Maricopa County Annual Business Strategies 2003-04 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents The Government Finance Officer 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, 2002. 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 Maricopa County Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Credits Board of Supervisors Fulton Brock, Chairman, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 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 Deputy Budget Director Christopher M. Bradley Brian 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 Cover Photo: The photograph on the cover of our Annual Business Strategies is of the Fountain Hills Branch Library, a branch of the Maricopa County Library District. The Fountain Hills Branch Library opened in its new 15,000-sq. ft. facility on October 1, 2001. The Library is part of the Fountain Hills Community Center complex, which also includes a large Activities building and will include a theatre complex. The Library is state-of-the-art with over 45 public computers with flat screens, smart cards for use of printing and scheduling computer time, the latest in display shelving and marketing tools. The library includes a snack area, an ATM, and is a completely self-checkout facility. i Maricopa County Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents 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 Priorties • 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 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Table of Contents Credits Maricopa County Mission Statement Strategic Priorities Table of Contents Budget At A Glance i ii ii iii ix County Administrative Officer’s Transmittal Letter Impacts from the State of Arizona Econometric and Demographic Trends Managing For Results & Budgeting For Results Budget Reductions Property Taxes Capital Improvement Program New Facilities to Open in 2003-04 Detention Operations Mandated Health Care Maricopa Integrated Health System Employee Issues and Concerns Conclusions 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 Executive Summary Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Basis of Presentation Basis of Accounting Basis of Budgeting and Budgetary Control Budget Process Policies and Their Budgetary Impact County Judicial Branch Indigent Representation Interfund Loan to Detention Capital Projects Fund (455) Economic Development, Non-profits, Agricultural Extension and Accommodation Schools 9 9 10 11 11 18 21 21 21 22 Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2002-03 Revised Restated Budget Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Budget Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2002-03 Adopted to FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Budget Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated to FY 2002-03 Revised Restated Budget 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 iii Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Summary Schedules (Continued) Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2002-03 Revised Restated to FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department Consolidated Revenues by Department and Fund Type Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary Comparative Tax Data Levy Limit and Truth-In-Taxation Comparisons Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary Expenditure Limitation Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund Consolidated Expenditures by Department and Fund Type Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code General Government Expenditure Summary Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary Major Maintenance Project Summary Health Care Mandates Revenue and Expenditure Detail Report Maricopa Integrated Health System Expenditure Variance Commentary Results Initiatives Requests /State Budget Reductions Summary Eliminations Summary Transfers In by Fund Transfers Out by Fund Direct Assessment Special Districts Secondary Roll Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll 29 31 35 36 56 57 58 62 63 70 71 76 79 82 83 84 86 88 89 91 94 95 Personnel Plan Introduction Employee Satisfaction and Attrition Human Resources Infrastructure Staff Development Compensation and Awards Future Directions for Human Resources Position Control Budgeted FTE Summary 101 101 102 104 106 107 108 109 Capital Improvement Program Executive Summary Capital Improvement Projects Capital Projects Budget Operating and Capital Budgets – Their Relationship County Departments General Fund / Special Revenue Funds Buckeye Hills Shooting Range Elections Facility Environmental Services Building iv 113 113 116 116 118 118 120 121 123 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Capital Improvement Program (Continued) Human Services Campus Sheriff Property & Evidence Warehouse West Regional Center Northeast Superior Court Expansion Downtown Property Development/Acquisition Public Health Clinic New Admin Services/Forensic Science Center Parking Garage Downtown Campus Expansion/Improvements Security Building Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Justice Courts Consolidation Star Call Center/Research & Reporting Detention Capital Projects Fund FMD Maintenance Facility Southeast Regional Courtroom Build-out 4th Avenue Jail Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center Lower Buckeye Jail Mesa Juvenile Detention Center Sheriff’s Training Facility Transportation Special Districts – Flood Control District 124 126 128 129 130 131 135 136 138 140 141 142 143 144 146 147 149 151 153 155 157 277 Debt Service Debt Management Plan Debt Policies 317 333 County At A Glance Profile Economy Population Employment Retail Sales Construction and Real Estate Market Health Care Criminal Justice Sheriff's Office Superior Court Juvenile Probation Justice Courts Legislative Strategies 2003 Legislative Session 2004 Legislative Session Information Technology Strategies 337 339 341 343 345 346 348 349 349 351 351 352 352 352 353 355 v Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Managing For Results Introduction Why Are We Doing This? Managing for Results System 357 358 358 Financial Forecast Executive Summary General Assumptions Overall Fiscal Position Revenue Expenditures Revenue Assumption Detail Expenditure Assumption Detail Capital Projects General Fund Transportation Flood Control District Library District Detention Fund - Operations Detention Fund - Capital Projects 365 365 365 366 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 Mandates Introduction Executive Summary FY 2003-04 Mandates For All Funds FY 2003-04 General Fund Mandates FY 2003-04 Mandates Excluding the General Fund Mandate Study - Summary Schedules 377 377 380 381 383 384 Departmental Budget Schedules Maricopa County Organization Countywide Organizational Chart Elected Officials Assessor Board Of Supervisors District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Clerk Of The Superior Court Constables County Attorney Recorder Sheriff vi 391 391 397 402 404 406 408 410 412 414 420 424 430 435 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Department Budget Schedule (Continued) Superintendent Of Schools Treasurer Judicial Branch Judicial Organizational Chart Adult Probation Juvenile Probation Trial Courts Appointed Organizational Chart Animal Care & Control Appropriated Fund Balance Call Center Capital Facilities Development Chief Information Officer Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors Communications Community Development Contract Counsel Correctional Health County Administrative Officer Elections Eliminations Emergency Management Environmental Services Equipment Services Facilities Management Finance General Government Health Care Delivery System Health Care Mandates Health Plans Human Resources Human Services Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Internal Audit Legal Advocate Legal Defender Management & Budget Materials Management Medical Examiner Parks & Recreation Planning & Development Public Defender Public Fiduciary 442 448 453 457 471 479 487 488 493 494 498 502 506 511 514 518 522 527 532 537 538 543 551 557 564 570 572 579 591 596 601 607 611 617 623 630 635 639 645 650 657 664 vii Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Department Budget Schedule (Continued) Public Health Research & Reporting Risk Management Solid Waste Telecommunications Total Compensation Transportation Special Districts Organizational Chart Flood Control District Library District Stadium District 669 685 688 692 697 701 705 713 714 724 728 Attachments Maricopa County’s Mission Statement Maricopa County’s Vision Statement Maricopa County’s Strategic Priorities Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines Budget Priorities – Maricopa County Budget Priorities – Flood Control District Budget Priorities – Library District Budget Priorities – Stadium District Budget Calendar Budgeting for Results Accountability Policy Funded Position Policy Managing for Results Policy Performance Management Process Policy Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes Policy for Administering Grants Indirect Cost Policy for Grant Programs General Government Policy Vehicle Replacement Policy Fund Descriptions FY 2003-04 Revenue Object and Sub-Object Codes FY 2003-04 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes 733 733 733 734 737 738 739 740 741 742 744 747 749 751 753 755 759 761 763 765 773 774 Glossary Terms, Fund Descriptions and Acronyms 777 Acknowledgments Acknowledgments viii 783 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Budget At A Glance Introduction For the past 10 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 layperson 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 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 longterm 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. ix Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 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 Collect Data Budgeting for Results • Demand for Services • Performance Budget • Resource Allocation Budget At A Glance 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. • All Customers Included Short-term Financial and Operational Policies That Guide Budget Development 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. 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 a mission, vision (optional), strategic priorities, issues, programs, activities, and services, all of which may be found in the x Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Departmental Budget Schedules section under mission, goals, issues, key performance measures, and mandates. 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 95% consistent with recorded documents and is updated within 45 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 Trial Courts has a goals of “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” and “ Convenience and understanding of court processes, while maintaining the efficiency and quality of court services.” 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, 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. General Fund mandates represent 98.4% of the General Fund budget. Maricopa County’s General Fund budget increased 10.4% from FY 2002-03, and General Fund mandated expenditures increased by 6.5% over the same period of time. The significant amount of mandated expenditures within the FY 2003-04 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 Capital Facilities Development Department. Maricopa County Strategic Priorities/Goals: • Safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal justice system. • Healthy community and solvent healthcare system. xi Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Department Goals for the Maricopa County Trial Courts: • 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 and limited jurisdiction court standards. • 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 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 based on the baseline developed for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors while experiencing no percentage increase in payments. Department Goals for the Medical Examiner: • Improve service to families and other agencies by completing cases within established timeframes by FY 2005, i.e., 90% of cases closed in 45 days and 100% in 90 days. • Secure sufficient staff by FY 05 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 Goal #1. Strategic Plan from the Capital Facilities Department The mission of the Capital Facilities Development Department is to deliver large, fiscally responsible capital facilities so that county departments may successfully achieve their missions in an efficient, enjoyable, and stimulating environment. Goals Include: • Develop procedures by the end of Fiscal Year 2003 in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department to identify project roles and responsibilities and to improve coordination efforts during the design, construction, and subsequent operation of new facilities. • Design all new major facilities on schedule and within budget in cooperation with the customer and other county departments. Example program with key results: Program Name: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Program Purpose: The purpose of the Building Construction Program is to provide design and construction services to Maricopa County so that they can successfully achieve their missions in fiscally prudent, efficient, enjoyable, and stimulating environments. Key Results: 100 percent of buildings delivered within 100 percent or less of the budget FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 FY 2002-03 Budget Priorities And Issues The Transmittal Letter articulates budget priorities and issues for all funds, including significant priority changes from FY 2002-03, and the factors that led to those changes. These priorities and issues are highlighted by headings in the Transmittal Letter, such as the heading: Impacts from the State of Arizona, Econometric and Demographic Trends, Managing For Results & Budgeting For Results, xii Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Budget Reductions, Property Taxes, Capital Improvement Program; New Facilities to Open in 2003-04, Detention Operations; Mandated Health Care, Maricopa Integrated Health System, and Employee Issues and Concerns. 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. 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. 100 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. 215 Emergency Management — Emergency Management activity consists of disaster planning and training. 220 County Attorney Drug Diversion Fund — Pursuant to A.R.S. §13-1811, funds are utilized for the investigation, prosecution and deferred prosecution of bad check cases. 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. 267 County Attorney Criminal Justice Enhancement — 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. This fund was part of Fund 220 in FY 2002. 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 time span, including the prior year actual, current year budget, estimated current year actual, and proposed budget year. xiii Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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. MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES • • • • • • Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Shared Vehicle License Tax Payments in Lieu of Taxes Patient Service Revenue Miscellaneous Revenue • • Tax Penalties & Interest Grants • State Shared Sales Tax • • • 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. 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 2003-04 Budget includes an estimated primary property tax levy (excluding Salt River Project) of $308,122,580, an increase of $30,172,968 (11%) from the FY 2002-03 adopted primary levy. This increase is due to 10.9% growth in net assessed value, of which nearly three-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 revalued 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 2003-04 budget are discussed for each of the major revenue sources and enhanced with graphics. An example is provided next, with full detail, including charts and tables, found in the Summary Schedules sections. xiv Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies State Shared Sales Tax Collections Fiscal Year General Fund 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 2001-02 325,728,202 2002-03* 330,594,444 2003-04** 335,557,376 Budget At A Glance Listed at left are the actual state shared sales tax collections for the last nine fiscal years, Projected totals for FY 2002-03, plus the budget for FY 2003-04. State shared sales tax collections have suffered most from the economic recession. Prior to FY 2002-03, state shared sales taxes were budgeted for the upcoming fiscal year at the midpoint between the “pessimistic” and “most likely” forecast scenarios. The FY 2002-03 budget assumed revenue growth of only 1.5%, which was slightly higher than the 1% growth experienced in FY 2001-02 and significantly less than the preceding 5 year annual average of nearly 7%. Actual collections for FY 2002-03 are projected to be near budget at 1.5% higher than FY 2001-02. Given continuing economic uncertainty, the FY 2003-04 budget for the General Fund continues a 1.5% growth rate resulting in $4,962,932 above the FY 2002-03 projected actual collections. * Projected Actual ** Budget Fund Balances for All Funds 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 2003-04. “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 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: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Security Building Facilities Management 234 N. Central Ave 5 Project Narrative This project covers 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 Funding Summary 100% General Fund (Fund 445) xv Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $15.1 million with $12,547,848 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $3,733,000. Prior Year 1 Years FY 03-04 $ 8,908,484 $ 200,000 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction 300,000 $ 3,533,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 9,208,484 $ 3,733,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ 150,000 $ 100,000 $ $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,100,000 $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total Total Project $ 450,000 $ 8,358,484 5,533,000 6,833,000 $ 5,983,000 $ 15,191,484 Operating Cost Summary N/A Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Security Building Tenant Improvement project is to create/modify existing space for County departments so that they can achieve their mission in cost effective and efficient manner. Strategic Goals Addressed: • Design and construct all Capital projects on schedule, within budget, in cooperation with the customer and meeting the goals of the County. Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Building Renovation and Minor Construction Strategic Activities Supported: • • Design Construction Strategic Services Supported: • • • • Programming Design Documents Schematic Design Documents Design Development Documents Construction Documents Measure Result: 100% of construction delivered within 100% or less of the project construction budget Output: # of construction projects completed Demand: # of construction projects scheduled Efficiency: Average construction cost per square foot constructed xvi FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 100% 100% 100% 0 1 2 4 4 4 $180 $180 $185 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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. Some new facilities, particularly jails and juvenile detention centers, will also require significant additional staffing to operate. Additional staffing requirements for operating the FY 2003-04 new facilities follows: NEW FACILITY OPERATING COSTS FY 2003-04 General Fund Projects Public Health Clinic Environmental Services Facility Human Services Campus Elections Facility 401,307 Downtown Property Development/Acquisition Sheriff's Property & Evidence Warehouse NW Consolidated Justice Courts NE Superior Court Expansion Star Call Center 69,609 Subotal General Fund $ 470,916 Detention Fund Projects 4th Avenue Jail Lower Buckeye Jail FMD Maintenance Facility Sheriff's Training Facility Juvenile Durango Juvenile Mesa $ FY 2004-05 $ $ Subtotal Detention Fund $ 3,366,668 3,179,897 119,206 381,772 1,442,956 477,697 8,968,196 TOTAL FUNDS $ 9,439,112 470,300 73,159 272,863 162,885 1,715,645 326,837 165,611 387,470 70,877 3,645,647 FY 2005-06 $ $ $ 3,467,668 3,275,294 122,782 393,225 1,486,244 492,029 9,237,242 $ 12,882,889 479,493 74,297 281,048 167,772 1,747,409 336,643 170,579 399,094 72,321 3,728,656 FY 2006-07 $ $ $ 3,525,774 3,323,316 126,465 405,022 1,509,725 498,516 9,388,818 $ 13,117,474 488,947 75,466 289,479 172,805 1,780,068 346,741 175,697 411,068 73,806 3,814,077 FY 2007-08 $ 498,670 76,667 298,165 177,989 1,813,647 357,144 150,968 423,399 75,334 3,871,983 $ $ 3,630,026 3,421,253 130,259 417,173 1,554,301 513,244 9,666,256 $ 3,737,402 3,522,122 134,167 429,688 1,600,214 528,414 9,952,007 $ 13,480,333 $ 13,823,990 This year FMD will take advantage of current major maintenance funds in combination with the dedicated jail sales tax revenue to expand the new LBJ Central Plant. This will allow FMD to provide chilled water and hot water to the existing Durango Campus, providing for a single distribution point of service and operations. This will result in a long-term reduction of staff and operational costs associated with multiple central plant operations. One-time savings are also being achieved through reduced construction costs by not having to build a previously proposed new additional freestanding building. Utility costs will be reduced due to a larger and more efficient operation. There will also be cost avoidance due to not having to replace individual boilers that are at the end of their useful life in many of the existing facilities. 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: xvii Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance DIRECT AND OVERALL NET DEBT MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITES General Obligation Less: Amount avail. for Retirement of General Obligation Debt Lease Revenue Bonds Certificate of Participation Capital Leases Direct Net Debt Overlapping Debt (1) Overall Net Debt Audited 6/30/01 $79,595,000 Audited 6/30/02 $58,370,000 Projected 6/30/03 $39,515,000 Projected 6/30/04 $20,165,000 0 (773,917) 0 0 104,355,000 13,575,118 14,454,515 $211,979,633 4,999,831,866 $5,211,811,499 104,355,000 9,804,315 19,442,376 $191,197,774 4,901,854,926 $5,093,052,700 91,558,756 5,808,084 14,915,333 $151,797,173 5,000,000,000 $5,151,797,173 78,031,179 1,672,206 10,571,632 $110,440,017 5,000,000,000 $5,110,440,017 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. 2001-02 Constitutional General Obligation Bonding Capacity Maricopa County, Arizona 2001-02 Secondary Assessed Valuation 15% of Secondary Assessed Valuation Less: GO Bonded Debt Outstanding Plus: GO Debt Service Fund Balance Unused Fifteen Percent Borrowing Capacity $ $ 22,913,134,480 3,436,970,172 (58,370,000) 773,917 3,379,374,089 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. 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 xviii Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Operations Guide Organization Structure 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. 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. xix Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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. Maricopa County Citizens Superintendent of Schools Constables (23) County Attorney Board of Supervisors Board of Directors for Flood Control, Library and Stadium Districts Sheriff Clerk of the Court Assessor Treasurer Recorder Elected Appointed County Administrative Officer Clerk of the Board Internal Audit STAR Call Center Elections Deputy County Administrator Legal Defender Contract Counsel Deputy County Administrator Public Defender Health Services Officer Legal Advocacy Maricopa Integrated Health System Community Services Officer Finance Officer Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Office of Communications Regional Development Services Agency Officer Information Technology Officer Management & Budget Public Health Finance Parks & Recreation Planning & Development Office of the CIO Human Resources Human Services Risk Management Community Development Transportation Telecommunications Research & Reporting Medical Examiner Materials Management Public Fiduciary Emergency Management General Government Animal Care & Control Services Solid Waste Facilities Management Health Care Mandates Environmental Services Library District Equipment Services Total Compensation Conrectional Health Stadium District Capital Facilities Development Flood Control District Arizona Courts in Maricopa County Clerk of Superior Court Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Trial Courts, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Superior Court Judges and Commissioners Maricopa County Justice Courts Juvenile Court Center Adult Probation Justice Court Administration Superior Court 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 xx Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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 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 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ATTORNEY 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 TRIAL COURTS Total 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 FY2003-04 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Acutal Adopted 740.00 775.69 851.00 937.00 949.00 1,045.00 1,120.50 1,175.00 1,092.00 1,072.00 114.00 113.00 120.00 125.00 135.00 130.00 146.00 132.50 140.00 140.50 1.00 300.00 308.00 297.00 334.00 329.00 325.00 326.00 321.80 322.00 321.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.80 8.00 7.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 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 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 10.00 20.00 20.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 34.00 33.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 8.00 72.00 100.00 106.00 70.00 64.00 62.00 67.00 67.00 66.50 60.50 653.00 606.04 596.25 589.00 596.00 599.00 620.00 666.00 689.00 684.00 7.50 8.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 25.00 28.00 26.00 27.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 8.25 7.25 7.25 26.00 133.00 135.78 165.00 177.00 223.00 220.40 263.75 264.78 262.75 14.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 15.00 13.00 16.00 18.00 11.33 12.00 600.00 676.71 737.30 742.00 796.00 831.00 850.00 828.50 917.25 915.25 57.00 57.00 57.00 55.00 53.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 14.00 151.00 229.00 238.60 245.00 272.00 267.00 266.75 283.00 273.50 282.10 60.00 64.00 63.00 65.00 60.00 60.00 62.00 63.00 63.00 54.00 139.00 219.00 183.40 158.00 158.00 184.00 196.50 228.00 242.25 237.00 70.00 57.00 53.00 49.00 46.00 42.00 36.00 43.00 44.00 47.50 244.00 240.00 240.00 241.00 222.00 222.00 222.25 223.00 226.00 224.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 11.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 3,718.00 2,974.75 2,630.50 2,099.00 1,812.00 1,766.00 3,013.25 3,326.01 3,326.01 3,528.29 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.00 41.00 34.00 31.00 372.00 378.00 377.50 444.00 361.00 353.00 345.70 357.47 357.47 415.43 64.00 63.00 64.00 63.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 73.00 100.00 96.00 81.00 82.00 79.00 81.00 67.25 66.20 51.00 301.00 273.00 256.00 286.00 281.00 295.00 287.00 368.00 369.00 368.00 327.00 357.34 349.19 421.00 459.00 446.00 466.25 1.00 14.00 15.00 22.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 15.10 36.00 211.00 236.02 228.75 244.00 294.00 280.00 287.01 300.06 539.00 538.00 540.00 589.00 679.00 794.00 784.00 827.50 868.50 832.50 53.00 60.50 60.50 69.00 74.75 74.75 121.00 134.48 126.66 134.00 146.00 143.00 118.00 135.50 135.50 135.50 19.00 23.00 22.00 21.00 22.00 24.00 18.00 22.00 22.00 20.00 75.00 53.00 53.00 47.00 38.00 39.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 36.00 335.00 336.31 337.50 342.00 263.00 298.00 292.50 291.50 27.00 44.00 45.50 47.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 64.00 63.00 65.00 78.00 72.89 76.84 77.00 74.00 80.00 86.50 98.46 104.00 104.00 54.00 55.00 54.00 66.00 65.00 93.00 108.00 115.00 125.00 125.00 433.30 430.30 430.30 36.00 37.00 41.00 37.00 33.00 33.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 34.00 504.00 507.09 503.25 460.00 441.00 479.00 459.24 523.48 534.89 542.37 66.00 65.00 63.00 66.00 65.00 69.00 69.00 71.25 71.25 70.25 12.00 14.50 14.00 8.00 7.00 34.50 9.50 6.75 8.75 18.00 12.00 12.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 20.00 19.00 19.00 1,858.00 2,053.00 2,108.00 2,188.00 2,235.00 2,428.00 2,482.50 1,022.00 2,487.75 2,494.75 1,443.00 50.00 31.00 45.00 19.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 12.00 14.00 13.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 35.00 29.00 28.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 33.00 617.00 668.40 677.60 764.00 819.00 873.00 910.20 981.00 107.00 39.00 42.00 45.00 41.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 43.00 42.00 15.00 16.00 25.00 495.00 500.00 511.00 522.00 512.00 511.00 511.50 504.00 477.75 479.75 109.00 75.00 66.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 1,273.31 1,276.31 13,434.00 13,279.72 13,100.12 13,035.00 12,899.00 13,558.00 15,053.55 15,910.38 15,789.29 15,920.40 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 2002-03 to FY 2003-04 increased by 131.1 full-time equivalents (FTE’s), or .08%. Significant changes in staffing levels from FY 2002-03 to FY 2003-04, including variance explanations, are provided by department at the end of the Personnel Plan section. xxi Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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 layperson with a broad view of the contents included in the FY 2003-04 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. 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 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 2003-04 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 xxii Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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). 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. 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 101 Employee Satisfaction and Attrition 101 Human Resources Infrastructure 102 Staff Development 104 Compensation and Awards 106 Future Directions for Human Resources 107 Position Control 108 Budgeted FTE Summary 109 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. 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. xxiii Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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 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 2003-04 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 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. xxiv Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter County Administrative Officer’s Transmittal Letter To: Fulton Brock, Chairman, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max W. Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox, District 5 Fiscal year 2003-04 is filled with uncertainty. The budget that has been proposed foresees slow growth and a sluggish economy. The total budget is projected to be $2.49 billion, which is $38.8 million (1.5%) below the current year budget. The decrease is primarily due to the final year of the voter-approved capital improvements for the juvenile and adult detention facilities program, which are projected to be $121.4 million in FY 2004. These new facilities are opening in spring of 2004, and $18 million in new operating costs necessary for these new facilities is included in the budget. Other spending increases include unavoidable increases in employee benefits costs, including retirement system contributions and health and dental premiums. Other insurance costs have also increased. Since Maricopa County has been faced with a depressed economy, we have experienced reduced revenue growth in the past year. The Board of Supervisors has instituted a number of fiscally conservative budget policies which ensure that we retain our fiscal strength. Actions taken in fiscal year 2002-03 include: a critical salary freeze, a mid-year budget reduction due to slower than anticipated sales tax proceeds, a voluntary hiring slowdown, and budget guidelines that anticipated budget reductions for FY 2004. The budget guidelines adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 2, 2002 outlined strict instructions to departments and offices to develop three budget plans. The base plan was to proceed with a “no growth” budget. The other two plans that were submitted were both a 5% and 10% reduction budget. Most of these budgets included “reductions in force” and service cuts. After reviewing the three budget scenarios in each department, County Administration is recommending a flat budget for all mandated departments, and a 10% reduction for all administrative and non-mandated service delivery departments. In the fastest growing County in the nation, executing this will be difficult. The criminal justice agencies continue to see caseload growth in the double-digits, and inmate populations at an alltime high. Health care, the other major business component of the County, always becomes a greater asset to the community in economic slowdowns. Residents may find themselves without jobs and health care insurance. Many families now show up on the doorstep of the Maricopa County Delivery System as uncompensated care patients. Impacts from the State of Arizona Another year of budget deficits in the State of Arizona means more “downtown” financial hardship for Maricopa County, an arm of state government. The State of Arizona is faced with a budget deficit of $1 billion for fiscal year 2003-04. Maricopa County has been asked, once again, to help our parent organization to solve it fiscal woes. Since Maricopa County is not a charter government, we depend on state government for legislative authority, statutory revisions, and much of our revenue base. The majority of our sources of funds, including general fund sales tax and vehicle license tax (that account for almost 54% of our general fund, excluding state pass-through), are state-shared revenues. The State of Arizona, like most states in the nation, is facing their largest fiscal crisis in state history. Our state government is asking the counties in Arizona to pick up responsibilities previously paid for by the state. The state is also reducing state-aid and grants. The combination is having a staggering impact on our budget. Despite the economic slowdown, Maricopa County would be in a fiscally strong position if state cost shifts and state-aid reductions were not occurring. In fiscal year 2002-03, Maricopa County had approximately twenty million dollars in state cost shifts that had to be absorbed. These cost shifts are continuing into next fiscal year, and an additional $32.2 million is being proposed for Maricopa County to absorb in fiscal year 2003-04. This means that Maricopa 1 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter County will be spending over $50 million in fiscal year 2004 to assist the state in solving their fiscal problems. This is money that could otherwise be spent on our own regional issues or in tax reductions. Maricopa County is currently working with the State of Arizona to try to minimize the state budget impacts. The County would like the state to work collaboratively with us on “good government” solutions. In other words, the County has asked that the State of Arizona consider transferring functions, not just costs, to the County. We believe that government can function effectively when asked to develop, administer and fund programs. The public can then review the results and the cost effectiveness being achieved by the accountable government. The State is currently discussing our “good government” proposals and we are optimistic that these solutions may occur. Econometric and Demographic Trends This time last year, economists nationwide were predicting that a slow economic recovery process would be well underway by 2003. Unfortunately corporate scandals, cautious investors, the war in Iraq, high unemployment and low consumer confidence have contributed to the continued economic difficulties. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget prepared a 2002-03 budget based on pessimistic revenue projections for both sales tax (3.6% growth) and vehicle license tax (4.0%). Our vehicle license tax is exceeding projections 2.3% or $2.3 million through March. Unfortunately, our state shared sales taxes needed to be revised downward mid-year because the revenue was not being achieved, even at that lowest growth level. For fiscal year 2003-04, sales tax have been projected at a growth rate of 1.5%. Again, this is based on the pessimistic forecast provided to us by Elliott Pollack and Company, our contracted economist. Sales tax growth, which has been our “bread and butter” revenue for many years, has been relatively flat for the last two years, and is anticipated to be a slow growth revenue again in FY 2004. Maricopa County is still the fastest growing large county in the nation. As reported by the Arizona Republic on April 17, 2003, each day Maricopa County receives 280 new residents. The population growth rate in 2002 was 3.2% or 102,035 more people. More residents also mean more services to provide, more criminal justice cases, more indigent patients are our health facilities, more county roads, more development, more recreational needs, and more demands on County infrastructure. This unequaled growth is projected to continue and Maricopa County (now the fourth largest county in the United States) could become the third largest, over taking Harris County, Texas in a couple of years. Managing For Results & Budgeting For Results For three years, Maricopa County has been Managing and Budgeting for Results. It is part of our identity, and how we manage our organization. In the fall of 2002, departments were asked to update their strategic plans and revisit their measures to ensure better utilization. Measures that were not useful were 2 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter dropped and new measures added. Managing For Results is an evolution for our elected officials and department directors, employees, and citizens. The Managing For Results process has become more valuable as we utilize our data, review our results and begin achieving our strategic visions. Achievement in the past year include beginning to track expenditures by program, activity, and service (PAS). The accounting system was restructured this year to allow us to accommodate this change, and many departments are not only tracking their non-personnel costs, but personnel costs as well. With the implementation of a new Human Resource Information System in January 2004, this process of tracking personnel costs will become even more simplified and all departments will be required to track personnel time. Once this occurs, we believe we may be the first governmental organization to actually have true cost accounting to this level. We may one day be the first organization, public or private, to actually measure productivity in a purely services environment. Other accomplishments include reviewing budgets by PAS code, and having performance plans and appraisals tied to the departmental strategic plan. The implementation of employee gain-sharing plans allows departments to demonstrate cost-saving and strategic plan achievements. Budget Reductions As was stated earlier, the Board of Supervisors adopted Budget Guidelines that called for flat budgets, and 5% and 10% budget reductions. This is the first time in a decade such severe budget instructions were issued. This occurred because of the slow economy and anticipated budget impacts due to the state budget crisis. As the budget unfolded, it became apparent that taking this approach was the right thing to do in order to have a structurally balanced budget. The final budget recommendation from the Office of Management and Budget and County Administration includes flat budgets for mandated service delivery departments, and 10% reductions for non-mandated and administrative/support service departments. The total budget reduction achieved by implementation of the 10% reduction was $6.6 million in the general fund. Departments that were asked to take these reductions are listed below. • Board of Supervisors District Offices (1-5) • Clerk of the Board • Finance • County Administrative Officer • Internal Audit • Human Resources • Total Compensation • Chief Information Officer • Management and Budget • Facilities Management • General Government (Major Maintenance & Vehicle Replacement) • Human Services • Parks and Recreation • Maricopa Integrated Health System • Economic Development • Equipment Services • Telecommunications • Communications • Risk Management 3 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter Further reductions in these departments are untenable. Pursuing reductions in the mandated service delivery departments is problematic. The majority of the departments that were not impacted are either criminal justice departments, such as the Sheriff, County Attorney and Judicial Branch, or health care related like Public Health, Environmental Services, and the Medical Examiner. Maricopa County will continue to ensure mandated services to our citizen are delivered through fiscal discipline and conservative budgeting. Property Taxes Property tax rates are the only revenues received by Maricopa County that are set by the Board of Supervisors. During years in which there is an economic recession, you might anticipate upward pressure on the overall property tax rate. However, this is not being recommended. The Board of Supervisors made it clear to County Administration that they were committed to keeping the overall tax rate flat for the good of the County’s economy and taxpayers. This is one of the strategic goals adopted by the Board in February 2001. The overall tax rate being recommended is $1.5448 per $100 of assessed valuation, the same as fiscal year 2003. The overall rate is made up of the primary rate that funds general governmental activities (such as criminal justice), and three secondary rates. The secondary rates are debt service, the Flood Control District and Library District. The overall property tax rate has remained the same or decreased since 1991-92; representing over a decade of very conservative tax policies. In addition, Maricopa County’s primary tax rate is extremely low. The graphic depicts our primary rate as compared to the other counties in Arizona, and the state average primary property tax rate. Capital Improvement Program Maricopa County is pleased to continue our innovative Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that was begun in FY 1999-00. The CIP plan for the general fund, detention fund, intergovernmental fund, transportation fund, and Flood Control District utilize a “pay-as-you-go” fiscal policy. In other words, if we don’t have cash to fully fund the project, we don’t move forward with the project. This year is the last year of our 1986 voter approved debt service funding, and we will then be close to being debt free. Last year, the Board of Supervisors reduced the fiveyear general fund capital plan from $238 million to $160 million. $3 million has been added to the program this year for a new Capital Improvement Program of $163 million. Due to the uncertainty regarding the state 4 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter budget situation, the County has not been able to add projects to the 5-year program, although we have not had to reduce the program either, which is a success in this fiscal environment. On the general fund side, changes that have occurred during the budget development process include better definition of the downtown property development project. This project has been split into four new projects: STAR call center build-out, Northeast Superior Court Expansion, Downtown Property Development, and Administration Building Renovations. This project was begun to allow the County to get out of leased space and into owned space, saving $61.5 million over the useful life of the buildings, once the project and renovation of existing buildings are completed. In addition, the Justice Court project was redefined into two projects: Northwest Justice Courts construction, and Justice Court Expansion. Both of these projects are expected to achieve efficiencies for the local jurisdictional courts through lease reductions and operational reengineering. Other general fund projects that are continuing include: Security Building Improvements, the Southeast Regional Courtroom Build-out, Public Health Clinic and Environmental Services Building, Elections Facilities, Sheriff’s Property and Evidence Warehouse, the Sheriff’s Training Facility, the West Regional Center and the Human Service Campus. The Buckeye Shooting Range is under funded by $3.1 million and a Board decision needs to be made regarding continuing this project. The Adult and Juvenile detention facilities are funded from the 1/5 of a cent Jail Excise Tax (sales tax) which was originally approved by the voters in November of 1998, and was again approved for a 20 year extension in November of 2002. The 2003-04 CIP plan for these facilities calls for all approved projects to reach completion next year. The budget for the final year of construction is $117.4 million. Projects that will be completed and operational include: the Sheriff’s Training Facility, 4th Avenue Jail, Lower Buckeye Jail, Juvenile Detention Faculties at Durango and Mesa, and the Facilities Management Maintenance Building. The Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement Program budget for next year is $77.5 million. Maricopa County Department of Transportation (McDOT) utilizes a process with involves a Citizen Advisory Committee that assists in prioritization of the projects needed within the unincorporated areas, and on projects of regional importance. The elements that are evaluated in the ranking criteria include: safety, traffic volume, land use, cost and benefit to the community, joint partnerships with cities and towns, and bonus points for a variety of issues. The 5-year CIP project for McDOT is $332.6 million. The Flood Control District also utilizes a citizen advisory board and uses a collaborative approach to planning their 5-year CIP. It relies heavily on the strategic initiatives that have been developed, as well as weaving in the Board of Director’s fiscal policies and procedures. Potential CIP projects are identified through the Area Drainage Master Plans developed by the District or by request from other governmental entities. The prioritization process evaluates projects based on the issues outlined below. • Agency priority • Area-wide benefits • Master plan elements • Project cost • Hydrologic significance • Partnership participation • Protection • Operational and maintenance costs • Environmental quality The five-year CIP plan for the Flood Control District is $269.5 million with a fiscal year 2003-04 budget of $54 million. New Facilities to Open in 2003-04 The next budget year is a banner year for the opening of new facilities, many of which have been in development and the planning stage for several years. The majority of these projects are part of the detention fund that was discussed above. New detention facilities will begin opening in the Fall of 2003, with the last facilities opening in Spring of 2004. Among the detention projects slated to open are: Sheriff’s Training Academy, Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility, Facilities Management Maintenance Building, 4th Avenue Jail, Lower Buckeye Jail, and the Durango Juvenile Detention Facility. These facility 5 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter openings conclude over 6 years of planning by the Citizen Jail Oversight Committee, professional detention staff, national detention experts, and citizens. This is a much welcomed and needed addition to our infrastructure and will significantly reduce our over-crowded jail populations. The new facilities will add 4549 adult beds and 388 juvenile beds. Other new facilities expected to come on-line include: the Southeast Regional Courtrooms, STAR and Research and Reporting Call Centers, Elections Facility, and the Sheriff’s Property and Evidence Warehouse. All of these new facilities will allow Maricopa County to keep up with the needs of the community through “just in time” building plans. Detention Operations In November 2002, the electorate in Maricopa County approved a twenty-year extension to our 1/5-cent sales tax to support the operations and maintenance of our new detention facilities. Originally, the voterapproved initiative was for 9 years or $900 million, whichever occurred first. This extension will ensure that Maricopa County is able to open and operate these much-needed new structures. Unfortunately, the latest estimated cost to operate the new facilities will be over $100 million a year. Maricopa County has no more than $243 million available for the next 4½ years until the new 20 year tax extension becomes effective, which should generate just enough to fully operate the jails. Until full operational revenue is available in July 2007, the County can only use what is remaining of the $900 a million for operations. Operational costs will be funded after the construction and one-time start-up costs are paid. A phase-in of the new beds will be necessary. After the vote was secured in November, County administration began to procure a nationally recognized jail-staffing expert to assist us in planning the operations of the new detention facilities. These consultants specialize in determining proper staffing for adult, juvenile and correctional health services. The consultant report will be available in June 2003, after the adoption of the 2003-04 budget. Therefore, we have budgeted $18 million for the gradual phase in of the new jail beds. The consultant will assist us in determining the best method for phasing in the beds within our limited resources. Mandated Health Care The largest component of the general fund in Maricopa County is Mandated Health Care. As was explained earlier, most of these costs are payments to the State of Arizona for programs that they operate and have the Arizona counties assist in funding. The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) contribution from the County to the state is expected to be $45.5 million next year. This is the state indigent acute care program. This contribution is flat to last year, and is one of the few components that is not growing. However, it was expected to decrease by over $3.9 million due to promises made by the state in past fiscal years. The Arizona Long-term Care System (ALTCS), however, is growing. It will jump by a minimum of $6.6 million and potentially more if proposed state shifts are finalized. Other state mandates include a court-ordered mandate for the seriously mentally ill. The increased cost for this issue next fiscal year is $2.7 million. In addition to the state related health care costs, Maricopa County is also working off a nearly $311 million claims resolution/litigation tail that was incurred when the County was responsible for enrolling indigents onto the acute care (AHCCCS) membership rolls. If the County were to have significant litigation and binding arbitration losses, it could have a devastating impact on overall County fiscal health. Maricopa County believes that these lawsuits are fully defensible, and will aggressively defend our position and our taxpayers against the hospital systems that have joined this litigation Other mandated health care functions include public health issues in our community. We are responsible for investigating infectious diseases, bio-terrorism, environmental health concerns, and other related issues. The budget for these public health departments have been left flat, despite a need to increase resources to this vital public function. Federal Homeland Security funding has allowed new staffing for bio-terrorism prevention and response. However, another important concern that we did address was the West Nile Virus. To meet this potential threat, existing funding within the Environmental Services and 6 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter Public Health budgets has been redirected, with a small supplemental increase from the general fund. These additional resources will expand the County’s capacity for Environmental Services’ Vector Control (mosquito abatement), as well as the Public Health Department’s disease surveillance and outbreak response capabilities. Maricopa Integrated Health System The largest component of the Maricopa County budget is the Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS). The MIHS consolidated budget is $798 million for fiscal year 2003-04. MIHS consists of a delivery system and managed care plans. The deliver system includes a hospital, 12 health centers, two psychiatric facilities, a comprehensive health center, and home health care. The health plans include a Medicare plus choice plan, an AHCCCS plan, an ALTCS plan, and HealthSelect (an employee health benefit plan). The hospital, Maricopa Medical Center, has the only burn center in Arizona and serves much of the southwest as well. The Burn Center, along with all other aspects of the delivery system are a valuable asset for the community. Unfortunately, MIHS has been struggling financially for the last two years. In July 2003, the County is no longer mandated to keep the hospital open. Next year the subsidy for the system has been reduced by 10% from $13.1 million to $11.8 million as a result of the decision to reduce non-mandated service delivery departments by 10%. In order to address this issue, the Board of Supervisors commissioned the Citizens Task Force on Health Care. This Citizen’s committee, made up of health care professionals and interested citizens, developed a strategic direction for the County, and the Board of Supervisors accepted their recommendations on April 2, 2003. The recommendation called for the Board of Supervisors to bring a legislative revision to the Special Health Care District law currently on the books. This revision would allow Maricopa County to ask the voters to create this District, with its own special taxing authority, in order to fund the indigent population that is serviced by our health care system. If this were to occur, MIHS would be transitioned to this new District and would no longer be part of Maricopa County government. Employee Issues and Concerns Maricopa County is cognizant of the important part that our workforce plays in achieving success. Next year, employee issues are of a great concern since this will be the second year that no specific funding has been budgeted for employee market or performance-based increases. There has been a salary freeze in place since July of 2002, so most employees have received no increase in pay for well over a year. However, the County did fund the increase in health insurance that occurred in January 2003. This was appreciated by our staff. Other rewards for employees that were funded in 2002-03 included gainsharing plans for participating departments and funding for employee spot awards. Another concern for next year is employer and employees increased contributions to the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS). Due to a lackluster performance in the stock market, ASRS is increasing its contribution rates, and it will result in less take-home pay for employees. Depending on the outcome of the state budget negotiations, the County might offset some of the increase. However, this cannot be assured at this point. Employee health and dental insurance costs are also expected to increase again in January 2004. The increase is unknown at this time, but has been budgeted at 25%. Our health benefit costs have been growing steadily for the last 5 years. Whether the County can repeat our ability to fund both the employer and employee increases is not predictable at this time. It will depend on the outcome of negotiations with health insurance providers and available funding. 7 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter Finally, this budget recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider the implementation of a one-time performance incentive award for employees. This would help to reward high performers without increasing the ongoing operational costs of County personnel. Minimal funding has been budgeted for this purpose. Conclusions Thanks to the leadership given to us by the Board of Supervisors, I believe we have a good, solid budget that will provide for necessary increases associated with new facilities, and will allow us to proceed with a structurally balanced budget. The County has overcome many obstacles to develop a budget that preserves service delivery, is acceptable to the taxpayers, and provides stability in our financial position. I want to thank the Board of Supervisors, the Maricopa County Elected Officials, the Presiding Judge and Judicial Officers, and Appointed Department Directors for their cooperation during this very strained budget year. These results speak volumes to our professional and collaborative environment. Sincerely, David R. Smith County Administrative Officer On June 23, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved the 2003-04 Final Budget, with changes from the Tentative Budget, including the Flood Control, Library, and Stadium Districts, in the amount of $2,494,625,945. Special revenue fund revenues and expenditures decreased overall, due the removal of the Housing Department from the County and a substantial reduction in Adult Probation grant funding. General Fund monies will make up for the shortfall in Adult Probation grant funds. Internal service fund revenue was reduced overall due to projected reductions in demand. This action required a corresponding change to the Eliminations budget. Enterprise fund expenditures were increased to allow for spending from fund balance on a household hazardous waste program. 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 May 19, 2003. On August 18, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved the 2003-04 Tax Rates of $1.5448 (consisting of the Primary Tax Rate of $1.1208, the Debt Service Tax Rate of $0.0700, the Flood Control District Tax Rate of $0.2119 and the Library District Tax Rate of $0.0521) signifying the third and final action taken in the budget approval process. 8 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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. 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. 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. 9 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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. 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 10 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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. 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). 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. 11 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary Budget Process Timeline 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 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. 12 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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. 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 Countwide 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 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. 13 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 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, fine-tuning 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 2003-04 Budget Process The FY 2003-04 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 2003-04. 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 Managing For Results Policy in the Attachments section). Very few strategic plan updates were needed during the FY 2003-04 budget planning process. Maricopa County’s Board of Supervisors responded to the slower than expected economic recovery in January 2003 by reducing budgeted sales tax revenue and commensurately reducing the FY 2002-03 expenditure budget. On December 2, 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 December and 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 January and 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. Through early May, the Office of Management and Budget consolidated the County's Tentative Budget which includes maximum expenditure limits. The County Administrative Officer presented the preliminary budget to the Board of Supervisors in mid-May, and the Board approved it one week later. 14 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary The Board of Supervisors adopted the final budget on June 23, 2003. The property tax rate, which must cover the expenditure total in the approved annual budget, was set on August 18, 2003. Fiscal Year 2004-05 Budget Process The FY 2004-05 budget process will be similar to that of a normal budget year. Beginning in July 2003, an 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 2004-05. 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 December 2003. 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 and training on the budget preparation system will be provided to departments. The Office of Management and Budget will receive departmental budget requests by early February and will review them through midMarch. 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 approve it a week later. The FY 2004-05 Final Budget is scheduled for adoption by the Board of Supervisors in June 2004. 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 2004. Statutory Requirements 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 42-17102. 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 15 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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.” 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 4217107, 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 42-17104 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.” 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 onefourth 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: 16 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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). 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 4217104. 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 42-17051, 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 17 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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.” 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. 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. 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 18 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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. 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 19 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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, • 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 Telecommunications). Capital Improvements 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. 20 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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. 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 short-term 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 Starting in FY 2002-03, Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation and Trial Courts are 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 Starting in FY 2002-03, Contract Counsel, Legal Advocate, Legal Defender and Public Defender are 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. 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 21 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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. §11254.04 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. §151001 to appropriate funding for Accommodation Schools. As illustrated in the table below, the FY 200304 Budget includes a total of $3,094,776 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 International Genomics Consortium 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 FY 2003-04 Final Budget $ 674,776 165,000 250,000 25,000 15,000 25,000 1,000,000 $ 2,154,776 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 $ $ 530,000 530,000 22 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY - ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS Unreserved/Undesignated Beginning Fund Balance $ 126,438,426 $ 125,932,846 $ 105,155,625 $ 120,581,264 $ 15,060,109 $ 18,636,952 $ 511,805,221 $ REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES $ TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST SALES TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS GRANTS OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES STATE SHARED SALES TAX STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE FINES & FORFEITS INTEREST EARNINGS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS TRANSFERS IN Revenues Subtotal $ 308,122,580 8,000,000 428,970 7,610,981 6,929,684 335,557,376 109,031,008 19,633,244 52,848 10,838,123 12,008,440 3,888,497 50,000 111,088,120 933,239,871 $ $ $ 392,827,196 8,000,000 106,340,114 27,934,244 133,700,245 190,817,935 7,610,905 335,557,376 86,300,000 116,531,008 79,896,140 47,407,631 741,796,483 13,975,681 22,201,255 34,825,976 280,000 441,451,218 2,787,453,407 $ $ 1,014,918 23,535,004 47,407,631 1,109,135 13,775 73,080,463 $ $ 4,525,488 101,760,800 30,000 740,349,164 2,931,341 2,143,123 39,194,104 890,934,020 $ $ 20,806,267 1,109,338 414,000 168,602,570 190,932,175 $ $ 21,982,390 5,500,800 356,173 2,858,799 847,711 31,545,873 $ $ 62,722,226 100,839,314 27,505,274 129,174,757 59,624,969 325,048 86,300,000 7,500,000 36,697,892 1,394,471 3,137,558 2,184,202 28,366,581 230,000 121,718,713 667,721,005 Total Sources $ 1,059,678,297 $ 793,653,851 $ 136,701,498 $ 311,513,439 $ 905,994,129 $ 91,717,415 $ 3,299,258,628 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TRANSFERS OUT Expenditures Subtotal $ 303,311,965 460,657,361 21,250,125 136,965,883 922,185,334 $ $ 34,907,173 110,000 35,017,173 $ 9,323,953 7,594,105 302,795,665 319,713,723 $ 192,387,722 557,857,532 13,388,037 127,541,154 891,174,445 $ 7,412,864 62,546,539 297,474 928,853 71,185,730 $ $ 263,756,082 205,273,294 15,653,920 119,787,032 604,470,328 Appropriated Beginning Fund Balance $ 137,492,963 $ 105,318,256 $ Total Uses $ 1,059,678,297 $ 709,788,584 $ $ 83,865,267 $ 793,653,851 Estimated Ending Fund Balance $ Total Uses and Ending Fund Balance $ 1,059,678,297 $ - $ $ 35,017,173 $ $ 101,684,325 $ $ 136,701,498 $ 319,713,723 $ $ $ (8,200,284) $ 311,513,439 $ - $ $ $ 511,805,221 $ $ (16,495,079) (47,407,631) (86,578,079) (441,451,218) (591,932,007) $ 392,827,196 8,000,000 106,340,114 27,934,244 133,700,245 190,817,935 7,610,905 335,557,376 86,300,000 116,531,008 63,401,061 655,218,404 13,975,681 22,201,255 34,825,976 280,000 2,195,521,400 $ (591,932,007) $ 2,707,326,621 $ $ 776,192,586 1,293,928,831 388,292,394 385,332,922 2,843,746,733 $ (150,480,789) (441,451,218) (591,932,007) $ 776,192,586 1,143,448,042 388,292,394 (56,118,296) 2,251,814,726 $ 242,811,219 $ 71,185,730 $ 3,086,557,952 $ - $ 891,174,445 $ 14,819,684 $ 20,531,685 $ 212,700,677 $ 905,994,129 $ 91,717,415 $ 3,299,258,628 $ - ALL FUNDS $ 242,811,219 (591,932,007) $ - 2,494,625,945 $ 212,700,677 (591,932,007) $ - 2,707,326,621 23 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2002-03 Revised Restated Budget CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY - REVISED RESTATED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS Unreserved/Undesignated Beginning Fund Balance $ 73,444,803 $ 98,926,018 $ 104,372,577 $ 119,500,384 $ 7,975,989 $ 76,704 $ 404,296,475 $ REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES $ TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST SALES TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS GRANTS OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES STATE SHARED SALES TAX STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE FINES & FORFEITS INTEREST EARNINGS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS TRANSFERS IN Revenues Subtotal $ 277,949,612 8,000,000 428,970 7,110,225 6,929,684 330,132,558 101,980,938 18,554,283 52,848 10,753,816 12,001,580 2,595,685 50,000 109,627,487 886,167,686 $ $ $ 352,679,728 8,000,000 107,192,596 25,846,869 185,315,730 197,972,604 7,612,468 330,132,558 77,933,792 108,663,810 55,320,241 46,434,066 741,433,739 13,100,616 28,971,996 43,332,806 280,000 534,475,924 2,864,699,543 $ $ 499,012 6,833,576 46,434,066 1,156,954 516,156 55,439,764 $ $ 3,784,279 110,327,599 40,648 738,127,729 5,608,808 2,412,026 40,305,228 900,606,317 $ $ 31,578,721 540,500 8,009,500 259,880,069 300,008,790 $ $ 19,565,638 5,500,800 359,306 7,166,188 1,376,476 33,968,408 $ $ 55,164,478 101,691,796 25,417,899 181,531,451 48,457,047 323,478 77,933,792 6,682,872 29,891,734 3,253,162 2,346,800 2,497,966 29,799,439 230,000 123,286,664 688,508,578 Total Sources $ 959,612,489 $ 787,434,596 $ 138,340,985 $ 419,509,174 $ 908,582,306 $ 55,516,468 $ 3,268,996,018 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TRANSFERS OUT Expenditures Subtotal $ 254,817,413 451,684,661 20,262,874 138,286,587 865,051,535 $ $ 43,680,899 200,000 43,880,899 $ 8,686,510 20,356,179 465,263,136 494,305,825 $ 167,468,045 594,538,929 9,859,127 126,978,376 898,844,477 $ 7,434,195 45,653,429 805,729 893,165 54,786,518 $ $ 280,307,159 177,361,643 21,030,409 133,133,084 611,832,295 Appropriated Beginning Fund Balance $ 94,560,954 $ 125,844,378 $ Total Uses $ 959,612,489 $ 737,676,673 $ $ 49,757,923 $ 787,434,596 Estimated Ending Fund Balance $ Total Uses and Ending Fund Balance $ 24 959,612,489 $ - $ $ 494,305,825 $ $ 43,880,899 $ $ $ 94,460,086 $ (74,796,651) $ $ 138,340,985 $ 419,509,174 $ - $ $ $ 404,296,475 $ $ (2,600,000) (46,434,066) (72,066,024) (534,475,924) (655,576,014) $ 352,679,728 8,000,000 107,192,596 25,846,869 185,315,730 197,972,604 7,612,468 330,132,558 77,933,792 108,663,810 52,720,241 669,367,715 13,100,616 28,971,996 43,332,806 280,000 2,209,123,529 $ (655,576,014) $ 2,613,420,004 $ $ 718,713,322 1,289,594,841 560,902,174 399,491,212 2,968,701,549 $ (121,100,090) (534,475,924) (655,576,014) $ 718,713,322 1,168,494,751 560,902,174 (134,984,712) 2,313,125,535 $ 220,405,332 $ 54,786,518 $ 3,189,106,881 $ - $ 898,844,477 $ 9,737,829 $ 729,950 $ 79,889,137 $ 908,582,306 $ 55,516,468 $ 3,268,996,018 $ - ALL FUNDS $ 220,405,332 (655,576,014) $ - 2,533,530,867 $ 79,889,137 (655,576,014) $ - 2,613,420,004 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Budget CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY - ADOPTED RESTATED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS Unreserved/Undesignated Beginning Fund Balance $ 73,444,803 $ 98,926,018 $ 104,372,577 $ 119,500,384 $ 7,975,989 $ 76,704 $ 404,296,475 $ REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES $ TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST SALES TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS GRANTS OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES STATE SHARED SALES TAX STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE FINES & FORFEITS INTEREST EARNINGS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS TRANSFERS IN Revenues Subtotal $ 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 50,000 109,627,487 891,458,634 $ $ $ 352,679,728 8,000,000 107,192,596 25,962,788 183,387,105 197,644,312 7,612,468 335,423,506 77,933,792 108,663,810 55,169,382 45,633,576 741,000,241 13,031,453 28,980,996 43,649,344 280,000 534,475,924 2,866,721,021 $ $ 499,012 6,833,576 45,633,576 1,156,954 516,156 54,639,274 $ $ 3,784,279 110,327,599 40,648 738,127,729 5,608,808 2,412,026 40,305,228 900,606,317 $ $ 31,578,721 540,500 8,009,500 259,880,069 300,008,790 $ $ 19,565,638 5,500,800 359,306 7,166,188 1,376,476 33,968,408 $ $ 55,164,478 101,691,796 25,533,818 179,602,826 48,057,759 323,478 77,933,792 6,682,872 29,776,875 2,819,664 2,312,633 2,506,966 30,115,977 230,000 123,286,664 686,039,598 Total Sources $ 964,903,437 $ 784,965,616 $ 138,340,985 $ 419,509,174 $ 908,582,306 $ 54,715,978 $ 3,271,017,496 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TRANSFERS OUT Expenditures Subtotal $ 258,879,076 452,869,981 20,306,839 138,286,587 870,342,483 $ $ 43,680,899 200,000 43,880,899 $ 7,932 3,000 494,294,894 494,305,826 $ 167,468,044 594,538,930 9,859,127 126,978,376 898,844,477 $ 7,090,778 45,225,850 776,235 893,165 53,986,028 $ $ 276,998,850 179,605,355 19,697,024 133,133,084 609,434,313 Appropriated Beginning Fund Balance $ 94,560,954 $ 125,844,378 $ Total Uses $ 964,903,437 $ 735,278,691 $ Estimated Ending Fund Balance $ Total Uses and Ending Fund Balance $ 964,903,437 $ 43,880,899 $ $ $ 494,305,826 $ $ $ $ 49,686,925 $ 94,460,086 $ (74,796,652) $ $ 784,965,616 $ 138,340,985 $ 419,509,174 $ 898,844,477 $ $ $ $ 404,296,475 $ $ (2,600,000) (45,633,576) (72,066,024) (534,475,924) (654,775,524) $ 352,679,728 8,000,000 107,192,596 25,962,788 183,387,105 197,644,312 7,612,468 335,423,506 77,933,792 108,663,810 52,569,382 668,934,217 13,031,453 28,980,996 43,649,344 280,000 2,211,945,497 $ (654,775,524) $ 2,616,241,972 $ $ 710,444,680 1,272,243,116 588,615,018 399,491,212 2,970,794,026 $ (120,299,600) (534,475,924) (654,775,524) $ 710,444,680 1,151,943,516 588,615,018 (134,984,712) 2,316,018,502 $ 220,405,332 $ 53,986,028 $ 3,191,199,358 $ - $ 9,737,829 $ 729,950 $ 79,818,138 $ 908,582,306 $ 54,715,978 $ 3,271,017,496 $ - ALL FUNDS $ 220,405,332 (654,775,524) $ - 2,536,423,834 $ 79,818,138 (654,775,524) $ - 2,616,241,972 25 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Sources of Funds Sources of Funds FY 2003-04 $2,494,625,945 Miscellaneous & Interest 2.30% Patient Revenue 26.27% Fund Balances 11.99% Property Taxes, Penalties & Interest 16.07% Sales Taxes 4.26% Permits, Fees & Fines 4.22% Other Intergovernmental & Grants Highway User 13.31% Revenues 3.46% State Shared Sales Taxes 13.45% State Shared Vehicle License Taxes 4.67% Uses of Funds Uses of Funds FY 2003-04 $2,494,625,945 Education 0.07% Public Safety 25.58% Culture & Recreation 1.07% General Government 18.12% Highways & Streets 5.05% Health, Welfare, & Sanitation 50.11% 26 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2002-03 Adopted to FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Budget FY 2002-03 FY 2002-03 Adopted/ $ Adopted Budget Restated Variance Fund General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Fund Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations $ $ 964.9 $ 964.9 $ 731.7 735.3 43.9 43.9 497.9 494.3 827.3 898.8 54.0 54.0 (654.8) (654.8) 2,464.9 $ 2,536.4 $ (3.6) 3.6 (71.5) (71.5) % Variance 0.00% (0.49%) 0.00% 0.72% (8.64%) 0.00% 0.00% (2.90%) Special Revenue Funds: $ $ (3.6) Transfer of Flood Control District's Planning Division from Capital Fund to Special Revenue (operating) Fund (3.6) Total Special Revenue Fund Variance Capital Projects Funds: $ $ 3.6 Transfer of Flood Control District's Planning Division from Capital Fund to Special Revenue (operating) Fund 3.6 Total Capital Projects Fund Variance Enterprise Funds: $ $ (71.5) Restatement of Maricopa Integrated Health System Bad Debt from Revenue Deduction to Expense (71.5) Total Enterprise Fund Variance 27 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated to FY 2002-03 Revised Restated Budget FY 2002-03 FY 2002-03 Revised/ $ Adopted/ Restated Restated Variance Fund General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Fund Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations $ $ 964.9 $ 959.6 $ 735.3 737.7 43.9 43.9 494.3 494.3 898.8 898.8 54.0 54.8 (654.8) (655.6) 2,536.4 $ 2,533.5 $ % Variance 5.3 (2.4) (0.8) 0.8 2.9 0.55% (0.33%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% (1.48%) (0.12%) 0.11% General Fund: $ $ 5.3 Reduction in Expenditures due to Reduced Sales Tax Forecast 5.3 Total General Fund Variance Special Revenue Funds: $ 0.4 Net Change in Judicial Branch Grants (0.7) Net Change in Elected Official Grants (2.1) Net Change in Appointed Department Grants (2.4) Total Special Revenue Fund Variance Internal Service Funds: $ $ (0.8) Creation of new Communications Department (0.8) Total Internal Service Fund Variance Eliminations: $ $ 28 (0.3) Creation of new Communications Department 1.1 Change to Library District's Transfer to Capital Fund 0.8 Total Eliminations Variance Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2002-03 Revised Restated to FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget FY 2002-03 Revised/ Restated Fund General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Fund Capital Projects Fund Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations $ $ 959.6 $ 737.7 43.9 494.3 898.8 54.8 (655.6) 2,533.5 $ FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ Variance 1,059.7 $ 709.8 35.0 319.7 891.2 71.2 (591.9) 2,494.7 $ (100.1) 27.9 8.9 174.6 7.6 (16.4) (63.7) 38.8 % Variance (10.4%) 3.8% 20.3% 35.3% 0.8% (29.9%) 9.7% 1.5% General Fund: $ $ (11.9) 1.9 (0.3) (1.6) 3.4 2.6 (9.6) (8.1) (44.4) (32.1) (100.1) Employee Benefits/Retirement Increases Primary/General Election Costs Annualized Impact of Mid-Year Adjustments Ann. Impact of FY 2002-03 Results Inititative Req. 10% Central Service Base Budget Reductions Other Base Reductions Criminal Justice Cost Increases Other Health Care Mandates (on page 83) Other General Government (on page 76) Other Appropriated Fund Balance (on page 79) Total General Fund Variance Special Revenue Funds: $ $ (6.2) (1.6) 17.2 (1.5) 6.4 (11.3) (6.7) (15.9) 2.0 (7.8) (29.0) 44.2 13.8 24.3 27.9 Employee Benefits/Retirement Increases Risk Management & Other Internal Service Costs FY 2002-03 Non-Recurring Expenditures Ann. Impact of FY 2002-03 Results Inititative Req. Reductions to Achieve Structural Balance Increased Grant Awards and Carry-Over Detention Operations Increases Increases Based on Revenue Health Care Mandates (on page 83) General Government (on page 76) Appropriated Fund Balance (on page 79) CIP Fund Transfers Eliminate Housing Department Reduction in Adult Probation Grant Funding Total Special Revenue Fund Variance 29 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2002-03 Revised to FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget (Continued) Debt Service Funds: $ $ 0.4 Reduction in Gen. Obligation Bond Debt Service 9.4 Reduction in COP Debt Service (0.9) Increase in Stadium District Debt Service 8.9 Total Debt Service Funds Variance Capital Project Funds: $ $ 130.9 44.0 6.9 (8.9) 1.1 0.6 174.6 Jail/Juvenile Detention CIP (on page 143) General Government CIP (on page 119) Transportation CIP (on page 158) Flood Control District CIP (on page 278) Library District CIP Stadium Dist. - Bank One Ballpark Final Payment Total Capital Project Funds Variance Enterprise Funds: $ $ (10.5) Maricopa Health Plans (See Commentary on page 84) 18.4 Maricopa Medical Center (See Commentary on page 84) (0.3) Increased Spending for Household Hazardous Clean-Up 7.6 Total Enterprise Funds Variance Internal Service Funds: $ $ (0.3) 2.0 (15.7) (2.4) (16.4) Employee Benefits/Retirement Increases Central Service Base Budget Reductions Self-Insured Pharmacy Benefits Risk Management Claims Total Internal Service Fund Variance Eliminations: $ 30 (17.9) (78.9) 13.9 0.9 1.5 11.6 1.4 5.0 (1.1) (0.1) (63.7) Net Dec. in Other Fund Transfers (on page 89) Appropriated Fund Balance Transfers Increase in Payments to Benefits Fund Increased Internal Service Charges Inc. in Health Care Mandates Payments to MIHS Increased MIHS Internal Payments Employer-paid Health Premiums to MHP Increase in Flood Control District CIP Transfer Decrease in Library District CIP Transfer Decrease in Stadium District Fund Transfers Total Eliminations Variance Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted ALL FUNDS JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ Subtotal $ 39,172,179 14,911,867 24,196,911 78,280,957 ELECTED OFFICIAL 120 ASSESSOR $ 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COU 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOL 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF Subtotal $ 188,221 12,994,445 8,683,240 1,652,529 1,222,321 15,980,780 115,433 5,965 31,744,332 72,587,266 $ $ $ 41,973,567 19,090,565 23,991,772 85,055,904 $ $ 40,359,782 19,315,726 23,944,529 83,620,037 $ $ 37,954,294 15,882,589 23,612,543 77,449,426 $ $ 37,785,349 16,782,651 26,534,528 81,102,528 $ $ (2,574,433) -6% $ (2,533,075) -13% 2,589,999 11% (2,517,509) -3% $ 14,234,945 17,372,172 26,908,827 58,515,944 0% $ (466,921) -4% (246,700) -2% (1,292,500) -62% 0% 2,092,212 18% 0% 0% 1,831,618 5% 1,917,709 3% $ 133,669 12,175,546 10,553,897 2,163,480 1,322,758 13,736,600 153,050 5,686 38,239,414 78,484,100 $ $ $ MARICOPA COUNTY $ 1,855,229,320 $ 2,118,777,173 $ 2,115,955,205 $ 2,094,028,911 $ 2,062,291,520 $ (53,663,685) 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 73,638,737 $ 71,031,854 $ 71,031,854 $ 73,895,364 $ 72,365,679 $ 1,333,825 2% $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 10,516,493 $ 11,074,969 $ 11,074,969 $ 11,574,986 $ 11,737,613 $ 662,644 6% $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ 78,447,089 $ 11,061,501 $ 11,061,501 $ 11,099,276 $ 10,824,956 $ (236,545) -2% $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 2,017,831,639 $ 2,211,945,497 $ 2,209,123,529 $ 2,190,598,537 $ 2,157,219,768 $ (51,903,761) -3% $ 2,095,982,572 $ (26,124,837) (1,943,554) 2,964,298 (25,104,093) 518,297 (3,703) 1,423,655 5,432,598 3,334 147,614 149,488 (90,000) (200,000) 16,806,428 (49,552,893) 2,188,000 (33,424,424) 1,237,500 13,051 (5,826) 76,338 (186,080) 8,045,525 (3,417,962) (11,435,849) (195,466) 50,000 (868,409) 2,185,737 (478,057) (1,780,323) 7,420,400 996,742 (29,179,752) 83,226,814 (897,223) $ 133,669 12,360,890 10,400,363 792,500 1,100,000 13,736,600 153,050 5,686 35,690,368 74,373,126 $ $ $ 133,304 11,714,937 10,228,789 2,085,000 1,322,758 16,492,555 168,530 5,514 38,738,965 80,890,352 $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD $ 15 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 752,002 666,659 666,659 1,047,948 1,309,769 643,110 96% 1,184,956 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7,753,205 15,861,375 15,861,375 12,653,550 15,749,886 (111,489) -1% 15,857,672 180 FINANCE 9,649,512 8,947,741 8,947,741 8,947,741 10,503,603 1,555,862 17% 10,371,396 220 HUMAN SERVICES 29,806,935 29,599,739 29,599,739 33,645,777 34,050,497 4,450,758 15% 35,032,337 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 921 75 75 170 75 0% 75 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 85,139 1,056,052 1,056,052 712,472 74,050 (982,002) -93% 1,059,386 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 407,375 420,000 420,000 285,418 360,000 (60,000) -14% 567,614 300 PARKS & RECREATION 4,780,546 4,419,867 4,419,867 4,027,171 4,561,355 141,488 3% 4,569,355 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 108,586 115,511 115,511 94,777 25,511 (90,000) -78% 25,511 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 850,336 850,000 850,000 613,263 850,000 0% 650,000 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 7,134,071 6,843,576 6,843,576 12,352,944 23,650,004 16,806,428 246% 23,650,004 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 85,923,604 101,813,648 101,813,648 101,937,733 101,813,648 0% 101,813,648 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPM 84,726,011 98,138,712 98,138,712 98,138,712 48,585,819 (49,552,893) -50% 48,585,819 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 10,023,602 8,490,000 8,490,000 12,800,916 8,478,000 (12,000) 0% 10,678,000 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 358,987 440,000 440,000 357,983 440,000 0% 440,000 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 975,325,485 1,081,862,281 1,076,137,835 1,074,458,898 1,042,713,411 (33,424,424) -3% 1,042,713,411 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANC 1,010,598 4,510 1,237,500 1,237,500 1,237,500 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 1,635,115 1,672,519 1,672,519 1,661,254 1,723,908 51,389 3% 1,685,570 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 79,969 104,500 104,500 107,832 101,928 (2,572) -2% 98,674 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 11,903 50,842 50,842 37,083 140,416 89,574 176% 127,180 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 162,533 248,109 248,109 62,029 248,109 0% 62,029 600 HEALTH PLANS 350,956,490 431,738,882 431,738,882 436,838,601 433,443,518 1,704,636 0% 439,784,407 640 TRANSPORTATION 103,412,195 120,657,609 120,657,609 102,128,735 60,833,949 (59,823,660) -50% 117,239,647 660 HOUSING 13,857,593 11,435,849 11,435,849 11,435,849 13,834,322 2,398,473 21% 670 SOLID WASTE 4,471,582 4,280,698 4,280,698 4,323,434 4,090,050 (190,648) -4% 4,085,232 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 912,974 78,000 78,000 136,246 78,000 0% 78,000 710 COMMUNICATIONS 800,490 798,946 800,490 0% 800,490 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 1,205,937 980,775 980,775 1,189,115 980,775 0% 1,030,775 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 8,701,108 9,200,000 9,200,000 9,146,764 9,200,000 0% 8,331,591 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 20,275,144 24,500,384 24,500,384 24,216,230 26,686,121 2,185,737 9% 26,686,121 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 14,136,305 13,201,539 13,201,539 13,939,300 13,201,539 0% 12,723,482 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 6,973,290 9,763,754 9,763,754 9,660,778 8,501,392 (1,262,362) -13% 7,983,431 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 35,940,958 37,262,716 40,814,742 46,404,076 48,441,724 7,626,982 19% 48,235,142 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 17,407,363 17,437,846 17,460,815 17,713,138 17,398,792 (62,023) 0% 18,457,557 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYST 274,728,693 389,220,014 389,220,014 364,750,924 361,059,578 (28,160,436) -7% 360,040,262 980 ELIMINATIONS (369,204,985) (469,330,070) (470,130,560) (470,941,184) (388,351,873) 81,778,687 17% (386,903,746) Subtotal $ 1,704,361,097 $ 1,962,029,202 $ 1,959,879,751 $ 1,935,689,133 $ 1,906,815,866 $ (53,063,885) -3% $ 1,958,982,528 $ $ 133,669 12,827,811 10,647,063 2,085,000 1,100,000 11,644,388 153,050 5,686 33,858,750 72,455,417 $ (652,265) (93,166) 78,480 222,758 2,092,212 4,380,664 6,028,683 $ 133,669 12,669,956 10,041,568 2,085,000 1,100,000 11,644,388 153,050 5,686 33,858,750 71,692,067 $ $ (19,972,633) 75,992,743 $ 4,960,889 12,721,129 $ 1,646,160 10,824,956 $ (236,545) -2% $ 2,195,521,400 $ (13,602,129) 31 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL BRANCH 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS Subtotal $ 12,504 13,462,793 13,475,297 ELECTED OFFICIAL 120 ASSESSOR $ 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COU 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOL 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF Subtotal $ 188,221 7,485,746 18,861 1,652,529 1,222,321 10,735,739 115,433 5,965 3,823,953 25,248,768 APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD $ 180 FINANCE 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANC 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Subtotal $ 15 9,649,512 921 407,375 108,586 850,336 34,656 85,923,604 708,269,934 1,010,598 93,628 18,900 37,345 162,533 912,974 99,116 807,580,033 MARICOPA COUNTY $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 32 $ $ $ $ $ $ 18,000 12,926,578 12,944,578 133,669 5,250,000 12,000 2,085,000 1,100,000 8,000,000 153,050 5,686 4,009,482 20,748,887 $ $ $ $ 18,000 12,926,578 12,944,578 133,669 5,250,000 12,000 2,085,000 1,100,000 8,000,000 153,050 5,686 4,009,482 20,748,887 $ 8,947,741 75 420,000 115,511 850,000 10,000 101,813,648 745,043,445 101,140 24,500 36,000 248,109 78,000 77,000 857,765,169 $ 8,947,741 75 420,000 115,511 850,000 10,000 101,813,648 739,752,497 101,140 24,500 36,000 248,109 78,000 77,000 $ 852,474,221 846,304,098 $ 891,458,634 846,304,098 $ 891,458,634 $ $ $ $ $ 10,987 12,875,906 12,886,893 133,304 5,218,659 33,970 2,085,000 1,322,758 11,509,693 168,530 5,514 4,163,911 24,641,339 $ 8,947,741 170 285,418 94,777 613,263 21,888 101,937,733 744,710,374 4,510 52,000 20,300 26,520 62,029 136,246 89,751 857,002,720 $ 886,167,686 $ $ 886,167,686 $ $ $ $ $ $ 18,000 13,129,689 13,147,689 133,669 5,250,000 22,000 792,500 1,100,000 9,003,600 153,050 5,686 4,302,126 20,762,631 $ $ $ $ $ 203,111 203,111 0% $ 2% 2% $ 18,000 13,551,699 13,569,699 $ 0% $ 0% 10,000 83% (1,292,500) -62% 0% 1,003,600 13% 0% 0% 292,644 7% 13,744 0% $ 133,669 5,218,660 34,000 2,163,480 1,322,758 9,003,600 153,050 5,686 4,391,226 22,426,129 10,371,396 75 360,000 25,511 650,000 15,000 101,813,648 782,315,420 1,237,500 52,000 19,700 116,764 62,029 78,000 127,000 897,244,043 $ 1,423,655 (60,000) (90,000) (200,000) 5,000 42,562,923 1,237,500 (49,140) (4,800) 80,764 (186,080) 50,000 44,769,822 $ $ $ $ 625,121 625,121 (31,340) 22,000 78,480 222,758 1,003,600 381,744 1,677,242 $ 10,503,603 75 360,000 25,511 850,000 15,000 101,813,648 782,315,420 1,237,500 101,140 24,500 130,000 248,109 78,000 77,000 897,779,506 $ $ 1,555,862 17% 0% (60,000) -14% (90,000) -78% 0% 5,000 50% 0% 42,562,923 6% 1,237,500 0% 0% 94,000 261% 0% 0% 0% 45,305,285 5% $ 894,530,952 $ 931,689,826 $ 45,522,140 5% $ 933,239,871 $ 47,072,185 894,530,952 $ 931,689,826 $ 45,522,140 5% $ 933,239,871 $ 47,072,185 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) CONSOLIDATED REVENUES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance % $ -65% SPECIAL REVENUE JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION $ 39,172,179 $ 41,973,567 $ 40,359,782 $ 37,954,294 $ 37,785,349 $ 14,234,945 (26,124,837) 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 14,899,363 19,072,565 19,297,726 15,871,602 16,764,651 17,354,172 (1,943,554) 800 TRIAL COURTS 10,734,118 11,065,194 11,017,951 10,736,637 13,404,839 13,357,128 2,339,177 21% (25,729,214) -36% Subtotal $ 64,805,660 $ 72,111,326 $ 70,675,459 $ 64,562,533 $ 67,954,839 $ 44,946,245 $ -10% ELECTED OFFICIAL 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 5,508,699 7,419,956 7,577,811 6,496,278 7,110,890 6,956,886 (620,925) -8% 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 8,664,379 10,029,568 10,635,063 10,194,819 10,378,363 10,519,897 (115,166) -1% 360 RECORDER 500 SHERIFF Subtotal $ 5,245,041 3,644,388 3,644,388 4,982,862 4,733,000 4,733,000 1,088,612 30% 27,920,379 29,849,268 29,849,268 34,575,054 31,388,242 33,848,188 3,998,920 13% 4,351,441 8% 518,297 78% 47,338,498 $ 50,943,180 $ 51,706,530 $ 56,249,013 $ 53,610,495 $ 56,057,971 $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 752,002 666,659 666,659 1,047,948 1,309,769 1,184,956 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7,753,205 15,861,375 15,861,375 12,653,550 15,749,886 15,857,672 29,806,935 29,599,739 29,599,739 33,645,777 34,050,497 35,032,337 85,139 1,056,052 1,056,052 712,472 74,050 220 HUMAN SERVICES 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER - 300 PARKS & RECREATION 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER - - - 0% 5,432,598 18% 1,059,386 3,334 0% 207,614 207,614 5,264,071 4,419,867 4,419,867 4,044,171 4,578,355 4,586,355 166,488 4% 10,023,602 8,490,000 8,490,000 12,800,916 8,478,000 10,678,000 2,188,000 26% 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT - (3,703) 358,987 440,000 440,000 357,983 440,000 440,000 214,064,926 243,996,089 243,562,591 240,349,308 226,011,238 226,011,238 1,541,487 1,571,379 1,571,379 1,609,254 1,622,768 1,633,570 - 0% (17,551,353) -7% 62,191 4% 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 61,069 80,000 80,000 87,532 77,428 78,974 (1,026) -1% 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE (25,442) 14,842 14,842 10,563 10,416 10,416 (4,426) -30% 1,601,523 1,812,463 1,812,463 1,957,463 1,957,636 1,957,636 145,173 8% 640 TRANSPORTATION 600 HEALTH PLANS 88,248,347 89,078,888 89,078,888 89,423,178 97,027,682 96,433,380 7,354,492 8% 660 HOUSING 13,857,593 11,435,849 11,435,849 11,435,849 13,834,322 670 SOLID WASTE 3,733,454 3,440,050 3,440,050 3,815,538 3,440,050 3,435,232 - (11,435,849) -100% (4,818) 0% 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 6,973,290 9,763,754 9,763,754 9,660,778 8,501,392 7,983,431 (1,780,323) -18% 18% 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 35,940,958 37,262,716 40,814,742 46,404,076 48,441,724 48,235,142 7,420,400 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 17,407,363 17,437,846 17,460,815 17,713,138 17,398,792 18,457,557 996,742 Subtotal $ 437,448,509 $ 476,427,568 $ 479,569,065 $ 487,729,494 $ 483,004,005 $ 473,282,896 6% $ (6,286,169) -1% MARICOPA COUNTY $ 549,592,667 $ 599,482,074 $ 601,951,054 $ 608,541,040 $ 604,569,339 $ 574,287,112 $ (27,663,942) -5% 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 73,638,738 $ 71,031,854 $ 71,031,854 $ 73,895,364 $ 72,365,679 $ 75,992,743 $ 4,960,889 7% 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 10,516,493 $ 11,074,969 $ 11,074,969 $ 11,574,986 $ 11,737,613 $ 12,721,129 $ 1,646,160 15% 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ 14,130,728 $ 4,450,701 $ 4,450,701 $ 4,569,332 $ 4,720,021 $ 4,720,021 $ 269,320 6% TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 647,878,626 $ 686,039,598 $ 688,508,578 $ 698,580,722 $ 693,392,652 $ 667,721,005 $ FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % $ $ (2,522,535) (2,522,535) -9% $ -9% $ 25,845,073 25,845,073 (2,522,535) -9% $ 2% $ -7% $ (20,787,573) -3% Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted DEBT SERVICE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ Subtotal $ 48,345,367 48,345,367 $ $ 28,367,608 28,367,608 $ $ 28,367,608 28,367,608 $ $ 24,495,418 24,495,418 $ $ 25,845,073 25,845,073 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 48,345,367 $ 28,367,608 $ 28,367,608 $ 24,495,418 $ 25,845,073 $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ 68,885,166 $ 5,600,800 $ 5,600,800 $ 5,645,736 $ 5,700,800 $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 117,230,533 $ 33,968,408 $ 33,968,408 $ 30,141,154 $ 31,545,873 $ 100,000 (2,422,535) $ $ (2,522,535) (2,522,535) 25,845,073 $ (2,522,535) 5,700,800 $ 31,545,873 $ 100,000 (2,422,535) 33 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act Requested vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Requested % Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted CAPITAL PROJECTS APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPM $ 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 640 TRANSPORTATION Subtotal $ 84,726,011 4,645,258 63,848,649 153,219,918 $ 153,219,918 42,333,770 MARICOPA COUNTY 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ $ $ 98,138,712 64,455,139 84,578,721 247,172,572 $ 98,138,712 64,455,139 84,578,721 $ 247,172,572 $ 247,172,572 $ 247,172,572 $ $ 98,138,712 64,903,798 65,705,557 228,748,067 $ 228,748,067 $ $ (49,552,893) (55,913,459) (63,772,454) $ (169,238,806) -50% $ -87% -75% -68% $ 48,585,819 8,541,680 77,806,267 134,933,766 $ $ 48,585,819 8,541,680 20,806,267 77,933,766 $ 77,933,766 $ (169,238,806) -68% $ 134,933,766 $ (112,238,806) 54,000,000 10% $ 54,000,000 $ 49,000,000 $ 49,000,000 $ 48,800,000 $ $ 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 $ 8,092,376 $ 2,734,018 $ 2,734,018 $ 2,608,226 $ 1,998,409 203,646,064 $ 300,008,790 $ 300,008,790 $ 281,258,493 $ 133,932,175 - FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act - FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ 5,000,000 (1,102,200) -100% $ - (735,609) -27% $ 1,998,409 $ (166,076,615) -55% $ 190,932,175 Requested vs Revised Variance % (49,552,893) (55,913,459) (6,772,454) $ (112,238,806) $ 5,000,000 $ (1,102,200) $ (735,609) $ (109,076,615) Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted ENTERPRISE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 600 HEALTH PLANS $ 670 SOLID WASTE 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYST Subtotal $ 349,354,967 738,128 353,666,778 703,759,873 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 703,759,873 TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 703,759,873 $ $ 429,926,419 840,648 469,839,250 900,606,317 $ 429,926,419 840,648 469,839,250 $ 900,606,317 $ 900,606,317 $ 900,606,317 $ 900,606,317 $ 900,606,317 FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 434,881,138 507,896 445,370,160 880,759,194 $ 880,759,194 $ 880,759,194 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 431,485,882 650,000 453,476,565 885,612,447 1,559,463 0% $ (190,648) -23% (16,362,685) -3% $ (14,993,870) -2% $ 437,826,771 650,000 452,457,249 890,934,020 $ 7,900,352 (190,648) (17,382,001) (9,672,297) $ 885,612,447 $ (14,993,870) -2% $ 890,934,020 $ (9,672,297) $ 885,612,447 $ (14,993,870) -2% $ 890,934,020 $ (9,672,297) Requested vs Revised Variance % FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted INTERNAL SERVICE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION $ 710 COMMUNICATIONS 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Subtotal $ 7,099,415 1,106,821 8,701,108 20,275,144 14,136,305 51,318,793 $ MARICOPA COUNTY $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ $ $ 6,833,576 903,775 9,200,000 24,500,384 13,201,539 54,639,274 51,318,793 $ 51,318,793 $ FY 2001-02 Actual $ $ 6,833,576 800,490 903,775 9,200,000 24,500,384 13,201,539 55,439,764 54,639,274 $ 54,639,274 $ FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 12,331,056 798,946 1,099,364 9,146,764 24,216,230 13,939,300 61,531,660 55,439,764 $ 55,439,764 $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 23,635,004 800,490 903,775 9,200,000 26,686,121 13,201,539 74,426,929 61,531,660 $ 61,531,660 $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 23,635,004 800,490 903,775 8,331,591 26,686,121 12,723,482 73,080,463 $ $ 16,801,428 246% $ 0% 0% 0% 2,185,737 9% 0% 18,987,165 34% $ $ 16,801,428 (868,409) 2,185,737 (478,057) 17,640,699 74,426,929 $ 18,987,165 34% $ 73,080,463 $ 17,640,699 74,426,929 $ 18,987,165 34% $ 73,080,463 $ 17,640,699 FY 2003-04 Requested Requested vs Revised Variance % Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted ELIMINATIONS APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 300 PARKS & RECREATION $ (483,525) $ $ $ (17,000) $ 640 TRANSPORTATION (48,684,801) (53,000,000) (53,000,000) (53,000,000) 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYST (78,938,085) (80,619,236) (80,619,236) (80,619,236) 980 ELIMINATIONS (369,204,985) (469,330,070) (470,130,560) (470,941,184) Subtotal $ (497,311,396) $ (602,949,306) $ (603,749,796) $ (604,577,420) $ MARICOPA COUNTY $ (497,311,396) $ (602,949,306) $ (603,749,796) $ (604,577,420) $ 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS 34 (42,333,771) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (57,000,000) (4,000,000) -8% (57,000,000) (92,416,987) (11,797,751) -15% (92,416,987) (388,351,873) 81,778,687 17% (386,903,746) (537,785,860) $ 65,963,936 11% $ (536,337,733) $ (537,785,860) $ (49,000,000) $ (49,000,000) $ (48,800,000) $ $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (12,661,181) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,594,274) $ 129,744 $ (552,306,348) $ (654,775,524) $ (655,576,014) $ (656,203,638) $ (593,380,134) $ 62,195,880 - (54,000,000) $ 65,963,936 - $ 11% $ (536,337,733) $ (5,000,000) -10% $ 1,102,200 100% $ (54,000,000) $ 67,412,063 (5,000,000) $ 1,102,200 (1,594,274) $ 129,744 9% $ (591,932,007) $ 63,644,007 8% $ - (17,000) (4,000,000) (11,797,751) 83,226,814 67,412,063 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Department and Fund Type CONSOLIDATED REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT AND FUND TYPE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ SPECIAL REVENUE Subtotal $ 18,000 13,551,699 13,569,699 ELECTED 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 $ 133,669 5,218,660 34,000 2,163,480 1,322,758 9,003,600 153,050 5,686 4,391,226 22,426,129 APPOINTED 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 220 HUMAN SERVICES 10,371,396 - $ $ $ $ $ $ 14,234,945 17,354,172 13,357,128 44,946,245 6,956,886 10,519,897 4,733,000 33,848,188 56,057,971 1,184,956 15,857,672 35,032,337 DEBT SERVICE $ $ $ $ $ CAPITAL PROJECTS - - - $ $ $ $ $ INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE - - - $ $ $ $ $ - - - $ $ $ $ $ SUB-TOTAL - - - $ $ $ $ $ 14,234,945 17,372,172 26,908,827 58,515,944 133,669 12,175,546 10,553,897 2,163,480 1,322,758 13,736,600 153,050 5,686 38,239,414 78,484,100 1,184,956 15,857,672 10,371,396 35,032,337 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 600 HEALTH PLANS 640 TRANSPORTATION 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 75 360,000 25,511 650,000 15,000 101,813,648 782,315,420 1,237,500 52,000 19,700 116,764 62,029 78,000 1,059,386 207,614 4,586,355 10,678,000 440,000 226,011,238 1,633,570 78,974 10,416 1,957,636 96,433,380 3,435,232 - 25,845,073 - 48,585,819 8,541,680 77,806,267 - 437,826,771 650,000 - 23,635,004 - 75 1,059,386 567,614 4,586,355 25,511 650,000 23,650,004 101,813,648 48,585,819 10,678,000 440,000 1,042,713,411 1,237,500 1,685,570 98,674 127,180 62,029 439,784,407 174,239,647 4,085,232 78,000 710 COMMUNICATIONS 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 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 $ 127,000 897,244,043 $ 7,983,431 48,235,142 18,457,557 473,282,896 $ 25,845,073 $ 134,933,766 $ 452,457,249 890,934,020 $ 800,490 903,775 8,331,591 26,686,121 12,723,482 73,080,463 $ 800,490 1,030,775 8,331,591 26,686,121 12,723,482 7,983,431 48,235,142 18,457,557 452,457,249 2,495,320,261 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 933,239,871 $ 574,287,112 $ 25,845,073 $ 134,933,766 $ 890,934,020 $ 73,080,463 $ 2,632,320,305 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ - $ 75,992,743 $ - $ 54,000,000 $ - $ - $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ - $ 12,721,129 $ - $ $ - $ - 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ - $ 4,720,021 $ 5,700,800 $ 1,998,409 $ - $ - TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ $ 667,721,005 $ 31,545,873 $ 190,932,175 $ 933,239,871 - 890,934,020 $ 73,080,463 TOTAL FUNDS ELIMINATIONS $ $ $ $ $ - - - $ $ $ $ $ (17,000) (57,000,000) - 14,234,945 17,372,172 26,908,827 58,515,944 133,669 12,175,546 10,553,897 2,163,480 1,322,758 13,736,600 153,050 5,686 38,239,414 78,484,100 1,184,956 15,857,672 10,371,396 35,032,337 75 1,059,386 567,614 4,569,355 25,511 650,000 23,650,004 101,813,648 48,585,819 10,678,000 440,000 1,042,713,411 1,237,500 1,685,570 98,674 127,180 62,029 439,784,407 117,239,647 4,085,232 78,000 $ (92,416,987) (386,903,746) (536,337,733) $ 800,490 1,030,775 8,331,591 26,686,121 12,723,482 7,983,431 48,235,142 18,457,557 360,040,262 (386,903,746) 1,958,982,528 $ (536,337,733) $ 2,095,982,572 129,992,743 $ (54,000,000) $ 75,992,743 $ 12,721,129 $ $ 12,419,230 $ 2,787,453,407 - $ 12,721,129 $ (1,594,274) $ 10,824,956 $ (591,932,007) $ 2,195,521,400 35 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary Maricopa County and the Flood Control, Library, and Stadium Districts collect revenues within the following general categories: • Taxes • Fine & Forfeits • Licenses & Permits • Miscellaneous • Intergovernmental Revenues • Other Financing Sources • Charges for Services Revenues are estimated conservatively for budgetary purposes, because it is preferable to err by underestimating revenues than over-estimating them. For major tax-based revenues, economic forecasting models are applied. The following sections describe the major revenue sources for the County and district budgets, as well as the estimated collections for FY 2003-04. CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUB-TOTAL ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES $ 308,122,580 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST SALES TAXES - LICENSES AND PERMITS GRANTS $ 62,722,226 8,000,000 428,970 - 21,982,390 $ - - 100,839,314 5,500,800 - $ 392,827,196 - - - 8,000,000 - 8,000,000 - - - 106,340,114 - 106,340,114 27,505,274 - - 129,174,757 - - OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 7,610,981 59,624,969 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 6,929,684 325,048 STATE SHARED SALES TAX $ - 335,557,376 - 20,806,267 - $ 4,525,488 101,760,800 $ - $ 392,827,196 - 27,934,244 - 27,934,244 - 133,700,245 - 133,700,245 190,817,935 190,817,935 - - - - 7,610,905 - 7,610,905 - - - - 335,557,376 - 335,557,376 356,173 - $ 1,014,918 86,300,000 - - - - 86,300,000 - 86,300,000 STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 109,031,008 7,500,000 - - - - 116,531,008 - 116,531,008 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 19,633,244 36,697,892 - - 30,000 23,535,004 79,896,140 (16,495,079) - - - 47,407,631 47,407,631 (47,407,631) - - 741,796,483 (86,578,079) STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE - 52,848 1,394,471 FINES & FORFEITS 10,838,123 3,137,558 INTEREST EARNINGS 12,008,440 2,184,202 3,888,497 28,366,581 - 50,000 230,000 - 111,088,120 121,718,713 TOTAL REVENUE $ 933,239,871 $ 667,721,005 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS TRANSFERS IN 2,858,799 $ 740,349,164 - - - 655,218,404 13,975,681 - 13,975,681 1,109,338 2,931,341 1,109,135 22,201,255 - 22,201,255 414,000 2,143,123 13,775 - - 63,401,061 - 847,711 168,602,570 39,194,104 31,545,873 $ 190,932,175 $ 890,934,020 $ 34,825,976 - 34,825,976 - 280,000 - 280,000 - 441,451,218 73,080,463 $2,787,453,407 (441,451,218) - $ (591,932,007) $2,195,521,400 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 Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Total 1993-94 $ 156,614,258 $ 45,165,003 $ 25,721,266 $ 227,500,527 1994-95 182,014,228 64,355,715 2,368,049 248,737,992 1995-96 176,554,624 129,829,133 20,072,454 326,456,211 1996-97 172,143,843 145,750,489 23,628,785 341,523,117 1997-98 184,371,372 91,239,254 22,510,213 298,120,839 1998-99 198,905,506 98,611,890 22,783,249 320,300,645 1999-00 222,975,967 149,751,499 21,008,968 393,736,434 2000-01 239,737,516 156,127,504 24,148,892 420,013,912 2001-02 259,584,026 156,318,430 21,368,629 437,271,085 2002-03* 288,249,179 150,011,354 23,257,948 461,518,481 2003-04** 316,122,580 163,561,540 27,483,190 507,167,310 * Projected Actual ** Budget 36 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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. This process is projected to be completed by August, 2004. 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 tax rates as adopted by the Board of Supervisors for FY 2003-04. Primary Fiscal Year 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 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 25,447,851 Primary Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) 1.0548 1.2394 1.1580 1.1054 1.1265 1.1472 1.1884 1.1641 1.1832 1.2108 1.2108 Secondary Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 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 27,477,988 Debt Service Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) 0.1878 0.0032 0.1464 0.1575 0.1364 0.1312 0.1085 0.1152 0.0876 0.0800 0.0700 Library District Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) 0.0417 0.0417 0.0099 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0521 Flood Control Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 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 24,140,629 Flood Control District Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) 0.3632 0.3632 0.3332 0.3425 0.3425 0.3270 0.2858 0.2534 0.2319 0.2119 0.2119 Combined Rate 1.6475 1.6475 1.6475 1.6475 1.6475 1.6475 1.6248 1.5748 1.5448 1.5448 1.5448 The combined FY 2003-04 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 and Flood Control District rate will remain the same at $1.2108 and $.2119 per $100 of net assessed value, respectively. The Debt Service rate was decreased to $.07 per $100 of assessed value. The Library District tax rate is increasing to $0.0521 per $100 net assessed value. The FY 2003-04 budget utilized the tentative rates for all taxes. While the combined tax rate adopted by the Board of Supervisors was unchanged for that used in preparing the budget, the rates associated with the Library District and Debt Service are different. The budget assumed a Debt Service rate of $.08 per $100 of assessed value and a rate of $.0421 per $100 of assessed value for the Library District. 37 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) The following table depicts the primary and secondary property tax levies for the last ten fiscal years, plus the preliminary levies for FY 2003-04: Primary Fiscal Year General Fund 1993-94 $140,248,266 1994-95 164,865,317 1995-96 156,257,472 1996-97 154,487,036 1997-98 169,045,638 1998-99 183,750,071 1999-00 207,540,697 2000-01 225,396,514 2001-02 252,676,223 2002-03 277,949,612 2003-04 * 308,122,580 Preliminary Tax Levy Secondary Flood Control District Debt Service Library District Total $ 206,382,123 $ 25,360,203 $35,142,441 $ 5,631,213 206,250,696 428,377 35,318,672 5,638,330 214,404,513 20,670,863 36,078,354 1,397,824 221,234,454 22,590,472 38,118,477 6,038,469 239,451,425 21,446,852 42,339,342 6,619,593 257,557,253 22,058,679 44,670,223 7,078,280 279,978,758 20,264,361 44,310,754 7,862,946 303,063,262 24,037,880 45,042,553 8,586,315 327,717,255 20,071,906 45,322,696 9,646,430 352,679,728 19,565,638 44,868,061 10,296,417 392,827,196 19,234,591 51,153,993 14,316,032 *Tax Levy as adopted by the Board of Supervisors Note: Excludes SRP, Payments in Lieu of Taxes The FY 2003-04 Budget includes an estimated primary property tax levy (excluding Salt River Project) of $308,122,580, an increase of $30,172,968 (10.86%) from the FY 2002-03 adopted primary levy. This increase is due to the 10.86% growth in net assessed value, of which nearly three- fifths is a result of new construction. The balance of the change in net assessed value is on existing property, which 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. Net assessed values tend to lag behind the general economy. After several years of relatively high growth in net assessed value, forecasts indicate a downward trend in annual growth rates over the next three years. As noted earlier, the adopted tax rates for the Library District and Debt Service differ from the rates used in preparing the budget. The anticipated Library District levy at budget preparation was $11,568,233 as compared to the levy of $14,316,032 resulting from the adopted tax rate. The budget provided for a Debt Service levy of $21,982,390 as Property Taxes (General Fund) compared to the $308,122,580 $19,234,591 levy associated with the $277,949,612 $276,874,208 adopted Debt Service $300,000,000 tax rate. For further $250,000,000 information, refer to the “Comparative Tax $200,000,000 Data” schedule, as $150,000,000 well as the Levy Limit $100,000,000 and Truth in Taxation comparisons. $50,000,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED 38 FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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 2002-03 projections are slightly higher than the budget for the same period. The FY 2003-04 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. The Stadium District has authority to levy a surcharge on rental cars to help fund Cactus League stadium construction in Maricopa County. In addition, in 1994-95 the State Legislature allowed the Stadium District to collect a special 0.25% sales tax for construction on Bank One Ballpark. In November 1998, Maricopa County voters approved a short-term new Jail Excise Tax to fund construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. Tax authority began in January 1999 and was to expire after nine years or collections of $900 million. In November 2002, Maricopa County voters approved an extension of the Jail Excise Tax for an additional twenty years. Total budgeted revenue from the Jail Excise Tax is $100,839,314 in FY 2003-04, an increase of $2,322,026 (2.36%) from what is projected for FY 2002-03. Jail Excise Tax revenue is budgeted based on the pessimistic forecast due to continuing economic uncertainty. Fiscal Jail Excise Year Tax 1993-94 NA 1994-95 NA 1995-96 NA 1996-97 NA 1997-98 NA 1998-99 $ 41,477,224 1999-00 91,984,716 2000-01 97,752,375 2001-02 98,177,716 2002-03* 98,517,288 2003-04** 100,839,314 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 5,536,163 5,467,047 5,500,800 Stadium District Major League Baseball NA $ 18,883,297 87,061,064 96,058,302 35,997,339 NA NA NA Total $ 3,998,649 23,292,185 91,879,551 101,384,449 41,440,708 46,877,224 97,706,954 103,389,559 103,713,879 103,984,335 106,340,114 * Projected Actual ** Budget 39 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Jail Excise Tax Forecasts "Pessimistic Scenario" "Most Likely" Scenario Total Total % Cumulative % Cumulative Annual Chg. Collections Annual Collections Chg. Collections Fiscal Year Collections 2002-03 $ 98,668,605 0.5% $ 428,064,027 $ 99,159,493 1.0% $ 428,554,925 2003-04 100,839,314 2.2% 528,903,341 103,026,713 3.9% 531,581,639 2004-05 104,973,726 4.1% 633,877,066 107,559,889 4.4% 639,141,527 2005-06 109,697,543 4.5% 743,574,610 113,583,243 5.6% 752,724,770 2006-07 114,633,933 4.5% 858,208,543 119,943,904 5.6% 872,668,674 2007-08 119,792,460 4.5% 978,001,002 126,660,762 5.6% 999,329,437 2008-09 125,183,121 4.5% 1,103,184,123 133,753,765 5.6% 1,133,083,202 2009-10 130,816,361 4.5% 1,234,000,484 141,243,976 5.6% 1,274,327,179 2010-11 136,703,097 4.5% 1,370,703,581 149,153,639 5.6% 1,423,480,818 2011-12 142,854,737 4.5% 1,513,558,318 157,506,243 5.6% 1,580,987,061 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. Licenses and Permits Maricopa County and the Flood Control District collect revenue from a variety of licenses and permits that they issue 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 generally 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 next are the actual license and permit revenues recorded for the last nine fiscal years, along with projected actual collections for totals FY 2002-03 and estimated revenues for FY 2003-04. Fiscal Year 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03* 2003-04** Licenses & Permits Revenues Special General Fund Revenue Fund Total $ 1,677,251 $ 10,943,744 $ 12,620,995 1,927,793 13,012,399 14,940,192 2,340,983 10,074,284 12,415,267 2,380,622 10,944,271 13,324,933 2,248,372 12,634,283 14,882,655 2,839,905 14,227,608 17,067,513 271,025 21,915,996 22,187,021 501,811 23,186,962 23,688,773 415,821 25,690,472 26,106,293 173,500 29,376,823 29,550,323 428,970 27,505,274 27,934,244 * 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. 40 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Licenses and Permits General Government Department General Government General Government Sheriff Total General Government Licenses and Permits FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 Budget Budget Description $50,000 $50,000 Liquor Licenses 325,000 325,000 Cable Television Franchise Fees 53,970 53,970 Pawnshop & Peddler's Licenses $428,970 $428,970 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) $428,970 $428,970 $500,000 $400,000 $173,500 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET Intergovernmental Revenues 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 nine fiscal years prior to FY 2002-03, projected actual collections for FY 2002-03, and the amounts budgeted for FY 2003-04. In FY 2003-04, grant revenue in the Special Revenue Fund will decrease as the result of the State of Arizona’s significant reduction of grants supporting the Adult Probation department. In addition, effective July 1, 2003, a House Authority has been established and has assumed the responsibilities and the funding formerly operated by the County’s Housing Department. This revenue will no longer be received by the County but rather will go directly to the Housing Authority. The combined impact to grant revenue is in excess of $35 million. 41 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Intergovernmental Revenues Fiscal Year General Fund 1993-94 $ 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03* 2003-04** 310,684,379 336,493,569 312,660,997 340,111,217 342,821,757 380,989,403 402,400,291 421,036,415 439,548,553 448,031,511 459,129,049 Special Revenue Funds $ 88,343,963 101,096,826 73,921,706 79,444,270 167,199,736 230,206,978 282,270,743 279,008,462 287,759,808 320,405,508 282,924,774 Internal Service Funds Enterprise Funds $ 8,930,589 4,495,155 6,506,520 13,010,680 8,093,439 93,391,643 107,497,801 106,286,288 $ 458,113 34,434 873,340 665,661 1,014,918 Capital Projects Funds $ 1,065,771 939,223 87,061,064 96,058,302 42,238,451 1,335,329 859,370 278,259 12,784,358 12,032,126 20,806,267 Debt Service Total $ 372,542 278,425 277,295 279,935 262,793 399,224 296,935 356,173 $ 409,397,244 443,761,311 480,427,582 515,893,724 565,533,417 612,531,710 685,530,404 708,451,009 834,756,926 888,929,542 870,517,469 * Projected Actual ** Budget Note: Includes Intergovernmental, Grant and Shared Taxes Historical data prior to FY 1997-98 for General Fund and Debt Service included Indirect Cost Recovery. Payments in Lieu of Taxes 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. At the time of budget preparation, it was estimated that the FY 2003-04 Payments in Lieu of Taxes would remain at the FY 2002-03 budget amount of $6,929,684. SRP has updated its effective net assessed value, which will result in an additional $528,950 in payments, which were not part of the adopted budget. Please refer to the Comparative Tax Data schedule for additional information on the SRP Payments in Lieu of Taxes. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (General Fund) $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,468,687 $4,855,971 $4,000,000 $5,390,681 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,460,997 $1,460,997 $1,539,003 $1,000,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED Federal 42 FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL Salt River Project FY 04 BUDGET Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) 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 began 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, 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 2002-03 plus the budget for FY 2003-04. State shared sales tax collections have suffered most from the economic recession. Prior to FY 2002-03, state shared sales taxes were budgeted for the upcoming fiscal year at the midpoint between the “pessimistic” and “most likely” forecast scenarios. The FY 2002-03 budget assumed revenue growth of only 1.5% growth, which was slightly higher than the 1% growth experienced in FY 2001-02 and significantly less than the preceding 5 year annual average of nearly 7%. Actual collections for FY 2002-03 are projected to be near budget at 1.5% higher than FY 2001-02. Given continuing economic uncertainty, the FY 2003-04 budget for the General Fund continues a 1.5% growth rate resulting in $ 4,962,932 above the FY 2002-03 projected actual collections. State Shared Sales Tax Collections Fiscal Year General Fund 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 2001-02 325,728,202 2002-03* 330,594,444 2003-04** 335,557,376 * Projected Actual ** Budget 43 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) State Shared Sales Tax $330,594,444 $330,132,558 $335,557,376 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET Th e 10-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" "Most Likely" Scenario Annual % Annual % Collections Chg. Collections Chg. 2002-03 $ 328,334,028 0.8% $ 330,288,397 2003-04 335,557,376 2.2% 343,499,933 2004-05 349,315,229 4.1% 358,957,430 2005-06 365,034,414 4.5% 376,905,301 2006-07 381,460,963 4.5% 395,750,566 2007-08 398,626,706 4.5% 415,538,095 2008-09 416,564,908 4.5% 436,314,999 2009-10 435,310,328 4.5% 458,130,749 2010-11 454,899,293 4.5% 481,037,287 2011-12 475,369,761 4.5% 505,089,151 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. 1.4% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 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 1993-94 to FY 2003-04. 44 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) State Shared Vehicle License Tax Fiscal General Year Fund 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 99,372,045 2002-03* 104,215,979 2003-04** 109,031,008 * 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 2002-03, VLT collections have in fact been quite strong despite the economy, and projected actual revenue is anticipated to exceed budget by 2.19%. State Shared Vehicle License Tax (General Fund) $109,031,008 $101,980,938 $104,215,979 $110,000,000 $90,000,000 $70,000,000 $50,000,000 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET Based on the pessimistic forecast of 5.5% growth, the FY 2003-04 budget assumes a $4.8 million increase in Vehicle License Tax revenue above the FY 2002-03 projected actual collections. 45 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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 $ 103,346,927 4.0% $ 106,328,088 2003-04 109,031,008 5.5% 114,302,695 2004-05 113,392,248 4.0% 122,303,883 2005-06 117,927,938 4.0% 130,865,155 2006-07 122,645,055 4.0% 140,025,716 2007-08 127,550,858 4.0% 149,827,516 2008-09 132,652,892 4.0% 160,315,442 2009-10 137,959,008 4.0% 171,537,523 2010-11 143,477,368 4.0% 183,545,150 2011-12 149,216,463 4.0% 196,393,310 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. 7.0% 7.5% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% State Shared Highway User Revenues The State of Arizona collects highway user revenue, principally from an $0.18 per gallon tax on the motor fuel sold within the state. The primary purpose of the highway user revenue 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. Listed below are the actual collections of the highway user revenues for the last nine fiscal years, Projected totals for FY 2002-03, and the budget for FY 2003-04. Fiscal Year 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03* 2003-04** State Shared Highway User Revenues $ 57,901,673 63,227,494 68,763,760 73,249,850 67,408,288 72,392,313 77,317,632 78,243,269 78,285,212 79,331,861 86,300,000 * Projected Actual ** Budget 46 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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. Other Intergovernmental (General Fund) $10,000,000 $7,110,225 $7,610,981 $6,904,120 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET Detail of FY 2003-04 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 and reimbursement of Justice of the Peace salaries. Sheriff’s reimbursement of patrol services accounts for another major portion of the increase in FY 2003-04. Other Intergovernmental Revenue General Fund FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 Budget Budget Department Description Contract Counsel $ 164,627 $ 41,158 State Grand Jury Reimbursements Elections 2,067,500 2,145,980 Election Services Finance 88,136 Housing Authority Reimbursements General Government 249,772 249,772 Shared State Lottery Sales Juvenile Probation 18,000 9,999 Reimbursement from U.S. Marshalls for housing of federal juvenile prisoners Legal Defender 24,500 19,700 State Grand Jury Reimbursements Medical Examiner 60,000 60,000 IGAs with Yavapai County for laboratory services Public Defender 99,050 50,400 State Grand Jury Reimbursements Sheriff’s Office 3,448,537 3,764,489 Patrol Services, Social Security Adminstration pay for inmate information Superintendent of Schools 118,050 118,050 National Forest Fees for Schools IGA with City of El Mirage for use of court space; State Reimburseent for JP 860,189 Trial Courts 1,063,297 Salaries and IGA Revenue from Gila Bend for Lease Space Total $7,110,225 $7,610,981 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. 47 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) 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. Listed below are the revenues recorded for the last seven fiscal years, projected revenue for FY 2002-03, and the budget amount for FY 2003-04 for other charges for service, internal service charges, patient service charges, and fines and fees. Fiscal General Fund Year 1995-96 $ 25,416,938 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 23,066,442 2002-03* 22,845,981 2003-04** 19,686,092 Special Revenue Funds $ 21,659,510 22,713,435 30,598,649 33,636,546 40,987,616 43,365,082 32,432,540 34,769,404 38,092,363 Charges for Service Debt Capital Internal Service Projects Enterprise Service Fund Funds Funds Funds $ 527,225 $ 89,650 $ 466,685,704 $ 71,231,729 302,898 64,018 459,442,809 85,204,601 180,180 231,215 465,456,904 66,587,939 352,643 16,630 498,120,261 70,147,479 280,976 13,389 545,219,766 87,758,508 125,432 1,526 582,350,811 47,269,363 577,445,943 48,199,803 727,104,621 59,585,578 740,379,164 70,942,635 * Projected Actual ** Budget Includes Fees, Charges for Service and Patient Revenue 48 Elimination Fund $ - Total $585,610,756 589,226,660 586,340,301 625,555,600 695,004,558 695,456,533 (138,734,084) 542,410,644 (121,910,714) 722,394,870 (150,480,789) 718,619,465 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Patient Charges Fiscal Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03* 2003-04** General Fund $ 2,444,637 647,580 87,872 101,118 66,046 57,444 52,848 Patient Charges and Patient Care – Revenue Allowances Special Enterprise Internal Service Capital Projects Revenue 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 1,228,270 577,401,082 (91,278,716) 487,416,682 1,326,253 727,040,830 (72,066,024) 656,358,503 1,394,471 740,349,164 (86,578,079) 655,218,404 * Projected Actual ** 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. Patient Charges (General Fund) $100,000 $80,000 $57,444 $52,848 $52,848 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET FY 2003-04 Patient Charges Summary General Fund Department Health Care Mandates Total General Fund Patient Charges FY 2002-03 Budget $52,848 $52,848 FY 2003-04 Budget Description $52,848 LTC Share of Cost $52,848 49 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Internal Service Charges 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. The largest increase in both the FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04 budgets was for Risk Management charges, where the industry is experiencing double digit increases as it recovers from 9/11 and issues related to the current economy. Fiscal Internal Year Service Funds 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 41,443,255 2002-03* 47,341,797 2003-04** 47,407,631 * Projected Actual ** Budget Other Charges for Services Actual collections of Other Charges for Service are anticipated to exceed budget in FY 2002-03 by $13.2 million. A major contributing factor to this increase is the change in the administration of the Pharmacy benefit offered by the County to employees. Prior to January 2003, the pharmacy benefit was purchased through a commercial insurance carrier. In January 2003, the County began to self insure this benefit and the revenues and expenditures associated with the administration of this program are now appearing in an Internal Service Fund. It is anticipated that the impact of the pharmacy benefit change to Other Charges for Services for FY 2002-03 will be in excess of $5 million and will increase to $13,268,000 in FY 2003-04. This is the primary reason why the Internal Service Fund Other Charges for Service revenue is projected to increase 79% above the FY 2002-03 budget. FY 2003-04 General Fund Other Charges for Service are budgeted conservatively and are anticipated to increase $1,088,961 above the FY 2002-03 budget. 50 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Other Charges for Services (General Fund) $22,788,537 $25,000,000 $19,633,244 $18,544,283 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET The table below identifies the various sources of revenue. While most of the charges will remain constant as compared to the FY 2002-03 budget, the Recorder charges reflect a notable increase. This is a result an increase in the number of documents filed as a result of refinancing due to the of the current favorable mortgage rates. The FY 2003-04 budget is a conservative representation of the anticipated Recorder fees. Their FY 2002-03 actual fees are projected to be in excess of $10 million. FY 2003-04 Other Charges for Service Summary General Fund Department Clerk of the Superior Court Constables Contract Counsel General Government Human Resources Indigent Representation Justice Courts Juvenile Probation Legal Advocate Medical Examiner Public Defender Public Fiduciary Recorder Sheriff Superintendent of Schools Superior Court Treasurer Trial Courts Total Other Charges for Service $ $ FY 2002-03 3,610,000 1,100,000 83,482 2,084,933 25,000 FY 2003-04 $ 3,910,000 1,322,758 20,871 2,000,000 24,211 36,000 360,000 2,090 850,000 7,241,000 331,749 35,000 8,001 116,764 300,000 1,600 650,000 8,000,000 451,087 35,000 5,686 2,789,343 18,554,283 5,686 2,787,266 $ 19,633,244 Description Filing Fees Writ & Restitution Collection Fees Death Penalty Post-conviction relief payments Tax Sale Fees and Cable TV Franchise Fees Garnishments, Copies and Lost Bus Car Fees State Grand Jury Reimbursements Defensive Driving Fees and Other Miscellaneous Court Fees Miscellaneous Charges and Indian Ward Custody Reimbursements State Grand Jury Reimbursements Cremation Certificate Fees and Transport Fees Miscellaneous Charges Fiduciary Fees and Probate Fees Document Recording Fees Other Tax Sales Fees and Various Civil Fees Garnishment & Support Processing Fees Civil Trial Jury Fees Miscellaneous Charges Defensive Driving Fees and Other Miscellaneous Court Fees; Civil Trial Jury Fees 51 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Fines and Forfeits Through statutory and enforcement authority, Maricopa County collects various fines and such as citations, court fines, and library fines. Fines & Forfeits Special Fiscal General Revenue Year Fund Funds Total 1995-96 $ 8,608,556 $ 1,254,251 $ 9,862,807 1996-97 9,552,255 1,947,305 11,499,560 1997-98 10,552,336 1,908,335 12,460,671 1998-99 10,954,594 2,472,263 13,426,857 1999-00 10,871,790 3,711,582 14,583,372 2000-01 11,989,817 2,918,598 14,908,415 2001-02 12,886,929 3,458,507 16,345,436 2002-03* 10,216,952 3,550,762 13,767,714 2003-04** 10,838,123 3,137,558 13,975,681 * Projected Actual ** Budget In the General Fund, fines and forfeits are collected by the Trial Courts and the Elections Department. Based on collections through March, the forecasted revenue is not expected to meet budget in FY 200203. The FY 2003-04 budget anticipates General Fund Fines and Forfeits between the FY 2002-03 budget and projected actual collections. Fines and Forfeits (General Fund) $10,753,816 $10,216,952 $10,838,123 $12,500,000 $10,000,000 $7,500,000 $5,000,000 $2,500,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET The largest source of General Fund fine revenue is the Trial Courts, which comprises 87.7% of the total Fines and Forfeits in the General Fund. The table below summarizes the sources of General Fund Fines and Forfeits. The budgeted Fines and Forfeits for the Clerk of the Superior Court is anticipated to decrease in FY 2003-04 from the FY 2002-03 budget; however, the amount anticipated in FY 2003-04 is consistent with the FY 2002-03 actual experience, where it is anticipated that they will end the year at $1,277,297. The decrease in General Fund Fines and Forfeits for the Clerk of the Superior Court is a result of a greater portion of the fines being diverted to Adult Probation. 52 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) FY 2003-04 Fines and Forfeits Summary General Fund Department Clerk of the Superior Court Elections Trial Courts Total General Fund Fines and Forefeits FY 2002-03 Budget $ 1,615,000 $ 2,500 $ 9,136,316 $ 10,753,816 FY 2003-04 Budget Description $ 1,277,294 Superior Court Fines 2,500 Campaign Finance Penalty Fees 9,558,329 Traffic and Misdemeanor Fines $ 10,838,123 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, interest earnings, building rental, pay phone receipts, insurance recoveries, food sales, land sales, map sales, and equipment rental as well as sales of fixed assets, and bond proceeds. Listed below are the miscellaneous revenues, other than sales of fixed assets and bond proceeds, recorded for the last nine fiscal years, projected amounts for FY 2002-03, plus the budget for FY 2003-04. Miscellaneous revenues are recorded in all of the fund types. Miscellaneous Revenue Special Revenue Enterprise Internal Debt Service Capital Fiscal Funds Funds Service Funds Funds Projects Funds Year General Fund 1993-94 $ 17,361,501 $ 5,398,008 $ 73,262,620 $ 2,966,423 $ 1,697,395 $ 1,888,447 $ 1994-95 22,290,356 11,745,466 77,468,996 2,974,265 772,308 1,395,661 1995-96 22,698,183 13,368,020 5,249,093 104,646 1,075,861 1,287,867 1996-97 12,052,384 19,343,464 5,221,705 741,659 622,445 10,056,965 1997-98 10,170,063 32,181,062 1,292,308 269,866 524,591 100,241,220 1998-99 12,514,416 24,642,605 78,878,826 2,594,804 400,000 407,093 1999-00 13,968,176 25,334,749 21,320,726 941,625 400,000 1,325,000 2000-01 20,448,749 38,295,643 26,279,616 2,344,981 4,927,850 113,020,718 2001-02 16,376,321 33,229,869 8,543,553 2,230,495 5,913,617 12,369,884 2002-03* 15,386,342 37,082,076 5,856,744 1,228,359 5,209,795 9,546,298 2003-04** 15,896,937 30,550,783 5,074,464 1,122,910 2,858,799 1,523,338 Total 102,574,394 116,647,052 43,783,670 48,038,622 144,679,110 119,437,744 63,290,276 205,317,557 78,663,739 74,309,614 57,027,231 * Projected Actual ** Budget 53 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Miscellaneous Revenue (General Fund) $15,386,342 $18,000,000 $15,896,937 $14,597,265 $15,000,000 $12,000,000 $9,000,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET As in prior years, the largest single component of miscellaneous revenues in the General Fund is interest income, which is budgeted at $12 million in FY 2003-04. This is unchanged from the FY 2002-03 budget. The FY 2002-03 Facilities Management revenue generated from the rental of the Security Building is budgeted in the Finance Department for the FY 2003-04. FY 2003-04 Miscellaneous Revenue General Fund Department Appropriated Fund Balance Assessor Clerk of the Superior Court County Attorney Elections Facilities Management Finance General Government Human Resources Internal Audit Materials Management Recorder Sheriff Total Compensation Trial Courts Total General Fund Miscellaneous Revenue FY 2002-03 $ 133,669 25,000 12,000 15,000 78,000 1,081,054 12,000,000 90,511 75 77,000 759,000 175,226 10,000 140,730 $ 14,597,265 FY 2003-04 $ 1,237,500 133,669 31,366 34,000 15,000 78,000 955,940 12,000,000 1,300 75 127,000 1,003,600 121,680 15,000 142,807 $ 15,896,937 Description NACO Revenue Sale of Maps, Copies, Etc. Sale of Copies & Bad Check Fees, Interest Fees to Private Defense for Discovery Information Sale of Copies and Maps Parking fees Security Building Rental Interest Income Sale of Copies, W-2 fees Sale of Instructional Videos Vendor Rebates & Copy Sales Micrographics & Photocopy Sales Sale of Copies and Reimbursement for ID Cards Sale of Copies, Garnishment of Wages, COBRA Admin. Sale of Copies; Interest Earnings Gain/Loss on Fixed Assets No Gains or Loss from Fixed Assets are projected in the General Fund for FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget for Gains/Losses from General Fund Fixed Assets is budgeted conservatively at the same level as the FY 2002-03 revised budget. 54 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Gain/Loss on Fixed Assets (General Fund) $50,000 $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $0 $10,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET Other Financing Sources Other Financing Sources include Proceeds of Financing (debt) and Fund Transfers In. No Proceeds of Financing are budgeted for FY 2003-04. 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. For further information, refer to the “Transfer In by Fund” schedule. Transfers In (General Fund) $109,627,487 $109,627,487 $111,088,120 $125,000,000 $100,000,000 $75,000,000 $50,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 FY 03 REVISED FY 03 PROJ ACTUAL FY 04 BUDGET 55 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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. The table below identifies the FY 2002-03 Final Property Tax Levy, as well as the FY 2003-04 Preliminary Property Tax Levy used to calculate the property tax revenue in the FY 2003-04 adopted budget and the FY 2003-04 Final Property Tax Levy. The Final FY 2003-04 Property Tax Levy reflects a decrease in the Debt Service Tax Rate of $.01 per $100 of assessed value and an increase of $.01 per $100 of assessed value for the Library District Tax Rate. The net effect does not change the total Property Tax Levy amount. Additionally, the SRP Payment in Lieu of Taxes amount has increased due to the update by SRP of its effective net assessed value. FY 2003-04 PROPERTY TAX LEVY Primary, Debt Service, Flood Control District and Library District Levies Description Assessed Value Salt River Proj. Effective Assessed Value Total Assessed Value w/SRP Revenue from 1-cent Levy Tax Rates Property Tax Levy SRP Payments in Lieu (PILT) Total Tax Levy & PILT MARICOPA COUNTY PRIMARY: FY 2003-04 Final FY 2003-04 Preliminary FY 2002-03 Final Variance (FY 03 Final vs FY 04 Final) $ 25,447,850,971 $ 25,447,850,971 $ 22,955,864,882 $ 2,491,986,089 $ $ $ $ 483,319,907 445,216,494 445,216,494 38,103,413 $ 25,931,170,878 $ 25,893,067,465 $ 23,401,081,376 $ 2,530,089,502 $ 2,593,117 $ 2,589,307 $ 2,340,108 $ 253,009 $ $ $ $ 1.2108 1.2108 1.2108 - $ 308,122,580 $ 308,122,580 $ 277,949,612 $ 30,172,968 $ $ $ $ MARICOPA COUNTY DEBT SERVICE SECONDARY: FY 2003-04 Final $ 27,477,987,528 FY 2003-04 Preliminary $ 27,477,987,528 FY 2002-03 Final $ 24,457,047,282 Variance (FY 03 Final vs FY 04 Final) $ 3,020,940,246 $ $ $ $ 483,319,907 445,216,494 445,216,494 38,103,413 $ 27,961,307,435 $ 27,923,204,022 $ 24,902,263,776 $ 3,059,043,659 $ 2,796,131 $ 2,792,320 $ 2,490,226 $ 305,905 $ $ $ $ 0.0700 0.0800 0.0800 (0.0100) $ 19,234,591 $ 21,982,390 $ 19,565,638 $ (331,047) $ $ $ $ 338,324 356,173 356,173 (17,849) $ $ $ $ 19,572,915 22,338,563 19,921,811 (348,896) FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: FY 2003-04 Final FY 2003-04 Preliminary FY 2002-03 Final Variance (FY 03 Final vs FY 04 Final) $ 24,140,629,062 $ 24,140,629,062 $ 21,174,168,674 $ 2,966,460,388 $ $ $ $ 74,885,370 64,942,150 64,942,150 9,943,220 $ 24,215,514,432 $ 24,205,571,212 $ 21,239,110,824 $ 2,976,403,608 $ 2,421,551 $ 2,420,557 $ 2,123,911 $ 297,640 $ $ $ $ 0.2119 0.2119 0.2119 - $ 51,153,993 $ 51,153,993 $ 44,868,063 $ 6,285,930 $ $ $ $ 158,682 137,612 137,612 21,070 $ $ $ $ 51,312,675 51,291,605 45,005,675 6,307,000 LIBRARY DISTRICT: FY 2003-04 Final FY 2003-04 Preliminary FY 2002-03 Final Variance (FY 03 Final vs FY 04 Final) $ 27,477,987,528 $ 27,477,987,528 $ 24,457,047,282 $ 3,020,940,246 $ $ $ $ 483,319,907 445,216,494 445,216,494 38,103,413 $ 27,961,307,435 $ 27,923,204,022 $ 24,902,263,776 $ 3,059,043,659 $ 2,796,131 $ 2,792,320 $ 2,490,226 $ 305,905 $ $ $ $ 0.0521 0.0421 0.0421 0.0100 $ 14,316,032 $ 11,568,233 $ 10,296,417 $ 4,019,615 $ $ $ $ 251,810 187,436 187,436 64,374 $ $ $ $ 14,567,842 11,755,669 10,483,853 4,083,989 $ $ $ $ 1.5448 1.5448 1.5448 0.0% $ 392,827,196 $ 392,827,196 $ 352,679,730 $ 40,147,466 13.3% $ $ $ $ 6,600,853 6,071,903 6,071,903 528,950 8.0% GRAND TOTALS: FY 2003-04 Final FY 2003-04 Preliminary FY 2002-03 Final Variance (FY 03 Final vs FY 04 Final) 56 5,852,037 5,390,681 5,390,681 461,356 $ 313,974,617 $ 313,513,261 $ 283,340,293 $ 30,634,324 $ 399,428,049 $ 398,899,099 $ 358,751,633 $ 40,676,416 13.2% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Levy Limit and Truth-In-Taxation Comparisons PRELIMINARY FY 2003-04 LEVY VS. TRUTH-IN-TAXATION LEVY Current NAV Subject to Taxation in Prior Year FY 2002-03 Primary Levy FY 2003-04 Truth-in-Taxation Rate FY 2003-04 Current Net Assessed Value FY 2003-04 Truth-in-Taxation Levy $ 23,972,677,256 $ 277,949,612 $ 1.1594 $ 25,447,850,971 $ 295,042,384 FY 2003-04 Preliminary Primary Levy (excluding SRP) FY 2003-04 Preliminary Primary Rate $ $ 308,122,580 1.2108 Amount Under/(Over) Truth-in-Taxation Levy Amount Under/(Over) Truth-in-Taxation Rate $ $ (13,080,196) (0.0514) Truth-in-Taxation Assessment on a $100,000 Home: Recommended Primary Levy on a $100,000 Home: (Increase)/Decrease $ $ $ 115.94 121.08 (5.14) -4.4% Impact of Overall Rate on a $100,000 home: FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 Net Impact on Taxpayer $ $ $ 154.48 154.48 0.0% PRELIMINARY LEVY VS. FY 2003-04 LIMIT FY 2003-04 Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit Maximum Rate $ 320,821,057 $ 1.2607 FY 2003-04 Preliminary Primary Levy (excluding SRP): Primary Levy Rate $ 308,122,580 $ 1.2108 Amount Under/(Over) Limit: $ 12,698,477 $ 0.0499 57 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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 2003-04. “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 2003-04 begins with audited actual fund balance information at the end of FY 2001-02, 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 2003-04, as follows: 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 original Jail Excise Tax will expire after nine years or $900 million in collections, after which the Jail Excise Tax extension as approved by voters in 2002 will take effect. As previously anticipated, during FY 2003-04 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 2003-04 in a deficit. The deficit will be covered primarily 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. The remaining portion of the deficit will be covered via a designation in the General Fund. Maricopa Integrated Health System - Senior Select (Fund 566) The Senior Select Health Plan 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 551), Senior Select (fund 566), and the Maricopa Medical Center (fund 535). 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 effectively do not allow current-year income from the Medical Health Plan and ALTCS plans to be transferred in this manner. As a result the Medical Center and Senior Select funds will end FY 2003-04 with a deficit, but the balances in the other MIHS funds that will be transferred in the following fiscal year will offset the deficit. 