Maricopa County, Arizona Annual Business Strategies 2005-06 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, 2004. 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 Credits Board of Supervisors Max W. Wilson, Chairman, District 4 Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox, District 5 County Manager David R. Smith Deputy County Manager Sandra L. Wilson Deputy Budget Directors Christopher M. Bradley Brian G. Hushek Budget Administrator Lee Ann Bohn 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: Shawn Nau took the photograph on the cover of our Annual Business Strategies at Estrella Mountain Regional Park which is operated by the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation department. The scenic mountain view looks out towards the White Tank Mountain. Maricopa County Mission Statement The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Strategic Priorities • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. • Promote and protect the public health of the community. • Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. • Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. • Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. • Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. • Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. Approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors – June 6, 2005 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents Budget at a Glance i vii County Manager’s Transmittal Letter Expenditure Uses Econometric and Demographic Trends Property Taxes Managing For Results Detention Operations Criminal Justice Issues Public Health Mandated Health Care Maricopa Health Plans Capital Improvement Program Employee Issues and Concerns Impacts from the State of Arizona Conclusions 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 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 General Obligation - Debt Service Fund (312) Economic Development, Non-profits, Agricultural Extension and Accommodation Schools 11 11 13 13 14 21 24 24 24 25 Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2004-05 Revised Budget Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2004-05 Adopted Restated Budget Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Adopted to FY 2004-05 Adopted Restated Budget Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Adopted Restated to FY 2004-05 Revised Budget Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Revised to FY 2005-06 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 i 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 39 44 45 65 66 67 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Summary Schedules (Continued) 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 Results Initiatives Summary Eliminations Summary Transfers In by Fund Transfers Out by Fund Personnel Summary by Department Direct Assessment Special Districts Secondary Roll Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll 72 73 80 81 87 92 95 98 99 102 103 105 108 109 110 Personnel Plan Introduction Employee Satisfaction and Attrition Human Resources Infrastructure Human Resources Employment Services Staff Development Payroll and Records Employee Relations Special Corporate Initiatives Compensation and Awards Future Directions for Human Resources Budgeted FTE Summary 117 117 118 119 121 124 124 125 126 128 129 Capital Improvement Program Executive Summary Capital Improvement Projects Capital Projects Budget Operating & Capital Budgets - Their Relationship County Departments Buckeye Hills Shooting Range (Infrastructure) Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts Comfort Station Improvements Downtown Justice Center Environmental Services Facility Human Services Campus Maricopa Regional Trail System McDowell Mountain Regional Park Competitive Track New Administrative Services/Forensic Science Parking Garage Northeast Superior Court/Justice Court Expansion Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Public Health Clinic ii 133 133 136 137 138 141 143 146 149 152 154 156 158 161 163 165 167 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Capital Improvement Program (Continued) Security Building Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts/Parking Structure Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts Detention Fund Durango Jail Demolition Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center Fourth Avenue Jail Lower Buckeye Jail Madison Street Jail Renovations Towers Jail Renovations Maricopa County Department of Transportation Flood Control District of Maricopa County 171 172 174 176 178 179 182 185 188 190 192 296 Debt Service Debt Management Plan Debt Policies 333 346 County At A Glance County Profile County Seal and Flag Economy Population Employment Retail Sales Construction and Real Estate Market Health Care Criminal Justice Legislative Strategies 351 353 354 356 358 359 360 361 362 366 Managing for Results Introduction Why Are We Doing This? Managing for Results System 373 374 374 Financial Forecast Executive Summary General Assumptions Overall Fiscal Position Revenue Expenditures Revenue Assumption Detail Expenditure Assumption Detail Capital Projects General Fund Forecast Detention Fund-Operations Forecast 381 381 382 382 383 383 384 385 386 387 iii Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Financial Forecast (Continued) Detention Fund – Capital Projects Forecast Transportation Forecast – Operations and Capital Projects Forecast Flood Control District – Operations Forecast Flood Control District – Capital Projects Forecast Library District Forecast 388 389 390 391 392 Mandates Introduction Executive Summary FY 2005-06 Mandates For All Funds FY 2005-06 General Fund Mandates FY 2005-06 Mandates Excluding the General Fund Mandate Study – Summary Schedules 393 393 395 396 398 399 Departmental Budget Schedules Maricopa County Organization Countywide Organizational Chart Judicial Branch Judicial Organizational Chart Adult Probation Juvenile Probation Trial Courts Elected Officials Elected Officials Organizational Chart Assessor Board of Supervisors Board Of Supervisors District 1 Board Of Supervisors District 2 Board Of Supervisors District 3 Board Of Supervisors District 4 Board Of Supervisors District 5 Clerk Of The Superior Court Constables County Attorney Recorder Sheriff Superintendent Of Schools Treasurer Appointed Appointed Organizational Chart Air Quality Animal Care & Control Appropriated Fund Balance Call Center Chief Information Officer Clerk Of The Board of Supervisors Community Development 407 407 409 409 413 429 451 470 470 477 485 487 490 493 496 499 502 516 521 532 539 553 560 566 566 567 576 585 587 592 598 604 iv Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Departmental Budget Schedules (Continued) Correctional Health County Manager's Office Elections Eliminations Emergency Management Employee Health Initiatives Environmental Services Equipment Services Facilities Management Finance General Government Health Care Mandates Human Resources Human Services Indigent Representation System Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Internal Audit Management & Budget Maricopa Managed Care Systems Materials Management Medical Examiner Parks & Recreation Planning & Development Public Fiduciary Public Health Research & Reporting Risk Management Solid Waste Transportation Special Districts Special Districts Organizational Chart Flood Control District Library District Stadium District 609 618 624 630 631 639 647 657 663 673 680 682 694 700 705 733 741 747 752 758 764 771 782 791 797 811 816 821 828 837 837 838 851 856 Attachments Maricopa County's Mission Statement Maricopa County's Vision Statement Maricopa County's Strategic Priorities Maricopa County's Strategic Goals 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 863 863 863 863 866 870 871 872 873 874 875 877 v Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Table of Contents Attachments (Continued) Managing for Results Policy Performance Management Process Policy Reserve and Tax Reduction Policy Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes Policy for Administering Grants General Government Policy Vehicle Replacement Policy Fund Descriptions FY 2005-06 Revenue Object and Sub-Object Codes FY 2005-06 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes Arizona State Auditor General Forms 879 881 884 886 888 894 896 898 906 907 910 Glossary Term, Fund Definitions and Acronyms 921 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements 927 vi Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Budget At A Glance Introduction For the past 12 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 2005-06 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 so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Strategic Priorities: • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and costeffectiveness of services provided by the County. In support of each priority, the Board of Supervisors established a set of strategic goals. Maricopa County’s goals are long-term and address the entire organization, such as the long-term impacts of revenue shortfalls, including the significant drop in recurring state shared sales tax, and long-term financial planning and operations issues. The County’s policies apply to financial matters as well as programmatic (service delivery) concerns over a multiyear 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. vii Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies 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. 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 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. • Employee Performance Plans Evaluating Results • Performance Audit • Employee Evaluations • Resources Consumed Managing For Results • Citizen Survey & Input Reporting Results Deliver Services • Data Verified • Actuals vs. Forecasts • Baselines & Benchmarks • All Customers Included Collect Data Budgeting for Results 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. • Demand for Services • Performance Budget • Resource Allocation 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 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 viii Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance example, the Public Defender’s Office has a long-term goal of “maintain cost effectiveness by limiting the percentage of increases in the annual cost per case to no more than the percentage of increase in the overall annual funding of the County’s justice group.” The County Attorney has a goal to “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,” and to “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.” 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 environment. It is not practical to establish long-term goals in areas where regulations are continually changing. Examples of dramatic regulatory changes include: 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. Every department within Maricopa County has quantifiable short-term objectives, (e.g., open two new recycling drop-off centers by December 200x), that are linked to the County’s goals as established in it’s mission and strategic priorities. Through the annual strategic planning process review, every department is required to have goals that are linked to the County’s strategic priorities. This information may be found in the Departmental Budget Schedules section under department mission, goals, issues, key performance measures, and mandates. Example follow that show the relationship of department goals to the Maricopa County strategic priorities and strategic goals, and a strategic plan sample of the mission, several goals and key results measures for the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department. Maricopa County Strategic Priorities/Goals: • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. o By June 2007, reduce property crime rates and violent crime rates in Maricopa County by establishing and implementing a crime-prevention strategy that encompasses evidence-based practices. Department Goals for the Maricopa County Adult Probation: • By the end of fiscal year 2007, MCAPD will enhance public safety by: Reducing the number of probationers committed to the Department of Corrections to 20%. Reducing the number of probationers convicted of a new felony offense to 10%. Increase the rate of successful completions from probation to 65%. Increase the rate of successful completions from Pretrial Supervision to 80%. Strategic Plan from Maricopa County Adult Probation: The Mission of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department is to provide assistance and adult pretrial and probation services to neighborhoods, courts, offenders and victims so that they experience enhanced safety and well being. Goals Include: • By the end of fiscal year 2007, MCAPD will enhance public safety by: Reducing the number of probationers committed to the Department of Corrections to 20%. Reducing the number of probationers convicted of a new felony offense to 10%. Increase the rate of successful completions from probation to 65%. Increase the rate of successful completions from Pretrial Supervision to 80%. • By the end of fiscal year 2007, MCAPD will improve case processing as evidenced by: Maintaining at least a 97% on-time rate for submitting pre-sentence reports to the Court without a continuance. Increasing the rate of restitution collected to 80%. Increasing the rate of community work service completed to 50%. ix Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Increasing use of the Offender Screening Tool to 75% for newly sentenced probationers. Making use of the Field Reassessment Offender Screening Tool to develop case management plans at least 67% of the time. Example program with key results: Program Name: COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROGRAM 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. RESULT Percent of Standard probationers who successfully complete probation Percent of active IPS probationers not convicted of a new felony offense while supervised Percent of probationers paying restitution and/or performing community work service during the reporting period Percent of warrants cleared during the reporting period Percent of probationers appropriately monitored according to Indirect Services standards Percent of jailed probationers who receive services under the In-Custody Management Activity FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 61.0% 62.0% 62.0% 63.0% 64.0% 2.0% 3.2% 86.0% 85.0% 85.0% 86.0% 86.0% 1.0% 1.2% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% 0.0% 84.0% 85.0% 85.0% 86.0% 86.0% 1.0% 1.