIONIST PATIENT CARE ASSISTANT PERSONNEL ASSISTANT PERSONNEL/PAYROLL COORDINATOR PHARMACIST PHARMACY TECHNICIAN PHYSICIAN PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST PSYCHOLOGIST QUALITY MANAGER RADIOLOGY TECHNICIAN RECRUITMENT SPECIALIST REFERRAL/AUTHORIZATION SPECIALIST REGIONAL CLINIC ADMINISTRATOR REGISTERED NURSE RISK MANAGER SERVICE WORKER SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR STAFFING COORDINATOR STAFFING SPECIALIST TRAINING SPECIALIST UNIT COORDINATOR LEAD UNIT SECRETARY UTILIZATION MGT COORDINATOR UTILIZATION MGT MANAGER FTE TOTAL 534 1.0 1.0 0.3 3.0 41.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 18.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 15.0 33.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 11.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 38.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 2.0 18.0 2.0 1.0 265.8 County Administrative Officer Board Of Supervisors County Administrative Officer County Administrative Officer David R. Smith David R. Smith Communications Government Relations Administration Mission The mission of the County Administrative Office (CAO) is to provide leadership and direction for county departments and agencies so that they can deliver services countywide to residents of Maricopa County. Vision Goals ! ! ! ! ! Reduce pre-AHCCCS costs by FY 2003 while maintaining appropriate access to health care for the indigent. Maintain county expenditures within the constitutional limits set by the voters in 1998 through FY 2004. MFR: 100% of county departments/agencies will be actively Managing for Results by FY 2002. Management will use results-based performance information to make program and policy decisions by FY 2002. The entire county will be fully engaged in budgeting for results by FY 2003. Reduce Maricopa County turnover rate to below or equal to the average of the Maricopa County metro area. Develop regional strategies by FY 2002 for reducing juvenile delinquency, and then show a 25% reduction in violent crimes and a 10% reduction in non-violent crimes in targeted areas by 2004. Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of which Maricopa County justice sanctions, services, and programs that effectively discourage repeat offenses by 2002. With this understanding, realize a 2-5% reduction per year in felony offender recidivism rates beginning in 2003. 3. Determine what additional progress needs to be made to most efficiently administer active criminal cases without diminishing effectiveness, by FY 2002 and then: — Close as many cases as are opened 535 Departmental Budget Schedules To manage, lead, and direct countywide services. This includes managing the continued financial stabilization plan, responding to citizenry and meeting public needs, providing leadership for county initiatives, initiating program development, and implementation in response to policy direction set by the Board of Supervisors, coordinating county issues which have regional impact, providing leadership related to county legislative initiatives and intergovernmental issues, and providing information to employees and the public concerning county activities. To assist the Board of Supervisors in every way possible in meeting the challenges facing the county in the years ahead. These include the efficient responsive provision of services, sound financial planning, growth management, and insightful policy recommendations. County Administrative Officer (Continued) each month by FY 2003; — Clear 90% of cases within 180 days by FY 2002; — Clear 99% of cases within 180 days by FY 2006. Issues ! ! ! ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! The implementation of Managing for Results and its focus on linking strategic planning efforts to the budget/accounting system will cause the CAO and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to significantly change the way we do business--our communications, policies, procedures, and interactions with departments. The constitutionally mandated expenditure limit will challenge the CAO and OMB to address spending growth and increasing service demands largely driven by the county's rapidly growing population. Rising indigent health care service costs will make it increasingly difficult for the CAO and OMB to make budget recommendations for all other county programs within current revenue and expenditure limits. The rising costs of administering justice will require the CAO and OMB to partner with criminal justice agencies identifying management strategies around effectiveness and processes. A poor public image could impact the county’s ability to hire and retain qualified employees. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS GOVERNMENT RELATIONS JUSTICE SYSTEM COORDINATION OMBUDSMAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 110,060 $ 7,172 232,330 72,494 214,457 250,544 110,060 3,586 110,060 3,586 310,758 21,516 6,474 5,379 1,094,199 $ 364,277 Total $ Capital Outlay $ - $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 117,232 $ 304,824 465,001 113,646 113,646 332,274 11,853 $ 1,458,476 $ - Key Performance Measures Program Name: Communications Program Purpose: The purpose of the communications program is to provide internal communication, media relations and community relations to the county so that the public is informed of results achieved by Maricopa County. Key Results: Combined dollar value of positive and negative media coverage generated Percent of Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Officer, department directors, and PIO's satisfied with services provided by the Communications Office Percent of county respondents (as measured by Office of Research and Reporting) who believe the county is effective in communicating to the public 536 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 3,957,133 1,500,000 N/A N/A 80 80 N/A N/A 0 50 County Administrative Officer (Continued) Program Name: County Administrative Office Program Purpose: The purpose of the County Administrative Office program is to provide administrative leadership, budget and policy recommendations, and countywide management coordination for the Board of Supervisors so that they can achieve the county’s strategic goals and fulfill the county’s legal mandates and local policy initiatives in the most fiscally responsible manner. Key Results: Percent of citizens satisfied with county services Percent of complaints/concerns responded to within three days FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual 75 FY 02 Actual 75 FY 03 Projected 80 95 100 100 100 Program Name: Government Relations Program Purpose: The purpose of the Legislative Service Activity is to provide representation and information to the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer so they can pursue and achieve state and federal operational and fiscal legislative goals. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 90 100 92.5 90 N/A N/A 0 80 100 83 85 90 Program Name: Justice System Coordination Program Purpose: The purpose of the justice system coordination activity is to provide interdepartmental coordination and communicate credible, useful information to the justice and law enforcement agencies and county administration, so that they may comply with requirements, solve problems with effective systemic solutions, and fulfill strategic goals to reduce recidivism and improve case processing. Key Results: Percent users satisfied with utility of reports FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual N/A FY 02 Actual 0 FY 03 Projected 75 Program Name: Ombudsman Program Purpose: The purpose of the ombudsman activity is to provide investigation and consulting services to employees and department managers so that they can resolve workplace conflicts quickly. Key Results: Percent of requests responded to in a timely manner FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 100 100 100 100 537 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of targeted bills passed, favorably amended or defeated: low, medium, or high difficulty Percent of Board and CAO satisfied with research activities provided Percent of grant dollars achieved vs. applied for County Administrative Officer (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 934,344 $ 1,003,941 $ 1,172,121 $ 1,238,341 $ 1,458,476 $ $ $ $ $ Total 934,344 1,003,941 1,172,121 1,238,341 1,458,476 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 934,344 $ 934,344 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,003,941 $ 1,003,941 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,172,121 $ 1,172,121 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,238,341 $ 1,238,341 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,458,476 $ 1,458,476 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 538 County Administrative Officer (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 1,094,199 $ 364,277 $ $ 1,094,199 $ 364,277 $ $ 1,094,199 $ 364,277 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,458,476 $ $ 1,458,476 $ $ 1,458,476 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % REVENUE SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ 685,410 $ 65,445 16,354 116,188 (52,975) 830,422 $ SubTotal $ 12,653 1,605 306,992 10,620 9,827 2 341,699 Total Expenditures $ 1,172,121 $ 868,378 98,894 164,975 1,132,247 $ 8,000 3,000 296,078 2,650 6,300 7,000 323,028 $ 1,455,275 $ $ $ 913,332 $ 33,714 161,946 (8,000) 1,100,992 $ $ 8,000 3,000 296,078 2,650 6,300 7,000 323,028 $ 1,424,020 $ 815,424 13,072 144,624 222 973,342 $ $ $ 817,245 19,400 164,660 76 1,001,381 $ 8,115 12 2,545 241,671 1,320 5,547 5,457 332 264,999 $ 15,784 1,756 313,056 1,546 15,915 15,979 239 364,275 $ 1,238,341 $ 1,365,656 $ $ 817,245 19,400 164,660 76 92,818 1,094,199 $ $ 96,087 14,314 (2,714) (76) (8,000) (92,818) 6,793 11% 42% $ (7,784) 1,244 (16,978) 1,104 (9,615) (8,979) (241) (41,249) 41% -6% 42% -153% -128% $ 15,784 1,756 313,056 1,546 15,915 15,979 241 364,277 $ 1,458,476 $ (34,456) -2% (1,458,476) $ (34,456) -2% -2% -100% 1% -97% -13% CAPITAL OUTLAY Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (1,172,121) $ (1,455,275) $ (1,424,020) $ (1,238,341) $ (1,365,656) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III - GR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR - CAO COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER EMPLOYEE OMBUDSMAN EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DIRECTOR JUSTICE SYSTEMS COORDINATOR LEGISLATIVE LIAISON MANAGEMENT INTERN OFFICE ASSOCIATE PRESS SECRETARY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER VIDEOGRAPHER FTE TOTAL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 14.3 539 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ County Call Center STAR BOARD STAR BOARD Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Clerk of the Court Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Clerk of the Court David DavidSobieski, Sobieski, Director Director Administration STAR Operations Court Operations Mission Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the STAR Center is to provide knowledgeable, courteous information to callers of the Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Elections and Clerk of the Court offices and the County switchboard so they can conduct their business with the County accurately and conveniently. Vision To increase STAR Center efficiency by expanding the information available on the 24-hour automated system. Goals ! ! ! ! ! By the end of 2002, the STAR Center will identify, convert and expand the automated call answering system which will result in increased customer service 24 hours a day and at a lower overall cost. Beginning in 2001, the STAR Center will budget for temporary help based on anticipated demand and by the end of 2002 create a teleworking pilot project, to provide better customer service during peak call periods. Beginning in 2001, the STAR Center will hire a training specialist to coordinate the development and delivery of training, which emphasizes all information including legislative changes affecting the residents of Maricopa County, insuring accurate and timely customer service. The STAR Center will initiate a program to review, evaluate and upgrade its software/hardware compatibility with the agencies we serve. We will convert both the Treasurer and Assessor system by the end of 2001. By the end of 2001, the STAR Center will be able to provide web-based initial training for all public assistance call answering activities, resulting in better customer service. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED CALL CENTER TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity STAR CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS 540 Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 347,698 $ 15,921 $ 138,740 62,333 541,946 216,675 1,090,717 $ 232,596 $ Total $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 363,619 $ 138,740 62,333 758,621 $ 1,323,313 $ - County Call Center (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: STAR Center Program Purpose: The purpose of the STAR Call Center is to provide an immediate information bridge for the residents of Maricopa County so that the caller and the customer service agent can identify and define the issue or problem and either solve the problem or recommend a course of action in a single telephone call. Key Results: Percent of calls answered within 30 seconds Percent of requested documents mailed within 24 hours FY 00 Actual 0 FY 01 Actual 0 FY 02 Actual N/A FY 03 Projected 70 0 0 N/A 0 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data General Fund $ 841,250 $ 1,148,984 $ 1,221,730 $ 1,252,766 $ 1,323,313 $ $ $ $ $ Total 841,250 1,148,984 1,221,730 1,252,766 1,323,313 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 841,250 $ 841,250 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,148,984 $ 1,148,984 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,221,730 $ 1,221,730 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,262,475 $ 1,262,475 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,323,313 $ 1,323,313 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 541 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget County Call Center (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY STAR Call Center A.R.S. § 11-401 Enumeration Of Officers; A.R.S. § 11-541 Powers And Duties Generally County Assessor; A.R.S. §§ 11-461 through 11-483 County Recorder; A.R.S. § 11-491; A.R.S. § 11-494; A.R.S. § 11-604-605; A.R.S. § 15-996; A.R.S. §§ 35-323 through 35-327; A.R.S. § 41-1285.21; A.R.S. § 42, :IRC150, 148 County Treasurer; A.R.S. § 16-201 Primary Election; A.R.S. § 16-211 General Election; A.R.S. § 16-452 State of Arizona Electronic Voting System Instructions and Procedures Manual Elections Office. The STAR Call Center is the official communication medium between the Offices of the Board of Supervisors, Treasurer, Assessor, & Recorder (including Elections) and the citizens of Maricopa County. The STAR Call Center has numerous statutory and constitutional duties, which mirror those of the Assessor, Treasurer, Recorder and Elections. The Call Center provides information, such as property tax information, assessed value of property, deed recording information, polling places on elections day, etc., all without transferring between departments. Services extend to the citizens of Maricopa County and beyond, such as property owners, mortgage banks, investors, heirs, etc. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 140 CALL CENTER FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 1,090,717 $ 232,596 $ $ 1,090,717 $ 232,596 $ $ 1,090,717 $ 232,596 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,323,313 $ $ 1,323,313 $ $ 1,323,313 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 140 CALL CENTER FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % REVENUE EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ 746,022 65,936 43,705 171,993 1,027,656 SubTotal $ 17,696 136 119 21,355 119,177 27,928 1,511 6,152 194,074 Total Expenditures $ 1,221,730 $ $ $ 806,448 51,052 193,037 1,050,537 $ 14,000 120 47,194 151,857 12,000 5,600 230,771 $ 1,281,308 $ $ $ 835,534 51,052 195,989 1,082,575 $ 7,002 120 47,194 151,855 12,000 650 218,821 $ 1,301,396 $ $ $ 793,945 44,249 2,965 192,653 3,230 1,037,042 $ $ $ 812,695 54,472 3,400 215,072 1,085,639 $ 6,987 280 50,088 149,604 8,097 651 17 215,724 $ 9,816 400 60,750 155,655 1,048 13,000 651 1,000 242,320 $ 1,252,766 $ 1,327,959 $ $ 826,239 54,472 2,600 207,406 1,090,717 $ $ 9,295 (3,420) (2,600) (11,417) (8,142) 1% -7% $ (1,998) 120 (13,556) (3,800) (1,048) 7,623 (616) (500) (13,775) -29% 100% $ 9,000 60,750 155,655 1,048 4,377 1,266 500 232,596 $ 1,323,313 $ (21,917) -2% (1,323,313) $ (21,917) -2% -6% -1% -29% -3% 64% -95% -6% CAPITAL OUTLAY Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 542 (1,221,730) $ (1,281,308) $ (1,301,396) $ (1,252,766) $ (1,327,959) $ County Call Center (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 140 CALL CENTER WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATOR CALL AGENT DEPARTMENTAL HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST LEAD CALL AGENT NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR TOTAL FTE 1.0 2.0 1.0 23.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 33.0 Departmental Budget Schedules 543 Criminal Justice Facilities Development Citizens of Maricopa County Citizens Jail Oversight Committee Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Chief Public Works Officer Administrative Policy Group Departmental Budget Schedules Criminal Justice Facilities Criminal Justice Facilities Heidi Birch, Director Heidi Birch, Director Finance / Administration Project Management Mission The mission of the Criminal Justice Facilities Development Department is to provide programming, design and construction management services to Maricopa County so that it can fulfill the mandate of the November 1998 jail tax initiative, thereby ensuring that there is adequate jail space to incarcerate the growing population of dangerous offenders. Vision The vision of the Criminal Justice Facilities Development Department is to expeditiously provide the facilities necessary to house pre-trial detainees and post-trial convicted criminals while achieving initial capital and life cycle cost efficiencies using innovative, imaginative and effective facility designs. Goals ! ! ! Construct on schedule and within budget 3,139 adult detention beds of the required custody classification and all necessary support facilities at a downtown location and the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. Construct on schedule and within budget 388 juvenile detention beds and all necessary support facilities at the Durango Complex and the Southeast Regional Facility including expansion of juvenile court facilities at the Durango Complex by the end of FY 2004. Construct on schedule and within budget a Parking Structure with 985 parking spaces and a Forensic Science Center and laboratory facility by the end of FY 2003. 544 Criminal Justice Facilities Development (Continued) Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ADULT DETENTION CONSTRUCTION JUVENILEDETENTION CONSTRUCTION UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Services $ Total $ - Supplies & Services $ $ - Capital Outlay $ 201,953,894 47,371,901 $ 249,325,795 Total Expenditures $ 201,953,894 47,371,901 $ 249,325,795 Total Revenue $ $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 545 Departmental Budget Schedules ! Construction prices and labor availability will improve somewhat each year of the program, which could have a slight positive impact on schedule and budget for the next two to four years. Inflationary impacts should not increase more than projected during the design and construction period and construction escalation should not impact project budgets more than projected for the next two to four years. The Board of Supervisors and County Executive Management will remain stable and supportive allowing the department to maintain a stable set of priorities and constant direction for the next two to four years. The ability to efficiently work within the City of Phoenix will remain difficult and problematic requiring an extraordinary amount of department time, effort and money to maintain schedules related to the City’s archaic planning and permitting process for the next two to four years. Relationships with internal County departments will remain positive and strong minimizing potential costly design, construction and schedule changes for the next two to four years. It will remain difficult to hire competent employees given the short-term duration of the project and continuing robust competition for professional and technical personnel in the local area for the next two to four years. All non-structural recommendations in the Jail Master Plan will be essentially achieved by the County's Judicial System to enable the construction program to remain valid and achieve the desired outcome envisioned in the Jail Master Plan for the next four years. Potential sales tax increases in the State of Arizona, City of Phoenix and City of Mesa could negatively impact the program budget by approximately $1,500,000 in the next two to four years. Criminal Justice Facilities Development (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Adult Detention Construction Program Purpose: The purpose of the Adult Detention Construction Program is to provide construction management services for Maricopa County so that facilities to house an additional 3,139 jail beds can be constructed on time and within budget, thereby ensuring that there is adequate jail space to incarcerate the growing population of dangerous offenders. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent 4th Avenue Jail Construction project completion as compared to budget Percent Lower Buckeye Jail Construction project completion as compared to budget FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 5 16 38 91 4 13 50 96 Program Name: Construction Project Management Administration Program Purpose: The purpose of the Construction Project Management Administration Program is to provide construction management services for Maricopa County so that programs can be completed on schedule and within budget. Key Results: Percent construction project management costs as a percentage of the project budget FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 9 8 8 9 Program Name: Juvenile Detention Construction Program Purpose: The purpose of the Juvenile Detention Construction Program is to provide construction management services for Maricopa County so that facilities to house an additional 388 beds can be constructed on time and within budget, thereby ensuring that there is adequate detention space to incarcerate the growing population of juvenile offenders. Key Results: Percent Juvenile Durango Construction project completion as compared to budget Percent Juvenile Mesa Construction project completion as compared to budget 546 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 2 15 37 87 3 16 N/A 91 Criminal Justice Facilities Development (Continued) Program Name: Parking Structure and Forensic Science Center Construction Program Purpose: The purpose of the Jefferson St. Parking Structure and Forensic Science Center Construction Program is to provide construction management services to Maricopa County so that parking and a forensic science facility can be constructed on schedule and within budget, thereby ensuring that there is adequate capacity to accommodate current demand as well as population growth. Key Results: Percent Jefferson Street Parking Structure Construction project completion as compared to budget Percent Forensic Science Center Construction project completion as compared to budget FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 5 18 83 100 1 9 76 100 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Capital Projects $ 2,464,000 $ 17,293,055 $ 51,548,659 $ 176,608,429 $ 249,325,795 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,464,000 17,293,055 51,548,659 176,608,429 249,325,795 Total Mandated Expenditures Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 2,464,000 $ 2,464,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 17,293,055 $ 17,293,055 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 51,548,658 $ 51,548,658 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 154,907,523 $ 154,907,523 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 249,325,795 $ 249,325,795 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 547 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Criminal Justice Facilities Development (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Construction Of Jail Detention And Justice Facilities The Legislature, in Laws 1998, Chapter 225, amending A.R.S. § 42-1491, granted a one-time opportunity to Maricopa County voters to approve a jail facilities excise tax levy to construct and operate jail facilities. The jail facilities excise tax levy was authorized at two-tenths of a percent (0.002) of the tax base to remain in effect until $900 million is collected, but not more than nine years after January 1, 1999. The Maricopa County voters approved the tax levy effective January 1, 1999. Design and construct the new adult and juvenile detention and justice facilities. Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION Construction of Jail Detention and Justice Facilities FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 548 Capital Projects $ 2,464,000 $ 17,293,055 $ 51,548,658 $ 154,907,523 $ 249,325,795 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,464,000 17,293,055 51,548,658 154,907,523 249,325,795 Criminal Justice Facilities Development (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV FUND TYPE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services - $ $ - $ $ Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 249,325,795 249,325,795 98,138,712 $ 249,325,795 $ 249,325,795 $ 98,138,712 $ 249,325,795 $ 249,325,795 $ 98,138,712 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE (2,000) 680 TRANSFERS IN 103,034,316 Total Revenue $ 103,032,316 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ SubTotal $ 326,935 7,628 1,500 52,288 388,351 $ $ 137,465 $ 12,156 3,802 (363,015) 99,905 114,543 261 19 381,171 386,307 $ $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 99,126,011 99,126,011 400,932 $ 27,045 75,303 (503,280) $ 469,164 $ 24,173 86,448 (579,785) $ 475,259 $ 11,019 78,478 (510,074) (57,947) (3,265) $ 509,599 24,173 100,046 25,500 659,318 - - - 40,000 1,500 1,500 30,000 1,500 131,428 2,000 1,000 208,928 $ $ $ $ 1 1 $ 2 $ $ $ $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ $ - 1,040,451 49,733,550 50,774,001 229,759,912 877,441 $ 230,637,353 229,759,912 848,306 $ 230,608,218 175,763,386 848,306 $ 176,611,692 239,325,795 $ 239,325,795 249,325,795 $ 249,325,795 Total Expenditures $ 51,548,659 $ 230,637,353 $ 230,608,218 $ 176,608,429 $ 240,194,041 $ 249,325,795 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 51,483,657 $ (145,911,342) $ (145,882,207) $ $ $ $ 509,599 $ 24,173 99,926 (686,856) 53,158 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 940 INFRASTRUCTURE SubTotal $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ 13,412,701 13,412,701 (40,435) (13,478) 107,071 (53,158) - % 16% 16% -9% 0% -16% 18% - $ (19,565,883) 848,306 (18,717,577) -9% 100% -8% $ (18,717,577) -8% (91,882,418) $ (141,068,030) $ (151,187,083) $ (5,304,876) -4% Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 400 CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY DEV WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER DIRECTOR SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER SUPERVISOR FTE TOTAL 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 7.0 549 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 FY 2001-02 Revised Elections County Recorder Elections Elections Karen Osborne, Director Karen Osborne, Director Elections Cycle Operations Voter Registration Mission The mission of the Elections Department is to provide access to the electoral process for citizens, jurisdictions, candidates, the legislature and special interest groups so that they have equal access and may readily participate in elections. Departmental Budget Schedules Goals ! ! ! ! ! Decrease the percentage of voters traveling to the polls by 5% by 2003. Reduce the number of candidates fined to less than 10% of the total filing. Reduce the rate of increase in mandated costs by 10%. Reduce manual processing of ballots by 1% of ballots cast by 2002. Cut complaints about counter voting at early voting sites in half by 2002. Issues ! ! ! ! Due to the rising expectation of voters for convenience, budget restrictions, the inability to find polling places and obtain board workers, we need to create a culture accepting the transition from the polling place to the mailbox. Rising expectations of voters for convenience, the need to accurately, consistently and promptly tally votes, and the demand of Jurisdictions for more data in a timely manner create the need for better access to technology. Due to the impact of Federal and State legislators on the election process, we need to communicate our concerns to them through an aggressive, coordinated program. Rising expectations of candidates and elected officials for ease of filing combined with complex regulations create the need for an aggressive education program using data processing technology to ease the process of candidate filing. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED ELECTIONS TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ELECTIONS VOTER REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS 550 Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 2,234,659 $ 5,360,439 $ 586,757 222,546 802,536 3,011 312,024 613,401 3,935,976 $ 6,199,397 $ Total $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 7,595,098 $ 809,303 805,547 925,425 2,085,000 $ 10,135,373 $ 2,085,000 Elections (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Elections Program Purpose: The purpose of the Elections Program is to provide access to the electoral process for citizens, jurisdictions, candidates, the legislature and special interest groups so that they have equal access and may readily participate in elections. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 100 100 0 0 2.98 5 0 0 100 98 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 100 100 Program Name: Voter Registration Program Purpose: The purpose of the Voter Registration Program is to provide registration services to eligible citizens who maintain residency in the County so they may readily express their preferences through the electoral process. Key Results: Percentage of all valid registrations processed in time to meet election deadlines The percentage of valid registrations scanned and indexed in time to meet election deadlines FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 100 98 N/A N/A 100 98 551 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percentage of deliveries of supplies and equipment delivered to the correct polling place Percentage of candidates fined The percentage of ballots returned for which the correct ballot has been issued Percentage of elections not postponed because of improper boundaries Reduction in the number of complaints about polls per vote cast at polls Percentage reduction in complaints about board workers Percentage increase in the number of voter registration cards collected at events Percentage of votes tabulated correctly The percentage of special ballots processed in time to meet the statutory deadline Elections (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 9,419,592 $ 7,237,078 $ 9,978,329 $ 5,963,585 $ 10,135,373 $ $ $ $ $ Total 9,419,592 7,237,078 9,978,329 5,963,585 10,135,373 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 9,419,592 $ 9,419,592 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 7,237,078 $ 7,237,078 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 9,978,329 $ 9,978,329 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 5,963,585 $ 5,963,585 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 10,135,373 $ 10,135,373 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE Elections AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 16-201 Primary Election; A.R.S. § 16-211 General Election; A.R.S. § 16452 State of Arizona Electronic Voting System Instructions and Procedures Manual. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Beginning in 1875, the territorial legislature enacted laws to establish, maintain and continue the election process and the efficient management of voter registration records. The State of Arizona subsequently adopted these laws at the time of statehood in 1912. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Conduct elections with accuracy and consistency in accordance with Federal laws, state laws and established procedures. 552 Elections (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 210 ELECTIONS FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 3,935,976 $ 6,199,397 $ $ 3,935,976 $ 6,199,397 $ $ 3,935,976 $ 6,199,397 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 10,135,373 $ 2,085,000 $ 10,135,373 $ 2,085,000 $ 10,135,373 $ 2,085,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 210 ELECTIONS FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted 2,661,305 1,270 22,256 9,928 2,694,759 $ 775,000 2,500 15,000 792,500 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 1,618,296 $ 562,473 448,086 457,563 (1) 3,086,417 $ 1,641,979 263,339 173,632 475,829 2,554,779 SubTotal $ 199,541 8,959 20,281 3,125 4,852,367 711,431 22,474 102,688 88,102 466 2,822 6,012,256 $ 122,328 2,000 121,500 9,000 2,417,453 526,100 16,000 42,000 45,450 207,000 5,900 3,514,731 SubTotal $ 879,659 879,659 $ Total Expenditures $ 9,978,332 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ (7,283,573) $ 6,069,510 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (5,277,010) $ 1,315,541 2,500 15,000 1,333,041 1,950,774 273,796 173,632 505,943 2,904,145 122,328 2,000 121,500 9,000 2,068,087 526,100 16,000 42,000 45,450 207,000 5,900 3,165,365 6,069,510 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 1,337,665 12,445 6,370 12,838 1,369,318 1,838,418 108,794 130,065 473,674 13,264 58 2,564,273 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 208,223 66 2,620 6,141 8,619 2,173,322 488,508 2,568 59,789 33,153 252,679 13,624 3,249,312 $ $ 150,000 150,000 $ $ 5,963,585 $ (4,736,469) $ $ (4,594,267) $ 2,067,500 2,500 15,000 2,085,000 1,933,961 843,358 507,546 683,070 3,967,935 81,471 9,750 4,800 4,645,323 810,433 44,000 61,600 743,400 7,500 6,408,277 10,376,212 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 2,067,500 2,500 15,000 2,085,000 $ 1,910,393 843,358 507,546 674,679 3,935,976 $ 26,471 9,750 4,800 4,495,324 810,428 40,124 61,600 743,400 7,500 6,199,397 $ $ (8,291,212) $ 10,135,373 $ $ 751,959 751,959 % 57% 0% 0% 56% 2% -208% -192% -33% $ 40,381 (569,562) (333,914) (168,736) (1,031,831) 78% $ 95,857 (7,750) 121,500 4,200 (2,427,237) (284,328) 16,000 1,876 (16,150) (536,400) (1,600) (3,034,032) $ -36% -388% 100% 47% -117% -54% 100% 4% -36% -259% -27% -96% - $ (4,065,863) -67% (8,050,373) $ (3,313,904) -70% 553 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Revised Elections (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 210 ELECTIONS Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ASSISTANT ELECTIONS DIRECTOR ASSOCIATE INFORMATION SYSTEM TECHNICIAN BOARDWORKER RECRUITER SUPERVISOR CANDIDATE FILING SUPERVISOR DATA OPERATIONS CLERK DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPUTY FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR EARLY VOTING CLERK EARLY VOTING SUPERVISOR EARLY VOTING/LOGISTICS CLERK ELECTION SPECIALIST ELECTIONS COORDINATOR ELECTIONS DIRECTOR FISCAL SERVICES DIRECTOR GIS CLERK GIS PROGRAMMER/ANALYST GIS TECHNICIAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONSULTANT OPERATIONS/IMAGING CLERK OPERATIONS/WAREHOUSE SUPERVISOR PERSONNEL/PAYROLL ADMINSTRATOR POLLING PLACE COORDINATOR PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST PROGRAMMER ANALYST PUBLIC INFORMATION SUPERVISOR RECORDER'S EXCUTIVE ASSISTANT TROUBLESHOOTER PROGRAM COORDINATOR VOTER REGISTRATION SPECIALIST VOTER REGISTRATION SUPERVISOR WAREHOUSE TECHNICIAN TOTAL 554 FTE 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 54.0 Eliminations DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 980 ELIMINATIONS FUND TYPE SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services $ $ - Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ $ (602,949,306) $ (602,949,306) $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ $ (602,949,306) (602,949,306) $ (602,949,306) $ (602,949,306) EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 980 ELIMINATIONS FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested FY 2002-03 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance % - (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,400,000) (3,582,344) (3,103,072) (2,600,000) (2,600,000) (39,770,634) (39,975,892) (41,549,502) (43,930,743) (45,633,576) (92,049,912) (91,299,912) (62,093,733) (70,516,024) (72,066,024) (363,678,741) (412,011,159) (366,160,243) (390,004,583) (482,649,706) $ (498,899,287) $ (547,869,307) $ (472,906,550) $ (507,051,350) $ (602,949,306) $ 1,000,000 982,344 (5,657,684) 19,233,888 (70,638,547) (55,079,999) 100% 27% -14% 21% -17% -10% - (77,049,912) (76,299,912) (48,658,384) (57,173,163) (58,723,163) (2,400,000) (3,582,344) (3,103,072) (2,600,000) (2,600,000) (39,770,634) (39,975,892) (41,549,502) (43,930,743) (45,633,576) (16,000,000) (16,000,000) (13,435,349) (13,342,861) (13,342,861) (363,678,741) (412,011,159) (366,160,243) (390,004,583) (482,649,706) $ (498,899,287) $ (547,869,307) $ (472,906,550) $ (507,051,350) $ (602,949,306) $ (17,576,749) (982,344) 5,657,684 (2,657,139) 70,638,547 55,079,999 -23% -27% 14% -17% 17% 10% - $ (498,899,287) $ (547,869,307) $ (472,906,550) $ (507,051,350) $ (602,949,306) $ 55,079,999 10% EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY Total Expenditures $ 555 Departmental Budget Schedules SUPPLIES & SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ Emergency Management County Administrative Officer Chief Public Works Officer Emergency Management Emergency Management Robert Spencer, Director Robert Spencer, Director Support Services Plans & Operations Financial Management Mission Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management is to provide community-wide education, planning, coordination, and continuity of government for the people of Maricopa County in order to protect lives, property and the environment in the event of a major emergency. Vision We will be a respected and effective leader in providing all aspects of a comprehensive emergency management program, including mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, in a proactive manner. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! Maintain a level of technological compatibility in the areas of radio, voice, and data communications within the emergency management arena to ensure the ability of the department to communicate with other agencies and the general public during emergencies, as well as on a day-to-day basis. Develop the Maricopa County Disaster Mitigation Plan by June, 2002. Additionally, develop a program by which the department will assist in the development of mitigation plans for each of the 24 cities and towns supported by the department. Develop the capability to alert the people in Maricopa County of a major emergency within 15 minutes after a protective actions decision has been made by the appropriate authority. Meet or exceed the standards of National Fire Protection Association 1600 for emergency management, achieve nationally recognized departmental accreditation, and maintain an appropriate level of personnel training. By February of 2003, conduct a hazard analysis for developments with large populations in unincorporated areas of Maricopa County and develop written plans and procedures to address the hazards that are specific to those areas. Develop plans and programs within the four-year update cycle that will enable the County and other governmental entities within it to effectively deal with the emerging threats of terrorism, school violence, and widespread electrical power failures. 556 Emergency Management (Continued) Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! Failure to keep up with improvements in technology will degrade our ability to effectively communicate with outside agencies and coordinate our response to emergencies. Failure to respond to the increasing federal emphasis on hazard mitigation may result in unnecessary loss of lives, property, and funding. Increased populations within hazard-prone areas make it necessary to develop better methods of alerting the population of impending disasters, As the field of emergency management evolves, adhering to newly established standards, achieving nationally recognized accreditation, and providing sufficient training to employees will become increasingly difficult. Increased population density in several areas of unincorporated Maricopa County will make residents of those areas increasingly vulnerable to the effects of major emergencies without the benefit of having developed plans to deal with those events. Terrorism, school violence, and widespread electrical power failures are emerging issues that can result in loss of life and damage to property. Total Budget by Program Program Activity MITIGATION PREPAREDNESS RESPONSE AND RECOVERY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 34,133 $ 45,374 $ 463,602 244,073 69,099 72,073 195,172 20,364 762,006 $ 381,884 $ Total $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 4,000 $ 83,507 $ 27,831 11,000 718,675 403,396 5,000 146,172 75,711 195,172 157,708 20,364 2,013 20,000 $ 1,163,890 $ 666,659 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Mitigation Program Purpose: The purpose of the mitigation program is to provide mitigation plans and programs to Maricopa County and political subdivisions therein so that they can reduce or eliminate the effects of future disasters. Key Results: Percent of county, city, and town governments with a hazard mitigation plan FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 0 0 557 Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS Emergency Management (Continued) Program Name: Preparedness Program Purpose: The purpose of the preparedness program is to provide knowledge and experience to the people of Maricopa County so that they can be prepared to respond to an emergency. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of county and city/town emergency operations plans updated within past four years Percent gain in knowledge as a result of emergency operations center (EOC) related training Percent knowledge gain from presentations Percent of participants in exercises conducted by the department who are better prepared to respond to an emergency FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 72 72 84 0 0 162 33 0 0 0 25 0 0 99.6 90 Program Name: Response and Recovery Program Purpose: The purpose of the response and recovery program is to provide a coordinated disaster response capability for the people of Maricopa County in order to protect their lives and property and allow them to recover from a disaster. Key Results: Percent of time 24-hour-a-day coverage, including communications, was maintained to protect lives, property, and the environment Percent of public entities declaring a disaster that received disaster assistance FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 120,395 $ 109,715 $ 136,354 $ 74,257 $ 77,108 Special Revenue $ 578,967 $ 655,606 $ 679,026 $ 853,714 $ 1,086,782 $ $ $ $ $ Total 699,362 765,321 815,380 927,971 1,163,890 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 120,395 $ 578,967 $ 699,362 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 109,715 $ 655,606 $ 765,321 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 136,354 $ 679,026 $ 815,380 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 74,257 $ 853,714 $ 927,971 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 77,108 $ 1,086,782 $ 1,163,890 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 558 Emergency Management (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY 559 Departmental Budget Schedules Emergency Management Public Law (PL) 96-510; PL 97-499; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief & Emergency Assistance Act (PL 93-288 as amended); Federal Response Plan; Presidential Decision Directives 39, 62, & 63; Homeland Security Presidential Directive 3; The Homeland Security Act of 2002; National Security Decision Directive No. 259, February 4, 1987 (NSDD 259); 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), parts 205 and 302; FEMA Civil Preparedness Guide 1-3; FEMA State & Local Guide (SLG) 101; A.R.S. Title 26, Chapter 2; A.R.S. Title 35, Article 2; State of Arizona Emergency Response and Recovery Plan; PL 99-499 (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Title III); Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulation 0654 (NUREG 0654); Joint State of Arizona/Maricopa County Fixed Nuclear Facility Emergency Response Off-Site Plan*. HISTORY/ The emergency management function was created in 1953 to coordinate disaster BACKGROUND response activities for the county and the metropolitan area. The department provides technical and administrative assistance and guidance to local government, commercial or private enterprise, and the general public, thereby assisting them in carrying out their responsibilities in accordance with federal and state policies, emergency plans, and programs in preparation for human-caused or natural disasters. Its mission is to provide community-wide education, planning, coordination, and continuity of government for the people of Maricopa County in order to protect lives, property, and the environment in the event of a major emergency. MANDATE Develop, test and maintain the capability to respond to a life-threatening DESCRIPTION emergency or disaster and to provide relief from damage to property. *Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station provides Special Revenue Funds based upon estimated expenditures for conducting Palo Verde emergency drills. Emergency Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 54,719 $ 22,389 $ $ 77,108 $ 707,287 359,495 20,000 1,086,782 666,659 $ 762,006 $ 381,884 $ 20,000 $ 1,163,890 $ 666,659 $ 762,006 $ 381,884 $ 20,000 $ 1,163,890 $ 666,659 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ (8,594) 659,921 41,967 693,294 $ 254,398 643,566 897,964 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 487,379 34,480 94,736 73,888 690,483 543,285 31,669 109,746 46,792 731,492 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 560 16,835 912 1,268 35,351 9,196 1,488 10,714 36,078 12,693 2 360 124,897 815,380 $ $ $ $ 81,519 1,658 50,000 2,000 12,000 6,850 28,972 21,333 13,210 3,500 24,500 245,542 $ $ (122,086) $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 254,398 643,566 897,964 557,011 1 29,746 110,942 46,792 744,492 $ 81,519 1,658 50,000 2,000 12,000 6,850 28,972 18,333 13,210 3,500 24,500 242,542 28,841 28,841 $ 1,005,875 $ (107,911) $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 590,941 617,608 3,059 1,211,608 541,697 7,908 110,341 60,392 2,867 723,205 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 452,274 212,885 1,500 666,659 561,154 14,000 121,811 30,000 49,993 776,958 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 452,276 212,886 1,497 666,659 $ $ 197,878 (430,680) 1,497 (231,305) $ 547,715 14,000 120,298 29,999 49,994 762,006 $ 183,489 1,042 88,853 2,000 5,998 3,396 25,500 20,364 28,383 22,859 381,884 $ (101,970) 616 (38,853) 6,002 3,454 3,472 (2,031) (15,173) 3,500 1,641 (139,342) % 78% -67% -26% 2% 100% 53% -8% 36% $ 9,296 1 15,746 (9,356) 16,793 (49,994) (17,514) -125% 37% -78% 0% 50% 50% 12% -11% -115% 100% 7% -57% -2% $ 82,502 1,352 36,737 996 7,106 4,038 19,875 18,005 12,720 1,939 14,498 199,768 $ 183,488 1,333 88,854 2,000 6,000 3,395 25,500 21,167 27,400 28,828 387,965 18,841 18,841 $ 4,998 4,998 $ 20,000 20,000 $ 20,000 20,000 $ (1,159) (1,159) -6% -6% 1,005,875 $ 927,971 $ 1,184,923 $ 1,163,890 $ (158,015) -16% (107,911) $ 283,637 $ (497,231) $ (389,320) -361% (518,264) $ Emergency Management (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR V COMMUNICATION WARNING COORDINATOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MANAGER EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER II EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER III GIS PROGRAMMER/ANALYST FTE TOTAL 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 Departmental Budget Schedules 561 Environmental Services County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Environmental Services Environmental Services Albert F. Brown, Director Albert F. Brown, Director Air Quality Division Waste & Waste Management Division Environmental Health Division Business Services Division Community Services Division Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Environmental Services Department is to provide effective environmental management to the people of Maricopa County so they can be confident that they live in a safe and healthful environment. Goals • • Implement the Department's business plan, staffing, and space requirements, while maintaining an annual productivity rate sufficient to meet the mandated State Implementation Plan, statutory and State delegation agreement levels while staying within budget limits. Manage department programs to meet the increasing demand for essential environmental services resulting from Maricopa County growth. Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! The rapid growth rate of Maricopa County will continue to increase the demand for mandated environmental services. Incorporating rapid change in technology challenges the Environmental Services Department's ability to sustain technological capacity development. The external effects of catastrophic, or major change events such as: a spending CAP, lawsuits, public opinion, regionalization, etc. will increase the demand for environmental services. New legislation and unfunded mandates strain the Environmental Services Department's ability to maintain its program quality and effectiveness. Pressures of turnover and recruitment challenge the Environmental Services Department's ability to maintain a qualified workforce. The administrative and political effects of new countywide policies, elected official turnover, and possible organizational change test the Environmental Services Department's ability to smoothly implement its programs. 562 Environmental Services (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity AIR QUALITY PROGRAM BUSINESS SERVICES PROGRAM COMMUNITY SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 3,401,755 1,265,207 1,146,970 4,868,229 1,939,391 247,196 12,868,748 Supplies & Services $ 665,600 275,326 1,725,734 428,027 200,846 1,503,021 2,502,838 $ 7,301,392 Capital Outlay $ $ 242,352 35,945 278,297 Total Expenditures $ 4,067,355 1,782,885 2,872,704 5,296,256 2,140,237 1,786,162 2,502,838 $ 20,448,437 $ $ Total Revenue 1,043,255 13,246,766 2,648,575 27,250 472,000 17,437,846 Key Performance Measures Air Quality Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Air Quality Program is to provide air pollution information and regulatory services to industry, other governmental agencies, and the general public so that they can effectively contribute to the attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. Key Results: Percentage of days in compliance with NAAQS for CO, O3, and PM10 Percentage of days in compliance with NAAQS for CO, O3, and PM10 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 97 99 99 98.5 97 99 99 99 Program Name: Business Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Business Services Program is to provide enforcement of the Environmental Health Code and the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations to the residents of Maricopa County so they can enjoy a healthful environment Key Results: Percent of increase for Environmental Health Permits FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 6 1 8 1 Program Name: Community Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community Services Program is to provide environmental regulatory and compliance information for the residents of Maricopa County so they can be informed of the County's Air Quality and Environmental Health regulations. Key Results: Number of businesses receiving assistance FY 00 Actual 2,787 FY 01 Actual 2,275 FY 02 Actual 1,754 FY 03 Projected 2,100 563 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Environmental Services (Continued) Program Name: Environmental Health Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Environmental Health Division is to provide Environmental Health Inspections and educational services for the general public and regulated facilities so that compliance is maintained with applicable regulations of the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code. FY 00 Actual 80,995 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Number of Environmental Health Inspections FY 01 Actual 74,793 FY 02 Actual 101,860 FY 03 Projected 100,000 Program Name: Water and Waste Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Water and Waste Management Program is to provide plan review, inspection and vector control activities for stakeholders in Maricopa County so that they can be safe from hazards caused by non compliance with applicable rules governing environmental and public health protection for these facilities. Key Results: Percent of Engineering Plans reviewed within the standard timeframe or according to time limits set by regulation FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 100 100 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 573,977 641,352 677,647 756,839 737,332 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 13,927,998 15,751,856 15,995,230 16,391,462 19,711,105 $ $ $ $ $ Total 14,501,975 16,393,208 16,672,876 17,148,301 20,448,437 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 573,977 641,352 677,647 756,839 737,332 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 12,123,541 14,305,118 15,098,091 15,437,032 19,711,105 $ $ $ $ $ Total 12,697,519 14,946,470 15,775,738 16,193,871 20,448,437 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 1,804,457 1,446,739 897,138 954,429 - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,804,457 1,446,739 897,138 954,429 - NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 564 Environmental Services (Continued) Mandate Information MANDATE DESCRIPTION Voluntary Vehicle Repair and Retrofit Program A.R.S. in Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 3, by adding Section 49-474.03 Chapter 217 of the 43rd Legislature, Regular Second Session, Section 19 (SB1427) of the bill amends A.R.S. in Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 3, by adding Section 49-474.03. The bill specifies that a county with a population of more than 400,000 persons according to the most recent United States decennial census shall establish and coordinate a voluntary repair and retrofit program. The program will offer citizens of Maricopa County the option of voluntarily repairing and retrofitting their eligible vehicles. It is anticipated that not more than 1,280 vehicles will be repaired and retrofitted. It is the intent of the Environmental Services Department to contract with an independent contractor to assist in the development and implementation of the program. Voluntary Vehicle Repair and Retrofit Program FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 36,685 60,881 46,250 68,514 50,290 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 203,173 357,027 618,453 690,457 1,384,007 $ $ $ $ $ Total 239,858 417,908 664,703 758,971 1,434,297 565 Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Environmental Services (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION Environmental Health A.R.S. § 36-167 Sanitary regulations; notice; violations; classification; A.R.S. § 36-136 (D1) Powers and duties of director; 36-601 (B,C) Public nuisances dangerous to public health; Maricopa Environmental Health Code - Chapters 112; U.S. District Court of Arizona Judgement No. Civ 77-479 Hart vs. Hill. Maricopa County is responsible for the protection of the food and water supplies that sustain its residents, and for the detection and abatement of environmentally transmitted disease and public health nuisances within its boundaries. The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department enforces the provisions of the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code, Arizona State Statutes and Regulations that pertain to public health and environmental management. The Department has carried out these responsibilities since the establishment of those statutes that provide for the powers and authority of the Maricopa County Board of health, and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Maricopa County Board of Health must develop regulations necessary for the public health and safety of inhabitants. These regulations, approved by the Board of Supervisors, are incorporated in the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code. The Environmental Services Department must apply this code. Environmental Health Program FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION General Fund 537,292 580,471 631,397 688,325 687,042 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 6,919,788 7,777,743 8,159,623 8,275,960 10,019,791 $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,457,080 8,358,214 8,791,020 8,964,285 10,706,833 Air Quality Control The Federal Clean Air Act an Amendments of 1990;A.R.S. Article 1 General Provisions; A.R.S. § 49-401 Declaration of Policy; A.R.S. § 49-402 State and County Control; A.R.S. Article 3 County Air Pollution Control; A.R.S. § 49-473 Board of Supervisors; A.R.S. § 49-479 Rules; A.R.S. § 49-180 Permits Maricopa County has received grant funding from the Environmental Protection Department to carry out provisions of the Clean Air Act since the late 1960's. Arizona Revised Statutes establishes state and county control of air pollution, and Maricopa County establishes an Air Pollution Program in the 1960's. Adopt and enforce rules to control the release into the atmosphere of air contaminates and hazardous air pollutants. Collect permit fees equal to the average cost of services to defray the costs of implementing the program. Air Quality Control Program FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 566 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 3,112,566 4,061,090 4,401,862 4,629,443 5,964,690 $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,112,566 4,061,090 4,401,862 4,629,443 5,964,690 Environmental Services (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Recognizing the need for helping small businesses in the area of technical assistance. Congress required the creation of the Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. The SBAP would require a full-time Environmental Specialist independent from department enforcement activities, but with access to full departmental technical and outreach resources for small businesses. Although the requirements of the 1990 CAAA and the 1992 Comprehensive Air Quality Act (CAQA) are specific to air pollution control programs, the complexity of solid and hazardous waste rules and water quality protection rules of the Environmental Protection Department (EPA) and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) suggests that the program will eventually be established to provide a wider range of technical assistance to small businesses. The SBAP will be funded by Maricopa County Environmental Services Department permit fees to provide technical assistance and site visits independent of departmental enforcement activities. Advocate the needs of the small business community with respect to departmental activities, while making the permit application process more userfriendly. Reduce traffic impacts on air pollution by monitoring compliance of employers and schools in the development, implementation, and maintenance of a Trip Reduction Program. Provide technical assistance to small businesses to aid compliance with the State Comprehensive Air Quality Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Trip Reduction Program FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 921,812 994,969 1,011,732 898,937 948,575 $ $ $ $ $ Total 921,812 994,969 1,011,732 898,937 948,575 TEA21 Grant-Trip Reduction Program FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 966,203 1,114,288 906,421 942,236 1,431,842 $ $ $ $ $ Total 966,203 1,114,288 906,421 942,236 1,431,842 567 Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION Trip Reduction & Small Business Assistance Program A.R.S. § 49-581, et seq. Trip Reduction Program; County Ordinance P-7 Trip Reduction Ordinance; Small Business Assistance Program - Federal Clean Air Act Title V, Small Business Assistance Program; A.R.S. § 49-507 Technical Assistance to Small Businesses. In 1987, a lawsuit was filed against the State of Arizona for exceeding the National Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide. In response the Arizona Legislature passed the 1988 Air Quality Bill, which implemented the Trip Reduction Program for employers and schools in Maricopa County. Employers and schools with 100 or more employees or driving age students at any one site were affected by the requirements of the ordinance. In 1993 the Trip Reduction Ordinance No. P-7 was expanded requiring employers with 75-99 employees to participate in the program. The Ordinance was amended again in 1994 incorporating employers with 50-74 employees into the program. Environmental Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 575,399 $ 161,933 $ $ 737,332 $ 12,293,349 7,139,459 278,297 19,711,105 17,437,846 $ 12,868,748 $ 7,301,392 $ 278,297 $ 20,448,437 $ 17,437,846 $ 12,868,748 $ 7,301,392 $ 278,297 $ 20,448,437 $ 17,437,846 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 11,332,444 3,433,745 428,145 409,032 1,361,478 16,964,844 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 9,589,923 55,529 48,053 1,911,404 26,174 3,892 11,634,975 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ 387,182 7,237 54,172 227,248 1,212 1,826,658 923,320 49,733 694,054 199,825 1,850 7,329 578,358 4,958,178 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 568 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ $ 10,819,000 4,564,688 400,000 358,000 1,058,000 17,199,688 10,083,671 45,363 34,200 2,263,643 12,426,877 $ 133,170 5,400 54,384 19,000 2,706,061 870,730 105,671 652,414 166,415 9,000 45,708 4,528 524,570 5,297,051 720 (57,989) 142,690 85,421 $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 11,489,000 5,649,287 460,000 420,000 1,216,000 19,234,287 10,910,814 52,984 19,200 2,196,436 27,809 13,207,243 $ 703,461 5,336 53,685 326,785 3,500 3,063,602 958,704 100,809 436,605 179,980 16,195 38,808 4,528 524,570 6,416,568 3,400,000 154,155 35,000 3,589,155 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 11,867,738 3,719,080 6,000 472,000 421,000 170,000 924,000 17,579,818 9,865,224 $ 55,865 16,052 2,076,490 60,301 (11,983) 12,061,949 $ 10,355,814 82,497 29,405 2,391,128 16,604 12,875,448 $ 822,467 4,992 46,125 18,642 963 5,833 2,009,002 924,407 79,632 683,867 169,045 33,225 6,132 524,570 5,328,902 $ 2,450,000 99,218 154,155 35,000 2,738,373 $ 22,362,184 Total Expenditures $ 16,678,574 $ 21,313,083 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 286,270 $ (4,113,395) $ $ 11,623,986 4,023,827 4,500 475,525 571,354 39,430 1,110,093 17,848,715 FY 2002-03 Requested $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 11,731,766 3,719,080 472,000 506,000 1,009,000 17,437,846 $ 2% -34% 3% 20% -17% -9% $ 10,205,172 65,698 22,014 2,344,928 16,604 214,332 12,868,748 $ 655,195 5,200 56,041 72,480 5,000 1,881,443 943,982 70,202 338,025 173,786 13,000 16,785 4,528 3,065,725 7,301,392 $ 2,450,000 99,218 (65,745) (23,397) 2,460,076 $ 1,913,747 9% (3,010,591) $ 117,306 4% $ 600,945 5,200 51,500 73,500 5,000 1,839,898 911,385 75,000 569,235 185,200 15,000 16,785 4,528 3,027,408 7,380,584 $ 64,042 96,221 30,000 190,263 $ 35,000 35,000 $ 219,900 58,397 278,297 $ 17,581,114 $ 20,291,032 $ 20,448,437 (3,127,897) $ 267,601 $ (2,711,214) $ $ 242,766 (1,930,207) 12,000 86,000 (207,000) (1,796,441) % 6% -24% -15% -7% 40% $ 705,642 (12,714) (2,814) (148,492) 11,205 (214,332) 338,495 7% 3% -4% 78% $ 48,266 136 (2,356) 254,305 (1,500) 1,182,159 14,722 30,607 98,580 6,194 3,195 22,023 (2,541,155) (884,824) -43% 39% 2% 30% 23% 3% 20% 57% 0% -484% -14% 100% 100% -43% -67% 90% 3% Environmental Services (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FTE 13.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 18.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/COMPLAINT INTAKE LEAD ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER AIR QUALITY CHEMIST+F132 AIR QUALITY COMPLIANCE MANAGER AIR QUALITY DIVISION MANAGER AIR QUALITY INSPECTOR AIR QUALITY INSPECTOR LEAD/SUPERVISOR AIR QUALITY INTSTRUMENTATION TECHNICIAN I AIR QUALITY INTSTRUMENTATION TECHNICIAN II AIR QUALITY INTSTRUMENTATION TECHNICIAN III AIR QUALITY LARGE SOURCE COMPLIANCE OFFICER ASSISTANT DIVISION MANAGER ASSISTANT PROGRAM COORDINATOR BUSINESS OFFICE SUPERVISOR BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER CASHIER CIVIL ENGINEER, SENIOR (P.E) CIVIL ENGINEER, SENIOR (P.E.) CIVIL ENGINEER/CIVIL ENGINEER, SENIOR (P.E.) CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER COMMUNITY/MEDIA RELATIONS MANAGER CONTRACTS COORDINATOR DATA ANALYST DATA ANALYST ASSISTANT DATA ENTRY/COMPLAINT SPECIALIST DRINKING WATER/SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS MANAGER ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST I ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST II ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST III ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST INTERN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST INTERN/I/II ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST LEAD/SUPERVIS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST - LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER - LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNER II ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNER III ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNER SECTION MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST - LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST - SENIOR 2.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 60.5 20.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 11.0 1.0 3.0 569 Environmental Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOOD SERVICE WORKER CLERK GIS DATA ANALYST HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST LAN MANAGER MANAGEMENT ANALYST IV MANAGER, MIS/RESEARCH ANALYSIS MANAGER, SYSTEMS/PROGRAMMING MANAGER, TRANSPORTATION PLAN AUDITING OFFICE ASSOCIATE OFFICE MANAGER OFFICE SUPPORT, SENIOR PC LAN TECHNICIAN PLAN REVIEW/PEDDLER PROGRAM ASSISTANT PLAN REVIEW/PEDDLER PROGRAM CLERK PROGRAM SUPPORT SPECIALIST PROGRAMMER PROJECT MANAGER APPLICATIONS QUALITY CONTROL ANALYST REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANT SENIOR DATA ANALYST SMALL BUSINESS ENVIRON. ASSIST. PROGRAM COORDINATO SMALL BUSINESS ENVIRON. ASSIST. PROGRAM MANAGER SOLID WASTE OFFICER II TRAINING AND EDUCATION COORDINATOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN AUDITOR VECTOR CONTROL MANAGER VECTOR CONTROL OFFICE COORDINATOR VECTOR CONTROL OFFICER I VECTOR CONTROL OFFICER II WATER & WASTE DIVISION MANAGER WEB DEVELOPER TOTAL 570 FTE 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 273.5 Equipment Services County Administrative Officer Chief Public Works Officer Equipment Services Equipment Services Fentress Truxon, Director Fentress Truxon, Director Automotive Administration Service Stations Heavy Equipment Field Service Mission Vision To be recognized as a leader in providing professional, efficient, cost effective fleet services. Goals ! ! ! ! ! Monitor all new and existing safety and environmental regulations each year to provide 100% compliance, zero violations and no fines. Provide current computerization, communication media, and technology each year to maintain a minimum of 96% fleet availability in accordance with industry standards. Increase the number of alternative fueled vehicles to 75% of the total number of on-road vehicles by year 2006. Increase operational efficiency by maintaining inventory accuracy at a minimum of 90%. Maintain a 95% customer satisfaction rating for overall department performance. Issues ! ! ! ! State and or federal environmental, safety, and transportation laws will be enacted that will increase expenditures for personnel, equipment, and capital assets at the Equipment Services Department. Technological advances in computer, information and communications technology will impact personnel to acquire new skills and impact the Department to continually invest and upgrade automotive diagnostic equipment, management software, and systems to deliver efficient and cost effective services. The ever increasing cost of fuel and the use of credit cards to purchase fuel will increase cost to the County and distort the demand for County vehicle fuel. The increase in County fleet size, aging rental pool vehicles, type, variety, and complexity of equipment means the development of unique private and public partnerships, flexible and more 571 Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the Equipment Services Department is to provide vehicle, equipment, and fuel services to employees and departments of Maricopa County so they can have the transportation and equipment that is needed to perform their jobs. Equipment Services (Continued) ! ! ! ! efficient work force and innovative management systems to find new ways of doing things with fewer people and with no budget increase. Construction of new jail and juvenile facilities at the Durango complex and the future growth patterns toward the west, northwest, and southwest means that the Equipment Services Department must either close and or relocate and or modify the facilities at Durango and the satellite locations. The change in demographics, increase in the valley population and its encroaching development will make it harder to attract, train, retain, and motivate the highly technically skilled work force needed at Equipment Services. Customer demand for instant, real time, internet type convenient service impacts the Equipment Services Department to implement 24 hour 7 day service at the customer’s site in order to provide fleet availability that meets or exceeds the industry standards. Non compliance with state mandates for alternative fueled vehicles could result in legal sanctions and the lack of technically trained staff, lack of fueling facilities to accommodate future growth patterns, and lack of engine technology could impact compliance with the mandates. Departmental Budget Schedules Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED EQUIPMENT SERVICES TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity FLEET MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 1,507,682 $ 4,965,483 $ 302,677 78,383 581,435 89,898 531,323 761,855 2,923,117 $ 5,895,619 $ Total $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 15,500 $ 6,488,665 $ 381,060 31,706 703,039 57,104 1,350,282 9,200,000 104,310 $ 8,923,046 $ 9,200,000 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Fleet Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Fleet Management Program is to provide operational vehicles and equipment to Maricopa County departments so they have reliable and costeffective transportation for County activities. Key Results: Percent of fleet availability 572 FY 00 Actual 96.06 FY 01 Actual 96.73 FY 02 Actual 95.7 FY 03 Projected 96.3 Equipment Services (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 7,757,994 8,434,021 9,451,951 8,708,367 8,923,046 $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,757,994 8,434,021 9,451,951 8,708,367 8,923,046 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 36,500 45,900 630,158 45,769 221,700 $ $ $ $ $ Total 36,500 45,900 630,158 45,769 221,700 573 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Administrative Mandates Internal Service Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 7,721,494 $ 7,721,494 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 8,388,121 $ 8,388,121 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 8,821,793 $ 8,821,793 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 8,662,598 $ 8,662,598 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 8,701,346 $ 8,701,346 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Equipment Services (Continued) Mandate Information Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY Alternative Fuels A.R.S. § 49-571 (SB1269 AZ Clean Air Bill) Alternative fuel requirements for new buses; A.R.S. § 49-474.01 (HB2002 AZ Clean Air Act) Vehicle fleet plan for alternative fuels HISTORY/ Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 has provisions for controlling air quality in BACKGROUND non-attainment areas by requiring fleet purchases to include cleaner fuels (i.e. compressed natural gas, propane, etc) as a motor vehicle fuel. Energy Policy Act of 1992 established a policy to develop domestically produced alternative fuels for motor vehicles. Currently applicable to federal, state, and alternative-fuel provider fleets. DOE rule making could extend requirements to municipal/private fleets. Arizona legislation has been enacted that has more stringent requirements with respect to type of vehicle and time schedule for accomplishment. MANDATE Arizona Revised Statutes alternative fuel requirements apply to all on-road DESCRIPTION vehicles in state, city or town, school district, and county (with a population greater than 1,200,000). Alternative fuels include electricity, propane, natural gas, hydrogen, solar, alcohol (85% content). Alternative Fuels Internal Service Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 36,500 $ 36,500 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 45,900 $ 45,900 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 630,158 $ 630,158 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 45,769 $ 45,769 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 221,700 $ 221,700 574 Equipment Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND TYPE INTERNAL SERVICE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 2,923,117 5,895,619 104,310 8,923,046 9,200,000 $ 2,923,117 $ 5,895,619 $ 104,310 $ 8,923,046 $ 9,200,000 $ 2,923,117 $ 5,895,619 $ 104,310 $ 8,923,046 $ 9,200,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FY 2000-01 Actual 34,434 7,645 8,118,051 493,598 32,664 8,686,392 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 2,039,631 31,860 69,973 426,237 14,632 2,582,333 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ SubTotal $ $ 2,129,723 48,116 142,000 494,393 2,814,232 3,468,884 $ 46,474 146,345 3,790 (9,746) 10,148 2,282,466 108,921 23,546 4 124,941 617,974 6,823,747 $ 4,254,677 43,550 110,000 25,000 982,631 158,831 53,250 98,762 667,741 6,394,442 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 45,871 45,871 Total Expenditures $ 9,451,951 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ 9,200,000 9,200,000 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ 2,128,192 48,119 133,884 495,143 2,805,338 $ 4,328,437 43,549 110,000 20,000 973,871 163,831 35,250 98,762 667,741 6,441,441 $ 80,000 105,150 27,600 212,750 $ 9,421,424 (765,559) $ $ 9,200,000 9,200,000 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ 8,697,619 502,381 975,000 (975,000) 9,200,000 $ 8,697,619 502,381 9,200,000 2,058,747 21,222 78,925 510,429 6,547 19,290 2,695,160 2,170,125 22,580 105,000 606,800 60,978 2,965,483 $ 2,147,899 22,580 105,000 586,660 60,978 2,923,117 $ 3,982,965 49,010 40,700 109,535 20,000 925,659 156,833 23,000 1,200 95,000 491,717 5,895,619 $ $ 30,000 75,150 27,600 132,750 $ 9,379,529 $ $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 8,800 (1,611) 8,380,750 475,385 11,000 8,874,324 $ 3,827,589 52,025 23,000 125,001 13,000 925,658 145,723 23,000 1,200 85,000 667,741 5,888,937 (221,424) $ $ FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ (502,381) 502,381 - % -5% 0% -1% 53% 22% -18% $ (19,707) 25,539 28,884 (91,517) (60,978) (117,779) 8% $ 345,472 (49,010) 2,849 465 48,212 6,998 12,250 (1,200) 3,762 176,024 545,822 $ (15,500) 48,046 (4,106) 28,440 -4% $ 3,982,965 49,010 40,700 109,500 20,000 931,557 157,339 30,000 1,500 95,000 491,752 5,909,323 $ 31,000 65,670 27,600 124,270 $ 30,000 15,500 82,886 31,706 160,092 $ 30,000 15,500 27,104 31,706 104,310 $ 8,708,367 $ 9,034,898 $ 8,923,046 $ 456,483 5% (179,529) $ 165,957 $ 165,102 $ 276,954 $ 456,483 254% 7% 0% 0% 5% 4% 35% 4% 26% 8% 0% 64% -15% 21% 575 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 651 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 652 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Equipment Services (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LEAD ADMINISTRATOR AUTOMOTIVE SUPERVISOR AUTOMOTIVE & HEATY EQUIPMENT PARTS SPECIALIST DIRECTOR FIELD PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN FIELD TIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL AUTO TECHNICIAN GENERAL HEAVY EQUIPMENT FIELD TECHNICIAN GENERAL HEAVY EQUIPMENT TECHNICIAN HEAVY EQUIPMENT SUPERVISOR HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST INFORMATION SYSTEMS COORDINATOR LEAD AUTO TECHNICIAN LEAD HEAVY EQUIPMENT FIELD TECHNICIAN LEAD H.E. TECHNICIAN MASTER AUTO TECHNICIAN MASTER AUTO TECHNICIAN - ALTERNATIVE FUEL MASTER HEAVY EQUIPMENT FIELD TECHNICIAN OFFICE ASSISTANT PARTS SUPERVISOR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN RENTAL CLERK SAFETY ANALYST SENIOR PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST SERV WORKER/DRIVER/MESSENGER SERVICE LEAD SERVICE WRITER SUPERVISOR, CUSTOMER SERVICE TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SPEC TIRE ASSISTANT TRADES SUPERVISOR - ADMINISTRATION WELDER/FABRICATOR SUPERVISOR TOTAL 576 FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 11.