58 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FUND BALANCES FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE 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 224 MEDICAL EXAMINER GRANT FUND 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 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS 251 SHERIFF GRANTS 252 INMATE SERVICES 253 BALLPARK OPERATIONS 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 262 PUBLIC DEFENDER FILL THE GAP 263 LEGAL DEFENDER FILL THE GAP 264 SUPERIOR COURT FILL THE GAP 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES 266 CHECK ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 267 CRIM JUSTICE ENHANCEMENT 268 VICTIM COMP AND ASSISTANCE 269 VICTIM COMP RESTITUTION INT 270 CHILD SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT 271 EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT 272 CHILD SUPPORT AUTOMATION 273 VICTIM LOCATION 275 JUVENILE PROBATION DIVERSION 276 SPOUSAL MAINT ENF ENHANCEMENT 280 OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION 281 CHILDREN'S ISSUES EDUCATION 282 DOM REL MEDIATION EDUCATION 290 WASTE TIRE Initial Unreserved/ Undesignated Revenue and Beginning Balance Transfers In $ 126,438,426 $ 933,239,871 Total Expenditures $ 1,059,678,297 Expenditures and Appropriated Transfers Out Fund Balance $ 922,185,334 $ 137,492,963 Unreserved/ Undesignated Ending Fund Balance $ - $ $ $ $ 2,998,791 21,742 1,240,914 168,488 142,034 1,037,268 20,812 3,601,692 254,241 206,407 1,303,133 1,246,394 172,490 13,154,538 735,746 19,653 214,500 27,085,695 308,513 4,232,701 24,086 1,568,112 1,452,560 741,865 930,156 632,851 2,401,425 3,477,082 4,654,929 30,300 31,815,108 34,197 160,719 152,590 1,070,741 144,201 136,847 240,310 1,311,324 256,865 370,072 85,387 12,896 80,000 218,531 18,691 68,530 367,967 34,615 8,714 95,683 227,682 5,278,775 $ 8,205,000 16,400 621,617 1,023,925 243,824 1,059,376 377,224 75,000 6,029,945 1,300,000 941,132 1,450,000 15,857,672 1,886,855 5,263,576 750,000 1,266,624 35,032,337 350,000 207,614 410,500 10,503,000 16,245,747 830,000 10,000 173,970 96,083,380 397,974 175,000 4,733,000 1,356,000 52,000 1,482,000 2,095,885 25,000 372,000 12,696,129 466,234 179,320 1,957,636 4,230,000 190,000 5,454,116 9,141,758 4,530,021 50,840 240,900,212 388,576 1,552,010 712,729 4,897,490 440,000 804,510 904,788 42,974 1,525,690 3,409,885 502,197 1,361,500 36,000 40,000 45,000 399,569 16,161 268,425 95,000 10,000 52,950 171,002 3,435,232 8,205,000 16,400 610,011 1,128,725 286,424 1,601,380 377,224 479,899 6,029,945 1,300,000 1,065,945 1,450,000 15,857,672 1,886,855 5,263,576 1,000,000 1,576,624 35,032,337 350,000 207,614 417,714 8,065,872 16,245,747 946,528 10,000 388,470 105,288,136 397,974 144,975 4,404,146 1,356,000 52,000 1,824,950 2,266,882 25,000 236,253 12,587,786 466,234 179,320 1,957,636 4,003,472 109,371 5,454,116 9,806,758 3,471,937 50,840 272,715,318 388,576 1,552,010 712,729 3,206,996 440,000 800,000 904,788 42,974 1,525,690 3,689,365 502,197 1,361,500 75,000 52,896 125,000 399,569 18,691 35,401 268,425 95,000 10,000 52,950 171,002 3,435,232 8,205,000 $ 16,400 610,011 1,128,725 286,424 1,601,380 377,224 479,899 6,029,945 1,300,000 1,065,945 1,450,000 15,857,672 1,886,855 5,263,576 1,000,000 1,576,624 35,032,337 350,000 207,614 417,714 8,065,872 16,245,747 946,528 10,000 388,470 105,288,136 397,974 144,975 4,404,146 1,356,000 52,000 1,824,950 2,266,882 25,000 236,253 12,587,786 466,234 179,320 1,957,636 4,003,472 109,371 5,454,116 9,806,758 3,471,937 50,840 167,397,062 388,576 1,552,010 712,729 3,206,996 440,000 800,000 904,788 42,974 1,525,690 3,689,365 502,197 1,361,500 75,000 52,896 125,000 399,569 18,691 35,401 268,425 95,000 10,000 52,950 171,002 3,435,232 105,318,256 - 2,998,791 21,742 1,252,520 63,688 99,434 495,264 20,812 3,196,793 129,428 206,407 1,053,133 936,394 165,276 15,591,666 619,218 19,653 17,880,939 338,538 4,561,555 24,086 1,225,162 1,281,563 877,612 1,038,499 632,851 226,528 2,482,054 2,812,082 5,713,013 30,300 2 34,197 160,719 152,590 2,761,235 144,201 141,357 240,310 1,031,844 256,865 370,072 46,387 218,531 49,290 367,967 34,615 8,714 95,683 227,682 5,278,775 59 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) Initial Unreserved/ Undesignated Beginning Balance Revenue and Transfers In 2,993,834 1,398,843 115,462 216,825 65,752 4,602,581 125,932,846 $ 1,050,486 5,800,000 3,893,983 8,763,574 44,825,257 5,400,000 348,256 2,235,175 200,000 75,992,743 667,721,005 CAPITAL PROJECTS 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT $ 410 BALLPARK CONSTRUCTION 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 445 GENERAL FUND COUNTY IMPROV 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 7,513,699 $ 1,969 21,374,678 44,917,291 35,300,000 7,776,317 (587,190) 4,284,500 120,581,264 $ 77,806,267 404,135 102,343 500,590 7,938,747 1,594,274 48,585,819 54,000,000 190,932,175 $ DEBT SERVICE 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICE $ 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 DEBT SERVICE $ 96,720,643 8,434,982 105,155,625 $ $ 23,398,680 2,446,393 5,700,800 31,545,873 ENTERPRISE 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM $ 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 561 HEALTH SELECT 566 SENIOR SELECT PLAN 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE $ (10,323,312) $ 2,164,459 15,880,975 1,521,589 (6,340,025) 12,156,423 15,060,109 $ 452,457,249 129,540,718 232,018,464 13,856,770 62,410,819 650,000 890,934,020 $ INTERNAL SERVICE 652 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP $ 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 673 REPROGRAPHICS 675 RISK MANAGEMENT 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 685 BENEFITS TRUST INTERNAL SERVICE $ 1,378,283 $ (624,811) 722,674 11,760,024 2,073,357 3,327,425 18,636,952 $ 101,325 8,331,591 903,775 26,584,796 13,523,972 23,635,004 73,080,463 $ ELIMINATIONS 60 $ - $ $ Expenditures and Transfers Out Total Expenditures SPECIAL REVENUE (Continued) 292 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH GRANT 504 AIR QUALITY FEES 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER 573 ANIMAL CONTROL GRANTS 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION 748 JUROR IMPROVEMENT 991 FLOOD CONTROL SPECIAL REVENUE $ $ $ $ $ $ (591,932,007) $ 1,050,486 5,457,543 3,893,983 8,729,146 44,825,257 5,381,750 348,256 2,231,863 200,000 79,805,243 709,788,584 $ 77,457,228 404,135 20,900,213 22,029,606 23,851,077 3,000 121,068,464 54,000,000 319,713,723 $ 20,971,600 8,920,479 5,125,094 35,017,173 $ $ $ 452,165,681 130,451,694 237,600,567 13,985,709 56,070,794 900,000 891,174,445 $ 405,760 8,171,022 834,991 25,204,042 12,934,911 23,635,004 71,185,730 $ $ $ (591,932,007) $ 1,050,486 5,457,543 3,893,983 8,729,146 44,825,257 5,381,750 348,256 2,231,863 200,000 79,805,243 604,470,328 $ Unreserved/ Undesignated Ending Fund Balance Appropriated Fund Balance 105,318,256 $ 77,457,228 $ 404,135 20,900,213 22,029,606 23,851,077 3,000 121,068,464 54,000,000 319,713,723 $ - $ 20,971,600 $ 8,920,479 5,125,094 35,017,173 $ - $ 452,165,681 $ 130,451,694 237,600,567 13,985,709 56,070,794 900,000 891,174,445 $ - $ 405,760 $ 8,171,022 834,991 25,204,042 12,934,911 23,635,004 71,185,730 $ (591,932,007) $ - $ $ - $ $ $ $ 3,336,291 1,433,271 133,712 220,137 65,752 790,081 83,865,267 7,862,738 1,969 576,808 23,388,275 19,387,670 9,367,591 (73,069,835) 4,284,500 (8,200,284) 2,427,080 90,246,557 9,010,688 101,684,325 (10,031,744) 1,253,483 10,298,872 1,392,650 11,906,423 14,819,684 1,073,848 (464,242) 791,458 13,140,778 2,662,418 3,327,425 20,531,685 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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 designated for the Flood Control and Library District operating funds, which are supported by their own secondary property tax levies. FY 2003-04 Fund Balance Designations Fund/Designation FY 2002-03 General Fund (Fund 100) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax $ 93,000,000 Cash Flow/Jail Tax MIHS Accounts Receivable 13,000,000 MIHS Potential Lossess 40,000,000 Subtotal - Budget Stabilization $ 146,000,000 Approved Capital Projects/County Improvement Fund (Fund 435) $ 4,500,000 FY 2003-04 $ (Inc.)/Dec. 99,441,505 5,000,000 13,000,000 40,000,000 $ 157,441,505 $ (6,441,505) (5,000,000) (11,441,505) $ $ 4,500,000 - $ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) $ 150,500,000 $ 157,441,505 $ (6,941,505) Flood Control District (Fund 991) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax $ 8,000,000 $ 15,207,157 $ (7,207,157) (1) Library District (Fund 244) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax $ 1,700,000 $ 3,118,634 $ (1,418,634) (1) (1) Based on estimate provided by the Department of Finance of the amount needed to eliminate the need for Tax Anticipation Notes or other forms of short-term borrowing to finance current operations. (2) Based on estimate provided by the Department of Finance of the amount needed to cover the balance between the projected shortfall in the Detention Capital Projects Fund (455) and the amount of the interfund loan from the County Improvement Debt Fund (320) to the Detention Capital Projects Fund. (3) Amount needed to cover Maricopa Integrated Health System losses due to a potential write-down of accounts receivable, under worst-case projections. (4) 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. (5) Amount needed 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). 61 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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 2003-04 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 FY 2003-04 Expenditure Limitation $ Est. Adjustment for Disproportionate Share Payments FY 2003-04 Adjusted Limitation $ 62 825,529,316 (101,760,800) 684,038,246 FY 2003-04 Expenditures Subject to Limitation $ 684,038,245 Expenditures (Over)/Under Limitation $ 1 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE/DEPARTMENT/FUND FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2003-04 REQUESTED ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % ALL FUNDS JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ $ Subtotal $ 52,635,387 39,574,404 66,520,912 158,730,703 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 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF Subtotal $ 216,502 204,543 210,465 183,651 226,145 14,494,129 1,262,475 25,886,076 50,785,599 5,937,609 1,535,019 5,434,302 1,639,616 3,505,570 133,418,932 244,940,633 $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD $ 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 600 HEALTH PLANS 640 TRANSPORTATION 660 HOUSING 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 710 COMMUNICATIONS 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 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 $ $ $ 56,184,531 46,572,310 68,502,474 171,259,315 $ 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,791,846 1,323,313 29,567,733 52,747,399 10,135,373 1,573,243 6,616,478 1,855,573 3,678,416 140,229,896 263,706,095 $ $ $ 55,570,746 46,797,471 68,404,513 170,772,730 $ 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,791,846 1,323,313 29,705,307 53,352,894 10,135,373 1,573,243 6,616,478 1,855,573 3,678,416 140,229,897 264,449,165 $ $ $ 52,298,659 39,799,185 67,028,193 159,126,038 $ 233,475 226,757 217,743 218,526 235,053 14,260,742 1,319,408 28,964,257 52,350,072 10,061,519 1,569,366 6,335,272 1,867,895 3,490,454 135,698,905 257,049,444 $ $ $ 52,575,650 44,792,703 69,762,404 167,130,757 $ 240,840 240,840 240,840 240,840 240,840 14,765,952 1,325,517 29,287,027 53,300,669 7,808,894 1,579,402 6,201,570 1,847,755 3,707,669 141,770,490 262,799,145 $ $ $ 50,595,549 45,498,752 69,945,227 166,039,528 $ 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 14,765,952 1,325,517 28,968,365 54,982,195 8,219,888 1,613,814 6,264,142 1,847,755 3,707,669 141,742,325 264,561,402 $ $ $ 427,719 $ 785,916 7,760,205 2,394,602 1,253,252 31,197,729 967,480 18,561,640 3,540,974 7,892,544 2,649,120 1,809,431 8,328,772 260,079,644 151,082,539 5,235,908 3,656,590 6,787,738 531,576 308,478,072 11,806,235 1,545,124 27,712,402 4,723,410 3,275,598 8,255,955 329,686,576 93,920,769 16,342,607 3,094,348 22,991,132 2,084,548 9,101,573 19,449,570 13,634,317 7,035,540 42,537,794 17,245,562 285,854,279 (369,204,985) 1,374,513,805 $ 496,686 $ 1,163,890 15,861,375 2,532,406 1,561,918 30,866,842 1,014,158 20,009,260 3,888,275 9,432,036 3,048,334 1,820,125 9,968,220 347,516,968 249,325,795 5,341,960 4,541,898 8,472,868 446,622 383,263,521 220,405,332 1,737,360 28,788,065 5,077,933 3,904,124 5,351,493 429,420,684 132,529,670 11,435,849 4,171,579 26,126,831 2,241,787 8,923,046 23,398,383 12,875,220 9,349,929 43,903,415 20,448,437 389,917,956 (469,330,070) 2,011,250,180 $ 496,686 $ 1,163,890 15,861,375 2,532,406 1,274,455 30,866,842 1,014,158 21,447,653 4,026,828 9,432,036 3,048,334 1,820,125 10,011,520 347,516,968 249,325,795 5,341,960 4,541,898 8,472,868 446,622 375,088,274 220,405,332 1,737,360 28,788,065 5,077,933 4,248,142 5,158,185 429,420,684 132,529,670 11,435,849 4,171,579 26,126,831 800,490 2,241,787 8,923,046 23,398,383 12,875,220 9,349,929 47,231,937 20,662,219 389,917,956 (470,130,560) 2,008,100,730 $ 475,601 $ 881,464 12,653,550 2,408,296 1,269,754 34,912,883 982,317 22,648,707 3,851,966 8,695,515 2,957,916 1,833,982 14,827,649 330,557,791 179,808,800 4,822,945 3,361,371 7,833,874 351,199 244,866,559 154,958,679 1,738,239 28,413,998 4,840,650 4,207,532 9,318,501 445,302,754 98,583,062 11,435,849 3,212,370 24,757,464 753,893 2,190,477 8,775,570 23,262,710 12,098,738 9,115,287 52,455,184 21,027,406 354,292,990 (470,941,184) 1,679,802,308 $ 500,188 $ 450,169 $ 1,429,477 1,504,551 15,749,886 15,857,672 2,555,792 2,360,213 1,283,681 1,155,313 35,316,030 36,171,317 1,007,564 958,022 21,397,693 23,044,031 3,881,203 4,088,817 6,863,662 6,683,435 3,823,973 2,741,834 1,841,113 1,841,113 22,093,657 25,649,710 357,963,721 345,995,954 125,350,686 118,425,196 5,283,784 4,877,950 7,236,337 7,236,337 7,907,794 8,210,847 432,723 440,000 384,980,148 362,873,414 232,006,682 242,811,219 1,740,125 1,566,112 28,823,845 29,245,360 5,095,061 5,507,320 4,325,450 4,736,165 5,009,326 9,354,848 433,417,949 440,066,400 126,095,364 69,095,362 13,834,322 4,149,394 4,335,232 27,730,357 26,054,852 800,490 720,441 2,263,346 2,079,713 9,078,913 8,171,022 25,807,817 25,609,802 12,942,948 12,214,470 7,884,010 8,265,910 54,985,584 55,008,134 17,826,392 18,834,516 361,059,724 359,748,694 (388,351,873) (386,903,746) 1,936,424,336 $ 1,964,087,723 $ MARICOPA COUNTY $ 1,778,185,141 $ 2,446,215,590 $ 2,443,322,625 $ 2,095,977,790 $ 2,366,354,238 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 66,173,876 $ 70,512,247 $ 70,512,245 $ 68,724,116 $ 79,803,350 4,975,197 1,298,719 (1,540,714) 4,733,202 9% 3% -2% 3% 12,609 12,609 12,609 12,609 12,609 25,894 (2,204) 736,942 (1,629,301) 1,915,485 (40,571) 352,336 7,818 (29,253) (1,512,428) (112,237) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 2% -3% 19% -3% 5% 0% -1% -1% 0% 46,517 9% (340,661) -29% 3,703 0% 172,193 7% 119,142 9% (5,304,475) -17% 56,136 6% (1,596,378) -7% (61,989) -2% 2,748,601 29% 306,500 10% (20,988) -1% (15,638,190) -156% 1,521,014 0% 130,900,599 53% 464,010 9% (2,694,439) -59% 262,021 3% 6,622 1% 12,214,860 3% (22,405,887) -10% 171,248 10% (457,295) -2% (429,387) -8% (488,023) -11% (4,196,663) -81% (10,645,716) -2% 6,434,306 5% 11,435,849 100% (163,653) -4% 71,979 0% 80,049 10% 162,074 7% 752,024 8% (2,211,419) -9% 660,750 5% 1,084,019 12% (7,776,197) -16% 1,827,703 9% 30,169,262 8% (83,226,814) -18% 44,013,007 2% $ 2,394,688,653 $ 48,633,972 $ 79,805,243 $ (9,292,998) 2% -13% 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 10,032,869 $ 12,602,743 $ 12,602,743 $ 14,423,501 $ 11,785,925 $ 12,612,786 $ (10,043) 0% 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ 76,475,361 $ 7,093,254 $ 7,093,254 $ 6,827,233 $ 7,512,845 $ 7,519,263 $ (426,009) -6% MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 1,930,867,247 $ 2,536,423,834 $ 2,533,530,867 $ 2,185,952,640 $ 2,465,456,358 $ 2,494,625,945 $ 38,904,922 2% *Includes Office Administration and Supervisor’s Special Projects within County Authority. 63 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2003-04 REQUESTED ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS Subtotal $ 12,092,570 10,601,408 57,046,193 79,740,171 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 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF Subtotal $ 216,502 204,543 210,465 183,651 226,145 14,494,129 1,262,475 20,129,102 41,508,606 5,937,609 1,535,019 1,777,219 1,639,616 3,505,570 37,680,572 130,511,223 $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD $ 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 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 $ 427,719 59,184 2,394,602 1,253,252 1,307,799 967,480 3,540,974 1,611,715 2,649,120 1,809,431 1,967,239 257,495,023 5,235,908 128,102,906 11,806,235 1,545,124 26,185,993 4,660,902 3,250,156 8,255,955 22,991,132 1,383,199 304,041 5,827,419 783,011 495,815,519 $ $ 706,066,913 MARICOPA COUNTY $ $ $ 14,210,964 11,608,350 57,269,924 83,089,238 $ $ 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,791,846 1,323,313 21,056,852 42,352,207 10,135,373 1,573,243 1,870,954 1,855,573 3,678,416 37,139,909 136,964,511 $ $ $ 496,686 77,108 2,532,406 1,561,918 1,267,103 1,014,158 3,888,275 1,740,404 3,048,334 1,820,125 2,039,644 345,016,968 5,341,960 202,338,821 94,560,954 1,737,360 27,216,686 4,997,933 3,889,282 5,351,493 26,126,831 1,380,984 304,041 6,362,882 737,332 744,849,688 $ 964,903,437 $ 14,210,964 11,608,350 57,219,205 83,038,519 $ $ 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 237,365 14,791,846 1,323,313 21,107,571 42,352,207 10,135,373 1,573,243 1,870,954 1,855,573 3,678,416 37,139,909 137,015,230 $ $ $ 496,686 77,108 2,532,406 1,274,455 1,267,103 1,014,158 3,888,275 1,740,404 3,048,334 1,820,125 2,082,944 345,016,968 5,341,960 197,035,464 94,560,954 1,737,360 27,216,686 4,997,933 4,233,300 5,158,185 26,126,831 1,380,984 304,041 6,468,744 737,332 739,558,740 $ 959,612,489 $ 14,112,737 10,880,224 57,093,026 82,085,987 $ 233,475 226,757 217,743 218,526 235,053 14,260,742 1,319,408 21,008,746 42,795,597 10,061,519 1,569,366 1,800,669 1,867,895 3,490,454 36,318,237 135,624,187 $ $ $ 475,601 75,464 2,408,296 1,269,754 1,267,106 982,317 3,713,413 1,638,851 2,957,916 1,833,982 2,048,030 326,912,207 4,822,945 164,307,591 52,062,812 1,738,239 26,804,745 4,773,929 4,196,969 9,318,501 24,757,464 1,353,073 304,041 6,287,959 751,906 647,063,111 $ 864,773,285 $ *Includes Office Administration and Supervisor’s Special Projects within County Authority. 64 $ 14,200,398 11,629,603 57,767,252 83,597,253 $ $ 240,840 240,840 240,840 240,840 240,840 14,765,952 1,325,517 21,173,164 42,452,133 7,808,894 1,579,402 1,859,996 1,847,755 3,707,669 37,125,562 134,850,244 $ $ $ 500,188 77,108 2,555,792 1,283,681 1,265,533 1,007,564 3,881,203 1,744,191 3,823,973 1,841,113 1,320,132 353,463,721 5,283,784 252,852,943 126,688,426 1,740,125 27,201,077 5,017,633 4,315,034 5,009,326 27,730,357 1,383,024 304,041 6,543,860 737,408 837,571,237 $ 1,056,018,734 $ 36,360,604 11,629,603 58,294,709 106,284,916 $ $ 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 14,765,952 1,325,517 21,246,744 43,850,402 8,219,888 1,613,814 1,859,996 1,847,755 3,707,669 37,246,543 136,808,060 $ 450,169 152,182 2,360,213 1,155,313 1,138,980 958,022 3,881,203 1,514,166 2,741,834 1,841,113 2,014,706 341,495,954 4,877,950 230,972,737 137,492,963 1,566,112 27,611,790 5,428,346 4,725,749 9,354,848 26,054,852 1,244,722 304,041 6,493,512 753,844 816,585,321 $ $ 1,059,678,297 $ $ (22,149,640) -156% (21,253) 0% (1,075,504) -2% (23,246,397) -28% 12,609 12,609 12,609 12,609 12,609 25,894 (2,204) (139,173) (1,498,195) 1,915,485 (40,571) 10,958 7,818 (29,253) (106,634) 207,170 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% -1% -4% 19% -3% 1% 0% -1% 0% 0% $ 46,517 (75,074) 172,193 119,142 128,123 56,136 7,072 226,238 306,500 (20,988) 68,238 3,521,014 464,010 (33,937,273) (42,932,009) 171,248 (395,104) (430,413) (492,449) (4,196,663) 71,979 136,262 (24,768) (16,512) (77,026,581) 9% -97% 7% 9% 10% 6% 0% 13% 10% -1% 3% 1% 9% -17% -45% 10% -1% -9% -12% -81% 0% 10% 0% 0% -2% -10% $ (100,065,808) -10% $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2003-04 REQUESTED ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % SPECIAL REVENUE JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 201 ADULT PROBATION FEES 211 ADULT PROBATION GRANTS $ 9,047,600 31,495,217 40,542,817 $ $ Dept Total $ 14,321,723 967,307 2,766 12,494,760 186,620 27,973,176 800 TRIAL COURTS 204 JUSTICE CT JUDICIAL ENHANCEMNT $ 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 238 SUPERIOR COURT GRANTS 245 JUSTICE COURT ENHANCEMENT 246 JUSTICE COURTS 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 $ JUDICIAL BRANCH TOTAL $ 75,729 430,673 1,188,025 38,850 147,618 305,685 1,585,735 400,639 2,300,253 1,023,140 1,854,245 4 3,399 120,724 9,474,719 77,990,712 $ 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 $ ELECTED OFFICIAL 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 276 SPOUSAL MAINT ENF ENHANCEMENT 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 252 INMATE SERVICES 254 INMATE HEALTH SERVICES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total ELECTED OFFICIAL TOTAL APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 207 PALO VERDE 215 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 217 CDBG 220 HUMAN SERVICES 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS $ $ $ $ $ 1,421,951 861,105 1,133,128 1,316,629 224,204 131,818 449,420 58,935 15,202 144,582 5,756,974 $ $ $ 380,508 4,958,669 823,146 811,737 810,098 1,476,839 15,996 9,276,993 $ $ 3,657,083 3,657,083 $ 10,535 4,275,560 6,687,843 16,514 81,869,531 92,859,983 111,551,033 $ $ $ $ $ 8,687,839 33,285,728 41,973,567 $ 17,852,661 1,154,482 50,000 14,784,146 342,425 34,183,714 $ 759,873 600,000 1,356,000 463,900 251,500 388,576 1,556,640 549,976 3,193,356 800,000 958,040 10,000 20,000 124,689 200,000 11,232,550 87,389,831 $ $ $ $ $ 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 $ $ $ 1,300,000 4,859,485 1,000,000 442,216 718,491 1,800,000 75,000 200,000 10,395,192 $ $ 4,745,524 4,745,524 $ 16,400 6,706,367 8,550,688 156,800 85,953,950 101,384,205 125,035,802 $ $ $ 9,687,839 31,671,943 41,359,782 $ 18,077,822 1,154,482 50,000 14,784,146 342,425 34,408,875 $ 759,873 600,000 1,356,000 463,900 162,124 388,576 1,556,640 549,976 3,193,356 800,000 1,000,173 10,000 20,000 124,690 200,000 11,185,308 86,953,965 $ $ $ $ $ 1,507,254 1,252,990 1,668,421 1,886,855 234,164 127,875 399,569 14,894 40,714 1,400,000 65,000 8,597,736 $ $ $ 1,300,000 5,067,196 1,000,000 840,000 718,491 1,800,000 75,000 200,000 11,000,687 $ $ 4,745,524 4,745,524 $ 16,400 6,706,367 8,550,688 156,800 85,953,950 101,384,205 125,728,152 $ $ $ 7,776,112 30,409,810 38,185,922 $ 14,782,513 849,929 1,716 12,615,032 177,338 28,426,528 $ 509,570 131,498 1,231,623 463,900 140,997 409,058 1,468,861 511,634 2,698,969 757,202 1,372,386 11,320 225,994 2,155 9,935,167 76,547,618 $ $ $ $ $ 1,249,714 789,712 1,611,346 2,031,230 220,011 103,144 406,235 14,894 37,404 1,443,272 48,549 7,955,511 $ $ $ 400,000 5,052,207 999,999 794,855 551,067 1,328,348 128,000 300,000 9,554,475 $ $ 4,534,603 4,534,603 $ 2,592 5,994,503 6,950,699 120,423 84,876,372 97,944,589 119,989,178 $ $ $ 8,076,903 30,298,349 38,375,252 $ 15,544,747 901,479 50,000 15,617,051 268,425 32,381,702 $ 610,011 600,000 1,356,000 463,900 162,124 388,576 1,556,639 549,976 3,535,338 800,000 1,525,636 10,000 52,950 184,002 200,000 11,995,152 82,752,106 $ $ $ $ $ 1,234,127 1,001,380 1,450,000 2,174,229 181,000 125,000 399,569 18,157 35,401 1,400,000 95,000 8,113,863 $ $ $ 1,300,000 5,263,576 830,000 1,266,624 752,236 1,303,354 57,309 75,437 10,848,536 $ $ 4,341,574 4,341,574 $ 16,400 6,682,116 8,368,009 50,840 87,822,192 102,939,557 126,243,530 $ $ $ 8,205,000 6,029,945 14,234,945 $ 16,245,747 946,528 10,000 15,617,051 268,425 33,087,751 $ 610,011 600,000 1,356,000 466,234 179,320 388,576 1,552,010 531,729 3,206,996 800,000 1,525,690 10,000 52,950 171,002 200,000 11,650,518 58,973,214 $ $ $ $ $ 1,482,839 25,641,998 27,124,837 1,832,075 207,954 40,000 (832,905) 74,000 1,321,124 10% 18% 80% -6% 22% 4% 149,862 (2,334) (17,196) 4,630 18,247 (13,640) (525,517) (32,950) (46,312) (465,210) 27,980,751 20% 0% 0% -1% -11% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% -53% 0% -165% -37% 0% -4% 32% 378,529 251,610 218,421 53,164 2,875 (3,797) 5,313 (30,000) 876,115 25% 20% 13% 0% 23% 2% 0% -25% 13% 0% -46% 10% 0% -4% 0% -88% 30% 24% 0% 74% -1% 1,128,725 1,001,380 1,450,000 1,886,855 181,000 125,000 399,569 18,691 35,401 1,400,000 95,000 7,721,621 $ $ $ 1,300,000 5,263,576 1,000,000 1,576,624 502,197 1,361,500 75,000 52,896 11,131,793 $ (196,380) (736,624) 216,294 438,500 147,104 (131,106) $ $ 4,404,146 4,404,146 $ $ 341,378 341,378 $ 16,400 5,454,116 9,806,758 50,840 87,462,297 102,790,411 126,047,971 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 166,554 560,178 726,732 $ $ 286,424 1,065,945 1,352,369 $ $ 286,424 1,065,945 1,352,369 $ $ 204,293 601,707 806,000 $ $ 237,335 849,447 1,086,782 $ $ 237,335 849,447 1,086,782 $ Dept Total $ $ Dept Total $ 7,760,205 7,760,205 $ $ 15,861,375 15,861,375 $ $ 15,861,375 15,861,375 $ $ 12,653,550 12,653,550 $ $ 15,749,886 15,749,886 $ $ 15,857,672 15,857,672 $ $ $ Dept Total $ 29,889,930 29,889,930 $ $ 29,599,739 29,599,739 $ $ 29,599,739 29,599,739 $ $ 33,645,777 33,645,777 $ $ 34,050,497 34,050,497 $ $ 35,032,337 35,032,337 $ $ $ 15% 81% 66% 7% 7% 1,252,251 (1,256,070) 105,960 (1,508,347) (1,406,206) (319,819) 0% 19% -15% 68% -2% -1% 0% (49,089) (216,498) (265,587) -21% -25% -24% 3,703 3,703 (5,432,598) (5,432,598) 0% 0% -18% -18% 65 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2003-04 REQUESTED ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % SPECIAL REVENUE (Continued) APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 292 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH GRANT Dept Total $ $ 18,484,284 77,356 18,561,640 $ 18,767,325 1,047,152 19,814,477 $ 20,205,718 1,047,152 21,252,870 $ 21,762,417 705,897 22,468,314 $ 21,162,467 78,727 21,241,194 $ 21,837,046 1,050,486 22,887,532 $ (1,631,328) (3,334) (1,634,662) -8% 0% -8% $ $ - $ $ - $ $ 138,553 138,553 $ $ 138,553 138,553 $ $ - $ $ 207,614 207,614 $ $ (69,061) (69,061) -50% -50% $ $ $ 417,714 388,470 52,000 1,824,950 2,266,882 236,253 5,186,269 $ $ 530,922 388,470 21,000 1,824,950 2,134,876 236,253 5,136,471 $ $ 316,662 167,135 48,024 4,360,454 2,173,641 7,748 7,073,664 $ $ 415,553 416,926 21,000 4,090,768 2,415,885 331,500 7,691,632 $ $ 415,553 416,926 21,000 4,090,768 2,415,885 331,500 7,691,632 $ $ 380,482 14,183 44,838 4,331,100 1,975,105 18,646 6,764,354 $ $ $ 2,584,621 2,584,621 $ $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 $ $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 $ $ 3,645,584 3,645,584 $ $ 4,500,000 4,500,000 $ $ 4,500,000 4,500,000 $ $ (2,000,000) (2,000,000) -80% -80% $ $ 3,656,590 3,656,590 $ $ 4,541,898 4,541,898 $ $ 4,541,898 4,541,898 $ $ 3,361,371 3,361,371 $ $ 7,236,337 7,236,337 $ $ 7,236,337 7,236,337 $ $ (2,694,439) (2,694,439) -59% -59% $ 6,687,431 100,307 6,787,738 $ $ 8,065,872 144,975 8,210,847 $ $ 7,767,748 140,046 7,907,794 $ $ 7,721,993 111,881 7,833,874 $ $ 8,339,004 133,864 8,472,868 $ $ 8,339,004 133,864 8,472,868 $ $ $ 273,132 (11,111) 262,021 3% -8% 3% $ $ 531,576 531,576 $ $ 446,622 446,622 $ $ 446,622 446,622 $ $ 351,199 351,199 $ $ 432,723 432,723 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ $ (27,773) $ 2,100,000 90,291,418 92,363,645 $ 3,906,314 17,766,301 8,829,000 30,501,615 $ $ $ $ $ 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 224 MEDICAL EXAMINER GRANTS 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 600 HEALTH PLANS 248 SAIL GRANTS 640 TRANSPORTATION 223 TRANSPORTATION GRANTS 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS $ $ $ $ $ $ 479,899 4,003,472 30,744,331 35,227,702 $ $ - $ $ 125,844,378 125,844,378 $ $ 125,844,378 125,844,378 $ $ 102,895,867 102,895,867 $ $ 105,318,256 105,318,256 $ $ 105,318,256 105,318,256 $ $ $ 373,831 376,511 776,067 1,526,409 $ 350,000 405,511 815,868 1,571,379 $ 350,000 405,511 815,868 1,571,379 $ 330,807 373,658 904,788 1,609,253 $ 330,808 387,172 904,788 1,622,768 $ 330,808 397,974 904,788 1,633,570 $ $ $ $ $ $ 27,508 35,000 62,508 $ $ $ 40,000 40,000 80,000 $ $ $ 40,000 40,000 80,000 $ $ $ 26,578 40,143 66,721 $ $ $ 36,000 41,428 77,428 $ $ $ 36,000 42,974 78,974 $ $ $ $ (2,161) -1% 28,456 7% (31,000) -148% 2,265,818 55% 149,003 6% 95,247 29% 2,505,363 33% 6,622 6,622 1% 1% 1,992,917 81% 13,762,829 77% (23,353,723) -316% (7,597,977) -27% 20,526,122 20,526,122 16% 16% 19,192 7,537 (88,920) (62,191) 5% 2% -11% -4% 4,000 (2,974) 1,026 10% -7% 1% 4,426 4,426 30% 25,442 25,442 $ $ 10,416 10,416 $ $ 10,416 10,416 $ $ 10,563 10,563 $ $ 14,842 14,842 $ $ 14,842 14,842 $ Dept Total $ $ Dept Total $ 1,441,402 1,441,402 $ $ 1,812,463 1,812,463 $ $ 1,812,463 1,812,463 $ $ 1,957,463 1,957,463 $ $ 1,957,636 1,957,636 $ $ 1,957,636 1,957,636 $ $ (145,173) (145,173) -8% -8% $ 24,038 93,896,731 93,920,769 $ 682,000 100,540,927 101,222,927 $ $ 350,000 105,288,136 105,638,136 $ $ 350,000 48,288,134 48,638,134 $ $ 682,000 92,709,204 93,391,204 $ $ 682,000 100,540,927 101,222,927 $ $ $ 332,000 (4,747,209) (4,415,209) 49% -5% -4% 109,265 9,923,604 10,032,869 $ 25,000 12,577,743 12,602,743 $ 25,000 12,577,743 12,602,743 $ 158,889 14,264,612 14,423,501 $ 25,000 11,760,925 11,785,925 $ 25,000 12,587,786 12,612,786 $ (10,043) (10,043) 0% 0% 0% 16,336,186 6,421 16,342,607 $ $ $ $ Dept Total $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 250 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS 253 BALLPARK OPERATIONS $ 4,709,899 30,744,331 35,454,230 Dept Total $ 670 SOLID WASTE 290 WASTE TIRE $ 25,597 17,766,301 4,900,174 22,692,072 Dept Total $ 660 HOUSING 295 HOUSING GRANTS 590 HOUSING GRANTS PAYROLL $ 2,472,816 17,766,301 7,390,608 27,629,725 Dept Total $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT 242 LIBRARY DISTRICT GRANTS 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ $ 2,348,921 2,348,921 Dept Total $ 6,061,004 8,740,781 14,801,785 $ Dept Total $ 66,173,876 66,173,876 $ $ $ $ $ $ 11,435,849 11,435,849 $ 3,472,515 3,472,515 $ $ 109,371 3,464,807 3,574,178 $ $ 74,407,250 74,407,250 $ $ $ $ 11,435,849 11,435,849 $ 3,472,515 3,472,515 $ $ 109,371 3,464,807 3,574,178 $ $ 74,407,250 74,407,250 $ $ $ $ 11,435,849 11,435,849 $ 2,538,007 2,538,007 $ $ 67,649 3,283,413 3,351,063 $ $ 73,008,616 73,008,616 $ $ $ $ 13,834,322 13,834,322 $ 3,440,050 3,440,050 $ $ 109,371 3,465,519 3,574,890 $ $ 79,803,350 79,803,350 $ $ $ $ $ - $ 3,435,232 3,435,232 $ $ $ $ 30% 11,435,849 11,435,849 100% 37,283 37,283 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% -7% -7% $ 109,371 3,471,937 3,581,308 $ (7,130) (7,130) $ $ 79,805,243 79,805,243 $ $ (5,397,993) (5,397,993) 100% 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 991 FLOOD CONTROL 66 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2003-04 REQUESTED ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % SPECIAL REVENUE (Continued) APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 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 APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,554,571 258,818 1,918,110 6,731,499 $ 2,502,800 34,207,575 36,710,375 $ 4,637,163 3,517,081 8,308,307 16,462,551 436,208,044 625,749,789 $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,441,265 258,818 2,345,805 9,045,888 $ 3,082,585 34,457,948 37,540,533 $ 6,313,697 3,719,080 9,678,328 19,711,105 522,853,058 735,278,691 $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL 6,441,265 258,818 2,345,805 9,045,888 $ 3,516,083 37,247,110 40,763,193 $ 6,313,697 3,932,862 9,678,328 19,924,887 524,994,556 737,676,673 $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED 6,328,133 258,818 2,224,295 8,811,246 $ 2,945,456 43,221,769 46,167,225 $ 6,719,968 3,573,397 9,982,135 20,275,500 494,612,036 691,148,832 $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 5,261,597 2,318,372 7,579,969 $ 3,354,397 45,087,327 48,441,724 $ 4,984,392 3,823,826 8,280,766 17,088,984 476,235,353 685,230,989 $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 REQUESTED 5,381,750 348,256 2,231,863 7,961,869 $ 3,689,365 44,825,257 48,514,622 $ 5,457,543 3,893,983 8,729,146 18,080,672 524,767,399 709,788,584 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,059,515 (89,438) 113,942 1,084,019 16% -35% 5% 12% (173,282) (7,578,147) (7,751,429) -5% -20% -19% 856,154 38,879 949,182 1,844,215 227,157 27,888,089 14% 1% 10% 9% 0% 4% ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % DEBT SERVICE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICING 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT $ Dept Total $ 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 $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL $ DEBT SERVICE TOTAL $ 42,207,646 18,513,782 60,721,428 59,252,875 279,763 32,489 681,751 241,339 615,168 615,168 61,718,553 122,439,981 122,439,981 $ $ $ $ $ $ 21,347,350 18,293,455 39,640,805 4,240,094 4,240,094 43,880,899 43,880,899 $ $ $ $ $ $ 21,347,350 18,293,455 39,640,805 4,240,094 4,240,094 43,880,899 43,880,899 $ $ $ $ $ $ 20,489,017 18,293,455 38,782,472 4,201,860 4,201,860 42,984,332 42,984,332 $ $ $ $ $ $ 20,971,600 8,920,479 29,892,079 5,125,094 5,125,094 35,017,173 35,017,173 $ $ $ $ $ $ 20,971,600 8,920,479 29,892,079 5,125,094 5,125,094 35,017,173 35,017,173 $ $ $ $ $ $ 375,750 9,372,976 9,748,726 2% 51% 25% (885,000) (885,000) 8,863,726 8,863,726 -21% -21% 20% 20% 67 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2003-04 REQUESTED ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % CAPITAL PROJECTS JUDICIAL BRANCH 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ Dept Total $ JUDICIAL BRANCH TOTAL $ 999,820 999,820 999,820 $ $ $ 780,246 780,246 780,246 $ $ $ 780,246 780,246 780,246 $ $ $ 492,433 492,433 492,433 $ $ $ 781,398 781,398 781,398 $ $ $ 781,398 781,398 781,398 $ $ $ 2,878,377 2,878,377 2,878,377 $ $ $ 1,705,782 1,705,782 1,705,782 $ $ $ 1,705,783 1,705,783 1,705,783 $ $ $ 1,436,079 1,436,079 1,436,079 $ $ $ 1,705,371 1,705,371 1,705,371 $ $ $ 1,705,371 1,705,371 1,705,371 $ $ $ 412 412 412 0% 0% 0% $ Dept Total $ - $ $ 194,783 194,783 $ $ 194,783 194,783 $ $ 180,393 180,393 $ $ 156,499 156,499 $ $ 156,499 156,499 $ $ 38,284 38,284 20% 20% $ Dept Total $ 151,082,539 151,082,539 $ $ 249,325,795 249,325,795 $ $ 249,325,795 249,325,795 $ $ 179,808,800 179,808,800 $ $ 125,350,686 125,350,686 $ $ 118,425,196 118,425,196 $ $ 130,900,599 130,900,599 53% 53% $ $ 1,014,884 66,837,577 (23,851,077) 44,001,384 5% 75% $ 20,900,213 22,029,606 23,851,077 66,780,896 $ $ 20,900,213 22,029,606 23,851,077 66,780,896 $ $ 7,210,480 10,923,944 950,000 19,084,424 $ $ 21,915,097 88,867,183 110,782,280 $ $ 21,915,097 88,867,183 110,782,280 $ $ 27,290,093 27,290,093 40% $ $ 48,684,801 48,684,801 $ $ 84,306,743 84,306,743 $ $ 84,306,743 84,306,743 $ $ 58,191,858 58,191,858 $ $ 77,457,228 77,457,228 $ $ 77,457,228 77,457,228 $ $ 6,849,515 6,849,515 8% 8% $ $ 42,333,771 42,333,771 $ $ 45,104,997 45,104,997 $ $ 45,104,995 45,104,995 $ $ 44,515,500 44,515,500 $ $ 54,000,000 54,000,000 $ $ 54,000,000 54,000,000 $ $ (8,895,005) (8,895,005) -20% -20% $ $ - $ $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 $ $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 $ $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 $ $ - $ $ - $ $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 100% 100% $ 6,613,704 6,002,500 12,616,204 282,007,408 285,885,605 $ 1,000,000 3,000 1,003,000 491,819,798 494,305,826 $ 1,000,000 3,000 1,003,000 491,819,796 494,305,825 $ 998,328 998,328 303,881,503 305,810,015 $ 404,135 3,000 407,135 324,152,444 326,639,213 $ 404,135 3,000 407,135 317,226,954 319,713,723 $ 595,865 595,865 174,592,842 174,592,102 60% 0% 59% 35% 35% ELECTED OFFICIAL 500 SHERIFF 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ Dept Total $ ELECTED OFFICIAL TOTAL $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 445 GENERAL FUND COUNTY IMPROV PROJ Dept Total 640 TRANSPORTATION 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Dept Total 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS Dept Total 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT 440 LIBRARY DIST CAPITAL PROJECTS Dept Total 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 410 BALLPARK CONSTRUCTION 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE Dept Total APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL $ $ $ FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ FY 2003-04 REQUESTED $ $ $ (1,152) (1,152) (1,152) ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 0% 0% 0% % ENTERPRISE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 600 HEALTH PLANS 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 561 HEALTH SELECT 566 SENIOR SELECT PLAN 570 HEALTH PLAN ADMINISTRATION Dept Total $ 75,909,925 201,434,070 6,657,413 44,056,485 187,281 328,245,174 $ Dept Total $ $ Dept Total $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL $ ENTERPRISE TOTAL $ 670 SOLID WASTE 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 68 $ $ $ 104,605,320 251,055,472 10,057,680 61,889,749 427,608,221 745,427 745,427 $ $ 364,792,364 364,792,364 693,782,965 693,782,965 $ $ $ $ $ $ 104,605,320 251,055,472 10,057,680 61,889,749 427,608,221 699,064 699,064 $ $ 470,537,192 470,537,192 898,844,477 898,844,477 $ $ $ $ $ $ 120,201,974 245,559,612 12,014,326 65,569,379 443,345,291 699,064 699,064 $ $ 470,537,192 470,537,192 898,844,477 898,844,477 $ $ $ $ $ $ 125,760,127 237,590,605 12,039,639 56,069,942 431,460,313 674,363 674,363 $ $ 434,912,226 434,912,226 878,931,880 878,931,880 $ $ $ $ $ $ 130,451,694 237,600,567 13,985,709 56,070,794 438,108,764 709,344 709,344 $ $ 453,476,711 453,476,711 885,646,368 885,646,368 $ $ $ $ $ -25% 5% -39% 9% $ (25,846,374) 13,454,905 (3,928,029) 5,818,955 (10,500,543) 900,000 900,000 $ $ (200,936) (200,936) -29% -29% 452,165,681 452,165,681 891,174,445 891,174,445 $ $ $ $ 18,371,511 18,371,511 7,670,032 7,670,032 -2% 4% 4% 1% 1% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2003-04 REQUESTED ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % INTERNAL SERVICE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 685 BENEFITS TRUST $ Dept Total $ 6,361,533 6,361,533 $ $ 7,928,576 7,928,576 $ $ 7,928,576 7,928,576 $ $ 12,779,619 12,779,619 $ $ 20,773,525 20,773,525 $ $ 23,635,004 23,635,004 $ $ $ Dept Total $ - $ $ - $ $ 800,490 800,490 $ $ 753,893 753,893 $ $ 800,490 800,490 $ $ 720,441 720,441 $ $ 80,049 80,049 10% 10% $ Dept Total $ 701,349 701,349 $ $ 860,803 860,803 $ $ 860,803 860,803 $ $ 837,404 837,404 $ $ 880,322 880,322 $ $ 834,991 834,991 $ $ 25,812 25,812 3% 3% $ Dept Total $ 9,101,573 9,101,573 $ $ 8,923,046 8,923,046 $ $ 8,923,046 8,923,046 $ $ 8,775,570 8,775,570 $ $ 9,078,913 9,078,913 $ $ 8,171,022 8,171,022 $ $ 752,024 752,024 8% 8% $ $ $ 405,760 25,204,042 25,609,802 $ $ 505,528 25,302,289 25,807,817 $ $ 536,014 22,726,696 23,262,710 $ $ 609,127 22,789,256 23,398,383 $ $ 609,127 22,789,256 23,398,383 $ Dept Total $ 346,850 19,102,720 19,449,570 $ Dept Total $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL $ INTERNAL SERVICE TOTAL $ 13,634,317 13,634,317 49,248,342 49,248,342 $ $ $ $ 12,875,220 12,875,220 53,986,028 53,986,028 $ $ $ $ 12,875,220 12,875,220 54,786,518 54,786,518 $ $ $ $ 12,098,738 12,098,738 58,507,934 58,507,934 $ $ $ $ 12,942,948 12,942,948 70,284,015 70,284,015 $ $ $ $ 12,214,470 12,214,470 71,185,730 71,185,730 710 COMMUNICATIONS 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 673 REPROGRAPHICS 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 652 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 675 RISK MANAGEMENT 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FY 2002-03 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2001-02 ACTUAL FY 2002-03 REVISED RESTATED FY 2002-03 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2003-04 REQUESTED (15,706,428) (15,706,428) -198% -198% $ 203,367 (2,414,786) (2,211,419) 33% -11% -9% $ $ $ $ 660,750 660,750 (16,399,212) (16,399,212) 5% 5% -30% -30% ADOPTED VS REVISED VARIANCE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED % ELIMINATIONS APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 300 PARKS & RECREATION 900 ELIMINATIONS 640 TRANSPORTATION 900 ELIMINATIONS 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT 900 ELIMINATIONS 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 900 ELIMINATIONS 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 900 ELIMINATIONS 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 900 ELIMINATIONS 980 ELIMINATIONS 900 ELIMINATIONS $ Dept Total $ (483,525) $ (483,525) $ $ Dept Total $ (48,684,801) $ (48,684,801) $ $ $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ 17,000 17,000 (53,000,000) $ (53,000,000) $ (53,000,000) $ (53,000,000) $ (53,000,000) $ (53,000,000) $ (57,000,000) $ (57,000,000) $ (57,000,000) $ (57,000,000) $ 4,000,000 4,000,000 $ $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ (1,102,200) $ $ Dept Total $ (12,661,181) $ (12,661,181) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,724,018) $ (1,724,018) $ $ Dept Total $ (42,333,771) $ (42,333,771) $ (49,000,000) $ (49,000,000) $ (49,000,000) $ (49,000,000) $ $ Dept Total $ (78,938,085) $ (78,938,085) $ (80,619,236) $ (80,619,236) $ (80,619,236) $ (80,619,236) $ $ Dept Total $ $ Dept Total $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL $ ELIMINATIONS TOTAL $ - (369,204,985) (369,204,985) (552,306,348) (552,306,348) $ $ $ $ - (469,330,070) (469,330,070) (654,775,524) (654,775,524) $ $ $ $ $ $ - (470,130,560) (470,130,560) (655,576,014) (655,576,014) $ $ $ $ $ $ (1,102,200) (1,102,200) -100% -100% (1,594,274) $ (1,594,274) $ (1,594,274) $ (1,594,274) $ (129,744) (129,744) -8% -8% (48,800,000) $ (48,800,000) $ (54,000,000) $ (54,000,000) $ (54,000,000) $ (54,000,000) $ 5,000,000 5,000,000 10% 10% (80,619,236) $ (80,619,236) $ (92,416,987) $ (92,416,987) $ (92,416,987) $ (92,416,987) $ 11,797,751 11,797,751 15% 15% (83,226,814) (83,226,814) (63,644,007) (63,644,007) -18% -18% -10% -10% (470,941,184) (470,941,184) (656,203,638) (656,203,638) $ $ $ $ - (388,351,873) (388,351,873) (593,380,134) (593,380,134) $ $ $ $ $ $ - 8% 8% (386,903,746) (386,903,746) (591,932,007) (591,932,007) $ $ $ $ 69 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Department and Fund Type CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT AND FUND TYPE FY 2003-04 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ SPECIAL REVENUE DEBT SERVICE CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 14,234,945 33,087,751 11,650,518 $ 58,973,214 $ Subtotal $ 36,360,604 11,629,603 58,294,709 106,284,916 ELECTED 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 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF Subtotal $ 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 14,765,952 1,325,517 21,246,744 43,850,402 8,219,888 1,613,814 1,859,996 1,847,755 3,707,669 37,246,543 136,808,060 $ 7,721,621 11,131,793 4,404,146 102,790,411 $ 126,047,971 $ $ APPOINTED 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT $ 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 600 HEALTH PLANS 640 TRANSPORTATION 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 710 COMMUNICATIONS 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 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 $ 152,182 450,169 2,360,213 1,155,313 1,138,980 958,022 3,881,203 1,514,166 2,741,834 1,841,113 2,014,706 341,495,954 4,877,950 230,972,737 137,492,963 1,566,112 27,611,790 5,428,346 4,725,749 9,354,848 26,054,852 1,244,722 304,041 6,493,512 753,844 816,585,321 $ 1,352,369 15,857,672 35,032,337 22,887,532 207,614 5,186,269 4,500,000 7,236,337 8,210,847 440,000 35,227,702 105,318,256 1,633,570 78,974 10,416 1,957,636 105,638,136 3,435,232 7,961,869 48,514,622 18,080,672 $ 428,768,062 $ 29,892,079 $ 29,892,079 156,499 118,425,196 66,780,896 77,457,228 $ 262,819,819 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 1,059,678,297 $ 613,789,247 $ 29,892,079 $ 265,306,588 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ $ 79,805,243 $ - $ 54,000,000 $ - - $ - $ - $ ENTERPRISE $ $ 781,398 781,398 $ 1,705,371 1,705,371 $ $ $ - $ $ $ INTERNAL SERVICE - $ - $ $ $ SUB-TOTAL - $ - $ $ $ ELIMINATIONS 50,595,549 45,498,752 69,945,227 166,039,528 $ 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 14,765,952 1,325,517 28,968,365 54,982,195 8,219,888 1,613,814 6,264,142 1,847,755 3,707,669 141,742,325 264,561,402 $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ 50,595,549 45,498,752 69,945,227 166,039,528 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 224,756 14,765,952 1,325,517 28,968,365 54,982,195 8,219,888 1,613,814 6,264,142 1,847,755 3,707,669 141,742,325 264,561,402 $ $ 23,635,004 720,441 834,991 8,171,022 25,609,802 12,214,470 $ 71,185,730 1,504,551 450,169 15,857,672 2,360,213 1,155,313 36,171,317 958,022 23,044,031 4,088,817 6,700,435 2,741,834 1,841,113 25,649,710 345,995,954 118,425,196 4,877,950 7,236,337 8,210,847 440,000 362,873,414 242,811,219 1,566,112 29,245,360 5,507,320 4,736,165 9,354,848 440,066,400 183,095,364 4,335,232 26,054,852 720,441 2,079,713 8,171,022 25,609,802 12,214,470 8,265,910 55,008,134 18,834,516 452,165,681 $ 2,500,425,456 $ $ 1,504,551 450,169 15,857,672 2,360,213 1,155,313 36,171,317 958,022 23,044,031 4,088,817 (17,000) 6,683,435 2,741,834 1,841,113 25,649,710 345,995,954 118,425,196 4,877,950 7,236,337 8,210,847 440,000 362,873,414 242,811,219 1,566,112 29,245,360 5,507,320 4,736,165 9,354,848 440,066,400 (57,000,000) 126,095,364 4,335,232 26,054,852 720,441 2,079,713 8,171,022 25,609,802 12,214,470 8,265,910 55,008,134 18,834,516 (92,416,987) 359,748,694 (386,903,746) (386,903,746) (536,337,733) $ 1,964,087,723 $ 891,174,445 $ 71,185,730 $ 2,931,026,386 $ (536,337,733) $ 2,394,688,653 $ - $ 133,805,243 $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ - $ 12,612,786 $ $ - $ - $ 12,612,786 $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ - $ 3,581,308 $ 5,125,094 $ 407,135 $ - $ - $ 9,113,537 $ TOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY AND DISTRICTS $ 1,059,678,297 $ 709,788,584 $ 35,017,173 $ 319,713,723 $ $ 3,086,557,952 $ 891,174,445 *Includes Office Administration and Supervisor’s Special Projects within County Authority. 70 - 438,108,764 900,000 452,165,681 891,174,445 - $ $ ALL FUNDS $ 71,185,730 (54,000,000) $ - 79,805,243 $ 12,612,786 (1,594,274) $ 7,519,263 (591,932,007) $ 2,494,625,945 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE BY FUND TYPE /OBJECT CODE MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance ALL 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 Subtotal $ 503,502,108 $ 7,476,749 10,586,450 107,598,778 6,723,455 (29,345,283) 25,739,462 632,281,719 $ 556,555,394 $ 6,775,337 10,947,509 130,584,199 20,516,038 (48,253,836) 33,320,039 710,444,680 $ 560,837,907 $ 6,527,207 11,604,637 131,222,291 13,831,391 (46,074,144) 40,764,033 718,713,322 $ 535,868,498 $ 7,464,905 14,280,411 123,076,767 8,082,041 (32,219,900) 27,803,322 684,356,044 $ 572,608,492 $ 6,343,126 14,231,750 154,716,339 33,443,030 (48,840,184) 43,437,964 775,940,517 $ 572,355,685 $ 6,373,979 14,179,843 155,403,558 40,877,603 (70,819,018) 62,820,936 781,192,586 $ 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 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS Subtotal $ 56,109,710 $ 45,689,162 2,609,368 6,609,639 25,021,067 137,271,200 137,736,015 21,332,423 26,372,120 235,796,380 (15,292,421) 6,466,245 4,701,901 155,757,443 19,431,592 4,208,885 8,572,140 (445,417) 877,947,452 $ 70,683,119 $ 52,208,620 2,716,973 8,112,812 37,560,007 231,341,260 231,697,614 23,677,780 22,507,098 317,499,410 (4,303,616) 6,961,142 4,936,898 178,936,478 21,954,256 8,300,201 1,214,790,052 $ 69,027,935 $ 52,067,159 2,747,428 8,109,527 36,406,995 232,086,711 246,340,759 24,584,636 22,203,690 318,559,241 (3,599,985) 7,449,094 4,988,161 179,285,274 22,444,461 8,300,201 1,231,001,287 $ 83,658,507 $ 54,290,092 2,874,895 2,868,050 24,964,273 246,806,606 127,425,476 22,526,745 24,710,045 321,523,581 (4,692,176) 6,568,347 5,082,016 173,111,806 20,246,886 2,107,112 183,696 814 1,114,256,771 $ 53,733,537 55,815,324 2,732,823 6,632,725 35,785,019 205,376,177 339,993,554 22,887,252 24,101,060 365,979,495 (6,440,972) 7,700,141 5,560,713 164,187,799 23,212,310 2,215,630 489,696 (61,118,358) 1,248,843,925 $ 54,412,185 56,321,641 2,951,461 7,385,766 40,139,125 206,216,415 352,037,128 22,974,694 22,730,652 326,455,475 (2,944,193) 7,723,263 5,557,482 156,448,564 22,242,981 2,215,630 489,696 1,283,357,965 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 23,080,254 196,879,174 5,074,873 6,158,290 49,576,921 139,868,564 420,638,076 $ Fund TypeTotal $ 1,930,867,247 $ $ 12,749,000 398,393,877 18,611,099 7,948,335 118,796,240 54,690,551 611,189,102 $ $ 13,397,000 396,329,177 18,854,649 8,513,714 92,239,636 54,482,082 583,816,258 $ 2,536,423,834 $ $ 19,683,687 225,844,325 7,642,259 7,764,574 67,563,373 58,841,607 387,339,825 $ 2,533,530,867 $ $ 54,383,447 221,745,244 12,880,561 7,609,062 93,696,867 50,356,735 440,671,916 $ 2,185,952,640 $ $ 54,383,447 212,780,370 8,569,857 7,604,948 94,733,966 52,002,806 430,075,394 $ 2,465,456,358 $ 2,494,625,945 $ $ % (11,517,778) -2% 153,228 2% (2,575,206) -22% (24,181,267) -18% (27,046,212) -196% 24,744,874 54% (22,056,903) -54% (62,479,264) -9% 14,615,750 (4,254,482) (204,033) 723,761 (3,732,130) 25,870,296 (105,696,369) 1,609,942 (526,962) (7,896,234) (655,792) (274,169) (569,321) 22,836,710 201,480 6,084,571 (489,696) (52,356,678) 21% -8% -7% 9% -10% 11% -43% 7% -2% -2% -18% -4% -11% 13% 1% 73% -4% (40,986,447) -306% 183,548,807 46% 10,284,792 55% 908,766 11% (2,494,330) -3% 2,479,276 5% 153,740,864 26% 38,904,922 2% 71 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance % 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 Subtotal $ 210,545,837 $ 3,048,685 1,384,069 44,009,282 1,331,808 (20,914,458) 1,158,882 240,564,105 $ 217,208,623 $ 2,605,705 1,576,803 49,505,991 9,587,395 (23,839,934) 2,234,493 258,879,076 $ 218,967,326 $ 2,740,801 1,701,689 50,041,640 3,573,190 (24,365,591) 2,158,358 254,817,413 $ 215,815,002 $ 3,136,735 1,596,392 48,753,894 1,788,168 (23,018,921) 2,110,499 250,181,769 $ 220,666,991 $ 2,377,855 1,613,110 61,871,449 16,547,195 (24,075,439) 1,426,110 280,427,271 $ 219,359,708 $ 2,379,100 1,598,838 61,795,439 24,682,131 (24,534,946) 23,031,695 308,311,965 $ (392,382) 0% 361,701 13% 102,851 6% (11,753,799) -23% (21,108,941) -591% 169,355 1% (20,873,337) -967% (53,494,552) -21% 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 $ 11,444,440 599,123 1,040,630 417,130 19,882,147 2,162,294 13,393,641 9,448,394 10,725,987 227,188,855 7,203,813 2,530,503 3,127,067 339,509 8,321,477 126,450,325 1 444,275,336 19,574,441 516,755 885,987 240,155 33,573,034 7,432,098 86,085,859 10,399,595 7,248,502 300,097,913 17,144,469 3,127,187 3,372,408 599,463 9,357,636 175,132,587 674,788,089 18,900,708 515,179 897,216 350,113 32,349,905 7,498,784 86,232,909 10,289,184 6,988,280 300,058,582 17,398,374 3,161,968 3,371,044 599,463 9,858,473 175,132,587 673,602,769 11,169,766 506,754 1,232,464 251,676 20,222,476 4,359,292 19,061,476 9,885,516 8,452,725 305,507,382 17,488,746 2,988,304 3,367,847 505,537 9,000,498 175,132,587 814 589,133,862 8,725,943 482,801 1,035,622 149,139 32,164,208 6,578,118 118,860,764 10,038,241 7,554,128 347,831,016 17,580,240 3,203,569 3,129,883 517,196 11,387,239 145,992,390 715,230,497 8,290,731 475,331 1,065,292 91,075 36,510,160 7,180,369 131,793,975 10,095,078 6,883,153 308,350,366 17,910,562 3,260,694 3,122,116 517,196 11,276,749 144,498,360 691,321,207 10,609,977 39,848 (168,076) 259,038 (4,160,255) 318,415 (45,561,066) 194,106 105,127 (8,291,784) (512,188) (98,726) 248,928 82,267 (1,418,276) 30,634,227 (17,718,438) CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 6,956,190 1,696,197 3,685,968 8,889,117 21,227,472 $ Fund TypeTotal $ 706,066,913 $ $ $ $ $ $ 17,224,681 683,433 3,856,649 1,000,000 8,471,509 31,236,272 $ 964,903,437 FY 2001-02 Actual $ $ $ $ 17,224,681 735,954 3,856,649 1,000,000 8,375,023 31,192,307 $ 959,612,489 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ $ 12,975,475 124,248 3,643,289 500,000 8,214,642 25,457,654 $ 864,773,285 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ 30,000,000 16,349,713 48,713 3,442,484 10,520,056 60,360,966 $ 1,056,018,734 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ 30,000,000 16,349,713 3,322,484 10,372,928 60,045,125 $ 1,059,678,297 FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Requested $ 5% 100% 14% 100% -24% -92% $ (100,065,808) -10% 186,585,705 $ 4,334,320 2,411,584 42,910,595 3,101,069 (8,223,703) 16,568,978 247,688,548 $ 201,404,410 $ 4,067,379 2,230,988 50,882,146 7,685,271 (11,068,898) 21,797,554 276,998,850 $ 204,691,959 $ 3,657,653 2,728,098 51,129,235 7,010,297 (11,013,278) 22,103,195 280,307,159 $ 194,075,651 $ 4,236,927 2,840,473 47,029,663 2,909,903 (9,200,979) 20,372,800 262,264,438 $ 206,160,699 $ 3,837,018 2,757,815 55,923,631 6,773,209 (12,919,301) 23,609,545 286,142,616 $ 207,383,226 $ 3,894,126 2,724,180 56,704,628 6,072,846 (34,468,254) 21,445,330 263,756,082 $ 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 Subtotal $ 33,811,036 11,182,372 1,529,481 1,822,291 1,926,523 10,391,181 59,149,092 7,237,573 9,939,918 8,362,834 13,495,388 3,194,592 1,106,612 132,053 2,022,164 193,128,183 358,431,293 $ 37,019,556 3,015,588 1,748,734 2,276,537 797,338 7,936,103 81,843,398 8,154,077 9,034,159 17,209,630 14,538,812 2,935,128 1,022,399 5,563,076 2,571,835 231,271,796 426,938,166 $ 35,729,070 2,875,703 1,760,963 2,123,294 867,455 8,614,868 77,297,042 8,976,591 9,062,045 18,308,792 14,581,136 3,348,699 1,073,526 5,911,872 2,551,602 231,271,796 424,354,454 $ 34,235,033 11,146,270 1,565,416 2,397,040 1,389,949 10,566,744 54,502,750 8,266,135 8,595,800 15,815,262 15,097,284 2,987,217 814,789 6,574,130 2,250,374 231,088,796 407,292,988 $ 32,905,943 8,368,321 1,585,254 1,402,659 704,556 10,453,066 147,880,054 7,654,670 8,655,906 17,936,089 15,806,638 3,471,730 1,013,654 7,951,151 2,543,383 111,538,788 379,871,862 34,050,759 8,880,976 1,773,423 1,669,477 712,710 10,691,053 144,225,387 7,565,975 8,291,899 17,892,719 16,831,136 3,461,242 1,021,415 211,916 1,737,644 168,372,851 427,390,582 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 1,753,396 6,094,106 2,067,298 2,327,625 7,387,523 19,629,948 $ $ $ 1,015,189 11,316,031 2,595,806 4,065,959 600,000 1,998,420 21,591,405 $ $ 250,000 13,375,453 11,771,274 4,594,961 845,896 2,177,476 33,015,060 $ $ 12,823,662 11,609,739 3,978,582 636,000 2,293,692 31,341,675 Fund TypeTotal $ 625,749,789 $ 735,278,691 $ 737,676,673 $ 691,148,832 72 $ $ $ $ 9,934,289 2,620,377 3,892,664 25,000 2,744,181 19,216,511 $ 685,230,989 $ $ -3% (30,000,000) 874,968 735,954 534,165 1,000,000 (1,997,905) (28,852,818) 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 Subtotal $ $ 56% 8% -19% 74% -13% 4% -53% 2% 2% -3% -3% -3% 7% 14% -14% 17% $ $ (2,691,267) (236,473) 3,918 (5,575,393) 937,451 23,454,976 657,865 16,551,077 % -1% -6% 0% -11% 13% 213% 3% 6% 1,678,311 5% (6,005,273) -209% (12,460) -1% 453,817 21% 154,745 18% (2,076,185) -24% (66,928,345) -87% 1,410,616 16% 770,146 8% 416,073 2% (2,250,000) -15% (112,543) -3% 52,111 5% 5,699,956 96% 813,958 32% 62,898,945 27% (3,036,128) -1% $ 8,253,617 2,545,177 4,238,864 870,896 2,733,366 18,641,920 $ 250,000 5,121,836 9,226,097 356,097 (25,000) (555,890) 14,373,140 $ 709,788,584 $ 27,888,089 100% 38% 78% 8% -3% -26% 44% 4% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) FY 2001-02 Actual DEBT SERVICE SUPPLIES & SERVICES 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 880 TRANSFERS OUT CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ FY 2002-03 Adopted $ Subtotal $ 9,411 55,183 64,594 $ Subtotal $ Fund TypeTotal $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 200,000 200,000 122,375,387 122,375,387 $ $ 122,439,981 $ FY 2001-02 Actual $ $ 200,000 200,000 43,680,899 43,680,899 $ $ 43,880,899 $ FY 2002-03 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 Subtotal $ 2,385,702 $ 12,431 9,094 453,203 36,015 (206,618) 7,991,885 10,681,712 $ 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 $ 192,817 $ 121 158,559 (7,404) 13,653,060 236,009 773 107,924 22,961 1,035 5,995 6,000,000 20,371,850 $ 3,000 3,000 $ $ 21,325,820 183,828,878 5,000 94,448 49,576,921 976 254,832,043 $ 12,749,000 364,321,334 51,000 117,160,240 13,320 494,294,894 Fund TypeTotal $ 285,885,605 $ 494,305,826 $ $ 43,680,899 43,680,899 $ $ 43,880,899 $ $ $ 42,784,332 42,784,332 $ $ 42,984,332 $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 2,204,208 $ 24,173 13,620 467,275 (1,298,344) 7,275,578 8,686,510 $ $ 92,638 1,811 10,240 3,465 11,250,677 212,636 286 1,271,643 6,089 44 270 12,849,799 $ $ $ $ 13,147,000 361,704,843 90,393,740 17,553 465,263,136 $ 18,668,498 198,864,835 66,463,373 5,235 284,001,941 $ 494,305,825 $ 305,810,015 $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance $ $ 110,000 110,000 34,907,173 34,907,173 $ $ 35,017,173 $ FY 2003-04 Requested 3,057,580 22,103 6,380 585,160 6,733 5,280,319 8,958,275 $ $ FY 2003-04 Adopted 110,000 110,000 303,034 6,997 40,000 18,601,498 152,057 1,207,393 34,600 1,000 9,600 20,356,179 $ FY 2003-04 Requested 200,000 200,000 FY 2002-03 Revised 3,199,508 $ 24,173 671,234 (3,948,073) 61,090 7,932 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ 90,000 90,000 45% 45% 34,907,173 34,907,173 $ $ 8,773,726 8,773,726 20% 20% 35,017,173 $ 8,863,726 20% FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance 2,249,824 $ 24,173 27,240 458,656 (722,286) 7,293,006 9,330,613 $ 2,319,915 $ 24,173 27,240 456,775 (722,286) 7,218,136 9,323,953 $ 382,224 15,494 21,500 19,397 5,591,500 136,193 811,797 56,600 2,000 9,600 583,131 7,629,436 308,654 15,494 21,500 19,397 5,591,500 285,405 1,283,955 56,600 2,000 9,600 7,594,105 $ 24,383,447 191,618,742 93,671,867 5,108 309,679,164 $ 326,639,213 $ $ % $ 24,383,447 184,544,040 93,863,070 5,108 302,795,665 $ 319,713,723 $ $ % (115,707) -5% 0% (13,620) -100% 10,500 2% (576,058) -44% 57,442 1% (637,443) -7% (5,620) -2% (8,497) -121% 18,500 46% (19,397) 13,009,998 70% (133,348) -88% (76,562) -6% (22,000) -64% (1,000) -100% 0% 12,762,074 63% -85% 49% $ (11,236,447) 177,160,803 (3,469,330) 12,445 162,467,471 $ 174,592,102 35% -4% 71% 35% 73 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted 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 Subtotal $ 98,740,542 20,808 6,680,608 19,077,004 2,214,166 3,817 126,736,945 $ 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 Subtotal $ 5,400,065 33,907,640 17,524 4,185,752 52,078 215,995,611 37,135,972 2,645,026 3,168,380 24,086 3,681,904 635,633 458,295 155,285,881 3,625,266 4,208,885 8,612,562 86,882,288 565,922,848 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 21,407 1,101,765 1,123,172 $ Fund TypeTotal $ 693,782,965 $ $ FY 2002-03 Revised 129,291,712 $ 25,500 6,952,182 28,234,878 3,211,792 (9,396,931) 9,148,912 167,468,045 $ 117,613,084 17,060 9,693,679 25,415,823 3,336,550 763 156,076,959 $ 8,509,354 48,676,277 14,705 5,520,420 274,696,222 41,060,118 3,381,737 3,850,952 16,867 7,843,506 800,443 536,141 186,116,800 5,215,187 8,300,201 126,978,376 721,517,306 8,509,353 48,676,277 14,705 5,520,420 274,696,222 41,060,118 3,381,737 3,850,952 16,867 7,843,505 800,443 536,141 186,116,800 5,215,188 8,300,201 126,978,376 721,517,305 33,184,048 42,637,068 17,585 144,260 286,040,254 19,250,796 2,524,271 5,214,783 37,390 6,737,525 492,037 889,614 179,375,000 4,314,242 2,107,112 183,696 126,978,376 710,128,057 $ $ $ $ $ $ 898,844,477 $ $ 898,844,477 5,451,137 52,580 187,536 1,289,955 31,580 77,990 7,090,778 $ 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 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS Subtotal $ 5,261,352 $ 27 21,612 25,907 3,158,312 830 20,361,180 1,765,421 2,537,062 220,605 1,661,805 82,556 8,892 5,456,690 (40,422) 1,111,468 (445,418) 41,187,879 $ 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 $ Fund TypeTotal $ 49,248,342 74 $ $ $ $ 30,000 488,000 27,104 231,131 776,235 $ 53,986,028 $ $ $ $ 2,665,484 4,416,421 35,000 5,609,959 12,726,864 $ 878,931,880 FY 2002-03 Revised 5,244,322 $ 60,505 101,095 1,148,694 40,397 (504) 15,900 6,610,409 $ $ $ $ INTERNAL SERVICE 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 $ 1,038 1,306,378 28,842 113,796 1,450,054 $ 3,994,200 5,829,927 35,000 9,859,127 FY 2002-03 Adopted CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ FY 2003-04 Requested 129,291,716 $ 25,500 6,952,182 28,234,873 3,211,792 (9,396,931) 9,148,912 167,468,044 $ 3,994,200 5,829,927 35,000 9,859,127 FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ 5,585,770 67,547 75,700 3,189,635 25,749,192 1,785,067 2,302,413 175,000 1,803,673 103,384 6,450 4,809,598 893,165 46,546,594 $ $ $ $ $ 30,000 517,494 27,104 231,131 805,729 $ 54,786,518 137,615,003 $ 40,000 9,697,509 34,917,126 10,109,766 (11,069,675) 11,077,993 192,387,722 $ 6,773,957 46,964,202 68,894 4,985,780 255,568,709 42,805,399 3,261,637 5,536,738 37,390 6,503,985 861,491 1,393,426 175,073,815 4,346,246 2,215,630 183,696 121,258,834 677,839,829 7,014,457 46,965,334 69,693 5,573,973 255,568,709 42,969,868 3,261,637 5,528,495 37,390 6,793,672 861,491 1,393,426 175,073,815 4,346,246 2,215,630 183,696 127,541,154 685,398,686 $ $ $ $ 885,646,368 $ 4,977,021 57,619 64,834 3,348,383 4,563,479 25,959,777 1,638,187 2,446,738 163,261 1,957,315 94,700 9,722 4,681,502 893,165 50,855,703 $ $ $ $ $ 22,500 505,784 20,326 229,019 777,629 $ 58,507,934 1,494,896 18% 1,710,943 4% (54,988) -374% (53,553) -1% 19,127,513 7% (1,909,750) -5% 120,100 4% (1,677,543) -44% (20,523) -122% 1,049,833 13% (61,048) -8% (857,285) -160% 11,042,985 6% 868,942 17% 6,084,571 73% (183,696) (562,778) 0% 36,118,619 5% $ $ $ 379,200 (132,760) 15,000 (3,790,350) (3,528,910) $ 891,174,445 $ 7,670,032 FY 2003-04 Adopted 5,910,599 $ 64,080 136,076 1,619,312 12,860 (23,857) 46,300 7,765,370 $ 4,945,470 27,559 73,647 2,896,858 41,350,916 1,796,511 2,354,288 175,000 1,623,990 106,751 21,750 4,925,842 306,000 937,853 61,542,435 $ $ $ $ 30,000 478,729 273,600 193,881 976,210 $ 70,284,015 Adopted vs Revised Variance 5,677,833 $ 36,580 132,076 1,529,590 12,860 (23,857) 47,782 7,412,864 $ 4,747,584 27,559 29,741 2,896,858 43,951,477 1,766,599 2,027,105 175,000 1,644,113 83,236 18,525 4,872,742 306,000 928,853 63,475,392 $ $ $ 18,000 61,993 23,600 193,881 297,474 $ 71,185,730 $ $ % (8,323,291) -6% (14,500) -57% (2,745,327) -39% (6,682,248) -24% (6,897,974) -215% 1,672,744 18% (1,929,081) -21% (24,919,677) -15% 3,615,000 5,962,687 20,000 3,790,350 13,388,037 FY 2003-04 Requested 5,307,181 52,081 143,487 1,292,226 40,687 38,940 6,874,602 Adopted vs Revised Variance 137,620,379 $ 40,000 9,697,509 34,843,291 10,109,766 (11,099,301) 11,063,003 192,274,647 $ 3,812,500 9,732,742 314 1,986,336 15,531,892 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 5,682,702 79,080 209,048 1,349,263 36,112 77,990 7,434,195 FY 2003-04 Adopted 4,869 42,500 76,972 (180,327) 23,252 23,857 30,208 21,331 9% -2% 43% -36% 1% % 0% 54% 37% -13% 64% 39% 0% 838,186 15% 39,988 59% 45,959 61% 292,777 9% (18,202,285) -71% 18,468 1% 275,308 12% 0% 159,560 9% 20,148 19% (12,075) -187% (63,144) -1% (306,000) (35,688) -4% (16,928,798) -36% 12,000 455,501 3,504 37,250 508,255 (16,399,212) 40% 88% 13% 16% 63% -30% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance % ELIMINATIONS SUPPLIES & SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES $ 812 OTHER SERVICES 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 880 TRANSFERS OUT Subtotal $ (91,278,716) $ (6,012,113) (41,443,255) (413,572,264) (552,306,348) $ (58,723,163) $ (2,600,000) (45,633,576) (13,342,861) (534,475,924) (654,775,524) $ (58,723,163) $ (2,600,000) (46,434,066) (13,342,861) (534,475,924) (655,576,014) $ (58,723,163) $ (2,600,000) (47,244,690) (13,342,861) (534,292,924) (656,203,638) $ (67,223,716) $ (16,495,079) (48,767,622) (19,354,363) (441,539,354) (593,380,134) $ (67,223,716) $ (16,495,079) (47,407,631) (19,354,363) (441,451,218) (591,932,007) $ 8,500,553 13,895,079 973,565 6,011,502 (93,024,706) (63,644,007) 14% 534% 2% 45% -17% -10% Fund TypeTotal $ (552,306,348) $ (654,775,524) $ (655,576,014) $ (656,203,638) $ (593,380,134) $ (591,932,007) $ (63,644,007) -10% 75 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules General Government Expenditure Summary FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Description General Fund (100) 4711 - General Contingency General Contingency FY 2002-03 Revised Restated FY 2002-03 Projected Restated FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs. Revised Variance $ 19,988,251 $ 19,645,202 $ - $ 19,597,200 $ 4711 - Reserved Items Clerk of the Superior Court: Docketing Staff NWSC $ County Attorney: Health Care Services Employee Initiatives New Admin. Services Building Office of Court Appointed Counsel: Additional Costs Sheriff Overtime Technology Reserve Health/Dental Premium Increase (Unallocated) Retirement Contribution Increase (Unallocated) State Budget Cuts Unfunded Liabilities County Contribution Rule 8 Rule 15 Subtotal $ 50,000 100,000 6,700,000 98,392 3,000,000 300,000 500,000 4,780,754 1,934,137 37,451,534 $ 50,000 100,000 1,409,052 98,392 2,892,687 300,000 500,000 4,780,754 1,934,137 31,710,224 $ - $ 9,808,284 400,000 300,000 2,000,000 3,836,414 7,644,738 11,981,323 5,402,800 4,700,000 500,000 66,170,759 $ 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 $ 100,000 15,294,826 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 3,691,649 140,878,626 $ 15,000 15,366,587 5,280 10,000 200,000 100,000 50,000 100,000 120,866,924 7,500 3,322,484 140,043,775 $ 25,000 15,000 60,000 40,000 179,861 4,145,600 1,427,288 500,000 6,392,749 $ 25,000 15,000 60,000 40,000 179,861 4,145,600 1,427,288 500,000 6,392,749 $ 25,000 15,000 60,000 40,000 120,100 4,043,900 1,500,000 500,000 6,304,000 $ $ $ $ 41,042 47,278 45,451 104,033 237,804 $ Subtotal $ 41,042 47,278 45,451 104,033 237,804 $ (2,052) (2,364) (2,273) (4,202) (10,891) $ 98,778 $ $ $ Subtotal $ 1,179,164 22,455 120,000 370,000 18,545 82,662 1,792,826 $ 1,500,000 4712 - Other General Fund Programs Article V Procurement Base-Level Internal Service Charges Board NW Regional Service Charges Board Resolution (9/11 Reward Fund) Citizens Tax Education Customer Satisfaction Survey Emergency Management: Disaster Relief Human Resources Peak Performers Jail Excise Tax Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Public Works Administrative Charges Security Bldg. Revenue Income Tax Sheriff Equipment for Wrecked Vehicles Special Master Vector Control Vehicle Replacement State DOC Inmate Shift $ Subtotal $ 4716 - Debt Service/Cap. Lease Arbitrage Admin. Fee Financial Advisor Bond Attorney 3.85m COP (P&I) 30m COP (P&I) Smartzone NW Court Lease $ Subtotal $ 4721 - Dues and Memberships National Assoc. of Counties Arizona Assoc. of Government Maricopa Assoc. of Government County Supervisors Assoc. 4722 - Taxes and Assessments City of Phx. Downtown Mun. Ser. Dist. 4724 - Consultants Unallocated HR Candidate Reimbursement Public Defender Case Weighting Employee Sat./Exit Survey Higher Ground Chairman's Fund Elliott Pollack & Co. Internal Audit Maximus Animal Control Contract Position ICJIS Info Security Officer Research and Reporting Director Records Center Manager OMB Administration 4726 - Tuition Reimbursement 76 $ $ $ $ $ 48,002 50,000 100,000 (8,399,232) (301,608) 2,892,687 (1,500,000) 944,340 (7,644,738) 1,934,137 (11,981,323) (5,402,800) (4,700,000) (500,000) (34,460,535) 15,000 14,856,873 5,280 200,000 89,000 100,000 120,866,924 13,447 7,500 100,000 76,945 100,000 3,691,649 1,312,000 141,434,618 $ 25,000 15,000 60,000 40,000 179,861 4,145,600 1,427,288 500,000 6,392,749 $ $ $ 40,182 47,278 41,225 104,033 232,718 $ 43,094 49,642 47,724 108,235 248,695 98,778 $ 101,409 $ 106,480 $ (7,702) $ $ 1,962,139 120,000 90,000 20,000 85,000 318,787 85,000 89,613 59,000 2,829,539 $ $ 1,644 22,455 120,000 90,000 20,000 80,868 160,809 30,008 20,000 18,545 82,662 89,613 57,400 794,004 $ $ 794,289 994 22,455 120,000 90,000 20,000 80,868 370,000 26,000 20,000 18,545 82,662 89,613 57,400 1,792,826 $ (1,167,850) 994 22,455 (4,132) 51,213 26,000 20,000 18,545 (2,338) (1,600) (1,036,713) $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 85,000 (71,761) 150,000 (11,000) 13,447 100,000 100,000 100,000 369,165 834,851 59,761 101,700 (72,712) 88,749 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules General Government Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Description General Fund (100) (Continued) 4732 - Major Maintenance Cave Creek Et Bed Annual Cnty-Wide Maint Progs Admin Bldg Infrastruc Imprvmts Adult Prob Day Rpt Ctr S Imprv Buckeye Hills Rec Area Bos Audtrm Infrastruc Imprvmnt Msco Bartlett Lake Subst Imprv Mcso/Substn Imprvmts Drngo Juv Infrastruc Imprvmts Estrella Campground Design East Crts Infrastruc Imprvmnts Central Court Bldg Infrastruc Sup Court Infrastruc Imprvmtns 5th Av Prk Infrastruc Imprvmts Program Fees Code Compliance Reserve Se Reg Infrastruc Imprvmts Sec Ctr Infrastruc Imprvmtns Mcso Surprise Substatn Improv West Court Infrastruc Imprvmtn Non-Project $ Subtotal $ 249,400 2,679,498 1,030,000 78,640 720,000 260,813 320,000 50,000 20,000 832,886 200,000 190,000 700,000 180,000 438,444 7,949,681 4741 - Tax Appeals $ 4742 - Judgements $ FY 2002-03 Revised Restated $ $ 249,400 2,679,498 1,030,000 78,640 720,000 260,813 320,000 50,000 20,000 832,886 200,000 190,000 700,000 180,000 438,444 7,949,681 1,300,000 $ 500,000 $ FY 2002-03 Projected Restated $ FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs. Revised Variance $ 249,000 $ 2,679,497 1,030,000 78,640 (252) 720,000 238,515 320,000 50,000 20,000 744,461 200,000 190,002 680,975 180,000 438,434 7,819,272 $ 2,679,498 900,000 55,000 28,600 30,000 30,000 380,000 200,000 40,000 880,000 290,648 700,000 45,000 895,967 7,154,713 $ 249,400 130,000 (55,000) 50,040 (30,000) (30,000) 720,000 260,813 (60,000) (200,000) 50,000 (20,000) (47,114) (90,648) 190,000 (45,000) 180,000 (457,523) 794,968 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 $ - 500,000 $ 10,000 $ 500,000 $ - 4743 - Outside Legal Counsel $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - 4750 - District Special Projects $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 5,545 $ - $ 40,000 4771 - Burial of Indigents $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - 4774 - Non-Profit Funding $ 2,139,776 $ 2,139,776 $ 2,139,776 $ 2,154,776 $ (15,000) 4775 - Accommodation Schools $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ 447,500 $ 530,000 $ (165,000) 4776 - Cooperative Extentsion $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ Total General Fund $ 202,338,821 $ 197,035,464 $ 164,307,591 $ 230,972,737 $ (33,937,273) $ $ $ 47,290 71,464 76,931 75,666 51,802 100,000 56,746 479,899 $ $ 11,995 1,400 10,000 450 1,752 25,597 $ $ 2,162,570 20,325 32,504 39,371 36,706 22,842 100,000 58,498 2,472,816 $ 2,162,570 (26,965) (38,960) (37,560) (38,960) (28,960) 1,752 1,992,917 Waste Management Fund (210) Potential Fee Increases 4751 - Dist 1 Unincorp. Area Comm. Proj. 4752 - Dist 2 Unincorp. Area Comm. Proj. 4753 - Dist 3 Unincorp. Area Comm. Proj. 4754 - Dist 4 Unincorp. Area Comm. Proj. 4755 - Dist 5 Unincorp. Area Comm. Proj. 4757 - Illegal Dumping Program 4758 - Mobile Comm. Council Requests Subtotal $ 3,596,068 20,325 32,504 39,371 36,706 22,842 100,000 58,498 3,906,314 General Government Grants Fund (249) Potential Fee Increases $ 17,766,301 $ 17,766,301 $ 17,766,301 $ 4,003,472 $ 13,762,829 Detention Fund (255) 4711 - General Contingency General Contingency $ 2,000,000 $ 847,937 $ - $ 5,000,000 $ (4,152,063) $ 1,500,000 150,000 200,000 3,850,000 $ 1,061,608 150,000 200,000 2,259,545 $ - $ 2,840,168 150,000 18,000,000 25,990,168 $ (1,778,560) 200,000 (18,000,000) (23,730,623) 4711 - Reserved Items Compensation Reserve Sheriff: Overtime Sheriff: Repairs and Maintenance New Facility Operating Costs $ - Subtotal $ 4712 - Other Programs Correctional Health Sundance Tower Lease Sheriff: Recruiting Expenses $ Subtotal $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ $ 152,063 500,000 652,063 $ $ $ 152,063 500,000 652,063 $ $ $ 152,063 500,000 652,063 $ $ $ - 77 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules General Government Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Description Detention Fund (255) (Continued) 4732 - Major Maintenance Annual Det Fac Maint Program Mcso/Substn Imprvmts Drngo Juv Infrastruc Imprvmts Drngo Jail Infrastruc Imprvmts Durango Parkg Gar Tenant Imprv Estr Jail Infrastruc Imprvmts Estralla Jail Bldg Infrs Imprv Code Compliance Reserve Mdson Jail Infrastruc Imprvmts Se Juv Infrastruc Imprvmts Mcso/Ss 2853 Bldg Infra Imprv Towers Jail Infrastruc Imprvmt Non-Project $ FY 2002-03 Revised Restated $ Subtotal $ 1,025,000 889,000 795,000 435,000 100,000 100,000 210,000 425,000 500,000 4,479,000 Total Detention Fund $ 8,829,000 Bond Debt Service Fund (312) 4710 - Debt Service $ County Improvement Debt Fund (320) 4710 - County Improvement Debt Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (422) 4713 - Intergovernmental Capital Projects Buckeye Hills Shooting Range Northeast Regional Center Elections Facility Human Services Campus Northwest Regional Center Environmental Services Bldg Sheriff Prop/Evidence Warehse Sheriff's Training Facility West Regional Center Non-Project $ $ 1,025,000 889,000 795,000 435,000 100,000 100,000 210,000 425,000 500,000 4,479,000 $ 7,390,608 21,347,350 $ $ 18,293,455 $ $ $ $ 4,900,174 21,347,350 $ $ 18,293,455 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,300,000 1,710,804 300,000 2,237,992 5,000,000 3,666,301 2,700,000 21,915,097 $ 6,128,704 2,500,000 1,881,261 50,000,000 11,428,920 3,328,298 3,600,000 10,000,000 88,867,183 $ $ Subtotal $ - $ 383,263,521 $ Subtotal $ Capital Improvements (445) New Admin Services Bldg Justice Courts Northeast Regional Center Land Acquisition-Lk Pleasant Downtown Property Devel/Acquis Northwest Regional Center Star Call Center/R&R Buildout Security Building Non-Project All Funds Total 78 FY 2003-04 Adopted 1,066,362 241,516 816,123 1,116,177 100,000 100,000 210,000 588,600 9,333 4,248,111 Subtotal $ County Improvement Fund (435) 4713 - Capital Projects New Admin Services Bldg Justice Courts New Admin Services Parking Downtown Property Devel/Acquis Public Health Clinic Forensic Science Center Security Building Non-Project FY 2002-03 Projected Restated $ Adopted vs. Revised Variance $ $ 1,025,000 45,000 749,000 285,000 105,000 300,000 300,000 252,900 50,000 60,000 25,000 384,200 521,000 4,102,100 $ (45,000) 140,000 510,000 (105,000) 135,000 (300,000) (152,900) 50,000 150,000 (25,000) 40,800 (21,000) 376,900 $ 30,744,331 $ (23,353,723) 20,489,017 $ 20,971,600 $ 375,750 $ 18,293,455 $ 8,920,479 $ 9,372,976 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,300,000 1,710,804 300,000 2,237,992 5,000,000 3,666,301 2,700,000 21,915,097 $ 177,001 350,000 1,125,903 200,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 1,357,576 7,210,480 $ 1,610,000 2,000,000 2,950,000 4,231,488 1,800,000 5,806,547 666,301 1,333,333 502,544 20,900,213 $ (610,000) 350,000 (2,520,684) 300,000 437,992 (806,547) 3,000,000 1,366,667 (502,544) 1,014,884 6,128,704 2,500,000 1,881,261 50,000,000 11,428,920 3,328,298 3,600,000 10,000,000 88,867,183 $ 2,980,074 1,392,334 1,000,000 777,586 3,951,966 350,000 471,984 10,923,944 $ 2,382,381 1,000,000 8,447,225 10,200,000 22,029,606 $ $ $ 853,898 1,000,000 6,000,000 8,972,775 1,500,000 1,411,000 3,733,000 380,404 23,851,077 $ $ 950,000 950,000 $ $ - $ (853,898) (1,000,000) (6,000,000) (8,972,775) (1,500,000) (1,411,000) (3,733,000) (380,404) (23,851,077) $ 375,088,274 $ 244,866,559 $ 362,873,414 $ 12,214,860 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,746,323 2,500,000 881,261 41,552,775 1,228,920 3,328,298 3,600,000 10,000,000 66,837,577 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated FY 2002-03 Revised Restated $ 16,333,548 $ 15,642,990 $ - $ 36,054,537 $ (20,411,547) $ $ 2,000,000 700,000 2,500,000 614,433 500,000 3,000,000 $ 24,957,423 $ - $ 10,633,619 5,000,000 640,000 1,500,000 3,000,000 $ 56,828,156 $ 2,000,000 (10,633,619) (5,000,000) 60,000 1,000,000 614,433 500,000 (31,870,733) 250,000 21,100 20,000 250,000 541,100 $ 250,000 187,000 10,000,000 330,000 21,100 20,000 40,000 1,110,873 173,558 250,000 $ 12,382,531 $ 64,375 3,295,334 176,560 20,000 30,000 382,437 173,558 117,810 4,260,074 $ 50,000 18,000,000 6,704,666 829,209 21,100 624,433 728,436 382,190 53,180 $ 27,393,214 $ 596,000 36,250,000 Subtotal $ 36,846,000 $ 596,000 36,250,000 $ 36,846,000 $ 596,000 36,250,000 $ 36,846,000 $ 25,200,000 7,532,477 3,000,000 1,800,000 $ 37,532,477 $ $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ $ $ $ 38,508 3,100,000 3,138,508 $ $ $ $ 100,000 100,000 $ $ Description FY 2003-04 Projected Restated FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance General Fund (100) 4811 - General Contingency General Contingency Reserved Unfunded Liabilities Facility Start-Up Contingency CIP Contingency Performance Incentive Financial System Upgrades Materials Management E-Procurement Pre-Paid Enterprise Software License Relocations/New Facility Start-Up Sheriff: Central Service Complex Voice System Sheriff: Records Management System Telecommunications: Capital Projects Technology Projects 4812-Other Programs Communications: Video Prod. Equip. Financial System Upgrades Time Allocation System Pre-Paid Enterprise Software License 2004 NACO Conference Finance: Info Advantage Carryover Medical Examiner: Move Related Expenses Sheriff Central Service Complex Voice System Sheriff: Records Management System Election Phamplet Printing Maricopa County Regional Trails Master Plan Parks & Rec.:Guadalupe Road Bridge Grant Match 2,000,000 10,000,000 700,000 10,000,000 2,500,000 654,433 1,110,873 500,000 3,000,000 Subtotal $ 46,798,854 $ Subtotal $ 4813-Infrastructure/CIP Transfer to Intergovernmental Capital Projects (422) Land Acquisition Transfer to General Fund County Improvement (445) Purchase of 32nd St. & Van Buren Property Purchase of State Black Canyon Building 4814-Technology Projects Material Management E-Procurement HR System Upgrades $ $ Subtotal $ 4824-Consultants Space Planning Aperture Consultant (FMD) $ Subtotal $ - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $ $ $ 21,492 6,922,624 6,944,116 - $ $ $ 200,000 (18,000,000) 187,000 3,295,334 (499,209) 20,000 (584,433) 382,437 173,558 (132,190) (53,180) (15,010,683) 596,000 (25,200,000) 28,717,523 (3,000,000) (1,800,000) (686,477) $ (21,492) 3,077,376 3,055,884 $ $ 100,000 100,000 79 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Description FY 2002-03 Revised Restated FY 2003-04 Projected Restated FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance General Fund (100) (Continued) 4832-Major Maintenance Blue Point Building Infrastructure Improvements $ MCSO/Substation Infrastructure Improvements 350,000 Durango Complex Infrastructure Improvements Durango Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements 1,330,000 Durango Juvenile Probation Building Infrastructure Improvements Durango Juvenile Building Infrastructure Improvements Santa Fe Depot Building Improvements 200,000 East Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements 1,275,000 Central Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements 900,000 MCSO Computer Center Building Infrastructure Improvements 300,000 Materials Management Infrastructure Improvements 350,000 911 Building Infrastructure Improvements 50,000 Justice Courts Infrastructure Improvements 250,000 Old Court House Building Improvements 2,100,000 Public Meeting Space Improvements MCSO/Records Building Infrastructure Improvements S.E. MCSO Substation Infrastructure Improvement S.E. Regional Building Infrastructure Improvements 150,000 Security Center Building Infrastructure Improvements 300,000 MCSO Warehouse Building Infrastructure Improvements West Court Building Infrastructure Improvements 1,720,000 Non-Allocated 1,000,000 Subtotal $ 10,275,000 350,000 1,330,000 200,000 1,275,000 900,000 300,000 350,000 2,951 81,049 2,100,000 500,000 150,000 516,000 1,720,000 500,000 $ 10,275,000 $ Total General Fund $ 94,560,954 $ 94,560,954 5,000,000 $ 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 Subtotal $ 23,635,666 $ $ $ 349,999 1,130,000 200,000 247,553 900,000 190,000 350,000 2,951 81,049 2,100,000 500,000 150,000 516,000 1,000,678 7,718,230 $ 340,000 1,388,000 150,000 1,397,000 200,000 340,000 200,000 100,000 200,000 1,220,000 200,000 200,000 1,110,000 1,000,000 750,000 8,795,000 $ (340,000) 350,000 (1,388,000) (150,000) (67,000) (200,000) (140,000) 1,075,000 800,000 100,000 350,000 2,951 81,049 880,000 500,000 (200,000) (200,000) 150,000 (594,000) (1,000,000) 970,000 500,000 1,480,000 $ 52,062,812 $ 137,492,963 $ (42,932,009) 4,660,000 $ - $ 5,000,000 $ (340,000) 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 5,734,506 $ 22,664,977 $ $ 33,272,410 5,734,506 $ 44,006,916 $ $ - $ 250,000 (33,272,410) 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 (21,341,939) $ $ $ $ $ $ Detention Fund (255) 4811-General Contingency General Contingency Reserved Unfunded Liabilities Facility Start-Up Contingency New Facility Start-Up ICJIS: Moving Costs ICJIS: Tenant Improvements Juvenile Probation: Software for RTC Telecom: Durango Facilities Management Telecom: Durango Juvenile Court and Detention Telecom: Durango Parking Structure Telecom: Durango Parks Building Telecom: Mesa Juvenile Court and Detention Telesom: Residential Treatment Center Telecom: Adult Facilities Data Equipment Sheriff: Central Service Complex Voice System Sheriff: New Jail Pre-Booking System Sheriff: Jail Surveillance System Sheriff: Records Management System 4812-Other Programs Sheriff: Records Management System Sheriff: New Jail Pre-Booking System Sheriff: Central Service Complex Voice System ICJIS Secure Network Relocations Jail and Detention Facilities Staffing Study Telecom: Durango Juvenile Court and Detention Detention Fund Transfer 80 $ $ $ 750,000 98,138,712 Subtotal $ 98,888,712 476,088 154,601 340,000 750,000 98,138,712 $ 99,859,401 3,338 48,817 340,000 300,000 250,000 495,000 98,138,712 $ 99,575,867 472,750 30,000 8,279,771 450,000 505,000 48,585,819 $ 58,323,340 $ 3,338 124,601 (8,279,771) 340,000 300,000 (505,000) 49,552,893 41,536,061 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Description FY 2002-03 Revised Restated FY 2003-04 Projected Restated FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted vs Revised Variance Detention Fund (255) (Continued) 4832-Major Maintenance Durango Complex Infrastructure Improvements $ Durango Juvenile Probation Building Infrastructure Improvements Durango Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Madison Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Towers Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Non-Allocated Subtotal $ 300,000 1,900,000 870,000 250,000 3,320,000 $ $ 300,000 1,900,000 870,000 250,000 3,320,000 $ $ 300,000 1,900,000 870,000 250,000 3,320,000 $ $ 1,163,000 725,000 1,100,000 2,988,000 $ $ (1,163,000) (425,000) 800,000 870,000 250,000 332,000 Total Detention Fund $ 125,844,378 $ 125,844,378 $ 102,895,867 $ 105,318,256 $ 20,526,122 All Funds Total $ 220,405,332 $ 220,405,332 $ 154,958,679 $ 242,811,219 $ (22,405,887) 81 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Major Maintenance Project Summary YEAR 1 FY 2003-04 YEAR 2 FY 2004-05 YEAR 3 FY 2005-06 YEAR 4 FY 2006-07 YEAR 5 FY 2007-08 5-YEAR TOTAL 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT Ongoing Major Maintenance General Fund (Fund 100) Annual County-wide Maintenance Programs $ Administration Building Infrastructure Improvements Adult Probation Day Reporting Center Infrastructure Improvements BOS Auditorium Building Infrastructure Improvements MCSO/Substation Improvements East Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements Central Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements 5th Avenue Parking Building Infrastructure Improvements Program FEES Code Compliance Reserve S.E. Regional Building Infrastructure Improvements Security Center Building Infrastructure Improvements MCSO/Substation Improvements West Court Building Infrastructure Improvements Subtotal General Fund Projects (Fund 100) $ 2,679,498 900,000 55,000 30,000 30,000 380,000 200,000 40,000 880,000 290,648 700,000 45,000 6,258,746 Detention Operations (Fund 255) Annual Detention Facilities Maintenance Programs $ MCSO/Substation Infrastructure Improvements Durango Juvenile Probation Building Infrastructure Improvements Durango Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Durango Parking Garage Tenant Improvements Estrella Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Estrella Support Building Infrastructure Improvements Code Compliance Reserve Madison Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements S.E. Juvenile Building Infrastructure Improvements MCSO/Substation(2853) Building Infrastructure Improvements Towers Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Subtotal Detention Operations (Fund 255) $ 1,025,000 45,000 749,000 285,000 105,000 300,000 300,000 252,900 50,000 60,000 25,000 384,200 3,581,100 $ TOTAL - 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 9,839,846 General Fund (Fund 100) Blue Point Building Infrastructure Improvements $ Durango Complex Infrastructure Improvements Durango Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements Durango Juvenile Probation Building Infrastructure Improvements Durango Juvenile Building Infrastructure Improvements Santa Fe Depot Building Improvements East Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements Central Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements MCSO Computer Center Building Infrastructure Improvements 911 Building Infrastructure Improvements Old Court House Building Improvements MCSO/Records Building Infrastructure Improvements S.E. MCSO Substation Infrastructure Improvement Security Center Building Infrastructure Improvements MCSO Warehouse Building Infrastructure Improvements West Court Building Infrastructure Improvements Subtotal General Fund Projects (Fund 100) $ $ $ 2,788,848 50,000 110,000 200,000 40,000 880,000 330,000 77,886 700,000 150,000 5,326,734 $ $ $ $ 1,076,250 75,000 105,000 50,000 650,000 400,800 1,600,000 175,000 4,132,050 $ 9,458,784 340,000 1,388,000 150,000 1,397,000 200,000 340,000 200,000 100,000 200,000 1,220,000 200,000 200,000 1,110,000 1,000,000 750,000 8,795,000 $ Detention Operations (Fund 255) Durango Complex Infrastructure Improvements $ Durango Juvenile Probation Building Infrastructure Improvements Durango Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Estrella Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Main Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Madison Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Towers Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Subtotal Detention Operations (Fund 255) $ 1,163,000 725,000 1,100,000 2,988,000 $ TOTAL - 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE $ 2,903,666 240,000 200,000 40,000 880,000 300,000 700,000 240,000 5,503,666 $ $ $ $ 1,130,063 50,000 150,000 400,800 15,000,000 25,000 16,755,863 $ 22,259,529 1,002,649 1,585,000 2,800,000 2,800,000 200,000 300,000 100,000 1,971,751 140,000 500,000 11,399,400 $ $ $ 1,732,000 100,000 3,400,000 225,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,250,000 10,707,000 11,783,000 $ Hospital Fund (Fund 535) Desert Vista Infrastructure Improvements $ Power Plant Improvements Medical Center Infrastructure Improvements FHC Improvements Unallocated Subtotal Hospital Fund (Fund 535) $ 380,000 345,000 582,000 113,000 30,000 1,450,000 $ TOTAL - 900 MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER $ 1,450,000 3,024,224 440,000 40,000 880,000 300,000 440,000 5,124,224 $ $ $ $ 1,186,566 50,000 150,000 400,800 15,000,000 25,000 16,812,366 $ 21,936,590 11,092,500 3,171,400 1,008,249 1,336,000 16,608,149 $ $ $ 11,400,000 1,000,000 162,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 42,562,000 22,106,400 $ $ $ 110,000 150,000 209,000 100,000 30,000 599,000 $ 599,000 3,150,810 440,000 40,000 880,000 300,000 440,000 5,250,810 $ $ 14,547,046 950,000 55,000 30,000 1,150,000 490,000 600,000 200,000 4,400,000 1,520,648 77,886 2,100,000 1,165,000 150,000 27,464,180 $ $ 1,245,894 50,000 150,000 400,800 15,000,000 16,846,694 $ 5,663,773 45,000 824,000 285,000 210,000 500,000 1,400,000 1,856,100 46,650,000 60,000 25,000 609,200 58,128,073 $ 22,097,504 $ 85,592,253 9,092,500 2,771,400 1,551,000 13,414,900 $ 11,521,500 2,771,400 1,561,000 15,853,900 $ 340,000 2,390,649 1,735,000 4,197,000 3,000,000 340,000 32,106,500 9,114,200 200,000 100,000 4,200,000 200,000 200,000 1,250,000 1,000,000 5,698,000 66,071,349 $ $ 100,000 5,000,000 1,750,000 6,850,000 $ $ 1,100,000 5,000,000 1,680,000 20,000,000 27,780,000 $ 2,895,000 825,000 17,100,000 11,225,000 5,592,000 41,000,000 12,250,000 90,887,000 59,170,149 $ 41,194,900 $ 22,703,900 $ 156,958,349 $ $ 110,000 100,000 201,000 100,000 30,000 541,000 $ $ 110,000 100,000 209,000 100,000 30,000 549,000 $ $ 110,000 100,000 209,000 100,000 30,000 549,000 $ 820,000 795,000 1,410,000 513,000 150,000 3,688,000 $ 549,000 $ 549,000 $ 541,000 $ 3,688,000 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Deferred Major Maintenance $ $ $ $ $ 900 MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 82 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Health Care Mandates Revenue and Expenditure Detail Report FY 2002-03 Adopted Restated Description Department 390 General Fund (100) Revenue Disproportionate Share Refund $ 101,760,800 Long Term Residual 52,848 Disproportionate Indigent Compensation Total General Fund Revenue $ 101,813,648 Expenditures Administration Contract Monitoring Healthcare Mandates Consulting Healthcare Financial Admin. Healthcare Financial Admin. Claims Resolution Consulting Group FY 2002-03 Revised Restated FY 2002-03 Projected Restated FY 2003-04 Adopted Adopted Vs Revised Variance $ 101,760,800 52,848 $ 101,813,648 $ 101,760,800 57,444 119,489 $ 101,937,733 $ 101,760,800 52,848 $ 101,813,648 $ $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,997,877 $ 1,880,000 $ 120,000 $ 652,402 712,679 119,915 1,484,996 $ 652,402 712,679 119,915 1,484,996 $ 734,882 888,779 82,084 1,705,745 $ 651,005 967,952 82,541 1,701,498 $ $ 1,397 (255,273) 37,374 (216,502) Subtotal $ $ $ $ AHCCCS Contribution $ 45,996,212 $ 45,996,212 $ 45,477,846 $ 45,477,486 $ 518,726 ALTCS Contribution $ 114,845,600 $ 114,845,600 $ 114,845,520 $ 110,407,500 $ 4,438,100 Mental Health Arnold V Sarn Court Order $ 27,090,000 Arnold V Sarn Litigation Costs 75,000 Arnold V Sarn Court Monitor 140,000 General Mental Health IGA/Non-SMI 5,099,404 Mental Health Orders 50,000 Mental Health Testimony 220,000 Competency Restoration 4,000,000 Subtotal $ 36,674,404 $ 27,090,000 75,000 140,000 5,099,404 50,000 220,000 4,000,000 $ 36,674,404 $ 27,166,997 6,518 136,650 5,095,468 35,145 264,349 5,113,170 $ 37,818,297 $ 28,350,000 10,000 140,000 5,099,404 50,000 220,000 5,500,000 $ 39,369,404 $ (1,260,000) 65,000 (1,500,000) (2,695,000) $ $ $ 3,547,900 $ - MMC Teaching Program Subsidy $ Disproportionate Share Match $ 101,760,800 $ 101,760,800 $ 101,760,801 $ 101,760,800 $ Public Health TB Hospitalization $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 169,765 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Sail Grant Matching Funds $ 686,463 $ 686,463 $ 686,463 $ 679,789 $ 6,674 $ 38,448 73,196 68,649 180,293 $ 38,448 73,196 68,649 180,293 $ $ 43,251 52,438 84,774 180,463 $ $ 37,592 46,814 74,295 158,701 $ (4,803) 20,758 (16,125) (170) (464,844) Long Term Care Residual Administration Acute Care Nursing Home Care Subtotal $ 3,547,900 $ 3,547,900 3,547,900 $ $ Disproportionate Indigent Compensation $ 23,700,000 $ 23,700,000 $ 5,602,992 $ 24,164,844 $ MIHS Operating Subsidy $ 13,140,300 $ 13,140,300 $ 13,140,300 $ 11,826,270 $ 1,314,030 Total General Fund Expenditures $ 345,016,968 $ 345,016,968 $ 326,912,207 $ 341,495,954 $ 3,521,014 $ $ $ 4,500,000 $ (2,000,000) $ 345,995,954 $ 1,521,014 Detention Fund (255) Expenditures Correctional Health Claims $ 2,500,000 Total All Funds Expenditures $ 347,516,968 2,500,000 $ 347,516,968 3,645,584 $ 330,557,791 83 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Maricopa Integrated Health System Expenditure Variance Commentary System Overview Fund Healthcare Delivery System (535) Health Plan (541) Long Term Care Plan (551) Health Select (561) Senior Select (566) MIHS Total Expenditures $ 452,165,681 124,118,261 222,059,981 12,039,793 56,070,794 $ 866,454,510 $ $ Revenues 424,329,868 129,540,718 232,018,464 13,856,770 54,891,995 854,637,815 Net Revenue Net Revenue General Fund Before MIHS After MIHS Operating Inter-Fund MIHS InterInter-Fund Subsidy Transfers Fund Transfers Transfers $ 11,826,270 $ (16,009,543) $ 16,301,111 $ 291,568 5,422,457 (6,333,433) (910,976) 9,958,483 (15,540,586) (5,582,103) 1,816,977 (1,945,916) (128,939) (1,178,799) 7,518,824 6,340,025 $ 11,826,270 $ 9,575 $ $ 9,575 Health Care Delivery System (Fund 535) The Health Care Delivery System’s Fiscal Year 2003-04 net operating budget, including General Fund subsidy, is projected at a loss of ($16,009,543). This loss is covered by $16,301,111 of accumulated net income transferred in from the Health Plans, which reduces the Delivery System’s accumulated expendable fund deficit by $291,588. FY 2003-04 acute patient days and admissions are projected to increase 0.1% from the FY 2002-03 yearend forecast due to population growth and continued expansion of AHCCCS/Health Plan membership. Psychiatric patient days and admissions are budgeted to increase 2.0% from the FY 2002-03 year-end forecast due to continued population growth and need. Outpatient visits are projected to decrease by 4.7% from FY 2002-03 partially due to the closure of the Scottsdale FHC. Net revenue per adjusted patient day is budgeted to increase by 5.3%. The budgeted net revenue increase reflects overall rate increases in AHCCCS, Medicare, commercial and workers compensation insurances, and self pay rates. Budgeted bad debt is 14.6% of net revenue, or 1.5% lower than the FY 2002-03 year-end forecasted rate due to anticipated business office improvements. Non-Operating expenses are decreasing by 0.6% over the current year forecast due to the decreased capital expenditures in FY 2002-03. Maricopa Health Plan (Fund 541) The Maricopa Health Plan (MHP) Fiscal Year 2003-04 net operating budget, is projecting net income of $5,422,457. The FY 2003-04 Maricopa Health Plan (MHP) budget is based on year-end member months totaling 572,477 relative to 538,434 in the FY 2002-03 projection. Member months are budgeted by prospective and prior-period coverage (PPC) population types based on historical analyses of each MHP population. The 6.3% increase in member months growth relative to the FY 2003-03 year-end projection is based upon maintaining current market share plus 5% membership growth. The MHP budget includes an overall 5.0% revenue growth from the projection on a per member per month (PMPM) basis relative to FY 2002-03. Hospital and SOBRA (supplemental payments for births) are anticipated to increase in correlation with growth in member months. The 4.8% PMPM budgeted medical expense increase consists of a 1.3% increase in the hospitalization PMPM rate, a 5.2% increase in the medical compensation PMPM rate, and an average 7.2% increase in the other medical PMPM rate. PMPM administrative cost is anticipated to increase 2.4%. 84 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Maricopa Integrated Health System Expenditure Variance Commentary (Continued) Maricopa Long-Term Care System (Fund 551) The Maricopa Long-Term Care System Fiscal Year 2003-04 net operating budget, is projecting net income of $9,958,483. The FY 2003-04 Maricopa Long-Term Care Plan budget is based on year-end member months totaling 81,552 relative to 92,642 in the FY 2002-03 projection. The 12% budgeted member months decrease relative to the FY 2003-03 year-end projection is based upon continued market share erosion offset by County-wide membership growth of 5.0%. The budget includes an overall revenue increase of 7.4%. Expenditures are reduced by $8.6 million, driven by the loss of member months, partially offset by an average increase in expenses of 9.4% PMPM. Maricopa Health Select Plan (Fund 561) The Maricopa Health Select Plan Fiscal Year 2003-04 net operating budget, is projecting net income of $1,816,977. The FY 2003-04 Maricopa Health Select Plan Budget is based on year-end member months totaling 70,660 relative to 63,952 in the FY 2002-03 projection, an increase of 10.5%. Member months are projected at 4.0% base growth and 2.0% open enrollment growth. The budget reflects a PMPM premium rate increase of 8.5% and a total PMPM net expense increase of 5.5% which includes a 5.4% increase in PMPM medical expenses and a 5.9% PMPM increase in administrative expenses. Maricopa Senior Select Plan (Fund 566) The Maricopa Senior Select Plan Fiscal Year 2003-04 net operating budget, is projecting net loss of ($1,178,799). The FY 2003-04 Maricopa Senior Select Plan Budget is based on year-end member months totaling 90,933 relative to 102,472 in the FY 2002-03 projection an 11.3% decrease. The decrease is based upon the continued cap on new member enrollment. The enrollment cap is anticipated to be lifted in June 2003. The budget reflects a PMPM revenue increase of 3.4% and a total PMPM net expense decrease of 3.6% which includes a 3.4% decrease in PMPM medical expenses offset by a 4.4% PMPM increase in administrative expenses. The reduction in medical expenses is attributed to the attainment of an arrangement whereby a third party will assume all risk for the medical expenses. 85 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Results Initiatives Requests /State Budget Reduction Summary FY 2003-04 REQUESTED FY 2004-05 (ONGOING) FY 2003-04 ADOPTED FY 2004-05 (ONGOING) ALL FUNDS 110 ADULT PROBATION State Cut: Adult Probation Cost Shift $ Department Total $ - $ $ - $ $ (2,388,198) $ (2,388,198) $ (2,388,198) (2,388,198) 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES State Cut: AHCCCS Acute Shift $ State Cut: ALTCS Growth Shift State Cut: Competency Restoration at 86% Department Total $ 3,853,800 6,516,819 5,500,000 15,870,619 $ 3,853,800 6,516,819 5,500,000 15,870,619 $ 3,853,800 $ (4,537,718) 5,500,000 4,816,082 $ 3,853,800 6,516,819 5,500,000 15,870,619 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT State Cut: County Contribution Payment $ Unfunded Liabilities Department Total $ 32,564,529 32,564,529 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Land Acquisition $ State Cut: Purchase of Black Canyon Building State Cut: Purchase of 32nd St. & Van Buren Prop Department Total $ 30,000,000 30,000,000 County Total $ MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS County & District Total $ $ $ $ 32,564,529 32,564,529 $ $ - 78,435,148 $ 78,435,148 $ $ $ $ $ 5,402,800 5,402,800 $ $ 5,402,800 5,402,800 $ 1,800,000 3,000,000 4,800,000 $ $ - 48,435,148 $ 12,630,684 $ 18,885,221 48,435,148 $ 12,630,684 $ 18,885,221 MARICOPA COUNTY FY 2003-04 REQUESTED FY 2004-05 (ONGOING) FY 2003-04 ADOPTED FY 2004-05 (ONGOING) GENERAL FUND 110 ADULT PROBATION State Cut: Adult Probation Cost Shift $ Department Total $ - $ $ - $ $ 21,880,206 21,880,206 $ $ 21,880,206 21,880,206 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES State Cut: AHCCCS Acute Shift $ State Cut: ALTCS Growth Shift State Cut: Competency Restoration at 86% Department Total $ 3,853,800 6,516,819 5,500,000 15,870,619 $ 3,853,800 6,516,819 5,500,000 15,870,619 $ 3,853,800 $ (4,537,718) 5,500,000 4,816,082 $ 3,853,800 6,516,819 5,500,000 15,870,619 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT State Cut: County Contribution Payment $ Unfunded Liabilities Department Total $ 32,564,529 32,564,529 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Land Acquisition $ State Cut: Purchase of Black Canyon Building State Cut: Purchase of 32nd St. & Van Buren Prop Department Total $ 30,000,000 30,000,000 County Total $ MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS County & District Total $ $ $ $ $ 32,564,529 32,564,529 $ - 78,435,148 $ 78,435,148 $ $ $ $ $ 5,402,800 5,402,800 $ $ $ 5,402,800 5,402,800 $ 1,800,000 3,000,000 4,800,000 $ - 48,435,148 $ 36,899,088 $ 43,153,625 48,435,148 $ 36,899,088 $ 43,153,625 MARICOPA COUNTY 86 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Results Initiatives Requests /State Budget Reduction Summary (Continued) FY 2003-04 REQUESTED FY 2004-05 (ONGOING) FY 2003-04 ADOPTED FY 2004-05 (ONGOING) SPECIAL REVENUE 110 ADULT PROBATION State Cut: Adult Probation Cost Shift $ Department Total $ - $ $ - $ $ (24,268,404) $ (24,268,404) $ (24,268,404) (24,268,404) County Total $ - $ - $ (24,268,404) $ (24,268,404) MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS County & District Total $ - $ - $ (24,268,404) $ (24,268,404) MARICOPA COUNTY 87 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 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 2002-03 Adopted DESCRIPTION Maricopa County: Fund Transfers (see schedule) $ 482,649,706 Payments from Departments to Benefits Trust Fund for Employer-Paid Health & Dental Premiums FY 2002-03 Revised $ 482,649,706 FY 2003-04 Adopted $ 385,856,944 Variance Rev./Adopted $ % (96,792,762) -20.1% 2,600,000 2,600,000 16,495,079 13,895,079 534.4% 45,633,576 46,434,066 47,407,631 973,565 2.1% Payments from Health Care Mandates to Health System for Correctional Health 2,500,000 2,500,000 4,500,000 2,000,000 80.0% Payments from Health Care Mandates to Health System for Public Health TB Hospitalization 1,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 Payments from Maricopa Health Plans to Health System for Patient Services 43,659,347 43,659,347 49,242,690 5,583,343 12.8% Payments from Maricopa Health Plans to Health System for Attendant Care 13,342,861 13,342,861 19,354,363 6,011,502 45.1% Payments from Departments to Maricopa Health Plans for Employer Health Premiums 11,563,816 11,563,816 12,981,026 1,417,210 12.3% Internal Service Charges Subtotal Maricopa County $ 602,949,306 (500,000) -50.0% $ 603,749,796 $ 536,337,733 $ (67,412,063) -11.2% 54,000,000 $ 5,000,000 10.2% Flood Control District: Capital Projects Fund Transfer $ 49,000,000 $ 49,000,000 $ Library District Capital Projects Fund Transfer $ 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 $ Stadium District: Cap. Projects, Debt Service Fund Tansfers $ 1,724,018 $ 1,724,018 $ 1,594,274 $ (129,744) -7.5% Total Maricopa County & Districts $ 654,775,524 $ 655,576,014 $ 591,932,007 $ (63,644,007) -9.7% 88 - $ (1,102,200) -100.0% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers In by Fund TRANSFERS BY FUND Transfers In GENERAL FUND Dispro. Share Match Reimb. - MMC Central Service Allocation SPECIAL REVENUE 241 PARKS ENHANCEMENT FUND Transfer from Parks Souvenir Fund ADOPTED RESTATED $ 109,627,487 101,760,800 7,866,687 $ 123,286,664 - REVISED RESTATED $ 109,627,487 101,760,800 7,866,687 $ 123,286,664 - PROJECTED RESTATED $ 109,627,487 101,760,800 7,866,687 $ 123,303,664 17,000 17,000 ADOPTED $ 111,088,120 101,760,800 9,327,320 $ 121,718,713 17,000 17,000 248 SAIL GRANTS SAIL Grant Match from General Fund $ 686,463 686,463 $ 686,463 686,463 $ 686,463 686,463 $ 679,789 679,789 250 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS Transfer from Stadium District Debt Service $ 200,000 200,000 $ 200,000 200,000 $ 200,000 200,000 $ 110,000 110,000 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Jail Excise Tax Maint. Of Effort - Base Jail Excise Tax Maint. Of Effort - Above Base $ 120,866,924 111,051,924 9,815,000 $ 120,866,924 111,051,924 9,815,000 $ 120,866,924 111,051,924 9,815,000 $ 120,866,924 120,866,924 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES Vital Statistics - General Fund $ 45,000 45,000 $ 45,000 45,000 $ 45,000 45,000 $ 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION Transfer from License/Shelter Fund SPECIAL REVENUE $ 1,488,277 1,488,277 $ 123,286,664 $ 1,488,277 1,488,277 $ 123,286,664 $ 1,488,277 1,488,277 $ 123,303,664 $ 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 1,376,476 DEBT SERVICE 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICE Central Service Allocation DEBT SERVICE $ $ $ 45,000 45,000 $ 121,718,713 $ 847,711 847,711 847,711 847,711 89 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers In by Fund (Continued) CAPITAL PROJECTS 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Transfer from Trans. Operating Fund ADOPTED RESTATED 259,880,069 $ 53,000,000 53,000,000 REVISED RESTATED 259,880,069 $ 53,000,000 53,000,000 PROJECTED RESTATED 259,680,069 $ 53,000,000 53,000,000 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ Transfer from Gen. Govn't Grants Fund Transfer from General Fund Transfer from Environmental Svcs. Fund Transfer from Air Quality Fees Fund $ 20,865,139 17,766,301 596,000 1,251,419 1,251,419 $ 20,865,139 17,766,301 596,000 1,251,419 1,251,419 $ 20,865,139 17,766,301 596,000 1,251,419 1,251,419 $ - 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND Transfer from Gen. Fund Project Reserve $ 36,250,000 36,250,000 $ 36,250,000 36,250,000 $ $ - 440 LIBRARY DIST CAPITAL PROJECTS Transfer from Library District Operating Fund $ $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 $ 1,102,200 1,102,200 $ - 445 GENERAL FUND COUNTY IMPROV Transfer from Gen. Fund Project Reserve $ $ 36,250,000 36,250,000 $ 7,532,477 7,532,477 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE Transfer from MLB Operations Fund $ 1,524,018 1,524,018 $ 1,524,018 1,524,018 $ 1,524,018 1,524,018 $ 1,484,274 1,484,274 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Transfer from Detention Operations Fund $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ 48,585,819 48,585,819 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS Transfer from Flood Control District Oper. CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 49,000,000 49,000,000 $ 259,880,069 $ 49,000,000 49,000,000 $ 259,880,069 $ 48,800,000 48,800,000 $ 259,680,069 $ ENTERPRISE 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Operating Subsidy from General Fund Teaching Prog. Subsidy from Gen. Fund Transfer from ALTCS Fund Transfer from Health Plan Fund Transfer from Non-AHCCCS Health Plans 40,305,228 $ 38,813,090 13,140,300 3,547,900 11,745,590 8,691,974 1,687,326 40,305,228 38,813,090 13,140,300 3,547,900 11,745,590 8,691,974 1,687,326 40,305,228 $ 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 ENTERPRISE $ 1,492,138 1,492,138 $ 40,305,228 1,492,138 1,492,138 40,305,228 $ ELIMINATIONS Maricopa County Flood Control District Library District Stadium District $(534,475,924) $ (534,475,924) $ (534,292,924) $ (441,451,218) 482,649,706 482,649,706 482,666,706 385,856,944 49,000,000 49,000,000 48,800,000 54,000,000 1,102,200 1,102,200 1,102,200 1,724,018 1,724,018 1,724,018 1,594,274 90 1,102,200 1,102,200 - $ $ $ $ - - 1,492,138 1,492,138 $ 40,305,228 ADOPTED 168,602,570 $ 57,000,000 57,000,000 54,000,000 54,000,000 $ 168,602,570 $ $ $ 39,194,104 31,675,281 11,826,270 3,547,900 8,021,763 6,333,433 1,945,915 7,518,823 7,518,823 39,194,104 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers Out by Fund TRANSFERS BY FUND Transfers Out GENERAL FUND Jail Excise Tax Maint. of Effort - Base Jail Excise Tax Maint. of Effort - Above Base Transfer to Intergovernmental Capital Proj. Transfer to County Improvement Fund Transfer to General Fund County Improvement MMC Operating Subsidy MMC Teaching Program Subsidy SAIL Grant Match Public Health Vital Statistics SPECIAL REVENUE 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST Central Service Allocation - General Fund ADOPTED RESTATED $ 175,132,587 111,051,924 9,815,000 596,000 36,250,000 13,140,300 3,547,900 686,463 45,000 $ 231,271,796 33,989 33,989 - REVISED RESTATED $ 175,132,587 111,051,924 9,815,000 596,000 36,250,000 13,140,300 3,547,900 686,463 45,000 $ $ 231,271,796 33,989 33,989 - PROJECTED RESTATED $ 175,132,587 111,051,924 9,815,000 596,000 36,250,000 13,140,300 3,547,900 686,463 45,000 $ 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ $ 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ 257,541 224,134 33,407 $ 257,541 224,134 33,407 $ 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service Transportation CIP Transfer $ 54,925,005 1,647,240 277,765 53,000,000 $ 54,925,005 1,647,240 277,765 53,000,000 239 PARKS SOUVENIR FUND Transfer to Parks Enhancement Fund $ - $ 240 LAKE PLEASANT RECREATION SVCS Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ 98,019 98,019 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service Library District CIP Transfer $ 248 SAIL GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund 231,088,796 33,989 33,989 - ADOPTED $ 144,498,360 120,866,924 7,532,477 11,826,270 3,547,900 679,789 45,000 $ 168,372,851 21,225 21,225 $ 319,802 319,802 257,541 224,134 33,407 $ 254,112 233,538 20,574 $ 54,925,005 1,647,240 277,765 53,000,000 $ 59,006,719 1,835,655 171,064 57,000,000 - $ 17,000 17,000 $ 17,000 17,000 $ 98,019 98,019 $ 98,019 98,019 $ 60,366 60,366 1,696,966 592,619 2,147 1,102,200 $ 1,696,966 592,619 2,147 1,102,200 $ 1,696,966 592,619 2,147 1,102,200 $ 681,388 680,066 1,322 - $ 7,371 7,371 $ 7,371 7,371 $ 7,371 7,371 $ - 249 GENERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS Transfer to General Fund County Improvement $ 17,766,301 17,766,301 $ 17,766,301 17,766,301 $ 17,766,301 17,766,301 $ - 250 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 1,929 1,929 $ 1,929 1,929 $ 1,929 1,929 $ 14,803 14,803 253 BALLPARK OPERATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to B.O.B. Long Term Reserve $ 1,553,211 29,193 1,524,018 $ 1,553,211 29,193 1,524,018 $ 1,553,211 29,193 1,524,018 $ 1,505,724 21,450 1,484,274 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Transfer to Detention Capital Projects $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ 48,585,819 48,585,819 91 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers Out by Fund (Continued) ADOPTED RESTATED 231,271,796 $ 71,601 70,755 846 REVISED RESTATED 231,271,796 $ 71,601 70,755 846 PROJECTED RESTATED 231,088,796 $ 71,601 70,755 846 ADOPTED 168,372,851 $ 33,125 32,604 521 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 241,556 241,556 $ 241,556 241,556 $ 241,556 241,556 $ 164,238 164,238 290 WASTE TIRE Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ 156,663 40,055 116,608 $ 156,663 40,055 116,608 $ 156,663 40,055 116,608 $ 146,117 23,001 123,116 295 HOUSING GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 73,304 73,304 $ 73,304 73,304 $ 73,304 73,304 $ 504 AIR QUALITY FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Proj. $ 1,393,570 142,151 1,251,419 $ 1,393,570 142,151 1,251,419 $ 1,393,570 142,151 1,251,419 $ 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 66,083 66,083 $ 66,083 66,083 $ 66,083 66,083 $ 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Proj. $ 1,606,072 354,653 1,251,419 $ 1,606,072 354,653 1,251,419 $ 1,606,072 354,653 1,251,419 $ 293,938 293,938 - 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 1,086,945 1,086,945 $ 1,086,945 1,086,945 $ 1,086,945 1,086,945 $ 1,249,820 1,249,820 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service Transfer to Animal Control Field Operations $ 1,783,238 292,114 2,847 1,488,277 $ 1,783,238 292,114 2,847 1,488,277 $ 1,783,238 292,114 2,847 1,488,277 $ 347,268 345,564 1,704 - 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service $ 190,862 189,020 1,842 $ 190,862 189,020 1,842 $ 190,862 189,020 1,842 $ 241,322 240,138 1,184 991 FLOOD CONTROL Central Service Allocation - General Fund Flood Control CIP Transfer SPECIAL REVENUE $ 50,122,858 1,122,858 49,000,000 $ 231,271,796 $ 50,122,858 1,122,858 49,000,000 $ 231,271,796 $ 49,922,858 1,122,858 48,800,000 $ 231,088,796 $ SPECIAL REVENUE 260 RESEARCH & REPORTING Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service DEBT SERVICE 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 Transfer to Stadium District Special Revenue Fund DEBT SERVICE 92 $ $ 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 $ $ 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 $ $ 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 293,938 293,938 - 55,136,127 1,136,127 54,000,000 $ 168,372,851 $ $ 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers Out by Fund (Continued) ADOPTED RESTATED 231,271,796 126,978,376 $ 103,224,695 101,760,800 704,202 759,693 REVISED RESTATED 231,271,796 126,978,376 $ 103,224,695 101,760,800 704,202 759,693 PROJECTED RESTATED 231,088,796 126,978,376 $ 103,224,695 101,760,800 704,202 759,693 ADOPTED 168,372,851 127,541,154 $ 103,269,097 101,760,800 1,040,437 467,860 541 HEALTH PLAN Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Medical Center $ 8,691,974 8,691,974 $ 8,691,974 8,691,974 $ 8,691,974 8,691,974 $ 6,395,128 61,695 6,333,433 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Medical Center Transfer to Senior Select $ 13,262,118 24,390 11,745,590 1,492,138 $ 13,262,118 24,390 11,745,590 1,492,138 $ 13,262,118 24,390 11,745,590 1,492,138 $ 15,867,041 326,455 8,021,763 7,518,823 561 HEALTH SELECT Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to Medical Center $ 1,687,326 1,687,326 $ 1,687,326 1,687,326 $ 1,687,326 1,687,326 $ 1,950,968 5,053 1,945,915 566 SENIOR SELECT PLAN Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 379 379 $ 379 379 $ 379 379 $ 27,920 27,920 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service ENTERPRISE $ 111,884 28,582 83,302 $ 126,978,376 $ 111,884 28,582 83,302 $ 126,978,376 $ 111,884 28,582 83,302 $ 126,978,376 $ SPECIAL REVENUE ENTERPRISE 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Dispro. Share Reimb. - General Fund Central Service Allocation - General Fund Central Service Allocation - Debt Service INTERNAL SERVICE 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 893,165 491,717 491,717 $ 893,165 491,717 491,717 $ 893,165 491,717 491,717 31,000 31,000 $ 127,541,154 $ 928,853 482,105 482,105 673 REPROGRAPHICS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 38,089 38,089 $ 38,089 38,089 $ 38,089 38,089 $ 39,559 39,559 675 RISK MANAGEMENT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 123,591 123,591 $ 123,591 123,591 $ 123,591 123,591 $ 122,626 122,626 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund INTERNAL SERVICE $ $ 239,768 239,768 893,165 $ 239,768 239,768 893,165 $ $ 239,768 239,768 893,165 284,563 284,563 928,853 ELIMINATIONS Maricopa County Flood Control District Library District Stadium District $ (534,475,924) $ (534,475,924) $ (534,292,924) $ (441,451,218) 482,649,706 482,649,706 482,666,706 385,856,944 49,000,000 49,000,000 48,800,000 54,000,000 1,102,200 1,102,200 1,102,200 1,724,018 1,724,018 1,724,018 1,594,274 $ $ $ 93 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Direct Assessment Special Districts Secondary Roll MARICOPA COUNTY DIRECT ASSESSMENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS SECONDARY ROLL FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 DIST. NO. 28530 28531 28548 28532 28547 28795 28546 28535 28529 28533 28793 28539 94 2002-03 BUDGET 3,744 1,076 4,820 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES 2002-03 3,744 1,076 4,820 2003-04 LESS 2003-04 BUDGET AVAILABLE DIRECT REQUEST FUNDS ASSESSMENT 2,804 0 2,804 14,448 0 14,448 17,252 0 17,252 DISTRICT NAME Grandview Manor LEVY PURPOSE Bond Interest Bond redemption Fairview Lane Bond Interest Bond redemption 678 689 1,367 678 689 1,367 585 688 1,273 0 0 0 585 688 1,273 East Fairview Lane Bond Interest Bond redemption 1,905 3,844 5,749 1,905 3,844 5,749 1,420 3,308 4,728 0 0 0 1,420 3,308 4,728 White Fence Farms Bond Interest Bond redemption 4,475 3,591 8,066 4,475 3,591 8,066 3,514 8,508 12,022 0 0 0 3,514 8,508 12,022 104th Place/University Dr. Bond Interest Bond redemption 2,391 1,601 3,992 2,391 1,601 3,992 2,046 4,482 6,528 0 0 0 2,046 4,482 6,528 Queen Creek Water Improv Bond Interest Bond redemption 11,429 15,126 26,555 11,429 15,126 26,555 4,370 6,402 10,772 0 0 0 4,370 6,402 10,772 Central Ave Bond Interest Bond redemption 12,362 0 12,362 12,362 0 12,362 10,283 0 10,283 0 0 0 10,283 0 10,283 Billings Street Bond Interest Bond redemption 397 0 397 397 0 397 341 0 341 0 0 0 341 0 341 Marquerite Drive Bond Interest Bond redemption 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,079 6,067 10,146 0 0 0 4,079 6,067 10,146 129th Avenue 14th Street 192nd Ave. Avenida Del Sol Beautiful Arizona Estates Circle City Community Park Desert Foothills North Eagle Peak Estrella Dells Mallory Queen Creek Water Im prov West Phoenix Estates 10 General General General General General General General General General General General General 748 501 874 796 27,792 13,800 15,340 1,665 74,828 543 21,003 10,125 748 501 874 796 27,792 13,800 15,340 1,665 74,828 543 21,003 10,125 123 1,172 2,522 0 27,792 13,800 15,340 1,843 74,828 1,096 40,000 10,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 1,172 2,522 0 27,792 13,800 15,340 1,843 74,828 1,096 40,000 10,125 $231,323 $231,323 $261,987 $0 $261,987 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll MARICOPA COUNTY STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LEVIES SECONDARY ROLL FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 Estimated DIRECT 2002-03 2003-04 TAX DIST # DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET LEVY 13001 Sun City 38B 2,544 2,486 2,551 13003 Sunrise Unit 5 Ph 2 2,160 2,160 2,160 13005 Golden West 2 7,836 7,891 8,357 13010 Empire Gardens 2 960 966 1,027 13051 Towne Meadows 17,340 17,451 18,497 13056 The Vineyards of Mesa 8,640 8,697 9,203 13057 Clark Acres 684 706 765 13059 Country Meadows 9 15,564 15,119 15,423 13069 Sun Lakes 09 2,220 2,236 2,370 13070 Camelot Golf Club Est. 1 3,864 3,942 4,241 13072 Desert Sands Golf & CC 3 5,088 5,201 5,598 13075 Litchfield Park 19 3,780 4,038 4,302 13078 Sunrise Meadows 1 192 195 0 13079 Estate Ranchos 876 886 943 13103 Desert Foothills Est 5 3,528 3,634 3,950 13107 Desert Foothills Est 6 4,596 4,743 5,161 13109 Apache Wells Mobile P 3A 1,920 1,952 2,092 13121 Desert Sands Golf & CC 4 9,000 9,183 9,104 13122 Sun Lakes 07 3,144 3,159 3,357 13128 Litchfield Park 17 3,168 3,283 3,508 13132 Valencia Village 6,420 6,264 6,392 13147 Superstition View #1 3,216 3,235 3,435 13169 Sun Lakes 22 3,960 3,982 4,213 13176 Villa Royale 576 586 625 13177 Coronado Acres 564 571 609 13178 Sun Lakes 10 6,996 7,039 7,466 13184 Hopeville 1,104 1,066 1,055 13188 Sun Lakes 21 10,260 10,318 10,932 13191 Dreamland Villa-19 768 770 811 13203 Sun Lakes 19 4,824 4,862 5,161 13210 Crestview Manor 768 770 956 13219 Sun Lakes 12 7,128 7,174 7,603 13220 Sun Lakes 14 5,820 5,850 6,189 13221 Sun Lakes 16 &16A 9,192 9,247 9,795 13223 Sun Lakes 18 12,372 12,470 13,229 13226 Sun Lakes 11 & 11A 1,308 1,313 1,392 13228 Crimson Cove 1,728 1,733 1,824 13247 Sun City 57 8,388 8,970 10,036 13248 Apache Wells Mobile P 3B 2,868 2,924 3,142 13263 Sun City 10 18,672 20,456 22,059 13264 Sun Lakes 03A 1,800 1,812 1,918 13268 Sun Lakes 08 3,060 3,085 3,274 13271 Mesquite Trails 3,372 3,391 3,587 13281 Sun City 10A 17,640 19,111 20,380 13287 Empire Gardens 3 972 976 1,034 13288 Empire Gardens 4 1,128 1,134 1,199 13290 Sun Lakes 15 5,508 5,534 5,857 13291 Sun City 50A 3,444 3,272 3,224 13298 Sun City West 686,976 675,685 701,001 13303 Sun Lakes 17 10,080 10,137 10,328 13310 Casa Mia 2A 1,872 1,911 2,051 2003 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 727,300 842,990 1,791,940 213,500 7,174,939 1,826,100 265,930 2,212,550 770,750 934,680 824,267 1,794,100 4,269,314 446,040 1,318,964 1,416,880 204,836 1,720,773 942,200 792,350 1,428,829 533,600 3,482,680 736,131 214,150 2,945,421 168,235 5,018,424 338,950 2,310,300 192,800 2,420,752 2,122,140 3,206,250 4,107,315 1,079,450 171,295 1,642,750 618,616 3,947,111 463,350 671,550 690,131 3,543,850 223,050 248,950 2,253,080 448,150 185,393,090 3,369,450 421,500 Estimated 2003 TAX RATE 0.3507 0.2562 0.4664 0.4810 0.2578 0.5040 0.2877 0.6971 0.3075 0.4537 0.6791 0.2398 0.0000 0.2114 0.2995 0.3643 1.0213 0.5291 0.3563 0.4427 0.4474 0.6437 0.1210 0.0849 0.2844 0.2535 0.6271 0.2178 0.2393 0.2234 0.4959 0.3141 0.2916 0.3055 0.3221 0.1290 1.0648 0.6109 0.5079 0.5589 0.4139 0.4875 0.5198 0.5751 0.4636 0.4816 0.2600 0.7194 0.3781 0.3065 0.4866 95 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13311 13312 13315 13316 13325 13326 13329 13330 13331 13335 13343 13346 13348 13349 13351 13352 13354 13356 13357 13358 13359 13361 13362 13363 13364 13371 13372 13374 13375 13376 13383 13386 13392 13393 13394 13395 13396 13397 13401 13402 13404 13417 13418 13419 13420 13421 13422 13423 13424 13432 13433 13434 13437 13438 96 DESCRIPTION Pomeroy Estates Rio Vista West 2 Apache Wells Mobile P 6 Sun City 44 Queen Creek Plaza Rio Vista West Desert Saguaro Estates 1 Sun City 45 Sun City 46 Casa Mia 2B Knott Manor Circle City Desert Saguaro Estates 2 Sun City 47 Sun City 38 Mesa East Sun City 49 Desert Sands Golf & CC 6 Desert Sands Golf & CC 7 Sun City 38A Velda Rose Estates East 5 Sun Lakes 04 Sun Lakes 05 Sun Lakes 06 Sun City 48 Oasis Verde Sun City 15D Sun City 51 Sun City 52 Sun City 50 Sun City West Expansion Litchfield Park 18 Sun City 41 Sun City 53 Sun City 54 Sun City 55 Desert Skies 2 Sun City 56 Sun City 33 Rancho Del Sol 2 Sun City 17E F&G Western Ranchettes AZ Skies Mobile Est E2 Sun City 35 Az Skies Mobil Estates Sun City 28A Velda Rose Estates East 3 Velda Rose Estates East 4 Linda Vista Sun City 17H Sun Lakes 01 Sun Lakes 02 Granite Reef Vista Park Sun City 34 2002-03 BUDGET 2,172 540 2,448 15,180 1,728 4,560 3,636 11,808 7,572 2,292 1,752 2,940 1,536 16,920 2,724 18,276 17,448 2,244 3,828 2,772 2,232 5,748 11,172 9,192 13,356 6,384 4,212 10,824 10,104 6,924 130,884 3,300 9,960 24,120 14,652 16,020 1,884 3,552 19,068 2,868 7,812 2,856 2,868 22,860 3,636 2,088 936 1,308 3,432 3,636 5,640 5,904 804 3,204 2003-04 BUDGET 2,194 553 2,496 15,008 1,733 4,602 3,657 11,712 7,944 2,343 1,765 2,853 1,540 16,633 2,563 18,665 16,949 2,292 3,904 2,613 2,255 5,775 11,243 9,245 13,043 6,434 4,233 10,646 11,050 6,706 128,969 3,579 10,017 26,309 16,380 17,244 1,906 3,874 19,944 2,887 8,233 2,869 2,887 24,180 3,657 2,153 940 1,315 3,453 3,542 5,679 5,945 810 3,372 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 2,351 597 2,684 15,611 1,823 4,923 3,880 12,211 8,438 2,524 1,855 3,250 1,627 17,172 2,514 20,006 17,277 2,477 4,166 2,568 2,399 6,110 11,917 9,790 13,359 6,827 4,390 11,006 12,535 6,806 133,627 3,838 10,490 29,797 18,846 19,336 2,030 4,149 21,977 3,063 8,594 3,036 3,058 26,791 3,950 2,280 990 1,394 3,695 3,596 6,033 6,297 858 3,597 2003 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 543,393 254,330 510,680 2,470,180 305,700 755,680 529,450 2,193,900 1,719,101 641,050 228,850 854,628 443,100 2,992,029 276,767 3,203,939 3,520,750 476,270 626,012 286,600 533,000 2,349,908 3,302,709 3,057,305 3,412,485 1,147,600 297,800 2,217,975 2,402,736 1,718,550 34,494,342 1,136,900 1,749,000 6,658,705 3,756,912 3,311,250 386,550 841,410 3,625,057 1,319,220 2,233,850 606,140 229,671 4,358,675 409,566 666,700 266,000 194,800 568,400 758,650 1,423,784 1,436,358 197,950 741,550 Estimated 2003 TAX RATE 0.4327 0.2347 0.5256 0.6320 0.5963 0.6515 0.7328 0.5566 0.4908 0.3937 0.8106 0.3803 0.3672 0.5739 0.9083 0.6244 0.4907 0.5201 0.6655 0.8960 0.4501 0.2600 0.3608 0.3202 0.3915 0.5949 1.4741 0.4962 0.5217 0.3960 0.3874 0.3376 0.5998 0.4475 0.5016 0.5839 0.5252 0.4931 0.6063 0.2322 0.3847 0.5009 1.3315 0.6147 0.9644 0.3420 0.3722 0.7156 0.6501 0.4740 0.4237 0.4384 0.4334 0.4851 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13439 13440 13441 13444 13446 13447 13448 13449 13450 13451 13452 13453 13454 13455 13456 13459 13460 13463 13465 13478 13485 13486 13487 13488 13490 13492 13494 13495 13496 13499 13510 13801 13802 13810 13812 13813 13816 13817 13820 13821 13825 13827 13830 13836 13837 13838 13839 13840 13844 13848 13849 13850 13851 13853 DESCRIPTION Sun City 34A Sun City 35A Sun City 36 Velda Rose Estates East 2 Apache Wells Mobil P 1&2 Apache Cntry Club Est. 5 Apache Wells Mobile P 4B Caballeros Haciendas Casa Mia Desert Skies Dreamland Villa 16 Dreamland Villa 17 Linda Vista 2 Lucy T. Homesites 2 Luke Field Homes McAfee Mobile Manor Rancho Grande Tres Sun Lakes 03 Western Ranchettes 2 La Casa Bonita Sun City 32A Sun City 31A Sun City 39 Sun City 40 Brentwood Acres Desert Sands Golf & CC 8 Sun City 37 Sun City 42 Sun City 43 Sun City 28B Camelot Golf Club Est. 2 Scottsdale Estates 01 Scottsdale Highlands 1 Melville 1 Scottsdale Estates 04 Scottsdale Highlands 2 Scottsdale Estates 02 Cavalier Hidden Village Scottsdale Estates 03 Mesa Country Club Park Scottsdale Estates 05 Trail West Dreamland Villa Scottsdale Cntry Acres Cox Heights 1 Cox Heights 2 Dreamland Villa 02 Esquire Villa 1 Scottsdale Estates 07 Scottsdale Estates 06 Scottsdale Estates 08 Scottsdale Estates 09 Cox Hghts 3 & Scot Est 12 2002-03 BUDGET 15,024 14,844 5,088 1,500 12,948 3,888 936 1,200 5,628 1,512 9,732 2,952 2,880 2,736 7,332 1,500 6,384 9,384 2,832 1,224 15,336 20,184 9,216 5,388 1,536 4,788 13,236 8,580 16,680 2,280 3,264 4,728 1,704 5,412 12,348 1,884 4,956 5,916 1,512 6,708 3,036 10,092 1,512 1,692 3,600 3,420 9,492 2,472 4,932 10,416 10,584 6,864 4,380 8,712 2003-04 BUDGET 16,127 14,641 5,268 1,508 13,265 3,904 953 1,212 5,765 1,525 9,809 2,976 2,911 2,815 7,225 1,517 6,437 9,259 2,851 1,240 16,326 21,960 9,293 5,452 1,540 4,888 13,049 8,568 16,425 2,510 3,331 4,765 1,723 5,458 12,451 1,904 4,999 5,963 1,528 6,763 3,059 10,180 1,523 1,705 3,627 3,441 9,573 2,487 4,969 10,505 10,668 6,915 4,412 8,781 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 18,053 15,178 5,602 1,594 14,314 4,145 1,021 1,291 6,216 1,616 10,404 3,169 3,093 3,038 7,460 1,617 6,829 9,521 3,022 1,319 18,399 24,998 9,574 5,659 1,635 4,850 13,502 8,850 17,009 2,702 3,584 5,063 1,835 5,792 13,209 2,025 5,363 6,325 1,625 7,170 3,250 10,840 1,621 1,808 3,850 3,664 10,154 2,635 5,267 11,149 11,311 7,331 4,675 9,320 2003 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 3,392,455 3,031,908 3,354,705 345,250 2,324,741 1,588,050 198,900 380,150 989,350 265,250 2,128,820 677,600 575,150 587,240 628,422 327,678 1,630,768 2,014,605 554,650 149,760 3,626,882 3,983,396 3,029,018 1,850,400 280,200 1,151,900 2,147,704 1,280,664 2,789,200 411,350 1,311,925 1,647,726 816,800 1,730,400 4,141,600 728,400 1,913,250 2,038,237 1,273,200 3,050,300 667,250 4,187,718 674,400 299,250 1,644,750 1,445,531 3,101,900 1,383,184 897,400 3,800,570 3,998,400 2,767,573 1,470,300 3,926,390 Estimated 2003 TAX RATE 0.5322 0.5006 0.1670 0.4617 0.6157 0.2610 0.5133 0.3396 0.6283 0.6092 0.4887 0.4677 0.5378 0.5173 1.1871 0.4935 0.4188 0.4726 0.5448 0.8807 0.5073 0.6276 0.3161 0.3058 0.5835 0.4210 0.6287 0.6910 0.6098 0.6569 0.2732 0.3073 0.2247 0.3347 0.3189 0.2780 0.2803 0.3103 0.1276 0.2351 0.4871 0.2589 0.2404 0.6042 0.2341 0.2535 0.3273 0.1905 0.5869 0.2934 0.2829 0.2649 0.3180 0.2374 97 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13855 13859 13862 13863 13864 13865 13868 13869 13870 13872 13874 13875 13876 13879 13882 13884 13885 13886 13888 13890 13896 13901 13908 13909 13911 13912 13913 13916 13917 13919 13921 13922 13923 13924 13925 13926 13927 13928 13929 13930 13931 13932 13933 13934 13935 13936 13937 13938 13939 13940 13941 13942 13943 13944 98 DESCRIPTION Glenmar Dreamland Villa 03 Town & Country Scottsdale Country Place at Chandler Scottsdale Highlands 4 Trail West 2 Scottsdale Estates 16 J & O Frontier Place McCormick Estates 1 Dreamland Villa 04 Hallcraft 1 Hallcraft 2 Hallcraft 3 Apache Cntry Club Est. 1 Scottsdale Cntry Acres 2 Mereway Manor Cox Heights 7 Cox Heights 6 Cox Heights 4 Dreamland Villa 05 Scottsdale Highlands 5 Velda Rose Estates 1 Apache Cntry Club Est. 3 Dreamland Villa 06 Velda Rose Estates 2 Velda Rose Estates 3 Holiday Gardens 1 Sun City 06 Sun City 05 Dreamland Villa 07 Dreamland Villa 08 Velda Rose Cntry Club Add Sun City 06C Sun City 06D Sun City 06G Sun City 07 Sun City 08 Sun City 09 Velda Rose Estates 4 Dreamland Villa 09 Sun City 11 Sun City 12 Sun City 15 Sun City 17 Sun City 01 Velda Rose Gardens Dreamland Villa 10 Sun City 15B Sun City 18 & 18A Sun City 17A Sun City 17B & 17C Sun City 19 & 20 Dreamland Villa 11 Sun City 23 2002-03 BUDGET 1,860 4,824 2,016 6,348 1,164 1,896 5,676 2,388 1,440 2,136 25,332 15,252 10,596 7,008 5,916 5,112 1,704 1,140 4,164 5,424 1,512 1,116 10,644 3,840 1,692 1,860 156 34,968 14,772 5,964 4,116 2,400 26,652 24,348 10,128 8,340 10,296 8,424 1,860 5,784 35,364 27,456 3,156 4,032 238,224 3,600 5,400 4,848 28,008 2,568 6,912 31,392 7,836 16,908 2003-04 BUDGET 1,879 4,860 2,031 6,427 1,169 1,909 5,726 2,407 1,447 2,148 25,526 15,379 10,686 7,065 5,965 5,155 1,718 1,147 4,198 5,468 1,523 1,127 10,728 3,874 1,705 1,879 160 34,349 14,431 6,014 4,150 2,420 26,057 23,930 10,355 9,060 10,865 8,880 1,879 5,830 37,024 28,079 3,282 3,852 251,127 3,625 5,450 4,732 28,618 2,459 7,087 31,846 7,902 17,632 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 1,998 5,155 2,153 6,848 1,235 2,024 6,068 2,548 1,533 2,272 27,050 16,311 11,334 7,500 6,336 5,481 1,844 1,215 4,457 5,811 1,617 1,201 11,389 4,113 1,809 1,998 0 35,467 14,795 6,385 4,403 2,567 26,750 24,716 10,929 9,767 11,525 9,329 1,998 6,187 39,471 29,490 3,421 3,840 268,880 3,836 5,784 4,774 29,980 2,463 7,368 33,457 8,389 18,460 2003 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 409,200 886,675 756,300 1,929,400 480,950 868,000 1,835,200 1,021,630 324,301 435,300 9,176,420 5,376,700 7,539,700 2,178,224 2,384,100 2,199,944 655,340 448,200 1,769,350 1,019,050 466,650 218,350 3,325,100 923,413 271,350 530,500 463,200 4,940,769 2,802,229 1,291,450 1,027,650 298,900 4,174,219 3,587,026 1,966,521 1,794,894 2,136,103 1,502,550 485,700 1,236,550 6,213,090 4,017,947 1,078,528 515,700 29,935,674 444,741 1,156,900 980,725 4,777,702 375,650 1,439,500 5,143,151 1,661,832 2,487,434 Estimated 2003 TAX RATE 0.4883 0.5814 0.2847 0.3549 0.2568 0.2332 0.3306 0.2494 0.4727 0.5219 0.2948 0.3034 0.1503 0.3443 0.2658 0.2491 0.2814 0.2711 0.2519 0.5702 0.3465 0.5500 0.3425 0.4454 0.6667 0.3766 0.0000 0.7178 0.5280 0.4944 0.4285 0.8588 0.6408 0.6890 0.5558 0.5442 0.5395 0.6209 0.4114 0.5003 0.6353 0.7340 0.3172 0.7446 0.8982 0.8625 0.5000 0.4868 0.6275 0.6557 0.5118 0.6505 0.5048 0.7421 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13950 13951 13952 13953 13954 13955 13962 13964 13965 13966 13967 13968 13969 13970 13972 13973 13974 13978 13985 13986 13989 13990 13991 13992 13993 13994 13995 13999 23076 23137 23145 23176 23189 23254 23255 23324 23344 23352 23353 23360 23375 23393 13435 23104 DESCRIPTION Sun City 21 & 21A Dreamland Villa 12 Sun City 11A Sun City 15C Sun City 22 & 22A Apache Wells Mobile P 5 Velda Rose Estates East Sun City 14 Sun City 22B Sun City 25 Sun City 25A Sun City 27 Sun City 30 Sun City 16 Apache Wells Mobile P 3 Dreamland Villa 14 Apache Wells Mobile P 4 Apache Wells Mobile P 4A Sun City 24 Sun City 26 Sun City 26A Sun City 31 Suburban Ranchettes Sun City 24B Sun City 28 Sun City 32 Dreamland Villa 15 Sun City 24C Pinnacle Ranch at 83rd Ave Country Meadows 10 Litchfield Vista Views II Crystal Manor Anthem I Cloud Creek Ranch Citrus Point SCW Expansion 17 Dreaming Summit 1,2a,2b Sun Lakes Unit 41 Wigwam Creek N.Ph.1 Dreaming Summit 3 Russell Ranch Ph 1 Wigwam Creek South Az Skies Mobile Est. W 2 Litchfield Vista Views 2002-03 BUDGET 26,748 6,540 8,748 10,368 24,612 2,448 3,360 5,160 7,716 30,528 16,536 8,040 30,252 18,900 7,668 12,528 5,604 2,436 6,456 14,976 12,744 11,712 3,360 6,600 2,832 11,544 8,208 4,224 2,628 12,648 1,896 6,780 216,000 984 3,876 75,120 22,176 0 0 0 0 0 2003-04 BUDGET 28,209 6,591 9,386 10,572 25,461 2,503 3,382 5,151 7,968 32,542 17,357 8,571 32,617 18,825 7,837 12,632 5,727 2,487 6,835 15,921 13,617 12,468 3,080 6,757 2,922 11,287 8,273 4,480 2,527 12,284 1,838 6,920 324,000 1,005 3,758 74,019 22,499 1,347 7,097 10,856 8,661 16,784 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 30,329 6,990 10,029 11,022 26,985 2,681 3,595 5,277 8,432 34,873 18,495 9,643 37,131 19,666 8,398 13,406 6,181 2,680 7,298 16,954 14,403 13,244 2,894 7,185 3,089 11,959 8,766 4,787 2,540 12,484 1,889 7,433 400,568 624 3,559 76,673 34,965 3,475 15,278 24,553 13,714 35,999 3,131,016 3,276,216 3,528,680 1,868 1,677 1,893 1,641 2003 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 4,704,906 1,314,500 1,107,200 3,099,004 3,103,561 329,019 499,450 539,250 2,536,008 6,300,886 3,240,250 1,809,900 5,633,825 7,470,835 1,412,323 3,275,250 1,646,644 567,846 1,928,530 3,660,808 1,958,030 2,284,800 1,101,030 2,350,096 727,600 2,228,550 1,915,122 1,585,425 1,088,600 2,768,550 932,090 1,012,250 35,815,029 323,410 3,065,590 15,270,977 11,260,316 476,217 3,409,442 Estimated 2003 TAX RATE 0.6446 0.5318 0.9058 0.3557 0.8695 0.8148 0.7198 0.9786 0.3325 0.5535 0.5708 0.5328 0.6591 0.2632 0.5946 0.4093 0.3754 0.4720 0.3784 0.4631 0.7356 0.5797 0.2628 0.3057 0.4245 0.5366 0.4577 0.3019 0.2333 0.4509 0.2027 0.7343 1.1184 0.1929 0.1161 0.5021 0.3105 0.7297 0.4481 657,270 2.0865 749,867,649 2003 SQUARE FOOTAGE 2,112 314,226 1,782 1,351,641 0.6721 0.1318 99 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 100 Summary Schedules Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Personnel Plan Introduction The mission of Human Resources is to provide strategic direction, state-of-the-art infrastructure support, customer service excellence and a healthy workplace environment for County departments, employees and the citizens we serve. Our vision is to become the employer of choice to create cost-effective services by re-engineering our business practices and policies. Employee Satisfaction and Attrition 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. As evidenced in the chart below, employee satisfaction steadily increased from FY 1995/96 to FY 2001/02 and remained relatively constant during FY 2002/03. Another key metric is the rate of attrition. Since 1999, the Maricopa County attrition trend has continued to improve. State of Arizona data provided by the Arizona Department of Administration Human Resources System 2003 Annual Report 101 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Human Resources Infrastructure Concentrated efforts to improve our human resources infrastructure have been in place for several months and to that end we expect to implement the new PeopleSoft Human Resources Information System (HRIS) with a go live date of December 22, 2003. County organizations are service driven and the need to manage and control the intangible assets such as human capital is critical. Maricopa County maintains a $500M payroll for approximately 15,000 employees countywide. The management of human capital is and will continue to be the driving force behind our business solutions. Our employees provide front line services to our customers, the residents of Maricopa County. Program planning, service delivery systems and feedback from the recipients of those services is integral to the gauging of customer satisfaction. The primary channel for feedback is through our human capital whose collective intelligence can recommend business strategies to address service delivery issues on all levels for a growing 3.2 million population with changing demography. One of the welcomed advantages of the new HRIS system is the ability to electronically retrieve employee and position data in real time. A goal throughout this process is to drastically reduce the number of forms and documents associated with employment processes. Human Resources Employment Activity The following data is depictive of the ongoing employment activity within the Human Resources Department. During fiscal year 2002 through 2003, the Human Resources Department processed 2,401 requisitions for various positions within the County. Requisitions for Vacant Positions The “total number of requisitions” does not necessarily reflect the number of vacancies at Maricopa County. Departments and agencies may list multiple vacancies or position control numbers on a particular requisition. There was a modest decline in the number of requisitions received in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Despite a Countywide voluntary recruitment slowdown at the start of this fiscal year, the overall number of recruitments was just 84 less than the year prior. Working under severe budget constraints, departments concentrated on retaining key employees, and eliminating unnecessary vacant positions in lieu of recruiting and then facing potential layoffs or reductions in force. Fewer new positions were created during this time as well. 102 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Applications Received The volume of applications is down considerably – a 20% reduction during the last fiscal year. During the 2002-2003 fiscal year, candidates applying for open competitive recruitments had the opportunity to file applications electronically via the County’s HR website (http://www.maricopa.gov/human_resources). During this initial period, 11,567 applications were submitted online. As candidates gain familiarity with the electronic application feature and its ease of use, we anticipate the rate of electronic application submittal will increase. Looking forward, the County will continue to encourage the electronic submission of applications, both internally and externally. As the County moves forward with the installation and configuration of PeopleSoft, additional functionality and features will be available to Human Resources staff and internal/external candidates. This additional functionality will create more accessibility options for applying online. Candidates with access to the Internet will be able to submit applications for current recruitments directly over the Internet and have their information feed seamlessly into PeopleSoft. Departments and agencies have an obligation to select the most highly qualified candidates to fill vacancies. When applications are received for open recruitments, each one must be evaluated for minimum qualifications and preferred knowledge, skills, and abilities. As part of the application assessment, Human Resources may administer examinations, including written assessments in the form of multiple choice exams, or performance exams to measure a candidate’s keyboarding ability, shorthand speed, etc. These assessments allow the Human Resources Department to create a pool of qualified candidates, ranked by their scores on the specific examinations. Included in these assessments are examinations for Juvenile and Adult Probation Officers, Clerical/Office Administrator assessments, and promotional exams for Law Enforcement or Trial Courts employees. 103 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Number of Written Examinations Conducted Workforce Administration It is the goal of the Maricopa County Human Resources Department to migrate to paperless personnel files and employment processing activity. Our new HRIS software will allow us to produce on-line turnaround documents and forms that can be processed in real time. Recruitment, applicant processing and testing, applicant status/communications/tracking/selection and hiring processes will become fully automated. The administration of personnel processes inclusive of position, job and personnel related data will be accessible on-line. Through Employee Self-Service, an automated web-based process, personnel will be able to update demographic information, family status changes, education and training. The Manager Self-Service functionality will provide managers and supervisors the ability to enter on-line performance management information such as performance evaluations, performance management planning and recommended staff development activities. Managers and supervisors will have the ability to create on-line succession plans, identify career pathing activities for employees and trouble shoot their organizational development issues. Our new HRIS system is customized to produce full position control so that only approved budgeted positions can be filled through a recruitment process. This feature allows the Office of Management and Budget to appropriately allocate dollars to department cost centers and to manage and monitor those dollars when attrition and or business necessity requires a change in a budgeted position. Staff Development The EDGE Program Our Staff Development and training programs over the years have enjoyed tremendous success. Over the next fiscal year Staff Development is raising the bar with the advent of our new EDGE Program (Executive Development Opportunities for Government Employees). The Executive Development Program will provide 96 hours of training over a twelve-month period for management staff. The Leadership School will target employees who show potential for supervision and upward mobility through program activities spanning a six-month period and delivering 48 hours of curricula. The EDGE Program is committed to partnering with Maricopa County leadership as it develops and sustains the peak performance of a diverse, professional and qualified workforce. The EDGE Program was designed using a competency based learning model and will provide the tools that leaders need to develop skill sets for motivating, coaching, evaluating and recommending career and succession plans for employees. This enhanced learning environment will allow Maricopa County to recognize and meet its customer and citizen needs necessary for population expansion. 104 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan On-Site and On-line Classes Staff Development facilitates on-site educational programs such as a Master of Arts in Organizational Management and will commence a Masters of Public Administration program in February of 2004. In a recently completed survey employees indicated an interest in pursuing a Certificate Program in Organizational Leadership with the possibility of expanding the curriculum into an Associate of Arts Degree Program. We have targeted the development of an AA Degree Program for the spring of 2004. Online classes are the fastest growth segment in Staff Development. The infrastructure for online classes has been carefully crafted over a two-year time span. Employees now can choose from 41 web-based classes at their desktops. E-Learning is a cost effective method of self-paced learning. E-Learning can be tailored to specific goals, competencies and organizational issues to enhance employee efficiency. Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) continue to author curriculum for e-learning courses and make the process for on-line learning accessible to many employees who otherwise would be restricted by work schedules and location. Managers and supervisors are used extensively as Adjunct Faculty in facilitating training correlated specifically to County business practices and processes. Their contributions are recognized annually at a retreat held in the spring of each year. Employee Course Catalog For the first time, the 2003 Employee Course Catalog was published as an annual publication, listing only course titles and descriptions. The new format saved Staff Development $5,000 dollars in publication expenses. Monthly calendars listing specific dates, times, locations and instructors were also published. These classes are marketed through the Learning Resource Network and can target designated audiences. Classes are organized using the Pathlore Learning Management System (LMS) according to skill building competencies. An impressive number of employees, 4,066, attended at least one of 721 classes selected from 254 different course topics using on-line registration provided through the LMS system. Staff development will continue to partner with vendors to deliver end user technology training for Maricopa County. Tuition Reimbursement Tuition Reimbursement is an important benefit for County employees and enables them to complete degree and certificate programs as well as supplement job knowledge through skill related coursework. A survey of Tuition Reimbursement Policies of local cities and counties resulted in the generation of a proposal for an Educational Assistance Policy. The shift to educational assistance is scheduled for implementation in January of 2004. This shift is important as it will place the responsibility for course approval into the hands of the manager and supervisor who know best the job requirements employee are expected to fulfill. 105 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Compensation and Awards Gainsharing Initiative In July 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved a Gainsharing Policy, which gives authority to all Maricopa County departments to create a ‘Gainsharing Program’. This management instrument is designed to increase productivity, and to complement the County’s Managing for Results (MfR) initiative. These gainsharing programs offer County and Judicial Branch/Special District employees the opportunity to share in the benefits derived from their efforts to enhance revenues and improve efficiencies, while increasing service quality. Maricopa County Gainsharing Programs for fiscal year 2003 were very successful in their first full year of existence. Eight programs were approved, and seven programs were fully implemented with a total savings of $5,996,711.92. Employee awards of approximately $405,414 were distributed, while the County realized a net gain of approximately $5,591,297.33. FY 2003 programs will continue into FY 2004 with additional programs being implemented. Salary Advancements In July 2003, employees participating in the Arizona State Retirement System received a base salary increase of 3.9% in order to offset an increase in the employee pension contribution to the Arizona State Retirement System. In addition to raising the base salaries and strengthening the retirement benefits, this also increases the employer paid life insurance benefit for these employees. Most Arizona public sector agencies did not fund such a base salary increase. In effect, these Maricopa County employees saw virtually no change to their take-home pay with this Board of Supervisors approved increase. Employee Health Initiatives Program Using the best in class approach to benefit vendor selections, and through a careful examination of funding methodologies, Maricopa County is able to offer a competitive benefits program to active, benefiteligible employees and their families effective January 1, 2004. This reconfigured program has enhanced choice while delivering quality without substantially increasing payroll deduction costs. To accomplish this goal, some structural changes have been made to the pharmacy and medical benefits which has introduced the concept of “consumerism” to employees by encouraging the use of the appropriate place of service while seeking medical care, and choosing the most cost-effective method of receiving care. To improve health and financial outcomes, wellness initiatives will be emphasized. Included are programs that will improve cardiovascular outcomes, evaluate health status and workplace productivity, focus on 106 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan prevention/early intervention and return County employees to work more quickly when on short-term disability. In addition, to keep the employee rates as low as possible, the County has contributed an additional $10.5 million dollars for calendar year 2004 towards the cost of health care to mitigate the increase from being passed along to most employees. This allows Maricopa County to remain very competitive compared to other Arizona public sector entities. Going forward, changes will be made to the texture, structure, shape and means by which this program is financed and delivered to Maricopa County employees and their families. Matching Retirement Contributions In July 2003, the County had to start contributing an additional 3.2% of an employee’s pay for those employees enrolled in the Arizona State Retirement System. The retreat of the stock market has forced Maricopa County, as well as the employee, to contribute more to the retirement system. Until the investment performance of the retirement system returns to higher levels, these increased contribution amounts are likely to continue for several years. Market Range Salary Issues Due to the sudden downturn in the economy that began in early FY 2002, and which was exacerbated by events of September 11, 2001, budgets for FY 2003 were extremely tight, and salary advancements were placed on hold until the economy stabilized. An Interim Salary Advancement Policy was approved for FY 2003, which provided guidelines for critical salary increases during this time of uncertainty. This policy was not implemented for FY 2004. Departments, able to substantiate positions with high turnover levels that are below market salary levels, are now able to pursue market based salary increases, and must continue to be able to identify how these increases are to be funded within existing appropriations. Commute Options Maricopa County is concerned about the quality of life for its employees as well as the citizenry it services. To comply with the state's regulations for clean air and assist with the alleviation of traffic congestion as well as provide transportation options for employees. Maricopa County provides a subsidized Commute Options program for its employees. Employees may choose from VanPools through the RideShare Program, All Aboard America coach services for areas on the boundary of metropolitan Phoenix and the Bus Card Plus Program, which provides bus transit services. Currently, there are 21 VanPools, which transport Maricopa County employees to work from their homes. Approximately 30 employees monthly take advantage of the All Aboard America coach service. On an annual basis employees use their bus card for 100,504 express rides to and from work and 122,768 local rides to and from work. Maricopa County employees use approximately 3,000 bus cards monthly. Human Resources is actively promoting the Commute Options Program to encourage more employees to take advantage of the transit and vanpool services in existence. Future Directions for Human Resources In the next fiscal year Human Resources is planning to implement several massive projects. The first will accomplish an assessment of the human capital employed throughout the Maricopa County. The purpose of this activity will be to ascertain educational and training levels and to successfully plan for competency based curriculum need to fully prepare our workforce for increased levels of productivity, sensitivity to diversity and to achieve the goals delineated in departmental MFR Plans. We will revise and update HR policies and procedures in a fashion easily understood and applied to all facets of the workplace. A concentrated effort will be directed toward bringing an Associate of Arts Degree on-site for entry-level employees replete with books and materials. Communicating with our employees is important and efforts 107 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan will be made to increase live communications as well as technology-based communications to receive the kind of feedback needed to improve our overall human resources goals and objectives. We will continue to expand our outreach efforts into diverse communities to recruit the sharpest and best talent reflective of the citizenry we serve. To accomplish this we must make our presence known to established associations and institutions interested in advancing the careers of all individuals interested in public service through career opportunities at Maricopa County. Position Control Throughout the year, departmental staffing needs change. These changes are 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 identified by source. Human Resources verify position description and market range information while Budget Analysts verify that all authorized positions are fully funded on an annualized basis. Once approved, the position changes are entered into the HRMS position database through one central point. Department submits budgeted position request to OMB Re su bm it OMB reviews request to verify funding availability OMB Denies OMB returns request to department OMB Concurs OMB signs request and issues new Position Control Number 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 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, summarized for the Judicial and Elected Offices, Appointed Departments and Special Districts. Department Judicial Elected Appointed Special District Total 108 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 FY 2003-04 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Adopted 986.00 1,040.71 1,107.75 1,210.00 1,272.00 1,390.00 1,437.51 1,505.06 2,395.31 2,381.31 3,298.00 3,639.09 3,697.03 3,784.00 3,801.00 4,074.00 4,108.64 2,743.53 4,201.17 4,209.12 9,030.00 8,511.92 8,197.34 7,973.00 7,763.00 8,034.00 9,453.40 11,537.79 9,060.06 9,194.72 120.00 88.00 98.00 68.00 63.00 60.00 54.00 124.00 132.75 135.25 13,434.00 13,279.72 13,100.12 13,035.00 12,899.00 13,558.00 15,053.55 15,910.38 15,789.29 15,920.40 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan 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.) 