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% FY 2005-06 PTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED FY 2005-06 Budget Priorities And Issues The Transmittal Letter articulates budget priorities and issues for all funds, including significant priority changes from FY 2004-05, and the factors that led to those changes. These priorities and issues are highlighted by headings in the Transmittal Letter, such as the heading: Expenditure Uses, Econometric and Demographic Trends, Property Taxes, Managing For Results & Budgeting For Results, Detention Operations, Criminal Justice Issues, Public Health, Mandated Health Care, Maricopa Health Plans, Capital Improvement Program, Employee Issues and Concerns and Impacts from the State of Arizona. Fiscal Year 2005-06 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. x Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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. 220 Diversion — Pursuant to A.R.S. §13-1811, funds are utilized for the investigation, prosecution and deferred prosecution of bad check cases. 245 Justice Court Special Revenue — 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 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. 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. 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 • • Tax Penalties & Interest Grants • Shared Vehicle License Tax • State Shared Sales Tax • • • Payments in Lieu of Taxes Patient Service Revenue Miscellaneous Revenue • • • Other Charges for Services Fines & Forfeits Gain on Fixed Assets • • • • • • Sales Taxes Other Intergovernmental Shared Highway User Revenue Internal Service Charges Interest Earnings Transfers In A sample of the major assumptions underlying the primary property tax levy for the budget year are provided below, including the basis for the estimate and associated trends. The FY 2005-06 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. Although primary net assessed values are projected to grow steadily, the primary property tax rate, which is statutorily determined, declined in FY 2005-06 and will continue to decline in future fiscal years. It should be noted that 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 citizens. The Board reduced the overall property tax rate by $0.0137 in FY2005-06 The overall tax rate, including the special districts, is now $1.4611 per $100 of assessed valuation. Since fiscal year 1991-92 the rate has been held flat or reduced. The FY 2005-06 Budget includes an estimated primary property tax levy (excluding Salt River Project) of $371,224,118, an increase of $31,342,019 (9.2%) from the FY 2004-05 adopted primary levy. This increase is due to 10.5% growth in net assessed value, of which approximately half is due to new construction. After several years of relatively high growth in net assessed value, forecasts indicate a slowed, but steady growth in annual growth rates over the next five years. Net assessed values tend to lag behind the general economy. xi Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance The primary property tax may be used to support any type or level of service within the legal purview of the County. The County also levies secondary property taxes that are levied for a specific purpose, i.e. the Flood Control District and the Library District. State Shared Sales Tax Collections Fiscal Year General Fund 1995-96 $ 231,009,128 1996-97 242,352,311 1997-98 257,643,630 1998-99 279,386,536 1999-00 309,009,200 2000-01 322,429,593 2001-02 325,728,202 2002-03 330,260,143 2003-04 358,056,954 2004-05* 384,274,037 2005-06** 407,330,479 * Projected Actual ** Budget Revenue trends for the FY 2005-06 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. Listed at the left are the actual state shared sales tax collections for the last nine fiscal years, projected totals for FY 2004-05 plus the budget for FY 2005-06. 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. This strategy was changed in FY2002-03 as a result of the economic recession. Revenues are now budgeted based on the pessimistic scenario. Collections for FY 2004-05 are projected to exceed the budget, ending 7.3% higher than in FY 2003-04. Given continuing economic recovery, the FY 2005-06 budget for the General Fund estimates a 6.0% growth rate; resulting in $23,056,442 of additional State Shared Sales Tax revenue above the FY 2004-05 projected actual collections. 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 2005-06. “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 Name: User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Comfort Station Improvements Parks and Recreation Usery, McDowell, Estrella, and White Tank Mountain Regional Parks 1, 2, 4, & 5 Parks and Recreation Not Applicable December 2005 xii Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Project Description The purpose of this request is to fund the construction of replacement restroom buildings throughout the Maricopa County Park System (MCPRD). MCPRD is a non-mandated department; however, it is one of the most popular departments with the citizens of Maricopa County, thus our responsibility to respond to the public’s needs and demands. The MCPRD Visitor Study, September 2003, conducted by Arizona State University Department of Recreation Management and Tourism, states that restrooms are the highest amenity requested by those surveyed. Comfort station improvements will include site planning, engineering, and construction of 5 new comfort stations. The old comfort stations will be demolished and new comfort stations built. MCPRD’s comfort stations are literally coming apart, are a danger to the public, are a maintenance and operation nuisance, and are a cost-consuming problem to the staff and park system. Adding new comfort stations to the park system will reduce the maintenance costs and more importantly attract more visitors to the parks. The construction cost is estimated to be $1,135,445 and the architectural contract is $72,918, plus a change order of $5,538, for a total of $78,456. There are no costs associated with Facilities Management for any Parks related projects, and there are no direct staffing increases due to the new comfort station. As these buildings are all replacement restrooms, there are no resulting increases in operating costs. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project General Fund Imp Fund (445) $ - $ 60,724 $ 908,376 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 908,376 $ 969,100 Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) 244,801 244,801 244,801 Project Total $ - $ 60,724 $ 1,153,177 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,153,177 $ 1,213,901 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project $ 3,893,075 $ 4,102,571 $ 4,102,571 $ 1,419,978 1,917,929 1,917,929 283,499 575,541 575,541 $ 5,596,552 $ 6,596,041 $ 6,596,041 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,098,217 5,255,836 1,434,581 - $ 18,788,634 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Services $ 3,893,075 $ 4,102,571 $ 4,102,571 $ Supplies & Services 1,419,978 1,917,929 1,917,929 Capital Outlay 283,499 575,541 575,541 $ 5,596,552 $ 6,596,041 $ 6,596,041 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,098,217 5,255,836 1,434,581 - $ 18,788,634 Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Comfort Station Improvements Construction project is to build five new comfort stations at four MCPRD’s parks for the Maricopa County citizens and out of town visitors so that they may have a pleasant outdoor experience and return to the parks. xiii Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Strategic Goals We will increase community involvement and awareness through improved marketing and education programs in order to increase park attendance, revenues and funding. By July 2006 we will identify and fund the additional needed facilities and operational costs for each park for the next five years. 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 party. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Park Support Program Strategic Activities Supported • Maintenance and Development Strategic Services Supported • • • Utilities Clean Facilities Remodeled Structures/Improvements Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of park user satisfaction as related to facilities OUTPUT: Number of A/E contracts managed OUTPUT: Number of construction contracts managed DEMAND: Expected number of new structure/facility requests per year EFFICIENCY: Amount per new structure/facility constructed FY 2004-05 YTD Actual FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement FY 2004-05 Estimated 4.39 9 4.00 9 4.75 5 11 11 8 9 100 8 $300,000 $500,000 $400,000 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. A summary of this information is provided below. xiv Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance NEW FACILITY OPERATING COSTS FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 GENERAL FUND PROJECTS Buckeye Hills Shooting Range $ Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts Downtown Justice Center Environmental Services Building (Public Health) Human Services Campus McDowell Track Comfort Station Northeast Superior Court/Justice Court Expansion Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Southeast Consolidated Justice Crts/Parking Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts Public Health Clinic Security Building Subtotal General Fund $ 231,501 $ 14,893 273,204 3,790 153,803 177,347 140,769 520,851 615,648 2,131,806 $ 238,446 $ 108,347 1,052,673 43,567 213,928 182,638 188,271 144,946 492,508 634,117 3,299,441 $ 245,600 $ 103,120 1,065,838 44,335 220,346 1,500 188,087 193,889 170,579 238,191 504,515 653,141 3,629,141 $ 252,967 $ 97,530 1,079,399 45,354 226,956 1,500 193,700 199,676 175,696 239,454 516,881 672,735 3,701,848 $ 260,556 91,772 1,093,366 46,287 233,765 1,500 57,763 205,636 180,967 246,608 529,618 692,917 3,640,755 DETENTION FUND PROJECTS Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center $ Fourth Avenue Jail Lower Buckeye Jail Subtotal Detention Fund $ 5,070,363 $ 24,284,337 26,052,846 55,407,546 $ 5,218,128 $ 24,388,589 26,150,783 55,757,500 $ 5,370,220 $ 24,495,965 26,251,652 56,117,837 $ 5,527,493 $ 24,608,087 26,357,316 56,492,896 $ 4,069,698 24,723,573 22,729,530 51,522,801 TOTAL FUNDS $ 57,539,352 $ 59,056,941 $ 59,746,978 $ 60,194,744 $ 55,163,556 xv Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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: GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITES General Obligation Less: Amount available for Retirement of General Obligation Debt Lease Revenue Bonds Certificate of Participation Capital Leases DIRECT AND OVERALL NET DEBT MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA Audited Unaudited 6/30/03 6/30/04 $ 39,515,000 $ 20,165,000 (722,346) 91,558,756 5,808,084 19,414,905 Projected 6/30/05 $ 93,569,383 10,820,105 Projected 6/30/06 - $ 85,894,077 5,620,713 78,044,580 2,210,131 Direct Net Debt Overlapping Debt 1 $ 155,574,399 5,216,661,101 $ 124,554,488 5,343,308,638 $ 91,514,790 5,460,861,428 $ 80,254,711 5,581,000,379 Overall Net Debt $ 5,372,235,500 $ 5,467,863,126 $ 5,552,376,218 $ 5,661,255,090 Population Estimate 2 3,296,250 Full Value of Taxable Property 3 3,396,875 3,515,766 3,638,817 $ 194,235,322 $ 226,293,569 $ 246,659,990 $ 268,859,389 Ratios Direct Net Debt Per Capita $ 47.20 $ 36.67 $ 26.03 $ 22.06 Overall Net Debt Per Capita $ 1,629.80 $ 1,609.67 $ 1,579.28 $ 1,555.80 4 Direct Net Debt As Percentage Of Full Value Property Overall Net Debt As % Of FV Property FV Property Per Capita $ .0801% .0550% .0371% .0299% 2.77% 2.42% 2.25% 2.11% 58,926.15 $ 66,618.16 $ 70,158.25 $ 73,886.48 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. 