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 63.0 Facilities Management County Administrative Officer Chief Public Works Officer Facilities Management Facilities Management VACANT VACANT Operations & Maintenance Design & Construction Planning Business Services Protective Services Mission The mission of the Facilities Management Department is to provide buildings and grounds to appointed and elected departments so they can work in a safe and efficient environment. To provide excellent innovative facility services to every customer every time. Goals ! ! ! All Facilities Management Department managed projects will be delivered on time, within budget, and meet standards and predetermined customer requirements, to include lifecycle operations and maintenance. Board of Supervisors-approved Standards, Policies, and Procedures will be applied to all construction and modifications of County occupied facilities by the beginning Fiscal Year 2003. Develop an implementation program to quantify and reduce the backlog of deferred major maintenance for all County-owned facilities by the end of Fiscal Year 2002. Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! ! As new County facilities are completed and net square footage increases, existing maintenance capacity (personnel, contracts, and utilities) become strained. If aging County facilities are not renovated, the efficiency and safety of employees will be compromised. Increasing demand for convenient locations for County services will focus attention on the examination of developing additional regional service centers. Utility cost and consumption are increasing rapidly and will have a negative effect on the Facility Management Department operating budget. An increase in environmental and regulatory demands will cause County facilities and real estate parcels to become non-compliant. As three million square feet of County buildings are acquired within the next 3 years, planning and operational resources will be taxed. Continued high levels crime and threats to employee safety will have a detrimental impact in maintaining safe and secure work environments. 577 Departmental Budget Schedules Vision Facilities Management (Continued) ! Deregulation of electric utilities will result in the development of new challenges and require greater skills (e.g. negotiation, monitoring, rate structures). Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED FACILITIES MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity BUILDG CONSTRN & RENOVATION OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PROTECTIVE SERVICES PLANNING & REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 876,488 4,422,249 2,346,191 531,490 744,535 230,510 91,192 9,242,655 Supplies & Services $ 788,367 14,755,281 69,120 243,742 454,171 157,383 15,039 $ 16,483,103 $ $ Capital Outlay 3,840 624,917 960 1,920 4,836 960 6,884 644,317 Total Expenditures $ 1,668,695 19,802,447 2,416,271 777,152 1,203,542 388,853 113,115 $ 26,370,075 $ $ Total Revenue 1,081,054 78,000 1,159,054 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Performance Measures Program Name: Building Construction and Renovation Program Purpose: The purpose of the Building Construction and Renovation Program is to provide repaired or new County facilities to appointed and elected departments so that they can accomplish their missions in a cost-efficient and productive environment. Key Results: Percent of project work done in FY Percent of Actual Project completed to Project Budget Percent of Major Maintenance Projects (Facilities Management Department-controlled) completed in FY Percent of facility consultations completed with customer satisfied Percent Value of Project Completion to Project Budget Percent of Department-funded Projects completed on time (by June 30th) Percent Value of Project Completion in FY to Project Budget Percent of properties in compliance with dust control regulations 578 FY 00 Actual 1.5 FY 01 Actual 1.6 FY 02 Actual 3.8 FY 03 Projected 4.3 0.03 0.03 N/A 86 55.6 89.2 83.8 90 N/A N/A 100 100 0 0 2.47 92.5 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 50 99 99 99 99 Facilities Management (Continued) Program Name: Operations and Maintenance Program Purpose: The purpose of the operations and maintenance program is to provide cleaning and maintenance services to appointed and elected departments so they can have their employees work in safe, clean, and functional facilities. Key Results: Percent of corrective maintenance work orders completed Percent burials completed as prescribed by Public Fiduciary Percent of facilities cleaned and landscaped to standard Percent of detention facilities cleaned to standards Percent of utility consumption reduced Percent of Preventive Maintenance Work Orders completed FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 98 99 99 100 100 100 100 85 87 98.25 89 99 N/A 99 1 98.15 2.3 99 5 71 80 99 91 Planning and Real Estate Program Purpose: The purpose of the FMD Planning & Real Estate program is to provide planning & real estate services to appointed and elected departments so that County properties are utilized to their maximum potential. Key Results: Percent of master plan project requests successfully completed Percent of space plans completed on time Percent of properties disposed vs. the total number identified for disposal Percent of studies and reports completed on timely basis Percent of leases requiring renewal completed before expiration Percent of Capital Improvement Program identified needs for property/rights fulfilled FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 90 99 95 N/A 90 98 95 N/A 0 0 70 N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A 100 100 N/A 0 0 100 Program Name: Protective Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Protective Services Program is to provide security and parking services to County appointed and elected departments, and visitors so that they can efficiently conduct their business in a safe and secure manner. Key Results: Percent or rate of major crimes for Downtown/Durango County properties vs. crimes reported for those surrounding Phoenix areas Percent of cars parked to the number of spaces available to employees within a 3 block area of their work site FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 1 5 9 N/A 100 100 100 579 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Facilities Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 18,307,033 $ 19,461,633 $ 21,326,680 $ 22,712,427 $ 26,370,075 $ $ $ $ $ Total 18,307,033 19,461,633 21,326,680 22,712,427 26,370,075 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 134,301 $ 567,086 $ 509,679 $ 137,521 $ 300,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 134,301 567,086 509,679 137,521 300,000 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 18,172,732 $ 18,172,732 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 18,894,547 $ 18,894,547 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 20,812,001 $ 20,812,001 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 23,186,197 $ 23,186,197 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 26,070,075 $ 26,070,075 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 580 Facilities Management (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 581 Departmental Budget Schedules Environment Code of Federal Regulations 40 (CFR40) - Environment Facilities Management has been responsible for certain activities relating to buildings and grounds that are regulated by Federal, State and County statutes or laws. Particularly troublesome are environmental rules under CFR40 which include clean air, hazardous materials, and pollution of the ground, and protection of life and the environment. Facilities Management has an environmental engineer on staff who oversees programs and projects related to CFR40. Maricopa County, through Facilities Management, is responsible for pollution prevention through the maintenance and/or upgrade/replacement of equipment and facilities. They are also responsible for the investigation and reporting of any incidents related to accidental, intentional, or unintentional pollution or environmental hazard. Specific to CFR40 is control and management of asbestos, above and underground fuel storage tanks, land acquisition environmental site assessments, dust control of open areas and lots, all facility environmental permits (air, water, waste), interior (building) air quality, freon, chemicals, and disposal of hazardous materials. This has been done efficiently for the past seven years or so, and regular and incident-related reports have been timely filed with OSHA, EPA, ADEQ and County Environmental officials. Environment General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 134,301 $ 134,301 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 567,086 $ 567,086 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 509,679 $ 509,679 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 137,521 $ 137,521 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Facilities Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 9,242,655 $ 16,483,103 $ 644,317 $ 26,370,075 $ 1,159,054 $ 9,242,655 $ 16,483,103 $ 644,317 $ 26,370,075 $ 1,159,054 $ 9,242,655 $ 16,483,103 $ 644,317 $ 26,370,075 $ 1,159,054 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FY 2000-01 Actual Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 410,229 410,229 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ 6,436,680 $ 163,129 463,968 1,352,312 9,226 (989,347) (82,473) 7,353,495 $ 1,636,550 1,636,550 $ 1,636,550 1,636,550 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act 1,936,550 1,936,550 $ FY 2002-03 Requested $ 1,159,054 1,159,054 $ 1,159,054 1,159,054 % $ (477,496) (477,496) -29% -29% (355,023) 60,183 (21,301) (263,598) (203,439) 98,460 (684,718) -5% 58% -16% -14% -108% 9% -2% -1% 28% 67% 100% 65% -1% -13% 100% 18% 62% 6% $ (33,453) (35) 20,536 41,385 122 136,531 (2,059) (575,258) 500 11,054 57,108 22,559 (1,866,003) (2,187,013) 65% -314% -1% -7% 7,400,810 $ 104,427 134,669 1,876,364 188,344 (1,146,677) 8,557,937 $ 7,134,561 $ 121,369 191,559 1,905,089 201,618 (1,136,487) (8,184) 8,409,525 $ 7,672,555 $ 44,244 156,470 2,216,023 185,074 (1,027,443) 9,246,923 $ 7,755,833 $ 44,244 155,970 2,139,962 391,783 (1,245,137) 9,242,655 $ $ 1,515,126 2,900 74,238 129,632 384,052 240,000 4,355,249 41,056 71,100 403,144 7,632,076 14,848,573 $ 1,495,368 3,165 72,938 61,985 122 210,781 265,141 4,412,234 500 61,981 92,608 365,499 7,253,768 14,296,090 $ 1,245,137 3,514 46,847 46,893 154 202,118 262,063 3,934,403 62,209 42,281 357,745 208 7,528,858 13,732,430 $ 1,526,496 3,200 52,402 93,200 74,250 268,019 5,022,112 49,847 47,559 342,760 9,218,163 16,698,008 $ 1,528,821 3,200 52,402 20,600 74,250 267,200 4,987,492 50,927 35,500 342,940 9,119,771 16,483,103 $ 82,299 29,000 492,498 603,797 $ 34 50,561 27,379 492,498 570,472 $ 25,000 120,000 492,498 637,498 $ 29,000 120,000 495,317 644,317 $ 53,299 (91,000) (2,819) (40,520) $ 23,457,824 $ 22,712,427 $ 26,582,429 $ 26,370,075 $ (2,912,251) -12% (25,211,021) $ (3,389,747) -16% 700,163 46,863 223,716 2,788,446 88,124 2,436,104 111,039 40,335 549 188 7,396,862 13,832,389 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 11,204 110,677 18,917 140,798 $ 82,300 492,498 574,798 Total Expenditures $ 21,326,682 $ 23,544,869 $ (20,916,453) $ $ (21,908,319) $ $ (21,821,274) $ $ (20,775,877) $ (25,423,375) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TECHNICIAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ARCHITECT ARCHITECT/CONTRACT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION CHIE 582 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 7,069,670 $ 81,113 112,900 1,819,381 194,760 (1,156,326) 8,121,498 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES SubTotal $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ FY 2001-02 Revised FTE 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 -8% -26% -15% Facilities Management (Continued) FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 23.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ASSISTANT PLANNING CHIEF/DIVISION CHIEF ASSISTANT SPACE PLANNER ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR/DIVISION CHIEF BUSINESS ANALYST BUSINESS SERVICES ANALYST CADD FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OPERATOR/CONTRA CADD OPERATOR CARPENTER CONTRACT SPECIALIST CUSTODIAN SUPERVISOR DIRECTOR DIVISION CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER ELECTRICAL ENGINEER/CONTRACT ELECTRICIAN ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN ENERGY ANALYST ENERGY CONSERVATION ENGINEER ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FACILITIES AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALIST FACILITIES ENGINEER FACILITIES ENGINEER/CONTRACT FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER PLANNER FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER PLANNER/CONTRACT FACILITIES TECHNICAL SPECIALIST FRONT DESK RECEPTIONIST HOUSEKEEPING SUPERVISOR HUMAN RESOURCES LIAISON SPECIALIST HVAC LEAD ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PROCESSOR LOCKSMITH MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR-LEAD MECHANICAL ENGINEER MECHANICAL ENGINEER/CONTRACT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE DIVISION CHIEF PAINTER PAINTER/CONTRACT PAYROLL COORDINATOR PLUMBER PROJECT MANAGER I PROJECT MANAGER II PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST PROTECTIVE SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR PROTECTIVE SERVICES SUPERVISOR PURCHASE CARD TECHNICIAN QUALITY ASSURANCE TEAM MEMBER QUALITY ASSURANCE TEAM MEMBER-LEADER SECURITY OFFICER SECURITY OFFICER IN CHARGE SENIOR CONTRACT SPECIALIST SENIOR NETWORK SPECIALIST SENIOR PROGRAMMER SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR /PROJECT COORDIN STATIONARY ENGINEER STATIONARY ENGINEER-DUTY PLANT OPERATOR TRADES APPLICATION SPECIALIST/DATA ENTRY OPERATOR 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 55.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 4.0 1.0 583 Facilities Management (Continued) WORKING TITLE TRADES GENERALIST TRADES GENERALIST/DISPATCHER TRADES RESOURCE SPECIALIST WELDER-INSTITUTIONAL FTE Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 584 14.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 225.0 Finance County Administrative Officer Chief Financial Officer Tom Manos Department of Finance Department of Finance Accounts Payable Accounting, Reporting & Analysis Administration Mission The mission of the Department of Finance is to provide financial information and services to Maricopa County government so they can effectively manage their resources. ! ! ! ! We will develop procedures and implement processes that support Managing For Results and Governmental Accounting Standards Board #34 to proactively address the demand for government accountability. We will obtain and retain a turnover rate no greater than 9%. We will develop a Capital Improvement Project Financing Plan by January, 2001 and quarterly status reports to ensure that all financing is consistent with budget resources, favorable expenditure limitation outcomes and cost effectiveness. We will improve our customers ability to manage results through enhancement and full utilization of our existing financial system, which will provide customized real time information. Issues ! ! ! ! The demand for increased governmental accountability impacts the reporting of financial and operational results. Increased demand for governmental services (internal and external) through technology results in a need for our department to provide services that meet customer expectations. Low unemployment impacts our ability to maintain a quality workforce to meet our customer demands. Limited cash resources and expenditure limitation constraints will impact the management of a comprehensive capital financing plan. 585 Departmental Budget Schedules Goals Finance (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED FINANCE TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity FINANCIAL REPORTING FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Capital Total Total Services Services Outlay Expenditures Revenue $ 644,622 $ 135,679 $ - $ 780,301 $ 1,235,056 113,401 5,184 1,353,641 (95,806) 6,744 773 (88,289) 238,704 4,805 243,509 7,866,687 2,022,576 $ 260,629 $ 5,957 $ 2,289,162 $ 7,866,687 Total $ Departmental Budget Schedules Key Performance Measures Program Name: Financial Reporting Program Purpose: The purpose of the Financial Reporting Program is to provide timely financial and operational information to external entities such as external government and private financial institutions, as a measurement of financial health; and to Maricopa County government departments so they can make timely informed decisions, manage resources, and measure and report results. Key Results: Percent of customers who indicate our reports facilitate informed decision-making Percent of customers satisfied regarding the completeness, accuracy and timeliness of the financial information i.e. system reports Percent of customers satisfied regarding the completeness, accuracy and timeliness of the financial information, i.e. internally prepared reports FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 90 100 N/A N/A 85 100 N/A N/A 85 100 Program Name: Financial Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Financial Services Program is to provide general accounting, systems (technological), accounts payable, and debt service activities to Maricopa County government departments so they can make informed decisions, manage resources, and measure and report results. Key Results: Percent of payments processed within the established turnaround time Percent of customers satisfied with the debt related services Percent of customers satisfied regarding the processing of various transactions 586 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 75 80 88.75 100 N/A N/A 44 100 N/A N/A 88 100 Finance (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 2,172,039 $ 1,857,842 $ 1,881,276 $ 1,924,119 $ 2,289,162 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,172,039 1,857,842 1,881,276 1,924,119 2,289,162 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 2,172,039 $ 2,172,039 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,857,842 $ 1,857,842 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,881,276 $ 1,881,276 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,924,119 $ 1,924,119 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 2,289,162 $ 2,289,162 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. TITLE AUTHORITY Finance A.R.S. § 41-1346 State and local records management; A.R.S. § 11-622 © Payment of Claims; A.R.S. § 11-644 Re-issuance of warrants; A.R.S. § 35-501 Requires County to report bond issues, debt level analysis, definition of outstanding indebtedness to the Arizona Department of Revenue; A.R.S. § 35502 Notification requirements to Department of Revenue on retirement of a bond; A.R.S. § 35-503 Calculation of debt limits; A.R.S. § 42-304 Setting the tax rate; A.R.S. § 11-604.01 Revolving line of credit; A.R.S. § 42-301 Levy limits; A.R.S. § 42-302 Annual Financial Statements - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR); A.R.S. § 41-1279.07 © Issuance of the Expenditure Limitations Report; IRS Guidelines - Reporting requirements for Form 1099; A.R.S. § 11-251 Sale of County real estate; A.R.S. § 11-256 Leasing or sub-leasing County real estate; A.R.S. § 38-511 Cancellation of State Contracts; A.R.S. § 42-271 Exemption of taxable real estate; A.R.S. § 11-259 Intergovernmental Agreements; A.R.S. § 45182 Claim of right to withdraw, divert or use public waters, exception, administration by director of water resources; Single Audit Act of 1984 and Amendments of 1996 - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards; Federal OMB Circular A-102 Requirements for government Federal Awards; Federal OMB Circular A-87 General requirements for charging indirect costs to grants. 587 Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Information Finance (Continued) HISTORY/ BACKGROUND In 1994 the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer reorganized the Department of Finance as part of a Countywide restructuring effort. During the reorganization, the budget functions for the County were separated from Finance to form the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Department of Finance is responsible for the oversight, reporting, processing, and analysis of the County's financial transactions. Finance provides services to all County departments and various external users and maintains the accounting records for all financial transactions. The Finance Department shall maintain the County's public records in the most efficient and cost effective manner; The Finance Department shall prepare the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Expenditure Limitation Reports; The Finance Department shall monitor all real estate services to include sales and leases of County Real Estate; The Finance Department shall report annual Form 1099 information to the IRS; The Finance Department shall set the tax rates for the County, cities, schools and special districts MANDATE DESCRIPTION Departmental Budget Information Departmental Budget Schedules DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 180 FINANCE FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 2,022,576 $ 260,629 $ 5,957 $ 2,289,162 $ 7,866,687 $ 2,022,576 $ 260,629 $ 5,957 $ 2,289,162 $ 7,866,687 $ 2,022,576 $ 260,629 $ 5,957 $ 2,289,162 $ 7,866,687 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 180 FINANCE FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ (140) 8,326,368 8,326,228 $ 8,154,989 8,154,989 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 1,316,615 474 38,758 239,660 1,595,507 $ 1,448,561 5,000 2,000 291,899 2,962 314,668 2,065,090 17,730 $ 38,104 145,377 12,210 7,706 6,516 22,703 (58) 250,288 $ 19,963 17,000 156,700 18,000 6,750 6,699 26,200 33,400 284,712 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE 588 $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 8,154,989 8,154,989 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 1,513,075 $ 5,000 2,000 309,957 (30,000) 203,028 2,003,060 $ $ 21,452 8,499 149,789 14,500 6,752 6,719 18,200 33,962 259,873 $ 8,218,001 8,218,001 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 1,370,430 $ 2,902 4,343 286,046 2,266 (15,000) 13,969 1,664,956 $ $ 20,559 8,500 145,950 14,500 6,752 7,219 20,302 30,262 254,044 $ 7,837,842 7,837,842 $ 1,742,760 $ 5,000 3,000 373,025 (159,960) 41,125 2,004,950 $ $ 23,832 2,000 151,900 14,500 7,750 16,020 20,200 30,400 266,602 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 7,866,687 7,866,687 % $ (288,302) (288,302) 1,759,786 $ 4,233 6,401 370,991 (159,960) 41,125 2,022,576 $ (246,711) 767 (4,401) (61,034) 129,960 161,903 (19,516) -16% 15% -220% -20% 6% 76% 3% 0% -2% -195% -11% 7% 0% $ 20,078 2,000 145,455 14,500 6,854 19,842 20,200 31,700 260,629 $ 1,374 6,499 4,334 (102) (13,123) (2,000) 2,262 (756) -4% -4% 433% 80% -1% SubTotal $ 35,481 35,481 $ 2,606 2,606 $ 5,119 5,119 $ 5,119 5,119 $ 5,957 5,957 $ 5,957 5,957 $ (838) (838) -16% -16% Total Expenditures $ 1,881,276 $ 2,352,408 $ 2,268,052 $ 1,924,119 $ 2,277,509 $ 2,289,162 $ (21,110) -1% Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 6,444,952 $ 5,802,581 $ 5,886,937 $ 6,293,882 $ 5,560,333 $ 5,577,525 $ (309,412) -5% Finance (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 180 FINANCE FTE 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AUDIT SPECIALIST ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CONTRACTS COORDINATOR ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PROCESSOR ACCOUNTS PAYABLE SUPERVISOR ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TEAM LEADER ADMIN SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR I ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR VI CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER COLLECTIONS MANAGER COLLECTOR DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR FINANCIAL ACCOUNTANT - CAPITAL PROJECTS FINANCIAL DATA BASE ADMINISTRATOR FISCAL MANAGEMENT ANALYST III FIXED ASSET ACCOUNTANT GRANT ACCOUNTANT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IDA) ADMIN. PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNTANT SENIOR FISCAL CONSULTANT SENIOR FISCAL CONSULTANT - SYSTEMS MANAGER TOTAL 1.0 4.0 1.0 43.0 589 General Government Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 95,127,234 195,550,350 237,254,651 136,596,641 202,842,329 Special Revenue $ $ 112,142,944 $ 110,528,803 $ 5,731,249 $ 30,501,615 Capital Projects $ $ 8,471,146 $ 77,976,362 $ 28,795,076 $ 110,782,280 $ $ $ $ $ Total 95,127,234 316,164,440 425,759,816 171,122,966 344,126,224 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 48,897,886 175,506,839 135,372,021 107,949,370 147,434,750 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ 5,731,249 $ 30,501,615 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ 28,795,076 $ 110,782,280 $ $ $ $ $ Total 48,897,886 175,506,839 135,372,021 142,475,695 288,718,645 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 46,229,348 17,246,820 93,905,060 27,187,710 52,342,146 Special Revenue $ $ 112,142,944 $ 110,128,803 $ $ - Capital Projects $ $ 8,471,146 $ 77,976,362 $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 46,229,348 137,860,910 282,010,225 27,187,710 52,342,146 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 2,796,691 7,977,570 1,459,561 3,065,433 Special Revenue $ $ $ 400,000 $ $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,796,691 8,377,570 1,459,561 3,065,433 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 590 General Government (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 7,008,381 $ 177,799,869 $ 18,034,079 $ 202,842,329 $ 744,958,512 1,500,000 24,522,615 4,479,000 30,501,615 142,304,293 39,640,805 39,640,805 28,367,608 110,782,280 110,782,280 64,455,139 $ 8,508,381 $ 202,322,484 $ 172,936,164 $ 383,767,029 $ 980,085,552 $ 8,508,381 $ 202,322,484 $ 172,936,164 $ 383,767,029 $ 980,085,552 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FY 2000-01 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 630,580 96,629 21,786 21,068 1,342 100,175 871,580 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 454,684 803 FUEL 28 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 464,665 810 LEGAL SERVICES 2,346,041 812 OTHER SERVICES 3,378,089 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 78,771 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 1,879,789 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 1,718,078 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 18,132,774 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 924,386 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 3,860 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 201,749 850 UTILITIES 79 880 TRANSFERS OUT 244,116,039 SubTotal $ 273,699,032 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 272,748,129 8,000,000 375,000 10,721,425 249,772 6,793,243 341,524,693 92,868,667 2,082,500 19,833,033 50,000 184,634,128 $ 939,880,590 $ 272,748,129 8,000,000 375,000 10,721,425 249,772 6,793,243 341,524,693 92,868,667 2,082,500 19,833,033 50,000 187,071,046 $ 942,317,508 $ 268,806,043 8,000,000 375,000 2,100,000 249,772 5,832,228 325,653,889 98,058,594 3,216,751 25,900 15,730,635 1,151,261 12,498 105,330,523 $ 834,543,094 $ 271,613,793 8,000,000 375,000 17,766,301 249,772 5,314,130 338,680,045 101,980,938 2,000,000 12,340,000 50,000 143,108,539 $ 901,478,518 $ 297,515,250 8,000,000 375,000 17,766,301 249,772 7,288,990 335,423,506 101,980,938 2,065,000 19,416,188 10,596,068 50,000 179,358,539 $ 980,085,552 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 67,852 10,960 8,500,000 188,553 8,767,365 $ $ 68,863 11,060 2,447,973 298,941 2,826,837 $ $ 16,973 7,938 14,344 254,215 293,470 $ $ 70,553 12,109 199,994 282,656 $ (300,000) (15,267,116) (7,500) 10,000 (2,345,778) (1,749,719) (200,000) (250,000) (98,392) (35,009,345) (55,217,850) 50,000 3,000,000 23,408,544 5,280 210,000 1,799,776 13,107,154 1,300,000 200,000 400,000 103,623,880 $ 147,104,634 2,362,083 5,046,515 5,280 1,798,964 13,108,928 1,164,869 200,506 328,070 103,623,880 $ 127,639,095 50,000 3,300,000 20,491,535 12,780 2,808,554 14,556,873 1,300,000 200,000 400,000 138,633,225 $ 181,752,967 50,000 3,300,000 38,675,660 12,780 200,000 4,145,554 14,856,873 1,500,000 450,000 498,392 138,633,225 $ 202,322,484 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 87,034,258 3,833,202 2,500,000 49,880,962 $ 143,248,422 84,159,508 50,800 5,413,142 2,042,499 49,880,962 $ 141,546,911 $ Total Expenditures $ 358,879,226 $ 301,223,115 $ 291,478,382 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 794,289,711 $ 638,657,475 $ 650,839,126 2,750 37,649,503 335,987 3,589,149 2,042,499 52,119,166 95,739,054 55,948,295 4,069,849 4,465,461 64,483,605 123,210,961 3,691,649 46,033,554 $ 172,936,164 $ 223,671,619 $ 246,519,228 $ 610,871,475 $ 654,959,290 $ 24,767,121 7,044,876 495,747 (6,101,187) 9,112,271 (17,500) (416,845) 10,596,068 (7,712,507) 37,768,044 (1,690) (1,049) (5,942,912) 264,107 (5,681,544) 50,000 2,940,000 28,418,156 5,280 1,799,776 13,107,154 1,300,000 400,000 101,186,962 $ 149,207,328 7,397,934 41,005,967 2,841,853 1,804,706 31,258,154 84,308,614 $ $ 70,553 12,109 8,390,885 34,834 8,508,381 $ % 9% 0% 0% 66% 0% 7% -2% 10% -1% -2% 0% -4% 4% -2% -9% -243% 88% -201% 0% -10% -65% -142% 5% -130% -13% -15% -125% -25% -34% -38% $ (39,051,453) 50,800 1,721,493 2,042,499 3,847,408 (31,389,253) -46% 100% 32% 100% 8% -22% $ 383,767,029 $ (92,288,647) -32% $ 596,318,523 $ (54,520,603) -8% 591 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 601 PROPERTY TAXES $ 246,566,245 605 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST 9,896,038 606 SALES TAXES 97,752,375 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 430,386 615 GRANTS 3,849,210 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 251,896 621 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 7,424,124 625 STATE SHARED SALES TAX 322,429,593 630 STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 93,389,137 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,238,067 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 141,752,731 651 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 680 TRANSFERS IN 227,189,135 Total Revenue $ 1,153,168,937 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2001-02 Adopted Health Care Delivery System County Administrative Officer Maricopa Integrated Health System Chief Executive Officer Mark Hillard Chief Operations Officer Chief Operations Karen CawleyOfficer Karen Cawley Perioperative Services Ambulatory Services Pharmacy Services Nursing Services Psychiatric Services Laboratory Services Professional Services Facilities/Support Services Radiology Services Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Maricopa Health Delivery System is to provide quality, customer oriented health care services, medical education and research for patients and health plan members so they can improve their health status in a cost efficient manner. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! By June 2004, generate sufficient cash flow through revenue development and operational efficiencies to provide MIHS funding required to meet our customers' service needs and avoid subsidy by the County. Achieve a cash balance of $47 million as of June 30, 2004. Achieve improvement in AR days to 75 days or less per industry standards. By June 2003, attract and retain qualified employees through improvements in work place environment and maintaining competitive wages and benefits. Maintain an annual voluntary turnover rate less than that experienced by the Arizona Hospital and Health Care Association members. Achieve improvement in employee satisfaction survey results by 5 basis points. On an ongoing basis, assess governance options which will serve to support the financial viability of MIHS and offer recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to clarify the structure and role of the health system in meeting the community's health care needs. By July 2007, subject to availability of capital funding, implement MIHS master plan capital projects to ensure the provision of appropriate and adequate facilities to meet current and future customer health care needs. By June 2005, improve MIHS customer service by providing customer-oriented accessibility, availability and continuity of care as measured by patient satisfaction survey results. Attain and sustain a composite score of 7.25 for each of the following four MIHS business components; Family Health Centers, Emergency Department, Comprehensive Health Center, and Maricopa Medical Center. Reduce Maricopa Health Plan disenrollment rate by 10%. On an ongoing basis, continue to secure accreditation/compliance from the Residency Review Committee (RRC), Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 592 Health Care Delivery System (Continued) ! ! By June 2005, develop and implement strategies to enroll and retain health plan membership at a profitable margin to meet/exceed composite health plan earnings projections to support the provision of health care programs and services to MIHS customers. By June 2005, assess and identify opportunities to improve the financial performance of the delivery system through expense reduction, revenue enhancement, improved cash flow, product line analysis and enhancement of operational efficiency. Achieve a 10% improvement in operating margin by June 30, 2003. Issues ! ! ! ! Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 150,131,041 150,131,041 Supplies & Services $ 242,138,880 $ 242,138,880 $ $ Capital Outlay 6,759,127 6,759,127 Total Expenditures $ 399,029,048 $ 399,029,048 Total Revenue $ 398,331,106 $ 398,331,106 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Adult Health Program Purpose: The purpose of the Adult Health Program is to provide medical services to patients (ages 18 and over) so they can receive treatment for illnesses and injuries in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Behavioral Health Program Purpose: The purpose of the Behavioral Health Program is to provide behavioral health services to patients so they can receive treatment for behavioral disorders in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. Key Results: None Reported 593 Departmental Budget Schedules ! Failure to attract and retain qualified and skilled staff will lead to service reduction, higher costs, and customer dissatisfaction. Inadequate physical facilities across the health system are compromising our ability to meet the needs and expectations of our current patient, provider and employee base, and will severely limit our ability to attract and retain new patients, providers and employees. Changes in health care policy, rapidly rising costs, declining profitability, work force shortages and competitive marketplace forces necessitate reevaluation of our MIHS governance structure and role in providing health care to the community we serve. Availability and distribution of information is becoming increasingly important given that more data is being gathered but not necessarily configured as information. Without configured information, the system will be unable to provide care at the lowest cost and greatest outcome. Loss of Graduate Medical Education accreditation would result in loss of faculty, increased cost of care, and reduction in funding, resulting in a negative impact on patient care. Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Program Name: Children's Health Program Purpose: The purpose of the Children's Health Program is to provide medical services to patients (birth to 18 years) so they can receive treatment for illnesses and injuries in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Health Care Support Program Purpose: The purpose of the Health Care Support Program is to provide support services to patients so they may be treated for illnesses and injuries in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Home Health Program Purpose: The purpose of the Home Health Program is to provide medical services to patients so they can receive home based health care in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Medical Education Program Purpose: The purpose of the Medical Education program is to provide medical education to residents and Allied Health students so that they can complete their training while treating patients in a cost effective manner. Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Women's Specialty Health Program Purpose: The purpose of the Women's Specialty Health Program is to provide medical services to patients so they may be treated for maternity care and illnesses in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. Key Results: None Reported Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Enterprise Funds $ 277,672,050 $ 210,226,940 $ 276,054,803 $ 310,490,320 $ 399,029,048 $ $ $ $ $ Total 277,672,050 210,226,940 276,054,803 310,490,320 399,029,048 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Enterprise Funds Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 277,672,050 $ 277,672,050 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 210,226,940 $ 210,226,940 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 276,054,803 $ 276,054,803 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 310,490,320 $ 310,490,320 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 399,029,048 $ 399,029,048 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 594 Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules 595 Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM FUND TYPE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 150,131,041 242,138,880 6,759,127 399,029,048 398,331,106 $ 150,131,041 $ 242,138,880 $ 6,759,127 $ 399,029,048 $ 398,331,106 $ 150,131,041 $ 242,138,880 $ 6,759,127 $ 399,029,048 $ 398,331,106 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS 635,506 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 7,454,321 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 16,384,800 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 181,099,075 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 14,825,534 651 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 680 TRANSFERS IN 44,269,451 Total Revenue $ 264,668,687 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 116,013,296 710 OVERTIME 28,798 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 875,266 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN 2,561 SubTotal $ 116,919,921 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 37,781,195 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 24,736,526 803 FUEL 48,175 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 37,817,664 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 2,074,305 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 3,033,209 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 6,799,881 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 4,136 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 4,073,805 855 INTEREST EXPENSE 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT 35,817,373 SubTotal $ 152,186,269 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 2,205 4,549 6,941,858 6,948,612 Total Expenditures $ 276,054,802 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 596 FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested FY 2002-03 Adopted 9,897,659 222,209,723 431,700 1,936,058 9,242 34,521,200 $ 269,005,582 6,195,413 45,895,500 225,911,969 431,700 1,945,300 34,521,200 $ 314,901,082 5,224,690 45,895,500 213,474,720 245,173 1,883,170 68,868,969 $ 335,592,222 3,784,279 45,895,500 248,306,482 2,412,026 38,813,090 $ 339,211,377 3,784,279 105,963,200 247,358,511 2,412,026 38,813,090 $ 398,331,106 $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance % $ (2,411,134) 60,067,700 21,446,542 (431,700) 466,726 4,291,890 83,430,024 97,214,294 5,668,875 19,932,692 5,328,984 $ 128,144,845 97,583,097 $ 102,277,877 $ 117,454,342 $ 117,454,342 $ 5,668,881 7,280,885 6,941,142 6,941,142 20,001,914 20,809,113 25,595,575 25,595,575 5,350,098 3,398,210 2,606,566 3,211,792 (34,427) (8,445) (3,071,810) (3,071,810) $ 128,569,563 $ 133,757,640 $ 149,525,815 $ 150,131,041 $ (19,871,245) (1,272,261) (5,593,661) 2,138,306 3,037,383 (21,561,478) -20% -22% -28% 40% 8823% $ $ -46% -16% $ (2,493,936) (6,625,764) (144,260) 1,020,986 2,404,762 (9,758) (996,887) (5,608) (1,727,739) 87,340 (210,823) (18,542) 191,197 (4,649,129) 10,945,190 (55,632,943) (57,865,914) 2% 17% 0% -35% -50% -32% 13% -71% -3% 4% -127% 100% -117% -31% 100% -228% -27% 5,324,885 40,840,839 43,472 35,094,722 14,238,254 2,218,739 3,258,461 11,259 5,409,689 736,488 897,774 5,398,222 1,696,252 $ 115,169,056 5,405,063 41,059,343 44,246,380 13,888,451 2,184,947 2,845,885 11,259 5,453,161 694,467 298,724 599,050 5,398,222 3,651,072 10,945,190 47,591,752 $ 184,272,966 6,158,512 39,071,749 266,633 52,000 35,324,402 17,141,993 2,175,155 3,438,577 21,950 5,733,827 574,429 461,299 601,190 4,642,870 4,697,045 47,591,752 $ 167,953,383 6,088,258 47,685,107 43,225,394 11,225,719 2,194,705 3,842,772 16,867 7,180,900 607,127 509,547 584,592 5,207,025 6,659,751 14,629,369 47,359,395 $ 197,016,528 7,898,999 47,685,107 144,260 43,225,394 11,483,689 2,194,705 3,842,772 16,867 7,180,900 607,127 509,547 617,592 5,207,025 8,300,201 103,224,695 $ 242,138,880 19,982,056 5,709,625 25,691,681 2,058,553 2,058,553 1,409,642 5,405,487 521,116 1,443,052 8,779,297 1,640,450 1,640,450 3,994,200 2,729,927 35,000 6,759,127 $ (3,994,200) (2,729,927) (35,000) 2,058,553 (4,700,574) $ 399,029,048 $ (84,127,966) (697,942) $ (697,942) $ $ 269,005,582 (11,386,115) $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ 314,901,082 $ 310,490,320 $ 348,182,793 $ $ $ - 25,101,902 $ (8,971,416) $ -39% 131% 9% -100% 24% 12% 26% -17% Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM FTE 5.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 11.9 56.8 6.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 12.0 4.5 1.0 1.0 13.8 8.7 1.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 8.5 1.0 1.4 10.8 7.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 10.8 1.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 1.0 73.0 11.0 5.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 17.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 13.0 4.0 8.0 11.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNT CLERK ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK FINAN ACCOUNTS REC. MGR ADMIN COORDINATOR ADMIN COORDINATOR SUPER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR AIP ACCOUNT REC/BILLING ALTCS CASE MGMT COORD. AMBULATORY ADMINISTRATOR ANCILLARY TESTING COORD. ANESTHESIA TECHNICIAN APPEALS SUPERVISOR ASST. PROGRAM COORDINATOR ATT CARE DATA ENTRY SPEC. ATTENDANT GRAL FULL TIME AUDIOVISUAL SPECIALIST BILLER BIOMED TECH BURN OUTREACH COORDINATOR BURN REGISTRAR BURN TECH BURN TECH CERTIFIED BUSINESS OFFICE DIRECTOR BUSINESS OFFICE MANAGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS COORD BUYER CAFETERIA SERVICE WORKER CALL CENTER REP. CARDIOVASCULAR TECH CARE TECHNICIAN CASH POSTER CASHIER CAT LAB/SPECIAL PROC.TECH CENTRAL STERILE SUPV CENTRAL STERILE TECH CENTRAL TRANSPORT SUPER CHARGE ENTRY CLERK CHC MANAGER CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER CHILD LIFE ASSISTANT CHILD LIFE SPECIALIST CLERK CLIENT CARE SUPERVISOR CLINICAL EDUCATOR CLINICAL PHARMACIST CLINICAL PHARMACIST COORD CLINICAL RN RESEARCH COOR CLINICAL TEAM LEADER CODER LIAISON COLLECTOR COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANT COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS TECH SPEC COMMUNITY HEALTH ADVISOR COMMUNITY MEMBER REP COMPUTER OPERATOR CONTRACT SPECIALIST COOK 597 Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE COUNSELOR CREDENTIALING SPECIALIST CREDIT/COLLECTIONS MGR. CT TECH CT TECH POOL CT - MRI TECH SUPERVISOR CUSTOMER SVCE REP CYTOTECHNOLOGIST DATA MANAGEMENT COORD DATA QUALITY ANALYST DELIVERY DRIVER-PHARMACY DENTAL ASSISTANT DENTAL ASSISTANT CERTIFIE DENTIST DEPT ADMIN ASSISTANT DIABETIC EDUCATOR DIETETIC TECH DIR CARDIAC PROD. LINE/ED DIR OF DENISTRY DIR OF MEDICAL STAFF SERV DIR OF PHARMACY DIR OF RADIOLOGY DIR. CLINICAL SVCS DIR. HEALTH ACADEMY PROGR DIR. MEDICAL RECORDS DIR. UTILIZATION MGMT DIR., AMB BUS OPERATIONS DIR., AMBULATORY BILLING DIR., CLINICAL LAB DIR., COMPENSATION & EMPL DIR., FACILITIES DIR., HOME CARE SVCS DIR., MATERIALS MGMT DIR., MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY DIR., NURSING DIR., PERIOPERATIVE SVCS DIR., PSYCHIATRIC SVCS. DRIVER-ATTENDANT DUPLICATING SVCS SPEC ECHO TECHNICIAN EDUCATION COORDINATOR EDUCATION MANAGER EKG TECHNICIAN EKG TECHNICIAN SUPER ELECTRICIAN EMPLOYEE PROCESSING SPEC EMPLOYMENT COORDINATOR ENVIRON SVCS DIRECTOR ENVIRON SVCS MANAGER ENVIRON SVCS SUPERVISOR EVS ASSOCIATE EVS PERIOPERATIVE ASSOC EVS PROJECT ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE ASST TO V.P., EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGIST FACILITIES JCAHO COORD. FACILITIES OFFICE COORD FHC MANAGER FISCAL COORDINATOR FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR FOOD SERVICE WORKER FOUNDATION FUND RAISER GENERAL MAINT. WORKER HEALTH UNIT COORDINATOR HISTOTECH HOSPITAL SECURITY SUPV HOSPITAL SERVICES SUPERV 598 FTE 23.4 3.0 2.0 8.9 0.9 1.0 9.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 9.2 13.6 12.2 6.0 2.0 5.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 21.7 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 105.3 3.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 23.4 1.0 20.0 64.3 1.1 2.0 1.0 Health Care Delivery System (Continued) FTE 4.0 1.0 1.0 11.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 37.6 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 16.8 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 59.5 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 482.5 360.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 2.0 69.4 1.0 3.0 6.5 64.1 1.0 3.0 10.2 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.1 6.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 30.9 1.0 3.6 119.9 2.5 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE HVAC TECHNICIAN INDIAN HEALTH LIAISON INTERIOR DESIGNER INTERPRETER INTERPRETER/TRANSLATOR INVENTORY CONTROL SUPERV IRB COORDINATOR LAB ASSIST/PHLEBOTOMIST LAB TECH-ASCP LAB. ASSISTANT LACTATION CONSULTANT LACTATION CONSULTANT EDUC LANDSCAPE WORKER LAUNDRY CUSTODIAL WKR LAUNDRY SUPERVISOR LAUNDRY WORKER LAUNDRY WORKER LEAD LEAD FOOD SERVICE WORKER LEAD SWITCHBOARD OPER LIBRARY ASSISTANT LIBRARY MANAGER/WEBMASTER LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE LIC. PRAC. NURSE INTERN LIENS & LEGAL CLERK LIS COORDINATOR LIS MANAGER LPN ASSISTANT MGR. LTC ATTENDANT (F) LTC ATTENDANT (G) MAINTENANCE & PLANT SUPER MAMMOGRAPHY TECH MANAGEMENT ANALYST MARKETING COMM COORD MATERIALS HANDLNG SPEC MATERIALS/PRODUCTION SUPV MEDICAL ASSISTANT MEDICAL DIRECTOR MEDICAL DRIVER SUPERVISOR MEDICAL OFFICE RECEP. MEDICAL RECORDS CLERK MEDICAL RECORDS CLERK EDM MEDICAL RECORDS CLERK ROI MEDICAL RECORDS CODER MEDICAL RECORDS CODER SUP MEDICAL RECORDS MANAGER MEDICAL RECORDS SUPV MEDICAL STAFF ASSISTANT MEMBERSHIP DEVELOP COORD MGR., EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MGR., REHAB OPERATIONS MGR., TRAUMA PROGRAM MKTG & PUBLIC REL DIR MRI TECHNICIAN NEONATAL NURSE PRACTITION NEUROLOGY TECH (EEG) NEUROPHYSIOLOGY SUPER NICU DEVELOPMENT COORD NUCLEAR MED TECH NUCLEAR MED TECH SUPERV NURSE ANESTHESTIST NURSE ASSISTANT MANAGER NURSE AUDITOR NURSE EXTERN NURSE MANAGER NURSE PRACTITIONER NURSE PROGRAM COORDINATOR 599 Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE NURSE RECRUITER NURSING RESOURCE COORD NURSING SPECIALITY TECH NURSING SUPERVISOR OB TECH OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST OFFICE SUPERVISOR OPERATIONS ASSISTANT OR ORTHOPEDIC COORD OR TECH ORTHO TECH OUTPATIENT PHARMACY MGR PACS SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR PATHOLOGIST'S ASSISTANT PATHOLOGY SUPPORT CLERK PATIENT CARE ASSISTANT PATIENT EDUCATION COORD PATIENT QUALITY COMP SUPV PATIENT TRANSP MGR PATIENTS ADVOCATE PAYROLL COORDINATOR/CLERK PCON SPECIALIST PEDIATRIC DENTAL SPCLST PERIOPERATIVE MTRLS MGR. PHARM TECH ASST PHARMACIST PHARMACIST SUPERVISOR PHARMACY ADMIN MANAGER PHARMACY PRAC. RESIDENT PHARMACY SERVICES MANAGER PHARMACY TECH PHARMACY TECH CERTIFIED PHYSICAL THERAPIST PHYSICAL THERAPIST AIDE PHYSICIAN BILLING COORD PHYS/OCCUPA THERAPIST PREADMISION NURSE SPEC PRE-NATAL EDUCATOR PROG & NETWORK DEVEL DIR PROGRAM COORDINATOR PSYCH TECH PUBLIC RELATIONS COORD PULMONARY FUNCTION TECH QUALITY ASSURANCE ANALYST RAD PRACTICAL TECH RAD TECH SUPERVISOR RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGIST RADIOLOGY IT MGR. RADIOLOGY SCHEDULER RADIOLOGY TECH ASST RADIOLOGY TECH LEAD RADIOLOGY TECHNOLOGIST RECEPTIONIST/CLERK RECREATION THERAPIST REGISTERED DIETICIAN REGISTERED NURSE REGISTERED NURSE INTERN REGISTRATION CLERK RESEARCH ASSISTANT RESEARCH & DEV. MANAGER RESIDENT RESIDENT PROG. COORDINATO RESP TECHNICIAN RESP THERAPIST RESP THERAPIST SUPV RESP THRPY EQMT OPERATOR 600 FTE 1.0 1.0 43.8 4.8 2.4 3.1 2.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 42.1 2.0 0.8 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 36.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 28.2 15.8 4.1 2.9 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.0 2.0 49.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 4.3 2.0 20.7 1.0 3.6 0.8 5.0 0.1 3.0 1.0 5.2 429.6 1.8 1.0 2.0 1.0 193.1 1.0 6.0 17.8 3.0 0.8 Health Care Delivery System (Continued) FTE TOTAL 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 28.5 1.0 3.0 0.6 0.2 18.2 1.1 1.0 3.0 3.9 5.0 1.0 7.2 1.0 44.2 5.0 1.0 1.0 15.6 2.0 12.8 2.0 1.0 9.1 1.0 12.5 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 3,326.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE RESPIRATORY CLINICAL SPEC RIS SPECIALIST/EDUCATOR RN COORD./CASE MANAGER RN RESEARCH COORDINATOR SECURITY DIRECTOR SECURITY OFFICER SENIOR TELECOM TECHNICIAN SERVICE WORKER SEWING MACHINE OPERATOR SITTER SOCIAL WORKER SPEECH PATHOLOGIST SR. HRIS/COMP ANALYST STAFFING COORD STAFFING OFFICE CLERK STATIONARY ENGINEER SUPV., BIOMED SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR SYSTEMS & DATA ANALYST TECHNOLOGIST TECHNOLOGIST SUPERVISOR TRAINING/CLIENT CARE LEAD TRANSCRIPTION SUPERVISOR TRANSCRIPTIONIST TRANSCRIPTIONIST SUPP CLK TRANSPORTER TRAUMA REGISTRAR TUMOR REGISTRAR ULTRASOUND TECH UROLOGY SPECIALTY TECH UTILIZATION MGMT COORD UTILIZATION MGMT MANAGER VASCULAR TECH VP., FAC SUPP/PSYCH SVCS. VP., HUMAN RESOURCES WAREHOUSE SUPERVISOR 601 Health Care Mandates County Administrative Officer Deputy County Administrator Health Care Mandates Health Care Mandates Shawn Nau, Administrator Shawn Nau, Administrator Litigation/Arbitration Claims Resolution Operations Medical Review Records Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Health Care Mandates Department is to provide indigent and inmate healthrelated risk management services for Maricopa County Administration so they can control and reduce health care financial liability. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! ! By January 1, 2007, reduce average annual litigation judgments/settlements rate by 7% over the 1998 rate. By January 1, 2007, increase amounts written off by providers in the claims resolution process by 20% of full-billed charges while experiencing no percentage increase in payments. By June 30, 2004, reduce average turn-around time of all Correctional Health Services claims processing to within 70 days of submission while ensuring no percentage increase in resubmissions caused by Health Care Mandates Department errors in processing. By December 31, 2002, improve overall department employee satisfaction score by 10 basis points over FY01 score and maintain the improved score each year for the next three years thereafter. By July 1, 2002, identify claims paid by Maricopa County to healthcare providers from which Maricopa County’s responsibility has now been relieved; and by June 30, 2007, recover at least 75% of those expenditures. By January 2003, implement litigation support systems that enable the sharing of information between internal and external customers, the tracking of physical case files, and the timely access to scanned images of critical documents. By January 2003, implement a system that will expedite the identification of prior authorization numbers on correctional health claims to facilitate timely provider payment. Issues ! Unresolved legal issues and their impact on pending litigation and claims resolution matters may increase the volume of activity and will require the Health Care Mandates Department to continuously reassess and adapt its focus and procedures in order to ensure that the County’s financial exposure is minimized. 602 Health Care Mandates (Continued) ! ! ! ! The significant financial implications associated with both past and future indigent healthcare claims create a politically volatile environment that challenges the Health Care Mandates Department’s capacity to communicate, influence, and sustain effective working relationships with outside attorneys, the State legislature, media, and other State and County officials. An economic downturn during a time of on-going population growth may result in an increase in correctional health claims as unemployment and crime rates escalate requiring Healthcare Mandates to intensify its risk management role to minimize financial obligations and to support Maricopa County’s need to reduce expenditures. A work environment with unpredictable demands, shifting priorities, and whose ultimate goal is to conclude all outstanding indigent health care responsibilities as efficiently and effectively as possible, challenges the Heath Care Mandates Department’s capacity to retain, develop and motivate its employees. Maricopa County has paid for medical claims for which other sources subsequently became responsible, thus allowing the opportunity for the county to recover claims payments previously made. Total Budget by Program Personal Services Program Activity ANCILLARY FD CLAIMS PROCESSING UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ 1,413,286 1,413,286 Supplies & Capital Services Outlay $ 4,000,000 $ 342,335,024 $ 346,335,024 $ - Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 4,000,000 $ 343,748,310 101,813,648 $ 347,748,310 $ 101,813,648 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Ancillary Fund Administration Program Purpose: The purpose of the Ancillary Fund Administration Program is to authorize payment for Maricopa County Administration of funds allocated for specialized inmate and/or indigent health services and support related litigation efforts so they can ensure accurate and proper distribution of funds. Key Results: Percent of full billed charges paid in ancillary fund claims processing activity FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 19.59 19 Program Name: Pre-AHCCCS Liability Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Pre-AHCCCS Liability Management Program is to provide claims processing, disputed claims resolution and litigation support for Maricopa County Administration so they can manage and limit their pre-AHCCCS financial liability. Key Results: Percent of full billed charges paid in claims resolution activity Percent of full billed charges paid in litigation activity FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A 5 603 Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED HEALTH CARE MANDATES TOTAL FUNDS Health Care Mandates (Continued) Program Name: State Withholdings & Contract Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the State Withholdings and Contract Management Program is to provide financial management and oversight for County Administration of funds that are paid to, or withheld by, the State and/or the Maricopa Integrated Health System so they can ensure accurate and proper distribution of funds to indigent health programs. Key Results: Percent of state withholdings authorized Percent increase in payments authorized over previous fiscal year in state mental health programs activity Percent of Cambio incentive objectives achieved Percent invoiced amounts authorized by Cambio in Maricopa Integrated Health System Contract Administration Activity FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual N/A FY 02 Actual 100 FY 03 Projected 100 N/A N/A 17.1 -5.2 N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A 99 100 Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals* FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 261,580,780 211,706,179 264,038,401 345,248,310 Special Revenue $ $ $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 261,580,780 213,206,179 265,538,401 347,748,310 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals* FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 245,972,368 206,185,022 219,674,346 328,391,672 Special Revenue $ $ $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 245,972,368 207,685,022 221,174,346 330,891,672 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals* FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 3,716,338 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 3,716,338 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 15,608,412 5,521,157 44,364,055 13,140,300 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 15,608,412 5,521,157 44,364,055 13,140,300 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals* FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. Total NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 604 Health Care Mandates (Continued) Mandate Information AHCCCS Acute Care Contribution A.R.S. § 11-297 Tax levy for Medical Care; System Fund Before 1981, the State of Arizona did not participate in the Federal Medicaid program. The State Legislature created the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), a Medicaid program which would bring Federal dollars to the State, in response to escalating costs for indigent health care. The State agency, AHCCCS, administers the program, which is organized as a managed care, capitated system. MANDATE Maricopa County is required to contribute financial support to the State AHCCCS DESCRIPTION program to satisfy the Federal Medicaid matching requirement. The level of funding is set by the State Legislature. The total amount for the County contribution for the Acute Care "State match" is established in the State Health Omnibus Bill each year as part of budget negotiations. AHCCCS Acute Care Contribution General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 38,659,237 $ $ 38,659,237 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 38,659,236 $ $ 38,659,236 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 42,600,659 $ $ 42,600,659 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 45,996,212 $ $ 45,996,212 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. 605 Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Health Care Mandates (Continued) Pre-AHCCCS Medical Claims Expense A.R.S. § 22-291 Counties Have Responsibility For Care of Indigent Sick Arizona Counties are responsible for the medical care of indigents. Although the creation of AHCCCS diverted much of that responsibility, the County has residual responsibility for emergent services to indigents during the window between the time such services begin until 48 hours prior to the time AHCCCS is notified of eligibility. MANDATE AHCCCS will assume responsibility for emergent services for eligible enrollees for DESCRIPTION a period up to 48 hours prior to County notification of eligibility. Services rendered before the restrictive period are the responsibility of the County. Pre-AHCCCS Outside Hospital Settlements General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 3,000,000 $ $ 3,000,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 3,811,269 $ $ 3,811,269 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,335,124 $ $ 3,335,124 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 23,700,000 $ $ 23,700,000 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Arizona Long Term Care System Contribution A.R.S. §11-297 Tax Levy for Medical Care; System Fund The Arizona Long term Care System (ALTCS) is the long-term care program of the State of Arizona's Medicaid program, which began in 1989 and operates as a capitated, managed care system. The State agency, AHCCCS, administers the ALTCS program. The Arizona counties are responsible for paying nearly the entire Federal match requirement. County contributions are set annually by the State Legislature. MANDATE Maricopa County is required to contribute financial support to the State long-term DESCRIPTION care program, as set forth by the State Legislature, based on the Federal match required for the program. Arizona Long Term Care System Contribution (ALTCS) General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 92,812,208 $ $ 92,812,208 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 91,784,692 $ $ 91,784,692 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 93,267,149 $ $ 93,267,149 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 114,845,600 $ $ 114,845,600 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. 606 Health Care Mandates (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION General Mental Health A.R.S. § 11-0291.01 Eligibility standards for indigent health services Prior to the creation of AHCCCS, counties were providing behavioral health services to indigents who did not meet the criteria of being seriously mentally ill. Counties are required by State law to maintain the same level of behavioral health services for indigents that were in place prior to the 1981 inception of the AHCCCS program. Maricopa County includes general mental services for the non-SMI population in it's Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS). General Mental Health General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 4,856,576 $ $ 4,856,576 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 4,856,580 $ $ 4,856,580 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 4,451,863 $ $ 4,451,863 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 5,099,404 $ $ 5,099,404 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. Indigent Seriously Mentally Ill Behavioral Health Services 1989 Arizona Supreme Court Ruling, Arnold v. Sarn In 1989, in the Arizona Supreme Court case Arnold v. Sarn, the Court granted class action status to indigent seriously mentally ill (SMI) persons and ruled that both the state and Maricopa County had failed to provide adequate services and funding for Maricopa County's SMI population. As part of the ruling Maricopa County was made responsible to pay for court monitoring. MANDATE Maricopa County must contribute funding to Arizona Department of Health DESCRIPTION Services via an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The funding formula for this agreement is based on 1994 service related expenditures, adjusted annually based on index tied to various factors within the Consumer Price Index. Indigent Seriously Mentally Ill Behavioral Health Services General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 23,963,397 $ $ 23,963,397 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 24,366,689 $ $ 24,366,689 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 23,412,669 $ $ 23,412,669 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 27,230,000 $ $ 27,230,000 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. TITLE AUTHORITY Long Term Care Residual Population A.R.S. 11-293 County Long Term Care Services; A.R.S. § 11-293.01 County Adult Foster Care Program HISTORY/ Before the inception of ALTCS in 1989, the County provided long term care BACKGROUND services to the elderly indigent population. MANDATE The County has residual responsibility to provide long term care services to DESCRIPTION clients who met County indigent standards at the time the ALTCS program, with it's eligibility standards, was adopted, but who did not meet ALTCS standards. Long Term Care Residual Population General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 3,775,087 $ $ 3,775,087 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 388,738 $ $ 388,738 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 204,118 $ $ 204,118 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 180,293 $ $ 180,293 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. 607 Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Health Care Mandates (Continued) Sail Grant FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals* FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 686,463 686,463 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ $ $ 686,463 686,463 Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Arnold v. Sarn IGA/Court Order Litigation Costs 1989 Arizona Supreme Court Ruling, Arnold v. Sarn In 1989, in the Arizona Court case Arnold v. Sarn, the Court granted class action status to indigent seriously mentally ill (SMI) persons and ruled that both the State and County had failed to provide adequate services and funding for Maricopa County’s SMI population. The Court ordered the establishment of a Court Monitor to oversee compliance with the Court Order. These costs are shared with the State of Arizona. In addition, the Court ordered the state and county defendants to share the legal costs of the Plaintiff’s counsel. MANDATE Maricopa County is responsible for paying one-fourth of the Plaintiff’s fees and DESCRIPTION one-third of the Court Monitor’s budget. In addition, the County pays outside counsel legal fees associated with the Arnold v. Sarn defense. Arnold v. Sarn IGA Court Order Litigation Costs General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 250,000 $ $ 250,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 2,013 $ $ 2,013 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 6,417 $ $ 6,417 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 75,000 $ $ 75,000 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Pre-AHCCCS Outside Hospital Settlements Arizona Status §11-297, uncodified sections of SB 1577. Arizona Counties are responsible for the medical care of indigents. Although the creation of AHCCCS diverted much of that responsibility, the County has residual responsibility for emergent services to indigents during the window between time such services begin until 48-hours prior to the time AHCCCS is notified of eligibility. Payment claims for such services are submitted to the Department of Medical Eligibility. For a variety of reasons, many claims are denied and hospitals file lawsuits against the County contesting these denial decisions. In past years, settlements have been reached between the County and hospitals to resolve these disputes. MANDATE AHCCCS will assume responsibility for emergent services for eligible enrollees for DESCRIPTION a period up to 48 hours prior to County notification of eligibility. Services rendered before the restrictive period are the responsibility of the County. Pre-AHCCCS Outside Hospital Settlements General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 3,000,000 $ $ 3,000,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 3,811,269 $ $ 3,811,269 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,335,124 $ $ 3,335,124 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 23,700,000 $ $ 23,700,000 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. 608 Health Care Mandates (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND TITLE AUTHORITY Psychiatric Teaching Program 1989 Arizona Supreme Court Ruling, Arnold v. Sarn; Court Order; Monitor’s decision re: mediation, August 31, 1993. HISTORY/ In 1989, in the Arizona Court case Arnold v. Sarn, the Court granted class action BACKGROUND status to indigent seriously mentally ill (SMI) persons and ruled that both the State and County had failed to provide adequate services and funding for Maricopa County’s SMI population. In the 1993 Monitor’s decision re: mediation, the Court Monitor determined “…that Maricopa shall continue to provide at least the same level of service to class members through the residency program as it provided in FY 1992-1993…” MANDATE Maricopa County must continue to fund the psychiatric residency program at the DESCRIPTION same level as provided in FY 1992-1993. Psychiatric Teaching Program General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 3,547,901 $ $ 3,547,901 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 3,547,898 $ $ 3,547,898 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,547,899 $ $ 3,547,899 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,547,900 $ $ 3,547,900 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. 609 Departmental Budget Schedules Mental Health Orders; Mental Health Testimony ARS 36-545.04; Maricopa County/ ADHS IGA, paragraph 2.2.1 Under the authority of the Arizona Revised Statutes and the Phoenix City Charter, the City of Phoenix may charge Maricopa County for the cost of service to process mental health detention orders. In addition, as a result of the Arnold v. Sarn Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Arizona Department of Health Services (Department) and Maricopa County, the County delegated to the Department responsibility for many behavioral health activities related to the involuntary commitment process. However, per the IGA, “To the extent obligated by law, the County shall retain financial responsibility for Court proceeding expenses for commitment actions brought under Title 36, including, but not limited to, the costs of independent evaluators…” Independent evaluators provide mental health testimony in support of petitions for involuntary commitments. MANDATE Maricopa County must pay for the cost of mental health pickup orders and the DESCRIPTION cost of mental health testimony independent evaluators. Mental Health Orders; Mental Health Testimony General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 350,000 $ $ 350,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 200,004 $ $ 200,004 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 49,650 $ $ 49,650 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 270,000 $ $ 270,000 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. Health Care Mandates (Continued) Public Health TB Hospitalization A.R.S. § 11-302 provides that Counties shall provide for the care of indigent individuals with tuberculosis. HISTORY/ Based on need and capacity in other facilities, the Public Health Department may BACKGROUND refer TB patients to Maricopa Medical Center for care under quarantine. The Health Care Mandates Department reviews and pays for MMC claims under these circumstances. MANDATE Maricopa County must continue to provide facilities to house indigent TB patients DESCRIPTION where active medical care or monitoring is needed. Public Health TB Hospitalization General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 405,840 $ $ 405,840 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Correctional Health Claims A.R.S. § 11-251(8) Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-251(8), Counties are authorized to provide for Jails. Where inmates in County jails need emergency medical attention or in-patient care, the County must provide those services. Maricopa Medical Center (MMC) currently provides such services. The Health Care Mandates Department, in conjunction with the Correctional Health Department, reviews the claims and determines the appropriate amount of payment to MMC. MANDATE Maricopa County must continue to provide medical services to detainees in DESCRIPTION County jails. Where in-patient services are necessary, MMC provide the most cost-effective source of medical services to the County. Correctional Health Claims General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. 