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 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ATTORNEY 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 TRIAL COURTS Total 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 FY2003-04 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Acutal Adopted Actual 740.00 775.69 851.00 937.00 949.00 1,045.00 1,120.50 1,175.00 1,092.00 1,072.00 114.00 113.00 120.00 125.00 135.00 130.00 146.00 132.50 140.00 140.50 1.00 300.00 308.00 297.00 334.00 329.00 325.00 326.00 321.80 322.00 321.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.80 8.00 7.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 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 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 10.00 20.00 20.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 34.00 33.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 8.00 72.00 100.00 106.00 70.00 64.00 62.00 67.00 67.00 66.50 60.50 653.00 606.04 596.25 589.00 596.00 599.00 620.00 666.00 689.00 684.00 7.50 8.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 25.00 28.00 26.00 27.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 8.25 7.25 7.25 26.00 133.00 135.78 165.00 177.00 223.00 220.40 263.75 264.78 262.75 14.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 15.00 13.00 16.00 18.00 11.33 12.00 600.00 676.71 737.30 742.00 796.00 831.00 850.00 828.50 917.25 915.25 57.00 57.00 57.00 55.00 53.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 14.00 151.00 229.00 238.60 245.00 272.00 267.00 266.75 283.00 273.50 282.10 60.00 64.00 63.00 65.00 60.00 60.00 62.00 63.00 63.00 54.00 139.00 219.00 183.40 158.00 158.00 184.00 196.50 228.00 242.25 237.00 70.00 57.00 53.00 49.00 46.00 42.00 36.00 43.00 44.00 47.50 244.00 240.00 240.00 241.00 222.00 222.00 222.25 223.00 226.00 224.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 11.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 3,718.00 2,974.75 2,630.50 2,099.00 1,812.00 1,766.00 3,013.25 3,326.01 3,326.01 3,528.29 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.00 41.00 34.00 31.00 372.00 378.00 377.50 444.00 361.00 353.00 345.70 357.47 357.47 415.43 64.00 63.00 64.00 63.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 73.00 100.00 96.00 81.00 82.00 79.00 81.00 67.25 66.20 51.00 301.00 273.00 256.00 286.00 281.00 295.00 287.00 368.00 369.00 368.00 327.00 357.34 349.19 421.00 459.00 446.00 466.25 1.00 14.00 15.00 22.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 15.10 36.00 211.00 236.02 228.75 244.00 294.00 280.00 287.01 300.06 539.00 538.00 540.00 589.00 679.00 794.00 784.00 827.50 868.50 832.50 53.00 60.50 60.50 69.00 74.75 74.75 121.00 134.48 126.66 134.00 146.00 143.00 118.00 135.50 135.50 135.50 19.00 23.00 22.00 21.00 22.00 24.00 18.00 22.00 22.00 20.00 75.00 53.00 53.00 47.00 38.00 39.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 36.00 335.00 336.31 337.50 342.00 263.00 298.00 292.50 291.50 27.00 44.00 45.50 47.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 64.00 63.00 65.00 78.00 72.89 76.84 77.00 74.00 80.00 86.50 98.46 104.00 104.00 54.00 55.00 54.00 66.00 65.00 93.00 108.00 115.00 125.00 125.00 433.30 430.30 430.30 36.00 37.00 41.00 37.00 33.00 33.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 34.00 504.00 507.09 503.25 460.00 441.00 479.00 459.24 523.48 534.89 542.37 66.00 65.00 63.00 66.00 65.00 69.00 69.00 71.25 71.25 70.25 12.00 14.50 14.00 8.00 7.00 34.50 9.50 6.75 8.75 18.00 12.00 12.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 20.00 19.00 19.00 1,858.00 2,053.00 2,108.00 2,188.00 2,235.00 2,428.00 2,482.50 1,022.00 2,487.75 2,494.75 1,443.00 50.00 31.00 45.00 19.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 12.00 14.00 13.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 35.00 29.00 28.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 33.00 617.00 668.40 677.60 764.00 819.00 873.00 910.20 981.00 107.00 39.00 42.00 45.00 41.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 43.00 42.00 15.00 16.00 25.00 495.00 500.00 511.00 522.00 512.00 511.00 511.50 504.00 477.75 479.75 109.00 75.00 66.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 1,273.31 1,276.31 13,434.00 13,279.72 13,100.12 13,035.00 12,899.00 13,558.00 15,053.55 15,910.38 15,789.29 15,920.40 109 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan 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. The following chart displays this breakdown. FTE DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDING SOURCE - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED BUDGETED FTE 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 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE BOARD CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ATTORNEY ELECTIONS ELIMINATIONS 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 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO INTERNAL AUDIT 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 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOTAL COMPENSATION TRANSPORTATION TREASURER TRIAL COURTS Total Departments 110 GENERAL FUND 227.00 321.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.50 33.00 60.50 7.00 561.00 30.00 7.25 12.00 770.00 54.00 1.15 13.43 237.00 47.50 31.00 51.00 5.00 15.10 222.00 60.50 74.25 20.00 25.00 63.00 31.00 406.80 34.00 101.31 44.25 893.50 33.00 25.00 64.00 1,115.31 5,713.85 SPECIAL REVENUE 845.00 140.50 123.00 9.00 259.75 145.25 12.85 268.67 224.00 44.00 363.00 22.00 598.50 0.50 135.50 2.00 73.00 125.00 23.50 441.06 26.00 8.75 1,576.25 7.00 4.00 479.75 161.00 6,118.83 DEBT SERVICE - CAPITAL PROJECTS ENTERPRISE 8.00 3.00 3,528.29 371.43 12.00 25.00 6.00 48.00 3,905.72 INTERNAL SERVICE 8.00 54.00 11.00 19.00 42.00 134.00 TOTAL FUNDS 1,072.00 140.50 321.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.50 33.00 8.00 60.50 7.00 684.00 8.00 9.00 30.00 7.25 262.75 12.00 915.25 54.00 14.00 282.10 54.00 237.00 47.50 224.00 3,528.29 31.00 415.43 51.00 368.00 22.00 15.10 832.50 60.50 74.75 135.50 20.00 36.00 65.00 104.00 125.00 430.30 34.00 542.37 70.25 8.75 19.00 2,494.75 13.00 4.00 33.00 42.00 25.00 479.75 64.00 1,276.31 15,920.40 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Countywide staffing from FY 2002-03 to FY 2003-04 increased by 131.11 full-time equivalents (FTE’s), or 0.82%. Significant changes in staffing levels from FY 2002-03 to FY 2003-04 are provided in the commentary below. FY 2003-04 Significant Staffing Variances Adult Probation – Decrease due to mid-year State budget reductions. Chief Information Officer – Decrease due to 10% budget reduction. Clerk Of The Superior Court – Reduction due to reduced staff in the Expedited Child Enforcement Fund and the Clerk of the Court EDMS Fund. Environmental Services – Increase is due to funding for the Bio-Defense grant and staffing for the West Nile Virus coverage. Equipment Services – Decrease due to 10% budget reduction. Facilities Management – Decrease due to Real Estate Division moving from Facilities Management to Finance. Finance – Increase due to the net effect of Real Estate Division moving from Facilities Management to Finance and a 10% budget reduction. Health Care Delivery System – Increase is due to the addition of staff in areas experiencing increased service demand such as the Burn Center, Post Partum Nursing Unit, Sub-Acute Nursery, Psychiatric services, Social Services, the Emergency Department, Registration, and the Business Office. Health Plans – Increase due to sharing Information Technology FTE’s with the Delivery System, which is now in-sourced, and the SAIL Grant’s expanded funding. Housing – Decrease due to the elimination of the Department from the County. Human Resources – Decrease due to the net effect of Employee Well-being Division moving from Human Resources to Total Compensation and a 10% budget reduction. Integrated Criminal Justice Information System – Increase due to the following projects: Accused-inProcess, Data Exchange and Information Technology Service Management. Juvenile Probation – Decrease due to outsourcing staffing for the Residential Treatment Center. Materials Management – Decrease due to 10% budget reduction. Public Health – Increase is due to additional grant funding. Sheriff – Increase due to the addition of five new deputies for the Cave Creek patrol service and two new Computer Forensic Crimes Analysts. Total Compensation – Increase due to the net effect of Employee Well-being Division moving from Human Resources to Total Compensation and a 10% budget reduction. 111 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 112 Personnel Plan Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 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. The CIP spans a five-year period beginning with FY 2003-04 and ending FY 2007-08. The total anticipated cost for projects presented in the FY 2003-04 CIP is $826 million with the largest amount of planned spending in FY 2003-04 (see table, below) due to the completion of the jail and juvenile detention program approved by voters in 1998. Capital Improvement Program FY 2003-04 through FY 2007-08 ALL FUNDS $315,599,813 Maricopa County, Flood Control District, and Transportation $151,348,000 $124,798,000 $125,083,000 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $108,909,829 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 113 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program The largest portion of expenditures for the County’s five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is in the Department of Transportation with 40.3%. Flood Control District Projects are next with 32.6%, then the Detention Fund Projects with 14.2%; followed by the County Improvement Fund Projects (COPs) with 5.5%; the General Fund County Improvement with 4.8% and Intergovernmental Capital Projects comprise the remaining 2.6% of the five-year CIP (see chart, below). FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program Distinction by Fund Transportation 40.3% Intergovernmental Capital Projects 2.6% Flood Control District 32.6% General Fund County Improvement (Fund 445) 4.8% Detention Fund 14.2% 114 County Improvement Fund (Fund 435) 5.5% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 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 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program. FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program Five-year Total By Fund CIP Allocation by Fund FIVE-YEAR TOTAL FY 2002-03 through FY 2003-04 through FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 General Fund General Fund County Improvement Fund (445) $ County Improvement Fund (435)* Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund Subtotal General Fund $ 93,100,183 28,527,000 121,627,183 $ Special Revenue Detention Fund $ Transportation Capital Projects Fund Subtotal Special Revenue $ 278,563,676 332,594,242 611,157,918 $ Maricopa County Total $ (Increase)/ Decrease 39,476,122 45,406,376 21,400,213 106,282,711 $ (39,476,122) 47,693,807 7,126,787 $ 15,344,472 $ 117,361,689 332,594,242 449,955,931 161,201,987 $ 161,201,987 732,785,101 $ 556,238,642 $ 176,546,459 Special Districts Library District Capital Projects Fund** $ Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund Special Districts Total $ 2,550,640 269,500,000 272,050,640 $ $ $ 269,500,000 269,500,000 $ Total--County plus Districts $ 1,004,835,741 $ 825,738,642 $ 179,097,099 $ 2,550,640 2,550,640 * A number of projects were moved from the County Improvement Fund to the new General Fund County Improvement Fund. ** Moved to Operating Budget. 115 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Budget The capital project budget is the first year of the CIP. The recommended FY 2003-04 Maricopa County and Special Districts’ capital project budget is $315.6 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 2002-03 are shown in the table below: CAPITAL BUDGET BY FUND Fund FY 02-03 Adopted FY 02-03 Revised FY 02-03 Projected FY 03-04 Recomm. General Fund General Fund County Improvement Fund* $ County Improvement Fund* 88,867,183 Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund 21,915,097 Subtotal General Fund $ 110,782,280 $ 77,131,320 21,915,097 $ 99,046,417 $ 5,156,072 10,176,288 7,210,708 $ 22,543,068 $ 23,851,077 22,029,606 20,900,213 $ 66,780,896 Special Revenue Detention Fund $ 239,325,795 Transportation Capital Projects 84,306,743 Subtotal Special Revenue $ 323,632,538 $ 239,276,783 84,306,743 $ 323,583,526 $ 120,910,024 58,571,840 $ 179,481,864 $ 117,361,689 77,457,228 $ 194,818,917 Maricopa County Total $ 434,414,818 $ 422,629,943 $ 202,024,932 $ 261,599,813 $ Special Districts Library District Capital Projects** $ 1,102,200 Flood Control District Capital Projects 48,704,497 Special Districts Total $ 49,806,697 $ 48,504,497 $ 48,504,497 $ 48,115,000 $ 48,115,000 54,000,000 $ 54,000,000 Total--County plus Districts $ 484,221,515 $ 471,134,440 $ 250,139,932 $ 315,599,813 * New Fund established 02/2003. A number of projects were moved from the County Improvement Fund to the new General Fund County Improvement Fund. * * Expenditures moved to Operating budget in FY 02-03. 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 and operating costs of facilities to be replaced, are factored into the County’s 5-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 116 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 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: NEW FACILITY OPERATING COSTS FY 2003-04 General Fund Projects Public Health Clinic Environmental Services Facility Human Services Campus Elections Facility 401,307 Downtown Property Development/Acquisition Sheriff's Property & Evidence Warehouse NW Consolidated Justice Courts NE Superior Court Expansion Star Call Center 69,609 Subotal General Fund $ 470,916 Detention Fund Projects 4th Avenue Jail Lower Buckeye Jail FMD Maintenance Facility Sheriff's Training Facility Juvenile Durango Juvenile Mesa $ Subtotal Detention Fund $ 3,366,668 3,179,897 119,206 381,772 1,442,956 477,697 8,968,196 TOTAL FUNDS $ 9,439,112 FY 2004-05 $ $ 470,300 73,159 272,863 162,885 1,715,645 326,837 165,611 387,470 70,877 3,645,647 $ 3,467,668 3,275,294 122,782 393,225 1,486,244 492,029 9,237,242 $ 12,882,889 FY 2005-06 $ $ 479,493 74,297 281,048 167,772 1,747,409 336,643 170,579 399,094 72,321 3,728,656 $ 3,525,774 3,323,316 126,465 405,022 1,509,725 498,516 9,388,818 $ 13,117,474 FY 2006-07 $ $ 488,947 75,466 289,479 172,805 1,780,068 346,741 175,697 411,068 73,806 3,814,077 FY 2007-08 $ $ 498,670 76,667 298,165 177,989 1,813,647 357,144 150,968 423,399 75,334 3,871,983 $ 3,630,026 3,421,253 130,259 417,173 1,554,301 513,244 9,666,256 $ 3,737,402 3,522,122 134,167 429,688 1,600,214 528,414 9,952,007 $ 13,480,333 $ 13,823,990 117 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 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.) 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. 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. 118 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Project Detail A total of eight (8) capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board for support from the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). A total of four (4) capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board for support from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). A total of eight (8) projects are identified and recommended to the Board for support from the General Fund (Fund 445) by the Facilities Review Committee in the proposed CIP. The recommended projects are as follows. 422 Intergovernmental Cap Projects Continuing Projects Buckeye Hills Shooting Range Elections Facility Environmental Services Bldg Human Services Campus Northeast Superior Court Expansion Sheriff Property & Evidence Warehouse Sheriff's Training Facility West Regional Center FY 2003-04 $ 1,610,000 2,950,000 1,800,000 4,231,488 2,000,000 5,806,547 666,301 1,333,333 $ 20,397,669 FY 2004-05 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 FY 2005-06 $ $ - FY 2006-07 $ $ - 5-YR TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT FY 2007-08 (FY 2004-08) $ $ 1,610,000 $ 2,000,000 2,950,000 3,300,000 2,300,000 2,502,838 4,231,488 6,996,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 5,806,547 6,806,547 666,301 3,666,301 1,333,333 2,690,909 $ $ 20,897,669 $ 29,962,595 $ 502,544 $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ 20,900,213 $ $ - $ - $ - $ 21,400,213 Prior Years $ 1,000,000 827,100 8,734,372 10,491,394 FY 2003-04 $ 8,447,225 10,200,000 1,000,000 2,382,381 FY 2004-05 $ 17,974,955 2,000,000 - FY 2005-06 $ 3,401,815 - 18,670,640 12,384,465 1,701,041 132,687 254,124 46,226 2,134,980 1,251,187 9,208,484 Subtotal $ 66,836,700 $ 22,029,606 $ 19,974,955 $ 3,401,815 TOTAL FUND 435 $ 66,836,700 $ 22,029,606 $ 19,974,955 Prior Years $ 2,056,454 - FY 2003-04 $ 853,898 8,972,775 6,000,000 3,733,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,411,000 - 893,930 3,698,967 224,045 2,486,612 130,632 213,916 11,000 476,315 950,000 Subtotal $ 11,141,871 Prior Years $ 390,000 350,000 202,838 2,764,512 1,000,000 3,000,000 1,357,576 Subtotal $ 9,064,926 Project Reserve $ - TOTAL FUND 422 $ 9,064,926 435 County Improvement Fund Continuing Projects Downtown Property Development/Acquisition Public Health Facility New Admin Services/Forensic Science Center Parking Downtown Campus Expansion/Improvements Completed Projects Medical Examiner/Forensic Science Facility Clerk of the Court Service Center Relocation of Scottsdale Justice Courts Mesa Justice Court Facility Regional Land Acquisitions Tempe Co-Located Justice Courts Facilities Management Building Cost of Issuance Security Building Fund 445 General Fund County Improvement Fund Continuing Projects Downtown Campus Expansion/Improvements Downtown Property Development/Acquisition Northeast Superior Court Expansion Security Building Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Justice Courts Consolidation Star Call Center/R&R* Adminstration Bldg Renovations Completed Projects New Administration Building Parking Spur Cross Ranch Medical Examiner/Forensic Science Facility Clerk of the Court Service Center Relocation of Scottsdale Justice Courts Facilities Management Building Southeast Regional Property Acquisition Meese Settlement Land Acquisition near Lake Pleasant Project Reserve $ - TOTAL FUND 445 $ 11,141,871 500,000 FY 2006-07 $ - 502,544 $ 502,544 $ 30,465,139 5-YR TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT FY 2007-08 (FY 2004-08) $ $ 29,823,995 $ 30,823,995 12,200,000 13,027,100 1,000,000 9,734,372 2,382,381 12,873,775 $ - $ 3,401,815 $ - FY 2004-05 $ 2,025,045 8,350,000 1,150,000 - FY 2005-06 $ 1,100,000 - FY 2006-07 $ - $ 23,470,673 $ 11,525,045 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 39,095,718 893,930 3,698,967 224,045 2,486,612 130,632 213,916 11,000 476,315 950,000 $ 50,237,589 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 380,404 $ 23,851,077 - $ 11,525,045 - $ 1,100,000 1,800,000 - $ 1,800,000 $ - $ 45,406,376 18,670,640 12,384,465 1,701,041 132,687 254,124 46,226 2,134,980 1,251,187 9,208,484 $ 112,243,076 $ - $ 45,406,376 $ 112,243,076 5-YR TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT FY 2007-08 (FY 2004-08) $ $ 853,898 $ 2,910,352 10,997,820 10,997,820 14,350,000 14,350,000 5,983,000 5,983,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,411,000 1,411,000 1,200,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 - $ 1,200,000 380,404 $ 39,476,122 380,404 $ 50,617,993 119 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Buckeye Hills Shooting Range Facilities Management Buckeye Hills Recreation Area 5 Project Narrative The Project will allow for the construction of a regional facility for the Sheriff’s Office and other regional law enforcement agencies for firearms training and certification and the project will provide water and electrical infrastructure for a public shooting range to be constructed by the Parks and Recreation Department at an adjacent location. Funding Summary $1,500,000 Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). $500,000 Private Contributions Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $5,185,000 with $390,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 total available funding and budget is $1,610,000. This leaves a total cost balance of $3,185,000. This funding will have to be identified in order to complete the project. Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction $ Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 390,000 390,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,610,000 $ 1,610,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 120 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,610,000 $ 1,610,000 Total Project $ 390,000 4,795,000 $ 5,185,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Elections Facility Facilities Management 320 W Lincoln 5 Project Narrative The Project will allow for the construction of a facility for the Elections Department. The County currently leases a warehouse at a cost of $34,523 monthly. The lease expires January 2004. Beyond that, the cost remains the same for 2 months and escalates 5% thereafter. The current facilities lack adequate parking and size to support the current activities. The existing facility at 320 W. Lincoln will be reconfigured for use by Elections, Purchasing, Print Shop and the Sheriff’s Office. A 14,000 square feet addition is being added to the facility. Funding Summary 100% Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3,300,000 with $350,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2,950,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 150,000 Construction 200,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 350,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 454,542 2,495,458 $ 2,950,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 454,542 2,495,458 $ 2,950,000 Total Project $ 604,542 2,695,458 $ 3,300,000 Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2003-04 total $401,307. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ Subtotal $ Year 1 FY 03-04 401,307 401,307 $ 401,307 $ 401,307 Current Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ Total Current Costs $ 401,307 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ - TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 401,307 $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ Five Year Total - $ $ $ - $ Total Project 401,307 401,307 $ $ $ - $ - $ $ 802,614 802,614 $ $ - $ 401,307 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 401,307 $ 802,614 $ 32,385 32,385 $ 33,357 33,357 $ 34,357 34,357 $ 35,388 35,388 $ 135,487 135,487 $ 135,487 135,487 134,415 $ 134,415 $ 138,448 $ 138,448 $ 142,601 $ 142,601 $ $ $ 545,964 545,964 $ 545,964 545,964 681,451 $ 681,451 - $ Post Construction/Facilities M anagement Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ - $ Supplies & Services 130,500 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ - $ 130,500 $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 - Post Construction/M anaging Department Operating Costs Personal Services $ - $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ Total Post Construction Costs Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ 162,885 $ 167,772 $ 172,805 $ 177,989 $ $ 401,307 $ 162,885 $ 167,772 $ 172,805 $ 177,989 $ 1,082,758 $ $ 1,484,065 121 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Elections Facility (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Elections Facility project is to remodel the Sheriff’s Warehouse for Elections so that they may run elections at a lower cost. Strategic Goals Addressed: • • • Increase the percentage of early votes cast to total votes cast to 55% by 2005. Reduce the hours worked per eligible voter by 5% by 2005. Reduce the ratio of ballots to be verified to ballots cast by 5%. Strategic Plan Program Supported: • • Elections Voter Registration Strategic Activities Supported: • • Early Voting Ballot Tabulation Election Processing Warehouse Geographical Services Voter Registration Technical Staf Scanning Strategic Services Supported: • • • Early voting special accommodations Write ins ballot processing audit Jurisdiction boundaries Performance Measure Data: User Department did not provide information. 122 ballot duplication ballot receiving jurisdiction maps ballots to be verified troubleshooting services redistricting services Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Environmental Services Building Capital Facilities Development 16th Street & Roosevelt 5 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 delivery of services to the public and to provide County workers with a safe, space-effective, operationally efficient environment. The site is located at Roosevelt and 16th Street, 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. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2003 with completion in 2004. Funding Summary 100% Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Funding for this project will be transferred to Fund 422 from Environmental Services Fund $1,251,419 and Air Quality Fees Fund $1,251,419. Environmental Services is responsible for continued operating costs. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2,508,838 with $202,838 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,800,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 202,838 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 202,838 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Total Project $ 2,502,838 $ 2,502,838 Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2004-05 total $73,159. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ - $ 9,984 Supplies & Services 63,175 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ - $ 73,159 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ 10,284 64,013 74,297 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 10,592 64,874 75,466 Five Year Total $ $ 10,910 65,757 76,667 Total Project $ $ 41,770 257,819 299,589 $ 41,770 257,819 299,589 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ 73,159 $ 74,297 $ 75,466 $ 76,667 $ 299,589 $ 299,589 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ - $ 73,159 $ 74,297 $ 75,466 $ 76,667 $ 299,589 $ 299,589 Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 123 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Human Services Campus Capital Facilities Development Between 9th and 13th Ave, Madison & Jackson Streets 5 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. Construction will begin in 2003 with completion in 2004. Funding Summary Total funding for the Human Services Campus is as follows: Organization/Entity: Non County Sources Maricopa County $17,653,000 6,996,000 $24,649,000 Maricopa County’s portion of this project will be funded 100% by Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $24,649,000 with the County funding $6,996,000. The FY 2003-04 County portion is $4,231,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 2,764,512 2,764,512 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ Year 2 FY 04-05 4,231,488 4,231,488 $ $ Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5-Year Total 4,231,488 4,231,488 Total Project $ 6,996,000 6,996,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2004-05 total $272,863. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ - $ 81,041 Supplies & Services 191,822 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ - $ 272,863 124 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Five Year Total Total Project $ 83,472 197,576 $ 281,048 $ 85,976 203,503 $ 289,479 $ 88,556 209,609 $ 298,165 $ 339,045 802,510 $ 1,141,555 $ 339,045 802,510 $ 1,141,555 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ 272,863 $ 281,048 $ 289,479 $ 298,165 $ 1,141,555 $ 1,141,555 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ - $ 272,863 $ 281,048 $ 289,479 $ 298,165 $ 1,141,555 $ 1,141,555 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Human Services Campus (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Human Services Campus project is to deliver high-quality human services for the homeless and working poor in downtown Phoenix so that the cycle of homelessness and poverty can be broken. Strategic Goals Addressed: • • Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas in a fiscally responsible manner. Advance the proposed homeless assistance center to the point of assurance of success. Strategic Plan Program Supported: • • • • Human Services Campus (Board of Supervisors) Leadership of coalition of public, private, nonprofit organizations (Board of Supervisors) Healthcare for the Homeless (Public Health) Workforce Development (Human Services) Strategic Activities Supported: • • • Primary Care Clinic Substance Abuse Counseling Job Seeker Services Strategic Services Supported: • • • • • • Examinations Referrals for dental and vision care Substance abuse assessments Adult Basic Education and GED instruction Computerized career and job search Outreach encounters Laboratory tests Mental health assessments and referrals Individual employment plans Resume development Referrals for housing Performance Measure Data: User Department did not provide information. 125 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Sheriff Property & Evidence Warehouse Capital Facilities Development Durango Complex 5 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 Master Plan so that future MCSO projects will be compatible with this project. 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. Funding Summary 100% Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $6,806,547 with $1,000,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,806,547. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 1,000,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 1,000,000 126 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 5,806,547 $ 5,806,547 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 5,806,547 $ 5,806,547 Total Project $ 6,806,547 $ 6,806,547 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Sheriff Property & Evidence Warehouse (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2004-05 total $326,337. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ Subtotal $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ Current Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ 31,559 $ Supplies & Services 87,300 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ 118,859 $ Total Current Costs $ 118,859 $ Post Construction/Managing Department Operating Costs Personal Services $ - $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ Year 2 FY 04-05 - $ - $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ - - $ - $ Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ - $ 115,587 Supplies & Services 211,250 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ - $ 326,837 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ Five Year Total - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ Total Project - $ $ $ - $ 31,559 87,300 118,859 - $ - $ 118,859 - $ - $ - $ $ $ $ $ 119,055 217,588 $ 336,643 $ 122,626 224,115 $ 346,741 $ 126,305 230,839 $ 357,144 $ 483,573 883,792 $ 1,367,365 $ - 483,573 883,792 $ 1,367,365 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ 326,837 $ 336,643 $ 346,741 $ 357,144 $ 1,367,365 $ 1,367,365 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 118,859 $ - $ 326,837 $ 336,643 $ 346,741 $ 357,144 $ 1,367,365 $ 1,486,224 Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 127 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program West Regional Center Facilities Management New Avondale City Center 5 Project Narrative Project includes funding for the balance of infrastructure payments to the City of Avondale associated with the 15.86 acres purchased by the County within the new Avondale City Center. Funding Summary 100% Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2,690,909 with $1,357,576 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,333,333. Prior Years $ 1,357,576 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 1,357,576 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,333,333 $ 1,333,333 Operating Cost Summary N/A Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 128 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,333,333 $ 1,333,333 Total Project $ 2,690,909 $ 2,690,909 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Northeast Superior Court Expansion Facilities Management Union Hills and 40th Street 3 Project Narrative The Northeast Superior Court Expansion Project will be Phase I of what eventually may become the Northeast Regional Center for Maricopa County. The facility will house 12 Superior Court courtrooms in approximately 73,500 square feet. The project has been fully master planned showing all three sequential phases. The facility will be located in a county-owned tract of land east of State Route 51 at 40th Street. Funding Summary General Fund (Fund 445) - $14,350,000 Intergovernmental Capital Project (Fund 422) - $2,000,000 Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $16,350,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $8,000,000 and the FY2004-05 budget is $8,350,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 500,000 7,500,000 $ 8,000,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 8,350,000 $ 8,350,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - $ $ 5-Year Total 500,000 15,850,000 16,350,000 Total Project $ 500,000 15,850,000 $ 16,350,000 Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2004-05 total $387,470. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ - $ 55,190 Supplies & Services 332,280 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ - $ 387,470 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Five Year Total Total Project $ 56,846 342,248 $ 399,094 $ 58,552 352,516 $ 411,068 $ 60,038 363,091 $ 423,129 $ 230,626 1,390,135 $ 1,620,761 $ 230,626 1,390,135 $ 1,620,761 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ 387,470 $ 399,094 $ 411,068 $ 423,129 $ 1,620,761 $ 1,620,761 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ - $ 387,470 $ 399,094 $ 411,068 $ 423,129 $ 1,620,761 $ 1,620,761 Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 129 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Downtown Property Development/Acquisition Capital Facilities Development Between 5th and 7th Ave, Jefferson & Jackson Streets 5 Project Narrative This project will provide a master plan for the County’s development of the four-block area bounded by Jefferson Street, Jackson Street, Fifth Avenue, and Seventh Avenue and the design and construction of a 300,000 square foot County Administration building and Board of Supervisors general meeting auditorium. Funding Summary 74% County Improvements Fund (Fund 435) 26% General Fund (Fund 445) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $41,821,8151 with $1,000,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $17,420,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 1,000,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 1,000,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 17,420,000 $ 17,420,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 20,000,000 $ 20,000,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 3,401,815 3,401,815 $ Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 40,821,815 $ 40,821,815 Total Project $ 41,821,815 $ 41,821,815 Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2004-05 total $1,715,645. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ - $ 307,845 Supplies & Services 1,407,800 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ - $ 1,715,645 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Five Year Total Total Project $ 317,080 1,430,329 $ 1,747,409 $ 326,592 1,453,476 $ 1,780,068 $ 336,390 1,477,257 $ 1,813,647 $ 1,287,907 5,768,862 $ 7,056,769 $ 1,287,907 5,768,862 $ 7,056,769 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ 1,715,645 $ 1,747,409 $ 1,780,068 $ 1,813,647 $ 7,056,769 $ 7,056,769 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ - $ 1,715,645 $ 1,747,409 $ 1,780,068 $ 1,813,647 $ 7,056,769 $ 7,056,769 Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 130 Year 3 FY 05-06 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Public Health Clinic Capital Facilities Development 16th and Roosevelt Street 5 Project Narrative The purpose of the Public Health Clinic is to 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. 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. Funding Summary 85% County Improvements Fund (Fund 435) 15% Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $13,027,100 with $827,100 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $10,200,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 827,100 827,100 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 10,200,000 $ 10,200,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ 12,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 12,200,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Total Project $ 13,027,100 $ 13,027,100 Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2004-05 total $470,300. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ Subtotal $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ Current Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ 77,325 $ Supplies & Services 188,019 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ 265,344 $ Total Current Costs $ 265,344 $ Post Construction/Managing Department Operating Costs Personal Services $ - $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ Year 2 FY 04-05 - $ - $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ - - $ - $ Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ - $ 120,232 Supplies & Services 350,068 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ - $ 470,300 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ Five Year Total - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ Total Project - $ $ $ - $ 77,325 188,019 265,344 - $ - $ 265,344 - $ - $ - $ $ $ $ $ 123,839 355,654 $ 479,493 $ 127,554 361,393 $ 488,947 $ 131,381 367,289 $ 498,670 $ 503,006 1,434,404 $ 1,937,410 $ - 503,006 1,434,404 $ 1,937,410 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ 470,300 $ 479,493 $ 488,947 $ 498,670 $ 1,937,410 $ 1,937,410 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 265,344 $ - $ 470,300 $ 479,493 $ 488,947 $ 498,670 $ 1,937,410 $ 2,202,754 131 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Public Health Clinic (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Public Health Clinical Services Building project is to provide a clean, safe, and efficient clinical facility for the Department’s clients so that they can be treated and their diseases treated and/or cured. Strategic Goals Addressed: • • • • Meet or exceed performance objectives for 95% of the Department’s program service output measures by the end of FY 2005. (Activities require a space/plant upgrade in order to maintain output given increasing demand). Add $2,000,000 in new or expanded grant awards, contracts, and allowable fees by June, 2005 to maintain existing programs and develop new programs to meet the increasing demand for public health services. (Many of the clinical activities are grant funded. In order to maintain current grants, and competitively apply for new grants, safe and efficient space is needed to produce the output required by grantors). Establish quality public health facilities throughout Maricopa County by June, 2006 to ensure client service needs are met in safe, efficient and regionally located working environments. (The Clinical Services Building is the cornerstone of this goal). Lower the risk of communicable and chronic disease in Maricopa County for food borne illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, diseases related to smoking, infectious diseases, public health threats, and other significant community health problems by June, 2005. (The Department requires safe and clean space to treat clients in order to reduce/eliminate STDs and infectious diseases). Strategic Plan Programs Supported: • • • HIV/HCV Services Immunization Services Infectious Disease Control and Treatment Strategic Activities Supported: • • • • • • • • • 132 HIV Counseling and Testing Adult Immunizations Hansen’s Disease Services Infectious Disease Control for Refugees Jail Work Release Examinations (Con-Tents) Public Health Laboratory Public Health Pharmacy Sexually Transmitted Disease Testing & Treatment Tuberculosis Services Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Public Health Clinic (Continued) Strategic Services Supported: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • HIV tests and diagnoses Individual HIV prevention plans for people receiving HIV tests Adult immunizations Foreign travel immunizations Hansen’s Disease control Refugee Screening Jail work release screenings Lab test results Laboratory training and consultation sessions Pharmacy services STD testing and treatment STD clinical examinations STD field contacts Tuberculosis clinic services Tuberculosis field services and X-ray services. Measure Results Percent of clients who said that their HIV test result was explained clearly and simply Percent of clients who test confidentially Clinic appointment show rate for clients seen in Hansen's Clinic Percent of refugees identified with TB infection that receives preventive therapy Percent of refugees identified with treatable parasites placed on treatment Cost savings on lab tests Percent savings over wholesale price: Rifampin 300 mg Percent savings over wholesale price: PZA 500 mg Percent savings over wholesale price: Myambutol 400 mg FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 95% 100% 55% 60% 75% 87% 85% 88% 80% 85% $4,767,765 79% 41% $5,000,000 80% 45% 52% 55% 133 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Public Health Clinic (Continued) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) Measure Outputs: Number of clients receiving pretest counseling 6,000 7,200 Number of clients completing counseling 4,000 5,100 Number of clients served 3,500 4,500 Number of clients seen 72 75 Number of client contacts in the clinic 1,300 1,614 Number of client contacts in the field 1,300 1,614 Total number of contacts 2,600 2,711 Total laboratory tests 153,475 160,535 Number of prescriptions filled 50,857 51,000 Syphilis serologies performed at community outreaches, field records closed, and 8,000 8,100 counseling/education sessions performed Number of cases of early syphilis successfully treated 300 320 Demand: Number of people needing HIV tests 6,000 6,000 Number of people calling to request service 8,000 10,069 Number of people with Hansen’s Disease in Maricopa 35 35 County Number of refugees entering Maricopa County for 1,200 1,200 screening Total number of lab tests requested 153,475 153,475 Number of prescriptions presented at Public Health 50,857 51,000 pharmacy Efficiency: Average time spent per client (includes travel, 1.5 1.4 paperwork and time spent directly with client), in hours Number of clients per hour per nurse 2.5 2.1 Number of patients per hour 1.2 1.6 Cost per client $235 $235 Average number of tests performed per technologist 21,925 25,000 Number of prescriptions processed per employee 17,000 17,204 Cost per client served $58 $58 Percent of clients initiated for syphilis who are 86% 86% preventively treated or treated for infection within 7 days *The Con-Tents activity delivers services within the Maricopa County Jail system. Although the activity will be housed in the new clinic, services will continue to be delivered in the field. Therefore, performance measures for this activity are not expected to change significantly as a result of the completion of the new building. FY2003-04 year-end actuals omitted as that FY has not yet begun. 134 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program New Admin Services/Forensic Science Center Parking Garage Capital Facilities Development 7th Ave & Jefferson Street 5 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. Funding Summary 100% County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $9,734,372 with $8,734,372 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 9,628,302 9,628,302 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Total Project $ 10,628,302 $ 10,628,302 Operating Cost Summary N/A Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 135 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Downtown Campus Expansion/Improvements Facilities Management Jackson Street to Jefferson Street, 5th Ave to 7th Ave 5 Project Narrative Funding will be used for the close-out of the project, including the completion of street improvements on Jackson Street as outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Phoenix, utility relocations and the final settlements/judgments for land acquired under the original project plan. Funds will also be used to provide temporary landscaping and dust control measures for the sites acquired under the project plan. This original project to construct a high-rise and three smaller support buildings has been cancelled due to fiscal constraints. Funding Summary 100% General Fund (Fund 445) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $15,784,127 with $12,547,848* expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $3,236,279. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 8,611,222 Construction 3,884,119 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 52,507 Project Total $ 12,547,848 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,262,149 1,974,130 $ 3,236,279 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,262,149 1,974,130 $ 3,236,279 Total Project $ 9,873,371 5,858,249 52,507 $ 15,784,127 *$2,046,359 funded from cash in FY 00. Operating Cost Summary N/A Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Downtown Campus Expansion/Improvement project is to satisfy all outstanding costs and requirements of the cancelled project (direct purpose) for the Board of Supervisors (direct customer) so that close-out is completed properly and in compliance with open contracts and agreements (direct result). Strategic Goals Addressed: • Design and construct all Capital projects on schedule, within budget, in cooperation with the customer and meeting the goals of the County. Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Building Renovation and Minor Construction Strategic Activities Supported: • • 136 Design Activity Construction Activity Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Downtown Campus Expansion/Improvements (Continued) Strategic Services Supported: • • • • • Programming Design Documents Schematic Design Documents Design Development Documents Construction Documents Construction Measure Result: 100% of construction delivered within 100% or less of the project construction budget Output: # of construction projects completed Demand: # of construction projects scheduled Efficiency: Average construction cost per square foot constructed FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 100% 100% 100% 0 1 2 4 4 4 $180 $180 $180 137 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Security Building Facilities Management 234 N. Central Ave 5 Project Narrative This project covers 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 Funding Summary 100% General Fund (Fund 445) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $15.1 million with $12,547,848 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $3,733,000. Prior Year 1 Years FY 03-04 $ 8,908,484 $ 200,000 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction 300,000 $ 3,533,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 9,208,484 $ 3,733,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ 150,000 $ 100,000 $ $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,100,000 $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total Total Project $ 450,000 $ 8,358,484 5,533,000 6,833,000 $ 5,983,000 $ 15,191,484 Operating Cost Summary N/A Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Security Building Tenant Improvement project is to create/modify existing space for County departments so that they can achieve their mission in a cost effective and efficient manner. Strategic Goals Addressed: • Design and construct all Capital projects on schedule, within budget, in cooperation with the customer and meeting the goals of the County. Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Building Renovation and Minor Construction Strategic Activities Supported: • • 138 Design Construction Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Security Building (Continued) Strategic Services Supported: • • • • Programming Design Documents Schematic Design Documents Design Development Documents Construction Documents Measure Result: 100% of construction delivered within 100% or less of the project construction budget Output: # of construction projects completed Demand: # of construction projects scheduled Efficiency: Average construction cost per square foot constructed FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 100% 100% 100% 0 1 2 4 4 4 $180 $180 $185 139 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Facilities Management To Be Determined 4 Project Narrative The Northwest consolidated Justice Courts is a 28,000 square foot facility designed to integrate the Justice Court functions of four (4) existing JP Courts into one consolidated operation covering the following Precincts: Peoria, Wickenburg, North Valley, Growth Court. Additional cost of $3,750,000 will be funded from lease reversion estimates. The facility will allow these four courts to share personnel, resources, and spaces, making the overall utilization of the building, its infrastructure and operation much more efficient than presently observed in the four separate Courts. Due to its remote location, the Wickenburg Court will retain part time operations in its existing facility. The Tolleson Justice Court will most likely occupy the space vacated by the North Valley Justice Court which is presently collocated with the Glendale Justice Court. Funding Summary 100% General Fund (Fund 445) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1,500,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,500,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - $ - 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Total Project $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2004-05 total $165,611. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ - $ 37,171 Supplies & Services 128,440 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ - $ 165,611 $ Year 4 FY 06-07 $ Year 5 FY 07-08 38,286 132,293 $ 170,579 39,435 136,262 $ 175,697 $ 10,618 140,350 $ 150,968 Five Year Total $ Total Project $ 125,510 537,345 662,855 $ $ 125,510 537,345 662,855 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ 165,611 $ 170,579 $ 175,697 $ 150,968 $ 662,855 $ 662,855 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ - $ 165,611 $ 170,579 $ 175,697 $ 150,968 $ 662,855 $ 662,855 Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 140 Year 3 FY 05-06 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Justice Courts Consolidation Facilities Management To Be Determined To Be Determined Project Narrative The concept is based on realizing the efficiencies to be gained by co-locating Justice Courts and consolidating services. Funding Summary 100% General Fund (Fund 445) Project Cost Summary The total budget for these projects is $1,000,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Total Project $ $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 141 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Star Call Center/Research & Reporting Facilities Management New Admin Srvs Parking Garage - 7th Ave & 8th Ave 5 Project Narrative The project involves the relocation of the Star Call Center Department and the Research & Reporting Department from leased space to a 15,000 square foot area to be built-out on the south side of the lower level of the New Administrative Services Parking Garage. Completion of the project will allow the departments to vacate currently leased space. The project also provides for outdoor seating, revisions to the parking stall layouts, waterproofing and modifications to the parking garage exhaust. Funding Summary General Fund (Fund 445) - $1,411,000 Recorder Surcharge (Fund 236) - $79,000 Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1,490,000 with $79,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $1,411,000. Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 79,000 79,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 1,411,000 $ 1,411,000 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - - $ Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,411,000 $ 1,411,000 Total Project $ 79,000 1,411,000 $ 1,490,000 Operating Cost Summary Estimated operating costs upon completion of this facility in FY 2003-04 total $69,600. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) $ - $ - $ Personal Services Supplies & Services 69,600 70,877 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ 69,600 - $ 70,877 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ $ 75,334 $ $ 70,877 $ 72,321 $ 73,806 $ 75,334 $ 361,398 $ 361,398 69,600- $ 70,877 $ 72,321 $ 73,806 $ 75,334 $ 361,398 $ 361,398 - $ 69,600 - TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ User Department did not provide information. - 75,334 $ $ 73,806 $ 73,806 Total Project $ 72,321 Total Post Construction Costs 72,321 Five Year Total 361,938 361,398 Managing for Results 142 Year 3 FY 05-06 - - $ 361,938 361,398 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Detention Capital Projects Fund Summary Criminal Justice Facilities Capital Improvement Projects for adult jails and juvenile detention total $117,361,689 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. 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 Detail A total of seven (7) 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. 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS FY2003-04 PRIOR YEAR FMD MAINTENANCE FACILITY $ 3,000,000 SE REGIONAL COURTROOM BUILDOUT 363,609 4TH AVENUE JAIL 102,548,197 DURANGO JUVENILE DETENTION/TREATMENT CENTER 67,186,965 LOWER BUCKEYE JAIL 189,191,185 MESA JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER 24,500,000 SHERIFF'S TRAINING FACILITY 6,653,216 COMPLETED PROJECTS 11,372,401 TOTAL FUND 455 $ 404,815,573 $ $ 2,000,000 2,136,391 43,897,108 19,188,000 41,496,398 3,000,000 5,643,792 117,361,689 FY2004-05 $ $ - FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 $ $ $ - $ - FY 2007-08 $ $ - 5-YR TOTAL (FY 2004-08) $ 2,000,000 2,136,391 43,897,108 19,188,000 41,496,398 3,000,000 5,643,792 $ 117,361,689 TOTAL PROJECT $ $ 5,000,000 2,500,000 146,445,305 86,374,965 230,687,583 27,500,000 12,297,008 11,372,401 522,177,262 143 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program FMD Maintenance Facility Capital Facilities Development Durango Complex 5 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. Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Project Cost Summary The total budget for the project is $5,000,000 with $3,000,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2,000,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 3,000,000 Other Costs Project Total $ 3,000,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total Total Project $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Operating Cost Summary The Operating Costs Summary Table was prepared by the Facilities Management Department. Continued operating costs will be the responsibility of the Facilities Management Department and the User Departments. Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ Subtotal $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ Current Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ 25,322 $ Supplies & Services 57,947 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ 83,269 $ Total Current Costs $ 83,269 $ Post Construction/Managing Department Operating Costs Personal Services $ - $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ Year 2 FY 04-05 - $ - $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ - $ $ $ - - $ - $ Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ 25,322 $ 26,082 Supplies & Services 93,884 96,700 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ 119,206 $ 122,782 144 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ $ $ 26,864 99,601 126,465 Five Year Total - $ $ $ - - $ - $ $ $ $ $ 27,670 102,589 130,259 Total Project - $ $ $ - $ 25,322 57,947 83,269 - $ - $ 83,269 - $ - $ - $ $ $ $ 28,500 105,667 134,167 $ $ - $ $ 134,438 498,441 632,879 $ 134,438 498,441 632,879 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ 119,206 $ 122,782 $ 126,465 $ 130,259 $ 134,167 $ 632,879 $ 632,879 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 83,269 $ 119,206 $ 122,782 $ 126,465 $ 130,259 $ 134,167 $ 632,879 $ 716,148 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program FMD Maintenance Facility (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the FMD Maintenance Facility project is to provide direct maintenance support for the MCSO, Juvenile Detention and Juvenile Court so that these detention and court facilities can be efficiently operated and maintained. Strategic Goals Addressed: • Design and construct all Capital projects on schedule, within budget, in cooperation with the customer and meeting the goals of the County. Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Building Operations & Maintenance Strategic Activities Supported: • • Buildings & Grounds Facilities & Maintenance Strategic Services Supported: • • Corrective Maintenance Preventative Maintenance Measure Result: % of work orders completed Output: # of work orders rec’d Demand: # of work orders expected Efficiency: Avg. cost per work order. FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) 100% 17,960 18,000 129 FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) 100% 37,795 37,795 130 FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 100% 40,000 40,000 135 145 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Southeast Regional Courtroom Build-out Capital Facilities Development Mesa Complex 2 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. Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Project Cost Summary The total budget for the project is $2,500,00 with $363,609, expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $2,136,391. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 363,609 363,609 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 2,136,391 $ 2,136,391 Operating Cost Summary N/A Managing for Results User Department did not provide information. 146 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,136,391 $ 2,136,391 Total Project $ $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 4th Avenue Jail Capital Facilities Development 3rd Ave – 4th Ave Madison Street. 5 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 levels with mezzanines. The jail will accommodate 2,100 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. Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Project Cost Summary The total budget for the project is $146.4 million with $102.5 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $43,897,108. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 102,548,197 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 102,548,197 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 43,897,108 $ 43,897,108 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 43,897,108 $ 43,897,108 Total Project $ 146,445,305 $ 146,445,305 Operating Cost Summary The Operating Costs Summary Table was prepared by the Facilities Management Department. Continued operating costs will be the responsibility of the Facilities Management Department and the User Departments. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ 986,528 $ 1,016,124 Supplies & Services 2,380,140 2,451,544 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ 3,366,668 $ 3,467,668 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Five Year Total Total Project $ 1,046,608 2,479,166 $ 3,525,774 $ 1,078,006 2,552,020 $ 3,630,026 $ 1,110,346 2,627,056 $ 3,737,402 $ 5,237,612 12,489,926 $ 17,727,538 $ 5,237,612 12,489,926 $ 17,727,538 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ 3,366,668 $ 3,467,668 $ 3,525,774 $ 3,630,026 $ 3,737,402 $ 17,727,538 $ 17,727,538 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ 3,366,668 $ 3,467,668 $ 3,525,774 $ 3,630,026 $ 3,737,402 $ 17,727,538 $ 17,727,538 Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the 4th Avenue Jail project is to expand Maricopa County Jail Facilities for the general population so that the increased number of inmates processed through the judicial system can be detained in a controlled, secure, and safe environment as required by law. Strategic Goals Addressed: • The Sheriff’s Office will always meet constitutional standards for care, custody and control of inmates as well as a safe environment for staff. 147 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program 4th Avenue Jail (Continued) Strategic Program Supported: • Custody Management Program Strategic Activities Supported: • • • • Detention Management Activity Inmate Processing Activity Mandated Inmate Programs and Services Activity New Detention Facilities Transition Activity Strategic Services Supported: • • • • • Proactive Detention Management Strategies Reactive Detention Management Strategies Inmate Intakes Inmate Releases Inmate Classifications Mandated Inmate Services New Facilities Transition Plans New Facilities Transition Facilitations New Facilities Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment Acquisitions Measure Result: % of Inmates Properly Processed in the intake area within 24 hours Output: # of Inmates Processed in Intake Demand: # of Inmates Expected to be Received Efficiency: Cost per inmate per day (jail per diem) 148 FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 100 100 100 88,509 118,012 120,372 85,447 118,012 120,372 $42.41 $46.17 Not Available Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center Capital Facilities Development Between 27th And 35th Ave South Of Durango 5 Project Narrative The approximately 270,000 square feet project contains 220 beds, 12 new courts with judicial suites and associated office space for support staff and related functions. A Residential Treatment Facility located at the corner of Durango and 35th Avenue totaling approximately 28,000 square feet contains 48 beds. Construction began in 2001 and completes in 2003. Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Project Cost Summary The total budget for the project is $86.3 million with $67.1 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $19.1 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 67,186,965 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 67,186,965 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 19,188,000 $ 19,188,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 19,188,000 $ 19,188,000 Total Project $ 86,374,965 $ 86,374,965 Operating Cost Summary The Operating Costs Summary Table was prepared by the Facilities Management Department. Continued operating costs will be the responsibility of the Facilities Management Department and the User Departments. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ 271,808 $ 279,962 Supplies & Services 1,171,148 1,206,282 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ 1,442,956 $ 1,486,244 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Five Year Total Total Project $ 288,361 1,221,364 $ 1,509,725 $ 297,011 1,257,290 $ 1,554,301 $ 305,922 1,294,292 $ 1,600,214 $ 1,443,064 6,150,376 $ 7,593,440 $ 1,443,064 6,150,376 $ 7,593,440 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ 1,442,956 $ 1,486,244 $ 1,509,725 $ 1,554,301 $ 1,600,214 $ 7,593,440 $ 7,593,440 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ 1,442,956 $ 1,486,244 $ 1,509,725 $ 1,554,301 $ 1,600,214 $ 7,593,440 $ 7,593,440 Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Juvenile Facility project is to expand the number of beds available in detention for juvenile’s awaiting a court hearing or as a disposition alternative for judicial officers so that juveniles can become responsible citizens and the public safety is enhanced. Strategic Goals Addressed: • None Strategic Programs Supported: • Detention Program 149 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center (Continued) Strategic Activities Supported: • • Juvenile Programming Juvenile Custody Strategic Services Supported: • • • • • • • • Anger Management Class High Impact Program Unit Specific Programs Personal Necessities Behavior Assessments Incident Reports Searches Suicide Risk Assessments Measure Result: % of detainees requiring class I Incident Reports Output: # of Juveniles provided custody Demand: # of Juveniles anticipated to provided custody Efficiency: Daily Cost of providing custody (housing rate as computed by Dept of Finance 150 FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 3.1 3.1 10,269 12,000 10,269 12,000 108.00 108.00 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Lower Buckeye Jail Capital Facilities Development Lower Buckeye East Of 35th Avenue In Phoenix 5 Project Narrative The Lower Buckeye Jail contains 2,449 beds including 576 maximum custody adult beds, 400 minimum custody adult beds, 504 remanded juvenile beds, 268 psychiatric beds and 60 infirmary beds. The Lower Buckeye Jail also includes intake, jail command offices, Correctional Health Services offices, a central infirmary and pharmacy and Central Services (laundry, stores, warehouse/food factory and central plant. Construction began in 2001 and completes in 2003. Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Project Cost Summary The total budget for the project is $230.6 million with $189.1 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $41.5 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 189,191,185 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 189,191,185 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 41,496,398 $ 41,496,398 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 41,496,398 $ 41,496,398 Total Project $ 230,687,583 $ 230,687,583 Operating Cost Summary The Operating Costs Summary Table was prepared by the Facilities Management Department. Continued operating costs will be the responsibility of the Facilities Management Department and the User Departments. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ 1,007,059 $ 1,037,271 Supplies & Services 2,172,838 $ 2,238,023 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ 3,179,897 $ 3,275,294 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Five Year Total Total Project $ 1,068,389 $ 2,254,927 $ 3,323,316 $ 1,100,441 $ 2,320,812 $ 3,421,253 $ 1,133,454 $ 2,388,668 $ 3,522,122 $ 5,346,613 11,375,268 $ 16,721,881 $ 5,346,613 11,375,268 $ 16,721,881 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ 3,179,897 $ 3,275,294 $ 3,323,316 $ 3,421,253 $ 3,522,122 $ 16,721,881 $ 16,721,881 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ 3,179,897 $ 3,275,294 $ 3,323,316 $ 3,421,253 $ 3,522,122 $ 16,721,881 $ 16,721,881 Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Lower Buckeye Jail project is to expand Maricopa County Jail Facilities for the general population so that the increased number of inmates processed through the judicial system can be detained in a controlled, secure, and safe environment as required by law. Strategic Goals Addressed: • The Sheriff’s Office will always meet constitutional standards for care, custody and control of inmates as well as a safe environment for staff. 151 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Lower Buckeye Jail (Continued) Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Custody Management Program Strategic Activities Supported: • • • • Detention Management Activity Inmate Processing Activity Mandated Inmate Programs and Services Activity New Detention Facilities Transition Activity Strategic Services Supported: • • • • • Proactive Detention Management Strategies Reactive Detention Management Strategies Inmate Intakes Inmate Releases Inmate Classifications Mandated Inmate Services New Facilities Transition Plans New Facilities Transition Facilitations New Facilities Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment Acquisitions Measure Result: % of Inmates Properly Processed in the intake area within 24 hours Output: # of Inmates Processed in Intake (Bookings) Demand: # of Inmates Expected to be Received Efficiency: Cost per inmate per day (jail per diem—housing) 152 FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 100 100 100 88,509 118,012 120,372 85,447 118,012 120,372 $42.41 $46.17 Not Available Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Mesa Juvenile Detention Center Capital Facilities Development Southeast Mesa Complex 2 Project Narrative The approximately 80,000 square foot project contains 120 juvenile beds and also provides supporting educational, program and administrative space. A parking structure completed in May 2001 provides 400 parking spaces for staff. Construction began in 2001 and completes in 2003. Funding Summary This project is funded 100% by the Detention Capital Projects Fund (Fund 455). Project Cost Summary The total budget for the project is $27.5 million with $24.5 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $3,000,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 24,500,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 24,500,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Total Project $ 27,500,000 $ 27,500,000 Operating Cost Summary The Operating Costs Summary Table was prepared by the Facilities Management Department. Continued operating costs will be the responsibility of the Facilities Management Department and the User Departments. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ 111,109 $ 114,443 Supplies & Services 366,588 377,586 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ 477,697 $ 492,029 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 117,876 380,640 498,516 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 121,412 391,832 513,244 Five Year Total Total Project $ 589,895 1,920,005 $ 2,509,900 $ $ 125,055 403,359 528,414 589,895 1,920,005 $ 2,509,900 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ 477,697 $ 492,029 $ 498,516 $ 513,244 $ 528,414 $ 2,509,900 $ 2,509,900 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ 477,697 $ 492,029 $ 498,516 $ 513,244 $ 528,414 $ 2,509,900 $ 2,509,900 Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Mesa Juvenile Detention Center 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. Strategic Goals Addressed: • None Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Detention Program 153 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Mesa Juvenile Detention Center (Continued) Strategic Activities Supported: • • Juvenile Programming Juvenile Custody Strategic Services Supported: • • • • Unit Specific programs Detention Facility-wide Programming Incident Reports Searches Performance Measure Data: User Department did not provide information. 154 High Impact Program (HIP) 21 Day Program Suicide Risk Assessments Personal Necessities (clothing, bedding, toiletries, etc) Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Sheriff’s Training Facility Capital Facilities Development Durango Complex 5 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 square foot structure, including open retention basins, 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. Construction began in 2002 and completes in 2003. Funding Summary 73% Detention Capital Project Fund (Fund 455); 27% Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (Fund 422). The project cost summary includes budgeted amounts for both funds. Project Cost Summary The total budget for the project is $15,963,309 with $9,653,216 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $6,310,093. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction 9,653,216 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 9,653,216 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 6,310,093 $ 6,310,093 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 6,310,093 $ 6,310,093 Total Project $ 15,963,309 $ 15,963,309 Operating Cost Summary The Operating Costs Summary Table was prepared by the Facilities Management Department. Continued operating costs will be the responsibility of the Facilities Management Department and the User Departments. Current Year Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Post Construction/Facilities Management Operating Costs (If Necessary) Personal Services $ - $ 81,232 $ 83,669 Supplies & Services 300,540 309,556 Capital Outlay Subtotal $ - $ 381,772 $ 393,225 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Five Year Total Total Project $ 86,179 318,843 $ 405,022 $ 88,765 328,408 $ 417,173 $ 91,428 338,260 $ 429,688 $ 431,273 1,595,607 $ 2,026,880 $ 431,273 1,595,607 $ 2,026,880 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ 381,772 $ 393,225 $ 405,022 $ 417,173 $ 429,688 $ 2,026,880 $ 2,026,880 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ 381,772 $ 393,225 $ 405,022 $ 417,173 $ 429,688 $ 2,026,880 $ 2,026,880 Managing for Results Purpose Statement: The Purpose of the Sheriff’s Training Facility project is to provide a sufficient facility to train new detention and sworn officers for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office so that mandated training and proficiency requirements can be met. 155 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Sheriff’s Training Facility (Continued) Strategic Goals Addressed: • • • The Sheriff’s Office will always meet constitutional standards for care, custody and control of inmates as well as a safe environment for staff. 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. Within the next 2 fiscal years, the MCSO will reduce the number of person days away from work due to work -related injuries and illnesses from FY 2002 levels. Strategic Plan Programs Supported: • • • Administrative Services Program Centralized MCSO Operations Custody Management Strategic Activities Supported: • • • • Human Resources Mandated MCSO Training Inmate Labor Mandated Inmate Programs and Services Risk Management Detention Management Inmate Processing New Detention Facilities Transition Strategic Services Supported: • • • Employee Training Detention Basic Training AZPOST Sworn Basic Training Programs Performance Measure Data: User Department did not provide information. 156 Supervisor Training Detention Incumbent Training AZPOST Sworn Incumbent Training Programs Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 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 Separate ranking systems exist for evaluating potential bridges, channel upgrades, bicycle, pedestrian and other multi-modal improvements. 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. 157 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Project Detail A total of 117 capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board from MCDOT. recommended projects are as follows: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS (FUND 234) 51th AVE: BASELINE TO SOUTH OF BROADWAY 51ST AVE: S/ELLIOT-DOBBINS 67TH AVE: PINNACLE P - HAPPY V 75TH AVE: MC 85 - VAN BUREN 83RD AVE: NORTHERN OLIVE 99TH AVE AT BEARDSLEY SIGNAL 99TH AVE: MCDOWELL - GLENDALE 107TH AVE ROSE GARDEN - JOMAX 115TH AVE BRIDGE AT GILA RIVER ALMA SCH:MCLELLAN - MCKELLIPS ALMA SCH:N BRDG GRD CTRL STRC AZTECH SMART CORRIDORS BARTLETT LAKE RD BASELINE: 7TH AVE - 43RD AVE BELL RD AT R H JOHNSON BELL RD: SR 303 -L101 ITS IMP BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES BROWN RD: ELLSWORTH - CRISMON BUSH HWY II BUSH HWY: USERY - STEWART MTN CAVE CRK" LONE MT - CRFREE HWY SMALL CITIES ASSIST PROG CHAND HGTS AT SANOKI WASH 87TH AVE: DEER VLY - WILLIAMS DEER VALLEY RD: 83RD - 91ST AV DYSART: CACTUS - GREENWAY EL MIRAGE : BEARDSLEY - LP 303 EL MIRAGE : BELL - BEARDSLEY ELLIOTT: VAL VISTA - GREENFIEL ELLSWORTH GERMAN - BASELINE ELLSWORTH: UIV - MCLELLAN ESTRELLA INTERIM LOOP 303II SETRELLA PKWY: YUMA - MCDOWELL GDACS:GEOD DNSIF/CADAST SRVYS GENERAL CIVIL ENGINEERING GILBERT RD:MCDOWELL - SR 87 GLBRT RD: PECOS - WILLIAMS FLD GLBRT RD: WARNER - WATER TANK GLBRT RD: WILLIAMS FIELD - RAY JACKRABBIT TR: YUMA - THOMAS LAVEEN AREA CONVEYANCE CHANNEL LINDSAY RD:WILLIAMS FLD TO RAY LP 303: INTERSECTION IMPRVMNTS L303: INDIAN SCH - CAMELBACK L303: CAMELBACK - BETHANY HM L303: BETHANY HM - GLENDALE L303: CACTUS - WADELL L303: WADDELL - GREENWAY L303: GREENWAY RD TO BELL LP 303 : INDIAN SCH -CLEARVIEW LP 303: MCDOWEL 3/4 MI N/THMAS MC85 AT AGUA FRIA/BRIDGE SCOUR MC85 AT AVONDALE WASH MC 85: AIRPORT - JACKRABBIT TR MC 85: COTTON LN-ESTRELLA PKWY MC 85: EL MIRAGE - 115TH AVE MC 85: ESTREALL PKWY -LITCHFLD MC85: JACKRABBIT - PERRYVILLE MC85: PERRYVILLE - COTTON LN 158 PRIOR YEARS $ 1,930,000 273,000 605,000 55,000 1,125,000 1,375,000 1,000 471,000 FY 2003-04 $ 1,000 505,000 5,000 729,500 5,000 135,000 2,000 1,781,855 2,000 5,000 FY 2004-05 $ 2,946,000 5,000 5,000 320,000 5,000 2,000 1,996,000 FY 2005-06 $ 955,000 90,000 2,290,000 324,000 2,000 - 137,000 5,000 2,602,000 1,088,000 465,000 773,000 27,314,000 11,000 5,574,000 1,675,000 59,000 75,000 78,000 621,000 650,000 5,390,000 1,611,000 9,596,000 2,600,000 2,215,000 361,000 7,450,000 192,000 2,194,000 4,000 500,000 815,574 15,000 1,687,000 2,493,000 141,000 330,000 17,000 716,000 3,000 964,000 $ - 1,195,000 1,000 5,000 95,000 1,010,000 45,000 55,000 719,000 1,000 1,000 300,000 20,000 215,000 80,000 5,000 1,010,000 3,035,000 680,000 11,811,000 1,408,000 8,645,873 7,000 2,176,000 150,000 5,701,000 10,000 5,000 305,000 200,000 500,000 2,000 1,000,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 755,000 5,000 155,000 5,000 85,000 1,000 40,000 5,000 1,000 $ 1,000 5,000 10,000 295,000 225,000 1,000 300,000 20,000 635,000 30,000 11,510,000 4,150,000 1,622,000 230,000 6,480,000 205,000 2,602,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,412,000 1,000 2,830,000 1,000 $ 1,000 10,000 1,000 300,000 400,000 3,500,000 340,000 320,000 320,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 $ FY 2006-07 $ 230,000 2,140,000 2,000 - $ 1,000 300,000 3,500,000 400,000 1,510,000 510,000 1,510,000 345,000 325,000 325,000 705,000 225,000 440,000 FY 2007-08 $ 2,000 - 300,000 4,000,000 2,240,000 2,240,000 2,240,000 20,000 30,000 20,000 3,360,000 5,000 $ - 5-YR TOTAL (FY 04-08) $ 2,947,000 1,465,000 100,000 3,569,500 2,474,000 135,000 2,000 1,781,855 10,000 2,001,000 The TOTAL PROJECT $ 4,877,000 1,465,000 100,000 3,842,500 3,079,000 190,000 1,127,000 3,156,855 11,000 2,472,000 3,695,000 3,832,000 1,195,000 1,000 10,000 105,000 1,305,000 45,000 55,000 719,000 236,000 4,000 1,500,000 40,000 850,000 80,000 5,000 1,040,000 3,035,000 1,080,000 23,321,000 5,558,000 8,645,873 7,000 3,798,000 11,380,000 12,581,000 10,000 210,000 305,000 200,000 500,000 2,604,000 1,000,000 4,095,000 3,075,000 4,075,000 368,000 358,000 348,000 755,000 5,000 2,567,000 5,000 85,000 4,070,000 40,000 2,835,000 233,000 $ 443,000 1,660,000 774,000 27,324,000 116,000 1,305,000 45,000 55,000 719,000 236,000 5,578,000 3,175,000 99,000 925,000 80,000 83,000 1,661,000 3,685,000 1,080,000 28,711,000 7,169,000 18,241,873 2,607,000 6,013,000 11,741,000 20,031,000 202,000 210,000 2,499,000 204,000 1,000,000 2,604,000 1,815,574 4,095,000 3,075,000 4,075,000 383,000 358,000 348,000 2,442,000 2,498,000 2,708,000 335,000 102,000 4,786,000 43,000 3,799,000 233,000 443,000 $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Project Detail (Continued) TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS (FUND 234) (FUND 234) - Continued MC 85: 107TH AVE - 91ST AVE MC 85: 91ST AVE - 75TH AVE PROP MGMT/PRIOR YEARS PROJECTS MCDOWELL: PIMA FWY - ALMA SCHL PRIOR YEARS $ MCKELLIPS RD BRIDGE @ SALT RIV MCQUEEN RD: QUEEN CK - PECOS MERIDIAN RD: HUNT/BASELINE CS 2,000 104,000 6,758,000 $ 758,000 1,000 1,533,000 VAL VISTA DR: RAY - WARNER WARNER RD LINDSAY - GREENFIELD WARRANTED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS WILLIAMS FLD AT HIGLEY WILLIAMS FLD: GILBERT -LINDSAY BASELINE: 51ST - 43RD AVENUE 335,000 10,000 50,000 - FY 2005-06 $ - 7,330,000 - 1,000,000 1,315,000 1,210,000 625,000 625,000 635,000 63,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 300,000 535,000 5,000 350,000 3,502,000 2,000 - 360,000 105,000 1,628,000 205,000 92,000 UTIL LOCATING ANNUAL CONTRACT $ 10,000 40,000 260,000 155,000 75,000 275,000 25,000 205,000 205,000 180,000 415,000 1,515,000 928,000 907,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 5,000 60,000 125,000 300,000 20,000 615,000 350,000 3,700,000 2,000 2,000 4,500,000 1,745,000 - RITTENHOUSE RD AT POWER RD SIGNAL MODERNIZATION SPECIAL PROJECTS TIP DEVELOPMENT UNALLOCATED FORCE ACCOUNT UNION HILLS AT 107TH AVE. TUTHILL RD AT GILA RIVER/SCOUR FY 2004-05 260,000 14,068,000 39,000 174,000 6,000 152,000 296,000 280,000 1,250,000 709,000 108,000 526,000 310,000 6,639,000 576,000 RIO SALADO: L303 - 7TH AVE FS 42,000 240,000 130,000 5,371,000 468,000 - NORTHEAST MAINTENANCE FACILITY NORTHERN: 95TH AVE - 71ST AVE OCOTILLO RD: BASHA - AZ AVE OCOTILLO RD: POWER/ALMA SCH CS OLD US 80 AT HASSYAMPA/SCOUR PNCL PK: LK PLEASNT - 83RD AVE PM10 PROGRAM PM10: 12TH ST, CIR MTN - TNF PM10: (PH4) IN NORTH VALLEY PM10: (PH4) IN SE VALLEY PM10: (PH4) IN SW VALLEY PM10: (PH3) NE AREA PM10: (PH3) SE AREA PM10: (PH3) SW AREA PM10: BOX BAR & NEEDLE ROCK PM10: CARVER: 51ST-43RD AVE PM10: CIR MTN: 13TH AVE - NR PM10: MCNEIL: 35TH - 31ST AVE PM10: PATRICK LN: 81ST-79TH AV PM10: SADDLE MTN: N RIV - 12TH POWER RD: GUADALUPE - BSELINE POWER RD: WILLIAMS FIELD - RAY POWER RD: PECOS - WILLIAMS FLD CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT REPORTS QUEEN CR:CULVRT AT EASTRN CNL QUEEN CRK RD: AZ AVE - MCQUEEN PREVIOUS YEAR'S PROJECTS ROW IN-FILL/ROAD INVENTORY SYS RAY RD: BULLMOOSE - DOBSON RAY RD LINDSAY - GREENFIELD RIGGS RD: AZ AVE-GILBERT RD RIGGS RD: 1-10 PRICE 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,204,000 - 17,000 50,000 214,000 106,000 532,000 532,000 650,000 20,000 20,000 FY 2006-07 $ 660,000 1,320,000 50,000 - FY 2007-08 $ 2,510,000 2,530,000 50,000 - 5-YR TOTAL (FY 04-08) $ 3,587,000 4,770,000 330,000 5,371,000 TOTAL PROJECT $ 3,589,000 4,874,000 330,000 12,129,000 - - - 1,000 759,000 5,000 - - 8,868,000 9,336,000 - - - 260,000 260,000 2,400,000 10,000 40,000 260,000 1,470,000 75,000 9,935,000 25,000 1,415,000 1,415,000 1,400,000 415,000 1,515,000 928,000 970,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 25,000 7,313,000 60,000 175,000 1,500,000 555,000 5,110,000 1,750,000 23,702,000 2,000 556,000 4,500,000 1,745,000 2,400,000 14,078,000 79,000 260,000 1,644,000 81,000 10,087,000 25,000 1,415,000 1,415,000 1,400,000 415,000 1,811,000 1,208,000 970,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 25,000 8,563,000 60,000 175,000 2,209,000 663,000 5,636,000 2,060,000 30,341,000 2,000 556,000 4,500,000 2,321,000 1,400,000 2,150,000 585,000 585,000 585,000 1,528,000 20,000 300,000 710,000 350,000 5,500,000 552,000 - - 335,000 26,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 433,000 160,000 260,000 40,000 670,000 50,000 - 3,150,000 5,775,000 20,000 300,000 310,000 350,000 5,500,000 - - - 3,150,000 300,000 3,470,000 350,000 5,500,000 - 360,000 360,000 440,000 1,654,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 7,737,000 365,000 352,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,025,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 200,000 217,000 2,000 2,000 500,000 746,000 460,000 712,000 1,452,150 1,000,000 20,000 1,000,000 20,000 - 1,246,000 1,986,150 3,150,000 766,000 520,000 1,246,000 1,986,150 3,150,000 980,000 626,000 5,000 31,000 7,000 1,000 30,000 1,000 10,000 - 224,000 962,864 - NON-PROJECT SUBTOTAL $ 145,503,574 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,066,000 - 335,000 26,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 7,737,000 160,000 260,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,009,000 - 27,314,000 CHAND HGTS: CULVER AT E CANAL MCDOWELL: SHOULDERS WIDENING POWER RD: ELLIOT TO GUADALUPE VAL VISTA: THOMAS TO SOUTHERN FY 2003-04 - - 5,000 27,319,000 - - 226,000 1,002,864 257,000 1,009,864 $ 1,110,941 75,419,169 $ 64,348,000 $ 33,408,014 $ 450,000 400,000 35,848,000 $ 36,383,000 450,000 400,000 1,110,941 $ 245,406,183 $ 450,000 400,000 1,110,941 390,909,757 PROJECT RESERVES ACCOUNT $ 514,000 $ 2,038,059 $ 5,000,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 30,150,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 87,188,059 $ 87,702,059 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 234 $ 146,017,574 $ 77,457,228 $ 69,348,000 $ 53,408,014 $ 65,998,000 $ 66,383,000 $ 332,594,242 $ 478,611,816 159 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Managing for Results The Transportation Department submitted the following Managing for Results information for all FY 200304 Transportation projects. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the following projects is to identify design and construct road improvements that are smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Strategic Goals Addressed: • • By 2005 MCDOT will reduce the accident rate on county-maintained roadways by 5%, reduce travel delays by 5% and improve operational effectiveness through the application of appropriate traffic management solutions, which include regional coordination, and the deployment of intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies. MCDOT will reduce Maricopa County’s documented unmet transportation needs every year of the next five years through innovative operational and financial strategies. Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Build Roadways and Bridges Strategic Activity Supported: • TIP Management Measure Result: % projects completed as planned Output: # of projects completed that were planned to be completed Demand: # of projects planned to be completed Efficiency: $ Cost of program management per project 160 FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) 20% FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) 80% FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 80% 3 12 12 15 15 15 Not Available – New measure Not Available Not Available Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Managing for Results (Continued) Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Build Roadways and Bridges Strategic Activities Supported: • • • • • • Design Right-of-way Acquisition Utility Relocation Environmental Clearance TIP Management Dust Mitigation Measure Result: % Particulate Matter (PM-10) roads that have been paved per County Air Quality regulations Output: # of lane miles of new or improved roads constructed Demand: # of lane miles planned for new or improved roadway construction Efficiency: $ cost per lane mile of new or improved roadway construction FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 6% 51% 80% 20 32 24 40 63 30 $ 192,125 $ 192,125 $ 250,000 FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 58% 80% 80% 23 43 22 39 54 27 $874,769 $ 195,125 $ 195,125 Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Build Roadways and Bridges Strategic Activities Supported: • • • • • • Design Right-of-way Acquisition Utility Relocation Environmental Clearance Roadway Construction TIP Management Measure Result: % of lane miles completed that were planned for new or improved roadway construction Output: # of lane miles of new or improved roads constructed Demand: # of lane miles planned for new or improved roadway construction Efficiency: $ cost per lane mile of new or improved roadway construction 161 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Managing for Results (Continued) Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Build Roadways and Bridges Strategic Activities Supported: • • Right-of-way Acquisition TIP Management Measure Result: % of land rights acquired by bid date within budget Output: # of land rights acquired Demand: # of land rights acquisitions anticipated Efficiency: Cost per land rights acquired 162 FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 100% 100% 100% 241 440 550 300 500 560 $2,351 $1,510 $1,300 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 51st Ave: Baseline To South of Broadway Transportation 5 Project Narrative: The purpose of this project is to widen the road with two additional through lanes and a center left-turn lane. The City of Phoenix is the lead agency with the County contributing $2,945,000 toward construction. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary The county’s contribution will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.9 million with $1.9 million expended through FY 2001-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to monitor the project. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 761,000 934,000 235,000 1,930,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 2,945,000 1,000 $ 2,946,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ Total Project $ 761,000 3,879,000 237,000 $ 4,877,000 $ 2,945,000 2,000 $ 2,947,000 Operating Cost Summary The City of Phoenix will assume maintenance of the roadway. Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,435 200 4,635 4,635 $ $ 4,635 - $ - $ - $ - $ - 163 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 51st Ave: south of Elliot to Dobbins Transportation 5 Project Narrative This project will widen 51st Avenue beginning south of Elliot Road from a two lane major arterial to a three lane major arterial south of Dobbins by the addition of a continuous left turn lane. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.7 million with $1.3 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $500,000 to relocate utilities and irrigation structures. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 700,000 38,000 546,000 1,284,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 500,000 5,000 $ 505,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 950,000 5,000 955,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,450,000 15,000 $ 1,465,000 Total Project $ 700,000 1,488,000 561,000 $ 2,749,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 164 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,975 1,600 18,575 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 18,575 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 67th Ave: Pinnacle Pk to Happy Valley Transportation 4 Project Narrative The purpose of this project was to develop a design concept report to establish design parameters for widening the roadway 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $100,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000 to pursue funding partners prior to starting the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 70,000 20,000 90,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ 5-Year Total $ $ Total Project 70,000 30,000 100,000 $ 70,000 30,000 100,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 165 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 75th Ave: MC 85 to Van Buren Transportation 5 Project Narrative: This project will result in a completed design for the reconstruction of 75th Avenue from two lanes to five lanes including a continuous left-turn lane. It also includes utility relocations and upgrades to the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary 70% County Portion: Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234 30% Partnership Contributions Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.8 million with $273,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $729,500 to complete the design, acquire right-of-way, relocate utilities and negotiate an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Cities of Phoenix and Tolleson for construction. Construction is contingent on finalizing the construction IGA and the timing of a Flood Control District storm sewer installation. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 189,000 84,000 273,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 247,500 $ 452,000 30,000 $ 729,500 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 300,000 20,000 $ 320,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ 2,270,000 20,000 $ 2,290,000 $ $ $ 225,000 5,000 230,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ - $ 5-Year Total $ 247,500 3,247,000 75,000 $ 3,569,500 Total Project $ 247,500 3,436,000 159,000 $ 3,842,500 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 166 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,975 1,600 18,575 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 18,575 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 83rd Ave: Northern to Olive Transportation 4 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to widen 83rd for the traveling public from two travel lanes to four travel lanes with a center left turn lane to reduce congestion and increase safety. Resulting in a roadway structure that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Construction is contingent upon finalization of an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Peoria for financial participation in construction and assuming maintenance responsibilities for 83rd Ave. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary 55% County Portion: Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234 45% Partnership Contributions The city of Peoria is expected to assume maintenance responsibilities once the project is completed. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project has increased to $3.1 million with $605,000 expended through FY 200203. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 207,000 202,000 196,000 605,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 314,000 10,000 324,000 $ $ 2,120,000 20,000 $ 2,140,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 5-Year Total - $ Total Project $ 207,000 2,636,000 236,000 $ 3,079,000 $ 2,434,000 40,000 $ 2,474,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ - $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 17,740 800 18,540 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 18,540 - $ - 167 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 99th Ave at Beardsley Signal Transportation 4 Project Narrative This project will provide improvements to the intersection of 99th Ave at Beardsley Rd. Traffic signals will be installed. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary 50% County Portion: Highway User Revenue Funds, fund 234 50% Partnership The total budget for this project is $190,000 with $55,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $135,000. The City of Peoria is cost sharing in this project at 50% of the construction cost. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 50,000 5,000 55,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ Year 2 FY 04-05 125,000 10,000 135,000 $ - $ Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ 125,000 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 135,000 Total Project $ $ 175,000 15,000 190,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 168 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 14,875 1,400 16,275 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,275 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 99th Ave: McDowell to Glendale Transportation 4&5 Project Narrative The purpose of this project was 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.1 million with $1.1 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2,000 to pursue construction funding partners. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 783,000 232,000 110,000 1,125,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 2,000 2,000 $ Total Project $ 783,000 232,000 112,000 $ 1,127,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 169 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 107th Ave: Rose Garden to Jomax Transportation 4 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to build a two-lane roadway for dust control and connection to Loop 303 south of Jomax. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3,156,355 with $1,375,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,781,855 to complete construction. Right-of-way Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ $ $ $ Prior Years 620,000 336,000 419,000 1,375,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 1,761,855 $ 20,000 $ 1,781,855 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 1,761,855 $ $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,781,855 $ $ $ $ Total Project 620,000 2,097,855 439,000 3,156,855 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 170 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program 115th Ave Bridge at Gila River Transportation 5 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to monitor for intergovernmental agreement (IGA) compliance of annual deferred payments from the State of Arizona and the City of Avondale for cost sharing in the bridge as constructed in FY 1999. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $11,000. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2,000 to monitor the payments. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 1,000 1,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 5-Year Total $ $ 10,000 10,000 Total Project $ $ 11,000 11,000 171 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Alma School Rd: McLellan to McKellips Transportation 1&2 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.5 million with $471,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 376,000 95,000 471,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 1,972,000 24,000 $ 1,996,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,972,000 29,000 $ 2,001,000 Total Project $ 2,348,000 124,000 $ 2,472,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 172 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Alma School Rd: North Bridge Grade Control Structure Transportation 2 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.9 million with $137,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 2,000 97,000 38,000 137,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 2,597,000 5,000 $ 2,602,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ 1,083,000 5,000 $ 1,088,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 3,680,000 15,000 $ 3,695,000 Total Project $ 2,000 3,777,000 53,000 $ 3,832,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 14,875 1,400 16,275 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,275 - 173 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program AzTech Smart Corridors Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to install an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) “Smart Instrumentation” for 10 arterial corridors. 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 10% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 90% from Federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.7 million with $465,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,195,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 441,000 24,000 465,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 1,180,000 15,000 $ 1,195,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,180,000 15,000 $ 1,195,000 Total Project $ 1,621,000 39,000 $ 1,660,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 174 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Bartlett Lake Rd: Cave Creek to Horseshoe Transportation 2 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 for construction. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, for design portion. Construction is contingent on receiving federal funds. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $774,000 with $773,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $1,000 to complete the design. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 3,000 612,000 158,000 773,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,000 1,000 $ Total Project $ 3,000 612,000 159,000 $ 774,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 175 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Baseline Rd: 7th Ave to 43rd Ave Transportation 5 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to monitor for IGA compliance of annual deferred payments from the City of Phoenix for cost sharing in the roadway as constructed in FY 2002. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $10,000. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000 to monitor IGA compliance. Prior Years Right-of-way $ 4,321,000 Construction $ 22,266,000 MCDOT Labor $ 727,000 Project Total $ 27,314,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 Total Project $ 4,321,000 $ 22,266,000 $ 737,000 $ 27,324,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 176 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,675 1,000 11,675 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,675 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Bell Rd at R H Johnson Transportation 4 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design a dedicated right-turn lane 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $116,000 with $11,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $95,000 to complete the design. Construction has not been programmed. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 11,000 11,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 15,000 80,000 $ 95,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ $ 15,000 90,000 105,000 Total Project $ 15,000 101,000 116,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 177 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Bell Rd: SR03 to Loop 101 ITS Transportation 4 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to install an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) “Smart Instrumentation”. The project will involve design of vehicle detection systems (VDS), closed circuit TV (CCTV) and changeable message sign (CMS) and communications. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 14.9% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, 12.9% from Peoria, 12.9% from Surprise, and 59.4% from Federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1,305,000. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,010,000. Prior Years Right-of-way Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ $ $ $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 10,000 $ 1,010,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 285,000 $ 10,000 $ 295,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ 1,285,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,305,000 Total Project $ $ 1,285,000 $ 20,000 $ 1,305,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 178 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Biological Assessment Services Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund is to supply biological assessment services for MCDOT projects as needed, so that projects won’t be delayed or costs increased. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This reserve fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this fund is $45,000. The FY 2003-04 budget is $45,000 for any unexpected biological assessments that may be required. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ 45,000 45,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 45,000 45,000 Total Project $ $ 45,000 45,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 179 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Brown Rd: Ellsworth to Crismon Transportation 2 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to complete the design 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $50,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $55,000 to complete design plans. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 50,000 5,000 $ 55,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 50,000 5,000 55,000 $ Total Project $ 50,000 5,000 55,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 180 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Bush Hwy II: McKellips to McDowell Transportation 2 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. The City of Mesa is lead on this project. The County’s participation is one payment of $717,000. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary The County’s contribution (50%) will be funded from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Mesa is funding 50%. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $719,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $719,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 717,000 2,000 $ 719,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ $ 717,000 2,000 719,000 Total Project $ 717,000 2,000 719,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - 181 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Bush Hwy: Usury Pass to Stewart Mtn Dam Transportation 2 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to widen the road to add bicycle lanes for the traveling public so that traffic congestion will be reduced. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary The project will be funded from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $236,000 for design only with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin the design effort. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 200,000 25,000 225,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 10,000 10,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 200,000 36,000 236,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 200,000 36,000 236,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 182 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Cave Creek Rd: Lone Mtn to Carefree Hwy Transportation 3 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to monitor for intergovernmental agreement (IGA) compliance of annual deferred payments from the Town of Cave Creek for cost sharing in the roadway as constructed in FY 2002. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The remaining budget for this project is $4,000. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to monitor IGA compliance. Right-of-way Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ $ $ $ Prior Years 811,000 4,761,000 2,000 5,574,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 4,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ $ $ $ Total Project 811,000 4,761,000 6,000 5,578,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,675 1,000 11,675 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,675 - 183 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Small Cities Transportation Assistance Program (SCTAP) Transportation All 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.2 million with $1.6 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $300,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 1,675,000 1,675,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 184 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ 300,000 300,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ 300,000 300,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 300,000 300,000 5-Year Total $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Total Project $ 3,175,000 $ 3,175,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Chandler Heights Rd at Sanoki Wash Transportation 1 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $99,000 with $59,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $20,000 for design by staff. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 59,000 59,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 40,000 40,000 $ Total Project $ 99,000 99,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 185 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Chandler Heights Rd: Culvert at Eastern Canal Transportation 1 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 92% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 8% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $257,000 with $31,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $1,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 1,000 30,000 31,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 5,000 $ 202,000 17,000 $ 224,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - $ 5-Year Total $ 5,000 202,000 19,000 $ 226,000 Total Project $ 6,000 202,000 49,000 $ 257,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 186 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,975 1,600 18,575 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 18,575 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Deer Valley: 91st Ave to 83rd Ave Transportation 4 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $80,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $80,000 to complete the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 70,000 10,000 80,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 70,000 10,000 80,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 70,000 10,000 80,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 187 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Dysart Rd: Cactus to Greenway Transportation 4 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended design of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $83,000 with $78,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000 to complete the design. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 74,000 4,000 78,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ Operating Cost Summary The Town of El Mirage maintains this intersection. 188 Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 5,000 5,000 Total Project $ $ 74,000 9,000 83,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program El Mirage Rd: Beardsley to Loop 303 Transportation 4 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to design and acquire right-of-way for 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234 and from developer contributions (amount yet to be negotiated). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.7 million with $621,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,010,000 to purchase right-of-way and complete relocate utilities. Construction has yet to be programmed. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 1,000 496,000 124,000 621,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,000,000 $ 10,000 $ 1,010,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 25,000 5,000 $ 30,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,000,000 25,000 15,000 $ 1,040,000 Total Project $ 1,001,000 521,000 139,000 $ 1,661,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A Roadway does not exist and construction has yet to be programmed. 189 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program El Mirage Rd: Bell to Beardsley Transportation 4 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 fourlane road to meet projected traffic demands. Signalization will also be installed on El Mirage at Beardsley Roads. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234 and from developer contributions (amount yet to be negotiated). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3,685,000 with $650,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $3,035,000 for the purchase of right-of-way. Construction has not been programmed. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 1,000 534,000 115,000 650,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 3,000,000 $ 35,000 $ 3,035,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - $ 5-Year Total $ 3,000,000 35,000 $ 3,035,000 Total Project $ 3,001,000 534,000 150,000 $ 3,685,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 190 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Elliot Rd: Val Vista to Greenfield Transportation 2 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. The Town of Gilbert is the lead agency. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), 234, and 50% from the Town of Gilbert. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1080,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $680,000 for the first of two payments to Gilbert. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 680,000 $ 680,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 400,000 400,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ Total Project $ 1,080,000 $ 1,080,000 $ 1,080,000 $ 1,080,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,435 200 4,635 4,635 $ $ 4,635 - $ - $ - $ - $ - Gilbert is expected to maintain the road. 191 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Ellsworth Rd: Germann to Baseline Transportation 1&2 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). The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 60% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Fund 234, and 40% from an IGA partners (City of Mesa and the Maricopa County Flood Control District). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $28.7 million with $5.4 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $11.8 million to begin construction. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 1,954,000 3,041,000 395,000 5,390,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 400,000 $ 11,391,000 20,000 $ 11,811,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 11,500,000 10,000 $ 11,510,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - $ 5-Year Total $ 400,000 22,891,000 30,000 $ 23,321,000 Total Project $ 2,354,000 25,932,000 425,000 $ 28,711,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 192 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Ellsworth Rd: University to McLellan Transportation 2 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, as 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 57% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 43% from the City of Mesa. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $7.2 million with $1.6 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1.4 million. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 285,000 1,068,000 258,000 1,611,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 1,400,000 8,000 $ 1,408,000 $ $ 4,140,000 10,000 $ 4,150,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 5,540,000 18,000 $ 5,558,000 Total Project $ 285,000 6,608,000 276,000 $ 7,169,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - 193 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Estrella Interim Loop 303(II) Transportation 4 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to build a four lane road beginning at the El Mirage alignment to Lake Pleasant Rd, finishing 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 over the Agua Fria River. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 51% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, 5% from the City of Peoria and 44% from developers. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $18.2 million with $9.6 million expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $8.6 million to complete construction. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 4,877,000 3,556,000 1,163,000 9,596,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 8,545,873 100,000 $ 8,645,873 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 8,545,873 100,000 $ 8,645,873 Total Project $ 4,877,000 12,101,873 1,263,000 $ 18,241,873 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Maintenance by County forces expected to begin 194 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05* Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project - $ - $ 4,135 500 $ 4,135 500 $ 4,135 500 $ 4,135 500 $ - $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 16,540 2,000 18,540 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 18,540 - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Estrella Parkway: Yuma to McDowell Transportation 4 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. The Town of Goodyear has elected to take the lead on this project since the roadway is in their jurisdiction. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 13% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 87% from the Town of Goodyear. Project Cost Summary The total budget for the County’s portion of this project is $2.6 million with $2.6 million expended through FY 2002-03 for right-of-way acquisition and design. The FY 2003-04 budget is $7,000 to complete transfer of the project to the Town of Goodyear. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 1,993,000 379,000 228,000 2,600,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 7,000 7,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 7,000 7,000 Total Project $ 1,993,000 379,000 235,000 $ 2,607,000 Operating Cost Summary Operating and transition costs are responsibility of the Town of Goodyear. 195 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program GDACS: Geodetic Densification & Cadastral Surveys Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to provide more and better land survey points and a more accurate 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 78% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 22% from other sources. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $6 million with $2.2 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2.2 million. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 1,661,000 554,000 2,215,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 2,000,000 176,000 $ 2,176,000 $ $ 1,472,000 150,000 $ 1,622,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 3,472,000 326,000 $ 3,798,000 Total Project $ 5,133,000 880,000 $ 6,013,000 Operating Cost Summary Cuurent Year Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Maintenance by County forces expected to begin 196 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3* FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45,000 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ 45,000 5,000 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program General Civil Engineering Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this reserve fund is to reserve monies for hiring on-call civil engineering consultants for MCDOT project designers so 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this fund is $11.7 million with $361,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $150,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 361,000 361,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 150,000 150,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 230,000 230,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 5-Year Total $ 11,380,000 $ 11,380,000 Total Project $ 11,741,000 $ 11,741,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 197 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Gilbert Rd: McDowell to SR 87 w/ LWC Transportation 2 Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of Gilbert Road from McDowell Road to State 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 and a sound wall along McDowell Rd. It includes the future purchase of right-of-way along Gilbert Rd. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 90% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, 4% from an IGA partner and 6% from Federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $20.0 million with $7.4 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5.7 million. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 4,960,000 1,913,000 577,000 7,450,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 5,620,000 81,000 $ 5,701,000 $ $ 6,295,000 185,000 $ 6,480,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ 400,000 400,000 $ Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 12,315,000 266,000 $ 12,581,000 Total Project $ 4,960,000 14,228,000 843,000 $ 20,031,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 198 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Gilbert Rd: Pecos to Williams Field Transportation 1 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $202,000 with $192,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $10,000 to complete the study. Construction has not been programmed. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 152,000 40,000 192,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 10,000 10,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 10,000 10,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ $ 152,000 50,000 202,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 199 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Gilbert Rd: Warner to Water Tank Transportation 2 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to widen Gilbert Rd north of Warner and eliminate scalloped sections of roadway that reduce the travel lanes to just one lane. The Town of Gilbert is lead on this project. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $210,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000 to negotiate a funding agreement with the Town of Gilbert. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 200,000 5,000 205,000 Operating Cost Summary The Town of Gilbert maintains the roadway. 200 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 200,000 10,000 210,000 Total Project $ $ 200,000 10,000 210,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Gilbert Rd: Williams Field to Ray Transportation 1 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This County’s portion of the project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.5 million with $2.2 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $0.3 million. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 2,156,000 38,000 2,194,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 300,000 5,000 305,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 300,000 5,000 305,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 2,456,000 43,000 $ 2,499,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - 201 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Jackrabbit Tr: Yuma to Thomas Transportation 4 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $204,000 with $4,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $200,000 to complete the study. Construction has not been programmed. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 4,000 4,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 150,000 50,000 200,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 150,000 50,000 200,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ $ 150,000 54,000 204,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 202 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Laveen Area Conveyance Channel Transportation 5 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1 million with $500,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $500,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 500,000 500,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 500,000 500,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 500,000 500,000 Total Project $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Operating Cost Summary The Flood Control District will maintain. 203 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Lindsay Rd: Williams Field to Ray Rd Transportation 1 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. The Town of Gilbert is lead on this project. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 50% from the Town of Gilbert. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.6 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 2,600,000 2,000 $ 2,602,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 2,600,000 4,000 $ 2,604,000 Total Project $ 2,600,000 4,000 $ 2,604,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 204 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 14,875 1,400 16,275 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,275 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303 Intersection Improvements Transportation 4 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 13% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 87% from federal funds. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.8 million with $.8 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 1,000 629,574 185,000 815,574 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 980,000 20,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 980,000 20,000 $ 1,000,000 Total Project $ 1,000 1,609,574 205,000 $ 1,815,574 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - 205 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303: Indian School Rd to Camelback Transportation 4 Project Narrative The project is to widen the existing two-lane roadway into a four lane divided highway with at grade signalized intersections when warranted. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.1 million with $0.0 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin partnership formation discussions. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 4,000 4,000 $ $ $ 300,000 40,000 340,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 10,000 $ 1,510,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 2,200,000 40,000 $ 2,240,000 5-Year Total $ 1,000,000 3,000,000 95,000 $ 4,095,000 Total Project $ 1,000,000 3,000,000 95,000 $ 4,095,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 206 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 21,175 2,000 23,175 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 23,175 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303: Camelback to Bethany Home Transportation 4 Project Narrative The project is to widen the existing two-lane roadway into a four lane divided highway with at grade signalized intersections when warranted. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. 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 $0.0 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin partnership formation discussions. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 300,000 20,000 $ 320,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 500,000 10,000 $ 510,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 2,200,000 40,000 $ 2,240,000 5-Year Total $ $ Total Project 3,000,000 75,000 3,075,000 $ 3,000,000 75,000 3,075,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 21,175 2,000 23,175 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 23,175 - 207 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303: Bethany Home to Glendale Transportation 4 Project Narrative The project is to widen the existing two-lane roadway into a four lane divided highway with at grade signalized intersections when warranted. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.1 million with $0.0 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin partnership formation discussions. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 4,000 4,000 $ $ $ 300,000 20,000 320,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 10,000 $ 1,510,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 2,200,000 40,000 $ 2,240,000 5-Year Total $ 1,000,000 3,000,000 75,000 $ 4,075,000 Total Project $ 1,000,000 3,000,000 75,000 $ 4,075,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 208 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 21,175 2,000 23,175 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 23,175 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303: Cactus to Waddell Transportation 4 Project Narrative The project is to design plans for widening the existing two-lane roadway into a four lane divided highway with at grade signalized intersections when warranted. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $0.4 million to prepare design plans with $0.0 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin partnership formation discussions. Construction has not been programmed. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction 15,000 MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 15,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 300,000 45,000 $ 345,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 10,000 10,000 $ 20,000 5-Year Total $ $ 310,000 58,000 368,000 Total Project $ 325,000 58,000 383,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 209 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303: Waddell to Greenway Transportation 4 Project Narrative The project is to design plans for the widening of the existing two-lane roadway into a four lane divided highway with at-grade signalized intersections when warranted. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $0.4 million to prepare design plans with $0.0 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin partnership formation discussions. Construction has not been programmed. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ 300,000 25,000 325,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 5-Year Total 10,000 20,000 30,000 $ $ 310,000 48,000 358,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project $ 310,000 48,000 358,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 210 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303: Greenway to Bell Rd Transportation 4 Project Narrative The project is to design plans for the widening of the existing two-lane roadway into a four lane divided highway with at grade signalized intersections when warranted. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $0.3 million to prepare design plans with $0.0 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin partnership formation discussions. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ 300,000 25,000 325,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 5-Year Total 10,000 10,000 20,000 $ $ 310,000 38,000 348,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project $ $ 310,000 38,000 348,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 211 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303: Indian School to Clearview Transportation 4 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.4 million to complete the design concept report and environmental assessment with $1.7 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $755,000 to complete the study. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 54,000 1,392,000 241,000 1,687,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 750,000 5,000 755,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 750,000 5,000 755,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 54,000 2,142,000 246,000 $ 2,442,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 212 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Loop 303: McDowell to ¾ mi. N. of Thomas Transportation 4 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 as a cul-desac. This project includes the replacement of an existing structure. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 58% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, 34% from an IGA partner and 8% from other sources. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.5 million with $2.5 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000 to close out the project. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 87,000 2,166,000 240,000 2,493,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 5,000 5,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 87,000 2,166,000 245,000 $ 2,498,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,675 1,000 11,675 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,675 - 213 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85 at Agua Fria/Bridge Scour Transportation 5 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to repair the pier cap (support) that has failed causing partial closure of the bridge and 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 59% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 41% from Federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.7 million with $141,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $155,000 to begin construction. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 10,000 98,000 33,000 141,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 150,000 5,000 155,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 2,245,000 167,000 $ 2,412,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 2,395,000 172,000 $ 2,567,000 Total Project $ 10,000 2,493,000 205,000 $ 2,708,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 214 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85 at Avondale Wash Transportation 4 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 This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 60% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 40% from Federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $335,000 with $330,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $5,000 to complete the project. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 3,000 197,000 130,000 330,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 5,000 5,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 3,000 197,000 135,000 $ 335,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,675 1,000 11,675 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,675 - 215 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85: Airport to Jackrabbit Tr Transportation 4 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $102,000 with $17,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $85,000 to complete the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 17,000 17,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 75,000 10,000 85,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 75,000 10,000 85,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 75,000 27,000 102,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 216 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85: Cotton Lane to Estrella Pkwy Transportation 4 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 73% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 27% from the Town of Goodyear. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.7 million with $716,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 36,000 461,000 219,000 716,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 3,000 3,000 $ $ $ 700,000 5,000 705,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 5-Year Total $ $ 3,330,000 30,000 $ 3,360,000 Total Project $ 36,000 4,491,000 259,000 $ 4,786,000 $ 4,030,000 40,000 $ 4,070,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ - $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 17,740 800 18,540 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 18,540 - $ - 217 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85: El Mirage to 115th Ave Transportation 5 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $43,000 with $3,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2002-03 budget is $40,000 to complete the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 3,000 3,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 35,000 5,000 40,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 35,000 5,000 40,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 35,000 8,000 43,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 218 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85: Estrella Pkwy to Litchfield Transportation 4 Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of the road from two to four lanes with a continuous left-turn lane. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 83% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 17% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.8 million with $0.9 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 679,000 14,000 271,000 964,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 2,775,000 55,000 $ 2,830,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 2,775,000 60,000 $ 2,835,000 Total Project $ 679,000 2,789,000 331,000 $ 3,799,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 14,875 1,400 16,275 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,275 - 219 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85: Jackrabbit Trail to Perryville Transportation 4 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $233,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin finding funding partners to complete the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ 200,000 25,000 225,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 5-Year Total 5,000 5,000 $ $ 200,000 33,000 233,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project $ 200,000 33,000 233,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 220 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85: Perryville to Cotton Lane Transportation 4 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $443,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to begin finding funding partners to complete the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ 400,000 40,000 440,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 400,000 43,000 443,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 400,000 43,000 443,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 221 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85: 107th Ave to 91st Ave Transportation 5 Project Narrative This project will design and construct a four-lane roadway with a raised center median. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.8 million with $2,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $42,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 2,000 2,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 40,000 2,000 42,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 300,000 35,000 335,000 $ $ $ 10,000 30,000 40,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 650,000 $ 10,000 $ 660,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 2,490,000 20,000 $ 2,510,000 5-Year Total $ 650,000 2,840,000 97,000 $ 3,587,000 Total Project $ 650,000 2,840,000 99,000 $ 3,589,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 222 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 21,175 2,000 23,175 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 23,175 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program MC 85: 91st Ave to 75th Ave Transportation 5 Project Narrative The project will design and construct a four-lane roadway with a raised center median. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.9 million with $104,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $240,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 100,000 4,000 104,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 210,000 30,000 240,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 650,000 $ 20,000 $ 670,000 10,000 10,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 1,300,000 20,000 $ 1,320,000 $ $ 2,500,000 30,000 $ 2,530,000 5-Year Total $ 650,000 4,010,000 110,000 $ 4,770,000 Total Project $ 650,000 4,110,000 114,000 $ 4,874,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 21,175 2,000 23,175 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 23,175 - 223 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program McDowell Mountain Rd: Shoulders Widening Transportation 2 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 to create room for bicycle lanes. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 47% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234 and 53% partnership contributions. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.3 million with $0 expended through FY 2001-02. The FY 2002-03 budget is $50,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 7,000 7,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 30,000 30,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 10,000 10,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 942,864 20,000 962,864 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 942,864 60,000 $ 1,002,864 Total Project $ 942,864 67,000 $ 1,009,864 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 224 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,975 1,600 18,575 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 18,575 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program McDowell Rd: Pima Fwy to Alma School Transportation 2 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 93% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 7% from the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $12.1 million with $6.7 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5.4 million. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 989,000 2,039,000 3,730,000 6,758,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 5,331,000 40,000 $ 5,371,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 5,331,000 40,000 $ 5,371,000 Total Project $ 989,000 7,370,000 3,770,000 $ 12,129,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - 225 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program McKellips Rd Bridge at Salt River Transportation 2 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to prepare design plans for a bridge across the Salt River. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended pursuit of funding partners for construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $759,000 to complete design plans with $758,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000 to continue to find funding partners. Prior Years Right-of-way $ 1,000 Construction 660,000 MCDOT Labor 97,000 Project Total $ 758,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 1,000 1,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 $ - $ Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ 5-Year Total $ 1,000 1,000 $ $ $ Total Project 1,000 661,000 97,000 759,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 226 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program McQueen Rd: Queen Creek to Pecos Transportation 1 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 73% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 27% from the City of Chandler. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $9.4 million with $468,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1.5 million. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 12,000 332,000 124,000 468,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,003,000 $ 500,000 30,000 $ 1,533,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 7,260,000 70,000 $ 7,330,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 5,000 5,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - $ 5-Year Total $ 1,003,000 7,760,000 105,000 $ 8,868,000 Total Project $ 1,015,000 8,092,000 229,000 $ 9,336,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,975 1,600 18,575 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 18,575 - 227 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Meridian Rd: Hunt Hwy to Baseline Corridor Study Transportation 1&2 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to develop a corridor study report to investigate 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 future improvements can be identified for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $260,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $260,000 to complete the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 200,000 60,000 260,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 200,000 60,000 260,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 200,000 60,000 260,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 228 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Northeast Maintenance Facility Transportation 4 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to purchase property for the new Northeast Maintenance facility. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.4 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $0. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ - Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 1,400,000 $ $ 1,400,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 Total Project $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 229 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Northern Ave: 95th Ave to 71st Ave Transportation 4 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 64% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 36% from an IGA partner. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $14.1 million with $14.1 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $10,000 to support cost recovery litigation. Prior Years Right-of-way $ 669,000 Construction $ 12,815,000 MCDOT Labor 584,000 Project Total $ 14,068,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 10,000 10,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 10,000 10,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 669,000 12,815,000 594,000 $ 14,078,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 230 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,675 1,000 11,675 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,675 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Ocotillo Rd: Basha to Arizona Ave Transportation 1 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $79,000 with $39,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $40,000 to complete the design plans. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 39,000 39,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 40,000 40,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 40,000 40,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 79,000 79,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 231 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Ocotillo Rd: Power Rd to Alma School Corridor Study Transportation 2 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to complete a corridor study report to future requirements for 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $260,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $260,000 to complete the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 200,000 60,000 260,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 200,000 60,000 260,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 200,000 60,000 260,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 232 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Old US 80 at Hassayampa/Scour Transportation 5 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.6 million with $174,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $155,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 3,000 58,000 113,000 174,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 150,000 5,000 155,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 1,243,000 72,000 $ 1,315,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,393,000 77,000 $ 1,470,000 Total Project $ 3,000 1,451,000 190,000 $ 1,644,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 233 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Pinnacle Peak Rd: Lake Pleasant to 83rd Ave Transportation 4 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $81,000 with $6,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $75,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 6,000 6,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 70,000 5,000 75,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 70,000 5,000 75,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 70,000 11,000 81,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 234 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10 Program Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this program 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. As individual projects are identified for dust control and added to the capital program, funds are transferred to those projects. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This reserve fund project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this program is $10.1 million with $152,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $275,000. Prior Years $ - Right-of-way Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 152,000 152,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 275,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 1,210,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 2,150,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 3,150,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 3,150,000 $ $ $ $ $ 275,000 1,210,000 2,150,000 3,150,000 3,150,000 5-Year Total Total Project $ 9,935,000 $ $ 9,935,000 $ 9,935,000 152,000 10,087,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 235 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10: 12th St, Circle Mt to TNF Transportation 3 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. This road was part of an earlier PM10 phase project but was delayed due to design issues that needed to be resolved which would have delayed the entire project and put compliance with the federal mandate in jeopardy. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is yet to be determined with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $25,000 to complete the design and determine if it is cost effective to pave the road or if other dust suppression methods are more cost effective. Prior Years Right-of-way Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ $ $ $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ $ - 5-Year Total $ $ $ 25,000 25,000 Total Project $ $ $ $ 25,000 25,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 236 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10 Roads (Ph 4) in North Valley Transportation 3 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.4 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $205,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 175,000 30,000 205,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 615,000 10,000 625,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 575,000 10,000 585,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,365,000 50,000 $ 1,415,000 Total Project $ 1,365,000 50,000 $ 1,415,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - 237 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10 Roads (Ph 4) in SE Valley Transportation 1 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.4 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $205,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 205,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 625,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 585,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ - Year 5 FY 07-08 $ - $ $ $ $ $ 205,000 625,000 585,000 - - 5-Year Total Total Project $ 1,415,000 $ $ 1,415,000 $ 1,415,000 1,415,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 238 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10 Roads (Ph 4) in SW Valley Transportation 5 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.4 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $180,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 150,000 30,000 180,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 625,000 10,000 635,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 575,000 10,000 585,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,350,000 50,000 $ 1,400,000 Total Project $ 1,350,000 50,000 $ 1,400,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - 239 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10 Roads (Ph 3) in NE Area Transportation 4 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $430,000 with $15,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $415,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 15,000 15,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 410,000 5,000 415,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 410,000 5,000 415,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 410,000 20,000 430,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 240 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10 Roads (Ph 3) in SE Area Transportation 2 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.8 million with $296,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1.5 million. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 250,000 46,000 296,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 25,000 $ 1,450,000 40,000 $ 1,515,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - $ 5-Year Total $ 25,000 1,450,000 40,000 $ 1,515,000 Total Project $ 25,000 1,700,000 86,000 $ 1,811,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - 241 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10 Roads (Ph 3) in SW Area Transportation 4 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.2 million with $280,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $928,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 231,000 49,000 280,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 25,000 $ 881,000 22,000 $ 928,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ - $ 5-Year Total $ 25,000 881,000 22,000 $ 928,000 Total Project $ 25,000 1,112,000 71,000 $ 1,208,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 242 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10: Box Bar & Needle Rock Transportation 2 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. This road was part of an earlier PM10 phase project but was delayed due to design issues that needed to be resolved which would have delayed the entire project and put compliance with the federal mandate in jeopardy. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $970,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $907,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 900,000 7,000 907,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 60,000 3,000 63,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 960,000 10,000 970,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 960,000 10,000 970,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - 243 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10: Carver, 51st Ave to 43rd Ave Transportation 5 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. This road was part of an earlier PM10 phase project but was delayed due to design issues that needed to be resolved which would have delayed the entire project and put compliance with the federal mandate in jeopardy. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is yet to be determined with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $30,000 to complete the design and obtain a construction estimate to request federal funds. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 20,000 10,000 30,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 20,000 10,000 30,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 20,000 10,000 30,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 244 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10: Circle Mtn, 13th Ave to New River Rd Transportation 3 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. This road was part of an earlier PM10 phase project but was delayed due to design issues that needed to be resolved which would have delayed the entire project and put compliance with the federal mandate in jeopardy. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is yet to be determined with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000 to complete the design and determine if it is cost effective to pave the road or if other dust suppression methods are more cost effective. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 5,000 5,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 5,000 5,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 850 200 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 1,050 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 9,390 1,000 10,390 1,050 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,390 - 245 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10: McNeil, 35th to 31st Ave Transportation 5 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. This road was part of an earlier PM10 phase project but was delayed due to design issues that needed to be resolved which would have delayed the entire project and put compliance with the federal mandate in jeopardy. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is yet to be determined with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000 to complete the design and determine if it is cost effective to pave the road or if other dust suppression methods are more cost effective. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 5,000 5,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 5,000 5,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 246 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10: Patrick Lane, 81st to 79th Ave Transportation 4 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. This road was part of an earlier PM10 phase project but was delayed due to design issues that needed to be resolved which would have delayed the entire project and put compliance with the federal mandate in jeopardy. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is yet to be determined with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $10,000 to complete the design and obtain a construction estimate to request federal funds. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 10,000 10,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 10,000 10,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 10,000 10,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 247 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PM 10: Saddle Mtn, New River to 12 St Transportation 3 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. This road was part of an earlier PM10 phase project but was delayed due to design issues that needed to be resolved which would have delayed the entire project and put compliance with the federal mandate in jeopardy. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 62% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 38% federal monies. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is yet to be determined with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $25,000 to complete the design and obtain a construction estimate to request federal funds. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 20,000 20,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 5,000 5,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 25,000 25,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 25,000 25,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 248 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Power Rd: Guadalupe to Baseline Transportation 2 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to widen Power Rd between Guadalupe and Baseline Roads to six travel lanes with a raised center median. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 63% Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234 and 37% partnership contributions. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $8.6 million with $1.25 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-03 budget is $5,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 178,000 863,000 209,000 1,250,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 1,523,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,528,000 5,000 5,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ 5,750,000 25,000 $ 5,775,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 5-Year Total $ 1,523,000 5,750,000 40,000 $ 7,313,000 - $ Total Project $ 1,701,000 6,613,000 249,000 $ 8,563,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ - $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 17,740 800 18,540 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 18,540 - $ - 249 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Power Rd: Williams Field to Ray Transportation 1&2 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to complete a design concept report for 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $60,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $60,000 to complete preliminary engineering studies. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 50,000 10,000 60,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 50,000 10,000 60,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 50,000 10,000 60,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 250 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Power Rd: Pecos to Williams Field Transportation 1 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $175,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $125,000 to complete preliminary engineering studies. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 100,000 25,000 125,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 10,000 10,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 20,000 20,000 $ $ $ 20,000 20,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 100,000 75,000 175,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 100,000 75,000 175,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 251 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Candidate Assessment Reports Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund is to reserve monies for an initial assessment of potential projects so that sufficient information is developed to make further program development decisions. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this fund is $2.2 million with $709,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $300,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 709,000 709,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 300,000 300,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 252 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 300,000 300,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ 300,000 300,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ 300,000 300,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 300,000 300,000 5-Year Total $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Total Project $ 2,209,000 $ 2,209,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Queen Creek Rd: Culvert at Eastern Canal Transportation 1 Project Narrative This project will replace the existing inadequate pipe with a wider box culvert to allow future widening of the road and increase the water flow capacity of the RWCD Canal (Eastern Canal) This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $663,000 with $108,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200303 budget is $20,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 3,000 5,000 100,000 108,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 20,000 20,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 535,000 535,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 535,000 20,000 555,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 3,000 540,000 120,000 $ 663,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 14,875 1,400 16,275 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,275 - 253 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Queen Creek Rd: Arizona Avenue to McQueen Transportation 1 Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of Queen Creek Road from four to six lanes. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 43% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and 57% from the City of Chandler. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $5.6 million with $526,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000. Construction is planned for FY 2007-2008. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 106,000 305,000 115,000 526,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 600,000 $ 15,000 $ 615,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 5,000 5,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 700,000 10,000 710,000 $ $ $ 300,000 10,000 310,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 3,430,000 40,000 $ 3,470,000 5-Year Total $ 600,000 4,430,000 80,000 $ 5,110,000 Total Project $ 706,000 4,735,000 195,000 $ 5,636,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 254 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 21,175 2,000 23,175 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 23,175 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Previous Year’s Projects Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this reserve fund 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 back charges. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this reserve fund. Funding Summary This reserve fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this fund is $2.1 million with $310,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $350,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 310,000 310,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 350,000 350,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 350,000 350,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ 350,000 350,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ 350,000 350,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 350,000 350,000 5-Year Total $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000 Total Project $ 2,060,000 $ 2,060,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 255 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program R.O.W. In-fill on Road Inventory System Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund is to obtain fee title on existing roads so that the traveling public has continued access to the existing roadway system. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this fund is $30.3 million with $6.6 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $3.7 million. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 4,541,000 2,098,000 6,639,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 3,000,000 $ 700,000 $ 3,700,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 256 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 3,000,000 $ 502,000 $ 3,502,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 5,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,500,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 5,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,500,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 5,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,500,000 5-Year Total $ 21,000,000 2,702,000 $ 23,702,000 Total Project $ 25,541,000 4,800,000 $ 30,341,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Ray Rd: Bullmoose to Dobson Transportation 1 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to complete negotiations for an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Chandler for the purchase of right-of-way by the County in support of the Chandler project. Chandler is lead agency. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2,000 to complete negotiations. Any future right-of-way purchase resulting from the agreement has not been programmed. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 2,000 2,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 2,000 2,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 257 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Ray Rd: Lindsay to Greenfield Transportation 1&2 Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of the roadway from two to four lanes. The Town of Gilbert is the lead agency on this project. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 50% from the Town of Gilbert. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $556,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2,000. The County will make a one time payment of $550,000 in FY 2005-2006. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Operating Cost Summary Gilbert maintains the roadway. 258 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ 550,000 2,000 552,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 550,000 6,000 556,000 Total Project $ $ 550,000 6,000 556,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Riggs Rd: Arizona Ave to Gilbert Rd Transportation 1 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, 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 2002-03. Total project expenditures are scheduled for FY 2003-04 with one payment of $4,500,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ Total Project $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,435 200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,435 200 4,635 4,635 $ $ 4,635 - $ - $ - $ - $ - 259 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Riggs Rd: Interstate 10 to Price Transportation 5 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.3 million with $576,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1.7 million. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 169,000 254,000 153,000 576,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 1,725,000 20,000 $ 1,745,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,725,000 20,000 $ 1,745,000 Total Project $ 169,000 1,979,000 173,000 $ 2,321,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 260 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Rio Salado: Loop 303 to 7th Ave Feasibility Study Transportation 4&5 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to complete a feasibility study examine the creation of the Rio Salado Parkway from Loop 303 to 7th Ave 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $360,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $360,000 to complete the study. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 300,000 60,000 360,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 300,000 60,000 360,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 300,000 60,000 360,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 261 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Rittenhouse Rd & Power Rd Intersection Improvements Transportation 1 Project Narrative This project will install traffic signals at the intersection. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $440,000 with $.105,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $335,000 to complete installation. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 100,000 5,000 105,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 325,000 10,000 335,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 325,000 10,000 335,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 425,000 15,000 440,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 262 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Signal Modernization Transportation All 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF). Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1.65 million with $1.63 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $26,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 1,527,000 101,000 1,628,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 25,000 1,000 26,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 25,000 1,000 26,000 Total Project $ 1,552,000 102,000 $ 1,654,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 263 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Special Projects Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This reserve fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this fund is $5 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1 million. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 264 5-Year Total $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Total Project $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program TIP Program Management Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund is to provide for overall management and of the five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include budget monitoring and schedule support. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this fund is $5 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,000,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 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 N/A 265 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Unallocated Force Account Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund is to reserve monies to cover unallocated (or shortfall) in MCDOT labor costs on individual projects in the CIP, so that county citizens receive new and improved roads on schedule. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This unallocated force account fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The 5-year budget for this fund is $7,737,000. The FY 2003-04 budget is $433,000. While it is known that the Department will spend $4,003,000 annually in labor costs to support the total five-year CIP, for a total of $20,015,000 in labor costs over the next five years, the aggregate total of the specific projects listed is only $12,278,000. The amounts listed for each fiscal year brings the annual total to $4,003,000. Prior Years Right-of-way Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ $ $ $ - Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 433,000 $ 433,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 266 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 1,204,000 $ 1,204,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ 2,009,000 $ 2,009,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ 2,025,000 $ 2,025,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 2,066,000 $ 2,066,000 5-Year Total Total Project $ 7,737,000 $ 7,737,000 $ $ $ 7,737,000 $ 7,737,000 $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Union Hills at 107th Ave Intersection Improvements Transportation 4 Project Narrative This project will provide improvements to the intersection of Union Hills and 107th Ave. The approaches at the intersections will be widened to accommodate left turn lanes on and traffic signals installed. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary County Portion: Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234 73%; Partnership Contributions 27%. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $365,000 with $205,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $160,000 to complete the installation. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 200,000 5,000 205,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 150,000 10,000 160,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 150,000 10,000 160,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 350,000 15,000 365,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,235 400 $ - $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ - $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,640 1,000 11,640 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,640 - $ - 267 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Tuthill Rd at Gila River/Scour Transportation 4&5 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 Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $352,000 with $92,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $260,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 73,000 19,000 92,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 250,000 10,000 260,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 250,000 10,000 260,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 323,000 29,000 352,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 268 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Utility Locating (Pot-hole) Annual Contract Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund is to supply utility locating services for MCDOT projects so that damages to unidentified utilities won’t cause projects to be delayed or costs increased. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This reserve fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this fund is $217,000 with $17,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $50,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 17,000 17,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 50,000 50,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 50,000 50,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ 50,000 50,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ 50,000 50,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 200,000 200,000 Total Project $ $ 217,000 217,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 269 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Val Vista Dr: Ray to Warner Transportation 2 Project Narrative This project will result in the widening of the roadway from four to six lanes. The Town of Gilbert is lead on this project. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234 and 50% from the Town of Gilbert. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $1,246,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $532,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 530,000 2,000 532,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Operating Cost Summary The Town of Gilbert maintains the roadway. 270 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ $ 710,000 2,000 712,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 1,240,000 6,000 $ 1,246,000 Total Project $ 1,240,000 6,000 $ 1,246,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Warner Rd: Lindsay to Greenfield Transportation 2 Project Narrative The project will result in the reconstruction and widening of Warner Road from four lanes to six lanes. The Town of Gilbert is lead on this project. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 50% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234, and 50% from the Town of Gilbert. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $2.0 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $532,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 530,000 2,000 532,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 2,000 2,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ 1,450,150 2,000 $ 1,452,150 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 1,980,150 6,000 $ 1,986,150 Total Project $ 1,980,150 6,000 $ 1,986,150 Operating Cost Summary The Town of Gilbert maintains the roadway. 271 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Warranted Traffic Improvements (as needed) Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund is to reserve money for safety projects that are immediately needed. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $3.2 million with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $650,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ $ 650,000 650,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 272 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ 500,000 500,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 3,150,000 $ 3,150,000 Total Project $ 3,150,000 $ 3,150,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Williams Field at Higley Transportation 1 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. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $980,000 with $214,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $20,000. Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 23,000 42,000 149,000 214,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 20,000 20,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 706,000 40,000 746,000 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 706,000 60,000 766,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 23,000 748,000 209,000 $ 980,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,235 400 $ 4,235 400 $ - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 14,875 1,400 16,275 4,635 $ 4,635 $ $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 16,275 - 273 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Williams Field Rd: Gilbert to Lindsay Transportation 1 Project Narrative This is a design project for the reconstruct and widening of 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended of this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $626,000 with $106,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $20,000. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction $ MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 81,000 25,000 106,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ $ 20,000 20,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ $ Year 3 FY 05-06 420,000 40,000 460,000 $ $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 20,000 20,000 $ $ $ 20,000 20,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ 5-Year Total - $ 420,000 100,000 520,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ $ Total Project $ 501,000 125,000 626,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces 274 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Total Project 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,435 200 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 26,610 1,200 27,810 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 27,810 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Baseline Rd: 51st Ave to 43rd Ave Transportation 5 Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to widen Baseline Road from 51st Ave to 43rd Ave to four lanes with a raised center median. This project was at one time included in the Baseline road project (T064) but had to be made into a separate project. The project is impacted by the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel (T116) project and the 51st Avenue project (T075) both of which must be completed before this project can continue. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. Funding Summary This project will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $5,000. The FY 2003-04 budget is $5,000 to monitor the other two projects and determine when this project can continue. The prior year funding shown is for the entire Baseline Rd project, which this project was once a part of. Estimated cost to complete this portion is $1.8M which has not been programmed. Prior Years Right-of-way $ 4,321,000 Construction 22,266,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 727,000 Project Total $ 27,314,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ Year 2 FY 04-05 5,000 5,000 $ - $ Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ $ Total Project 4,321,000 22,266,000 732,000 27,319,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year* Avg cost per mile to maintain project Personal Services $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ * Currently being maintained by County forces Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project - $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ 2,135 200 $ - $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 10,675 1,000 11,675 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 2,335 $ 11,675 - 275 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Project Reserves Transportation All Project Narrative The purpose of this fund is to reserve monies to cover project costs increases so that county citizens receive new and improved roads on schedule. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. Funding Summary This reserve fund will be funded 100% from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF), fund 234. Project Cost Summary The 5-year budget for this fund is $89.1 million. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2.6 million. Prior Years Right-of-way $ Construction MCDOT Labor Project Total $ 514,000 514,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 2,622,000 $ 2,622,000 Operating Cost Summary N/A 276 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 20,000,000 $ 20,000,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 31,000,000 $ 31,000,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 30,000,000 $ 30,000,000 5-Year Total $ 88,622,000 $ 88,622,000 Total Project $ $ 89,136,000 89,136,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 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. 277 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Project Detail A total of 24 capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board by the Flood Control District. The recommended projects are as follows: FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CAPITAL PRIOR YEARS PROJECTS (FUND 990) CITY OF CHANDLER $ 3,526,005 CITY OF SCOTTSDALE 20,000 TOWN OF GUADALUPE DAM SAFETY PROJECT 3,658,447 S PHOENIX DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT 14,383,644 PARADISE VLY, SCOTTSDALE,PHX 105,378 EAST MARICOPA FLOODWAY 17,712,724 SALT RIVER 22,152 ARLINGTON VALLEY 40,000 MCMICKEN DAM 600,000 SKUNK CREEK 55,000 NEW RIVER DAM SKUNK CREEK/NEW RIVER 1,540,125 SPOOK HILL ADMP 4,280,269 EAST MESA ADMP 16,357,812 GLENDALE/PEORIA ADMP 17,491,105 WHITE TANKS ADMP 18,666,695 QUEEN CREEK ADMP 1,898,026 HIGLEY ADMP 5,288,728 ADOBE DAM ADMP 3,635,164 DURANGO ADMP 1,116,659 ACDC ADMP 4,228,250 MARYVALE ADMP 15,835,384 METRO ADMP 30,000 SUBTOTAL FLOOD CONTROL $ 130,491,567 FCPR - PROJECT RESERVES (FLOOD) $ TOTAL FUND 990 $ 278 130,491,567 FY 2003-04 1,574,000 25,000 958,000 11,320,000 285,000 688,000 25,000 1,255,000 1,525,000 965,000 115,000 975,000 35,000 6,636,000 40,000 2,917,000 2,025,000 140,000 50,000 3,305,000 4,732,000 10,638,000 475,000 $ 50,703,000 $ FY 2004-05 1,010,000 650,000 1,150,000 4,217,000 3,200,000 3,840,000 40,000 1,400,000 6,700,000 450,000 6,368,000 625,000 5,450,000 650,000 200,000 2,735,000 2,625,000 3,300,000 $ 44,610,000 $ FY 2005-06 650,000 550,000 1,400,000 5,580,000 1,700,000 1,600,000 2,850,000 3,600,000 16,245,000 75,000 4,300,000 3,300,000 6,700,000 $ 48,550,000 $ FY 2006-07 1,200,000 3,350,000 2,650,000 5,350,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 3,685,000 12,070,000 4,200,000 5,200,000 2,575,000 6,400,000 $ 55,080,000 $ FY 2007-08 2,000,000 400,000 3,150,000 2,600,000 5,300,000 4,300,000 6,350,000 8,500,000 7,370,000 4,550,000 3,150,000 4,200,000 5,225,000 $ 57,095,000 $ 5-YR TOTAL (FY 2004-08) TOTAL PROJECT 2,584,000 $ 6,110,005 4,525,000 4,545,000 400,000 400,000 9,158,000 12,816,447 22,187,000 36,570,644 3,485,000 3,590,378 20,758,000 38,470,724 65,000 87,152 1,255,000 1,295,000 4,625,000 5,225,000 965,000 1,020,000 115,000 115,000 7,675,000 9,215,125 10,585,000 14,865,269 26,404,000 42,761,812 16,450,000 33,941,105 44,052,000 62,718,695 11,500,000 13,398,026 12,990,000 18,278,728 50,000 3,685,164 16,115,000 17,231,659 4,732,000 8,960,250 31,588,000 47,423,384 3,775,000 3,805,000 $ 256,038,000 $ 386,529,567 $ $ 3,297,000 $ 5,390,000 $ 2,450,000 $ 1,920,000 $ 405,000 $ 13,462,000 $ 13,462,000 $ 54,000,000 $ 50,000,000 $ 51,000,000 $ 57,000,000 $ 57,500,000 $ 269,500,000 $ 399,991,567 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Managing for Results The Flood Control District submitted the following Managing for Results information for all FY 2003-04 Flood Control projects. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the existing facilities improvement project is to assure the safe operation and continued flood protection function of the existing dam for the citizens of Maricopa County so that existing flood protection can be maintained well into the future. Strategic Goals Addressed: • • Flood Hazard Remediation through Fiscally Responsible Actions. 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. Strategic Plan Program Supported: • Flood Protection Strategic Activities Supported: • Flood Hazard Remediation Measure Result: % of structural projects on the current 5-Year Capital Project Plan that are completed in the current fiscal year Output: # of structural projects on the current 5-Year Capital Project Plan that are completed in the current fiscal year Demand: Total # of structural projects on the current 5-Year Capital Project Plan Efficiency: $ cost per structural project completed in the current fiscal year. FY 2002-03 YTD Actual (%; #; or $) FY 2002-03 Year End Estimated (%; #; or $) FY 2003-04 Estimated w/Capital Improvement (%; #; or $) 12% 17% 19% 5 7 7 41 41 36 Not Available Not Available Not Available 279 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program City of Chandler Flood Control District Alma School Road/Ray Road: Multi Locations 1 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 has 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. The City is the lead agency for design, rights 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 the design and construction phases for the Project. Five improvements have been identified that would help the City accomplish its goal of alleviating the flooding problems in the Chandler’s central area. Phase 1 – Ivanhoe and Erie Storm Drains - Under Construction Phase 2 – Arrowhead Pump Station and Force Main - Complete Phase 3 – Galveston Basin and Erie Drains – Under Construction Phase 4 – Denver Basin Pump Station - Under Design Phase 5 – Hartford Force Main - Under Design Funding Summary Total project cost is estimated at approximately $ 12.2 million with the District’s contribution capped at $ 6.1 million. The City of Chandler is the lead agency. 280 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program City of Chandler (Continued) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $6.1 million with $3.5 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,574,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 136,948 Construction 3,314,073 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 74,984 Project Total $ 3,526,005 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 200,000 1,224,000 150,000 $ 1,574,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 885,000 125,000 $ 1,010,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 2,109,000 275,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,584,000 $ $ Total Project 336,948 5,423,073 349,984 6,110,005 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. The City of Chandler will assume operation and maintenance responsibilities in the future. 281 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program City of Scottsdale Flood Control District Central Scottsdale 1&2 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Granite Reef Wash The storm water conveyance system within the Granite Reef Wash drainage area has insufficient capacity to collect and convey major storm events, in particular, the 100-year flood event as defined in the FEMA Flood Insurance Study for the City of Scottsdale. Additionally, the wash does not have an adequate outfall to the Salt River though the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community land south of McKellips Road. The drainage problems within the study area were quantified and drainage alternatives were developed in the Granite Reef Wash Drainage Master Plan Part 1. The goal of the final master plan is to recommend a final drainage plan that will mitigate the flooding hazards within the watershed, and if feasible, remove the existing FEMA designated floodplain. Funding Summary The project is estimated to cost $4.5 million with anticipated cost-sharing from the City of Scottsdale and possibly from the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $4.5 million with $20,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $25,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 20,000 20,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ $ 25,000 25,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 600,000 50,000 $ 650,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 600,000 50,000 $ 650,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 1,000,000 200,000 $ 1,200,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 1,700,000 300,000 $ 2,000,000 $ $ 5-Year Total 1,200,000 2,700,000 625,000 4,525,000 Operating Cost Summary The City of Scottsdale will assume operation and maintenance responsibilities in the future. 282 Total Project $ 1,200,000 2,700,000 645,000 $ 4,545,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Town of Guadalupe Flood Control District City of Tempe 1 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Guadalupe Drainage Improvement Project A 10 cfs pump station component of the Guadalupe Drainage Improvement Project to be designed and constructed at a later date by the City of Tempe. This component of the project is to be equally cost shared between the District and the City. The City will be the lead for design, rights-of-way, and construction. The project costs will be shared equally between the District and the City. Funding Summary The District’s cost-share is estimated to be $375,000. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $400,000. The FY 2003-04 budget is $0. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 - $ $ - Year 2 FY 04-05 $ $ - Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 4 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ 375,000 25,000 400,000 5-Year Total $ $ 375,000 25,000 400,000 Total Project $ $ 375,000 25,000 400,000 Operating Cost Summary The City of Tempe will assume operation and maintenance responsibilities in the future. 283 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Dam Safety Project (Structure Assessment) Flood Control District Countywide All Project Narrative The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (District) owns, operates and maintains 22 Flood Control Dams and is mandated by state and federal law to comply with dam safety regulations. 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. The Structures Assessment Program will be conducted in three Phases. Phase I Assessments primarily involve collection and review of records, field inspections of dams, risk assessments and the development of preliminary structural and non-structural alternatives to address dam safety and urbanization issues. Phase I Assessments for seven District dams will be completed in FY '02/03. Phase I Assessments have been initiated for five additional District dams under two ongoing contracts. Completion of Phase I studies for these five dams in this FY will involve development and implementation of structural and nonstructural conceptual alternatives to address long-term issues of urbanization and aging infrastructure. Phase I Assessment are scheduled to be initiated for two additional dams in this FY. 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 $12.8 million with $3.6 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $958,000. Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 3,169,025 50,000 439,422 3,658,447 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 758,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 1,000,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 500,000 200,000 $ 958,000 150,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 50,000 550,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 750,000 2,250,000 350,000 $ 3,350,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 750,000 2,250,000 150,000 $ 3,150,000 $ $ 5-Year Total 3,758,000 4,500,000 900,000 9,158,000 Total Project $ 6,927,025 4,550,000 1,339,422 $ 12,816,447 Operating Cost Summary This is a non-structural project. Routine maintenance of the dams, which have been carried on since FCD assumed responsibility of the dams, will not increase due to Fiscal-Year 2004 CIP expenditures. 284 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program South Phoenix Drainage Improvements Flood Control District South Phoenix – Multi Locations 5 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): 43rd Ave/Southern Ave Detention Basin The 43rd Avenue and Southern Avenue Detention Basin was originally included as part of the South Phoenix Drainage Improvement Project. The detention basin was 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 two inlet structures, 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 This project includes the design and construction of a conveyance channel capable of containing a 100year 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. 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 reduce the potential flood hazard. This project consists of channel excavation, road crossings, drop structures, tiling and filling in the existing Maricopa Drain, and construction of concrete 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 a much lower capacity and 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 among the District, City of Phoenix, MCDOT, and SRP was approved by the Board of Directors on February 15, 2002. Construction for the Project is anticipated to commence in Spring 2003. 23rd Avenue & Roeser Roads Storm Drain/Detention Basin This project is to obtain rights-of-way, design, construct, operate and maintain a storm drain and detention basin capable of collecting and conveying the 100-year storm event. The basin is located in the vicinity of 23rd Avenue and Roesner Road to the west along Roeser Road and north along 27th Avenue to an existing City of Phoenix storm drain at 27th Avenue and Broadway Roads. 285 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program South Phoenix Drainage Improvements (Continued) South Phoenix Two Basins Residents in the South Phoenix area have been flooded during relatively minor storm events, including those considered to be less than 10-year storms. The South Phoenix Drainage Improvement Project will provide protection from a 100-year flood event to residences and developing farmland within the City of Phoenix. The project will be built in phases to maximize the potential for cost sharing with other agencies. The 100-year protection will be in place once all of the phases are completed. The proposed system is composed of underground pipes and detention basins that will help to minimize the project’s cost. It is estimated that the remaining project features will cost $5.2 million to design and build. Elements of the project will be constructed in phases through a joint partnership among the District and the City of Phoenix. The storm drains in Baseline Road (7th Street to 43rd Avenue) and in 43rd Avenue to the Salt River have been constructed. The South Phoenix Two Basins are located at the intersections of 43rd Avenue and Baseline Road, and 27th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. Preliminary designs have been prepared for each of the detention basins. The Two Basins were submitted by the City of Phoenix in the 1999 Prioritization Procedure, and approved by the Prioritization Committee. The City of Phoenix does not have funding in their current bond program for this project. The proposed schedule assumes that the City of Phoenix is able to appropriate funds for this project. The goal is for the District to contribute approximately 50% of the project cost of the South Phoenix Drainage Improvements. Depending on funding participation, some project elements may be deleted, downsized or deferred, possibly resulting in a reduced level of protection. 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). The 23rd Avenue and Roeser Storm Drain and Detention Basin assumes a 50%/50% cost share between the District and the City of Phoenix. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $36.5 million with $14.3 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $11.3 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 4,020,334 Construction 9,272,482 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 1,090,828 Project Total $ 14,383,644 286 Year 1 FY 03-04 11,045,000 275,000 $ 11,320,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 500,000 3,567,000 150,000 $ 4,217,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 1,000,000 200,000 200,000 $ 1,400,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 2,500,000 150,000 $ 2,650,000 2,500,000 100,000 $ 2,600,000 5-Year Total $ 1,500,000 19,812,000 875,000 $ 22,187,000 Total Project $ 5,520,334 29,084,482 1,965,828 $ 36,570,644 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program South Phoenix Drainage Improvements (Continued) 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 The City of Phoenix will operate and maintain the completed channel. 23rd Avenue & Roeser Road Storm Drain/Detention Basin The City of Phoenix will operate and maintain the completed basin and storm drain. South Phoenix Two Basins The City of Phoenix will own and maintain the basin upon completion of construction. 287 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program PVSP (Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Phoenix) Flood Control District Scottsdale Rd (Thunderbird to Mountain View) 2 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Scottsdale Road Corridor Drainage The first phase of this project was 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. The preferred alternative is estimated to cost approximately $12 million. Costsharing between the different agencies involved has not been determined but it is proposed that the District fund 50% of the project. Upon negotiation of a project IGA, the District’s CIP will be revised. Scottsdale and Paradise Valley will be responsible for the future operation and maintenance of the facilities within their respective municipalities. 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 The total budget for this project is $3.5 million with $105,378 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $285,000. Prior Years $ 75,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 225,000 30,378 105,378 60,000 $ 285,000 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Year 2 FY 04-05 3,000,000 200,000 $ 3,200,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ - $ Operating Cost Summary The City of Scottsdale will operate and maintain the completed project. 288 - $ - 5-Year Total $ 225,000 3,000,000 260,000 $ 3,485,000 Total Project $ 300,000 3,000,000 290,378 $ 3,590,378 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program East Maricopa Floodway Flood Control District EMF Basins 1 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): EMF Rittenhouse & Chandler Heights Basin The District has completed the East Maricopa Floodway (EMF) Mitigation Study. The study identified several drainage and flooding problems along the EMF. The capacity of the EMF is at about 8,000 cfs. The existing condition 100-yr. is about 16,000 cfs. The study proposed to mitigate the problem by constructing two large off line retention basins. The Chandler Heights Basin is planned as an off line basin to mitigate flows from the Sonoqui Wash, Queen Creek Wash, and the EMF. The Rittenhouse Basin is also planned as an off line basin to mitigate flows from the Rittenhouse Channel and the EMF. The completed basins are planned to be used by the Town of Gilbert for recreation. The Town shall fund the recreation amenities. 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 of the project is scheduled to be complete in FY 02/03. Construction completion of both basin sites is scheduled for FY 08/09. EMF Modifications - Chandler Heights Road to Riggs Road This project is a retrofit project of the EMF Channel between Chandler Heights Road and Riggs Road. Retrofit of the facility would include modifying the overall form of the channel, undulating side-slopes, and re-grading of the bank areas. Initial re-vegetation of the site is also included. The improved channel corridor would also provide opportunities for the Maricopa County Regional Trail System, wildlife habitat mitigation, and other open space amenities. The improvements are intended to further enhance the community value of the EMF facility through aesthetic improvements to conform to its suburban context. The proposed modifications will also provide additional enhancement to the capacity of the channel. The project also includes the identification of a portion of the site that could be sold as excess. Enhancing the economic value of this site and preparation of a site development plan to maximize the economic return to the District would yield proceeds that could be used to implement the retrofit project, and provide additional proceeds to the District. The proposed master plan/concept will complement both the open space corridor of the EMF and the adjacent neighborhoods. Funding Summary The Flood Control District is funding the total cost to implement this project. 289 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program East Maricopa Floodway (Continued) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $38.4 million with $17.7 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $688,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 17,089,034 Construction 199,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 424,690 Project Total $ 17,712,724 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 573,000 5,000 110,000 $ 688,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 3,640,000 200,000 $ 3,840,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ $ Year 4 FY 06-07 5,330,000 250,000 5,580,000 $ $ Year 5 FY 07-08 5,000,000 350,000 5,350,000 5,000,000 300,000 $ 5,300,000 5-Year Total $ 573,000 18,975,000 1,210,000 $ 20,758,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ Total Project $ 17,662,034 19,174,000 1,634,690 $ 38,470,724 Operating Cost Summary EMF Rittenhouse & Chandler Heights Basin Cuurent Year Avg cost to maintain project Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3* FY 05-06 Total Project $ - $ 25 15 $ 25 15 $ 25 15 $ 135 65 $ 335 165 $ Subtotal $ - $ 40 $ 40 $ 40 $ 200 $ 500 $ 545 275 820 $ 40 $ 40 $ 40 $ 200 $ 500 $ 820 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - EMF Modifications - Chandler Heights Road to Riggs Road The current level of operations and maintenance expenditures will not increase as a result of the FiscalYear 2004 CIP project. 290 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Salt/Gila River Flood Control District Salt &Gila Rivers from 83rd Ave to the Agua Fria River 5 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Tres Rios The Tres Rios project is a federal project sponsored by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The local sponsor is the City of Phoenix. The Flood Control District is participating in the project elements associated with flood control. This includes the design and construction of a north bank levee along the Salt and Gila Rivers from about 91st Avenue to the Agua Fria River. The District is not participating in riverine habitat restoration elements including open water marshes, wetlands, and riparian corridors. The District is working with the City to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement to identify specifically what the District’s participation will be in the project. Funding Summary At this time only force account labor charges will be made to this project. No external costs have been identified to date. Such external costs will be defined in the IGA that is presently being developed with the City. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $87,152 with $22,152 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $25,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor $ Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 5-Year Total $ 22,152 22,152 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ $ 40,000 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 65,000 65,000 Total Project $ $ 87,152 87,152 Operating Cost Summary The operation and maintenance of the project will be the responsibility of the City. However, the IGA has not been fully negotiated. Should the IGA identify the District as the responsible party for the operation and maintenance of the north bank levee, appropriate costs will be reported at that time. 291 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Arlington Valley Flood Control District Arlington School Road/Cactus Rose Road 5 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Arlington Valley Floodplain Acquisition The Arlington Floodplain Acquisition project consists of purchasing 17.34 acres of property and buildings that are currently occupied by the Arlington School. The property lies within the 100-year floodway of the Gila River. The school has been subject to repeated flood losses over the past 25 years and is susceptible to flooding in the future. The Flood Control District, the Arlington School District and the State Facilities Board have agreed that the Flood Control District will purchase the school property for $1,000,000. The Arlington School District is currently building a new elementary school in a location outside the floodplain. The new school should be ready for occupancy by August 2003. At the time when the old school has been vacated, the Flood Control District will close escrow and take possession of the school and property. Once the property is purchased, it is anticipated that the school buildings will be demolished and the property converted to an acceptable use within the floodplain. Funding Summary The State Facilities Board is contributing $200,000 to the cost of the property. 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 $1.3 million with $40,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $1,255,000. Prior Years $ 18,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,215,000 22,000 40,000 40,000 $ 1,255,000 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ - $ - $ - $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,215,000 40,000 $ 1,255,000 Total Project $ 1,233,000 62,000 $ 1,295,000 Operating Cost Summary The Fiscal Year 2004 CIP project calls for building demolition and the clearing of the land. completion, the land will be sold as excess. 292 Upon Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program McMicken Dam Flood Control District Southeast of White Tank Park 4 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): McMicken Dam McMicken Dam was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 1954 to alleviate significant flooding in the west valley and to protect Luke Air Force Base. The District rehabilitated the dam in 1985. A geotechnical investigation had determined that significant ground subsidence had occurred in the area and that the embankment has significant transverse cracks. Portions of the dam have settled three to four feet. In addition, ground fissures were found within a quarter of a mile of the south end of the dam. The modifications that were completed in 1985 included reconstruction of the dam to its original design elevation and the installation of a central geofabric filter to protect the dam from piping failure of the embankment. The dam provides significant flood protection to the west valley and to Luke Air Force Base. The District has initiated Structures Assessment Program Phase I studies for McMicken Dam, and several Geotechnical Investigations for McMicken Dam. The results of a geotechnical study by AMEC indicate that ground subsidence has continued to occur at the site and that earth fissures have been found both upstream and downstream of McMicken Dam. The District believes the ground subsidence and presence of earth fissures in close proximity to the dam poses a risk to dam safety of a nature that necessitates corrective action in a timely manner. The District has initiated an alternatives analysis to determine the best plan for mitigation of the fissures and other immediate McMicken Dam deficiencies. The total project cost, including permit acquisition, design, construction, and construction management, is estimated to be approximately $3,000,000. 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 $5.2 million with $600,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $1,525,000. Prior Years $ 547,000 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 53,000 Project Total $ 600,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 1,420,000 105,000 $ 1,525,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 1,250,000 150,000 $ 1,400,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 1,500,000 200,000 $ 1,700,000 Year 4 Year 5 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ - $ $ - $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,420,000 2,750,000 455,000 $ 4,625,000 Total Project $ 1,967,000 2,750,000 508,000 $ 5,225,000 Operating Cost Summary The current level of operations and maintenance expenditures will not increase as a result of the fiscal year 2004 CIP project. 293 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Skunk Creek Flood Control District Skunk Creek from 75th Avenue to New River 4 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. The City of Peoria will assume operation and maintenance for the completed Project. The project is currently under design. Design is scheduled to be complete in FY 02/03 and construction completed in FY03/04. Funding Summary 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 $1.0 million with $55,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $965,000. Prior Years $ 37,000 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 18,000 55,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 890,000 75,000 $ 965,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 890,000 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 965,000 Total Project $ 37,000 890,000 93,000 $ 1,020,000 Operating Cost Summary The current level of operations and maintenance expenditures will not increase as a result of the fiscal year 2004 CIP project. 294 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program New River Dam Flood Control District New River Dam 4 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): New River Dam Dike #2 The New River Dam and associated features were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and turned over to the Flood Control District for operation and maintenance. The District has discovered that a portion of Dike #2 was constructed outside of the acquired rights-of-way for the dam project. The District will be acquiring approximately 1.5 acres of private property, outside of the original project rightsof-way, upon which the Dike #2 was constructed. Funding Summary The District will fund 100% of the rights-of-way project cost. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $115,000 with $0 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $115,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 115,000 - $ 115,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 115,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 115,000 Total Project $ 115,000 $ 115,000 Operating Cost Summary The current level of operations and maintenance expenditures will not increase as a result of the fiscal year 2004 CIP project. 295 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Skunk Creek/New River Flood Control District Skunk Creek 4 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 Grand Avenue north to the Outer Loop 101 and Skunk Creek confluence with New River. Recommended improvements include channelization and bank protection for approximately 1.5 miles of New River. The City of Peoria will be a project partner. The City and 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 of intergovernmental agreements have been drafted so that the project can move forward. This is the last reach of the New River that has not been improved consistent with the Corps of Engineers’ Phoenix, Arizona and Vicinity including New River project. The project was requested by the City of Peoria and approved for inclusion in the District’s CIP. Funding Summary The Flood Control District will fund 50% of the project and the City of Peoria will fund 50% of the project. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $9.2 million with $1.5 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $975,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 724,048 Construction 696,133 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 119,944 Project Total $ 1,540,125 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 775,000 150,000 50,000 $ 975,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 6,500,000 200,000 $ 6,700,000 $ Year 4 FY 06-07 - $ $ Operating Cost Summary The City of Peoria will operate and maintain the completed project. 296 Year 5 FY 07-08 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 775,000 6,650,000 250,000 $ 7,675,000 Total Project $ 1,499,048 7,346,133 369,944 $ 9,215,125 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Spookhill Area Drainage Master Plan Flood Control District Northeast Mesa and Maricopa County 2 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Spook Hill Area Drainage Master Plan The purpose of the Spook Hill Area Drainage Master Plan is to update and expand the existing Spook Hill Area Drainage Master Study conducted in 1987. Since the 1987 study, much of the community has been developed, additional drainage infrastructure now exists, and changes have been made in the watershed. The goals of the plan are to identify current area flooding problems and produce a recommended alternative to resolve the current flooding problems. The Spook Hill area in the East Mesa currently does not have the flood control and drainage facilities in place to handle its regional flood problems. The approximate watershed area is 16 square miles. A preferred alternative has been chosen and adopted by the City of Mesa City Council and Flood Control District Board of Directors. Funding Summary It is anticipated that the District and the City of Mesa will equally share the cost of the identified basin and outfall projects. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $14.8 million with $4.2 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $35,000. Prior Years $ 4,127,644 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 152,625 Project Total $ 4,280,269 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 400,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 1,400,000 35,000 $ 35,000 50,000 450,000 200,000 $ 1,600,000 $ Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 4,000,000 200,000 $ 4,200,000 4,000,000 300,000 $ 4,300,000 5-Year Total $ 1,800,000 8,000,000 785,000 $ 10,585,000 Total Project $ 5,927,644 8,000,000 937,625 $ 14,865,269 Operating Cost Summary Cuurent Year Avg cost to maintain project Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3* FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project $ - $ 2 1 $ 2 1 $ 2 1 $ 30 15 $ 30 15 $ Subtotal $ - $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 45 $ 45 $ 66 33 99 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 45 $ 45 $ 99 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - 297 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program East Mesa ADMP Flood Control District Southeast Mesa 1 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Elliot Basin & Channel The Elliot Road Basin & Channel was the highest rated project 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 Detention Basins, located along Elliot Road near Crismon Road, will be completed during the summer of 2003. The Elliot Channel, from the Basins to west of Ellsworth Road, is complete and will outlet into the future San Tan Freeway Drainage Channel, which will discharge into the East Maricopa Floodway. The Elliot Basin and Channel project is cost-shared among the District, the City of Mesa and MCDOT. The Crismon Road Channel and subproject will have its rights-of-way acquired in FY '03/04 and will be constructed in FY '04/05. The Elliot Channel (Ellsworth to EMF) is proposed as a trapezoidal earth channel discharging into the proposed Santan Freeway Channel from Ellsworth Road south of Elliot Road to the East Maricopa Floodway and is designed to convey water runoff from the proposed Elliot Basin and Channel project. This channel is the outfall element of the Meridian, Crismon, and Elliot Drainage System. Along with the Sunland Springs Channel, the Siphon Draw Detention Basin, the Crismon Channel and lateral, the Elliot Basin and outfall channel and the Elliot Channel, this system is designed to protect approximately 15 square miles from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The project will be cost-shared between the City of Mesa and the District. Terms of the IGA have not been negotiated to date. 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 and along a County island. 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 $3,000,000 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 and the District shall contribute 65% of the Project cost. The Project design is scheduled for completion in FY '02/03. The construction is to be complete in FY '03/04. 298 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program East Mesa ADMP (Continued) 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 from south of Germann 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 future 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 portions of the existing Powerline Floodway. The design for the roadway upgrades and channel is scheduled to be complete by October 2003, and the Project is scheduled to be under construction by summer 2004. Elliot Channel (East of Crismon) The Elliot Channel (Phase 2) is proposed as a trapezoidal concrete and earth channel along Elliot Road from Meridian Road to Crismon Road designed to convey 509 cfs (upper reach) and 851 cfs (lower reach) of storm water runoff from the proposed Sunland Springs Channel and Siphon Draw Detention Basin west into the Elliot Basin. This channel is the second downstream element of the Meridian, Crismon, and Elliot Drainage System. Along with the Sunland Springs Channel, the Siphon Draw Detention Basin, the Crismon Channel and lateral, the Elliot Basin and outfall channel and the Elliot Channel, this system is designed to protect approximately 15 square miles from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. This system ultimately outfalls into the existing East Maricopa Floodway. Siphon Draw Drainage Improvements The Sunland Springs Channel is proposed a trapezoidal concrete channel along Meridian Road from Elliot Road to 1/2 mile north of Guadalupe Road to collect sheet flow storm water from the lands to the east and to convey 800 to 2618 cfs to the proposed Siphon Draw Basin and the Elliot Channel. The Siphon Draw Basin is a 55-acre basin, north of Elliot Road along Meridian Road that provides 95 acrefeet of storage and reduces an inflow of 1,665, cfs to 77 cfs. 299 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program East Mesa ADMP (Continued) 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). The Elliot Channel (Ellsworth to EMF) 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. 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 (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%. Siphon Draw Drainage Improvements 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 $42.7 million with $16.3 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $6.6 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 8,852,368 Construction 6,615,179 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 890,265 Project Total $ 16,357,812 300 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 915,000 5,546,000 175,000 $ 6,636,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 3,375,000 2,743,000 250,000 $ 6,368,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 2,675,000 175,000 $ 2,850,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 4,000,000 200,000 $ 4,200,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 6,000,000 350,000 6,350,000 5-Year Total $ 6,965,000 18,289,000 1,150,000 $ 26,404,000 Total Project $ 15,817,368 24,904,179 2,040,265 $ 42,761,812 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program East Mesa ADMP (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Elliot Basin & Channel The City of Mesa will operate and maintain the completed basin/channel. Hawes Road Channel The City of Mesa will operate and maintain the completed channel. Ellsworth Channel The City of Mesa will operate and maintain the completed channel. Elliot Channel (East of Crismon) The City of Mesa will operate and maintain the completed channel. Siphon Draw Drainage Improvements The City of Mesa will operate and maintain the completed basin/channel. 301 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Glendale/Peoria ADMP Flood Control District Multiple locations in North Peoria & Glendale 4 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Glendale/Peoria ADMP Update The District and the Cities of Glendale and Peoria recently completed the Glendale/Peoria ADMP Update study to identify existing and future drainage and flooding problems in the watershed, and to develop cost-effective solutions to alleviate those problems. The ADMP Update study includes preliminary design plans for a recommended a 9-Phase Improvement Projects program consisting of channel improvements, detention basins, open channel conveyances, storm drains, and other storm water collection and disposal systems that provide 100-year protection for the 85-square mile watershed. The estimated total cost for the multi-year Improvement Projects program is $34.3M with several potential cost-sharing partners. The Peoria City Council and the District Board of Directors have both adopted the recommendations of the study. 83rd Avenue/Pinnacle Peak Road Improvements The District and the Cities of Glendale and Peoria recently completed the Glendale/Peoria ADMP Update study to identify existing and future drainage and flooding problems in the watershed, and to develop cost-effective solutions to alleviate those problems. The ADMP Update study included preliminary design plans for a recommended 9-Phase Improvement Projects program consisting of channel improvements, detention basins, open channel conveyances, storm drains, and other storm water collection and disposal systems that provide 100-year protection for the 85-square mile watershed. The 83rd Avenue/Pinnacle Peak Road Improvements were recommended as Phase 2 and part of Phase 3 of the program. The Improvements collect 100-year flows from the north and convey them south on 83rd Avenue from Calle Lejos to an existing channel at Williams Road. The Improvements include a north and south basin (at Calle Lejos and Pinnacle Peak Road, respectively), and open channels and/or storm drains connecting and outletting them. The estimated project cost is $12.2M. The City of Peoria submitted the 83rd Avenue/Pinnacle Peak Road Improvement projects to the District during FY 01/02 for prioritization. The submittal was favorably evaluated and the project is included in the District’s 5-year CIP budget. 67th Avenue Storm Drain The Project shall provide 10-year storm drainage protection for a three square mile area lying within jurisdictional boundaries of both the cities of Glendale and Peoria. The project will consist of drainage pipes and catch basins and will be constructed in rights-of-way provided by Glendale. The outfalls for the project were constructed by the District along Cactus Road and Olive Avenue and are presently owned and operated by the Cities of Peoria and Glendale. There is a 50% cost sharing with the District for the project. The estimated cost for the project is $1.385 million which includes the design, utility relocations, construction and construction management. Glendale will design and construct the project and provide for the operation and maintenance of the completed project. 302 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Glendale/Peoria ADMP (Continued) Funding Summary Funding is subject to future IGAs It is anticipated that Peoria and the District will equally cost-share the 83rd Ave/Pinnacle Peak Road Drainage improvements. Future ADMP projects will be cost-shared between the District, the City of Peoria, and possibly the City of Glendale. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $33.9 million with $17.4 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $40,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 2,576,612 Construction 14,612,960 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 301,533 Project Total $ 17,491,105 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 40,000 40,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 550,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 3,400,000 75,000 625,000 200,000 $ 3,600,000 $ Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 225,000 3,260,000 200,000 $ 3,685,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 1,000,000 7,200,000 300,000 $ 8,500,000 5-Year Total $ 5,175,000 10,460,000 815,000 $ 16,450,000 Total Project $ 7,751,612 25,072,960 1,116,533 $ 33,941,105 Operating Cost Summary 83rd Ave/Pinnacle Peak Road Improvements The City of Peoria will operate and maintain the completed project. 303 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program White Tanks ADMP Flood Control District Various Locations East of the Agua Fria River 4&5 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): White Tanks #3 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. Several interim corrective measures at the dam were completed by the District in the spring of 2002. Dam modification studies have been completed by the Flood Control District under Contract FCD 98-11. In addition, alternatives involving various combinations of large regional flood control basins, flood control channels and upstream channel improvements have been studied. During this fiscal year, the District will continue studying in further detail the technical viability of rehabilitating the dam and associated revised cost estimates. Downstream benefits associated with dam rehabilitation and dam replacement alternatives will also be studied in detail. The District has filed an application with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for federal funding assistance under the new federal program for dam rehabilitation (Public Law 106-472) for this project. NRCS is currently providing technical assistance (NRCS staff assistance) under this program for the project. The District and NRCS will develop a work plan this FY and develop an MOU which outlines intended agency responsibilities and cost share responsibilities for the project. The schedule for project implementation is contingent upon and timing of federal funding assistance under an agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 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, from the Gila River to Lower Buckeye Road, was constructed as a previous District/City of Goodyear project. 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 at McDowell Road through detention basins north of I-10 and west of Dysart Road to an outlet into 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 Phase II project design, rights-of-way acquisition, public involvement, utility relocations, construction, and construction management is $25 million. 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. Channelization will allow for shorter bridges across the floodplain. 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. 304 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program White Tanks ADMP (Continued) Reams Road Channel The Reems Road Channel Project provides a regional outfall for the City of Surprise. Under existing conditions, there is flooding along and floodplains associated with Reems Road. The improvements will consist of constructing a channel adjacent to Reems Road, associated drainage structures, and a basin located just north of Olive Avenue and west of the Reems roadway. The Project will outfall into the existing Dysart Basin and Channel. This project was identified in the original White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan in 1992 and again as the preferred alternative in the Loop 303 Corridor/White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan Update that is currently nearing completion. The project was requested by the City of Surprise and recommended for inclusion in the District’s CIP. The City of Surprise will construct the project within the City Limits and the District will be responsible for the project from Peoria Avenue to the Dysart Basin. West Cactus Road Basin The Project provides a regional outfall for the Cities of Surprise and El Mirage to convey 100-yr. flood flows to the Agua Fria River through developed areas of the cities. The project features will include a channel and a basin. This is a joint project between the District and the City of El Mirage. The City will be the lead for design and rights-of-way, and the District will provide construction management services. The project costs will be shared equally between the District and the City. 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). 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%. Reems Road Channel 50% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990) and the City of Suprise will contribute 50%. West Cactus Road Basin 50% of the project cost will be funded by the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990) and the City of El Mirage will contribute 50%. 305 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program White Tanks ADMP (Continued) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $62.7million with $18.6 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2.9 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 9,269,543 Construction 8,724,403 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 672,749 Project Total $ 18,666,695 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 757,000 1,950,000 210,000 $ 2,917,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 930,000 4,320,000 200,000 $ 5,450,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 3,150,000 12,795,000 300,000 $ 16,245,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 11,120,000 950,000 12,070,000 $ Year 5 FY 07-08 7,120,000 250,000 $ 7,370,000 5-Year Total $ 4,837,000 37,305,000 1,910,000 $ 44,052,000 Total Project $ 14,106,543 46,029,403 2,582,749 $ 62,718,695 Operating Cost Summary White Tanks #3 The current level of operations and maintenance expenditures will not increase as a result of the fiscal year 2004 CIP project. West Cactus Rd Detention Basin & Channels The City of El Mirage will operate and maintain the completed project. Reems Road Channel Cuurent Year Avg cost to maintain project Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3* FY 05-06 Year 5 FY 07-08 Total Project $ - $ - $ - $ 10 5 $ 10 5 $ 10 5 $ Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 30 15 45 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 45 - TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ - $ - $ - Bullard Wash Phase II The City of Goodyear will operate and maintain the completed project. 306 Year 4 FY 06-07 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Queen Creek ADMP Flood Control District Towns of Queen Creek and Gilbert 1 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 Bridge Crossing. The Town of Queen Creek 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 design and construction are scheduled for completion in FY 02/03 and FY 03/04, respectively. Sanokai Wash Channelization (EMF to Power) The purpose of this project is to design, construct, operate and maintain a conveyance channel capable of containing a 100-year storm event within the existing natural alignment of Sanokai Wash from Power Road westerly to the confluence with Queen Creek west of Higley Road. Currently, the project is authorized by IGA to proceed with the design only of channel improvements, improved road crossings, channel stabilization, channel surface treatments to reduce or eliminate erosion and sediment transport, side drainage inlet structures and connections and appropriate landscaping. Construction, and land acquisition tasks will be provided for under a subsequent IGA. The Sanokai Wash Channelization (EMF to Power Road) is proposed as a 13,500 ft long, approximately 200 ft wide, trapezoidal earth channel paralleling the proposed Ocotillo Road alignment from approximately Power Road to the East Maricopa Floodway and is designed to convey 3,130 cfs of storm water runoff within Sanokai Wash into the existing East Maricopa Floodway. It is anticipated that minimal rights-of-way will be acquired and that private development will construct and maintain the project. Future phases will be developed by the District in FY '07 and FY '08. 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. 307 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Queen Creek ADMP (Continued) Sonoqui Wash Channelization (EMF to Power Rd) The District has proposed paying 50% of the project costs from the Flood Control District Capital Projects Fund (Fund 990). The Towns of Queen Creek and Gilbert will fund 50%. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $13.3 million with $1.8 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $2.0 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 564,809 Construction 1,150,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 183,217 Project Total $ 1,898,026 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 850,000 990,000 185,000 $ 2,025,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 500,000 $ 150,000 650,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 75,000 $ 75,000 4,000,000 200,000 $ 4,200,000 4,300,000 250,000 $ 4,550,000 $ $ 5-Year Total 1,350,000 9,290,000 860,000 11,500,000 Total Project $ 1,914,809 10,440,000 1,043,217 $ 13,398,026 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 upon completion. Sonoqui Wash Channelization (EMF to Power Rd) Currently, this project is in the planning phase; therefore, additional operating costs are negligible. It is anticipated that the Town of Queen Creek and the City of Gilbert will operate and maintain the completed project in their jurisdictions. 308 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Higley ADMP Flood Control District Chandler, along the consolidated Canal 1&2 Project Narrative 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 canals 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. The Queen Creek Road Storm Drainage Basin is the first element in implementation of regional flood control infrastructure as identified in the Higley Area Drainage Master Plan. The basin is generally bounded by: Queen Creek Road on the north; the Section Line 1/4 mile east of McQueen Road on the east; the Section Line 1/2 mile south of Queen Creek Road on the south; and McQueen Road/Consolidated Canal on west. The basin property is approximately 70 acres in size. The site was jointly acquired by the District and the City of Chandler (50/50). Design and construction of the basin is contingent on getting an agreement with the Gila River Indian Community for the outfall to the East Maricopa Floodway. Funding Summary 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. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $18.2 million with $5.2 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $140,000. Prior Years $ 5,213,011 Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 75,717 Project Total $ 5,288,728 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 100,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 150,000 40,000 $ 140,000 50,000 200,000 $ Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 4,000,000 300,000 4,300,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 Year 5 FY 07-08 5,000,000 200,000 $ 5,200,000 3,000,000 150,000 $ 3,150,000 5-Year Total $ 250,000 12,000,000 740,000 $ 12,990,000 Total Project $ 5,463,011 12,000,000 815,717 $ 18,278,728 Operating Cost Summary The City of Chandler will operate and maintain the completed project. 309 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Adobe Dam ADMP Flood Control District Skunk Creek Corridor – North of Desert Hills Drive 3 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): 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 water-borne 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 acquisition of the homes and relocation of the residents will be completed in FY '02/03. Demolition of the structure, removal of septic systems and site cleanup will be completed in FY '03/04. 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 $3.6 million with $3.6 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $50,000. Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 3,515,745 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 30,000 119,419 3,635,164 $ Operating Cost Summary The property will be sold as excess land. 310 20,000 50,000 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ - $ - $ - $ - 5-Year Total $ 30,000 20,000 $ 50,000 Total Project $ 3,545,745 139,419 $ 3,685,164 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Durango ADMP Flood Control District Avondale/Tolleson/Phoenix 3 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Durango Regional Outfall Project The Durango Area Drainage Master Plan ( ADMP) has been completed. The watershed area includes approximately 68 square miles extending from I-10 on the north to the Salt River on the south, and from approximately 27th Avenue on the east to the Agua Fria River on the west. The area is experiencing rapid urbanization of a previously agricultural land use. The ADMP updated the watershed hydrology, identified existing and potential future drainage problems and defined effective drainage solutions to collect, convey and safely discharge the stormwater. The ADMP identified regional drainage features amounting to an estimated cost of $130 million. Some of the recommended facilities are being incorporated into private developments that are being constructed. Other municipal features will require cooperative agreements between the Flood Control District and the local municipalities before they can be implemented. The funds included in the District's proposed CIP is for funding rights of way for these future projects, contingent on approved project agreements. It is anticipated that the municipal project partners will assume operations and maintenance of the new facilities. 75th Avenue Storm Drain The 75th Avenue Storm Drain and Durango Regional Conveyance Channel Project (DRCC) is the first phase of providing the area with a regional stormwater. The DRCC project was identified in the Durango Area Drainage Master Plan as a solution for a portion of the identified flooding hazards within the study area. This project consists of combining a portion of Regional DRCC project with a proposed storm drain along 75th Avenue. The project will include detention basins, channels and the storm drain along 75th Avenue from approximately Van Buren Street to south of Broadway Road, outfalling into the Salt River. These improvements will reduce the flooding hazards and remove approximately 71 structures from an identified floodplain. Funding Summary Durango Area Drainage Master Plan It is anticipated that future projects will be cost-shared 50/50 with local municipalities. 75th Avenue Storm Drain/Durango Regional Conveyance Channel The project is estimated to cost approximately 18.5 million dollars. The design cost is estimated at $1,575,000; the ROW costs are estimated at $5,250,000; and the construction costs are estimated at $11,675,000. The District and the City of Phoenix will cost share the project equally, with Phoenix assuming the operations and maintenance of the completed facilities. 311 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Capital Improvement Program Durango ADMP (Continued) Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $17.2 million with $1.1 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $3.3 million. Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ Prior Years 939,226 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 3,050,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 2,550,000 177,433 1,116,659 255,000 $ 3,305,000 185,000 2,735,000 $ Year 3 FY 05-06 Year 4 FY 06-07 3,000,000 300,000 $ 3,300,000 2,375,000 200,000 $ 2,575,000 Operating Cost Summary Durango Area Drainage Master Plan The projects will be maintained by local municipalities subject to IGAs. 75th Avenue Storm Drain/Durango Regional Conveyance Channel The City of Phoenix will operate and maintain the completed project. 312 Year 5 FY 07-08 $ 4,000,000 200,000 $ 4,200,000 5-Year Total $ 9,600,000 5,375,000 1,140,000 $ 16,115,000 Total Project $ 10,539,226 5,375,000 1,317,433 $ 17,231,659 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Arizona Canal Diversion Channel ADMP Flood Control District Town of Paradise Valley, along Doubletree Ranch Road 2 Project Narrative This project includes the following sub-project(s): Doubletree Ranch Road Drainage System The Doubletree Ranch Road Drainage Improvement 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 past 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 10year 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. The drainage improvements will be funded 60% by the District and 40% by the Town of Paradise Valley. The District is the lead in the construction, construction management and rights-of-way acquisition. The Town will operate and maintain the constructed facility. Improvements to Doubletree Ranch Road will be constructed with the drainage improvements, at Town cost. The project has been designed, and construction began in FY 02/03. Funding Summary 60% of the drainage 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. The Town will fund 100% of the roadway improvements not associated with the flood control project. Project Cost Summary The total budget for this project is $8.9 million with $4.2 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $4.7 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 510,854 Construction 3,326,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 391,396 Project Total $ 4,228,250 Year 1 FY 03-04 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 5-Year Total $ 4,532,000 200,000 $ 4,732,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 4,532,000 200,000 $ 4,732,000 Total Project $ 510,854 7,858,000 591,396 $ 8,960,250 Operating Cost Summary The Town of Paradise Valley will operate and maintain the constructed facility. 313 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Maryvale ADMP Flood Control District Grand Canal from Loop 101 to 63rd Avenue 4&5 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. The channel alignment (Phase I and II) is in Phoenix, Glendale, and unincorporated Maricopa County. Portions of the channel are being used as a trail corridor and linear park. Phase I of the project has been completed by ADOT, with District participation. Phase I 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 cost share for the project is estimated at 50% District, and 25% each for the Cities of Glendale and Phoenix. The first reach of the project (Agua Fria Freeway to 83rd Avenue) is being designed and rights of way are being acquired. Construction began in FY 02/03. Design and construction of the improvements will be phased over several years, with completion of the final phase anticipated in 2009. 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 $47.4million with $15.8 million expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 2003-04 budget is $10.6 million. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW $ 10,417,259 Construction 5,094,000 Other Costs-Force Acct Labor 324,125 Project Total $ 15,835,384 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 5,030,000 5,393,000 215,000 $ 10,638,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 $ 1,450,000 1,000,000 175,000 $ 2,625,000 Year 3 FY 05-06 $ 6,400,000 300,000 6,700,000 Year 4 FY 06-07 $ 250,000 6,000,000 150,000 $ 6,400,000 Year 5 FY 07-08 5,000,000 225,000 $ 5,225,000 5-Year Total $ 6,730,000 23,793,000 1,065,000 $ 31,588,000 $ $ Total Project 17,147,259 28,887,000 1,389,125 47,423,384 Operating Cost Summary The City of Phoenix and the City of Glendale will assume maintenance of the completed projects in their respective jurisdictions. 314 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Project Title: Managing Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Capital Improvement Program Metro ADMP Flood Control District 24th Avenue/Camelback Basin 3 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, evaluate alternative facilities to minimize flooding and establish a recommended plan 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 for the project is included in its recently passed bond program. The District and Phoenix will cost share this project and responsibility will be established in a Memorandum of Understanding and future inter-governmental agreement. Phoenix will be the lead agency for this project. Funding Summary 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 $3.8 million with $30,000 expended through FY 2002-03. The FY 200304 budget is $475,000. Prior Years Programming/Design/Land/ROW Construction Other Costs-Force Acct Labor Project Total $ 30,000 30,000 Year 1 FY 03-04 $ 400,000 75,000 $ 475,000 Year 2 FY 04-05 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 3,100,000 200,000 $ 3,300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 5-Year Total 400,000 3,100,000 275,000 3,775,000 $ $ Total Project 400,000 3,100,000 305,000 3,805,000 Operating Cost Summary The City of Phoenix will assume maintenance of this project. 315 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 316 Capital Improvement Program Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service Debt Service Debt Management Plan Introduction to Debt A comprehensive debt plan should be developed by all jurisdictions intending to issue debt. The purpose of Maricopa County’s debt management plan is to set forth the parameters for issuing debt, 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. A debt plan should strike 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, 2002. 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, 2002. A copy of the CAFR can be viewed at: http://www.maricopa.gov/finance. Current Debt Situation 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, 2002. 317 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service LONG-TERM LIABILITIES All Categories of Debt (3) Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2002 GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITES: Bonds, loans and other payables: General obligation bonds Lease revenue bonds Stadium District (1 & 2) Stadium District debt with governmental commitment (1) Special assessment debt with governmental commitment (1) Housing department bonds Housing department loans Certificates of Participation Capital leases Total Governmental activities BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITES: Bonds and other payables: Lease revenue bonds Certificates of participation Capital leases Installment purchase agreements Total Business-type activities Year Ended June 30 2000 1998 1999 2001 2002 $137,215,000 0 32,275,185 $119,045,000 0 29,749,685 $99,910,000 0 25,504,259 $79,595,000 104,355,000 28,658,512 $58,370,000 104,355,000 58,225,000 31,875,000 31,075,000 29,125,000 27,935,000 0 546,798 996,939 729,448 589,431 458,977 124,203 2,187,594 23,998,943 17,684,054 $245,906,777 110,090 2,085,653 20,667,686 17,633,952 $221,364,005 95,975 1,976,984 17,222,210 18,121,511 $192,685,387 81,862 1,861,500 13,575,118 14,225,356 $270,876,779 64,925 1,754,922 9,804,315 19,442,376 $252,475,515 0 2,940,289 1,989,402 0 $4,929,691 0 1,058,574 1,125,158 0 $2,183,732 0 5,666,171 608,794 0 $6,274,965 20,500,000 11,824,853 229,159 3,023,111 $35,577,123 20,500,000 11,768,519 0 2,607,815 $34,876,334 Notes: (1) Does not represent an obligation of the County. (2) Stadium District contractual obligation of $7,888,888 has been excluded from the above schedule for fiscal year 2002. (3) Long-term liabilities excludes claims and judgements, reported and incurred but not reported claims, and liabilities for closure and postclosure costs. Financing Alternatives The County should evaluate 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. • To handle unexpected costs resulting from natural emergencies or other significant 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. 318 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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 government 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 jurisdiction’s long-term debt capacity is preserved for the future. Finally, lower debt ratios may have a positive effect upon the jurisdiction’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 the 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 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. 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 funds 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. 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. 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 must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The County last utilized a line of credit in the amount of $65 million, which was paid in full on August 23, 1994. 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, Article 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 the 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. 319 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are long-term debt instruments retired by specific dedicated revenues. Often these revenues are generated by the project funded out of debt proceeds. Revenue bonds are designed to be self-supporting through user fees or other special revenues. 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. 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 financing approach achieves the objective of tying the repayment of debt to those property owners who most directly benefit from the improvements financed. 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, §11-251, 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. 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. 2001-02 Constitutional General Obligation Bonding Capacity Maricopa County, Arizona 2001-02 Secondary Assessed Valuation 15% of Secondary Assessed Valuation Less: GO Bonded Debt Outstanding Plus: GO Debt Service Fund Balance Unused Fifteen Percent Borrowing Capacity 320 $ $ 22,913,134,480 3,436,970,172 (58,370,000) 773,917 3,379,374,089 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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. Moody’s Investors Service, Standard and Poor’s Corporation, and Fitch Ratings 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: • 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. Examples of the rating systems are: RATING AGENCIES 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 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 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. History of Debt Rating Maricopa County received bond ratings from Fitch Ratings 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.” 321 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service The following illustrates a history of the County’s various debt ratings. Type of Debt General Obligation Fitch Date Rating Assigned AA AA 12/4/01 4/5/00 Stadium District Revenue Bonds Moody's Date Rating Assigned Aa3 Aa3 A-1 A-2 A Aa Aa-1 Aa 12/6/01 5/26/00 11/6/98 3/17/97 6/13/94 7/26/93 8/21/81 12/6/72 Aaa (1) Standard & Poor's Date Rating Assigned A+ A AA 4/11/97 5/27/94 6/2/76 AAA (1) 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 GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITES General Obligation Less: Amount avail. for Retirement of General Obligation Debt Lease Revenue Bonds Certificate of Participation Capital Leases Direct Net Debt Overlapping Debt (1) Overall Net Debt Population Estimate (2) Full Value of Taxable Property (3) 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 Audited 6/30/01 $79,595,000 Audited 6/30/02 $58,370,000 Projected 6/30/03 $39,515,000 Projected 6/30/04 $20,165,000 0 (773,917) 0 0 104,355,000 13,575,118 14,454,515 $211,979,633 4,999,831,866 $5,211,811,499 104,355,000 9,804,315 19,442,376 $191,197,774 4,901,854,926 $5,093,052,700 91,558,756 5,808,084 14,915,333 $151,797,173 5,000,000,000 $5,151,797,173 78,031,179 1,672,206 10,571,632 $110,440,017 5,000,000,000 $5,110,440,017 3,072,149 $160,906,987 3,192,125 $180,653,046 3,303,849 $196,911,820 3,419,484 $214,633,884 $69.00 $59.90 $45.95 $32.30 $1,696.47 $1,595.51 $1,559.33 $1,494.51 .1317% .1058% .0771% .0515% 3.24% 2.82% 2.62% 2.38% $52,376.04 $56,593.35 $55,600.73 $62,767.92 Notes: (1) 322 Projected overlapping debt was based on a 0% increase for 2003 and 2004, and rounded to $5 million. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies (2) (3) (4) Debt Service Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security. Projection for 2003 and 2004 was based on a 3.50% growth rate. Taxable Property Estimates: 2002 provided by the Assessor’s Office; 2003 and 2004 based on 9% estimated annual growth; amounts are in billions (000’s omitted). Summary of Debt Ratios: • Direct net debt per capita = Direct net debt/Population • 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 section of the Debt Management Plan contains 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 the lowest of any public securities. Prior to issuance, Arizona GO Bonds must have a majority vote approval from the residents of the County. 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. Refunded and Refinanced Obligations – On December 1, 2001, the County issued general obligation bonds of $20,165,000 (par value) with an interest rate of 4% to current refund term bonds from the 1986 Bond Issue Series D (1993) with an interest rate of 4.875% and a par value of $20,000,000. The term bonds would have matured on July 4, 2004, and were redeemed on January 1, 2002. The general obligation bonds were issued at a premium of $425,280, and accrued interest of $38,089. After paying issuance costs of $102,780, the net proceeds were $20,525,589. The net proceeds from the issuance of the general obligation bonds were used to current refund the term bonds redeemed on January 1, 2002. As a result of the current refunding, the County reduced its total debt service requirements by $714,372, which resulted in an economic gain (difference between the present value of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $708,166. Legal Debt Margin – County indebtedness pertaining to general obligation bonds may not exceed six percent of the value of the County’s taxable property ascertained by the last assessment. However, with voter approval, the County may become indebted for an amount not to exceed 15 percent of such taxable property. At June 30, 2002, the County net general obligation debt was $57,596,083, (0.25% of taxable property), while the 6 percent limit was $1,374,788,069 and the 15 percent limit was $3,436,970,172. The following tables and chart illustrate the existing debt service for the outstanding general obligation bonded debt currently paid by ad valorem taxes. 323 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY General Obligation Bonds Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2002 Year Ended June 30 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL Principal Interest Debt Service $ 18,855,000 19,350,000 20,165,000 $ 58,370,000 $ 2,634,209 1,401,975 403,300 $ 4,439,484 $ 21,489,209 20,751,975 20,568,300 $ 62,809,484 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2002 Bond Issue Amount 1986 Bond Issue – Series D (1993) 1992 Bond Issue – Refunding 1992 Bond Issue – Refunding 1994 Bond Issue – Refunding (1994A Tax Exempt) 1995 Bond Issue – Refunding 2001 Bond Issue – Refunding TOTAL $ 2,000,000 950,000 34,250,000 335,000 670,000 20,165,000 $ 58,370,000 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS General Obligation Bonds Interest Principal $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 2003 2004 2005 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. 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. 324 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Lease Revenue Bonds Year Ended June 30 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 – 12 2013 – 16 Total principal and interest Amount representing interest Total payable at June 30, 2002 Debt Service Governmental Activities $ $ $ 17,818,047 17,955,266 8,807,477 8,807,644 8,813,766 44,121,511 35,226,301 141,550,012 (37,195,012) 104,355,000 Business Type Activities $ $ $ 3,500,263 3,527,219 1,730,183 1,730,216 1,731,419 8,667,440 6,920,025 27,806,765 (7,306,765) 20,500,000 Total Debt Service $ $ $ 21,318,310 21,482,485 10,537,660 10,537,860 10,545,185 52,788,951 42,146,326 169,356,777 (44,501,777) 124,855,000 Stadium District 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: • 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 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. Refunded and Refinanced Obligations – On June 5, 2002 the Stadium District issued $58,225,000 (par value) of Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 dated June 1, 2002 with an average interest rate of 5.23%. The Stadium District revenue bonds were issued at a premium of $3,115,977 and accrued interest of $32,634. The proceeds were used to prepay and redeem the following obligations and fund debt service reserves. Net proceeds of $20,071,107 were used to prepay the 1993 Peoria IGA. Under the terms of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) dated June 1, 1993, among the Stadium District, the City of Peoria (Peoria), and the City of Peoria Municipal Sports Complex Authority (Peoria Authority), the Authority issued revenue bonds to construct the Peoria Sports Complex. The District was obligated to Peoria from car rental surcharge revenues sufficient to pay the debt service on the Authority bonds. The Authority’s bonds were issued at taxable rates, with remaining interest ranging from 6.75% to 7.70% and the outstanding principal was $18,375,000. All requirements under the IGA have been met and the liability has been removed from the government-wide financial statements. Net proceeds of $8,522,524 were used to prepay the 1996 Mesa IGA. Under the terms of an IGA, dated April 1, 1996 between the Stadium District and the City of Mesa (Mesa), the Stadium District was 325 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service obligated to make payments to Mesa based on the Stadium District’s net revenue from the car rental surcharge. Mesa in turn used the revenue to pay debt service on bonds issued by the City of Mesa Municipal Development Corporation, the proceeds of which were used to construct the Hohokam Stadium. The City of Mesa Municipal Development Corporation bonds were issued at a variable interest rate and were remarked on an annual basis. The outstanding principal was $8,350,000. All requirements under the IGA have been met and the liability has been removed from the government-wide financial statements. Second Subordinate Capital Appreciation Net Revenue Bonds – Net proceeds of $7,838,344 were used to redeem and retire the outstanding principal and compound accreted value of the Stadium District’s Second Subordinate Capital Appreciation Net Revenue Bonds, dated March 10, 1997. The interest rate on the bonds ranged from 6.26% to 8.77%. The bonds were called upon delivery of the 2002 Bonds, and the liability has been removed from the government-wide financial statements. Senior Bonds – Net proceeds of $20,958,595 were used to advance refund $10,265,000 of outstanding Revenue Bonds Series 1993A Bonds (issued 1993) with interest rates 5.1% to 5.5%, to advance refund $1,375,000 of outstanding Revenue Bonds Series 1993B (issue 1993) with interest rates 4.7% to 4.75%, and to advance refund $8,565,000 of outstanding Revenue Bonds, Series 1996 Bonds (issue 1996) with interest rates of 5.0% to 5.75%. Net proceeds of $20,958,595 (after payment of underwriting fees, insurance, and other issuance costs) plus an additional $750,000 of Stadium District monies used to purchase U.S. Government securities. The securities were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to provide for all future debt service payments on the refunded bonds until the refunded bonds are called (repaid by trustee) on July 1, 2003 for the Series 1993 A, July 1, 2002, and July 1, 2003 for the Series 1993B and July 1, 2006 for the Series 1996. As a result, the total $20,205,000 refunded Series 1993A, Series 1993B and Series 1996 bonds are considered to be defeased and the liability for those bonds has been removed from the government-wide financial statements. Advance refunding the bonds was undertaken to reduce the Stadium District’s total debt service payments by $92,509 and provided an economic gain (difference between the present values of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $66,672. The following tables illustrate the existing debt service for the outstanding Stadium District Revenue Bonds. DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Stadium District Revenue Bonds Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2002 Year Ended June 30 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL 326 Principal $ $ 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,490,000 2,685,000 2,820,000 2,960,000 3,105,000 3,260,000 3,390,000 3,570,000 3,760,000 3,960,000 4,170,000 4,395,000 4,635,000 4,880,000 5,145,000 58,225,000 Total Debt Service Interest $ $ 2,937,094 2,912,094 2,862,094 2,737,594 2,603,344 2,462,344 2,314,344 2,159,094 2,028,694 1,850,719 1,663,294 1,461,194 1,248,344 1,024,206 787,975 538,844 276,544 31,867,813 $ $ 3,937,094 4,912,094 5,352,094 5,422,594 5,423,344 5,422,344 5,419,344 5,419,094 5,418,694 5,420,719 5,423,294 5,421,194 5,418,344 5,419,206 5,422,975 5,418,844 5,421,544 90,092,813 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2002 Bond Issue Amount Total Stadium District Revenue Bonds, Series 2002 $ 58,225,000 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Stadium District Revenue Bonds Interest Principal $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 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 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 Special Assessment District Bonds. 327 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2002 Bond Issue Amount Grandview Manor Queen Creek Water Fairview Lane East Fairview Lane White Fence Farms 104th Place/University Drive Central Avenue Billings Street Marquerite Drive TOTAL $ $ 40,513 113,801 7,532 19,016 49,722 26,572 137,360 3,791 60,670 458,977 Housing Department These bonds are due annually in varying principal and interest amounts, and are payable from Federal government subsidies. 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, 2002 Year Ended June 30 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL $ $ Principal 14,114 16,937 16,937 16,937 64,925 $ $ Interest 2,242 1,641 985 328 5,196 $ $ Total Debt Service 16,356 18,578 17,922 17,265 70,121 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Housing Department Bonds $20,000 $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Interest Principal 2003 328 2004 2005 2006 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Housing Department Loans Payable Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2002 $20,000 $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Interest Principal 2003 2004 2005 2006 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Housing Department Loans Payable Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2002 Year Ended June 30 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL Principal $ $ 113,612 121,110 128,829 137,606 146,688 156,369 166,518 177,680 189,407 201,908 215,195 1,754,922 Interest $ $ 115,825 106,326 100,608 91,831 82,749 73,067 62,919 51,756 40,029 27,529 14,242 766,881 Total Debt Service $ $ 229,437 227,436 229,437 229,437 229,437 229,436 229,437 229,436 229,436 229,437 229,437 2,521,803 The Housing Department loans payable at June 30, 2002, consisted of the following outstanding notes. The Department sold notes to the Federal Financing Bank. These notes will be repaid through Federal government subsidies. 329 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Housing Department Loans Payable $250,000 Interest Principal $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 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 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. The following illustrates the debt service for the outstanding Certificates of Participation. 330 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Certificates of Participation Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2002 Year Ended June 30 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008-12 2013-16 Total principal and interest Amount representing interest Total payable at June 30, 2002 Governmental Activities $ $ $ 4,580,727 4,482,260 326,120 326,695 327,081 1,096,668 0 11,139,551 (1,335,236) 9,804,315 Business-Type Activities $ $ $ 1,463,190 1,464,254 1,424,521 1,427,114 1,424,616 6,302,710 2,705,010 16,211,416 (4,442,897) 11,768,519 Total Debt Service $ $ $ 6,043,917 5,946,514 1,750,641 1,753,809 1,751,697 7,399,378 2,705,010 27,350,966 (5,778,133) 21,572,834 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2002 Certificate of Participation Issues Amount Series 1993 Certificates of Participation Series 1994 Certificates of Participation Series 1996 Certificates of Participation Series 2000 Certificates of Participation Series 2000 Certificates of Participation TOTAL $ $ 790,000 7,510,000 1,726,834 5,006,000 6,540,000 21,572,834 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, leasepurchase agreements are considered long-term obligations for policy planning purposes, regardless of the legal structure. The County maintains several capital leases, with four leases accounting for the majority of the balance. The departments and leased equipment include General Government SmartZone radio system, a Sheriff’s helicopter, Facilities Management energy savings retrofit and Superior Court modular building. 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, 2002. Capital Leases Maricopa County, Arizona Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 – 12 Total minimum lease payments Less: Amount representing interest Present value of net minimum lease payments $ $ $ 5,418,806 4,958,982 4,449,210 2,536,192 993,578 3,951,791 22,308,560 (2,866,184) 19,442,376 331 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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 (Business-type Activities), at a total purchase price of $3,278,464. The future minimum payments required under the contracts at June 30, 2002, 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, 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total minimum lease payments Less: Amount representing interest Present value of net minimum lease payments 332 $ $ $ 555,306 555,306 555,306 555,306 555,306 195,464 2,971,994 (364,179) 2,607,815 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service Debt Policies Regular, updated debt policies can be an important tool to ensure the use of the County’s resources to meet its commitments to provide needed services to the citizens of Maricopa County and to maintain sound financial practices. 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. Competitive Sale The County will use the competitive sale method unless there are compelling reasons which indicate that a negotiated sale or private placement would have a more favorable result due to prevailing conditions in the market, a financing structure which requires special premarketing efforts, or factors are present that are expected to result in an insufficient number or competitive bids. 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). 333 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service Arbitrage Liability Management 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. Arbitrage profits are made by selling tax-exempt bonds and investing the proceeds in higher-yielding 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 shall establish a system of record keeping and reporting to meet the arbitrage rebate compliance requirements of the federal tax code. This will include 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 will be monitored to ensure that all covenants are met. The County will structure 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 shall be 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 shall include encouraging participation from qualified service providers, both local and national, and securing services at competitive prices. 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. 334 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 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 DPC Data Inc. 100 Business Park Drive Skillman, NJ 08558 Phone: (609) 279-3225 Fax: (609) 279-5962 Email: Munis@Bloomberg.com One Executive Drive Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 346-0701 Fax: (201) 947-0107 Email: nrmsir@dpcdata.com FT Interactive Data Standard & Poor’s Attn: NRMSIR 100 Williams Street New York, NY 10038 Phone (212) 771-6999 Fax: (212) 771-7390 Email: NRMSIR@FTID.com 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 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. The County intends to fully comply with the “continuing disclosure” rules. 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 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. 335 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 336 Debt Service Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance County At A Glance Profile Maricopa County was created in 1871 and was named after the Maricopa Indian Tribe, which is known to have inhabited the area as early as 1775. Maricopa was the fifth county formed in Arizona. Today, more than half of the state’s population resides in Maricopa County. In addition, Indian Reservations make-up 5% of the total land ownership while individuals and corporations own 29%, the Bureau of Land Management 28%, the U.S. Forest Services 11%, the State of Arizona 11%, leaving the remaining 16% publicly owned land. Maricopa County’s total size of 9,226 square miles, 7,785 square miles are unincorporated versus 1,441 incorporated square miles. 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. In addition, Maricopa County is larger than seven states (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia. Maricopa County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation with a population of over 3.3 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. Maricopa County is Arizona’s largest local government; it operates without powers of selfgovernment. Maricopa County houses the State Capital of Arizona. The State Legislature represents a key external factor whose actions greatly influence County finances and operations in five major areas: State shared revenues; State budget; Tax law changes; Mandates and County powers. 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 County seal shown on the chart above provides a glimpse of the major public services provided to its citizens. 337 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance As demonstrated on the Maricopa County Supervisorial District Map below, Maricopa County has five supervisorial district and twenty-five incorporated municipalities. In addition, the table below lists each supervisorial district of Maricopa County, the Board member, or Supervisor, population of each district, and incorporated municipalities. Overlapping of some district boundaries occur. The County’s boundaries have not changed since 1881. Supervisor Population Incorporated Municipalities District 1 Chairman, Fulton Brock 597,949 Tempe Chandler Queen Creek District 2 Don Stapley 609,493 Scottsdale Paradise Valley Cave Creek Carefree Fountain Hills Mesa Gilbert Apache Junction District 3 Andrew Kunasek 607,783 Phoenix District 4 Max W. Wilson 629,606 Glendale Peoria El Mirage Surprise Youngtown Litchfield Park Wickenburg Buckeye District 5 Mary Rose Wilcox 627,318 Gila Bend Avondale Goodyear Tolleson Guadalupe Maricopa County has the largest population of the 15 counties in the State of Arizona. Additionally, Maricopa County houses one of the largest cities in the state, the City of Phoenix, and 28 additional cities within the County’s outer boundaries. Collectively, the cities of Maricopa County make up what is known as the Valley of the Sun. M A R IC O P A C O Jan A vg . T e m p . (F ) 53 A vg . M ax. T em p . (F) 66 A v g . M in . T e m p . ( F ) 41 UNTY Feb 57 71 45 M O N TH LY AVER AG E TEM PERATU R ES M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep 62 69 78 88 93 91 85 76 85 94 104 106 104 98 49 55 64 73 81 79 73 O ct 74 88 61 Nov 61 75 49 Dec 54 66 42 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. 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; the Arizona Diamondbacks of the National Baseball League; the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League; the Phoenix Coyotes of the National Hockey League and the Arizona Rattlers of the Arena Football League. Maricopa County is home to many other professionals sports and events including outdoor soccer, the newly acquired lacrosse team, and thoroughbred and greyhound racing. In addition, college fans can enjoy a variety of inter-collegiate athletics. There are also golf tournaments sanctioned by the Professional Gold Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association and the Senior Professional Golf 338 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Association, such as the Phoenix Open. Maricopa County is home to the Phoenix International Raceway and Sprint care 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. In addition, the City of Glendale will be home to the new Cardinal Football Stadium, currently under construction and is expected to open 2006. Maricopa County is also home to the nation’s largest regional parks system measuring over 120,000 acres and 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 Libraries 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 nine community colleges and 13 colleges and universities within the boundaries of Maricopa County. Economy Maricopa County’s economy is improving, but at a modest rate, according to many of the local economist. “It may take a few months before we are on the upward side of the business cycle.” According to Elliott D. Pollack & Company. Now that the war in Iraq is over and front-page headlines are no longer focused on war and terrorism, the economy should begin expanding again. Maricopa County’s local corporations are willing to refocus on growing their companies, now that a major uncertainty has been removed. For instance, corporate and accounting scandals that sent investors fleeing from equity markets and CEOs fixated on financial and accounting issues rather than growing their companies. “The business confidence hasn’t been there and consumers haven’t totally bounced back,” according to the Department of Economic Security, Research Administration. In addition, they stated that Arizona’s businesses are reluctant to hire simply on the promise of an economic recovery. They want to see concrete evidence in the form of a steady supply of new orders. According to local economist, Elliott D. Pollack & Company, factors that affect the County’s current economic condition include population, wages and salaries employment, personal income and retail sales. The growth of these indicators is shown on the chart at right. Population continues to increase while local employment makes a slight come back and retail sales start to pick up after 2002. The key is growth in spending and economic output that is strong enough to virtually force the business community to increase hiring to meet the demand. Many corporate firms that are already based here are growing, which is contributing thousands more jobs. Forecast show that Arizona’s economy will add more than 82,000 jobs in FY 03-04. 339 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance 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 below. 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, both remain below year-ago levels, indicating residual weakness in tourism. According to the Arizona State University Center for Business Research, Maricopa County’s annual population change is expected to hold nearly steady, as a slight decrease in net migration should be offset by an increase in net natural increase (births less deaths). The chart below 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). 340 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance 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 in the second quarter of 2003, GDP increased 3.3 percent and in the third quarter GDP increased at an annual rate of 7.2 percent. The major contributors to the increase in real GDP in the third quarter were personal consumption expenditures, equipment and software, residential fixed investment, 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, and the slow improvement of the economy from year to year. Other benefits of Maricopa County that are contributing factors of improving the economy include quality of life, cost of living, a skilled work force, good universities and a favorable business climate. Phoenix, a major city within Maricopa County, was ranked 2nd in the 5th annual “America’s 50 Hottest Cities” report, published in the January 2003 issue of Expansion Management magazine. One major event coming to the valley is the International Genomics Consortium. Private and governmental sponsors provided 95 million dollars to the Transnational Genomics Research Institute (TGEN), which will provide a base of expertise and knowledge that will enhance the area’s ability to develop and attract bioscience related companies. In addition, USAA obtained 500 acres in Phoenix for a regional office/customer-service center with the prospect for 15,000 employees within 10 years. The recent announcement that the NFL Super Bowl of 2008, a world-class event, was awarded to Arizona brings new revenues and job opportunities. Additionally, real estate in Maricopa County was at an all time high and residential permits for October in metro Phoenix soared by nearly 45%. Population According to the Arizona Department of Economic Security, Maricopa County’s estimated population as of July 1, 2003 stands at 3,288,900. Of the 3,141 counties in the nation, Maricopa County ranks 4th in population. Maricopa County’s population exceeds the population of 21 states and the District of Columbia. 60% of Arizona’s population resides in Maricopa County. As reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, Maricopa County was second in the nation in gaining residence from April 2000 to July 2002. The chart at left illustrates the top five counties in population gains. According to a statewide economic study prepared by Eller College of Business & Public Administration at the University of Arizona, they expect a population growth of 2.3% per year and employment to increase at a 2.9% 341 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies annual rate; the state’s employment population ratio will continue to increase. County At A Glance to That means that the county faces state-sized demands for needs as varied as roads, affordable housing, schools, parks and social services. The Phoenix-Mesa metro area has transformed into a very large and diversified economy, serving a region that transcends Arizona’s borders. 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 102,035 citizens in the past year, reflecting a 3.2% increase in population. Maricopa County’s actual population including projections through the year 2012 are displayed on the chart at left. Births, deaths and net migration constitute the three 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 significant driver of explaining the high influx of people to the County. According to the economic consulting firm, Elliott D. Pollack & Company, the number of births in Maricopa County is expected to rise due to the increase in net migration, which is projected to rise over the next 10 years due to the increases in the national population and changes in the age structure of the population. 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. 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. 342 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance As provided on the chart below, the largest portion of our current population lies in the 0-9 and 25-34 age groups. Significant growth is projected in the 35-44 and 45-54 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 distributions and growth as illustrated in the chart below. There was a significant increase (6.7%) Hispanic or Latino Origin population and the Non-Hispanic White population increased by 0.7%. RACE % AS OF JULY 1, 2001 White Persons 63.4% Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin 20.4% Other Origins 9.8% Black or African American Persons 3.1% Asian Persons 1.8% American Indian and Alaska Native Persons 1.5% % AS OF JULY 1, 2002 64.1% 27.1% 1.2% 3.6% 2.3% 1.6% INCREASE/DECREASE 0.7% 6.7% -8.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% Employment Maricopa County makes up 68.5% of the state’s employment base. According to the July 2003 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, 2002 and January 1, 2003. The chart at right compares the composition of Maricopa County’s non-farm wage and salary employment to that of Arizona and the United States. The highest percent distribution is in Trade, Transportation, and Utilities, which was 19.4% in the United States, 19.6% in Arizona and 20.5% in Maricopa County. Whereas, the lowest percent distribution was in Natural Resources and Mining which was a low 0.4% in the United States and Arizona, and 0.1% in Maricopa County. 343 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance According to Elliott D. Pollack & Company of the major employers in Maricopa County, Maricopa County government is the 6th largest employer. Maricopa County employment figures are based upon actual number of regular employees. Employers with more than 9,000 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. The decrease in the rate of growth in personal income, as shown on the chart at right, 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. 344 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Since January 2003, Maricopa County’s unemployment rate has fluctuated.between 5.0% and 5.4% as illustrated on the chart below. According to local economists, Arizona and Maricopa County‘s job market is recovering more slowly than expected. The Department of Economic Security had recently updated the economic forecast for the remainder of the year and 2004, and had trimmed the job growth estimate for 2003 from 1.7% to 1.2%, which equates to 10,000 fewer jobs than originally expected. Retail Sales Maricopa County’s retail sales continue to expand at a greater rate than that of Arizona as a whole as indicated on the chart below. Maricopa County’s retail sales represent nearly 70% of total retail sales in the state. According to Elliott D. Pollack & Company Maricopa County’s annual retail sales growth from FY 2001-2002 is estimated to be approximately $0.6 million. Aggregate annual retail sales for Maricopa County are provided in the chart below. The year-over-year retail sales growth trendline shows moderate growth through FY 2007-08. 345 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Construction And Real Estate Market Maricopa County residents continue to benefit from low interest rates and affordable housing. The chart below indicates the affordability and availability of countywide housing. 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 objectives, as explained in a March 2003 presentation by Elliott D. Pollack and Company, identified 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 with the “gap” pay more than 28% of their income toward shelter. The Housing Opportunity Index indicates that Phoenix-Mesa is at 75.4% of the share of homes affordable for median income of $57.900, which is ranked 89th compared to other cities in the United States. As indicated on the chart at right, single-family home resale and new (median prices) has increased by $10,000 since last year, an average of $1,750 per quarter. The increase in single-family home sales may be due to the low interest rates and the relative ease of obtaining a mortgage. It is now virtually certain that sales of both new and existing homes will hit new records in 2003. The existing trend in the greater Phoenix real estate market is expected to continue through 2004 according to Elliott D. Pollack and Company. 