2003-04 Constitutional General Obligation Bonding Capacity Maricopa County, Arizona 2003-04 Secondary Assessed Valuation 15% of Secondary Assessed Valuation Less: GO Bonded Debt Outstanding Plus: GO Debt Service Fund Balance Unused Fifteen Percent Borrowing Capacity $ 24,477,987,528 $ 4,121,698,129 (20,165,000) 4,101,533,129 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. xvi Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Basis of Budgeting The County is required by Arizona law to prepare and adopt a balanced budget annually for the General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, Enterprise and Capital Projects Funds. Arizona law further requires that no expenditure shall be made or liability incurred in excess of the amounts budgeted except as provided by law. The County prepares its budget on the same modified accrual basis of accounting used to record actual revenues and expenditures in the Governmental funds in the fund-based financial statements as detailed in the Executive Summary section. An explanation of the basis of budgeting for all funds is essentially the same as the Basis of Accounting. Appropriation levels are established on a departmental basis and lapse annually. Transfers during the year from the contingency account to a department’s budget require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted or as adjusted by allocations from reserves (contingency) or as amended by authorization from the Board of Supervisors. The County budgets for Governmental Fund types on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), with the exception of the following types of transactions: • Capital Lease Transactions • Bond Issuance Transactions • Arizona Long-Term Care System Refund Operations Guide Organization Structure 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. xvii Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 Clerk of the Board County Manager Internal Audit STAR Call Center Elections Deputy County Manager Legal Defender Deputy County Manager Management & Budget Human Resources Research & Reporting Chief Finance Officer Contract Counsel Public Defender Community Services Asst. County Manager Legal Advocacy Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Regional Dvlpmnt Srvcs Asst. County Manager Info Tech Officer Asst. County Manager Finance Parks & Recreation Planning & Development Risk Management Community Development Emergency Management Transportation Materials Management Human Services Facilities Management Solid Waste E-Government Technology Public Fiduciary Library District Equipment Services Flood Control District Customer Support Center Animal Care & Control Services Stadium District Environmental Services Public Works Office of the CIO Telecommunications General Government Health Care Mandates Health Plans Employee Health Initiatives Medical Examiner Public Health Correctional Health Phase II xviii Air Quality Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Arizona Courts in Maricopa County Judges of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Superior Court Judges Administrative Advisory Committees Judicial Executive Committee Presiding Judge and Associate Presiding Judge Limited Jurisdiction Advisory Committees Superior Court Bench Juvenile Probation Department Adult Probation Department Trial Courts Administration Justices of the Peace - 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 - Collections - Alternate Dispute Resolution - Jury Office Personnel A key element in position control is the historical tracking of funded positions and their full-time equivalent (FTE) status. A trend view of FTE levels puts into perspective the prior year’s staffing (and consequently service) funding decisions. The chart below represents a ten-year historical look at the County’s FTE levels. FTE’s reflect the hours budgeted for part-time positions converted to an equal number of full-time positions (based on a standard of 40 hours per week.) xix Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance Budgeted FTEs ADULT PROBATION AIR QUALITY ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE ASSESSOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 CALL CENTER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE COUNTY ATTORNEY ELECTIONS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FINANCE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT GENERAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM HEALTH CARE MANDATES 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 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC FIDUCIARY PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER RESEARCH & REPORTING RISK MANAGEMENT SHERIFF SOLID WASTE STADIUM DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SUPERIOR COURT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSPORTATION TREASURER TRIAL COURTS Total Departm e nts FY 1996-97 FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Acutal 851.00 937.00 949.00 1,045.00 1,120.50 1,175.00 1,092.00 120.00 125.00 135.00 130.00 146.00 132.50 140.00 1.00 297.00 334.00 329.00 325.00 326.00 321.80 322.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.80 8.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.50 10.00 20.00 20.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 34.00 106.00 70.00 64.00 62.00 67.00 67.00 66.50 596.25 589.00 596.00 599.00 620.00 666.00 689.00 7.50 10.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 26.00 27.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 8.25 7.25 135.78 165.00 177.00 223.00 220.40 263.75 264.78 12.00 13.00 15.00 13.00 16.00 18.00 11.33 737.30 742.00 796.00 831.00 850.00 828.50 917.25 57.00 55.00 53.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 16.00 238.60 245.00 272.00 267.00 266.75 283.00 273.50 63.00 65.00 60.00 60.00 62.00 63.00 63.00 183.40 158.00 158.00 192.00 202.50 235.00 248.25 53.00 49.00 46.00 42.00 36.00 43.00 44.00 240.00 241.00 222.00 222.00 222.25 223.00 226.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 11.00 9.00 2,630.50 2,099.00 1,812.00 1,766.00 3,013.25 3,326.01 3,326.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.00 41.00 34.00 64.00 63.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 96.00 81.00 82.00 79.00 81.00 67.25 66.20 256.00 286.00 281.00 295.00 287.00 368.00 369.00 349.19 421.00 459.00 446.00 466.25 1.00 14.00 15.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 15.00 16.00 16.00 36.00 228.75 244.00 294.00 280.00 287.01 300.06 794.00 784.00 827.50 868.50 540.00 589.00 679.00 53.00 60.50 69.00 74.75 126.66 134.00 146.00 143.00 118.00 135.50 135.50 22.00 21.00 22.00 24.00 18.00 22.00 22.00 377.50 444.00 361.00 353.00 345.70 357.47 357.47 53.00 47.00 38.00 39.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 337.50 342.00 263.00 298.00 292.50 291.50 45.50 47.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 64.00 63.00 76.84 77.00 74.00 80.00 86.50 98.46 104.00 125.00 54.00 66.00 65.00 93.00 108.00 115.00 433.30 430.30 41.00 37.00 33.00 33.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 503.25 460.00 441.00 479.00 459.24 523.48 534.89 63.00 66.00 65.00 69.00 69.00 71.25 71.25 14.50 14.00 8.00 7.00 34.50 9.50 6.75 12.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 20.00 19.00 2,108.00 2,188.00 2,235.00 2,428.00 2,482.50 2,465.00 2,487.75 45.00 19.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 12.00 14.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 29.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 28.00 29.00 677.60 764.00 819.00 873.00 910.20 981.00 42.00 45.00 41.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 43.00 511.00 522.00 512.00 511.00 511.50 504.00 477.75 66.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 1,273.31 13,166.12 13,099.00 12,963.00 13,626.00 15,117.55 15,974.38 15,789.29 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 Acutal Actual Adopte d 1,144.00 1,166.00 1,193.00 134.00 131.00 143.60 151.00 149.00 321.00 321.00 331.00 7.00 7.00 7.35 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 62.00 106.17 109.00 695.00 683.00 743.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 7.25 9.50 9.50 363.75 380.63 348.10 21.00 13.50 21.00 987.55 996.50 992.50 54.00 55.00 54.00 15.00 16.00 15.00 24.00 30.00 23.00 300.50 194.84 196.79 60.75 59.75 53.75 269.00 301.00 263.50 42.00 44.00 44.00 225.00 209.00 208.00 3,528.29 3,691.44 31.00 31.00 31.00 51.00 55.00 55.00 436.00 478.20 463.00 21.00 18.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 919.00 962.00 966.00 63.50 78.50 79.50 79.00 96.00 96.00 135.50 151.69 150.69 21.00 25.00 32.00 415.43 364.49 368.67 35.00 35.00 35.00 66.00 66.00 70.00 87.00 88.00 88.00 159.00 185.00 190.00 435.80 470.10 470.10 34.00 37.00 36.00 567.60 564.05 574.93 70.25 80.25 80.25 8.75 8.75 7.25 19.00 20.00 20.00 2,731.50 3,223.50 3,558.00 13.00 12.00 13.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 32.00 32.00 33.00 42.00 479.00 477.00 477.00 57.00 59.75 59.75 1,247.33 1,376.03 1,399.03 16,637.85 17,679.14 14,371.65 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 2004-05 to FY 2005-06 decreased by 3,307.5 full-time equivalents (FTE’s), or 18.71%. The decrease is due to the creation of the Special Health Care District on January 1, 2005. Other significant changes in staffing levels from FY 2004-05 to FY 2005-06, including variance explanations, are provided by department at the end of the Personnel Plan section. xx Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 2005-06 Maricopa County budget, its processes, issues and anticipated outcomes is presented in the 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). The combination of the budgeting and strategic planning processes, particularly in terms of budgeting to achieve desired results, is referred to as Budgeting for Results. 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 2005-06 budget may be found in the Attachments section, along with the Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines. Communicating with Charts and Graphs Charts/tables and graphs are used throughout the budget document to highlight financial and statistical information. Detailed narrative interpretation is provided when the message conveyed by the charts and graphs are not self-evident. Charts/tables and graphics are integrated with narratives to illustrate essential information throughout this budget document, particularly when communicating policy information, trends and impacts upon the budget. The County At A Glance, Personnel Plan, Mandates, and Departmental Budget Schedules sections contain the most charts/tables and graphs. xxi Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance 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. County Manager’s Transmittal Letter Expenditure Uses 1 Econometric and Demographic Trends Property Taxes Managing For Results Detention Operations Criminal Justice Issues Public Health Mandated Health Care Maricopa Health Plans Capital Improvement Program Employee Issues and Concerns Impacts from the State of Arizona Conclusions 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 7 7 8 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. xxii Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 2005-06 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 header, 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. xxiii Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Budget At A Glance xxiv Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter Transmittal Letter To: Max W. Wilson, Chairman, District 4 Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 The budget for 2005-06 is structurally balanced, is based on efficient and effective distribution of funds to high priority areas, and lowers our overall property tax rate. The recommended budget is $2.357 billion dollars, which is a $246.3 million reduction from the prior fiscal year’s budget. This is primarily due to the transfer of the health care delivery system from Maricopa County to the Special Health Care District, which alone causes a net reduction of $285.2 million. This reduction is offset by increases in employee health, dental and retirement costs, increased costs for the jail and juvenile detention operations, mandated health care costs paid to the State of Arizona, increases in contingencies and Maricopa health plan losses. Overall, the operational budget is being reduced by 6.1%. The general fund is decreasing by $10.3 million or 1% due to reductions in CIP expenditures and a reduction in the disproportionate share match payment to the State. On December 13, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted budget guidelines for the 2005-06 budget preparation season. The guidelines this year continued the theme of addressing critical justice issues, including the continued phase in of the new adult and juvenile detention facilities. In addition, this year the Board of Supervisors has allowed us to look at public health issues that were not considered in the last several years. Employee compensation is also a Board of Supervisors priority, as we continue to address employee health and dental benefits, performance pay, and market-based adjustments. Another major evolution for the community was the creation of the Special Health Care District on February 2, 2004. The voters, with the passage of Proposition 414, approved this district in November, 2003, and the new Board of Directors was elected in November 2004. On January 1, 2005, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors transferred the Health Delivery System to the Special Health Care District. The newly elected Board of Directors for the District has been working with the Board of Supervisors to ensure a smooth transition. There have been several joint meetings, and the County has offered to assist the District during its initial year of formation. Currently, the two boards are working together on the possible transfer of one or both of the Maricopa County Health Plans (Acute and Long-Term Care Plans) to the District. The County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution to divest the County of these enterprises by September 30, 2005. Expenditure Uses Maricopa County is a very diverse organization that can be thought of as a large corporate conglomerate with many missions. Our programs and activities are largely based on mandates from the State of Arizona. Very few functions within the County are non-mandated, which account for only 17% of our expenditures. At the right is a graphical illustration of our cost drivers. Mandated health care and public safety make up over 66% of our expenses. The balance is spent in general government, highways and streets, culture and recreation, and education. 