610 Health Care Mandates (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 611 Departmental Budget Schedules Competency Restoration A.R.S. § 13-4512; A.R.Crim.P 10 State law requires that a criminal defendant must have the mental capacity to provide meaningful assistance to his/her defense counsel before standing trial. If it is determined by the Court that the Defendant does not have the mental capacity to stand trial, he/she must be “restored to competency” before the trial can be commenced. Session law requires that Maricopa County pay 86% of the cost of competency restoration for those defendants that are treated at the Arizona State following a referral from Superior Court. A.R.S. § 13-4512 also requires that Maricopa County must pay an additional per diem in the event that an individual is not transported back to the County jail within certain perimeters. MANDATE Maricopa County is required to pay 86% of the cost of competency restoration for DESCRIPTION those defendants that are treated at the Arizona State following a referral from Superior Court. A.R.S. § 13-4512 also requires that Maricopa County must pay an additional per diem in the event that an individual is not transported back to the County jail within certain perimeters. Compentency Restoration General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals* $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,350,758 $ $ 3,350,758 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 4,000,000 $ $ 4,000,000 *Included in Medical Eligibility for FY 1999-00. Health Care Mandates (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 1,413,286 $ 343,835,024 $ 2,500,000 $ 1,413,286 $ 346,335,024 $ $ 1,413,286 $ 346,335,024 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 345,248,310 $ 101,813,648 2,500,000 $ 347,748,310 $ 101,813,648 $ 347,748,310 $ 101,813,648 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 101,118 32,755,200 32,856,318 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 1,059,585 118,367 44,503 206,605 17,223 1,446,283 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ 93,044 93,044 1,900,970 15,000 53,500 476,594 2,446,064 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 66,136 $ 52,906 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 18,096 810 LEGAL SERVICES 18,177,235 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES (131,720) 7,857,500 812 OTHER SERVICES 558,914 1,490,128 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 3,112 25,000 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 2,711 5,000 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 202,230,387 175,006,443 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 49,016 380,939 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 684 5,058 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 3,472 100,000 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 143,523 270,471 850 UTILITIES 296 25,000 880 TRANSFERS OUT 7,133,361 18,124,663 SubTotal $ 210,059,892 $ 221,538,439 CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 200,004 200,004 Total Expenditures $ 211,706,179 612 $ - $ 223,984,503 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ 93,044 45,895,500 45,988,544 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ 1,582,640 $ 12,000 43,500 369,434 25,147 (158,369) 66,235 1,940,587 $ $ $ 42,906 18,096 11,401,268 5,607,500 1,463,207 85,000 5,000 223,617,910 376,441 5,058 75,000 270,471 8,335 18,124,663 $ 261,100,855 $ - $ 263,041,442 64,400 45,895,500 45,959,900 $ 1,531,285 $ 9,112 3,680 380,817 1,663 (134,325) 61,765 1,853,997 $ 33,259 13,570 3,974,228 3,480,951 1,671,177 18,253 5,000 224,095,433 286,734 454 45,000 226,875 607 29,832,863 $ 263,684,404 $ FY 2002-03 Requested - $ 265,538,401 52,848 45,895,500 45,948,348 78,448 9,984,394 9,096,143 1,573,196 26,047 7,000 231,462,311 200,605 6,000 60,000 68,649 17,374,663 $ 269,937,456 $ 52,848 101,760,800 $ 101,813,648 1,377,836 $ 13,462 14,415 343,139 147 (203,618) 1,545,381 $ $ - $ 271,482,837 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ (40,196) 55,865,300 55,825,104 -43% 122% 121% 1,166,117 $ 8,436 3,000 289,351 150,000 (203,618) 1,413,286 $ 416,523 3,564 40,500 80,083 (124,853) 45,249 66,235 527,301 26% 30% 93% 22% -496% 29% 100% 27% (25,542) 18,096 (7,373,732) (3,112,500) (6,578,928) 58,953 (1,000) (69,403,567) 175,836 3,058 45,000 201,822 8,335 750,000 (85,234,169) -60% 100% -65% -56% -450% 69% -20% -31% 47% 60% 60% 75% 100% 4% -33% 68,448 18,775,000 8,720,000 8,042,135 26,047 6,000 293,021,477 200,605 2,000 30,000 68,649 17,374,663 $ 346,335,024 $ % - $ 347,748,310 $ $ - $ (84,706,868) -32% Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (178,849,861) $ (223,891,459) $ (217,052,898) $ (219,578,501) $ (225,534,489) $ (245,934,662) $ (28,881,764) -13% Health Care Mandates (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 34.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ASSISTANT FINANCE CLAIMS ANALYST BUDGET ANALYST CONSULTANT CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR DATA ENTRY ANALYST FINANCIAL CLAIMS ANALYST FINANCIAL CLAIMS ANALYST LEAD FINANCIAL RESEARCH ANALYST INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION MGR MANAGEMENT ANALYST MEDICAL AUDIT REVIEW NURSE MEDICAL AUDIT REVIEW NURSE LEAD OPERATIONS MANAGER PERSONNEL/PAYROLL LIAISON PROGRAMMER PROVIDER CLAIMS SUPERVISOR RECORDS COORDINATOR SENIOR DATA ENTRY ANALYST SENIOR FINANCIAL RESEARCH ANALYST SENIOR RECORDS COORDINATOR TOTAL 613 Health Plans County Administrative Officer Maricopa Integrated Health System Chief Executive Officer Mark Hillard Paul Strauss Paul Strauss Vice President, Health Plans Vice President, Health Plans Maricopa Long Term Care Director Operations & Compliance Director Medical Management Director Health Plans Medical Director Health Plans Controller Customer Service Director Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of Maricopa Health Plans is to provide quality, customer oriented health care services, medical education and research for patients and health plan members so they can improve their health status in a cost efficient manner. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! By June 2004, generate sufficient cash flow through revenue development and operational efficiencies to provide MIHS funding required to meet our customers' service needs and avoid subsidy by the County. Achieve a cash balance of $47 million as of June 30, 2004. Achieve improvement in AR days to 75 days or less per industry standards. By June 2003, attract and retain qualified employees through improvements in work place environment and maintaining competitive wages and benefits. Maintain an annual voluntary turnover rate less than that experienced by the Arizona Hospital and Health Care Association members. Achieve improvement in employee satisfaction survey results by 5 basis points. On an ongoing basis, assess governance options which will serve to support the financial viability of MIHS and offer recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to clarify the structure and role of the health system in meeting the community's health care needs. By July 2007, subject to availability of capital funding, implement MIHS master plan capital projects to ensure the provision of appropriate and adequate facilities to meet current and future customer health care needs. By June 2005, improve MIHS customer service by providing customer-oriented accessibility, availability and continuity of care as measured by patient satisfaction survey results. Attain and sustain a composite score of 7.25 for each of the following four MIHS business components; Family Health Centers, Emergency Department, Comprehensive Health Center, and Maricopa Medical Center. Reduce Maricopa Health Plan disenrollment rate by 10%. On an ongoing basis, continue to secure accreditation/compliance from the Residency Review Committee (RRC), Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 614 Health Plans (Continued) ! ! By June 2005, develop and implement strategies to enroll and retain health plan membership at a profitable margin to meet/exceed composite health plan earnings projections to support the provision of health care programs and services to MIHS customers. By June 2005, assess and identify opportunities to improve the financial performance of the delivery system through expense reduction, revenue enhancement, improved cash flow, product line analysis and enhancement of operational efficiency. Achieve a 10% improvement in operating margin by June 30, 2003. Issues ! ! ! ! Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED HEALTH PLANS TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 18,763,386 18,763,386 Supplies & Services $ 407,557,298 $ 407,557,298 $ $ Capital Outlay 3,100,000 3,100,000 Total Expenditures $ 429,420,684 $ 429,420,684 Total Revenue $ 431,738,882 $ 431,738,882 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Health Plan Program Purpose: The purpose of the Health Plan Program is to provide health management services to members so they can receive health plan benefits in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. Key Results: None Reported 615 Departmental Budget Schedules ! Failure to attract and retain qualified and skilled staff will lead to service reduction, higher costs, and customer dissatisfaction. Inadequate physical facilities across the health system are compromising our ability to meet the needs and expectations of our current patient, provider and employee base, and will severely limit our ability to attract and retain new patients, providers and employees. Changes in health care policy, rapidly rising costs, declining profitability, work force shortages and competitive marketplace forces necessitate reevaluation of our MIHS governance structure and role in providing health care to the community we serve. Availability and distribution of information is becoming increasingly important given that more data is being gathered but not necessarily configured as information. Without configured information, the system will be unable to provide care at the lowest cost and greatest outcome. Loss of Graduate Medical Education accreditation would result in loss of faculty, increased cost of care, and reduction in funding, resulting in a negative impact on patient care. Health Plans (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 1,451,900 $ 1,513,060 $ 1,587,220 $ 1,860,224 $ 1,812,463 Enterprise Funds $ 515,858,060 $ 353,462,841 $ 351,037,221 $ 399,648,196 $ 427,608,221 $ $ $ $ $ Total 517,309,960 354,975,901 352,624,441 401,508,420 429,420,684 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ 240,037,363 $ 251,899,129 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 240,037,363 251,899,129 - Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 1,451,900 $ 1,513,060 $ 1,587,220 $ 1,860,224 $ 1,812,463 Enterprise Funds $ 275,820,697 $ 101,563,712 $ 351,037,221 $ 399,648,196 $ 427,608,221 $ $ $ $ $ Total 277,272,597 103,076,772 352,624,441 401,508,420 429,420,684 Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) Special Revenue Enterprise Funds Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ 240,037,363 $ 240,037,363 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ 251,899,129 $ 251,899,129 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 616 Health Plans (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 600 HEALTH PLANS FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 1,634,189 178,274 1,812,463 1,812,463 17,129,197 407,379,024 3,100,000 427,608,221 429,926,419 $ 18,763,386 $ 407,557,298 $ 3,100,000 $ 429,420,684 $ 431,738,882 $ 18,763,386 $ 407,557,298 $ 3,100,000 $ 429,420,684 $ 431,738,882 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 600 HEALTH PLANS FY 2000-01 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 23,604,528 90,282 23,694,810 FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested FY 2002-03 Adopted 1,014,600 19,955,502 373,101,337 8,385,943 5,577,413 $ 408,034,795 1,014,600 5,266,408 387,790,431 8,385,943 5,577,413 $ 408,034,795 1,014,600 4,221,309 406,199,557 6,894,723 51,208 6,607,049 $ 424,988,446 1,119,215 4,364,399 419,261,074 4,808,808 2,178,601 $ 431,732,097 1,126,000 4,364,399 419,261,074 4,808,808 2,178,601 $ 431,738,882 $ $ $ $ $ 12,188,244 2,601,531 115,547 14,905,322 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 388,467 $ 5,003 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 352,696,996 803 FUEL 1,214 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES (143,523) 375,370,468 812 OTHER SERVICES 830,405 6,616,877 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 116,767 852,915 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 39,289 620,685 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 46,860 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 910 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS (205,507) 850 UTILITIES 1,231,106 865 DEPRECIATION 41,080 880 TRANSFERS OUT 15,161,790 22,029,896 SubTotal $ 368,885,898 $ 406,815,800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 43,734 43,734 Total Expenditures $ 392,624,442 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 10,498,720 $ 2,921,080 2,921,080 $ 424,642,202 $ $ 14,878,667 1,263,445 27,351 16,169,463 $ 802,745 20,631 4,754,470 160,034,140 23,997,036 772,989 17,146 451,507 188,371 24,661 195,224,105 123,754 22,029,896 $ 408,441,451 $ - $ 424,610,914 (16,607,407) $ $ 15,721,792 16,994 1,483,910 17,222,696 $ 864,416 1,026,884 4,913,559 152,850,986 28,193,211 1,243,702 8,215 508,369 227,223 41,364 187,314,464 1,457 45,699,101 $ 422,892,951 $ 942,730 942,730 $ 441,058,377 (16,576,119) $ $ 12,931,819 $ (17) 3,389 2,825,989 (6,146,706) 9,148,912 18,763,386 $ $ 615,138 680,661 5,376,160 159,962,684 29,778,980 1,240,296 4,680 475,333 257,732 26,705 185,499,208 53 751,650 23,617,028 $ 408,286,308 $ - $ 427,049,694 (16,069,931) $ 4,682,403 Adopted vs Revised Variance $ 111,400 (902,009) 31,470,643 (3,577,135) (3,398,812) 23,704,087 13,043,682 $ 3,389 2,857,226 (6,289,823) 9,148,912 18,763,386 $ 1,834,985 (3,389) (1,593,781) 27,351 6,289,823 (9,148,912) (2,593,923) 615,504 991,170 5,376,160 159,962,684 29,468,470 1,242,600 4,680 450,564 269,785 27,305 185,499,208 23,649,168 $ 407,557,298 $ 187,241 (970,539) (621,690) 71,456 (5,471,434) (469,611) 12,466 943 (81,414) (2,644) 9,724,897 123,754 (1,619,272) 884,153 3,100,000 3,100,000 $ (3,100,000) (3,100,000) $ 429,420,684 $ (4,809,770) $ $ 18,894,317 $ 2,318,198 % 11% -17% 8% -43% -61% 6% 12% -126% 100% -16% 23% -4704% -13% 0% -23% -61% 73% 0% -43% -11% 5% 100% -7% 0% -1% 114% 617 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,001,916 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 384,793,257 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 6,104,727 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 10,566,762 680 TRANSFERS IN 656,500 Total Revenue $ 403,123,162 FY 2001-02 Adopted Health Plans (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 600 HEALTH PLANS Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNT CLERK ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING TECH ADMINISTATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTATIVE COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATOR ADMINSTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINSTRATIVE COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR ALTCS BEH HLTH CASE MANAGER ALTCS CASE MANAGEMENT MANAGER ALTCS CASE MANAGER ALTCS COMPLEX C RN CASE MGR ASSISTANT CONTROLLER AUTHORIZATION COORDINATOR BEH HLTH SOCIAL WORKER BENEFICIARY SUPPORT MANAGER CASE MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR CLAIM SPECIALIST CLAIMS ANALYST CLAIMS CUSTOMER SVC REP CLAIMS PROCESSOR CLAIMS QA ANALYST CLAIMS TRAINER CLERK COMMUNITY MEMBER REP CONTROLLER COORDINATION OF BENEFITS SPECIALIST COUNSELOR CUSTOMER SERVICE REP CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR DATA ANALYST DIRECTOR HEALTH PLANS OPERATIONS DIRECTOR OF CLAIMS DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL MANAGEMENT ENROLLMENT SUPERVISOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FINANCIAL ANALYST GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR MAIL PROCESSOR MATERNAL CHILD EPSDT MANAGER MEDICAL DIRECTOR MEDICAL REVIEW COODINATOR MEMBER ENROLLMENT PROCESSOR MEMBER SERVICES REP MLTCP CASE AIDE MLTCP OFFICE COORDINATOR NURSE MANAGER PATIENTS ADVOCATE PHARMACY TECHNICIAN PLAN COORDINATOR PRIOR AUTHORIZATION NURSE PROCESSOR 1 PROCESSOR 2 PROGRAM ANALYST PROJECT MANAGER PROVIDER SERVICES MANAGER PROVIDER SERVICES REP 618 FTE 0.8 3.0 0.5 2.0 4.0 21.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 8.0 11.9 121.7 5.0 1.0 14.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 11.4 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 35.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 4.0 1.0 11.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.8 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Health Plans (Continued) WORKING TITLE QUALITY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR REINSURANCE COORDINATOR RESEARCH AND RECOVERY ANALYST SUPERVISOR SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR TRADES WORKER UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR WOUND RN FTE TOTAL 7.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 357.5 Departmental Budget Schedules 619 Housing County Administrative Officer Chief Community Services Officer Housing Housing Jim Satterwhite, Director Jim Satterwhite, Director Administrative Director Modernization/ Development Low-Rent Program Lease Housing Program Special Projects Program Monitoring & Compliance Office Administration Finance Resident Initiatives Departmental Budget Schedules Applications Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Housing Department is to increase the supply of and maintain existing affordable rental housing for low-income households who cannot afford to pay market rents and promote training, educational opportunities and economic self-sufficiency so they can become homeowners. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Empower housing residents to make decisions that will improve their economic standing and eventually lead to homeownership. By September 2002, achieve a score of 90 or more from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) according to their annual review criteria. By January 2004, increase the number of agency managed/owned properties from 827 to 1027 utilizing funding other than from HUD. By fiscal year 2004, 95% of residents surveyed express satisfaction with Housing. Promote a motivating work environment with a capable and efficient team of employees to operate as a customer friendly and fiscally prudent leader in the affordable housing industry as evidenced by comparison to the overall satisfaction results of the County. By December 2003, reduce drug and criminal activity at our properties by 5%. Operate all housing programs so that income will exceed expenditures and program reserves. Issues ! ! Reduction in reliance upon HUD funding will require us to develop additional affordable housing, maintain current inventory and complete capital improvements using alternative funding sources. Neighborhood resistance to affordable housing will create new opportunities to partner with community and other planning groups. 620 Housing (Continued) ! ! ! ! ! ! Recruiting and retaining knowledgeable, competent staff will require keener marketing efforts and a more professional, enriching environment in which to work. Partnering with agencies that provide our clients with credit counseling, job training, basic education and budget classes and maintenance skills training for eventual homeownership will decrease client reliance upon the department. Explosive growth will demand one-touch, immediate response information systems and take its toll on staffing, morale, and the ability to meet changing environments quickly. Availability of reliable computer software system vendors will challenge our ability to meet the ever-changing HUD guidelines and technological advancements to conduct our business electronically. Land affordability may limit the success rate of affordable housing development, causing us to seek public lands and legislative changes. Needs of the elderly will redirect our focus from independent living to affordable congregate and shared living arrangements. Total Budget by Program Program Activity PROPERTY MANAGEMENT RESIDENT INITIATIVES PROGRAM VOUCHER PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Total Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 1,449,855 $ 2,393,661 $ 2,187,802 1,655,368 241,642 985,394 24,164 700,763 191,528 $ 2,416,424 $ 7,413,753 $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 963,402 $ 4,806,918 $ 4,075,622 2,187,802 3,013,970 1,655,368 1,875,000 160,568 1,387,604 227,134 24,164 481,702 1,373,993 2,244,123 1,605,672 $ 11,435,849 $ 11,435,849 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Bolster Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Bolster Program is to respond to the financial, purchasing, technological and administrative needs of housing department staff so that they can get their work completed without delay. Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Property Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Property Management Program is to maintain and manage publicly owned rental housing for eligible households so that the inventory is 99 percent leased at all times to those in need of rental assistance Key Results: 100% of total housing units developed through alternative funding 10% of reduction of housing subsidy dependency FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A N/A 10 621 Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED HOUSING TOTAL FUNDS Housing (Continued) Program Name: Resident Initiatives Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Resident Initiatives Program is to provide education, training and support services to housing clients so they can eventually move from assisted housing to homeownership. Key Results: None Reported Program Name: Voucher Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Voucher Program is to achieve and maintain 98 percent lease-up and make timely rental assistance payments to landlords on behalf of eligible households so they can reside in privately owned rental housing of their choice. Key Results: Contract lease at 80% FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual 82.33 FY 02 Actual N/A FY 03 Projected 95 Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 7,878,206 $ 6,946,806 $ 16,501,035 $ 11,429,507 $ 11,435,849 $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,878,206 6,946,806 16,501,035 11,429,507 11,435,849 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 7,878,206 $ 7,878,206 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 6,946,806 $ 6,946,806 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 16,501,035 $ 16,501,035 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 11,429,507 $ 11,429,507 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 11,435,849 $ 11,435,849 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 622 Housing (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 660 HOUSING FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 2,416,424 7,413,753 1,605,672 11,435,849 11,435,849 $ 2,416,424 $ 7,413,753 $ 1,605,672 $ 11,435,849 $ 11,435,849 $ 2,416,424 $ 7,413,753 $ 1,605,672 $ 11,435,849 $ 11,435,849 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 660 HOUSING FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS SubTotal $ - 16,428,539 72,496 16,501,035 - $ $ $ $ 11,429,508 11,429,508 $ $ 16,501,035 $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 527,094 $ $ 1,931,400 $ 495,861 (2,427,261) 2,427,261 2,427,261 $ 345,589 16,266 440,299 36,000 24,850 231,806 30,000 5,385,000 1,063,124 68,483 7,641,417 Total Expenditures $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ 1,360,830 1,360,830 $ 11,429,508 $ $ $ 1,922,487 $ 494,958 (2,417,444) 2,427,261 2,427,262 $ 345,588 16,266 440,299 36,000 24,850 231,806 30,000 5,385,000 1,063,124 68,483 7,641,416 - $ 11,429,508 11,429,508 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 1,360,830 1,360,830 $ 11,429,508 $ $ $ 1,923,106 $ 23,736 9,617 457,180 13,621 (2,427,261) 2,427,261 2,427,260 $ 345,589 16,266 440,299 36,000 24,850 231,806 30,000 5,385,000 1,063,124 68,483 7,641,417 - $ 11,429,507 11,429,507 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 1,360,830 1,360,830 $ 11,429,507 $ $ $ 1,848,700 $ 567,718 (2,416,418) 2,416,424 2,416,424 $ 254,169 16,265 328,444 36,000 24,852 512,102 30,000 5,385,000 757,160 69,760 7,413,752 - $ 11,435,848 11,435,848 11,435,849 11,435,849 $ 1,605,672 1,605,672 $ 11,435,848 $ $ $ 1,848,700 $ 567,718 (2,416,418) 2,416,424 2,416,424 $ 254,174 16,265 324,896 36,000 24,852 512,102 30,000 5,385,000 757,160 73,304 7,413,753 - Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 6,341 6,341 73,787 (72,760) (1,026) 10,837 10,838 % 0% 0% 4% -15% 0% 0% 0% $ 91,414 1 115,403 (2) (280,296) 305,964 (4,821) 227,663 26% 0% 26% 0% 0% -121% 0% 0% 29% -7% 3% 1,605,672 1,605,672 $ (244,842) (244,842) -18% -18% 11,435,849 $ (6,341) 0% $ - - 623 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 12,376,928 1,237,235 3,413,966 17,028,129 FY 2001-02 Adopted Housing (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 660 HOUSING Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR ASSISTANT BUYER ASSISTANT MANAGER BUILDING INSPECTOR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FINANCE DIRECTOR FSS COORDINATOR HOUSING MANAGER HOUSING SPECIALIST LEASING ASSISTANT LEASING SUPERVISOR MIS ASSISTANT MIS COORDINATOR MODERNIZATION MANAGER OFFICE SITE CLERK PROGRAMS DIRECTOR PUBLIC HOUSING WAIT LIST COORDINATOR PURCHASING AGENT RESIDENT SERVICE COORDINATOR RESIDENT TRAINEE SECTION 8 CLERK SECTION 8 SUPERVISOR SECTION 8 WAIT LIST COORDINATOR TRADES GENERALIST TRADES LEAD FTE TOTAL 624 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 16.0 4.0 64.0 Human Resources County Administrative Officer Deputy County Administrator Human Resources Human Resources Barbara Rees, Acting Director Barbara Rees, Acting Director Merit Commission Administration Employee Services, Training & Leadership Development Information Services Employee Relations Employment Services Mission Goals • • • By June 2002, our internal customers will report that Human Resources' services and delivery methods have been redefined and redesigned so that they meet the emerging business needs of their department/agency. By 2002, the Human Resources Department will have implemented a responsive, flexible, and competitive total compensation and benefits program, managed within available resources, so that the number of employees leaving voluntarily due to compensation issues is reduced. By December 2003, the Human Resources Department will demonstrate corporate leadership through performance consulting and innovative transactional support as indicated by results achieved, customer reporting, and active partnership in departmental strategic and business planning. Issues • • • Changes in case law will increase exposure to liability and will cause greater demand for more sophisticated internal investigations into employee misconduct, and will increase demand/need for more information to departments. As department’s human resource needs are redefined through their participation in Managing for Results, there will be fewer demands for transactional processing and greater demands for expert consulting. Adoption of Managing for Results will require rethinking and redesign of the policies, procedures, programs and tools needed to integrate Managing for Results fully through all levels of the organization. 625 Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the Maricopa County Human Resources Department is to provide leadership and human resources systems and programs to officials, departments, and agencies so that they can achieve their business goals. Human Resources (Continued) • • • The organization will require leadership from Human Resources to assure consistency in the delivery of HR services and programs to help departments achieve their goals. Changes in the workforce and the County’s business environment will make it increasingly challenging to offer a comprehensive, competitive total compensation package that attracts and retains a high performing diverse workforce. Changes in the workforce and the County’s business environment are creating more pressure to change workplace practices, offer a different array of services and respond in a more customized manner. As departments implement Managing for Results they will demand faster more accurate data and information, which will also increase demands for more cost effectiveness and paperless process workplace solutions. Total Budget by Program Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED HUMAN RESOURCES TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity BUSINESS PERFORMANCE TOTAL COMP & BENEFITS CORPORATE INITIATIVES WORKFORCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 1,230,612 $ 324,069 $ 315,158 125,247 237,809 103,623 960,173 7,534 300,191 10,264 117,217 112,945 3,161,160 $ 683,682 $ Total $ - Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 1,554,681 $ 440,405 25,000 341,432 90,000 967,707 250 310,455 230,162 261 $ 3,844,842 $ 115,511 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Business Performance Program Purpose: The purpose of the Business Performance Program is to provide consultation, education, policy direction and a performance management system to departments so they can increase employee and organizational performance. Key Results: Percent of clients who report that performance and/or employee satisfaction was improved as a result of the consulting service Percent of departments who report that the performance management system helps them align, motivate, and develop employee performance Percent of department leaders who are satisfied with the information and resources received Percent of participants who report they were able to apply newly learned skills on the job Percent of employees reporting content and course materials helped them understand the topic Percent retreat participants reporting learned new concepts that will be used to achieve superior business results Percent of time requirements met Percent of management dissatisfaction with case management of the ill/injured employees 626 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 100 65 N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 90 N/A N/A N/A 70 N/A N/A 97 95 N/A N/A 100 75 100 100 N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 0 Human Resources (Continued) Program Name: Corporate Initiatives Program Purpose: The purpose of Corporate Initiatves is to provide development, implementation and administration services for Maricopa County employees so that they can voluntarily participate in accomplishing the goals of the special initiatives. FY 00 Actual N/A Key Results: Percent pre-determined goals achieved FY 01 Actual 100 FY 02 Actual N/A FY 03 Projected N/A Program Name: Total Compensation & Benefits Program Purpose: The purpose of the Total Compensation and Benefits Program is to provide Boardapproved compensation and benefit plans, strategic direction and administration support to departments so that they can attract and retain qualified employees to achieve their business results. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A 10 Program Name: Workforce Planning Program Purpose: The purpose of the Workforce Planning Program is to provide information, consultation, and hiring services to department management so that they can make workforce decisions and to attract and retain the staff they need to achieve their business results. Key Results: Percent of turnover within the first six months of the initial probationary period FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 12 11 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,388,846 $ 2,559,925 $ 4,429,680 $ 3,549,380 $ 3,844,842 Internal Service $ 39,269,378 $ 45,978,739 $ 2,965,867 $ $ - Total $ 40,658,224 $ 48,538,664 $ 7,395,547 $ 3,549,380 $ 3,844,842 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Internal Service Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,388,846 $ 39,269,378 $ 40,658,224 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 2,559,925 $ 45,978,739 $ 48,538,664 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 4,429,680 $ 2,965,867 $ 7,395,547 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,549,380 $ $ 3,549,380 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,844,842 $ $ 3,844,842 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 627 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: # of all positive impact responses to "value of benefits program in hire decision" on New Employee Orientation survey Percent of jobs for which a new market analysis is requested within 2 years Percent of departments with an established compensation philosophy and/or strategy in place Human Resources (Continued) Departmental Budget Information Departmental Budget Schedules DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 310 HUMAN RESOURCES FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 3,161,160 $ 683,682 $ $ 3,161,160 $ 683,682 $ $ 3,161,160 $ 683,682 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 3,844,842 $ 115,511 $ 3,844,842 $ 115,511 $ 3,844,842 $ 115,511 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 310 HUMAN RESOURCES FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 28,178 46,063 74,241 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 2,290,670 41,806 12,919 437,520 2,782,915 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING SubTotal $ 207,184 649 6,710 29,477 210,428 27,149 7,570 47,094 49,852 500 586,613 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SubTotal $ 2,450 18,103 20,553 $ Total Expenditures $ 3,390,081 $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 628 $ $ $ $ (3,315,840) $ 25,300 132,150 157,450 2,451,450 28,600 3,000 500,082 2,983,132 132,453 224 17,000 35,000 387,859 36,250 3,000 3,000 65,064 68,108 5,310 753,268 3,736,400 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (3,578,950) $ 25,150 132,300 157,450 2,391,608 27,600 3,000 472,961 2,895,169 203,821 224 33,000 373,309 34,000 3,000 3,000 53,454 40,563 3,560 747,931 3,643,100 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ 18,385 69,093 87,478 $ $ $ 155,621 $ 643 2,769 1,184 389,079 15,107 14,408 (1) 42,882 41,205 14,508 677,405 $ 191,020 660 12,998 33,000 373,324 34,000 3,000 3,000 42,745 30,814 13,534 738,095 $ - $ $ (3,485,650) $ 3,549,380 $ 25,000 132,450 157,450 2,454,280 10,500 1,500 527,468 8,690 3,002,438 $ 2,358,120 19,826 883 486,270 6,876 2,871,975 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ (3,461,902) $ 3,740,533 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 25,000 90,511 115,511 $ 2,439,735 10,500 1,500 539,280 170,145 3,161,160 $ 190,955 660 11,500 27,000 331,385 34,000 3,000 3,000 42,745 25,903 13,534 683,682 $ $ (3,583,083) $ 3,844,842 % (150) (41,789) (41,939) -1% -32% -27% -2% 62% 50% -14% $ (48,127) 17,100 1,500 (66,319) (170,145) (265,991) 6% -195% $ 12,866 (436) (11,500) 6,000 41,924 10,709 14,660 (9,974) 64,249 $ - $ $ -9% 18% 11% 0% 0% 0% 20% 36% -280% 9% $ (201,742) -6% (3,729,331) $ (243,681) -7% Human Resources (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 310 HUMAN RESOURCES FTE 5.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 65.5 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR BUSINESS MANAGER CASE MANAGER CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR EAP COUNSELOR EMPLOYEE INFORMATION SERVICES MANAGER EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS MANAGER EMPLOYEE RECORDS ASSISTANT EMPLOYEE RECORDS COORDINATOR EMPLOYEE RECORDS SUPERVISOR EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SUPERVISOR EMPLOYMENT EXAM ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES ANALYST EMPLOYMENT SERVICES ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES MANAGER ERGONOMICS SPECIALIST EXAM AND SUPPORT SUPERVISOR FITNESS CENTER ATTENDANT HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT HUMAN RESOURCES CLERK HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR INTAKE COORDINATOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR LEAD PAYROLL COORDINATOR MANAGER MENTOR PROGRAM COORDINATOR MERIT SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR MERIT SYSTEMS COORDINATOR OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR PAYROLL COORDINATOR PAYROLL SUPERVISOR PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATOR STAFFING SUPERVISOR TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE COORDINATOR TRAINING CONSULTANT TRAINING COORDINATOR WELLNESS COORDINATOR TOTAL 629 Human Services County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Human Services Human Services Rich Marshall, Director Rich Marshall, Director Workforce Development Division Community Services Division General Services Division Special Transportation Services Division General Fund Support Education Division Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Human Services Department (HSD) is to provide education, employment and basic needs services for individuals, children and families, so that they have opportunities to enhance their economic, social and physical well-being. Vision All Maricopa County residents will have opportunities to achieve economic self-sufficiency and enjoy a high quality of life. Goals ! ! ! ! ! By June 2005, HSD will be recognized as a high-performance outcome-oriented organization that meets or exceeds the contract performance standards established by all grant agencies. By June 2004, HSD will have met or exceeded established performance targets in attracting and retaining highly-skilled and motivated staff at all levels. By June 2004, HSD will develop a customer-driven technology plan that aligns with county standards and responds to the changes in the Department's services, delivery systems and processes. By June 2005, HSD will secure additional funding and other resources that will allow the Department to serve a larger percentage of the target population. By June 2004, HSD will have implemented all key components of an established marketing plan and be able to demonstrate a higher level of support from elected officials and the community. Issues ! There is a devolution of responsibility from the federal to state/local government for the funding and design of human service programs, and there are efforts to promote the integration of faithbased and for-profit organizations into the delivery of such programs. These factors will create a greater competition for funds and may threaten the integrity of Maricopa County's human service delivery infrastructure. 630 Human Services (Continued) ! ! ! ! ! ! Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED HUMAN SERVICES TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity EARLY CHILDHOOL DEVT COMMUNITY SERVICES SPECIAL TRANSPO SVCS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 7,737,850 $ 7,912,906 $ 445,191 3,544,055 595,218 2,423,241 1,958,078 3,325,860 529,912 360,631 410,018 290,629 (132,056) 719,309 11,544,211 $ 18,576,631 $ Total $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 246,000 $ 15,896,756 $ 15,673,333 3,989,246 3,815,625 500,000 3,518,459 3,366,420 5,283,938 5,408,174 890,543 668,093 700,647 668,093 587,253 1 746,000 $ 30,866,842 $ 29,599,739 631 Departmental Budget Schedules ! There has been a dramatic increase in our target population and the demand for our services, but our general fund appropriation and other grant funding has been stagnant or declining relative to the population changes, which may affect our ability to maintain existing services or service levels. A shrinking supply of affordable housing, coupled with fewer entry level jobs that provide livable wages and full benefits, will result in greater demand for basic needs services. The allocation formulas for federal block grants, which are only adjusted on a 10-year cycle, penalize high population growth areas (such as Maricopa County), and will result in less per capita federal resources for the provision of human services to Maricopa County residents. There is a trend in education reform to mandate the assessment of children's progress towards specific learning outcomes as evidence of program effectiveness. Additionally, there are mounting pressures to expand Head Start as a full-day/year-round program without concomitant increases in funding. Together, these issues will limit the number of families served by the department and compromise our ability to offer comprehensive services. The increase in business growth in Maricopa County, combined with the shortages of qualified applicants and employees who possess the technical skills necessary for high-demand occupations, will present greater challenges to the Department in meeting both our internal staffing needs and those of the business community we serve. The increasing lack of affordable and accessible public transportation throughout Maricopa County will result in greater public demand for the Department's limited/dwindling transportation assistance resources. The data and technology management needs and expectations of our internal and external constituents will continue to grow and exceed the Department's resources as they are currently planned and managed, which will pose significant operational and budgetary challenges to the Department throughout the strategic planning horizon. Human Services (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Community Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community Services Program is to provide an array of basic needs services for Maricopa County low-income individuals and families, so that they avoid becoming homeless and can maintain or achieve economic self-sufficiency. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of clients who rate services as satisfactory or better Percent of families who demonstrate an improved level of self-sufficiency following intervention FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 93 60 N/A N/A 87 60 Program Name: Early Childhood Education Program Purpose: The purpose of the Early Childhood Education Program is to provide school readiness opportunities for children (ages 0-5), so that they will be successful in school. Key Results: Percent of enrolled 4-year-olds who demonstrate 10Percent (9 points) amount of increase on the Developmental Assessment by the end of the school year Percent of families linked with a medical home FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 88.12 80 N/A 85 88.83 90 Program Name: Special Transportation Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Special Transportation Services Program is to provide transportation options for the most transit-dependent populations in Maricopa County, so that a lack of transportation is not a barrier to enhancing their economic and social well-being. Key Results: Percent of customer satisfaction -- Core STS services Percent of clients provided employment transportation that remain employed for at least six months 632 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 83 N/A 90 85 N/A N/A 79 70 Human Services (Continued) Program Name: Workforce Development Program Purpose: The purpose of the Workforce Development Program is to provide qualified individuals and other resources to employers to meet their workforce needs. Key Results: Percent Retention rate at six months after placement - Adults Percent of employer satisfaction Percent Retention rate at six months after placement -Dislocated Workers Percent Retention rate at six months after placement - Youth (ages 19-21) FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 72 86.7 80 N/A N/A 88.4 0 N/A 77 93.6 87 N/A 72 50 76 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data General Fund $ 943,274 $ 1,302,873 $ 1,310,528 $ 1,286,921 $ 1,267,103 Special Revenue $ 22,156,709 $ 23,150,226 $ 25,339,400 $ 27,027,814 $ 29,599,739 $ $ $ $ $ Total 23,099,983 24,453,099 26,649,928 28,314,735 30,866,842 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 943,274 $ 22,156,709 $ 23,099,983 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,302,873 $ 23,150,226 $ 24,453,099 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,310,530 $ 25,106,677 $ 26,417,207 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,307,800 $ 29,250,000 $ 30,557,800 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,267,103 $ 29,599,739 $ 30,866,842 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 633 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Human Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 220 HUMAN SERVICES FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 347,794 $ 919,309 $ $ 1,267,103 $ 11,196,417 17,657,322 746,000 29,599,739 29,599,739 $ 11,544,211 $ 18,576,631 $ 746,000 $ 30,866,842 $ 29,599,739 $ 11,544,211 $ 18,576,631 $ 746,000 $ 30,866,842 $ 29,599,739 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 220 HUMAN SERVICES Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 25,288,358 51,046 25,339,404 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 6,934,180 362,171 89,242 1,694,241 10,569 4,279 9,094,682 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 855 INTEREST EXPENSE SubTotal $ 1,670,762 22,545 10,955 225,663 4,830 321 13,349,902 715,871 128,173 753,865 326,600 2,509 38,141 61,715 17,311,852 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 634 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ $ 26,975,193 26,975,193 FY 2001-02 Revised $ 6,286,253 $ 105,000 2,181,761 1,226,289 (769,936) 57,349 9,086,716 $ 26,975,193 26,975,193 $ 27,027,814 27,027,814 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 29,685,927 29,685,927 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 29,599,739 29,599,739 $ 7,964,694 $ 105,000 2,257,474 1,226,289 (769,936) 57,349 10,840,870 $ 8,162,185 $ 106,895 3,738 2,178,838 666,334 (362,459) 65,185 10,820,716 $ 9,020,888 $ 195,000 2,752,833 (47,600) 47,600 11,968,721 $ 8,859,844 $ 195,000 2,489,365 (66,459) 66,461 11,544,211 $ $ 1,680,901 5,900 132,300 216,900 4,400 3,000 12,902,044 701,446 79,350 608,077 200,999 37,316 90,687 78,857 16,742,177 $ 1,679,294 5,900 132,300 216,900 4,400 3,000 13,201,672 701,446 79,350 799,344 200,999 29,870 90,687 28,857 17,174,019 $ 2,125,200 15,000 16,000 265,000 6,000 10,000 13,051,085 1,062,538 507,000 901,100 236,838 17,100 40,000 30,700 18,283,561 $ 2,819,517 15,000 16,000 233,252 6,000 10,000 12,689,586 1,062,538 507,000 901,100 230,838 17,100 40,000 28,700 18,576,631 $ 250,000 70,000 320,000 $ 225,000 21,000 500,000 746,000 $ 28,314,735 $ 30,998,282 $ 1,633,749 5,900 132,300 216,900 4,400 3,000 15,048,350 701,446 79,350 608,077 200,999 37,316 90,687 78,857 35,000 18,876,331 109,525 108,210 25,659 243,394 $ 250,000 70,000 320,000 $ 250,000 450,000 700,000 26,649,928 $ 28,283,047 $ 28,283,047 (1,310,524) $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ (1,307,854) $ $ (1,307,854) $ $ (1,286,921) $ 2,624,546 2,624,546 (895,150) (90,000) (231,891) 1,226,289 (703,477) (9,112) (703,341) % 10% 10% -11% -86% -10% 100% -91% -16% -6% $ (1,138,616) (9,100) 116,300 (16,352) (1,600) (7,000) 212,458 (361,092) (427,650) (293,023) (29,839) 20,216 50,687 50,157 (1,834,454) $ 225,000 21,000 500,000 746,000 $ (225,000) 229,000 (50,000) (46,000) 92% -11% -7% $ 30,866,842 $ (2,583,795) -9% (1,312,355) $ (1,267,103) $ 40,751 -68% -154% 88% -8% -36% -233% 2% -51% -539% -48% -15% 54% 56% 64% -11% 3% Human Services (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 220 HUMAN SERVICES FTE 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 9.0 5.0 1.0 15.0 3.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 23.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT I ACCOUNTANT II ACCOUNTANT III ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR VI AREA COORDINATOR CAREER GUIDANCE SPECIALIST CENTER COORDINATOR CLERK EHS COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR CONTRACT SPECIALIST I DATA ENTRY OPERATOR DATA ENTRY OPERATOR - TEAM LEADER DIRECTOR DISABILITIES COORDINATOR EARLY CHILDHOOD HEALTH COORDINATOR EARLY HEAD START COORDINATOR EDUCATION COORDINATOR FAMILY CASE SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICES DELIVERY COORDINATOR FAMILY SERVICES DELIVERY COORDINATOR II FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR I GRANTS PROGRAM MANAGER HEALTH AIDE HEALTH EDUCATION COORDINATOR HEALTH SERVICES DELIVERY COORDINATOR II HOME VISITOR HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER INSTRUCTOR LEAD INTEGRATED SYSTEMS DESIGN ANALYST LICENSING COORDINATOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST II MENTOR TEACHER MIS COORDINATOR MIS TECHNICIAN NUTRITIONIST II OPERATIONS COORDINATOR OPERATIONS MANAGER OPERATIONS PROGRAM COORDINATOR PERSONNEL COORDINATOR PROCUREMENT COORDINATOR PROCUREMENT OFFICER PROGRAM ASSISTANCE REPRESENTATIVE III PROGRAM ASSISTANT PROGRAM COORDINATOR II PROGRAM DEVLOPMENT COORDINATOR PROGRAM GOVERNANCE COORDINATOR PROGRAM SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM SPECIALIST PROGRAMMER ANALYST II RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER SENIOR GRANT ACCOUNTANT SENIOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYST SERVICE DELIVERY COORDINATOR II 635 Human Services (Continued) WORKING TITLE SERVICE WORKER III SOCIAL SERVICES COORDINATOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR STS DISPATCHER SUPPORT SERVICE WORKER SUPPORT SERVICE WORKER III SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR TEACHER TEACHER I TEACHER II TEACHER'S AIDE TEACHER'S AIDE I TEACHER'S AIDE II TEACHER'S ASSISTANT TRAINING COORDINATOR TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY SPECIALIST VOCATIONAL COUNSELOR FTE Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 636 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 70.0 39.0 3.0 15.0 5.0 33.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 14.0 360.0 Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Presiding Judge Integrated Criminal Justice Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Information Systems John Doktor, Director John Doktor, Director Agency Representation Network Integration/ Network Security Project Management/ Process Mapping Data Integration Mission Vision Integration will allow enhanced productivity, efficiency, and communication, and will eliminate redundancy. As a result, ICJIS will have a positive impact on improved public safety by making available to criminal justice stakeholders timely, accurate, and complete information concerning offenders. Improved decisions will be made through the increased availability of performance measures relating to public policy. Productivity of stakeholder agency employees will increase with the elimination of redundant data collection and duplicate data entry. Paper-based processes will be reduced or eliminated with the rapid availability of electronic records. Criminal justice information will be accessible in a timely, accurate, and comprehensive fashion by criminal justice agencies. The public will have immediate access to relevant criminal justice information. Goals ! ! ! By December 2002, ICJIS will develop and implement a system whereby participating justice and law enforcement county agencies will be able to electronically exchange information for the purpose of reducing data entry associated with increasing work loads through the elimination of redundant data entry. By December 2004, justice and law enforcement agencies external to Maricopa County (federal, state, and local) will be enabled to share and exchange information electronically with county justice and law enforcement agencies on a timely, accurate, and secure basis through the integrated criminal justice information system. By December 2004, ICJIS will provide the information links necessary for criminal justice departments to develop and implement management information systems, including the accused-in-process (AIP) central index system to provide more complete information regarding individual cases and case processing, leading to better decision making. 637 Departmental Budget Schedules The Mission of the Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) is to provide automated systems, information technology expertise, and information pathways to justice and law enforcement agencies, and to develop and implement systems that promote the sharing of criminal justice information that is timely, secure, reliable, and comprehensive, so that criminal justice agencies may more efficiently enhance public safety, improve service to the community, and make quality justice and law enforcement decisions. Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! The demands of growing criminal justice workloads put excess strain on finite resources, resulting in system delays, process breakdowns, jail overcrowding, excessive staff turnover, and inefficiencies that affect system integrity and public safety. County justice and law enforcement departments increasingly demand more accurate, timely, complete information regarding individual cases and case processing. Failure to develop an integrated criminal justice integration system will result in decreased system integrity, public safety concerns, and slower processing of criminal cases. Federal and state mandates place increased demands for accountability and service. The public places growing expectations on the criminal justice system to provide increased public safety. Information technology provides the unique opportunity to rethink and reengineer current justice and law enforcement processes that are manual, inefficient, and in need of improved performance through work process automation. Decision support capability is lacking in the current system, negatively impacting the ability to predict, observe trends, and to make accurate forecasts regarding the justice and law enforcement environment. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity INTEGRATION SYS & INFO DIST UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 1,447,815 $ 2,847,249 $ (30,330) 1,417,485 $ 2,847,249 $ Total $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 277,164 $ 4,572,228 $ (30,330) 277,164 $ 4,541,898 $ - Key Performance Measures Program Name: Integration Systems and Information Distribution Program Purpose: The purpose of the ICJIS Integration Systems and Information Distribution Program is to develop and implement an integrated criminal justice technology infrastructure for use by county justice and law enforcement agencies so they can electronically exchange timely, accurate, and secure information. Key Results: Percent of ICJIS projects completed on schedule Percent of shared business process transactions automated Percent of data network connections that satisfy FBI security requirements Percent of paper document files converted to electronic files Percent successful retrievals from the central index Percent of manual management information systems replaced 638 FY 00 Actual 0 FY 01 Actual 0 FY 02 Actual 100 FY 03 Projected 100 0 0 44 3 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ $ 157,910 $ 1,955,612 $ 4,331,182 $ 4,541,898 Total $ $ $ $ $ 157,910 1,955,612 4,331,182 4,541,898 Total Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 157,910 $ 157,910 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,955,612 $ 1,955,612 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,660,000 $ 3,660,000 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 4,541,898 $ 4,541,898 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Integration Of Criminal Justice Information Systems The Legislature, In Laws 1998, Chapter 225, Amending A.R.S. § 42-1491, Granted A one-time Opportunity To Maricopa County Voters To Approve A Jail Facilities Excise Tax Levy To Construct And Operate Jail Facilities. A.R.S. § 426109 D.3.A. Contains Provisions For Implementing An Integrated Criminal Justice Information System The Jail Facilities Excise Tax Levy Was Authorized At Two-Tenths Of A Percent (0.002) Of The Tax Base To Remain In Effect Until $900 Million Is Collected, But Not More Than Nine Years After January 1, 1999. Initially, $25 Million Of The Tax Levy Has Been Allocated For Integrating The Criminal Justice Information System. The Maricopa County Voters Approved The Tax Levy Effective January 1, 1999. “Implement An Integrated Criminal Justice Information System.” 639 Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Information Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 1,417,485 2,847,249 277,164 4,541,898 $ 1,417,485 $ 2,847,249 $ 277,164 $ 4,541,898 $ $ 1,417,485 $ 2,847,249 $ 277,164 $ 4,541,898 $ - EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted % Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION $ SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 392,259 38,673 303 57,462 186,473 675,170 385,348 132,087 683,877 31,549 7,735 20,565 19,280 1,280,442 1,955,612 $ $ $ 1,084,575 42,000 163,848 204,060 1,494,483 $ $ 1,011,556 $ 32,361 154,509 196,254 (1,493) 1,393,187 $ 1,065,157 $ 169,878 (18,545) 204,059 1,420,549 $ 1,065,190 $ 166,781 (18,545) 204,059 1,417,485 $ $ 690,769 625,656 42,675 48,635 105,634 134,830 1,648,199 $ 1,604,003 56,000 908,770 42,851 206,000 50,306 97,000 2,964,930 $ 1,604,003 876,770 42,851 206,000 33,625 84,000 2,847,249 $ 0% $ $ 1,212,000 1,212,000 $ 1,268,080 11,327 1,279,407 $ 1,255,713 34,083 1,289,796 $ 165,000 112,164 277,164 $ 165,000 112,164 277,164 $ 1,103,080 (100,837) 1,002,243 87% -890% 78% $ 4,682,763 $ 4,522,101 $ 4,331,182 $ 4,662,643 $ 4,541,898 $ (19,797) 0% (4,541,898) $ (19,797) 0% (4,331,182) $ (4,662,643) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO WORKING TITLE AGENCY ANALYST CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST DATA LIBRARIAN DIRECTOR FINANCIAL BUSINESS MANAGER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANT MANAGER IT CONSULTANT NETWORK SECURITY OFFICER PROJECT MANAGER TOTAL 640 0% 100% -14% $ (4,522,101) $ $ -4% 100% 473,050 1,473 1,229,300 25,000 2,000 46,800 50,000 1,827,623 (4,682,763) $ $ (40,765) 41,648 (296) 204,059 (3,001) (204,059) (2,414) 280,780 21,000 1,529,300 45,400 46,800 53,000 1,976,280 (1,955,612) $ $ 1,024,425 $ 41,648 166,485 204,059 (21,546) 1,415,071 $ FTE 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 14.0 (1,130,953) -239% 1,473 100% 352,530 29% (17,851) -71% (204,000) -10200% 13,175 28% (34,000) -68% (1,019,626) -56% Internal Audit Board of Supervisors County Management Internal Audit Internal Audit Ross Tate, County Auditor Ross Tate, County Auditor Auditors and Administration Audit Committee Mission The mission of the Internal Audit Department is to independently evaluate County government, and report results to the Board of Supervisors and management so they can make informed decisions to better serve County citizens. To facilitate positive change throughout County operations while ensuring that public resources are used for their intended purpose. Goals ! ! ! ! ! By 2003, Internal Audit will dedicate at least 10% of department resources to proactive educational activities in order to further strengthen the County's internal control environment. By 2003, in order to provide our customers with a quality product, and meet the growing challenges of advancing technology and diversity of County operations, Internal Audit will provide a more attractive employee environment and retain high-quality employees by: a) Offering salaries above the average of benchmark counties for comparable positions; b) Increasing professional development resources to $1,500 per full time employee; c) Improve office workstation technology to a 3-year replacement cycle By 2005, Internal Audit will strive for excellence within the profession and increase customer confidence by: Earning two National Association of Counties (NACo) award annually; earning two professional audit awards (Knighton, NALGA, IIA, AGA, etc.); having at least 25% of staff in leadership positions within professional organizations; publishing two external articles on audit topics; providing online audit and control information to both internal and external customers; increasing Web-site "hits" each year. By 2005, Internal Audit will provide a systematic verification of 35% of key Managing for Results performance measures throughout County operations. By December 2002, Internal Audit will survey its primary customers (Board of Supervisors, County Management, departments, and Audit Committee) to identify, report, and prioritize new audit services that are perceived to be needed and will implement 25% of these services by 2004 (contingent on available funding). 641 Departmental Budget Schedules Vision Internal Audit (Continued) ! ! Internal Audit will satisfy the need for objective information by: making all issued audit reports available to the public on-line by FY 2002; continue publishing an annual Financial Condition Report; begin publishing an annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for FY 2003 By 2005, Internal Audit staff will better meet its customers' service demands by: obtaining the training and equipment necessary to effectively use Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs) on 50% of audit projects; continuously monitoring 20% of the County's financial transactions; utilizing complete file reviews on 75% of assignments where electronic data is available (and compatible with CAATs). Issues ! ! The demand from the Board of Supervisors and County Management for objective analysis, interpretation, and reporting of county information is increasing. The public's knowledge of government operations and desire for accountability is increasing. Total Budget by Program Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED INTERNAL AUDIT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity AUDIT SERVICES MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 504,206 $ 14,217 $ 118,134 1,875 334,715 5,310 29,534 6,167 986,589 $ 27,569 $ Total $ Capital Outlay - Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 518,423 $ 75 120,009 340,025 35,701 $ 1,014,158 $ 75 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Audit Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Audit Services Program is to provide independent assessments and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and County management so they can make informed and fiscally prudent decisions. Key Results: Percent of IA recommendations concurred with by clients Percent of IA recommendations implemented within three years after the report has been issued Percent satisfaction rating from Board and County Mgmt with audit reports Economic impact of audit work 642 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0.98 0.99 98.6 95 0 0 96 95 0.87 0.89 97.5 90 3,000,000 4,900,000 6,608,664 3,000,000 Internal Audit (Continued) Program Name: Management Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Management Services Program is to provide strategic information and education to County officials and employees so that they can perform their jobs more effectively Key Results: Percent satisfaction rating from customers indicating educational efforts (newsletters, courses, etc.) help them do their job more effectively Percent overall approval rating by the Board of Supervisors and key County management of Internal Audit's strategic information reports Percent satisfaction rating from customers indicating consulting services delivered by IA helped them do their job more effectively FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 N/A 90 0.87 0.89 98.25 90 0 0 100 90 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data General Fund $ 688,695 $ 795,525 $ 842,862 $ 975,863 $ 1,014,158 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 13,107 $ 15,260 $ 15,767 $ 15,756 $ 12,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 688,695 795,525 842,862 975,863 1,014,158 $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,107 15,260 15,767 15,756 12,000 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 678,695 $ 678,695 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 780,265 $ 780,265 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 935,762 $ 935,762 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 984,722 $ 984,722 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,002,158 $ 1,002,158 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 643 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Internal Audit (Continued) Mandate Information Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY Federal Grants Sub-recipient Monitoring for Compliance with the Single Audit Act Federal Single Audit Act and Amendments of 1996; Federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 HISTORY/ Internal Audit monitors compliance of federal grant sub-recipients with the Single BACKGROUND Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133. Internal Audit also consults with County departments concerning Single Audit Act requirements. MANDATE Maricopa County, as a pass-through organization, must ensure that any subDESCRIPTION recipients spending $300,000 or more in federal awards during the sub-recipients fiscal year have an audit performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. Federal Grants Sub-recipient Monitoring for General Fund Total Compliance with the Single Audit Act FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 13,107 $ 13,107 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 15,260 $ 15,260 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 15,767 $ 15,767 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 15,756 $ 15,756 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 12,000 $ 12,000 644 Internal Audit (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 230 INTERNAL AUDIT FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 986,589 $ 27,569 $ $ 986,589 $ 27,569 $ $ 986,589 $ 27,569 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,014,158 $ 75 $ 1,014,158 $ 75 $ 1,014,158 $ 75 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 230 INTERNAL AUDIT FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ - - - EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT SubTotal $ 740,246 $ 7,719 11,716 133,393 (111,264) 781,810 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ SubTotal $ 6,538 22,775 5,177 1,509 265 3,853 14,538 210 54,865 SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ 812,475 $ 5,000 155,510 (10,000) 962,985 $ $ 7,550 6,340 1,800 1,000 4,197 10,650 200 31,737 6,187 6,187 $ - 842,862 $ (842,862) $ $ 994,722 $ $ $ - (994,722) $ $ 814,933 $ 2,215 152,839 (12,000) 957,987 $ 7,250 5,340 1,800 1,000 3,995 9,650 200 29,235 $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act 987,222 $ 241 241 $ $ - (987,222) $ 975,863 $ $ $ - (975,622) $ $ 814,140 $ 2,000 171,321 (12,000) 975,461 $ 6,250 3,840 1,800 500 5,496 9,483 200 27,569 $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 75 75 $ 810,700 $ 2,791 152,988 (13,239) 953,240 $ 5,289 3,996 1,344 5,391 6,500 103 22,623 $ FY 2002-03 Requested 1,003,030 75 75 $ 823,961 $ 1,990 172,638 (12,000) 986,589 $ % 75 75 (9,028) 225 (19,799) (28,602) -1% 10% -13% 0% -3% $ 6,250 3,839 1,800 500 5,496 9,481 203 27,569 $ 1,000 1,501 500 (1,501) 169 (3) 1,666 $ - $ - $ (26,936) -3% (1,014,083) $ (26,861) -3% $ (1,002,955) $ 1,014,158 14% 28% 0% 50% -38% 2% -2% 6% Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 230 INTERNAL AUDIT WORKING TITLE ASSOCIATE AUDITOR AUDIT MANAGER COUNTY AUDITOR OFFICE MANAGER PERFORMANCE MEASURES AUDITOR SENIOR AUDITOR STAFF AUDITOR FTE TOTAL 6.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 16.0 645 Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual Legal Advocate County Administrative Officer Legal Advocate Legal Advocate Susan Sherwin, Director Susan Sherwin, Director Mission The mission of the Office of the Legal Advocate is to provide the highest quality legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. Goals ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! ! ! ! The goal of the Office of the Legal Advocate is to provide the highest quality legal representation to our clients while increasing efficiency and meeting the relevant rules of procedure. By July 1, 2002, the goal of the Office of the Legal Advocate is to identify the factors to be measured in order to meaningfully weight felony cases. By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Office of the Legal Advocate is to develop a case weighting system that will allow meaningful caseload comparisons using the factors identified. By July 1, 2002, the goal of the Office of the Legal Advocate is to establish benchmarks for quality representation based upon effectiveness and stakeholder satisfaction. By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Office of the Legal Advocate is to realize a 5% increase in quality representation as measured by the established benchmarks. Issues ! ! ! ! ! The courts’ continued emphasis on moving cases more quickly will reduce efficiency, resulting in less time and resources available to assist clients, reducing the quality of legal representation, and increasing stress and staff turnover. The County’s pay and benefits have not kept pace with the private sector, resulting in fewer qualified applicants and increased turnover. The rapid increase in population and increased emphasis on law enforcement will increase the number of indigent defendants, resulting in more cases for the office. Rapid changes in technology and increased sharing of case information within the system will increase administrative efficiencies and reduce duplication of data entry. The current budget structure for the indigent defense agency creates potential ethical conflicts, reduces efficiencies, promotes confusion, and generates inappropriate competition for available funds. 646 Legal Advocate (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED LEGAL ADVOCATE TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity CRIMINAL DEFENSE PROGRAM NON-CRIMINAL REPRESENTATION PR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 1,517,898 $ 581,690 $ 787,461 126,403 479,174 43,420 266,124 33,654 7,857 3,050,657 $ 785,167 $ 7,857 Total $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 2,099,588 $ 36,000 913,864 14,842 522,594 307,635 $ 3,843,681 $ 50,842 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Criminal Defense Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Criminal Defense Program is to provide legal defense services to assigned indigent clients charged with criminal offenses so that they can obtain the most favorable result under the circumstances. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 46.44 47 Program Name: Non-Criminal Representation Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Non-Criminal Representation Program is to provide legal representation to assigned indigent persons in non-criminal matters so that their legal interests are protected. Key Results: Percent of Superior Court Mental Health Matters Concluded Within 30 Days FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 99.9 99.9 Program Name: Pd Juvenile Adjudication And Incorrigibility Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the PD Juvenile Adjudication and Incorrigibility Program is to provide legal representation to indigent juvenile clients accused of delinquent or incorrigible acts so they can obtain the most favorable resolution to their cases under the circumstances. Key Results: Percent of Cases with a Disposition Less Than the Original Charge FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 80.3 80 647 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of Appeals Briefs Completed Within 45-Day Due Date Legal Advocate (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A N/A $ 3,241,271 $ 3,828,839 Special Revenue N/A N/A N/A $ 7,420 $ 14,842 Total N/A N/A N/A $ 3,248,691 $ 3,843,681 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,066,775 $ 25,442 $ 3,092,217 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,828,839 $ 14,842 $ 3,843,681 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 648 Legal Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants and Delinquent or Incorrigible Juveniles U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution, Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-581 to 587; Rule 6, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. The United States and Arizona Constitutions provide that an individual facing criminal charges has a right to the assistance of counsel. The United States and Arizona Supreme Courts have interpreted these provisions as requiring that counsel be provided, at government expense, for individuals facing loss of liberty who cannot afford to hire counsel. Historically, in Maricopa County, indigent defendants charged in criminal cases, and juveniles accused of delinquency or incorrigibility, were assigned to private attorneys who contracted to provide those services. In order to maximize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of services mandated, Maricopa County has since funded the creation of three on-staff public defender offices (Offices of the Public Defender, Legal Defender, and Legal Advocate). Contract private attorneys continue to be assigned to a lesser number of cases, specifically those that the other offices are unable to handle (typically due to conflicts of interest). Those contract assignments continue to be managed and monitored by the Office of Contract Counsel. Legal Advocate (Continued) Legal defense of indigent criminal defendants at risk of loss of liberty in criminal proceedings, including felony, misdemeanor, and probation violation cases. Legal defense of indigent criminal defendants in appeals and post-conviction relief cases. Legal representation of juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. Legal representation of defendants opposing extradition. Legal representation in post-conviction relief cases of persons sentenced to death. Legal representation of witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court. TITLE AUTHORITY Judicial Mandates A.R.S. §§ 36-528(D), 36-536(A), 36-537, 8-221. U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-584 to 587. Historically, Public Defenders have not had the authority to handle civil proceedings. As a result, in Maricopa County, private attorneys who contracted to provide these services were used almost exclusively. Due to changes in legislation, Maricopa County became responsible to provide representation to indigent individuals facing mental health commitments and to those involved in child dependency and severance proceedings. In order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of services mandated, Maricopa County has funded the creation of two on-staff dependency units (Offices of the Legal Defender and Legal Advocate) and one on-staff mental health unit (Public Defender). In addition, contracted private attorneys are assigned to cases that the other offices are unable to handle (typically due to conflicts of interest). Legal representation of indigent persons at risk of a loss of liberty in civil mental health proceedings. Legal representation of indigent individuals involved in civil child dependency or severance proceedings, including the minor children in question. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 649 Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION Legal Advocate (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 3,035,815 $ 785,167 $ 7,857 $ 3,828,839 $ 36,000 14,842 14,842 14,842 $ 3,050,657 $ 785,167 $ 7,857 $ 3,843,681 $ 50,842 $ 3,050,657 $ 785,167 $ 7,857 $ 3,843,681 $ 50,842 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE FY 2000-01 Actual Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ - 1,425,782 52,932 2,501 221,863 1,703,078 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ SubTotal $ 24,543 121,905 25,436 25,060 192,417 9,191 38,773 437,325 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 15,131 15,131 $ 2,155,534 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 650 $ $ (2,155,534) $ 29,686 29,686 1,929,924 335,716 29,686 2,295,326 44,597 1,500 164,121 19,384 259,074 1,000 10,840 46,505 2,000 549,021 2,844,347 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 29,686 40,000 69,686 2,440,869 406,181 29,686 2,876,736 $ 105,634 1,500 378,517 19,384 253,765 1,000 10,840 43,775 2,000 816,415 $ $ (2,814,661) $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 14,842 34,285 49,127 2,079,934 26,009 41 285,623 1,119 7,420 2,400,146 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 83,504 356,535 55,820 270,485 498 11,671 66,113 3,619 848,245 1,125 1,125 $ 300 300 $ 3,694,276 $ 3,248,691 $ (3,624,590) $ $ $ (3,199,564) $ 14,842 36,000 50,842 2,570,617 10 483,241 14,842 3,068,710 131,052 1,500 379,642 19,384 206,713 1,000 10,840 43,775 2,000 795,906 3,864,616 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 14,842 36,000 50,842 % (14,844) (4,000) (18,844) -50% -10% -27% -5% $ (112,078) (10) (76,677) 14,844 (173,921) $ 58,035 (690) (1,125) 3,181 (28,901) 1,000 (252) 31,248 0% 16% -11% 100% -2% 0% 0% 4% (6,732) (6,732) -598% -598% $ $ 2,552,947 10 482,858 14,842 3,050,657 $ 47,599 1,500 690 379,642 16,203 282,666 11,092 43,775 2,000 785,167 $ 7,857 7,857 $ 3,843,681 $ (149,405) -4% (3,792,839) $ (168,249) -5% $ (3,813,774) $ $ -19% 50% -6% 55% 0% Legal Advocate (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATOR CLIENT SERVICES ASSISTANT CLIENT SERVICES COORDINATOR DEFENDER ATTORNEY DEFENDER ATTORNEY - DEPUTY DEFENDER ATTORNEY - DIV CHIEF DEFENDER INVESTIGATOR DEFENDER SENIOR COUNSEL LEGAL ADVOCATE LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR LEGAL SECRETARY LITIGATION ASSISTANT MITIGATION SPECIALIST FTE TOTAL 2.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 7.0 21.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 6.5 1.0 1.0 51.3 Departmental Budget Schedules 651 Legal Defender County Administrative Officer Legal Defender Legal Defender Robert S. Briney, Director Robert S. Briney, Director Mission The mission of the Office of the Legal Defender is to provide the highest quality legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. Goals ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! ! The goal of the Office of the Legal Defender is to provide the highest quality legal representation to our clients while increasing efficiency and meeting the relevant rules of procedure. By July 1, 2002, the goal of the Office of the Legal Defender is to resolve to disposition 90% of all regular felony cases within 180 days of arraignment or case assignment with no reduction in the quality of legal representation. By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Office of the Legal Defender is to achieve a 5% increase over the baseline established by the FY2002 customer satisfaction survey. Issues ! ! ! ! ! The courts’ continued emphasis on moving cases more quickly will reduce efficiency, resulting in less time and resources available to assist clients, reducing the quality of legal representation, and increasing stress and staff turnover. The County’s pay and benefits have not kept pace with the private sector, resulting in fewer qualified applicants and increased turnover. The rapid increase in population and increased emphasis on law enforcement will increase the number of indigent defendants, resulting in more cases for the office. Rapid changes in technology and increased sharing of case information within the system will increase administrative efficiencies and reduce duplication of data entry. The current budget structure for the indigent defense agency creates potential ethical conflicts, reduces efficiencies, promotes confusion, and generates inappropriate competition for available funds. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED LEGAL DEFENDER TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity CRIMINAL DEFENSE PROGRAM NON-CRIMINAL REPRESENTATION PR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS 652 Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 2,444,840 $ 266,334 $ 781,014 57,104 409,343 49,176 76,160 627,416 366,189 357 4,338,773 $ 738,803 $ 357 Total $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 2,711,174 $ 64,500 838,118 458,519 40,000 76,160 993,962 $ 5,077,933 $ 104,500 Legal Defender (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Criminal Defense Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Criminal Defense Program is to provide legal defense services to assigned indigent clients charged with criminal offenses so that they can obtain the most favorable result under the circumstances. Key Results: Percent of Appeals Briefs Completed Within 45-Day Due Date FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 46.44 47 Program Name: Non-Criminal Representation Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Non-Criminal Representation Program is to provide legal representation to assigned indigent persons in non-criminal matters so that their legal interests are protected. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 99.9 99.9 Program Name: Pd Juvenile Adjudication And Incorrigibility Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the PD Juvenile Adjudication and Incorrigibility Program is to provide legal representation to indigent juvenile clients accused of delinquent or incorrigible acts so they can obtain the most favorable resolution to their cases under the circumstances. Key Results: Percent of Cases with a Disposition Less Than the Original Charge FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 80.3 80 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A N/A $ 4,394,951 $ 4,997,933 Special Revenue N/A N/A N/A $ 59,947 $ 80,000 Total N/A N/A N/A $ 4,454,898 $ 5,077,933 Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 4,394,951 $ 59,947 $ 4,454,898 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 4,997,933 $ 80,000 $ 5,077,933 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 653 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of Superior Court Mental Health Matters Concluded Within 30 Days Legal Defender (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Departmental Budget Schedules AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 654 Legal Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants and Delinquent or Incorrigible Juveniles U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution, Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-581 to 587; Rule 6, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. The United States and Arizona Constitutions provide that an individual facing criminal charges has a right to the assistance of counsel. The United States and Arizona Supreme Courts have interpreted these provisions as requiring that counsel be provided, at government expense, for individuals facing loss of liberty who cannot afford to hire counsel. Historically, in Maricopa County, indigent defendants charged in criminal cases, and juveniles accused of delinquency or incorrigibility, were assigned to private attorneys who contracted to provide those services. In order to maximize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of services mandated, Maricopa County has since funded the creation of three on-staff public defender offices (Offices of the Public Defender, Legal Defender, and Legal Advocate). Contract private attorneys continue to be assigned to a lesser number of cases, specifically those that the other offices are unable to handle (typically due to conflicts of interest). Those contract assignments continue to be managed and monitored by the Office of Contract Counsel. Legal defense of indigent criminal defendants at risk of loss of liberty in criminal proceedings, including felony, misdemeanor, and probation violation cases. Legal defense of indigent criminal defendants in appeals and post-conviction relief cases. Legal representation of juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. Legal representation of defendants opposing extradition. Legal representation in post-conviction relief cases of persons sentenced to death. Legal representation of witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court. Legal Defender (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY Information Technology Program FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ 77,662 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Non-Program Personnel Expenses FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ 611,254 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ Criminal Represenation Program (Adult Criminal Representation) FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ 2,957,151 $ 3,068,571 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ 35,000 $ 40,000 - Total $ $ $ $ $ 77,662 Total $ $ $ $ $ 611,254 Total $ $ $ $ 2,992,151 $ 3,108,571 655 Departmental Budget Schedules Judicial Mandates A.R.S. §§ 36-528(D), 36-536(A), 36-537, 8-221. U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-584 to 587. HISTORY/ Historically, Public Defenders have not had the authority to handle civil BACKGROUND proceedings. As a result, in Maricopa County, private attorneys who contracted to provide these services were used almost exclusively. Due to changes in legislation, Maricopa County became responsible to provide representation to indigent individuals facing mental health commitments and to those involved in child dependency and severance proceedings. In order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of services mandated, Maricopa County has funded the creation of two on-staff dependency units (Offices of the Legal Defender and Legal Advocate) and one on-staff mental health unit (Public Defender). In addition, contracted private attorneys are assigned to cases that the other offices are unable to handle (typically due to conflicts of interest). MANDATE Legal representation of indigent persons at risk of a loss of liberty in civil mental DESCRIPTION health proceedings. Legal representation of indigent individuals involved in civil child dependency or severance proceedings, including the minor children in question. Administrative Services Program General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 550,148 $ 24,947 $ 575,094 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 426,616 $ 40,000 $ 466,616 Legal Defender (Continued) Non-Criminal Representation Program (Dependency) FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ 887,652 $ 813,830 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ $ $ 887,652 813,830 Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 540 LEGAL DEFENDER FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 4,298,825 $ 698,751 $ 357 $ 4,997,933 $ 24,500 39,948 40,052 80,000 80,000 $ 4,338,773 $ 738,803 $ 357 $ 5,077,933 $ 104,500 $ 4,338,773 $ 738,803 $ 357 $ 5,077,933 $ 104,500 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 540 LEGAL DEFENDER FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES Total Revenue $ 39,650 10,500 50,150 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 2,937,302 229,719 12,026 501,410 3,680,457 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 656 58,031 2,631 47,118 33,394 75,606 168,345 2,463 38,799 53,005 293 479,685 4,160,142 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (4,109,992) $ 84,200 84,200 3,236,778 127,000 1,718 567,018 3,932,514 55,000 1,783 24,597 463,864 77,827 42,172 1,215 15,345 89,946 8,000 779,749 4,712,263 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (4,628,063) $ 84,200 20,000 104,200 3,354,872 124,000 1,402 582,036 4,062,310 55,000 1,783 24,597 463,864 71,062 42,172 1,215 15,345 89,946 8,000 772,984 4,835,294 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 39,000 62,973 101,973 3,310,618 168,091 604 600,271 6,060 4,085,644 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 77,943 1,990 2,687 499,579 35,022 16,307 1,741 8,100 74,030 6,846 724,245 $ $ 900 900 $ 4,810,789 $ $ (4,731,094) $ $ (4,708,816) $ 80,000 24,500 104,500 3,373,996 123,500 653,856 5,818 4,157,170 79,202 2,027 24,250 507,364 35,500 15,500 1,500 7,200 61,839 7,500 741,882 4,899,052 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 80,000 24,500 104,500 % (4,200) 4,500 300 -5% 23% -2% 0% 100% -15% $ (71,444) 500 1,402 (86,406) (120,515) (276,463) -44% -2% -1% -9% 54% 63% -23% 55% 31% 6% 4% $ $ 3,426,316 123,500 668,442 120,515 4,338,773 $ 79,202 1,812 24,830 507,364 32,338 15,500 1,500 6,918 61,839 7,500 738,803 $ (24,202) (29) (233) (43,500) 38,724 26,672 (285) 8,427 28,107 500 34,181 $ 357 357 $ (357) (357) 5,077,933 $ (242,639) -5% (4,973,433) $ (242,339) -5% $ (4,794,552) $ $ 0% -7% Legal Defender (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 540 LEGAL DEFENDER WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATOR ASSIGNMENT COORDINATOR CASE PREPARATION MANAGER CLERK CLERK/RECEPTIONIST CLIENT SERVICES ASSISTANT CLIENT SERVICES COORDINATOR DEFENDER ATTORNEY DEFENDER INVESTIGATOR DEFENDER SENIOR COUNSEL LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR LEGAL DEFENDER LEGAL SECRETARY MITIGATION SPECIALIST PROCESS SERVER SYSTEM PROGRAM MANAGER FTE Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 26.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 69.0 657 Management and Budget County Administrative Officer Deputy County Administrator Sandi Wilson Office of Management and Budget Office of Management and Budget Budget Administration Budgeting Department Administration Management Services Multi-year Planning Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to provide organizational and strategic leadership and consultation for the Board of Supervisors so that they can make wellinformed policy and budgetary decisions. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Reduce pre-AHCCCS (Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System) costs by FY 2003 while maintaining appropriate access to health care for the indigent. Maintain County expenditures within the constitutional limits set by the voters in 1998 through FY 2004. 100% of County departments/agencies will be actively Managing for Results (MFR) by CY 2002. Management will use results-based performance information to make program and policy decisions by FY 2002. The entire County will be fully engaged in Budgeting for Results by FY 2003. Maricopa County will continue to improve its positive public image based on results achieved. Decrease department average annual turnover to less than or equal to the overall County turnover rate by end of FY02. Issues ! ! ! ! The implementation of MFR and its focus on linking strategic planning efforts to the budget/accounting system will cause OMB to significantly change the way we do business through increased coordination of information, and partnerships with departments. High employee turnover rates leads to lower productivity, impaired working relations with departments, and lower overall quality of service. The constitutionally mandated expenditure limit will challenge OMB to address spending growth and increasing service demands. Rising indigent health care service costs will make it increasingly difficult for OMB to make budget recommendations for all other county programs within current revenue and expenditure limits. 658 Management and Budget (Continued) ! The rising costs of administering justice will require OMB to partner with criminal justice agencies to identify management strategies that will increase effectiveness and streamline processes. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MANAGEMENT & BUDGET TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity BUDGET ADMINISTRATION BUDGETING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES MULTI-YEAR PLANNING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 318,498 $ 541,830 30,000 173,436 20,000 145,755 77,291 160,227 1,577 105,750 12,996 1,445,496 $ 141,864 Total $ Capital Outlay $ - $ Total Expenditures $ 318,498 571,830 193,436 223,046 161,804 118,746 $ 1,587,360 Total Revenue $ - $ Key Performance Measures Budget Administration Program Purpose: The purpose of the Budget Administration Program is to provide budget-related approvals, recommendations, and monitoring for the Board of Supervisors so that they can hold departments accountable for staying within approved budgets and achieving results. Key Results: Percent of departments that stay within approved (by fund type) FY budget allocations FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 84.2 100 Program Name: Budgeting Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Budgeting Program is to provide an annual budget to the Board of Supervisors so they can effectively manage the County resources. Key Results: Percent of Board satisfied that info provided was what they needed to make informed decisions FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 100 100 100 Program Name: Management Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Management Services Program is to provide information and consultation services to County management and the general public so that they can make informed decisions and form opinions. Key Results: Percent of respondents who report that the information provided helped them form educated opinions and/or make informed decisions FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 100 100 100 659 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Management and Budget (Continued) Program Name: Multi-year Planning Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Multi-year Planning Program is to provide forecasting and strategic planning services to the Board of Supervisors so they can set policy and make strategic decisions. Key Results: Percent of forecasts (most likely scenario) within 10% of actual FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 100 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Departmental Budget Schedules Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,254,622 $ 1,337,623 $ 1,372,435 $ 1,556,107 $ 1,587,360 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,254,622 1,337,623 1,372,435 1,556,107 1,587,360 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,254,622 $ 1,254,622 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,337,623 $ 1,337,623 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,372,435 $ 1,372,435 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,556,107 $ 1,556,107 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,587,360 $ 1,587,360 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 660 Management and Budget (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,445,496 $ 141,864 $ $ 1,587,360 $ $ 1,445,496 $ 141,864 $ $ 1,587,360 $ $ 1,445,496 $ 141,864 $ $ 1,587,360 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ $ 972,164 $ 1,560 6,927 154,184 (128,605) 182,835 1,189,065 $ SubTotal $ 57,270 98,150 44 13,356 14,550 183,370 Total Expenditures $ 1,372,435 $ - FY 2001-02 Revised $ 1,164,398 $ 13,000 185,868 (76,917) 220,000 1,506,349 $ $ 41,000 112,000 5,000 23,000 3,400 184,400 $ 1,690,749 $ - FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 1,038,930 $ 3,000 163,813 (6,508) 220,000 1,419,235 $ $ 37,000 87,014 2,100 22,000 3,400 151,514 $ 1,570,749 $ - 972,203 30,066 177,237 13,677 216,423 1,409,606 FY 2002-03 Requested - $ $ $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 1,033,330 192,162 220,000 1,445,492 $ 29,248 3 81,564 91 20,764 14,288 543 146,501 $ 37,500 80,868 1,000 22,000 500 141,868 $ 1,556,107 $ 1,587,360 $ - $ 1,033,332 192,164 220,000 1,445,496 $ $ % - $ 5,598 3,000 (28,351) (6,508) (26,261) 1% 100% $ (496) 6,146 1,100 3,400 (500) 9,650 7% 52% 0% 100% $ 37,496 80,868 1,000 22,000 500 141,864 $ 1,587,360 $ (16,611) -1% (1,587,360) $ (16,611) -1% -17% -100% 0% -2% -1% 6% CAPITAL OUTLAY Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (1,372,415) $ (1,690,749) $ (1,570,749) $ (1,556,107) $ (1,587,360) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III BUDGET MANAGER DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE INFORMATION MANAGER FISCAL MANAGEMENT ANALYST MANAGEMENT & BUDGET ANALYST MANAGEMENT & BUDGET COORDINATOR SENIOR FISCAL CONSULTANT FTE TOTAL 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 3.0 1.0 18.0 661 Departmental Budget Schedules EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 20 20 FY 2001-02 Adopted Materials Management County Administrative Officer Chief Financial Officer Materials Management Materials Management Wes Baysinger, Director Wes Baysinger, Director Procurement Reprographics Records Management Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of Materials Management is to provide strategic procurement and records managment services, delegated tactical procurement direction and oversight, and graphic communication services to County departments so they can achieve their goals and exceed the Public's performance expectations. Vision Through innovation and leadership Materials Management will champion the transition to ebusiness. Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! Reduce procurement transactional costs by a measurable amount over the next five years. Establish a graphics communication operation responsive to changing client needs while remaining the lowest cost alternative by June 2004. Establish a communications infrastructure to convey knowledge and values between Materials Management and its clients by June 2004. Materials Management will implement processes to facilitate change and successfully transition to E-Procurement and subsequently E-Government by June 2003. Recruit and retain knowledge workers at an annual attrition rate equal to or less than 10%. Increase partnerships with other governmental entities to leverage resources and buying power that support our clients’ ability to achieve their goals. Issues ! ! ! The value of progressive procurement, records management and graphic communications is not recognized therefore Materials Management finds it difficult to enlist the support of Senior County management and our customers for dramatic and substantive change. Shrinking procurement resources and constantly increasing demands will result in a significantly lower level of service from Materials Management thereby negatively affecting our customers' ability to achieve their goals. The transition to e-government to meet citizen expectations will stretch Materials Management's meager staff and limit our ability to provide strategic consulting services to their customers. 662 Materials Management (Continued) ! ! ! ! ! The ability to meet the challenges that confront Materials Management and the County from increased citizen demands and a changing business environment will be of limited success because of the lack of an aggressive strategy for facilitating change. Materials Management's inability to consistently attract highly qualified employees and retain our core competencies will decrease our ability to meet customer needs and reduce operational costs. The restrictive nature of statutory and procurement code requirements will limit the County’s ability to effectively implement innovative procurement solutions. The lack of required employee knowledge and skills will limit the successful delegation of tactical procurement responsibilities to departments and our ability to refocus on providing proactive strategic value added services. The lack of dedicated resources to manage organizational change and provide continuous training for customers, vendors and staff will significantly increase the risk of failure in implementing electronic procurement. Total Budget by Program Program Activity BUSINESS SERVICES CONSULTING SYSTEMS & SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 846,600 $ 420,061 $ 298,409 5,275 175,942 10,866 179,540 44,380 212,210 1,795 1,712,701 $ 482,377 $ Total $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 46,709 $ 1,313,370 $ 980,775 303,684 186,808 223,920 214,005 46,709 $ 2,241,787 $ 980,775 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Business Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Materials Management Business Services program is to provide products and services associated with graphics, procurement and records management to clients and the public so that they can satisfy their customers needs and obtain high quality competitively priced products and services, resulting in costeffective government programs. Key Results: Percent of clients satisfied with Graphic Communications Manufactured Products Percent of clients satisfied with Graphic Communications Contract services Percent of clients satisfied with procurement products provided Percent of clients satisfied with records management products provided FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 75 663 Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MATERIALS MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS Materials Management (Continued) Program Name: Consulting Program Purpose: The Purpose of the Materials Management Consulting program is to provide training and customer support services to clients and the public so that they can meet their goals, participate in county contracting activities and deliver high quality competitively priced products and services. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of clients trained and who successfully pass course assessment Percent of clients satisfied with Graphic Communications consulting results Percent of clients satisfied with Procurement consulting services Percent of Procurement training classes meeting demand Percent of clients satisfied with Records Management consulting results Percent of Records Management training classes meeting demand FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 86 N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 45 N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 100 Program Name: Systems and Support Program Purpose: The purpose of the Materials Management System Support program is to provide technology solutions to clients and the public so that they can access information and process business transactions that support the achievement of their goals without geographic constraints. Key Results: Percent of clients satisfied with system and support services Percent of clients satisfied with Procurement System and Support services Percent of clients satisfied with Records Management System and Support services FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 100 75 N/A N/A 80 70 N/A N/A 100 70 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,117,124 $ 1,249,299 $ 1,291,013 $ 1,369,448 $ 1,380,984 Internal Service $ 709,019 $ 657,488 $ 724,113 $ 806,017 $ 860,803 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,826,143 1,906,787 2,015,126 2,175,465 2,241,787 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Internal Service Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,117,124 $ 709,019 $ 1,826,143 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,249,299 $ 657,488 $ 1,906,787 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,291,016 $ 724,121 $ 2,015,137 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,382,968 $ 740,275 $ 2,123,243 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,380,977 $ 860,804 $ 2,241,781 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 664 Materials Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,296,607 $ 84,377 $ $ 1,380,984 $ 77,000 416,094 398,000 46,709 860,803 903,775 $ 1,712,701 $ 482,377 $ 46,709 $ 2,241,787 $ 980,775 $ 1,712,701 $ 482,377 $ 46,709 $ 2,241,787 $ 980,775 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 651 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS Total Revenue $ 848,905 158,415 17,500 1,024,820 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT SubTotal $ 1,312,369 4,153 8,000 242,887 1,567,409 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 269,523 658 35,135 20,305 77,195 11,803 11,658 12 21,428 447,717 2,015,126 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ $ 694,742 30,775 725,517 1,371,531 6,948 5,418 293,657 1,677,554 $ 266,527 1,100 55,000 56,141 104,976 26,016 13,000 800 17,666 541,226 $ $ (990,306) $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 900,000 80,775 980,775 1,371,304 1,500 3,437 290,673 1,666,914 $ 253,977 447 25,150 50,466 95,000 10,016 5,682 8,191 17,666 466,595 2,223 2,223 $ 2,221,003 $ (1,495,486) $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 900,000 80,775 980,775 1,392,280 1,326 288,506 1,682,112 $ 253,977 272 25,000 55,626 95,000 5,600 4,072 5,000 17,666 462,213 31,140 31,140 $ 2,164,649 $ (1,183,874) $ FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 900,000 80,775 980,775 $ 31,140 31,140 $ 2,175,465 $ (1,194,690) $ $ 1,394,423 $ 18,250 5,066 336,339 (53,158) 1,700,920 $ 254,022 446 26,500 49,116 95,000 10,016 5,682 8,192 38,091 487,065 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 900,000 80,775 980,775 $ 1,439,542 $ 4,350 5,066 316,901 (53,158) 1,712,701 $ - % 0% 0% 0% (68,238) (2,850) (1,629) (26,228) 53,158 (45,787) -5% -190% -47% -9% 0% 33% 1% 0% 0% 3% 15% 39% -116% -3% -3% $ 253,978 300 25,000 50,468 95,000 9,710 4,832 5,000 38,089 482,377 $ (1) 147 150 (2) 306 850 3,191 (20,423) (15,782) 46,709 46,709 $ 46,709 46,709 $ (15,569) (15,569) -50% -50% 2,234,694 $ 2,241,787 $ (77,138) -4% (1,261,012) $ (77,138) -7% (1,253,919) $ 665 Departmental Budget Schedules FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND INTERNAL SERVICE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Materials Management (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SPECIALIZED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CONTRACT MONITOR DEPARTMENTAL HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST DIRECTOR DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER ANALYST FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR II GRAPHICS COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER GRAPHICS CONTRACT SPEC GRAPHICS EQUIPMENT TECHNICIAN GRAPHICS JOB PLANNER GRAPHICS PC ANALYST LEAD PROCUREMENT CONSULTANT PROCUREMENT CONSULTANT P-CARD ADMINISTRATOR P-CARD MONITOR RECORDS MANAGER SENIOR BUSNSS SYSTEMS ANALYST TOTAL 666 FTE 6.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 40.0 Medical Examiner County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Medical Examiner Medical Examiner Dr. Philip Keen, Director Dr. Philip Keen, Director Medical Staff Administrator Administration Investigation Toxicology Transportation Examination Mission Goals ! ! ! ! ! ! Improve service to families and other agencies by completing cases within established timeframes by FY 2003, i.e., 90% of cases closed in 45 days and 100% in 90 days. By June 2002, implement additional procedures to better secure drugs taken into custody, strengthen security measures taken for valuables, increase the accuracy rate of initial data entry on admission records to 90%, and free investigators and transporters from the office to go to scenes and provide time for investigators to complete necessary follow-up contacts on investigations. Secure sufficient staff by FY 03 to provide examination, laboratory, transcription and office support for the increased number of doctors and to make the most effective use of the education, training and skills of employees in order to achieve our first goal. Reduce turnover to 10% or less and retain experienced staff by bringing salaries to job market levels and increase skills and abilities among staff through training and the development of career ladders to retain the most skilled and versatile employees by July 2003. Continue to replace older, outworn equipment according to an established replacement schedule in order to achieve a reliable completion of toxicology reports within 30 days on 90% of the cases, and acquire new desktop information technology to provide the public greater access to information and reports by FY 03. Review and revise all operational policies, procedures, standard practices, safety and chain of custody/security requirements to consider the changes that will need to occur with the move to the new Forensic Sciences facility and by July 2002, implement changes in advance of the move, wherever practicable, to minimize the impact on day-to-day operations during and immediately following the relocation. 667 Departmental Budget Schedules The Mission of the Office of the Medical Examiner (ME) is to provide medicolegal investigations into all deaths requiring a public inquiry to determine and record the cause and manner of death for the families of the decedent, and the legal and medical community so that they can effect a resolution and have closure, affix responsibility, and protect public health and safety. Medical Examiner (Continued) ! Acquire additional resources to bring department operations up to acceptable standards to efficiently process the current caseload and meet established timeframes for case closure (first goal), e.g., seeking federal grant for a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) lab in FY 02 in order to expand laboratory services to include DNA analysis of samples primarily on homicide cases. Issues ! ! ! ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! ! ! ! Significant growth in the population of Maricopa County will result in a rising death rate and a proportional increase in the Medical Examiner caseload in the next five years. High turnover and understaffing, coupled with older, outworn and unreliable equipment will result in decreased productivity, lost work time, higher costs, an inefficient use of resources, and impede our ability to attain a reliable timely closure of cases by 2003. The move to a new facility in 2002 will result in overall positive changes in the internal culture and working environment of the department. The increasing demand for training and educational opportunities from other agencies, such as law enforcement and medical providers, will cause increases in workload and greater time demands to be placed on the Medical Examiners and other employees to provide training sessions to other agencies in the next two years. Heightened public interest in the forensic sciences and substance abuse awareness will create increasing demands from social agencies and individuals for the Office of the Medical Examiner to provide educational opportunities for at-risk groups and the public in general in the next two years which will result in more work and time taken in preparing and presenting public education programs. New technology will allow our office to link with other ME/Coroner offices and other outside agencies to more easily share information on cases, medical and forensic findings, identify atrisk patterns, potential problem resolutions, and to electronically distribute reports in the next two to five years. A trace evidence laboratory and DNA laboratory will become the norm for ME/Coroner offices, which will result in, the need to expand laboratory services into these areas within the next five years. Legal requirements of court cases, particularly homicide prosecutions, will require that the Office of the Medical Examiner seek appropriate certifications to demonstrate that we are meeting the higher legal standards. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED MEDICAL EXAMINER TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity INVESTIGATIONS & TRANSPORT LABORATORY SERVICES MEDICAL EXAMINERS OFFICE SUPPORT & RECORDS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS 668 Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 93,262 $ 13,578 $ 76,251 92,233 624,400 30,170 126,596 36,195 6,657 2,588 2,437,885 204,553 3,365,051 $ 379,317 $ Total $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 12,155 $ 118,995 $ 95,286 263,770 24,310 678,880 12,156 174,947 10,800 9,245 2,642,438 409,200 143,907 $ 3,888,275 $ 420,000 Medical Examiner (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Laboratory Services Program Purpose: The purpose of Laboratory Services is to provide toxicology reports and microslides of organ tissues to the Medical Examiners so that they can determine whether or not drugs, chemicals, or an identifiable disease contributed to the cause and manner of death. Key Results: Percent of toxicology reports produced within 30 days FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 26 66.4 64 70 Medical Examiners Program Purpose: The purpose of the Medical Examiners is to provide a determination and timely report of findings as to the cause and manner of death, and an authorization for the cremation of decedent remains, for the families of decedents and the legal and medical community so that they can have closure, prosecute offenders, and take actions to safeguard public health and safety. Key Results: Percent of cases completed within 90 days Percent of autopsies performed FY 00 Actual 82 61 FY 01 Actual 76 60 FY 02 Actual 94 60 FY 03 Projected 99 63 Program Name: Medical Investigations And Decedent Handling Program Purpose: The purpose of Medical Investigations and Decedent Handling is to report medical and forensic information to the Medical Examiners and preserve the chain of custody of the decedent remains and evidence so that the Medical Examiners can review the information and examine the body to make a timely determination of the cause and manner of death. Key Results: Percent of investigation summaries provided to medical examiner prior to, or same day, as examination FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 38.6 91.9 98 99 Program Name: Office Support And Case Records Program Purpose: The purpose of Office Support and Case Records is to provide data entry of forms and case records and distribution of forms, records and reports of findings for the Medical Examiners so that they can issue their findings to family members and private and public agencies. Key Results: Percent of initial reports transcribed within two weeks of receipt FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 45.6 97.7 95 99 669 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Medical Examiner (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 2,607,795 $ 2,939,906 $ 3,392,906 $ 3,472,800 $ 3,888,275 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,607,795 2,939,906 3,392,906 3,472,800 3,888,275 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 2,607,795 $ 2,607,795 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 2,939,906 $ 2,939,906 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 3,392,906 $ 3,392,906 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,472,800 $ 3,472,800 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,888,275 $ 3,888,275 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 670 Medical Examiner A.R.S. §§ 11-591 through 11-600 County Medical Examiner The Medical Examiner reviews and authorizes all death certificates prior to cremation and has the sole responsibility for conducting complete and objective medico-legal investigations of unattended, violent, sudden, unexpected and suspicious deaths. The Medical Examiner must review and report on the following categories of death: Death occurring when not under the care of a physician for a potentially fatal illness or when an attending physician is unavailable to sign the death certificate; Death resulting from violence; Death occurring suddenly when in apparent good health; Death occurring in prison; Death occurring in a suspicious, unusual, or unnatural manner; Death believed related to the decedents occupation or employment; Death believed to present a public health hazard; Death occurring during a surgical or anesthetic procedure. The Medical Examiner must review and authorize all death certificates prior to cremation of decedent's remains. Medical Examiner (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 3,365,051 $ 379,317 $ 143,907 $ 3,888,275 $ 420,000 $ 3,365,051 $ 379,317 $ 143,907 $ 3,888,275 $ 420,000 $ 3,365,051 $ 379,317 $ 143,907 $ 3,888,275 $ 420,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER FY 2000-01 Actual 46,250 279,171 43,542 368,963 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 2,219,224 110,294 92,691 416,080 2,838,289 $ $ 2,539,411 84,316 4,305 554,677 23,708 3,206,417 SubTotal $ 36,684 $ 156,728 10,680 30,581 (334) 49,862 51,220 8,037 39,959 13,856 13,978 4,926 416,177 $ 41,068 149,312 10,839 23,000 50,000 40,700 9,800 41,997 23,026 445 5,400 4,737 400,324 SubTotal $ 138,437 138,437 Total Expenditures $ 3,392,903 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ 420,000 420,000 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ 2,643,650 76,985 11,700 533,798 23,708 3,289,841 $ 44,060 149,312 10,839 12,500 78,000 13,753 9,800 41,897 6,533 4,900 4,737 376,331 $ 86,455 86,455 $ 3,693,196 (3,023,940) $ $ 420,000 420,000 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ 411,820 (49) 411,771 $ 2,377,305 68,204 41,373 506,149 34,810 3,027,841 $ 60,795 154,498 10,233 47,698 27,446 8,000 26,052 6,811 20,298 6,160 3,795 371,786 $ 21,622 64,833 86,455 $ 3,752,627 (3,273,196) $ $ FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ 2,663,932 68,748 11,700 596,963 23,708 3,365,051 $ $ 60,000 360,000 420,000 0% $ 48,060 163,181 10,583 3,474 63,000 37,251 8,000 29,797 4,101 1,132 6,000 4,738 379,317 $ 21,622 (79,074) (57,452) $ (135,648) -4% (3,468,275) $ (135,648) -4% $ 73,173 73,173 $ 145,281 145,281 $ 143,907 143,907 $ 3,472,800 $ 3,890,591 $ 3,888,275 (3,470,591) $ $ -14% $ $ (3,061,029) $ $ 60,000 (60,000) - % 2,663,932 68,748 11,700 596,963 23,708 3,365,051 48,060 163,181 10,839 3,474 63,000 37,251 8,000 29,797 5,919 6,000 4,738 380,259 (3,332,627) $ $ 420,000 420,000 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ (20,282) 8,237 (63,165) (75,210) -1% 11% 0% -12% 0% -2% -9% -9% 2% 72% $ (4,000) (13,869) 256 9,026 15,000 (23,498) 1,800 12,100 2,432 (1,132) (1,100) (1) (2,986) 100% -122% -66% 19% -171% 18% 29% 37% -22% 0% -1% 671 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Medical Examiner (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATOR ADMITTING CLERK ASSISTANT FORENSIC TOXICOLOGST CHEMIST CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN FORENSIC ASSISTANT FORENSIC ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR FORENSIC TECHNICIAN FORENSIC TOXICOLOGIST HISTOTECHNOLOGIST I HISTOTECHNOLOGIST II MEDICAL EXAMINER MEDICAL EXAMINER ASSOCIATE MEDICAL EXAMINER TRANSPORTER MEDICAL INVESTIGATOR MEDICAL INVESTIGATOR-SENIOR MEDICAL TRANSCRIBER MEDICAL TRANSCRIBER II OFFICE MANAGER PC SUPPORT SPECIALIST FTE TOTAL 672 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 62.0 Parks and Recreation County Administrative Officer Community Services Officer Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation William Scalzo, Director William Scalzo, Director Parks and Recreation Commission Deputy Director Engineering Design Construction/Trails Administration Grants/Contracts Marketing/Accounting West Side Parks Lake Pleasant/DOC Estrella/White Tank Buckeye Hills/Adobe East Side Parks Cave Creek/Spur Cross McDowell/Usery San Tan/Black Mountain Park Police The mission of the Parks and Recreation Department is to provide recreational and educational opportunities while protecting park resources for residents and visitors so they can enjoy a safe and meaningful outdoor experience. Vision Our vision is for the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department to be the recognized leader in the delivery of regional park services by fully utilizing existing and future park resources. Goals ! ! ! ! ! By July 2002 we will increase community involvement and awareness through improved marketing and education programs in order to increase park attendance, revenues and funding By July 2003 we will increase employee satisfaction and reduce the turnover rate to the county average by providing staff incentives, competitive wages and advancement opportunities within the department, which will result in a workforce motivated to serve our customers. By July 2003 we will identify and begin creation of buffer zones through acquisition of land and park planning to isolate park use areas from the effect of off-park development to preserve a positive park experience. By July 2003 we will identify and fund the additional needed facilities and operational costs for each park for the next five years. By July 2004, Parks and Recreation will become non-reliant on the general fund, without reduction in our current funding level and without a reduction in customer satisfaction as assessed by an independent third party. 673 Departmental Budget Schedules Mission Parks and Recreation (Continued) Issues ! ! ! ! ! ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! ! Increased urban encroachment on our county parks will create a negative experience for many park visitors and potential loss of park land. The continuing population growth and changing demographics of our customers will cause the existing park facilities to be inadequate for the public’s needs. Competition from the outside job market affects how the department retains, promotes or hires staff. Non-competitive pay and limited advancement opportunities have a negative impact on morale, which can lead to poor customer service. The external trend of a booming economy will affect the department by increasing visits and impact on resources while county money will be spent on increased demand for mandated services. Current resources and funding sources cannot keep pace with growing demand and will result in loss of staff, facility repair and services provided. Changes in legislation could significantly affect operations and resource allocations. A lack of awareness of park services and benefits results in under-funding and under-utilization. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED PARKS & RECREATION TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity PARK EDUCATION PROGRAM PARK RECREATION PROGRAM PARK SUPPORT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Supplies & Services Services 506,506 $ 157,307 585,331 238,806 2,020,234 1,080,607 1,006,866 193,623 61,244 3,622 (6,533) 220,933 4,173,648 $ 1,894,898 $ $ Capital Outlay 66,707 420,750 2,846,033 30,000 3,363,490 Total Expenditures $ 730,520 1,244,887 5,946,874 1,200,489 64,866 244,400 $ 9,432,036 $ $ Total Revenue 777,959 2,583,468 835,440 223,000 4,419,867 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Park Education Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Park Education Program is to provide natural resource interpretation and unique recreation facilities for individuals and groups so they can appreciate and enjoy the natural environment. Key Results: Percent of park visitors who attend a program Rate of satisfaction with structured recreational and education programs Percent of satisfaction from facility evaluations 674 FY 00 Actual 0.08 FY 01 Actual 1.2 FY 02 Actual 7.21 FY 03 Projected 15 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 100 100 97 Parks and Recreation (Continued) Program Name: Park Recreation Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Park Recreation Program is to provide diverse facilities and opportunities for park users so they can have a healthy and exhilarating outdoor experience. Key Results: Satisfaction rate of passive park users Satisfaction rate of active park users (future surveys) Ratio of new to repeat park users FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual 88.3 FY 02 Actual N/A FY 03 Projected 89 N/A 88.3 N/A 89 N/A 74.8 N/A 76 Program Name: Park Support Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Park Support Program is to provide well-maintained and safe facilities for park users so they can appreciate and enjoy the natural environment. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 60.8 N/A 70 N/A 81.6 N/A 85 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,279,059 $ 1,334,263 $ 1,501,023 $ 1,510,808 $ 1,740,404 Special Revenue $ 2,989,918 $ 3,523,441 $ 3,918,946 $ 7,140,079 $ 7,691,632 $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,268,977 4,857,704 5,419,969 8,650,887 9,432,036 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,279,059 $ 2,989,918 $ 4,268,977 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,334,263 $ 3,523,441 $ 4,857,704 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,501,202 $ 3,918,890 $ 5,420,092 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,600,641 $ 6,348,884 $ 7,949,525 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,740,404 $ 7,691,632 $ 9,432,036 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 675 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of park visitors who are satisfied with the service provided by the park police Percent of park user satisfaction as related to facilities Parks and Recreation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 300 PARKS & RECREATION FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,249,385 $ 446,019 $ 45,000 $ 1,740,404 $ 2,924,263 1,448,879 3,318,490 7,691,632 4,419,867 $ 4,173,648 $ 1,894,898 $ 3,363,490 $ 9,432,036 $ 4,419,867 $ 4,173,648 $ 1,894,898 $ 3,363,490 $ 9,432,036 $ 4,419,867 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 300 PARKS & RECREATION Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 42,350 199,390 2,391,792 1,598,169 14,426 4,246,127 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 2,653,000 $ 79,598 119,556 603,319 9,204 (710,977) 578,416 3,332,116 $ 2,930,109 $ 93,000 28,665 751,923 137,467 (755,879) 609,076 3,794,361 $ 2,929,219 $ 93,000 28,665 759,158 73,542 (755,879) 609,076 3,736,781 $ 2,906,786 $ 59,325 25,447 751,788 29,444 (717,919) 620,648 3,675,519 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ 165,165 103,678 15,284 35 482,725 20,423 148,214 155,568 24,452 261,949 198,203 1,575,696 426,586 86,245 6,000 275,013 26,800 158,000 175,770 35,700 1,500 244,000 121,530 1,557,144 235,296 133,120 92,245 46,557 283,113 26,800 189,000 216,970 27,700 1,500 244,000 121,530 1,617,831 208,005 17,156 85,896 15,836 22 93,646 20,557 113,942 551 138,642 21,570 3,576 238,263 591,283 1,548,945 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP SubTotal $ 75,495 183,686 252,978 512,159 5,419,971 Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 676 $ $ $ $ 569,205 2,483,676 1,110,200 4,163,081 $ 175,000 5,840,573 30,000 124,500 6,170,073 $ 11,521,578 (1,173,844) $ $ $ $ $ 569,205 2,484,426 1,109,450 4,163,081 $ $ $ $ 5,753,073 39,819 108,494 5,901,386 $ $ 11,255,998 $ (7,358,497) $ $ (7,092,917) $ 4,637 605,000 2,272,901 2,683 211,425 730,651 469,753 4,297,050 $ $ $ 3,323,452 9,244 93,727 3,426,423 $ $ 8,650,887 $ (4,353,837) $ 128,391 401,952 2,433,800 203,000 1,093,676 4,260,819 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 128,391 (194,205) 187,374 223,000 (87,774) 256,786 3,222,826 $ 85,000 12,000 1,042,831 14,000 (599,339) 566,422 4,343,740 $ 3,088,608 $ 85,000 8,000 1,012,575 12,382 (599,339) 566,422 4,173,648 $ (159,389) 8,000 20,665 (253,417) 61,160 (156,540) 42,654 (436,867) -5% 9% 72% -33% 83% -21% 7% -12% 371,329 1,500 104,157 46,550 461,082 21,915 116,339 1,000 142,132 33,300 6,000 289,500 98,019 1,692,823 432,037 1,000 91,837 20,600 577,167 21,915 169,686 1,000 187,132 17,905 3,300 273,300 98,019 1,894,898 (196,741) 132,120 408 25,957 (294,054) 4,885 19,314 (1,000) 29,838 9,795 (1,800) (29,300) 23,511 (277,067) -84% 99% 0% 56% $ $ 2,782,490 123,800 271,500 3,177,790 $ $ 9,214,353 $ (4,953,534) $ 128,391 375,000 2,671,800 223,000 1,021,676 4,419,867 % $ $ -34% 8% -8% 6% -104% 18% 10% 14% 35% -120% -12% 19% -17% 2,779,990 477,000 106,500 3,363,490 $ 2,973,083 (437,181) 1,994 2,537,896 9,432,036 $ 1,823,962 16% (5,012,169) $ 2,080,748 29% 52% -1098% 2% 43% Parks and Recreation (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 300 PARKS & RECREATION FTE 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 5.0 15.0 8.0 1.0 21.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 99.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT I ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR I ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATOR II CHIEF COMMUNITY SVCS OFFICER CIVIL ENGINEER SENIOR CONTACT STATION ASSISTANT CONTACT STATION SUPERVISOR CONTRACT SPECIALIST II DEPUTY DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MARKETING COORDINATOR PARK DESIGNER PARK EDUCATOR PARK MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR PARK OFFICE CLERK PARK POLICE OFFICER PARK SUPERVISOR PARKS GRANT ADMINISTRATOR PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKER POLICE DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE LIEUTENANT POLICE SERGEANT SENIOR ACCOUNTANT SWA/PARK POLICE LIEUTENANT TRADES SPECIALIST TRADES SPECIALIST SUPERVISOR TRAILS PLANNER TRAILS WORKER TOTAL 677 Planning and Development County Administrative Officer Chief Community Services Officer Planning & Development Planning & Development Joy Rich, Director Joy Rich, Director Code Enforcement Plan Review Technology Division Inspection Services Customer Services Current Planning Business Services Comprehensive Planning Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Planning and Development Department is to provide planning and development services to constituents of unincorporated Maricopa County so they can responsibly develop and enjoy real property. Vision The vision of the Planning and Development Department is to provide market competitive planning and development services that are safe, consistent, timely and convenient for our constituents. Goals ! ! ! ! ! Complete One Stop Shop (OSS) implementation (including all reengineering efforts and technology deployment) during FY 2005/2006. Develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive training program for the department, market competitive job descriptions, compensation, performance evaluations and career ladder plans by the end of FY 2003/2004. Within the County expenditure limitation, obtain annual budget expenditure authorizations in accordance with revenues and service expectations through FY 2005/2006. Develop and maintain an integrated technology plan by FY 2002/2003. Coordinate with the information technology center located within the Maricopa County Department of Transportation to meet their strategic goals as they relate to this department through FY 2005/2006. Issues ! ! ! ! The department is not meeting customer expectations resulting in a negative work environment and county image. The lack of competitive pay, benefits, and training results in high staff turnover. Existing circumstance of not obtaining spending authorizations equal to expected revenue make it impossible for the department to meet established service delivery expectations. The department's incomplete implementation of technology deployment results in inefficiencies. 678 Planning and Development (Continued) ! Uncertain changes in statutes and technology combined with current operational limitations inhibit the department's effectiveness. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANNING CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ONE STOP SHOP TRAINING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 204,493 $ 2,300 $ 430,919 19,689 171,968 19,833 3,792,347 180,241 94,431 2,920 499,905 30,609 393,932 137,152 90,598 2,019,846 5,678,593 $ 2,412,590 $ Total $ Capital Outlay Total Total Expenditures Revenue - $ 206,793 $ 450,608 3,000 191,801 25,287 3,997,875 8,044,000 97,351 530,514 240,000 531,084 356,398 2,466,842 203,000 381,685 $ 8,472,868 $ 8,490,000 Key Performance Measures Code Enforcement Program Purpose: The purpose of the Code Enforcement Program is to provide inspection, enforcement, licensing and permitting services, under the operational guidelines of the Planning and Development Department, to constituents, so they can enjoy their properties and/or operate their businesses in compliance with County codes and ordinances. Key Results: Percent of licenses/permits applications completed within 45 days of application date Percent of cases that complete an initial site investigation within 30 days of receipt of violation complaint FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 100 80 N/A N/A 96.9 90 Program Name: Comprehensive Planning Program Purpose: The purpose of the Comprehensive Planning Program is to provide information to various private and public entitiies of Maricopa County so they make informed decisions concerning growth, development and investment. Key Results: Percent of planning elements prepared by required dates FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 100 679 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Planning and Development (Continued) Program Name: One Stop Shop Program Purpose: The purpose of the One Stop Shop program is to provide a single point of contact for coordinated county development services to the customer so they may complete their development projects in a faster and more cost efficient manner. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of customers contacted within OSS targets Percent of inspection stops completed within 1 day of request Percent of occupancy certificates issued within 14 days of final building inspection Percent of requests responded to within 2 days FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual N/A FY 02 Actual N/A FY 03 Projected 66 N/A N/A N/A 99 N/A N/A 5.4 50 N/A N/A 99.2 75 Program Name: Strategic Business Planning Program Purpose: The purpose of the Strategic/Business Planning Program is to provide business services to department staff so they can perform their assigned duties in an accurate and efficient manner. Key Results: Percent of benchmarked data used Percent of developed/revised business rules/plans within required time frames Percent of decisions made within 30 days Percent of quality control tests meeting accuracy standards FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual N/A FY 02 Actual 0 FY 03 Projected 25 N/A N/A 0 75 N/A N/A 29.2 75 N/A N/A 88.1 50 Program Name: Training Program Purpose: The purpose of the Training Program is to provide and coordinate training to staff so they can perform their assigned duties in a consistent, accurate and efficient manner. Key Results: Percent of employees attending training sessions Percent of Policy Board members who have been oriented Percent of oriented new employees who can perform basic functions when released to assigned area 680 FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual N/A FY 02 Actual 100 FY 03 Projected 75 N/A N/A 100 66 N/A N/A N/A 50 Planning and Development (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data General Fund $ 2,585,932 $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ 6,134,795 $ 6,856,925 $ 6,712,639 $ 8,472,868 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,585,932 6,134,795 6,856,925 6,712,639 8,472,868 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 2,013,064 $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ 3,815,842 $ 3,782,557 $ 4,222,810 $ 4,839,177 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,013,064 3,815,842 3,782,557 4,222,810 4,839,177 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 572,868 $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ 2,318,953 $ 3,074,368 $ 2,489,829 $ 3,633,691 $ $ $ $ $ Total 572,868 2,318,953 3,074,368 2,489,829 3,633,691 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Issue Permits, Zoning Enforcement A.R.S. 11-808A Enforcement; A.R.S. 11-808B Building Permits; A.R.S. 11-322 Violations. The Board of Supervisors adopted the current Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance in May 1969. The Uniform Building Code and other related codes were adopted in December 1974. In 1975, the Building Safety Division was established. Violations of the zoning ordinance were reported to Zoning Enforcement. The Zoning Division was reorganized in 1994 and is now known as Development Services. On March 13, 2000, the Planning and Development Department transitioned to the "One Stop Shop" permitting program, an interdepartmental approach to providing enhanced developmental services to citizens. 681 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Planning and Development (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION It is unlawful to erect, construct, reconstruct, alter or use any building or other structures without obtaining a zoning clearance from the County in the unincorporated areas of the County. The County must enforce its adopted zoning ordinance. Issue Permits, Zoning Enforcement FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION $ $ $ $ $ Total 699,587 2,125,424 1,853,084 2,277,655 2,608,164 General Fund $ 845,201 $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ 904,354 $ 1,088,512 $ 1,119,160 $ 1,285,860 $ $ $ $ $ Total 845,201 904,354 1,088,512 1,119,160 1,285,860 Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Board of Adjustment A.R.S. § 11-8-806.01 Subdivision Regulation; Platting Rules; Violation; Classification; Easement Vesting; A.R.S. § 11-821B County Plan; A.R.S. § 11829 Amendment; A.R.S. § 11-807 Board Of Adjustment, Power, Appeals. The Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1960. The Subdivision Regulations were adopted in 1972. The Board of Adjustment hears variances to the ordinance and interprets appeals to the ordinance. Develop and administer zoning ordinances for unincorporated areas. Review and act on citizen requests for amendment or change in the zoning ordinance of areas previously zoned. Regulates the subdivision of all lands within the unincorporated areas. The Board of Adjustment hears variance cases and appeals of zoning ordinance. Zoning & Subdivision Regulations and Board of Adjustment FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 682 Special Revenue $ $ 2,125,424 $ 1,853,084 $ 2,277,655 $ 2,608,164 Building Construction and Inspection A.R.S. § 11-861 Adoption Of Building Codes, Limitations, Method Of Adoption, Rules And Regulation; A.R.S. § 11-862 Advisory Board; Appointment Terms; Duties. The Board of Supervisors adopted the current Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance in May 1969. The Uniform Building Code and other related codes were adopted in December 1974. In 1975, the Building Safety Department was established and a Building Code Advisory Board was formed. The Building Safety Department merged with the Planning and Development Department and became what is now known as Plan Review and Inspection Services. On March 13, 2000, Inspection Services became part of the "One Stop Shop" program, an interdepartmental approach to providing enhanced developmental services to citizens. It is unlawful to erect, construct, reconstruct, alter or use any building or other structures without obtaining a building permit from the County. All buildings and structures in unincorporated areas must be built to code and inspected. An Advisory Board, as required by the Uniform Building Code, must determine the suitability of alternative materials and construction and interpret the provisions of the Code. Building Construction and Inspection FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY General Fund $ 699,587 $ $ $ $ - General Fund $ 209,456 $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ 511,323 $ 539,280 $ 626,336 $ 664,546 $ $ $ $ $ Total 209,456 511,323 539,280 626,336 664,546 Planning and Development (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION County Comprehensive Plan A.R.S. Title 11, Article 1, § 11-806 Powers and Duties, Comprehensive Plan; A.R.S. § 11-821(A) County Plan, definition; A.R.S. § 11-824(E) Adoption and Amendment of County Plan by Board of Supervisors. A.R.S. Title 11, Article 1, § 11-806 states "The board shall adopt a comprehensive plan and subsequently amend or extend the adopted plan." § 11-821(A) states, "…the Board of Supervisors shall adopt or readopt a comprehensive long-term county plan for the development of the area of jurisdiction. " On October 20,1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted "Maricopa County 2020, Eye to the Future" as the comprehensive plan of Maricopa County. Adopt a comprehensive plan as the official guide to accomplish a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the area of jurisdiction. The comprehensive plan shall be developed so as to conserve the natural resources of the county, to ensure efficient expenditure of public funds, and to promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the public. The Board of Supervisors shall consult and advise with citizens and stakeholders to secure the maximum coordination of plans to best promote with efficiency and economy the health, safety, and, general welfare of the public. General Fund $ 258,820 $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ 274,741 $ 301,681 $ 199,659 $ 280,607 $ $ $ $ $ Total 258,820 274,741 301,681 199,659 280,607 683 Departmental Budget Schedules County Comprehensive Plan FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Planning and Development (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 5,678,593 2,412,590 381,685 8,472,868 8,490,000 $ 5,678,593 $ 2,412,590 $ 381,685 $ 8,472,868 $ 8,490,000 $ 5,678,593 $ 2,412,590 $ 381,685 $ 8,472,868 $ 8,490,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 615 GRANTS 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 6,601,734 (3,643) 2,719,229 3,600 367,063 9,687,983 $ 6,184,000 1,884,000 3,000 264,000 8,335,000 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 3,365,206 93,534 152,692 750,898 27,239 4,389,569 3,710,996 10,838 820,566 4,542,400 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ $ $ 339,257 25,229 6,100 30,000 294,031 670,484 110,000 419,766 84,000 7,000 342,563 2,328,430 $ 45,000 112,400 157,400 $ $ $ $ 6,184,000 1,884,000 3,000 264,000 8,335,000 3,938,511 10,786 835,771 4,785,068 $ 198,947 25,229 6,100 27,522 225,151 670,484 80,000 419,766 84,000 6,000 342,563 2,085,762 $ 45,000 45,000 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 6,459,000 2,250,000 12,000 165,554 204,362 9,090,916 3,838,014 2,690 3,087 840,594 2,906 2,798 4,690,089 $ 173,483 36,423 13,000 292,643 602,369 82,416 405,818 34,148 10,000 342,563 1,992,863 $ 24,503 5,184 29,687 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 6,184,000 1,884,000 3,000 264,000 8,335,000 4,031,428 11,186 943,684 2,270 4,988,568 $ 149,757 34,494 4,400 18,500 173,500 627,258 122,000 435,416 69,000 5,500 289,793 1,929,618 $ 73,085 73,085 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 6,184,000 1,884,000 3,000 155,000 264,000 8,490,000 $ 3,990,269 11,186 944,978 729,890 2,270 5,678,593 $ 677,700 33,734 4,400 13,500 205,752 627,258 122,000 432,205 33,000 5,500 257,541 2,412,590 $ 308,600 73,085 381,685 $ $ 155,000 155,000 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% $ (51,758) (400) (109,207) (729,890) (2,270) (893,525) -1% -19% $ (478,753) (8,505) 1,700 14,022 19,399 43,226 (42,000) (12,439) 51,000 500 85,022 (326,828) -241% -34% 28% 51% 9% 6% -53% -3% 61% 8% 25% -16% -586% $ (263,600) (73,085) (336,685) -4% -13% SubTotal $ 88,670 37,259 132,462 4,126 465,958 588,163 2,539 288,591 33,938 3,116 516,912 2,161,734 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 19,206 286,416 305,622 Total Expenditures $ 6,856,925 $ 7,028,230 $ 6,915,830 $ 6,712,639 $ 6,991,271 $ 8,472,868 $ (1,557,038) -23% Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 2,831,058 $ 1,306,770 $ 1,419,170 $ 2,378,277 $ 1,343,729 $ 17,132 $ (1,402,038) -99% 684 $ $ FY 2001-02 Revised -748% Planning and Development (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FTE 8.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 17.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SECRETARY BUILDING INSPECTION MANAGER BUILDING INSPECTION SUPERVISOR BUILDING INSPECTOR BUILDING INSPECTOR II BUSINESS ANALYST BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPORT TECHNICIAN BUSINESS SYSTEMS TEAM LEADER CASHIER CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN DEPUTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COORDINATOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SPECIALIST I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SPECIALIST II DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SPECIALIST III DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SUPERVISOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT/WEB DEVELOPER FINANCIAL MANAGER GIS ANALYST GRAPHICS SPECIALIST III INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER PC LAN TECHNICIAN PLAN REVIEW DIVISION MANAGER PLAN REVIEW SPECIALIST PLAN REVIEWER II PLANNER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING SECRETARY PLANNING ASSISTANT PLANNING MANAGER SENIOR PLANNER STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEW ENGINEER SYSTEMS PROGRAMER/DATABASE ANALYST TRAINING COORDINATOR ZONING REPRESENTATIVE II ZONING REPRESENTATIVE III TOTAL 1.0 9.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 107.0 685 Public Defender County Administrative Officer Public Defender Public Defender James J. Haas, Director James J. Haas, Director Mission The mission of the Office of the Public Defender is to provide the highest quality legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. Goals ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! ! ! The goal of the Office of the Public Defender is to provide the highest quality legal representation to our clients while increasing efficiency and meeting the relevant rules of procedure. By July 1, 2002, the goal of the Office of the Public Defender is to establish a case weighting and counting system and develop mechanisms that will enable the Public Defender to set and maintain appropriate caseload and performance standards. By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Office of the Public Defender is to demonstrate a 5% improvement in "time-to-disposition" on all regular felony cases. By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Office of the Public Defender is to achieve a 5% improvement over the baseline established by the FY02 stakeholder satisfaction survey. Issues ! ! ! ! ! The courts’ continued emphasis on moving cases more quickly will reduce efficiency, resulting in less time and resources available to assist clients, reducing the quality of legal representation, and increasing stress and staff turnover. The County’s pay and benefits have not kept pace with the private sector, resulting in fewer qualified applicants and increased turnover. The rapid increase in population and increased emphasis on law enforcement will increase the number of indigent defendants, resulting in more cases for the office. Rapid changes in technology and increased sharing of case information within the system will increase administrative efficiencies and reduce duplication of data entry. The current budget structure for the indigent defense agency creates potential ethical conflicts, reduces efficiencies, promotes confusion, and generates inappropriate competition for available funds. 