346 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Maricopa County’s housing permits continue to reach near record levels. As indicated on the chart below, of the 58,647 single-family housing units authorized in Arizona during FY 2002-03, 36,875 or 63% were authorized for Maricopa County. 5,302 County units or nearly 10% of Maricopa County’s total single-family housing units were authorized for unincorporated areas. This is an 11% increase of single-family units authorized for Maricopa County from last year’s figures. Recent numbers also show that Maricopa County still has strong forward momentum in home sales, housing starts and house prices. Elliott D. Pollack and Company states “The housing market is expected to stay at a high level over the next couple of years which is surprising due to the fact that interest rates could increase over this period of time.” Multi-Family housing inventory grew by 1.3% during the year 2002, and the vacancy rate of 9.4% for 2002 is a 1.2% increase from last year. However, multi-family inventory is expected to decline this year as absorptions are expected to continue to be weak according to Elliott D. Pollack and Company. Between 1993 and 2002 multi-family unit inventories have increased by 22% and vacancy rates have increased by 5.4%. The chart at left shows the growth pattern. According to Grubb & Ellis 2003 Annual Report, many developers recognize the weak market and have put projects on hold until the economic recovery. The supply of available office space through new construction, sublease and direct lease during 2002 continues to increase. A surplus of new buildings and the lack of demand put vacancy rates at 18.8%. Consequently, increasing vacancy rates indicate a future slowdown in construction and as a result slower growth in the property tax base as indicated by the chart at right. 347 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 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. Our network includes a Level 1 academic hospital, 11 family health care clinics located throughout the Valley, four health plans, over 250 physicians, and 4,000 employees. We serve everyone that walks through our doors with an emergent situation, regardless of lack of health insurance or socioeconomic situation. In 2002, we provided approximately $620 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 country, and one of only three neonatal intensive care units in the community, and the largest provider of inpatient behavior health care for the Valley. MIHS also plays a significant role in the Valley for patients with HIV/AIDS through its specialized clinic. Through the four health plans that MIHS offers as seen in the chart above, – 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 approximately 68,000 members. As with the past several years, extensive growth again defined MIHS during FY 2003. 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. In addition to the growth in volume, MIHS expanded through the addition of life-saving equipment and physical facility growth. The expansion of the Comprehensive Health Care Center that was completed in 2001 348 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance significantly enhanced 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. 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 FY 2003/04 including: Enrollment and retention strategies for heath 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 Center for Medicare and Medicare 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 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. Maricopa County is committed to ensuring public safety. The Sheriff’s Office houses one of the largest jail systems operated by a sheriff in the nation. Maricopa County’s detention facilities housed an average of over 7,559 inmates daily. Last year the Sheriff’s Office booked 115,860 adult inmates. 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. These volunteers spend their time and money to train to be volunteers helping to keep the county free from crime. 349 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance 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 all these new facilities. Adults make-up 95% of Maricopa County’s inmate population, while juveniles comprise 5%. The average daily jail population for adult offenders is 7,559, which currently exceeds jail capacity of 5,200 by 31%. 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 Initial Appearance courts, one for the County and one for the City of Phoenix, as well as a high-security Superior Court room and a new Early Felony Disposition courtroom. The second new facility that the Sheriff’s Office has planned is the Lower Buckeye Jail. This facility will have 1,867 cells. The facility will contain a juvenile remand facility, adult max sentenced facility, psychiatric facility and a dorm adult minimum facility. In addition, the facility will house a new Infirmary, medical clinic, Correctional Health Services Administration and Programs/Education Administration. 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) Vacancy Sign (Sheriff pledges to always have room to book arrested individuals) The Maricopa County’s Attorney’s Office shows a total increase in the adult felony crime rate of 4% or an additional 3,839 reported felonies between FY 1999-00 and FY 2001-02. Drug related offences 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 34% from FY 1999-00 to FY 2001-02. The actual case defendant analysis for adult felony case filings is provided on the following page. 350 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance ADULT FELONY CASE FILINGS OFFENSE TYPE FY 1999 -00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 % CHANGE FY 2000 to 2002 (INCREASE/DECREASE) 185 111 365 691 2,589 1,699 53 1,401 2,843 936 11,085 4,836 26,794 217 91 366 722 2,675 1,629 42 1,619 3,049 840 11,025 6,136 28,411 279 90 377 831 2,546 1,738 41 2,167 3,121 860 11,613 6,970 30,633 29% -1% 3% 15% -5% 7% -2% 34% 2% 2% 5% 14% 4% Homicide Sexual Assault Child Molestation Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Arson Vehicle Theft Driving Under the Influence Theft Drug Related Other Offenses TOTAL 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 individuals, instant video recording, and monitors throughout the courtroom for evidence display and presentations. During FY 1999-00 114,407 cases were filed in Superior Court versus 119,277 cases filed in FY 2001-02 representing a 4.3% increase. Superior Court criminal cases increased 7% while juvenile court cases decreased 5%, and family court cases decreased by 3%. Juvenile Probation 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 Juvenile Probation Department administers community-based prevention programs. The average daily juvenile population increased by 0.5% from FY 2001 to FY 2002. However, this growth is lower than in previous 351 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance years. The increase from FY 2000 to FY 2001 was 2%. The slowing of growth may be due to the efforts of a multi-agency juvenile delinquency and adult recidivism prevention plan, which has shown promising results. 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. Legislative Strategies 2003 Legislative Session The First Regular Session of the 46th Legislature, the seventh longest regular session in state history, was also one of the most challenging ones in memory, but Maricopa County was able to accomplish a great deal, both offensively and defensively. Maricopa County’s primary objectives going into the 2003 session were protecting state-shared revenues, minimizing to the extent possible state budget impacts on the county, and passing legislation relating to the county hospital and health system and all secondary bills. Given the reality of an historic $1 billion state budget shortfall, Maricopa County strategically determined early on that sitting down and actively negotiating with House and Senate leadership and the Governor's Office on county budget impacts was the wisest strategy to help ensure the best "good government" outcome possible, under the circumstances, for county taxpayers. Tough, intense budget negotiations permeated every aspect of the 2003 Session. In the end, while the county was certainly greatly impacted by budget decisions made at the state house, those impacts were not as devastating as they could have been, largely because Maricopa County was proactive in negotiating the best outcome possible. As part of the Fiscal Year 2004 state budget passed by the Legislature, the following provisions were negotiated by Maricopa County: Eliminate previous Maricopa County responsibility to pay state private prison contracts cost Take over adult probation funding with the objective of funding it at appropriate levels Take over 100% of the Restoration to Competency program Engage in one-time purchase of state assets: Acquisition of (1) 32nd Street and Van Buren real property ($3 million) and (2) North Black Canyon State Building real property ($1.8 million) 352 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Counties to receive Federal "FMAP" (Federal Medical Assistance Percentages) Money from the state to reduce required county ALTCS contributions Counties to receive possible additional money from Department of Revenue enhanced collections of sales tax revenues, which would bring county net impacts down Maricopa County contribution payment of $5.4 million for state services Unwilling but required county participation in judicial collections provision which requires cities and counties to transfer to the state each year revenues from court collections over a FY 2002-03 baseline, up to $45 million annually (this provision has since wisely been repealed, however, during the 2nd Special Session, to end after one year). With regard to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors' legislative package, a number of bills were passed, including most importantly legislative authorization for Maricopa County to ask voters to allow the creation of a Special Health Care District to operate the Maricopa Integrated Health System. The legislation provided for taxing authority, bonding provisions, maintenance of effort requirements, limitations on facilities and additional powers for the district. Passage of this bill set up the process, with voter approval, to create a method of generating a dedicated revenue stream for capital, maintenance and operation, to help address the tremendous financial stresses on the Maricopa medical system. After four long years of discussion, study and opposition, introduction and passage of this legislation this year was considered crucial. Ultimately, this ballot measure went to Maricopa County voters in a November 4, 2003 special election and was decisively approved. A number of other bills contained in the Board’s legislative package were also passed and signed by the Governor, including authority to begin annexing small county islands; allowing the county to improve dog licensing and vaccination procedures; clarification of the county's ability to operate health clinics; authorizing the county to better contain costs for correctional health by increasing the amount that inmates are charged for health services and prescription drugs; and making necessary revisions to the statutes governing registered sanitarians. Also, Maricopa County provided a great deal of input into the development of a regional transportation plan. Because the current half-cent sales tax for transportation established by Maricopa County voters in 1985 will expire in 2005, it was important to set up a mechanism last session for extending the tax. A compromise bill was passed, crafted after long and intense negotiations between Maricopa County, cities, the Maricopa Association of Governments and the business community, which paved the way for an extension of the tax by allowing for the development of the new transportation plan with appropriate input and review by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. 2004 Legislative Session Maricopa County’s biggest challenge in the next legislative session will be to try to ensure that all of the agreements reached with regard to the state budget are maintained and additional cuts or cost-shifts are not visited upon the county. Clearly, given the state’s on-going fiscal difficulties 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 $1.5 billion when legislators begin work on the FY 2005 budget during the next legislative session beginning January 12, 2004. Additionally, since the Legislature authorized development of a new regional transportation plan last session, but withheld final authorization of an election, legislators, local governments, the business community, citizens and a wide variety of other stakeholders will discuss and review a final plan before the issue is placed on the ballot. This will be a major issue before the Legislature that must be taken up and resolved almost immediately after the start of the session if it is to be placed on a May 2004 election. Elections, the redistricting process, and the state budget will continue to dominate the political landscape next year. Following a redrawing of congressional and legislative district lines by a five-member Citizens’ Independent Redistricting Commission, lawsuits were brought to challenge the lines. The Legislature has appropriated additional funding during the 2nd Special Session to defend the voting maps in court, but this continues to be an extremely contentious partisan issue, and the outcome of the lawsuits could have 353 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance political ramifications for seats in congress and the state legislature for years to come. In addition, a lawsuit brought by legislative leadership pertaining to certain of the Governor's line item vetoes from the last session's budget bills have yet to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Adding to the focus on state taxation and finance issues is the work of the Governor's Citizens Finance Review Committee. The 21-member panel (including Maricopa County's Administrative Officer David Smith) released in October a draft of 46 recommendations on simplifying the state tax code and broadening the tax base. The panel will review, revise and comment on these suggestions shortly, and final recommendations are expected to be presented to Governor Napolitano sometime in November. The recommendations include, but are not limited to, reviving a statewide property tax, cutting property taxes for businesses but raising them for homes, ending sales-tax exemptions for many groups, eliminating a homeowner’s rebate, and imposing a tax on real estate sales. There are a number of other recommendations dealing with miscellaneous revenues (other than sales, income or property) as well. The Committee's goal is to “streamline and modernize an inefficient and out-of-date tax code,” and any recommendations deemed appropriate to pursue will be the object of much debate and will eventually require approval by the Legislature or by the voters. Some believe any new tax to raise revenues will have to be voted on by Arizona citizens, because passing such a tax out of the current Legislature, which requires a two-thirds majority vote, would be difficult to achieve. There are expected to be quite a number of ballot propositions on next year's general election ballot in November, as well, dealing with military airport preservation, requiring all initiatives and referendums to identify a funding source, and making a constitutional change regarding technology transfer that would allow educational institutions to benefit from private technological advancements. There is also the possibility that a very polarizing citizens' initiative on requiring verification of an individual's immigration status before any state or local services are provided could make it to the ballot. Planning for the next legislative session has already commenced. Development of next year's legislative package is in full swing, and key objectives will involve ensuring that an appropriate regional transportation plan is developed, staving off new or continued state budget cuts or cost-shifts that severely threaten the county’s fiscal stability, and working to ease unreasonable or antiquated costly mandates on the county. 354 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Information Technology Strategies Information Technology will champion Maricopa County into Information Age Government by… Enhancing Business Models: County Personal Services Internal Department Services Paper / Phone-based Services Varying Technical Skills Solid Department Boundaries 8 x 5 Service On-Line Citizen Self-Sufficiency Employee Self-Sufficiency Electronic Government Full Technology Literacy Flexible Public/Private Boundaries 7 x 24 Service Converting to A Digital Medium: Silo-bound Paper Processes Paper Archiving Videoconference Rooms Serial Comment & Approval Group Classroom Training Horizontal Digital Workflow & Forms Electronic Document Image Archives Desktop Video Concurrent Collaboration Real-time On-line / Video Training Enabling A Mobile Workforce: Limited Dial-up Services Discrete PDA/Pager/Cell Phone Discrete Mail Systems Facsimile Machines Extensive Mobile Infrastructure Integrated Remote Device Integrated Voice, E-Mail & Publishing Internet-directed Retrieval & Printing Increasing Efficiency: Department Data Centers Insourced Technology Services Multiple Microcomputer Vendors Shared Service Bureaus External Service Providers Consolidated Purchasing Portal Integrating Systems: Discrete E-mail / Web / GIS Discrete Resource Directories Discrete Office Equipment Integrated Desktop Services Universal Resource Directory Networked Office Devices 355 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance 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 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. 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. IT Strategic Goals County employees will have the flexibility to do their jobs from anywhere in the County at any time. The public and outside organizations will be able to obtain services and transact business electronically from any location at any time. Operational and strategic decision-makers will be able to readily and easily access information they need to make informed decisions. Streamlining business operations through the use of technology will reduce the cost and time to deliver services. Through countywide technology standardization, we will optimize the use of resources so that the information technology department strategic goals will be achieved. 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 356 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results 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. That vote of confidence was again shown in 2002 when the citizens voted to extend the tax for an additional 20 years. Resources were available to invest in improving County services, but additional accountability was needed to ensure that these resources were efficiently and effectively used to achieve the needed results. In 1998 after a review of “best practices” in the field of performance measurement and performancebased budgeting, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began to develop a proposal for strategic budgeting, in which strategic planning, budgeting and performance measures would be aligned in a unified process. These initial concepts came together in the Resource Accountability Project (RAP). A RAP steering committee was formed, and six pilot departments attempted to develop strategic plans with fully aligned performance measures. These initial efforts provided many valuable lessons and positioned the County to move forward. In 2000 the County sought to broaden the RAP to include all departments. OMB retained an outside consulting firm to assist in this effort. The firm reviewed Maricopa County’s progress to date, recommended improvements, and assisted 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 achieving results for Maricopa County’s citizens. 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. A sound strategic plan is a powerful tool for helping to make good business decisions and achieving department and countywide goals. An important milestone was the adoption of the Managing for Results Policy (see Attachments section) 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 actually use to help them manage their departments. The Resource Guide provided information and timelines for the County’s move toward performance-based budgeting and the integration of results-oriented performance information in every employee’s performance plan and performance 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 County 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. 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. 357 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results • 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 continues to be a part of budgeting process. The Office of Management evaluated Fiscal year 2003-04 departmental funding requests based on the Board of Supervisors’ strategic direction and budget goals, ensuring that requests aligned with departments' strategic plans. The financial cost accounting system was structured to parallel Programs, Activities, and Services (PAS) delineated within each department strategic plan. It became operational July 1, 2001 and was updated July 1,2003. Beginning in the fall of 2001, departments have reported quarterly and annual performance measurement data and provided commentary on their progress. During the fiscal year 2003-04 budget preparation process, departments allocated their budget by Programs and Activities defined within their departmental strategic plans. Why Are We Doing This? Strategic plans are developed to support management by: • Providing the right information to make good decisions; • Aligning every employee to organizational success; and • Compiling and reporting information to tell customers (citizens) what they are getting for their investment (taxes). The Managing for Results management system is designed to allow employees in Maricopa County to be able 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 each employee’s performance plan.) • We know what we have done has been effective. (Performance measures are identified and managed by 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 so we can tell how much they cost and how efficiently services are delivered. Managing for Results System Managing for Results (MfR) is a comprehensive and integrated management system that focuses on achieving results for the customer and makes it possible for departments to demonstrate accountability to taxpayers. This on-going and cyclical system is depicted below: 358 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results 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 • Data Verified Deliver Services • 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 make informed resource allocation decisions; and • Communication of goals and progress both to employees and the public. Planning for Results A well-executed strategic plan promotes common understanding of the department’s/agency’s overall direction and purpose so that individual employees can readily determine how their work, actions and behavior support the strategic direction and business success. In Planning for Results, current and future trends are examined in terms of how they may affect business. Strategic goals and operational results are developed to best manage the 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, a Mission Statement, and Strategic Goals. Operationally, departmental strategic plans organize how the department will deliver results into three levels: Services, Activity, 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, for a common purpose or result. Sets of activities that have a common purpose or result are then grouped into programs. Programs provide operational and performance information for strategic decision-making. The chart below graphically depicts the strategic planning process. 359 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results Maricopa County Developing the Strategic Plan Environmental Assessment Service Service Service Service Service Common Purpose Service Service Service Service Service Common Purpose Service Service Service Service Service Common Purpose Service Service Service Service Service Common Purpose = Activity A Purpose Statement = Activity B Purpose Statement = Activity C Purpose Statement = Activity D Purpose Statement = Activity E Purpose Statement Performance Measures - Result - Output - Demand - Efficiency Key Result A Performance Measure Performance Measures - Result - Output - Demand - Efficiency Key Result B Performance Measure Performance Measures - Result - Output - Demand - Efficiency Key Result C Performance Measure Performance Measures - Result - Output - Demand - Efficiency Key Result D Performance Measure Performance Measures - Result - Output - Demand - Efficiency Key Result E Performance Measure Issue Statements Common Purpose = Program Purpose Statement Result = Accomplishment of - Key Result A - Key Result B - Key Result C Common Purpose = Program Purpose Statement MISSION / VISION Common Purpose STRATEGIC GOALS Service Service Service Service Service Result = Accomplishment of - Key Result D - Key Result E Defining levels of operation in this manner makes it possible to demonstrate how each level contributes to results at higher level, creating an aligned organization. The following table depicts this alignment strategy: ALIGNMENT BY ACTIVITY Strategic Plan Element Maricopa County Vision Maricopa County Mission Department Vision 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: 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 ensure alignment with the department’s mission and goals. 360 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results Budgeting for Results Maricopa County is committed to developing a budget system that provides financial and performance information to help decision-makers make 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 Board policy and customer needs. Integrating Budgeting for Results with strategic planning is critical to creating an integrated management system where financial resources, policy, department operations, and County staff are all aligned to achieve results. 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. 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 does not achieve. The strategic plans, and the performance measures included within the plans, provide information about results that are meaningful both to 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: The impact or benefit customers receive from the Activity; expressed as a percentage or rate. Output: The number of units or services or delivered or products produced for the customer; expressed as a number. Demand: The number of total units of service or product demanded or needed by the customer; expressed as a number. Efficiency: The average Activity cost per Output or Result; expressed as a dollar cost or man-hours expended. Countywide, on a quarterly basis, departments report performance measure information via the Managing for Results on-line 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 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 361 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies agencies. Each department’s strategic http://www.maricopa.gov/cio/mfr/changeYear.asp. Managing For Results plan can be viewed at Maricopa County is currently converting to a new Human Resources Management System using PeopleSoft 8.8. This project, nicknamed the “Eagle Project”, will be implemented in two phases. Phase One is expected to be completed in January of 2004 and will include all basic hiring and payroll features. Phase Two, expected to be finished by July of 2004 includes a number of e-business solutions that will put Maricopa County on the leading edge of Human Resource management practices. This new system will greatly improve the ability to capture our personnel cost and more accurately assign those cost to the appropriate Activity. 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. The Maricopa County Internal Audit Department has established specific procedures to ensure that department performance information are 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. 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 policymaking, 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 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 operational, departmental and corporate levels. More information about the Maricopa County Employee Performance Management can be found at http://ebc.maricopa.gov/management/PMP_site/default.asp. 362 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results 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 to the County’s strategic goals with 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 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, aligning it with the County’s Managing for Results (MFR) initiative. This process mandates that departments include performance-related information from their strategic plan within each agenda item being presented for Board approval. This allows the Board to use performance information to help make fact-based decisions and know what the projected results that are to be achieved. Implementation of this 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 and the information contained in each department’s strategic plan are used on a daily basis to help County managers make decisions. The chart below shows many of the ways the County uses MfR information. Critical Salary Advancements Cost Accounting (Advantage) Agenda Processing Managing For Results Employee Evaluations Payroll Personnel Additions Budget Request Employee Performance Plans Purchase Orders We must plan ahead to make the best possible business decisions concerning future use 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 363 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results essential information for making policy and budget decisions that produce a high return on taxpayer dollars. 364 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast 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 2003-04 version forecasts revenues, expenditures and ending fund balances for five 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 • Transportation - Operating and Capital Projects • Flood Control District - Operating and Capital Projects • Library District - Operating and Capital Projects • Detention (Jail Excise Tax) Fund – Operating and Capital Projects “Pessimistic” versions of these schedules are not published in this document, but may be provided on request. General Assumptions This forecast provides a conservative estimate of the County’s fiscal condition through the next five 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 Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) will transform to a Special Health Care District. The voters of Maricopa County approved this district on November 4, 2003. • Extension of the Jail Excise Tax, which was approved by the voters of Maricopa County in the November 2002 election. The tax will fund the operating costs of the new jail and juvenile detention facilities. • 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, funding requirements for the CIP, and the ongoing impact of the new responsibilities shifted to the County from the State of Arizona. The current forecast is more favorable than last year’s due to the anticipation of a slow but steady economic recovery, constraints placed on operating expenditures during fiscal years 2002-03 and 200304, the approval of the Jail Tax Extension, and the creation of a Special Health Care District. While the Most Likely scenario indicates that the General Fund will remain relatively healthy throughout this forecast period, the Detention Fund is forecasted to have an operating deficit beginning in FY 2005-06. The 365 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Pessimistic scenario indicates that expenditures will exceed revenues in the General Fund beginning in Fiscal Year 2006-07. In the Most Likely scenario, annual General Fund revenue growth ranges from approximately 5.0% to 6.0% after FY 2004-05, while expenditures and fund transfers increase by approximately 5.0% annually beginning in FY 2005-06. In the Pessimistic scenario, General Fund revenue growth rates are lower, averaging just under 4.5% each year, while expenditure increases are higher, creating operating deficits that reach over $92 million by Year 5. The Most Likely scenario indicates that the Criminal Justice Facility Capital Plan will require short-term borrowing to bridge a temporary funding gap beginning in Fiscal Year 2003-04. The scenario assumes the short-term debt is entirely repaid by the end of Fiscal Year 2008-09. Revenue The Board of Supervisors adopted an overall flat combined property tax rate for FY 2003-04, 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 2003-04 level, while the Debt Service levy was reduced by $0.01 and the Library District levy was increased by $0.01. The Debt Service levy will be eliminated entirely in FY 2004-05, as the County will no longer have outstanding general obligation bonds. Also, the Library District levy will revert to $0.0421 in FY 2004-05. All other rates were held flat through the forecast horizon. The forecast continues to predict 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 2005-06 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 General Fund State Shared Sales Tax withholding at FY 2003-04 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 of 3.9% in FY 2003-04 to offset the impact of the ASRS contributions. Also, the base inflation rate is adjusted higher in FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06 to catch up with market salary disparities created by the FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 freeze in salaries. The forecast assumes the FY 2003-04 employer contribution rate to ASRS will continue for two years after which it is anticipated to increase two consecutive years until leveling off in FY 2007-08. Major maintenance for current facilities continues through the end of the forecast period. 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 of increases in the non-Federal portion of ALTCS, as well as 100% of the cost of restoration to competency costs, both of which resulted from cost-shifts in the State’s FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04 budgets. 366 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast 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. 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. State Shared Sales Taxes: Based on econometric forecasts, growth in state shared sales tax revenue is expected to grow between 4.5% to 5.0% annually, depending on the forecast scenario. State Shared Vehicle License Taxes: Vehicle License Tax (VLT) revenue grew rapidly in prior years due to biennial registration and the strong economy, and remained strong in FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 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 beginning in FY 2004-05. 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. 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. 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 Security Building lease revenue from Non-County organizations, Recorder fees for micro-graphics and Assessor Map and Copy fees. The forecast assumes that the County will phase out Non-County Security Building leases over the next four 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. 367 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast 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 include the increase of 3.9% in FY 2003-04 to offset the impact of ASRS contributions. Future years’ wages and salaries are projected to increase at the anticipated rates of inflation and population growth. For FY 2004-05 and 2005-06, an additional 0.5-1% is added to account for the lack of adjustments relative to the salary market in FY 2002-03 and FY 2004-05. Employee Benefits: Fiscal Year 2003-04 forecasted benefit costs include the projected impact of increasing ASRS contributions, as well as anticipated increases in FY 2005-06 and FY 2007-08. The forecast also predicts the continuing rise in employee health and dental insurance costs. 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 2003-04 budget of approximately $20 million increases each year in line with increases in the overall General Fund budget. • Major maintenance for current facilities continues through the end of the forecast period. • 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: With the extension of the Jail Excise Tax, the General Fund contribution is projected to continue at the required statutory base through the forecast period. The tax revenue combined with the General Fund Maintenance of Effort is not forecasted to fully cover existing and future detention facility operating costs in FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07. Current estimated costs of operating new facilities are assumed to be phased in over four fiscal years starting in FY 200304. 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 Board-sponsored 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 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 100% of costs or restoration of mental competency of criminal defendants. AHCCCS/ALTCS Contributions: Over the next 5 years, the County’s contribution to AHCCCS and ALTCS are projected to increase in line with State forecasted growth. The forecast assumes the FY 2003-04 ALTCS contribution savings will be non-recurring and that the County’s contribution level will return to pre-FY 2003-04 levels in FY 2004-05. The forecast assumes that the County will continue to cover the full impact of increases in the non-federal portion of the ALTCS program. 368 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Capital Projects Capital Project expenditures are forecasted based on the current approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. 369 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast General Fund Adopted FY 2003-04 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 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 Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Designation for Cash Flow Designation for MIHS Designation for Budget Stabilization Designation for Capital Projects Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Appropriated Fund Balance Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. Ending Unreserved Fund Balance 370 $ $ $ $ 2 FY 2004-05 3 FY 2005-06 4 FY 2006-07 5 FY 2007-08 308,122,580 $ 8,000,000 428,970 7,610,981 6,929,684 335,557,376 109,031,008 19,633,244 52,848 10,838,123 12,008,440 3,888,497 50,000 822,151,751 $ 5.48% 332,581,479 $ 8,982,000 1,179,414 7,271,807 7,723,833 358,957,430 122,303,883 20,050,332 42,278 10,922,500 5,664,145 2,272,504 50,000 878,001,605 $ 6.79% 352,661,017 $ 9,695,000 1,209,327 8,219,845 7,873,792 376,905,301 130,865,155 20,620,780 31,709 11,002,500 5,983,093 2,324,453 50,000 927,441,972 $ 5.63% 370,695,613 $ 10,280,000 1,240,001 7,708,501 8,027,499 395,750,566 140,025,716 21,221,240 21,139 11,082,500 6,286,563 2,093,662 50,000 974,483,001 $ 5.07% 101,760,800 9,327,320 111,088,120 101,760,800 9,560,000 111,320,800 101,760,800 9,800,000 111,560,800 101,760,800 10,050,000 111,810,800 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 394,029,613 10,806,000 1,271,454 8,711,607 8,185,049 415,538,095 149,827,516 21,821,714 10,570 11,162,500 6,745,696 1,864,145 50,000 1,030,023,958 5.70% 101,760,800 10,300,000 112,060,800 $ 933,239,871 $ 8.30% 989,322,405 $ 6.01% 1,039,002,772 $ 5.02% 1,086,293,801 $ 4.55% 1,142,084,758 5.14% $ 274,874,332 $ 72,802,099 2,040,212 110,105,813 155,884,986 120,866,924 72,023,898 11,826,270 101,760,800 922,185,334 $ 20.26% 301,461,692 $ 77,646,817 4,141,366 82,457,868 174,816,077 133,176,164 50,381,569 101,760,800 925,842,353 $ 0.40% 323,647,179 $ 80,593,253 4,368,002 86,214,952 183,193,992 141,243,961 52,938,500 101,760,800 973,960,639 $ 5.20% 342,621,871 $ 86,377,800 4,607,041 89,345,055 192,128,123 150,036,595 55,649,416 101,760,800 1,022,526,701 $ 4.99% 364,401,221 89,655,548 4,859,161 91,998,320 201,655,712 155,482,350 58,523,736 101,760,800 1,068,336,848 4.48% 11,054,537 $ 1.20% 63,480,052 $ 6.86% 65,042,133 $ 6.68% 63,767,100 $ 6.24% 73,747,910 6.90% $ $ $ $ $ $ 283,879,931 (104,441,505) (53,000,000) 126,438,426 11,054,537 (137,492,963) 157,441,505 $ $ $ $ 157,441,505 (107,300,000) (69,895,887) (19,754,382) 63,480,052 (43,725,670) 177,195,887 $ $ $ $ 177,195,887 (113,800,000) (91,329,871) (27,933,984) 65,042,133 (37,108,149) 205,129,871 $ $ $ $ 205,129,871 (119,600,000) (102,252,670) (16,722,799) 63,767,100 (31,414,900) 15,629,401 237,482,071 $ $ $ $ 237,482,071 (127,100,000) (106,833,685) 3,548,386 73,747,910 (33,853,900) 43,442,397 277,376,081 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Transportation Adopted FY 2003-04 2 FY 2004-05 3 FY 2005-06 4 FY 2006-07 5 FY 2007-08 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 Uses of Funds: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Net Growth Rate $ $ $ $ 1,400,000 $ 93,380 86,300,000 7,500,000 500,000 60,000 230,000 96,083,380 $ 8.70% 1,476,615 $ 95,715 90,028,300 8,025,000 480,169 61,500 235,750 100,403,048 $ 4.50% 1,557,423 $ 98,107 94,007,119 8,586,750 426,163 63,038 241,644 104,980,243 $ 4.56% 1,642,653 $ 100,560 98,312,246 9,187,823 446,549 64,613 247,685 110,002,129 $ 4.78% 1,732,547 103,074 102,538,363 9,830,970 466,805 66,229 253,877 114,991,864 4.54% 20,319,388 $ 23,211,788 2,750,241 46,281,417 $ -3.01% 21,399,064 $ 24,482,053 2,818,997 48,700,114 $ 5.23% 22,816,970 $ 25,821,833 2,889,472 51,528,275 $ 5.81% 23,764,156 $ 27,234,933 2,961,709 53,960,798 $ 4.72% 25,001,267 28,725,365 3,035,751 56,762,383 5.19% $ 2,147,226 51,304,742 53,451,968 $ 2,304,806 53,736,525 56,041,331 $ 2,485,081 55,744,400 58,229,481 $ 104,980,243 $ 110,002,129 $ 114,991,864 Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Debt Service Allocation Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out $ 1,835,655 171,064 57,000,000 59,006,719 $ 1,979,877 67,603,996 69,583,873 Total Uses $ 105,288,136 $ 118,283,987 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (9,204,756) $ (17,880,939) $ - $ - $ - $ 27,085,695 $ (9,204,756) 17,880,939 $ 17,880,939 $ (17,880,939) $ - $ - $ - Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Balance $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 371 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Flood Control District Adopted FY 2003-04 2 FY 2004-05 3 FY 2005-06 4 FY 2006-07 5 FY 2007-08 OPERATIONS (FUND 991) Most Likely Sources of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Licenses & Permits Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Total Sources Net Growth Rate Uses of Funds: Expenditures: Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures $ $ $ $ 51,153,993 $ 1,800,700 16,554,000 137,612 391,606 5,954,832 75,992,743 $ 6.98% 54,614,513 $ 1,812,104 14,844,619 162,649 962,677 15,197,759 87,594,321 $ 15.27% 58,340,105 $ 1,866,467 15,215,734 166,715 1,020,861 15,577,703 92,187,585 $ 5.24% 61,516,948 $ 1,922,461 15,596,128 170,883 1,071,489 15,967,146 96,245,054 $ 4.40% 65,770,531 1,980,135 15,986,031 175,155 1,136,943 16,366,324 101,415,119 5.37% 10,598,890 $ 13,265,576 804,650 24,669,116 $ 14% 11,154,595 $ 10,010,816 487,636 21,653,047 $ -12% 11,896,616 $ 10,456,047 509,324 22,861,986 $ 6% 12,386,057 $ 10,921,079 531,976 23,839,112 $ 4% 13,029,558 11,406,794 555,636 24,991,988 5% $ 1,022,154 65,116,358 66,138,512 $ 1,106,203 67,719,395 68,825,599 $ 1,182,320 70,723,622 71,905,942 $ 1,270,485 74,652,646 75,923,131 $ 87,791,559 $ 91,687,585 $ 95,745,054 $ 100,915,119 (197,238) $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out $ 1,136,127 54,000,000 55,136,127 Total Uses $ 79,805,243 Projected Surplus/(Deficit): $ (3,812,500) $ Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Fund Balance Designations Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. Ending Unreserved Fund Balance 372 $ $ $ $ $ 19,809,738 (15,207,157) 4,602,581 (3,812,500) 790,081 15,997,238 $ $ $ $ $ 15,997,238 (15,300,000) 697,238 (197,238) 500,000 15,800,000 $ $ $ $ $ 15,800,000 (15,800,000) 500,000 500,000 16,300,000 $ $ $ $ $ 16,300,000 (16,300,000) 500,000 500,000 16,800,000 $ $ $ $ $ 16,800,000 (16,800,000) 500,000 500,000 17,300,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Library District Adopted FY 2003-04 2 FY 2004-05 3 FY 2005-06 4 FY 2006-07 5 FY 2007-08 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 Net Growth Rate Uses of Funds: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Net Growth Rate $ 14,316,032 $ 12,269,035 $ 13,032,800 $ 13,692,160 $ 14,578,664 397,140 397,140 397,140 397,140 397,140 251,810 208,565 213,779 219,123 224,601 300,260 308,968 317,928 327,147 336,635 180,000 188,562 197,304 207,349 222,614 63,060 64,637 66,252 67,909 69,606 $ 15,508,302 $ 13,436,906 $ 14,225,203 $ 14,910,828 $ 15,829,260 40.35% -13.36% 5.87% 4.82% 6.16% $ 6,987,037 $ 7,238,219 $ 7,607,215 $ 7,810,217 $ 8,099,489 4,644,361 5,052,595 5,178,910 5,308,383 5,441,092 275,000 281,875 288,922 296,145 303,549 $ 11,906,398 $ 12,572,689 $ 13,075,047 $ 13,414,744 $ 13,844,130 2.73% 5.60% 4.00% 2.60% 3.20% Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Debt Service Allocation Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out $ Total Uses $ 12,587,786 $ 13,308,766 $ 13,859,671 $ 14,239,879 $ 14,716,964 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ 2,920,516 $ $ $ $ 1,112,296 $ 4,048,790 (3,118,634) 930,156 2,920,516 3,850,672 6,969,306 $ $ 8,133,927 (2,900,000) 5,233,927 1,112,296 6,346,224 9,246,224 Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Fund Balance Designations Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ $ $ $ 680,066 1,322 681,388 $ $ $ $ $ 736,076 736,076 128,140 6,969,306 (2,600,000) 4,369,306 128,140 4,497,446 7,097,446 $ $ $ $ $ $ 784,624 784,624 365,532 7,097,446 (2,700,000) 4,397,446 365,532 4,762,978 7,462,978 $ $ $ $ $ $ 825,134 825,134 670,949 7,462,978 (2,800,000) 4,662,978 670,949 5,333,927 8,133,927 $ $ $ $ $ 872,834 872,834 373 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Detention Fund – Operations Adopted FY 2003-04 2 FY 2004-05 3 FY 2005-06 4 FY 2006-07 5 FY 2007-08 $ 100,839,314 19,193,974 $ 120,033,288 $ 107,559,889 21,232,042 $ 128,791,931 $ 113,583,243 21,762,843 $ 135,346,086 $ 119,943,904 22,306,914 $ 142,250,818 $ 126,660,762 22,864,587 $ 149,525,349 Base Maintenance of Effort Above Base Maintenance of Effort Total Transfers In $ 118,534,727 2,332,197 $ 120,866,924 $ 133,176,164 $ 133,176,164 $ 141,243,961 $ 141,243,961 $ 150,036,595 $ 150,036,595 $ 155,482,350 $ 155,482,350 Total sources $ 240,900,212 $ 261,968,095 $ 276,590,047 $ 292,287,413 $ 305,007,699 Operating Expenditures - Existing Facilities Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal - Current Operations $ 100,146,919 11,058,652 210,823 $ 111,416,394 $ 105,921,900 30,039,825 210,823 $ 136,172,548 $ 112,286,464 30,790,821 216,094 $ 143,293,378 $ 116,286,111 31,560,591 221,496 $ 148,068,198 $ 120,591,561 32,349,606 227,033 $ 153,168,200 Operating Expenditures - New Facilities $ 18,000,000 $ 53,999,402 $ 68,991,013 $ 75,745,025 $ 81,114,560 Integ. Criminal Justice Info. System $ 2,515,543 $ 3,727,375 $ 2,112,742 $ 2,173,140 $ 2,716,823 Non-Departmental/Contingencies $ 30,744,331 $ 32,065,465 $ 32,828,778 $ 18,251,899 $ 8,675,612 OPERATIONS (Fund 255) Most Likely Sources of Funds Revenues: Jail Excise Tax Jail Per Diem & Miscellaneous Interest Income Total Revenues Fund Transfers In: Uses of Funds: (Includes Major Maintenance) Total Operating Expenditures $ 162,676,268 $ 225,964,790 $ 247,225,911 $ 244,238,261 $ 245,675,196 Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $ 78,223,944 $ 36,003,305 $ 29,364,136 $ 48,049,152 $ $ $ $ 4,913,686 4,913,686 $ $ $ 32,780,000 37,693,686 $ $ Non-Recurring Expenditures ICJIS - Phase I ICJIS - Phase II ICJIS - Phase IIII Subtotal ICJIS Non-Recurring $ 4,720,794 $ 4,835,042 $ $ 4,720,794 $ 4,835,042 $ 1,049,111 1,049,111 Appropriated Fund Balance Sub-Total Non-Recurring $ $ 56,732,437 61,453,231 $ $ 18,207,000 23,042,042 $ $ 47,562,000 48,611,111 Transfer to Detention Capital Projects $ 48,585,819 $ 12,961,265 $ Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 110,039,050 $ $ Total Expenditures (Operating Plus Non-Operating) $ 272,715,318 $ 261,968,097 Total Projected Surplus/Deficit (Operating Plus Non-Operating) $ (31,815,106) $ (2) $ (19,246,975) $ Fund Balance: Beginning Fund Balance Projected Surplus/Deficit $ 31,815,108 $ (31,815,106) 2 $ (2) $ (19,246,975) (19,246,975) $ 10,355,466 Ending Fund Balance $ $ (19,246,975) $ (8,891,509) $ 374 2 $ 36,003,307 - 48,611,111 $ 295,837,022 $ $ 37,693,686 $ 281,931,947 10,355,466 59,332,503 11,980,000 11,980,000 $ 38,460,994 $ 50,440,994 $ 296,116,190 $ 8,891,509 (8,891,509) 8,891,509 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Detention Fund – Capital Projects Adopted FY 2003-04 FY 19 CAPITAL PROJECTS (Fund 455) Most Likely Sources of Funds: Transfer-In from Detention Operating F $ $ Total Sources 2 FY 2004-05 48,585,819 48,585,819 $ $ $ Uses of Funds $ 117,361,689 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (68,775,870) $ $ (587,190) $ (68,775,870) (69,363,060) $ Unreserved Fund Balance: Beginning Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Balance $ Pessimistic Sources of Funds: Transfer-In from Detention Operating F $ Total Sources $ 48,585,819 48,585,819 $ $ $ Uses of Funds $ 117,361,689 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (68,775,870) $ $ (587,190) $ (68,775,870) (69,363,060) $ Unreserved Fund Balance: Beginning Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Balance $ 12,961,265 12,961,265 12,961,265 3 FY 2005-06 $ $ $ $ (69,363,060) $ 12,961,265 (56,401,795) $ 30,334,397 30,334,397 30,334,397 $ $ $ $ (69,363,060) $ 30,334,397 (39,028,663) $ 2,976,424 2,976,424 2,976,424 4 FY 2006-07 $ $ $ $ (56,401,795) $ 2,976,424 (53,425,371) $ 2,976,424 2,976,424 2,976,424 10,355,466 10,355,466 10,355,466 5 FY 2007-08 $ $ $ $ (53,425,371) $ 10,355,466 (43,069,905) $ $ $ - $ $ $ - $ $ - $ (39,028,663) $ 2,976,424 (36,052,239) $ (36,052,239) $ (36,052,239) $ 43,069,905 43,069,905 43,069,905 (43,069,905) 43,069,905 - 14,048,579 14,048,579 14,048,579 (36,052,239) 14,048,579 (22,003,660) 375 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 376 Financial Forecast Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates 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 courtordered 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 2003-04 budget process, the Office of Management and Budget surveyed every County department in order to update the mandate study performed during FY 2002-03. 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. Executive Summary The 2003 Arizona Legislature focused upon solving one of the worst fiscal crises in state history by shifting mandated responsibilities to county taxpayers without appropriate funding. In addition, Maricopa County faces more challenges due to the slow economic recovery. 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, the County’s expenditure growth trend expands at a greater rate than the population increases. Population Expenditures FY 2000 3,099,000 1,842,000 MARICOPA COUNTY POPULATION & EXPENDITURE GROWTH COMPARISON FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 3,194,200 3% 3,288,900 3% 3,381,900 3% 2,025,000 10% 2,143,000 6% 2,464,000 15% FY 2004 3,476,200 2,495,000 3% 1% 377 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates Nearly $32 million of the state’s budget shortfall that was shifted to Maricopa County this fiscal year as shown in the chart at right. $52 million has been shifted over a twoyear period. This FY 2003-04 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. As demonstrated on the table below, $1,469,744,597 or 57.1% of the Maricopa County FY 2003-04 budget expenditures of $2,574,123,176 (not including appropriated beginning fund balance of $242,811,219, debt service of $35,017,173, and eliminations of $591,932,007) are committed to satisfying mandated services. In addition, $165,647,190 or 6.4% in administrative mandates provides essential support to mandated services. Consolidating budgeted mandates with administrative mandates total $1,635,391,787 or 63.5% of the FY 2003-04 budget. The remaining expenditures of $940,169,590 or 36.5% are non-mandate, and a vast majority of these expenditures are associated with the County Hospital FY 2003-04 BUDGET EXPENDITURES FUND MANDATES PERCENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERCENT OF NONPERCENT OF BUDGET MANDATES BUDGET MANDATED BUDGET General Fund $ 786,674,356 Special Revenue 418,728,440 264,243,081 Capital Projects Enterprise 98,720 Internal Service Total All Funds $ 1,469,744,597 30.6% $ 16.3% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 57.1% $ 119,937,870 152,063 45,557,257 165,647,190 4.7% $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 6.4% $ 15,065,932 121,885,696 407,135 777,201,025 25,609,802 940,169,590 0.6% 4.7% 0.0% 30.2% 1.0% 36.5% The table below breaks-out FY 2003-04 consolidated mandates by fund as a percent of total mandates. Consolidated General Fund mandates of $906.6 million represents 55.4% of all mandated expenditures. Consolidated Special Revenue Fund mandates of $418.8 million represents 25.6% of all mandated expenditures. Consolidated Capital Projects Fund mandates of $264.2 million represents 16.2% of all mandated expenditures. Consolidated Internal Service Fund mandates of $45.6 million represents 2.8% of all mandated expenditures. FY 2003-04 CONSOLIDATED MANDATES BY FUND FUND GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND INTERNAL SERVICE FUND 378 MANDATES $ 906,612,226 418,880,503 264,243,081 45,655,977 PERCENT OF TOTAL MANDATES 55.4% 25.6% 16.2% 2.8% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates The chart at left shows the breakout of mandates and non-mandated expenditures by fund in the FY 2003-04 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 mandated versus non-mandated expenditures as a percent of budget are shown on the chart at right. The expenditures are presented by category and include all funds. 379 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2003-04 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 2003-04 budget, including all funds, is comprised of 63.5% 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 Education $ General Government Highways & Streets Health Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Totals $ 166,039,528 166,039,528 Appointed Departments Elected Officials $ 1,847,755.0 35,489,622 226,860,610 264,197,987 $ $ $ 419,848,268 125,745,364 385,461,170 201,980,713 1,133,035,515 Special Districts $ $ 72,118,667 72,118,667 Totals $ $ 1,847,755.0 455,337,890 125,745,364 385,461,170 666,999,608 1,635,391,787 FY 2003-04 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES VS. MANDATED EXPENDITURES FOR ALL FUNDS Expenditure Category Budgeted Expenditures FY 2003-04 Education $ Culture & Recreation General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Totals $ 14,435,572 9,262,547 481,487,692 126,095,364 1,266,067,070 678,213,132 2,575,561,377 Mandated Expenditures % Mandates Of FY 2003-04 Total Expenditures $ $ 1,847,755 0 455,337,890 125,745,364 385,461,170 666,999,608 1,635,391,787 0.1% 0.0% 17.7% 4.9% 15.0% 25.9% 63.5% % Mandates Of Total Mandates 0.1% 0.0% 27.8% 7.7% 23.6% 40.8% 100.0% 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 102 thousand or 3.2% during 2002 while the state’s population increased more slowly, at 2.8%, and the nation’s population increased by 1.1%. 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 decreased $279 million or 9.8% from FY 2002-03, and mandated expenditures alone decreased by $225 million or 12% over the same period of time. These decreases are due to capital projects being completed during this fiscal year. The chart at left shows mandated dollar and percent splits for the FY 2003-04 expenditure budget. 380 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2003-04 General Fund Mandates The FY 2003-04 General Fund budget totals $921,678,158, (excluding appropriated fund balances, eliminations and debt service). General Fund mandates total $906,612,226, or 98.4% of the General Fund budget. Maricopa County’s General Fund budgeted expenditures increased $51,335,675 or 5.5% from FY 2002-03, and mandated expenditures increased by $55,482,983 or 6.1% over the same period of time. The significant growth in General Fund mandated expenditures within the FY 2003-04 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. 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 Education General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety ELECTED OFFICIALS JUDICIAL BRANCH $ 106,284,916 106,284,916 Totals $ $ $ 1,847,755 31,085,476 103,511,504 136,444,735 APPOINTED DEPARTMENTS $ $ 276,187,165 340,422,495 47,272,915 663,882,575 SPECIAL DISTRICTS $ - $ TOTALS $ 1,847,755 307,272,641 340,422,495 257,069,335 $ 906,612,226 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE & MANDATE SUMMARY FY 2003-04 BUDGET EXPENDITURES Judicial Branch $ Elected Officials Appointed Departments Totals $ 106,284,916 136,444,735 678,948,507 921,678,158 FY 2003-04 BUDGET MANDATES $ $ 106,284,916 136,444,735 663,882,575 906,612,226 % VARIANCE TOTAL BUDGET FY 2003-04 BUDGET NON-MANDATED 11.5% $ 14.8% 72.0% 98.4% $ 15,065,932 15,065,932 % VARIANCE TOTAL BUDGET 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.6% The chart at left provides a breakout of the General Fund mandated and non-mandated expenditures over time. FY 2003-04 General Fund mandates represent 98.4% and non-mandated expenditures represent 1.6% of total General Fund expenditures budgeted. General Fund mandates of $906.6 million equate to 35.2% of all funds budgeted for FY 2003-04; and total 55.4% of FY 2003-04 budgeted mandates for all funds. General Fund non-mandated expenditures represent $15.06 million or 1.6% of the FY 200304 General Fund budget, as outlined on the table at right. FY 2003-04 GENERAL FUND NON-MANDATED EXPENDITURES Non-Mandated Expenditures General Government $ 100,000 Health Care Mandates 12,506,059 Human Services 945,707 Parks & Recreation 1,514,166 Total $ 15,065,932 Just over $12.5 million of FY 2003-04 General Fund nonmandated expenditures fall under Health Care Mandates and represent the Health Care Delivery System teaching program subsidize budgeted for FY 2003-04 381 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates General Fund Health, Welfare & Sanitation Mandates The largest group of General Fund mandated activities fall under the category of Health, Welfare & Sanitation. $340.4 million or 37.5% of General Fund mandates fall in this category. Health Care Mandates make up the majority of non-mandated expenditures at $12.5 million for FY 2003-04 The breakout of mandates in the FY 2003-04 General Fund budget for Health, Welfare & Sanitation is shown on the chart at left. Of $353.8 million in total Health, Welfare & Sanitation General Fund expenditures, $340.4 million are mandated and $13.4 million are non-mandated. 100% of all General Fund expenditures in Animal Care & Control, Environmental Services, Medical Examiner, Public Health and Health Care Mandates departments are mandated. 96% of the Health Care Mandates department General Fund Expenditures are mandated, with the remaining 4% nonmandated. 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 vicious dogs while enforcing rabies quarantine and vaccine requirements. General Fund Public Safety Mandates General Fund Public Safety mandates total $257.1 million or 28.3% of total General Fund mandates. 100% of all General Fund Public Safety expenditures in the FY 2003-04 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, Trial Courts, and the Sheriff’s Office. Maricopa County’s population growth impacts public safety, particularly in the unincorporated areas of the County. General Fund Public Safety mandates represent 27.8% of the total FY 200304 General Fund budget and 28.3% of General Fund mandates. The chart at right shows the the average daily adult jail population in Maricopa County. Since 1991, Maricopa County’s adult jail population has almost doubled. 382 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates General Fund General Government 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, Debt Service, State of Arizona Budget Cuts, Outside Legal Counsel, Tax Appeals, and Indigent Burials. 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 2003-04 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 $728.9 million. The table below provides a breakout of these mandates. Fund Special Revenue $ Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Totals $ Mandates 419,032,566 264,243,081 45,655,977 728,931,624 % Budget Non-Mandated 78.1% $ 99.8% 0.0% 64.1% 28.3% $ 121,885,696 407,135 777,201,025 25,609,802 925,103,658 % Budget 22.7% 0.2% 100.0% 35.9% 35.9% 383 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates Mandate Study - Summary Schedules Consolidated Mandates – Including All Funds CONSOLIDATED MANDATES - INCLUDING ALL FUNDS BY CATEGORY Expenditure Category FY 2003-04 Budget FY 2003-04 Mandates $ Variance Culture & Recreation $ 9,262,547 $ $ 9,262,547 Education 14,435,572 1,847,755 12,587,817 General Government 481,487,692 455,337,890 26,149,802 Highways & Streets 126,095,364 125,745,364 350,000 Health, Welfare & Sanitation 1,266,067,070 385,461,170 880,605,900 Public Safety 678,213,132 666,999,608 11,213,524 Totals $ 2,575,561,377 $ 1,635,391,787 $ 940,169,590 % Variance 100.0% 87.2% 5.4% 0.3% 69.6% 1.7% 36.5% CONSOLIDATED MANDATES - INCLUDING ALL FUNDS BY EXPENDITURE TYPE Expenditure Type FY 2003-04 Budget FY 2003-04 Mandates $ Variance % Variance Judicial Branch $ 166,039,528 $ 166,039,528 $ 0.0% Elected Officials 264,198,077 264,198,077 0.0% Appointed Departments 2,064,261,530 1,133,035,515 931,226,015 45.1% Special Districts 80,162,242 72,118,667 8,043,575 10.0% Totals $ 2,574,661,377 $ 1,635,391,787 $ 939,269,590 36.5% CONSOLIDATED MANDATES - BY FUND TYPE Expenditure Type General Fund Special Revenue Fund Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Fund 384 FY 2003-04 Budget FY 2003-04 Mandates $ Variance $ 921,678,158 $ 906,612,226 $ 15,065,932 540,766,199 418,880,503 121,885,696 264,650,216 264,243,081 407,135 777,201,025 777,201,025 71,265,779 45,655,977 25,609,802 Totals $ 2,575,561,377 $ 1,635,391,787 $ 940,169,590 % Variance 1.6% 22.5% 0.2% 100.0% 35.9% 36.5% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Department Judicial Branch Adult Probation Trial Courts Juvenile Probation Mandates FY 2003-04 BUDGETED MANDATES BY DEPARTMENT AND FUND General Special Revenue Enterprise Internal Fund Funds Capital Projects Funds Service Funds $ Sub-Total $ 36,360,604 58,294,709 11,629,603 106,284,916 $ $ 14,234,945 11,650,518 33,087,751 58,973,214 $ $ 781,398 781,398 $ $ - $ $ - Total Mandates $ $ 50,595,549 69,945,227 45,498,752 166,039,528 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 $ Appointed Departments Animal Care & Control $ Call Center Chief Information Offficer Communications Coummunity 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 Human Resources Human Services Integrated Criminal Justic Information System 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 $ Special Districts Flood Control District $ Sub-Total $ TOTAL MANDATES $ 14,765,952 1,123,780 450,169 21,246,745 1,613,814 43,404,402 8,219,888 958,022 1,859,996 37,246,543 1,847,755 3,707,669 136,444,735 $ 7,721,621 11,131,793 4,404,146 102,790,411 126,047,971 $ 304,041 1,325,517 4,877,950 9,354,848 $ $ $ 7,613,613 21,837,046 1,352,369 18,049,882 31,224,230 4,500,000 7,236,337 78,974 10,416 5,040,898 1,633,570 11,439,948 3,435,232 48,288,136 161,740,651 $ $ 72,118,667 72,118,667 $ $ $ 418,880,503 $ $ 1,155,331 152,182 753,844 26,054,852 2,492,291 230,872,737 328,989,895 2,741,834 5,428,346 1,566,112 1,244,722 3,881,203 4,725,749 27,611,790 1,841,113 6,493,512 2,014,706 663,882,575 906,612,226 $ $ 1,705,371 1,705,371 $ 156,499 117,361,689 66,780,896 - $ 77,457,228 261,756,312 264,243,081 $ - $ - $ $ - 800,490 - - 8,171,022 - - 834,991 - $ - $ 12,214,470 23,635,004 45,655,977 $ $ - $ $ $ - $ 45,655,977 $ $ $ 14,765,952 1,123,780 450,169 28,968,366 1,613,814 54,536,195 8,219,888 958,022 6,264,142 141,742,325 1,847,755 3,707,669 264,198,077 $ 7,917,654 1,325,517 4,877,950 800,490 9,354,848 21,993,545 1,155,331 117,361,689 1,504,551 18,803,726 8,171,022 26,054,852 2,492,291 328,877,863 333,489,895 2,741,834 7,236,337 5,507,320 1,566,112 2,079,713 3,881,203 4,736,165 5,040,898 29,245,360 1,841,113 17,933,460 3,435,232 12,214,470 25,649,710 125,745,364 1,133,035,515 $ $ 72,118,667 72,118,667 $ 1,635,391,787 Departments with the greatest allocation of mandated dollars budgeted include General Government with $329 million, Health Care Mandates with $333 million, Capital Facilities Development with $117 million, Transportation with $125 million, the Sheriff’s Office with $141 million, and the Flood Control District with $72 million. 385 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates The chart at right compares mandated FY 2002-03 budget expenditures for all funds, to those of FY 2003-04, by category. Mandates have decreased by over 14.9% from FY 2002-03. The largest decrease occurred in Public Safety, followed closely by Highways & Streets, Health, Welfare & Sanitation and General Government. Decreases in the Public Safety mandates were primarily due to infrastructure capital projects being completed. However, a majority of the departments within the Public Safety category showed increases in mandates year-over-year. Health, Welfare & Sanitation mandate decreases were due to slight decreases in nearly all of the departments that comprise the category. FY 2003-04 MANDATED EXPENDITURES BY TYPE FOR ALL FUNDS Mandate Type Judicial Branch Elected Officials Appointed Departments Special Districts $ Total $ Total Mandates 166,039,528 264,198,077 1,133,035,515 72,118,667 1,635,391,787 The chart at left provides mandated expenditures by type for all funds as a percent of total mandates. 386 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2003-04 BUDGET AND MANDATE COMPARISON BY CATEGORY FOR ALL FUNDS Expenditure Category Culture & Recreation Parks & Recreation Stadium District Culture & Recreation Total Education Library District Superintendent of Schools Budgeted Expenditures FY 2003-04 $ $ $ Education Total $ 6,794,631 2,467,916 9,262,547 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12,587,817 12,587,817 0.00% 0.07% 0.07% 0.00% 0.11% 0.11% - $ 100,000 440,000 25,609,802 26,149,802 0.57% 0.04% 0.05% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 10.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 11.48% 0.90% 0.07% 0.08% 0.30% 0.03% 0.05% 0.07% 0.50% 0.50% 1.58% 0.15% 19.99% 0.17% 0.06% 0.10% 0.13% 0.11% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 1.56% 0.23% 27.67% $ - $ $ 350,000 350,000 4.88% 4.88% 7.64% 7.64% $ 3,581,498 2,527,336 6,108,834 $ 15,857,672 30,790 359,748,694 12,506,059 418,509,967 35,978,044 0.31% 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 12.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.15% 0.60% 0.13% 14.73% 0.48% 0.00% 1.14% 0.00% 20.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 1.09% 0.21% 23.42% - $ 8,043,575 3,169,949 11,213,524 1.96% 1.12% 0.06% 0.36% 0.85% 2.12% 4.56% 0.06% 2.80% 0.28% 1.77% 0.18% 0.21% 0.20% 1.14% 5.50% 2.72% 25.90% 3.07% 1.76% 0.10% 0.57% 1.34% 3.31% 7.13% 0.09% 4.38% 0.44% 2.76% 0.29% 0.33% 0.31% 1.78% 8.61% 4.25% 40.53% $ 940,169,590 57.07% 100.00% $ $ 7,917,654 15,857,672 18,834,516 359,748,694 345,995,954 418,509,967 35,978,044 3,881,203 55,008,134 4,335,232 $ 1,266,067,070 7,917,654 18,803,726 329,908,397 3,881,203 15,406,124 3,435,232 $ 379,352,336 $ $ $ $ $ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $ $ 126,095,364 126,095,364 8,219,888 98,720 242,910 $ 50,595,549 28,968,366 1,613,814 9,354,848 21,993,545 54,536,195 117,361,689 1,504,551 80,162,242 7,236,337 45,498,752 4,736,165 5,507,320 8,210,847 29,245,360 141,742,325 69,945,227 678,213,132 $ 2,575,561,377 $ 50,595,549 28,968,366 1,613,814 9,354,848 21,993,545 54,536,195 117,361,689 1,504,551 72,118,667 7,236,337 45,498,752 4,736,165 5,507,320 5,040,898 29,245,360 141,742,325 69,945,227 666,999,608 $ 1,469,744,597 - 6,794,631 2,467,916 9,262,547 $ 125,745,364 $ 125,745,364 $ $ 14,765,952 1,123,780 1,325,517 450,169 $ $ 257,710,274 49,400 1,841,113 6,264,142 3,707,669 $ 295,799,534 $ Grand Total $ - % Consolidated Mandates of Total Mandates 4,877,950 800,490 1,155,331 8,072,302 25,811,942 2,492,291 71,167,589 2,741,834 908,622 1,566,112 2,079,713 12,214,470 25,649,710 $ 159,538,356 $ 1,847,755 1,847,755 $ % Mandates of Total Expenditures $ Highways & Streets Transportation Highways & Streets Total Public Safety Adult Probation Clerk of the Superior Court Constables Contract Counsel Correctional Health County Attorney Capital Facilities Development Emergency Management Flood Control District Integrated Criminal Justice Information Sys Juvenile Probation Office of Legal Advocate Legal Defender Planning & Development Public Defender Sheriff Trial Courts Public Safety Total $ - Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2003-04 $ 14,765,952 1,123,780 1,325,517 4,877,950 450,169 800,490 1,155,331 8,219,888 8,171,022 26,054,852 2,492,291 328,977,863 2,741,834 958,022 1,566,112 2,079,713 1,841,113 6,264,142 440,000 25,609,802 12,214,470 25,649,710 3,707,669 481,487,692 Health, Welfare & Sanitation Animal Care & Control Community Development Environmental Services Health Care Delivery System Health Care Mandates Health Plans Human Services Medical Examiner Public Health Solid Waste Health, Welfare & Sanitation Total $ Administrative Mandates FY 2003-04 12,587,817 1,847,755 14,435,572 General Government Assessor Board of Supervisors Call Center Chief Information Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Communications 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 $ Mandated Expenditures FY 2003-04 $ $ $ 165,647,190 $ $ $ 37,074,674 900,000 $ 880,605,900 $ 387 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates The table below compares year-over-year budget expenditures and year-over-year mandate expenditures for all funds. The total FY 2003-04 expenditure budget for all funds decreased by 9.8% from FY 2002-03, whereas mandates decreased by 11.5% over the same period of time. Expenditure Category Culture & Recreation $ Education General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Totals $ Budget Expenditures FY 2002-03 14,009,214 15,356,136 482,861,061 185,529,670 1,316,123,743 841,525,159 2,855,404,983 Budget Expenditures FY 2003-04 $ $ 9,262,547 14,435,572 481,487,692 126,095,364 1,266,067,070 678,213,132 2,575,561,377 % Budget Variance $ $ (0) $ -6.0% -0.3% -32.0% -3.8% -19.4% (0) $ Mandate Expenditures FY 2002-03 1,651,193 453,708,836 184,847,670 390,156,419 830,128,973 1,860,493,091 Mandate Expenditures FY 2003-04 $ $ 1,847,755 295,799,534 125,745,364 379,352,336 666,999,608 1,469,744,597 % Mandate Variance 0.0% 11.9% -34.8% -32.0% -2.8% -19.7% -21.0% General Fund Mandates The FY 2003-04 General Fund budget totals $921.7 million of which $906.6 or 98.4% is mandated. The chart at right compares year-over-year General Fund mandates and nonmandated budget expenditures. FY 2003-04 General Fund mandated expenditures by major department are shown on the chart at left. 388 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates GENERAL FUND MANDATES FY 2003-04 GENERAL FUND BUDGETED MANDATES FY 2003-04 BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT Mandates Administrative Mandates Consolidated Mandates Education Superintendent of Schools $ Sub-Total $ 1,847,755 1,847,755 General Government Assessor $ 14,765,952 Board of Supervisors 1,123,780 Call Center 1,325,517 Chief Information Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 450,169 County Administrative Officer Elections 8,219,888 Facilities Management 242,910 Finance General Government 159,857,211 Human Resources Internal Audit 49,400 Management and Budget Materials Management Public Fiduciary 1,841,113 Recorder 1,859,996 Research & Reporting Risk Management Telecommunications Total Compensation Treasurer 3,707,669 Sub-Total $ 193,443,605 Health, Welfare & Sanitation Animal Care & Control $ 304,041 Environmental Services 753,844 Health Care Mandates 325,408,397 Medical Examiner 3,881,203 Public Health 3,966,176 Sub-Total $ 334,313,661 Public Safety Adult Probation Clerk of the Superior Court Constables Contract Counsel County Attorney Emergency Management Juvenile Probation Legal Defender Office of Legal Advocate Public Defender Sheriff Trial Courts 36,360,604 21,246,745 1,613,814 9,354,848 43,404,402 152,182 11,629,603 5,428,346 4,725,749 27,611,790 37,246,543 58,294,709 Sub-Total $ 257,069,335 TOTAL GENERAL FUND MANDATES $ $ 786,674,356 $ $ $ $ $ - 4,877,950 1,155,331 25,811,942 2,492,291 71,015,526 2,741,834 908,622 1,566,112 1,244,722 2,014,706 113,829,036 - $ $ 1,847,755 1,847,755 $ 14,765,952 1,123,780 1,325,517 4,877,950 450,169 1,155,331 8,219,888 26,054,852 2,492,291 230,872,737 2,741,834 958,022 1,566,112 1,244,722 1,841,113 1,859,996 2,014,706 3,707,669 307,272,641 $ $ 3,581,498 $ $ $ $ 2,527,336 6,108,834 119,937,870 $ $ 304,041 753,844 328,989,895 3,881,203 6,493,512 340,422,495 $ 36,360,604 21,246,745 1,613,814 9,354,848 43,404,402 152,182 11,629,603 5,428,346 4,725,749 27,611,790 37,246,543 58,294,709 257,069,335 $ 906,612,226 389 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Mandates GENERAL FUND MANDATE COMPARISON Judicial Branch Adult Probation Juvenile Probation Trial Courts Sub-Total 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 Sub-Total Appointed Departments Animal Care & Control Call Center Contract Counsel Emergency Management Environmental Services Facilities Management General Government Health Care Mandates Legal Advocate Legal Defender Medical Examiner Public Defender Public Fiduciary Public Health Sub-Total Total Mandated Services Percent of General Fund Expenditures General Fund Budgeted Mandates FY 2002-03 General Fund Budgeted Mandates FY 2003-04 $ Variance Increase (Decrease) $ $ $ 14,210,964 11,608,350 55,806,575 81,625,889 $ $ 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 $ 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 $ Non-Mandated Services General Government Health Care Mandates Human Services Parks & Recreation 748,386,776 86.0% $ 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 and Budget Materials Management Public Health Total Compensation $ $ 155.9% 0.2% 4.5% 30.2% (25,894) (63,045) (46,517) 226,504 40,571 1,052,195 (1,915,485) 39,400 (10,958) 106,634 196,562 29,253 (370,780) -0.2% -5.3% -9.4% 1.1% 2.6% 2.5% -18.9% 394.0% -0.6% 0.3% 11.9% 0.8% -0.3% $ 2,204 3,942,912 75,074 16,512 242,910 12,422,461 (2,983,275) 896,910 430,413 (7,072) 395,104 20,988 44,152 15,499,293 0.0% 0.2% 72.9% 97.4% 2.2% 0.0% 8.4% -0.9% 23.4% 8.6% -0.2% 1.5% 1.2% 1.1% 2.9% 786,674,356 58.9% $ 38,287,580 5.1% 100,000 945,707 1,514,166 2,559,873 $ $ (2,965,433) (13,140,300) (321,396) (226,238) (16,653,367) -96.7% -100.0% -25.4% -13.0% -86.7% $ $ $ $ $ $ 304,041 1,325,517 9,354,848 152,182 753,844 242,910 159,857,211 325,408,397 4,725,749 5,428,346 3,881,203 27,611,790 1,841,113 3,966,176 544,853,327 $ 3,065,433 13,140,300 1,267,103 1,740,404 19,213,240 22,149,640 21,253 2,488,134 24,659,027 14,765,952 1,123,780 450,169 21,246,745 1,613,814 43,404,402 8,219,888 49,400 1,859,996 37,246,543 1,847,755 3,707,669 135,536,113 $ $ $ 36,360,604 11,629,603 58,294,709 106,284,916 % Variance Increase (Decrease) $ 19,213,240 2.2% $ 2,559,873 0.3% $ (16,653,367) -86.7% 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 $ 4,877,950 1,155,331 25,811,942 2,492,291 71,015,526 2,152,324 2,741,834 908,622 1,566,112 1,244,722 2,527,336 2,014,706 118,508,696 $ -7.3% -20.8% -2.1% 8.9% 35.7% -42.1% -28.7% -9.5% -1.3% -9.9% 3.5% 92.9% 15.3% $ (385,627) (303,145) (558,133) 203,129 18,673,380 (1,564,014) (1,103,008) (95,536) (21,248) (136,262) 86,478 970,215 15,766,229 Total Administrative Mandates Percent of General Fund Expenditures $ 198,762,881 11.8% $ 118,508,696 12.8% $ (80,254,185) -40.4% Grand Total General Fund Expenditures $ 870,342,483 $ 907,742,925 $ 37,400,442 4.3% Sub-Total 390 $ $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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 41 appointed departments, including 3 Special Districts, for which the County Board of Supervisors acts as the Board of Directors. Countywide Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Superintendent of Schools Constables (23) County Attorney Board of Supervisors Board of Directors for Flood Control, Library and Stadium Districts Sheriff Clerk of the Court Assessor Treasurer Recorder Elected Appointed County Administrative Officer Clerk of the Board Internal Audit STAR Call Center Elections Deputy County Administrator Legal Defender Contract Counsel Deputy County Administrator Public Defender Health Services Officer Legal Advocacy Finance Officer Maricopa Integrated Health System Community Services Officer Office of Communications Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Regional Development Services Agency Officer Information Technology Officer Management & Budget Public Health Finance Parks & Recreation Planning & Development Office of the CIO Human Resources Human Services Risk Management Community Development Transportation Telecommunications Research & Reporting Medical Examiner Materials Management Public Fiduciary Emergency Management General Government Animal Care & Control Services Solid Waste Facilities Management Health Care Mandates Environmental Services Library District Equipment Services Total Compensation Conrectional Health Stadium District Capital Facilities Development Flood Control District 391 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Countywide Organizational Chart (Continued) Arizona Courts in Maricopa County Clerk of Superior Court Trial Courts, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Superior Court Judges and Commissioners Maricopa County Justice Courts Juvenile Court Center Adult Probation Justice Court Administration Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Superior Court Elected Officials Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors Superintendent of Schools Dr. Sandra Dowling Sheriff Joe Arpaio Constables (23) County Attorney Richard Romley Fulton Brock, Chairman Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Clerk of the Court Michael Jeanes Treasurer Doug Todd 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. 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. 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. 392 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) Elected Biographies Fulton Brock, District 1 – Chairman (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. Don Stapley, 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 1997 and 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 twoyear 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. 393 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) Max W Wilson, District 4 (Republican) Max 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 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. 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 service. 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. Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox, District 5 (Democrat) Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox was born in Superior, Arizona and is a fourth generation Arizona native from a pioneer Mexican-American family. Ms. Wilcox was re-elected to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in 2000 for a third four-year term. Ms. Wilcox previously served on the Phoenix City Council for nine years. She was honored as being the first Hispanic woman ever to serve on the Phoenix City Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Wilcox 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 Chair for National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund. Ms. Wilcox and her husband Earl have a daughter and five grandsons. Kevin M Ross, Assessor (Republican) 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. 394 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) Richard M Romley, Attorney (Republican) Richard M. Romley’s first term as County Attorney began January 1, 1989. Now serving his fourth consecutive term, he has taken a leadership position on many criminal justice issues, including victims rights, DUI legislation, domestic violence, protection of children, slumlord abatement, and illegal drugs. During his tenure, the Office has received national recognition and numerous rewards for leadership and innovation. In 2001, the Disabled American Veterans awarded Romley the National Commander’s Award. He was subsequently honored in Washington, D.C., with LIFE’s Presidential Unsung Hero Award. An Arizona native, Romley served two years as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam. Afterwards, he enrolled in Arizona State University, earning degrees in Business and Law. Romley began his career as a prosecutor with the City of Phoenix in 1980. Two years later, 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 and re-elected to a second term in November 2002. 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 23 years of court/county management experience, which include 17 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; processing over $101 million in victim restitution, trust monies, fines and fees and over 1.7 million documents per year. Mr. Jeanes is active in many local and national professional organizations. Michael and his wife, Jill, have three sons. Helen Purcell, Recorder (Republican) Helen Purcell 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 Voting-Arizona. 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 Environmental 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 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. 395 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) Joseph M Arpaio, Sheriff (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. 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 40 school districts, providing educational programs, maintaining payroll services for 16,000 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 elected to the office of County Treasurer in November 1992, re-elected in 1996 and 2000. 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). A native Arizonan, Doug was born and grew up in Prescott. He moved to Tempe in 1947 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, and retired from all farming operations in 1974. Doug lives in Tempe with his wife, Mary Anne Corbell Todd. They have five children and many grandchildren and a couple of great grandchildren. 396 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Assessor Organizational Chart Assessor Assessor Kevin Ross, Kevin Ross,County CountyAssessor Assessor Administration Personal Property Real Property Support Services Information Services GIS/ Mapping CAMA Modeling Mission 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 do our very Best. 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 annually “satisfies" at least 95% of the public and taxing jurisdictions based upon satisfaction surveys. • To achieve timely and accurate identification of property owners that is updated within 45 days of a recorded change at least 95% of the time. • 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 showing continued improvement. • New Construction being added to our system within 30 days of completion at least 99% of the time. Issues • A competitive market for quality employees will continue to create a problem of retaining qualified and experienced staff. • The county's strong real estate industry will continue to stretch our resources in keeping up with new construction and property, splits, sales, appeals and other growth issues. 397 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Assessor (Continued) • 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. • Inter-operability of county and other government agencies will impact departments' abilities to achieve objectives. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED ASSESSOR TOTAL FUNDS Program INFORMATION RESOURCE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 847,684 9,671,370 506,138 1,626,621 12,651,813 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 150,053 1,609,101 110,740 146,967 2,016,861 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ 97,278 97,278 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 997,737 11,280,471 616,878 1,870,866 14,765,952 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 13,921,894 $ 14,354,295 $ 14,494,126 $ 14,410,210 $ 14,765,952 $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,921,894 14,354,295 14,494,126 14,410,210 14,765,952 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 13,921,894 $ 14,354,295 $ 14,494,126 $ 14,410,210 $ 14,765,952 $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,921,894 14,354,295 14,494,126 14,410,210 14,765,952 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 398 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 133,669 133,669 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Assessor (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The County Assessor is an elected official of Maricopa County. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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: 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. 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. 399 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Assessor (Continued) 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 Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 120 ASSESSOR Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 12,652,267 $ 2,016,407 $ 97,278 $ 14,765,952 $ 133,669 ALL FUNDS $ 12,652,267 $ 2,016,407 $ 97,278 $ 14,765,952 $ 133,669 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 120 ASSESSOR ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 188,221 188,221 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ 9,723,933 175,129 33,032 2,240,036 6,320 12,178,450 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 CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ Subtotal $ 389,869 15,299 2,545 591 525,695 410,602 151,106 40,221 172,212 388,151 37,818 2,134,109 $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 400 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ $ 133,669 133,669 9,952,268 97,600 30,000 2,505,271 6,000 12,591,139 $ 332,000 12,000 2,100 485,999 413,437 168,200 45,807 210,200 386,060 39,996 2,095,799 181,570 181,570 $ $ 14,494,129 $ (14,305,908) $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ 133,669 133,669 9,960,040 127,435 30,000 2,509,278 6,000 12,632,753 $ 331,759 12,000 2,100 453,283 413,437 168,200 45,807 210,200 377,403 39,996 2,054,185 104,908 104,908 $ $ 14,791,846 $ (14,658,177) $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 133,304 133,304 9,682,106 121,510 25,206 2,301,893 6,175 12,136,890 $ 282,273 11,619 2,564 6,221 387,474 441,516 155,549 37,569 203,164 422,700 37,332 1,987,981 104,908 104,908 $ $ 14,791,846 $ (14,658,177) $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ $ 133,669 133,669 10,003,019 127,435 30,000 2,485,813 6,000 12,652,267 $ 295,646 10,000 3,000 395,000 435,992 150,000 35,717 195,000 455,000 41,052 2,016,407 135,871 135,871 $ $ 14,260,742 $ (14,127,438) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ 133,669 133,669 10,003,019 127,435 30,000 2,485,813 6,000 12,652,267 $ $ $ - 0% 0% (42,979) 23,465 (19,514) 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 11% 17% -43% $ 295,646 10,000 3,000 395,000 435,992 150,000 35,717 195,000 455,000 41,052 2,016,407 $ 36,113 2,000 (900) 58,283 (22,555) 18,200 10,090 15,200 (77,597) (1,056) 37,778 97,278 97,278 $ $ 97,278 97,278 $ $ 7,630 7,630 14,765,952 $ 14,765,952 $ 25,894 0% (14,632,283) $ 25,894 0% (14,632,283) $ $ % 13% -5% 11% 22% 7% -21% -3% 2% 7% 7% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Assessor (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 120 ASSESSOR Market Range Title ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV APPRAISER APPRAISER SUPERVISOR COMPUTER OPERATOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR ELECTED ENGINEERING AIDE FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR SPECIALIST INFO CENTER MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS PROJECT MGR LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) OPERATIONS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST SOFTWARE ENGINEER (INACTIVE) SPECIALIZED MODELER TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TRAINING SPECIALIST Total FTE 1.0 100.0 2.0 11.0 133.0 9.0 4.0 13.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 321.0 401 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Board Of Supervisors Mission 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. 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. Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 1,017,517 1,056,671 1,041,302 1,047,197 1,126,780 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,017,517 1,056,671 1,041,302 1,047,197 1,126,780 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 1,017,517 1,056,671 1,041,302 1,047,197 1,123,780 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,017,517 1,056,671 1,041,302 1,047,197 1,123,780 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 402 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND MANDATE DESCRIPTION Board of Supervisors A.R.S. §11-201 Powers of county; A.R.S. §11-251 Powers of board; A.R.S. §11-214 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. 403 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 1 Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors District 1 - Fulton Brock - Chairman District 1 - Fulton Brock - Chairman Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer Internal Audit Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 TOTAL FUNDS Program ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT 404 $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 201,252 144 201,396 $ $ $ Supplies & Services 19,964 19,964 Capital Outlay $ 3,396 $ $ 3,396 Total Expenditures $ 224,612 $ 144 $ 224,756 Total Revenue $ $ $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 1 (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 201,376 $ 19,984 $ 3,396 $ 224,756 $ ALL FUNDS $ 201,376 $ 19,984 $ 3,396 $ 224,756 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 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 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 166,896 960 36,978 49 204,883 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ 178,113 37,434 9,618 225,165 5,335 $ 1,130 349 297 (10) 2,889 506 121 10,617 $ 3,700 1,600 400 600 3,100 500 100 10,000 $ 1,002 1,002 $ $ 216,502 $ (216,502) $ $ $ 159,379 13,800 35,043 5,000 213,222 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 8,682 2,865 400 600 3,600 4,500 100 20,747 2,200 2,200 $ $ 237,365 $ (237,365) $ 165,567 10,000 35,895 211,462 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ $ 8,319 2,727 304 600 3,099 4,146 63 19,258 3,396 3,396 $ $ 237,365 $ (237,365) $ 165,374 38,859 204,233 $ $ $ $ 13,451 3,865 400 600 5,000 8,895 1,000 33,211 2,755 2,755 $ $ 233,475 $ (233,475) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 165,374 36,002 201,376 $ $ % (5,995) 13,800 (959) 5,000 11,846 -4% 100% -3% 100% 6% 14% 20% 0% 17% $ $ 7,427 2,300 400 500 4,320 4,937 100 19,984 $ 1,255 565 100 (720) (437) 763 3,396 3,396 $ $ 3,396 3,396 $ $ - 0% 0% 240,840 $ 224,756 $ 12,609 5% (224,756) $ 12,609 5% (240,840) $ -20% -10% 0% 4% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 Market Range Title ADMINISTRATOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Total FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 405 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 2 Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors District 2 - Don Stapley District 2 - Don Stapley Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer Internal Audit Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 TOTAL FUNDS Program ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT 406 $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 187,818 2,399 190,217 $ $ $ Supplies & Services 34,179 34,179 Capital Outlay $ 330 $ 30 $ 360 Total Expenditures $ 222,327 $ 2,429 $ 224,756 Total Revenue $ $ $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 2 (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 190,217 $ 34,179 $ 360 $ 224,756 $ ALL FUNDS $ 190,217 $ 34,179 $ 360 $ 224,756 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 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 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 151,739 2,151 31,382 38 185,310 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 160,679 12,000 35,632 208,311 2,470 $ 397 235 (1,500) 6,914 10,645 72 19,233 $ 5,748 1,347 645 120 9,200 11,694 300 29,054 $ - 204,543 $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ (204,543) $ 237,365 $ $ 155,201 12,000 35,625 202,826 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 156,047 7,398 33,629 197,074 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 155,796 12,000 38,505 206,301 11,000 1,350 645 120 9,200 11,564 300 34,179 $ $ $ 10,830 1,750 645 120 9,200 11,694 300 34,539 $ 9,213 $ 1,217 455 120 (300) 7,798 10,746 225 29,474 $ $ $ - $ $ 209 209 $ $ $ 226,757 $ $ (237,365) $ 237,365 (237,365) $ (226,757) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 155,796 2,094 32,327 190,217 $ $ % (595) 0% 9,906 83% 3,298 9% 12,609 6% $ $ 11,000 1,350 645 120 9,200 11,564 300 34,179 $ (170) -2% 400 23% 0% 0% 0% 130 1% 0% 360 1% 360 360 $ $ 360 360 $ $ (360) (360) 240,840 $ 224,756 $ 12,609 5% (224,756) $ 12,609 5% (240,840) $ Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 Market Range Title ADMINISTRATOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Total FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 407 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 3 Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors District 3 - Andrew Kunasek District 3 - Andrew Kunasek Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer Internal Audit Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 TOTAL FUNDS Program ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT 408 $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 205,466 139 205,605 $ $ $ Supplies & Services 18,551 18,551 Capital Outlay $ 600 $ $ 600 Total Expenditures $ 224,617 $ 139 $ 224,756 Total Revenue $ $ $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 3 (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 205,605 $ 18,551 $ 600 $ 224,756 $ ALL FUNDS $ 205,605 $ 18,551 $ 600 $ 224,756 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 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 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 166,696 30,242 196,938 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ 175,139 9,600 34,336 3,930 223,005 3,023 $ 873 196 (131) 4,132 4,054 1,038 13,185 $ 5,760 1,540 620 120 2,450 2,395 675 13,560 $ 342 342 $ $ 210,465 $ (210,465) $ $ $ 180,650 2,000 34,240 216,890 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 170,427 600 29,924 200,951 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 177,122 9,850 31,393 218,365 8,580 3,340 620 120 5,450 2,195 1,570 21,875 $ $ $ 8,580 3,140 620 120 3,450 2,195 1,570 19,675 $ 7,784 $ 2,004 323 120 (95) 3,233 1,783 949 16,101 $ 800 800 $ $ 800 800 $ $ 691 691 $ $ 237,365 $ 237,365 $ 217,743 $ (237,365) $ (237,365) $ (217,743) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 177,122 28,483 205,605 $ $ $ $ 5,590 3,340 620 120 4,511 2,800 1,570 18,551 600 600 $ $ 600 600 $ $ 240,840 $ 224,756 (240,840) $ $ % 3,528 2,000 5,757 11,285 2% 100% 17% 2,990 (200) (1,061) (605) 1,124 35% -6% 0% 0% 5% -31% -28% 0% 6% 200 200 25% 25% $ 12,609 5% (224,756) $ 12,609 5% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 Market Range Title ADMINISTRATOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT Total FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 3.5 409 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 4 Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors District 4 - Max Wilson District 4 - Max Wilson Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Administrative Officer Internal Audit Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 TOTAL FUNDS Program ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT 410 $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 184,154 5,894 190,048 $ $ $ Supplies & Services 34,708 34,708 Capital Outlay $ $ $ - Total Expenditures $ 218,862 $ 5,894 $ 224,756 Total Revenue $ $ $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 4 (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 190,048 $ 34,708 $ $ 224,756 $ ALL FUNDS $ 190,048 $ 34,708 $ $ 224,756 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 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 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 146,737 6,435 23,523 176,695 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 160,096 12,500 28,497 8,097 209,190 2,432 $ 98 255 (78) 2,166 1,812 271 6,956 $ 14,955 2,500 500 120 4,300 4,900 900 28,175 $ 237,365 183,651 $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ (183,651) $ $ 151,860 9,900 31,687 193,447 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 144,807 5,400 30,380 180,587 $ $ $ 24,998 8,000 500 120 4,300 4,900 1,100 43,918 $ 21,776 7,178 272 120 3,212 4,763 618 37,939 $ 237,365 $ 218,526 (237,365) $ $ (237,365) $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ 152,442 9,900 34,580 196,922 $ $ $ 152,442 5,300 32,306 190,048 $ $ 0% 46% -2% 35% 0% 0% 0% $ 8,660 550 9,210 13% 0% 0% 21% $ 12,609 5% (224,756) $ 12,609 5% $ $ 16,338 8,000 500 120 3,750 4,900 1,100 34,708 $ 240,840 $ 224,756 (240,840) $ % (582) 4,600 (619) 3,399 24,998 8,000 500 120 4,300 4,900 1,100 43,918 (218,526) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ 2% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 Market Range Title ADMINISTRATOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT Total FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 411 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 5 Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors 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 Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 TOTAL FUNDS Program ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT 412 $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 205,490 4,274 209,764 $ $ $ Supplies & Services 14,992 14,992 Capital Outlay $ $ $ - Total Expenditures $ 220,482 $ 4,274 $ 224,756 Total Revenue $ $ $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules District 5 (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 209,764 $ 14,992 $ $ 224,756 $ ALL FUNDS $ 209,764 $ 14,992 $ $ 224,756 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS $ Subtotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ 158,180 15,074 38,982 212,236 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ Subtotal $ 3,513 786 603 131 4,859 3,589 428 13,909 Total Expenditures $ 226,145 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 159,366 18,000 44,327 221,693 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ 3,000 3,310 793 100 3,000 4,769 700 15,672 $ 237,365 (226,145) $ 166,351 10,290 44,952 221,593 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 3,100 2,510 793 100 4,300 4,269 700 15,772 $ 237,365 (237,365) $ 172,357 6,332 42,638 221,327 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ $ 2,249 2,165 552 100 4,365 3,620 675 13,726 $ 235,053 (237,365) $ 166,988 16,794 39,787 223,569 $ $ $ $ 3,100 2,510 793 100 4,300 4,268 2,200 17,271 $ 240,840 (235,053) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 166,988 3,970 38,806 209,764 $ $ % (637) 6,320 6,146 11,829 0% 61% 14% 5% 3% 36% 0% 0% -33% 34% -43% 5% $ $ 3,000 1,600 793 100 5,699 2,800 1,000 14,992 $ 100 910 (1,399) 1,469 (300) 780 $ 224,756 $ 12,609 5% (224,756) $ 12,609 5% (240,840) $ Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 050 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 Market Range Title ADMINISTRATOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT Total FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 3.5 413 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court Organizational Chart Clerk of the Superior Court Clerk of the Superior Court Michael K. Jeanes Michael K. Jeanes Administrative Services Financial Services Customer Service Family Support Center Mission The mission of the Clerk of the Superior Court (COSC) 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 Meeting the needs of our customers before they ask. Goals • By July 2005 COSC will improve it’s flexibility to adapt to change in order to meet customers’ expectations/demands through improved productivity. • Develop and implement a workforce plan to reduce turnover rate by 5% a year for the next 3 years • Project plans are established for all COSC initiatives – 90% achieving target goals and are within 95% of targeted expenditures. • COSC’s tracking and reporting of statistics, financial and human resources are shared monthly/quarterly in order to address/resolve funding and priority issues to increase our effectiveness and efficiency. • COSC as mandated fiduciary and record keeper of Court documents will determine laws, rules, and administrative orders governing public/private access to court information. Annually update COSC’s policies and standards accordingly. Issues 414 • Judicial and legislative changes, as well as customer expectations cause COSC’s business practices to be rapidly changing which tax our ability to meet goals and mandated duties. • Current economic situation challenges us to develop and retain a creative, skilled and knowledgeable workforce. • Due to unstable fiscal economic situation the department is increasingly challenged to compete for limited County and State resources. • Customer expectations for convenient, real time access to information require flexibility in business processes and related technologies. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT TOTAL FUNDS Program COURT RECORDS FIDUCIARY SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 19,498,079 1,476,880 207,034 2,571,245 1,529,660 25,282,898 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 2,421,334 294,300 18,888 269,090 280,401 3,284,013 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 358,804 42,650 401,454 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 22,278,217 1,771,180 225,922 2,840,335 1,852,711 28,968,365 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 6,940,725 16,161 1,200,000 4,018,660 12,175,546 Key Performance Measures 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 of Juvenile minute entries generated within established time frame FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 95 99 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent Remittances processed within established time standards 52 N/A 78 96 Percent Deposits made within established time standards 94 N/A 98 99 Percent Reconciliations completed within established time standards 88 N/A 98 100 Key Results: 415 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) 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: FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 100 100 Percent applications (notary, marriage and passports) completed within established time standards Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 18,499,955 19,302,059 20,147,782 20,713,646 21,246,745 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 3,049,554 4,433,863 7,513,068 7,927,268 7,721,621 $ $ $ $ $ Total 21,549,509 23,735,922 27,660,850 28,640,914 28,968,366 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 18,499,955 19,302,059 20,147,782 20,713,646 21,246,745 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 3,049,554 4,433,863 7,513,068 7,927,268 7,721,621 $ $ $ $ $ Total 21,549,509 23,735,922 27,660,850 28,640,914 28,968,366 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 416 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Clerk of the Superior Court AUTHORITY Arizona Constitution, Article VI, Section 23 – Superior Court Clerk, Arizona Revised Statutes. Supreme Court Administrative Orders. Local Rules. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 417 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 19,763,729 $ 1,440,365 $ 42,650 $ 21,246,744 $ 5,218,660 SPECIAL REVENUE 5,199,633 2,163,184 358,804 7,721,621 6,956,886 ALL FUNDS $ 24,963,362 $ 3,603,549 $ 401,454 $ 28,968,365 $ 12,175,546 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 2,232,297 587,740 6,350,416 3,618,794 176,388 28,810 12,994,445 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 $ 17,360,478 $ 212,039 253,187 4,171,274 71,502 (699,049) 699,049 22,068,480 $ 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 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 850 UTILITIES Subtotal $ 947,774 9,292 149,405 8,779 875 1,160,568 225,536 401,994 210,743 82,544 345,425 212 3,543,147 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 90,150 101,618 4,975 77,706 274,449 Total Expenditures $ 25,886,076 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 418 $ $ $ $ $ 2,567,634 1,216,287 7,204,661 1,616,000 41,954 23,420 12,669,956 $ $ 19,180,043 $ 30,087 165,464 5,064,697 327,814 (887,117) 837,117 24,718,105 $ 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 $ 50,000 165,234 215,234 $ 29,567,733 (12,891,631) $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ 2,654,489 1,216,287 7,275,661 1,615,000 42,954 23,420 12,827,811 $ $ 19,186,838 $ 103,310 222,877 5,093,937 11,774 (887,119) 827,117 24,558,734 $ 1,367,600 28,800 126,832 7,558 1,519,865 181,545 271,342 107,460 109,196 302,685 387,792 4,410,675 $ 25,000 235,000 475,898 735,898 $ 29,705,307 (16,897,777) $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ 675,655 1,572,710 8,136,222 1,277,294 30,131 22,926 11,714,937 $ $ 18,759,631 $ 313,250 225,066 4,953,185 7,438 (845,228) 802,922 24,216,264 $ 967,750 13,745 464,000 9,451 1,889,361 161,966 219,305 123,866 49,840 339,685 4,238,970 $ 25,000 101,293 382,730 509,023 $ 28,964,257 (16,877,496) $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ 2,386,855 995,000 7,300,569 1,615,000 40,046 23,420 12,360,890 $ 30,000 371,454 401,454 $ 29,287,027 (17,249,320) $ $ $ 19,451,359 $ 48,846 127,000 5,334,695 19,236 (875,000) 875,000 24,981,136 $ 1,083,789 11,700 25,800 8,000 1,758,127 211,200 224,051 147,700 97,170 336,900 3,904,437 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ 500,000 2,090,633 8,242,163 1,277,294 42,530 22,926 12,175,546 $ (2,154,489) 874,346 966,502 (337,706) (424) (494) (652,265) -81% 72% 13% -21% -1% -2% -5% 19,340,848 $ 48,846 164,854 5,315,998 92,816 (875,000) 875,000 24,963,362 $ (154,010) 54,464 58,023 (222,061) (81,042) (12,119) (47,883) (404,628) -1% 53% 26% -4% -688% -1% -6% -2% 306,695 17,100 101,032 (442) (5,137) (29,655) 56,770 (20,240) 27,426 (34,215) 387,792 807,126 22% 59% 80% -6% 1,060,905 11,700 25,800 8,000 1,525,002 211,200 214,572 127,700 81,770 336,900 3,603,549 $ 30,000 371,454 401,454 $ 28,968,365 (16,926,137) $ $ % $ $ $ 0% -16% 21% -19% 25% -11% 100% 18% 100% 87% $ 25,000 205,000 104,444 334,444 $ 736,942 2% (16,792,819) $ 84,677 1% 22% 45% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV AUDITOR CONFERENCE OFFICER DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST ELECTED FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS PROJECT MGR INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST PC SPECIALIST PRGRM COORDINATION SPEC PROGRAM MANAGER TECH SUPPORT SPECIALIST TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECH TRADES SUPERVISOR TRAINING SPECIALIST Total FTE 1.0 36.0 12.0 22.0 2.0 493.0 23.0 20.0 1.0 14.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 684.0 419 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Constables Organizational Chart Citizens of Maricopa County Constables Constable Joe Arredondo Constable Frank Canez Constable Alfredo Gamez Constable Phillip Hazlett Constable Tony Martineau Constable Joe Reyes Constable John Powers Constable Armando Saldate Jr. Constable Murel Stephens Constable Bill Taylor Constable Bob Weaver Constable Fred Arnett Constable Harrell Boyster Constable Jimmie Munoz Constable Don Calender Constable Kevin Jones Constable Doug Middleton Constable Frank Outcalt Constable Billy Joe Spurlock Constable Bill Stout Constable Glenn Gill Constable Annette Clark Constable Ron Myers County Administrative Officer David Smith Special Assistant to CAO Constable Coordinator Mission The mission of the Constables is to provide execution of mandated civil and criminal process to citizens of Maricopa County so they can receive timely, cost effective and professional service. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent Goals • By calendar year end 2005, all Writs of Restitution shall be served within 5 business days of issuance from the court. • By calendar year end 2005, all Writs of Execution shall be served within 60 working days of issuance from the court. • By FY 03, the Constables Administrator will certify that each Constable has received the AZ-POST mandated 24 hour Civil Process Training and will attend an additional eight hours of annual in-service training. Issues • 420 Continuing changes in population and demographics determines where, how and when Constables Office services may be provided and at what cost with available personnel Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Constables (Continued) • 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. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED CONSTABLES TOTAL FUNDS Program SERVICE OF PROCESS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 1,513,804 39,333 1,553,137 $ $ $ Supplies & Services 42,119 18,558 60,677 Capital Outlay $ $ $ - Total Expenditures $ 1,555,923 $ 57,891 $ 1,613,814 $ $ $ Total Revenue 1,322,758 1,322,758 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,473,894 $ 1,482,054 $ 1,535,013 $ 1,575,484 $ 1,613,814 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,473,894 $ 1,482,054 $ 1,535,013 $ 1,575,484 $ 1,613,814 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,473,894 1,482,054 1,535,013 1,575,484 1,613,814 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,473,894 1,482,054 1,535,013 1,575,484 1,613,814 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 421 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Constables (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Constables AUTHORITY 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 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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). MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 250 CONSTABLES Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,553,137 $ 60,677 $ $ 1,613,814 $ 1,322,758 ALL FUNDS $ 1,553,137 $ 60,677 $ $ 1,613,814 $ 1,322,758 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 250 CONSTABLES ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 1,222,337 $ (16) 1,222,321 $ 1,100,000 1,100,000 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ 1,220,658 10,080 231,114 1,461,852 $ 1,229,061 252,376 34,765 1,516,202 4,749 $ 22,530 2,103 2,000 (565) 24,833 17,517 73,167 $ 3,100 22,878 1,079 1,000 21,919 7,065 57,041 $ 1,573,243 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES $ 803 FUEL 812 OTHER SERVICES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 422 1,535,019 $ $ (312,698) $ $ $ $ $ 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,229,072 252,301 34,765 1,516,138 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,085 22,878 1,079 1,000 21,919 7,144 57,105 $ 1,573,243 (473,243) $ 1,322,758 1,322,758 1,224,126 5,196 243,874 28,970 1,502,166 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,215 22,709 2,616 415 24,083 15,162 67,200 $ 1,569,366 (473,243) $ 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,233,786 261,025 34,765 1,529,576 $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,085 20,725 1,079 1,000 16,793 7,144 49,826 $ 1,579,402 (246,608) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 1,322,758 1,322,758 1,288,157 264,980 1,553,137 $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,085 20,725 1,079 1,000 27,644 7,144 60,677 $ 1,613,814 (479,402) $ 222,758 222,758 (59,085) (12,679) 34,765 (36,999) % 20% 20% -5% -5% 100% -2% $ 2,153 (5,725) (3,572) -26% 0% -6% $ (40,571) -3% 182,187 38% (291,056) $ 0% 9% 0% 0% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Constables (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 250 CONSTABLES Market Range Title ELECTED FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST LEGAL ORDER SERVER Total FTE 23.0 1.0 6.0 30.0 423 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Attorney Organizational Chart County Attorney County Attorney Richard M. Romley Richard M. Romley Southeast Division Investigation Division Executive Division Major Crimes Division Juvenile Crimes Division Victim Services Division Training and Development Division Trials Division Pre-Trial Division Administrative Services Division Information Technology Division Support Services Division Paralegal Division County Counsel Division Appeals Division Mission The mission of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • 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. 424 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Attorney (Continued) • 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. • 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 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED COUNTY ATTORNEY TOTAL FUNDS Program CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES PROSECUTION EMPLOYEE TRNG AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 1,278,197 38,689,298 898,529 2,559,261 1,601,856 45,027,141 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 240,427 1,348,632 6,611,762 36,500 203,700 960,714 9,401,735 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 9,789 543,530 553,319 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 1,528,413 1,348,632 45,844,590 935,029 2,762,961 2,562,570 54,982,195 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10,488,382 65,515 10,553,897 425 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Key Performance Measures 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: FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 82.2 87.3 81 100 60 94 84 85 35.8 52 27.25 83 Percent of uncontested adoptions cases completed. Percent of victim compensation claims completed. Percent of sexually violent predator cases completed. 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: FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 88 64.2 60.37 75 Percent of MCAO employees who received training. Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 38,492,972 $ 40,119,027 $ 41,507,122 $ 42,880,245 $ 43,404,402 Special Revenue $ 7,892,423 $ 8,935,582 $ 9,277,059 $ 9,868,171 $ 11,131,793 $ $ $ $ $ Total 46,385,395 49,054,609 50,784,181 52,748,416 54,536,195 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 38,492,972 $ 40,119,027 $ 41,507,122 $ 42,880,245 $ 43,404,402 Special Revenue $ 7,892,423 $ 8,935,582 $ 9,277,059 $ 9,868,171 $ 11,131,793 $ $ $ $ $ Total 46,385,395 49,054,609 50,784,181 52,748,416 54,536,195 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 426 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE County Attorney Powers And Duties, Victims' Bill Of Rights, Crime Victim's Rights, Organized Crime And Fraud, And Juvenile Victim's Rights. AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 427 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED COUNTY ATTORNEY Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 38,117,461 $ 5,479,622 $ 253,319 $ 43,850,402 $ 34,000 SPECIAL REVENUE 7,211,113 3,620,684 299,996 11,131,793 10,519,897 ALL FUNDS $ 45,328,574 $ 9,100,306 $ 553,315 $ 54,982,195 $ 10,553,897 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE COUNTY ATTORNEY ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 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 $ 6,999,941 1,445,853 221,559 15,887 8,683,240 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 38,155,337 $ 326,559 14,736 7,130,912 82,321 (3,841,507) 41,868,358 $ 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 Subtotal $ 1,235,502 36,673 121,144 1,209,993 1,525,907 1,713,478 1,257,647 246,288 552,515 179,553 329,690 156,234 7,450 8,572,074 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 180,213 20,995 75,170 68,789 345,167 $ $ 50,785,599 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 428 $ (42,102,359) $ 5,301,701 1,857,309 879,998 2,002,560 10,041,568 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 39,958,786 $ 38,619 7,862,698 2 (4,700,318) 379,964 43,539,751 $ 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 $ 199,998 99,998 255,860 555,856 $ $ 52,747,399 $ $ (42,705,831) $ 5,907,196 1,857,309 879,998 2,002,560 10,647,063 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 40,751,082 $ 38,619 7,967,871 (4,700,318) 379,964 44,437,218 $ 891,135 41,757 20,835 337,268 2,219,066 2,528,313 1,228,328 299,371 305,893 88,705 266,976 128,675 3,498 8,359,820 $ 199,998 99,998 255,860 555,856 $ $ 53,352,894 $ $ (42,705,831) $ 5,055,200 2,945,064 408,126 1,760,821 26,608 32,970 10,228,789 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 40,494,263 $ 167,631 (140,631) 7,783,886 (185,031) (4,628,188) 379,962 43,871,893 $ 691,449 42,079 4,591 897,366 1,938,754 2,122,188 1,294,378 272,801 421,164 167,596 220,236 129,894 6,627 8,209,123 $ 160 268,896 269,056 $ $ 52,350,072 $ $ (42,121,283) $ 6,332,989 1,339,354 879,998 1,848,022 10,400,363 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 39,929,345 $ 95,812 80,568 8,381,382 8,705 (4,705,380) 379,961 44,170,393 $ 816,857 41,757 334,672 2,223,140 2,554,978 1,267,188 299,371 460,447 174,402 271,976 128,675 3,498 8,576,961 $ 199,998 99,998 253,319 553,315 $ $ 53,300,669 $ $ (42,900,306) $ 5,263,576 1,789,626 838,498 1,338,195 40,000 1,284,002 10,553,897 $ $ (643,620) (67,683) 838,498 458,197 40,000 (718,558) (93,166) 40,088,820 $ 95,812 60,568 8,342,619 1,376,774 (5,015,980) 379,961 45,328,574 $ 662,262 (95,812) (21,949) (374,748) (1,376,774) 315,662 3 (891,356) -11% -4% 52% -36% -1% 2% -57% -5% 7% 0% -2% 725,604 41,757 334,672 2,298,703 3,128,112 1,267,188 270,171 460,447 174,402 271,976 123,776 3,498 9,100,306 $ 199,998 99,998 253,319 553,315 $ $ 54,982,195 $ (1,629,301) -3% (44,428,298) $ (1,722,467) -4% $ 165,531 20,835 2,596 (79,637) (599,799) (38,860) 29,200 (154,554) (85,697) (5,000) 4,899 (740,486) % 2,541 2,541 19% 0% 100% 1% -4% -24% -3% 10% -51% -97% -2% 4% 0% -9% 0% 0% 1% 0% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ATTORNEY AUDITOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL MANAGER FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR GENERALIST HR SUPERVISOR INFO CENTER MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR INFO TECHNOL CONSULTANT INVESTIGATOR LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL SECRETARY SUPV LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST MANAGEMENT ANALYST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MEDIA ASSISTANT PC SPECIALIST PROGRAM COORDINATOR SOCIAL WORKER (BS) TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN TRAINING SPECIALIST Total FTE 1.0 6.0 13.0 162.5 18.0 327.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 48.0 86.0 32.0 106.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 2.0 55.8 3.0 7.0 7.0 915.3 429 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Recorder Organizational Chart Recorder Recorder Helen Purcell, County Recorder Helen Purcell, County Recorder Micrographics Administration Public Records Mailout Recorder’s Information System Document Processing Southeast Office 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 to 40% by 2004. • By 2004, be able to selectively block information from public view. • 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 2006. Issues 430 • 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 for inexpensive and simple digital recording requires flexible solutions. • The public demand for exclusion of personal data from the Internet versus the requirement that recording be public will need a creative solution. • 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Recorder (Continued) • 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 2003-04 ADOPTED RECORDER TOTAL FUNDS Program RECORDER'S PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 1,330,687 276,421 1,885,546 3,492,654 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 191,413 21,000 1,889,075 2,101,488 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ 670,000 670,000 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 1,522,100 297,421 4,444,621 6,264,142 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ 13,736,600 13,736,600 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected The average time to index a document N/A 26.1 20.26 10 Average time to return documents N/A 17.86 27.2 20 The percentage of daily CD Master Reports completed within three work days following presentation N/A N/A 94.6 95 The percentage of all copy requests of fewer than 10 pages completed within one hour and of all larger requests completed within 24 hours N/A 99.88 99.89 99.5 Key Results: 431 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Recorder (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,771,304 $ 1,609,897 $ 1,777,221 $ 1,820,448 $ 1,859,996 Special Revenue $ 4,703,406 $ 3,870,543 $ 3,657,080 $ 4,459,282 $ 4,404,146 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,474,710 5,480,440 5,434,301 6,279,730 6,264,142 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,771,304 $ 1,609,897 $ 1,777,221 $ 1,820,448 $ 1,859,996 Special Revenue $ 4,703,406 $ 3,870,543 $ 3,657,080 $ 4,459,282 $ 4,404,146 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,474,710 5,480,440 5,434,301 6,279,730 6,264,142 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE Office Of The County Recorder AUTHORITY A.R.S. §§ 11-461 through 11-483 County Recorder. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 432 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Recorder (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 360 RECORDER Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,527,936 $ 332,060 $ $ 1,859,996 $ 9,003,600 SPECIAL REVENUE 1,887,484 1,846,662 670,000 4,404,146 4,733,000 ALL FUNDS $ 3,415,420 $ 2,178,722 $ 670,000 $ 6,264,142 $ 13,736,600 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 360 RECORDER ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 14,915,282 138,317 927,181 15,980,780 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ 2,378,329 114,591 26,408 519,170 14,728 3,053,226 $ $ Subtotal $ 1,016,202 152 132,896 603,249 23,013 84,833 17,845 30,871 194,836 734 2,104,631 Subtotal $ FY 2002-03 Revised 10,773,800 111,588 759,000 11,644,388 $ 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 3,035,538 276,445 276,445 $ Total Expenditures $ 5,434,302 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 10,546,478 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL 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 850 UTILITIES $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 10,773,800 111,588 759,000 11,644,388 $ 2,572,093 7,684 20,000 735,301 8,000 3,343,078 $ $ $ 1,788,387 160,000 615,092 5,400 108,750 11,400 69,850 178,021 1,500 2,938,400 335,000 335,000 $ $ 6,616,478 $ 5,027,910 $ $ FY 2003-04 Requested 15,325,621 78,784 1,088,150 16,492,555 $ 2,433,489 61,479 21,277 583,938 9,897 3,110,080 $ $ $ 1,658,514 125,604 633,347 20,669 85,776 10,948 61,457 227,384 1,975 2,825,674 335,000 335,000 $ $ 6,616,478 $ 5,027,910 $ $ 12,608,000 125,000 1,003,600 13,736,600 $ 2,595,798 13,259 26,132 709,659 8,000 3,352,848 $ $ $ 729,700 452,000 567,320 25,302 82,600 12,000 121,500 186,200 2,100 2,178,722 399,518 399,518 $ $ 6,335,272 $ 10,157,283 $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 12,608,000 125,000 1,003,600 13,736,600 $ 2,658,370 13,259 26,132 709,659 8,000 3,415,420 $ $ $ 729,700 452,000 567,320 25,302 82,600 12,000 121,500 186,200 2,100 2,178,722 670,000 670,000 $ $ 6,201,570 $ 7,535,030 $ $ $ $ 1,834,200 13,412 244,600 2,092,212 % 17% 12% 32% 18% (86,277) (5,575) (6,132) 25,642 (72,342) -3% -73% -31% 3% 0% -2% 59% $ 1,058,687 (292,000) 47,772 (19,902) 26,150 (600) (51,650) (8,179) (600) 759,678 -183% 8% -369% 24% -5% -74% -5% -40% 26% 670,000 670,000 $ (335,000) (335,000) -100% -100% $ 6,264,142 $ 352,336 5% $ 7,472,458 $ 2,444,548 49% $ $ 433 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Recorder (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 360 RECORDER Market Range Title ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV COMPUTER OPERATOR DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS PROJECT MGR INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR PC SPECIALIST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN WEB SPECIALIST Total 434 FTE 1.0 2.0 34.3 6.0 5.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 70.3 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Sheriff Organizational Chart 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 The mission of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is to provide law enforcement, detention and crime prevention services to the public so they can be safe and secure in our community. Vision The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is a fully integrated law enforcement agency committed to being the leader in establishing the standards for providing professional quality law enforcement, detention, and support services to citizens of Maricopa County and to other criminal justice agencies. Goals • By FY 2004, the 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 the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. • Based on baseline data to be available in Spring 2003, gradually increase the clearance rate for crimes over the following three years through innovative investigation, enforcement and detention (jail intelligence and crimes unit) strategies using up-to-date technology. Within the next 2 fiscal years, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office will reduce the number of person days away from work due to workrelated injuries and illnesses from FY 2002 levels. • The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will always meet constitutional standards for care, custody and control of inmates as well as a safe environment for staff. • The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will increase recruitment and retention success percentages by increasing the competitiveness of its compensation and benefits packages for all classifications from FY 2002 levels so they become consistently within 10% of regional law enforcement average, to the extent that County funding is made available. 435 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Sheriff (Continued) • The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will establish and maintain fixed benchmarks and performance data concerning Civil Actions and other Court required services to pro-actively seek new funding at appropriate levels to accommodate the demand for increased service each time the Court system expands or changes its operational structure. Issues • Maricopa County Sheriff's Office pay and benefits are less than those of other law enforcement agencies making it extremely difficult to recruit and retain a qualified workforce, affecting the ability to staff new jail facilities, maintain safety and security in jail facilities, reduce crime, and contain liability exposure. • The shrinking economy and the direction of the State to balance its budget on the backs of local governments, has influenced the County management’s policies and funding decisions and will affect the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office’s ability to deliver mandated service that meets the needs and expectations of the public. • Today’s law enforcement environment of cooperation and sharing among law enforcement agencies requires that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office continually improve its technical skills and tools to remain standardized with corresponding law enforcement agencies. • Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 the demands and expectations for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to provide traditional and non-traditional services for overall public security have increased. • 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. • Continued growth and expansion of the Superior Court, and additional mandates requiring the serving of specific types of court papers and notifications by Sheriff’s Office Deputies have increased the demand and volume of workload for Sheriff’s Office Civil Processing. • The Supreme Court’s Ring vs. Death Row decision concerning reversing capital punishment sentences decided by single judges will be a significant burden to the detention fund budget. • The continuing trend of state and federal agencies to reduce grant funding awards by increasing match obligations, the requirements that state and local funding not be supplanted by grants, and the increased competition for grant funding threatens the ability of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to continue delivering programs and services that are mission critical. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED SHERIFF TOTAL FUNDS Program ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG CENTRALIZED MCSO OPERATIONS CUSTODY MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT 436 $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 6,529,975 8,520,426 65,917,109 37,599,488 (5,439,933) 113,127,065 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 438,669 1,122,672 16,676,948 4,300,282 3,928,387 26,466,958 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ 665,000 1,271,935 211,367 2,148,302 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 6,968,644 9,643,098 83,259,057 43,171,705 (1,300,179) 141,742,325 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 106,011 29,855,706 8,198,993 78,704 38,239,414 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: CENTRALIZED MCSO OPERATIONS Program Purpose: The purpose of the Centralized MCSO Operations Program is to provide comprehensive Enforcement and Custody Management support services that are unique to a Sheriff’s Office operation so that goals can be met in compliance with legal standards by a qualified and productive workforce. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of applicants hired N/A 0.1 7.4 10.63 Percent of system availability (24x7) N/A N/A 99.5 98 Percent of recruits successfully completing the sworn basic training academy N/A 70 70 70 Percent of detention recruits who graduate from the detention training academy N/A 89.7 85 85 Key Results: 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 inmates can be properly and expeditiously processed through the system. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of staff not assaulted while on duty N/A N/A 96 96 Percent of uses of force meeting standards for appropriateness N/A N/A 100 100 Key Results: Program Name: ENFORCEMENT Program Purpose: The purpose of the Enforcement Program is to provide law enforcement response relative to crime and criminal activity, and crime prevention to the general public within Maricopa County so that they feel safe and secure in the community. Key Results: Percent of Enforcement Program Activities that are enhanced through the use of volunteer services (5 activities) FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 437 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 34,873,554 39,261,813 37,811,831 36,876,553 37,246,543 Special Revenue $ 72,446,126 $ 88,924,310 $ 92,871,223 $ 97,745,672 $ 102,790,411 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ 1,559,971 $ 1,705,371 $ $ $ $ $ Total Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 34,873,554 $ 72,446,126 $ $ FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 39,261,813 $ 88,924,310 $ $ FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 37,811,831 $ 92,871,223 $ $ FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 36,876,553 $ 97,745,672 $ 1,559,971 $ FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 37,246,543 $ 102,790,411 $ 1,705,371 $ NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 438 Total 107,319,680 128,186,123 130,683,054 136,182,196 141,742,325 Total 107,319,680 128,186,123 130,683,054 136,182,196 141,742,325 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Sheriff's Office – Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the County AUTHORITY 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 363716, Sexually Violent Persons. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 439 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 500 SHERIFF Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 33,050,397 $ 3,923,022 $ 273,124 $ 37,246,543 $ 4,391,226 SPECIAL REVENUE 79,056,045 22,273,879 1,460,487 102,790,411 33,848,188 CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,302,237 403,134 1,705,371 ALL FUNDS $ 113,408,679 $ 26,600,035 $ 1,733,611 $ 141,742,325 $ 38,239,414 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 500 SHERIFF ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 605 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST $ 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 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 $ 52,250 3,789,194 20,349,067 412,418 70,207 720 111,541 6,958,935 31,744,332 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 84,515,463 $ 522,735 1,199,641 20,057,507 1,888,540 (14,350,320) 14,894,190 108,727,756 $ 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 $ 10,395,557 80,877 1,253,893 614,174 104,672 24,999 1,406,749 1,957,179 1,668,782 32,453 3,576,876 963,318 532,147 21,592 377,392 23,010,660 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 18,571 297,556 151,160 1,213,229 1,680,516 $ Total Expenditures $ 133,418,932 $ $ 53,970 6,706,367 17,934,302 331,749 68,896 47,200 8,716,266 33,858,750 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 86,789,555 $ 608,274 1,387,403 23,079,641 1,874,629 (15,449,560) 13,519,096 111,809,038 $ 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 $ $ $ $ 1,819,782 662,897 136,048 450,910 3,069,637 $ 140,229,896 53,970 6,577,715 18,062,938 331,749 68,896 47,200 8,716,282 33,858,750 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 86,430,694 $ 579,203 1,963,043 23,118,188 2,157,669 (14,169,805) 13,519,096 113,598,088 $ 10,866,307 67,686 1,140,396 514,333 81,861 271,271 1,288,746 2,970,537 1,528,794 783,367 3,490,956 750,742 574,713 331,628 24,661,337 $ $ $ $ 668,459 750,676 100,427 450,910 1,970,472 $ 140,229,897 $ $ 83,507,991 $ 374,198 1,689,515 21,966,851 2,010,701 (13,515,624) 13,059,732 109,093,364 $ 12,053,159 71,865 1,374,999 577,880 61,768 184,040 779,819 2,703,643 1,811,095 576,683 3,544,544 1,027,536 344,588 5,016 199,074 25,315,709 $ $ $ $ 67,044 473,480 201,232 548,076 1,289,832 $ 135,698,905 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (101,674,600) $ (106,371,146) $ (106,371,147) $ 440 84,933 63,991 5,846,905 22,834,087 473,021 54,795 598 61,171 9,319,464 38,738,965 FY 2003-04 Requested 169,865 18,000 6,560,116 19,209,096 451,087 62,761 1,281 78,641 9,139,521 35,690,368 $ $ 87,364,808 $ 579,708 1,770,162 23,179,374 1,659,640 (14,747,845) 14,019,007 113,824,854 $ 11,885,034 72,596 1,119,891 162,451 81,861 239,705 1,417,015 2,979,778 1,542,947 783,367 4,260,626 760,414 574,713 331,628 26,212,026 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ 643,380 500,000 150,355 439,875 1,733,610 $ 141,770,490 53,970 5,332,116 23,052,767 451,087 62,761 78,641 9,208,072 38,239,414 $ (1,245,599) 4,989,829 119,338 (6,135) 31,441 491,790 4,380,664 86,155,607 $ 579,708 1,718,673 23,705,623 1,883,916 (15,041,762) 14,406,914 113,408,679 $ 275,087 (505) 244,370 (587,435) 273,753 871,957 (887,818) 189,409 0% 0% 12% -3% 13% 6% -7% 0% (1,589,798) (461) (214,354) 402,148 (7,142) 2,938 445,537 (9,240) (58,717) (32,616) (769,670) (185,093) (6,299) 84,069 (1,938,698) -15% -1% -19% 78% -9% 1% 35% 0% -4% -4% -22% -25% -1% 4% 33% -50% 2% 12% 12,456,105 68,147 1,354,750 112,185 89,003 268,333 843,209 2,979,777 1,587,511 815,983 4,260,626 935,835 581,012 247,559 26,600,035 $ % $ $ 0% -19% 28% 36% -9% 67% 6% 13% 25% -8% $ $ 643,380 500,000 150,355 439,876 1,733,611 $ 25,079 250,676 (49,928) 11,034 236,861 $ 141,742,325 $ (1,512,428) -1% 2,868,236 3% (96,959,940) $ (106,080,122) $ (103,502,911) $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 500 SHERIFF Market Range Title FTE ACCOUNTANT 8.0 ACCOUNTING CLERK 13.0 ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR 22.3 ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST 190.0 ADMINISTRATOR 6.0 ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT 11.0 ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV 20.0 ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV 15.0 CHAPLAIN 3.0 COMPUTER OPERATOR 12.0 COUNSELING SUPERVISOR 10.0 COUNSELOR 21.0 CRIME LAB SPECIALIST 18.0 CRIME LAB SUPERVISOR 7.0 DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST 1.0 DEPUTY DIRECTOR 12.0 DETENTION OFCR SUPERVISOR 138.0 DETENTION OFFICER 1025.0 DETENTION OFFICER MANAGER 9.0 DIETITIAN 1.0 DIRECTOR 3.0 EDUCATOR 9.0 ELECTED 1.0 ENGINEER 1.0 FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR 18.0 FOOD SERVICE WORKER 43.0 GENERAL LABORER 14.0 GENERAL MAINTENANCE SUPV 1.0 GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR 1.0 HR SUPERVISOR 2.0 INFO SYSTEMS PROJECT MGR 2.0 INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR 5.0 INFO TECHNOL CONSULTANT 1.0 INVESTIGATOR 10.0 LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) 2.0 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGER 19.0 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 556.0 LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPV 109.5 LEGAL ASSISTANT 5.0 LIBRARIAN 1.0 MANAGEMENT ANALYST 1.0 MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC 10.0 MECHANIC 5.0 MEDIA SPECIALIST 1.0 PC SPECIALIST 11.0 PILOT 2.0 POLYGRAPH EXAMINER 3.0 PROGRAM COORDINATOR 4.0 PROGRAM MANAGER 1.0 PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 7.0 PSYCHOLOGIST 2.0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS OPTR 36.0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPV 1.0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECH 5.0 TELECOMMUNICTNS OPTR SUPV 4.0 TRAINING SPECIALIST 1.0 UNDETERMINED 54.0 WEB DEVELOPER (INACTIVE) 1.0 Total 2494.8 441 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Superintendent Of Schools Organizational Chart 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 Small Schools Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools (MCSOS) is to provide fiscal and educational services to school districts and the community so that they can ensure that students receive the best possible education in order to meet the challenges of tomorrow. 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 June 2004 each employee’s performance plan will be aligned with the MCSOS mission and include an individual growth plan, resulting in a 15% increase in employee satisfaction ratings on internal employee surveys. • By December 2004 MCSOS will develop a written comprehensive technology plan that will identify current and future school district and internal technology needs. • By December 2004 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 2006 MCSOS will develop and implement a Local Education Service Agency (LESA) that will support the educational and administrative needs of school districts and charter schools. • By July 2005 MCSOS will develop a training course catalog and a Local Education Service Agency (LESA) training program to provide school district and charter school personnel with information necessary to serve the needs of their staff and students. • By July 2004 MCSOS will enhance internal operations through staff development and support to ensure that school districts receive correct information necessary to serve the needs of their staff and students. • By December 2005 MCSOS will begin implementation of new school district business software and have all districts converted. 442 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) Issues • Without qualified staff and state of the art systems, we can not 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 community and school districts awareness of the services available through the County Superintendent of Schools' office, result in students not receiving the full benefits of the educational opportunities available to them. • Long and short-term planning may be difficult due to Legislative changes that impact educational programs. • Obsolescence of current school district business software will result in the department being unable to meet statutory requirements. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS TOTAL FUNDS Program EDUCATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 1,244,681 467,169 1,711,850 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 110,265 25,640 135,905 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 1,354,946 492,809 1,847,755 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ 153,050 153,050 Key Performance Measures Program Name: EDUCATION Program Purpose: The purpose of the education program is to provide fiscal and educational services to school districts and the community so that students receive quality education. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of Home School families who report good/excellent service on the annual survey N/A N/A 88.9 90 Percent of customers who report good/excellent service on annual district support survey 75 94 94.2 95 Key Results: 443 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,372,766 $ 1,573,130 $ 1,435,236 $ 1,657,474 $ 1,847,755 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,372,766 1,573,130 1,435,236 1,657,474 1,847,755 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,372,766 $ 1,573,126 $ 1,435,236 $ 1,657,474 $ 1,847,755 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,372,766 1,573,126 1,435,236 1,657,474 1,847,755 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 444 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Superintendent of Schools AUTHORITY A.R.S. §11-511 Powers And Duties; A.R.S. §15-301-§15-310 Local Governance Of Schools-County School Superintendent. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The County Superintendent of Schools is an elected officer of the county. The first County School Superintendent in Maricopa County was elected in 1871. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 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. 445 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,711,850 $ 135,905 $ $ 1,847,755 $ 153,050 ALL FUNDS $ 1,711,850 $ 135,905 $ $ 1,847,755 $ 153,050 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL $ 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 72,249 43,086 98 115,433 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 1,044,009 16,471 278 225,848 5,250 204,380 1,496,236 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL 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 $ FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ 33,491 $ (2) 10,308 4,700 46,254 14,248 16,823 11,301 137,123 $ 29,852 750 13,216 5,400 45,000 21,570 10,000 10,400 136,188 $ 6,257 6,257 $ Total Expenditures $ 1,639,616 446 $ 1,202,638 21,336 283,687 4,494 204,380 1,716,535 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $ 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 118,050 35,000 153,050 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ 2,850 2,850 $ 1,855,573 (1,524,183) $ 118,050 35,000 153,050 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 1,205,931 21,336 280,378 4,510 204,380 1,716,535 $ 29,852 750 13,216 5,400 45,000 21,570 10,000 10,400 136,188 $ $ $ $ $ 2,850 2,850 $ 1,855,573 (1,702,523) $ 118,000 50,363 167 168,530 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 1,195,786 28,968 1,427 266,660 5,139 204,380 1,702,360 $ 31,488 1,462 750 11,958 2,700 55,554 17,257 12,795 10,894 144,858 $ $ $ $ $ 2,000 18,677 20,677 $ 1,867,895 $ (1,702,523) $ $ (1,699,365) $ 118,050 35,000 153,050 $ $ 1,345,828 21,000 339,622 5,400 1,711,850 $ 33,800 2,880 9,000 6,225 50,000 9,000 14,000 11,000 135,905 $ 1,847,755 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ (1,694,705) $ 118,050 35,000 153,050 $ $ 1,345,828 21,000 339,622 5,400 1,711,850 $ 33,800 2,880 9,000 6,225 50,000 9,000 14,000 11,000 135,905 $ - % 0% 0% 0% (139,897) 336 (59,244) (890) 204,380 4,685 -21% -20% 100% 0% (3,948) (2,880) 750 4,216 (825) (5,000) 12,570 (4,000) (600) 283 100% 32% -15% -11% 58% -40% -6% 0% $ 2,850 2,850 100% 100% $ 7,818 0% (1,694,705) $ 7,818 0% 1,847,755 $ $ $ -12% 2% -13% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Market Range Title ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM SUPERVISOR TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN Total FTE 5.0 1.0 8.