1 Uses of Funds FY 2005-06 $2,106,313,411 Education 0.10% Culture & Recreation 1.44% General Government 29.09% Public Safety 35.98% Highways & Streets 7.89% Health, Welfare & Sanitation 25.50% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter Econometric and Demographic Trends Maricopa County continues to be one of the fastest growing regions in the United States. The County is the fourth largest in the nation with a population of over 3.5 million, and we are growing at a rate of 3.3% per year. This puts a strain on services and requires our County to continuously work more efficiently and effectively. This high growth trend is expected to continue in the next decade. By 2010, the population in Maricopa County is forecasted to be 4.2 million and will comprise 61% of the total for the state. All of the growth contributes to our strong revenue forecast for next fiscal year. State-shared sales taxes will grow 7.1% to $407 million in 2005-06. This is a very healthy gain. State-shared vehicle license tax revenue will be growing at a slightly lower rate of 4.1% to $126 million. The strong growth in these primary revenue streams will help us keep pace with the mandated responsibilities such as criminal justice, mandated health care (including public health) and general government issues while keeping property taxes low. Property Taxes Property taxes in Maricopa County are low in comparison to other counties in the State. Of the largest counties in the State, the next lowest primary rate in FY 2004-05 was Yavapai County at $1.7008. Our proposed primary property tax rate for 2005-06 is $1.1971. This is a rate drop of $.0137 or 1.14%. The Library District is also dropping $.0100, to a rate of $.0421, which is a 19.2% reduction. The overall rate, including the Flood Control District and the Library District, will be $1.4511. This is the lowest overall property tax rate for Maricopa County in 26 years. This is partially due to the elimination of the general obligation debt service rate in fiscal year 2004-05. We are one of the largest local governments in the country without any general obligation bond debt outstanding. This significantly lowers the property tax burden in this County. The combined property tax rate has dropped consistently in Maricopa County over the last decade. A taxpayer who owns a $200,000 residential home with a static assessment will see a reduction in their annual property taxes of $4.74. This, again, includes the primary property taxes collected from Maricopa County and the Flood Control and Library District’s levies. Managing For Results Maricopa County is nationally renowned for our Managing for Results program. We received an A- in this category from Governing Magazine and Syracuse University during the Government Performance Project review of Counties in 2002. We are continually working to improve our program and have taken major steps to develop a very comprehensive and usable plan. In April 2004, the Board of Supervisors held a two-day strategic planning discussion. It was a successful interchange with Supervisors, Community Leaders, and County staff. As a result of those concentrated sessions, a DRAFT mission statement and revised strategic priorities were developed. They are listed below: Proposed Mission Statement: To provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Proposed Strategic Priorities: • • • • • Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Promote a healthy and educated populace. Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Carefully manage land use in Maricopa County to preserve and strengthen our environment. 2 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies • • Transmittal Letter Continue to improve the County’s public image based on increased citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-efficiency of products and services provided by the County. Maintain a quality workforce and equip employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs well. The revisions to the strategic plan are expected to be approved by the Board of Supervisors in June 2005. This will then provide more specific direction to departments who will be revising their departmental strategic plans in Fall 2005. Budgeting for Results is a component of Managing for Results. This initiative ties the budgeting process to outcome-based fiscal decisions. Enhancements to the process this year included further development of our activity-based costing models and process, including alignment of revenues to activities. This will significantly improve our future fee analysis in specific programs. In a number of departments, realignment of program/activity/ service structures occurred. This will allow us to make better funding decisions and track the proper outcome-based performance measures. Standardization of our budgeting for results documentation and result expectations were communicated with departments through training sessions. All of these improvements will allow us to have better information with which to make budgeting decisions, and will ensure that the dollars allocated are resulting in desired outcomes. Note that these changes are reflected in the departmental sections of this document, and particularly in the approach to funding Results Initiatives. Detention Operations All of our new adult and juvenile detention facilities opened in fiscal year 2004-05. The full-year impact of these openings, and the close-out of these facility projects are reflected in the 2005-06 budget. There is over $14 million budgeted to meet the full-year staffing requirements of these new facilities. In addition, minor amounts have been allocated for the completion of the construction costs for the 4th Avenue Jail, Lower Buckeye Jail, and the Juvenile Detention facility at Durango. The average daily adult jail population is projected to grow by 6.1% in FY 2004-05, and the budget assumes a 3.0% growth rate for FY 2005-06. The average daily juvenile detention population is projected to grow at 1.6% for fiscal year 2005, and a similar rate of growth is expected next year as well. This means that we must continue to look for performance-based alternatives to incarceration, and that we will need to continue to plan for new detention facilities to meet the inmate population projections in the coming years. Criminal Justice Issues Criminal Justice issues received much review and funding during this budget. There were two areas of concentration: prevention programs and expansion of the court’s functions. Both of these initiatives are a smart way for the County to deal with the growing criminal court casework and growing inmate populations in our adult and juvenile detention facilities. The alternatives to incarceration and prevention programs are being expanded significantly next fiscal year. We utilized performance-based criteria when evaluating these programs, and feel confident that investing in 3 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter these initiatives will show measurable improvements in our outcomes. Three programs that target the juvenile population are competency restoration, the youth recovery academy expansion, and alternatives to detention. We will invest over $2.6 million in these programs. In addition, initiatives focused on adult offenders include the pre-trial services bail unit and probation field services programs, which together are budgeted at $1.4 million. Substance abuse and mental health issues have been given significant funding for the next budget year. The ALPHA program, run by the Sheriff’s Office, has been found to significantly reduce the rate of recidivism for participating offenders. It is projected that 88% of ALPHA program graduates will not return to jail within two years. Additional funding is set aside in the budget to potentially expand the existing ALPHA program and to develop a new program focused on offenders with co-occurring serious mental illnesses. Along with these initiatives, the DUI Court is being expanded to improve the processing time for DUI cases, as well as provide better opportunities for diversion and treatment. The DUI Court has been quite efficient in the past. Finally, a mental health court consolidation will combine the civil and criminal departments that deal with this population. The expected outcome is sharing of information and collaborative decision-making to reduce the number of defendants that return to this court. Substance abuse and mental health cases are a growing nationwide issue for courts, jails, and prisons. Other court expansions include new judgeships and commissioners for the Superior Court. This will allow the trial courts to better meet their obligation to resolve original case filings within the established trial court standards. Interpreters are being added to court staff as we see an increasing need to address the demand for these services and maintain court standards. Finally, the Northwest Regional Court will be expanded with more staff to enable cases to be processed within the trial court standards that have been established. The Northeast Regional Court will be equipped with e-courtroom that will expedite case flow and increase efficiency while minimizing future staffing needs. Public Health Public health issues are important to our community and have not received much additional funding for a number of years. This year, tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control is being fully funded. This is a mandate that goes back to Territorial days and was one of the first mandates for the County. Unfortunately, TB has been on the rise in the past several years. Nurses and other medical staff will be added with an expected outcome of intervening in 100% of all suspected TB and actual TB cases. West Nile Virus continues to be an issue in this community. The Board of Supervisors allocated $3.2 million in appropriated fund balance for Environmental Services and Public Health to prevent the outbreak of this disease in the current year, and we have allocated an additional $4 million for FY 2005-06. In FY 2005-06, we will explore ongoing additions to Environmental Services mosquito abatement activities. Finally, Air Quality is an issue which has received much attention in the past year. This was a division of Environmental Services that has been split into a separate department. The specific fiscal needs of this department are still being evaluated, but additional resources could be allocated before final adoption. Mandated Health Care The largest component of the general fund in Maricopa County is Mandated Health Care. 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 County’s contribution to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) for the State’s indigent acute care program is expected to be $45.9 million next year. This contribution has been relatively stable over the past several years. The cost of the Arizona Long-Term Care System (ALTCS), however, will jump by $10.9 million to a cost of $136.5 million. Other State mandates include a court-ordered mandate (Arnold v. Sarn) for the seriously mentally ill. The increased cost for this issue next fiscal year is $2.1 million. 