686 Public Defender (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED PUBLIC DEFENDER TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity CRIMINAL DEFENSE PROGRAM NON-CRIMINAL REPRESENTATION PR PD JUDICATION/INCORRIGIBILITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Capital Total Total Services Services Outlay Expenditures Revenue $ 16,524,539 $ 3,763,703 $ - $ 20,288,242 $ 1,700,423 382,771 31,899 414,670 2,761,721 308,039 3,069,760 829,861 353,087 1,182,948 350,000 308,070 31,395 339,465 3,127,644 343,194 22,142 3,492,980 (377,904) 23,934,606 $ 4,831,317 $ 22,142 $ 28,788,065 $ 1,672,519 Total $ Key Performance Measures Criminal Defense Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Criminal Defense Program is to provide legal defense services to assigned indigent clients charged with criminal offenses so that they can obtain the most favorable result under the circumstances. Key Results: Percent of Appeals Briefs Completed Within 45-Day Due Date FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 46.44 47 Program Name: Non-Criminal Representation Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Non-Criminal Representation Program is to provide legal representation to assigned indigent persons in non-criminal matters so that their legal interests are protected. Key Results: Percent of Superior Court Mental Health Matters Concluded Within 30 Days FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 99.9 99.9 Program Name: Pd Juvenile Adjudication And Incorrigibility Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the PD Juvenile Adjudication and Incorrigibility Program is to provide legal representation to indigent juvenile clients accused of delinquent or incorrigible acts so they can obtain the most favorable resolution to their cases under the circumstances. Key Results: Percent of Cases with a Disposition Less Than the Original Charge FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A 80.3 80 687 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Name: Public Defender (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A N/A $ 24,961,239 $ 27,216,686 Special Revenue N/A N/A N/A $ 1,524,991 $ 1,571,379 Total N/A N/A N/A $ 26,486,230 $ 28,788,065 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ 24,961,239 $ 27,216,686 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ 1,524,991 $ 1,571,379 Total $ $ $ $ 26,486,230 $ 28,788,065 Non-Program Personnel Expenses General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,453,580 $ $ 3,453,580 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 688 Public Defender (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND TITLE AUTHORITY Judicial Mandates A.R.S. §§ 36-528(D), 36-536(A), 36-537, 8-221. U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-584 to 587. HISTORY/ Historically, Public Defenders have not had the authority to handle civil BACKGROUND proceedings. As a result, in Maricopa County, private attorneys who contracted to provide these services were used almost exclusively. Due to changes in legislation, Maricopa County became responsible to provide representation to indigent individuals facing mental health commitments and to those involved in child dependency and severance proceedings. In order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of services mandated, Maricopa County has funded the creation of two on-staff dependency units (Offices of the Legal Defender and Legal Advocate) and one on-staff mental health unit (Public Defender). In addition, contracted private attorneys are assigned to cases that the other offices are unable to handle (typically due to conflicts of interest). MANDATE Legal representation of indigent persons at risk of a loss of liberty in civil mental DESCRIPTION health proceedings. Legal representation of indigent individuals involved in civil child dependency or severance proceedings, including the minor children in question. Administrative Services Program General Fund Special Revenue Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,015,798 $ 372,413 $ 1,388,211 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 836,240 $ 350,000 $ 1,186,240 689 Departmental Budget Schedules MANDATE DESCRIPTION Legal Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants and Delinquent or Incorrigible Juveniles U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution, Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-581 to 587; Rule 6, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. The United States and Arizona Constitutions provide that an individual facing criminal charges has a right to the assistance of counsel. The United States and Arizona Supreme Courts have interpreted these provisions as requiring that counsel be provided, at government expense, for individuals facing loss of liberty who cannot afford to hire counsel. Historically, in Maricopa County, indigent defendants charged in criminal cases, and juveniles accused of delinquency or incorrigibility, were assigned to private attorneys who contracted to provide those services. In order to maximize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of services mandated, Maricopa County has since funded the creation of three on-staff public defender offices (Offices of the Public Defender, Legal Defender, and Legal Advocate). Contract private attorneys continue to be assigned to a lesser number of cases, specifically those that the other offices are unable to handle (typically due to conflicts of interest). Those contract assignments continue to be managed and monitored by the Office of Contract Counsel. Legal defense of indigent criminal defendants at risk of loss of liberty in criminal proceedings, including felony, misdemeanor, and probation violation cases. Legal defense of indigent criminal defendants in appeals and post-conviction relief cases. Legal representation of juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. Legal representation of defendants opposing extradition. Legal representation in post-conviction relief cases of persons sentenced to death. Legal representation of witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court. Departmental Budget Schedules Public Defender (Continued) 690 Information Technology Program FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ 396,030 $ 340,892 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Criminal Representation Program (Adult Criminal & Appeal) FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ 19,529,947 $ 19,148,502 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ 1,152,578 $ 1,221,379 Total $ $ $ $ 20,682,525 $ 20,369,881 Juvenile Adjudication & Incorrigibility Program FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ 3,536,255 $ 3,022,529 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ $ 3,536,255 $ 3,022,529 Non-Criminal Representation Program (Mental Health) FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ 483,209 $ 414,943 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 396,030 340,892 Total 483,209 414,943 Public Defender (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 22,990,966 $ 4,203,578 $ 22,142 $ 27,216,686 $ 101,140 943,640 627,739 1,571,379 1,571,379 $ 23,934,606 $ 4,831,317 $ 22,142 $ 28,788,065 $ 1,672,519 $ 23,934,606 $ 4,831,317 $ 22,142 $ 28,788,065 $ 1,672,519 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER FY 2000-01 Actual 1,260,980 45,100 11,614 1,317,694 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT SubTotal $ 18,106,561 221,122 39,054 3,080,540 15,475 21,462,752 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ SubTotal $ 230,971 9,347 30,237 416,918 251,229 1,668,904 24,236 162,197 194,045 2,988,084 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ $ 1,489,749 10,000 1,499,749 FY 2001-02 Revised $ 19,086,922 $ 109,751 3,468,702 (511) 22,664,864 $ $ 270,754 9,727 217,505 1,590,539 239,718 1,739,567 40,345 92,234 275,101 30,284 390 4,506,164 1,082 45,872 37,833 84,787 24,535,623 $ 19,812,610 $ 109,751 3,541,318 25,000 (511) 23,488,168 $ $ 268,722 9,727 217,505 1,579,861 243,659 1,739,567 40,345 91,819 274,646 30,284 390 4,496,525 $ 35,000 35,000 $ 27,206,028 (23,217,929) $ $ 1,550,775 130,000 10,000 1,690,775 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 1,109,299 930,034 2,090 9,000 2,050,423 19,632,658 $ 235,677 3,577,305 37,272 (129) 23,482,783 $ 19,829,570 147,471 3,965,943 363,547 24,306,531 $ 342,276 11,571 32,401 1,559,961 622,403 1,950,978 17,793 88,226 241,596 32,287 4,899,492 $ 10,000 10,000 $ 10,000 900 10,900 $ $ 27,994,693 $ 28,393,175 $ (25,706,279) $ $ 1,081,385 1,057,687 6,026 616 6,834 2,152,548 FY 2002-03 Requested (26,303,918) $ $ $ (26,240,627) $ 303,628 10,728 73,100 1,623,599 110,588 1,992,053 20,345 90,234 244,796 35,000 391 4,504,462 28,810,993 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 1,109,299 552,130 2,090 9,000 1,672,519 % (441,476) 422,130 (7,910) 9,000 (18,256) -28% 325% -79% 0% -34% $ 14,430 (37,720) (424,441) 1,804 (511) (446,438) -12% 7% -100% -2% $ (34,906) (1,001) 140,924 (43,738) (180,842) (252,486) 20,000 (7,876) 29,850 (4,716) (1) (334,792) -13% -10% 65% -3% -74% -15% 50% -9% 11% -16% 0% -7% -121% $ $ 19,798,180 147,471 3,965,759 23,196 23,934,606 $ 303,628 10,728 76,581 1,623,599 424,501 1,992,053 20,345 99,695 244,796 35,000 391 4,831,317 $ 22,142 22,142 $ 10,000 (22,142) (12,142) $ 28,788,065 $ (793,372) -3% (27,115,546) $ (811,628) -3% (26,760,570) $ $ -1% 100% 691 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Public Defender (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE RECEPTIONIST ADMINISTRATOR APPEALS DIVISION CHIEF APPELLATE ASSISTANT TRAINEE CHIEF INVESTIGATOR CLIENT SERVICES COORDINATOR CLIENT SERVICES SUPERVISOR CLIENT/SERVER PROGRAMMER ANALYST DEFENDER ATTORNEY DEFENDER ATTORNEY - COMMUNITY RELATIONS DEFENDER ATTORNEY - COMPLEX CRIMES DEFENDER ATTORNEY - EDC DEFENDER INVESTIGATOR DEFENDER LAW CLERK DEFENDER SENIOR COUNSEL DESIGNATED FILE MANAGER DOWNTOWN TRIAL DIVISION CHIEF DUI GROUP SUPERVISOR EARLY REPRESENTATION TRIAL DIVISION CHIEF EDC GROUP SUPERVISOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FACILITIES COORDINATOR FINANCIAL SERVICES COORDINATOR FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER FISCAL ANALYST HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST INFORMATION CENTER MANAGER INITIAL SERVICES INITIAL SERVICES LEAD INVESTIGATIVE AIDE INVESTIGATIVE LEAD JUVENILE DIVISION CHIEF JUVENILE GROUP SUPERVISOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR LEGAL SECRETARY LEGAL SECRETARY SUPERVISOR LEGAL SECRETARY - DUI LEGAL SECRETARY - EDC LEGAL TRANSCRIPTIONIST LEGISLATIVE LIAISON OFFICE AIDE OFFICE TRAINEE PROCESS SERVER RECEPTIONIST RECORDS COORDINATOR RECORDS PROCESSOR SECRETARY SOUTHEAST TRIAL DIVISION CHIEF SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT ATTORNEY SPECIAL ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER SUPPORT STAFF LEAD SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING DIRECTOR TRIAL GROUP COUNSEL TRIAL GROUP RECEPTIONIST TRIAL GROUP SUPERVISOR TOTAL 692 FTE 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 1.0 2.0 172.2 1.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 7.0 22.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 17.0 1.0 52.5 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 23.0 4.0 1.0 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 430.5 Public Fiduciary County Administrative Officer Chief Community Services Officer Public Fiduciary Public Fiduciary Richard T. Vanderheiden, Director Richard T. Vanderheiden, Director Investigation Services Probate and Conservator Services Burial Services Administrative Support and Legal Coordination Estate Operations Guardian Services Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Public Fiduciary is to provide guardianship, conservatorship, decedent services and court ordered investigations for vulnerable persons so their estates and well being are protected. To be a recognized leader in providing professional, efficient and compassionate fiduciary services. Goals ! ! ! ! ! We will develop and implement a comprehensive fiduciary case management plan as measured by the plan being used by other jurisdictions as a model by October 1, 2004. By January 1, 2003 we will refine our current information management system to improve systems and productivity as measured by a 10% increase in production from the existing baseline data from FY 2000/2001. We will develop and implement a financial investigation team to protect vulnerable persons by October 1, 2002 that will specialize in financial investigations of vulnerable persons to improve the recovery of assets, forensic testimony and to respond to the community and the court's increasing demand for these services, measured by the number of cases with asset recoveries from the existing baseline data from FY 2000/2001. We will develop and implement a new employee orientation and continuing education program for all public fiduciary personnel by January 1, 2003 as measured by an employee satisfaction survey approval rating of 85%. By August 1, 2002, we will implement an education and public relations plan to enhance the delivery of fiduciary services to achieve a 7% increase over the existing customer satisfaction survey baseline from FY 2000/2001. Issues ! The reactions of the State and the Courts to failing fiduciaries and financial abuse cases is impacting us by placing an increased demand for public fiduciary services resulting in more cases and court ordered investigations exposing public fiduciary operations to additional risk. 693 Departmental Budget Schedules Vision Public Fiduciary (Continued) ! ! ! Even though our current information management system is the most advanced model in the State, we recognize the importance to improve all aspects of data collection, data management and data reporting to continue to perform in a manner that reduces County exposure to risk and provides accountability for the services we deliver. The increasing number of elderly and vulnerable adults in Arizona will result in more persons needing fiduciary services placing increased demands on the public fiduciary requiring more staff for investigative services and the additional cases. The lack of understanding by other agencies of our role often results in time consuming interference and unnecessary court appointments resulting in an increased caseload and court reporting impeding our ability to adequately serve those in need. Total Budget by Program Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED PUBLIC FIDUCIARY TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity BURIAL SERVICES PROGRAM FIDUCIARY SERVICES PROGRAM INVESTIGATION SERVICES PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 4,803 $ 60 $ 1,245,144 190,278 130,819 19,792 110,328 22,929 80,316 15,656 1,571,410 $ 248,715 $ Total $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue - $ 4,863 $ 1,435,422 782,000 150,611 68,000 133,257 95,972 $ 1,820,125 $ 850,000 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Burial Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Burial Services Program is to provide final disposition to decedents of indigent families of Maricopa County so that eligible burial services can be arranged. Key Results: Percent of disallowed referrals Percent of indigent burial determinations made within five business days FY 00 Actual 73 FY 01 Actual 60 FY 02 Actual 65 FY 03 Projected 65 95 90 93 95 Program Name: Fiduciary Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Fiduciary Services Program is to provide court appointed guardianship, conservatorship and probate services to those persons or estates when no other person or corporation is qualified and willing to serve so that their well being, property and interests are protected. Key Results: Percent of annual guardian reports filed with the court on time Percent of inventories filed with the court on time. Percent of court accountings filed with the court on time Percent of increase in revenue collection from prior fiscal year 694 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 99 99 99 96 84 86 93 92 99 99 100 96 15 7 0 7 Public Fiduciary (Continued) Program Name: Investigation Services Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Investigation Services Program is to provide information and recommendations to the court and community so that adjudication or alternative services may be sought. Key Results: Percent of timeliness in filing mental health mandated reports and court ordered reports Percent of cases resulting in a recommendation for protective action FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 92 96 100 96 N/A N/A 56 60 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,518,639 $ 1,677,515 $ 1,703,933 $ 1,794,080 $ 1,820,125 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,518,639 1,677,515 1,703,933 1,794,080 1,820,125 695 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,518,639 $ 1,518,639 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,677,515 $ 1,677,515 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,703,933 $ 1,703,933 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,788,867 $ 1,788,867 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,820,125 $ 1,820,125 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Public Fiduciary (Continued) Mandate Information Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY Office of the Public Fiduciary A.R.S. §§ 14-5601 through 5607 Establishment Of Office Of Public Fiduciary; Appointments; Costs. HISTORY/ In 1973, the legislature undertook a substantial revision of all laws relating to BACKGROUND decedents' estates, guardianships, protective proceedings and trusts. The Office of the Public Fiduciary was established by statute in 1975 and expanded in the 1995 legislative session with the passing of SB 1273. The Public Fiduciary will be expected to provide guardianship for those who are determined to be incompetent to stand trial. MANDATE The Public Fiduciary is appointed for those persons or decedents' estates in need DESCRIPTION of guardianship, conservatorship or public administration and for whom there is no person or corporation qualified and willing to act in such capacity. Office of the Public Fiduciary General Fund Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,416,775 $ 1,416,775 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,584,050 $ 1,584,050 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,638,521 $ 1,638,521 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,706,014 $ 1,706,014 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,736,824 $ 1,736,824 Indigent Burial Services FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget 696 General Fund $ 101,864 $ 93,465 $ 65,412 $ 82,853 $ 83,301 $ $ $ $ $ Total 101,864 93,465 65,412 82,853 83,301 Public Fiduciary (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 1,571,410 $ 248,715 $ $ 1,571,410 $ 248,715 $ $ 1,571,410 $ 248,715 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,820,125 $ 850,000 $ 1,820,125 $ 850,000 $ 1,820,125 $ 850,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY FY 2000-01 Actual 863,930 863,930 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 1,180,266 39,904 33,036 225,189 5,273 1,483,668 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ SubTotal $ 12,078 2,464 18,927 164,981 1,162 8,882 11,771 220,265 Total Expenditures $ 1,703,933 $ $ $ $ 830,000 830,000 1,280,982 100 263,673 1,544,755 $ 28,988 3,578 8,124 185,395 12,900 9,785 7,200 7,875 263,845 $ 1,808,600 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 850,000 850,000 1,276,756 60 259,425 1,536,241 $ 23,267 3,578 8,124 185,395 12,135 9,785 7,200 7,875 257,359 $ 1,793,600 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 820,000 820,000 1,250,076 39,130 262,352 1,551,558 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 850,000 850,000 1,260,771 151 289,608 1,550,530 $ 20,000 177 2,182 3,193 185,128 1,501 14,211 8,497 7,633 242,522 $ 23,122 2,784 4,000 8,124 192,535 12,900 14,200 7,200 7,878 272,743 $ 1,794,080 $ 1,823,273 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 850,000 850,000 $ 1,281,651 151 289,608 1,571,410 $ $ - % 0% 0% $ (4,895) (91) (30,183) (35,169) 0% -152% $ 18,004 2,500 6,500 192,535 2,000 11,276 8,500 7,400 248,715 $ 5,263 1,078 1,624 (7,140) 10,135 (1,491) (1,300) 475 8,644 20% -4% 84% -15% -18% 6% 3% $ 1,820,125 $ (26,525) -1% (970,125) $ (26,525) -3% -12% -2% 23% 30% CAPITAL OUTLAY Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (840,003) $ (978,600) $ (943,600) $ (974,080) $ (973,273) $ 697 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Public Fiduciary (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III ASSISTANT PUBLIC FIDUCIARY CLERK IV ESTATE ADMINISTRATION MANAGER ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR ESTATE ANALYST ESTATE FIELD INVESTIGATOR ESTATE OPERATIONS MANAGER FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION INVESTIGATOR GUARDIAN ADMINISTRATION MANAGER GUARDIAN ADMINISTRATOR INDIGENT BURIAL COORDINATOR LEGAL SECRETARY II LEGAL SECRETARY III PUBLIC FIDUCIARY SECRETARY SENIOR SYSTEMS ANALYST FTE Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 698 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 35.0 Public Health County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Public Health Public Health Jonathan B. Weisbuch, M.D., Director Jonathan B. Weisbuch, M.D., Director Ryan White Title I Epidemiology & Data Services Administrative Services Community Development & Minority Health Turning Point Grant Community Health Services Preventive Medical Health Services Mission The mission of the Department of Public Health is to provide leadership in public health to people and communities in Maricopa County so that health is promoted, preserved, and protected. To be a nationally recognized leader in building healthy communities by developing and implementing model public health policies and services. Goals • • • • • • • • Meet or exceed performance objectives for 85% of the Department’s program output measures by end of FY 2002. (See activity statements and performance measures for specific Public Health programs.) Ensure Department expenditures for 3 major funds, 66 low orgs and 55 grants are within authorized budget levels by the end of each fiscal/grant year in order to assure financial accountability and continued support for public health programs. Add $1,000,000 in new or expanded grant awards, contracts, and allowable fees by June 2003 to maintain existing programs and to respond to the increasing demand for public health services. Through employee creativity training and idea-generating sessions to be completed by June 2002, create an organizational culture that rewards the creative ideas of employees that improve public health services. Implement a process of quality improvement by June 2002 to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of public health services. Expand and strengthen the Health and Human Services Emergency Response Plan by June 2002 to insure rapid and effective responses to a bioterrorist attack or other catastrophic event. Establish quality public health facilities throughout Maricopa County by June 2006 to insure client service needs are met in safe, efficient and regionally located working environment. Establish proper levels of compensation, increase employee recognition and enhance career development opportunities for employees by June 2003 to improve the Department’s ability to retain and recruit employees. 699 Departmental Budget Schedules Vision Public Health (Continued) Issues ! ! ! ! ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! ! Increased Demand for Public Health Services – Rapid population growth, as well as a rising number of medically uninsured individuals, results in an increased demand for public health services from an already strained public health service delivery system. Public Image/Community Support – The public is confused about the role and functions of Public Health, thus significantly limiting the amount of funding and community support for public health issues. Regional Service Delivery – With the population of Maricopa County moving further away from the urban center, it is becoming more difficult for the Department to deliver services to all County residents. Bioterrorism/Major Emergencies – In the event of a bioterrorist attack or some other major emergency, organized resources currently available will not be sufficient to properly respond to such an event. Staff Recruitment – A shortage of skilled public health professionals, low salaries and substandard working conditions make it difficult to attract enough high quality employees. Staff Retention – Poor working conditions, inadequate compensation and limited advancement opportunities within Public Health make it difficult to retain enough high quality employees. Public Health Facilities – Public Health facilities are old and in disrepair, which make them inefficient and unsafe for employees and clients and limits the Department’s capacity to deliver services and maintain high standards for excellence in customer service. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED PUBLIC HEALTH TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HIV SERVICES CONTRACTS MGMT HEALTH RELATED DATA HEALTH EDUCATION HEALTHCARE FOR HOMELESS INDVDL INFECT DISEASE CNTRL & TREATMT IMMUNIZATION SERVICES MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH NUTRITION ORAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ 700 Personal Services 87,678 990,654 228,751 2,768,765 1,558,212 4,737,923 2,004,656 2,141,182 5,205,349 284,950 916,370 79,530 203,641 21,207,661 Supplies & Services $ 119,729 6,318,734 21,967 3,735,494 645,796 2,300,854 3,989,102 758,777 1,833,949 150,670 1,751,562 421,250 612,253 $ 22,660,137 Capital Outlay $ $ 957 25,000 9,660 35,617 Total Expenditures $ 207,407 7,309,388 250,718 6,504,259 2,204,008 7,039,734 6,018,758 2,909,619 7,039,298 435,620 2,667,932 500,780 815,894 $ 43,903,415 $ $ Total Revenue 94,524 6,886,993 11,759 6,828,374 2,071,220 4,614,957 4,721,528 1,976,282 6,786,919 354,311 1,606,905 472,619 836,325 37,262,716 Public Health (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Community Development Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community Development Program is to provide facilitation and resources to communities at risk in Maricopa County so that they can reduce disease and respond to catastrophic events. Key Results: Percent of minority and community health grants applied for that are awarded Percent of Health and Human Services Emergency Response Plan completed FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 20 67 50 0 5 100 100 Program Name: Health Education Program Purpose: The purpose of Health Education is to provide prevention education to people living in Maricopa County so that healthy behaviors are increased and the incidence of disease is reduced. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 80 N/A 82 0 17 48 60 60 937 N/A 843 35 1,294 43 600 20 97 90 93 92 Program Name: Health Related Data Program Purpose: The purpose of Health Related Data is to provide accurate and timely data and documents to members of the public and service providers so that they have relevant information for disease detection, disease prevention, and legal documentation. Key Results: Health Status Yearly Reports Number of certified copies issued FY 00 Actual 2 218,644 FY 01 Actual 2 219,702 FY 02 Actual 3 225,224 FY 03 Projected 2 215,000 Program Name: Healthcare for Homeless Individuals Program Purpose: The purpose of Healthcare for Homeless Individuals is to provide integrated medical and behavioral health services, in a holistic manner, to homeless individuals in Maricopa County so that an optimal level of health can be achieved. Key Results: Percent of homeless substance abuse clients interviewed Percent of homeless in Phoenix metropolitan area seen at least once at clinic FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 6.5 7 6.5 40 43 38 40 701 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of students reporting 30 minutes or more of physical activity each school day Increase in HIV risk knowledge as measured by pre/post test (percent) Car seats inspected Percent of adult clients quitting tobacco use Percent of HIV Prevention Community Planning Group members supporting the direction of the plan Public Health (Continued) Program Name: HIV Services Contracts Management Program Purpose: The purpose of HIV Services Contract Management is to provide planning, procurement, execution, and monitoring of medical, health, and support service agreements to people living with HIV/AIDS so that morbidity and mortality will be reduced and overall quality of life will be improved. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of all Title I funded clients who access primary medical care Percent of HIV/AIDS Services Planning Council members who indicate that they are equipped to make allocation decisions FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 90 92 94 94 N/A N/A 86 75 Program Name: Immunization Services Program Purpose: The purpose of Immunization Services is to provide immunizations to eligible children and adults so that vaccine-preventable diseases can be prevented in Maricopa County. Key Results: Percent of children 0-2 years old receiving full complement of immunizations Percent improvement in scores on immunization knowledge (as measured in pre/post tests) Percent increase in mean immunization completion rate after intervention Percent positive response on adult immunization customer satisfaction surveys FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 44 44 43 45 30 20 11 10 21 16 4 5 92 95 94 95 Program Name: Infectious Disease Control and Treatment Program Purpose: The purpose of Infectious Disease Control and Treatment is to provide clinical, outreach, and community-based interventions to defined populations and communities in order to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis, and promote the health of the community. Key Results: Percent of perinatal syphilis referrals receiving services Percent of investigated individuals who receive HIV prevention education Percent of clients who said that their HIV test result was explained clearly and simply Cost savings on lab tests Cost savings for treating congenital syphilis cases before the birth of the infant Percent of TB suspects/cases who receive intervention Percent of refugees entering Maricopa County who complete health screening 702 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 44 34 60 42 92 82 83 85 100 97 100 92 3,834,770 4,801,329 4,925,772 4,540,709 1,272,466 2,058,000 2,642,000 2,000,000 92 95 94 95 90 91 77 85 Public Health (Continued) Key Results: (Continued) Percent of clients followed by the Hansen’s Clinic who did not have deformities at the time of diagnosis, who develop such during treatment Percent of general health surveillance reports investigated Percent of communicable disease outbreaks in early release facility (Tent City) originating with individuals screened by Con-Tents activity. Percent savings over wholesale price: Rifampin 300 mg FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 0 0 63 50 45 50 N/A 0 0 0 76 76 77 78 Program Name: Maternal and Child Health Program Purpose: The purpose of Maternal and Child Health is to provide assessment, services, and policy development leadership to families so that health disparities among women and children are reduced. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 76 78 77 75 3,183 2,796 2,055 500 N/A 57 64 70 N/A 42 48 45 60 36 52 45 N/A 33 N/A N/A 80 85 85 85 N/A 80 88 80 N/A 95 98 90 703 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of pregnancy clients who, at delivery, had received 6 or more prenatal care visits Parenting interventions completed (number of families) Percent of stakeholders in sample who report that they have used the Maternal/Child Health (MCH) Needs Assessment or other data Percent of women with abnormal cancer screening (Pap test) findings referred for colposcopy Percent of women returning for annual re-screening for breast and cervical cancer Percent of businesses requesting repeat services for parenting classes Percent of families that improve in parenting skills Percent of babies referred from the Newborn Intensive Care Unit that receive a home visit Percent of lead hazard referrals who receive at least one home visit Public Health (Continued) Program Name: Nutrition Program Purpose: The purpose of Nutrition is to provide nutrition services, resources and referrals to residents of Maricopa County so that they will be empowered to implement nutritional practices associated with disease reduction and optimal health. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Increase (percent) on post-survey vs. pre-survey: Identification of five or more as the correct number of fruits/vegetables to eat each day Value of food draft redemption within Maricopa County Percent of eligible seniors who receive supplemental food from activity Hours contributed to public health projects by dietetics interns FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 59 52 N/A 5 39,386,063 36,849,161 N/A 39,000,000 52 52 52 48 800 816 917 640 Program Name: Oral Health Program Purpose: The purpose of Oral Health is to provide education, preventive, and treatment services to targeted children, adults and health care providers, so that oral disease is detected, reduced, and oral health is enhanced. Key Results: Percent of children with untreated dental needs given dental referral sheet following screening Percent HIV/AIDS client satisfaction with the Office of Oral Health Attendee satisfaction with oral health tobacco use training session (percent) Percent of children with urgent oral health conditions (pain and/or infection) referred to school nurse for subsequent dental treatment services 704 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 100 100 100 100 90 92 92 90 N/A 0 90 85 100 100 100 N/A Public Health (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 4,295,797 4,830,212 5,317,267 5,836,520 6,362,882 Special Revenue $ 23,246,722 $ 26,105,789 $ 30,111,405 $ 33,287,194 $ 37,540,533 $ $ $ $ $ Total 27,542,519 30,936,001 35,428,672 39,123,714 43,903,415 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 2,441,217 2,793,743 3,246,906 3,357,283 3,922,024 Special Revenue $ 4,766,452 $ 5,215,750 $ 5,408,555 $ 8,545,937 $ 9,784,584 $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,207,669 8,009,493 8,655,461 11,903,220 13,706,608 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 1,854,580 2,036,469 2,070,361 2,479,237 2,440,858 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,854,580 2,036,469 2,070,361 2,479,237 2,440,858 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 18,480,270 $ 20,890,039 $ 24,702,850 $ 24,741,257 $ 27,755,949 $ $ $ $ $ Total 18,480,270 20,890,039 24,702,850 24,741,257 27,755,949 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 705 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Public Health (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Control And Treatment Of Contagious Diseases A.R.S. § 36-628 Provision For Care Of Persons Afflicted With Contagious Diseases. A.R.S. § 36-663 Communicable Disease Control. A.R.S. §§ 36-711 Through 738 (1997) Tuberculosis Control. A.R.S. 36-662 Access to Records. A.R.S. 36-104 Powers and Duties. Arizona Administrative Code R9-6-309 Chlamydia, R9-6-323 Gonorrhea, and R9-6-360 Syphilis. Arizona public health statutes mandate county health departments to perform the above referenced functions. Specific rules and regulations are promulgated by the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS). ADHS has delegated the function of local tuberculosis control officer to Maricopa County Department of Public Health (MCDPH). Through the concerted efforts of county health departments, the Arizona Attorney General's Office and the Arizona affiliate of the American Lung Association, new tuberculosis control statutes were passed by the Arizona legislature in 1997. These new laws strengthen the mandate of a county health department to control tuberculosis through the use of involuntary isolation and quarantine of non-compliant individuals with or suspected of having active tuberculosis. Since the enactment of these statutes, MCDPH has issued less than 6 emergency custody orders. ADHS has also delegated control measures (follow-up on positive test results) and contact control measures (interview infected individuals, elicit contacts, and arrange treatment of contacts) for Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Syphilis to the local Health Department. This includes the identification and follow-up on all reported positive Syphilis serologies on infants with Congenital Syphilis in Maricopa County. County health departments are mandated to order non-compliant persons with or suspected of having active tuberculosis, to comply with voluntary examination, monitoring, treatment, isolation or quarantine. If the individual fails to comply with such order, the local tuberculosis control officer or local health director, may issue an emergency custody order directing the sheriff or other law enforcement officer to take such individual into custody. These statutes outline the procedures local health officers must follow once an emergency custody order is issued. A health care provider who knowingly refuses to perform his/her legal duties under the above listed statutes can be held criminally liable. In 1995, sections B and C were added to A.R.S. § 36-663. Section B lists specific procedures a health care provider must follow in order to obtain written or oral consent of a patient in order to conduct an HIV test. Section C mandates that providers obtaining oral consent to conduct an HIV test must sign a form to that effect and return it to the ADHS. County health departments are also mandated to notify individuals who test positive for Syphilis of their test result within 30 days. It is also the responsibility of the local health department to conduct an epidemiological investigation on each reportable case and notify identified sexual contacts of patients and to arrange for treatment. The Arizona Revised Statutes provide local health departments, in the course of an investigation, access to medical records and lab reports concerning the diagnosis, treatment, and control of specific communicable diseases. There are also statute requirements for minors to obtain treatment for venereal disease without the consent of their parents (A.R.S.44-132.01.) and mandates for testing pregnant women for Syphilis at the time of their first prenatal exam (A.R.S.36-693). 706 Public Health (Continued) Control and Treatment of Contagious Diseases FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION MANDATE DESCRIPTION Special Revenue $ 1,486,253 $ 1,663,657 $ 1,815,591 $ 1,829,101 $ 2,450,912 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,580,868 2,927,351 3,157,925 3,079,870 3,912,134 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 1,344,826 $ 1,598,015 $ 1,625,757 $ 1,718,439 $ 1,804,124 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,344,826 1,598,015 1,625,757 1,718,439 1,804,124 Vital Registration A.R.S. § 36-186 Director Of Local Health Departments; Powers And Duties; A.R.S. § 36-302 Vital Records And Public Health Statistics; A.R.S. § 36-322 Electronic Registration Of Birth Certificates; A.R.S. § 36-327 Electronic Filing Of Death Certificates; A.R.S. § 36-329 Electronic Filing Of Fetal Death Certificates. The responsibility for information relative to vital statistics originates at the county level. The passage of the federal welfare reform law and it's requirements regarding the collection of child support, and tracking of births occurring outside marriage, required states to amend their laws concerning the collection of information to be recorded on the birth certificate. In addition, the Arizona State Legislature was interested in making birth certificates more easily available to the public. A.R.S. § 36-322 also allows the local registrar to electronically file birth certificates with the Arizona Department of Health Services. A.R.S. § 36-329 allows the electronic filing of fetal death certificates. Register all births and deaths in the County and provide copies of birth and death certificates for sale. Monitor health statistics for births and deaths. Data collection: Section F of A.R.S. § 36-322 sets out the requirements regarding recordation of paternity. Section F also requires local registrars to allow public access to death certificates if 50 years have passed since the death occurred. Section G requires local registrars to report paternity determinations/recessions with the state registrar in order for the state registrar to fulfill their statutory obligation. Section N is entirely new and requires local registrars to make birth certificates available to the public if 75 years have passed since the birth was registered. Section A now permits electronic filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates. 707 Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND General Fund 1,094,615 1,263,694 1,342,334 1,250,769 1,461,222 Medical Care Of Indigent A.R.S. 11-291 Hospitalization And Medical Care Of The Indigent Sick Prior to the separation of the Medical Center from County management, Public Health Services received some county funding for the medical care of the indigent. Since the separation, Public Health Services has continued to operate a medical clinic servicing a portion of the indigent homeless population using only grant funding. The counties are the mandated payor of last resort for emergency medical treatment of the indigent population of the County. Per A.R.S. 11-291, the Board of Supervisors has sole and exclusive authority to provide for the hospitalization and medical care of the indigent sick. The Board of Supervisors may hire physicians and others to accomplish this function. Counties are not liable to provide care once the person is placed on the AHCCCS rolls. Medical Care of Indigent FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY $ $ $ $ $ Public Health (Continued) Vital Registration FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION 708 General Fund - Special Revenue $ 903,471 $ 1,210,788 $ 1,322,288 $ 1,369,841 $ 1,330,020 $ $ $ $ $ Total 903,471 1,210,788 1,322,288 1,369,841 1,330,020 Office of the Director of the Department of Public Health A.R.S. § 36-186 Director Of Local Health Department; Powers And Duties; A.R.S. § 36-602 Abatement Of Nuisances; A.R.S. § 36-624 Quarantine And Sanitary Measures To Prevent Contagion; A.R.S. § 36-628 Provision For Care Of Persons Afflicted With Contagious Disease; A.R.S. § 36-721 Rules And Regulations; A.R.S. § 36-722 Limitation Of Authority For Treatment. By statute, local health departments are mandated to control/eliminate sources of public health nuisance, filth and contagion. A.R.S. § 36-186, as amended, mandates directors of local health departments to "enforce any law or ordinance " relating to public health, including laws/ordinances which concern public businesses, rental properties and vacant properties. A.R.S. § 36-602 now mandates that local health department directors assess fines against property owners who do not comply with health department orders to remove sources of public health nuisances or sources of filth from their property. Office of the Director of the Department of Public Health FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget TITLE AUTHORITY $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 527,918 557,432 532,023 627,213 485,666 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 527,918 557,432 532,023 627,213 485,666 Immunization And Investigation, And Reporting A.R.S. § 36-186 Director Of Local Health Department; Powers And Duties; A.R.S. § 36-621 Reports Of Contagious Diseases; A.R.S. § 36-622 Report By Hotel Keeper Of Contagious Diseases; A.R.S. § 36-623 Reports By Physicians Of Death From Contagious Diseases; Arizona Administrative Coder9-6-702 - County Health Departments Required To Provide Immunizations. Local health officers are charged, by statute, to provide essential public health functions. In addition, local health departments are mandated by state statute to receive public reports of contagious disease and to provide immunization. Each local health department is further mandated to track disease statistics and trends, and reports them to the Arizona Department of Health Services. To better track childhood immunization rates, A.R.S. § 336-135 requires all health care providers who administer immunizations to children to electronically transmit immunization data to Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS). ADHS is required to report this information to federal Centers for Disease Control. Provide free immunization to children (birth to age 18), receive reports of contagious diseases, investigate reports of contagious diseases, organize and evaluate data related to contagious diseases, track the health statistics of the County, and publish related reports. For each child immunized by Public Health Services, they must inform ADHS of the provider's name, business address and telephone number, the child's name, address, social security number, gender, date of birth, and mother's maiden name. Public Health (Continued) Immunization and Investigation, and Reporting FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate* FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget** $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 818,684 972,617 1,372,549 1,479,301 1,975,136 Special Revenue $ 1,031,902 $ 743,290 $ 644,919 $ 3,628,556 $ 4,199,528 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,850,586 1,715,907 2,017,468 5,107,857 6,174,664 *Special Revenue for Fy 01/02 includes $4,682,941 in donated vaccine materials **Special Revenue for Fy 002/03 includes $3,000,000 in donated vaccine materials Departmental Budget Schedules 709 Public Health (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 860 PUBLIC HEALTH FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 5,167,533 $ 1,184,732 $ 10,617 $ 6,362,882 $ 16,040,128 21,475,405 25,000 37,540,533 37,262,716 $ 21,207,661 $ 22,660,137 $ 35,617 $ 43,903,415 $ 37,262,716 $ 21,207,661 $ 22,660,137 $ 35,617 $ 43,903,415 $ 37,262,716 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 860 PUBLIC HEALTH Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 27,508,556 1,406 1,156,980 1,173,255 364,829 20,885 30,225,911 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 12,282,226 $ 302,045 590,356 2,679,893 21,924 (93,156) 106,924 15,890,212 $ 13,413,634 $ 230,652 3,389,205 629,453 (71,991) 71,991 17,662,944 $ 16,117,278 $ 214,401 3,663,769 559,537 (104,405) 71,991 20,522,571 $ 14,130,892 $ 291,778 38,429 3,298,379 222,623 (61,718) 70,265 17,990,648 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS SubTotal $ 1,813,284 1,738,458 11,634 464,083 6,576 507,764 12,067,298 931,912 62,764 191,334 172,001 286,969 35,871 11,525 34,421 1,016,071 19,351,965 2,466,347 6,339,355 11,860 97,436 8,100 439,207 14,397,860 1,047,064 155,332 112,460 159,279 332,386 2,590 130,040 33,650 1,183,927 26,916,893 3,020,773 11,210,819 11,860 176,436 8,100 415,453 14,124,464 1,047,064 155,332 112,460 159,279 330,838 1,296 130,040 49,090 1,183,927 32,137,231 $ 339,371 $ 4,608,864 11,573 181,371 4,969 722,837 11,991,939 1,076,463 103,733 211,892 189,822 306,372 42,478 47,086 57,385 1,226,376 (276) 21,122,255 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 22,699 137,076 26,725 186,500 $ $ 10,492 319 10,811 Total Expenditures $ 35,428,677 $ $ 39,123,714 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 710 $ $ $ (5,202,766) $ 31,126,633 4,682,941 1,450,660 1,181,801 7,000 65,000 38,514,035 44,579,837 $ $ $ $ $ (6,065,802) $ 34,232,392 9,582,941 1,450,660 1,181,801 7,000 65,000 46,519,794 52,659,802 $ $ (6,140,008) $ 27,541,583 3,126,755 1,216,721 1,236,876 25,380 15,319 44,437 33,207,071 $ (5,854,290) (3,565,495) (1,379,260) 1,568,967 (7,000) (20,000) (9,257,078) 16,501,489 $ 715,339 16,339 4,197,752 268,028 (115,791) 115,791 21,698,947 $ 15,827,707 $ 710,989 14,588 4,060,584 546,394 (115,791) 163,190 21,207,661 $ 289,571 (496,588) (14,588) (396,815) 13,143 11,386 (91,199) (685,090) 7,366,139 1,782,925 11,550 174,090 6,052 917,823 6,879,672 1,312,109 182,573 712,864 202,290 451,453 93,781 88,713 45,411 1,336,509 21,563,954 $ 8,219,470 1,098,164 11,550 174,090 6,052 917,823 7,790,712 1,312,109 182,573 712,864 202,290 436,246 88,569 88,713 45,411 1,373,501 22,660,137 $ 25,000 957 25,957 $ 43,288,858 $ (5,916,643) $ 28,580,395 6,017,446 71,400 2,586,461 45,000 37,300,702 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 28,378,102 6,017,446 71,400 2,750,768 45,000 37,262,716 $ (5,198,697) 10,112,655 310 2,346 2,048 (502,370) 6,333,752 (265,045) (27,241) (600,404) (43,011) (105,408) (87,273) 41,327 3,679 (189,574) 9,477,094 $ 25,000 10,617 35,617 $ (25,000) (10,617) (35,617) $ 43,903,415 $ (5,988,156) $ (6,640,699) $ 8,756,387 (500,691) % -17% -37% -95% 133% -100% -31% -20% 2% -232% -11% 2% 11% -127% -3% -172% 90% 3% 1% 25% -121% 45% -25% -18% -534% -27% -32% -6734% 32% 7% -16% 29% 17% -8% Public Health (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 860 PUBLIC HEALTH FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 15.8 1.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 17.0 3.0 1.0 18.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT III ACCOUNTING CLERK ACCREDITED RECORDS TECHNICIAN ADMIN CLERK ADMIN OFFICE SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT LEAD ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/PC ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR VI ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE LEAD ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SPECIALIZED ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT SENIOR/LEAD ADMINISTRATOR ADMINSTRATOR - DIRECTOR ANCILIARY SERVICE MANAGER AUTOMATED REGISTRATION TECH BUDGET ANALYST BUSINESS & TECHNICAL SERVICES MANAGER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER AIDE CASHIER CESSATION SPECIALIST CESSATION TEAM LEADER 1 CESSATION TEAM LEADER 2 CHILDHOOD INJURY PREV. & GEN. HEALTH EDUCATOR CLERK IV COMMUNICABLE DISEASE INVESTIGATOR COMMUNITY COORDINATOR COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR COMMUNITY HIV PREVENTION PROGRAM COORDINATOR COMMUNITY NUTRITION MANAGER COMMUNITY NUTRITION WORKER COMMUNITY NUTRITION WORKER-FOOD PLUS COMMUNITY NUTRITIONIST COMMUNITY OUTREACH SPECIALIST CONTRACT SPECIALIST COUNSELOR I COURIER CPG PROGRAM ASSISTANT CVD RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM MANAGER DATA CONTROL SPECIALIST DATA ENTRY CLERK DATA ENTRY OPERATOR DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR DENTAL HYGENIST DENTAL SEALANT COORDINAT DEPUTY DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEALTH DESK TOP PUBLISHER DEVELOPMENT & COMMUNITY PLANNING PROGRAM MANAGER DIRECTOR OF MINORITY HEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH EPIDEMIOLOGIST 6.0 19.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 95.9 3.0 3.1 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 711 Public Health (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE EPIDEMIOLOGY & VITAL STATISTICS DIRECTOR ETS SPECIALIST ETS TEAM LEADER EVALUATION COORDINATOR EVALUATION SPECIALIST EVALUATION TEAM LEADER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FACILITIES MANAGER FAMILY PRACTICE PHYSICIAN FINANCE MANAGER FINANCIAL BUSINESS MANAGER FOOD PLUS PROGRAM MANAGER GENERAL MAINTENANCE WORKER GRANT PROCUREMENT MANAGER GRANTS MANAGER HEALTH EDUCATOR HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR II HEALTH SERVICES CLERK I HEALTH SERVICES COORDINATOR HEALTH SURVEILLANCE NURSE HIV HEALTH EDUCATION MANAGER HIV HEALTH EDUCATOR HIV/C&T SUPERVISOR HI-RISK R.D. HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST H.R. LIAISON & PROCUREMENT IMMUNIZATION NURSE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR LAB OFFICE ASSISTANT LABORATORY TECHNICIAN LABORATORY TECHNICIAN II LAN ADMINISTRATOR LAN MANAGER/WEB DEVELOPER LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE II LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE - COMMUNICABLE DISEASE IN MANAGEMENT ANALYST IV MANAGER-SUPPORT STAFF MEDIA SPECIALIST MEDICAL ASSISTANT MEDICAL DIRECTOR MEDICAL DRIVER MEDICAL DRIVER-ATTENDANT Ii MEDICAL RECORDS CLERK MEDICAL SERVICES MANAGER MEN POWER PROJECT PROGRAM COORDINATOR MICROBIOLOGIST/LAB TECHNICIAN MIS COORDINATOR MIS/BUDGET ANALYST NICP NURSE NICP NURSE SUPERVISOR NURSE ASSISTANT MANAGER I NURSE MANAGER NURSE MANAGER I NURSE MANAGER II NURSE PRACTITIONER NURSE PRACTITIONER/PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT NURSING EDUCATION INSTRUCTOR II NUTRITION PROGRAMS ASSISTANT OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE SUPERVISOR OHPE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OHPE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR 712 FTE 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 4.5 0.8 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 11.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Public Health (Continued) FTE 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.1 15.4 2.0 10.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ONS ADMINISTRATOR OUTREACH SPECIALIST OUTREACH WORKER PARENT AIDE PC LAN TECHNICIAN PHARMACIST PHARMACY TECHNICIAN PHARMACY TECHNICIAN II PHYSICIAN PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT PLANNING COUNCIL MANAGER PREVENTION TEAM LEADER 1 PREVENTION TEAM LEADER 2 PREVENTIVE MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR PROGRAM ADMIN SPECIALIST PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR PROGRAM ANALYST PROGRAM ASSISTANT PROGRAM ASSISTANT PLANNING COUNCIL PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM DIRECTOR PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM SUPERVISOR PROGRAMMER PROTECTIVE SERVICES OFFICER PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER PUBLIC INFORMATION SPECIALIST RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGIST I RECEPTIONIST REGISTERED DENTAL HYGIENIST REGISTERED NURSE REGISTERED NURSE III REGISTERED NURSE IV REGISTRAR REGISTRATION ASSISTANT RESEARCH ASSISTANT RN MANAGER RN/PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR RYAN WHITE PROGRAM COORDINATOR RYAN WHITE PROGRAM DIRECTOR RYAN WHITE QUALITY MANAGER RYAN WHITE TITLE I PROG COORD SECRETARY SENIOR EPIDEMIOLOGIST SENIOR EPIDEMIOLOGIST/DEPUTY DIRECTOR SENIOR EPI/SAS/ORACLE PROGRAMMER/STATISTICIAN SERVICE COORD EDUCATOR SOCIAL SERVICES MANAGER SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELOR SUPERINTENDENT SURVEILLANCE COORDINATOR TOBACCO USE PREVENTION PROGRAM ASSISTANT TOBACCO USE PREVENTION PROGRAM CONTRACT COORDINATO TOBACCO USE PREVENTION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COORDIN TOBACCO USE PREVENTION PROGRAM MANAGER TOBACCO USE PREVENTION PROGRAM MEDIA COORDINATOR TRAINING SPECIALIST TRAINING SPECIALIST R.D. TRAINING & EDUCATION COORDINATOR TURNING POINT COORDINATOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 713 Public Health (Continued) WORKING TITLE VITALS MANAGER VOICE COMMUNICATION COORDINATOR WIC CLERK WIC PROGRAM MANAGER WIC SITE SUPERVISOR X-RAY TECHNICIAN FTE Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 714 1.0 1.0 28.6 1.0 13.5 1.0 522.7 Research and Reporting County Administrative Officer Deputy County Administrator Research & Reporting Research & Reporting Ken Andersen, Manager Ken Andersen, Manager Survey Research Administration Mission The mission of the Research and Reporting Department is to provide survey data services to county managers so they can more effectively manage for results using statistically reliable data. Goals ! ! Issues ! ! The demand for services, both internally and externally, will continue to be unpredictable which adversely affects Research and Reporting’s ability to plan and to manage. Current low unemployment rate, the temporary nature of the telephone interviewer position, technological and public relation challenges of the position adversely affects the ability of Research and Reporting to attract and retain a competent pool of skilled on-call employees. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESEARCH & REPORTING TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity RESEARCH AND REPORTING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 217,966 $ 141,410 $ 26,872 16,752 26,870 16,752 271,708 $ 174,914 $ Total $ Capital Outlay - Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 359,376 $ 352,000 43,624 44,000 43,622 44,000 $ 446,622 $ 440,000 715 Departmental Budget Schedules ! By January 2002 we will establish a mechanism to identify and document county management’s expectations of Research and Reporting; and, determine the number and types of external studies that could be accommodated to defray administrative costs for the upcoming fiscal year. By January 2002 we will establish a partnership with Human Resources and the Office of Management and Budget to investigate the need for and feasibility of establishing a pool of temporary telephone interviewer/clerical staff. County management will incorporate employee and customer satisfaction survey data into their Managing for Results (MFR) plans by FY03 Research and Reporting (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Research And Reporting Program Purpose: The purpose of the Research and Reporting Program is to provide survey data services to county managers and external agencies so they can have statistically valid data upon which to base informed decisions. Key Results: Percent of consultations providing information needed to make study decisions Percent of customers reporting that study goals were met FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 100 Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 310,989 $ 418,215 $ 437,512 $ 411,313 $ 446,622 $ $ $ $ $ Total 310,989 418,215 437,512 411,313 446,622 Total Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 310,989 $ 310,989 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 418,215 $ 418,215 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 437,512 $ 437,512 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 411,313 $ 411,313 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 446,622 $ 446,622 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 716 Research and Reporting (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay 271,708 174,914 $ 271,708 $ 174,914 $ $ 271,708 $ 174,914 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue 446,622 440,000 $ 446,622 $ 440,000 $ 446,622 $ 440,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING FY 2000-01 Actual 544,476 185,708 730,184 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ 152,115 53,298 4,762 46,078 256,253 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ SubTotal $ 7,207 2,181 29,384 54,558 555 20,351 617 851 65,555 181,259 Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ $ 316,192 316,192 209,055 40,000 61,109 6,000 316,164 $ 6,572 5,000 2,052 70,000 1,000 17,924 2,500 1,445 79,243 185,736 437,512 $ 501,900 292,672 $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 316,192 316,192 209,055 40,000 61,109 6,000 316,164 $ 6,572 5,000 2,052 70,000 1,000 17,924 2,500 1,445 79,243 185,736 $ 501,900 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 1,352 500,979 502,331 153,296 26,646 46,003 4,234 230,179 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 440,000 440,000 209,287 50,000 68,765 3,000 331,052 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ 123,808 123,808 $ $ 6,570 5,002 3,356 69,600 1,500 12,388 2,500 2,397 71,601 174,914 $ (2) (1,304) 400 (500) 5,536 (952) 7,642 10,822 $ 446,622 $ 55,278 11% (6,622) $ 179,086 96% $ $ 6,572 5,000 2,000 69,600 1,500 12,385 2,500 2,400 72,957 174,914 $ 411,313 $ 505,966 (185,708) $ 91,018 $ (65,966) $ $ 52,732 (20,000) 8,723 3,001 44,456 39% 39% 156,323 60,000 52,386 2,999 271,708 6,572 394 1,000 2,000 70,001 500 17,924 2,500 1,000 79,243 181,134 $ % 2 25% -50% 14% 50% 14% 0% 0% -64% 1% -50% 31% 0% -66% 10% 6% CAPITAL OUTLAY (185,708) $ Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING WORKING TITLE DATA COLLECTION SUPERVISOR DATABASE ANALYST II DIRECTOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEWER TELEPHONE INTERVIEWER I/BILINGUAL FTE TOTAL 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.3 7.8 717 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Risk Management County Administrative Officer Chief Financial Officer Peter Crowley, Peter Crowley, Risk Manager Risk Manager Safety & Loss Control Claims Administration Environmental Compliance Administration Mission Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the Risk Management Department is to provide loss prevention and control, and insurance and claims management services for Maricopa County Government, so they can reduce or eliminate their losses. Vision The Risk Management Department will be recognized as a leader and relied upon for a countywide risk management philosophy and culture. Goals ! ! ! ! Departmental decisions involving risk to County assets will be made consistent with established risk management protocols. Departments will be able to identify and manage areas of risk and reduce losses as a result of timely and relevant information and assistance provided by risk management. County losses will be reduced by a measurable amount over each of the next five years. Risk Management will sustain appropriate level of expertise by maintaining a personnel attrition rate of less than 10% over each of the next five years. Issues ! ! ! ! The County’s inability to recognize the value of the Risk Management discipline and the impact it has on the protection of the County's assets, creates a lack of accountability and a failure to protect all the assets, and therefore, damages the credibility of County government. The County's emphasis on managing for results presents us an opportunity, a challenge, and a forum to showcase our results for the County. With an increasing population and workforce, the need for Risk Management services will become more integral in forecasting of future County financial liability. As the number and costs of claims continue to increase and departments become more sophisticated and aware of their claim losses, demand for Risk Management services will increase and become more consultative in nature. 718 Risk Management (Continued) ! ! ! ! As the County's workforce and the regulatory environment continues to evolve, customers will demand more involvement from us to meet their needs for claims, environmental and safety services. Lack of consolidated workspace for all Risk Management functions results in fragmentation of department, lack of team environment and an impediment to communication. Greater competition in the Risk Management field for qualified professionals presents a future risk for turnover and potential failure to achieve results. As County management stresses the need for a comprehensive county-wide loss prevention program, demand for our services will increase. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RISK MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS Total Personal Supplies & Capital Total Total Services Services Outlay Expenditures Revenue $ 242,040 $ 10,573,893 $ - $ 10,815,933 $ 24,161 10,817,420 10,841,581 541,070 611,463 1,152,533 120,000 193,288 230,257 20,000 443,545 24,380,384 144,791 144,791 $ 1,145,350 $ 22,233,033 $ 20,000 $ 23,398,383 $ 24,500,384 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Claims Resolution and Litigation Management Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the risk management claims resolution and litigation management program is to provide claims disposition services to county government so they can reduce the cost of losses. Key Results: Percent maximum of pay out against the demand annually Percent maximum of litigation costs versus claims costs annually Percent of increase of collections (subrogation) of available funds FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 12 15 16.25 30 30 40 93 30 10 13 N/A 10 719 Departmental Budget Schedules Program Activity CLAIMS RESOLUTION/LIT MGT PROG RISK MNGT SELF-INSURANCE PROG SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROG ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Risk Management (Continued) Program Name: Risk Management Safety and Environmental Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the risk management safety and environmental program is to provide loss prevention services to county government so they can minimize or eliminate losses. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent reduction in losses where claims consultations have occurred Percent reduction of losses where safety consultations have occurred Percent reduction in losses where training has occurred Percent reduction in injuries where training has occurred Percent reduction in losses where inspections have occurred Percent reduction in environmental liability exposures Percent reduction in safety liability exposures FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A 5 5.6 -20 N/A 1 N/A 16 N/A 5 Program Name: Risk Management Self-Insurance Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the risk management self-insurance program is to provide coverage and liability reduction services to county government so they will have adequate protection of county assets. Key Results: Percent maximum deviation from trust funding plan Percent of premium costs that are within brokers budget estimate Percent decrease of adverse actions where county contracts were reviewed by risk management Percent of county contracts reviewed by risk management Percent of contracts administered where services were provided or performed in accordance with specific contract performance indicators Percent of users who report documents helped them make better decisions 720 FY 00 Actual N/A FY 01 Actual N/A FY 02 Actual 0.19 FY 03 Projected 5 N/A N/A 81 80 N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A 5.5 8 N/A N/A 98.25 80 N/A N/A N/A 60 Risk Management (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 16,889,361 16,766,871 18,795,176 18,848,901 23,398,368 $ $ $ $ $ Total 16,889,361 16,766,871 18,795,176 18,848,901 23,398,368 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Internal Service Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 16,889,361 $ 16,889,361 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 16,766,871 $ 16,766,871 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 18,795,176 $ 18,795,176 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 18,848,901 $ 18,848,901 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 23,398,368 $ 23,398,368 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Departmental Budget Schedules 721 Risk Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 750 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND TYPE INTERNAL SERVICE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 1,145,350 22,233,033 20,000 23,398,383 24,500,384 $ 1,145,350 $ 22,233,033 $ 20,000 $ 23,398,383 $ 24,500,384 $ 1,145,350 $ 22,233,033 $ 20,000 $ 23,398,383 $ 24,500,384 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 750 RISK MANAGEMENT FY 2000-01 Actual Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES SubTotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE $ 19,119,496 914,120 20,033,616 874,430 $ (816) 24,234 155,630 5,302 1,058,780 $ 958,824 15,000 5,675 181,820 1,161,319 45,497 1,927 16,354 3,966,825 9,372,594 32,888 200 1,634,532 29,513 420 159,335 15,260,085 - $ $ 77,945 2,900 30,000 2,233,964 13,587,113 18,600 3,700 190,000 1,546,873 49,800 3,300 25,000 84,002 17,853,197 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 19,119,496 1,120,000 278,517 20,518,013 967,802 150 178,150 1,146,102 $ 51,000 2,400 10,000 3,189,636 12,583,055 16,100 2,950 175,000 1,523,523 32,384 2,750 10,000 84,002 17,682,800 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 19,119,496 1,120,000 336,061 20,575,557 945,179 150 179,845 1,125,174 $ 51,000 2,400 10,000 3,189,636 12,988,283 16,100 2,950 175,000 1,523,523 32,384 2,750 10,000 84,002 18,088,028 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 23,343,430 1,156,954 24,500,384 957,759 9,903 197,994 1,165,656 $ 51,000 2,400 10,000 3,189,635 17,094,095 16,100 2,950 175,000 1,535,250 32,384 2,750 10,000 123,600 22,245,164 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 23,343,430 1,156,954 24,500,384 $ 955,619 151 189,580 1,145,350 $ 51,000 2,400 10,000 3,189,635 17,099,121 16,100 2,950 175,000 1,518,102 32,384 2,750 10,000 123,591 22,233,033 $ $ $ % 4,223,934 36,954 (278,517) 3,982,371 22% 3% -100% 19% 12,183 (1) (11,430) 752 -1% -6% - 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -47% -26% $ 1 (4,516,066) 5,421 (39,589) (4,550,233) 13% $ 37,000 37,000 $ 20,000 20,000 $ 20,000 20,000 $ 17,500 2,500 20,000 $ 17,500 2,500 20,000 $ 2,500 (2,500) - Total Expenditures $ 16,318,865 $ 19,051,516 $ 18,848,902 $ 19,233,202 $ 23,430,820 $ 23,398,383 $ (4,549,481) -24% Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 4,321,768 $ 982,100 $ 1,669,111 $ 1,342,355 $ 1,069,564 $ 1,102,001 $ (567,110) -34% SubTotal $ 722 19,227,729 1,412,904 20,640,633 FY 2001-02 Adopted 0% Risk Management (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 750 RISK MANAGEMENT WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ASSISTANT RISK MANAGER - CLAIMS ASSISTANT RISK MANAGER - SAFETY BUDGET & FINANCE ASSISTANT BUDGET & FINANCE MANAGER CLAIMS ADJUSTER CLAIMS COORDINATOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT FLEET SAFETY CONSULTANT HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CONSULTANT HEAVY EQUIPMENT CONSULTANT LOSS CONTROL CONSULTANT RISK MANAGER SAFETY CONSULTANT FTE TOTAL 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 19.0 Departmental Budget Schedules 723 Solid Waste County Administrative Officer Chief Public Works Officer Solid Waste Solid Waste Ash Madhok, Director Ash Madhok, Director Administration Landfill Closure & Post- Closure, Transfer Stations Operation Tire Recycling Program Environmental Monitoring & Operations Mission Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the Solid Waste Management Department is to provide collection sites and tire recycling programs for residents and businesses so they may dispose of waste and tires conveniently in a safe manner that preserves and protects the environment and public health. Vision Provide solid waste transfer, disposal and recycling services for our County residents with emphasis on ever expanding role. Goals ! ! ! By 2005, identify appropriate sites and open two new landfills. By 2003, develop and implement an Illegal dumping clean-up program. By 2003, develop and implement a Household Hazardous Waste Program to protect the environment from contamination. Issues ! ! ! An increase in the illegal dumping of household hazardous wastes into landfills is resulting in greater public health risks and potential environmental pollution. The absence of County landfills, coupled with the high cost of disposal fees by private landfill operators and population growth are contributing to the increase in illegal dumping. The lack of an illegal dumping cleanup program is contributing to the increase in illegal dumping. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED SOLID WASTE TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity WASTE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS 724 Personal Supplies & Capital Services Services Outlay $ 376,754 $ 2,757,873 $ 445 73,463 963,044 450,662 $ 3,720,917 $ Total $ Total Total Expenditures Revenue $ 3,134,627 $ 3,400,008 445 1,036,507 880,690 $ 4,171,579 $ 4,280,698 Solid Waste (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Waste Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Waste Management Program is to provide transfer and disposal of Solid Waste and Waste Tire Recycling services for residents so they can dispose of their trash conveniently, safely and economically. Key Results: Percent of tire tonnage properly disposed Percent customers satisfied Percent of illegal dumping cleanups completed Percent of groundwater wells monitored FY 00 Actual N/A N/A N/A N/A FY 01 Actual 100 95 100 150 FY 02 Actual 34 86 100 200 FY 03 Projected 100 95 N/A 100 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Special Revenue $ $ 2,727,649 $ 2,994,897 $ 2,221,067 $ 3,472,515 Enterprise Funds $ 3,577,890 $ 1,236,444 $ 1,333,771 $ 805,172 $ 699,064 $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,577,890 3,964,093 4,328,668 3,026,239 4,171,579 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ $ 2,727,649 $ 2,994,897 $ 2,221,067 $ 3,472,515 Enterprise Funds $ 2,778,000 $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,778,000 2,727,649 2,994,897 2,221,067 3,472,515 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue Enterprise Funds Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ 799,890 $ 799,890 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ 1,236,444 $ 1,236,444 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ 1,333,771 $ 1,333,771 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ $ 805,172 $ 805,172 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ 699,064 $ 699,064 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 725 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Solid Waste (Continued) Mandate Information Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Waste tire fund and program A.R.S. § 44-1305. C. Each county shall establish a waste tire program and shall submit by September 1 of each year a waste tire management plan to the department of environmental quality for review and approval. A waste tire program may include contracts with private enterprise to do any of the following, either individually or collectively: Develop an accounting system for the waste tires managed with monies from the waste tire fund. The department of revenue shall provide an annual report to the legislature and to the department of environmental quality on the collection and distribution of monies in the waste tire fund. MANDATE Develop a plan to manage waste tires in the county. Construct, operate, or DESCRIPTION contract for the construction or operation of a waste tire processing facility and purchase equipment for that facility. Contract for a waste tire processing facility service. Remove or contract for the removal of waste tires from the county or other region. Establish waste tire collection centers at solid waste disposal facilities or waste tire processing facilities. Waste Tire Fund Special Revenue Enterprise Funds Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 2,727,649 $ $ 2,727,649 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 2,994,897 $ $ 2,994,897 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 2,221,067 $ $ 2,221,067 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,472,515 $ $ 3,472,515 726 Solid Waste (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 670 SOLID WASTE FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay 242,855 3,229,660 207,807 491,257 $ 450,662 $ 3,720,917 $ $ 450,662 $ 3,720,917 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue 3,472,515 3,440,050 699,064 840,648 $ 4,171,579 $ 4,280,698 $ 4,171,579 $ 4,280,698 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 670 SOLID WASTE FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted 3,612 3,491,083 165,323 1,368,888 5,028,906 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 312,899 35,258 10,403 96,295 454,855 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ 45,311 33,312 13,636 10,941 2,961,100 74,064 7,332 188,685 439 5,690 376,080 3,716,590 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 55,717 92,342 9,164 157,223 $ Total Expenditures $ 4,328,668 $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 700,238 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,896,000 20,000 1,270,500 4,186,500 $ 349,800 $ 166,843 113,957 5,000 (33,135) 602,465 $ 45,680 35,000 30,000 3,048,841 60,500 15,092 514,721 4,000 8,500 8,500 334,516 4,105,350 4,707,815 $ $ $ $ (521,315) $ 2,896,000 20,000 1,270,500 4,186,500 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 355,669 $ 156,843 114,388 5,000 (33,135) 598,765 $ 45,716 35,000 30,000 2,870,511 60,500 14,967 597,629 4,000 11,000 8,500 334,516 4,012,339 $ 320,704 $ 31,249 8,945 93,047 360 (18,400) 435,905 $ $ 372,164 $ 149,200 35,000 112,053 (35,298) 633,119 $ $ 404,000 20,648 940,050 (1,270,500) 94,198 345,835 $ 32,900 11,251 95,974 (35,298) 450,662 $ 9,834 123,943 (11,251) 18,414 5,000 2,163 148,103 3% 79% 16% 100% 7% 25% $ $ 3,026,239 $ 3,753,794 $ 4,171,579 $ 439,525 10% (424,604) $ 1,232,132 $ 961,206 $ 109,119 $ 533,723 126% $ - $ $ 37,103 17,469 27,636 (259,706) 9,500 11,467 367,501 3,730 10,415 338 65,969 291,422 -100% 2% $ - $ 8,613 17,531 2,364 3,130,217 51,000 3,500 230,128 270 585 8,162 268,547 3,720,917 14% 103% 7,068 7,068 $ 76,444 40,000 25,000 2,405,823 55,000 35,092 197,769 5,000 7,500 500 4,000 268,547 3,120,675 3,300,000 40,648 940,050 4,280,698 % $ 4,611,104 $ 3,600,000 20,000 672,000 423,000 4,715,000 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 8,285 17,448 2,702 1,558,000 39,419 3,500 610,379 270 585 8,162 334,516 2,583,266 - $ 3,267,676 50,645 940,050 4,258,371 FY 2002-03 Requested 81% 50% 92% -9% 16% 77% 61% 93% 95% 4% 20% 7% - 727 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Revised Solid Waste (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 670 SOLID WASTE WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III CASHIER DIRECTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR LANDFILL OPERATIONS SPECIALIST II PUBLIC WORKS LEAD FTE Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 728 2.