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 33.0 447 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Treasurer Organizational Chart Treasurer Treasurer Doug Todd, County Treasurer Doug Todd, County Treasurer Executive Assistant Internal Auditor Client Services Chief Deputy Investments Information Systems Accounting Services 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. Goals • 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 448 • 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Treasurer (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED TREASURER TOTAL FUNDS Program ACCOUNTING PROGRAM PROPERTY TAX PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 278,170 1,002,114 833,456 541,246 86,374 2,741,360 Supplies & Services $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,000 857,638 102,500 963,138 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,171 3,171 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 278,170 1,005,114 1,691,094 643,746 89,545 3,707,669 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,686 5,686 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of Treasurer's Journal Entries created by month-end 100 100 100 100 Percent of Cash Receipts Actually Processed 100 100 100 100 97.15 96.8 96.4 97 100 100 100 100 Key Results: Tax Apportionments - Percent of Levy apportioned Month-end Closings - Percent time month-end balance/close by due date 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). FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Payments Posted - Percent of Levy collected 97.15 96.8 96.4 97 Percent of levy collected by LockBox (LB) facility 39.68 37.95 38.94 35 N/A N/A 95.33 90 45.26 49.78 49.78 45 Key Results: Percent of Tax Bills Correctly Mailed Back Tax Sale - Percent of BTX Collected 449 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Treasurer (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 3,336,300 $ 3,475,408 $ 3,505,567 $ 3,527,577 $ 3,707,669 $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,336,300 3,475,408 3,505,567 3,527,577 3,707,669 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 3,336,300 $ 3,475,408 $ 3,505,567 $ 3,527,577 $ 3,707,669 $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,336,300 3,475,408 3,505,567 3,527,577 3,707,669 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE County Treasurer Responsibilities And Reporting AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 450 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Treasurer (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 430 TREASURER Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 2,857,177 $ 847,321 $ 3,171 $ 3,707,669 $ 5,686 ALL FUNDS $ 2,857,177 $ 847,321 $ 3,171 $ 3,707,669 $ 5,686 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 430 TREASURER ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 5,945 20 5,965 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ 2,161,630 12,339 8,787 445,565 800 2,629,121 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 $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ 2,249,600 5,500 1,530 535,178 2,791,808 94,901 $ 203 (4,173) 314,749 75,594 150,395 10,438 34,182 198,900 1,260 876,449 $ 111,500 300 322,670 81,238 132,500 14,000 35,000 188,000 1,400 886,608 3,505,570 $ 5,686 5,686 $ $ $ (3,499,605) $ 3,678,416 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (3,672,730) $ 5,686 5,686 2,249,609 5,500 1,530 535,183 2,791,822 111,486 300 322,670 81,238 132,500 14,000 35,000 188,000 1,400 886,594 3,678,416 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,514 5,514 2,162,380 16,678 8,881 490,983 1,426 2,680,348 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ 5,686 5,686 $ 2,258,705 22,578 8,530 567,364 2,857,177 72,999 $ 235 (3,969) 222,057 87,764 115,690 35,635 15,762 241,052 1,027 788,252 $ 90,000 300 289,071 80,000 132,500 15,000 35,000 203,450 2,000 847,321 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,686 5,686 2,258,705 22,578 8,530 567,364 2,857,177 90,000 300 289,071 80,000 132,500 15,000 35,000 203,450 2,000 847,321 $ $ $ $ $ $ - % 0% 0% (9,096) (17,078) (7,000) (32,181) (65,355) 0% -311% -458% -6% 21,486 33,599 1,238 (1,000) (15,450) (600) 39,273 19% 0% -2% 10% 2% 0% -7% 0% -8% -43% 4% 20,000 1,854 21,854 $ $ 3,171 3,171 $ $ 3,171 3,171 $ $ $ (3,171) (3,171) $ 3,490,454 $ 3,707,669 $ 3,707,669 $ (29,253) -1% (3,701,983) $ (29,253) -1% (3,672,730) $ (3,484,940) $ (3,701,983) $ 451 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Treasurer (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 430 TREASURER Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV AUDITOR COMPUTER OPERATOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR ELECTED EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST HR SPECIALIST INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR OPERATIONS MANAGER PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE TECHNOLOGY ANALYST Total 452 FTE 2.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 17.0 1.0 64.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Judicial Branch Judicial Organizational Chart Judges of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Judicial Executive Committee Juvenile Court (Durango and Southeast) Criminal Department Family Court Department Juvenile Probation Department Adult Probation Department Conciliation Services Presiding Judge and Associate Presiding Judge Trial Courts Administration Judges' Administrative Advisory Committees Civil Department Southeast Superior Court Facility Probate/ Mental Health Department Tax Court Special Assignment Department Northwest Superior Court Facility - Operations and Caseflow Management - Budget and Management - Litigant Support Services - Court Human Resources - Judicial Information Systems (JIS) - Community and Media Relations - Training and Development - E-Courts & Electronic Records - Court Security - Law Library 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 3.3 million of Arizona’s 5.5 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 and 36 court commissioners staff the Court. All judicial officers are lawyers. Judges are appointed by the Governor after a selection process by 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 453 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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 Presiding Judge 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 Trial Courts Administrator A Trial Courts 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: Trail Courts Administration, Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, and the Clerk of the Court. Also providing support to the Court is a small group of specialpurpose 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. 454 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Court Judges – Biographies Hon. Colin F Campbell, Presiding Judge - Superior Court Judge Colin Campbell was appointed by Governor Rose Mofford to become a judge in January 1990. Before becoming Presiding Judge in July 2000, he served in each of the Superior Court departments: civil, criminal, family, and juvenile. He graduated from Northwestern University in 1974 with a Bachelor's degree in Economics. He graduated Summa Cum Laude from the University of Arizona Law School in 1977. After graduation, he was a law clerk for the Honorable William P. Copple, United States District Court Judge. He worked as an associate and later a partner at the Phoenix law firm of Meyer, Hendricks, Victor, Osborn & Maledon (formerly Martori, Meyer, Hendricks & Victor) from 1978 to 1990, except for two years as an Assistant Federal Public Defender from 1981 to 1983. Judge Campbell has been active in committees of the State Bar and the Judiciary. From 1988 to 1990, he was a member of the Maricopa County Community Punishment Committee. He is a former member and past chair of the State Bar Legal Services Committee and Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct. He sat on the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee and the Arizona Judicial College prior to his appointment as Presiding Judge. As Presiding Judge, he sits on the Arizona Judicial Council, the State-Federal Judicial Council and is the former chairman of the Maricopa county Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Executive Committee. Judge Campbell has also been active in community activities. He is the former president and board member of the Greater East Phoenix Neighborhood Association, the St. Thomas More Society, The Southwest Phoenix Community Center, Community Legal Services and the Arizona Bar Foundation. He has sat as a board member on the Malta Center, Phoenix Natural Family Planning Center, Child and Family Resources, Inc., and Ville de Marie, a private, non-profit school. He is a former member of the Arizona Coalition for Tomorrow, which sponsors a yearly health fair clinic for head start children. In 1990, Judge Campbell received the Outstanding Graduate Award from the University of Arizona College of Law. 455 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Judge Cates, Jeffrey S Gottsfield, Robert L Gerst, Stephen A Scott, Linda K (c) O'Toole, Thomas W O'Melia, Michael J Albrecht, Rebecca A Forman, 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 (f) Fields, Kenneth L Franks, Pamela J Cole, David R Dunevant, Thomas Martin Gregory H Katz, Paul A (h) Sheldon, Steven D Campbell, Colin F (a) Arellano, Silvia R Mangum, J Kenneth Schwartz, Johathan H Hauser, Brian R Mundell, Barbara A (b) (g) Yarnell, Michael A Topf, William L (a) (c) (e) (g) Judge Dairman, Dennis W Jarrett, Barbara M 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 (e) Obergillig, Robert H Reinstein, Peter C Talamante, David M Hicks, Bethany G Gaines, F Pendleton Burke, Edward O Holt, Cathy M Verdin, Maria Willrich, Penny Anderson, Arthur T Heilman, Joseph B Willett, Eileen S Fenzel, Alfred M Padish, James E O'Connor, Karen L Granville, Warren J Gaylord, John M Presiding Judge Presiding Judge - Juvenile Court Presiding Judge - Criminal Department Presiding Judge - Probate/Mental Health Depart Justice of the Peace G Michael Osterfeld C Steven McMurry Ronald D. Johnson R Wayne Johnson C A Mendoza Michael W Orcutt John R Ore Joe Getzwiller Quentin V Tolby Andy V Gastelum Lester Pearce Jerry Ashton 456 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 Departmental Budget Schedules Precinct Buckeye Central Phoenix Chandler East Mesa East Phoenix #1 East Phoenix #2 East Tempe Gila Bend Glendale Maryvale North Mesa North Valley (b) (d) (f) (h) 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 Downie, Margaret H (d) 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 Houser, Robert C Chavez, Harriett E Grant, Larry Foster, George H Swann, Peter B Associate Presiding Judge Presiding Judge - Civil Department Presiding Judge - Family Court Department Presiding Judge - Tax Court Justice of the Peace Jacqueline McVay Barbara Watkins Lex E Anderson Ginger Jarvis Harrell Boyster 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 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 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation Organizational Chart Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Criminal Department Presiding judge 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. Vision An agency of professionals committed to continuous improvement in the quality of community life by offering hope to neighborhoods, victims and offenders. Goals • The Maricopa County Adult Probation Department (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 2005. - Reducing the number of probationers convicted of a new felony offense by 2% by the end of fiscal year 2005. (In fiscal year 2002, baselines established at 28% -- 3 out of every 10 -- for probationers committed to the Department of Corrections and 10.6% for probationers with new felony convictions) • By fiscal year 2005, 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: - Maintaining a 98%, or better, on-time rate for submitting presentence and combination reports. - A 10% increase in the rate of successful completions from probation. - A 10% increase in the rate of restitution collected. 457 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) • MCAPD will provide excellence in customer service as evidenced by a measurable increase in the number of customers who report increasing satisfaction. - By 2005, 67% 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 2005, the number of staff satisfied with MCAPD will improve by 5%. - By fiscal year 2005, the percentage of community partners satisfied with MCAPD will be maintained at levels established during FY 2002. - By fiscal year 2005, the percentage of criminal justice partners satisfied with MCAPD will be maintained at levels established during FY 2002. • By fiscal year 2004, MCAPD will have the equipment, facilities, support services and technological interconnectivity with agencies to provide efficient and effective probation services, and promote staff safety 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, support services and staff safety services. - A 10% increase in the number of targeted agencies that are interconnected with Adult Probation. - The department maintaining technology standards and replacement schedules recommended by the County Chief Information Officer in order to remain capable of participating in integration projects (e.g. Integrated Criminal Justice Information System). Issues • 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 public demands that agencies and staff be held accountable for their practices and show positive results which requires the agency to develop methods to monitor and use performance measures. • The need to enhance staff safety has resulted in development of comprehensive safety policies, and pending implementation of safety procedures and training. • An increase in expectations that criminal justice agencies be more responsive to victims’ needs and rights requires the agency to provide mandated victim services. • The negative economic forecasts for state revenues jeopardizes the agency’s ability to provide probation services to the court and community and to enhance the safety and well being of neighborhoods. • 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. • 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. • Changes in laws, societal demands, criminal justice practices and demographic shifts in offender populations are causing criminal justice agencies - with limited resources - 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. 458 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED ADULT PROBATION TOTAL FUNDS Program BEHAVIORAL CHANGE COMMUNITY JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 9,044,633 31,640,627 3,016,438 1,330,765 45,032,463 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 2,305,943 3,032,258 99,534 28,043 5,465,778 $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 29,808 67,500 97,308 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 11,380,384 34,740,385 3,115,972 1,358,808 50,595,549 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 14,234,945 14,234,945 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of probationers who successfully completed education/treatment classes operated by MCAPD. 60 51 59 60 Percent of probationers terminated from probation who successfully completed MCAPD operated education/treatment classes and are not committed to the Department of Corrections. N/A 90 91.3 90 Key Results: 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of probationers performing required community service hours who are meeting or exceeding monthly obligations 54 38 30 45 Percent of probationers who successfully complete probation. 62 61 58 60 Percent of opted-in victims receiving services who are satisfied with services. 49 54 50 55 Percent of probationers who are compliant paying restitution 55 48.2 65 65 Key Results: 459 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 10,834,886 11,619,113 12,094,117 14,521,960 36,360,604 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 39,618,900 39,165,557 40,556,800 37,826,109 14,234,945 $ $ $ $ $ Total 50,453,786 50,784,670 52,650,917 52,348,069 50,595,549 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 10,834,886 11,610,956 12,094,117 14,521,960 36,360,604 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 39,618,900 39,111,694 40,510,322 37,826,109 14,234,945 $ $ $ $ $ Total 50,453,786 50,722,650 52,604,439 52,348,069 50,595,549 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures General Fund Special Revenue FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 19,851 $ 56,643 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 8,157 $ 53,863 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ $ 46,478 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ $ FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 460 Total $ $ $ $ $ 76,494 62,020 46,478 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Community Punishment Program, Literacy Programs AUTHORITY ARS §12-299.01(A) Community Punishment Programs, Submission Of Plan; Use Of Monies; Prohibitions HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 267,489 311,218 328,885 848,249 1,395,116 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 3,008,717 3,253,054 2,660,870 1,887,624 883,780 $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,276,206 3,564,272 2,989,755 2,735,873 2,278,896 TITLE Adult Intensive Probation AUTHORITY A.R.S. §§ 13-913 through 13-920 Intensive Probation HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION A two-person intensive probation team shall supervise no more than twentyfive 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 567,064 587,281 593,870 660,083 7,135,551 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 8,562,119 7,868,708 8,009,213 7,169,684 777,571 $ $ $ $ $ Total 9,129,183 8,455,989 8,603,083 7,829,767 7,913,122 461 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE Victim Notification AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 13-4415 Notice Of Probation Modification, Termination Or Revocation Disposition Matters; Notice Of Arrest HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 11,609 25,942 27,211 27,551 185,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 125,714 148,229 151,781 151,868 - $ $ $ $ $ Total 137,323 174,171 178,992 179,419 185,000 TITLE DNA Testing AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 13-610 Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Testing; Exception HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. *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. 462 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE Drug Treatment and Education Fund AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 13-3422 Drug Court Programs; Establishment; Participation HISTORY/ BACKGROUND This mandate was passed as a voter initiative. The proposition mandates treatment of drug offenders rather than incarceration, and provides funding for treatment. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 25,273 39,607 62,169 63,223 200,000 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 1,617,381 1,001,093 1,502,961 2,051,119 2,064,111 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,642,654 1,040,700 1,565,130 2,114,342 2,264,111 TITLE Community Service AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 12-299.01(B) Community Punishment Program; A.R.S. § 13-914 Intensive Probation; Evaluation; Sentence; Criteria; Limit; Conditions; Court Order HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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." MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. Community Service FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 92,179 135,853 148,122 166,289 565,410 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 383,646 462,952 442,496 446,156 109,421 $ $ $ $ $ Total 475,825 598,805 590,618 612,445 674,831 463 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE Community Notification Of Sex Offenders AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 13-3825 Community Notification HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. TITLE Drug Court AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 13-3422 Drug Court Programs; Establishment; Participation HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The Drug Court was created because of the success of Drug Courts in other jurisdictions in dealing with first time drug offenders. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 464 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 93,189 111,910 163,301 114,548 89,675 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 844,799 658,070 1,337,999 940,669 938,348 $ $ $ $ $ Total 937,988 769,980 1,501,300 1,055,217 1,028,023 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE Field Services Supervision AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 12-251 (A) Adult Probation Officers and support staff; appointment; qualifications HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 5,512,076 5,965,865 6,231,604 6,180,150 21,323,370 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 18,787,651 20,024,684 20,239,348 19,242,684 5,253,739 $ $ $ $ $ Total 24,299,727 25,990,549 26,470,952 25,422,834 26,577,109 TITLE Indirect Services AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 31-461 through 31-467 Compact Agreement/Adult Probation Procedures HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. Indirect Services FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 88,827 91,632 35,173 119,555 513,658 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 1,215,625 1,121,709 1,120,219 1,125,184 465,456 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,304,452 1,213,341 1,155,392 1,244,739 979,114 465 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE Presentence Investigations AUTHORITY 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 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 3,418,922 3,761,388 3,835,925 3,641,076 3,619,845 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 3,567,665 3,856,100 4,203,750 3,500,662 2,960,566 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,986,587 7,617,488 8,039,675 7,141,738 6,580,411 TITLE Warrants AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 13-901 (C) (D) Probation HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 466 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 283,036 235,990 282,867 304,544 695,205 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 489,326 429,947 479,889 591,121 519,397 $ $ $ $ $ Total 772,362 665,937 762,756 895,665 1,214,602 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE Work Furlough AUTHORITY A.R.S. 13-901 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 329,456 344,270 384,990 384,347 487,774 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 269,112 287,148 261,796 190,848 212,556 $ $ $ $ $ Total 598,568 631,418 646,786 575,195 700,330 TITLE Officer Safety/Arming AUTHORITY A.R.S. 12-253 Probation Officer’s Peace Officer status, A.R.S. 12-251, A.R.S. 13-916, Supreme Court Administrative Order 2002-70 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE/ DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 105,048 150,000 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 47,589 50,000 Total $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 152,637 200,000 467 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE Mandatory Payment to Arizona State AUTHORITY Public Finances (Laws 2002, Chapter 328, H.B. 2708, General Appropriations (Laws 2002, Chapter 327, H.B. 2706 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. Mandatory Payment to State of Arizona FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 468 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 1,907,297 - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 480,901 - Total $ $ $ $ $ 2,388,198 - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 110 ADULT PROBATION Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 32,323,725 $ 3,939,571 $ 97,308 $ 36,360,604 $ SPECIAL REVENUE 11,247,858 2,987,087 14,234,945 14,234,945 ALL FUNDS $ 43,571,583 $ 6,926,658 $ 97,308 $ 50,595,549 $ 14,234,945 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT & OBJECT CODE 110 ADULT PROBATION ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS Total Revenue $ 30,733,773 7,726,927 548,833 162,646 39,172,179 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 $ 38,062,122 $ 783,174 100,731 8,251,065 351,186 (1,235) 15,490 47,562,533 $ $ $ 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 $ 507,752 5,560 15,113 109,002 53,021 151,671 1,984,658 818,513 300,220 537 617,647 327,155 90,974 90,832 50 5,072,705 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 149 149 $ Total Expenditures $ 52,635,387 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 33,189,126 8,622,305 120,000 42,136 41,973,567 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 38,929,114 $ 80,712 41,352 9,199,017 2,174,819 (40,000) 122,551 50,507,565 $ 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 $ (13,463,208) $ 31,575,341 8,622,305 120,000 42,136 40,359,782 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 36,355,148 $ 80,712 41,352 8,793,501 3,123,446 (40,000) 122,551 48,476,710 $ 533,583 5,000 195,510 60,019 252,321 1,181,996 892,008 290,760 2,519,525 523,934 380,512 53,950 64,865 6,953,983 $ $ $ 33,511 106,542 140,053 $ 55,570,746 $ (14,210,964) $ 30,106,944 7,656,382 124,812 66,156 37,954,294 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 36,272,588 $ 145,305 100,896 8,646,319 317,385 (141) 72,855 45,555,206 $ 342,721 5,560 19,450 32,288 38,794 138,633 1,473,784 901,372 207,817 2,388,958 643,201 264,830 70,246 90,282 106 6,618,043 $ $ $ 33,511 91,899 125,410 $ 52,298,659 $ (15,210,964) $ $ 30,283,349 7,257,000 130,000 100,000 37,785,349 $ $ 35,712,408 $ 164,740 117,310 9,404,334 432,896 (280,000) 45,551,688 $ 370,000 5,000 2,933 50,000 48,000 177,588 1,794,568 895,000 232,000 2,388,200 578,365 250,000 60,000 75,000 6,926,654 $ $ $ 97,308 97,308 $ 52,575,650 (14,344,365) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 6,014,945 8,040,000 125,000 40,000 14,234,945 $ $ 35,883,499 $ 164,740 117,310 9,447,336 346,896 (24,268,404) 21,880,206 43,571,583 $ 370,000 5,000 2,933 50,000 48,000 177,592 1,794,568 895,000 232,000 2,388,200 578,365 250,000 60,000 75,000 6,926,658 $ $ $ 97,308 97,308 $ 50,595,549 (14,790,301) $ (25,560,396) (582,305) 5,000 (2,136) (26,124,837) % -81% -7% 4% -5% -65% 471,649 1% (84,028) -104% (75,958) -184% (653,835) -7% 2,776,550 89% 24,228,404 60571% (21,757,655) -17754% 4,905,127 10% 163,583 (2,933) 145,510 12,019 74,729 (612,572) (2,992) 58,760 131,325 (54,431) 130,512 (6,050) (10,135) 27,325 31% 0% 74% 20% 30% -52% 0% 20% 5% -10% 34% -11% -16% 0% $ 33,511 9,234 42,745 100% 9% 31% $ 4,975,197 9% (36,360,604) $ (21,149,640) -139% 469 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 110 ADULT PROBATION Market Range Title ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV CMNTY/INSTNL SUPVSN OFCR COMMUNITY SVCS SPECIALIST COUNSELING SUPERVISOR COUNSELOR DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR DISPATCHER EDUCATOR FINANCIAL MANAGER FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR LEGAL ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT ANALYST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC PC SPECIALIST PROBATION OFFICER PROBATION OFFICER SUPV PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM SUPERVISOR SOCIAL WORKER (BS) TECH SUPPORT SPECIALIST TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN TELECOMMUNICTNS OPTR SUPV TRAINING SPECIALIST UNDETERMINED Total 470 FTE 7.0 36.0 114.5 7.0 17.0 102.0 50.0 4.0 36.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 16.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 12.0 539.5 64.0 17.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1072.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Juvenile Probation Organizational Chart Superior Court Presiding Judge Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Cheryln K. Townsend Cheryln K. Townsend Community Services Administrative Services Probation Services - SEF Research & Planning Services JIPS Services Probation Services - DUR Juvenile Detention Mission 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 wit 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 achieve 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 • Eighty percent of our employees will feel safer on the job as a result of training and equipment that is provided to them by FY 2004. All staff will complete required training for safety equipment and tools that are assigned to them. 471 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Issues • 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 USA. 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 demand for resources devoted to employee safety has increased in response to changes in the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration. Our department must revise current policies, develop and implement new policies and provide training and tools needed to support a continuum of safety for all employees. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED JUVENILE PROBATION TOTAL FUNDS Program COMMUNITY JUSTICE DETENTION PROGRAM RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER OPERATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL 472 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 21,265,585 11,724,883 1,250,880 2,060,681 1,101,766 37,403,795 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 2,016,594 1,120,994 2,109,067 672 2,032,736 636,200 7,916,263 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 178,694 178,694 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 23,282,179 12,845,877 2,109,067 1,251,552 4,093,417 1,916,660 45,498,752 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 16,828,082 544,090 17,372,172 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of juveniles completing probation successfully 89 91.7 89.3 90 Percent of juveniles who complete programs without reoffending N/A 79.02 77.8 78 Percent of Maricopa County residents who are Juvenile Probation Department volunteers N/A N/A .0005 0 Percent of juveniles successfully completing diversion programs N/A 80.7 76.8 79 Key Results: Program Name: 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of detainees requiring Class I Incident Reports N/A 3.1 3.6 3.5 Percent of detainees completing cognitive skills programs N/A 60.5 61.8 68 Key Results: 473 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of employees who report they feel safe in doing their job N/A 71 78 80 Amount of revenue collected from Probation and Diversion Fees N/A 1,199,531 1,198,565 1,200,000 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 17,538,982 $ 10,577,644 $ 10,601,402 $ 11,038,054 $ 11,629,603 Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 24,955,845 $ $ 26,938,197 $ $ 28,318,438 $ $ 28,632,843 $ 506,121 $ 33,087,751 $ 781,398 $ $ $ $ $ Total 42,494,827 37,515,841 38,919,840 40,177,018 45,498,752 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 17,538,982 $ 10,577,644 $ 10,601,402 $ 11,038,054 $ 11,629,603 Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 24,955,845 $ $ 26,938,197 $ $ 28,318,438 $ $ 28,632,843 $ 506,121 $ 33,087,751 $ 781,398 $ $ $ $ $ Total 42,494,827 37,515,841 38,919,840 40,177,018 45,498,752 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 474 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Juvenile Court* AUTHORITY Constitution Article 6 § 15 Superior Court ; Procedures Affecting Children; A.R.S. §§ 8-101 Through 8-863 Juvenile Court HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over cases involving crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age, including some traffic offenses. The Juvenile Court also has jurisdiction over 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 required by statute, but is funded by the State. Juvenile Probation Officers are required to provide post adjudication and transfer investigations and reports, standard probation supervision, and process and coordinate the transfer of juveniles for adult prosecution. * 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 mandates calculation equals total department expenditures minus all other Juvenile Probation mandated program expenditures. Community Services FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,099,238 $ 1,159,327 $ 1,826,850 $ 1,727,593 $ 2,019,652 Special Revenue $ 4,450,762 $ 4,762,544 $ 5,748,255 $ 6,076,756 $ 5,765,825 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ - Probation Services FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 6,496,986 $ 6,996,465 $ 6,354,048 $ 6,261,740 $ 6,180,130 Special Revenue $ 7,070,617 $ 5,138,255 $ 4,921,144 $ 4,813,743 $ 5,309,996 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,550,000 5,921,871 7,575,104 7,804,349 7,785,477 $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,567,603 12,134,720 11,275,191 11,075,483 11,490,126 475 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Juvenile Detention Center FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,534 $ 91,296 $ 73,052 $ 79,220 $ 74,568 Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 12,464,294 $ $ 12,605,830 $ $ 12,832,636 $ $ 12,802,714 $ 506,121 $ 15,424,623 $ 781,398 $ $ $ $ $ Total 12,465,828 12,697,126 12,905,688 13,388,055 16,280,589 Research and Planning Services (RAPS) FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,176,896 $ 1,412,601 $ 912,293 $ 977,585 $ 1,102,546 Special Revenue $ 506,433 $ 224,109 $ 351,298 $ 659,160 $ 238,686 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,683,329 1,636,710 1,263,591 1,636,745 1,341,232 Executive Services FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 289,806 $ 295,852 $ 256,478 $ 221,292 $ 249,277 Special Revenue $ 109,176 $ 137,566 $ 183,808 $ 140,628 $ 164,245 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 398,982 433,418 440,286 361,920 413,522 Administrative Services FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 481,564 $ 622,103 $ 1,178,681 $ 1,770,624 $ 2,003,430 Special Revenue $ 354,563 $ 433,037 $ 515,372 $ 500,812 $ 1,887,966 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 836,127 1,055,140 1,694,053 2,271,436 3,891,396 JIPS FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ 3,636,856 $ 3,765,925 $ 3,639,030 $ 4,296,410 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 476 Total 3,636,856 3,765,925 3,639,030 4,296,410 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 270 JUVENILE PROBATION Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 9,455,250 $ 2,030,588 $ 143,765 $ 11,629,603 $ 18,000 SPECIAL REVENUE 27,335,959 5,721,971 29,821 33,087,751 17,354,172 CAPITAL PROJECTS 612,586 163,704 5,108 781,398 ALL FUNDS $ 37,403,795 $ 7,916,263 $ 178,694 $ 45,498,752 $ 17,372,172 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 270 JUVENILE PROBATION ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 13,670,868 1,153,823 74,193 11,120 1,863 14,911,867 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 $ 26,387,262 $ 946,097 201,503 5,967,184 383,763 (904,029) 903,112 33,884,892 $ 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 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS Subtotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 1,762,347 8,435 29,094 172,266 4,080 172,515 1,932,593 355,813 198,598 300,698 291,995 364,650 94,522 12,214 1,863 1 5,701,684 $ $ $ $ 29,602,730 $ 1,061,202 183,630 7,257,369 462,029 (2,785,514) 1,546,543 37,327,989 $ $ 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 $ 5,000 (18,800) 1,628 (12,172) $ 766,926 113,000 160,061 1,039,987 $ 46,572,310 39,574,404 $ 17,852,661 18,000 1,169,904 50,000 19,090,565 FY 2002-03 Revised $ (24,662,537) $ $ $ 18,077,822 18,000 1,169,904 50,000 19,315,726 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 28,668,074 $ 1,060,307 183,630 7,048,290 422,098 (1,600,953) 2,158,031 37,939,477 $ 3,498,997 11,168 36,419 89,000 3,676 172,846 2,102,616 510,995 165,587 1,008,600 397,326 446,957 123,664 17,082 8,584,933 $ $ $ $ 113,000 160,061 273,061 $ 46,797,471 (27,481,745) $ 14,782,513 1,078,045 14,768 7,263 15,882,589 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 26,406,699 $ 911,814 173,116 6,291,376 397,895 (984,001) 1,502,373 34,699,272 $ 1,025,854 2,885 33,653 5,558 3,705 123,300 657,115 381,127 147,754 1,946,472 294,217 256,203 134,868 2,988 5,015,699 $ $ $ $ 84,214 84,214 $ 39,799,185 (27,481,745) $ 15,544,747 9,999 1,177,905 50,000 16,782,651 $ $ 27,964,597 $ 971,418 171,996 7,346,276 354,876 (1,580,733) 2,215,581 37,444,011 $ 1,638,087 2,504 32,416 10,931 4,800 5,600 3,222,402 448,990 218,778 913,488 275,059 249,300 134,143 13,500 7,169,998 $ $ $ $ 178,694 178,694 $ 44,792,703 (23,916,596) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 16,245,747 9,999 1,106,426 10,000 17,372,172 $ -10% 27,976,974 $ 971,418 171,996 7,293,683 354,876 (1,578,036) 2,212,884 37,403,795 $ 691,100 88,889 11,634 (245,393) 67,222 (22,917) (54,853) 535,682 2% 8% 6% -3% 16% -1% -3% 1% 1,159,909 8,664 4,003 78,069 (1,124) 167,246 (1,196,314) 62,005 (53,191) 95,112 122,267 228,921 (10,479) 3,582 668,670 33% 78% 11% 88% -31% 97% -57% 12% -32% 9% 31% 51% -8% 21% $ $ $ $ 178,694 178,694 $ 45,498,752 $ (28,010,052) $ % (1,832,075) (8,001) (63,478) (40,000) (1,943,554) 2,339,088 2,504 32,416 10,931 4,800 5,600 3,298,930 448,990 218,778 913,488 275,059 218,036 134,143 13,500 7,916,263 $ $ (28,126,580) $ 113,000 (18,633) 94,367 1,298,719 (644,835) -10% -44% -5% -80% 8% 100% -12% 35% 3% -2% 477 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 270 JUVENILE PROBATION Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV APPLIC/SYS PROGRMING MGR (INACTIVE) COMPUTER OPERATOR COUNSELOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR DETENTION OFFICER DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL LABORER GRAPHIC EQUIPMENT TECH HR GENERALIST INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC PC SPECIALIST PROBATION OFFICER PROBATION OFFICER SUPV PROGRAM COORDINATOR PSYCHOLOGIST PURCHASING SPECIALIST SOFTWARE ENGINEER (INACTIVE) TECHNOLOGY ANALYST Total 478 FTE 1.0 2.0 5.0 9.0 61.0 1.0 18.0 2.0 1.0 4.5 4.0 271.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 6.0 369.0 42.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 832.5 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Trial Courts Organizational Chart 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 Mission The mission of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County and Maricopa County Justice Courts is to provide people with access to a public forum for dispute resolution and court services so citizens can realize timely, fair, economical, individualized justice, and to also serve the community by assisting children and families in need. Vision The Superior Court and Justice Courts in Maricopa County continually explore ways to improve services by experimenting with better methods to resolve disputes and designing programs 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 and limited jurisdiction court standards. • 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. • 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. • Convenience and understanding of court processes, while maintaining the efficiency and quality of court services. 479 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Trial Courts (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 480 • 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED TRIAL COURTS TOTAL FUNDS Program ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG CASE MANAGEMENT COURT INFORMATION SERVICES COURT OPERATIONS SUPPORT EARLY ASSESSMENT, ADR, SCREENING AND MEDIATION PROGRAMS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM PRE-ADJUDICATION PROGRAM TRIAL DELIVERY TOTAL $ $ $ $ Personal Services 564,642 16,939,269 564,642 12,139,809 $ $ $ $ $ 2,823,211 1,411,606 3,387,854 18,633,196 56,464,229 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 126,095 3,782,851 126,095 2,711,043 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 630,475 315,238 756,570 4,161,136 12,609,502 $ $ $ $ $ 871,496 871,496 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 690,737 20,722,119 690,737 14,850,852 $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 1,345,441 25,294,297 - $ $ $ $ $ 3,453,687 2,598,339 4,144,424 22,794,331 69,945,227 $ $ $ $ $ 269,088 26,908,827 Key Performance Measures Program Name: CASE MANAGEMENT Program Purpose: The purpose of the Case Management program is to provide caseflow management services to the Superior Court, Juvenile Court, and Justice Courts so they can advance case progress in a timely and efficient manner. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of criminal cases resolved within established trial court standards. 77 83 84 90 Percent of civil cases resolved within established trial court standards. 74 71 91 90 Percent of Family Court cases (pre-decree) resolved within established trial court standards. 85 85 85 92 Percent of Juvenile Dependency cases (pre-finding) resolved within established statutory standards. N/A N/A 76 90 Percent of DUI cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards. N/A 56.7 54.5 80 Key Results: 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: Percent of monies (revenues) collected in relation to the total amounts assessed in Justice Courts. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 92 95 481 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Program Name: EARLY ASSESSMENT, ADR, SCREENING, AND MEDIATION PROGRAMS Program Purpose: The purpose of the Early Assessment (Conciliation Services), Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Screening, and Mediation (Juvenile Court) programs is to provide screening, intervention, dispute resolution, and mediation alternatives to litigants and interested parties so they can resolve case-related issues in a timely and appropriate manner. Key Results: FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A 65 56.7 80 Percent cases referred to ADR reach resolution through ADR services provided. Program Name: PRE-ADJUDICATION PROGRAMS Program Purpose: The purpose of Pre-Adjudication programs is to provide pre-file information services and monitoring activity to the court, defendants and interested parties so they can initiate court case activity and monitor case progress, as well as provide trained volunteer advocates for juveniles through the C.A.S.A. program so that a full understanding of juvenile's needs can be developed. 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 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent judges receiving Judicial Performance Review (JPR) with a minimum 80 percent approval rating. N/A 93 96 95 Percent of jurors reporting for service that are sent to a courtroom. 64 80 91 95 Key Results: 482 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 51,693,000 $ 54,434,566 $ 57,338,629 $ 57,242,411 $ 58,294,709 Special Revenue $ 7,303,894 $ 8,721,244 $ 8,451,710 $ 8,778,463 $ 11,650,518 $ $ $ $ $ Total 58,996,894 63,155,810 65,790,339 66,020,873 69,945,227 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 51,693,000 $ 54,434,566 $ 57,338,629 $ 57,242,411 $ 58,294,709 Special Revenue $ 7,303,894 $ 8,721,244 $ 8,451,710 $ 8,778,463 $ 11,650,518 $ $ $ $ $ Total 58,996,894 63,155,810 65,790,339 66,020,873 69,945,227 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE Superior Court AUTHORITY 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. §12223 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The status of the courts as a separate branch of the government is established by the Federal and state constitutions. 483 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. TITLE Justices of the Peace AUTHORITY 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 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 484 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) 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. Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 800 TRIAL COURTS Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 47,870,083 $ 9,834,326 $ 590,300 $ 58,294,709 $ 13,551,699 SPECIAL REVENUE 8,594,146 2,775,176 281,196 11,650,518 13,357,128 ALL FUNDS $ 56,464,229 $ 12,609,502 $ 871,496 $ 69,945,227 $ 26,908,827 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 800 TRIAL COURTS ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 3,266,975 2,064,330 8,642,064 9,770,291 172,988 280,263 24,196,911 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 $ 42,756,811 $ 869,538 198,048 8,099,301 190,648 (671,222) 653,535 52,096,659 $ Subtotal $ 3,217,694 2,943 184,937 4,326,023 360,775 853,907 3,192,968 479,220 733,459 297,696 441,990 34,146 14,125,758 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 4,150 131,450 162,895 298,495 $ 66,520,912 $ 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 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ $ $ (42,324,001) $ 2,559,931 2,199,904 8,953,351 9,636,891 71,618 570,077 23,991,772 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 2,950,189 2,157,287 11,262,579 9,671,890 53,962 438,621 26,534,528 43,814,795 $ 438,902 35,687 9,109,468 1,167,208 (1,201,140) 1,125,592 54,490,512 $ 43,932,561 $ 368,580 124,417 9,541,073 868,926 (1,170,412) 1,250,262 54,915,407 $ 44,331,116 $ 577,019 79,443 9,262,040 381,916 (561,297) 515,024 54,585,261 $ 2,586,155 1,260 184,057 3,939,557 283,956 1,021,004 3,106,940 548,792 554,315 366,080 460,562 10,000 13,062,678 2,482,937 2,650 94,584 3,307,888 341,200 1,147,172 3,153,810 574,626 489,856 370,851 468,348 10,000 12,443,922 2,213,122 2,113 25,100 3,331,755 255,980 758,134 3,143,584 719,350 616,087 181,308 443,373 4,551 11,694,457 $ $ 226,898 722,386 949,284 $ $ 68,502,474 $ (44,510,702) $ $ FY 2003-04 Requested 3,077,818 $ 1,925,989 8,649,549 9,525,554 (572) 434,205 23,612,543 $ $ 2,512,688 2,164,908 8,953,351 9,671,887 71,618 570,077 23,944,529 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 372,898 672,286 1,045,184 $ $ 68,404,513 $ (44,459,984) $ $ $ 60,945 687,530 748,475 $ $ 67,028,193 $ (43,415,650) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 445,239 93,584 2,144,646 497,013 (22,285) (193,899) 2,964,298 18% 4% 24% 5% -31% -34% 12% 44,405,507 $ 239,795 98,002 10,276,930 1,196,323 (826,940) 961,190 56,350,807 $ 45,015,456 $ 239,795 98,002 10,219,623 957,243 (747,080) 681,190 56,464,229 $ (1,082,895) 128,785 26,415 (678,550) (88,317) (423,332) 569,072 (1,548,822) -2% 35% 21% -7% -10% -36% 46% -3% 2,341,616 2,967 7,379 2,831,690 316,000 1,580,949 3,079,111 774,765 759,123 342,468 418,033 12,454,101 2,660,798 2,967 12,979 2,831,716 316,000 1,424,148 3,079,116 774,783 759,123 327,711 420,161 12,609,502 (177,861) (317) 81,605 476,172 25,200 (276,976) 74,694 (200,157) (269,267) 43,140 48,187 10,000 (165,580) -7% -12% 86% 14% 7% -24% 2% -35% -55% 12% 10% 100% -1% 100% -30% 17% $ $ $ 86,000 871,496 957,496 $ $ 69,762,404 $ (43,227,876) $ 2,957,927 2,258,492 11,097,997 10,168,900 49,333 376,178 26,908,827 $ % $ $ 871,496 871,496 $ $ 372,898 (199,210) 173,688 69,945,227 $ (1,540,714) -2% 1,423,584 3% (43,036,400) $ 485 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 800 TRIAL COURTS Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV COMPUTER OPERATOR COUNSELOR COURT COMMISSIONER DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FACILITIES SVCS OFCR SUPV FACILITIES SVCS OFFICER FINANCIAL MANAGER FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR GRAPHIC EQUIPMENT TECH HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR INFO CENTER MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS PROJECT MGR INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR INTERPRETER JUSTICE OF THE PEACE LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL SECRETARY SUPV LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST LIBRARY MANAGER LIBRARY SUPERVISOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC OPERATIONS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST PROBATION OFFICER PROBATION OFFICER SUPV PURCHASING SPECIALIST PURCHASING SUPERVISOR SOCIAL WORKER (BS) SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN TRAINING SPECIALIST UNDETERMINED Total 486 FTE 5.0 4.0 214.5 402.3 85.0 15.0 5.0 33.0 34.0 1.0 8.0 11.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 112.5 1.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 21.0 25.0 9.0 1.0 78.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 35.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 91.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 1276.3 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Appointed Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors Fulton Brock, Chairman Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Elected Appointed Clerk of the Board Fran McCarroll County Administrative Officer David Smith Internal Audit Ross Tate Deputy County Administrator Sandra Wilson Health Services Officer Dr. Jonathan Weisbuch Legal Advocacy Community Services Officer William Scalzo Finance Officer Tom Manos Public Defender Regional Development Services Agency Officer Joy Rich Maricopa Integrated Health System Mark Hillard Contract Counsel Information Technology Officer Paul Allsing, Acting Legal Defender 487 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Animal Care & Control Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Animal Care & Control Animal Care & Control Ed Boks, Director Ed Boks, Director Shelter Medicine Shelter Operations Public Programs Field Services Administration Controller Mission The mission of the Animal Care & Control 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 FY2007 (euthanasia rate of 3 adoptable animals per human population of 1,000). • Achieve and maintain AC&C personnel vacancy rate at less than or equal to the average County vacancy rate by FY2004. • Increase customer satisfaction by 5% by FY 2005 based on the FY 2000 AC&C customer service survey. • Design, develop and implement a humane education program to decrease the return rate of adopted animals by 5% by FY 2005. • Design, develop and implement an animal cruelty ordinance that will enable AC&C to handle all aspects of cruelty issues by FY 2005. • Increase alternative funding to 5% of total AC&C revenue by 2005. • Maintain current 2-week turnaround for dog license issuance. (turnaround defined as time between Maricopa County receiving license renewal and issuance of dog license) 488 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) • Facilitate and serve as liaison with Maricopa County officials and Friends of Animal Care & Control (non-profit 501(c) 3) to generate plans and build new animal care centers by FY2008. 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, costeffective and timely animal care and control services. • Citizens and animal advocacy groups have indicated that they welcome opportunities to support progressive AC&C 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. • The rapid population growth in Maricopa County drives rapid animal growth. This coupled with the national trend toward "no-kill " animal care programs increases the scope and requirements of all aspects of AC&C humane education programs. • Special revenues are not keeping pace with expenditures. Therefore, AC&C will increasingly depend on grants and donations as alternative funding sources to enhance the scope and delivery of Public Programs. • High employee turnover rates will lead to lower productivity, impaired working relations with departments, and lower quality of service. • 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 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL TOTAL FUNDS Program CUSTOMER SERVICE PROGRAM FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM SHELTERING AND ADOPTION PROG ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 151,865 1,852,926 2,844,950 476,790 41,459 5,367,990 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 816,727 633,978 1,196,153 202,062 2,848,920 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ 49,000 49,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 968,592 2,535,904 4,041,103 678,852 41,459 8,265,910 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 3,321,355 2,235,175 2,426,901 7,983,431 489 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 243,938 $ 228,096 $ 304,041 $ 304,041 $ 304,041 Special Revenue $ 5,944,584 $ 6,536,887 $ 6,604,265 $ 9,045,888 $ 7,613,613 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,188,522 6,764,983 6,908,306 9,349,929 7,917,654 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 243,938 $ 228,096 $ 304,041 $ 304,041 $ 304,041 Special Revenue $ 5,944,584 $ 6,536,887 $ 6,604,265 $ 9,045,888 $ 7,613,613 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,188,522 6,764,983 6,908,306 9,349,929 7,917,654 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE Animal Control In Cities and Towns (Incorporated Areas) and Unincorporated Areas AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 11, Chapter 7, Article 6 - Animal Control HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 490 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 304,041 $ $ $ 304,041 $ SPECIAL REVENUE 5,063,949 2,848,920 49,000 7,961,869 7,983,431 ALL FUNDS $ 5,367,990 $ 2,848,920 $ 49,000 $ 8,265,910 $ 7,983,431 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS $ 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 3,532,430 $ 1,895,141 1,296,536 7,543 (28,628) 270,268 6,973,290 $ 4,117,352 2,373,643 1,518,600 7,064 258,818 1,488,277 9,763,754 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 $ 3,417,728 $ 121,416 139,963 929,056 19,644 (407,046) 352,143 4,572,904 $ $ Subtotal $ 262,988 200,440 75,383 111 18,846 296,347 9,189 34,523 161,464 6,876 123,152 139,453 1,091,606 2,420,378 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP Subtotal $ 42,258 42,258 $ Total Expenditures $ 7,035,540 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 $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ 4,163,345 2,373,643 1,693,872 10,532 260,000 8,501,392 3,492,510 $ 14,997 51,514 919,418 523,314 (486,370) 426,358 4,941,741 $ 3,814,952 $ 14,997 51,043 990,135 176,478 (486,370) 380,506 4,941,741 $ 3,395,295 $ 180,002 126,084 922,545 22,651 (426,357) 426,358 4,646,578 $ 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 $ 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 $ 336,915 354,315 77,395 22,962 661,248 24,666 44,673 488,231 11,454 18,196 120,324 1,974,100 4,134,479 $ 160,000 126,385 286,385 $ $ 170,000 164,230 334,230 $ $ 160,000 126,385 286,385 $ $ $ 9,349,929 $ 9,349,929 $ (62,250) $ 413,825 $ 413,825 $ $ $ 4,117,352 2,373,643 1,518,600 7,064 258,818 1,488,277 9,763,754 $ FY 2003-04 Requested 4,037,135 $ 2,255,506 1,591,636 15,931 (4,966) 277,259 1,488,277 9,660,778 $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ 0% -100% -18% 3,766,590 $ 42,245 47,289 1,339,631 16,781 (426,797) 304,041 5,089,780 $ 3,937,921 $ 42,245 47,289 1,353,754 16,781 (467,189) 437,189 5,367,990 $ (122,969) (27,248) 3,754 (363,619) 159,697 (19,181) (56,683) (426,249) -3% -182% 7% -37% 90% -4% -15% -9% 212,978 291,342 81,799 10,476 861,513 19,468 47,248 393,592 2,547 25,116 150,561 648,590 2,745,230 $ 189,978 433,637 81,799 4,395 10,476 841,513 19,468 47,248 453,592 2,547 25,116 150,561 588,590 2,848,920 $ 21,842 (196,442) 986 (4,395) 2,596 76,817 5,199 164 (30,211) 800 374 9,643 1,385,510 1,272,883 10% -83% 1% 49,000 49,000 $ $ 49,000 49,000 $ $ $ 160,000 77,385 237,385 100% 61% 83% 9,115,287 $ 7,884,010 $ 8,265,910 $ 1,084,019 12% 545,491 $ 617,382 $ $ $ 3,850,000 89,438 2,224,643 1,550,000 10,532 258,818 7,983,431 $ % (267,352) 89,438 (149,000) 31,400 3,468 (1,488,277) (1,780,323) $ $ $ (282,479) $ (696,304) -6% -6% 2% 49% 20% 8% 21% 0% -7% 24% 1% 6% 70% 31% -168% 491 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL Market Range Title ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV ANIMAL CARE/CONTROL OFCR ANIMAL CARE/CTL OFCR MGR ANIMAL CARE/CTL OFCR SUPV CALL CTR REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTOR DISPATCHER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR PC SPECIALIST PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM MANAGER PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE UNDETERMINED VETERINARIAN VETERINARIAN TECHNICIAN Total 492 FTE 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 5.0 66.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 22.0 1.0 3.0 9.0 140.5 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 5,000,000 $ 93,697,963 $ 38,795,000 $ 137,492,963 $ 1,237,500 SPECIAL REVENUE 102,330,256 2,988,000 105,318,256 ALL FUNDS $ 5,000,000 $ 196,028,219 $ 41,783,000 $ 242,811,219 $ 1,237,500 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS $ 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 9,698 1,000,900 1,010,598 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ - (1,064) (394) (112) (4) 681 (893) $ - 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 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS Subtotal $ 499,688 31,150 1,089,795 1,063,632 65,489 131,952 2,980 15,773 2,900,459 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 5,874,304 1,209,375 330,493 1,492,497 8,906,669 $ Total Expenditures $ 11,806,235 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ - $ - 10,097,692 51,986,815 750,000 12,029 134,984,712 197,831,248 $ $ $ 12,595,000 8,934,204 1,000,000 44,880 22,574,084 $ 220,405,332 $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 4,510 4,510 $ 21,100 21,100 10,097,692 51,646,815 750,000 12,029 134,984,712 197,491,248 $ $ $ 12,595,000 9,274,204 1,000,000 44,880 22,914,084 $ 220,405,332 $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ 3,295,334 495,000 4,484,303 300,000 211,733 134,984,712 143,771,082 $ $ $ 10,326,497 340,000 500,000 11,166,497 $ 154,958,679 $ 1,237,500 1,237,500 - $ $ 1,237,500 1,237,500 $ 5,000,000 5,000,000 134,105,386 56,118,296 190,223,682 $ $ $ 30,000,000 11,783,000 41,783,000 $ 232,006,682 $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 1,237,500 1,237,500 $ (5,000,000) (5,000,000) 139,909,923 56,118,296 196,028,219 $ $ $ 30,000,000 11,783,000 41,783,000 $ (30,000,000) 812,000 9,274,204 1,000,000 44,880 (18,868,916) $ 242,811,219 $ (22,405,887) -10% (241,573,719) $ (21,168,387) -10% $ (10,795,637) $ (220,405,332) $ (220,405,332) $ (154,954,169) $ (230,769,182) $ $ 10,097,692 (88,263,108) 750,000 12,029 78,866,416 1,463,029 % 100% -171% 100% 100% 58% 1% 6% 100% 100% 100% -82% 493 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Call Center Organizational Chart STAR BOARD STAR BOARD Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Clerk of the Court Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Clerk of the Court David DavidSobieski, Sobieski, Director Director Administration and Network Support STAR Operations Court Operations Mission 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 • In order to provide enhanced customer access, by the end of 2004, the STAR Center in collaboration with the Elections department will develop a plan to obtain and employ voice recognition capability. This technology enhances services by allowing voters to obtain polling place and other information on a 24 hour basis. • By the end of 2004, transfer to the STAR Center the capability to create and edit automated voice prompt messages which will eliminate the cost and time loss associated with edits made by the telecommunications vendor. Issues • Limited resources require a greater use of technology in order to provide services to a continual growing population. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED CALL CENTER TOTAL FUNDS Program STAR CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG 494 $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 903,374 201,996 1,105,370 $ $ $ Supplies & Services 220,147 220,147 Capital Outlay $ $ $ - Total Expenditures $ 1,123,521 $ 201,996 $ 1,325,517 Total Revenue $ $ $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of calls answered within 30 seconds N/A 61 75 75 Percent of requested documents mailed within 24 hours N/A 100 100 100 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,148,984 $ 1,221,730 $ 1,301,396 $ 1,323,313 $ 1,325,517 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,148,984 1,221,730 1,301,396 1,323,313 1,325,517 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,148,984 $ 1,221,730 $ 1,301,396 $ 1,323,323 $ 1,325,517 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,148,984 1,221,730 1,301,396 1,323,313 1,325,517 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 495 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Call Center (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE STAR Call Center AUTHORITY 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. Arizona Constitution Article VI, Section 23 – Superior Court Clerk, Arizona Revised Statutes, Supreme Court Administrative Orders and Local Rules. A.R.S. 12283 Powers and Duties of the Clerk of the Superior Court. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The STAR Call Center is the official communication medium between the Offices of the Board of Supervisors, Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder (including Elections), the Clerk of the Superior Court and the citizens of Maricopa County. MANDATE DESCRIPTION The STAR Call Center has numerous statutory and constitutional duties, which mirror those of the Assessor, Treasurer, Recorder, Elections and the Clerk of the Superior Court. The Call Center provides information, such as property tax information, assessed value of property, deed recording information, voter requests for early ballots and polling places on elections day. The Call Center also provides information concerning Family Court and Child Support proceedings, all without transferring between departments. Services extend to the citizens of Maricopa County such as property owners, mortgage banks, and title companies. 496 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Call Center (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 140 CALL CENTER Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,081,190 $ 244,327 $ $ 1,325,517 $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,081,190 $ 244,327 $ $ 1,325,517 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 140 CALL CENTER ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual 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 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ 793,559 45,213 3,112 194,298 3,973 1,040,155 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ Subtotal $ 11,779 127 45,981 149,323 244 13,280 1,561 25 222,320 Total Expenditures $ 1,262,475 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 826,239 54,472 2,600 207,406 1,090,717 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ 9,000 60,750 155,655 1,048 4,377 1,266 500 232,596 $ 1,323,313 (1,262,475) $ 822,836 54,472 2,600 210,807 2 1,090,717 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 9,000 60,750 155,655 1,048 4,377 1,266 500 232,596 $ 1,323,313 (1,323,313) $ 818,305 38,310 5,462 200,497 2,071 1,064,645 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ $ 7,884 67,745 166,600 680 10,762 836 256 254,763 $ 1,319,408 (1,323,313) $ 832,699 51,694 1,939 209,929 1,096,261 $ $ $ $ 9,000 60,750 152,728 1,048 4,377 1,266 87 229,256 $ 1,325,517 (1,319,408) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 832,699 37,694 1,939 208,858 1,081,190 $ $ % (9,863) 16,778 661 1,949 2 9,527 -1% 31% 25% 1% 100% 1% 0% 1% -8% 0% 0% 0% 83% -5% $ $ 9,000 59,901 168,648 1,048 4,377 1,266 87 244,327 $ 849 (12,993) 413 (11,731) $ 1,325,517 $ (2,204) 0% (1,325,517) $ (2,204) 0% (1,325,517) $ Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 140 CALL CENTER Market Range Title ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV CALL CTR REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN TRAINING SPECIALIST Total FTE 2.0 27.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 33.0 497 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Capital Facilities Development Organizational Chart Citizens of Maricopa County Citizens Jail Oversight Committee Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Chief Regional Development Services Agency Officer Administrative Policy Group Capital Facilities Development Capital Facilities Development Heidi Birch, Director Heidi Birch, Director Finance / Administration Project Management Mission The mission of the Capital Facilities Development Department is to deliver large, fiscally responsible capital facilities so that county departments may successfully achieve their missions in an efficient, enjoyable, and stimulating environment. Vision We will collaboratively, efficiently, and innovatively convert capital funds into needed capital facilities. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • Develop procedures by the end of Fiscal Year 2003 in conjunction with the Facilities Management Department to identify project roles and responsibilities and to improve coordination efforts during the design, construction, and subsequent operation of new facilities. • Design all new major facilities on schedule and within budget in cooperation with the customer and other county departments. • Construct and furnish all new major facilities on schedule and within budget, using appropriate delivery methods. 498 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Capital Facilities Development (Continued) Issues • Construction prices and labor availability will vary each year, which could have an impact on schedule and budget. • 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. • 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. • Relationships with internal County departments will remain positive and strong minimizing potential costly design, construction and schedule changes. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 705,897 21,284 727,181 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 336,326 336,326 Capital Outlay $ 117,361,689 $ $ $ 117,361,689 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 118,403,912 21,284 118,425,196 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ 48,585,819 48,585,819 Key Performance Measures Program Name: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Program Purpose: The purpose of the Building Construction Program is to provide design and construction services to Maricopa County so that they can successfully achieve their missions in fiscally prudent, efficient, enjoyable, and stimulating environments. Key Results: 100 percent of buildings delivered within 100 percent or less of the budget FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 499 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Capital Facilities Development (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Capital Projects $ 17,293,055 $ 51,548,659 $ 154,960,729 $ 171,303,896 $ 117,361,689 $ $ $ $ $ Total 17,293,055 51,548,659 154,960,729 171,303,896 117,361,689 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Capital Projects $ 17,293,055 $ 51,548,658 $ 154,960,729 $ 171,303,896 $ 117,361,689 $ $ $ $ $ Total 17,293,055 51,548,658 154,960,729 171,303,896 117,361,689 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE Construction Of Jail Detention And Justice Facilities AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE Design and construct the new DESCRIPTION facilities. Construction of Jail Detention and Justice Facilities FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 500 adult and juvenile detention and justice Capital Projects $ 17,293,055 $ 51,548,658 $ 154,960,729 $ 171,303,896 $ 117,361,689 $ $ $ $ $ Total 17,293,055 51,548,658 154,960,729 171,303,896 117,361,689 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Capital Facilities Development (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 727,181 $ 336,326 $ 117,361,689 $ 118,425,196 $ 48,585,819 ALL FUNDS $ 727,181 $ 336,326 $ 117,361,689 $ 118,425,196 $ 48,585,819 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN $ 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 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL 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 $ Subtotal $ 84,726,011 84,726,011 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 461,973 $ 11,306 74,004 150 (206,618) (54,412) 286,403 $ 11,266 $ 121 (7,539) 95 32,354 696 35 37,028 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 940 INFRASTRUCTURE Subtotal $ 53,545 150,365,530 340,033 150,759,108 $ Total Expenditures $ 151,082,539 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 98,138,712 98,138,712 $ $ 509,599 $ 24,173 99,926 (686,856) 53,158 $ 509,599 $ 24,173 99,926 (686,856) 53,158 $ 436,680 7,151 250 78,567 75 82,072 604,795 $ - - 19,744 268 1,191 101,184 131,428 875 44 254,734 $ $ $ $ 249,325,795 249,325,795 $ 249,325,795 98,138,712 98,138,712 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ 249,325,795 249,325,795 $ 249,325,795 $ $ $ 48,585,819 48,585,819 38,005 1,500 1,500 19,397 1,500 96,730 2,000 1,000 217,710 $ $ $ $ $ 124,436,391 124,436,391 $ 179,808,800 $ 125,350,686 (66,356,528) $ (151,187,083) $ (151,187,083) $ (81,670,088) $ $ $ 606,540 $ 24,173 100,832 (110,798) 75,838 696,585 $ 178,949,271 178,949,271 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ 48,585,819 48,585,819 $ $ (49,552,893) (49,552,893) -50% -50% 631,776 $ 24,173 100,832 (110,798) 81,198 727,181 $ (122,177) (906) (576,058) (28,040) (727,181) -24% 0% 7,409 1,500 1,500 19,397 1,500 149,212 152,808 2,000 1,000 336,326 $ $ $ $ 117,361,689 117,361,689 $ 118,425,196 (76,764,867) $ % -1% -84% -53% (7,409) (1,500) (1,500) (19,397) (1,500) (149,212) (152,808) (2,000) (1,000) (336,326) $ 131,964,106 131,964,106 53% $ 130,900,599 53% (69,839,377) $ 81,347,706 54% 53% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 400 CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT Market Range Title DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST PROJECT MANAGER Total FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 8.0 501 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Chief Information Officer Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Information Officer Chief Information Officer Business Administration Office of the Chief Information Officer Paul Allsing, Acting Director Paul Allsing, Acting Director Electronic Government Technology Telecommunications MIHS Technology Infrastructure Technology Center Customer Support Center Mission The Mission of the Information Technology 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. 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 countywide technology standardization, we will optimize the use of resources so that the information technology department strategic goals will be achieved by July 2003. Issues 502 • 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Chief Information Officer (Continued) • 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. • 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 2003-04 ADOPTED CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER TOTAL FUNDS Program INFO TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION INFO TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 776,363 351,004 478,773 2,034,519 1,109 3,641,768 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 219,948 9,279 22,227 839,452 1,090,906 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ 142,776 2,500 145,276 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 996,311 360,283 501,000 3,016,747 3,609 4,877,950 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ - Key Performance Measures Program Name: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the IT Application Program is to provide Countywide solutions on behalf of administrative departments so that they can meet their goals and deliver maximum benefit from their technology investments. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent Customers Satisfied with Budget & MFR Applications Development Service Request Outcome. N/A 100 100 100 Percent Customers Satisfied with Financial Applications Development Service Request Outcome. N/A 83 80 85 Percent Customers Satisfied with HR Applications Development Service Request Outcome. N/A 85.7 92 92 Key Results: 503 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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. Key Results: Percent of time we complete work orders to our customers' satisfaction and within our committed time frames FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A 98.24 97.75 95 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 5,072,766 5,175,454 5,157,517 5,195,691 4,877,950 $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,072,766 5,175,454 5,157,517 5,195,691 4,877,950 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 5,072,766 5,175,454 5,157,517 5,195,691 4,877,950 $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,072,766 5,175,454 5,157,517 5,195,691 4,877,950 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 504 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Chief Information Officer (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 3,641,768 $ 1,090,906 $ 145,276 $ 4,877,950 $ ALL FUNDS $ 3,641,768 $ 1,090,906 $ 145,276 $ 4,877,950 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 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 $ FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 3,478,510 $ (16,050) 3,862 601,200 16,051 (325,945) 78,383 3,836,011 $ 3,408,622 $ 5,573 8,700 637,577 18,780 (312,879) 78,383 3,844,756 $ 3,629,366 $ 5,574 8,700 668,293 18,780 (564,340) 78,383 3,844,756 $ Subtotal $ 931,374 27,566 130,679 9,141 90,686 25,477 28,396 309 1,243,628 $ 947,503 70,013 23,536 8,428 96,419 31,175 35,499 199 1,212,772 $ 922,329 70,013 23,529 8,426 96,418 31,180 35,500 200 1,187,595 $ Subtotal $ 156,269 156,269 $ $ 284,432 284,432 $ $ Total Expenditures $ 5,235,908 $ 5,341,960 $ 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 CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE FY 2002-03 Adopted $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ (5,235,908) $ $ (5,341,960) $ $ FY 2003-04 Requested 3,591,097 $ 4,355 8,033 679,914 17,163 (686,809) 78,383 3,692,136 $ 3,439,638 $ 5,574 8,700 675,934 17,555 (335,920) 3,811,481 $ 3,232,595 $ 5,574 8,700 634,881 95,938 (335,920) 3,641,768 $ $ 832,533 25,000 74,728 6,975 87,430 28,540 35,500 200 1,090,906 396,771 33,412 (77,158) (228,420) 78,383 202,988 11% 0% 0% 5% -411% -40% 100% 5% $ 89,796 45,013 (51,199) 1,451 8,988 2,640 96,689 10% 64% -218% 17% 9% 8% 0% 0% 8% $ $ 918,580 45,500 22,728 6,975 94,707 31,180 35,500 200 1,155,370 309,609 309,609 $ $ 192,539 192,539 $ $ 303,220 316,933 $ $ 145,276 145,276 $ $ 164,333 164,333 53% 53% 5,341,960 $ 4,822,945 $ 5,283,784 $ 4,877,950 $ 464,010 9% (4,877,950) $ 464,010 9% (4,822,945) $ $ % 750,000 28,001 21,800 6,671 77,199 41,998 11,601 1,000 938,270 (5,341,960) $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted (5,283,784) $ $ Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST CHIEF OFFICER COMPUTER OPERATOR DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR INFO TECHNOL CONSULTANT PC SPECIALIST TECH SUPPORT SPECIALIST TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN Total FTE 2.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 14.0 1.0 8.0 5.5 7.0 1.0 5.0 8.0 60.5 505 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors Organizational Chart 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 Mission 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, 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 2003, provide all Clerk's Office forms and all County ordinances to citizens via the Internet. Ordinances are being reformatted and updated in order to provide accurate information on the Internet. • 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; and 2) have copies of disciplinary/dismissal letters sent to Human Resources rather than to the Clerk's Office for filing. Legislation is formulated by the Arizona County Clerk's Association. Proposals will be submitted during the upcoming Legislative session by that organization. • 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. • By June 2003, begin to produce brochures highlighting and providing step-by-step information regarding Clerk of the Board processes used by the public and/or County Departments. (The goal is to provide one brochure by June 2003.) 506 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Issues • 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 County-wide and department policy violations, and an increase in incomplete and incorrect Agenda Information Form documentation (e.g. contract amendments don't follow contract guidelines, Department Directors signing contracts instead of the Chairman, and contracts have not been provided to the Clerk's Office at the time of agenda processing), 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 necessary removed from the statutes. • An increase in the broad uses of computer technology has resulted in an increased need for staff technology training. • An increase in technology use has lead to an increase in efficiencies in processing within the Clerk's Office. Many documents are sent to the office electronically and inserted into various documents thus eliminating the need to retype and format the information. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED CLERK OF THE BOARD TOTAL FUNDS Program INFORMATION RESOURCES STATUTORY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 113,517 17,338 60,988 13,624 376,984 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 19,039 34,050 10,510 73,185 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 132,556 51,388 71,498 13,624 450,169 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - 507 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 446,157 $ 414,579 $ 427,717 $ 463,725 $ 450,169 $ $ $ $ $ Total 446,157 414,579 427,717 463,725 450,169 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 446,157 414,579 427,717 463,725 450,169 $ $ $ $ $ Total 446,157 414,579 427,717 463,725 450,169 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 508 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Clerk of the Board of Supervisors AUTHORITY A.R.S. §11-201 Powers of county; A.R.S. §11-251 Powers of board; A.R.S. §11-241 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 record keeper for these Boards. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 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. 509 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 376,979 $ 73,190 $ $ 450,169 $ ALL FUNDS $ 376,979 $ 73,190 $ $ 450,169 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS FY 2002-03 Adopted $ Total Revenue $ 15 15 $ $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ 292,621 9,377 55,325 88 357,411 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 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 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ - FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ 310,789 7,000 55,983 7,255 381,027 14,073 $ 14,304 37,035 2,415 (375) 1,267 917 672 70,308 $ 13,888 28,000 55,617 8,750 1,539 3,845 3,100 920 115,659 $ 496,686 427,719 $ (427,704) $ $ $ - FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 338,820 7,025 59,294 405,139 $ $ $ $ 12,570 19,038 42,000 8,250 839 3,830 3,300 1,720 91,547 $ 496,686 (496,686) $ 510 $ $ $ $ $ 475,601 (496,686) $ MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD Total 326,561 6,269 58,297 391,127 $ $ 11,770 15,704 41,523 7,435 839 3,521 2,663 1,019 84,474 Position Distribution Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT DIRECTOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE - FY 2003-04 Requested FTE 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 - 341,292 3,468 62,776 407,536 $ $ $ $ $ $ 13,475 19,038 42,000 8,250 1,239 3,830 3,100 1,720 92,652 $ 500,188 (475,601) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted - 307,735 12,433 56,811 376,979 % $ $ - $ 31,085 (5,408) 2,483 28,160 9% -77% 4% 40% 21% 13% 9% -19% 19% 67% 13% 20% $ 7% $ $ 7,500 15,000 36,500 7,500 1,000 3,090 1,100 1,500 73,190 $ 5,070 4,038 5,500 750 (161) 740 2,200 220 18,357 $ 450,169 $ 46,517 9% (450,169) $ 46,517 9% (500,188) $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Communications Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Al Macias Al Macias Director Director Community Relations Internal Communications Administration Media Relations Mission The mission of the Maricopa County Office of Communications is to provide consistent, effective, and accurate communication, media relations, and community relations to the residents and employees of the County so they are informed of Maricopa County’s activities, services, and achievements. Vision The Office of Communications will disseminate information about County services through all forms of media including but not limited to print, broadcast, and interactive web based media. Goals • By August of 2004, there will be a 3% increase in the amount of press coverage for Maricopa County (measured by our media tracking service), achieved through a dedicated, unified effort from all County PIO’s to coordinate press through the Office of Communications for greater group impact. • By August of 2004, Maricopa County will increase public awareness of County services and goals by at least 5% over the 2000 results in each of the next two Customer Satisfaction Surveys (as measured by the Office of Research and Reporting). • By January 2005, the Office of Communications will create at least four new methods of sharing information with elected leaders and employees. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL FUNDS Program COMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 444,007 42,943 19,173 506,123 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 161,736 46,949 208,685 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ 5,633 5,633 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 605,743 89,892 24,806 720,441 $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 800,490 800,490 511 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Communications (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A N/A $ 331,078 $ - Internal Service N/A N/A N/A $ 224,104 $ 800,490 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A N/A $ 331,078 $ - Internal Service N/A N/A N/A $ 224,104 $ 800,490 $ $ Total N/A N/A N/A 555,182 800,490 $ $ Total N/A N/A N/A 555,182 800,490 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 512 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Communications (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 710 COMMUNICATIONS Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type INTERNAL SERVICE $ 482,263 $ 208,685 $ 29,493 $ 720,441 $ 800,490 ALL FUNDS $ 482,263 $ 208,685 $ 29,493 $ 720,441 $ 800,490 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 710 COMMUNICATIONS ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted REVENUE 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES $ Total Revenue $ - $ $ - $ $ 800,490 800,490 $ $ 798,946 798,946 $ $ 800,490 800,490 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT Subtotal $ - $ - $ 203,401 44,411 4,536 252,348 $ 171,580 3,459 37,585 3,194 215,818 $ 402,401 $ 84,547 12,860 (23,857) 475,951 $ 408,713 $ 84,547 12,860 (23,857) 482,263 $ $ 13,665 149,736 13,284 20,000 500 10,000 1,500 208,685 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ - - $ $ Total Expenditures $ - Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ - CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $ Subtotal $ - $ Subtotal $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,000 443,953 42,696 20,000 500 5,000 500 518,649 - $ $ $ - $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ - 0% 0% (205,312) (40,136) (8,324) 23,857 (229,915) -101% -90% -184% (7,665) 294,217 29,412 (5,000) (1,000) 309,964 -128% 66% 69% 0% 0% -100% -200% 60% -91% $ $ 24,350 196,000 42,696 20,000 500 10,000 1,500 295,046 29,493 29,493 $ $ 24,577 24,577 $ $ 29,493 29,493 $ $ 29,493 29,493 $ $ - 0% 0% 800,490 $ 753,893 $ 800,490 $ 720,441 $ 80,049 10% $ 45,053 $ $ 80,049 $ 80,049 - $ 800,490 800,490 5,047 448,981 35,580 16,666 2,640 4,168 416 513,498 - $ $ $ $ % Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 710 COMMUNICATIONS Market Range Title DIRECTOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR MEDIA ASSISTANT MEDIA SPECIALIST Total FTE 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.0 3.5 8.0 513 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Community Development Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Community Services Officer Community Development Community Development Isabel McDougall, Director Isabel McDougall, Director Project Mgmt. Finance Deputy Director Monitoring Mission The mission of Community Development is to provide Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Program funding to municipalities and other subrecipients 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. 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 514 • 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 increase 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Community Development (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program COMMUNITY DEV. BLOCK GRANT HOME UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT Personal Services $ $ $ TOTAL $ 665,984 665,984 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 6,370,463 8,800,000 21,225 15,191,688 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 6,370,463 8,800,000 687,209 15,857,672 $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 6,789,100 9,068,572 15,857,672 Key Performance Measures Program Name: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Community Development Block Grant Program is to provide eligible community improvements to CDBG sub-recipients so that low and moderate-income residents are empowered to develop viable communities. Key Results: Percent of dollars spent versus dollars awarded for sub-recipient projects FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 47 50 Program Name: HOME PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the HOME Program is to provide affordable housing opportunities to qualified HOME recipients, sub-recipients, and Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) so that suitable housing for low and moderate income residents is preserved and expanded. Key Results: Percent of dollars spent versus dollars awarded for housing stock preservation and expansion FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 46 50 515 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Community Development (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 6,946,804 7,862,319 7,755,494 6,896,916 15,857,672 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,946,804 7,862,319 7,755,494 6,896,916 15,857,672 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 6,946,804 7,862,319 7,755,494 5,896,916 15,857,672 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,946,804 7,862,319 7,755,494 5,896,916 15,857,672 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 516 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Community Development (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE 588,329 15,269,343 15,857,672 15,857,672 ALL FUNDS $ 588,329 $ 15,269,343 $ $ 15,857,672 $ 15,857,672 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 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 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ FY 2002-03 Adopted 7,753,205 7,753,205 $ $ 468,365 $ 93,867 8,272 (5,733) 564,771 $ 13,741 187 974 127,100 94,893 1,687 6,903,481 19,221 3,078 858 30,214 7,195,434 - $ $ $ $ 7,760,205 $ (7,000) $ 15,861,375 15,861,375 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 476,733 $ 9,900 104,640 (222,486) 222,486 591,273 $ 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 15,861,375 - $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 15,861,375 15,861,375 $ $ 465,332 $ 9,900 103,485 (222,486) 222,486 578,717 $ 17,500 1,300 15,000 1,000 139,124 82,817 3,000 14,950,000 28,928 9,000 1,000 33,989 15,282,658 15,861,375 - $ 12,653,550 12,653,550 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 451,366 $ 7,422 96,369 (222,486) 222,486 555,157 $ $ $ 16,198 1,164 15,000 749 139,123 81,546 2,121 11,749,317 26,451 6,988 747 33,989 12,073,393 $ $ 25,000 25,000 $ $ $ 12,653,550 $ - $ $ $ 15,749,886 15,749,886 $ $ 442,633 $ 11,575 114,286 (222,480) 222,480 568,494 $ 13,000 983 15,297 1,000 50,000 84,671 3,000 14,950,000 23,366 9,000 1,000 30,075 15,181,392 15,749,886 - Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ 15,857,672 15,857,672 % $ $ (3,703) (3,703) 0% 0% 462,470 $ 11,575 114,284 (268,572) 268,572 588,329 $ 2,862 (1,675) (10,799) 46,086 (46,086) (9,612) 1% -17% -10% 19,000 983 15,320 1,000 150,000 84,671 3,000 14,930,142 32,216 9,000 2,786 21,225 15,269,343 15,857,672 - $ $ (1,500) 317 (320) (10,876) (1,854) 19,858 (3,288) (1,786) 12,764 13,315 $ $ - $ 3,703 $ - 21% -21% -2% -9% 24% -2% 0% -8% -2% 0% 0% -11% 0% -179% 38% 0% 0% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Market Range Title ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR PROJECT MANAGER Total FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 9.0 517 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Contract Counsel Organizational Chart 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 quality legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • Implementation of customer service satisfaction index by June 2003. • Implementation of better controls to detect improper billing by vendors. Issues 518 • Contesting of unauthorized claims made against Maricopa County. • Criminal Rules of Procedure need revision so that public monies are not used to fund the defense of cases in which only privately retained lawyers have appeared. • Rules of Criminal Procedure revisions so that Maricopa County has actual notice of a request that its monies be used to fund the defense of cases in which only privately retained lawyers have appeared. • 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. • The Office of Contract Counsel is severely under budgeted to process the volume of cases that is expected of the department without creating a deficit. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Contract Counsel (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED CONTRACT COUNSEL TOTAL FUNDS Program ADULT CIVIL REPRESENTATION ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION ADULT MISDEMNR REPRESENTATION APPELLATE REPRESENTATION DEPENDENCY REPRESENTATION JUVENILE CIVIL REPRESENTATION JUV DELINQ/INCORR REPRESENTN MENTAL HEALTH REPRESENTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG Personal Services $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ 336,900 336,900 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 206,437 2,797,978 28,665 944,455 3,480,743 195,546 1,310,121 7,000 41,591 9,012,536 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,412 5,412 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 206,437 2,797,978 28,665 944,455 3,480,743 195,546 1,310,121 7,000 383,903 9,354,848 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 56,447 5,582 62,029 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A $ 10,024,889 $ 11,174,563 $ 9,354,848 Total N/A N/A $ 10,024,889 $ 11,174,563 $ 9,354,848 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A $ 10,024,889 $ 11,174,563 $ 9,354,848 Total N/A N/A $ 10,024,889 $ 11,174,563 $ 9,354,848 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 519 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Contract Counsel (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Legal Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants and Delinquent or Incorrigible Juveniles AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. 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 postconviction 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 Judicial Mandates AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND 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). 520 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Contract Counsel (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 336,900 $ 9,012,536 $ 5,412 $ 9,354,848 $ 62,029 ALL FUNDS $ 336,900 $ 9,012,536 $ 5,412 $ 9,354,848 $ 62,029 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL $ 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES Total Revenue $ 24,630 137,903 162,533 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ 248,593 3,291 2,830 62,719 317,433 $ $ $ Subtotal $ (47,452) $ 181 1,164 7,948,388 15,496 17,729 508 810 1,698 7,938,522 $ 11,241 4,963,099 15,580 384 597 3,050 4,993,951 $ Subtotal $ - $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 8,255,955 $ 164,627 83,482 248,109 288,266 69,276 357,542 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 CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ (8,093,422) $ 5,351,493 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (5,103,384) $ 164,627 83,482 248,109 288,263 63,825 5,454 357,542 11,241 4,769,791 15,580 384 597 3,050 4,800,643 5,158,185 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ FY 2003-04 Requested 164,627 83,482 248,109 $ $ $ 289,363 47,537 5,454 342,354 11,241 4,619,969 5,000 23,425 200 225 1,500 4,661,560 $ $ 18,756 $ 8,910,501 861 26,369 19,615 69 404 (157) 1,531 8,977,949 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (4,910,076) $ 41,158 20,871 62,029 $ 286,411 249 53,692 200 340,552 $ 9,318,501 $ (9,256,472) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 41,158 20,871 62,029 289,363 47,537 336,900 $ $ $ $ % (123,469) (62,611) (186,080) -75% -75% -75% (1,100) 16,288 5,454 20,642 0% 26% 100% 6% $ $ 11,241 8,970,945 5,000 23,425 200 225 1,500 9,012,536 $ (4,201,154) (5,000) (7,845) 184 372 1,550 (4,211,893) 5,412 5,412 $ $ 5,412 5,412 $ $ (5,412) (5,412) 5,009,326 $ 9,354,848 $ (4,196,663) -81% (9,292,819) $ (4,382,743) -89% (4,761,217) $ 0% -88% -50% 48% 62% 51% -88% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV DIRECTOR LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST SOCIAL WORKER (BS) Total FTE 3.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 7.3 521 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Correctional Health Organizational Chart 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 Mission The mission of the Correctional Health Services (CHS) Department 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 CHS will demonstrate excellence in correctional health care and be an integral part of the health and safety of the community. Goals • CHS will redesign it’s work force and improve employee moral 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 the date of their hire. • 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 by demonstrating enhanced accountability for resources through the implementation of an automated information system and an Electronic Health Records System in the new Lower Buckeye Jail. • CHS will protect the communities health & safety by providing leadership to establish continuity of care for inmates who are seriously mentally ill, have communicable diseases and/or are pregnant as they are released from jail. • CHS will control costs of specialty health care services and hospitalizations through the use of effective utilization management guidelines and resource allocation practices. 522 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) 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 additional litigation. This negativity impacts CHS's quality of care, public image and the ability to recruit and retain staff. • The shortage of health care personnel and our inability to competitively recruit and retain quality clinical personnel will increase financial/legal risks, adversely affecting moral and the delivery of quality results. • The transition from a capped outside services cost 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 effective internal and external communication, lower staff moral due to inefficiencies and antiquated 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 increasing use of criminalization for 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 diminished staff moral. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED CORRECTIONAL HEALTH TOTAL FUNDS Program ADULT/REMANDED JUV INMATE TRTM HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT INMATE ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 6,569,921 919,976 4,831,119 974,621 46,951 13,342,588 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 3,044,943 3,034,274 2,520,619 241,461 8,841,297 $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 422,948 422,948 14,250 860,146 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 10,037,812 3,954,250 7,774,686 1,230,332 46,951 23,044,031 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 515,290 544,096 1,059,386 523 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 12,848,307 $ 18,356,743 $ 18,230,886 $ 21,489,017 $ 21,837,046 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ 121,603 $ 156,499 Total $ 12,848,307 $ 18,356,743 $ 18,230,886 $ 21,610,620 $ 21,993,545 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 12,848,307 $ 18,356,743 $ 18,230,886 $ 21,489,017 $ 21,837,046 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ 121,603 $ 156,499 Total $ 12,848,307 $ 18,356,743 $ 18,230,886 $ 21,610,620 $ 21,993,545 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE Health Care to Indigents in County Correctional Facilities AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 11-291 Hospitalization and Medical Care of Indigent Sick HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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). 524 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE $ 13,186,089 $ 8,841,297 $ 860,146 $ 22,887,532 $ 1,059,386 CAPITAL PROJECTS 156,499 156,499 ALL FUNDS $ 13,342,588 $ 8,841,297 $ 860,146 $ 23,044,031 $ 1,059,386 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 76,945 520 5,943 378 1,353 85,139 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 $ 6,352,205 $ 851,574 598,610 1,493,706 386,554 (79,202) 105,636 9,709,083 $ 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 $ 144,268 1,973,583 2,634 13,158 5,734,059 394,910 3,914 40,624 484,127 24,525 3,340 25,508 8,844,650 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 7,907 7,907 $ Total Expenditures $ 18,561,640 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ 1,047,152 8,900 1,056,052 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 8,546,644 $ 815,131 499,997 1,861,403 397,052 (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 $ $ $ 194,783 636,000 13,778 844,561 $ 20,009,260 $ (18,476,501) $ 1,047,152 8,900 1,056,052 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 705,926 $ 440 4,127 (29) 2,008 712,472 $ 9,783,771 $ 472,723 428,835 1,813,480 619,892 (65,150) 124,194 13,177,745 $ 8,923,843 $ 575,928 628,283 1,888,623 314,023 (102,367) 186,015 12,414,348 $ 73,172 1,821,500 2,500 91,091 34,372 3,242,435 150,550 35,800 19,150 1,850,348 65,098 2,500 15,450 7,403,966 $ $ $ 845,896 20,046 865,942 $ 21,447,653 $ (18,953,208) $ FY 2003-04 Requested 89,411 2,767,691 2,556 39,876 4,562,982 191,540 30,397 20,923 1,851,548 33,436 3,678 21,278 9,615,316 $ $ $ 600,000 19,043 619,043 $ 22,648,707 $ (20,391,601) $ 65,150 8,900 74,050 $ $ 10,377,444 $ 597,863 447,051 1,314,750 590,593 (148,343) 111,307 13,290,665 $ 45,450 1,844,719 2,800 31,465 3,174,857 135,978 31,316 7,000 2,778,882 26,311 2,500 11,500 8,092,778 $ $ $ 14,250 14,250 $ 21,397,693 $ (21,936,235) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 1,050,486 500 7,100 1,300 1,059,386 $ % $ 3,334 500 (1,800) 1,300 3,334 0% 10,305,359 $ 597,863 447,051 1,386,835 590,593 (148,343) 163,230 13,342,588 $ (521,588) (125,140) (18,216) 426,645 29,299 83,193 (39,036) (164,843) -5% -26% -4% 24% 5% 128% -31% -1% 27,722 (393,219) (300) 17,760 34,372 (237,002) (2,401) 4,484 12,150 (928,534) 23,687 3,950 (1,437,331) 38% -22% -12% 19% 100% -7% -2% 13% 63% -20% 0% 45,450 2,214,719 2,800 73,331 3,479,437 152,951 31,316 7,000 2,778,882 41,411 2,500 11,500 8,841,297 $ $ $ 845,896 14,250 860,146 $ $ 23,044,031 $ (1,596,378) -7% (21,984,645) $ (1,593,044) -8% $ (21,323,643) $ $ 5,796 5,796 -50% 36% 0% 26% -19% 0% 29% 1% 525 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR COUNSELING SUPERVISOR COUNSELOR DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DENTAL ASSISTANT DENTIST DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE MANAGING PHYSICIAN MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC MEDICAL AIDE MEDICAL ASSISTANT NURSE NURSE PRACT/PHYS ASST NURSING SUPERVISOR PHARMACIST PHARMACY MANAGER PHARMACY TECHNICIAN PHYSICIAN PSYCHOLOGIST RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGIST TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TRAINING SPECIALIST UNDETERMINED UNIT SECRETARY Total 526 FTE 8.0 11.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 18.8 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 31.8 1.0 2.0 11.0 42.0 56.2 12.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 18.0 262.8 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Administrative Officer Organizational Chart Board Of Supervisors County Administrative Officer County Administrative Officer David R. Smith David R. Smith 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 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. Goals • Assist in organizing a successful and innovative 2004 NACo conference in Maricopa County by June 2003. • Provide regional leadership in critical public areas in a fiscally responsible manner. • Advance proposals for the homeless campus to complete fundraising pledges from public and private sectors, sufficient to begin construction of the campus by June 2003. • Advance a "transformative services agenda" of largely quality of life services improvements. These include securing a Maddie's grant or other resources to begin a five-year process toward a "no kill" community of adoptable companion animals in the county and work with public and environmental health to continue to control communicable or environmentally induced diseases. Create plans for controls and reductions of the incidences of these diseases. • Healthy community and solvent health care system. A. Work with MIHS management to implement their FY 2003 performance plan, especially with regard to increased cash collections. B. Complete an MIHS strategic plan for implementation by June 2003. • 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 during a fiveyear period ending in FY 2004. 527 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Administrative Officer (Continued) • Conduct an evaluation of which Maricopa County justice sanctions, services, and programs that effectively discourage repeat offenses by FY 2004. With this understanding, realize a 2% reduction in felony offender recidivism rates for each subsequent year. • 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 each month by FY 2003; — Clear 90% of cases within 180 days by FY 2003; — Clear 99% of cases within 180 days by FY 2006. • Draft a county crime prevention plan and secure public and community support for its implementation. Help secure funding of high efficacy initiatives for FY 2003-2004. Issues • Three thousand felonies, 36,000 juvenile delinquency referrals, and over 8,000 persons in the county jail, plus over 23,000 persons on probation represent a huge criminal justices services challenge, both in terms of crime victims, justice system coordination, and costs. Case processing efficiencies have vastly improved. an integrated justice information system is in progress. Finally, adult and juvenile crime reduction/prevention strategies are needed to slowdown the trendlines. The 60,000-75,000 persons above, or about 2% of the overall county population, are to be targeted for crime prevention strategy. • MIHS has major financial challenges due to falling market share, a heavy burden of uncompensated care, and the need for capital reinvestment. • Criminal justice and related capital projects all need to be delivered on time and within budget, and coordinated and funded with staffing and other operational needs. • The rising costs of administering justice will require CAO and OMB to partner with criminal justice agencies identifying management strategies around effectiveness and processes. • Certain community-enhancing projects such as an integrated services homeless campus, establishing a "no-kill" community of adoptable companion animals, and acquiring additional open space land for recreational and trail use are important to our community's quality of life. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TOTAL FUNDS Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS JUSTICE SYSTEM COORDINATION OMBUDSMAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT 528 $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 203,240 175,034 126,226 135,600 202,005 1,400 843,505 Supplies & Services $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 261,114 50,694 311,808 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 203,240 436,148 126,226 135,600 252,699 1,400 1,155,313 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Administrative Officer (Continued) Key Performance Measures 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 complaints/concerns responded to within three days FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 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 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of targeted bills passed, favorably amended or defeated: low, medium, or high difficulty 100 92.5 91 90 Percent of grant dollars achieved vs. applied for 83 85 100 100 Key Results: 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 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 529 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Administrative Officer (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,003,941 $ 1,172,121 $ 1,253,252 $ 946,412 $ 1,155,331 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,003,941 1,172,121 1,253,252 946,412 1,155,331 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,003,941 $ 1,172,121 $ 1,253,252 $ 946,412 $ 1,155,331 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,003,941 1,172,121 1,253,252 946,412 1,155,331 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 530 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules County Administrative Officer (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 843,521 $ 311,792 $ $ 1,155,313 $ ALL FUNDS $ 843,521 $ 311,792 $ $ 1,155,313 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 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 $ 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 $ 786,886 8,228 137,659 354 933,127 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ Subtotal $ 6,819 12 1,045 299,698 7,253 4,501 797 320,125 Total Expenditures $ 1,253,252 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 817,245 19,400 164,660 76 196,260 1,197,641 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ 15,784 1,756 313,056 1,546 15,915 15,979 241 364,277 $ 1,561,918 (1,253,252) $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 744,839 $ 19,400 146,467 (135,441) 134,913 910,178 $ $ $ 15,784 1,756 313,056 1,546 15,915 15,979 241 364,277 $ 1,274,455 (1,561,918) $ FY 2003-04 Requested 810,721 $ 21,846 159,486 289 (135,441) 149,849 1,006,750 $ $ $ 8,000 238,265 500 8,001 8,000 238 263,004 $ 1,269,754 (1,274,455) $ 741,544 12,437 152,661 906,642 $ $ $ $ 15,784 1,756 324,544 1,546 18,348 14,579 482 377,039 $ 1,283,681 (1,269,754) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 741,544 $ 7,554 152,287 (57,864) 843,521 $ 3,295 11,846 (5,820) (77,577) 134,913 66,657 0% 61% -4% -57% 100% 7% $ $ 11,362 800 272,391 1,546 14,258 10,953 482 311,792 $ 1,155,313 $ 119,142 9% (1,155,313) $ 119,142 9% (1,283,681) $ $ 4,422 956 40,665 1,657 5,026 (241) 52,485 % 28% 54% 13% 0% 10% 31% -100% 14% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 200 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT CHIEF OFFICER DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR GENERALIST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT UNDETERMINED Total FTE 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 531 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elections Organizational Chart 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 and candidates so that they have equal access and may readily participate in elections. Vision The Vision of the Elections Department is a County in which citizens may vote, initiate petitions, and run for office confident that every effort was made to: educate them about election laws and procedures, remove barriers to participation, provide equal access, and assure the integrity of elections. Goals • Increase the percentage of early votes to 55% by 2005. • Reduce the number of candidates fined to less than 10% of the total filing by 2005. • Reduce the hours worked per eligible voter by 5% by 2005. • Reduce the ratio of ballots to be verified to ballots cast by 5% by 2005. Issues 532 • 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 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elections (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED ELECTIONS TOTAL FUNDS Program ELECTIONS VOTER REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 1,775,407 659,093 913,654 3,348,154 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 3,461,123 801,951 608,660 4,871,734 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 5,236,530 1,461,044 913,654 608,660 8,219,888 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 2,163,480 2,163,480 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 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percentage of deliveries of supplies and equipment delivered to the correct precinct N/A 100 100 100 Fines levied as a percentage of active political committees N/A 6.96 0.88 0 The percentage of ballots returned for which an incorrect ballot selection was issued N/A 100 99.97 99.5 Percentage of elections not postponed because of improper boundaries N/A 100 100 100 Reduction in the number of complaints about polls per vote cast at polls N/A 0.01 0.02 0.02 Percentage of board worker positions filled one week out from election N/A 98.45 97.21 98 Percentage increase in the number of voter registration cards collected at events N/A N/A 124,758 50,000 Percentage of cost for ballots reprinted N/A N/A 3.04 5 The percentage of special ballots processed in time to meet the statutory deadline N/A 100 100 100 Key Results: 533 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elections (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 7,237,078 $ 9,978,329 $ 5,937,614 $ 9,946,890 $ 8,219,888 $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,237,078 9,978,329 5,937,614 9,946,890 8,219,888 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 7,237,078 $ 9,978,329 $ 5,937,614 $ 9,946,890 $ 8,219,888 $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,237,078 9,978,329 5,937,614 9,946,890 8,219,888 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. § 16-452 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. 534 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elections (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 210 ELECTIONS Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 3,199,625 $ 5,020,263 $ $ 8,219,888 $ 2,163,480 ALL FUNDS $ 3,199,625 $ 5,020,263 $ $ 8,219,888 $ 2,163,480 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 210 ELECTIONS ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL $ 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 1,611,039 12,766 16,434 12,290 1,652,529 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 1,890,724 79,145 94,557 464,027 15,797 58 2,544,308 $ $ Subtotal $ 217,157 66 3,146 6,141 11,446 1,862,118 452,413 13,089 62,636 33,602 555,691 13,950 3,231,455 $ $ Subtotal $ 161,846 161,846 $ $ Total Expenditures $ 5,937,609 $ 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.) $ $ $ $ (4,285,080) $ 2,067,500 2,500 15,000 2,085,000 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 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 $ 10,135,373 $ $ $ $ $ (8,050,373) $ 2,067,500 2,500 15,000 2,085,000 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 1,913,514 843,358 507,546 687,835 3,952,253 $ 84,638 9,750 4,800 4,422,000 805,432 44,000 61,600 743,400 7,500 6,183,120 $ 10,135,373 $ $ $ $ $ (8,050,373) $ 2,053,125 903 15,640 15,332 2,085,000 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 1,881,584 639,722 438,730 636,282 28,992 3,625,310 $ 58,591 6,469 1,557 4,984 4,794,090 737,315 13,022 80,834 55,828 674,424 9,095 6,436,209 $ 10,061,519 $ $ $ $ $ (7,976,519) $ 775,000 2,500 15,000 792,500 $ $ 1,941,270 466,023 170,994 621,338 3,199,625 $ 186,270 2,500 3,000 3,081,051 630,575 5,000 30,000 42,250 624,123 4,500 4,609,269 $ 7,808,894 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ (7,016,394) $ 2,145,980 2,500 15,000 2,163,480 $ $ 1,941,270 466,023 170,994 621,338 3,199,625 $ 186,270 2,500 3,000 3,492,045 630,575 5,000 30,000 42,250 624,123 4,500 5,020,263 $ 8,219,888 $ $ $ $ 78,480 78,480 % 4% 0% 0% 4% (27,756) 377,335 336,552 66,497 752,628 -1% 45% 66% 10% (101,632) 7,250 1,800 929,955 174,857 (5,000) 14,000 19,350 119,277 3,000 1,162,857 -120% 19% 74% 38% 21% 22% 32% 31% 16% 40% 19% - $ 1,915,485 19% (6,056,408) $ 1,993,965 25% 535 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Elections (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 210 ELECTIONS Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR ENGINEERING AIDE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL MAINTENANCE SUPV HR SPECIALIST INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE Total 536 FTE 9.0 1.0 20.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 54.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Eliminations Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 980 ELIMINATIONS Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type ELIMINATIONS $ $ (386,903,746) $ $ (386,903,746) $ (386,903,746) ALL FUNDS $ $ (386,903,746) $ $ (386,903,746) $ (386,903,746) EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 980 ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ (6,012,113) $ (2,600,000) $ (2,600,000) $ (2,600,000) $ (16,495,079) $ 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES (41,443,255) (45,633,576) (46,434,066) (47,244,690) (48,767,622) 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE (12,340,631) (15,063,816) (15,063,816) (15,063,816) (17,981,026) 680 TRANSFERS IN (309,408,986) (406,032,678) (406,032,678) (406,032,678) (305,108,146) Total Revenue $ (369,204,985) $ (469,330,070) $ (470,130,560) $ (470,941,184) $ (388,351,873) $ EXPENDITURES SUPPLIES & SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ (12,340,631) $ (15,063,816) $ (15,063,816) $ (15,063,816) $ (17,981,026) $ (6,012,113) (2,600,000) (2,600,000) (2,600,000) (16,495,079) (41,443,255) (45,633,576) (46,434,066) (47,244,690) (48,767,622) (309,408,986) (406,032,678) (406,032,678) (406,032,678) (305,108,146) Subtotal $ (369,204,985) $ (469,330,070) $ (470,130,560) $ (470,941,184) $ (388,351,873) $ Total Expenditures $ (369,204,985) $ (469,330,070) $ (470,130,560) $ (470,941,184) $ (388,351,873) $ FY 2003-04 Adopted (16,495,079) $ (47,407,631) (17,981,026) (305,020,010) (386,903,746) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance % (13,895,079) (973,565) (2,917,210) 101,012,668 83,226,814 -534% -2% -19% 25% 18% (17,981,026) $ 2,917,210 (16,495,079) 13,895,079 (47,407,631) 973,565 (305,020,010) (101,012,668) (386,903,746) $ (83,226,814) 19% 534% 2% -25% -18% (386,903,746) $ -18% (83,226,814) 537 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Emergency Management Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Regional Development Services Agency Officer Emergency Management Emergency Management Robert Spencer, Director Robert Spencer, Director Support Services Plans & Operations Mission The mission of the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management is to provide communitywide 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 • By June 2005, repair and upgrade critical emergency communication systems 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. • By November 2004, or later if the target date is amended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), develop the Maricopa County Disaster Mitigation Plan. The plan will be multijurisdictional and will include all cities and towns in the county that desire to participate. • By June 2003, develop career paths focusing on training, education, and experience, along with appropriate salary levels, for all non-exempt department employees. • By June 2006, meet or exceed the applicable standards of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1600 for emergency management and achieve nationally recognized departmental accreditation. • By June 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. 538 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) • By June 2003, ensure that the Maricopa County Emergency Operations Plan has been updated to incorporate all appropriate information regarding federal, state, county, and municipal assets available to respond to a terrorist event. By the end of each fiscal year in which funds are alloted to entities within Maricopa County, develop a plan to distribute those funds in a manner that upgrades both the statewide and the local response to terrorism to the greatest extent possible. Issues • Failing communication systems and inability to keep up with improvements in technology will degrade our ability to effectively communicate with outside agencies and coordinate our response to emergencies. • Increased populations within hazard-prone areas make it necessary to develop better methods of alerting the population of impending disasters. • Increasing federal emphasis on hazard mitigation requires an immediate response and dedication of department resources to qualify for federal funding and prevent unnecessary loss of lives and property. • As the field of emergency management evolves, adhering to newly established standards and achieving nationally recognized accreditation 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, necessitating the development of plans to deal with those events. • The country's reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has created a greater demand for persons with disaster planning skills, making it difficult for the department to retain employees that have developed critical experience and interagency working relationships. A major investment of time and money will be lost if these personnel cannot be retained. • Homeland defense has become a primary area of focus for department staff and resources. • The federal government has made significant funding available to develop a capability to adequately respond to terrorism, requiring the department to facilitate distribution to appropriate local agencies. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program MITIGATION PREPAREDNESS RESPONSE AND RECOVERY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 25,436 395,694 50,346 324,597 796,073 Supplies & Services $ $ $ $ $ 580,675 77,803 658,478 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ 50,000 50,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 25,436 1,026,369 50,346 402,400 1,504,551 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 1,184,956 1,184,956 539 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: PREPAREDNESS Program Purpose: The purpose of the preparedness program is to provide knowledge and experience to the people of Maricopa County so they can be prepared to respond to an emergency. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of county and city/town emergency operations plans updated within the past four years. 72 72 80 80 Percent of items evaluated in Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station exercise that meet or exceed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards. 100 N/A 100 100 Key Results: 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: FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 Percent of days 24-hour-a-day response and recovery capability was maintained. Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 109,715 $ 136,354 $ 59,182 $ 65,898 $ 152,182 Special Revenue $ 655,606 $ 680,223 $ 726,732 $ 816,618 $ 1,352,369 $ $ $ $ $ Total 765,321 816,577 785,914 882,516 1,504,551 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 109,715 $ 136,354 $ 59,182 $ 65,898 $ 152,182 Special Revenue $ 655,606 $ 680,223 $ 726,732 $ 816,618 $ 1,352,369 $ $ $ $ $ Total 765,321 816,577 785,914 882,516 1,504,551 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 540 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Emergency Management AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND The emergency management function was created in 1953 to coordinate disaster 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 DESCRIPTION Develop, test and maintain the capability to respond to a life-threatening 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. 541 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 131,340 $ 20,842 $ $ 152,182 $ SPECIAL REVENUE 681,696 620,673 50,000 1,352,369 1,184,956 ALL FUNDS $ 813,036 $ 641,515 $ 50,000 $ 1,504,551 $ 1,184,956 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 86,816 642,762 22,326 98 752,002 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 542,774 110,433 47,534 3,114 703,855 $ 45,315 1,056 9,347 1,691 1,348 3,956 7,087 10,468 1,312 481 82,061 $ $ - 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 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 940 INFRASTRUCTURE $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ $ 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 $ $ $ 20,000 20,000 $ 1,163,890 $ $ 785,916 452,276 212,886 1,497 666,659 FY 2002-03 Revised (33,914) $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 452,274 212,885 1,500 666,659 $ $ 547,714 14,000 120,293 29,999 49,994 762,000 $ 153,546 1,042 85,958 1,666 5,151 2,827 21,249 21,813 26,904 20 21,714 341,890 $ $ $ 60,000 60,000 $ 1,163,890 $ $ (497,231) $ 542 $ $ 43,339 957 5,626 434 3,142 2,939 15,049 12,158 4,136 7,247 95,027 $ $ $ 59,512 59,512 $ (497,231) $ $ $ MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Total $ 526,382 3,585 120,102 20,844 56,012 726,925 Position Distribution Market Range Title ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST OPERATIONS MANAGER PLANNER PRGRM COORDINATION SPEC 376,929 656,019 15,000 1,047,948 FY 2003-04 Requested FTE 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 14.0 972,071 337,698 1,309,769 $ $ 524,308 133,959 23,493 55,869 737,629 $ 2,462 1,036 127,600 491,401 3,000 11,987 2,760 1,602 641,848 $ $ $ 25,000 25,000 50,000 881,464 $ 1,429,477 166,484 $ $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 972,071 212,885 1,184,956 $ $ % 519,797 (1,500) 518,297 115% 0% -100% 23,406 14,000 (13,666) (68,568) (6,208) (51,036) 4% 100% -11% -229% 151,084 6 (41,642) 1,666 (485,917) 2,827 18,249 9,826 24,144 (1,582) 21,714 (299,625) 98% 1% -48% 100% -9433% 100% 86% 45% 90% -7910% 100% -88% 78% 524,308 133,959 98,567 56,202 813,036 $ 2,462 1,036 127,600 491,068 3,000 11,987 2,760 1,602 641,515 $ $ $ 25,000 25,000 50,000 $ 35,000 (25,000) 10,000 17% $ 1,504,551 $ (340,661) -29% 177,636 36% $ $ (119,708) $ $ $ (319,595) $ -12% -7% 58% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Environmental Services Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Environmental Services Environmental Services Al Brown, Director Al Brown, Director Air Quality Division Water & Waste Water Management Division Environmental Health Division Business Services Division Community Services Division 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. 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. • Quarter1 Planning and analysis for the Public Health Clinic/Environmental Services building and 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. 543 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) • 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. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TOTAL FUNDS Program AIR QUALITY PROGRAM BUSINESS SERVICES PROGRAM COMMUNITY SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 3,720,942 1,018,703 1,280,129 5,364,095 2,121,486 657,223 14,162,578 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 477,142 1,365,638 1,220,660 430,869 172,657 587,876 4,254,842 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 133,000 225,700 58,397 417,097 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 4,331,084 2,384,341 2,500,789 6,020,664 2,294,143 715,620 587,876 18,834,517 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 1,211,589 14,563,574 2,248,575 433,819 18,457,557 Key Performance Measures Program Name: 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of Air Quality Industrial Source Permits in compliance with Air Quality Regulations 81.99 73.96 71.04 85 Percentage of Air Quality Industrial Sources in compliance 81.99 73.96 71.18 85 Key Results: 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 544 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 1 8.3 -3.42 2 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) 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/citizens receiving assistance FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 2,275 1,754 2,066 2,100 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 641,352 677,647 783,013 666,056 753,844 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 15,751,856 16,002,734 16,442,936 20,136,514 18,080,672 $ $ $ $ $ Total 16,393,208 16,680,381 17,225,949 20,802,570 18,834,516 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 641,352 677,647 783,013 666,056 753,844 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 15,750,510 16,001,780 16,431,976 20,119,123 18,049,882 $ $ $ $ $ Total 16,391,862 16,679,426 17,214,988 20,785,180 18,803,726 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 1,347 955 10,961 17,390 30,790 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,347 955 10,961 17,390 30,790 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 545 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Voluntary Vehicle Repair and Retrofit Program AUTHORITY A.R.S. in Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 3, by adding Section 49-474.03 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 60,881 46,250 68,514 49,633 23,912 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 357,027 618,453 691,614 650,524 524,142 $ $ $ $ $ Total 417,908 664,703 760,128 700,157 548,054 TITLE Environmental Health AUTHORITY 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 1-12; U.S. District Court of Arizona Judgement No. Civ 77-479 Hart vs. Hill. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 546 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 580,471 631,397 714,499 616,423 729,932 $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 7,779,090 8,156,502 8,319,303 9,958,290 8,759,936 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,359,560 8,787,899 9,033,802 10,574,713 9,489,868 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) TITLE Air Quality Control AUTHORITY 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 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 established state and county control of air pollution, and Maricopa County established an Air Pollution Program in the 1960's. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 5,506,482 5,211,934 5,588,154 7,667,856 6,679,948 $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,506,482 5,211,934 5,588,154 7,667,856 6,679,948 TITLE Trip Reduction & Small Business Assistance Program AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. 547 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) 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 user-friendly. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 994,969 1,062,241 899,326 867,568 961,033 $ $ $ $ $ Total 994,969 1,062,241 899,326 867,568 961,033 TEA21 Grant-Trip Reduction Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - $ $ $ $ $ Special Revenue 1,114,288 953,604 944,540 992,276 1,155,613 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,114,288 953,604 944,540 992,276 1,155,613 548 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 613,821 $ 140,023 $ $ 753,844 $ SPECIAL REVENUE 13,548,756 4,114,819 417,097 18,080,672 18,457,557 ALL FUNDS $ 14,162,577 $ 4,254,842 $ 417,097 $ 18,834,516 $ 18,457,557 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS $ 615 GRANTS 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 11,685,575 3,475,426 475,212 630,339 233,549 907,262 17,407,363 $ 11,731,766 3,719,080 472,000 506,000 1,009,000 17,437,846 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 $ 10,010,169 $ 55,012 24,321 2,103,382 61,720 (11,983) 7,331 12,249,952 $ 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 $ $ 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 $ 472,321 3,034 49,391 64,808 1,757 7,065 1,646,926 900,840 47,164 789,282 192,284 73,398 7,463 524,569 4,780,302 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 2,838 123,843 81,227 7,400 215,308 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 219,900 58,397 278,297 17,245,562 $ 20,448,437 161,801 $ (3,010,591) $ 11,615,847 3,742,049 483,856 541,167 1,077,896 17,460,815 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ 11,965,847 3,401,827 533,057 742,225 84,642 985,540 17,713,138 10,327,886 $ 58,786 26,214 2,392,712 (301,292) 227,345 12,731,651 $ 10,520,832 112,423 71,400 2,266,696 38,340 227,345 13,237,036 $ 515,223 1,526 58,600 43,496 69 11,380 1,670,633 986,665 30,651 666,787 180,184 82,585 8,008 3,065,725 7,321,532 $ 649,261 5,200 63,263 43,640 4,958 2,073,496 986,664 78,113 348,576 179,022 30,891 16,785 4,528 3,065,725 7,550,122 $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ $ 7,983 314,066 58,397 380,446 $ 20,662,219 $ $ $ $ $ $ 71,640 338,801 58,397 468,838 $ 21,027,406 (3,201,404) $ 11,292,000 3,823,792 550,000 750,000 50,000 933,000 17,398,792 $ $ 10,488,200 $ 70,991 25,000 2,474,809 (553,064) 435,036 12,940,972 $ 484,058 200 69,254 5,500 1,660,860 1,009,604 50,887 462,485 193,042 32,256 8,000 717,877 4,694,023 $ $ $ $ 133,000 58,397 191,397 $ 17,826,392 (3,314,268) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 12,270,574 3,893,983 550,000 750,000 60,000 933,000 18,457,557 $ 654,727 151,934 66,144 208,833 60,000 (144,896) 996,742 10,844,416 $ 87,427 35,000 2,957,126 30,621 (270,679) 478,666 14,162,577 $ (516,530) (28,641) (8,786) (564,414) (331,913) 270,679 (251,321) (1,430,926) 492,212 200 69,668 21,834 5,500 1,187,977 1,009,604 50,888 592,485 195,342 33,256 8,000 587,876 4,254,842 $ $ $ % 6% 4% 14% 39% -13% 6% -5% -49% -34% -24% -110% -111% -11% 157,049 5,000 (6,405) 21,806 (542) 885,519 (22,940) 27,225 (243,909) (16,320) (2,365) 16,785 (3,472) 2,477,849 3,295,280 24% 96% -10% 50% -11% 43% -2% 35% -70% -9% -8% 100% -77% 81% 44% (125,017) 88,366 (36,651) -1566% 28% 0% -10% $ $ 133,000 225,700 58,397 417,097 $ 18,834,516 $ 1,827,703 9% (376,959) $ 2,824,445 88% (427,600) $ $ 549 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Market Range Title ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV APPLIC/SYS PROGRMING MGR (INACTIVE) CHEMICAL APPLICATNS TECH CHEMIST DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR ENGINEER ENGINEERING MANAGER ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN ENVIRONMENTAL SPCLST SUPV ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HELP DESK MANAGER (INACTIVE) INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) OPERATIONS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST PLANNER PLANNING SUPERVISOR PRGRM COORDINATION SPEC PROGRAM COORDINATOR PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE TECHNICAL PROGRAM SUPV UNDETERMINED WEB DEVELOPER (INACTIVE) Total 550 FTE 2.0 35.1 15.0 8.3 1.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 25.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 119.8 1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 2.0 15.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 282.1 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Equipment Services Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Regional Development Services Agency Officer Equipment Services Equipment Services Fentress Truxon, Director Fentress Truxon, Director Automotive Administration Service Stations Heavy Equipment Field Service Mission 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. Vision To be recognized as a leader in providing professional, efficient, cost effective fleet management services. Goals • Continue to monitor all new and existing safety and environmental regulations to provide 100% compliance, zero violations and no fines through 2008. • Continue to provide current computerized, communication media, and technology through 2008 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 through purchases of OEM alternative fuel vehicles or use of bio-diesel. • Increase operational efficiency by maintaining inventory accuracy at a minimum of 90% by 2005. • Continue to maintain a 95% customer satisfaction rating for overall department performance through 2008. Issues • State and or federal environmental, safety, and transportation laws will be enacted that could increase expenditures for personnel, equipment, and capital assets at the Equipment Services Department. 551 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) • 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 possibly distort the demand for County vehicle fuel. • The increase in County fleet size, aging rental pool vehicles, type, variety, complexity of equipment means the development of unique private and public partnerships, flexible and more efficient work force and innovative management systems to find new ways of doing things with less resources / no budget increase, without compromising safety or the quality of service expected. • Construction of new jail and juvenile facilities at the Durango complex, Heavy Equipment customers using Durango more as a base station, and the future growth patterns toward the west, northwest, and southwest means that the Equipment Services Department will need a new Durango Headquarters facility as stated in the Vision 2020 plan, and possibly increasing the capacity of 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. The lack of funding, lack of fueling facilities to accommodate future growth patterns, and lack of engine technology could impact compliance with the mandates. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED EQUIPMENT SERVICES TOTAL FUNDS Program FLEET MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL 552 $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 1,510,935 1,104,416 36,550 66,563 2,718,464 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 4,629,240 57,885 702,481 5,389,606 $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 33,000 29,952 62,952 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 6,173,175 1,162,301 36,550 798,996 8,171,022 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 8,241,381 90,210 8,331,591 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) 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 cost-effective transportation for County activities. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 96.73 95.7 95.62 96 Percent of total fleet replacement vehicle purchased 100 98.49 112.06 99 Percent preventative maintenance services due that were completed 70.5 65.2 59.82 75 Percent fuel cost saving from county procurement of gasoline as compared to retail N/A N/A 8.54 6 17.37 22.1 21.96 30 Key Results: Percent fleet availability Percent alternative fueled vehicles in county fleet Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 8,434,021 9,451,951 9,030,607 9,683,882 8,171,022 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,434,021 9,451,951 9,030,607 9,683,882 8,171,022 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 45,900 630,158 112,485 67,440 98,720 $ $ $ $ $ Total 45,900 630,158 112,485 67,440 98,720 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 8,388,121 9,448,098 8,918,122 9,616,442 8,072,302 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,388,121 9,448,098 8,918,122 9,616,442 8,072,302 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 553 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Alternative Fuels AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 has provisions for controlling air quality in 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 DESCRIPTION Arizona Revised Statutes alternative fuel requirements apply to all on-road 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 1999-00 Actuals $ 45,900 $ 45,900 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 630,158 $ 630,158 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 112,485 $ 112,485 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 67,440 $ 67,440 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 98,720 $ 98,720 554 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type INTERNAL SERVICE $ 2,616,756 $ 5,467,714 $ 86,552 $ 8,171,022 $ 8,331,591 ALL FUNDS $ 2,616,756 $ 5,467,714 $ 86,552 $ 8,171,022 $ 8,331,591 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 651 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 652 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING Total Revenue $ 13,800 8,126,045 546,108 15,155 8,701,108 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 2,032,966 16,806 49,927 498,201 6,547 15,900 2,620,347 $ $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 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 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ Subtotal $ 4,379,481 6,257 18,200 830 126,452 6,807 942,777 145,527 17,097 891 81,403 667,740 6,393,462 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 28,842 58,922 87,764 Total Expenditures $ 9,101,573 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,697,619 502,381 9,200,000 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 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 15,500 27,104 31,706 104,310 $ 8,923,046 (400,465) $ 276,954 $ $ $ 8,697,619 502,381 9,200,000 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 2,128,746 26,580 120,148 586,666 60,978 2,923,118 $ 3,982,967 49,010 40,700 109,535 20,000 925,656 156,833 23,000 1,200 95,000 491,717 5,895,618 $ $ 30,000 15,500 27,104 31,706 104,310 $ 8,923,046 $ 276,954 $ $ $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ 8,755,959 (13,893) 352,636 52,062 9,146,764 $ 8,697,619 502,381 9,200,000 2,012,407 27,963 85,528 562,303 3,437 26,183 2,717,821 $ 2,139,771 26,580 80,000 707,882 46,300 3,000,533 $ 4,049,674 37,954 38,655 143,919 36,539 907,785 155,797 25,094 3,171 86,374 491,717 5,976,679 $ 4,161,548 10,000 43,000 126,549 67,288 610,488 111,694 21,656 7,500 88,000 482,105 5,729,828 $ $ 22,500 11,624 20,326 26,620 81,070 $ 8,775,570 $ 371,194 $ $ $ $ 30,000 15,000 273,600 29,952 348,552 $ 9,078,913 $ 121,087 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ 515,906 7,815,685 8,331,591 $ $ 1,831,992 26,580 80,000 630,402 47,782 2,616,756 $ 4,159,868 10,000 10,000 125,067 67,288 380,505 119,645 20,736 4,500 88,000 482,105 5,467,714 $ $ 18,000 15,000 23,600 29,952 86,552 $ 8,171,022 $ 160,569 $ $ $ 515,906 (881,934) (502,381) (868,409) % -10% -100% -9% 296,754 40,148 (43,736) 13,196 306,362 14% 0% 33% -7% (176,901) 39,010 30,700 (15,532) (47,288) 545,151 37,188 2,264 (3,300) 7,000 9,612 427,904 -4% 80% 75% 22% 10% -14% -236% 59% 24% 10% -275% 7% 2% 7% $ 12,000 500 3,504 1,754 17,758 40% 3% 13% 6% 17% $ 752,024 8% $ (116,385) -42% 555 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES Market Range Title ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT GENERAL LABORER MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC MECHANIC PROGRAM COORDINATOR PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SVC SUPERVISOR PURCHASING SUPERVISOR TECH SUPPORT SPECIALIST TRADES SUPERVISOR Total 556 FTE 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 33.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 54.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Facilities Management Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Regional Development Services Agency Officer Facilities Management Facilities Management Director Director Steve Conner Steve Conner Business Services Operations & Maintenance Planning & Construction 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. Vision To provide excellent innovative facility services to every customer every time. Goals • By 2005, the Department will design and construct all Capital projects as approved and assigned by the appropriate authority on schedule, within budget and in cooperation with the customer while meeting the goals of the County. • Develop procedures by the end of fiscal year 2003, in conjunction with the Capital Facilities Development Department to identify project roles, responsibilities, and improve coordination efforts during the design, construction for the subsequent operation of new facilities. • Develop a Building Inventory System that reports existing condition, replacement cost, remaining useful life, code deficiencies, deferred maintenance, accounts for current and planned projects, indicates what investment is required to maintain or improve current condition and prioritizes Building System projects by end of Fiscal Year 2005. • Develop a County Master Plan addressing needs, growth and incorporating all County departments master plans in conjunction with the Building Inventory System to develop a strategic and comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan by end of Fiscal Year 2005. Issues • Construction prices and labor availability will vary each year that could impact the ability to meet schedules and remain within budget without comprising the original scope. 557 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) • The Board of Supervisors and County Executive Management will be supportive of an integrated Building Inventory System and Capital Improvement Plan maximizing the County’s continued investment in its building assets to avoid further deterioration. • Utility cost and consumption are increasing rapidly and will have an adverse effect on the Facility Management Department operating budget if not adequately funded. • An increase in environmental and regulatory demands will cause County facilities and real estate parcels to become non-compliant • As new County facilities comprising 2 million square feet are completed and added to the Building System Inventory adequate personnel and funding must be secured to operate and maintain the facilities thus protecting the new County asset and preventing deterioration. • Continued high levels crime and threats to employee safety will have a detrimental impact in maintaining safe and secure work environments for County personnel. • Because pay and benefits are less than those of other facility and security related organizations, the department will experience difficulty in recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce that adversely impacts the ability to maintain and secure new facilities and increase costs associated with training and outsourcing activities. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED FACILITIES MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & RENOV BLDG OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PLANNING PROTECTIVE SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 866,598 4,457,828 162,149 2,150,190 829,965 230,760 8,697,490 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 431,216 16,256,870 59,907 70,566 423,163 104,319 17,346,041 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 11,323 11,323 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 1,297,814 20,714,698 222,056 2,220,756 1,253,128 346,402 26,054,854 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 78,000 78,000 Key Performance Measures Program Name: BUILDING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Program Purpose: The purpose of the Building 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 utility consumption reduced Percent of maintenance work orders completed 558 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 1 2.3 -4.7 1 N/A N/A 98 96 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Program Name: BUILDING RENOVATION AND MINOR CONSTRUCTION Program Purpose: The purpose of the Building Renovation and Minor Construction Program is to provide efficient County facilities to appointed and elected departments so that they can accomplish their missions in a cost-efficient and productive environment. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of designs delivered within or less than the project design budget N/A N/A 100 100 Percent of major maintenance work completed on time and on budget N/A N/A 90 100 Key Results: Program Name: PLANNING Program Purpose: The purpose of the Planning program is to provide facility planning services to appointed and elected departments so that County properties are utilized to their maximum potential. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of master plan projects delivered N/A N/A 100 100 Percent of space plans delivered N/A N/A 100 100 Key Results: 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 of cars parked to the number of spaces available to employees within a 3 block area of their work site Percent or rate of major crimes for Downtown/Durango County properties vs.crimes reported for those surrounding Phoenix areas. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 1 5 6 6 559 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 19,461,633 $ 21,326,680 $ 23,242,525 $ 25,445,013 $ 26,054,852 $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,461,633 21,326,680 23,242,525 25,445,013 26,054,852 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 567,086 $ 509,679 $ 142,330 $ 199,468 $ 242,910 $ $ $ $ $ Total 567,086 509,679 142,330 199,468 242,910 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 18,894,547 $ 20,812,001 $ 23,100,195 $ 25,245,545 $ 25,811,942 $ $ $ $ $ Total 18,894,547 20,812,001 23,100,195 25,245,545 25,811,942 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 560 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Environment AUTHORITY Code of Federal Regulations 40 (CFR40) - Environment HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 incidentrelated reports have been timely filed with OSHA, EPA, ADEQ and County Environmental officials. Environment General Fund Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 567,086 $ 567,086 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 509,679 $ 509,679 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 142,330 $ 142,330 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 199,468 $ 199,468 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 242,910 $ 242,910 561 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 8,697,488 $ 17,346,041 $ 11,323 $ 26,054,852 $ 78,000 ALL FUNDS $ 8,697,488 $ 17,346,041 $ 11,323 $ 26,054,852 $ 78,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ Total Revenue $ 912,974 912,974 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 $ 7,040,781 $ 65,094 190,148 1,812,960 204,302 (1,030,608) (11,222) 8,271,455 $ 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 $ 1,704,946 1 41,990 48,632 2,472 157,787 251,303 3,922,211 1 50,160 47,347 356,087 510 8,083,843 14,667,290 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 34 23,329 27,379 1,645 52,387 $ 22,991,132 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 562 $ $ $ $ (22,078,158) $ 78,000 78,000 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 78,000 78,000 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 136,246 136,246 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 78,000 78,000 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 78,000 78,000 $ $ 7,565,046 $ 2,346 155,970 2,094,858 388,968 (1,207,777) 8,999,411 $ 7,689,533 $ 48,758 162,980 2,126,828 201,939 (1,219,768) 9,010,270 $ 7,213,262 $ 57,027 263,722 2,110,035 213,132 (1,129,049) (334) 8,727,795 $ 7,608,297 $ 15,142 162,714 1,964,692 437,707 (1,142,710) 9,045,842 $ 7,496,549 $ 15,142 139,442 1,937,595 196,772 (1,093,451) 5,439 8,697,488 $ 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 $ 1,570,481 1,625 52,434 30,846 6,600 237,457 265,769 4,698,766 69,747 35,003 362,400 9,634,610 16,965,738 $ 1,463,444 954 42,143 39,655 447 5,055 221,745 261,492 4,498,434 63,603 27,704 342,752 8,827,038 15,794,466 $ 1,813,434 3,200 52,113 7,100 87,628 31,769 4,919,006 68,332 34,400 361,900 11,174,310 18,553,192 $ 1,661,081 479 52,113 3,763 87,628 31,769 3,969,087 68,332 28,579 343,900 11,099,310 17,346,041 $ 29,000 120,000 495,317 644,317 $ 19,500 120,000 11,323 150,823 $ 226,048 9,155 235,203 $ 120,000 11,323 131,323 $ 11,323 11,323 $ 26,126,831 $ 26,126,831 $ 24,757,464 $ 27,730,357 $ 26,054,852 $ $ (26,048,831) $ $ $ (26,048,831) $ $ $ (24,621,218) $ $ $ (27,652,357) $ $ - % 0% 0% 192,984 33,616 23,538 189,233 5,167 (126,317) (5,439) 312,782 3% 69% 14% 9% 3% -10% (90,600) 1,146 321 30,846 2,837 149,829 234,000 729,679 1,415 6,424 18,500 (1,464,700) (380,303) -6% 71% 1% 100% 3% 43% 63% 88% 16% 2% 18% 5% -15% -2% 19,500 120,000 139,500 100% 100% 0% 92% $ 71,979 0% (25,976,852) $ 71,979 0% $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV ARCHITECT CHIEF OFFICER CONTRACT ADMIN SUPERVISOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR DISPATCHER ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN ENGINEER ENGINEERING AIDE ENGINEERING MANAGER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FACILITIES SVCS OFCR SUPV FACILITIES SVCS OFFICER FINANCIAL MANAGER FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR GENERAL LABORER GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST OPERATIONS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST PLANNER PRGRM COORDINATION SPEC TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TELECOMMUNICATNS ANALYST TRADES SPECIALIST TRADES SUPERVISOR Total FTE 1.0 3.0 12.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 14.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 64.0 1.0 2.0 24.0 16.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 46.0 7.0 237.0 563 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Finance Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Financial Officer Tom Manos Department of Finance Department of Finance General Accounting I Financial Systems Collections Real Estate General Accounting II Debt/Reporting Accounts Payable Grants/Fixed Assets 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • We will develop procedures and implement processes including new financial reporting standards that support Managing For Results to proactively address the demand for government accountability by June, 2004. • We will obtain a satisfaction rating of 5.5 or above for all management practices within our department as measured annually by the employee satisfaction survey by February, 2005 • 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 by July, 2004. • We will develop and implement new strategies to enhance all collection activities, through the creation of a gain-sharing program within Finance and a review of potential opportunities to centralize collections Countywide, by June 2006. • By July 2005, we will research and identify under-performing income leases that are associated with non-critical real estate assets and recommend and implement alternative uses to enhance real estate generated revenue. Issues • 564 The demand for increased governmental accountability impacts the reporting of financial and operational results. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Finance (Continued) • Increased demand for governmental services (internal and external) through technology results in a need for our department to provide services that meet customer expectations. • Limited cash resources and expenditure limitation constraints will impact the management of a comprehensive capital financing plan. • Limited funding for municipal and non-profit organizations will increase the demand for use of non-critical county real estate assets. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED FINANCE TOTAL FUNDS Program FINANCIAL REPORTING FINANCIAL SERVICES REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 542,874 1,416,304 280,691 (191,212) 2,048,657 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 204,022 98,052 3,482 305,556 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,000 6,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 746,896 1,520,356 284,173 (191,212) 2,360,213 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ 10,371,396 10,371,396 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of customers who indicate our reports facilitate informed decision-making. N/A N/A 93 95 Percent of customers satisfied with the Advantage financial information provided on Report.Web. N/A 85 95 100 Percent of customers satisfied with internally prepared reports provided by the Department of Finance staff which includes: Monthly Variance Report, Fund Balance Report, and Capital Project Report. N/A 85 96 100 Key Results: 565 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Finance (Continued) Program Name: FINANCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Financial Services Program is to provide general accounting, technology systems, accounts payable, and debt service activities to Maricopa County government departments so they can make informed decisions, manage resources, and measure and report results. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of payments processed within the established turnaround time. 80 88.75 95 95 Percent of customers satisfied with the debt related services. N/A 44 96 95 Percent of customers satisfied regarding the processing of various non-payment transactions. N/A 88 100 95 Percent of new accounts processed. 100 100 100 100 Percent of accounts that are active and paying N/A N/A 53 50 Percent of total active accounts sent to private collection agency. N/A N/A 82 85 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,857,842 $ 1,881,276 $ 1,859,183 $ 1,940,507 $ 2,492,291 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,857,842 1,881,276 1,859,183 1,940,507 2,492,291 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,857,842 $ 1,881,276 $ 1,859,183 $ 1,940,507 $ 2,492,291 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,857,842 1,881,276 1,859,183 1,940,507 2,492,291 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 566 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Finance (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Finance AUTHORITY 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. § 35501 Requires County to report bond issues, debt level analysis, definition of outstanding indebtedness to the Arizona Department of Revenue; A.R.S. § 35-502 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 subleasing 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. § 45-182 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. 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. 567 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Finance (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 180 FINANCE Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 2,050,960 $ 303,253 $ 6,000 $ 2,360,213 $ 10,371,396 ALL FUNDS $ 2,050,960 $ 303,253 $ 6,000 $ 2,360,213 $ 10,371,396 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 180 FINANCE ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 1,081,064 8,568,448 9,649,512 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 $ 1,810,146 $ 38,330 2,213 395,942 4,298 (74,819) 2,176,110 $ 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 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS 568 $ 1,960,972 $ 38,938 6,401 412,889 2,815 (197,320) 41,125 2,265,820 $ 20,078 2,000 145,455 14,500 6,854 19,842 20,200 31,700 260,629 $ 1,081,054 7,866,687 8,947,741 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ 1,955,326 $ 37,964 5,825 420,086 2,814 (197,320) 41,125 2,265,820 $ $ $ 20,078 2,000 145,455 14,500 6,854 19,842 20,200 31,700 260,629 1,081,054 7,866,687 8,947,741 FY 2003-04 Requested $ 1,857,783 $ 40,452 2,910 404,287 2,815 (184,321) 30,841 2,154,767 $ $ $ 21,869 1,084 162 121,304 10,872 8,050 9,519 12,567 61,288 19 814 247,548 10,503,603 10,503,603 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ 1,909,005 $ 98,807 447,194 (186,191) 2,268,815 $ $ $ 25,813 500 600 182,346 13,200 7,200 6,873 6,885 37,560 280,977 88,136 955,940 9,327,320 10,371,396 % $ 88,136 (125,114) 1,460,633 1,423,655 -12% 19% 16% 1,691,150 $ 98,807 447,194 (186,191) 2,050,960 $ 264,176 (60,843) 5,825 (27,108) 2,814 (11,129) 41,125 214,860 14% -160% 100% -6% 100% -6% 100% 9% 21% Subtotal $ 19,860 $ 8 9 129,025 7,060 6,817 23,911 28,843 (326) 215,207 $ $ Subtotal $ 3,285 3,285 $ $ 5,957 5,957 $ $ 5,957 5,957 $ $ 5,981 5,981 $ $ 6,000 6,000 $ $ 6,000 6,000 $ $ Total Expenditures $ 2,394,602 $ 2,532,406 $ 2,532,406 $ 2,408,296 $ 2,555,792 $ 2,360,213 $ 172,193 7% Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 7,254,910 $ 6,415,335 $ 6,415,335 $ 6,539,445 $ 7,947,811 $ 8,011,183 $ 1,595,848 25% CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ $ 1,081,054 7,866,687 8,947,741 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 15,813 500 600 218,758 13,200 7,200 6,873 3,749 36,560 303,253 $ 4,265 (500) 2,000 (600) (73,303) 1,300 (346) 12,969 16,451 (4,860) (42,624) (43) (43) 100% -50% 9% -5% 65% 81% -15% -16% -1% -1% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Finance (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 180 FINANCE Market Range Title ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV CHIEF OFFICER DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEPUTY DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST MANAGEMENT ANALYST UNDETERMINED Total FTE 9.0 5.0 0.5 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 12.0 3.0 3.0 47.5 569 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules General Government Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 195,550,350 237,254,651 128,461,664 158,948,267 230,972,737 Special Revenue $ 112,142,944 $ 110,528,803 $ 110,540,249 $ 21,677,255 $ 31,224,230 Capital Projects $ 8,471,146 $ 77,976,362 $ 27,290,093 $ 14,376,283 $ 66,780,896 $ $ $ $ $ Total 316,164,440 425,759,816 266,292,006 195,001,805 328,977,863 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 175,506,839 135,372,021 123,079,120 136,713,545 159,857,211 Special Revenue $ $ $ 110,540,249 $ 21,525,193 $ 31,072,167 Capital Projects $ $ $ 27,290,093 $ 14,376,283 $ 66,780,896 $ $ $ $ $ Total 175,506,839 135,372,021 260,909,462 172,615,021 257,710,274 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget* $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 17,246,820 93,905,060 19,074,804 71,015,526 Special Revenue $ 112,142,944 $ 110,128,803 $ $ 152,062 $ 152,063 Capital Projects $ 8,471,146 $ 77,976,362 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 137,860,910 282,010,225 19,226,866 71,167,589 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 2,796,691 7,977,570 5,382,544 3,159,918 100,000 Special Revenue $ $ 400,000 $ $ $ Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,796,691 8,377,570 5,382,544 3,159,918 100,000 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 570 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules General Government (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT Supplies & Total Personal Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Services Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 27,028,148 $ 184,763,392 $ 19,181,197 $ 230,972,737 $ 782,315,420 SPECIAL REVENUE 2,990,168 28,135,434 4,102,100 35,227,702 226,011,238 DEBT SERVICE 29,892,079 29,892,079 25,845,073 CAPITAL PROJECTS 66,780,896 66,780,896 8,541,680 ALL FUNDS $ 30,018,316 $ 212,898,826 $ 119,956,272 $ 362,873,414 $ 1,042,713,411 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 601 PROPERTY TAXES $ 605 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST 606 SALES TAXES 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 621 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 625 STATE SHARED SALES TAX 630 STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 651 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS 652 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 269,603,741 9,831,777 98,177,716 363,556 8,700,138 249,773 9,135,589 325,728,202 99,372,045 3,001,852 37,900 24,389,431 1,252,659 20,487,500 104,993,606 975,325,485 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 297,515,250 8,000,000 101,691,796 375,000 17,766,301 249,772 7,288,990 335,423,506 101,980,938 2,149,933 19,416,188 10,596,068 50,000 179,358,539 $ 1,081,862,281 FY 2002-03 Revised $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested 297,515,250 8,000,000 101,691,796 375,000 17,766,301 249,772 7,288,990 330,132,558 101,980,938 2,149,933 19,416,188 10,162,570 50,000 179,358,539 $ 1,076,137,835 $ 294,665,109 11,290,038 98,517,288 109,509 17,766,301 533,505 6,613,903 330,594,444 104,215,979 2,912,358 9,000 17,550,539 10,322,386 179,358,539 $ 1,074,458,898 $ 330,104,970 8,000,000 100,839,314 375,000 249,772 7,285,857 335,557,376 109,031,008 2,065,000 15,678,002 4,230,000 50,000 129,247,112 $ 1,042,713,411 $ $ $ $ $ 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 $ $ 1,251 3,572 4,095 (64,955) 32,345 (23,692) $ 70,553 12,109 8,209,060 34,834 8,326,556 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 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS Subtotal $ 319,896 $ 65,286 2,141,084 2,881,072 969,903 4,940,804 1,817,108 5,022,063 890,514 202,045 196,123 188,162,973 (15,773) 207,593,098 $ 50,000 3,300,000 38,353,977 12,780 200,000 4,145,554 14,856,873 1,500,000 450,000 498,392 138,633,225 202,000,801 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 11,000 31,065,630 164,924 3,258,573 66,408,539 100,908,666 $ $ $ 123,210,961 3,691,649 46,033,554 172,936,164 Total Expenditures $ 308,478,072 $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 666,847,413 $ $ $ $ 76,773 13,174 2,472,435 34,834 2,597,216 50,000 3,400,000 35,176,829 164,843 200,000 4,186,779 15,294,826 1,500,000 450,000 498,392 138,633,225 199,554,894 $ $ $ $ $ 123,210,961 3,691,649 46,033,554 172,936,164 383,263,521 $ 698,598,760 $ - 2,731 11,173 2,862,650 3,548,037 164,141 2,784,970 2,959,910 15,542,493 1,502,439 300,000 400,000 138,633,225 168,711,769 $ $ $ $ $ 460,530 27,215,391 3,322,515 45,156,354 76,154,790 375,088,274 $ 701,049,561 $ 408,571 11,527,680 17,848,452 233,613 30,018,316 50,000 3,300,000 56,231,796 164,843 36,930,509 15,361,488 1,500,000 200,000 400,000 120,866,924 235,005,560 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ 78,437,709 3,322,484 38,196,079 119,956,272 244,866,559 $ 829,592,339 $ 330,104,970 8,000,000 100,839,314 375,000 249,772 7,285,857 335,557,376 109,031,008 2,065,000 15,678,002 4,230,000 50,000 129,247,112 1,042,713,411 $ 408,571 11,527,680 17,848,452 233,613 30,018,316 $ 50,000 3,300,000 62,583,791 164,843 8,471,780 15,361,488 1,500,000 200,000 400,000 120,866,924 212,898,826 $ $ $ $ $ $ 78,437,709 3,322,484 38,196,079 119,956,272 384,980,148 $ 657,733,263 $ % 32,589,720 (852,482) (17,766,301) (3,133) 5,424,818 7,050,070 (84,933) (3,738,186) (5,932,570) (50,111,427) (33,424,424) 11% 0% -1% 0% -100% 0% 0% 2% 7% -4% 76,773 (408,571) (11,514,506) (15,376,017) (198,779) (27,421,100) 100% 100,000 (27,406,962) 200,000 (4,285,001) (66,662) 250,000 98,392 17,766,301 (13,343,932) -19% -58% 0% -28% -3% -87403% -622% -571% -1056% 0% 3% -78% 0% 100% -102% 0% 0% 56% 20% 13% -7% $ 44,773,252 369,165 7,837,475 52,979,892 10% 17% 31% 362,873,414 $ 12,214,860 3% 679,839,997 $ (21,209,564) -3% 36% 571 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Delivery System Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Maricopa Integrated Health System Chief Executive Officer Mark Hillard Chief Operations Officer Chief Operations Officer Perioperative Services Ambulatory Services Pharmacy Services Nursing Services Psychiatric Services Laboratory Services Professional Services Facilities/Support Services Radiology Services Home Health/ Attendant Care Mission The mission of Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • By June 2003, 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 $33 million as of June 30, 2003. 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. 572 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Delivery System (Continued) • 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 Health care Organizations (JCAHO), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). • On an ongoing basis, 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 • 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. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM TOTAL FUNDS Program Adult Health Behavioral Health Children's Health Healthcare Support Home Health Medical Education Women's Specialty Health $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total $ Personnel Services 37,224,565 13,360,708 9,446,380 74,592,611 16,100,392 9,949,137 11,141,546 171,815,339 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 20,410,898 1,497,078 3,256,551 137,870,437 308,759 10,142,845 1,521,455 175,008,023 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 242,652 298,085 12,384,595 12,925,332 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 57,878,115 15,155,871 12,702,931 224,847,643 16,409,151 20,091,982 12,663,001 359,748,694 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 138,038,285 14,954,511 32,822,494 112,049,740 21,255,481 3,960,831 36,958,920 360,040,262 573 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: ADULT HEALTH Program Purpose: The purpose of the Adult Health Program is to provide medical services to patients (ages 19 and over) so they can receive treatment for illnesses and injuries in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent Adult Emergency Department expenses to revenue N/A 23.98 32.05 35.36 Percent Adult inpatient expenses to revenue N/A 47.89 37.81 37.46 Percent Adult outpatient expenses to revenue N/A 92.21 67.43 57.21 Key Results: 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: Percent Behavioral health inpatient expenses to revenue FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A 41.06 34 35.19 Program Name: CHILDREN'S HEALTH Program Purpose: The purpose of the Children's Health Program is to provide medical services to patients (birth through age 18 years) so they can receive treatment for illnesses and injuries in a customer oriented and cost effective manner. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent Children's outpatient expense to revenue N/A 65.99 69.61 39.98 Percent Children's emergency expenses to revenue N/A 34.58 29.93 35.43 Percent Children's inpatient expenses to revenue N/A 41.68 40.24 39.09 Key Results: 574 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Delivery System (Continued) 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. Key Results: Percent Clinical Support Services expenses to revenue FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A 38.8 36.54 33.16 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: Percent Home health expenses to revenue FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A 93.11 87.81 88.76 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Enterprise Funds $ 210,226,940 $ 276,054,803 $ 285,854,279 $ 334,485,456 $ 359,748,694 $ $ $ $ $ Total 210,226,940 276,054,803 285,854,279 334,485,456 359,748,694 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Enterprise Funds $ 210,226,940 $ 276,054,803 $ 285,854,279 $ 334,485,456 $ 359,748,694 $ $ $ $ $ Total 210,226,940 276,054,803 285,854,279 334,485,456 359,748,694 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance or debt service. 575 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type ENTERPRISE $ 171,815,339 $ 267,425,010 $ 12,925,332 $ 452,165,681 $ 452,457,249 ELIMINATIONS (92,416,987) (92,416,987) (92,416,987) ALL FUNDS $ 171,815,339 $ 175,008,023 $ 12,925,332 $ 359,748,694 $ 360,040,262 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 3,978,333 85,857,558 158,777,810 149,537 1,568,721 24,396,734 274,728,693 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 86,429,846 6,664,445 17,923,218 2,214,032 961 113,232,502 $ 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 Subtotal $ 4,626,707 33,013,571 52,078 7,014,865 14,451,683 1,871,441 3,162,464 19,178 3,212,902 474,789 421,531 508,269 3,609,160 4,208,885 8,515,989 86,349,229 171,512,741 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 21,407 1,087,629 1,109,036 $ Total Expenditures $ 285,854,279 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 576 $ 117,454,342 $ 6,941,142 25,595,575 3,211,792 (3,071,810) 150,131,041 $ 117,454,342 $ 6,941,142 25,595,575 3,211,792 (3,071,810) 150,131,041 $ 117,447,230 9,691,480 25,371,414 3,336,550 155,846,674 $ 7,898,999 $ 47,685,107 144,260 71,074,191 11,483,689 2,194,705 3,842,772 16,867 7,180,900 607,127 509,547 (12,725,269) 5,207,025 8,300,201 79,607,667 233,027,788 $ 7,898,999 $ 47,685,107 144,260 71,074,191 11,483,689 2,194,705 3,842,772 16,867 7,180,900 607,127 509,547 (12,725,269) 5,207,025 8,300,201 79,607,667 233,027,788 $ 8,117,420 $ 42,637,068 144,260 34,668,907 13,323,938 2,501,153 5,213,619 37,390 6,525,483 491,949 889,159 (13,342,861) 4,305,674 2,107,112 183,696 79,607,667 187,411,634 $ $ 3,994,200 2,729,927 35,000 6,759,127 $ 3,994,200 2,729,927 35,000 6,759,127 $ 389,917,956 $ 389,917,956 $ (11,125,586) $ $ $ (697,942) $ 3,784,279 105,963,200 261,864,447 2,412,026 15,196,062 389,220,014 $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 5,737,001 101,760,800 239,719,622 41,079 2,296,360 15,196,062 364,750,924 $ 3,784,279 105,963,200 261,864,447 2,412,026 15,196,062 389,220,014 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 2,665,484 2,729,927 35,000 5,604,271 11,034,682 $ (697,942) $ $ $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 4,525,488 101,760,800 243,755,504 2,143,123 8,874,663 361,059,578 $ 120,371,450 9,687,509 31,643,614 10,109,766 171,812,339 $ $ $ 5,626,819 $ 45,727,945 43,894 714,025 30,262,844 9,037,355 2,284,985 5,515,952 37,390 5,564,540 637,109 1,131,451 (19,354,363) 4,334,361 2,215,630 183,696 80,214,565 174,178,198 $ $ 4,525,488 101,760,800 243,755,504 2,143,123 7,855,347 360,040,262 $ 120,371,450 9,687,509 31,643,614 10,109,766 3,000 171,815,339 $ $ 741,209 (4,202,400) (18,108,943) (268,903) (7,340,715) (29,179,752) % 20% -4% -7% -11% -48% -7% -2% -40% -24% -215% -100% $ (2,917,108) (2,746,367) (6,048,039) (6,897,974) (3,071,810) (3,000) (21,684,298) 5,867,319 $ 45,729,077 43,894 1,302,218 30,262,844 9,037,355 2,284,985 5,515,952 37,390 6,329,942 637,109 1,131,451 (19,354,363) 4,334,361 2,215,630 183,696 79,449,163 175,008,023 $ 2,031,680 1,956,030 (43,894) (1,157,958) 40,811,347 2,446,334 (90,280) (1,673,180) (20,523) 850,958 (29,982) (621,904) 6,629,094 872,664 6,084,571 (183,696) 158,504 58,019,765 26% 4% $ 3,812,500 9,274,246 314 1,982,127 15,069,187 $ 3,615,000 5,504,191 20,000 3,786,141 12,925,332 354,292,990 $ 361,059,724 $ 10,457,934 $ (146) $ $ -14% -803% 57% 21% -4% -44% -122% 12% -5% -122% 52% 17% 73% 0% 25% $ 379,200 (2,774,264) 15,000 (3,786,141) (6,166,205) 9% -102% 43% 359,748,694 $ 30,169,262 8% 291,568 $ 989,510 142% -91% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV CHAPLAIN COMPUTER OPERATOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR COOK COUNSELING SUPERVISOR DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DENTAL ASSISTANT DENTIST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIETITIAN DISPATCHER DRIVER-MEDICAL ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FACILITIES SVCS OFCR SUPV FACILITIES SVCS OFFICER FINANCIAL MANAGER FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR FOOD SERVICE WORKER GENERAL LABORER GENERAL MAINTENANCE SUPV GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATOR HEALTHCARE DIRECTOR HEALTHCARE MANAGER HEALTHCARE REGISTRAR HEALTHCARE SPECIALIST HEALTHCARE SUPERVISOR HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR INFECTION CONTROL SPEC INTERIOR DESIGNER INTERPRETER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR LIBRARIAN LIBRARY SUPERVISOR LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE MANAGEMENT ANALYST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MANAGING PHYSICIAN MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC MEDIA ASSISTANT MEDICAL AIDE MEDICAL ASSISTANT MEDICAL RECORDS CODER MEDICAL RECORDS SUPV MEDICAL TECHNICIAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTIONIST FTE 1.0 47.1 5.8 126.9 265.9 19.4 2.4 1.0 0.6 3.2 4.5 12.0 0.8 5.8 21.5 11.2 0.8 5.2 3.2 22.5 4.4 2.0 2.2 28.7 3.4 6.1 3.1 38.1 134.8 4.4 22.3 2.8 23.2 12.0 4.2 5.5 16.4 2.2 3.2 0.8 2.5 0.9 6.8 4.4 0.9 2.4 60.2 1.0 1.4 4.0 13.2 1.4 730.6 244.0 13.0 4.9 41.0 53.0 15.3 577 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Delivery System (Continued) Market Range Title NURSE NURSE-ADVANCED PRACTICE NURSING DIRECTOR NURSING MANAGER NURSING SUPERVISOR OPERATIONS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST PHARMACIST PHARMACY MANAGER PHARMACY SUPERVISOR PHARMACY TECHNICIAN PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM COORDINATOR - RN PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SVC SUPERVISOR PURCHASING SPECIALIST PURCHASING SUPERVISOR RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGIST RADIOLOGY SUPERVISOR REHABILITATION THERAPIST RESIDENT RESPIRATORY TECHNICIAN RESPIRATORY THERAPIST SCRUB TECHNICIAN SOCIAL WORKER (BS) TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECH TRADES SPECIALIST TRADES SUPERVISOR TRAINING SPECIALIST UNDETERMINED UNIT SECRETARY Total 578 FTE 691.4 8.4 4.3 18.2 54.1 0.9 0.9 44.4 2.1 1.1 49.9 6.5 47.2 1.5 1.0 4.8 0.5 73.4 2.1 14.4 194.9 17.1 14.3 25.5 32.6 1.3 1.4 1.3 12.9 2.5 6.6 39.0 70.8 3528.3 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates Organizational Chart 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 Mission The mission of the Health Care Mandates Department is to provide indigent and inmate health-related risk management services for Maricopa County Administration so they can control and reduce health care financial liability. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. 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 based on the baseline developed for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 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 re-submissions 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 2007, have all applicable documents scanned, and 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. 579 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) 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. • The significant financial implications associated with both past and future 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 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED HEALTH CARE MANDATES TOTAL FUNDS Program ANCILLARY FD CLAIMS PROCESSING STATE WITHHOLDING PRE-AHCCCS LIABILITY MGMT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG Personal Services $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ 991,658 494,922 1,486,580 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 26,927,327 293,125,190 24,397,375 30,766 344,480,658 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ 28,716 28,716 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 26,927,327 293,125,190 25,417,749 525,688 345,995,954 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 52,848 101,760,800 101,813,648 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 580 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A 19.59 25.1 25 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) 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 preAHCCCS financial liability. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of full billed charges paid in claims resolution activity N/A N/A 1.16 4 Percent of full billed charges paid in litigation activity 19.43 N/A 0 5 Key Results: 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of state withholdings authorized N/A 100 100 100 Percent increase in payments authorized over previous fiscal year in state mental health programs activity N/A 17.1 3.25 10 Percent of MIHS Management team incentive objectives achieved N/A N/A 66 50 Key Results: 581 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 219,988,340 211,706,179 259,434,988 291,157,330 341,495,954 Special Revenue $ $ 1,500,000 $ 2,548,621 $ 4,325,630 $ 4,500,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 219,988,340 213,206,179 261,983,609 295,482,960 345,995,954 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 219,414,798 209,162,332 233,449,714 273,543,209 325,408,397 Special Revenue $ $ 1,500,000 $ 2,548,621 $ 4,325,630 $ 4,500,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 219,414,798 210,662,332 235,998,335 277,868,839 329,908,397 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 124,262 1,916,498 5,199,976 3,787,358 3,581,498 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 124,262 1,916,498 5,199,976 3,787,358 3,581,498 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 449,280 627,348 20,785,298 13,826,763 12,506,059 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 449,280 627,348 20,785,298 13,826,763 12,506,059 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 582 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AHCCCS Acute Care Contribution AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 11-297 Tax levy for Medical Care; System Fund HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County is required to contribute financial support to the State AHCCCS 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 FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 39,009,236 38,659,236 42,959,692 45,547,566 45,477,486 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 39,009,236 38,659,236 42,959,692 45,547,566 45,477,486 TITLE Arizona Long Term Care System Contribution AUTHORITY A.R.S. §11-297 Tax Levy for Medical Care; System Fund HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County is required to contribute financial support to the State longterm 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) FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 88,952,734 91,784,692 101,811,878 112,950,818 110,407,500 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 88,952,734 91,784,692 101,811,878 112,950,818 110,407,500 583 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) TITLE General Mental Health AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 11-0291.01 Eligibility standards for indigent health services HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 4,856,580 4,856,580 4,451,863 4,451,863 5,099,404 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,856,580 4,856,580 4,451,863 4,451,863 5,099,404 TITLE Indigent Seriously Mentally Ill Behavioral Health Services AUTHORITY 1989 Arizona Supreme Court Ruling, Arnold v. Sarn HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County must contribute funding to Arizona Department of Health 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 FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 584 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 23,687,369 24,366,689 25,965,737 25,965,737 28,490,000 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 23,687,369 24,366,689 25,965,737 25,965,737 28,490,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) TITLE Long Term Care Residual Population AUTHORITY A.R.S. 11-293 County Long Term Care Services; A.R.S. § 11-293.01 County Adult Foster Care Program HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Before the inception of ALTCS in 1989, the County provided long term care services to the elderly indigent population. MANDATE DESCRIPTION The County has residual responsibility to provide long term care services to 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 FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 301,161 388,738 231,481 128,967 180,463 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 301,161 388,738 231,481 128,967 180,463 Sail Grant FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ 449,280 627,348 686,463 686,463 679,789 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 449,280 627,348 686,463 686,463 679,789 TITLE Arnold v. Sarn IGA/Court Order Litigation Costs AUTHORITY 1989 Arizona Supreme Court Ruling, Arnold v. Sarn HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County is responsible for paying one-fourth of the Plaintiff’s fees and 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 FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 12,878 2,013 6,589 639 10,000 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 12,878 2,013 6,589 639 10,000 585 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) TITLE Pre-AHCCCS Hospital Settlements AUTHORITY Arizona Status §11-297, uncodified sections of SB 1577. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 DESCRIPTION AHCCCS will assume responsibility for emergent services for eligible enrollees for 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 Hospital Settlements FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 3,416,609 12,580,238 4,118,468 1,229,490 24,164,844 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,416,609 12,580,238 4,118,468 1,229,490 24,164,844 TITLE Mental Health Orders; Mental Health Testimony AUTHORITY ARS 36-545.04; Maricopa County/ ADHS IGA, paragraph 2.2.1 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County must pay for the cost of mental health pickup orders and the cost of mental health testimony independent evaluators. Mental Health Orders; Mental Health Testimony FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 586 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 31,835 221,049 216,435 244,250 270,000 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 31,835 221,049 216,435 244,250 270,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) TITLE Psychiatric Teaching Program AUTHORITY 1989 Arizona Supreme Court Ruling, Arnold v. Sarn; Court Order; Monitor’s decision re: mediation, August 31, 1993. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County must continue to fund the psychiatric residency program at the same level as provided in FY 1992-1993. Psychiatric Teaching Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 3,650,596 3,547,898 3,547,899 3,547,899 3,547,900 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,650,596 3,547,898 3,547,899 3,547,899 3,547,900 TITLE Public Health TB Hospitalization AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 11-302 provides that Counties shall provide for the care of indigent individuals with tuberculosis. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Based on need and capacity in other facilities, the Public Health Department may 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County must continue to provide facilities to house indigent TB patients where active medical care or monitoring is needed. Public Health TB Hospitalization FY 1999-00 Actuals* FY 2000-01 Actuals* FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget * Public Health incurred expenses $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 405,840 258,329 500,000 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ $ $ 405,840 258,329 500,000 587 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) TITLE Correctional Health Claims AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 11-251(8) HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County must continue to provide medical services to detainees in County jails. Where in-patient services are necessary, MMC provide the most cost-effective source of medical services to the County. Correctional Health Claims FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ $ 1,500,000 $ 2,548,621 $ 4,325,630 $ 4,500,000 Total $ $ $ $ $ 1,500,000 2,548,621 4,325,630 4,500,000 TITLE Competency Restoration AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 13-4512; A.R.Crim.P 10 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. Previously, session law required that Maricopa County pay 86% of the cost of competency restoration for those defendants that are treated at the Arizona State Hospital following a referral from Superior Court. However, starting in FY 04, the County is required to pay 100% of these costs. 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 DESCRIPTION Maricopa County is required to pay 100% 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. Competency Restoration FY 1999-00 Actuals* FY 2000-01 Actuals* FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget * Contract Counsel incurred some expenses 588 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 3,838,332 4,972,450 5,500,000 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ $ $ 3,838,332 4,972,450 5,500,000 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Disproportionate Share FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 55,495,800 32,755,200 45,895,500 74,245,201 101,760,800 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total 55,495,800 32,755,200 45,895,500 74,245,201 101,760,800 $ $ $ $ $ Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,409,485 $ 340,057,753 $ 28,716 $ 341,495,954 $ 101,813,648 SPECIAL REVENUE 4,500,000 4,500,000 ALL FUNDS $ 1,409,485 $ 344,557,753 $ 28,716 $ 345,995,954 $ 101,813,648 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE $ 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN 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 $ 66,046 85,857,558 85,923,604 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 1,218,137 $ 8,421 4,700 339,511 3,191 (150,969) 57,304 1,480,295 $ 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 880 TRANSFERS OUT Subtotal $ 48,369 1,872 3,106,007 3,412,312 1,657,242 160,064 5,803 224,931,987 15,720 1,354 44,867 99,958 607 25,083,197 258,569,359 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 29,990 29,990 $ Total Expenditures $ 260,079,644 $ $ $ $ 52,848 101,760,800 101,813,648 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 1,084,775 $ 8,436 3,000 289,351 (203,618) 1,181,944 $ 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 17,374,663 346,335,024 347,516,968 $ $ $ $ $ 52,848 101,760,800 101,813,648 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 1,084,775 $ 8,436 3,000 289,351 (203,618) 1,181,944 $ 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 17,374,663 346,335,024 347,516,968 $ $ $ 57,444 119,489 101,760,800 101,937,733 FY 2003-04 Requested $ 52,848 101,760,800 101,813,648 1,197,787 $ 8,040 5,182 343,709 406 (164,492) 1,390,632 $ 1,149,214 260,271 1,409,485 $ 67,048 19,174,844 9,820,000 1,949,407 10,332 17,441 307,839,727 8,058 1,900 4,000 84,774 17,547,989 356,525,520 $ 66,646 12 19,004 3,025,392 6,663,816 2,055,747 12,380 2,823 299,631,597 200,521 2,816 11,188 74,295 17,374,663 329,140,900 $ 993 25,266 26,259 $ 330,557,791 $ $ $ $ $ 28,716 28,716 $ 357,963,721 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ 52,848 101,760,800 101,813,648 $ $ 1,149,214 260,271 1,409,485 $ 67,048 19,174,844 10,220,000 1,949,407 10,332 17,441 296,785,190 188,858 1,900 4,000 84,774 16,053,959 344,557,753 $ $ $ (64,439) 8,436 3,000 29,080 (203,618) (227,541) 1,400 (399,844) (1,500,000) 6,092,728 15,715 (11,441) (3,763,713) 11,747 100 26,000 (16,125) 1,320,704 1,777,271 0% 0% 0% -6% 100% 100% 10% -100% -19% 2% -2% -17% 76% 60% -191% -1% 6% 5% 87% -23% 8% 1% $ 28,716 28,716 $ $ 345,995,954 $ 1,521,014 0% (244,182,306) $ 1,521,014 1% Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ (174,156,040) $ (245,703,320) $ (245,703,320) $ (228,620,058) $ (256,150,073) $ $ - % (28,716) (28,716) 589 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES Market Range Title ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR SPECIALIST PROGRAM COORDINATOR - RN UNDETERMINED Total 590 FTE 1.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 31.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Plans Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Maricopa Integrated Health System Chief Executive Officer Mark Hillard 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 Mission The mission of Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • By June 2003, 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 $33 million as of June 30, 2003. 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. 591 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Plans (Continued) • 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 Health care Organizations (JCAHO), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). • On an ongoing basis, 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 • 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. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED HEALTH PLANS TOTAL FUNDS Program Health Plans 592 $ Total $ Personnel Services 22,074,106 22,074,106 $ $ Supplies & Services 417,533,798 417,533,798 $ $ Capital Outlay 458,496 458,496 Total Expenditures $ 440,066,400 $ 440,066,400 $ $ Total Revenue 439,784,407 439,784,407 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Plans (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 1,513,060 $ 1,587,220 $ 1,860,224 $ 1,889,242 $ 1,957,636 Enterprise Funds $ 353,462,841 $ 351,037,221 $ 399,648,196 $ 412,907,438 $ 416,552,331 $ $ $ $ $ Total 354,975,901 352,624,441 401,508,420 414,796,680 418,509,967 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ 251,899,129 $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 251,899,129 - Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 1,513,060 $ 1,587,220 $ 1,860,224 $ 1,889,242 $ 1,957,636 Enterprise Funds $ 101,563,712 $ 351,037,221 $ 399,648,196 $ 412,907,438 $ 416,552,331 $ $ $ $ $ Total 103,076,772 352,624,441 401,508,420 414,796,680 418,509,967 Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ 251,899,129 $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 251,899,129 - NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 593 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Plans (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 600 HEALTH PLANS Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE $ 1,807,405 $ 150,231 $ $ 1,957,636 $ 1,957,636 ENTERPRISE 20,266,701 417,383,567 458,496 438,108,764 437,826,771 ALL FUNDS $ 22,074,106 $ 417,533,798 $ 458,496 $ 440,066,400 $ 439,784,407 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 600 HEALTH PLANS ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 638 PATIENT SERVICE REVENUE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 680 TRANSFERS IN Total Revenue $ 915,060 3,555,752 339,685,187 6,051,162 62,866 686,463 350,956,490 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 13,249,933 11,369 1,316,047 14,577,349 $ 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 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT Subtotal $ 782,794 894,069 842 4,185,752 130,042,661 22,686,673 825,179 5,916 4,908 459,188 196,585 37,349 154,777,612 1,235 96,573 111,891 315,109,227 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 594 $ Subtotal $ - $ $ $ 1,126,000 4,364,399 419,261,074 4,808,808 2,178,601 431,738,882 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 13,043,682 $ 3,389 2,857,226 (6,289,823) 9,148,912 18,763,386 $ $ 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 $ $ $ 1,126,000 4,364,399 419,261,074 4,808,808 2,178,601 431,738,882 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 13,043,682 $ 3,389 2,857,226 (6,289,823) 9,148,912 18,763,386 $ $ 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 3,100,000 3,100,000 $ $ $ 1,271,000 430,319,000 3,070,000 2,178,601 436,838,601 - FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ $ $ 13% -100% 2% -52% $ 151,847 (4,364,399) 8,735,533 (2,497,467) 6,020,011 8,045,525 18,564,784 $ 3,433,677 (11,063,003) 11,063,003 21,998,461 $ 18,560,345 $ 3,508,443 (11,069,675) 11,074,993 22,074,106 $ (5,516,663) 3,389 (651,217) 4,779,852 (1,926,081) (3,310,720) -42% 100% -23% 76% -21% -18% $ (542,035) (245,087) (799) 1,104,405 (16,100,491) (4,147,980) 206,338 (1,395) 155,412 592 (237,079) 10,425,393 (1,885) (591,889) (9,976,500) -88% -25% $ 1,157,539 1,236,257 799 4,271,755 176,063,175 33,616,450 1,036,262 6,075 295,152 269,193 264,384 175,073,815 1,885 24,241,057 417,533,798 $ $ $ $ 3,100,000 3,100,000 $ $ 1,686,494 1,686,494 $ $ 458,496 458,496 $ $ 458,496 458,496 $ $ 2,641,504 2,641,504 85% 85% 445,302,754 $ 433,417,949 $ 440,066,400 $ (10,645,716) -2% (8,464,153) $ 25,569 $ (281,993) $ (2,600,191) -112% $ 429,420,684 $ 429,420,684 $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 21,269,914 $ 2,318,198 $ 2,318,198 $ $ 276% 2% 1,157,539 1,236,257 4,271,755 176,063,175 33,616,450 1,036,262 6,075 779,867 269,193 264,384 175,073,815 1,885 17,184,335 410,960,992 329,686,576 $ 1,277,847 427,996,607 2,311,341 8,198,612 439,784,407 % 27,008,092 207,712,000 5,872,000 179,375,000 23,649,168 443,616,260 Total Expenditures $ $ 1,277,847 427,996,607 2,311,341 1,857,723 433,443,518 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 21% -10% -14% 17% -30% 34% 0% -868% 6% -3% -2% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Health Plans (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 600 HEALTH PLANS Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV CLAIMS PROCESSOR CLAIMS SPECIALIST COUNSELING SUPERVISOR DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEPUTY DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH HEALTHCARE DIRECTOR HEALTHCARE MANAGER MEDICAL SERVICES MANAGER NURSE NURSING SUPERVISOR PHARMACY TECHNICIAN PRGM COORD - NURSE SUPV PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM COORDINATOR - RN PROGRAMMER/ANALYST PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SVC SUPERVISOR SOCIAL WORKER (BS) Total FTE 3.0 12.0 21.2 3.0 22.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.8 6.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 16.0 30.1 3.0 74.5 2.8 186.0 415.4 595 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Resources Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer David Smith Deputy County Administrator Human Resources Director Human Resources Director Gwynn Simpson Gwynn Simpson Payroll Records Administration Employee Development Recruiting & Selection Information Services Mission 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. 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 • 596 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Resources (Continued) • 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. • 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 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED HUMAN RESOURCES TOTAL FUNDS Program EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES PAYROLL & RECORDS MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 561,616 749,336 711,099 511,494 2,533,545 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 12,252 19,958 14,839 161,240 208,289 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 573,868 769,294 725,938 672,734 2,741,834 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 25,511 25,511 597 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Resources (Continued) 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of employees reporting content and course materials helped them understand the topic. N/A N/A 97 95 Percent of clients who report that performance and/or employee satisfaction was improved as a result of the consulting service N/A N/A 100 65 Percent retreat participants reporting learned new concepts that will be used to achieve superior business results. N/A N/A 100 75 Key Results: 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 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 12 11 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 2,559,925 $ 4,429,680 $ 4,416,912 $ 3,568,317 $ 2,741,834 Internal Service $ 45,978,739 $ 2,965,867 $ $ $ - Total $ 48,538,664 $ 7,395,547 $ 4,416,912 $ 3,568,317 $ 2,741,834 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 2,559,925 $ 4,429,680 $ 4,416,912 $ 3,568,317 $ 2,741,834 Internal Service $ 45,978,739 $ 2,965,867 $ $ $ - Total $ 48,538,664 $ 7,395,547 $ 4,416,912 $ 3,568,317 $ 2,741,834 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 598 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Resources (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 310 HUMAN RESOURCES Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 2,533,545 $ 208,289 $ $ 2,741,834 $ 25,511 ALL FUNDS $ 2,533,545 $ 208,289 $ $ 2,741,834 $ 25,511 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 310 HUMAN RESOURCES ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 29,362 79,224 108,586 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 $ 1,908,370 23,411 1,892 379,958 174 2,313,805 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 $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,960,820 10,500 1,500 438,303 170,145 2,581,268 (42,015) $ 29 271 11,546 264,371 19,477 6,193 (1) 28,680 20,599 26,165 335,315 $ 186,370 11,024 27,000 137,659 29,776 380 3,000 36,163 24,016 11,678 467,066 $ 3,048,334 2,649,120 $ 25,000 90,511 115,511 FY 2002-03 Revised $ (2,540,534) $ 25,000 90,511 115,511 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 2,003,019 2,840 345 445,886 6,114 170,145 2,628,349 $ $ $ 185,442 2,403 27,000 99,199 29,776 380 3,000 36,163 24,944 11,678 419,985 $ 3,048,334 $ (2,932,823) $ $ 30,701 64,076 94,777 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 24,211 1,300 25,511 1,971,165 $ 42,596 2,178 496,434 9,915 (366) 155,966 2,677,888 $ 2,615,035 86,760 8,845 608,744 17,200 3,336,584 $ $ $ 70,821 44,878 114,022 7,144 26,178 4,795 12,190 280,028 $ 87,000 673 8,000 42,000 226,518 34,000 14,050 35,204 25,000 14,944 487,389 $ 2,957,916 $ 3,823,973 (2,932,823) $ $ (2,863,139) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ 24,211 1,300 25,511 $ % $ (789) (89,211) (90,000) -3% -99% -78% 1,979,475 $ 107,737 8,845 467,345 16,369 (46,226) 2,533,545 $ 23,544 (104,897) (8,500) (21,459) (10,255) 46,226 170,145 94,804 1% -3694% -2464% -5% -168% 100% 4% $ $ 81,024 42,000 2,307 27,776 4,430 28,623 8,113 14,016 208,289 $ 104,418 2,403 (15,000) 96,892 2,000 (4,050) 3,000 7,540 16,831 (2,338) 211,696 $ 2,741,834 $ 306,500 10% (2,716,323) $ 216,500 7% (3,798,462) $ 56% 100% -56% 98% 7% -1066% 100% 21% 67% -20% 50% 599 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Resources (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 310 HUMAN RESOURCES Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST HR GENERALIST HR MANAGER HR SUPERVISOR PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SVC SUPERVISOR TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN Total 600 FTE 11.0 1.0 11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 51.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Services Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Human Services Human Services Annette Stein, Acting Director Annette Stein, Acting Director Workforce Development Division Community Services Division General Services Division Special Transportation Services Division General Fund Support Education Division Mission The mission of the Human Services Department 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 meet or exceed all contract performance standards established by all external funding agencies. • By June 2005, HSD will have met or exceeded an established performance target of reducing employee annual turnover to 10% or less. Issues • Added responsibility is being placed on local government to fund and design human service programs and there are continued efforts to promote the integration of faith-based and for-profit organizations into the delivery of such programs. These factors create greater competition for funds. • The demand and need for the services provided by the Human Services Department is increasing due to population growth and economic decline, however our general fund appropriation and other grant funding has been stagnant or declining. • 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. 601 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Services (Continued) • 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 additional funding. Together, these issues will limit the number of families served by the department and compromise our ability to offer comprehensive services. • The number of individuals seeking employment or re-employment has significantly increased due to the decline in the economy, however our workforce development resources have not increased. • 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. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED HUMAN SERVICES TOTAL FUNDS Program COMMUNITY SERVICES EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 329,981 9,190,297 1,901,560 2,273,472 1,025,951 447,991 15,169,252 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 4,236,506 7,693,991 2,336,400 4,668,961 945,707 19,881,565 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 110,000 600,000 410,500 1,120,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 4,566,487 16,994,288 4,837,960 6,942,433 1,971,658 858,491 36,171,317 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 4,798,113 17,856,293 5,083,356 7,294,575 35,032,337 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 selfsufficiency. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of households provided eviction prevention rent/mortgage assistance who do not become homeless based on 30-day follow-up. N/A N/A 95 55 Percent of low-income home weatherization program recipients who rate services as satisfactory or better. N/A 93 99 75 Percent of low-income households who demonstrate an improved level of self-sufficiency following intervention. N/A N/A 34 50 Key Results: 602 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Services (Continued) Program Name: EDUCATION Program Purpose: The purpose of the Education Program is to provide educational opportunities for children (ages 0-5) and their families, so that they will be successful in school and move towards self-sufficiency. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of 4-year-old children enrolled > 120 calendar days who demonstrate a minimum of 10 percent increase on the Developmental Assessment by the end of the school year. N/A 88.12 91.4 75 Percent of families enrolled > 90 days that are linked with a medical home. N/A N/A 92.73 81 Percent of families enrolled > 90 days who sought social services and received needed services. N/A N/A 81.07 72 Percent of families who were satisfied with the social services received. N/A N/A 94.05 82 Key Results: 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of customer satisfaction. N/A 90 87 85 Percent of clients provided employment transportation that remains employed for at least 90 days. N/A 68 86.53 75 Key Results: 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent Customer (job seeker) satisfaction rate N/A 72 90 75 Percent of employer satisfaction. N/A 88.4 88 75 Percent skill attainment for youth 14 – 18. N/A N/A 89 80 Key Results: 603 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Services (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,302,873 $ 1,310,528 $ 1,307,798 $ 1,267,078 $ 945,707 Special Revenue $ 23,150,226 $ 25,339,400 $ 29,860,848 $ 33,505,461 $ 35,032,337 $ $ $ $ $ Total 24,453,099 26,649,928 31,168,647 34,772,539 35,978,044 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,302,873 $ 1,310,530 $ 1,307,798 $ 1,267,078 $ 945,707 Special Revenue $ 23,150,226 $ 25,106,677 $ 29,860,848 $ 33,505,461 $ 35,032,337 $ $ $ $ $ Total 24,453,099 26,417,207 31,168,647 34,772,539 35,978,044 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 604 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Services (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 220 HUMAN SERVICES Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 193,273 $ 945,707 $ $ 1,138,980 $ SPECIAL REVENUE 13,389,970 20,521,867 1,120,500 35,032,337 35,032,337 ALL FUNDS $ 13,583,243 $ 21,467,574 $ 1,120,500 $ 36,171,317 $ 35,032,337 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 220 HUMAN SERVICES ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 29,766,052 18,568 22,315 29,806,935 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 $ 8,561,607 $ 126,674 4,013 2,129,567 26,954 (39,411) 41,053 10,850,457 $ 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 $ 1,719,534 18,591 10,860 77,744 6,011 105,520 15,368,455 797,841 431,018 832,922 295,218 37,211 47,696 36,415 19,785,036 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 8,859,844 $ 195,000 2,489,365 (66,459) 66,461 11,544,211 $ 8,929,920 $ 155,000 2,533,849 40,000 (66,459) 66,461 11,658,771 $ 9,371,098 $ 143,234 7,351 2,370,105 50,263 (66,476) 66,461 11,942,036 $ 9,749,227 170,000 6,000 2,532,214 45,000 12,502,441 $ 2,006,423 15,000 16,000 233,250 6,000 10,000 13,290,540 1,160,120 507,000 901,100 230,838 17,100 40,000 28,700 18,462,071 1,900,913 19,201 28,926 85,483 5,769 66,346 17,586,109 1,160,121 59,834 901,100 279,391 24,466 43,022 42,532 22,203,213 2,244,400 25,000 66,500 202,300 7,200 50,000 16,704,246 825,105 137,200 922,538 399,000 20,300 26,500 62,800 21,693,089 $ $ 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 (66,532) $ 191,595 437,173 562,236 $ 225,000 21,000 500,000 746,000 30,866,842 $ (1,390,794) $ $ $ $ $ 29,599,739 29,599,739 $ 225,000 21,000 500,000 746,000 $ 30,866,842 (1,267,103) $ $ $ $ $ $ 75,000 131,673 560,961 767,634 $ 34,912,883 (1,267,103) $ $ $ $ $ 20,000 440,500 660,000 1,120,500 $ 35,316,030 (1,267,106) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ FY 2003-04 Requested 34,050,497 34,050,497 $ 29,599,739 29,599,739 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 33,574,809 $ 27,175 (14,444) 58,237 33,645,777 $ 31,197,729 $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ $ 35,032,337 35,032,337 $ $ 5,432,598 5,432,598 18% 18% 10,190,356 $ 170,000 6,000 3,168,887 45,000 (216,412) 219,412 13,583,243 $ (1,260,436) (15,000) (6,000) (635,038) (5,000) 149,953 (152,951) (1,924,472) 2,152,149 25,000 66,500 202,300 7,200 50,000 16,301,180 825,105 87,200 922,538 399,000 20,300 26,500 62,800 319,802 21,467,574 (145,726) (10,000) (50,500) 30,950 (1,200) (40,000) (3,010,640) 335,015 419,800 (21,438) (168,162) (3,200) 13,500 (34,100) (319,802) (3,005,503) -7% -67% -316% 13% -20% -400% -23% 29% 83% -2% -73% -19% 34% -119% 91% -1998% -32% -50% -17% $ $ $ 20,000 440,500 660,000 1,120,500 $ 205,000 (419,500) (160,000) (374,500) $ 36,171,317 $ (5,304,475) (1,265,533) $ % $ (1,138,980) $ 128,123 -14% -10% -25% -13% 226% -230% -17% -16% 10% 605 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Human Services (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 220 HUMAN SERVICES Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV COMMUNITY SVCS SPECIALIST CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIETITIAN DIRECTOR DISPATCHER EDUCATOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL LABORER GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR INFO CENTER MANAGER MANAGEMENT ANALYST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT NURSE PC SPECIALIST PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM SUPERVISOR PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN TRAINING SPECIALIST Total 606 FTE 2.0 4.0 1.0 9.0 86.0 1.0 5.0 31.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 109.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 27.0 4.0 14.0 27.0 3.0 9.0 368.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer David Smith Integrated Criminal Justice Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Director Information System Director Don Thomas Don Thomas Agency Representation/ Process Analysis Network Integration/ Network Security App. Development/ Data Integration ITSM/ System Maintenance Mission 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. 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 • Strategic Goal 1: 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. 607 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (Continued) • Strategic Goal 2: 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. • Strategic Goal 3: 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. Issues • 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 2003-04 ADOPTED INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO TOTAL FUNDS Program INTEGRATION SYS & INFO DIST 608 $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 2,115,767 2,115,767 $ $ Supplies & Services 4,628,273 4,628,273 Capital Outlay $ 492,297 $ 492,297 Total Expenditures $ 7,236,337 $ 7,236,337 Total Revenue $ $ - Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 157,910 $ 1,955,612 $ 3,656,622 $ 3,336,102 $ 7,236,337 $ $ $ $ $ Total 157,910 1,955,612 3,656,622 3,336,102 7,236,337 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 157,910 $ 1,955,612 $ 3,656,622 $ 3,336,102 $ 7,236,337 $ $ $ $ $ Total 157,910 1,955,612 3,656,622 3,336,102 7,236,337 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. Mandate Information TITLE Integration Of Criminal Justice Information Systems AUTHORITY 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. § 42-6109 D.3.A. Contains Provisions For Implementing An Integrated Criminal Justice Information System HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION “Implement An Integrated Criminal Justice Information System.” 609 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type 4,634,021 $ 486,549 $ 7,236,337 $ SPECIAL REVENUE $ 2,115,767 $ ALL FUNDS $ 2,115,767 $ 4,634,021 $ 486,549 $ 7,236,337 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 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.) $ FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 1,011,390 $ 34,485 156,483 196,257 (121) 1,398,494 $ 1,065,190 $ 166,781 (18,545) 204,059 1,417,485 $ 1,072,661 $ 6,439 168,029 (19,709) 204,059 1,431,479 $ 1,122,124 $ 4,787 176,385 (19,704) 155,295 1,438,887 $ 1,647,463 $ 284,242 (691,155) 875,217 2,115,767 $ 1,647,463 $ 284,242 (691,155) 875,217 2,115,767 $ 678,882 9,330 541,396 56,950 19,945 32,323 129,473 1,468,299 1,604,003 876,770 42,851 206,000 33,625 84,000 2,847,249 1,256,867 1,171,430 61,803 167,924 31,741 107,500 2,797,265 252,447 46,800 873,662 67,775 171,825 78,341 85,197 1,576,047 2,395,035 35,000 1,517,310 70,816 369,512 51,848 194,500 4,634,021 2,395,035 35,000 1,517,310 70,816 369,512 51,848 194,500 4,634,021 $ $ 785,304 4,493 789,797 $ $ 3,656,590 $ (3,656,590) $ $ $ 165,000 112,164 277,164 $ $ 4,541,898 $ (4,541,898) $ $ $ 222,905 90,249 313,154 $ $ 4,541,898 $ (4,541,898) $ Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO Market Range Title DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST INFO SYSTEMS PROJECT MGR TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN UNDETERMINED Total 610 FY 2003-04 Requested FTE 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 8.0 22.0 $ $ 266,925 79,512 346,437 $ $ 3,361,371 $ (3,361,371) $ $ $ 308,000 178,549 486,549 $ $ 7,236,337 $ (7,236,337) $ $ $ $ (574,802) 6,439 (116,213) 671,446 (671,158) (684,288) % -54% 100% -69% 3407% -329% -48% (1,138,168) (35,000) (345,880) (9,013) (201,588) (20,107) (87,000) (1,836,756) -91% -30% -15% -120% -63% -81% -66% (85,095) (88,300) (173,395) -38% -98% -55% 308,000 178,549 486,549 $ 7,236,337 $ (2,694,439) -59% (7,236,337) $ (2,694,439) -59% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Internal Audit Organizational Chart Board of Supervisors Audit Committee County Management Internal Audit Internal Audit Ross Tate, County Auditor Ross Tate, County Auditor Auditors and Administration Mission The mission of the Internal Audit Department is to provide objective, accurate, and meaningful information about County operations so the Board of Supervisors can make informed decisions to better serve County citizens. Vision To facilitate positive change throughout County operations while ensuring that public resources are used for their intended purpose. Goals • By 2005, Internal Audit will dedicate at least 10% of department audit hours to proactive educational activities in order to further strengthen the County's internal control environment. • By 2005, in order to provide our customers with a quality product, and meet the growing challenges of advancing technology and diversified County operations, Internal Audit will provide a more attractive employee environment and retain high-quality employees by: a. Offering a professional environment of customer-oriented teamwork in achieving our mission; b. Increasing professional development resources to $1,500 per FTE; 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: a. Earning a NACO award annually b. Earning two professional audit awards (Knighton, NALGA, IIA, AGA, etc.) c. Having at least 25% of staff in leadership positions within professional organizations d. Publishing two external articles on audit topics e. Providing online audit and control information to both internal and external customers, increasing Web-site visits each year. • By 2005, Internal Audit will annually verify 35% of key MfR performance measures throughout County operations. • Internal Audit is currently surveying our primary customers (BOS, County Management, departments, and Audit Committee) to identify, report, and prioritize new audit services that are perceived to be needed. We will implement 25% of these services that are consistent with our strategic plan by FY05 (contingent upon available funding). 611 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Internal Audit (Continued) • By June 2005, Internal Audit will satisfy the need for providing objective information by; a. Making 90% of issued audit reports available to the public on-line; b. Continue publishing at least one Financial Condition Report; c. Continue publishing at least one Service Effort and Accomplishment Report. • By 2005, Internal Audit staff will better meet its customers' service demands by: a. Obtaining the training and equipment necessary to utilize Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs) on 50% of audit projects; b. Continuously monitor 20% of the County's financial transactions. 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 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED INTERNAL AUDIT TOTAL FUNDS Program AUDIT SERVICES MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 575,725 308,636 39,800 7,494 931,655 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 16,436 5,817 1,768 450 24,471 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ 1,896 1,896 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 592,161 314,453 41,568 9,840 958,022 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 75 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of IA recommendations concurred with by clients. 99 96.3 99.8 90 Percent of IA recommendations implemented within three years after the report has been issued. N/A 96.43 90 90 Percent satisfaction rating from BOS and County Mgmt with audit reports 89 97.5 84 90 4,900,000 5,329,804 1,544,000 2,000,000 Key Results: Economic impact of audit work. 612 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent satisfaction rating from customers indicating educational efforts (newsletters, courses, etc.) help them do their job more effectively N/A 90 90 90 Percent overall approval rating by the Board of Supervisors and key County management of Internal Audit's strategic information reports. N/A 97.75 100 90 Percent satisfaction rating from customers indicating consulting services delivered by IA helped them do their job more effectively N/A N/A 100 90 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 795,525 $ 842,862 $ 967,480 $ 999,417 $ 958,022 $ $ $ $ $ Total 795,525 842,862 967,480 999,417 958,022 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 15,260 $ 15,767 $ 36,679 $ 45,189 $ 49,400 $ $ $ $ $ Total 15,260 15,767 36,679 45,189 49,400 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 780,265 $ 935,762 $ 930,801 $ 954,228 $ 908,622 $ $ $ $ $ Total 780,265 935,762 930,801 954,228 908,622 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 613 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Internal Audit (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Federal Grants Sub-recipient Monitoring for Compliance with the Single Audit Act AUTHORITY Federal Single Audit Act and Amendments of 1996; Federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Internal Audit monitors compliance of federal grant sub-recipients with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133. Internal Audit also consults with County departments concerning Single Audit Act requirements. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Maricopa County, as a pass-through organization, must ensure that any subrecipients spending $300,000 or more in federal awards during the subrecipients 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 1999-00 Actuals $ 15,260 $ 15,260 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 15,767 $ 15,767 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 15,282 $ 15,282 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 12,933 $ 12,933 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 12,000 $ 12,000 614 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Internal Audit (Continued) TITLE Minimum Accounting Standards Testing for Courts and Judicial Departments AUTHORITY Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) – Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Order Number 93-52, revised by AO 94-68, revised by AO 9762 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Internal Audit performs financial and operational tests to ensure courts and judicial departments maintain effective controls over financial functions. This agreed-upon-procedures audit was performed by the Arizona Auditor General’s Office (AG) until 1999. If Internal Audit did not perform these audits, the courts and judicial departments would have to hire a CPA firm or consultant. MANDATE DESCRIPTION The mandate requires all courts, court Offices, and judicial financial functions to undergo an independent audit every three years. The AOC establishes audit procedures to be performed and requires the independent auditor to submit a report by a specified date detailing any accounting deficiencies or exceptions noted during the review. Minimum Accounting Standards Testing for Courts and Judicial Departments FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 21,397 $ 32,256 $ 37,400 Total $ $ $ $ $ 21,397 32,256 37,400 615 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Internal Audit (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 230 INTERNAL AUDIT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 931,656 $ 24,470 $ 1,896 $ 958,022 $ 75 ALL FUNDS $ 931,656 $ 24,470 $ 1,896 $ 958,022 $ 75 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 230 INTERNAL AUDIT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ Total Revenue $ 921 921 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT Subtotal $ 799,691 $ 1,820 150,613 (15,282) 936,842 $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ 5,080 6,134 1,824 5,211 12,186 203 30,638 $ Subtotal $ - Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 967,480 75 75 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 823,961 $ 1,990 172,638 (12,000) 986,589 $ $ $ 6,250 3,839 1,800 500 5,496 9,481 203 27,569 $ $ - $ (966,559) $ 1,014,158 75 75 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 826,593 $ 1,990 170,019 (12,000) 986,602 $ $ $ 6,237 3,839 1,800 500 5,496 9,481 203 27,556 $ $ - $ (1,014,083) $ 1,014,158 616 805,765 $ 988 162,424 (9,001) 960,176 $ $ $ $ $ $ (1,014,083) $ MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 230 INTERNAL AUDIT Total $ $ 4,954 3,080 2,066 375 4,502 6,039 165 21,181 Position Distribution Market Range Title ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR AUDITING SUPERVISOR AUDITOR DIRECTOR 170 170 FY 2003-04 Requested FTE 1.0 4.0 9.1 1.0 15.1 75 75 $ $ 823,110 $ 1,990 168,098 (12,000) 981,198 $ $ $ 5,000 2,069 2,070 150 6,000 9,081 100 24,470 960 960 $ $ 982,317 $ (982,147) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 75 75 $ $ 782,175 $ 1,990 159,491 (12,000) 931,656 $ % - 0% 0% 44,418 10,528 54,946 5% 0% 6% 0% 6% $ $ 5,000 2,069 2,070 150 6,000 9,081 100 24,470 $ 1,237 1,770 (270) 350 (504) 400 103 3,086 1,896 1,896 $ $ 1,896 1,896 $ $ (1,896) (1,896) 1,007,564 $ 958,022 $ 56,136 6% (957,947) $ 56,136 6% (1,007,489) $ 20% 46% -15% 70% -9% 4% 51% 11% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Advocate Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Legal Advocate Legal Advocate Susan Sherwin, Director Susan Sherwin, Director Mission The mission of the Office of the Legal Advocate (OLA) is to provide quality legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the Court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • Within the next five years, the OLA Juvenile Dependency unit will accept 100% of demand without compromising quality, in response to the Court's request that complex Dependency cases are handled by OLA. • Within the next three years, OLA capital attorneys will accept 100% of demand, with "demand" being defined as all cases referred from PD and LD, less those which constitute an actual legal conflict. • Within the next two years, OLA will identify funding opportunities that will be utilized to hire an additional attorney solely devoted to Drug Court, in response to a recent mandate from the Court. • Within the next five years, OLA will collaborate with mental health evaluators to establish true "SVP" standards, and work within the legal system to place additional pre-trial protections in the law which will ensure due process and prevent clients from being inappropriately labeled as "sexually violent persons." • Within the next five years, OLA will work to influence systemic changes that will facilitate more expedient treatment of SVP clients in the state hospital, so that clients can be released more quickly, thereby reducing state expenditures. Issues • The Court's continued emphasis on moving cases ever more quickly will result in less time and fewer resources available to assist clients, which will compromise the quality of legal representation, increase staff stress, and potentially increase staff turnover. • Compensation in some job classes is not competitive with other employers, resulting in fewer qualified applicants for available positions and diminished morale. • Rapid increases in population and poverty, coupled with a greater emphasis on civil and criminal enforcement have resulted in an increase in the number of indigent clients, causing burgeoning caseloads. 617 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Advocate (Continued) • An insufficient number of County parking spaces near downtown jails and courts entail walking distances of up to one mile and uncontrollable private parking expenses, which are causing concerns about employees with health issues who transport heavy legal files in 100 degree heat, and adversely impacting OLA's budget. • Attorneys and mitigation personnel frequently have to wait one to two hours to visit clients in jail, resulting in a waste of budget resources spent on unproductive work time for highly paid staff. • Existing office space is occupied beyond capacity, which is crowding existing staff, impeding ability to add new staff, and interfering with efficient file management. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED LEGAL ADVOCATE TOTAL FUNDS Program ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION APPELLATE REPRESENTATION DEPENDENCY REPRESENTATION MENTAL HEALTH REPRESENTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 1,843,692 407,537 1,082,853 254,073 314,019 3,902,174 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 337,740 156,078 145,096 111,316 56,983 807,213 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 9,640 2,356 9,159 2,410 3,213 26,778 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 2,191,072 565,971 1,237,108 367,799 371,002 3,213 4,736,165 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 127,180 127,180 Key Performance Measures Program Name: CIVIL REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Civil Representation Program is to provide legal representation to assigned indigent persons in civil matters so that their legal interests are protected. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of cases which have a permanency plan established within one year after case opening N/A N/A 95 98 Percent of clients found "non SVP" or the case is dismissed N/A N/A 0 0 Key Results: 618 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Advocate (Continued) Program Name: CRIMINAL DEFENSE PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Criminal Defense Program is to provide quality legal defense services to assigned indigent clients charged with criminal offenses so that they can obtain the most favorable result possible. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of cases closed with disposition less than original charge N/A N/A 90 90 Percent of appeals briefs completed without a written motion to extend N/A N/A 90 85 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A $ 3,241,271 $ 4,206,313 $ 4,725,749 Special Revenue N/A N/A $ 25,442 $ 13,537 $ 10,416 Total N/A N/A $ 3,266,713 $ 4,219,850 $ 4,736,165 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund N/A N/A $ 3,241,271 $ 4,206,313 $ 4,725,749 Special Revenue N/A N/A $ 25,442 $ 13,537 $ 10,416 Total N/A N/A $ 3,266,713 $ 4,219,850 $ 4,736,165 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 619 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Advocate (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Legal Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants and Delinquent or Incorrigible Juveniles AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. 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 postconviction 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 Judicial Mandates AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND 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). 620 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Advocate (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 4,087,936 $ 611,035 $ 26,778 $ 4,725,749 $ 116,764 SPECIAL REVENUE 10,416 10,416 10,416 ALL FUNDS $ 4,087,936 $ 621,451 $ 26,778 $ 4,736,165 $ 127,180 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 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 $ Subtotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ FY 2002-03 Adopted (25,442) $ 37,342 3 11,903 $ 2,200,119 41,601 41 359,188 1,409 60,443 2,662,801 80,962 206,453 21,394 241,216 395 13,313 44,200 4,864 612,797 3,275,598 $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Revised 14,842 36,000 50,842 $ 2,552,947 10 482,858 75,285 3,111,100 $ $ $ 47,599 1,500 690 379,642 16,203 282,666 11,092 43,775 2,000 785,167 $ 7,857 7,857 $ $ $ 3,904,124 $ $ (3,263,695) $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 14,842 36,000 50,842 $ 2,887,208 84,073 553,230 1,687 77,243 3,603,441 $ $ $ 52,868 1,127 232,454 12,552 249,940 2,167 11,405 68,417 1,991 632,921 $ 2,021 9,759 11,780 $ $ $ 4,248,142 $ (3,853,282) $ FY 2003-04 Requested 10,563 26,520 37,083 $ 2,725,969 94,160 2,955 497,639 5,088 77,242 3,403,053 $ $ $ 10,416 130,000 140,416 $ 3,086,744 568,677 5,000 16,800 3,677,221 $ $ $ $ 3,071,589 15,155 568,677 415,715 16,800 4,087,936 $ $ 9,120 9,120 $ $ 26,778 26,778 $ $ 26,778 26,778 $ $ $ 4,207,532 $ 4,325,450 $ 4,736,165 (4,197,300) $ (4,170,449) $ $ (4,185,034) $ 35,000 212,565 23,610 281,342 250 11,428 51,916 5,340 621,451 $ $ $ $ 10,416 116,764 127,180 44,951 400 325,692 14,949 319,495 1,019 11,193 71,696 5,964 795,359 $ 35,000 212,565 23,610 281,342 250 11,428 51,916 5,340 621,451 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ (4,426) 80,764 76,338 (184,381) 68,918 (15,447) (414,028) 60,443 (484,495) % -30% 224% 150% -6% 82% -3% -24542% 78% -13% 17,868 1,127 19,889 (11,058) (31,402) 1,917 (23) 16,501 (3,349) 11,470 100% 9% -88% -13% 88% 0% 24% -168% 2% $ 2,021 (17,019) (14,998) 100% -174% -127% $ (488,023) -11% (4,608,985) $ (411,685) -10% $ 34% 621 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Advocate (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ATTORNEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST INVESTIGATOR LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST MITIGATION SVCS REP SOCIAL WORKER (BS) Total 622 FTE 4.0 2.0 28.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 7.0 2.0 9.0 60.5 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Defender Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Legal Defender Legal Defender Robert B. Briney Robert B. Briney Administrative Services Adult Criminal Representation Information Technology Juvenile Dependency/Severance Representation Mission The mission of the Office of the Legal Defender is to provide quality legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. Vision The Vision of the Office of the Legal Defender is to further justice by providing legal representation to indigents equal or superior to that of privately retained counsel while being regarded by the county as efficient. Goals • By October 1, 2003, the goal of the Office of the Legal Defender is to establish in conjunction with the other indigent defense offices a case weighting and counting system and develop mechanisms that will enable the Offices to set and maintain appropriate caseload and performance standards. • By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Office of the Legal Defender is to resolve to disposition 90% of all felony cases, except first-degree murder 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 Indigent Representation is to maintain cost effectiveness by limiting the percentage of increase in the annual cost per case to no more than the percentage of increase in the overall annual funding of the County's criminal justice group. Issues • A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and accompanying legislative changes, pending election results, and new or pending procedural court rule changes will significantly impact current caseloads/workloads; timely delivery of services and cost per case. 623 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Defender (Continued) • The courts’ continued emphasis on rapid resolution of cases will result in less time and fewer resources available to assist clients, reducing the quality of legal representation and increasing staff stress and turnover. • The relocation of the Indigent Defense Offices to one location will require additional and reallocation of resources to adequately provide office/parking space and equipment to permit the staff to accomplish their duties in an efficient and effective manner. • The County’s pay and benefits will need to keep pace with those of the private sector if the Office hopes to be able to hire qualified applicants and avoid an increase in turnover. • The recent economic downturn, rapid increase in population and continued 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 War on Terrorism will require additional resources devoted to security issues, loss of productivity time to our staff serving as Reservists and to staff through planned and unplanned building evacuations and a possible increase in the number of clients. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED LEGAL DEFENDER TOTAL FUNDS Program ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION DEPENDENCY REPRESENTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 3,708,746 944,822 380,732 65,733 5,100,033 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 309,047 41,850 36,000 386,897 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ 20,390 20,390 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 4,017,793 986,672 416,732 86,123 5,507,320 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 62,674 36,000 98,674 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 Cases with Disposition Less than Original Charge 624 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 88.24 88 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Defender (Continued) Program Name: NON-CRIMINAL REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Non-Criminal Representation Program is to provide legal representation to assigned indigent person in juvenile court on issues involving their parental rights so they can obtain the most favorable resolution of their cases under the circumstances. Key Results: Percent of dependency cases dismissed FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 22.14 22.14 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 4,293,040 $ 4,329,456 $ 5,428,346 Special Revenue $ $ $ 62,508 $ 67,770 $ 78,974 $ $ $ $ $ Total Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 4,293,040 $ 4,329,456 $ 5,428,346 Special Revenue $ $ $ 62,508 $ 67,770 $ 78,974 $ $ $ $ $ 4,355,548 4,397,226 5,507,320 Total 4,355,548 4,397,226 5,507,320 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 625 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Defender (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Legal Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants AUTHORITY U.S. Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments; Arizona Constitution, Article 2, § 24; ARS §§ 11-581 to 587; Rule 6, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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, the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office represented all indigent defendants when ethically permitted to do so. In those instances where the Public Defender had a conflict of interest, the case was assigned to private contract attorneys. The Office of the Legal Defender was established in 1995 to assume many of the cases that were being referred to private contract counsel. Since its inception, the Office has demonstrated that it could do so at substantial cost savings to the county. MANDATE DESCRIPTION When assigned by the court, legal defense of indigent criminal defendants at risk of loss of liberty in criminal proceedings, including felony, misdemeanor, and probation violation cases and legal representation of witnesses in criminal cases. TITLE Judicial Mandates AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND Historically, Maricopa County contracted with private attorneys to represent clients in juvenile dependency and severance matters. Due to changes in legislation, Maricopa County was granted authority to provide on-staff legal representation to those involved these proceedings. The Office of the Legal Defender assumed the responsibility of representing one of the indigent parents in these matters. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Legal representation of indigent parents involved in child dependency and severance proceedings. Administrative Services Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 626 General Fund $ $ $ 527,647 $ 322,174 $ 380,732 Special Revenue $ $ $ 27,508 $ 37,064 $ 36,000 Total $ $ $ $ $ 555,154 359,238 416,732 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Defender (Continued) Information Technology Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ 58,425 $ 86,123 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Adult Felony Representation Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 2,880,256 $ 3,082,149 $ 3,974,819 Special Revenue $ $ $ 35,000 $ 30,706 $ 42,974 $ $ $ $ $ Dependency Representation Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 885,138 $ 866,707 $ 986,672 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 58,425 86,123 Total 2,915,256 3,112,856 4,017,793 Total 885,138 866,707 986,672 627 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Defender (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 540 LEGAL DEFENDER Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 5,057,059 $ 350,897 $ 20,390 $ 5,428,346 $ 19,700 SPECIAL REVENUE 42,974 36,000 78,974 78,974 ALL FUNDS $ 5,100,033 $ 386,897 $ 20,390 $ 5,507,320 $ 98,674 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 540 LEGAL DEFENDER ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS Total Revenue $ 26,069 39,200 14,700 79,969 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ 3,305,346 181,280 232 611,604 6,229 4,104,691 $ 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.) $ 628 68,391 2,252 1,455 442,774 23,514 12,406 1,683 7,950 45,184 13,110 618,719 4,723,410 $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Revised 80,000 24,500 104,500 $ 3,426,317 123,500 668,441 120,515 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 $ $ $ (4,643,441) $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 80,000 24,500 104,500 $ 3,695,496 213,656 726,151 29,671 4,664,974 $ $ $ $ $ 79,202 1,280 36,580 166,501 35,500 15,500 1,500 7,200 61,839 7,500 412,602 357 357 $ $ 5,077,933 $ (4,973,433) $ FY 2003-04 Requested 47,389 60,300 143 107,832 $ 3,539,319 248,859 690,891 12,141 4,491,210 $ $ $ $ $ 44,034 1,811 11,692 178,844 34,013 12,511 1,242 8,978 44,469 6,786 344,380 357 357 $ $ 5,077,933 $ (4,973,433) $ 77,428 24,500 101,928 $ 3,716,087 213,656 751,481 6,550 4,687,774 $ $ $ $ $ 44,000 2,000 212,729 29,000 17,500 2,050 9,318 63,800 6,500 386,897 5,060 5,060 $ $ 4,840,650 $ (4,732,818) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 36,000 62,674 98,674 $ 3,717,633 213,656 751,481 417,263 5,100,033 $ $ $ % (44,000) 38,174 (5,826) -55% 156% (22,137) (25,330) (387,592) (435,059) -1% 0% -3% -1306% -9% 44% -56% 100% -28% 18% -13% -37% -29% -3% 13% 6% -6% $ $ 44,000 2,000 212,729 29,000 17,500 2,050 9,318 63,800 6,500 386,897 $ 35,202 (720) 36,580 (46,228) 6,500 (2,000) (550) (2,118) (1,961) 1,000 25,705 20,390 20,390 $ $ 20,390 20,390 $ $ (20,033) (20,033) -5611% -5611% 5,095,061 $ 5,507,320 $ (429,387) -8% (5,408,646) $ (435,213) -9% (4,993,133) $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Legal Defender (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 540 LEGAL DEFENDER Market Range Title ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ATTORNEY DIRECTOR INVESTIGATOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL ORDER SERVER LEGAL SECRETARY SUPV LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MITIGATION SVCS REP PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE SOCIAL WORKER (BS) Total FTE 1.0 2.0 9.0 2.0 35.8 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 74.8 629 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Management & Budget Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Deputy County Administrator Sandi Wilson Office of Management and Budget Office of Management and Budget Budget Management Department Administration Multi-Year Planning Budget Monitoring Forecasting Budgeting Strategic Planning Management Information Services Mission The mission of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to provide organizational and strategic leadership and consultation to the Board of Supervisors so that they can make well-informed policy and budgetary decisions. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • By June 2003 and beyond, develop and maintain a level of expertise and credibility through analysis, financial reports, and trending that will lead to OMB policy changes that limit future general fund budget subsidies to the Health System at or below the FY 2003 level. • By June 30, 2003, develop a Fiscal Emergency Action Plan incorporating the 10-year forecast, population trends, and legislation to ensure that the budget maintains structural balance. The plan is to be reviewed annually and updated as needed as part of the budget process. • Managing for Results will be implemented to a stage where OMB can make meaningful budget recommendations tied to service levels and results, as evidenced by 25% of departments conforming to Managing for Results (MfR) guidelines for P/A/S and Performance Measurements by the start of FY 2004; 50% by FY 2005; 75% by FY 2006; and 100% by FY 2007. 630 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Management & Budget (Continued) • By September 1 of each year (2003, 2004, 2005), OMB will submit policy recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to be used by Government Relations in successful lobbying that results in passage of favorable legislative action to enhance Maricopa County's fiscal independence by June 30, 2006. Issues • Absent a jail tax extension, OMB will be forced to make severe service cut and property tax increase recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. • The State of Arizona budget crisis has introduced great fiscal uncertainty and has taken our financial self-reliance strategies away from County government. • Rising health system subsidy costs and State and court mandated health care costs will make it increasingly difficult for OMB to make budget recommendations for all other County programs at current revenue and expenditure limits. • Statutory and constitutional State limitations, including our authority to raise revenues, challenge our ability to handle economic downturns and demographic changes to fund County service demands. • Judicial mandates affecting speedy trials and re-trying capital cases will require OMB to analyze issues with criminal justice agencies to identify management strategies that will increase effectiveness and streamline processes within limited resources. • Without countywide departmental management's complete understanding, commitment and acceptance of MfR principles, the County's ability to fully "Manage for Results," and, in particular, OMB's ability to fully "Budget for Results" will be challenged. • Limited funding and space will challenge OMB to maintain the stable, highly qualified staff that we will need to effectively respond to increasingly difficult, complex budget issues. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED MANAGEMENT & BUDGET TOTAL FUNDS Program BUDGET MANAGEMENT MULTI-YEAR PLANNING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 1,328,185 88,874 74,308 1,491,367 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 69,100 69,100 $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 5,645 5,645 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 1,402,930 88,874 74,308 1,566,112 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ - 631 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Management & Budget (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: BUDGET MANAGEMENT Program Purpose: The purpose of the Budget Management Program is to provide the budget and 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 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 98.5 98.4 100 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 and County management so they can set policy and make strategic decisions. Key Results: Percent of forecasts (most likely scenario) within 10 percent of actual FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 100 100 100 100 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,337,623 $ 1,372,435 $ 1,545,124 $ 1,463,898 $ 1,566,112 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,337,623 1,372,435 1,545,124 1,463,898 1,566,112 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,337,623 $ 1,372,435 $ 1,545,124 $ 1,463,898 $ 1,566,112 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,337,623 1,372,435 1,545,124 1,463,898 1,566,112 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 632 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Management & Budget (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,491,367 $ 69,100 $ 5,645 $ 1,566,112 $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,491,367 $ 69,100 $ 5,645 $ 1,566,112 $ EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 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 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING $ Subtotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 965,236 31,158 171,190 13,677 220,984 1,402,245 27,690 3 83,255 91 17,783 13,376 681 142,879 1,545,124 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (1,545,124) $ 1,033,332 192,164 370,000 1,595,496 37,496 80,868 1,000 22,000 500 141,864 1,737,360 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 1,204,195 $ 223,049 26,965 (157,490) 338,412 1,635,131 $ $ $ 39,896 32,000 2,000 1,000 24,500 500 99,896 $ $ 2,333 2,333 $ $ $ 1,737,360 $ (1,737,360) $ $ (1,737,360) $ 1,014,623 3,240 176,432 375,259 1,569,554 40,483 26,083 83,325 498 17,238 237 821 168,685 1,738,239 FY 2003-04 Requested $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted % 1,258,354 $ 237,443 87,986 (57,845) 139,442 1,665,380 $ 1,156,237 $ 217,083 36,450 (57,845) 139,442 1,491,367 $ 47,958 5,966 (9,485) (99,645) 198,970 143,764 $ $ 40,000 8,000 2,000 8,100 1,000 9,000 500 500 69,100 $ $ 40,000 8,000 2,000 8,100 1,000 9,000 500 500 69,100 $ (104) 24,000 (8,100) 15,500 (500) 30,796 0% 31% $ $ 5,645 5,645 $ $ 5,645 5,645 $ $ (3,312) (3,312) -142% -142% $ 1,740,125 $ 1,566,112 $ 171,248 10% (1,566,112) $ 171,248 10% $ $ (1,738,239) $ (1,740,125) $ 4% 3% -35% -63% 59% 9% 0% 75% 0% 0% 63% 633 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Management & Budget (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST BUDGET ANALYST BUDGET SUPERVISOR CHIEF OFFICER DEPUTY DIRECTOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST Total 634 FTE 2.0 9.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 20.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Materials Management Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Financial Officer Materials Management Materials Management Wes Baysinger, Director Wes Baysinger, Director Procurement Reprographics Records Management Mission The mission of Materials Management is to provide strategic procurement and records management 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 e-business. 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 EProcurement 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. 635 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Materials Management (Continued) • 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. • 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 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED MATERIALS MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program BUSINESS SERVICES CONSULTING SYSTEMS AND SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 738,800 447,331 207,520 185,548 1,579,199 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 359,328 846 43,604 50,027 453,805 $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 46,709 46,709 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 1,144,837 447,331 208,366 229,152 50,027 2,079,713 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 1,010,775 20,000 1,030,775 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 cost-effective government programs. Key Results: Percent of clients satisfied with Graphic Communications Manufactured Products. 636 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A 98.8 86 86 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of clients satisfied with Graphic Communications consulting results. N/A 99.9 86 86 Percent of clients satisfied with Procurement consulting services. N/A 83.3 86 86 Percent of clients satisfied with Records Management consulting results. N/A 77 86 86 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,249,299 $ 1,291,013 $ 1,383,196 $ 1,327,975 $ 1,244,722 Internal Service $ 657,488 $ 724,113 $ 719,019 $ 819,668 $ 834,991 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,906,787 2,015,126 2,102,215 2,147,643 2,079,713 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,249,299 $ 1,291,016 $ 1,383,197 $ 1,381,452 $ 1,244,722 Internal Service $ 657,488 $ 724,121 $ 856,778 $ 955,803 $ 834,991 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,906,787 2,015,137 2,239,975 2,337,255 2,079,713 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 637 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Materials Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,183,034 $ 61,688 $ $ 1,244,722 $ 127,000 INTERNAL SERVICE 409,768 378,514 46,709 834,991 903,775 ALL FUNDS $ 1,592,802 $ 440,202 $ 46,709 $ 2,079,713 $ 1,030,775 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES $ 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 1,104,788 101,149 1,205,937 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT Subtotal $ 1,398,053 774 291,049 1,689,876 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL 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 CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ 254,541 27 275 744 36,318 50,046 5,614 5,330 20,889 17,665 391,449 $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 900,000 80,775 980,775 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 1,439,544 $ 4,350 5,066 316,899 (53,158) 1,712,701 $ $ $ 253,978 300 25,000 50,468 95,000 9,710 4,832 5,000 38,089 482,377 3,223 3,223 $ $ 2,084,548 $ (878,611) $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 900,000 80,775 980,775 $ $ 1,439,670 $ 4,225 5,076 316,888 (53,158) 1,712,701 $ $ $ 253,978 300 25,000 50,468 95,000 9,710 4,832 5,000 38,089 482,377 46,709 46,709 $ $ 2,241,787 $ (1,261,012) $ 638 $ 1,409,857 $ 7,644 3,491 305,767 (52,606) 1,674,153 $ $ $ 46,709 46,709 $ $ 2,241,787 $ (1,261,012) $ MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Total $ 249,613 257 17,702 45,469 96,588 6,142 6,669 6,109 38,089 466,638 Position Distribution Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR GRAPHIC EQUIPMENT TECH HR SPECIALIST PC SPECIALIST PROGRAM COORDINATOR PURCHASING SPECIALIST PURCHASING SUPERVISOR TECHNOLOGY ANALYST 1,096,063 93,052 1,189,115 FY 2003-04 Requested FTE 6.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 36.0 900,000 80,775 980,775 $ $ 1,439,355 $ 4,225 5,076 341,645 (53,158) 1,737,143 $ $ $ 253,978 300 20,647 50,468 95,000 9,710 4,832 5,000 39,559 479,494 49,686 49,686 $ $ 2,190,477 $ (1,001,362) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 900,000 130,775 1,030,775 $ $ 0% 62% 5% 1,335,303 $ 4,076 306,581 (53,158) 1,592,802 $ 104,367 4,225 1,000 10,307 119,899 7% 100% 20% 3% 0% 7% $ $ 228,218 300 18,741 43,299 93,500 7,528 4,057 5,000 39,559 440,202 46,709 46,709 $ $ 2,263,346 $ (1,282,571) $ % 50,000 50,000 10% $ 25,760 6,259 7,169 1,500 2,182 775 (1,470) 42,175 46,709 46,709 $ $ - 0% 0% 2,079,713 $ 162,074 7% (1,048,938) $ 212,074 17% 0% 25% 14% 2% 22% 16% 0% -4% 9% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Medical Examiner Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Medical Examiner Medical Examiner Dr. Philip Keen, Director Dr. Philip Keen, Director Medical Staff Deputy Director Administration Investigation Toxicology Transportation Examination Operations Support Mission The Mission of the Office of the Medical Examiner 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • Improve service to families and other agencies by completing cases within established timeframes by FY 2005, i.e., 90% of cases closed in 45 days and 100% in 90 days. • Secure sufficient staff by FY 05 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 Goal #1. • 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 FY 2006. • Acquire new desktop information technology to provide the public greater access to information and reports by FY 04. 639 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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 (Goal #1), e.g., seeking federal grant for DNA lab in FY 04 in order to expand laboratory services to include DNA analyses of samples primarily on homicide cases. • Apply for certification from the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAMES), Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT), and complete requirements to gain approval for a Forensic Pathology Fellowship program from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) by FY 05. • Seek grant funding in FY 04 for a Training Coordinator to develop education programs for medical, emergency, and law enforcement personnel and a program for at-risk youth. Issues 640 • 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 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 2005. • The move to the new facility will allow 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 five 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 five 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 at-risk 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. • Approval of a forensic pathology fellowship would greatly alleviate the recruiting difficulties and high turnover in Medical Examiner positions experienced in the past by allowing our office to provide forensic pathology training to potential new medical examiners. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED MEDICAL EXAMINER TOTAL FUNDS Program MEDICAL EXAMINERS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 3,310,433 239,451 3,549,884 $ $ $ Supplies & Services 329,389 70,874 400,263 Capital Outlay $ 125,177 $ 13,493 $ 138,670 Total Expenditures $ 3,764,999 $ 323,818 $ 4,088,817 $ $ $ Total Revenue 567,614 567,614 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 2,939,906 $ 3,392,906 $ 3,472,800 $ 3,888,275 $ 3,881,203 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,939,906 3,392,906 3,472,800 3,888,275 3,881,203 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 2,939,906 $ 3,392,906 $ 3,472,800 $ 3,888,275 $ 3,881,203 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,939,906 3,392,906 3,472,800 3,888,275 3,881,203 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 641 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Medical Examiner AUTHORITY A.R.S. §§ 11-591 through 11-600 County Medical Examiner HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 642 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 3,365,394 $ 371,902 $ 143,907 $ 3,881,203 $ 360,000 SPECIAL REVENUE 181,667 20,147 5,800 207,614 207,614 ALL FUNDS $ 3,547,061 $ 392,049 $ 149,707 $ 4,088,817 $ 567,614 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 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 $ $ 407,829 (454) 407,375 $ 2,362,020 74,606 36,517 489,907 31,996 2,995,046 $ 70,044 196,105 10,473 15,235 55,150 22,635 9,593 43,514 6,328 21,118 7,603 4,751 462,549 $ $ Subtotal $ 6,550 76,829 83,379 Total Expenditures $ 3,540,974 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 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES $ Subtotal $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE FY 2002-03 Adopted $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 60,000 360,000 420,000 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 2,663,932 68,748 11,700 596,963 23,708 3,365,051 $ 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 $ $ $ 143,907 143,907 $ 3,888,275 $ $ (3,133,599) $ 60,000 360,000 420,000 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 2,798,889 68,748 11,700 600,559 23,708 3,503,604 $ 57,460 163,181 11,215 3,475 63,000 26,531 8,000 29,798 5,920 6,000 4,737 379,317 $ $ $ 143,907 143,907 $ 4,026,828 $ $ (3,468,275) $ $ 285,418 285,418 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 2,744,369 $ 105,171 42,256 516,711 28,187 (175,501) 3,261,193 $ 100,866 171,274 9,010 8,805 56,962 36,987 6,665 30,995 8,768 8,583 5,986 7,393 452,294 $ $ $ 138,479 138,479 $ 3,851,966 $ (3,606,828) $ 360,000 360,000 $ $ 2,848,044 $ 68,748 11,700 623,794 23,708 (210,600) 3,365,394 $ 58,387 159,181 10,363 3,453 61,000 24,531 8,000 29,797 6,453 6,000 4,737 371,902 $ $ $ 143,907 143,907 $ 3,881,203 $ (3,566,548) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 207,614 60,000 300,000 567,614 $ $ 207,614 (60,000) 147,614 2,819,242 $ 68,748 11,700 623,663 23,708 (23,696) 23,696 3,547,061 $ (20,353) (23,104) 23,696 (23,696) (43,457) -1% 0% 0% -4% 0% (8,677) (1,000) 852 (4,175) 2,000 2,000 1 (533) (3,200) (12,732) -15% -1% 8% -120% 3% 8% 0% 0% -9% 66,137 164,181 10,363 7,650 61,000 24,531 8,000 29,797 6,453 3,200 6,000 4,737 392,049 $ $ $ 5,800 143,907 149,707 $ 4,088,817 $ (3,521,203) $ % $ 0% -17% 35% -1% 0% 0% -3% $ (5,800) (5,800) 0% -4% $ (61,989) -2% 85,625 2% (3,521,203) $ 643 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER Market Range Title ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV CHEMIST CRIME LAB SPECIALIST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DRIVER-MEDICAL EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT HR SPECIALIST INVESTIGATOR LABORATORY MANAGER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR MEDICAL TECHNICIAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST PC SPECIALIST PHYSICIAN UNDETERMINED Total 644 FTE 1.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 10.0 1.0 65.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Parks & Recreation Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Community Services Officer William Scalzo Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation 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 Mission 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 2004 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 overall employee satisfaction to 5.35 and maintain it above 5.25 through 2004-05 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 2005 we will begin creation of buffer zones through acquisition of identified land and park planning to isolate park use areas from the effect of off-park development to preserve a positive park experience. • By July 2006 we will identify and fund the additional needed facilities and operational costs for each park for the next five years. 645 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) • By July 2006, 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. Issues • 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 recessed economy will impact county resources and increase competition for funding of parks against the 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 2003-04 ADOPTED PARKS & RECREATION TOTAL FUNDS Program PARK ED & RECREATION PRGM PARK SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 1,562,549 1,772,881 679,094 15,000 204,850 4,234,374 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 408,928 1,311,290 140,405 (14,000) 1,846,623 $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 43,320 559,118 602,438 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 2,014,797 3,643,289 819,499 15,000 190,850 6,683,435 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 3,999,955 585,000 (15,600) 4,569,355 Key Performance Measures Program Name: PARK EDUCATION & RECREATION Program Purpose: The purpose of the Park Education and Recreation Program is to provide natural resource interpretation and unique recreation facilities and opportunities for individuals and groups so they can appreciate and enjoy the natural environment and have a healthy and exhilarating outdoor experience. Key Results: Percent of park visitors who attend a program 646 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 1.2 7.21 5 10 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,334,263 $ 1,501,023 $ 1,611,737 $ 1,688,468 $ 1,514,166 Special Revenue $ 3,523,441 $ 3,918,946 $ 6,750,568 $ 7,141,350 $ 5,280,465 $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,857,704 5,419,969 8,362,305 8,829,818 6,794,631 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,334,263 $ 1,501,023 $ 1,611,737 $ 1,688,468 $ 1,514,166 Special Revenue $ 3,523,441 $ 3,918,946 $ 6,750,568 $ 7,141,350 $ 5,280,465 $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,857,704 5,419,969 8,362,305 8,829,818 6,794,631 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 647 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 300 PARKS & RECREATION Supplies & Total Personal Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Services Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,069,980 $ 444,186 $ $ 1,514,166 $ SPECIAL REVENUE 3,164,394 1,495,633 526,242 5,186,269 4,586,355 ELIMINATIONS (17,000) (17,000) (17,000) ALL FUNDS $ 4,234,374 $ 1,922,819 $ 526,242 $ 6,683,435 $ 4,569,355 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 300 PARKS & RECREATION ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 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 $ 948 557,599 2,559,319 2,833 333,767 1,176,080 150,000 4,780,546 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 $ 2,942,717 $ 61,678 17,873 762,567 15,098 (627,318) 550,074 3,722,689 $ 3,088,608 $ 85,000 8,000 1,012,575 12,382 (599,339) 566,422 4,173,648 $ 3,096,509 $ 78,568 8,000 993,265 30,223 (599,339) 566,422 4,173,648 $ 3,092,732 $ 83,559 4,604 892,037 10,285 (525,692) 521,581 4,079,106 $ 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 $ 288,449 496 94,208 21,812 60,803 450 152,643 29,362 70,920 2,601 177,037 20,115 6,803 396,679 121,533 1,443,911 $ 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 $ 439,542 1,000 91,837 20,600 580,167 21,915 173,186 1,000 187,132 17,900 3,300 259,300 98,019 1,894,898 $ 363,664 812 100,883 22,632 450 57,407 26,751 94,323 62,268 116,718 13,115 2,746 197,314 98,019 1,157,102 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP Subtotal $ 2,580,524 18,322 127,098 2,725,944 $ $ $ 3,234,486 30,000 194,821 3,459,307 $ $ 250,000 2,803,322 112,668 197,500 3,363,490 $ $ 2,779,990 477,000 106,500 3,363,490 Total Expenditures $ 7,892,544 $ 9,432,036 $ 9,432,036 $ 8,695,515 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 648 $ $ $ (3,111,998) $ 128,391 375,000 2,671,800 223,000 1,021,676 4,419,867 $ $ $ (5,012,169) $ 128,391 401,952 2,606,800 213,000 1,069,724 4,419,867 $ $ $ (5,012,169) $ 92,758 410,000 2,710,695 50 160,093 653,575 4,027,171 $ 31% 17% -1% $ 3,134,094 $ 64,000 5,700 1,174,259 29,920 (560,441) 481,282 4,328,814 $ 3,139,679 $ 64,000 5,700 1,104,154 (560,441) 481,282 4,234,374 $ (43,170) 14,568 2,300 (110,889) 30,223 (38,898) 85,140 (60,726) -1% 19% 29% -11% 100% -6% 15% -1% 586,674 650 104,772 24,888 510,603 27,148 171,560 64,000 121,901 23,644 3,100 251,300 43,366 1,933,606 $ 597,691 650 104,772 24,888 471,799 27,148 171,560 64,000 121,901 23,644 3,100 251,300 60,366 1,922,819 $ (158,149) 350 (12,935) (4,288) 108,368 (5,233) 1,626 (63,000) 65,231 (5,744) 200 8,000 37,653 (27,921) -36% 35% -14% -21% $ $ 412,922 41,500 71,820 526,242 $ $ 487,922 71,500 41,820 601,242 $ 6,863,662 $ 6,683,435 $ (4,668,344) $ $ $ $ (2,302,307) $ 168,470 470,000 2,584,800 201,400 1,144,685 4,569,355 $ % 40,079 68,048 (22,000) (11,600) 74,961 149,488 $ 168,470 470,000 2,584,800 201,400 1,136,685 4,561,355 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ -5% 7% 3% 19% -24% 1% -6300% 35% -32% 6% 3% 38% -1% $ 250,000 2,390,400 71,168 125,680 2,837,248 100% 85% 63% 64% 84% $ 2,748,601 29% (2,114,080) $ 2,898,089 58% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 300 PARKS & RECREATION Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV CHIEF OFFICER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATOR ENGINEERING AIDE ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR GENERAL LABORER GENERAL MAINTENANCE SUPV GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR SPECIALIST LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGER PARK POLICE OFFICER PARK POLICE SUPERVISOR PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE TRADES SPECIALIST TRADES SUPERVISOR Total FTE 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 21.0 1.0 8.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 104.0 649 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Planning & Development Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Regional Development Services Agency Officer Joy Rich Planning & Development Planning & Development Administration Plan Services Department Srvcs Technology 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. • Update and maintain an integrated technology plan over the next 5 years. • Coordinate with the CIO to assure department participation in County-wide IT initiatives to ensure progress of IT Roadmap and OSS technology deployment Issues 650 • 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) • The department's incomplete implementation of technology deployment results in inefficiencies. • Uncertain changes in statutes and technology combined with current operational limitations inhibits the department's effectiveness. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program ONE STOP SHOP ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 3,919,085 1,957,458 536,011 6,000 6,418,554 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 249,307 11,562 75,709 1,285,307 1,621,885 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ 170,408 170,408 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 4,168,392 1,969,020 611,720 1,461,715 8,210,847 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 10,381,444 296,556 10,678,000 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 6,134,795 $ 6,856,925 $ 6,787,741 $ 7,686,397 $ 8,210,847 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,134,795 6,856,925 6,787,741 7,686,397 8,210,847 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 3,815,842 $ 3,782,557 $ 4,222,810 $ 4,845,070 $ 5,040,898 $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,815,842 3,782,557 4,222,810 4,845,070 5,040,898 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 2,318,953 $ 3,074,368 $ 2,564,931 $ 2,841,327 $ 3,169,949 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,318,953 3,074,368 2,564,931 2,841,327 3,169,949 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 651 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Issue Permits, Zoning Enforcement AUTHORITY A.R.S. 11-808A Enforcement; A.R.S. 11-808B Building Permits; A.R.S. 11322 Violations. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 652 Special Revenue $ 2,125,424 $ 1,853,084 $ 2,277,655 $ 2,659,526 $ 2,824,779 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,125,424 1,853,084 2,277,655 2,659,526 2,824,779 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) TITLE Building Construction and Inspection AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 Special Revenue Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 904,354 $ 904,354 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,088,512 $ 1,088,512 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 1,119,160 $ 1,119,160 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 1,426,518 $ 1,426,518 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 1,383,258 $ 1,383,258 TITLE Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Board of Adjustment AUTHORITY 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. § 11-829 Amendment; A.R.S. § 11-807 Board Of Adjustment, Power, Appeals. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 Special Revenue Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 511,323 $ 511,323 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 539,280 $ 539,280 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 626,336 $ 626,336 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 561,875 $ 561,875 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 606,274 $ 606,274 653 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) TITLE County Comprehensive Plan AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 654 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. County Comprehensive Plan Special Revenue Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 274,741 $ 274,741 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 301,681 $ 301,681 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 199,659 $ 199,659 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 197,151 $ 197,151 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 226,587 $ 226,587 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type 1,923,490 $ 170,408 $ 8,210,847 $ 10,678,000 SPECIAL REVENUE $ 6,116,949 $ ALL FUNDS $ 6,116,949 $ 1,923,490 $ 170,408 $ 8,210,847 $ 10,678,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS $ 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 7,260,850 2,422,957 9,290 314,732 15,773 10,023,602 $ 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 $ 3,803,914 9,338 4,507 841,295 13,028 2,798 4,674,880 $ 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 $ $ $ Subtotal $ 187,982 43,460 13,530 372,876 630,427 44,475 80,706 38,274 14,777 643,705 2,070,212 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $ 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 24,502 18,144 42,646 $ Total Expenditures $ 6,787,738 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 3,235,864 $ FY 2002-03 Revised 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 $ 8,472,868 $ 17,132 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 6,184,000 1,884,000 3,000 155,000 264,000 8,490,000 $ 4,526,121 11,183 1,086,145 2,270 5,625,719 $ 449,050 33,734 8,050 13,500 430,752 680,132 122,000 432,205 33,000 5,500 257,541 2,465,464 $ $ $ $ $ $ 70,000 238,600 73,085 381,685 $ 8,472,868 $ 17,132 10,232,739 2,230,334 2,596 309,506 25,741 12,800,916 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 6,184,000 1,872,000 3,000 155,000 264,000 8,478,000 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 8,184,000 2,072,000 3,000 155,000 264,000 10,678,000 $ $ 3,977,758 $ 4,480 11,577 920,426 366,574 (10,294) 5,270,521 $ 4,515,656 $ 12,727 1,331,261 (15,000) 6,000 5,850,644 $ 4,802,164 $ 12,727 1,347,806 (51,748) 6,000 6,116,949 $ 430,832 40,657 3,300 15,423 257,655 653,523 113,484 416,197 42,536 9,920 257,541 2,241,068 192,849 35,010 8,500 186,429 638,066 58,941 263,170 90,879 412,898 1,886,742 192,849 35,010 8,500 223,177 654,251 58,941 405,771 90,879 254,112 1,923,490 $ $ $ $ 32,708 216,496 73,081 322,285 $ 7,833,874 $ 4,967,042 $ $ $ $ 170,408 170,408 $ 7,907,794 $ 570,206 $ $ 2,000,000 188,000 2,188,000 % 32% 10% 0% 0% 0% 26% (276,043) (1,544) (261,661) 51,748 (3,730) (491,230) -6% -164% -9% 256,201 (1,276) 8,050 5,000 207,575 25,881 63,059 26,434 (57,879) 5,500 3,429 541,974 57% -4% 100% 37% 48% 4% 52% 6% -175% 100% 1% 22% 100% 100% -133% 55% -14% -24% $ $ 170,408 170,408 $ 70,000 238,600 (97,323) 211,277 $ 8,210,847 $ 262,021 3% $ 2,467,153 $ 2,450,021 14301% 655 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR ENGINEER ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR HR SPECIALIST INFO CENTER MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR INSPECTION SUPERVISOR INSPECTOR OPERATIONS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST PLANNER PLANNING SUPERVISOR PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SVC SUPERVISOR TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT ADMIN TRAINING SPECIALIST Total 656 FTE 5.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 24.0 2.0 1.0 9.0 4.0 39.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 125.0 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Defender Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Public Defender Public Defender James J. Haas, Director James J. Haas, Director Administrative Services Adult Criminal Representation Juvenile Adjudication & Incorrigibility Representation Information Technology Appellate Representation Mental Health Representation Mission The mission of the Public Defender’s Office is to provide quality legal representation to indigent individuals assigned to us by the court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. Vision The Vision of the Public Defender’s Office is to Deliver America’s Promise of Justice for All. Goals • By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Public Defender’s Office is to establish a case weighting and counting system and develop mechanisms that will enable the Offices to set and maintain appropriate caseload and performance standards. • By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Public Defender’s Office is to resolve to disposition 90% of all felony cases, except those cases designated as complex by the court, 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 Public Defender’s Office is to maintain quality representation as measured by the established benchmarks. • By July 1, 2003, the goal of the Public Defender’s Office is to maintain cost effectiveness by limiting the percentage of increase in the annual cost per case to no more than the percentage of increase in the overall annual funding of the County's criminal justice group. Issues • Recently approved legislation and new court rules have the potential to seriously impact current caseloads/workloads and timeliness, which could adversely affect the average cost per case. 657 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Defender (Continued) • Increasing case filings, combined with 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 lack of available and adequate office/parking space, a multiple phased relocation of the Office, and locating the Office in a building located several blocks from the downtown court complex will reduce efficiency by increasing the amount of time needed for staff to accomplish their duties. • The County’s pay and benefits have not kept pace with the private sector, resulting in low morale, increased turnover and fewer qualified applicants. • The recent economic down-turn, rapid increase in population and continued emphasis on law enforcement will increase the number of indigent defendants, resulting in more cases for the office. • The increasing number of limited-English speaking clients and the shortage of qualified interpreters will reduce efficiency, delay case resolution, and deny these clients access to justice. • Rapid changes in technology and increased sharing of case information within the system will increase administrative efficiencies and reduce duplication of data entry. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED PUBLIC DEFENDER TOTAL FUNDS Program ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION ADULT MISDEMNR REPRESENTATION APPELLATE REPRESENTATION JUV DELINQ/INCORR REPRESENTN MENTAL HEALTH REPRESENTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 17,483,179 122,662 2,060,271 3,016,267 544,295 1,153,221 309,202 24,689,097 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 2,403,821 74,409 827,778 434,269 46,564 625,383 286 4,412,510 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 143,753 143,753 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 19,887,000 197,071 2,888,049 3,450,536 590,859 1,778,604 453,241 29,245,360 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 1,354,762 330,808 1,685,570 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 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of Appeals Briefs Completed Within 45-Day Due Date N/A 56.36 67.34 67.34 Percent of Felony Cases with Disposition Less than Original Charge N/A 87.2 88.2 88.2 Key Results: 658 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Defender (Continued) Program Name: NON-CRIMINAL DEFENSE PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Non-Criminal Defense Program is to provide legal representation to assigned indigent persons in non-criminal matters so they can obtain the most favorable resolution to their case under the circumstances. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of Superior Court Mental Health Matters Concluded Within 30 Days N/A N/A 100 100 Percent of Cases with a Disposition Less Than the Original Charge N/A 80.3 84.3 84.3 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 24,971,550 $ 24,582,052 $ 27,611,790 Special Revenue $ $ $ 1,526,408 $ 1,443,231 $ 1,633,570 Total $ $ $ 26,497,958 $ 26,025,284 $ 29,245,360 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 24,971,550 $ 24,582,052 $ 27,611,790 Special Revenue $ $ $ 1,526,408 $ 1,443,231 $ 1,633,570 Total $ $ $ 26,497,958 $ 26,025,284 $ 29,245,360 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 659 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Defender (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Legal Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants and Delinquent or Incorrigible Juveniles AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. 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 postconviction 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 Judicial Mandates AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND 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). 660 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Defender (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. Administrative Services Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 1,048,969 $ 892,829 $ 1,447,796 Special Revenue $ $ $ 373,830 $ 314,830 $ 330,808 Total $ $ $ 1,422,799 $ 1,207,659 $ 1,778,604 Information Technology Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 398,030 $ 320,597 $ 453,241 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Appellate Representation Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 2,305,074 $ 2,643,579 $ 2,888,049 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ 2,305,074 $ 2,643,579 $ 2,888,049 Adult Felony Representation Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 17,140,503 $ 16,824,577 $ 18,584,238 Special Revenue $ $ $ 1,152,578 $ 1,128,402 $ 1,302,762 Total $ $ $ 18,293,081 $ 17,952,978 $ 19,887,000 Adult Misdemeanor Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ 197,071 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Juvenile Delinquency & Incorrigibility Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 3,590,203 $ 3,396,525 $ 3,450,536 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ 3,590,203 $ 3,396,525 $ 3,450,536 Total 398,030 320,597 453,241 Total 197,071 661 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Defender (Continued) Mental Health Representation Program FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 488,771 $ 503,946 $ 590,859 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ $ $ 488,771 503,946 590,859 Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 23,442,796 $ 4,025,241 $ 143,753 $ 27,611,790 $ 52,000 SPECIAL REVENUE 1,392,671 240,899 1,633,570 1,633,570 ALL FUNDS $ 24,835,467 $ 4,266,140 $ 143,753 $ 29,245,360 $ 1,685,570 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT Subtotal $ 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 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ Subtotal $ Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 662 1,227,583 312,216 91,773 1,026 2,517 1,635,115 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 1,109,299 552,130 2,090 9,000 1,672,519 19,691,378 $ 202,787 3,605,709 23,856 (129) 23,523,601 $ 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 $ $ 253,088 9,396 39,961 1,634,472 61 112,039 1,772,965 16,428 62,148 258,766 29,477 4,188,801 27,712,402 $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ (26,077,287) $ $ $ 1,109,299 552,130 2,090 9,000 1,672,519 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 19,807,788 147,471 3,949,607 29,738 23,934,604 $ $ $ 313,096 10,727 76,580 1,623,599 424,501 1,992,051 20,345 90,234 244,796 35,000 390 4,831,319 22,142 22,142 $ $ 28,788,065 $ $ (27,115,546) $ 693,165 406,181 550,607 11,301 1,661,254 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 20,092,443 186,354 3,879,533 24,060 24,182,390 $ $ $ 307,718 10,465 1,992 1,534,349 10,000 114,082 1,834,928 48,506 68,064 248,550 30,954 4,209,608 22,142 22,142 $ $ 28,788,065 $ $ (27,115,546) $ 1,613,768 99,548 1,592 9,000 1,723,908 $ $ 20,102,297 147,471 4,100,295 25,137 24,375,200 $ $ $ 312,000 12,000 1,528,741 13,000 167,923 1,887,000 55,000 80,500 213,728 35,000 4,304,892 22,000 22,000 $ $ 28,413,998 $ $ (26,752,744) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted 719,782 413,188 543,600 9,000 1,685,570 $ $ % (389,517) (138,942) 541,510 13,051 -35% -25% 25910% (344,363) (150,688) (405,812) (900,863) -2% 0% -4% -1365% 0% -12% 100% 6% 68% 5% -170% 11% 15% 0% 100% 12% 0% 1% 20,152,151 147,471 4,100,295 435,550 24,835,467 $ $ $ 312,000 12,000 1,528,741 13,000 135,314 1,887,000 55,000 80,500 207,585 35,000 4,266,140 $ 1,096 (1,273) 76,580 94,858 (13,000) 289,187 105,051 (34,655) 9,734 37,211 390 565,179 143,753 143,753 $ $ 143,753 143,753 $ $ (121,611) (121,611) -549% -549% 28,823,845 $ 29,245,360 $ (457,295) -2% (27,559,790) $ (444,244) -2% $ (27,099,937) $ $ -4% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Defender (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV ATTORNEY DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST HR SPECIALIST INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INVESTIGATOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) LEGAL ASSISTANT LEGAL ASSISTANT SUPV LEGAL ORDER SERVER LEGAL SECRETARY SUPV LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST MANAGEMENT ANALYST MITIGATION SVCS REP PC SPECIALIST PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SVC SUPERVISOR TRAINING SPECIALIST Total FTE 5.0 1.0 44.0 2.0 1.0 227.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 33.0 1.0 22.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 54.0 1.0 11.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 430.3 663 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Fiduciary Organizational Chart 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 Estate Operations Administrative Support and Legal Coordination Guardian Services Burial 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. Vision 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 December 1, 2004. • We will develop and implement a new employee orientation and continuing education program for all public fiduciary personnel by June 30, 2003 as measured by an employee satisfaction survey approval rating of 85%. • By June 30, 2004 the MCPF education and public relations plan will be administered to clarify the fiduciaries role in the community to enhance an understanding of the services available as demonstrated by a 2% increase in the annual external customer satisfaction survey baseline 2002 2003. Issues 664 • The reactions of the State and the Courts to failing fiduciaries and financial abuse cases places an increased demand for accountability of fiduciaries and result in more cases and court ordered investigations and additional risk exposure for public fiduciary operations. • The increasing number of elderly and vulnerable adults in Arizona results in more persons needing fiduciary services and places increased demands on the public fiduciary requiring more staff for investigative services and the additional cases. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Fiduciary (Continued) • The lack of understanding or acceptance by other agencies and the Court of the Public Fiduciary's role often results in time consuming interference and unnecessary court appointments which result in an increased caseload and court reporting and impedes our ability to adequately serve those in need. • To reduce County exposure to risk and provide accountability for services delivered, existing management information systems must be enhanced to improve data collection, data management and data reporting. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED PUBLIC FIDUCIARY TOTAL FUNDS Program BURIAL SERVICES PROGRAM FIDUCIARY SERVICES PROGRAM INVESTIGATION SERVICES PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 75,782 1,329,635 51,172 104,842 1,561,431 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 25,201 166,347 25,201 48,137 264,886 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ 14,796 14,796 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 100,983 1,495,982 76,373 152,979 14,796 1,841,113 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ 650,000 650,000 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: FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 90 94 93 94 Percent of indigent burial determinations made within five business days. 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of annual Guardian reports filed with the Court on time. 99 99 99 96 Percent of inventories filed with the Court on time. 86 93 96 92 Percent of Court accountings filed with the Court on time. 99 100 100 96 Key Results: 665 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of timeliness in filing mental health mandated reports and Court ordered reports. 96 100 100 96 Percent of cases resulting in a recommendation for protective action. N/A 56 44 45 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,677,515 $ 1,703,933 $ 1,809,435 $ 1,820,125 $ 1,841,113 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,677,515 1,703,933 1,809,435 1,820,125 1,841,113 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ 1,677,515 $ 1,703,933 $ 1,809,435 $ 1,820,125 $ 1,841,113 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,677,515 1,703,933 1,809,435 1,820,125 1,841,113 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 666 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Fiduciary (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Office of the Public Fiduciary AUTHORITY A.R.S. §§ 14-5601 through 5607 Establishment Of Office Of Public Fiduciary; Appointments; Costs. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND In 1973, the legislature undertook a substantial revision of all laws relating to 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 DESCRIPTION The Public Fiduciary is appointed for those persons or decedents' estates in need 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 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,584,050 $ 1,584,050 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,638,521 $ 1,638,521 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 1,733,689 $ 1,733,689 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 1,724,377 $ 1,724,377 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 1,775,231 $ 1,775,231 TITLE Indigent Burial Services AUTHORITY A.R.S. §36-831 Burial Responsibility HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Prior to 1988, the County Hospital performed the functions required for indigent burial services. Since 1988, the Office of the Public Fiduciary performs the following functions related to this mandate. The Public Fiduciary’s Office determines eligibility for burial in the County cemetery, makes arrangements for burials with funeral homes, processes records and payments for mortuaries (paid for by the General Government department), schedules burials weekly with Facilities Management Department (Facilities Management prepares the burial site, completes the grave preparation after the funeral, and maintains the cemeteries), and coordinates clergy attendance at funerals. Maricopa County has responsibility for the burial of deceased persons who have left neither spouse nor qualified kindred. Indigent Burial Services General Fund Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 93,465 $ 93,465 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 65,412 $ 65,412 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 86,436 $ 86,436 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 85,058 $ 85,058 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 65,882 $ 65,882 667 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Fiduciary (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,574,285 $ 252,032 $ 14,796 $ 1,841,113 $ 650,000 ALL FUNDS $ 1,574,285 $ 252,032 $ 14,796 $ 1,841,113 $ 650,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS $ Subtotal $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE $ FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Proj. Act Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted % $ $ 850,000 850,000 $ $ 850,000 850,000 $ $ 613,263 613,263 $ $ 850,000 850,000 $ $ 650,000 650,000 $ $ (200,000) (200,000) -24% -24% 1,267,628 38,573 264,829 1,571,030 $ 1,281,651 151 289,608 1,571,410 $ 1,281,645 151 289,610 1,571,406 $ 1,285,730 41,565 269,759 1,597,054 $ 1,260,526 31,000 282,759 1,574,285 $ 1,260,526 31,000 282,759 1,574,285 $ 21,119 (30,849) 6,851 (2,879) 2% -20430% 2% 0% 14% $ $ Subtotal $ $ Subtotal $ 72 72 $ $ Total Expenditures $ 1,809,431 $ $ (959,095) $ 18,004 2,500 6,500 192,535 2,000 11,276 8,500 7,400 248,715 1,820,125 $ $ $ $ $ $ (970,125) $ 18,008 2,500 6,500 192,535 2,000 11,276 8,500 7,400 248,719 1,820,125 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (970,125) $ MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY Market Range Title ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST LEGAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM SUPERVISOR SOCIAL WORKER (BS) TECHNOLOGY ANALYST Total $ 10,801 1,958 6,738 191,238 87 11,040 7,302 6,900 236,064 Position Distribution 668 FY 2003-04 Requested 850,336 850,336 22,933 119 2,224 5,039 180,622 48 11,216 8,873 7,255 238,329 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ FY 2002-03 Revised FTE 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 34.0 $ $ $ 18,127 2,500 5,025 196,779 3,000 12,201 7,000 7,400 252,032 864 864 $ $ 1,833,982 $ (1,220,719) $ $ $ $ 15,455 2,500 5,025 199,451 3,000 12,201 7,000 7,400 252,032 $ 2,553 1,475 (6,916) (1,000) (925) 1,500 (3,313) 14,796 14,796 $ $ 14,796 14,796 $ $ (14,796) (14,796) 1,841,113 $ 1,841,113 $ (20,988) -1% (1,191,113) $ (220,988) -23% (991,113) $ 0% 23% -4% -50% -8% 18% 0% -1% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Health Services Officer Public Health Public Health Jonathan B. Weisbuch, M.D., Director Jonathan B. Weisbuch, M.D., Director HIV/HCV Services Community Development & Minority Health Administrative Services Maternal, Child & Family Health Chronic Disease & Tobacco Control BioDefense Preparedness&Response Public Health Clinical Services Epidemiology & Vital Statistics Mission The mission of the Department of Public Health is to provide leadership, resources, and services to people and diverse communities in Maricopa County so that health is promoted, preserved, and protected. Vision The Maricopa County Department of Public Health will be the nationally recognized local leader in public health, and the agency that people and communities in Maricopa County look to for health resources and services. Our combination of organizational strength and public health leadership will be harnessed to fully integrate and utilize local academic communities to improve the quality of service, and the caliber of professional staff. Goals • Meet or exceed performance objectives for 95% of the Department’s program service output measures by the end of FY 2005. • Identify and implement, within the Department, a quality improvement protocol (e.g. BEECN) by June, 2005 to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of public health services. • Add $2,000,000 in new or expanded grant awards, contracts, and allowable fees by June, 2005 to maintain existing programs and develop new programs to meet the increasing demand for public health services. • Establish four quality public health facilities (an administration building, a new Public Health clinic, and two regional sites in Avondale and Surprise) by June, 2006 to ensure client service needs are met in safe, efficient and regionally located working environments. • Develop and fully implement a Department-wide communication plan by June, 2005 to ensure that the various publics that make up Maricopa County recognize the importance and responsibilities of Public Health programs. 