4 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter The Health Care Mandates Department manages a series of lawsuits involving Maricopa County's administration of the State's indigent health care eligibility program. The amount of full billed charges associated with the lawsuits was, at its apex, approximately $350 million. Approximately one-third of the claims have now been resolved through a mediation process at less then three percent of the applicable fully billed changes. The remaining claims are subject to a court-mandated settlement process. Maricopa Health Plans The most difficult fiscal issue facing the County is the financial losses in the Maricopa Health Plans. The health plans are an insurance-based service, which, at one time, was a part of the Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS). MIHS is no longer integrated, since the health delivery system, which includes the hospital, the 12 family health centers, Desert Vista behavior health center, and the comprehensive health center moved to the Special Health Care District (SHCD) on January 1, 2005. Maricopa County did not move the health plans to the SHCD because of a desire to ensure that they were operating efficiently prior to hand-off. During the last two fiscal years, the plans have suffered from significant financial losses. The total projected losses required support from the General Fund. Losses for fiscal years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were over $95 million. After significant analysis, operational improvements, and the successful implementation of a third-party administrator for claims processing, it has been determined that the Maricopa Long-Term Care Plan will not become profitable prior to contract expiration. The Maricopa Health Plan, which is an acute care AHCCCS plan, may be close to breakeven in the next fiscal year. The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on April 20th, 2005, indicating that they would discontinue operation of both of these health plans by September 30, 2005. This is the end of a plan year, and so it is an acceptable date for the State of Arizona AHCCCS administration. The SHCD has been notified and may either accept one plan, both plans, or none of the plans. Either way, the County will be out of the business within the next several months. The 2005-06 budget has subsidies and reserves that would be applied to the administrative run-out costs and the liability tail when these plans cease County operations on September 30th. Maricopa County may have a variety of liabilities depending on how we are able to dispose of the plans; therefore, significant reserves have been budgeted. Once Maricopa County is out of the business, we can begin to revitalize our Capital Improvement Program (CIP). However, at this point, because of the great losses experienced over the course of the last two years, the Office of Management and Budget is not recommending budgeting new dollars in CIP. All reserves must be maximized and held to avoid fiscal difficulties if Health Plan losses are greater than those anticipated in this budget. Capital Improvement Program Maricopa County began our Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in FY 1999-00. Our CIP plan is a modified “pay as you go” financial policy. We use this process for the general fund, detention fund, intergovernmental fund, transportation fund, and Flood Control District. The County pays cash for most projects. Other projects use a combination of identified operational savings and lease reversions to pay the debt service on new facilities. Fiscal Year 2004 was the final year of the County’s 1986 General Obligation (GO) bonds. So in this budget year, the County does not have any GO bond debt, and we are practically debt-free. The debt that the County has is in the form of Certificates of Participation (COPs) or Lease Revenue Bonds. We pay for the debt service on these with either cash that has been set aside, or lease reversions and operational savings. 5 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter However, in fiscal year 2004-05 and again in the 2005-06 budget we have begun to develop operational capacity that can be used for debt service on larger projects, such as the proposed Criminal Court Tower. This project is estimated at $150 million. This strategy will allow us to meet our capital needs without requesting a new G.O. bond on these large infrastructure issues. There are a number of major projects that were completed in fiscal year 2004-05. They include the Sheriff’s property and evidence warehouse, Public Health clinic, and San Tan Mountain and McDowell Mountain Regional Park improvements. Continuing projects include a number of court projects and several other critical business items. They are listed below. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Northeast Superior Court/Justice Court Expansion Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Downtown Justice Center Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts/Parking Structure Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts Human Services Campus Security Building Improvements New Admin Services/ Forensic Science Center Parking Maricopa Regional Trails System McDowell Track Comfort Station Park Comfort Station Improvements Buckeye Hills Shooting Range 4th Avenue Jail Lower Buckeye Jail Juvenile Detention – Durango Detention Facilities Renovations The Maricopa County’s Department of Transportation employs an objective planning procedure for evaluating and ranking potential projects for inclusion in its five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This procedure includes using equally weighted, objective criteria to score and rank potential projects. The ranking criteria used by the department includes the following criteria: safety, land use, current and future traffic volumes, a cost/benefit analysis, and joint sponsorship. The process also utilizes bonus points for intelligent transportation systems, alternative modes and environmental enhancements. A separate ranking system exists for evaluating potential bridges, channel upgrades, bicycle, pedestrian, and other multi-modal improvements. The primary source of funding for TIP is Highway User Revenue known as HURF funds. The County must spend these funds only on transportation-related items. Other funds received that are applied to these projects include: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds, Maricopa Association of Governments funding, and Federal Emergency Management funds. We also participate in partnerships with other local jurisdictions, State agencies, the federal government, and private corporations. This budget recommends a five-year TIP of $384.9 million. Of that total, $110.6 is budgeted for the 2005-06 fiscal year. The Flood Control District is a separate legal entity from Maricopa County. It is funded primarily through a dedicated property tax that is levied by the Board of Directors. The District also utilizes a separate planning process determining the capital projects to pursue. The procedure includes intergovernmental agency collaboration and prioritization based on an established list of ranking criteria for designated types of projects. The prioritization procedure is a multi-step decision process. Potential CIP projects are identified primarily though agency requests, area drainage master studies/area drainage master plans, flood delineation studies, or other District programs. 6 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter This budget recommends a $317.1 million five-year CIP for the Flood Control District, with $62.1 million budgeted for fiscal year 2005-06. The total capital projects associated with this fiscal year is 23 with a total of 40 projects begun in the five-year plan. Unfunded capital improvement needs are being tallied by the Facilities Management department and monitored closely by the Office of Management and Budget. Of those projects that have been estimated, over $550 million will be required in the coming years. There are a number of items that must be addressed in the next several years. As was stated above, we are building operational capacity in the general fund and the detention fund to have a safeguard funding mechanism in the future. The projects that have been identified, but not yet funded, include: Criminal Court Tower, Central Court Remodel, Regional Court Expansion, Parks Improvement Plan, Animal Care and Control Shelters, Sheriff’s Administrative Building, just to name a few. In the coming years, this will be a high budget priority. Employee Issues and Concerns Maricopa County invests in its employees, and the result is a highly efficient and effective delivery of services to our citizens. In the proposed budget, we are budgeting funding for performance pay and market adjustments for employees. There were several years in the past when Maricopa County was unable to adequately fund employee compensation. In fiscal year 2004-05, we reinstated this funding. This will be the second year of “catch-up” on both performance pay and market adjustments. We are hopeful that we will be able to bring all high turnover jobs under control in the coming year with these adjustments. Turnover is costly to the County. Keeping pace with the market is imperative if we want to provide high quality services. Over $50 million dollars has been budgeted in all funds for compensation. In addition to salary compensation, Maricopa County must continue to review its employee benefit package and fund these additional costs. Health, dental and retirement benefit increases will again result in significant costs to the County. The employer increases in costs will be $32.2 million in the coming year. These costs will be passed onto both the employer (Maricopa County) and the employees. The Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) is increasing the contribution rate to the pension plan for both the employer (budgeted at a 2.55% rate increase) and the employee. In addition to this, in January of 2006, we anticipate that our health and dental premiums for both the employer and employees will increase dramatically. Since our negotiations with the insurance companies are not complete, we do not have a specific increase determined, but the 6month increase will need to be funded from our contingencies, once determined. In the next fiscal year, we have funded other employee programs such as Tuition Reimbursement, Gainsharing Plans and Peak Performers. All of these programs encourage cost efficiency and quality customer service. We will continue to review the success of these employee-based incentive programs and may recommend an expansion of these incentive programs, along with the Rewarding Ideas Program, in the coming year. Our employees are the basis of our success and need to be rewarded and appreciated for a job well done. Impacts from the State of Arizona Last year, Maricopa County completed a two-year budget agreement with the State of Arizona. The State had asked the counties to assist them with budget balancing, since budget deficits had been occurring for three years running at the State level. Maricopa County reached an agreement with the State and offered our assistance. The State, in turn, agreed to return some of the funding in fiscal year 2005-06. However, as we began to finalize our recommended budget, the State budget was still in negotiation. After completion of the Recommended budget, the Arizona House and Senate passed a budget that is being sent onto the Governor’s Office. The State legislative budget is expected to be signed by the Governor. This State budget will be returning to Maricopa County approximately $20.5 million of the $50 million that the County passed onto the State in the past several years. These are reoccurring reductions in our State 7 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter mandated costs. The reductions will occur in the Long-term Care and Acute Care contributions to the State (Arizona Health Care Cost Containment) AHCCCS programs. These are all Medicaid managed care programs that are run by the State. Programming these new-found monies would occur between tentative budget adoption and final budget adoption through discussion with the Board of Supervisors. We are grateful to the State leaders for supporting the return of funding to Maricopa County. Conclusions The Board of Supervisors continues to provide exceptional leadership. It is the Board’s policy direction that was used in the development of this fiscally sound budget. We believe the budget will provide high quality services in a cost conscious way. By moving forward with Managing for Results, we will continue to monitor our outcomes and report these to the citizens of Maricopa County. Special thanks to the Elected Officials, the Judicial Branch officers, and the Appointed Directors and Executives of the County, for their assistance and cooperation during the budget development process. Sincerely, David R. Smith County Manager On June 6 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following Mission, Vision and Strategic Priorities: Mission: The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community Vision: Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, innovatively, efficiently and effectively. responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. We will be Strategic Priorities: • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. • Promote and protect the public health of the community. • Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. • Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. • Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. • Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. • Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. 8 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter On June 20, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved the 2005-06 Final Budget, with a decrease from the Tentative Budget, including the Flood Control, Library, and Stadium Districts, in the amount of $251,169,842. General Fund revenues increased due to additional payments in lieu of taxes and fees associated with tax sales. General Fund expenditures decreased slightly, mainly due to a decrease in payments owed to the State that was offset by a loan to the new Maricopa County Special Health Care District. Debt service fund revenue and expenditures both decreased due to offsetting technical corrections. Special revenue fund revenues increased slightly mainly due to additional grant funds. Special revenue fund expenditures increased overall, due primarily to increases in funding to Public Health for Vital Registration and to the new Air Quality department for vehicles. Capital project fund revenue and expenditures increased mainly as the result of tenant improvements for the Security Building. Enterprise fund revenues and expenditures decreased due to the scheduled discontinuation of the Maricopa Health Plan and the Maricopa Long Term Care Plan. Changes in fund transfers required corresponding changes to the Eliminations budget. 