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 12.0 Telecommunications County Administrative Officer Chief Information Officer Telecommunications Telecommunications Nancy Bozich, Director Nancy Bozich, Director Wireless Systems Voice Communications Administration Data Communications Mission The Mission of Telecommunications is to provide strategic vision, leadership, and enterprise solutions to County leaders and staff so they can meet their goals and deliver results to the Public. Vision Goals ! ! ! ! ! County employees will have the flexibility to do their jobs from anywhere in the County at any time by July, 2003. Operational and strategic decision-makers will be able to readily and easily access information they need to make informed decisions by July 2005. The cost and time to deliver services will be reduced by streamlining business operations through the use of technology by July, 2006. Through county-wide technology standardization, we will optimize the use of resources so that the information technology department strategic goals will be achieved by July, 2003. The Public and outside organizations will be able to obtain services and transact business electronically from any location at any time by July, 2006. Issues ! ! ! ! ! As the County increasingly depends upon collaboration in the workplace, supporting the process will be impossible if the technology infrastructure is inadequately funded and allowed to stagnate. The lack of robust tools to manage, organize, maintain and catalog data will negate the usefulness of the constantly increasing supply of and demand for web-based information. Increased demand for video, imaging, and other high bandwidth applications to support business processes are greater than what current network capacity and flexibility can provide. The lack of competitive compensation, education, and career development opportunities for IT staff will make it difficult to attract and retain skilled employees. If IT doesn’t pursue alternative service delivery models, the shortage of IT talent may result in the inability to meet our customers’ demands for services. 729 Departmental Budget Schedules Telecommunications will champion Maricopa County into Information-Age Government Telecommunications (Continued) ! ! ! Current development methodologies, tools, infrastructure, and organizational models won’t be able to support the Public’s demand for easy, online, 7X24 access to all government services from any location. Existing systems are being challenged to present decision-making information to county staff, management, and citizenry to meet current and anticipated increase in demand. The changing work environment and growth in population require county employees to perform their jobs from remote locations, seriously challenging the County telecommunications system, which was designed primarily to serve centralized locations. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOTAL FUNDS Departmental Budget Schedules Program Activity IT INFRASTRUCTURE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Services Services $ 2,380,044 $ 9,261,007 $ 262,233 67,546 (36,060) 335,234 2,606,217 $ 9,663,787 $ Total $ Capital Total Total Outlay Expenditures Revenue 455,000 $ 12,096,051 $ 12,519,989 329,779 150,216 449,390 681,550 605,216 $ 12,875,220 $ 13,201,539 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 11,596,880 13,162,553 13,639,620 14,837,863 12,875,220 $ $ $ $ $ Total 11,596,880 13,162,553 13,639,620 14,837,863 12,875,220 Total Administrative Mandates Internal Service Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 11,596,880 $ 11,596,880 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 13,162,553 $ 13,162,553 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 13,639,620 $ 13,639,620 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 14,837,863 $ 14,837,863 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 12,875,220 $ 12,875,220 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 730 Telecommunications (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND TYPE INTERNAL SERVICE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 2,606,217 9,663,787 605,216 12,875,220 13,201,539 $ 2,606,217 $ 9,663,787 $ 605,216 $ 12,875,220 $ 13,201,539 $ 2,606,217 $ 9,663,787 $ 605,216 $ 12,875,220 $ 13,201,539 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FY 2000-01 Actual 10,961 13,515,731 126,021 13,652,713 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 1,781,382 29,324 139,641 326,262 24,625 127,719 2,428,953 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ $ $ 1,837,462 25,000 78,999 371,275 2,312,736 1,693,078 $ 14,961 (380,058) 3,697 175,362 1,155,602 1,344,803 99,335 80,016 4,218 4,755,671 1,168,301 10,114,986 $ 424,103 12,351 17,200 1,155,500 1,068,672 1,437,058 104,476 43,500 107,387 4,056,228 258,825 342,061 9,027,361 $ - $ 10,756,396 462,700 11,219,096 Total Expenditures $ 12,543,939 $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 1,108,774 $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ 10,756,396 462,700 11,219,096 1,977,870 52,253 78,999 382,418 2,491,540 $ 424,103 12,351 17,200 670,230 1,068,672 1,358,016 104,476 43,500 76,895 4,056,228 258,825 342,061 8,432,557 590,000 590,000 $ 11,930,097 $ (711,001) $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Requested 329,734 381 13,149,256 (18,279) 33,567 13,494,659 $ 1,948,092 50,448 60,155 393,007 32,404 2,484,106 $ $ 2,050,474 30,000 78,319 430,413 17,012 2,606,218 193,500 16,077 347,600 1,796,544 1,262,542 140,745 43,000 2,000 3,673,786 667,920 239,767 8,383,481 $ $ 499,012 12,692,527 10,000 13,201,539 $ $ 18% -98% 18% -2% 43% 1% -13% $ (41,023) 22,253 680 (47,995) (31,580) (17,012) (114,677) $ $ 1,125,176 15,837 347,539 1,706,271 1,354,876 124,722 43,000 2,000 4,704,598 239,768 9,663,787 $ (701,073) (3,486) 17,200 322,691 (637,599) 3,140 (20,246) 500 (2,000) 76,895 (648,370) 258,825 102,293 (1,231,230) -165% -28% 100% $ 455,000 150,216 605,216 $ 11,000 (150,216) (139,216) -30% (1,485,123) -13% $ $ 466,000 466,000 $ 710,721 710,721 $ 11,390,097 $ 13,723,115 $ 10,989,699 $ 12,875,220 $ (228,456) $ 509,007 $ 326,319 $ - 499,012 1,936,131 (452,700) 1,982,443 % 2,018,893 30,000 78,319 430,413 31,580 17,012 2,606,217 574,976 12,560 3,750 266,185 1,912,351 1,494,671 1,916 86,493 53,373 7,030 5,772,922 342,061 10,528,288 (171,001) $ $ 499,012 10,989,694 10,000 11,498,706 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 497,320 -5% 48% -60% 0% -19% 1% 100% -16% 100% 30% -15% 2% 291% 731 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Telecommunications (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE SUPPORT SENIOR/LEAD BUSINESS ANALYST DIRECTOR, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES MANAGER, DATA COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER, ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE MANAGER, MEDIA SERVICES MANAGER, RADIO SERVICES MANAGER, VOICE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK ANALYST NETWORK SPECIALIST NETWORK SPECIALIST SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT MGR NETWORK TECHNICAL SVS TECHNICAL ANALYST TELECOMMUNICATIONS INSTALLER TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN - INTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN - SENIOR VOICE COMMUNICATION COORDINATOR VOICE COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST TOTAL 732 FTE 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 9.0 2.0 5.0 42.0 Total Compensation County Administrative Officer Deputy County Administrator Total Compensation Total Compensation Michael Schaiberger, Director Michael Schaiberger, Director Compensation Services Employee Benefits Mission (Draft) The mission of the Maricopa County Total Compensation Department is to provide leadership and human resources systems and programs to officials, departments, and agencies so that they can achieve their business goals. • By 2002, the Human Resources Department will have implemented a responsive, flexible, and competitive total compensation and benefits program, managed within available resources, so that the number of employees leaving voluntarily due to compensation issues is reduced. Issues (Draft) ! ! ! ! As department’s human resource needs are redefined through their participation in Managing for Results, there will be fewer demands for transactional processing and greater demands for expert consulting. Adoption of Managing for Results will require rethinking and redesign of the policies, procedures, programs and tools needed to integrate Managing for Results fully through all levels of the organization. Changes in the workforce and the County’s business environment will make it increasingly challenging to offer a comprehensive, competitive total compensation package that attracts and retains a high performing diverse workforce. As departments implement Managing for Results they will demand faster more accurate data and information, which will also increase demands for more cost effectiveness and paperless process workplace solutions. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED TOTAL COMPENSATION TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity TOTAL COMP & BENEFITS UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Supplies & Services Services 813,075 $ 7,972,390 $ (2,748) 190,350 810,327 $ 8,162,740 $ Capital Outlay - Total Expenditures $ 8,785,465 $ 187,602 $ 8,973,067 $ Total Revenue 6,833,576 10,000 6,843,576 733 Departmental Budget Schedules Goals (Draft) Total Compensation (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: Total Compensation & Benefits Program Purpose: The purpose of the Total Compensation and Benefits Program is to provide Boardapproved compensation and benefit plans, strategic direction and administration support to departments so that they can attract and retain qualified employees to achieve their business results. Key Results: # of all positive impact responses to "value of benefits program in hire decision" on New Employee Orientation survey Percent of jobs for which a new market analysis is requested within 2 years Percent of departments with an established compensation philosophy and/or strategy in place FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A 10 Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A N/A $ 1,090,731 $ 1,044,491 Internal Service N/A N/A N/A $ 6,355,867 $ 7,928,576 Total N/A N/A N/A $ 7,446,598 $ 8,973,067 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Internal Service Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ $ FY 1999-00 Actuals $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ $ FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,090,731 $ 6,355,867 $ 7,446,598 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,044,491 $ 7,928,576 $ 8,973,067 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 734 Total Compensation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION FUND TYPE GENERAL FUND INTERNAL SERVICE SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ 810,327 $ 234,164 $ 7,928,576 $ 810,327 $ 8,162,740 $ $ 810,327 $ 8,162,740 $ - Total Expenditures Total Revenue $ 1,044,491 $ 10,000 7,928,576 6,833,576 $ 8,973,067 $ 6,843,576 $ 8,973,067 $ 6,843,576 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION FY 2000-01 Actual 3,448,422 308,928 3,757,350 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 461,941 8,825 8,496 91,558 570,820 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ $ $ $ SubTotal $ 7,672 3,197,492 15,550 2,441 3,223,155 $ SubTotal $ 211,490 211,490 $ Total Expenditures $ 4,005,465 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ (248,115) $ 6,061,596 6,061,596 520,208 6,100 900 101,956 629,164 228,538 2,000 2,400,000 3,861,416 300 18,958 7,275 8,550 6,527,037 7,156,201 FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (1,094,605) $ 7,243,940 7,243,940 579,419 5,169 375 110,160 695,123 223,682 2,400,000 5,036,335 300 18,958 2,700 8,500 7,690,475 8,385,598 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 6,705,052 51,987 5,575 6,762,614 534,636 11,928 2,596 106,921 17,218 673,299 FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ 211,758 998 1,200,000 5,319,340 300 21,056 3,349 6,240 6,763,041 $ $ 10,258 10,258 $ $ 7,446,598 $ (1,141,658) $ $ (683,984) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted 6,833,576 6,833,576 593,301 4,500 124,746 722,547 223,682 2,600,000 5,608,316 300 18,958 2,450 8,550 8,462,256 - $ $ $ 612,097 4,500 126,320 67,410 810,327 $ 201,510 7,930,972 300 18,958 2,450 8,550 8,162,740 $ 9,184,803 6,833,576 10,000 6,843,576 $ (2,351,227) $ 8,973,067 $ $ (410,364) 10,000 (400,364) $ (32,678) 669 375 (16,160) (67,410) (115,204) $ 22,172 2,400,000 (2,894,637) 250 (50) (472,265) $ % -6% -6% -6% 13% 100% -15% -17% 10% 100% -57% 0% 0% 9% -1% -6% - $ (587,469) -7% (2,129,491) $ (987,833) -87% Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION WORKING TITLE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATOR BENEFITS COORDINATOR BENEFITS MANAGEMENT ANALYST BENEFITS MANAGER COMPENSATION ANALYST COMPENSATION MANAGER COMPENSATION SERVICES ASSISTANT COMPENSATION TECHNICIAN FISCAL CONSULTANT FTE TOTAL 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 735 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Adopted Transportation County Administrative Officer Chief Public Works Officer Transportation Transportation Tom Buick, Director Tom Buick, Director Technology Engineering Lands/ Right of Way Planning Community & Governmental Relations Construction & Operations Administration Departmental Budget Schedules Mission The mission of the Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is to provide a quality transportation system to the travelers in Maricopa County so they can experience a safe, efficient and costeffective journey. Vision We set a standard of excellence regionally enabling us to consistently deliver on our commitment to provide the right transportation system for Maricopa County at the right time and the right cost. Goals ! ! ! ! ! By 2003, MCDOT will be the regional transportation authority, responsible and accountable for the development and operation of a regional transportation system, which is integrated with land use and the environment. By 2005, MCDOT will increase the safety and capacity of the existing transportation system while reducing congestion by decreasing the accident rate and increasing the capacity on County maintained roadways by 5%. MCDOT will increase public involvement in decision-making and improve customer satisfaction to achieve a 2% improvement each year for the next five years as measured by the Customer Satisfaction Survey. MCDOT will reduce the FY 2001 documented backlog of transportation projects by 10% every year for the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. By 2003, MCDOT will attract and retain qualified, diverse and adequately compensated employees by ensuring the overall Employee Satisfaction Survey score is above 5.6. Issues ! Our existing regional transportation system is fragmented among multiple jurisdictions resulting in discontinuous infrastructure that is not meeting our customers' needs or anticipated state and federal mandates. 736 Transportation (Continued) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Inadequate integration of land use planning, environmental issues, and transportation planning will result in MCDOT's inability to deliver the right transportation system at the right time and the right cost. The current economic and social conditions are extremely competitive, which results in difficulty in attracting and retaining a sufficient number of qualified and adequately compensated employees. The demands of regulatory compliance are becoming increasingly stringent and complex, thereby impeding our ability to develop projects in a timely manner, control costs, and deliver services when needed. Failure to keep up with rapid changes in technology will adversely affect all business practices, operations, and personnel. Lack of commitment to increase public outreach and citizen involvement will result in loss of customer support and potential future revenues. The anticipated decrease in Highway User Revenue Funds will challenge the department to be more creative in the development of transportation infrastructure solutions. If higher standards for asset management and accountability are not met, the department could experience repercussions in the form of decreased revenues. TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED TRANSPORTATION TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity BUILD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS OP & MAINT TRANS SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Supplies & Services Services 3,628,081 $ 10,495,157 8,510,727 8,828,364 1,951,660 1,043,576 2,118,622 57,962,899 2,045,291 1,373,498 (37,025) 1,469 18,217,356 $ 79,704,963 $ $ Capital Outlay 85,044,422 443,337 238,854 468,884 519,062 892,792 87,607,351 Total Expenditures $ 99,167,660 17,782,428 3,234,090 60,550,405 3,937,851 857,236 $ 185,529,670 Total Revenue $ 113,288 712,000 33,278,721 86,548,000 5,600 53,000,000 $ 173,657,609 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Build Transportation Systems Program Purpose: The purpose of the Build Transportation Systems program is to provide planning, design, and construction of roads to the traveling public so that they can get to their desired destination in a safe and efficient manner. Key Results: Percent of projects bid that were planned to be bid Percent of lane miles delivered that were approved for improvement FY 00 Actual 44 FY 01 Actual 85 FY 02 Actual 83 FY 03 Projected 80 N/A N/A 58 80 737 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Budget by Program Transportation (Continued) Program Name: Operate and Maintain Transportation Systems Program Purpose: The purpose of the Operate and Maintain Transportation Systems program is to provide roadway upkeep and traffic flow management to the traveling public so that they can have safe trips on smooth, cost effective roads. Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of arterial road mileage with pavement condition rating of “good” or better FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 99 99 98 95 Program Name: Support Transportation Systems Program Purpose: The purpose of the Support Transportation Systems program is to provide information, tools, and guidance to teams within MCDOT and their customers so that they can prepare and deliver better products and services and make sound business decisions. Key Results: Percent of project expenditures that MCDOT saved through partnerships Percent increase of customer satisfaction FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected N/A 54 52 35 N/A N/A 0 N/A Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 101,728,824 $ 107,010,536 $ 113,738,686 $ 106,159,810 $ 101,222,927 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 98,125,601 $ 106,345,337 $ 112,893,384 $ 105,859,810 $ 100,540,927 Capital Projects $ $ 84,306,743 $ $ $ $ $ Total 101,728,824 107,010,536 113,738,686 106,159,810 185,529,670 $ $ $ $ $ Total 98,125,601 106,345,337 112,893,384 105,859,810 184,847,670 Capital Projects $ $ $ 84,306,743 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 3,603,223 $ 3,603,223 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 665,199 $ 665,199 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 851,217 $ 851,217 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 300,000 $ 300,000 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 682,000 $ 682,000 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 738 Transportation (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY MANDATE DESCRIPTION State law also directs counties to perform integrated, comprehensive planning including consideration of transportation and other elements such as land use. The County's Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan (TSP) address this mandate. MCDOT is on schedule to address the specific action items in the Comprehensive Plan and TSP in a 5-year period following adoption of the plans. Federal transportation and environmental law requires planning processes that include public involvement, impact evaluation (environmental, social, economic, cultural resources, etc.), and impact mitigation. It also provides guidance on transportation system management, MCDOT believes these Federal requirements are fundamentally good practices that contribute to quality projects and better service to the public. MCDOT incorporates all of these into standard practices for project planning and system evaluation. Standard MCDDOT planning processes involves public participation, analysis of potential impacts, and mitigation of 739 Departmental Budget Schedules HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Transportation System Operation, Maintenance, Improvement, Planning And Environmental Mitigation Title 11 Powers and obligations of the county; A.R.S. § 28-18 Distribution of Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) funds; A.R.S. § 28-19 County highways; A.R.S. § 41-4 and 41-5 Historic preservation; Title 49 Environment; General Order R-1 of the Corporation Commission; The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21); The National Environmental Policy Act; The Clean Water Act; The Americans with Disabilities Act; Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). The State of Arizona adopted statutes defining powers and duties of various levels of government in operating and maintaining the public transportation system. It also defined a funding mechanism and allocation formula for HURF revenue collected by the State. The Constitution and state statutes restrict how the funds can be spent. The specifics of HURF, its distribution, and the powers and duties of the levels of government have been amended numerous times. The Constitution and state statues authorize the County to operate a transportation system. They further provide a dedicated and restricted source of funding, HURF. Historically, the County has interpreted state law as a mandate 1) to provide safe, effective, and high quality public roadways and 2) limiting non-road related activities consistent with limitations on the use of HURF. MCDOT's combined operations and five-year Capital Improvement Programs reflect these priorities. In carrying out these programs, MCDOT is guided by a vision to provide the right transportation system, at the right time, and at the right cost. Transportation (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules impacts to the extent feasible. MCDOT has developed 4 management systems patterned after systems outlined in the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (reauthorized in 1998 as TEA-21): 1) the Congestion Management System, 2) the Safety Management System, 3) the Roadway Management System, and 4) the Bridge Management System. Under these systems more than 96% of MCDOT roadways have pavement conditions that are rated as good to excellent and more than 82% of it's bridges are rated as good to excellent. 740 Transportation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 640 TRANSPORTATION FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 18,217,356 79,704,963 3,300,608 101,222,927 89,078,888 84,306,743 84,306,743 84,578,721 $ 18,217,356 $ 79,704,963 $ 87,607,351 $ 185,529,670 $ 173,657,609 $ 18,217,356 $ 79,704,963 $ 87,607,351 $ 185,529,670 $ 173,657,609 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 640 TRANSPORTATION FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested FY 2002-03 Adopted 720,000 300,000 39,958,766 81,000,000 7,200,000 34,000 500,000 267,834 240,000 46,000,000 $ 176,220,600 720,000 300,000 39,958,766 81,000,000 7,200,000 34,000 500,000 267,834 240,000 46,000,000 $ 176,220,600 839,141 5,335,649 77,014,014 5,915,372 4,487 247,050 843,397 349,008 46,000,000 $ 136,548,118 1,700,000 682,000 32,955,345 77,933,792 6,682,872 400,000 73,600 230,000 53,000,000 $ 173,657,609 1,700,000 682,000 32,955,345 77,933,792 6,682,872 400,000 73,600 230,000 53,000,000 $ 173,657,609 REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 626 STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV 630 STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 651 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 671,830 856,074 84,978,501 6,630,318 3,709 3,409,799 96,550,231 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 16,948,581 $ 344,770 916,045 3,598,887 48,119 (46,681) 23,695 21,833,416 $ 16,753,624 $ 553,188 483,063 4,295,502 851,889 (57,637) 30,000 22,909,629 $ 17,670,928 $ 553,188 483,063 4,082,331 147,756 (6,257,637) 6,230,000 22,909,629 $ 16,836,142 $ 149,435 441,680 3,897,091 211,817 (5,045,645) 4,947,065 21,437,585 $ 1,085,201 $ 821,426 311,636 186,553 26,594,418 166,667 4,069,936 3,506,333 462,552 7 795,746 2,100,888 (24,772) 40,076,591 $ 1,340,572 5,000 788,306 369,451 65,000 29,390,248 349,145 4,749,121 4,562,508 519,502 653,600 48,014,028 90,806,481 1,321,492 788,186 369,451 65,000 25,645,196 319,895 5,501,371 4,562,508 519,502 653,600 48,014,028 87,760,229 1,102,867 642,685 194,246 22,288,242 403,048 4,338,851 4,466,838 227,313 19,550 640,853 48,014,028 82,338,521 15,884,676 31,550,746 1,185,348 3,207,911 51,828,681 8,687,112 25,287,711 926,305 2,475,000 778,000 289,572 38,443,700 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS $ SubTotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ Total Expenditures $ 113,738,688 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ 152,159,810 (17,188,457) $ 24,060,790 $ $ $ $ 501,000 145,000 926,305 2,475,000 37,442,647 41,489,952 $ $ $ $ 7,200,000 138,000 613,203 1,748,083 30,030,000 39,729,286 $ 152,159,810 $ 143,505,392 $ $ 24,060,790 $ $ $ $ % $ 980,000 382,000 (7,003,421) (3,066,208) (517,128) (34,000) (100,000) (194,234) (10,000) 7,000,000 (2,562,991) 136% 127% -18% -4% -7% -100% -20% -73% -4% 15% -1% 16,975,113 $ 483,730 544,839 4,132,181 131,433 (4,322,559) 191,500 18,136,237 $ 17,214,278 $ 150,001 544,839 4,307,864 131,433 (4,322,559) 191,500 18,217,356 $ 456,650 403,187 (61,776) (225,533) 16,323 (1,935,078) 6,038,500 4,692,273 3% 73% -13% -6% 11% -31% 97% 20% 1,318,461 812,791 120,406 11,686,598 426,595 5,634,681 3,791,278 382,383 18,000 695,000 54,925,560 79,811,753 1,318,461 812,791 110,961 11,687,153 426,595 5,634,681 3,851,316 225,000 18,000 695,000 54,925,005 79,704,963 3,031 (24,605) 258,490 65,000 13,958,043 (106,700) (133,310) 711,192 294,502 (18,000) (41,400) (6,910,977) 8,055,266 0% 6,133,500 65,000 566,825 2,345,151 78,157,011 314,186 87,581,673 $ 185,529,663 (6,957,274) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance $ $ 6,133,500 65,000 566,825 2,345,152 78,173,243 323,631 87,607,351 $ 185,529,670 $ (11,872,054) $ $ $ -3% 70% 100% 54% -33% -2% 16% 57% -6% -14% 9% -1124% 55% 39% 5% -109% $ (5,632,500) 80,000 359,480 129,848 (40,730,596) (323,631) (46,117,399) $ (33,369,860) -22% (11,872,061) $ (35,932,851) -149% -111% 741 Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2001-02 Adopted Transportation (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 640 TRANSPORTATION Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCESS PROGRAMMER ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT I ACCOUNTANT MANAGER ACCOUNTANT SUPERVISOR ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY COORDINATOR AIR QUALITY ANALYST APPLICATION SOFTWARE ENGINEER ASSISTANT COUNTY ENGINEER-OPERATIONS ASSOC VB DEVELOPER/OFFICE ASSISTANT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SYSTEM ANALYST BRIDGE ENGINEER BUDGET/FINANCIAL ANALYST BUSINESS ANALYST BUSINESS INTERFACE DEVELOPER BUSINESS SERVICE MANAGER BUSINESS SYSTEM FINANCIAL ANALYST BUSINESS SYSTEM PROJECT MANAGER CADD TECHNICIAN DESIGN ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF ENGINEERING INSPECTOR CHIEF OFFICER'S ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT CITY LIMITS COORDINATOR CIVIL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER SENIOR/PROJECT MANAGER ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER TECHNICIAN SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN SENIOR COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR COMMUNITY & GOVERNMENT RELATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR CONTRACTS SPECIALIST CUSTOMER SERVICE SPECIALIST CUSTOMER SERVICE/FACILITIES MANAGER DATA INPUT OPERATOR DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR DECISION SUPPORT ANALYST SENIOR DEPARTMENT HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER DESIGN PROJECT MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEER DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNICIAN CENTER DIRECTOR-QUALITY & ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIV ADMINISTRATIVE LEAD COORDINATOR DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE LEAD COORDINATOR ENGINEER IN TRAINING ENGINEERING DIVISION MANAGER ENGINEERING INSPECTOR ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGER ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGER 742 FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 15.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 15.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 3.0 Transportation (Continued) FTE 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 38.0 21.0 40.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ENGINEERING SUPPORT BRANCH MANAGER ENGINEERING UTILITY COORDINATOR ENTERPRISE GIS BUSINESS ANALYST ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING BRANCH MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MANAGER EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II EQUIPMENT OPERATOR III EQUIPMENT OPERATOR IV EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT ANALYST EXECUTIVE SUPPORT SPECIALIST FACILITIES COORDINATOR FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR GIS CARTOGRAPHIC ANALYST GIS DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR GIS PROGRAMMER/ANALYST GIS SERVICE MANAGER GIS TECHNICIAN GPS SPECIALIST GRANTS WRITER GRAPHICS COORDINATOR HELP DESK SPECIALIST HIGHWAY OPERATIONS ENGINEER/MAINTENANCE SUPPORT HIGHWAY OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT HUMAN RESOURCE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR HUMAN RESOURCE ANALYST HUMAN RESOURCE ANALYST/RECRUITER HUMAN RESOURCE SPECIALIST IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL LIAISON INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY MANAGER ITS ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR ITS CIVIL ENGINEER ITS COORDINATOR ITS INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MANAGER ITS INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAM LEADER ITS SYSTEMS COORDINATOR ITS & AZTECH PROGRAM MANAGER LAN ADMINISTRATOR APPLICATOR LEGACY DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR LOGISTICS COORDINATOR MAINTENANCE ENGINEER INSPECTOR MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST MATERIALS ENGINEER/ENGINEERING MANAGER MATERIALS LAB SUPERVISOR MATERIALS TEST/INSPECTOR TECHNICIAN MULTI-MEDIA ASSISTANT MULTI-MEDIA GRAPHICS ANALYST NETWORK SERVICES MANAGER OUTLOOK EXCHANGE APPLICATIONS DEVELOPER PAYROLL SERVICES COORDINATOR PC NETWORK SUPPORT SPECIALIST PERMITS ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST PLAN REVIEWER II PLANNER PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT ANALYST PROCUREMENT MANAGER PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL PLANNER/TRAN MODEL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 743 Transportation (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIV ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM/SYSTEM ANALYSIS BRANCH MANAGER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BRANCH MANAGER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CIVIL ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEERING ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER/PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT ENGINEER PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT MANAGER SPECIAL TRANSACTIONS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR PUBLIC WORKS ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR PUBLIC WORKS GENERALIST PUBLIC WORKS HIGHWAY TECHNICIAN PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR PUBLIC WORKS LABORER/ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS LEAD PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS SIGNING TECHNICIAN PUBLIC WORKS STRIPING TECHNICIAN PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC CONTROL TECHNICIAN PURCHASING AGENT RADIO DISPATCHER REAL ESTATE OFFICE SUPPORT REAL PROPERTY CHIEF APPRAISER REAL PROPERTY SUPPORT ANALYST REAL PROPERTY TECHNICIAN REPROGRAPHICS SPECIALIST RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION MANAGER RIGHT OF WAY AGENT RIGHT OF WAY INFORMATION SPECIALIST RIGHT OF WAY INFORMATION/DATA SPECIALIST RIGHT OF WAY NEGOTIATOR/COORDINATOR RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS COORDINATOR RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS TECHNICIAN RMS TECHNICIAN ROAD MANAGEMENT TECHNICIAN SECURITY COORDINATOR SENIOR CADD SUPPORT ANALYST SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER SENIOR GIS INTERFACE ANALYST SENIOR REPORT WRITER SIGN FABRICATION TECHNICIAN SIGN GRAPHICS SPECIALIST SURVEY AIDE SURVEY PARTY CHIEF SURVEY TECHNICIAN SYSTEM PLANNING MANAGER TIP DATABASE SPECIALIST TIP PROGRAM MANAGER TITLES & RIGHT OF WAY MANAGER TRAFFIC COUNT STUDIES TECHNICIAN TRAFFIC COUNTS STUDIES TECHNICIAN TRAFFIC ENGINEERING BRANCH MANAGER TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGNER/ANALYST TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN TRAFFIC STUDIES CIVIL ENGINEER TECHNICIAN TRAFFIC STUDIES TECHNICIAN TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER TRANSPORTATION POLICY ANALYST VB APPLICATION DEVELOPER 744 FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 33.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 11.0 6.0 17.0 13.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Transportation (Continued) WORKING TITLE VOICE COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST WAREHOUSE FOREMAN WAREHOUSE SPECIALIST WEB APPLICATIONS DEVELOPER WEB MASTER WEB SOLUTIONS DEVELOPER FTE TOTAL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 478.8 Departmental Budget Schedules 745 Special Districts Organizational Chart Departmental Budget Schedules Maricopa County Citizens 746 Flood Control District Board of Directors, Stadium District Board of Directors, Library District Board of Directors, Don Stapley, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Don Stapley, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Don Stapley, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Mike Ellegood, Chief Engineer/General Manager David Smith, Executive Director Harry Courtright, Director Flood Control District Flood Control District Board of Directors Chief Public Works Officer Flood Control District Flood Control District Michael S. Ellegood,P.E.,Chief Engineer & General Manager Michael S. Ellegood,P.E.,Chief Engineer & General Manager Executive Operations & Maintenance Land Management Regulatory Administration Engineering Information Technology Planning & Project Management Mission Vision The vision of the Flood Control District of Maricopa County is that the people of Maricopa County and future generations will have the maximum amount of protection from the effects of flooding through fiscally responsible flood control actions and multiple-use facilities that complement or enhance the beauty of our desert environment. Goals ! ! ! ! ! The Flood Control District will conduct two studies per year for the next five years to identify flood prone areas, limit growth in those areas, and establish plans for the required drainage infrastructure. The Flood Control District will study, each year for the next five years, two major areas of Maricopa County that are not yet under development, but are expected to be according to the Maricopa Association of Governments' projections. Each year for the next five years, the Flood Control District will evaluate five existing flood control facilities' safety monitoring procedures, evaluate District-owned flood control facilities, and begin plans to mitigate, upgrade, or redesign these facilities to reduce the increased risk and liability associated with them, meet all regulatory requirements, and maintain or improve their flood control functions. The Flood Control District will initiate at least one project each year for the next five years that uses innovative and resourceful operational and financial strategies. The Flood Control District will evaluate five existing flood control facilities each year for the next five years to determine how they can be made more aesthetically pleasing or used as multi-use facilities. 747 Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the Flood Control District of Maricopa County is to provide flood hazard identification, regulation, remediation, and education to the people in Maricopa County so that they can reduce their risks of injury, death, and property damage due to flooding while enjoying the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Flood Control District (Continued) ! The Flood Control District will plan and design future flood control projects to incorporate multiuse facilities where practical. Issues ! ! ! ! Departmental Budget Schedules ! Population growth in Maricopa County is pushing people to build in former high flood risk areas such as agricultural lands, deserts, washes, and in areas beyond those that are protected by existing dams. This increases the risks to life and property, and the demand for flood control. The practice of instituting flood control measures after an area has been developed costs more than if the measures were instituted before development began. The age of flood control structures, urbanization, and changing dam safety and environmental regulations require a greater emphasis on improving safety monitoring procedures, evaluating existing structures, and developing and implementing plans to mitigate, upgrade, and/or redesign the structures. The number of flood control projects that can be done is being limited by the flat tax rate and the reduced buying power of the construction dollar due to inflation thereby increasing the backlog of projects. County residents are requesting wildlife habitats, recreational facilities, and aestheticallypleasing open areas and are reluctant to accept concrete flood control structures resulting in the design and installation of more costly and complex multi-use facilities. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity FLDPLN & DRAINAGE COMPLIANCE FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM INFORMATION PROGRAM PLANNING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Supplies & Services Services 2,232,586 $ 1,550,195 4,789,402 3,260,086 1,293,521 1,139,771 1,649,991 3,019,084 810,330 448,921 1,101,278 685,708 (2,139,426) 1,279,422 9,737,682 $ 11,383,187 $ $ Capital Outlay 8,875 48,744,497 27,375 1,250 609,381 49,391,378 Total Expenditures $ 3,791,656 $ 56,793,985 2,460,667 4,670,325 1,259,251 1,786,986 (250,623) $ 70,512,247 $ Total Revenue 9,339,544 21,450,433 5,044,392 7,813,238 4,744,913 4,815,358 17,823,976 71,031,854 Key Performance Measures Program Name: Flood Protection Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Flood Protection program is to provide structural and nonstructural mitigation of flood hazards for the public so that they can live with acceptable risk of loss of life or property due to flooding. Key Results: Percent of capital projects requested, prioritized, and recommended on the current list that are completed in that year Percent of dams receiving routine maintenance to state and sponsoring agency specifications Percent of available lease property parcels leased 748 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 14 16.5 24.7 N/A 91.3 91.3 100 100 0 100 100 100 Flood Control District (Continued) Program Name: Floodplain And Drainage Compliance Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Floodplain and Drainage Compliance program is to provide guidance, direction, and enforcement for the public so that they can use their property safely and in compliance with applicable state and federal laws. Key Results: Percent of Technical Advisory Committee letters sent to Planning and Development not later than 24 clock hours prior to Committee meeting Percent of cumulative linear miles of Zone A watercourses requiring delineation that were delineated and submitted to FEMA FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 100 N/A 0 2.5 4 7.4 Program Name: Information Collection And Dissemination Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Information Collection and Dissemination program is to provide flood hazard information, technical data, and flood safety guidance to public agencies and the public so that they are aware of and can respond to flood hazards. FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 100 100 100 0 0 38.6 N/A Program Name: Planning Program Program Purpose: The purpose of the Planning program is to provide flood and erosion hazard information and documentation to the public so that they can be knowledgeable about the dangers of erosion and flooding, the areas in which they occur, and required future remediation measures. Key Results: Percent of cumulative square miles of watershed identified for Area Drainage Master Plan study where study was completed FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 1.1 5.5 N/A 749 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent of dollar value of positive media attention received at a rating of five or above (on a scale of one to nine) Percent of representative samples collected Flood Control District (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 60,487,000 $ 82,867,818 $ 79,748,040 $ 66,107,920 $ 70,807,750 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ 45,919,588 $ 48,704,497 $ $ $ $ $ Total 60,487,000 82,867,818 79,748,040 112,027,508 119,512,247 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 53,214,000 $ 75,885,844 $ 71,557,945 $ 59,051,553 $ 63,401,999 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ 45,919,588 $ 48,704,497 $ $ $ $ $ Total 53,214,000 75,885,844 71,557,945 104,971,141 112,106,496 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 7,273,000 $ $ 7,273,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 6,981,974 $ $ 6,981,974 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 8,190,095 $ $ 8,190,095 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 7,056,367 $ $ 7,056,367 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 7,405,751 $ $ 7,405,751 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 750 Flood Control District (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Floodplain Administration A.R.S. § 48-3609 Floodplain Delineation And Regulation Of Use. A.R.S. § 483610 Assumption Of Powers And Duties By Cities And Towns The Flood Control District administers the floodplain regulation for the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, plus 13 municipalities. Additionally, the district delineates areas subjected to the "100-year" flood throughout Maricopa County. The minimum level of service is the regulation of new development in the floodplains and the enforcement of the floodplain regulations. Maricopa County must manage and regulate delineated floodplains. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Floodplain Administration FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 2,492,000 $ 2,660,523 $ 3,139,379 $ 3,135,829 $ 2,585,196 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,492,000 2,660,523 3,139,379 3,135,829 2,585,196 751 Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Detection and Data Collection A.R.S. § 48-3608 Assistance In Flood Insurance Program; A.R.S. § 48-3609B Floodplain Delineation And Regulation; Arizona Administrative Code § 12-151219 Dam Safety Procedures; Owners Responsibilities HISTORY/ The program was initiated to monitor impoundments behind the District's dams BACKGROUND and to measure flood flows in our flood channels and on the major rivers. A comprehensive system now provides essential rainfall, stream flow and weather data to the District. This information is electronically relayed to the National Weather Service, the State, the County Departments of Transportation and Emergency Management, and many cities. MANDATE The Flood Control District, as owner of 23 dam and drainage facilities regulated DESCRIPTION by the State, must monitor flood control facilities, watersheds and floodplains for structure integrity and evaluation purpose and is responsible for their safe operation. This is accomplished through periodic maintenance, inspection, and early warning and emergency action plans. During the past 12 months, the operational efficiency of all remote stations was approximately 99%. This level of performance will be maintained or increased slightly. Flood Detection and Data Collection Special Revenue Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,405,000 $ $ 1,405,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,345,051 $ $ 1,345,051 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 994,426 $ $ 994,426 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 1,185,855 $ $ 1,185,855 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 1,291,399 $ $ 1,291,399 Flood Control District (Continued) Departmental Budget Schedules TITLE AUTHORITY Planning A.R.S. § 48-3616 Survey And Report Of Flood Control Problems And Facilities; Comprehensive Program By Board; Hearing HISTORY/ In the mid-1980's, the District began to recognize the need for an independent BACKGROUND planning program due to the rapid growth of the Phoenix metropolitan area and pending completion of several large-scale federal projects that had directed the Districts actions for many years. The first step towards an independent planning program began when the Area Drainage Master Plan Study (ADMS) Program was conceived in 1983. The Program, which is now included in the Districts Planning Program, was approved by the Board of Directors as Resolution FCD 85-3 on April 17, 1985. Planning became a separate District program in 1989. The Planning Program identifies regional drainage and flooding problems and develops alternative solutions to protect life and property. Major activities include watercourse master plans, area drainage master plans, design concept reports, pre-design studies and inter-agency coordination. Since it's inception in 1989, the Flood Control District has prepared the Comprehensive Plan for Flood Hazard Mitigation. MANDATE The Flood Control District must conduct a survey and prepare a report at least DESCRIPTION every five years in describing the remaining flooding problems and the existing flood control facilities in Maricopa County. Planning Special Revenue Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 3,784,000 $ $ 3,784,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 4,840,198 $ $ 4,840,198 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 4,385,910 $ $ 4,385,910 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 3,103,196 $ $ 3,103,196 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,639,916 $ $ 3,639,916 TITLE AUTHORITY Structure A.R.S. § 45-1423 Power Of Maricopa And Yuma Counties To Cooperate With Federal Government In Flood Control Projects; A.R.S. § 45-1424 Power Of Maricopa And Pinal Counties To Cooperate With Federal Government In Flood Control Projects; A.R.S. § 48-3616 Survey And Report Flood Control Problems And Facilitates; Comprehensive Programs; Adoption By Board; Hearing HISTORY/ In 1954, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Phoenix City Council, and BACKGROUND the Salt River Project Board of Directors recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to solving flooding problems. MANDATE The County must provide for the maintenance of dams and other flood control DESCRIPTION structures to reduce the risks of flood loss. Structure Special Revenue Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 44,335,000 $ $ 44,335,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 65,727,431 $ $ 65,727,431 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 61,680,064 $ $ 61,680,064 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 49,756,845 $ 45,919,588 $ 95,676,433 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 53,245,808 $ 48,600,000 $ 101,845,808 752 Flood Control District (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY 753 Departmental Budget Schedules Drainage The Flood Control District is directed by the Drainage Regulations as adopted pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-251, Sections 30 and 36 and A.R.S. § 11-251.05 HISTORY/ Administers the County Drainage Regulation (prepared by the District), to reduce BACKGROUND existing and potential flooding caused by local stormwater. Coordinates with County Planning, Transportation, Public Health and Building Safety to insure that new development will not increase runoff divert flows, or backwater onto another property. MANDATE The County must enforce standards for excavation, landfill, and grading to DESCRIPTION prevent unnecessary loss from erosion, flooding and landslides; Review drainage reports and plans for all developments of land covered by this regulation and approve such plans when the requirements of this Regulation are met; Investigate violations and complaints of non-compliance with this Regulation; Keep copies of all documents or other submissions made pursuant to the requirements of this Regulation; Issue notices or orders necessary to enforce the provisions of the Regulation; Take action necessary to obtain compliance with Regulation, upon determination that development of land subject to this Regulation has proceeded without drainage clearance. Drainage Special Revenue Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 1,198,000 $ $ 1,198,000 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,312,641 $ $ 1,312,641 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,358,166 $ $ 1,358,166 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 2,191,012 $ $ 2,191,012 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 2,221,741 $ $ 2,221,741 Flood Control District (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 9,737,682 60,383,187 686,881 70,807,750 71,031,854 48,704,497 48,704,497 49,000,000 $ 9,737,682 $ 60,383,187 $ 49,391,378 $ 119,512,247 $ 120,031,854 (49,000,000) (49,000,000) (49,000,000) $ 9,737,682 $ 11,383,187 $ 49,391,378 $ 70,512,247 $ 71,031,854 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted FY 2001-02 Revised FY 2001-02 Proj. Act FY 2002-03 Requested REVENUE 601 PROPERTY TAXES $ 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 621 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 43,679,801 $ 1,182,824 (43,194) 17,168,437 194,534 3,408,184 65,590,586 $ 45,322,696 1,500,027 748,000 20,800,000 153,587 878,500 10,032,397 79,435,207 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 9,222,620 242,819 94,405 1,738,509 21,975 11,320,328 9,463,985 $ 362,353 1,992,813 (2,626,000) 2,626,000 11,819,151 $ 9,542,090 $ 319,418 1,998,254 (2,626,000) 2,626,000 11,859,762 $ 9,423,363 $ 264,617 66,655 1,921,376 19,295 (1,100,001) 258,002 10,853,307 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ 906,332 145,431 188,881 370,847 14,667,237 93,820 626,090 1,166 1,093,442 168,625 303 248,651 1,219,910 19,730,735 1,252,240 515 164,332 162,000 148,900 350 16,489,657 90,020 322,372 1,000 1,476,215 147,105 12,030 290,600 1,192,941 21,750,277 1,698,415 165,362 120,500 148,900 15,842,411 96,800 238,293 1,000 1,477,754 146,060 12,030 290,600 1,192,941 21,431,066 1,307,812 145,431 112,992 219,999 11,811,052 99,966 238,294 1,615 1,477,753 146,060 10,425 330,022 1,192,941 17,094,362 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 9,732,649 37,157,243 904,845 904,882 48,699,619 79,750,682 Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 754 $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,550,000 36,288,000 179,500 710,000 1,784,784 46,512,284 $ 80,081,712 (14,160,096) $ $ $ $ $ $ 45,322,696 1,500,027 748,000 20,800,000 153,587 878,500 10,032,397 79,435,207 $ $ $ $ $ 7,550,000 36,288,000 118,800 542,500 1,784,784 46,284,084 $ 4,865,025 21,671,325 118,800 542,500 14,463,650 41,661,300 $ 79,574,912 $ (139,705) $ (646,505) $ $ 44,894,623 1,631,548 18,031,233 153,065 700,000 10,053,559 75,464,028 $ $ $ $ $ 44,999,999 1,800,700 15,073,000 850,000 8,305,700 71,029,399 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ (454,635) 300,673 (748,000) (5,727,000) (19,194) (28,500) (1,726,697) (8,403,353) -1% 20% -100% -28% -12% -3% -17% -11% 10,250,100 $ 278,580 35,941 2,222,071 (2,600,000) 10,186,692 $ 9,868,586 $ 278,580 35,941 2,154,575 (2,600,000) 9,737,682 $ (326,496) 40,838 (35,941) (156,321) (26,000) 2,626,000 2,122,080 -3% 13% 1,293,286 153,760 224,150 232,150 6,245,368 104,826 251,250 600 1,578,728 250,766 2,300 253,187 1,123,418 11,713,789 1,293,284 153,760 223,018 232,150 6,031,679 85,271 251,250 600 1,578,724 155,106 2,300 253,187 1,122,858 11,383,187 $ $ $ 44,868,061 1,800,700 15,073,000 134,393 850,000 8,305,700 71,031,854 $ 6,118,000 9,000 296,750 380,000 42,482,000 49,285,750 $ 6,118,000 9,000 296,750 380,000 42,586,497 1,131 49,391,378 69,608,969 $ 71,186,231 $ 5,855,059 $ (156,832) $ $ % $ $ 405,131 11,602 (102,518) (83,250) 9,810,732 11,529 (12,957) 400 (100,970) (9,046) 9,730 37,413 70,083 10,047,879 -8% -1% 100% 18% 24% 7% -85% -56% 62% 12% -5% 40% -7% -6% 81% 13% 6% 47% $ 1,432,000 36,279,000 (177,950) 162,500 (40,801,713) (1,131) (3,107,294) 19% 100% -150% 30% -2286% 70,512,247 $ 9,062,665 11% 519,607 $ 659,312 472% -7% Flood Control District (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FTE 1.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 2.0 9.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 4.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 9.0 27.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT I ACCOUNTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR II ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR III ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE COORD-ENG ADMINISTRATOR II ASSOCIATE DECISION SUPPORT ANALYST BRANCH MANAGER-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BUYER II CIVIL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN I CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN SENIOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER CONSTRUCTION & OPERATIONS MANAGER CONTRACT SPECIALIST III DATA MANAGEMENT ANALYST II DECISION SUPPORT ANALYST I DECISION SUPPORT ANALYST II ENGINEERING DIVISION MANAGER ENGINEERING DRAFTING SPECIALIST ENGINEERING DRAFTING SPECIALIST II ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR-SENIOR FACILITIES PROJECT COORDINATOR II FINANCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR II FLOOD CONTROL DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER FLOOD CONTROL DIRECTOR/CHIEF ENGINEER HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT HYDROLOGIST HYDROLOGIST - SENIOR HYDROLOGIST-WATER QUALITY HYDROLOGY MANAGER HYDROMET SUPERVISOR INSTRUMENT TECHNICIAN IT - GIS ANALYST LAND MANAGEMENT MANAGER LAND MANAGEMENT SPECIALST LEAD SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN MANAGEMENT ANALYST III MECHANIC II PLANNER - GIS PLANNER-FINANCIAL PLANNER-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNER-SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT MANAGER-PLANNING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST PUBLIC WORKS CREW LEADER PUBLIC WORKS GENERALIST 755 Flood Control District (Continued) WORKING TITLE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR I PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR III PUBLIC WORKS LEAD PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR REAL PROPERTY SUPPORT ANALYST REAL PROPERTY TECHNICIAN REVIEW APPRAISER RIGHT OF WAY AGENT/RELOCATION SENIOR DECISION SUPPORT ANALYST SERVICE WORKER III STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR II UTILITY COORDINATOR WEB AUTHOR FTE Departmental Budget Schedules TOTAL 756 2.0 5.0 10.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 221.5 Library District Library District Board of Directors Chief Community Services Officer Library Director/County Librarian Library Director/County Librarian Harry Courtright Harry Courtright Service Agencies Service Coordinators Support Services Finance & Facilities Information Technology Mission The mission of Maricopa County Library District (MCLD) is to provide access to a wealth of informational and recreational resources for people of all ages and backgrounds so that they may have the opportunity to expand their horizons through reading and learning. ! ! ! ! ! By June 2003, reduce annual turnover of regular status staff to 10% or less through targeted recruitment, appropriate placement of staff, improved reward and recognition systems, enhanced training, and market-based compensation (as verified on an annual basis). By 2003, MCLD will evaluate available library automation systems and select the system that most effectively meets patron and staff needs. By 2005, MCLD will implement the selected library automation system. By January 2003, design and implement an accurate, responsive 24/7 electronic reference service. By April 2002, we will conduct customer surveys to determine the best way to organize our collections in each branch. By January 2003, we will develop and implement a comprehensive and on-going marketing and public relations campaign that provides current and in-coming residents with information about our services, and presents MCLD locations as inviting places to visit, work, and/or volunteer. Issues ! ! ! ! Our ability to afford, become proficient with, and provide current technology in its ever-changing formats will challenge both our existence and continuing relevance to our customers in the next two to five years. Changing demographics and increasing public exposure to, and use of, technology challenges our ability to respond effectively and efficiently with relevant services in the next two to five years. Rapid growth, increasing costs of technology and books/materials, as well as the need for talented staff will require that MCLD pursue strong political support that provides appropriate facilities and funds in the next two to five years. The short availability of talent, employee (dis)-satisfaction and MCLD's capacity to support staff with appropriate pay and professional development will challenge our ability to attract and retain world-class staff in the next two to five years. 757 Departmental Budget Schedules Goals Library District (Continued) ! Our competition's offering of like and value-added services challenges us to continually assess and upgrade our skills, collections, and technology so that we may thrive. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED LIBRARY DISTRICT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity STAFF SUPPORT SERVICES PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS $ Total $ Personal Services 1,483,090 2,060,423 2,077,639 269,822 346,206 40,332 6,277,512 Supplies & Services $ 2,273,446 $ 1,641,566 1,923,846 56,790 133,983 (1,077,200) $ 4,952,431 $ Capital Outlay 28,000 87,600 155,000 1,102,200 1,372,800 Total Expenditures $ 3,784,536 3,789,589 4,001,485 326,612 635,189 65,332 $ 12,602,743 $ $ Total Revenue 20,297 20,297 11,034,375 11,074,969 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Performance Measures Program Name: Administrative and Staff Support Services Program Purpose: The purpose of the Administrative and Staff Support Services program is to provide leadership, resources and support to MCLD staff, so that they may contribute fully as a member of the MCLD team in order to do their jobs effectively. Key Results: Percent of staff who say they work effectively as a team to better serve our customers FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 97 95 Program Name: Public Library Service Program Purpose: The purpose of the Public Library Service program is to provide resources, activities and skilled assistance to our customers, so that their needs, interests and goals are met. Key Results: Percent of customers who report that the collection met their needs 758 FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 78 75 Library District (Continued) Program Name: Resource Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Resource Management program is to provide materials management, technological support and problem-solving for MCLD customers and staff, so that materials and technological tools are available to meet their needs. Key Results: Percent of customers who say they can find items in a timely manner FY 00 Actual FY 01 Actual FY 02 Actual FY 03 Projected 0 0 90 90 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 6,893,993 $ 8,412,599 $ 9,277,831 $ 10,006,989 $ 12,602,743 Capital Projects $ 1,102,200 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,893,993 8,412,599 9,277,831 10,006,989 13,704,943 759 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 6,893,993 $ 6,893,993 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 8,412,599 $ 8,412,599 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 9,277,831 $ 9,277,831 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 10,006,989 $ 10,006,989 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 12,602,743 $ 1,102,200 $ 13,704,943 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Library District (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 6,277,512 6,054,631 270,600 12,602,743 11,074,969 1,102,200 1,102,200 1,102,200 $ 6,277,512 $ 6,054,631 $ 1,372,800 $ 13,704,943 $ 12,177,169 (1,102,200) (1,102,200) (1,102,200) $ 6,277,512 $ 4,952,431 $ 1,372,800 $ 12,602,743 $ 11,074,969 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT Departmental Budget Schedules FY 2000-01 Actual REVENUE 601 PROPERTY TAXES $ 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 621 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 8,661,896 88,383 923 201,714 8,168 220,072 567,841 9,748,997 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 3,447,702 279,100 18,258 735,410 27,239 4,507,709 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT SubTotal $ 183,663 6,364 110,975 1,805,368 162,269 40,490 693,560 399,407 74,261 1,797 158,951 632,492 4,269,597 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 419,506 38,298 42,721 500,525 Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 760 FY 2001-02 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,646,430 109,823 337,413 193,214 227,188 225,000 25,000 10,764,068 3,986,002 410,106 929,335 9,001 313,413 5,647,857 1,790,644 7,500 33,000 341,325 137,010 100,500 835,000 386,801 105,442 93,000 181,800 587,133 4,599,155 $ 172,600 76,667 249,267 9,277,831 $ 471,166 $ FY 2001-02 Revised $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,646,430 198,378 74,500 193,214 227,188 225,000 39,415 10,604,125 4,200,998 473,903 973,820 7,200 5,655,921 1,894,825 7,500 126,011 288,528 136,010 89,400 735,000 438,636 92,000 149,000 181,800 587,133 4,725,843 $ 189,000 172,600 76,667 438,267 10,496,279 $ 10,820,031 267,789 $ FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,646,430 191,255 62,500 193,214 230,499 225,000 84,231 10,633,129 3,959,254 491,394 558 901,149 6,930 5,359,285 1,888,228 7,450 128,000 262,550 120,000 75,000 775,400 403,263 70,000 122,500 160,000 587,133 4,599,524 $ 48,180 48,180 $ (215,906) $ FY 2002-03 Requested $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,693,575 25,000 12,000 192,519 260,000 216,000 64,251 10,463,345 4,553,513 586,574 1,159,487 9,003 6,308,577 2,079,642 7,350 36,717 333,775 128,008 109,930 852,940 437,368 87,945 123,000 179,201 635,832 5,011,708 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ 10,296,417 25,000 12,000 189,085 260,000 216,000 76,467 11,074,969 $ 4,578,793 536,258 1,155,640 6,821 6,277,512 $ 2,079,642 7,245 36,717 374,842 128,008 89,404 852,940 436,666 73,000 100,000 179,201 594,766 4,952,431 $ 497,500 604,700 22,600 248,000 1,372,800 $ 10,006,989 $ 12,693,085 626,140 $ (2,229,740) $ $ % 649,987 (173,378) (62,500) (4,129) (227,188) 260,000 (9,000) 37,052 470,844 7% -87% -84% -2% -100% -9% -13% $ (377,795) (62,355) (181,820) 379 (621,591) -11% $ (184,817) 255 89,294 (86,314) 8,002 (4) (117,940) 1,970 19,000 49,000 2,599 (7,633) (226,588) -10% 3% 71% -30% 6% 0% -16% 0% 21% 33% 1% -1% -5% 100% 87% -223% -213% $ $ $ -4% 94% 4% -19% 5% $ 497,500 604,700 22,600 248,000 1,372,800 $ (497,500) (604,700) 189,000 150,000 (171,333) (934,533) $ 12,602,743 $ (1,782,712) -16% (1,527,774) $ (1,311,868) -608% Library District (Continued) Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT FTE 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 30.0 1.0 39.0 1.0 1.5 11.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Departmental Budget Schedules WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT ADMIN ASST TO REG. COORD ADULT SERVICES COORDINATOR ADULT SERVICES SUPERVISOR A/P & F/A ACCOUNTING CLERK BRANCH LIBRARIAN BRANCH MANAGER CIRCULATION SUPERVISOR DEVEOPMENT & MARKETING COORDINATOR DRIVER/VEHICLE TECHNICIAN EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FACILITIES ASSISTANT FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT LAN OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR LAN/TECHNOLOGY OFFICER LIBRARIAN LIBRARIAN MANAGER LIBRARY ASSISTANT LIBRARY DIRECTOR LIBRARY PAGE LIBRARY PARAPROFESSIONAL LIBRARY SYSTEMS COMPUTER TECHNICIAN MATERIALS ACQUISITION SPECIALIST MATERIALS CATALOGUER MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR MATERIALS PROCESSOR OFFICE MANAGER ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT & TRAINING COORDINATOR OUTREACH SUPERVISOR/NW REGIONAL COORDINATOR PAYROLL & CASH RECEIPT COORDINATOR PROJECT & FACILITIES ASSISTANT PROJECT & FACILITIES COORDINATOR REGIONAL LIBRARY COORDINATOR SENIOR LIBRARIAN TRAINING ASSISTANT WEB ADMINISTRATOR YOUTH SERVICES COORDINATOR YOUTH SERVICES SUPERVISOR TOTAL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 135.5 761 Stadium District Stadium District Board of Directors Executive Director David Smith Executive Director Representative Executive Director Representative William C. Scalzo William C. Scalzo Finance Event Management Administration Mission Departmental Budget Schedules The mission of the Maricopa County Stadium District is to provide fiscal resources for Cactus League Facilities and asset management of BankOne Ballpark for the community and visitors to Maricopa County so they can attend Cactus League spring training, Major League Baseball games, and other entertainment events in state-of-the-art, well maintained facilities. Goals ! ! ! ! ! The District will increase financial reserves beginning in FY 2003 by $2M per year for new Cactus League facilities and existing facility renovation. The District will increase revenue from the use of BankOne Ballpark for non-baseball activities by 10% per fiscal year. The District will reduce staff turnover to less than 25% per year and increase staff’s operational and historical knowledge. The District will increase County Employee and Public participation by 5% in programs and events offered by the Stadium District. To ensure the future financial stability of the Stadium District and BankOne Ballpark, the District will increase entrepreneurial revenue by one new source per year. Issues ! ! ! ! ! Increased usage of Bank One Ballpark will result in increased revenue to the District. Turnover rate of staff could result in lack of historical knowledge and lessen the effectiveness of operations. A lack of surcharge revenue will prevent new teams from joining the Cactus League and future renovations of existing facilities. Restructuring the District could result in lack of oversight of a County asset and lack of protection of the taxpayers' interest. If the Team ownership was changed, or severe financial constraints occurred, the District could have potential loss of revenue and may need to renegotiate key contracts. 