669 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) • Develop, by June, 2005, the Health & Human Services Constellation’s capacity to respond rapidly to a bioterrorist attack or other public health emergency by expanding and enhancing emergency response plans, and developing and sustaining the ability of the HHS workforce to respond as needed in an emergency. • Promote a Public Health culture by June, 2004 to enhance and support employee training, compensation strategies, recognition, career development, and committee involvement so the Department may effectively recruit and retain a quality workforce. • Develop, promote, and maintain opportunities for internships and collaborative education with academia, community partners, other County departments, and the Arizona Department of Health Services by June, 2005. Goal will be achieved by implementing an educational program to train staff and students in Public Health nursing and other needed fields (as identified by a needs assessment). • Identify successful public health models and potential funding sources for health promotion and disease prevention and control programs, including chronic diseases, which will be the basis for implementing a strategic initiative for prevention programs by June, 2004. • Develop a user friendly and efficient system that facilitates community involvement in Public Health planning and implementation by June, 2005. • Lower the risk of communicable and chronic disease in Maricopa County for food borne illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, infectious diseases, public health threats, and other significant community health problems by June, 2005. Increase the adult tobacco cessation class enrollments by 20% to reduce the risk of diseases related to smoking by June, 2005. Issues 670 • 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. • Bioterrorism/Major Emergencies – In the event of a major public health emergency, current resources and Public Health workforce preparedness levels will not be sufficient to properly respond to such an event and still be able to concurrently carry out many of the regular and critical operations of the Department. • Staff Development - Lack of educational opportunities for aspiring and current public health professionals is limiting the public health resources of the future. • Staff Recruitment and Retention – Poor working conditions, inadequate compensation, and limited training and advancement opportunities within Public Health make it difficult to recruit and retain high quality employees. • Public Health Facilities – Public Health facilities are old, require extensive maintenance, and are in limited locations, making them inefficient and unsafe for employees and clients and limiting the Department's capacity to deliver services while maintaining high standards for excellence in customer service. • Impact of Chronic Diseases - Chronic diseases are increasingly becoming an essential part of public health practice. Health promotion and chronic disease prevention programs and activities are usually assigned lesser value than curative services, which in turn negatively impacts the Department's efforts to acquire positions and funding commitment. • Community Collaboration - Effective Public Health programming requires community involvement and collaboration. Community engagement processes are inconsistent across programs and disconnected from Department decision-making and governance structures. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) • Public Image/Community Support - The public and community leaders are uncertain about the role and functions of Public Health, and are many times unaware of Public Health services and programs and the value provided by them to the community. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED PUBLIC HEALTH TOTAL FUNDS Program BIO DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HIV/HCV SERVICES FAMILY HEALTH HEALTH RELATED DATA CHRONIC DISEASE & TOBACCO CONT HEALTHCARE FOR HOMELESS INDVDL INFECT DISEASE CNTRL & TREATMT IMMUNIZATION SERVICES NUTRITION ORAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 1,374,116 423,691 1,069,455 2,290,874 1,644,734 2,925,896 1,467,690 4,162,412 1,776,749 5,302,682 317,070 1,581,720 362,632 24,699,721 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 1,094,379 242,216 7,032,335 799,908 989,088 3,881,620 606,960 7,290,812 4,380,380 2,212,088 138,809 1,264,639 218,000 30,151,234 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 122,156 494 26,212 7,696 621 157,179 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 2,590,651 665,907 8,101,790 3,091,276 2,660,034 6,807,516 2,074,650 11,460,920 6,157,129 7,515,391 455,879 2,846,359 580,632 55,008,134 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 2,262,716 528,449 8,101,790 2,456,488 2,096,837 6,639,806 2,074,650 8,850,267 5,160,537 6,956,701 387,502 2,719,399 48,235,142 Key Performance Measures Program Name: BIO-DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE Program Purpose: The purpose of the Bio-Defense Preparedness and Response Program is to provide a comprehensive plan for detecting and responding to a public health disaster as well as provide leadership and coordination of the Department’s response so that the Department can mount a coordinated, rapid and appropriate response. Key Results: Percent of MCDPH employees to be trained to respond to a public health disaster or emergency within Maricopa County who attended formal training FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 60 12 671 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) Program Name: CHRONIC DISEASE & TOBACCO CONTROL 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 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percentage of students participating in the P.L.A.Y. activity who receive the President’s Physical Activity Award. N/A N/A 8.7 7 Car seats inspected and distributed 843 1,294 2,716 700 Key Results: 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Number of grants facilitated by Community Development with Community-Based Organizations and Health Coalitions N/A N/A 5 4 Percent of HIV Prevention Community Planning Group members supporting the direction of the plan 90 92 92 92 Percent of Executive Committee members who indicate they are satisfied with Planning Council Support's performance of administrative duties N/A 80 96 75 Key Results: 672 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) Program Name: FAMILY HEALTH Program Purpose: The purpose of Family Health is to provide assessment, services, and policy development leadership to families so that health disparities among women and children are reduced. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of pregnancy clients who, at delivery, had received 6 or more prenatal care visits 78 77 78 70 Percent of babies referred from the Newborn Intensive Care Unit that receive a home visit 80 88 66 80 Percent of lead hazard referrals who receive at least one home visit 95 98 100 95 Community members reached with prevention and intervention services 2,796 2,055 1,319 400 Percent of clients that improve in post-intervention evaluations 85 85 81 70 Percent of Coalition members who report that there is progress towards implementation of plan goals. 75 70 70 70 Percent of women with abnormal cancer screening (Pap test) findings referred for colposcopy 42 48 49 45 Percent of clients returning for annual re-screening for breast and cervical cancer 36 52 50 50 Key Results: 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: Percent of data requests filled Number of certified copies issued FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 100 95 219,702 225,224 217,686 225,000 673 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) 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 in Phoenix metropolitan area seen at least once at clinic FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 43 38 51 42 Program Name: HIV/HCV SERVICES Program Purpose: The purpose of HIV/HCV Services is to provide planning, procurement, execution, and monitoring of medical, health, and support service agreements to people living with HIV/AIDS and HCV so that morbidity and mortality will be reduced and overall quality of life will be improved. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of all Title I funded clients who access primary medical care 92 94 94 94 Percent of clients who said that their HIV test result was explained clearly and simply 97 100 100 95 Percent increase in HIV risk knowledge as measured by pre/post test 48 60 89 75 Key Results: 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of children 0-2 years old receiving full complement of immunizations 44 43 31 44 Percent improvement in scores on immunization knowledge (as measured in pre/post tests) 20 11 28 10 Percent increase in mean immunization completion rate after intervention 16 4 9 10 Key Results: 674 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) 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. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of general health surveillance reports investigated 50 45 42 45 Percent of investigated individuals who receive HIV prevention education 82 83 86 85 4,801,329 4,925,772 5,137,744 4,767,745 76 77 72 78 2,058,000 2,642,000 2,254,000 1,800,000 Percent of TB suspects/cases who receive intervention 95 94 100 95 Percent of refugees entering Maricopa County who complete health screening 91 77 90 85 Clinic appointment show rate for clients seen in Hansen's Clinic 85 86 68 75 Key Results: Cost savings on lab tests Percent savings over wholesale price: Rifampin 300 mg Cost savings for treating congenital syphilis cases before the birth of the infant Program Name: NUTRITION Program Purpose: The purpose of the Nutrition Program is to provide services, resources and referrals to residents of Maricopa County so that they will be empowered to realize, attain, and achieve food security and implement nutritional practices associated with disease reduction and optimal health. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Increase (percent) on post-survey vs. presurvey: Identification of five or more as the correct number of fruits/vegetables to eat each day 52 53 40 40 Value of food draft redemption within Maricopa County 36,849,161 N/A 46,510,724 47,229,301 Key Results: 675 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) Program Name: ORAL HEALTH Program Purpose: The purpose of Oral Health is to provide education, preventive, and treatment services to targeted children, adults and healthcare providers so that oral disease is detected, reduced, and oral health is enhanced. Key Results: FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Amount of money saved by preventing tooth decay 474,512 942,686 1,485,093 507,840 Percent attendee satisfaction with oral health tobacco use training session N/A 90 97 80 Percent of children with urgent oral health conditions (pain and/or infection) whose families are contacted and referred for dental appointments N/A N/A 100 80 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 4,830,212 5,317,267 5,827,343 6,333,479 6,493,512 Special Revenue $ 26,105,789 $ 30,111,405 $ 36,609,715 $ 39,732,825 $ 48,514,622 $ $ $ $ $ Total 30,936,001 35,428,672 42,437,058 46,066,304 55,008,134 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 2,793,743 3,246,906 3,211,999 3,830,692 3,966,176 Special Revenue $ 5,215,750 $ 5,408,555 $ 8,675,915 $ 11,255,412 $ 11,439,948 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,009,493 8,655,461 11,887,914 15,086,104 15,406,124 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 2,036,469 2,070,361 2,615,344 2,502,787 2,527,336 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,036,469 2,070,361 2,615,344 2,502,787 2,527,336 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 20,890,039 $ 24,702,850 $ 27,933,801 $ 28,477,413 $ 37,074,674 $ $ $ $ $ Total 20,890,039 24,702,850 27,933,801 28,477,413 37,074,674 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 676 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Control And Treatment Of Contagious Diseases AUTHORITY 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. §§ 36711 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 noncompliant 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. 677 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. § 36663. 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). Control and Treatment of Contagious Diseases FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 678 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 1,263,694 1,342,334 1,362,355 1,435,484 1,525,230 Special Revenue $ 1,663,657 $ 1,815,591 $ 1,873,474 $ 2,036,832 $ 2,540,414 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,927,351 3,157,925 3,235,829 3,472,316 4,065,644 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) TITLE Medical Care Of Indigent AUTHORITY A.R.S. 11-291 Hospitalization And Medical Care Of The Indigent Sick HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ General Fund - $ $ - Special Revenue $ 1,598,015 $ 1,625,757 $ 1,765,399 $ 2,035,842 $ 2,074,650 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,598,015 1,625,757 1,765,399 2,035,842 2,074,650 TITLE Vital Registration AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. 679 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. Vital Registration FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 1,210,788 $ 1,322,288 $ 1,349,433 $ 1,715,014 $ 2,041,347 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,210,788 1,322,288 1,349,433 1,715,014 2,041,347 TITLE Office of the Director of the Department of Public Health AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND By statute, local health departments are mandated to control/eliminate sources of public health nuisance, filth and contagion. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget 680 $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 557,432 532,023 644,393 810,585 614,200 Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 557,432 532,023 644,393 810,585 614,200 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) TITLE Immunization And Investigation, And Reporting AUTHORITY 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. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. Immunization and Investigation, and Reporting FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund 972,617 1,372,549 1,205,252 1,584,623 1,826,746 Special Revenue $ 743,290 $ 644,919 $ 3,687,608 $ 5,467,724 $ 4,783,537 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,715,907 2,017,468 4,892,860 7,052,347 6,610,283 681 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 860 PUBLIC HEALTH Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 5,362,105 $ 1,121,642 $ 9,765 $ 6,493,512 $ SPECIAL REVENUE 19,663,718 28,703,490 147,414 48,514,622 48,235,142 ALL FUNDS $ 25,025,823 $ 29,825,132 $ 157,179 $ 55,008,134 $ 48,235,142 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 860 PUBLIC HEALTH ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 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 $ 25,867,082 7,595,808 1,166,335 1,158,063 105,764 19,603 28,303 35,940,958 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 $ 13,694,174 $ 356,753 68,964 3,223,773 118,429 (124,806) 135,506 17,472,793 $ 15,827,707 $ 710,989 14,588 4,060,584 546,394 (115,791) 163,190 21,207,661 $ 19,183,204 $ 514,750 14,588 4,178,071 356,513 (128,804) 163,190 24,281,512 $ 17,821,826 $ 915,191 131,473 3,979,280 245,356 (285,739) 390,258 23,197,645 $ 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 Subtotal $ (608,698) $ 9,278,148 11,597 221,412 36,314 980,798 11,340,724 1,052,883 81,681 167,433 194,104 360,027 65,101 14,851 59,668 1,772,427 25,028,470 $ 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 9,283,777 1,050,327 11,550 228,090 6,050 796,883 7,028,029 1,312,109 182,573 756,550 188,848 475,727 89,568 49,852 45,411 1,373,501 22,878,845 8,417,512 8,245,322 10,301 263,291 5,817 884,515 6,889,175 1,323,808 173,834 732,634 210,444 481,917 65,919 49,399 56,264 1,373,501 29,183,653 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $ 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 35,973 558 36,531 $ Total Expenditures $ 42,537,794 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 682 $ $ 28,378,102 6,017,446 71,400 2,750,768 45,000 37,262,716 $ $ $ $ $ $ 25,000 10,617 35,617 $ 43,903,415 (6,596,836) $ 31,155,929 6,261,147 168,400 3,184,266 45,000 40,814,742 $ $ $ $ $ $ 35,963 25,000 10,617 71,580 $ 47,231,937 (6,640,699) $ 31,499,436 11,928,221 1,613,880 1,271,458 26,454 19,627 45,000 46,404,076 $ $ $ $ $ $ 35,963 25,000 12,923 73,886 $ 52,455,184 (6,417,195) $ 33,431,400 11,587,927 2,043,687 1,331,710 2,000 45,000 48,441,724 $ 6% 85% 1147% -58% $ 18,844,184 $ 506,794 43,151 5,087,250 202,160 (86,571) 777,580 25,374,548 $ 19,036,289 $ 506,794 43,151 5,147,847 243,410 (136,919) 185,251 25,025,823 $ 146,915 7,956 (28,563) (969,776) 113,103 8,115 (22,061) (744,311) 1% 2% -196% -23% 32% 6% -14% -3% 7,991,930 6,436,730 12,500 165,868 6,550 927,218 9,107,813 1,499,266 186,246 606,184 368,704 734,698 87,114 142,838 77,086 1,193,612 29,544,357 7,818,507 6,431,790 11,150 375,953 6,550 962,018 8,998,695 1,443,943 186,246 582,672 509,704 716,808 102,114 142,838 77,086 1,459,058 29,825,132 1,465,270 (5,381,463) 400 (147,863) (500) (165,135) (1,970,666) (131,834) (3,673) 173,878 (320,856) (241,081) (12,546) (92,986) (31,675) (85,557) (6,946,287) 16% -512% 3% -65% -8% -21% -28% -10% -2% 23% -170% -51% -14% -187% -70% -6% -30% 100% -360% -297% -120% $ $ $ $ $ $ 54,985,584 33,169,330 11,587,927 2,099,175 1,331,710 2,000 45,000 48,235,142 $ % 2,013,401 5,326,780 1,930,775 (1,852,556) 2,000 7,420,400 24,500 42,179 66,679 (6,051,108) $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 0% 18% $ $ 115,000 42,179 157,179 $ 35,963 (90,000) (31,562) (85,599) $ 55,008,134 $ (7,776,197) -16% (6,772,992) $ (355,797) -6% (6,543,860) $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION : FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 860 PUBLIC HEALTH Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV CHIEF OFFICER COMMUNITY SVCS SPECIALIST CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR COUNSELING SUPERVISOR DENTAL HYGIENIST DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIETITIAN DRIVER-MEDICAL EPIDEMIOLOGIST EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FACILITIES SVCS OFFICER FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HEALTH EDUCATOR HEALTH SERVICES AIDE HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR INFECTION CONTROL SPEC INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR LABORATORY SUPERVISOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE MANAGEMENT ANALYST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MANAGING PHYSICIAN MEDICAL ASSISTANT MEDICAL TECHNICIAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST NURSE NURSE PRACT/PHYS ASST NURSING MANAGER NURSING SUPERVISOR PC SPECIALIST PHARMACIST PHARMACY ASSISTANT PHARMACY TECHNICIAN PHYSICIAN PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROGRAM COORDINATOR - RN PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM SUPERVISOR FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 39.7 6.0 73.4 3.0 10.2 1.0 17.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 6.0 2.0 7.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 37.2 95.2 2.0 3.0 1.0 19.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 6.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 39.4 6.5 4.0 4.7 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.1 11.5 1.0 6.5 24.7 683 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Public Health (Continued) Market Range Title PURCHASING SUPERVISOR RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGIST SOCIAL WORKER (BS) SOFTWARE ENGINEER (INACTIVE) TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECH TRAINING SPECIALIST UNDETERMINED Total 684 FTE 1.0 2.0 14.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 35.3 542.4 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Research & Reporting Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Deputy County Administrator Research & Reporting Research & Reporting Ken Andersen, Director Ken Andersen, Director Survey Research Administration Mission The mission of the Research & Reporting Department is to provide survey data services to county managers so they can more effectively manage for results using statistically reliable data. Goals • By January, 2002 we will establish a mechanism to identify and document county management’s expectations of Research & 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 HR and OMB 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. Issues • The demand for services, both internally and externally, will continue to be unpredictable which adversely affects Research & 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 & Reporting to attract and retain a competent pool of skilled on-call employees. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED RESEARCH & REPORTING TOTAL FUNDS Program RESEARCH AND REPORTING $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 307,935 307,935 $ $ Supplies & Services 132,065 132,065 Capital Outlay $ $ - Total Expenditures $ 440,000 $ 440,000 $ $ Total Revenue 440,000 440,000 685 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Research & Reporting (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 418,215 $ 437,512 $ 375,189 $ 337,558 $ 440,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 418,215 437,512 375,189 337,558 440,000 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 418,215 $ 437,512 $ 375,189 $ 337,588 $ 440,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 418,215 437,512 375,189 337,588 440,000 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 686 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Research & Reporting (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type 132,065 $ $ 440,000 $ 440,000 SPECIAL REVENUE $ 307,935 $ ALL FUNDS $ 307,935 $ 132,065 $ $ 440,000 $ 440,000 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS $ 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 3,008 355,979 358,987 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT Subtotal $ 133,759 28,507 43,217 3,512 208,995 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL 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 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ 5,108 394 538 110 64,061 93,791 1,138 5 157,436 322,581 Total Expenditures $ 531,576 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 440,000 440,000 156,324 60,000 52,385 2,999 271,708 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,570 5,002 3,356 69,600 1,500 12,388 2,500 2,397 71,601 174,914 $ 446,622 (172,589) $ 440,000 440,000 156,324 60,000 52,385 2,999 271,708 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,570 5,002 3,356 69,600 1,500 12,388 2,500 2,397 71,601 174,914 $ 446,622 (6,622) $ FY 2003-04 Requested (17) $ 358,000 357,983 $ 440,000 440,000 125,060 21,768 40,030 4,004 190,862 173,383 64,000 58,275 5,000 300,658 $ $ $ $ 3,463 74,662 10,244 364 3 71,601 160,337 $ 351,199 (6,622) $ 6,784 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,378 5,000 71,772 1,500 9,890 3,000 2,000 33,525 132,065 $ 432,723 $ 7,277 $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 197,901 $ 121,108 67,969 5,000 (84,043) 307,935 $ - % 0% 0% (41,577) (61,108) (15,584) (2,001) 84,043 (36,227) -27% -102% -30% -67% 18% -13% $ $ 5,378 5,000 71,772 1,500 10,290 3,000 2,000 33,125 132,065 $ 1,192 2 3,356 (2,172) 2,098 (500) 397 38,476 42,849 $ 440,000 $ 6,622 1% $ 6,622 100% - 0% 100% -3% 0% 17% -20% 17% 54% 24% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING Market Range Title ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT SUPV CALL CTR REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTOR PROGRAM COORDINATOR Total FTE 3.0 3.8 1.0 1.0 8.8 687 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Risk Management Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Financial Officer Peter Crowley, Peter Crowley, Risk Manager Risk Manager Safety & Loss Control Claims Environmental Consulting Administration Mission 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 county-wide risk management philosophy and culture. Goals • Over the next two to five years, departmental decisions involving risk to County assets will be made consistent with established risk management protocols. • By 2005, 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 688 • The County’s failure 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Risk Management (Continued) • 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. • As the County's workforce and the regulatory environment continues to evolve, customers will demand more involvement from Risk Management to meet their needs for claims, environmental and safety services. • As County management stresses the need for a comprehensive county-wide loss prevention program, demand for Risk Management services will increase. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED RISK MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS Program CLAIMS RESOLUTION/LIT MGT PROG ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROG RISK MGMT SELF-INSURANCE PROG SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 230,202 139,512 130,822 435,684 318,281 1,254,501 $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 23,496,253 405,760 371,194 62,094 24,335,301 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ $ 20,000 20,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 23,726,455 545,272 522,016 497,778 318,281 25,609,802 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ 26,686,121 26,686,121 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 16,766,871 18,795,176 18,359,742 19,038,025 25,609,802 $ $ $ $ $ Total 16,766,871 18,795,176 18,359,742 19,038,025 25,609,802 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 16,766,871 18,795,176 18,359,742 19,038,025 25,609,802 $ $ $ $ $ Total 16,766,871 18,795,176 18,359,742 19,038,025 25,609,802 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 689 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Risk Management (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 750 RISK MANAGEMENT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type 24,335,301 $ 20,000 $ 25,609,802 $ 26,686,121 INTERNAL SERVICE $ 1,254,501 $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,254,501 $ 24,335,301 $ 20,000 $ 25,609,802 $ 26,686,121 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 750 RISK MANAGEMENT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES $ 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 19,083,214 853,766 338,164 20,275,144 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES Subtotal $ 931,522 150 176,733 500 1,108,905 $ 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 $ 49,139 2,079 3,158,312 13,388,522 11,451 240 207,606 1,428,813 8,431 1,032 84,002 18,339,627 $ $ Subtotal $ 1,038 1,038 Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE 690 $ FY 2002-03 Revised 23,343,430 1,156,954 24,500,384 $ 955,620 151 189,579 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 $ $ $ 17,500 2,500 20,000 19,449,570 $ 825,574 $ $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 23,343,430 1,156,954 24,500,384 $ 924,878 22,500 6,505 191,467 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 $ $ $ 17,500 2,500 20,000 23,398,383 $ 1,102,001 $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 Requested 23,440,537 775,693 24,216,230 $ 936,020 12,499 3,311 193,136 1,144,966 $ 45,905 2,356 8,477 3,348,383 16,667,647 22,919 2,457 160,713 1,679,504 27,889 2,493 8,332 123,591 22,100,666 $ $ $ 14,582 2,496 17,078 23,398,383 $ 1,102,001 $ $ $ $ 25,676,986 1,009,135 26,686,121 $ 937,012 12,500 4,000 278,933 1,232,445 $ 51,000 2,259 10,000 2,896,858 19,817,744 16,100 2,950 175,000 1,415,990 32,095 2,750 10,000 122,626 24,555,372 $ $ $ 17,500 2,500 20,000 23,262,710 $ 953,520 $ $ $ $ Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted % 25,676,986 1,009,135 26,686,121 $ 976,930 277,571 1,254,501 $ 28,121 2,259 1,000 2,896,858 19,664,572 15,600 750 175,000 1,415,990 9,500 2,525 500 122,626 24,335,301 $ $ $ 17,500 2,500 20,000 25,807,817 $ 25,609,802 $ (2,211,419) -9% 878,304 $ 1,076,319 $ (25,682) -2% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,333,556 (147,819) 2,185,737 10% -13% (52,052) 22,500 6,505 (86,104) (109,151) -6% 100% 100% -45% 22,879 141 9,000 292,777 (2,565,451) 500 2,200 102,112 22,884 225 9,500 965 (2,102,268) 45% 6% 90% 9% -15% 3% 75% 0% 7% 71% 8% 95% 1% -9% - 9% -10% 0% 0% 0% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Risk Management (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 750 RISK MANAGEMENT Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT DIRECTOR ENGINEER FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST RISK MGMT SUPERVISOR SAFETY REPRESENTATIVE Total FTE 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 6.0 19.0 691 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Solid Waste Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Community Services 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 The Mission of 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, develop and implement an Illegal dumping clean-up program. • By 2005, develop and implement a Household Hazardous Waste Program to protect the environment from contamination. Issues 692 • 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED SOLID WASTE TOTAL FUNDS Program ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 274,267 354,754 23,898 652,919 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 2,743,270 228,681 36,968 464,085 3,473,004 $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 205,100 4,209 209,309 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 3,222,637 583,435 60,866 468,294 4,335,232 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 3,435,232 650,000 4,085,232 Key Performance Measures Program Name: ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT Program Purpose: The purpose of the Environmental Waste Management Program is to provide management services for household hazardous waste and illegal dumping clean-up as well as waste tire storage, disposal and recycling services so that it can provide its citizens with convenient, safe and economical and environmental sound waste disposal. Key Results: FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 46 48 100 100 Percent of tire tonnage processed by acceptable recycling methods. Program Name: WASTE DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT Program Purpose: The purpose of the Waste Disposal Management Program is to provide convenient, safe and economical waste disposal services for the remotely located areas of the County and perform closure and post-closure services to protect public health and the environment. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent customers satisfied 95 86 90 90 Percent of groundwater well tests completed. 150 95 100 100 Key Results: 693 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 2,727,649 $ 2,994,897 $ 2,349,862 $ 2,679,414 $ 3,435,232 Enterprise Funds $ 1,236,444 $ 1,333,771 $ 745,428 $ 653,853 $ 900,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,964,093 4,328,668 3,095,290 3,333,267 4,335,232 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 2,727,649 $ 2,994,897 $ 2,349,862 $ 2,679,414 $ 3,435,232 Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,727,649 2,994,897 2,349,862 2,679,414 3,435,232 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ 1,236,444 $ 1,333,771 $ 745,428 $ 653,853 $ 900,000 $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,236,444 1,333,771 745,428 653,853 900,000 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 694 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Waste tire fund and program AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 44-1305. C. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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 DESCRIPTION Develop a plan to manage waste tires in the county. Construct, operate, or 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 1999-00 Actuals $ 2,727,649 $ $ 2,727,649 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 2,994,897 $ $ 2,994,897 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 2,349,862 $ $ 2,349,862 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 2,679,414 $ $ 2,679,414 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 3,435,232 $ $ 3,435,232 695 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 670 SOLID WASTE Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE $ 347,239 $ 2,882,893 $ 205,100 $ 3,435,232 $ 3,435,232 ENTERPRISE 305,682 590,109 4,209 900,000 650,000 ALL FUNDS $ 652,921 $ 3,473,002 $ 209,309 $ 4,335,232 $ 4,085,232 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 670 SOLID WASTE ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 615 GRANTS $ 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 652 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING 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 $ 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 880 TRANSFERS OUT $ FY 2002-03 Adopted (3,612) $ 3,525,884 44,861 762,189 160,260 (18,000) 4,471,582 $ 325,747 28,794 6,977 96,886 315 2,856 461,575 $ $ $ 3,300,000 40,648 940,050 4,280,698 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 345,837 $ 32,900 11,251 95,972 (35,298) 450,662 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP $ 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 14,136 14,136 $ Total Expenditures $ 3,094,348 $ 4,171,579 $ 4,171,579 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 1,377,234 $ 109,119 $ 109,119 $ $ $ $ $ $ 340,870 $ 37,978 11,251 95,862 (35,298) 450,663 $ Subtotal $ - $ 3,300,000 40,648 940,050 4,280,698 16,941 20,017 2,537 1,603,860 41,628 496,901 179 513 14,893 421,168 2,618,637 $ 8,613 17,531 2,364 3,130,217 51,000 3,500 230,128 270 585 8,162 268,547 3,720,917 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 8,612 17,531 2,364 3,130,217 25,000 29,500 230,127 270 585 8,163 268,547 3,720,916 - $ $ $ 696 355,167 26,123 5,723 95,628 143 763 483,547 11,945 22,983 792 2,128,997 49,118 1,514 230,128 88 455 8,568 268,547 2,723,135 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,212,370 $ 1,111,064 $ MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 670 SOLID WASTE Total $ 3,663,073 63,791 470,899 130,871 (5,200) 4,323,434 $ 5,688 5,688 Position Distribution Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST DIRECTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR GENERAL MAINTENANCE SUPV GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE FY 2003-04 Requested FTE 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 13.0 3,300,000 760,050 30,000 4,090,050 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 3,300,000 30,000 725,232 30,000 4,085,232 400,063 $ 90,000 20,000 136,043 (36,298) 609,808 $ 407,809 90,000 20,000 135,112 652,921 $ 9,000 28,000 2,000 2,795,263 51,000 14,711 228,686 4,000 1,500 10,000 186,117 3,330,277 $ $ $ $ $ 205,100 4,209 209,309 $ 4,149,394 9,000 28,000 2,000 2,946,231 51,000 6,468 237,686 4,000 1,500 10,000 177,117 3,473,002 $ $ $ $ (10,648) (214,818) 30,000 (195,466) % 0% -26% -23% -5% (66,939) (52,022) (8,749) (39,250) (35,298) (202,258) -20% -137% -78% -41% (388) (10,469) 364 183,986 (26,000) 23,032 (7,559) (3,730) (915) (1,837) 91,430 247,914 -5% -60% 15% 6% -104% 78% -3% -1381% -156% -23% 34% 7% -100% -45% $ $ 205,100 4,209 209,309 $ (205,100) (4,209) (209,309) $ 4,335,232 $ (163,653) -4% (250,000) $ (359,119) -329% (59,344) $ Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Telecommunications Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Information Officer Telecommunications Telecommunications Jan Neal, Acting Director Jan Neal, Acting Director Wireless Systems Voice Communications Administration Data Communications Mission The Mission of the Telecommunications 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. Vision Telecommunications 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 countywide 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. 697 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Telecommunications (Continued) • 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. • 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 2003-04 ADOPTED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOTAL FUNDS Program INFO TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ Personal Services 2,242,651 409,805 2,652,456 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 9,065,096 382,198 9,447,294 $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 112,896 1,824 114,720 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 11,420,643 793,827 12,214,470 $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 12,713,482 10,000 12,723,482 Key Performance Measures 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. Key Results: Percent of time we complete work orders to our customers' satisfaction and within our committed time frames 698 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A 98.24 97.75 95 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Telecommunications (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Internal Service $ 13,162,553 $ 13,639,620 $ 14,837,863 $ 12,622,738 $ 12,214,470 $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,162,553 13,639,620 14,837,863 12,622,738 12,214,470 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ Internal Service 13,162,553 13,639,620 14,837,863 12,622,738 12,214,470 $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,162,553 13,639,620 14,837,863 12,622,738 12,214,470 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 699 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Telecommunications (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type 9,450,174 $ 114,720 $ 12,214,470 $ 12,723,482 INTERNAL SERVICE $ 2,649,576 $ ALL FUNDS $ 2,649,576 $ 9,450,174 $ 114,720 $ 12,214,470 $ 12,723,482 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL $ 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 636 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ FY 2002-03 Adopted $ 499,012 12,692,527 10,000 13,201,539 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 $ 1,969,566 $ 43,699 50,244 397,594 33,350 (504) 2,493,949 $ 2,018,893 30,000 78,319 430,413 31,580 17,012 2,606,217 $ 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 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT 890 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS Subtotal $ 598,674 $ 13,150 6,963 479,157 1,747,163 1,544,572 12,999 85,041 56,143 6,969 5,375,287 (40,422) 342,061 (445,418) 9,782,339 $ 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 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 950 DEBT SERVICE $ 859,540 1,365 13,129,208 1 146,191 14,136,305 Subtotal $ 1,306,378 51,651 1,358,029 Total Expenditures $ 13,634,317 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 501,988 $ FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 455,000 150,216 605,216 $ 12,875,220 $ 326,319 $ $ $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 499,012 12,692,527 10,000 13,201,539 $ $ 2,096,953 30,000 78,319 443,425 31,576 17,012 2,697,285 $ 1,125,176 15,837 347,539 1,706,271 1,263,807 124,722 43,000 2,000 4,704,598 239,768 9,572,718 $ $ 455,001 150,216 605,217 $ 12,875,220 $ 326,319 $ $ $ Total 700 1,869,199 8,160 51,757 417,961 34,056 12,757 2,393,890 $ 495,195 17,052 629,338 1,543,149 1,427,177 2,548 117,416 37,549 3,642 4,586,796 239,768 9,099,630 $ $ $ 12,098,738 $ 1,840,562 MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 760 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Market Range Title ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV DIRECTOR INFO TECHNOL CONSULTANT TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPV TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECH TELECOMMUNICATNS ANALYST 665,661 $ 651 13,250,292 (7,518) 30,214 13,939,300 $ 455,001 150,217 605,218 Position Distribution FTE 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 20.0 10.0 42.0 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ 499,012 12,692,527 10,000 13,201,539 $ $ 2,101,326 25,000 48,000 443,619 2,617,945 $ 287,945 15,000 616,630 1,670,427 1,630,850 92,290 43,000 10,000 4,827,842 306,000 293,563 9,793,547 $ $ 416,736 114,720 531,456 $ 12,942,948 $ 258,591 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ 499,012 12,214,470 10,000 12,723,482 $ $ 2,148,739 10,000 48,000 442,837 2,649,576 $ 140,000 15,000 556,630 1,670,427 1,535,850 104,462 43,000 10,000 4,784,242 306,000 284,563 9,450,174 $ $ 114,720 114,720 $ 12,214,470 $ 509,012 $ $ $ (478,057) (478,057) (51,786) 20,000 30,319 588 31,576 17,012 47,709 985,176 837 (209,091) 35,844 (272,043) 20,260 (8,000) (79,644) (306,000) (44,795) 122,544 % 0% -4% 0% -4% -2% 67% 39% 0% 100% 100% 2% 88% 5% -60% 2% -22% 16% 0% -400% -2% -19% 1% $ 455,001 35,496 490,497 100% 24% 81% $ 660,750 5% $ 182,693 56% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Total Compensation Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Deputy County Administrator Total Compensation Total Compensation Michael Schaiberger, Director Michael Schaiberger, Director Employee Compensation Employee Health Initiatives Mission The mission of the Total Compensation Department is to provide Board approved compensation and benefit plans which are effectively communicated, and provide department leadership with strategic direction and administrative support related to compensation and benefits so they can attract and retain qualified employees to achieve their business results. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • By June 30, 2005, reduce Maricopa County Government’s voluntary turnover rate to a rate equal to or below the average of the Phoenix metropolitan area. • By June 30, 2005, increase Maricopa County employee satisfaction with pay by 2% over the FY02 level as measured by the annual employee satisfaction survey. • By June 30, 2005, increase Maricopa County employee satisfaction with benefits by 2% over the FY02 level as measured by the annual employee satisfaction survey. • By June 30, 2005, automate all major Total Compensation related processes and services to better meet the business needs of Maricopa County. • Over the next three plan years, beginning with plan year 2003, the negotiated premium rates for the medical (general medical, vision, behavioral health/substance abuse, and pharmacy) insurance component of the benefits plan for the active employees will be no greater than 5 percentage points above the local market percentage of increase for public sector employer groups as provided by the external benefits actuary. • Over the next five years, beginning with FY 2004, implement the action plan developed by County Counsel to ensure current and on-going Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) compliance within the Employee Benefits Division of Total Compensation. 701 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Total Compensation (Continued) Issues • The significant skyrocketing costs of health care expenditures in the U.S and the current market trends will directly impact the structure of the benefit plan and fiscal impact of the health insurance program offered by Maricopa County to their employees and dependents. • The “soft” economy and resulting declining revenues combined with the rising cost of non-wage benefits increases the challenge of developing a competitive total compensation package to attract and retain qualified and motivated employees. • The complexities and severe financial consequences associated with State and Federal regulatory compliance will require changes to the Total Compensation Department’s business processes. • Benefits vendors utilized by Maricopa County are demanding greater automation and enhanced security of the benefits processes, which will initially increase our cost and reshape our benefits workforce. • The current paper-based system utilized by Total Compensation does not always provide departments the timely access to accurate compensation data and/or information necessary to effectively manage their budget. • Paper-based data transmission of new and ongoing benefits enrollment information does not allow for efficient processing of benefits related services, which could result in a service delay for employees and their dependents. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED TOTAL COMPENSATION TOTAL FUNDS Program EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 354,785 868,890 200,572 1,424,247 $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 18,487 24,204,472 2,504 24,225,463 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 373,272 25,073,362 203,076 25,649,710 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ 23,650,004 23,650,004 Key Performance Measures Program Name: EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Employee Compensation Program is to provide Board approved compensation to department leadership so that they can attract and retain qualified employees to achieve their business goals. Key Results: Percent of employees voluntarily leaving employment who report pay as the primary reason for leaving Maricopa County 702 FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 21 21 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Total Compensation (Continued) Program Name: EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Employee Health Initiatives Program is to provide Board approved benefit plans to department leadership so that they can attract and retain qualified employees to achieve their business goals. Key Results: Percent of employees voluntarily leaving employment who report benefits as the primary reason for leaving Maricopa County FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected N/A N/A 1 1 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 970,183 $ 980,542 $ 2,014,706 Internal Service $ $ $ 6,606,958 $ 13,806,513 $ 23,635,004 Total $ $ $ 7,577,141 $ 14,787,055 $ 25,649,710 Total Administrative Mandates FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ 970,183 $ 980,542 $ 2,014,706 Internal Service $ $ $ 6,606,958 $ 13,806,513 $ 23,635,004 Total $ $ $ 7,577,141 $ 14,787,055 $ 25,649,710 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 703 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Total Compensation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type GENERAL FUND $ 1,424,247 $ 590,459 $ $ 2,014,706 $ 15,000 INTERNAL SERVICE 23,635,004 23,635,004 23,635,004 ALL FUNDS $ 1,424,247 $ 24,225,463 $ $ 25,649,710 $ 23,650,004 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 635 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 6,757,728 322,409 53,934 7,134,071 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 544,888 10,404 2,372 642,381 16,978 198,645 1,415,668 $ $ Subtotal $ 119,130 673 476 6,750,502 4,224 2,920 19,864 3,069 1,988 6,902,846 $ $ Subtotal $ 10,258 10,258 $ $ Total Expenditures $ 8,328,772 $ 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 CAPITAL OUTLAY 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ (1,194,701) $ 6,833,576 10,000 6,843,576 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 651,628 4,500 666,681 266,055 1,588,864 $ 207,010 673 476 8,124,698 4,224 2,920 25,540 4,337 9,478 8,379,356 $ 9,968,220 $ $ $ $ $ (3,124,644) $ 6,833,576 10,000 6,843,576 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 666,330 4,500 670,648 19,732 266,055 1,627,265 $ 211,909 673 476 8,121,338 7,584 2,920 25,540 4,337 9,478 8,384,255 $ 10,011,520 $ $ $ $ $ (3,167,944) $ Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 350 TOTAL COMPENSATION Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST COUNSELOR DATABASE ADMIN/ANALYST ERGONOMIST GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HEALTH EDUCATOR HR GENERALIST HR MANAGER PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE Total 704 FTE 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 3.0 2.0 25.0 12,244,848 87,926 20,170 12,352,944 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 632,583 1,875 660,605 56,168 226,730 1,577,961 $ 170,590 673 476 429 4,563,479 8,459,856 8,605 2,874 28,959 4,092 9,655 13,249,688 $ 14,827,649 $ $ $ $ 23,535,004 100,000 15,000 23,650,004 $ $ 871,237 4,500 180,055 13,841 1,069,633 $ 210,595 20,772,561 3,360 237 26,271 2,450 8,550 21,024,024 $ - Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ $ 23,535,004 100,000 15,000 23,650,004 $ $ 1,171,487 4,500 234,419 13,841 1,424,247 $ 212,595 673 476 23,936,936 7,584 2,857 49,277 5,587 9,478 24,225,463 $ - $ $ $ $ $ 22,093,657 $ 25,649,710 $ (2,474,705) $ 1,556,347 $ (1,999,706) $ 16,701,428 100,000 5,000 16,806,428 (505,157) 436,229 5,891 266,055 203,018 (686) (15,815,598) 63 (23,737) (1,250) (15,841,208) % 244% 50% 246% -76% 0% 65% 30% 100% 12% 0% 0% 0% -195% 0% 2% -93% -29% 0% -189% (15,638,190) 1,168,238 -156% 37% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Transportation Organizational Chart County Administrative Officer Chief Regional Development Services Agency Officer Transportation Transportation Tom Buick, Director Tom Buick, Director Technology Planning & Community/ Governmental Relations Construction & Operations Engineering Lands/ Right of Way Administration Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County 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 cost-effective 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 align strategies and structures towards the development of a regional transportation district that will be 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 reduce the accident rate on county-maintained roadways by 5%, reduce travel delays by 5%, and improve operational effectiveness through the application of appropriate traffic management solutions, which include regional coordination and the deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies. • MCDOT will increase positive community perception and awareness of services and opportunities for public participation in decision-making processes to achieve a 2% increase in customer satisfaction and institutional recognition each year for the next five years as measured by Customer Satisfaction and targeted project stakeholder surveys. • 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 5.5. 705 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Transportation (Continued) 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. • 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 result 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 and implement rapid changes in technology will adversely affect effectiveness and efficiency of all business practices, operations, and personnel. • Lack of commitment to increase MCDOT's image and public 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 TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED TRANSPORTATION TOTAL FUNDS Program BUILD ROADS AND BRIDGES MANAGE TRAFFIC MAINTAIN ROADS AND BRIDGES SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL 706 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 6,355,063 1,677,056 10,666,482 2,628,326 1,503,420 1,686,456 24,516,803 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 2,475,407 2,747,505 14,389,438 2,818,416 2,723,422 1,330,845 26,485,033 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 72,390,766 80,000 1,974,141 72,215 576,406 75,093,528 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 81,221,236 4,504,561 27,030,061 5,518,957 4,226,842 3,593,707 126,095,364 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 20,821,267 350,000 30,000 1,796,682 94,235,698 6,000 117,239,647 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Transportation (Continued) Key Performance Measures Program Name: BUILD ROADS AND BRIDGES Program Purpose: The purpose of the Build Roads and Bridges program is to provide design and construction of roads and bridges to the traveling public so that they can get to their destination in a safe and efficient manner. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent Particulate Matter (PM-10) roads that have been paved per County Air Quality regulations for dust suppression/mitigation 24 38 26.2 80 Percent of lane miles completed that were planned for new or improved roadway construction (excluding PM 10 roads) N/A 58 60 80 Percent of bridges completed that were planned for new or improved construction N/A N/A 67 80 Percent of utility relocation permits completed without delays 100 100 120 100 Key Results: Program Name: MAINTAIN ROADS AND BRIDGES Program Purpose: The purpose of the Maintain Roads and Bridges program is to provide roadway upkeep and traffic flow management to the traveling public so they can have safe trips on smooth, cost effective roads. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of total road mileage with pavement condition rating of "good" or better 99 98 98 95 Percent of bridges with sufficiency rating of "good" of better N/A 81 72 80 Key Results: 707 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Transportation (Continued) 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 designers and builders so that they can prepare and efficiently deliver effective products and services and coordinated designs and construction. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of MCDOT projects that go to bid and are eligible for partnerships and have partnerships in place N/A N/A 74 67 Percent increase in customer satisfaction and institutional recognition N/A N/A 78 2.5 Key Results: Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 107,010,536 $ 113,738,686 $ 45,239,435 $ 46,476,736 $ 48,638,136 Capital Projects $ $ $ 48,684,801 $ 56,164,787 $ 77,457,228 $ $ $ $ $ Total 107,010,536 113,738,686 93,924,236 102,641,523 126,095,364 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 106,345,337 $ 112,893,384 $ 45,215,397 $ 45,794,755 $ 48,288,136 Capital Projects $ $ $ 48,684,801 $ 56,164,787 $ 77,457,228 $ $ $ $ $ Total 106,345,337 112,893,384 93,900,198 101,959,542 125,745,364 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 665,199 $ 851,217 $ 24,038 $ 681,981 $ 350,000 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 665,199 851,217 24,038 681,981 350,000 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance or debt service. 708 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Transportation (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Transportation System Operation, Maintenance, Improvement, Planning And Environmental Mitigation AUTHORITY 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). HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 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. 709 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Transportation (Continued) 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 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. The PM-10 paving project is in its third year and has paved over 40 miles of roads and reduced over 1,000 tons of particulates out of our air. This multiyear project is in accordance with EPA requirements and part of a countywide plan to reduce air pollution. 710 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Transportation (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 640 TRANSPORTATION Supplies & Total Personal Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Services Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE $ 20,319,388 $ 82,568,507 $ 2,750,241 $ 105,638,136 $ 96,433,380 CAPITAL PROJECTS 4,003,000 1,110,941 72,343,287 77,457,228 77,806,267 ELIMINATIONS (57,000,000) (57,000,000) (57,000,000) ALL FUNDS $ 24,322,388 $ 26,679,448 $ 75,093,528 $ 126,095,364 $ 117,239,647 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 640 TRANSPORTATION ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS $ 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 626 STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV 630 STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 651 GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS Total Revenue $ 1,451,294 24,038 12,988,476 78,285,212 6,743,783 754,600 2,712,908 451,884 103,412,195 FY 2002-03 Adopted $ $ 1,700,000 682,000 32,955,345 77,933,792 6,682,872 400,000 73,600 230,000 120,657,609 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 1,700,000 682,000 32,955,345 77,933,792 6,682,872 400,000 73,600 230,000 120,657,609 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 1,484,523 682,000 11,896,427 79,331,861 6,774,322 390,529 1,487,942 81,131 102,128,735 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 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 $ 17,091,019 $ 149,952 494,214 3,905,756 202,000 (5,685,049) 5,617,195 21,775,087 $ 17,214,279 $ 150,001 544,839 4,307,864 131,433 (4,322,559) 191,500 18,217,357 $ 17,294,997 $ 139,549 520,839 4,259,942 133,089 (4,202,768) 4,258,964 22,404,612 $ 15,964,995 $ 112,000 439,288 3,831,025 218,111 (4,202,764) 4,205,443 20,568,098 $ 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 $ 1,244,573 688,143 119,575 19,871,358 334,302 5,859,383 21,343 4,464,179 310,761 29,784 688,630 2,014,030 35,646,061 1,318,461 812,791 110,961 11,687,153 426,595 5,634,681 3,851,316 225,000 18,000 695,000 1,925,005 26,704,963 1,318,461 812,791 120,406 23,739,193 426,595 5,634,681 5,015,726 225,001 18,000 695,000 1,925,005 39,930,859 1,291,115 710,490 128,518 14,779,389 270,760 4,459,929 4,635,742 211,482 19,784 674,875 1,925,005 29,107,089 CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 6,400,578 119,831 148,120 1,228,254 28,598,823 4,015 36,499,621 Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,133,500 65,000 566,825 2,345,151 78,173,243 323,631 87,607,350 93,920,769 $ 132,529,670 9,491,426 $ (11,872,061) $ $ $ $ $ 6,088,500 65,000 566,825 2,400,000 60,750,243 323,631 70,194,199 $ 4,439,701 98,172 513,736 1,710,876 41,941,831 203,559 48,907,875 $ 132,529,670 $ (11,872,061) $ $ $ $ 1,400,000 350,000 20,899,647 86,300,000 7,500,000 500,000 654,302 230,000 60,833,949 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 17,488,904 $ 169,774 555,754 5,047,339 179,323 (4,366,328) 4,173,942 23,248,708 $ 1,373,333 $ 762,915 114,600 11,505,023 228,540 5,971,235 4,195,279 297,505 18,000 660,755 (54,340,139) (29,212,954) $ $ $ 9,480,500 72,215 191,379 1,910,241 62,828,867 576,406 75,059,608 98,583,062 $ 69,095,362 3,545,673 $ (8,261,413) $ 1,400,000 350,000 20,899,647 86,300,000 7,500,000 500,000 60,000 230,000 117,239,647 $ % $ (300,000) (332,000) (12,055,698) 8,366,208 817,128 100,000 (13,600) (3,417,962) -18% -49% -37% 11% 12% 25% -18% 0% -3% 18,631,248 $ 169,774 555,754 5,067,134 179,323 (4,464,335) 4,183,490 24,322,388 $ (1,336,251) (30,225) (34,915) (807,192) (46,234) 261,567 75,474 (1,917,776) -8% -22% -7% -19% -35% 6% 2% -9% 1,373,333 762,915 114,600 9,816,313 228,540 5,971,236 5,429,533 297,504 18,000 660,755 2,006,719 26,679,448 (54,872) 49,876 5,806 13,922,880 198,055 (336,555) (413,807) (72,503) 34,245 (81,714) 13,251,411 -4% 6% 5% 59% 46% -6% -8% -32% 0% 5% -4% 33% -56% -11% 66% 20% -3% -78% -7% $ $ $ $ 9,480,500 72,215 191,379 1,910,241 62,862,787 576,406 75,093,528 $ (3,392,000) (7,215) 375,446 489,759 (2,112,544) (252,775) (4,899,329) $ 126,095,364 $ 6,434,306 5% (8,855,717) $ 3,016,344 25% 711 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Transportation (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 640 TRANSPORTATION Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV APPLIC/SYS PROGRMING MGR (INACTIVE) APPRAISER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR DISPATCHER ENGINEER ENGINEERING AIDE ENGINEERING MANAGER ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EQUIPMENT OPERATOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL LABORER GENERAL MAINTENANCE SUPV GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS SUPV HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST HR SUPERVISOR INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS PROJECT MGR INSPECTION SUPERVISOR INSPECTOR LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) MANAGEMENT ANALYST MATERIALS HANDLING SPEC MEDIA ASSISTANT MEDIA SPECIALIST OPERATIONS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST PLANNER PLANNING SUPERVISOR PRGRM COORDINATION SPEC PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROJECT MANAGER PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE PURCHASING SUPERVISOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER (INACTIVE) SURVEY TECHNICIAN TECH SUPPORT SPECIALIST TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPV TRAINING SPECIALIST UNDETERMINED WEB DEVELOPER (INACTIVE) WEB SPECIALIST Total 712 FTE 1.0 5.0 3.0 28.0 15.0 8.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 21.0 5.0 2.0 19.0 32.8 100.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 51.0 20.0 44.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 16.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 7.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 11.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 2.0 1.0 479.8 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Special Districts Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Flood Control District Board of Directors Fulton Brock, Chairman Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Stadium District Board of Directors Fulton Brock, Chairman Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Library District Board of Directors Fulton Brock, Chairman Don Stapley, District 2 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 713 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District Organizational Chart Flood Control District Board of Directors 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 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. 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 • By 2007, the Flood Control District will have the requisite number of 500 points to increase its CRS rating from a level 5 to a level 4. The Flood Control District will also have assisted those communities in Maricopa County that are in the CRS program in adding points to achieve their next level, and will have assisted those communities that are not in the program to enter the program • By 2005, the Flood Control District will have evaluated all of the existing District-owned flood control facilities, and, if necessary, will have initiated 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. • By 2004, the Flood Control District will have investigated and designed a program, which will document processes and procedures that are in the institutional memory and develop a new generation of leadership to replace its aging workforce. • By 2004, the Flood Control District will have secured the means to increase its operating budget so that more cost-effective flood control measures can be implemented. 714 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) • The Flood Control District, recognizing the impacts of major public works projects on the community in which they are constructed, will incorporate appropriate strategies to mitigate these impacts, and where feasible and appropriate design and construct facilities to include provisions for multiple use opportunities incorporating the principles of landscape architecture and land use planning in their sting, planning, and design. • By the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2003 - 2004 within the constraints of its enabling legislation, the Flood Control District will enter into an agreement with Maricopa County to serve as its agent in developing plans to comply with, and manage, NPDES phase I and phase II mandates. • During the next five years, the Flood control District will continue to execute its mission of providing flood hazard identification, regulation, remediation, and education to the people of 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. • During the next five years, the Flood Control District will continue to prioritize proposed projects and institute a funded CIP to the maximum extent of its resources while maintaining a responsible fund balance. Issues • The Flood Control District, as rated by the FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS), is currently at a level 5, which is in the top 1% of all the flood control districts in the United States. To achieve a level 4, which would give the flood insurance policy holders in unincorporated Maricopa County a 30% discount in their flood insurance premiums, the District must increase its score by an additional 500 points. • Those cities in Maricopa County that participate in the CRS program do not necessarily take advantage of some of the work the District does in the cities to increase their CRS rating. There are some cities in Maricopa County that are not in the CRS program and therefore do not offer a flood insurance discount to their property owners. • The age of flood control structures, urbanization, and changing federal, state, and local regulations as well as changing structural, safety, engineering, and environmental standards require a greater emphasis on improving safety monitoring procedures, evaluating existing structures, and developing and implementing plans to mitigate, upgrade, and/or redesign those structures. • County residents are requesting wildlife habitats, recreational facilities, and aesthetically pleasing 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. • The Flood Control District has an aging workforce. Most of senior management and many of the Operations and Maintenance Division staff will be eligible for retirement within the next five years. With the retirement of key employees comes the loss of institutional memory and the intuitive knowledge of how to get things done. • According to GASB34, many of the alternative flood hazard remediation measures that are less costly than structures, and that can be used to increase the District's CRS rating, can be funded only through the operating budget, and the District does not have the ability to increase its operating budget to take advantage of these less costly means of flood control. 715 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TOTAL FUNDS Program FLOOD HAZARD REGULATION PROGRA FLOOD HAZARD EDUCATION PROGRAM FLOOD HAZARD IDENTIFICATION FLOOD HAZARD REMEDIATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 2,138,650 310,962 1,458,701 5,757,559 1,521,164 895,864 1,176,065 13,258,965 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 634,982 152,748 7,519,477 8,762,966 3,127,955 439,199 20,637,327 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 123,300 13,750 42,448,900 26,000 3,297,000 45,908,950 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 2,896,932 463,710 8,991,928 56,969,425 4,649,119 1,361,063 4,473,065 79,805,242 Total Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 75,992,743 75,992,743 Key Performance Measures Program Name: FLOOD HAZARD EDUCATION PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Flood Hazard Education program is to provide information to the public so that they can be more knowledgeable about the risks of floods and flood hazards, and the Flood Control District projects, studies, and activities that will affect them. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of presentation, program, and storm water quality consultation requests completed. N/A N/A 106.8 100 Percent of Dollar value of positive media attention received at a rating of five or above (on a scale of one to nine). N/A N/A 93.91 95 Key Results: Program Name: FLOOD HAZARD IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Flood Hazard Identification program is to provide the identification of, and alternative solutions to flood hazards, and flood warning data to public and private organizations so that they can incorporate knowledge of flood hazards in their plans within presently developed and future urban growth areas. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of cumulative linear miles of watercourses requiring approximate or detailed delineation that were delineated up to the end of the current fiscal year. N/A N/A 13.23 17.9 Percent of sensor days that was operational during the quarter. N/A N/A 99.34 99.2 Key Results: 716 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Program Name: FLOOD HAZARD REGULATION PROGRAM Program Purpose: The purpose of the Flood Hazard Regulation program is to provide guidance, direction, and enforcement for the public so that they can avoid causing adverse impacts to floodplains, and use their property safely and in compliance with applicable state and federal laws. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of drainage complaint cases in which an initial site investigation is conducted within 30 days of receipt of violation complaint. N/A N/A 89 90 Percent of inspection stops completed within one day of receiving the request for an inspection. N/A N/A 94.99 95 Percent of drainage plans reviews completed in the quarter within the One-Stop-Shop goals. N/A N/A 97 98 Percent of floodplain complaint cases in which an initial site investigation is conducted within 30 days of receipt of violation complaint. N/A N/A 87 90 Percent of inspection stops completed within one day of receiving the request for an inspection. N/A N/A 95 95 Percent of Flood Determinations responded to within 24 hours of receiving the request. N/A N/A 100 100 Percent of floodplain plans reviews completed in the quarter within the One-Stop-Shop goals. N/A N/A 89.32 90 Key Results: Program Name: FLOOD HAZARD REMEDIATION Program Purpose: The purpose of the Flood Hazard Remediation program is to provide protection to the public from flood hazards through structural mitigation and buy-out so that they can live with an acceptable risk of loss of life or property due to flooding. FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected Percent of structural projects on the current 5-Year Capital Project Plan that are completed in the current fiscal year. N/A N/A 10.71 12.5 Percent of priority 1 work orders (work required to assure safety, or for a structure to function as designed) that were completed within 60 days of issuance. N/A N/A 72.54 73.33 Percent of budgeted revenue realized through the use or sale of Flood Control District property. N/A N/A 178 100 Key Results: 717 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 82,867,818 $ 79,748,040 $ 66,173,841 $ 61,739,865 $ 80,162,242 $ $ $ $ $ Total 82,867,818 79,748,040 66,173,841 61,739,865 80,162,242 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 75,885,844 $ 71,557,945 $ 59,432,797 $ 54,874,459 $ 72,118,667 $ $ $ $ $ Total 75,885,844 71,557,945 59,432,797 54,874,459 72,118,667 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 6,981,974 $ 8,190,095 $ 6,741,044 $ 6,865,406 $ 8,043,575 $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,981,974 8,190,095 6,741,044 6,865,406 8,043,575 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance or debt service. 718 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Flood Detection and Data Collection AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND The program was initiated to monitor impoundments behind the District's dams 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 DESCRIPTION The Flood Control District, as owner of 23 dam and drainage facilities regulated 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 Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,345,051 $ 1,345,051 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 994,426 $ 994,426 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 1,182,780 $ 1,182,780 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 1,199,727 $ 1,199,727 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 1,380,445 $ 1,380,445 TITLE Floodplain Administration AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 48-3609 Floodplain Delineation And Regulation Of Use. A.R.S. § 483610 Assumption Of Powers And Duties By Cities And Towns HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Maricopa County must manage and regulate delineated floodplains. Floodplain Administration FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 2,660,523 $ 3,139,379 $ 3,136,398 $ 2,587,362 $ 2,868,380 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,660,523 3,139,379 3,136,398 2,587,362 2,868,380 719 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) TITLE Planning AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 48-3616 Survey And Report Of Flood Control Problems And Facilities; Comprehensive Program By Board; Hearing HISTORY/ BACKGROUND In the mid-1980's, the District began to recognize the need for an independent 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 DESCRIPTION The Flood Control District must conduct a survey and prepare a report at least every five years in describing the remaining flooding problems and the existing flood control facilities in Maricopa County. Planning Special Revenue Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 4,840,198 $ 4,840,198 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 4,385,910 $ 4,385,910 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 3,110,548 $ 3,110,548 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 3,503,051 $ 3,503,051 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 6,848,006 $ 6,848,006 TITLE Structure AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND In 1954, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Phoenix City Council, and the Salt River Project Board of Directors recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to solving flooding problems. MANDATE DESCRIPTION The County must provide for the maintenance of dams and other flood control structures to reduce the risks of flood loss. Structure Special Revenue Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 65,727,431 $ 65,727,431 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 61,680,064 $ 61,680,064 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 49,807,528 $ 49,807,528 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 45,049,564 $ 45,049,564 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 58,236,553 $ 58,236,553 720 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) TITLE Drainage AUTHORITY 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/ BACKGROUND Administers the County Drainage Regulation (prepared by the District), to reduce existing and potential flooding caused by local storm water. 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 DESCRIPTION The County must enforce standards for excavation, landfill, and grading to 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 Total FY 1999-00 Actuals $ 1,312,641 $ 1,312,641 FY 2000-01 Actuals $ 1,358,166 $ 1,358,166 FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 2,195,543 $ 2,195,543 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 2,534,755 $ 2,534,755 FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget $ 2,785,283 $ 2,785,283 721 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Supplies & Total Personal Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Services Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE $ 10,598,890 $ 68,401,703 $ 804,650 $ 79,805,243 $ 75,992,743 CAPITAL PROJECTS 2,519,770 5,577,000 45,903,230 54,000,000 54,000,000 ELIMINATIONS (54,000,000) (54,000,000) (54,000,000) ALL FUNDS $ 13,118,660 $ 19,978,703 $ 46,707,880 $ 79,805,243 $ 75,992,743 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted FY 2002-03 Revised FY 2002-03 Proj. Act FY 2003-04 Requested REVENUE 601 PROPERTY TAXES $ 610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 621 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 44,622,752 1,760,323 17,140,690 152,544 643,554 9,318,874 73,638,737 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 $ 9,330,624 $ 226,419 67,533 1,871,161 21,352 (138) 316,899 11,833,850 $ 9,868,585 $ 278,580 35,941 2,154,576 (2,600,000) 9,737,682 $ 9,857,942 $ 357,251 35,941 2,167,715 (2,600,000) 2,600,000 12,418,849 $ 9,390,979 $ 265,302 31,411 1,997,257 18,213 (999,558) 1,101,796 11,805,400 $ 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 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 880 TRANSFERS OUT Subtotal $ 673,103 137,897 42,133 442,405 13,986,968 158,954 124,654 88 1,322,687 107,932 11,941 259,266 1,192,943 18,460,971 $ 1,293,284 153,760 223,018 232,150 9,631,179 85,271 251,250 600 1,578,724 155,106 2,300 253,187 1,122,858 14,982,687 $ 1,237,955 155,554 117,150 265,950 15,936,287 148,575 257,450 600 1,573,378 161,815 10,300 201,435 1,122,858 21,189,307 $ 1,169,139 152,427 97,071 295,265 13,074,311 164,835 289,083 679 1,573,381 149,612 15,068 231,731 1,122,858 18,335,460 $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 14,860,697 25,233 354,781 20,638,065 279 35,879,055 $ $ $ 13,285,956 11,000 44,950 670,183 24,521,542 49,625 38,583,256 $ $ 6,561,000 9,000 187,076 502,385 29,643,497 1,131 36,904,089 $ $ 6,118,000 9,000 296,750 380,000 38,986,997 1,131 45,791,878 Total Expenditures $ 66,173,876 $ 70,512,247 $ 70,512,245 $ 68,724,116 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 7,464,861 $ 519,607 $ 519,609 $ 5,171,248 722 $ $ $ 44,868,061 1,800,700 15,073,000 134,393 850,000 8,305,700 71,031,854 $ $ $ 44,868,061 1,800,700 15,073,000 134,393 850,000 8,305,700 71,031,854 $ $ $ 40,871,173 1,656,579 15,685,502 113,249 362,411 15,206,450 73,895,364 $ $ 14% 0% 10% 2% -54% -28% 7% 9,895,066 $ 353,420 41,330 2,469,246 (2,784,124) 2,724,320 12,699,258 $ 10,390,573 $ 353,420 41,330 2,465,849 (2,784,124) 2,651,612 13,118,660 $ (532,631) 3,831 (5,389) (298,134) 184,124 (51,612) (699,811) -5% 1% -15% -14% 1,085,501 144,999 72,510 351,000 15,163,760 192,634 205,900 600 1,679,351 166,325 11,300 196,435 1,283,180 20,553,495 $ 1,085,501 144,999 72,510 351,000 14,588,968 192,634 205,900 600 1,826,404 166,325 11,300 196,435 1,136,127 19,978,703 $ 152,454 10,555 44,640 (85,050) 1,347,319 (44,059) 51,550 (253,026) (4,510) (1,000) 5,000 (13,269) 1,210,604 12% 7% 38% -32% 8% -30% 20% 0% -16% -3% -10% 2% -1% 6% $ $ 14,902,947 724,650 31,000,283 80,000 46,707,880 $ $ 14,902,947 724,650 30,843,000 80,000 46,550,597 $ (8,341,947) 9,000 187,076 (222,265) (1,356,786) (78,869) (9,803,791) -127% 100% 100% -44% -5% -6973% -27% $ 79,803,350 $ 79,805,243 $ (9,292,998) -13% $ (7,437,671) $ (3,812,500) $ (4,332,109) -834% $ $ $ $ 51,153,993 1,800,700 16,554,000 137,612 391,606 5,954,832 75,992,743 $ % 6,285,932 1,481,000 3,219 (458,394) (2,350,868) 4,960,889 $ 47,309,340 2,000,900 16,554,000 155,001 391,606 5,954,832 72,365,679 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ 7% -2% -6% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMIN & OPERATIONS MGR ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV APPLIC/SYS PROGRMING MGR (INACTIVE) CHEMICAL APPLICATNS TECH CONTRACT ADMIN SUPERVISOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEVELOPER/PRGRMR ANALYST DIRECTOR ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN ENGINEER ENGINEERING AIDE ENGINEERING MANAGER ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EQUIPMENT OPERATOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST GENERAL LABORER GENERAL MAINTENANCE SUPV GENERAL MAINTENANCE TECH GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS SUPV HR GENERALIST HR SPECIALIST INFO SYSTEMS MANAGER INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR INSPECTION SUPERVISOR INSPECTOR LAN ADMINISTRATION SUPV (INACTIVE) LAN ADMINISTRATOR (INACTIVE) MECHANIC OPERATIONS MANAGER PC SPECIALIST PLANNER PRGRM COORDINATION SPEC PROJECT MANAGER PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SVC SUPERVISOR PURCHASING SUPERVISOR SURVEY TECHNICIAN TECHNICAL PROGRAM SUPV TECHNOLOGY ANALYST TRAINING SPECIALIST WEB DEVELOPER (INACTIVE) Total FTE 1.0 2.0 2.0 13.0 11.0 7.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 5.0 30.0 4.0 2.0 18.0 8.0 10.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 25.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 13.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 224.0 723 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Library District Organizational Chart Library District Board of Directors 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. Goals • 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 724 • 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. Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules 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 2003-04 ADOPTED LIBRARY DISTRICT TOTAL FUNDS Program PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ Personal Services 5,365,116 1,006,580 439,739 22,978 6,834,413 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 4,153,986 223,522 113,947 1,012,124 5,503,579 $ $ $ $ $ Capital Outlay 149,070 125,724 274,794 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 9,668,172 1,230,102 553,686 1,160,826 12,612,786 $ $ $ Total Revenue 12,721,129 - $ 12,721,129 Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 8,412,599 $ 9,277,831 $ 10,032,880 $ 12,633,244 $ 12,587,817 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,412,599 9,277,831 10,032,880 12,633,244 12,587,817 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue $ 8,412,599 $ 9,277,831 $ 10,032,880 $ 12,633,244 $ 12,587,817 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,412,599 9,277,831 10,032,880 12,633,244 12,587,817 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 725 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Library District (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT Personal Supplies & Total Services Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Fund Type 5,350,749 $ 275,000 $ 12,612,786 $ 12,721,129 SPECIAL REVENUE $ 6,987,037 $ ALL FUNDS $ 6,987,037 $ 5,350,749 $ 275,000 $ 12,612,786 $ 12,721,129 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual FY 2002-03 Adopted REVENUE 601 PROPERTY TAXES $ 615 GRANTS 620 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 621 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 637 FINES & FORFEITS 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE Total Revenue $ 9,498,936 132,784 61,663 191,864 256,606 286,496 88,144 10,516,493 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 710 OVERTIME 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 790 OTHER PERSONNEL SERVICES 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ 4,052,989 492,919 559 889,505 10,318 5,446,290 $ 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 $ 1,966,124 8,236 93,454 286,586 114,317 60,820 758,240 329,486 85,489 106,168 161,583 587,134 4,557,637 $ $ $ $ $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND $ 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ - $ 89 8,300 20,553 28,942 Total Expenditures $ Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 726 10,296,417 25,000 12,000 189,085 260,000 216,000 76,467 11,074,969 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ 4,578,795 536,258 1,155,638 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 $ 10,032,869 $ 12,602,743 483,624 $ (1,527,774) $ 10,296,417 25,000 12,000 189,085 260,000 216,000 76,467 11,074,969 FY 2002-03 Proj. Act $ $ 4,548,795 563,315 1,151,243 14,359 6,277,712 $ 1,929,884 9,850 84,070 434,580 127,477 114,620 830,583 436,134 104,496 107,939 177,832 594,766 4,952,231 $ $ 497,500 604,700 22,600 248,000 1,372,800 $ 12,602,743 $ $ $ 10,622,893 158,817 6,365 188,121 293,193 234,934 70,663 11,574,986 $ $ 4,633,702 622,935 2,238 1,057,468 7,304 6,323,647 $ 2,705,449 10,001 19,784 429,203 135,913 74,692 853,643 532,267 78,698 88,621 144,927 594,766 5,667,964 $ $ 1,497,500 604,700 102,200 34,408 193,082 2,431,890 $ 14,423,501 (1,527,774) $ FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ $ 10,969,857 25,000 12,000 187,436 300,260 180,000 63,060 11,737,613 $ $ 1,950,357 12,000 452,605 96,711 99,800 830,583 368,571 104,496 100,500 186,700 697,299 4,899,622 $ $ $ 11,785,925 (2,848,515) $ $ 4,554,606 569,581 1,473,413 13,703 6,611,303 27,000 248,000 275,000 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ $ 11,568,233 25,000 397,140 187,436 300,260 180,000 63,060 12,721,129 $ $ 4,763,312 569,581 1,473,413 13,703 167,028 6,987,037 $ 1,950,356 12,000 903,733 96,711 99,800 830,583 384,482 104,496 100,500 186,700 681,388 5,350,749 $ $ $ $ % 1,271,816 385,140 (1,649) 40,260 (36,000) (13,407) 1,646,160 12% 0% 3210% -1% 15% -17% -18% 15% (214,517) (6,266) (322,170) 656 (167,028) (709,325) -5% -1% -28% 5% -11% (20,472) (2,150) 84,070 (469,153) 30,766 14,820 51,652 7,439 (8,868) (86,622) (398,518) -1% -22% 100% -108% 24% 13% 0% 12% 0% 7% -5% -15% -8% 100% 100% 0% $ 27,000 248,000 275,000 $ 497,500 604,700 (4,400) 1,097,800 $ 12,612,786 $ (10,043) (48,312) $ 108,343 $ 1,636,117 -19% 0% 80% 107% Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Library District (Continued) Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT Market Range Title ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTING CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMIN/OFFICE SUPPORT ADMIN/OPERATIONS SUPV DIRECTOR EDUCATOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINANCIAL SUPERVISOR GOVT/COMMUN AFFAIRS OFCR HR GENERALIST INFO SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR LAN ADMINISTRATION SUPV (INACTIVE) LIBRARIAN LIBRARY MANAGER LIBRARY SUPERVISOR PC SPECIALIST PLANNER PUBLIC SVC REPRESENTATIVE SOFTWARE ENGINEER (INACTIVE) UNDETERMINED WEB DEVELOPER (INACTIVE) Total FTE 1.0 2.0 2.0 9.5 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 34.0 3.0 7.0 4.0 1.0 52.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 135.5 727 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Stadium District Organizational Chart 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 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Goals • The District will provide management oversight and facility inspections of Bank One Ballpark for the Stadium District Board of Directors, the community and its visitors to ensure that the facility is maintained consistent with all agreements and is 95% compliant during inspections within the next 5 years. • The District will increase use of Bank One Ballpark and public exposure to the facility through meetings, seminars, and conferences for non-baseball activities by 30% within the next three years. • Within the next 5 years the District will conduct an analysis on the feasibility of increasing Cactus League Surcharge Revenue, enabling the District to expedite reduction of existing debt and renovate and/or build Cactus League Facilities. • The District will increase Bank One Ballpark revenues for non-baseball activities by 30% within the next 3 years. • The District will reduce staff turnover to less than 25% within the next 5 years and increase staff's operational and historical knowledge. • The District will obtain 5 new entrepreneurial revenue sources within the next 5 years to ensure the future stability of the Stadium District. 728 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Stadium District (Continued) Issues • Increased usage of Bank One Ballpark will result in increased revenue to the District. • Turnover 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 severe economic downturn continues to affect the financial events/games, the District may have a potential loss of revenue. • A lack of compliant facility management could result in capital repairs to, and depletion of Facility Reserves at, Bank One Ballpark. Total Budget by Program TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM FY 2003-04 ADOPTED STADIUM DISTRICT TOTAL FUNDS Program ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG UNALLOCATED/INDIRECT $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ Personal Services 69,800 455,152 180,502 26,079 731,533 $ $ $ $ $ Supplies & Services 281,505 430,932 75,375 787,812 Capital Outlay $ $ $ $ $ 5,999,918 5,999,918 $ $ $ $ $ Total Expenditures 351,305 6,886,002 255,877 26,079 7,519,263 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue 679,167 10,145,654 135 10,824,956 Key Performance Measures Program Name: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Program Purpose: The purpose of the Financial Management Program is to provide fiscal resources and asset management of Cactus League Facilities and Bank One Ballpark for the Board of Directors of the Stadium District, the community, and for its visitors, in order to ensure sound fiscal management of publicly owned facilities. Key Results: Percent increase in reserves FY 2001 Actual FY 2002 Actual FY 2003 Actual FY 2004 Projected 13 30.88 46 19.69 729 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Stadium District (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 8,547,130 $ 6,788,947 $ 8,063,782 $ 1,429,825 $ 12,467,581 $ 6,616,203 $ 1,711,610 $ 92,707 $ 2,060,781 $ 407,135 $ $ $ $ $ Total 15,336,077 9,493,607 19,083,784 1,804,317 2,467,916 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 1999-00 Actuals FY 2000-01 Actuals FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Adopted Budget Special Revenue Capital Projects $ 8,547,130 $ 6,788,947 $ 8,063,782 $ 1,429,825 $ 12,467,581 $ 6,616,203 $ 1,711,610 $ 92,707 $ 2,060,781 $ 407,135 $ $ $ $ $ Total 15,336,077 9,493,607 19,083,784 1,804,317 2,467,916 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service or eliminations. 730 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Budget Schedules Stadium District (Continued) Departmental Budget Information DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE & CATEGORY - FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 680 STADIUM DISTRICT Supplies & Total Personal Services Capital Outlay Expenditures Total Revenue Services Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE $ 728,853 $ 2,269,086 $ 583,369 $ 3,581,308 $ 4,720,021 DEBT SERVICE 110,000 5,015,094 5,125,094 5,700,800 CAPITAL PROJECTS 2,680 3,000 401,455 407,135 1,998,409 ELIMINATIONS (1,594,274) (1,594,274) (1,594,274) ALL FUNDS $ 731,533 $ 787,812 $ 5,999,918 $ 7,519,263 $ 10,824,956 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY DEPARTMENT/OBJECT CODE 680 STADIUM DISTRICT ALL FUNDS FY 2001-02 Actual REVENUE 606 SALES TAXES $ 645 INTEREST EARNINGS 650 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 652 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING Total Revenue $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 701 REGULAR PAY $ 705 TEMPORARY PAY 750 FRINGE BENEFITS 795 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC OUT 796 PERSONNEL SERVICES ALLOC IN Subtotal $ FY 2002-03 Adopted 5,536,163 481,673 11,088,276 61,340,977 78,447,089 $ $ 5,500,800 500,500 5,060,201 11,061,501 FY 2002-03 Revised $ $ FY 2002-03 Proj. Act 5,500,800 500,500 5,060,201 11,061,501 $ $ 5,467,047 420,167 5,212,062 11,099,276 FY 2003-04 Requested $ $ 5,500,800 514,035 4,810,121 10,824,956 Adopted vs Revised Variance FY 2003-04 Adopted $ $ 5,500,800 514,035 4,810,121 10,824,956 $ $ 13,535 (250,080) (236,545) % 0% 3% -5% -2% 128,155 $ 1,168 28,255 (27,966) 635,712 765,324 $ 173,077 $ 38,886 (71,112) 599,147 739,998 $ 173,074 $ 38,884 (71,112) 599,147 739,993 $ 125,347 $ (18) 31,874 (49,080) 578,103 686,225 $ 177,112 $ 40,451 (78,115) 585,667 725,115 $ 183,530 $ 40,451 (78,115) 585,667 731,533 $ (10,456) (1,567) 7,003 13,480 8,460 -4% 10% 2% 1% $ 10,000 2,000 70,000 547,587 2,819 5,160 58,387 9,400 650 600 31,122 737,725 $ 10,000 2,000 70,005 547,587 2,819 5,160 58,387 9,400 650 600 31,122 737,730 $ 11,237 1,165 48,670 431,799 2,170 1,404 59,234 8,415 327 422 31,122 595,965 $ Subtotal $ 3,373 35,867 481,126 1,652 711 41,528 810 52 367 31,600 597,086 10,000 2,000 70,005 603,790 2,819 5,160 24,176 9,400 650 600 59,212 787,812 10,000 2,000 70,005 603,790 2,819 5,160 47,135 9,400 650 600 36,253 787,812 (56,203) 11,252 (5,131) (50,082) 0% 0% 0% -10% 0% 0% 19% 0% 0% 0% -16% -7% CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS $ 950 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal $ 6,613,703 68,499,248 75,112,951 $ $ $ 1,002,139 4,542,904 5,545,043 $ $ 1,007,068 4,608,463 5,615,531 $ $ 1,007,068 4,608,463 5,615,531 59% -21% -7% Total Expenditures $ 76,475,361 $ 7,093,254 $ 7,093,254 $ 6,827,233 Operating Balance (Rev. - Exp.) $ 1,971,728 $ 3,968,247 $ 3,968,247 $ 4,272,043 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 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 416,455 5,583,463 5,999,918 $ 7,512,845 $ 3,312,111 $ $ -6% $ $ 416,455 5,583,463 5,999,918 $ 590,613 (975,000) (384,387) $ 7,519,263 $ (426,009) -6% $ 3,305,693 $ (662,554) -17% Position Distribution MARKET RANGE TITLE DISTRIBUTION: FY 2003-04 ADOPTED 680 STADIUM DISTRICT Market Range Title ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FINAN/BUSINESS ANALYST Total FTE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 731 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 732 Departmental Budget Schedules Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 Statements Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. 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. 733 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines (Approved by the Board of Supervisors December 2, 2002) 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 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. 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. 734 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines (Continued) 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 non-appropriated 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 735 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines (Continued) 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. 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. 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 non-General 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. 736 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Priorities - Maricopa County (Approved by the Board of Supervisors December 2, 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 a structurally balanced budget is developed for FY 2003-04. 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 budget targets for the following: • the annualized cost of FY 2002-03 approved Results Initiative Requests; • the annualized impact of FY 2002-03 mid-year appropriation adjustments; • the annualized impact of other items including intergovernmental agreements approved by the Board of Supervisors if the impact was disclosed at the time of Board approval. All departments must submit base budget requests within their budget targets. Base Reductions In order to maintain a structurally balanced budget, 5% and 10% base reductions will be developed and considered for all departments (excluding grant funds). The Office of Management and Budget is directed to prepare 5% and 10% base reduction targets for all non-grant funds. All departments and agencies must submit alternative base budget requests that meet their budget reduction targets. Departments and agencies are directed to present base reductions that minimize the impact on critical public services as much as possible. The service impact of the reductions must be disclosed. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) Only Results Initiative Requests that are funded by the original $900 million of Jail Excise Tax for phasedin operation of new facilities will be considered, as authorized by A.R.S. §42-109 and approved by the voters of Maricopa County in November 1998. 737 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Priorities - Flood Control District (Approved by the Board of Directors December 2, 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 all departments so that a structurally balanced budget is developed for FY 2003-04. 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 budget targets for the following: • the annualized cost of FY 2002-03 approved Results Initiative Requests; • the annualized impact of FY 2002-03 mid-year appropriation adjustments; • the annualized impact of other items including intergovernmental agreements approved by the Board of Directors if the impact was disclosed at the time of Board approval. All departments must submit base budget requests within their budget targets. Base Reductions In order to maintain a structurally balanced budget, 5% and 10% base reductions will be developed and considered for all departments (excluding grant funds). The Office of Management and Budget is directed to prepare 5% and 10% base reduction targets for all non-grant funds. All departments and agencies must submit alternative base budget requests that meet their budget reduction targets. Departments and agencies are directed to present base reductions that minimize the impact on critical public services as much as possible. The service impact of the reductions must be disclosed. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) Only Results Initiative Requests that are funded by the Jail Excise Tax for operation of new facilities will be considered. 738 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Priorities - Library District (Approved by the Board of Directors December 2, 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 all departments so that a structurally balanced budget is developed for FY 2003-04. 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 budget targets for the following: • the annualized cost of FY 2002-03 approved Results Initiative Requests; • the annualized impact of FY 2002-03 mid-year appropriation adjustments; • the annualized impact of other items including intergovernmental agreements approved by the Board of Directors if the impact was disclosed at the time of Board approval. All departments must submit base budget requests within their budget targets. Base Reductions: In order to maintain a structurally balanced budget, 5% and 10% base reductions will be developed and considered for all departments (excluding grant funds). The Office of Management and Budget is directed to prepare 5% and 10% base reduction targets for all non-grant funds. All departments and agencies must submit alternative base budget requests that meet their budget reduction targets. Departments and agencies are directed to present base reductions that minimize the impact on critical public services as much as possible. The service impact of the reductions must be disclosed. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests): Only Results Initiative Requests that are funded by the Jail Excise Tax for operation of new facilities will be considered. 739 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Priorities - Stadium District (Approved by the Board of Directors December 2, 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 all departments so that a structurally balanced budget is developed for FY 2003-04. 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 budget targets for the following: • the annualized cost of FY 2002-03 approved Results Initiative Requests; • the annualized impact of FY 2002-03 mid-year appropriation adjustments; • the annualized impact of other items including intergovernmental agreements approved by the Board of Directors if the impact was disclosed at the time of Board approval. All departments must submit base budget requests within their budget targets. Base Reductions In order to maintain a structurally balanced budget, 5% and 10% base reductions will be developed and considered for all departments (excluding grant funds). The Office of Management and Budget is directed to prepare 5% and 10% base reduction targets for all non-grant funds. All departments and agencies must submit alternative base budget requests that meet their budget reduction targets. Departments and agencies are directed to present base reductions that minimize the impact on critical public services as much as possible. The service impact of the reductions must be disclosed. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) Only Results Initiative Requests that are funded by the Jail Excise Tax for operation of new facilities will be considered. 740 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Calendar 12/9 - 1/20 Budget Targets Distributed to Departments, Budget Prep Instructions & Information Available, Budget Prep System Training, Budget Prep System Available to Departments 12/30 - 2/24 OMB Analyzes Base Budget Requests/Develops Recommendations 3/17 OMB Analyzes RIR’s/Develops Recommendations 4/14 - 4/25 OMB Consolidates and Finalizes Budget Recommendations 5/5 Board Adopts 5-Year Capital Improvement Program 5/5 - 5/9 Board Briefings 5/12 CAO Presents FY 2003-04 Tentative Budget to Board 5/19 Board Adopts FY 2003-04 Tentative Budget 6/23 Final Adoption of FY 2003-04 Budget 8/18 Board sets Tax Rates Note: Dates are subject to change. 741 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 program/activity/service, object/source, and position. appropriation by month, organization unit, 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. 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. 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. 742 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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. Any Departments/Special Districts for which the Department of Finance reports a negative year-to-date 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 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. 743 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 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. 744 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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. 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 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. 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. 745 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Funded Position Policy (Continued) 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. 746 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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. 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. 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 the Performance Management policy. 747 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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. Management will consider performance information in making policy and program decisions. 748 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 fourstep 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. 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. 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. 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. 749 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Performance Management Process Policy (Continued) 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. 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. 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. 750 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 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. 751 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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. 752 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes 5/02/03 To: David Smith, County Administrative Officer Sandi Wilson, Deputy County Administrative Officer Chris Bradley, Deputy Budget Director 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 the FY 200304 budget preparation 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: $99,191,505 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. • • • • • 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. Flood Control District – Needed Minimum Fund Balance: $15,207,156 1. The Flood Control District only has one cash fund available to finance its operational expenditures. They do utilize a separate capital projects fund for their CIP, but those expenditures are supported by fund transfers from Flood Control’s operational fund. 2. Flood Control’s operational fund is primarily funded with property taxes and because of this, it shares the same pattern of fiscal low and high points as the General Fund. 753 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments However, one significant difference between Flood Control and the General Fund is that Flood Control 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 be uniformly spent during the year. It was also assumed that major intergovernmental revenue would be posted uniformly during the year or when significant capital project spending will occur. Library District – Needed Minimum Fund Balance: $3,118,633 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. Changes to the Model It should be noted that this year’s model to calculate the balances was changed in two ways. • In the past, the Department of Finance estimated what the spending would be for the next year’s budget, based on historical spending patterns. For this year, estimates for the FY2003-04 budget were provided by OMB. This enhanced the accuracy of the model as the most recent budget estimates for each applicable fund were used. • Since this calculation actually reaches into FY2004-05 budget, given the nature of what minimum fund balance point we are trying to predict, an estimate is needed for budget growth between FY2003-04 and FY2004-05. In the past, the Department of Finance would again make an estimate on that growth. For this year, we applied the estimated CPI index used by OMB for the 10-year forecast. Both of these changes have made the model more consistent and should translate into a smoother, more reliable growth pattern for the projected minimum fund balances needed in the future. If you have any questions on the assumptions used or changes to the model, please let me know. If you would like, I would be happy to provide more detail on how the model calculates the needed minimum fund balances for each fund. cc: 754 Shelby Scharbach, Deputy Finance Director LeeAnn Bohn, Budget Administrator Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 non-grant programs. Grantor Agency: refers to a federal, state, local or private agency or organization which provides the grant funding and/or grant funding oversight. 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 755 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 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. 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. 756 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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.) 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. • 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. 757 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) • 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. 758 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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. County-wide A-87 Indirect Costs: Central Service department costs, benefiting both grant and nongrant 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. 759 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 sub-object 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, sub-object 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, sub-object 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. Procedures 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. 760 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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. Budgeted Expenditures The expenditures budgeted in the General Government budget are general expenses not specific to a particular department, or which benefit the County as a whole. These expenses can include budgeted contingencies, general debt service, taxes and assessments, legal expenses, and various Boardapproved special projects or initiatives 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 Government. If the expenditure is not approved it will be returned and absorbed within the budget of the department that submitted it. 761 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments General Government Policy (Continued) 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. 762 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 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 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: 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. 763 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Vehicle Replacement Policy (Continued) 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. 764 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions 100 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. 110 Sheriff Warehouse — Sheriff Warehouse tracks inventory activity for supplies purchased by the warehouse for resale and stores consignment inventory for other departments. 201 Adult Probation Services — Collects the fees assessed to persons placed on probation in the Superior Court per A.R.S. §13-901. Monies collected are used to supplement County General Fund appropriations for the compensation costs of probation officers who provide pre-sentence investigations (A.R.S. §12-267). 203 Sheriff Donations — Accounts for and segregates funds to be used 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 — Revenues consist of fees and surcharges collected under the authority of A.R.S. §22-281; and time payment fees collected under authority of A.R.S. §12116; and On-line access subscription fees collected under authority of A.R.S. §22-284. Expenditures 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 Retrieval — Accounts for the collection of 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 micrographics or computer automation as established by A.R.S. §12284.01. 207 Palo Verde — Palo Verde receives an annual allocation of approximately $200,000 from the State of Arizona. Expenditures are utilized for nuclear disaster training. 208 Superior Court Judicial Enhancement — Revenues consist of fees and surcharges collected under authority of A.R.S. §12-284.03 and time payment fees collected under authority of A.R.S. §12-116. In addition, revenues are received from the State Judicial Enhancement Fund established by A.R.S. §12113. Expenditures are used to improve, maintain and enhance the collection and management of funds and court automation projects. 209 Public Defender Training — Established by A.R.S. §12-117 to account for fees that are paid on a time payment basis as established by A.R.S. §12-116. Expenditures are utilized for Public Defender Training. 210 Economic Development — Established by the Board of Supervisors to segregate this activity from the General Fund. This fund accounts for a fixed $65,000 fee from Waste Management Corporation plus a percentage based on the tonnage’s of refuse dumped. Expenditures are used for economic development in Mobile and other unincorporated areas of the County. 211 Adult Probation Grants — Revenues consist of grant funds that are used for domestic violence, women’s treatment programs, gang prevention and criminal justice records improvement. 213 RICO — Accounts for the funds provided by the sale of confiscated property. Operated by the County Attorney, RICO consists of all the activity of the Anti-Racketeering Program. 215 Emergency Management — Emergency Management activity consists of disaster planning and training. 216 Clerk of Court Grants — Accounts for the grant funds that are utilized for the improvement of court automation systems, child support enforcement and the processing of criminal history dispositions. 217 CDBG Housing Trust — Accounts for the grant funds that are utilized to expand the supply of low income housing through the rehabilitation and reconstruction of single family occupancy homes. 765 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 218 Clerk of Court Fill the GAP — This fund 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. This fund was part of Fund 216 in FY2002. 219 County Attorney Grants — Accounts for funds that are utilized for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse and domestic violence cases and the enhancement of anti-gang enforcement efforts to deter, investigate, prosecute or adjudicate gang offenders. Victim assistance is provided to include transportation, payment of emergency expenses, education programs and training to children’s advocates. 220 County Attorney Drug Diversion Fund — Pursuant to A.R.S. §13-1811, funds are utilized for the investigation, prosecution and deferred prosecution of bad check cases. 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. This fund was part of Fund 220 in FY2002. 222 Human Services Grants — Accounts for the grant funds that are utilized for community action services designed to help the disadvantaged achieve self-sufficiency and family stability. 223 Transportation Grants — Transportation Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the County Transportation Department. This fund was part of Fund 232 in FY2002. 225 Parks Spur 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 was to commence collection of the tax by December 1, 2000. 226 Planning and Development — Performs mandated community planning functions. Funding is provided mainly through license and impact fees. 227 Juvenile Court Grants — Accounts for the grant funds that are utilized for the child nutrition program, family counseling and safe schools program. 228 Juvenile Probation — This fund was established by A.R.S. §12-268 to account for juvenile probation fees collected and used for the purpose of supplementing County General Fund appropriations for the compensation of personnel of the Juvenile Court. 229 Juvenile Restitution — Pursuant to A.R.S. §8-346, the fund was established for the payment of restitution in juvenile delinquency proceedings. This fund consists of state and local appropriations, gifts, devices and donations from any public or private source. 230 Parks & Recreation Grants — Accounts for the grant funds that are utilized for state lake improvements, park restoration and the construction and maintenance of hiking trails. 232 Transportation — Plans and implements an environmentally transportation system. Operations are funded through highway user taxes. balanced multi-model 233 Public Defender Grants — Accounts for grant funds that are utilized 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. This fund was part of Fund 232 in FY2002. 766 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 235 Planning Project Fees — Planning/Infrastructure Grants Fund is classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Accounts for grant funds that are utilized for urban planning. 236 Recorder’s Surcharge — Accounts for the collection of 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 micrographics or computer automation as established by A.R.S. §11-475.01. 238 Superior Court Grants — Grant funds are used for drug enforcement accounting, court appointed special advocates and case processing assistance. 239 Parks Souvenir — Accounts for sales proceeds 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 — Accounts for park and recreation revenues and expenditures associated with enhancing parks and recreation programs pursuant to A.R.S. §11-941. 242 Library Grants — Library District Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the County Library District. This fund was part of Fund 244 in FY2002.. 243 Parks Donations — Contributions accounts for activities that are financed through donations by citizens or groups. 244 Library — 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 — Accounts for funds that are utilized to reduce the backlog of existing criminal cases, juvenile crime reduction and to initiate a pilot video conference/personal computer project for 3 courts. 249 General Government Grants — General Government Grants was set up to account for all SCAAP Grant activity. This fund was part of Fund 251 in FY2002. 250 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 — Accounts for grant funds that are utilized for patrolling lakes, improving the fingerprinting system, and enhancing DUI and overall traffic enforcement capabilities. 252 Sheriff Special Funding — Accounts for the funds that are held in trust for the benefit and welfare of the inmates, established under A.R.S. §31-121. The majority of revenues are derived from sales of food and sundries to the inmates. 253 Bank One Ballpark Operations — Accounts for all revenues and expenditures related to Bank One Ballpark. 254 Sheriff Inmate Health Services — Accounts for the copayments received from inmates for self initiated health service pursuant to A.R.S. §31-161 and A.R.S. §31-162. 255 Jail Operations Fund — was 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. 767 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 256 Probate Programs — Administers the monies received by the Clerk of Court pursuant to A.R.S. §14-5314 and A.R.S. §14-5414 to preserve, audit, and safeguard the estates and wards for whom the court has a fiduciary responsibility. 257 Conciliation Court Special — 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 Automation — Accounts for the collection and expenditure of a $10 fee collected by Clerk of the Court staff upon a filing of the original complaint and answer in all civil, domestic relations, probate and tax cases pursuant to A.R.S. §11-251.08. The funds are utilized 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 — 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 — Accounts for the activity of governmental research projects that are billed back to the municipalities contracting for these services on a cost reimbursement basis. 261 Law Library — 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. 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. This fund was part of Fund 233 in FY2002. 263 Legal Defender Fill the GAP — Legal Defender 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 counties for the processing of criminal cases by the county public defender, legal defender and contract indigent defense counsel in each county. This fund was part of Fund 233 in FY2002.. 264 Superior Court Fill the GAP — Superior 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. This fund was part of Fund 238 in FY2002.. 265 Public Health Pharmacy — Accounts for public health programs that are self-supported by Vital Health fees and pharmacy operations. 266 County Attorney Check Enforcement Program — 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. This fund was part of Fund 220 in FY2002. 267 County Attorney Criminal Justice Enhancement — 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. This fund was part of Fund 220 in FY 2002. 768 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 268 County Attorney Victim Compensation and Assistance — 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. This fund was part of Fund 220 in FY2002. 269 County Attorney Victim Compensation and Restitution — The County Attorney Victim Compensation and 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. This fund was part of Fund 220 in FY2002. 270 Child Support Enhancement — Accounts for funds received from a federal incentive award that is utilized for the enhancement of child support collections through efficient operation of the IV-D program. 271 Expedited Child Support — Accounts for the funds that are utilized to establish, maintain and enhance programs designed to expedite the processing of petitions filed and enforce the resultant court orders. Revenues 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, fund operations. 272 Child Support Automation — Accounts for funds that are utilized to improve, maintain and enhance computer hardware, software and automation systems for the collection of court ordered child support. Operations are funded from revenues which consist of 50% of the monies received by the Clerk’s office for child support handling fees, pursuant to A.R.S. §25-413 and A.R.S. §12-284. 273 Victim Location — 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 by A.R.S. §12-287. 274 Clerk of Court EDMS — The Clerk of Court EDMS Fund was established to account for Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) Fees which are collected as authorized by Board Agenda C16020028, ADM1005 and State Attorney General’s Opinion 195-18 (R94-63). 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. 276 Clerk of Court Spousal Maintenance Enforcement — The Spousal Maintenance Enforcement Fund is established for the clerk of the Superior Court consisting of monies received pursuant to A.R.S. §12-289. The clerk will spend monies in the fund to enhance enforcement of spousal maintenance orders. In addition to the fees required by section A.R.S. §12-284, the clerk shall charge and collect a surcharge of five dollars for each filing of a petition or an answer for annulment, dissolution or marriage or legal separation. The clerk will use the surcharge only for the purposes prescribed by this statute. 280 Old Courthouse — Accounts for the funds that are utilized for the restoration and preservation of the Old Maricopa County Courthouse. Donations and contributions fund operations. 281 Children’s Issues Education — Accounts for the funds that are utilized for educational programs regarding the impact that divorce, the restructuring of families and judicial involvement have on children pursuant to A.R.S. §25-354. Revenues that are received from the Clerk’s educational program fees supplement any state or county appropriations. 769 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 282 Domestic Relations Education — Accounts for the funds that are utilized to establish, maintain and enhance programs designed to educate individuals regarding the impacts on children associated with marriage dissolution, legal separation, restructuring of families and the programs available for mediation of visitation or custody disputes, pursuant to A.R.S. §25-413. Operations are funded by revenues from 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. 290 Waste Tire Program — Accounts for the activity for the operation of the waste tire processing center for the removal of waste tires from the County pursuant to A.R.S. §44-1305. 292 Correctional Health Grants — 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 Center for Disease Control and supplement the syphilis screening activities at the Madison Street Jail. 295 Housing 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 Fund — accounts 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 Fund — accounts for the debt service on the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2001. Funding is provided by transfers from the General Fund. 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 1/4 of one cent Sales Tax that commenced on April 1, 1995 and concluded on December 1, 1997. 422 Intergovernmental Capital Projects — Intergovernmental Capital Projects account for capital project spending predominantly funded from General Fund revenues. 435 County Improvement Fund — accounts for capital projects funded through the issuance of the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2001. 440 Library Capital Projects — This fund was set up in FY2002 to track the Library Administrative Building. This is a Capital Projects Fund. Primary activity should begin in FY03. 445 General Fund Capital Projects — General Fund Capital Projects account for capital project spending funded from General Funds. 450 Bank One Ballpark Project Reserve — Accounts for sales tax (Stadium Tax) proceeds collected in excess of the $238,000,000 cap imposed by County Board Resolution. 455 Jail Construction Fund — accounts for the proceeds associated with the temporary 1/5 of onecent sales tax approved by voters in the General Election on November 3, 1998. The proceeds are for the construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. The voters approved the extension of the 1/5 of one-cent sales tax in the General Election on November 5, 2002. The extension shall be levied beginning in the month following the expiration of the previous tax as approved by the voters in 1998. 504 Environmental Services — Air Pollution works to protect the environment and public health through control, preservation, and improvement of the County’s air quality. Permit revenue is the funding source. 505 Environmental Services Grant — Environmental Services Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the County Environmental Services Department. This fund was part of Fund 504 in FY 2002. 770 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 506 Environmental Services Environmental 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. This fund was part of Fund 504 in FY2002. 532 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. Federal and State grants fund operations. 535 Medical Center Fund — provides quality, cost competitive health care and health professional education to assure the health security of individuals, families, and the community. 541 Maricopa Health Plan Fund — 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 Maricopa County Health Plan enrollment. 551 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 the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (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. 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, leash laws, capture and impoundment of stray dogs, public education, adoption or humane disposal of excess animals. Licenses and fees are the primary funding source. 573 Animal Control Grants — Animal Control Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by Animal Control. This fund was part of Fund 572 in FY2002. 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. This fund was part of Fund 572 in FY2002.ontributions accounts for activities that are financed through donations by citizens or groups. 580 Solid Waste — 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. 654 Equipment Services — This 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 efficient manner. 673 Reprographics — This fund provides the County’s printing and duplicating services. 675 Risk Management — This fund supports the comprehensive insurance/self-insurance program, which safeguards 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. 681 Telecommunications — This fund provides cost effective voice, data, and radio communications to County employees. 771 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 685 Employee Benefits Trust — This fund collects employee and employer contributions for payment of the employees’ dental and short-term disability benefits. 715 Small Schools Service Program — Accounts for the special education services provided to small schools as established by A.R.S. §15-365. 716 Animal Control Donations — Contributions accounts for activities that are financed through donations by citizens or groups. 741 Taxpayers’ Information — This fund was established by A.R.S. §11-495 to collect public records copying surcharge. The funds are to be spent to upgrade an automated taxpayer information system. 748 Juror Improvement — This fund accounts for donated juror fees and mileage to be used for juror enhanced services such as educational initiatives about the importance of jury service; new and improved programs for summoned and empanelled jurors; research and programs directed at improving the response levels of those summoned for jury service. Approved by agenda number C-38-02-002-8-00. 780 Unorganized Territory Transportation — Established by A.R.S. §15-1001 to account for transportation aid for the transportation of children from unorganized territory to school districts within the county. 989 Flood Control Grants — Flood Control Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the Flood Control District. This fund was part of Fund 991 in FY2002. 990 Flood Control 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 FY2002. 991 Flood Control — 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 — Provides street lighting in unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. Operations are funded by special assessment. 772 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments FY 2003-04 Revenue Object and Sub-Object Codes Revenue Sub-Revenue Source Source Sub-Revenue Source Name 0601 00 PROPERTY TAXES 0601 01 REAL PROP TAXES - CURRENT YEAR 0601 02 REAL PROP TAXES - PRIOR YEAR 0601 03 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES CURREN 0601 04 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES PRIOR 0605 00 TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST 0606 00 SALES TAXES 0610 00 LICENSES AND PERMITS 0610 01 LIQUOR LICENSES 0610 02 PAWN SHOP LICENSES 0610 03 PEDDLERS LICENSES 0610 04 AIR POLLUTION PERMITS 0610 05 ANIMAL LICENSES 0610 06 BUILDING SAFETY PERMITS 0610 07 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS 0610 08 FLOOD CONTROL LICENSES 0610 09 MARRIAGE LICENSES 0610 10 MOBILE HOME MOVING PERMIT 0610 11 MOBILE HOME USE PERMIT 0610 12 PLANNING VARIANCE PERMIT 0610 13 PUBLIC HEALTH ENG PERMIT 0610 14 COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY USE 0615 00 GRANTS 0615 01 FEDERAL 0615 02 STATE 0615 03 OTHER GRANTS 0620 00 OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0620 01 FEDERAL SHARED REVENUE 0620 02 OTHER SHARED REVENUE 0620 03 FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS 0620 04 STATE SHARED REVENUE 0620 05 STATE SHARE OF COST 0620 06 OTHER GOVERNMENT SHARE OF COST 0621 00 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 0621 01 SALT RIVER PROJECT 0621 02 FEDERAL 0621 03 STATE 0625 00 STATE SHARED SALES TAX 0626 00 STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV 0630 00 STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE 0635 00 OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0635 01 CABLE TV RECEIPTS FEE 0635 02 GARNISH & SUPPORT FEES 0635 03 TAX SALE FEES 0635 04 CABLE TV APPLICATION FEES 0635 05 CERTIFICATIONS 0635 06 COURT FEES 0635 07 CONSTABLE FEES 0635 08 FIDUCIARY FEES 0635 09 JURY FEES 0635 10 LEGAL SERVICES 0635 11 PASSPORTS 0635 12 PROBATE FEES 0635 13 RECORDING FEES 0635 14 RECORD AUTOMATION SURCHARGE Revenue Source 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0636 0637 0637 0637 0637 0637 0637 0638 0638 0645 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0650 0651 0652 0652 0652 0652 0680 0690 Sub-Revenue Source 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 00 01 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 00 00 01 02 03 00 00 Sub-Revenue Source Name 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 CIGNA DEDUCTIBLE COUNTY PREMIUM PHARMACY INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES FINES & FORFEITS CIVIL SANCTIONS TRAFFIC COURT FINES LIBRARY FINES ANTI-RACKETEERING FINES DIVERSION FINE PATIENT SERVICES REVENUE REVENUE DEDUCTIONS INTEREST EARNINGS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE BUILDING RENTALS EQUIPMENT RENTALS PAYPHONE RECEIPTS VENDING MACHINE RECEIPTS OTHER RENTS & COMMISSION SALE OF BOOKS/COPIES/ETC. SALE OF FIXED ASEST SALE FOOD BULK NOURISHMENT SALE OF POSTAGE SALE OF DATA INFORMATION INSURANCE RECOVERIES CASH OVER/SHORT DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS BAD CHECK FEES (NSF) GAIN ON FIXED ASSETS PROCEEEDS FROM FINANCING CAPITAL LEASE PROCEEDS CERT OF PART PROCEEDS BOND PROCEEDS TRANSFERS IN INVENTORY 773 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments FY 2003-04 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Name 0701 00 REGULAR PAY 0701 01 FULL TIME REGULAR SALARIES 0701 02 PERMANENT PART TIME 0701 03 OTHER SALARIES & WAGES 0701 04 COMPENSATORY TIME 0701 05 HOLIDAY PAY 0701 06 VACATION PAY 0701 07 JURY DUTY 0701 08 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY 0701 09 ON THE JOB INJURY LEAVE 0701 10 MILITARY LEAVE 0701 11 SICK LEAVE 0705 00 TEMPORARY PAY 0710 00 OVERTIME 0750 00 FRINGE BENEFITS 0750 01 FICA 0750 02 MEDICARE TAX 0750 03 ELECTED OFFICIALS RETIREMENT 0750 04 CORRECTIONS OFFICERS RETIREMNT 0750 05 PUBLIC SAFETY RETIREMENT 0750 06 STATE RETIREMENT PLAN 0750 07 DENTAL PLAN 0750 08 EMPLOYER'S DENTAL SERVICES 0750 09 HEALTH SELECT PLAN 0750 10 CIGNA HEALTH PLAN 0750 11 MANUFACTURERS LIFE 0750 12 ON THE JOB INJURY INSURANCE 0750 13 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 0750 14 BUS FARE SUBSIDY PLAN 0750 15 ASRS LONG TERM DISABILITY 0750 16 INVESTIGATOR RETIREMENT 0750 17 CONCORDIA DENTAL 0750 18 RELIASTER LIFE 0750 19 MEDICAL/DENTAL WAIVER 0750 20 CIGNA DEDUCTIBLE 0750 21 PARK RANGERS RETIREMENT 0750 22 SELF-INSURED PHARMACY 0790 00 OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES 0790 01 PRODUCTION BONUS 0790 02 DIFFERENTIALS 0790 03 WORKING CONDITION 0790 04 WEEKEND PREMIUM 0790 05 STANDBY PAY 0790 06 REGULAR OVER BUDGET 0790 07 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE AWARD 0790 08 BUDGET DEFERRED HOURS PAID 0790 09 LUMP SUM PAYMENT 0790 10 EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION AWARD 0790 11 AWARDS PROGRAM CREDIT 0790 12 OTHER ADJUSTMENTS 0790 13 PEAK PERFORMERS 0795 00 PERSONAL SERVICE ALLOC OUT 0796 00 PERSONAL SERVICE ALLOC IN 0801 00 GENERAL SUPPLIES 0801 01 AUTO-GAS OIL LUBE 0801 02 AUTO-TIRES TUBES BATTERY 0801 03 OTHER AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY 0801 04 BEDDING & LINEN 774 Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Name 0801 05 CLEANING & JANITORIAL 0801 06 CLOTHING/UNIFORMS 0801 07 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIES 0801 08 SOFTWARE 0801 09 EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES 0801 10 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLIES 0801 11 FOOD-PERISHABLE 0801 12 FOOD-PREPARATION 0801 13 FOOD-NON PERISHABLE 0801 14 FOOD-SPECIAL FUNCTIONS 0801 15 FOOD-NOURISHMENTS 0801 16 KITCHEN & DINING SUPPLIES 0801 17 LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES 0801 18 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0801 19 RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES 0801 20 SAFETY APPAREL 0801 21 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT 0801 22 FURNITURE UNDER $1000 0801 23 LAUNDRY SUPPLIES 0801 24 PROCUREMENT CARD 0801 25 BOOK/PAMPHLET/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0801 26 AUTOMOTIVE R&M SUPPLIES 0801 27 BUILDING R&M SUPPLIES 0801 28 COMMUNICATION R&M SUPPLIES 0801 29 ELECTRICAL R&M SUPPLIES 0801 30 GROUNDS R&M SUPPLIES 0801 31 HEAT/LIGHT/COOL R&M SUPPLIES 0801 32 OFFICE R&M SUPPLIES 0801 33 PLUMBING R&M SUPPLIES 0801 34 ROAD R&M SUPPLIES 0801 35 OTHER R&M SUPPLIES 0802 00 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 0802 01 DENTAL SUPPLIES 0802 02 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 0802 03 LAB-REAGENTS & MEDIA 0802 04 LAB-CONSUMABLES 0802 05 RADIOLOGY SUPPLIES 0802 06 X-RAY FILM 0802 07 X-RAY CONTRAST & MEDIA 0802 08 PHARMACEUTICALS 0802 09 BLOOD & PLASMA SUPPLIES 0802 10 ANESTHETIC SUPPLIES 0802 11 OXYGEN & OTHER GASES 0802 12 RADIOACTIVE SUPPLIES 0802 13 O R INSTRUMENTS 0802 14 MEDICAL R&M SUPPLIES 0803 00 FUEL 0804 00 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 0804 01 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 0804 02 CONS EQUIP NON-MOTORIZED 0804 03 EDUCATION/REC EQUIPMENT 0804 04 ENGR/SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT 0804 05 KITCHEN/LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT 0804 06 HEAT/COOL/LIGHT EQUIPMENT 0804 07 MEDICAL/LAB EQUIPMENT 0804 08 OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT 0804 09 SHOP EQUIPMENT 0804 10 WEAPONS/GUNS Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments FY 2003-04 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Name 0804 11 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0804 12 FURNITURE OVER $1000 0810 00 LEGAL SERVICES 0810 01 PARALEGAL/STUDENT TIME 0810 02 ATTORNEYS CRIM INDIG-COURT 0810 03 ATTORNEYS NON-CRIMIN COURT 0810 04 ATTORNEYS-JUVENILE COURTRT 0810 05 ATTORNEYS OTHER NON-COURT 0810 06 EXPERT WITNESS FEES/EXPENSE 0810 07 EYE WITNESS FEES/EXPENSE 0810 08 INTERPRETER FEES/EXPENSE 0810 09 VISITING JUDGES FEES 0810 10 MENTAL EXAMINATION FEES 0810 11 RULE 11 EXAM 0810 12 RULE 26.5 EXAM 0810 13 DEPOSITION REPORT SERVICE 0810 14 PRELIM HEARING/GRAND JURY 0810 15 TRIALS REPORT SERVICE 0810 16 APPEALS TRANSRIPTION SERVICE 0810 17 DEPOSITION TRANS SERVICE 0810 18 PRELIM HEAR/GRAND JURY TR S 0810 19 TRANSCRIPT MISCELLANEOUS 0810 20 JURY FEES 0810 21 JURY LODGING 0810 22 JURY MEALS 0810 23 JURY MILEAGE 0810 24 ARBITRATION EXPENSE 0810 25 JUDGEMENTS/SETTLEMENTS 0810 26 LITIGATION EXPENSE 0810 27 MERIT SYSTEM HEARING EXPENSE 0810 28 INVESTIGATION EXPENSE COURT IN 0810 29 INVESTIGATION TIME 0810 30 INVESTIGATION EXPENSE OTHER 0810 31 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION 0811 00 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 0811 01 NURSES 0811 02 MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 0811 03 DENTISTS 0811 04 PHYSICIANS 0811 05 CONTRACT MEDICAL PROVIDER 0811 06 HOSPITAL/MEDICAL SERVICES 0811 07 PRIMARY CARE SERVICES 0811 08 THERAPY SERVICES 0811 09 RADIOLOGY SERVICES 0811 10 EMERGENCIES 0811 11 PRESCRIPTIONS 0811 12 LABORATORY SERVICES 0811 13 TRANSPORTATION/AMBULANCE 0811 14 PATIENT TRANSPORT SVCS - MMC 0811 15 BAD DEBT EXPENSE 0812 00 OTHER SERVICES 0812 01 ACCOUNTING & AUDITING 0812 02 ACTUARIAL 0812 03 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 0812 04 HSA ALLOCATION 0812 05 ARCHITECTURAL 0812 06 APPRAISAL SERV 0812 07 CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Name 0812 08 BROKER FEES 0812 09 EDUCATORS & TRAINERS 0812 10 ENGINEERING 0812 11 TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING 0812 12 SECURITY GUARD SVCS 0812 13 CLAIMS ADMIN SERVICE FEE 0812 14 ARCOR PERSONNEL SERVICES 0812 15 ELECTION WORKERS OUTSIDE 0812 16 LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING SVCS 0812 17 PERSONNEL HIRE/TEST SVCS 0812 18 TEMPORARY HELP OUTSIDE 0812 19 COLLECTION FEES 0812 20 JTPA-OCCUPATIONAL/VOCATIONAL 0812 21 JTPA-OJT 0812 22 GP - AUTO LIABILITY 0812 23 GP - GENERAL LIABILITY 0812 24 GP - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 0812 25 OTHER INSURANCE 0812 26 AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE CLAIMS 0812 27 AUTO LIABILITY CLAIMS 0812 28 ENVIRONMENTAL LIAB CLAIMS 0812 29 BOILER INSURANCE 0812 30 COURSE CONST INSURANCE 0812 31 GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS 0812 32 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE 0812 33 WORKMENS COMP INDEMNITY 0812 34 WORKMENS COMP INSURANCE 0812 35 WORKMENS COMP MEDICAL 0812 36 DENTAL INSURANCE 0812 37 DISABILITY INSURANCE 0812 38 HEALTH CLAIMS 0812 39 HEALTH INSURANCE 0812 40 INDIVIDUAL/BLANKET BONDS 0812 41 UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS 0812 42 PROPERTY CLAIMS 0812 43 PROPERTY INSURANCE 0812 44 MALPRACTICE CLAIMS 0812 45 MALPRACTICE INSURANCE 0812 46 LIFE INSURANCE 0812 47 MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM 0812 48 NOTARY BONDS 0812 49 SIGHT CARE 0812 50 PRINTING-BINDING-DUPLICATION 0812 51 TAX SALE PUBLICATION 0812 52 OTHER PUBLICATION & ADV EXP 0812 53 RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES 0812 54 MEMBERSHIPS/CERT/LICENSE 0820 00 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 0820 01 RENT 0820 02 AUTOMOBLE RENT 0820 03 BUILDING RENT 0820 04 SPECICAL FUNCTION RENT 0820 05 COPYING EQUIPMENT RENT 0820 06 COMMUNICATION EQUIP RENT 0820 07 DATA PROCESSING EQUIP RENT 0820 08 GROUNDS/LAND RENT 0820 09 MEDICAL EQUIPMENT RENT 0820 10 OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENT 775 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Attachments FY 2003-04 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (Continued) Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Name 0825 00 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 0825 01 AUTOMOTIVE R&M 0825 02 BUILDING R&M 0825 03 CONSTRUCTION EQUIP R&M 0825 04 COMMUNICATION EQUIP R&M 0825 05 DATA PROCESS EQUIP R&M 0825 06 GROUNDS R&M 0825 07 HEAT/LIGHT/COOL R&M 0825 08 MEDICAL/LAB EQUIP R&M 0825 09 COPYING EQUIP R&M 0825 10 OFFICE EQUIP R&M 0825 11 JANITORIAL SERVICE 0830 00 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 0830 01 TAXES & ASSESSMENTS 0830 02 MANDATED HEALTH CARE PAYMENTS 0839 00 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 0839 01 TELECOM DISCRETIONARY 0839 02 COUNTY COUNSEL 0839 03 BASE LEVEL EQ SERVICES CHARGES 0839 04 RISK MANAGEMENT 0839 05 BASE LEVEL TELECOM 0839 06 TELECOM WIRELESS SYSTEMS 0839 07 REPROGRAPHICS 0839 08 MOTOR POOL 0842 00 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 0842 01 COUNTY SPONSORED TRAINING 0842 02 AIRLINE/BUS/TAXI 0842 03 MEALS 0842 04 LODGING 0842 05 EVENT COST 0842 06 MILEAGE ALLOWANCE 0842 07 EDUCATION 0842 08 SEMINAR FEES 0842 09 INVESTIGATIVE TRAVEL 0842 10 WITNESS TRAVEL 0842 11 PRISONER/COURT WARD TRAVEL 0843 00 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 0843 01 FREIGHT 0843 02 MOVING SERVICES 0843 03 POSTAGE 0843 04 SHIPPING 0843 05 COURIER SERVICE 0845 00 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 0845 01 BURIAL OF INDIGENTS 0845 02 PERSONAL CARE 0845 03 HOME MEALS SERVICE 0845 04 JTPA-FINANCIAL ASST.(NBP/NRP) 0845 05 NURSING HOMES 0850 00 UTILITIES 0850 01 MICROWAVE 0850 02 U S WEST CHARGES 0850 03 LONG DISTANCE CHARGES 0850 04 OTHER COMMUNICATION SERVICES 0850 05 ELECTRICITY 0850 06 NATURAL/PROPANE GAS 0850 07 REFUSE REMOVAL 0850 08 SEWAGE DISPOSAL 0850 09 WATER 776 Object Sub-Object Sub-Object Name 0850 10 INFECTIOUS WASTE DISPOSAL 0855 00 INTEREST EXPENSE 0865 00 DEPRECIATION 0870 00 OTHER ADJUSTMENTS 0870 02 ITEMS FOR RESALE 0870 04 ITEMS FOR INVENTORY 0870 05 INTERGOVT HOLDING ACCOUNT 0880 00 TRANSFERS OUT 0880 01 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCAT 0890 00 LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS 0910 00 LAND 0910 01 LAND ACQUISITION-ROW 0910 02 LAND ACQUISITION-OTHER 0910 03 RELOCATION-FACILITIES 0915 00 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 0915 01 CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRES 0915 02 ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS 0920 00 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 0920 01 COMMUNICATIONS CAP EQUIPMENT 0920 02 CONS CAP EQUIP NON-MOTORIZED 0920 03 EDUCATION/REC CAP EQUIPMENT 0920 04 ENGR/SCIENTIFIC CAP EQUIPMENT 0920 05 KITCHEN/LAUNDRY CAP EQUIPMENT 0920 06 HEAT/COOL/LIGHT CAP EQUIPMENT 0920 07 MED/LAB/ CAP CAP EQUIPMENT 0920 08 SHOP CAP EQUIPMENT 0920 09 COMPUTER CAP EQUIPMENT 0930 00 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 0930 01 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES 0930 02 TRAILERS 0930 03 OTHER MECHANIZED 0930 04 TRUCKS 0930 05 WATERCRAFT 0930 06 AIRCRAFT\HELICOPTERS 0930 07 PASSENGER VEHICLES 0940 00 INFRASTRUCTURE 0950 00 DEBT SERVICE 0950 01 PRINCIPAL BOND 0950 02 INTEREST BOND 0950 03 PRINCIPAL COP 0950 04 INTEREST COP 0950 05 PRINCIPAL CAPITAL LEASE 0950 06 INTEREST CAPITAL LEASE Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Glossary 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 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. 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. 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. 777 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Glossary 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. 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. 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. 778 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Glossary 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. 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. 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. 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. 779 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Glossary 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. Example of a departmental budget structure: Department 110 Adult Probation Budget Org (level 1) 1100 Administration Services " Org (level 2) 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. 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. 780 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Glossary 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. Sub-object Code: Identifies detailed balance sheet account, revenue source, or expenditure/expense type (e.g., cash on hand, current real property taxes, overtime wages). 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. 781 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 782 Glossary Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The Fiscal Year Maricopa County 2003-04 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, Neeraj Deshpande, Helen Dusick, Daren Frank, Cindy Goelz, Brian Hushek, Lisa Johnson, Heather Kettering, Vickie Mouland, Jack Patton, Ernie Prindle, Ken Proksa, Scott Rothe, Jamie Rullo, Don Tellis, Sharon Walker, Janette Weedon, Sandi Wilson and Ryan Wimmer. We would also like to thank Bill Arnold, 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 2003-04 Budget on June 23, 2003, and the corresponding tax rates on August 18, 2003, we start down the path of developing the FY 2004-05 Budget. 783 Maricopa County FY 2003-04 Annual Business Strategies 784 Acknowledgements