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 18, 2005. On August 15, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved the tax rates for FY 2005-06, which included a change to the Library District property tax rate from the preliminary rate of $0.0421 to the final rate of $0.0521. This change impacts the Library District’s FY2005-06 property tax revenue, increasing it $3,319,722. The Board of Supervisors subsequently revised the FY 2005-06 revenue and expenditure budgets for the Library District from the original adopted amounts to incorporate result of the tax rate that was fixed and determined by them on August 15 The accompanying schedules are reflective of the adopted budget amounts, exclusive of the additional revenue and expenditures. 9 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Transmittal Letter 10 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 non-major 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. Non-operating revenues, such as subsidies and investment earnings, result from transactions in which the parties do not 11 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies exchange equal values. revenues. Executive Summary Revenues generated by ancillary activities are also reported as non-operating The County reports and budgets for the following major governmental funds: 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. Transportation Fund – Plans and implements an environmentally balanced multi-model transportation system. Operations are funded through highway user tax. 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. Detention Operations Fund – Accounts for the proceeds associated with the 1/5 of one cent Sales Tax approved by voters in 1998, and extended in 2002. The proceeds are for the construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. The Detention Operations Fund is used to account for operating activities. Detention Capital Projects Fund – Accounts for Detention Operations Fund proceeds that are earmarked for capital improvement projects. County Improvement Fund – Accounts for capital projects funded through the issuance of the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2001. The County reports the following major enterprise funds: Maricopa Health Plan Fund – Accounts for the operations of an ambulatory health care plan operated by Maricopa Managed Care System (MMCS) prior to October 1, 2005. MMCS contracted with the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), which provided monthly capitation revenues based on MCHP plan enrollment. Ongoing operations were transferred to the Maricopa County Special Health Care District on October 1, 2005 but reporting and claims processing activities associated with liabilities accrued prior to that data will continue at least through June 30, 2006. Arizona Long-Term Care System (ALTCS) Fund – Accounts for the operations of a managed care, long term care plan operated by Maricopa Managed Care Systems (MMCS) prior to October 1, 2005 under a contract with AHCCCS. Ongoing operations ceased on October 1, 2005 with termination of the contract by the County, and current plan members were transferred to other AHCCCS contractors. Reporting and claims processing activities associated with liabilities accrued prior to October 1, 2005 will continue at least through June 30, 2006. Health Care Delivery System Fund – Accounted for the operations of the Maricopa Medical Center, which was transferred to the Maricopa County Special Health Care District as of January 1, 2005. This fund has been discontinued by the County. The County reports the following fund types: 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. Investment trust fund – accounts for pooled assets held and invested by the County Treasurer on behalf of county departments and other governmental entities. 12 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary Agency funds – account for assets held by the County as an agent for the State and various local governments, for the property taxes collected and distributed to the State, local school districts, community college districts and special districts. Basis of Accounting The government-wide, proprietary, and fiduciary fund financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when the related cash flows take place. Property taxes are recognized as revenue in the year for which they are levied. Grants and donations are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental funds in the fund-based financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when measurable and available. The County considers all revenues reported in the governmental funds to be available if the revenues are collected within 60 days after year-end. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, except for principal and interest on general long-term debt, claims and judgments, compensated absences, and landfill closure and postclosure care costs, which are recognized as expenditures to the extent they are due and payable. General capital asset acquisitions are reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Proceeds of general long-term debt and acquisitions under capital leases are reported as other financing sources. 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 Sports Authority, Probate Programs, Regional Schools, and Taxpayers’ Information Funds is not specifically budgeted, but is presented as separate funds in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 13 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary Budget Process Introduction Maricopa County’s fiscal year begins July 1 and ends the following June 30, coinciding with the State of Arizona’s fiscal calendar. The Maricopa County budget process is closely tied to the strategic planning process, forming a continuous cycle of planning-budgeting-evaluation. The following timeline details the basic budget process. Budget Process Timeline Activity* JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Forecast Strategic Plans Develop BFR Approve BFR Instructions Budget kick-off ISF Estimates Requests 5-Year CIP Submitted Budget Reviews DCA Reviews Presentations Consolidates CAO Presents BOS Approves BOS Adopts Tax Rates Set Previous Years Tax Rate Setting *Activity Explanations Forecast 10 Year Financial Forecast developed based on economic trends Strategic Plans Departments update Strategic Plans and draft Results Initiatives due Develop BFR OMB develops Budgeting for Results guidelines Approve BFR Board of Supervisors approve Budgeting for Results guidelines Instructions OMB establishes expenditure levels and prepares budget instructions for departments to use in budget preparation Budget kick-off Budget kick-off meetings held; budget targets, guidelines, policies, and other documentation distributed; training provided ISF Estimates Internal Service Fund (ISF) cost estimates submitted to the OMB Requests Departments prepare budget requests 5-Year CIP 5-Year Capital Improvement Program developed and approved by the Board of Supervisors Submitted Departments submits budget requests Budget Reviews OMB reviews budget requests DCA Reviews The Deputy County Administrator (DCA) reviews appointed departments' budgets and negotiate budgets with Elected Officials and Judicial Branch Presentations Elected Officials and Judicial Branch budget requests presented to the Board of Supervisors Consolidates OMB consolidates the County's Tentative Budget CAO Presents County Administrative Officer presents Tentative Budget to the Board of Supervisors BOS Approves Board of Supervisors approve Tentative Budget BOS Adopts Board of Supervisors adopts the Final Budgets Tax Rates Set Property tax rates are approved by the Board 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 2005-06 and FY 2006-07 budget processes that follow, or the actual FY 2005-06 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. 14 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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 onetime 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 Count-wide so that they can adequately budget for internal services. Budget Requests Prepared: Departments must submit budget requests for revenue and expenditures that are consistent with the targets provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Any proposed increases to expenditure levels must be submitted as a Results Initiative Request. Departments must submit supporting documentation on revenues and expenditures for each of their distinct funds, and allocate budgets according to elements of their strategic plan. Capital projects funds must also be allocated by specific capital projects. In addition, detailed base budgets and Results Initiative Requests must be entered into the budget system. Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Submitted and Approved: Departments involved in capital construction must prepare and submit a five year budget for every project, and indicate how the project contributes to their strategic plan. This information is analyzed and compiled by the Office of Management and Budget, and presented to the Board of Supervisors for their review and approval. 15 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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. 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. 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 Manager Reviews and Negotiates Budgets: After analyzing requested budgets, the Office of Management and Budget prepares budget recommendations for the Deputy County Manager’s review. The Deputy County Manager 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. 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 Manager 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 Manager 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 and the Library District. 16 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary Fiscal Year 2005-06 Budget Process The FY 2005-06 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 2005-06. 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 2005-06 budget planning process. On December 13, 2004, 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. The budget kick-off meeting was held in December 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 beginning in December and reviewed them through the end of March. The Deputy County Manager (DCM) 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 June, the Office of Management and Budget consolidated the County's Tentative Budget which includes maximum expenditure limits. The County Manager presented the preliminary budget to the Board of Supervisors in late June. The Board of Supervisors adopted the final budget on June 20, 2005. The property tax rate, which must cover the expenditure total in the approved annual budget, was set on August 15, 2005. Fiscal Year 2006-07 Budget Process The FY 2006-07 budget process will be similar to that of a normal budget year. Beginning in July 2005, 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 2006-07. 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 mid-November 2005. 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 mid-March. The Deputy County Manager (DCM) 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 Manager 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 2006-07 Final Budget is scheduled for adoption by the Board of Supervisors in June 2006. 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 2006. 17 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary Statutory Requirements The Maricopa County budget adoption process is guided by various Arizona statutes. According to A.R.S. §4217101, “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 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 18 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary under section 42-17103. Any taxpayer may appear and be heard in favor of or against any proposed expenditure or tax levy. B. If a truth in taxation notice and hearing is required under section 42-17107, the governing body may combine the hearing under this section with the truth in taxation hearing.” The budget is adopted per A.R.S. §42-17105, “A. After the hearing on estimates under section 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 one-fourth page in size and shall be surrounded by a solid black border at least one-eighth inch in width. (d) The notice shall be in the following form, with the "truth in taxation hearing - notice of tax increase" headline in at least eighteen point type: 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 42-17104. 3. In addition to publishing the truth in taxation notice under paragraph 1 or mailing the notice under paragraph 2, the governing body shall issue a press release containing the truth in taxation notice. 