762 Stadium District (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2002-03 ADOPTED STADIUM DISTRICT TOTAL FUNDS Program Activity ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRA UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT COSTS Personal Supplies & Capital Total Total Services Services Outlay Expenditures Revenue $ 19,065 $ 229,406 $ - $ 248,471 $ 445,577 63,879 1,882,014 1,575,437 3,521,330 6,739,142 14,828 35,103 49,931 80,496 115,076 195,572 561,730 (1,523,874) 4,040,094 3,077,950 3,876,782 739,998 $ 737,725 $ 5,615,531 $ 7,093,254 $ 11,061,501 Total $ Key Performance Measures Program Name: Entertainment Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Entertainment Management Program is to provide ticketing and entertainment event services to the Maricopa County community and visitors so they can attend baseball and other entertainment events. FY 00 Actual 7 277 FY 01 Actual 22 -17 FY 02 Actual 55.06 -57.51 FY 03 Projected 10 5 Program Name: Financial Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Financial Management Program is to provide fiscal resources and asset management of Cactus League and BankOne Ballpark to the Board of Directors of the Stadium District, the community, and to its visitors, in order to ensure sound fiscal management of publicly owned facilities. Key Results: Percent increase in revenue Percent of satisfied customers FY 00 Actual 7 N/A FY 01 Actual -3 96 FY 02 Actual 6.63 N/A FY 03 Projected 5 96 Program Name: Information Management Program Purpose: The purpose of the Information Management Program is to provide information and related services to the public in order to increase their awareness of the Stadium District and fulfill public information requests. Key Results: Percent requests filled in 5 business days or less FY 00 Actual 100 FY 01 Actual 100 FY 02 Actual 100 FY 03 Projected 100 763 Departmental Budget Schedules Key Results: Percent increase in revenue Percent increase in discount tickets sold Stadium District (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1998-99 Actuals FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Estimate FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 13,791,563 $ $ 8,547,130 $ 6,788,947 $ 8,063,782 $ 1,429,825 $ 14,402,022 $ 13,190,512 $ 3,574,178 $ 1,003,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,791,563 15,336,077 9,493,607 27,592,534 4,577,178 Departmental Budget Schedules Total Non-Mandated Expenditures Special Revenue Capital Projects Total FY 1998-99 Actuals $ 13,791,563 $ $ 13,791,563 FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 8,547,130 $ 6,788,947 $ 15,336,077 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 8,063,782 $ 1,429,825 $ 9,493,607 FY 2001-02 Estimate $ 14,402,022 $ 13,190,512 $ 27,592,534 FY 2002-03 Adopted Budget $ 3,574,178 $ 1,003,000 $ 4,577,178 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 764 Stadium District (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 680 STADIUM DISTRICT FUND TYPE SPECIAL REVENUE DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS TOTAL FUNDS Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Total Revenue 732,066 2,258,743 583,369 3,574,178 4,450,701 200,000 4,040,094 4,240,094 5,600,800 7,932 3,000 992,068 1,003,000 2,734,018 $ 739,998 $ 2,461,743 $ 5,615,531 $ 8,817,272 $ 12,785,519 (1,724,018) (1,724,018) (1,724,018) $ 739,998 $ 737,725 $ 5,615,531 $ 7,093,254 $ 11,061,501 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT 680 STADIUM DISTRICT FY 2000-01 Actual FY 2001-02 Adopted 5,927,097 (11,654) 5,582,490 6,130,976 17,628,910 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN SubTotal $ 124,391 $ 6,258 28,534 (26,027) 199,360 332,516 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ 5,730,000 842,000 5,639,091 12,211,091 $ 5,730,000 842,000 12,112,591 18,684,591 FY 2001-02 Proj. Act $ 5,605,118 661,659 11,291,802 17,558,579 FY 2002-03 Requested $ 5,500,800 500,500 5,060,201 11,061,501 $ 171,606 $ 34,034 (77,344) 131,067 259,363 $ 171,602 $ 34,038 (77,344) 431,068 559,364 $ 153,530 $ 31,213 (50,525) 599,931 734,149 $ 173,077 $ 38,886 (71,112) 599,147 739,998 $ $ 3,388 2,000 70,000 608,186 3,500 5,160 56,174 9,400 610 400 35,110 793,928 $ 10,000 2,000 70,000 583,632 3,238 5,160 54,408 9,400 580 400 35,110 773,928 $ 9,239 61,621 539,256 2,182 3,427 54,250 7,334 423 478 35,110 713,320 $ 10,000 2,000 70,000 547,578 2,819 5,160 58,387 9,400 650 600 31,131 737,725 $ 7,992,954 13,242,701 21,235,655 $ 7,186,349 12,358,715 19,545,064 $ 1,007,068 6,035,267 7,042,335 $ 20,992,533 $ (3,433,954) $ SubTotal $ 3,126 24,475 595,032 3,042 427 45,417 1,364 614 6,169,681 6,843,178 $ $ $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 950 DEBT SERVICE SubTotal $ 1,192,325 7,256,564 8,448,889 $ 1,996,465 7,242,701 9,239,166 Total Expenditures $ 15,624,583 $ 10,292,457 $ 22,568,947 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 2,004,327 $ 1,918,634 $ (3,884,356) $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 400,500 5,060,201 5,460,701 % -100% $ (5,730,000) (441,500) (7,052,390) (13,223,890) 173,077 $ 38,886 (71,112) 599,147 739,998 $ (1,475) (4,848) (6,232) (168,079) (180,634) -1% -14% -8% -39% -32% 10,000 2,000 70,000 547,587 2,819 5,160 58,387 9,400 650 600 (168,878) 537,725 $ 36,045 419 (3,979) (70) (200) 203,988 236,203 0% 0% 0% 6% 13% 0% -7% 0% -12% -50% 581% 31% $ 1,007,068 568,369 1,575,437 8,520,058 $ 2,541,443 $ -52% -58% -71% $ 6,985,886 12,674,332 19,660,218 87% 96% 93% 2,853,160 $ 19,715,787 87% 2,607,541 $ 6,491,897 167% Position Distribution POSITION DISTRIBUTION - FY 2002-03 ADOPTED 680 STADIUM DISTRICT WORKING TITLE ACCOUNTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FTE TOTAL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 765 Departmental Budget Schedules REVENUE 606 SALES TAXES 625 STATE SHARED SALES TAX 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ FY 2001-02 Revised Departmental Budget Schedules This Page Intentionally Left Blank 766 Attachments Maricopa County’s Mission Statement The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities. Maricopa County’s Vision Statement Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. We will be Maricopa County’s Strategic Priorities • Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas in a fiscally responsible manner. • Minimize the burden on the property taxpayer through rate reductions. • Healthy community and solvent healthcare system. • Safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal justice system. • Provide regional leadership for a regional transportation system. • Land use will be planned, managed and funded responsibly; Luke AFB will be preserved. • Maricopa County will continue to improve its positive public image based on results achieved. Attachments 767 Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines Introduction The purpose of this policy is to set forth the guidelines for developing budgets for Maricopa County, as well as the Flood Control, Library, and Stadium Districts. Maricopa County’s budget process provides for responsible management of taxpayers’ resources, while insuring that funds are directed towards achieving results at all levels. Definitions Budgeting for Results: A process in which budgetary decisions are based on or informed by performance information that describes the cost or efficiency of producing an activity and the results achieved for customers. This is accomplished by structuring the accounting and budgeting systems according to the structure of Departments' Strategic Plans. Structurally Balanced Budget: A budget in which all recurring expenditures are fully supported by recurring sources of funding. Policy Guidelines General Guidelines for Budget Development: Attachments The budget will be based on conservative revenue estimates and will be structurally balanced. The budget will be formulated in accordance with the Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy Guidelines. In accordance with the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors’ Managing for Results Policy, Budgeting for Results is part of an overall management system that integrates planning, budgeting, reporting, evaluating and decision-making that is focused on achieving results and fulfilling public accountability. Departments/Special Districts are required to participate in the strategic planning process, and their plans and performance measures, along with strategic direction from the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors, will be the primary basis for funding decisions. The Office of Management and Budget will analyze all base budgets to identify possible reductions, and will analyze all results initiative requests in detail, with particular focus on their impact on results. Directors and Program Managers will critically review new, unfunded or under-funded program mandates from the State and Federal governments in order to determine the fiscal impact to the County and to identify funding solutions. All positions will be fully funded in the budget or designated for elimination in accordance with the Funded Position Policy. Wherever possible, grants and other non-local revenue sources will be used before allocating General Fund resources or other local revenues. Grant and other special revenue budgets will be developed in accordance with the Policy for Administering Grants and the Indirect Cost Policy for Grant Programs. Matching funds will be budgeted only to the extent required by law or by contracts and agreements specifically approved by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors. 768 Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines (Continued) Wherever possible, the annual budget will provide for the adequate and orderly replacement of facilities and major equipment from current revenues based on confirmed analytical review of need. Vehicle replacement will conform to the Policy for Vehicle Replacement. Revenue: Existing grant agreements or grant applications must support budget requests for grants. Where appropriate, services and programs will be supported by user fees. User fees will recover the County's full direct and indirect costs, unless market considerations dictate otherwise. All user fees will be reviewed annually in conjunction with the budget development process. Because expenditures supported by user fees are generally subject to the Constitutional expenditure limitation, such expenditures must be carefully reviewed, and user fee rates should be reduced if they can no longer be justified by actual expenditures. Anticipated revenue to the County from fee increases will not be budgeted unless the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors has approved such increases. All Departments/Special Districts, including elected officials and the Judicial Branch, will report to the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors via the Office of Management and Budget all nonappropriated funding sources available to support their operations and programs, either directly or indirectly. When investigatory or security issues are of concern, such issues will be addressed on an individual basis. Expenditures: Requests for funding above base level must be submitted as Results Initiatives Requests, and must be directed to achievement of approved strategic goals that align with the direction of the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors. Requests for additional funding will be considered only if departments/special districts have met the requirements for “Planning for Results” under the Managing for Results Policy (B6001). Results Initiative Requests must be supported by complete performance measures that can be used to monitor and evaluate the initiative’s success if funded. The Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors may annually adopt guidelines and priorities for results initiative requests. The Office of Management and Budget will review all results initiative requests and make recommendations according to the guidelines and priorities established by the board of supervisors/board of directors. In order to promote consistent and realistic budgeting of personnel, all personal service budgets shall include a reasonable allowance for personnel savings due to natural staff turnover. The rate of personnel savings should be budgeted based on past experience. Budgeted personnel savings may be budgeted conservatively for smaller departments that are subject to greater variations in staff turnover. No "carryover" capital outlay or capital improvements will be budgeted unless specifically approved by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors. Departments that do not identify and receive approval for carryover items will be required to eliminate them or fund them from within their operating budgets. 769 Attachments Departments/Special Districts shall submit base expenditure requests within the budget target provided by the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget will develop targets for each fund budgeted by a Department/Special District according to its current budget, with adjustments as directed by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors. Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines (Continued) Major Maintenance projects and Vehicle Replacement for General Fund Departments will be budgeted in General Government. All non-General Fund Departments will fund their own Major Maintenance projects and Vehicle Replacement. Budget Process: All Appointed, Elected and Judicial Branch Departments/Special Districts will follow these policy guidelines in preparing their Annual budget requests. All Appointed, Elected, and Judicial Branch Departments/Special Districts will submit budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) following the detailed timeline, directions and format prescribed by OMB. Department/Special District financial reporting structures will be established by the Financial Reporting Review Committee and must be finalized prior to budget submission. All budget requests will be submitted at a detailed level by department, fund, organization unit, Program/Activity, object/revenue source, and month. Departments/Special Districts will prepare their budget requests in the budget preparation system provided by the Office of Management and Budget, and will follow all system instructions. The Deputy County Administrator (DCA) will negotiate budget recommendations with Elected Officials and Judicial Branch departments. If agreement cannot be reached with the DCA, the Presiding Judge and elected officials may first continue negotiation directly with the County Administrative Officer or, if agreement still cannot be reached, with the Board of Supervisors. Attachments Capital Improvement Projects: Upon recommendation of the Facilities Review Committee and identification of available funding, the Office of Management and Budget will recommend a five-year Capital Improvement Program to Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors in accordance with the Capital Improvement Program Policy. The Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors may allocate carry-over fund balances to one-time capital items in accordance with the Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy. When requesting funding for capital improvement projects, Departments/Special Districts will provide estimates of increased operating costs associated with each individual project. Capital improvement program budgets may include a contingency budget reserve to fund project overages of up to 10% or $1,000,000, whichever is less. Internal Charges and Indirect Cost Allocations: Internal service departments and County Counsel will develop estimates of base and discretionary charges for each Department/Special District they serve according to instructions and schedules provided by OMB. All estimates will be reviewed by the user departments, OMB and Finance. All internal charges will be based strictly on recovery of actual costs for providing services or sharing use of equipment or facilities; charges between Departments/Special Districts that are based on “market rates” and exceed actual costs are prohibited. Allocation of costs between funds for shared use of buildings or equipment will be determined consistent with the Central Service Cost Allocation plan prepared by the Department of Finance. 770 Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines (Continued) Base-level or non-discretionary internal services will be charged at the fund level. General Fund department charges will be budgeted in, and paid from, General Government. Discretionary internal service charges are the responsibility of the requesting Department/Special District. The Department of Finance will assess Central Service Cost Allocation charges from all nonGeneral Fund agencies except grants based on a full-cost allocation methodology. The Department of Finance will provide departments that administer grants with an indirect cost rate established according to the methodology allowable by the grantor. Funding for the Self-Insurance Trust Fund will be assessed from all funds as a base-level charge based on a funding plan developed by the Risk Management Department. The funding plan will provide for an ending cash balance equal to the projected paid losses and claims-related expenses for the upcoming fiscal year. Use of the Jail Excise Tax: The Jail Excise Tax, authorized by A.R.S. §42-6109 and approved by the voters of Maricopa County in November 1998, is a non-recurring revenue source. Consistent with Maricopa County’s budgetary and fiscal policies and the need to maintain a structurally balanced budget, it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors, whenever possible, to fund all recurring operating expenditures, including alternative jail population reduction programs, from recurring revenue sources. Operating costs for existing jail and juvenile detention facilities will be held to a minimum, and, if possible, will not exceed the required Maintenance of Effort allocation to the Jail Tax Fund from the General Fund, as required by A.R.S. §42-6109. Operating costs for new jail and juvenile detention facilities will be supported by allocations from the General Fund to the Jail Tax Fund above and beyond the required Maintenance of Effort whenever possible. Information Technology budget requests will be considered for funding from Jail Excise Tax proceeds under the following circumstances: • • • The request is directly related to operation of current and new jail and juvenile detention facilities. The request is part of, or is necessary for full implementation of, the integrated criminal justice information system project, as described in the referendum documentation. If funds are available once the Master Plan has been provided for, jail excise tax funds could be considered for information technology requests that increase the efficiency of various components of the criminal justice system, so long as the project meets one of the authorized uses in A.R.S. §42-6109. These include - Developing regional centers for courts not of record. - Implementing differentiated case management for criminal cases in superior court. - Consolidating criminal divisions of the superior court in the county to a common location. - Expanding pretrial release supervision. - Implementing electronic monitoring of pre-adjudicated defendants. - Enhancing substance abuse evaluation and programming. - Increasing drug court admissions to include pre-adjudicated defendants and expanding drug court jurisdiction. - Using community based juvenile detention and post-adjudication programs. 771 Attachments Funding for the integrated criminal justice information system project will be set at an appropriate level based on demonstrated benefits that justify the investment. Budget Priorities - Maricopa County (Approved by the Board of Supervisors January 14, 2002) The purpose of these guidelines and priorities is to provide direction from the Board of Supervisors to the Office of Management and Budget and all departments so that structurally balanced budgets are developed for FY 2002-03. Base Budget Targets Budgets for all departments and funds will be prepared within target amounts equal to their current budgets plus authorized adjustments. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to adjust baseline budget targets for the annualized cost of FY 2001-02 approved Results Initiative Requests, mid-year appropriation adjustments, and any other items approved by the Board of Supervisors that have a budget impact in future years. Base Reductions In order to maintain a structurally balanced budget, the Office of Management and Budget is directed to pursue and recommend in base budget reductions in departments and offices. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) Attachments Little or no funding will be available for Results Initiative Requests. The Office of Management and Budget will only review critical and emergency Results Initiative Requests. In order for critical or emergency requests to be considered, department staff must meet in advance with the Office of Management and Budget and provide supporting documentation as instructed. Departments must also present their critical and emergency requests at a Board study session in February. Property Tax Levies and Rates The County budget will be structurally balanced while maintaining Primary and Debt Service property tax rates which, when combined with the estimated tax rates for the Flood Control District and Library District, are less than or equal to the FY 2001-02 level of $1.5448 per $100 of net assessed value. The County Debt Service levy will be estimated at an amount sufficient to support scheduled debt service payments. 772 Budget Priorities - Flood Control District (Approved by the Board of Directors January 14, 2002) The purpose of these guidelines and priorities is to provide direction from the Board of Directors to the Office of Management and Budget and the department so that structurally a balanced budget is developed for FY 2002-03. Base Budget Targets Budgets for all funds will be prepared within target amounts equal to their current budgets plus authorized adjustments. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to adjust baseline budget targets for the annualized cost of FY 2001-02 approved Results Initiative Requests, midyear appropriation adjustments, and any other items approved by the Board of Directors that have a budget impact in future years. Base Reductions In order to maintain a structurally balanced budget, the Office of Management and Budget is directed to pursue and recommend base budget reductions. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) Little or no funding will be available for Results Initiative Requests. The Office of Management and Budget will only review critical and emergency Results Initiative Requests. In order for critical or emergency requests to be considered, department staff must meet in advance with the Office of Management and Budget and provide supporting documentation as instructed. Departments must also present their critical and emergency requests at a Board study session in February. Attachments Property Tax Levies and Rates The Flood Control District levy will be maintained at a level not to exceed $45 million. 773 Budget Priorities - Library District (Approved by the Board of Directors January 14, 2002) The purpose of these guidelines and priorities is to provide direction from the Board of Directors to the Office of Management and Budget and the department so that structurally a balanced budget is developed for FY 2002-03. Base Budget Targets Budgets for all funds will be prepared within target amounts equal to their current budgets plus authorized adjustments. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to adjust baseline budget targets for the annualized cost of FY 2001-02 approved Results Initiative Requests, midyear appropriation adjustments, and any other items approved by the Board of Directors that have a budget impact in future years. Base Reductions In order to maintain a structurally balanced budget, the Office of Management and Budget is directed to pursue and recommend base budget reductions. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) Attachments Little or no funding will be available for Results Initiative Requests. The Office of Management and Budget will only review critical and emergency Results Initiative Requests. In order for critical or emergency requests to be considered, department staff must meet in advance with the Office of Management and Budget and provide supporting documentation as instructed. Departments must also present their critical and emergency requests at a Board study session in February. Property Tax Levies and Rates The Library District tax rate will be less than or equal to the FY 2001-02 rate of $.0421 per $100. 774 Budget Priorities - Stadium District (Approved by the Board of Directors January 14, 2002) The purpose of these guidelines and priorities is to provide direction from the Board of Directors to the Office of Management and Budget and the department so that structurally a balanced budget is developed for FY 2002-03. Base Budget Targets Budgets for all funds will be prepared within target amounts equal to their current budgets plus authorized adjustments. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to adjust baseline budget targets for the annualized cost of FY 2001-02 approved Results Initiative Requests, midyear appropriation adjustments, and any other items approved by the Board of Directors that have a budget impact in future years. Base Reductions In order to maintain a structurally balanced budget, the Office of Management and Budget is directed to pursue and recommend base budget reductions. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) Little or no funding will be available for Results Initiative Requests. The Office of Management and Budget will only review critical and emergency Results Initiative Requests. In order for critical or emergency requests to be considered, department staff must meet in advance with the Office of Management and Budget and provide supporting documentation as instructed. Departments must also present their critical and emergency requests at a Board study session in February. Attachments 775 Budget Calendar Attachments 2002 January 14 BOS adoption of FY 2002-03 Budgeting For Results Policy Guidelines & Board Priorities January 18 Budget Targets distributed to departments January 22 – February 15 Emergency/Critical Results Initiative Request Meetings (if necessary) OMB reviews Appoint Department Budgets/negotiates with Elected/Courts January 24 Facilities Review Committee meeting w/ Public Works on CIP Budget Development February 19 Board Policy Meeting on CIP Priorities February 25 Budget Preparation System Training (PAS and Org Changes) February 28 Board Study Session to review and discuss emergency RIRs March 4 Budget Preparation System Available to Departments March 11 – 18 Budgets Allocated by PAS due from departments March 18 Elected Official/Judicial Branch Budget Presentations to BOS March 18 – May 24 OMB Consolidates and Finalizes budget recommendations May 16 Board Study Session on CIP June 17 CAO Presents FY 2002-03 Budget to Board of Supervisors June 17 Board Adopts FY 2002-03 Tentative Budget July 22 Final Adoption of FY 2002-03 Budget August 19 Board of Supervisors sets Tax Rates 776 Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy Introduction According to A.R.S. §42-17106, the County may not incur expenditures in excess of the amounts appropriated by the Board of Supervisors in the annual budget. The purpose of the Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy is to provide Departments/Special Districts with flexibility in managing their allocated public resources to achieve program results, while upholding accountability for spending within legal appropriations. Definitions Appropriation: Authorization by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors to incur expenditures for a specific purpose, defined in Maricopa County as total expenditures by Department/Special District and fund; “budget items” as referenced in A.R.S. §42-17106. Department: All County Departments, including Elected Official Offices, Court Departments, and Appointed Departments. Detailed Budget: Budget allocation within an appropriation by month, organization unit, program/activity/service, object/source, and position. Special District: All Maricopa County Special Districts, including the Flood Control District, Library District, and Stadium District. Policy Guidelines Budgets shall be appropriated and controlled by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors at the level of Department/Special District and fund and, where applicable, by capital improvement project. Departments/Special Districts shall develop and maintain detailed revenue and expenditure budgets that will be loaded into the main financial system. Detailed budgets will be prepared by month, organization unit, object/source and position according to instructions developed by the Office of Management and Budget. Beginning in FY 2002-03, detailed budgets will also be allocated to programs and activities. Detailed budgets shall exactly equal Board appropriations. Appropriations shall be changed during the fiscal year only with Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors approval, with the exception of grants approved by the Board in the previous fiscal year and carried over into the new year. The Office of Management and Budget may approve appropriation adjustments for carried-over grants if the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors previously appropriated the grant, and the Department of Finance certifies the carried-over grant balance. The Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors must approve all changes in capital improvement project appropriations. All requests for project appropriations must be accompanied by a request for Board approval to amend the five-year capital improvement program, or by notification that an amendment is not required. Capital improvement project appropriations do not need to be adjusted so long as project overruns do not exceed 10% or $1,000,000, whichever is less (refer to item 12). 777 Attachments Appropriation levels are not guaranteed from one fiscal year to the next. Each year, appropriation amounts for each Department/Special District and fund shall be recommended by OMB for approval by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors, based on detailed reviews of spending needs, priorities, expected results, and available funding. Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy (Continued) In order to maximize results, Departments/Special Districts will have the flexibility to reallocate their detailed budgets for the remainder of the current fiscal year within appropriations approved by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors. Budgetary flexibility is accompanied by the responsibility to produce expected results while absorbing unanticipated spending increases. If a Department/Special District requests an appropriation increase or contingency transfer for an unanticipated spending increase, the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors shall determine whether the department will be controlled according to its detailed budget. The Office of Management and Budget shall validate that all detailed budget adjustments balance and reconcile to appropriations set by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors. All positions must be fully funded and budgeted in accordance with the Funded Positions Policy. In order to create new positions, departments/special districts must first verify full-year funding. If a position loses funding, it shall be identified and eliminated. Departments/Special Districts shall recommend for approval any agreements that commit the County/Special District to expenditures for which funding is not identified in future years. Departments/Special Districts shall verify funding for all purchase requisitions or other contracts or agreements. Department/Special District expenditures and revenues shall be monitored and reported on a monthly basis throughout the fiscal year. The Department of Finance shall prepare and submit to the Board a comprehensive monthly analysis of budget variances by Department/Special District and fund, and will investigate any negative year-to-date variances. Attachments Any Departments/Special Districts for which the Department of Finance reports a negative year-todate expenditure or revenue variance must provide a written explanation and corrective action plan to the Department of Finance and the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Finance will review and approve all corrective action plans, and report them to the Board once they are finalized. If there is a significant risk that a Department/Special District will exceed its annual appropriation, the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors may place restrictions on the ability of a Department/Special District to adjust its detailed budget, and may also control its expenditures according to the detailed budget. Departments/Special Districts shall not exceed their expenditure appropriations. Departments/Special Districts shall be required to reduce expenditures to offset any revenue shortfall. Departments/Special Districts may expend up to 10% or $1,000,000 (whichever is less) over budget for a specific capital improvement project, so long as overall expenditures do not exceed the Department/Special District fund appropriation. At the close of the fiscal year, the Department of Finance will prepare and submit to the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors a comprehensive report of all audited actual expenditures relative to all Department/Special District appropriations. The report will include an explanation of each instance in which expenditures exceed appropriations by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors. If a Department/Special District exceeds its annual expenditure appropriation, its expenditures will be reviewed by Internal Audit. Internal Audit will review the Department/Special District’s expenditures, identify the causes of the overrun, and report its findings to the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors. A Department/Special District that exceeds its expenditure appropriation shall be appropriated and controlled according to the specific line-items in its detailed budget for the entire succeeding fiscal 778 Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy (Continued) year, and any changes in the detailed budget shall require Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors approval. The Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors may reduce a Department or Special District’s appropriations for the subsequent fiscal year by an amount equal to the overrun in the previous fiscal year. In the event of such an overrun, the Office of Management and Budget will automatically submit an agenda item to the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors to implement the budget reduction. Attachments 779 Funded Position Policy Introduction The purpose of the Funded Positions Policy is to establish guidelines for adding, deleting and changing positions so that all authorized positions are fully funded on an annualized basis, and that any filled or vacant position that becomes unfunded or under-funded is either fully funded or deleted. Definitions Full Time Equivalent (FTE): A value equivalent to a number of employees paid full time (forty hours per week, or from 2,080 to 2,096 hours per year, depending on the calendar). A half-time position that is paid 20 hours per week equates to .5 FTE; four half-time positions, each paid for 20 hours per week, equals 2.0 FTE, and so on. A single position may have an FTE value greater than zero, but not greater than 1.0. A group of positions has an aggregate FTE value based on the FTE values of the specific positions within the group. Fully Funded Position: An authorized position that is fully funded by the general revenues of the County, a special revenue source, or a grant. Payroll Liability: The salaries, benefits, payoff of accrued vacations and compensatory time, and career center expenses that result from a reduction in force. Under-funded Position: A position for which a County Department/Special District has 1% to 99% of the funding required to support it on an annualized basis Attachments Unfunded Position: A position that is not funded. New Position Establishment Policy Guidelines In order to create a new position, County Departments/Special Districts must submit a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on an official form that includes the following information: • • • • • • • Working title and description of the position or positions requested. The number of positions requested and FTE value(s) of the position(s) requested. A Brief description of the purpose of the new position(s), including relation to program/ activity/service, performance measures, key results, and strategic goals. The full cost of the requested position(s), including not only direct salaries and benefits, but also indirect costs such as uniform allowances, equipment, and mandated or essential training. The County Department/Special District will also indicate whether it has enough building space, or identify the costs and sources of funding for additional space if needed. The funding source of the position(s) and location in the current budget. A list of any positions to be deleted in conjunction with creating the new position, along with a description of any other budgetary reductions made to offset the cost of the new position(s). Justification of why budget savings, including savings from deleted positions, should be used to create new positions and not result in a budget reduction The County Department/Special District director, elected official, or chief deputy to an elected official must sign all position requests. 780 Funded Position Policy (Continued) Position requests must be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. OMB will verify that the requested positions have been budgeted appropriately and that there is adequate funding to support the budget as a whole, including the requested position(s). OMB will not approve new positions unless their fully annualized cost can be supported within the County Department’s/Special District’s current appropriation, or if the Board of Supervisors/Directors has approved other funding. OMB will also verify that the request complies with established policies and priorities of the Board of Supervisors/Directors. On approval by OMB, position requests from Elected or Judicial Branch departments will be forwarded to Compensation for review of job description and salary information. Requests from appointed County Departments/Special Districts will be forwarded to the Deputy County Administrator for final approval before they are forwarded to Compensation. If a position request is denied, Elected or Judicial Branch departments may appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors/Directors. If the Board of Supervisors/Directors approves a position request on appeal, the approval must be accompanied by an action to provide funding for the position(s) as necessary. Position Funding Policy Guidelines Each year as part of the budget process, County Departments/Special Districts must verify that budgets and funding are adequate to support all authorized positions. The Office of Management and Budget will validate that position funding is adequate, and will identify all positions that are potentially unfunded or underfunded. Personnel savings due to natural staff turnover will be budgeted in all County Departments/Special Districts at appropriate levels. If actual personnel savings reaches high levels due to failure to fill positions for extended periods, adjustments will be made to either eliminate the positions or make efforts to fill them. County Departments/Special Districts with vacant underfunded positions will discuss the funding shortfall with OMB. County Departments/Special Districts have the option of eliminating the position(s) or identifying additional funding for the position(s). OMB and County Departments/Special Districts will delete any vacant positions identified as unfunded or under-funded. If filled positions are identified as unfunded or under-funded, the County Departments/Special Districts will provide the following information: • • • The position or positions’ contribution to provision of service and results. The full cost to continue the position. The resulting payroll liability if current employee(s) are terminated due to lack of funding. This information will be forwarded for review and validation by the Office of Management and Budget. OMB will consolidate the information and forward it to the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors for possible action. 781 Attachments Personnel will be budgeted by market range title, full-time equivalent (FTE) and average wage and benefit rates at the fund and organizational unit level within County Department/Special District budgets. Total authorized FTE’s and average wage and benefit rates must be at or lower than budgeted levels at all times, and fully funded on an annualized basis with current appropriation levels and funding. Funded Position Policy (Continued) Attachments If eliminating unfunded or under-funded positions results in a Reduction In Force, the process will be conducted in a uniform manner in accordance with procedures administered by the Human Resource Department. Any payroll liability costs will be funded from within the County Department’s/Special District’s current appropriation. 782 Managing for Results Policy Purpose This policy establishes a framework that integrates planning, budgeting, reporting, evaluating and decision making for all Maricopa County departments and agencies. This framework is called Managing for Results; a management system that establishes the requirements to fulfill the County’s Mission and Vision of accountability to its citizens. This policy is promulgated as part of the annual County budget process under the authority of the Board of Supervisors. Definitions Managing for Results System: Managing for Results means that an entire organization, its management system, its employees and the organizational culture (beliefs, behavior and language) are focused on achieving results for the customer. Managing for Results provides direction for making good business decisions based on performance, and makes departments/agencies accountable for results. Strategic Plan: A Strategic Plan sets forth the mission, strategic goals, performance measurements for a department, agency and the County. A Strategic Plan provides information to department/agency staff, corporate decision makers, the Board of Supervisors and the public about how the department/agency is organized to deliver results and what results the department/agency is accountable for achieving. It also provides the opportunity for all County employees to see how they contribute at all levels in the organization. Department/Agency: This includes appointed departments, offices, elected departments, special districts and the judicial branch. General Policy All Maricopa County departments/agencies will participate in the Maricopa County Managing for Results system and shall comply with this policy. General Requirements Planning for Results Each department/agency will develop and submit to the Office of Management and Budget a department/agency strategic plan as part of the budget process. All strategic plans will be developed and presented to the Office of Management and Budget in required format as outlined in the Managing for Results Resource Guide. All strategic plans will be submitted according to the annual budget calendar. All managers will work with assigned employees to establish performance plans that align with department/agency strategic plans. Performance plans will be developed in accordance with Performance Management policy #A1802. 783 Attachments Managing for Results Resource Guide: This guide describes Maricopa County’s strategic planning process, and how to develop and implement a plan. The Resource Guide is available to all County employees. Managing for Results Policy (Continued) The County Administrative Officer will develop and present to the Board of Supervisors a Countywide strategic plan, which contains strategic priorities and key result measures. Budgeting for Results The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Finance will develop and maintain a financial structure aligned with the Managing for Results system. The Board of Supervisors directs the Office of Management and Budget to review department/agency strategic plans and performance measures as a basis for making funding recommendations. Reporting Results Departments/Agencies will report quarterly to the Office of Management and Budget on their family of measures for budget and planning purposes according to the annual budget calendar. The Office of Management and Budget will prepare and distribute a summary of measures. Evaluating Results Internal Audit will review and report on strategic plans and performance measures. Decision Making and Accountability The Board of Supervisors directs all Management to use performance information to manage activities effectively and efficiently. Attachments Management will consider performance information in making policy and program decisions. 784 Performance Management Process Policy Purpose This policy integrates the Performance Management Process with the Managing for Results system in Maricopa County. The Performance Management Process is a tool for managers, supervisors, and employees to align organizational, departmental, and personal goals and to provide a basis for measurement of employee performance. This policy supersedes any other policy or procedure related to performance management. Process The Performance Management Process is annually administered by each department through this four-step cycle: Develop Performance Plan - Supervisors and employees shall collaborate in the development of an individualized annual Performance Plan that supports the overall department/division results. This written plan should clearly communicate performance expectations and behaviors. It should describe what results are expected and should establish how each employee’s performance will be measured and tracked. The Performance Plan will include a Planning & Alignment Worksheet and an Employee Development Plan. Employees will document that they reviewed the performance factors that will be rated. They will also record the support they will need to accomplish the goals and expectations. These documents shall be filed in the official employee personnel file at Human Resources at the beginning of the cycle. Coach and Counsel - Each supervisor is encouraged to regularly coach an employee about progress or lack of progress on goals and work behavior. The purpose of coaching is to help the employee attain their performance results and promote ongoing communication. Coaching sessions are ongoing and can be formal or informal. Counseling is used by a supervisor to help an employee define and work through a problem or work habit that is negatively affecting work performance. Evaluation - At the end of the performance cycle, a formal, written evaluation shall be conducted. The evaluation discussion shall include a follow-up on the Performance Plan, progress on the employee’s development plan and a discussion of future goals as the new performance cycle begins immediately. The employee and supervisor will discuss Performance Results Ratings for the period and record the results on the Performance Management Evaluation form. This form must be submitted to Human Resources/Records. Each employee will be asked for comments and responses to questions about the process. If they disagree with their evaluation, they may request a higher review. 785 Attachments Monitor Performance - Each supervisor is strongly encouraged to meet with an employee at least every six months. Ideally, supervisors will meet with each employee on a quarterly basis to monitor the progress made on goals, development, and performance factors with a focus on achieving results. Performance data and measurements should be presented by both the supervisor and the employee for review and discussion. Expectations may be renegotiated to meet current circumstances. These meetings should be formally documented, signed by the supervisor and employee, and then placed in the employee’s departmental personnel file. Performance Management Process Policy (Continued) Performance Management Process Materials Human Resources will provide standard forms for the Performance Management Evaluation and Performance Plan. These forms must be sent to Human Resources/Records as described in the Performance Management Process cycle. These forms are available electronically on the Electronic Business Center (EBC), from Human Resources, or your department’s HR Liaison. Human Resources may occasionally approve the use of alternative formats for specific business reasons. Ratings A standard five-level scale will be provided for ratings on the Performance Results Ratings and Performance Factors. Performance results can fall into five possible ratings: Distinguished Performance; Consistently Exceeds Performance Expectations; Good Solid Performance; Partially Meets Performance Expectations; or Does Not Meet Expectations. Performance Factors will also be rated on a five-point scale. Some departments may need to use an alternative rating scale to fit their internal needs. However, in the final annual evaluation, all performance ratings must fit into the county standard as listed above and reported on the Performance Management Evaluation Report form. Attachments Ratings should accurately reflect the employee's performance in relation to agreed-upon expectations set forth in the Performance Plan. Rating inflation should be avoided. All Performance Result Ratings, with the exception of Good Solid Performance, require a justification on the Performance Management Evaluation Report Form. If a Performance Result Rating indicates Does Not Meet Expectations, the evaluation must be accompanied by a corrective action plan and a monitoring schedule that the supervisor writes and discusses with the employee. Organizational Roles In The Performance Management Process Elected Officials, County Administrative Officer and Chief Officers will support this Performance Management Process by implementing it with their direct reports and then holding them accountable for completing the process throughout the organization. The management of the Performance Management Process should be a specific expectation and result in every supervisor’s annual Performance Plan. Department directors will direct the Performance Management Process to ensure alignment with Maricopa County and department’s strategic and annual plans. They will hold middle managers and supervisors accountable for the annual implementation of this process by including this responsibility in the annual Performance Plan of their subordinates. They will be available to serve as the final step in a higher review of the evaluation as requested by an employee. Supervisors and managers will drive this process in collaboration and cooperation with their direct reports. They shall meet with each employee to set up a Performance Management Plan and will regularly meet with each employee to monitor performance. Supervisors and managers are encouraged to meet at least quarterly to monitor performance and as needed to coach and counsel. Supervisors will complete the evaluation annually. The management of the Performance Management Process with their direct reports will be an expectation and result in their own Performance Management Plan. Managers shall be available to serve as the first step in a higher review of the evaluation for all their staff other than their direct reports and when requested by an employee. 786 Performance Management Process Policy (Continued) Employees will actively participate in the Performance Management Process. In collaboration with their supervisor, they will be asked to develop an annual Performance Plan that is agreed on by both the supervisor and the employee. It will include a plan for development. Throughout the year, they will track their accomplishments that will provide a basis for regular discussion with their supervisor. Human Resources will offer: • • • • Training for employees, supervisors and managers in the Employee Course Catalog and Management Institute. Consulting, as requested, with directors and managers on the use of tools and the process itself. Coaching for supervisors, as requested, during implementation of the process. Development and electronic distribution of standard forms. Human Resources/Records will receive all performance plans and annual evaluations, record the dates completed into HRMS, and file them in the official employee personnel file at Human Resources. Attachments 787 Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy Introduction The purpose of this policy is to provide for long-term financial stability and low, sustainable tax rates through responsible use of non-recurring resources, appropriate and minimal use of debt, and maintenance of reserve funds. Adherence to the policy will insure that Maricopa County maintains recurring revenue streams sufficient to support ongoing spending requirements. Adequate reserves will allow the County to maintain services during economic downturns without drastic expenditure reductions or tax increases while longer-term budgetary adjustments are put in place. Further, this policy sets budgetary and financial guidelines regarding the reduction of taxes. The Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy demonstrates a commitment to the maintenance and, when possible, reduction of tax rates while ensuring that Maricopa County remains financially stable and accountable to the citizens. Definitions Fund Balance: The difference between fund assets and fund liabilities. Reserve Policy Guidelines Attachments The Board of Supervisors will maintain reserve fund balances in the General Fund, and in other funds as appropriate. Reserves will be designated for elimination of cash flow borrowing in the General Fund and in other funds as necessary. Unreserved beginning fund balances will be estimated and included in the annual budget; such expenditures will be designated in the budget as appropriated fund balance. Fund balances may be appropriated for the following specific uses: • • • Acquisition of fixed assets. Retirement of outstanding debt. Fiscal stabilization by offsetting operating revenue shortfalls due to economic downturns, so long as adjustments are made to restore the structural balance of the budget within one to two fiscal years. As an alternative method of acquiring assets, estimated fund balances may be reserved for repayment of debt used to build or acquire capital improvements. This method of financing will set aside fund balances that will fully or partially cover the outstanding debt, while maintaining additional cash reserves. As a guideline, no less than 25% of the outstanding debt principal must be held in reserve, or the capital acquisition must result in operating savings, such as building leases, that offset the ongoing debt service expenditures. The Board may consider exemptions to this guideline if there is a strong business justification for doing so. Proceeds from the sale of real property will be reserved for capital improvements or to repay debt used to finance capital improvements, so long as future liabilities associated with the property, including environmental clean-up, have been met. Use of fund balances must be consistent with the Tax Reduction Policy Guidelines, as outlined. 788 Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy (Continued) Tax Reduction Policy Guidelines Unless otherwise required by law, the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors will strive to maintain the combined primary, debt service, Library District, and Flood Control District property tax rates at current or lower levels. The Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors may reduce property tax rates under the following conditions: • • • • • The tax reduction is sustainable for the foreseeable future according to reasonable and conservative forecasts. The budget is currently structurally balanced, e.g., recurring revenue exceeds recurring expenditures and will remain so into the future according to reasonable and conservative forecasts. Fund balance reserves are sufficient to eliminate cash-flow borrowing and unexpected economic changes. Fund balances have been appropriated or reserved for repayment of outstanding debt. Necessary capital expenditures are appropriated from fund balance, or supported by debt that is backed by reserved fund balances. Attachments 789 Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes June 4, 2002 To: David Smith, County Administrative Officer Sandi Wilson, Deputy County Administrative Officer Chris Bradley, Budget Manager Thru: Tom Manos, Chief Financial Officer From: Andrew Huhn, Deputy Finance Director Subject: Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes The purpose of this memo is to provide you the minimum fund balances needed for FY 2002-03 in the General Fund, Flood Control District and Library District funds to avoid short-term borrowing. These estimates are updated each year with the budget cycle. General Fund – Needed Minimum Fund Balance: $93.1 million. 1) Below is a list of cash funds used to calculate the minimum fund balance requirements for the General Fund. If these cash balances are exhausted, a short-term borrowing instrument (Line of Credit, Tax Anticipation Note, Internal Borrowing Agreement) would be required. Attachments • • • • • General Fund Equipment Services Fund (Internal Service Fund) Reprographics (Internal Service Fund) Telecommunications (Internal Service Fund) Solid Waste (Enterprise Fund) 2) The Internal Services Funds listed above are included because they are an extension of General Fund responsible activity and represent available cash for county administrative operations. The Solid Waste Fund is included because it has a significant cash balance generated by the sale of the Northwest Regional Landfill in September 1996. These funds were set aside by the County to separately account for and fulfill the General Fund obligation to fund long-term (25 plus years) landfill post closure costs. Given this connection to General fund and that it is not anticipated that these post closure costs will ever require significant draws on that cash, the balance is available for the County’s administrative/operational cashflow needs. 3) The General Fund’s strongest financial position, due to property tax payments, occurs in November and May. Historically, the General Fund reaches its lowest fund balance position between September and October. 4) Given the General Fund’s historic spending pattern and expected revenue and expenditure activity for the next fiscal year, it is anticipated that $93.1 million dollars should be set aside within the General Fund to avoid short-term borrowing. Flood Control District – Needed Minimum Fund Balance: $7.8 million. 1. 790 The Flood Control District only has one cash fund available to finance its operational expenditures. Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes (Continued) Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes June 4, 2002 Page 791 of 2 2. It is primarily funded with property taxes and because of this, shares the same pattern of fiscal low and high points as the General Fund. However, one significant difference between Flood Control and the General Fund is that it has a fairly unpredictable spending pattern with regard to capital projects as well as when intergovernmental revenues are posted. For purposes of calculating the minimum fund balance, it is assumed that capital projects will at least be uniformly spent during the year. It was also assumed that major intergovernmental revenue would be posted at least uniformly during the year or when significant capital project spending will occur. 3. It is impossible to determine what the minimum fund balance of the Flood Control District should be if capital spending can not be avoided during months of low cash. The $7.8 million assumes a uniform capital spending plan (essentially 1/12 a month) or major spending after property tax proceeds have been received. 4. We monitor Flood Control cash daily, but would recommend that the District also monitor it during the year and structure their major capital spending to occur during the months that property taxes are posted. Library District – Needed Minimum Fund Balance: $1.7 million. Similar to Flood Control the Library District only has one fund to finance its operations. It is primarily funded through property tax and has a fairly uniform spending pattern during the year. In fact, most of the months of higher spending occur during periods of high cash balances. This is consistent with the District’s informal policy to schedule (when possible) significant spending in the months during or after property taxes are received. Attachments Let me know if you have any questions. cc: Shelby Scharbach, Deputy Finance Director 791 Policy for Administering Grants Introduction Maricopa County receives significant funding from federal, state and local agencies annually; however, it does not have a formal Policy to follow when applying for and receiving grant funds. In order to ensure that the County is fully and timely reimbursed for all allowable expenses associated with grants, it is imperative that Responsible Departments negotiate to consistent goals, closely monitor their expenditures and claim reimbursement in a consistent and timely manner. This Policy shall serve as the framework for Responsible Departments to follow when applying for grants and negotiating the terms and conditions of the agreements. This Policy is not intended to discourage Responsible Departments from seeking grant funding as a means to support various services and programs. Rather, it is intended to provide consistent guidelines for grant administration to ensure optimum financial arrangements for Maricopa County and to enhance Board acceptance of grants conforming to this Policy. Definitions Dept. Overhead: refers to departmental costs incurred for the joint benefit of both grant and nongrant programs. Grantor Agency: refers to a federal, state, local or private agency or organization which provides the grant funding and/or grant funding oversight. Attachments One-time Grants: refers to funding from a Grantor Agency which is provided for a limited duration for a specified project or program. This type of grant may be provided to start a new program or service or for a program or service which has a limited life. Ongoing Grants: refers to funding from a Grantor Agency which is expected to be provided year after year for a specified program(s) or service(s). Overhead (A-87): refers to costs, benefiting both grant and non-grant activities, allocated by the Department of Finance to all non-General Fund departments. An allocation is also calculated for Responsible General Fund departments to be included in departmental overhead. Responsible Dept: refers to the department, office or agency under budgetary responsibility of the Board of Supervisors, which has direct oversight responsibility for the program(s) funded partially or totally with the grant funds. The elected official or department director of the Responsible Department shall act as the agent of the County for purposes of this policy. Implementation This policy will take effect immediately. Provisions under sections titled "FUNDING" and/or "OVERHEAD/INDIRECT COSTS (A-87 CHARGES)" will not apply to 1995-96 grants if the grant has already been submitted and/or approved by the Grantor Agencies. Grants which are in the application or negotiation stage of the process may continue; however, final acceptance of the grant must be approved by the Board. Grant Submittal While all grants must be accepted by the Board of Supervisors before funding can be expended, grant applications which fully comply with this Policy do not require Board approval at the time of 792 Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) submission for funding. Except as noted, applications for funding which deviate from this Policy (for any reason) shall require Board approval prior to submission. The County Administrative Officer may approve exemptions to this policy with regards to indirect cost reimbursement. EXCEPTION: The Board of Supervisors shall be notified by any affected Responsible Department in an annual or more frequent presentation of their intent to apply for all ongoing grants which deviate from this Policy, the nature of the deviation(s) and the reason for it (i.e. the grantor agency or the terms of a specific grant prohibit charging overhead, etc.). Once acknowledged and approved by the Board that it continues to support applying for such grants(s), the Responsible Department will not be required to obtain Board approval prior to the submission for continued like funding from the same Grantor Agency. Nothing contained within this Section shall preclude a Responsible Department from seeking approval for both the submission and acceptance of award at the pre-submission stage, provided that all terms of the grant are consistent with the information presented to the Board. Grants for the Judicial Branch in Maricopa County will be identified by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in an annual presentation to the Board of Supervisors. The presentation will reference the individual grants, and whether any of the provisions of the grants deviate from this Policy. After these grants have been reviewed and accepted by the Board of Supervisors, subsequent grants for that fiscal year from the same Grantor Agency with like provisions do not require the Board’s review and acceptance of the grant. Subsequent grants from a new Grantor Agency will be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors for review and acceptance. Funding If funding is to be provided on a reimbursement basis, Responsible Department staff will note this in any submittal or correspondence to the Board of Supervisors. The Board may request staff to present the cost/benefits of accepting a reimbursement grant versus not accepting a particular grant. The cost/benefit analysis will take into account if the grant funded services are mandated. The analysis should also consider the impact of indirect cost recovery and advance funding requirements on the competitiveness in obtaining grant funding. One-time Grants which are actually start-up grants for new programs or services will be so noted in the submittal to the Board of Supervisors. Program costs which Responsible Departments wish to continue once the grant funding has been depleted will be identified and reported to the Board of Supervisors at the time of submittal for consideration. The Responsible Department will present adequate analysis and information to the Board of Supervisors to assist the Board in deciding whether the County should fund expenses for the project or program from other County funds following the depletion of the grant funds. Whenever permitted by the Grantor Agency, grants requiring County matching funds will first use County Overhead (A-87) as a match. If the required match exceeds County Overhead (A-87) or Overhead is not an allowable expense by the Grantor Agency, the Responsible Department shall inform the Board of Supervisors of the exception and estimate the relative financial in-kind impact. 793 Attachments To improve cash management practices, it is the County’s preference to receive funding on an advance basis instead of a reimbursement basis. Therefore, every effort is to be made by Responsible Departments to obtain advance funding from the Grantor Agency. This is especially critical for one-time grant funded programs/activities and where the County is advancing funds to nonprofit subcontractors. Responsible Departments with existing grant agreements are to contact their Grantor Agencies and attempt to renegotiate the terms of these agreements. Upon request, the Department of Finance will assist in negotiations with Grantor Agencies. Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) Claiming Responsible Departments will provide to the Department of Finance a copy of the grant agreement, including the award amount. Responsible Departments will record and track grant revenues and expenditures. Responsible Departments shall submit claims for either an advance or reimbursement to the Grantor Agency as frequently as permitted under the grant agreement. Ideally, this will be no less frequent than monthly. At grant year end, each Responsible Department shall close out its respective grants. This includes preparing and submitting any required final reports to the Grantor Agency and either returning excess funds or requesting final reimbursement for the grant year. A copy of the final report shall be provided to the Department of Finance. Overhead/Indirect Costs (A-87 Charges) Annually, the Department of Finance will prepare or cause to be prepared a cost allocation plan consistent with Federal Circular A-87. The Department of Finance and the Office of Management and Budget will inform each Responsible Department of their share of the A-87 charges for that particular fiscal year. Generally, grants are to financially support 100% of their A-87 charges. On a year-by-year basis, a Responsible Department may request that the Board of Supervisors waive all or a portion of their A-87 charges for that fiscal year, for all or specific grantor agencies. (A waiver or disallowance of A-87 charges results in a General Fund subsidy for paying the support costs for the grant funded program.) Attachments Purchase of Computing and Network Systems To ensure compatibility and supportability of the County computing and network infrastructure, Responsible Departments are to consult with and obtain approval from the Chief Information Officer prior to purchasing any desired equipment. This applies to hardware, software and communications technologies including data, voice, video, image radio telemetry and facsimile purchased under the provisions of the County’s Procurement Code. Departments in the Judicial Branch of Maricopa County will consult with the Chief Information Officer prior to any purchases under the Judicial Procurement Code to determine whether the purchase will require compatibility and supportability of the County computing and network infrastructure. Accounting for Grant Funded Programs Effective July 1, 1995, each department will have its own fund designated for grant activities. This will permit both the Responsible Department and the Department of Finance to readily identify the cash balance of grant funded programs at any point during the fiscal year. Grant Monitoring by Department of Finance The Department of Finance will monitor grant expenditures and revenues on a regular basis. At a minimum, the Department of Finance will: • prepare and provide to the Responsible Departments a quarterly grant schedule. This schedule will include year to date revenues and expenditures and inception to date receivable or deferred revenue balance for each individual grant. 794 Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) • • • ensure that grant expenditures do not exceed grant awards or available funding if balances are carried forward from a preceding year. This expenditure limit will be noted on the grant schedule and any grant that approaches the maximum available funding will be immediately identified. The Responsible Department will be contacted and all grants which are projected to exceed the expenditure limit will be reported to them and the Board of Supervisors. examine individual grant balances on a monthly basis to identify departments that are not requesting reimbursement from the Grantor Agency on a monthly basis. Responsible Departments which are not regularly claiming reimbursements will be contacted by the Department of Finance and directed to submit the appropriate documentation to the Grantor Agency. examine the final reports submitted by the Responsible Departments to ensure that indirect costs either identified in the County’s A-87 Plan or approved by special action by the Board of Supervisors are being reported to and reimbursed by the Grantor Agency. General Support from the Department of Finance While each Responsible Department has staff assigned to monitor and report the financial activities of grants, the Department of Finance will provide general and technical oversight and monitoring of all grant funds. Attachments 795 Indirect Cost Policy for Grant Programs Purpose To establish a standard policy and general procedures governing the receipt, recording and disposition of OMB Circular A-87 allowable indirect costs recovered from the grantors. Definitions Grants: transactions in which an entity transfers cash or other items of value to (or incurs a liability for) Maricopa County as a means of sharing program costs or otherwise reallocating resources to the recipients. OMB Circular A-87: the Federal government circular that defines allowable indirect costs for federal programs. Cognizant Agency: the Federal agency responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and approving cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals developed under OMB Circular A-87 on behalf of all Federal agencies. Indirect Costs: refers to those costs incurred for a common or institution-wide objective that benefits more than one grant program or project. Such costs are not readily assignable to the cost objective specifically benefited. County-wide Full Cost Allocation: used to allocate the full cost of running the County’s Central Service Departments. Attachments County-wide A-87 Indirect Costs: Central Service department costs, benefiting both grant and non-grant programs. These costs are allocated by the Department of Finance in accordance with OMB Circular A-87. Central Service Departments: departments that support, manage, and maintain County operations (i.e. Finance, OMB, etc.) Department A-87 Indirect Costs: departmental costs benefiting both grant and non-grant programs. Background Currently there is no standard policy in effect for the treatment of recovered A-87 indirect costs from grants funds. All departments are required to charge their grant funds for A-87 indirect costs unless prohibited by the grant contract, law, or County Board of Supervisors approval. Policy On an annual basis the Department of Finance-Grants Unit prepares an A-87 County-wide indirect cost allocation plan. The Department of Finance-Grants Unit is responsible for maintaining, updating and negotiating the County-wide A-87 plan with the cognizant agency, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The County’s A-87 indirect costs plans are used as a means of equitably recovering indirect costs from both federal and non-federal grant programs. All departments receiving grant funds shall submit a written request to the Department of Finance-Grants Unit to prepare a Departmental A-87 cost allocation plan. 796 Indirect Cost Policy for Grant Programs (Continued) For General Fund departments• All recovered Departmental A-87 costs from grants will be charged to the grant fund under subobject code 0831-01 and deposited into the department’s General Fund operating agency under revenue source 0621-01. • All recovered County-wide A-87 indirect costs from grants will be charged to the grant fund under sub-object code 0831-00 and deposited into the General Fund, agency 180, org 1810, revenue source 0621-00. For non-General Fund departments• The Department of Finance-Grants Unit will prepare the County-wide monthly indirect cost charge (full indirect or A-87 indirect, as applicable) to the non-General Fund departments. The Department’s operating agency will be charged under sub-object code 0831-00 and revenue will be deposited into the General Fund, agency 180, org 1810, revenue source 0621-00. • All recovered Departmental A-87 indirect costs from grants will accumulate in the Department’s operating agency, sub-object 0831-01 will be expensed to the Department’s grant agency, subobject code 0831-01. • All recovered County-wide A-87 costs from grants will be treated as a transfer of expenses from the Department’s operating agency, sub-object 0831-00, to the Department’s grant agency, subobject code 0831-00. The above accounting strings are subject to change by the Department of Finance, and departments will be notified as necessary. In some cases the grantor may limit the recovery of indirect costs at a percentage less than the combined Departmental and County-wide A-87 indirect rate. In these cases, the Departmental A-87 rate shall be satisfied first. Any remaining funds will then be applied to the County-wide A-87 rate. Both recoverable and unrecoverable estimated A-87 indirect costs should be fully disclosed and quantified on the Board agenda and included in the local match if allowable. This information enables the Board of Supervisors to have a clear understanding of the financial impact on Maricopa County for each individual grant/program. Prior to submission to the Board of Supervisors, a copy of all grant applications and contracts must be submitted to the Department of Finance-Grants Unit to ensure compliance with this policy. Departments are required to prepare journal vouchers to charge grants for the eligible A-87 costs through the previous month end. The journal voucher must be submitted to the Department of Finance-Grants Unit for approval. Indirect cost allocations will be monitored by the Department of Finance-Grants Unit, as part of the Grant Monitoring Procedures. Summary This policy will ensure that all indirect costs are handled in a fair and consistent manner regarding the receipt, recording and/or the disposition in accordance with the applicable grant contract and laws. 797 Attachments Procedures General Government Policy Purpose The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for development and administration of the General Government budget to County Departments so that the General Government budget is handled according to Board policy and direction. Budgeted Revenues The revenues budgeted in the General Government budget are revenues that may be specific to particular funds, but benefit several departments and not a particular department or program within a department. Examples of these revenues include: • • • • • • • • Property Taxes (General Fund and Debt Service Fund) Anticipated Grants from outside sources State Shared Sales Taxes State Shared Vehicle License Taxes Cable TV Application Fees for franchise agreements with the County Liquor Licenses fees Jail Excise Taxes (Detention Fund) Other Miscellaneous Revenue as appropriate Attachments Budgeted Expenditures The expenditures budgeted in the General Government budget are general expenses not specific to a particular department, which benefit the County as a whole, or high profile departmental projects for which the Board of Supervisors has a special interest in. These expenses can include budgeted contingencies, general debt service, taxes and assessments, legal expenses, General Fund Base Level Internal Service Fund charges, and various Board-approved special projects or initiatives that are tracked centrally. Expenditure items will be listed in the Recommended budget, and individual items are subject to Board approval: Procedures Budget Process General Government will follow all County budgeting policies and guidelines including the approval process established by the Board of Supervisors. The Office of Management and Budget, along with the County Administrative Officer, will be responsible for developing the General Government budget for each fiscal year. The recommended budget will include an itemized schedule of proposed expenditures by fund. Approval of Expenses The Deputy County Administrator or designee must authorize all expenditures prior to processing. This authority has been delegated to the manager responsible for a particular item within General 798 General Government Policy (Continued) Government. If the expenditure is not approved it will be returned and absorbed within the budget of the department that submitted it. Contingency Fund If a contingency fund is adopted in the General Government budget during a fiscal year, General Fund departments can request funding for unanticipated expenditures or unfunded projects. These requests must be handled via a Board agenda item, and submitted by the responsible department. The Board of Supervisors must approve all requests for contingency funds. Authority/Responsibility The administration and maintenance of the General Government budget is the responsibility of the Office of Management & Budget. Expenditures charged to General Government must be approved by the Deputy County Administrator or designated to ensure that the expenditures are budgeted and appropriate. If approved, the contingency budget will be reduced and the appropriate department appropriation or other General Government item will be increased. Attachments 799 Vehicle Replacement Policy Introduction The purpose of this Policy is to provide County Departments/Special Districts with guidelines so that existing vehicles can be replaced in a timely and cost-effective manner. Background Equipment replacement must be planned and approval for replacement received through the budget process. The Equipment Services Department has the responsibility to plan for replacement needs in conjunction with the County Departments/Special Districts. During development of each fiscal year’s budget, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews requests received from Departments/Special Districts for replacement of existing vehicles. In determining the amount of funding required, only the cost to replace existing vehicles with their equivalents is considered. Upgrades and additional new vehicles may not be charged to the appropriate vehicle replacement budget. Sheriff’s Office Only: The Sheriff’s Office equipment replacement schedule will be discussed and approved during the annual budget process. Due to the unique nature of the functions of the Sheriff’s Office, the equivalent replacements and upgrades may be changed to meet departmental needs, if the costs remain within budget targets. However, these changes will be discussed with OMB prior to proceeding to ensure costs are appropriate. Guidelines Attachments The Department/Special District, working with Equipment Services, prepares a needs assessment to determine which vehicles require replacement for upcoming fiscal years. Vehicle replacement will be funded only for the current equivalent equipment class, make, model and equipment extras. Upgrades are not funded under the appropriate vehicle replacement budget. If a Department/Special District determines upgrades are necessary, the Department/Special District has two options: (a) pay for the upgrades from the Department’s/Special District’s current operating budget; or (b) request upgrades and additions during the development of the Department/Special District budget. If the full cost of replacement is actually lower than originally estimated, the savings will revert to the appropriate fund. Possible cost overruns will be absorbed by the appropriate vehicle replacement budget. OMB must approve all charges to the vehicle replacement budget. Exceptions If, during the replacement process, the Department/Special District requires changes to the original vehicle replacement request, the Department/Special District must request reconsideration of their initial vehicle replacement plan. The criteria OMB will consider during the review of the Department’s/Special District’s revised plan includes funding and the impact on current and future costs for maintenance, operation and replacement. To assist OMB in performing a full analysis of the revised replacement plan, Departments/Special Districts are requested to provide: 800 Vehicle Replacement Policy (Continued) A justification statement which supports changes to be in the best interest of Maricopa County citizens, enhances services provided to the citizens and benefits the County/County Special District overall. This statement can also include information on changes in service levels which require the use of a different vehicle class, the impact on current and future costs for maintenance, operation and replacement as well as information on funding. A spreadsheet which reflects the current vehicle replacement schedule with costs and the proposed vehicle schedule with costs. The spreadsheet needs to reflect the increase or decrease of cost for each vehicle and an explanation for the cost change. A complete justification for any equipment additions to the replacement vehicles and how these equipment additions enhance the service levels being provided to Maricopa County citizens. OMB will review the request and provide the Department/Special District and Equipment Services with final approval or disapproval of the proposed change to the Department’s/Special District’s equipment vehicle replacement plan within three working days of receipt. Attachments 801 Fund Descriptions 100 - General Fund: The General Fund accounts for all General Revenues of Maricopa County. It tracks all the general government functions of Maricopa County. 201 - Adult Probation Services: The Probation Services Fund collects the fees assessed to persons placed on probation in the Superior Court per A.R.S. §13-901. Monies collected are for the purpose of supplementing County General Fund appropriations for the compensation costs of probation officers who provide pre-sentence investigations (A.R.S. §12-267). 203 - Sheriff’s Donations: Established to account for and segregate funds to be used by the Sheriff’s Office in support of mandated functions. Funding is provided by non-specific donations and proceeds from the sale of donated items. 204 - Justice Court Judicial Enhancement: Judicial Enhancement is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues consist of 8.06 percent of Fees and surcharges collected under authority of ARS 22-281; and time payment fees collected under authority of ARS §12-116; and Online access subscription fees collected under authority of ARS 22-284. Funds are used to improve, maintain and enhance the ability to collect and manage monies assessed or received by the courts and to improve court automation projects. 205 - Document Retrial: The Document Storage Fund was established by A.R.S. §12-284.01 to collect an additional filing or appearance fee not to exceed five dollars to be used to defray the cost of converting the Clerk of Superior Court’s document storage and retrieval system to micro-graphics or computer automation. Attachments 207 - Palo Verde: Palo Verde is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. It receives an annual allocation of about $200,000 from the State of Arizona. Expenditures are for nuclear disaster training. 208 - Superior Court Judicial Enhancement: Judicial Enhancement is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues consist of 7.51 percent of Fees and surcharges collected under authority of ARS 12-284.03 and time payment fees collected under authority of ARS §12-116. In addition, revenues are received from the State Judicial Enhancement Fund established by ARS 12113. Funds are used to improve, maintain and enhance the ability to collect and manage monies assessed or received by the courts and to improve court automation projects. 209 - Public Defender Training: Public Defender Training Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues consist of a time payment fees on fines that are paid on a time payment basis as established by A.R.S. §12-116. Expenditures are used for Public Defender Training. This fund was established by A.R.S. §12-117. 210 - Economic Development: Economic Development Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues consist of a fixed $65,000 fee from Waste Management Corp. plus a percentage of tonnage of refuse dumped. Expenditures are used for economic development in Mobile and other unincorporated areas of the County. This fund was established by the Board of Supervisors to segregate this activity from the General Fund. 211 - Adult Probation Grants: Adult Probation Grants Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Grant funds are used for domestic violence and women’s treatment programs, gang prevention and criminal justice records improvement. 213 – RICO: RICO Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. It consists of an outside bank account which records all the activity of the Anti-Racketeering Program run by the County Attorney. Funds are provided by the sale of confiscated property. 802 Fund Descriptions (Continued) 215 - Emergency Management: Emergency Management Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Monies are used for disaster planning and training. 216 - Clerk of Court Grants: Clerk of Court Grants is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Grant funds are used for improved court automation systems, child support enforcement and the processing of criminal history dispositions. 217 - CDBG Housing Trust: CDBG Housing Trust Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Grant funds are used to expand the supply of low income housing through the rehabilitation and reconstruction of single family occupancy homes. 218 - Clerk of Court - Fill the GAP: Clerk of Court Fill the Gap was set up as indicated by ARS 412421F and accounts for monies distributed under ARS 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by the counties for the processing of criminal cases in the superior court, including the office of the clerk of the superior court, and justice courts. 219 - County Attorney Grants: County Attorney Grants is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Monies are used for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse and domestic violence cases, enhancement of anti-gang enforcement efforts to deter, investigate, prosecute or adjudicate gang offenders. Victim assistance such as transportation and payment of emergency expenses is also provided. In addition, education programs and in-depth training are provided to children’s advocates. 220 - Drug Diversion Fund: The Drug Diversion Fund accounts for the drug court program established by the presiding judge of the superior court under authority of ARS 13-3422. in cooperation with the county attorney for the purpose of prosecuting, adjudicating and treating drug dependent persons who meet the criteria and guidelines for entry into the program that are developed and agreed on by the presiding judge and the prosecutor. 221 - County Attorney Fill The Gap: County Attorney fill the Gap was set up as indicated by ARS 41-2421F and accounts for monies distributed under ARS 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by the counties for the processing of criminal cases by county attorneys. 222 - Human Services Grants: Human Services Grants is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Monies are used for community action services designed to help the disadvantaged achieve selfsufficiency and family stability. 223 - Transportation Grants: Transportation Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the County Transportation Department. 225 - Parks Spurs Cross Ranch: To account for the money collected from a Town imposed ½% transaction privilege tax for the operation of the County park. The Town commenced collection of the tax by December 1, 2000. This is a Special Revenue Fund. 226 - Planning and Development: Department was moved out of the General Fund to a Special Revenue Fund in FY99. The Fund will operate on a cost reimbursement basis and will account for the activity as previously accounted for in the General Fund (urban studies). 803 Attachments Funding is provided by the imposition of a fine and the payment of fees by the drug dependent person. Fund Descriptions (Continued) 227 - Juvenile Court Grants: Juvenile Court Grants/Fees is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Grant funds are used for the child nutrition program, family counseling and safe schools program. 228 - Juvenile Probation: The Juvenile Probation Fund was established by A.R.S. §12-268 to account for juvenile probation fees collected for the purpose of supplementing County General Fund appropriations for the compensation of personnel of the juvenile court. 229 - Juvenile Restitution: Pursuant to Senate Bill 1446, Section 40, the fund was established for the payment of restitution in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The fund will consist of state and local appropriations, gifts, devices and donations from any public or private source. 230 - Parks and Recreation Grants: Parks and Recreation Grants Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Grant funds are used for state lake improvements, park restoration and the construction and maintenance of hiking trails. 232 – Transportation: Plans and implements an environmentally balanced multi-modal transportation system that serves the region’s needs. Operations are funded through highway users tax. 233 - Public Defender Grants: Public Defender Grants Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Grant funds are used for public defender training and to increase the processing of drug cases. 234 - Transportation Capital Projects: Transportation Capital Projects was set up administratively as a capital project fund to track capital project activity of the County Transportation department. Funding is provided by a reimbursement transfer from the Transportation Fund that derives it’s funding from the State Highways User’s Tax. Attachments 235 - Planning Grants: Planning/Infrastructure Grants Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. 236 - Recorder’s Surcharge: The Recorder’s Surcharge Fund was established by A.R.S. §11475.01 to assess a special recording surcharge not to exceed four dollars to be used to defray the cost of converting the County Recorder’s document storage and retrieval system to micro-graphics or computer automation. 238 - Superior Court Grants: Superior Court Grants Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Grant funds are used for drug enforcement accounting, court appointed special advocates and case processing assistance. 239 - Parks Souvenir: Parks Souvenir Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues consist of proceeds of the sale of sundry items at the Maricopa County Parks. 240 - Parks Lake Pleasant: Provides the public with positive leisure opportunities in a safe, accessible and efficient manner through quality development and programming while conserving and protecting unique and environmentally sensitive areas. 241 - Parks Enhancement: Pursuant to A.R.S. §11-941, this fund was established to account for and segregate park and recreation revenues and expenditures associated with enhancing parks and recreation programs. 242 - Library District Grants: Library District Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the County Library District. 804 Fund Descriptions (Continued) 243 - Parks Donations Fund: Established to account for and segregate funds and resources donated for park repairs and improvements. Funding source is non-specific donations and proceeds from the sale of donated items. 244 – Library: The Library District provides and maintains library services for the residents of Maricopa County. Operations are funded by a secondary tax levy. 245 - Justice Court Enhancement: Established for the purpose of defraying expenses of Justice Court services by providing improvements in court technology, operations and facilities to enable the courts to respond quickly to changing statutory and case processing needs. Operations are funded by an $18 user’s charge to be added to the Defensive Driving School Diversion Fee as of March 1, 1998. 246 - Justice Court Grants: Justice Court Grants Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Monies are used for juvenile crime reduction and to reduce the backlog of existing criminal cases. In addition, a pilot video conference/personal computer project is being funded for 3 justice courts. 248 - SAIL Grants Fund: Established to account for and segregate grant funds supporting the SAIL program (on the Health Care Accounting System). 249 - General Government - Grants: General Government Grants was set up to account for all SCAAP Grant activity. 250 - Stadium District: The Stadium District provides regional leadership and financial resources to assure the presence of Major League Baseball in Maricopa County. Operations are funded by a rental vehicle surcharge. 251 - Sheriff Grants: Sheriff Grants Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Grant funds are used for patrolling lakes, improving the fingerprinting system, and enhancing DUI and overall traffic enforcement capabilities. 253 - Bank One Ballpark Operations: The Major League Stadium Operating Fund accounts for all revenues and expenditures related to running the Bank One Ballpark. The Fund was established on May 1, 1997. It is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. 254 - Sheriff Inmate Health Services: The Inmate Health Services Fund was established July 17, 1995, to administer co-payments received from inmates for self initiated health service pursuant to A.R.S. §31-161 and A.R.S. §31-162. 255 - Jail Operations: Established under the authority of proposition 400 and 401, which were passed in the General Election of November 3, 1998. These propositions authorized a temporary 1/5 cent sales tax to be used for the construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. 256 - Probate Programs: This fund was established July 17, 1994, to administer the monies received by the Clerk of Court pursuant to A.R.S. §14-5314 and A.R.S. §14-5414. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court is authorized to spend these monies to preserve, audit, and safeguard the estates and wards for whom the court has a fiduciary responsibility. 805 Attachments 252 - Sheriff’s Special Funding: The fund represents the Sheriff’s Inmate Canteen which was established under A.R.S. §31-121 to hold in trust all special service fund monies for the benefit and welfare of inmates. The majority of revenues are derived from sales of food and sundries to the inmates. Fund Descriptions (Continued) 257 - Conciliation Court Special: The Conciliation Court Fund accounts for monies collected under A.R.S. §25-311.01 related to the dissolution of marriages. The funds collected are used by the domestic violence shelter fund and the child abuse prevention and treatment fund. 258 - Court Automated: Pursuant to A.R.S. §11-251.08, a $10 fee will be charged upon filing of the original complaint and answer in all civil, domestic relations, probate and tax cases. The fee will be collected and deposited by Clerk of the Court staff. The funds will be used to offset the various expenses incurred in the development, enhancement and on-going operation of the Court’s automated information systems. 259 - Superior Court Special: The Court Enhancement Fund accounts for monies received under an intergovernmental agreement with the Department of Economic Security to conduct Title IV-D child support enforcement enhancements. 260 - Research and Reporting: Research and Reporting Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. This fund records the activity of governmental research projects that are billed back to the Municipalities contracting for the services on a cost reimbursement basis. 261 - Law Library: Law Library Fund was established by A.R.S. §12-305 to account for a portion of the fees collected by the Clerk of Superior Court to be used for the purchase of books for the county law library. Attachments 262 - Public Defender Fill The Gap: Public Defender Fill the Gap was set up as indicated by ARS 41-2421F and accounts for monies distributed under ARS 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by counties for the processing of criminal cases by the county public defender, legal defender and contract indigent defense counsel in each county. 263 - Legal Defender Fill The Gap: Legal Defender Fill the Gap was set up as indicated by ARS 41-2421F and accounts for monies distributed under ARS 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by counties for the processing of criminal cases by the county public defender, legal defender and contract indigent defense counsel in each county. 264 - Superior Court Fill The Gap: Superior Court Fill the Gap was set up as indicated by ARS 41-2421F and accounts for monies distributed under ARS 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by the counties for the processing of criminal cases in the superior court, including the office of the clerk of the superior court, and justice courts. 265 - Public Health Pharmacy: Public Health Special Revenue Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund and this fund accounts for Public Health programs that are self-supported by Vital Health fees. 266 - Check Enforcement Program: The Check Enforcement Program Fund accounts for fees that are collected pursuant to sections 13-1809 and 13-1810, any investigation and prosecution costs and any monies that are obtained as a result of a forfeiture and that are recovered for the county through enforcement of section 13-1802, 13-1807, 13-2002 or 13-2310, whether by final judgment, settlement or otherwise. The monies in the fund shall be used for the investigation, prosecution and deferred prosecution of theft, forgery and fraud. 267 - Crim Just Enhancement Fund: The Criminal Justice Enhancement fund accounts for monies that are allocated to county attorneys from the Arizona State Criminal Justice Enhancement fund (ARS 41-2401). The funds are to be used for the purpose of enhancing prosecutorial efforts. 806 Fund Descriptions (Continued) 268 - Victim Compsation And Assistance Fund: Victim compensation and assistance fund was established to administer funding provided from the State Victim Compensation and Assistance fund.(ARS 41-2407) and from prisoner supervision fees under ARS 31-418. Fund is used for establishing, maintaining and supporting programs that compensate and assist victims of crime. 269 - Victims Comp Restitution Fund: The County Attorney Victim Compensation Restitution fund was established as authorized by ARS 11-538 consisting of monies that are distributed pursuant to ARS 12-286 (seventy-five per cent of the interest earned on restitution monies that are received in trust). The county attorney shall use monies in the fund to assist eligible victims of crime with medical, counseling and funeral expenses and lost wages. 270 - Child Support Enhancement: Child Support Enhancement Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Funds received from a federal incentive award are used for the enhancement of child support collections through efficient operation of the IV-D program. 271 - Expedited Child Support: Expedited Child Support Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues consist of monies collected for subsequent case filing fees for post-decree petitions in dissolution cases, pursuant to A.R.S. §25-412 and A.R.S. §12-284, subsection K. These funds are used to establish, maintain and enhance programs designed to expedite the processing of petitions filed and enforce the resultant court orders. 272 - Child Support Automation: Child Support Automation Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues consist of fifty percent of the monies received by the clerk’s office for child support handling fees, pursuant to A.R.S. §25-515 and A.R.S. §12-284, subsection L. These funds are used to improve, maintain and enhance computer hardware, software and automation systems used to collect court ordered child support. 274 - Clerk of the Court EDMS: Revenues consist of fees collected from court filings to support the implementation and ongoing support of the Electronic Document Imaging System (EDMS). 275 - Juvenile Probation Diversion Fees: The Juvenile Probation Diversion fund was established by ARS 11-537 and consists of diversion fees that are collected pursuant to section 8-321(N). The monies shall be used at the discretion of the county attorney for administering county community based alternative programs that are established pursuant to section 8-321. 280 - Old Courthouse: Old Courthouse Restoration Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues consist of donations and contributions for the use of court facilities. These funds are used for the restoration and preservation of the Old Maricopa County courthouse. 281 - Children’s Issues Education: Child Issues Education Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. The fund was established on 7-20-96, pursuant to A.R.S. §25-354. Revenues are received from the clerk’s educational program fees and are used to supplement any state or county appropriations. Expenditures are for educational programs about the impact that divorce, the restructuring of families and judicial involvement has on children. 807 Attachments 273 - Victim Location: Victim Location is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Revenues are derived from interest earned on restitution monies received in trust and are to be distributed to the County Attorney and Clerk of the Superior Court on a pro rata basis (County Attorney - 75% and Superior Court - 25%). Fund was established pursuant to House Bill 2254. The BOS approved the Fund on August 1998, by agenda C19990118. ARS 12-287 Fund Descriptions (Continued) 282 - Domestic Relations Education: Domestic Relations/Mediation Education Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. The fund was established on July 20, 1996, pursuant to A.R.S. §25413. Revenues consist of a surcharge received by the clerk for each filing of a post-adjudication petition in a domestic relation’s case, pursuant to A.R.S. §12-284, subsection G. These revenues are used to establish, maintain and enhance programs designed to educate persons about impacts on children of dissolution of marriage, legal separation and restructuring of families and programs for mediation of visitation or custody disputes. 290 - Waste Tire Program: Established pursuant to A.R.S. §44-1305 to record activity for the operation of the waste tire processing center for removal of waste tires from the county. 292 - Correctional Health Grant: The Arizona Department of Health Services was awarded a grant by the Department for Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to generate surveillance data for the CDC and supplement the syphilis screening activities at the Madison Street jail. The term of the IGA is from 1/1/98 to 12/31/98, for an amount not to exceed $25,000. 295 - Housing Department: Housing Authority is reported as a Special Revenue Fund. The department provides a decent and safe living environment to families who cannot afford market rate rents, and promotes programs leading to economic development and self-sufficiency. 312 - General Obligation: To account for debt service on all various purpose general obligation bonds. Funding is provided by the County’s secondary property tax revenues, which may be used only for debt service. 320 - Lease Revenue: To account for the debt service on the $130 million Certificate of Participation issued in June 2001. This is a Debt Service Fund. Attachments 370-377 - Stadium District: To account for debt service on Stadium District Revenue Bonds. Funding is provided by transfers from the Stadium District Special Revenue Fund. 378 - Mesa Subordinate Debt Account: On April 1, 1996, the City of Mesa Municipal Development Corporation issued $10m of Revenue Bonds Series 1996B on behalf of the Stadium District. The Stadium District entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Mesa. Pursuant to the terms of the IGA, the District will, as certain specified revenues become available in the future, repay the City an amount equal to the debt service associated with the Series 1996B bonds, plus certain expenses. This fund was established to record the distributions to Mesa for the reimbursement of debt service. 379 - Maryvale Subordinate Debt Account: On March 10, 1997, the Stadium District issued $10m in Second Subordinate Capital Appreciation Net Revenue Bonds to John F. Long Properties, Inc. to construct Phoenix Maryvale Stadium. Pursuant to the terms of the IGA, the District will, as certain specified revenues become available in the future, prepay the bonds. This fund was established to record distributions to Maryvale for the reimbursement of debt service. 410 - Major League Stadium: The Major League Stadium Fund accounts for the cost of construction on the Bank One Ballpark. The majority of costs were financed through a .25% sales tax that commenced on April 1, 1995 and concluded on December 1, 1997. 422 - Intergovernmental Capital Projects: Intergovernmental Funds account for capital projects funded through transfers from other funds. Projects included in this fund are multi-year projects for which the funding has been set-aside during the first year of the project. 435 - County Improvement: Capital projects funded through the General Fund. 808 Fund Descriptions (Continued) 440 - Library District Capital Projects: Funding for capital projects transferred from Library District funds. 450 - Bank One Ballpark Project Reserve: Pursuant to Section 8.6.1.1 of the Facility Development Agreement (FDA), the District is required to deposit revenues in excess of the District’s $238 million project obligation into a Long Term Project Reserve Account. 455 - Jail Construction Fund: The Jail Construction Fund was established to account for revenue and expenditures associated with the jail facility as approved by the voters. The voters approved the Jail Election on November 3, 1998. 504 - Air Pollution: Air Pollution works to protect the environment and public health through control, preservation, and improvement of the County’s air quality. Air Pollution and Environmental permits are sold to cover operating costs. 505 - Environmental Services Grants: Environmental Services Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the County Environmental Services Department. 506 - Environmtl Svcs Env Health: Environmental Services - Health Fund was established to account for activities related to the protection of food and water supplies consumed by residents. Funding is provided by fees collected from Health Inspections and the sale of Health Permits. 532 - Public Health: Public Health protects, improves and preserves the physical, mental and social well being and the environment of the entire population of Maricopa County with a special responsibility to serve those most vulnerable. 535 - Medical Center: Provide quality, cost competitive health care and health professional education to assure the health security of individuals, families, and community. 551 - Arizona Long-Term Care System (ALTCS): The Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) is a managed care, long term care plan operated by Maricopa Managed Care Systems (MMCS). Chronically ill and physically disabled patients receive medical services as a result of an annual contract with AHCCCS. 561 - Non-AHCCCS Health Plans: The Non-AHCCCS Health Plans are primarily Health Select, a managed care health plan offered to employees, spouses and their families; and Senior Select, a Medicare plan operating under contract with the Federal government. 566 - Senior Select Fund: Established to account for and segregate funds and resources associated with the Senior Select Health Fund. Activity was accounted for in Fund 560 in prior years. 570 - Managed Care Admin Allocation: This fund accounts for overhead activity related to the Maricopa Health Plan and Non-AHCCCS Health Plan. These expenses are allocated to all managed care funds on a monthly basis. 572 - Animal Control: Animal Control reduces the incidences of animal inflicted injuries and reduces the risk of exposure to rabies through enforcement of dog licensing laws and ordinances, enforcement of leash laws and ordinances, the capture and impoundment of stray dogs, public education, adoption or humane disposal of excess animals. Licenses and fees are the primary funding source. 809 Attachments 541 - Maricopa Health Plan: Maricopa County Health Plan (MCHP) is an ambulatory health care plan operated by Maricopa Managed Care Systems (MMCS). MMCS contracts with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) which provides monthly capitation revenues based on MCHP plan enrollment. Fund Descriptions (Continued) 573 - Animal Control Grants: Animal Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by Animal Control. 574 - Animal Control Field Services: Animal Control Field Services was set up in FY2003 to segregate field services which are an optional County Service from Animal Control Pound Activities which are required by Arizona State Statute. 580 - Solid Waste: Assists the cities and towns, businesses, and citizens in continuously improving regional waste management systems. This includes an ever increasing focus on reducing the amount of waste generated, maximizing resource recovery, proper management of special wastes, and environmentally sound disposal. 590 - Housing Authority: Payroll clearing fund used to bill Housing Department for payroll services provided by Maricopa County. 652 - Environmental Cleanup: Environmental Cleanup Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. It provides tracking for the proceeds from settlements (i.e. Southern Pacific Railroad) and the cleanup expenditures that are made from settlements. 654 - Equipment Services: The Internal Service fund provides assistance to other Maricopa County departments to ensure quality service to the citizens of Maricopa County by furnishing and maintaining the necessary County mobile equipment in an effective and efficient manner. 670 - Facilities Discretionary: This Internal Service fund was established on July 1, 1996 to account for special projects that are requested of Facilities Management by departments. Attachments 673 – Reprographics: This Internal Service fund was established on July 1, 1996 to account for the operations of the reprographics section of Materials Management. 675 - Self-Insurance Trust: This fund supports the comprehensive insurance/self-insurance program which provides protection of County assets and employees by means of a Trust Fund. Personnel skilled in loss control, claims and litigation, and workers’ compensation work together to avert risk and conserve the human and financial resources of Maricopa County. 676 - Workman’s Comp Self Insured Trust: This fund carries restricted funds which are reported within fund 675 - Risk Management in Balance Sheet Account 018 - Investments with Treasurer. 681- Telecommunications: This fund provides cost communications to County employees. effective voice, data, and radio 685- Employee Benefits: Activity associated with the County’s self insurance is recorded as revenue in the Employee Benefits Fund. All other activity in which the County is not self-insured is posted to balance sheet accounts in fund 685. 716 – Contributions: Contributions accounts for activities that are financed through donations by citizens or groups. Predominately this has been for Project Scrub. 748 - Jurer Improvement: Activity associated with making improvements to the juror system. 780 - Unorgainzed Territory Transportation: (formerly School Sp Co Reserve Regional Schools) - Established by ARS 15-1001 to account for transportation aid for the transportation of children from unorganized territory to school districts within the county. 782 - School Communication Expense (Regional Schools): Used as a clearing account for T1 (telecommunication lines which are purchased by school headquarters and are shared by all school districts. Individual districts reimburse headquarters for the cost of the T1 lines. 810 Fund Descriptions (Continued) 990 - Flood Control District Capital Projects: Flood Control Capital Projects was set up administratively as a capital project fund to track capital project activity of the Flood Control District. Funding is provided by a reimbursement transfer from the Flood Control District which derives it’s funding from an annual Property Tax Levy. This fund was part of Fund 991 in FY 2002. 991 - Flood Control: The Maricopa County Flood Control District provides flood control facilities and regulates floodplains and drainage to prevent flooding of property and endangering the lives of people in Maricopa County. Operations are funded by a secondary tax levy. 992 - Street Lighting: The Street Lighting Districts provide street lighting in areas of the County that are not under local city jurisdictions. Operations are funded by special assessment. 993 Special Improvement Districts: To account for special assessment projects made against benefiting property owners. This fund is accounted for as a Debt Service Fund. Attachments 811 FY 2002-03 Revenue Object and Sub-Object Codes Attachments OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS 601 00 01 02 03 04 PROPERTY TAXES REAL PROPERTY TAXES – CURRENT REAL PROPERTY TAXES – PRIOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES - CURRENT PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES - PRIOR Amounts collected on property taxes assessed on real and secured and unsecured personal property. 605 00 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST Amounts collected as penalties for delinquent tax payments, and the interest charged on delinquent taxes from the due date to the date of actual payment. 606 00 SALES TAXES Amounts collected for a sales tax levied by the County. 610 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 LICENSES & PERMITS LIQUOR LICENSES PAWN SHOP LICENSES PEDDLERS LICENSES AIR POLLUTION PERMITS ANIMAL LICENSES BUILDING SAFETY PERMITS ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS FLOOD CONTROL LICENSES MARRIAGE LICENSES MOBILE HOME MOVING PERMIT MOBILE HOME USE PERMIT PLANNING VARIANCE PERMIT PUBLIC HEALTH ENG PERMIT COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY USE Revenues from businesses and occupations that must be licensed before doing business or licenses and permits levied according to benefits presumably conferred by the license or permit. 615 00 01 02 03 GRANTS FEDERAL STATE OTHER GRANTS Contributions or gifts of cash or other assets from the federal and/or state government to be used or expended by the County for a specified purpose, activity, or facility. 620 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL FEDERAL SHARED REVENUE OTHER SHARED REVENUE FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS STATE SHARED REVENUE STATE SHARE OF COSTS OTHER GOVT SHARE OF COSTS Other non-grant revenues levied by the federal or state government and shared with the County on a predetermined basis. 621 00 01 02 03 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES SALT RIVER PROJECT FEDERAL STATE Payments from other governments or other local units/organizations for owned properties falling within the County's geographical boundaries on which it cannot levy property taxes. 625 00 STATE SHARED SALES TAX Transaction Privilege Taxes levied by the state government and shared with the County, based on a statutory distribution formula. 626 00 STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REVENUE Taxes levied by the state government on motor fuel consumption and other transportation-related items, and shared with the County based on a statutory distribution formula. 630 00 STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE TAX Tax levied by the state government based on the assessed value of motor vehicles and shared with the County based on a statutory distribution formula. 635 00 01 02 03 04 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES CABLE TV RECEIPTS FEE GARNISH & SUPPORT FEES TAX SALE FEES CABLE TV-APPLICATION FEE Various types of County charges for services and other related activities. 812 FY 2002-03 Revenue Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS CERTIFICATIONS COURT FEES CONSTABLE FEES FIDUCIARY FEES JURY FEES LEGAL SERVICES PASSPORTS PROBATE FEES RECORDING FEES RECORD AUTOMATION SURCHARGE SUBDIVISION FEES ZONING CLEAR REVIEW FEES ZONING APPLICATION ROOM & BOARD-PROBATION KENNEL FEES VITAL STATISTICS CAMPGROUND RESERVE FEES TARGET RANGE FEES PARK ENTRANCE FEES REC ACTIVITIES FEES BUILDING PLAN REVIEWS AUTOPSIES INDIGENT DEFENSE REVENUES PROBATION SERVICE FEES SPECIAL LAW ENFORCE SERVICE DAMAGE RECOVERY LANDFILL CHARGES INSURANCE PREMIUMS COUNTY PREMIUM HLTH/LIFE EMPLOYEE PREMIUM HLTH/LIFE 636 00 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES Revenue collected by internal service fund departments of the County for centralized internal service operations, (telecom, equipment services, reprographics, etc…) 637 00 01 02 03 04 05 FINES & FORFEITS CIVIL SANCTIONS-TRAFFIC COURT FINES LIBRARY FINES ANTI-RACKETEERING FINES DIVERSION FINE Amounts collected for a compliance violation of any applicable laws, policy or other authoritative rule or amounts collected through confiscation. 638 00 01 PATIENT SERVICES REVENUE REVENUE DEDUCTIONS Charges for patients and third-party reimbursers for healthcare related services. 645 00 INTEREST EARNINGS Revenue from holdings invested for earning purposes. 650 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE BUILDING RENTALS EQUIPMENT RENTALS PAY PHONE RECEIPTS VENDING MACHINE RECEIPTS OTHER RENTS & COMMISSIONS SALE OF BOOKS/COPIES/ETC SALE OF FIXED ASSETS SALE FOOD BULK NOURISHMT SALE OF POSTAGE SALE OF DATA INFORMATION INSURANCE RECOVERIES CASH OVER/SHORT DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS BAD CHECK FEES (NSF) Any and all revenue that cannot be reasonably classified to another specific revenue code. 651 00 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 813 Attachments 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 FY 2002-03 Revenue Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS 00 01 02 03 PROCEEDS FROM FINANCING CAPITAL LEASE PROCEEDS CERT OF PART PROCEEDS BOND PROCEEDS Revenues from a Board-approved debt financing obligation for a specific purpose. 680 00 TRANSFERS IN Inflow of monies transferred between funds within the County. Attachments 652 814 FY 2002-03 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 REGULAR PAY FULL TIME REGULAR SALARIES PERMANENT PART TIME OTHER SALARIES & WAGES COMPENSATORY TIME HOLIDAY PAY VACATION PAY JURY DUTY ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY ON-THE-JOB INJURY LEAVE MILITARY LEAVE SICK LEAVE Gross salary and wages for personal services rendered by regular full and part-time employees. 705 00 TEMPORARY PAY Gross salary and wages for temporary employees. 710 00 OVERTIME Overtime salary and wages for personal services rendered by regular full-time employees. 750 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 FRINGE BENEFITS FICA MEDICARE TAX ELECTED OFFICIALS RETIREMENT CORRECTION OFFICERS RETIREMENT PUBLIC SAFETY RETIREMENT STATE RETIREMENT PLAN DENTAL PLAN NATIONAL DENTAL HEALTH SELECT PLAN CIGNA HEALTH PLAN MANUFACTURERS LIFE ON-THE-JOB INJURY INSURANCE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BUS FARE SUBSIDY PLAN ASRS LONG TERM DISABILITY INVESTIGATOR RETIREMENT DELTA DENTAL RELIASTAR LIFE MED/DENTAL WAIVER CIGNA DEDUCTIBLE PARK RANGERS RETIREMENT Amounts paid by the County on behalf of employees. 790 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES PRODUCTION BONUS DIFFERENTIALS WORKING CONDITION WEEKEND PREMIUM STANDBY PAY REGULAR OVER BUDGET PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE AWARD BUDGET DEFERRED HOURS PAID LUMP SUM PAYMENT EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION AWARD AWARDS PROGRAM CREDIT OTHER ADJUSTMENTS Miscellaneous employee payments and/or adjustments not considered regular employee compensation. 795 00 PERSONAL SERVICES ALLOC.-OUT Used to allocate personal service charges to another fund/department. 796 00 PERSONAL SERVICES ALLOC.-IN Used to allocate personal service charges from another fund/department. 815 Attachments 701 FY 2002-03 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) Attachments OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS 801 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 GENERAL SUPPLIES AUTO-GAS OIL LUBE AUTO-TIRES TUBES BATTERY OTHER AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY BEDDING & LINEN CLEANING & JANITORIAL CLOTHING/UNIFORMS TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIES SOFTWARE EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLIES FOOD-PERISHABLE FOOD-PREPARATION FOOD-NON PERISHABLE FOOD-SPECIAL FUNCTIONS FOOD-NOURISHMENTS KITCHEN & DINING SUPPLIES LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES SAFETY APPAREL SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT FURNITURE UNDER $1000 LAUNDRY SUPPLIES PROCUREMENT CARD BOOK/PAMPHLETS/SUBSCRIPTIONS AUTOMOTIVE R&M SUPPLIES BUILDING R&M SUPPLIES COMMUNICATION R&M SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL R&M SUPPLIES GROUNDS R&M SUPPLIES HEAT/LIGHT/COOL R&M SUPPLIES OFFICE R&M SUPPLIES PLUMBING R&M SUPPLIES ROAD R&M SUPPLIES OTHER R&M SUPPLIES Amounts paid for consumable operational supply items. 802 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 MEDICAL SUPPLIES DENTAL SUPPLIES LABORATORY SUPPLIES LAB-REAGENTS & MEDIA LAB-CONSUMABLES RADIOLOGY SUPPLIES X-RAY FILM X-RAY CONTRAST & MEDIA PHARMACEUTICALS BLOOD & PLASMA SUPPLIES ANESTHETIC SUPPLIES OXYGEN & OTHER GASES RADIOACTIVE SUPPLIES O R INSTRUMENTS MEDICAL R&M SUPPLIES Amounts paid for consumable healthcare operational supply items. 803 00 FUEL 804 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT CONS EQUIP NON-MOTORIZED EDUCATION/REC EQUIPMENT ENGR/SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT KITCHEN/LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT HEAT/COOL/LIGHT EQUIPMENT MEDICAL/LAB EQUIPMENT OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT 816 Amounts paid for items not considered general or medical supplies, that have a useful life of one year or more but cost less than $5,000 per item. FY 2002-03 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS SHOP EQUIPMENT WEAPONS\GUNS COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FURNITURE OVER $1,000 810 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 LEGAL SERVICES PARALEGAL/STUDENT TIME ATTORNEYS CRIM INDIG-COURT ATTORNEYS NON-CRIMIN COURT ATTORNEYS-JUVENILE COURT ATTORNEYS OTHER NON-COURT EXPERT WITNESS FEES/EXPENSE EYE WITNESS FEES/EXPENSE INTERPRETER FEES/EXPENSE VISITING JUDGES FEES MENTAL EXAMINATION FEES RULE 11 EXAM RULE 26.5 EXAM DEPOSITION REPORT SERVICE PRELIM HEARING/GRAND JURY TRIALS REPORT SERVICE APPEALS TRANSCRIPTION DEPOSITIONS TRANS SERVICE PRELIM HEAR/GRAND JURY TR S MISCELLANEOUS TRANSCRIPT JURY FEES JURY LODGING JURY MEALS JURY MILEAGE ARBITRATION EXPENSE JUDGEMENTS/SETTLEMENTS LITIGATION EXPENSE MERIT SYSTEM HEARING EXPENSE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE-COURT IN INVESTIGATION TIME INVESTIGATION EXPENSE-OTHER LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION Professional legal services rendered by individuals not on the County payroll and/or other legal service related costs. 811 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 HEALTH CARE SERVICES NURSES MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DENTISTS PHYSICIANS CONTRACT MEDICAL PROVIDER HOSPITAL/MEDICAL SVCS PRIMARY CARE SERVICES THERAPY SERVICES RADIOLOGY SERVICES EMERGENCIES PRESCRIPTIONS LABORATORY SERVICES TRANSPORTATION/AMBULANCE PATIENT TRANSPORT SVCS-MMC Professional health care services rendered by individuals not on the County payroll and/or other healthcare service related costs. 812 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 OTHER SERVICES ACCOUNTING & AUDITING ACTUARIAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HSA ALLOCATION ARCHITECTURAL APPRAISAL SERVICES CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT BROKER FEES EDUCATORS & TRAINERS ENGINEERING Amounts expended for services rendered by individuals not on the County payroll and/or other service related costs that are not legal and healthcare related. 817 Attachments 09 10 11 12 FY 2002-03 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) Attachments OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING SECURITY GUARD SERVICES CLAIMS ADMIN SERVICE FEE ARCOR PERSONNEL SERVICES ELECTION WORKERS OUTSIDE LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING SVCS PERSONNEL HIRE/TEST SVCS TEMPORARY HELP OUTSIDE COLLECTION FEES JTPA - OCCUPATIONAL/VOCATIONAL JTPA - OJT GP - AUTO LIABILITY GP - GENERAL LIABILITY GP - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE OTHER INSURANCE AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE CLAIMS AUTO LIABILITY CLAIMS ENVIRONMENTAL LIAB CLAIMS BOILER INSURANCE COURSE CONST INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE WORKMENS COMP INDEMNITY WORKMENS COMP INSURANCE WORKMENS COMP MEDICAL DENTAL INSURANCE DISABILITY INSURANCE HEALTH CLAIMS HEALTH INSURANCE INDIVIDUAL/BLANKET BONDS UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS PROPERTY CLAIMS PROPERTY INSURANCE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS MALPRACTICE INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM NOTARY BONDS SIGHT CARE PRINTING-BINDING-DUPLICATION TAX SALE PUBLICATION OTHER PUBL & ADV EXPENSE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES MEMBERSHIPS/CERT/LICENSE 820 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 OPERATING LEASES & RENTS RENT AUTOMOBILE RENT BUILDING RENT SPECIAL FUNCTION RENT COPYING EQUIPMENT RENT COMMUNICATION EQUIP RENT DATA PROCESSING EQUIP RENT GROUNDS/LAND RENT MEDICAL EQUIPMENT RENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENT Payments for operating leases and rents, excluding capital leases (see 950-DEBT SERVICE). 825 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE AUTOMOTIVE R & M BUILDING R & M CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT R&M COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT R&M DATA PROCESSING EQUIP R&M GROUNDS R&M HEAT/LIGHT/COOL R&M Amounts paid for repairing or maintaining buildings, structures, improvements, or equipment. 818 FY 2002-03 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS MEDICAL/LAB EQUIPMENT R&M COPYING EQUIPMENT R&M OFFICE EQUIPMENT R&M JANITORIAL SERVICES 830 00 01 02 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS TAXES & ASSESSMENTS MANDATED HEALTH CARE PAYMENTS Contributions, aid or other amounts paid to other governmental entities for programs and/or other agreed upon contracts and arrangements. 839 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES TELECOM DISCRETIONARY COUNTY COUNSEL BASE LEVEL EQ SERVICES CHARGES RISK MANAGEMENT BASE LEVEL TELECOM TELECOM WIRELESS SYSTEMS REPROGRAPHICS MOTOR POOL Amounts charged by internal service departments of the County to other departments. 842 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 TRAVEL & EDUCATION COUNTY SPONSORED TRAINING AIRLINE/BUS/TAXI MEALS LODGING EVENT COST MILEAGE ALLOWANCE EDUCATION SEMINAR FEES INVESTIGATIVE TRAVEL WITNESS TRAVEL PRISONER/COURT WARD TRAVEL Amounts paid for any and all costs related to travel, training and education of employees. 843 00 01 02 03 04 05 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING FREIGHT MOVING SERVICES POSTAGE SHIPPING COURIER SERVICES Amounts paid for mailing costs and other incidental costs associated with the movement of goods. 845 00 01 02 03 04 05 SUPPORT & CARE OF PERSONS BURIAL OF INDIGENTS PERSONAL CARE HOME MEALS SERVICE JTPA- FINANCIAL ASST.(NBP/NRP) NURSING HOMES Amounts paid to administer the County's fiduciary care responsibilities. 850 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 UTILITIES MICROWAVE U S WEST CHARGES LONG DISTANCE CHARGES OTHER COMMUNICATION SERVICES ELECTRICITY NATURAL/PROPANE GAS REFUSE REMOVAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL WATER INFECTIOUS WASTE DISPOSAL Amounts paid for the cost of any and all utility charges and/or related disposition of utility products. 855 00 INTEREST EXPENSE Interest charges for negative cash and investment balances. 865 00 DEPRECIATION Expense charged for the loss of value of an asset as a result of its use. 880 00 01 TRANSFERS OUT CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOC Movement of monies between (outflow) funds within the County. 819 Attachments 08 09 10 11 FY 2002-03 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) Attachments OBJECT SUB-OBJT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS 890 00 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS 910 00 01 02 03 LAND LAND ACQUISITION-ROW LAND ACQUISITION-OTHER RELOCATION-FACILITIES Amounts paid for the acquisition of land or any charges necessary to prepare the land for use. 915 00 01 02 BUILDINGS & IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS Amounts paid for the acquisition of buildings or charges necessary to prepare the building for use. Do not record amounts paid for normal repair and maintenance. 920 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COMM CAP EQUIPMENT CONST CAP EQUIPMENT ED/REC CAP EQUIPMENT ENG/SCI CAP EQUIPMENT KIT/LNDRY CAP EQUIPMENT HT/CL/LT CAP EQUIPMENT MED/LAB CAP EQUIPMENT SHOP CAP EQUIPMENT COMPUTER CAP EQUIPMENT Amounts paid for the acquisition of non-vehicle related equipment costing more than $5,000. 930 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES TRAILERS OTHER MECHANIZED TRUCKS WATERCRAFT AIRCRAFT\HELICOPTERS PASSENGER VEHICLES Amounts paid for the acquisition of any and all types of vehicles costing more than $5,000. 940 00 INFRASTRUCTURE Amounts paid for County infrastructure, such as streets, roads, tunnels, drainage systems, water and sewer systems, dams and lighting systems. 950 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL - BOND INTEREST-BOND PRINCIPAL - COP INTEREST - COP PRINCIPAL - CAPITAL LEASE INTEREST - CAPITAL LEASE Amounts paid to satisfy County debt financing obligations, including capital leases. A capital lease is a financing that transfers ownership of the property to the County at the end of the lease term, contains a bargain purchase option, covers a lease term that is equal to 75% or more of the leased asset's useful life, or requires lease payments equal to at least 90% of the leased asset's market value. 820 Glossary Activity: A set of services grouped together around a common purpose or result. AHCCCS: Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. ALTCS: Arizona Long Term Care System. Base Level Internal Service Charge: A base-level, fixed charge that is required by all agencies for normal business operations that cannot be controlled directly by department management. As an example, Telecommunications provides base-level services that include phone line administration, 506 and 372 exchange, voice mail, transmission systems, etc. Base Level Request: An initial fiscal year’s budget amount, with adjustments for program changes, grants, departmental realignment, changes approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and annualized costs for previously funded budget issues (initiatives). A department’s base budget request must be within the budget target provided. Baseline: An established level of previous or current performance that could be used to set improvement goals and provide a comparison for assessing future progress. Benchmarking: A continuous process of collecting information on internal or external standards, processes, and/or best practices, evaluating why they are successful and applying what is learned. Budgeting for Results: A budgeting strategy where decisions are based on or informed by performance information that describes the cost or efficiency of producing an activity and the results achieved for customers—those whose best interests are served by or who receive or use the products or services of a department or program. This is accomplished by structuring the accounting and budgeting systems according to the structure of departments' strategic plans. Note: Accountability is at the heart of Budgeting for Results—County Government is willing and able to tell taxpayers what they are getting for their money in terms of results for customers. Capital Budget: The first year of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Capital Improvement Project: A major, nonrecurring expenditure of $150,000 or more used to expand or improve the County’s physical assets, including land, facilities and infrastructure. Capital improvement projects generally result in new facilities with expected life spans of many years, in substantial extension of the useful life and monetary value of existing facilities, or in increases to the existing “footprint” of a building. Capital improvement projects generally span two or more years. Note: Separate and distinct new facilities should be budgeted as discrete projects. Portions of new facilities should be included in the overall project budget for the overall facility. Capital Outlay: An expenditure from a department operating budget for the acquisition of, or addition to, a fixed asset. A fixed asset is an item that costs $5,000 or more and has a useful life of at least one year. Fixed assets with costs over $5,000 should be budgeted and itemized in the capital object codes (900 series). Capital Projects Fund: A fund established to account for the proceeds of bond issues and other resources for the acquisition, construction or reconstruction of major capital facilities. Carryover Funding: An amount budgeted for FY 2002-03 to pay for a capital expenditure budgeted for FY 2001-02 for which an obligation has been incurred that cannot be paid by June 30, 2002. Note: Carryover items should be identified in the base budget submission. 821 Glossary Capital Improvement Program (CIP): A five-year plan of capital improvement projects that outlines project costs, funding sources and future operating costs associated with each capital improvement. Central Services Cost Allocation Plan: An allocation of General Fund Central Service departments costs (i.e. human resources, internal audit) to all non-General Fund departments through a consistent, logical methodology in proportion to the service or benefit received. COP’s (Certificates of Participation): A method of structuring and securitizing lease payments to investors by dividing the lease payments into fractionalized interests or shares for individual sale to investors. A formal certificate represents each share, much like a bond. However, unlike bonds, COPs are typically subject to annual appropriation and do not represent a “debt” of the issuer or other lessor, but rather a proportionate interest in a flow of lease payments that are pledged to a trust. County: Maricopa County government. DCA: Deputy County Administrator. Debt Service Fund: A fund used to account for the accumulation of resources for and payment of general obligation, special assessment, and stadium district bond principal and interest. Demand Measure: A measure of the number of total units of service or product anticipated to be demanded or needed by the customer. Examples include, number of residents eligible for job training or number of building inspection applications received. Department: An organizational unit headed by a director or elected official. In terms of financial structure, departments can have multiple funding sources, (i.e. general fund, special revenue etc.) that are based on specified uses. The combination of the various funds are consolidated at the department level. Discretionary Internal Service Charge: A charge for a service above the base service level that can be controlled at the discretion of the requesting department, such as fuel use, motor pool, reprographic services, long distance, cellular phones, pagers, telecom work orders. Glossary Econometrics: A forecasting method that captures the behavioral relationships of many variables (called explanatory variables) on the variable being forecast. The method applies regression analysis to historical data to determine the marginal impact of the explanatory variable. Typically, the explanatory variables are related to the demography or economy of the community. Efficiency Measure: A performance measure that measures the average activity cost per output or result. Examples include cost per participant served or cost per building inspection completed within seventy-two hours. Eliminations: Eliminations are included in the budget to offset amounts budgeted as expenditures in one fund that are associated with offsetting revenues and expenditures in another fund. Interdepartmental charges from the Reprographics (print shop) fund to various County departments are one example. Departments pay the print shop for services, and these costs are included in departments’ budgeted expenditures, supported by revenues from sources external to the County. The print shop, in turn, budgets these payments as revenue, along with expenditures related to the cost of providing printing services. Enterprise Fund: A fund used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private enterprises where the intent of the County is that the costs of providing goods and services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed through user charges. This allows for the evaluation of these funds on the same basis as investor-owned enterprises in the same industry. Environmental Assessment: An analysis of the internal and external trends and issues that will have a major impact on the department and its customers over the next two to five years. Issue statements summarize the trends and the impact on the department. The environmental assessment is based on data-based information and reasoned professional judgment that describes changes anticipated both from inside and outside the department. 822 Family of Measures: A set of the four categories of performance measures that are used to measure the performance of an activity. The categories of measure are result, output, demand and efficiency. Full Time Equivalent (FTE): A value equivalent to a number of employees paid full time (forty hours per week, or from 2,080 to 2,096 hours per year, depending on the calendar). A half-time position that is paid 20 hours per week equates to .5 FTE; four half-time positions, each paid for 20 hours per week, equals 2.0 FTE, and so on. A single position may have an FTE value greater than zero, but not greater than 1.0. A group of positions has an aggregate FTE value based on the FTE values of the specific positions within the group. Fund: A fund is used to account for revenues and expenditures with a specified purpose. Fund Balance/Equity: An amount comprised of accumulated excess or deficiency of revenues less expenditures of a fund. This is measured at the beginning or end of a fiscal year. GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. General Fund: A fund accounting for all financial resources of the County, except those required to be accounted for in other funds, and serves as the County’s primary operating fund. GO Bond: General Obligation Bonds are approved by a majority of Maricopa County residents that are sold to raise funding for capital expenditures. Funding for repayment is provided by the County’s secondary debt service property tax levy. Indirect Cost: A cost that is necessary for the functioning of the organization as a whole, but which cannot be directly assigned to one service. The central service cost allocation is an example of the allocation of indirect costs. Input: A volume of resources used to provide an activity. Inputs are typically stated in terms of dollars or hours, but are sometimes stated in terms of people or material resources. Internal Charge: A cost billed to one County department by another County department for base level or discretionary services provided. Issue Statement: A summary statement of an issue and trend that will have a major impact on the department and its customers over the next two to five years. Issue statements include what that impact will be and are the products of the environmental assessment phase in strategic planning. Key Result Measure: A performance measure that is directly related to the program purpose statement and measures the impact that a program had on citizens/customers. Major Maintenance: A category of non-routine projects comprised of major maintenance or upgrades to facilities and/or equipment that will achieve demonstrable savings in operational cost, extend the useful life of assets, or achieve at least ten percent savings in current energy consumption. Each project cost must exceed $20,000 for it to be classified as a major maintenance item. Examples of Major Maintenance projects include replacing heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) systems, replacing roofs, repairing building exteriors, retrofitting light fixtures, installing variable drive fan motors, installing energy management systems, etc. Maintenance projects costing less than $20,000 will be treated as Facilities base-level or discretionary services, and charged accordingly (refer to Internal Charges section). Mandate: A program that meets constitutional, statutory or court-ordered requirements from either Federal or State entities. MCSO: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 823 Glossary ISF (Internal Service Fund): A proprietary fund that accounts for the financing of goods or services provided by one department to other departments on a cost-reimbursement basis like a business. MFR (Managing for Results): A systemic approach to management decision-making, resource allocation, and accountability for results. It includes an integrated system of processes: Planning for Results, Budgeting for Results, Delivering Services and Collecting Data, Reporting Results, Evaluating Results, and Decision Making. MHP: Maricopa Health Plans. MHS: Maricopa Health System or Maricopa Health Delivery System. MIHS: Maricopa Integrated Health System. Mission: A clear, concise statement of purpose for the entire department. The mission focuses on the broad, yet distinct, results the department will achieve for its customers. MMC: Maricopa Medical Center. MOE: Maintenance of Effort. Maintaining funding of maintenance and operational expenditures, including detention personnel compensation, employee related expenses, utility expenses of the facility, costs of food and care of prisoners, administrative support costs and costs of maintaining and repairing the facility and grounds, at a level before the voter approved detention excise tax. Object Code: Identifies the balance sheet account (assets, liabilities, or fund equity), revenue source, or expenditure/expense type (e.g., cash, accounts payable, real property taxes, salaries and wages). OMB: Office of Management and Budget. Org: A level two budget under the budget org. This usually denotes a unit under the division. Glossary Example of a departmental budget structure: Department 110 Adult Probation Budget Org (level 1) " Org (level 2) 1100 Administration Services 1101 Department Administration Output Measure: A performance measure that measures the number of units produced. Examples include number of participants enrolled in job training courses or number of building inspections completed. PCN: A position control number assigned to a position. Performance Measure: An on-going, quantitative indicator of resources consumed, workload, productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. Performance measures should relate directly to objectives and allow for measurement of the same thing over a period of time. (See Family of Measures) Personal Services: A category of expenditures within the budget that includes salaries, benefits, temporary help, special pay, overtime, and salary adjustments. Personal Services Allocation – Out (-In): An object code (795 or 796) used to record payroll expenditures that will be charged/credited to a department for work performed on a special assignment basis. The department providing the personal services will record the expenditure as a credit and the receiving department will record the expenditure as a debit. Personnel Savings: A savings normally realized when positions are vacant or employees are paid at lower rate than budgeted. Object code 701, sub-line “Regular Pay Personnel Savings” and object code 750 sub-line “Benefits Personnel Savings” are provided to recognize expenditure. This reduction (negative) to the personal services budget allows the department to use these budget dollars to fund other items. Position: A specific employment, whether occupied or vacant, involving duties requiring the services of one person. A position may be full or part-time as reflected in the FTE value. 824 Program: A set of activities that have a common purpose or result. Programs provide operational and performance information for strategic decision making. Restatement: A budgetary transfer which provides for a specific increase for programs or expenditures in one department with a corresponding decrease in other programs and expenditures in another department for a net impact of zero (or less). Result Measure: A performance measure that measures the impact or benefit that customers experience as a consequence of receiving a department’s services, stated as a percentage or rate. Examples include percentage of job trainees who had jobs for six months or longer or percentage of building inspections completed within seventy-two hours. Results Initiative: A request for funding above the budget base to support a program, activity and strategic goal identified in the strategic planning process. Results initiatives address mandates, demands for service caused by demographic changes, new programs, or expansion of existing programs. Results initiatives must clearly relate to the department’s mission and be supported by relevant performance measures. Service: A service is the deliverable or product that the customer receives from a department. Services are described as nouns, not verbs, thus defining services in terms of what the customer receives rather than in terms of what the department does. Special Revenue Fund: A fund that accounts for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (other than major capital projects) that is legally restricted to specific purpose expenditures. Strategic Goal: A strategic goal translates resources into significant results to be achieved over the next two to five years, providing the basis for evaluating the department as a whole. Strategic Plan: A strategic plan sets forth the purpose, strategic goals, operational organization, and performance expectations for a department. The strategic plan provides information to department staff, corporate decision makers, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the public about how the department is organized to deliver results and what results the department is accountable for achieving. The plan provides the opportunity for all department staff to see how they contribute at all levels in the organization. or Supplies and Services: A category of expenditures within the budget for all standard costs of daily operations, including such items as office supplies, rent, contractual services, and travel. Technology Results Initiative: A results initiative for technology expenditures for more than $20,000 or that are above a department’s base budget for new or improved technology systems or for maintaining existing information technology systems. Trend: A documented recurrence of a measurable event or circumstance over time that is increasing, decreasing or even staying the same. The size of the number of occurrences often determines whether the recurrences constitute a trend. If the number of recurrences is very small, such as number of floods in a year, it may take a number of years to document a trend in one direction or another. While a large number of events or occurrences, such as the number of court cases of a particular type, may reveal a trend within months or a few of years. 825 Glossary Sub-object Code: Identifies detailed balance sheet account, revenue source, expenditure/expense type (e.g., cash on hand, current real property taxes, overtime wages). Glossary THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 826 Acknowledgements The Fiscal Year Maricopa County 2002-03 Annual Business Strategies was made possible with the help of many dedicated individuals. Most importantly, the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer for providing the policy guidance and leadership that is the backbone of the budget process. Thanks must also be given to the Elected Officials, Deputy County Administrator, Chief Officers and Department Directors and Managers for their cooperation during this past year. This document could not have been produced without the conscientious and creative efforts of the entire staff of the Office of Management and Budget whose members include, Lee Ann Bohn, Chris Bradley, Andrée Cohen, Don Colvin, Frances Delgado, Helen Dusick, Daren Frank, Annamarie Freas, Cindy Goelz, Brian Hushek, Lisa Johnson, Jack Patton, Sylvia Romero, Scott Rothe, Jamie Rullo, Joanne Sackett, Don Tellis, Sharon Walker, Janette Weedon and Sandi Wilson. We would also like to thank Bill Arnold, Dave Hill and Derek Neighbors of the Administrative Technology Center who have spent many hours working to provide us the schedules for this document. With the Board’s approval of the FY 2002-03 Budget on July 22, 2002, and the corresponding tax rates on August 19, 2002, we start down the path of developing the FY 2003-04 Budget. Acknowledgements 827 Acknowledgements THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 828