4. The governing body shall consider a motion to levy the increased property taxes by roll call vote. 5. Within three days after the hearing, the governing body shall mail a copy of the truth in taxation notice, a statement of its publication or mailing and the result of the governing body's vote under paragraph 4 to the property tax oversight commission. 6. The governing body shall hold the truth in taxation hearing on or before the adoption of the 19 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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 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 revised that process through the “Managing for Results” initiation. 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 20 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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 were 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 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 broadband 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 21 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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 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 22 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 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 and Budget and approved by the County Manager.) 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 are defined as the difference between fund assets and fund liabilities. A reserve fund balance that is determined to exist during any fiscal year will be budgeted for the next fiscal year according to priorities established by this policy. Intent The policy provides for budgetary stability, debt reduction and, ultimately, stabilization and reduction of tax rates when possible. During times of economic downturn, such as an unexpected decrease in revenues or unavoidable increase in expenditures, the policy may be used to stabilize the general fund until appropriate long-term budgetary adjustments are made. However, every attempt will be made to forecast economic changes and manage finances in the new environment without expenditure of reserves or an increase in taxes. Reserves above the base level determined to ensure financial stability should be used to retire debt in advance of maturities. Further, the purpose of the policy is to demonstrate a commitment to the maintenance and, when possible, reduction of the tax rate while ensuring that Maricopa County remains financially stable and accountable to the citizens. 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 Manager will recommend to the Board of Supervisors a target unreserved balance for the coming fiscal year. The County Manager also recommends retention of proceeds from the sale of major County assets in the event of liabilities related to those assets. The County Manager’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. 23 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary • 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 Manager, without any further Board approval. General Obligation - Debt Service Fund (312) Pursuant to ARS 11-275, the Board of Supervisors authorizes the transfer of any monies received in the General Obligation - Debt Service Fund (Fund 312) to be reported in the General Fund (Fund 100). 24 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary Economic Development, Non-profits, Agricultural Extension and Accommodation Schools Agency Supported Greater Phoenix Economic Council Phoenix Chamber of Commerce Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau Maricopa County Sports Commission 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 Super Bowl Enriching Our Community Through Sports Insight Bowl 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 (Year 4 of 5) FY 2005-06 Budget $ 674,776 165,000 250,000 200,000 25,000 200,000 15,000 25,000 $ 1,000,000 2,554,776 Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) Emergency Shelter Total General Non-Profit Funding $ $ 225,000 225,000 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 25 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Executive Summary 26 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget SPECIAL REVENUE GENERAL FUND UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS DEBT SERVICE INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUBTOTAL ELIMINATIONS $ 102,333,473 $ 168,695,348 $ 30,624,865 $ 113,528,221 $ 4,409,513 $ 29,527,729 $ 449,119,149 $ 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 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING TRANSFERS IN REVENUE SUBTOTAL $ 371,224,118 11,834,653 1,854,000 72,854,181 8,029,157 407,330,479 126,127,849 23,125,479 4,831,073 52,848 12,457,158 4,503,265 2,336,555 9,541,283 1,056,102,098 $ $ $ 447,933,558 11,834,653 126,847,138 31,629,980 129,482,238 199,497,024 8,449,132 407,330,479 94,948,883 134,657,849 77,641,065 75,837,516 82,821,227 18,249,955 9,375,538 58,602,046 200,000 39,000,000 327,830,653 2,282,168,934 $ $ 20,370,137 8,863,604 70,672,443 900,000 12,885 100,819,069 $ $ 300,000 125,000 81,569,822 240,000 5,971,135 88,205,957 $ $ 29,366,281 243,683 4,398,623 39,000,000 163,459,138 236,467,725 $ $ 5,215,094 3,293,935 1,700,000 2,571,736 12,780,765 $ $ 76,709,440 121,632,044 29,775,980 129,482,238 73,312,490 419,975 94,948,883 8,530,000 45,526,982 334,000 1,198,557 5,792,797 1,788,590 51,853,983 200,000 146,287,361 787,793,320 TOTAL SOURCES $ 1,158,435,571 $ 956,488,668 $ 43,405,630 $ 349,995,946 $ 92,615,470 $ 130,346,798 $ 2,731,288,083 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TRANSFERS OUT EXPENDITURES SUBTOTAL $ 407,058,762 466,078,321 23,850,090 148,341,597 1,045,328,770 $ 396,250,177 236,471,418 28,561,888 148,477,754 809,761,236 $ 22,859,496 482,500 23,341,996 $ 6,401,784 22,048,032 249,694,249 63,045 278,207,110 $ 5,777,205 81,949,529 99,349 520,699 88,346,783 $ 8,011,058 92,579,381 1,594,715 871,082 103,056,236 $ APPROPRIATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 113,106,801 $ 48,832,648 $ - $ - $ - $ - TOTAL USES $ 1,158,435,571 $ 858,593,884 $ 23,341,996 $ 278,207,110 $ 88,346,783 $ 103,056,236 UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED ENDING FUND BALANCE $ - $ 97,894,783 $ 20,063,635 $ 71,788,836 $ 4,268,687 $ TOTAL USES AND ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 1,158,435,571 $ 956,488,667 $ 43,405,631 $ 349,995,946 $ 92,615,470 $ $ $ $ 27 $ $ ALL FUNDS $ 449,119,149 $ - $ (75,837,516) (327,830,653) (403,668,169) $ 447,933,558 11,834,653 126,847,138 31,629,980 129,482,238 199,497,024 8,449,132 407,330,479 94,948,883 134,657,849 77,641,065 82,821,227 18,249,955 9,375,538 58,602,046 200,000 39,000,000 1,878,500,765 $ (403,668,169) $ 2,327,619,914 823,498,985 899,126,681 326,659,787 298,756,677 2,348,042,131 $ - $ (75,837,516) (327,830,653) (403,668,169) $ 823,498,985 823,289,165 326,659,787 (29,073,976) 1,944,373,962 $ 161,939,449 $ $ 2,509,981,580 $ 27,290,562 $ 221,306,503 $ 130,346,798 $ 2,731,288,083 $ $ $ - $ 161,939,449 (403,668,169) $ - 2,106,313,411 - $ 221,306,503 (403,668,169) $ 2,327,619,914 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2004-05 Revised Restated Budget SPECIAL REVENUE GENERAL FUND UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS DEBT SERVICE INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUBTOTAL ELIMINATIONS $ 129,782,461 $ 145,216,234 $ 97,161,780 $ 77,022,166 $ 21,548,915 $ 25,796,699 $ 496,528,255 $ 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 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING TRANSFERS IN REVENUES SUBTOTAL $ 339,882,099 10,857,480 1,463,436 8,594,302 6,929,684 374,939,056 118,057,605 21,721,860 4,404,538 52,848 12,148,020 2,417,347 5,849,679 133,601,730 1,040,919,684 $ $ $ 411,881,140 10,857,480 117,636,827 30,993,830 137,562,602 182,859,821 7,254,732 374,939,056 88,073,124 126,057,605 103,151,928 55,317,910 751,695,302 17,755,583 9,743,742 33,143,232 200,000 28,850,000 473,954,895 2,961,928,809 $ $ 1,198,047 39,362,282 50,625,372 501,093 16,105 7,545,007 99,247,906 $ $ 5,177,368 87,424,800 50,000 750,289,544 1,452,398 4,046,466 24,224,170 872,664,746 $ $ 150,000 21,202,798 1,057,305 503,000 28,850,000 171,703,986 223,467,089 $ $ 5,215,094 274,389 2,250,000 2,200,000 3,443,111 13,382,594 $ $ 71,999,041 112,421,733 29,530,394 132,235,234 64,165,485 325,048 88,073,124 8,000,000 42,017,786 288,000 1,352,910 5,607,563 2,065,599 20,527,982 200,000 133,436,891 712,246,790 TOTAL SOURCES $ 1,170,702,145 $ 857,463,024 $ 110,544,374 $ 300,489,255 $ 894,213,661 $ 125,044,605 $ 3,458,457,064 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TRANSFERS OUT EXPENDITURES SUBTOTAL $ 350,084,187 460,670,929 23,742,351 139,339,482 973,836,949 $ 352,028,715 215,407,751 22,390,185 129,704,665 719,531,316 $ 20,527,868 33,118,452 53,646,320 $ 8,029,808 16,334,938 229,552,930 8,268,387 262,186,063 $ 202,230,982 564,210,365 11,967,178 85,130,554 863,539,079 $ 7,852,791 80,662,132 687,702 942,150 90,144,775 $ 920,226,483 1,337,286,114 308,868,214 396,503,690 2,962,884,501 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 496,528,255 $ - $ (30,712,728) (55,317,910) (90,917,032) (473,954,895) (650,902,565) $ 411,881,140 10,857,480 117,636,827 30,993,830 137,562,602 182,859,821 7,254,732 374,939,056 88,073,124 126,057,605 72,439,200 660,778,270 17,755,583 9,743,742 33,143,232 200,000 28,850,000 2,311,026,244 $ (650,902,565) $ 2,807,554,499 $ - $ (176,947,670) (473,954,895) (650,902,565) $ 920,226,483 1,160,338,444 308,868,214 (77,451,205) 2,311,981,936 $ APPROPRIATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 196,791,269 $ 95,038,389 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 291,829,658 $ TOTAL USES $ 1,170,628,218 $ 814,569,705 $ 53,646,320 $ 262,186,063 $ 863,539,079 $ 90,144,775 $ 3,254,714,159 $ UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 73,927 $ 42,893,319 $ 56,898,054 $ 38,303,192 $ 30,674,582 $ 34,899,830 $ 203,742,905 $ TOTAL USES AND ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 1,170,702,145 $ 857,463,024 $ 110,544,374 $ 300,489,255 $ 894,213,661 $ 125,044,605 $ 3,458,457,064 $ 28 ALL FUNDS - $ 291,829,658 (650,902,565) $ - 2,603,811,594 - $ 203,742,905 (650,902,565) $ 2,807,554,499 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues and Expenditures by Category FY 2004-05 Adopted Restated Budget SPECIAL REVENUE GENERAL FUND UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS DEBT SERVICE INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE SUBTOTAL ELIMINATIONS $ 129,782,461 $ 145,216,234 $ 97,161,780 $ 77,022,166 $ 21,548,915 $ 25,796,699 $ 496,528,255 $ 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 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING TRANSFERS IN REVENUES SUBTOTAL $ 339,882,099 10,857,480 1,463,436 8,594,302 6,929,684 374,939,056 118,057,605 21,688,915 4,341,585 52,848 12,208,032 2,417,347 5,822,612 133,499,730 1,040,754,731 $ $ $ 411,881,140 10,857,480 117,636,827 31,338,176 133,069,521 181,198,450 7,254,732 374,939,056 88,073,124 126,057,605 103,122,991 55,004,957 751,695,302 17,461,702 9,749,775 33,231,180 200,000 28,850,000 478,053,741 2,959,675,759 $ $ 1,030,047 39,364,705 50,375,372 500,000 14,775 7,545,007 98,829,906 $ $ 5,177,368 87,424,800 50,000 750,289,544 1,452,398 4,046,466 24,224,170 872,664,746 $ $ 150,000 21,202,798 1,057,305 753,000 28,850,000 175,922,832 227,935,935 $ $ 5,215,094 274,389 2,250,000 2,200,000 3,443,111 13,382,594 $ $ 71,999,041 112,421,733 29,874,740 127,742,153 62,672,114 325,048 88,073,124 8,000,000 42,019,371 288,000 1,352,910 5,253,670 2,072,725 20,394,327 200,000 133,418,891 706,107,847 TOTAL SOURCES $ 1,170,537,192 $ 851,324,081 $ 110,544,374 $ 304,958,101 $ 894,213,661 $ 124,626,605 $ 3,456,204,014 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ SUPPLIES & SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TRANSFERS OUT EXPENDITURES SUBTOTAL $ 349,000,086 462,007,636 23,500,719 139,339,482 973,847,923 $ $ $ 7,544,702 80,787,496 447,561 942,150 89,721,909 $ $ 202,206,411 564,234,936 11,967,178 85,130,554 863,539,079 $ $ 7,883,994 13,469,113 230,072,936 8,166,387 259,592,430 $ $ 20,527,868 33,118,452 53,646,320 $ $ 343,455,783 214,950,435 16,898,443 133,905,511 709,210,172 $ 910,090,976 1,335,449,616 303,414,705 400,602,536 2,949,557,833 $ APPROPRIATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 196,689,269 $ 95,038,389 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 291,727,658 $ TOTAL USES $ 1,170,537,192 $ 804,248,561 $ 53,646,320 $ 259,592,430 $ 863,539,079 $ 89,721,909 $ 3,241,285,491 $ UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED ENDING FUND BALANCE $ - $ 47,075,520 $ 56,898,054 $ 45,365,671 $ 30,674,582 $ 34,904,696 $ 214,918,524 $ TOTAL USES AND ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 1,170,537,192 $ 851,324,081 $ 110,544,374 $ 304,958,101 $ 894,213,661 $ 124,626,605 $ 3,456,204,015 $ 29 ALL FUNDS - $ 496,528,255 $ - $ (32,395,291) (55,004,957) (90,917,032) (478,053,741) (656,371,021) $ 411,881,140 10,857,480 117,636,827 31,338,176 133,069,521 181,198,450 7,254,732 374,939,056 88,073,124 126,057,605 70,727,700 660,778,270 17,461,702 9,749,775 33,231,180 200,000 28,850,000 2,303,304,738 $ (656,371,021) $ 2,799,832,993 $ - $ (178,317,280) (478,053,741) (656,371,021) $ 910,090,976 1,157,132,336 303,414,705 (77,451,205) 2,293,186,812 $ 291,727,658 (656,371,021) $ - 2,584,914,470 - $ 214,918,523 (656,371,021) $ 2,799,832,993 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Sources of Funds Sources of Funds $2,106,313,411 Miscellaneous & Interest 3.24% Debt Proceeds 1.85% Patient Revenue 3.93% Fund Balances 10.82% Permits, Fees & Fines 6.05% Other Intergovernmental & Grants 16.02% Property Taxes, Penalties & Interest 21.83% Highway User Revenues 4.51% Sales Taxes 6.02% State Shared Sales Taxes 19.34% State Shared Vehicle License Taxes 6.39% 30 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Uses of Funds Uses of Funds FY 2005-06 $2,106,313,411 Culture & Recreation 1.44% Education 0.10% General Government 29.09% Public Safety 35.98% Highways & Streets 7.89% Health, Welfare & Sanitation 25.50% 31 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Adopted to FY 2004-05 Adopted Restated Budget FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED ADOPTED $ BUDGET RESTATED VARIANCE FUND General Fund $ Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Projects Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations $ 1,166.2 $ 1,170.5 $ 804.2 804.2 53.6 53.6 259.6 259.6 863.5 863.5 89.7 89.7 (651.7) (656.4) 2,585.2 $ 2,584.9 $ (4.3) 4.7 0.3 % VARIANCE (0.37%) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% (0.72%) 0.01% General Fund: $ $ (4.3) Restatement of County Counsel from expense reduction to revenue (4.3) Total General Fund Variance Eliminations: $ $ 4.3 Restatement of County Counsel from expense reduction to revenue 0.4 Restatement of Research and Reporting expenses to internal services 4.7 Total Elimination Fund Variance 32 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Adopted Restated to FY 2004-05 Revised Budget FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED REVISED $ RESTATED RESTATED VARIANCE FUND General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Projects Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations $ $ 1,170.5 $ 1,170.6 $ 804.2 814.6 53.6 53.6 259.6 262.2 863.5 863.5 89.7 90.1 (656.4) (650.9) 2,584.9 $ 2,603.8 $ (0.1) (10.4) (2.6) (0.4) (5.5) (19.0) General Fund: $ (0.1) Reduction to Parks and Recreation associated with Gainsharing Initiative $ (0.1) Total General Fund Variance Special Revenue Funds: $ (1.1) Net Change in Elected Official Grants 0.1 Net Change in Judicial Department Grants (4.0) Net Change in Appointed Department Grants (1.3) Increase in RICO and Jail Enhancement Expenditure Authority (0.1) Parks and Recreation Gainsharing Initiative (0.1) Donations (0.4) Library Land Purchase (0.4) Modular Building at Aguila Branch Library (1.3) Net Changes to Intergovernmental Agreements (2.0) Prepayment Toward Principal Balance of Stadium District Loan $ (10.4) Total Special Revenue Fund Variance Capital Projects Funds: $ (1.0) Ballpark Capital Repair/Replacement (2.5) Increase in Spending for Floodprone Properties Acquisition Program 0.5 Reduction in Transfer from Transportation Special Revenue Fund 0.5 Reduction in General Government Capital Project Spending $ (2.6) Total Capital Projects Fund Variance Internal Service Funds: $ (0.2) Increase in Equipment Services' Spending Related to Fuel (0.2) Increase in Materials Management's Spending Related to Capital Equipment $ (0.4) Total Internal Service Fund Variance Eliminations: $ (0.5) Decrease in Transportation Fund Transfer (3.8) Decrease in Flood Control Fund Transfer 0.1 Increase in Stadium District Fund Transfer (1.7) Decrease in Payments to Health Select and Benefits Trust Funds 0.3 Increase in Equipment Services' Spending Related to Fuel 0.1 Increase in General Government CIP Fund Transfer $ (5.5) Total Eliminations Variance 33 % VARIANCE (0.01%) (1.29%) 0.00% (1.00%) 0.00% (0.45%) 0.84% (0.74%) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Revised to FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FUND General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Projects Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Eliminations $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET 1,170.6 $ 814.6 53.6 262.2 863.5 90.1 (650.9) 2,603.8 $ 1,158.4 $ 858.6 23.3 278.2 88.3 103.1 (403.7) 2,106.3 $ $ VARIANCE Breakdown of Source of Change Non-Recurring - Capital Improvement Programs - Approp. Fund Balance (Net of Fund Transfers) - Primary/General Election Costs - Other Non-Recurring Recurring $ Total Recurring % VARIANCE 2.2% (1.9%) 3.3% 0.2% 0.6% 16.9% 19.1% (0.4) (32.3) (12.5) (0.1) (45.3) (0.0%) (1.2%) (0.5%) (0.0%) (1.7%) $ (33.6) 1.7 (72.1) (47.5) 392.6 251.3 (6.5) 485.9 (1.3%) 0.1% (2.8%) (1.8%) 15.1% 9.6% (0.2%) 18.7% $ 440.6 16.9% $ $ Discretionary Criminal Justice Increases Net Changes to Non-Gen. Fund Revenue General Government - Contingencies, etc. Health Plans Volume/Rate Changes Health Care Delivery System Transfer Closure of Health Plans All Other Operating Increases & Decreases: 12.2 (44.0) 30.3 (16.0) 775.2 (13.0) (247.2) 497.5 56.9 (48.2) 86.6 4.0 14.6 440.6 497.5 $ Breakdown of Recurring Increases & Decreases: Mandated or Non-Discretionary Mandated Health Care Employee Health, Dental & Retirement Jail Tax Maintenance of Effort Elected Official Pay Increases $ VARIANCE $ 34 % VARIANCE 1.0% (5.4%) 56.5% (6.1%) 89.8% (14.4%) 38.0% 19.1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Revised to FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget (Continued) GENERAL FUND ONLY: Non-Recurring - Approp. Fund Balance - Primary/General Election Costs Recurring $ 88.1 84.1 4.0 (75.9) 12.2 7.5% 7.2% 0.3% (6.5%) 1.0% 0.2 19.6 (15.8) (12.5) (0.1) (0.6) (8.7) 0.0% 1.7% (1.4%) (1.1%) (0.0%) (0.1%) (0.7%) $ (9.3) (15.0) (36.2) (6.5) (0.2) (67.2) (0.8%) (1.3%) (3.1%) (0.6%) (0.0%) (5.7%) $ (75.9) (6.5%) $ Breakdown of Recurring Increases & Decreases: Mandated or Non-Discretionary Mandated Health Care Reduction in Dispro Share Payment Employee Health, Dental & Retirement Jail Excise Tax Maintenance of Effort Elected Official Pay Increases Proposition 200 $ $ Discretionary Criminal Justice Increases Operating Budget Adjustments General Government - Contingencies, etc. Ann. Impact of Mid-Year Adjustments Parks Trails $ 35 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Revised to FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget (Continued) General Fund: $ (8.0) Net Adjustment for Health/Dental Benefit Premiums (7.8) Retirement Plan Increases (12.5) Jail Excise Tax Maintenance of Effort-Base 4.0 Primary/General Election Costs (2.0) Annualized Impact of Mid-Year Adjustments 0.1 Annualized Impact of FY 2004-05 Initiatives 0.3 Departmental Overhead Reallocation (4.4) ALTCS Contribution Change 13.9 AHCCCS Contribution Change (15.0) Special Health Care District Loan 0.5 FY 2004-05 Non-Recurring Expenditures (1.1) Annualization of Desktop PC Replacement (2.0) FY 2004-05 Pay for Performance Annualization (2.1) Arnold vs. Sarn IGA Increase 19.6 Disproportionate Share Reduction (0.1) Elected Official Pay Increases (1.8) Results Initiatives 0.2 Base-Level Operating Adjustments (2.6) Court Expansion (0.6) Proposition 200 (0.1) Shift Differentials 1.4 Reallocation of Costs Between General and Detention Funds (0.6) Juvenile Competency Restoration (0.2) Regional Trails Program (1.5) Market-Based Salary Adjustments (0.2) Radio Replacement (0.1) Juror Shuttle (0.1) Juror Mileage/Per Diem (0.1) Judicial Conference Travel Expenses (0.5) Court Security Staffing (0.2) Medical Examiner Demand Increases (7.0) Other Mandated Health Care (0.1) Dependency Attorney Staff (4.6) Increase in Indigent Legal Services (36.2) Other General Government (see schedule) $ 83.6 Other Appropriated Fund Balance (see schedule) 12.2 Total General Fund Variance 36 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Revised to FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget (Continued) Special Revenue Funds: $ (8.5) Net Adjustment for Health/Dental Benefit Premiums (7.7) Retirement Plan Increases (1.3) Annualized Impact of Mid-Year Adjustments 11.4 Non-Recurring Expenditures (3.3) Annualized Impact of FY 2004-05 Initiatives 40.6 Reductions to Achieve Structural Balance 1.5 Net Change in Grant Awards and Carry-Over (1.9) FY 2004-05 Pay for Performance Annualization (0.1) Departmental Overhead Reallocation (0.1) Annualization of Desktop PC Replacement (0.6) Base-Level Adjustments (0.5) Shift Differentials (0.1) Results Initiatives (1.5) Electronic Document Management System Fee Increase (1.3) Reallocation of Costs Between General and Detention Funds (0.1) Court Security Guards (1.5) Youth Recovery Academy (0.5) Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care (0.6) Drug Treatment for Seriously Mentally Ill (0.7) Drug Treatment for Inmates (0.7) Jail Teaching Staff (0.6) Maricopa Medical Center Secure Ward Staffing (14.5) New Detention Facility Staffing (3.0) Market-Based Salary Adjustments (0.8) Superior and Juvenile Court Caseflow Management (0.1) Law Library 0.2 Net Changes in Revenue (0.6) Correctional Health Rate/Volume Net Changes (0.8) Vital Registration 0.3 Epidemiology Staff to General Fund (0.2) Parks and Recreation Projects (0.3) Environmental Services Remodel (0.5) Air Quality Vehicles (0.6) Correctional Health Consultants (3.4) Adjustment for Records Conversion Project (2.6) ICJIS Project and Overhead Adjustments (48.5) CIP Fund Transfers (0.6) Dam Safety Project (35.9) General Government (see schedule) $ 46.2 Appropriated Fund Balance (see schedule) (44.0) Total Special Revenue Fund Variance 37 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Reconciliation of Expenditures FY 2004-05 Revised to FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget (Continued) Debt Service Funds: $ (2.3) Increase in Debt Service Payments 33.0 One-Time Transfer from COP Debt Service to General Fund (0.4) Increase in transfer to Stadium District Special Revenue $ 30.3 Total Debt Service Funds Variance Capital Project Funds: $ 17.4 Jail/Juvenile Detention CIP (See CIP Schedule) 6.3 General Government CIP (See CIP Schedule) (33.1) Transportation CIP (See CIP Schedule) (7.6) Flood Control District CIP (See CIP Schedule) 1.0 Completion of Stadium District Capital Repairs/Replacement (16.0) Total Capital Project Funds Variance $ Enterprise Funds: $ 35.3 Elimination of Senior Select and Health Plans Rate/Volume Changes 265.4 Closure of Health Plans 9/30/05 474.4 Transition of Health Care Delivery System to Special Health Care District (0.4) Solid Waste Operating Adjustments 0.5 One-Time Expenses Related to Home Hazardous Waste and Illegal Dumping Programs 775.2 Total Enterprise Funds Variance $ Internal Service Funds: $ (0.2) Net Adjustment for Health/Dental Benefit Premiums (0.2) Annualized Impact of Mid-Year Adjustments (0.1) FY 2004-05 Pay for Performance Annualization 0.3 One-Time Expenses (0.3) One-Time Telecom Purchases (0.7) Increase in Fuel Costs (11.2) Adjustments in Benefits Funds Due to Rate/Volume Changes (0.5) Base-Level Operating Adjustments $ (13.0) Total Internal Service Fund Variance Eliminations: $ (100.4) Net Change in Other Fund Transfers (see Schedule) (43.2) Appropriated Fund Balance Transfers (10.2) Increase in Internal Service Charges (Includes Benefits, County Counsel, and Research and Reporting Charges) (14.1) Closure of Health Plans 9/30/05 (90.9) Restatement of Payments to Health Care Delivery System due to Transition to Special Health Care District 11.2 Increase in Flood Control District CIP Transfer $ 0.4 Increase in Stadium District Fund Transfers (247.2) Total Eliminations Variance 38 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department ALL FUNDS JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ SUBTOTAL ELECTED OFFICIAL 120 ASSESSOR 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF SUBTOTAL APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 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 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS 640 TRANSPORTATION 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 850 AIR QUALITY 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 980 ELIMINATIONS SUBTOTAL $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 12,890,918 16,042,651 28,410,485 57,344,054 $ 159,456 12,946,392 14,694,196 1,937,476 1,705,336 21,118,762 446,833 3,257 43,394,254 96,405,962 $ $ $ 13,919,776 17,014,483 30,660,924 61,595,183 $ 133,669 12,101,615 15,924,213 2,071,000 1,517,468 15,670,000 155,000 4,000 42,175,770 89,752,735 $ $ $ 14,136,067 16,565,675 31,096,577 61,798,319 $ 133,669 12,194,615 16,593,801 2,071,000 1,517,468 15,670,000 155,000 4,000 44,029,048 92,368,601 $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 13,463,194 15,761,972 29,772,808 58,997,974 $ 179,012 13,197,437 15,854,414 5,275,954 1,771,057 19,129,846 202,276 4,712 47,911,007 103,525,716 $ $ $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 14,482,944 15,493,533 31,702,506 61,678,983 $ 346,877 (1,072,142) 605,929 (119,336) 2% -6% 2% 0% 133,669 13,984,742 17,366,694 1,048,100 1,771,057 17,463,600 155,000 4,000 55,194,291 107,121,153 $ $ 1,790,127 772,893 (1,022,900) 253,589 1,793,600 11,165,243 14,752,552 0% 15% 5% -49% 17% 11% 0% 0% 25% 16% $ $ 10 $ 1,091,003 9,625,761 747,161 669,093 37,401,309 730 467,297 455,464 4,794,142 39,797 864,125 38,142,821 99,136,697 15,372,896 12,247,770 366,000 1,106,508,992 2,207,025 1,948,128 105,396 15,902 457,946,448 110,352,463 4,692,619 48,677,937 1,159,068 9,583,323 26,084,386 9,084,743 9,816,453 43,736,268 11,776,334 294,010,367 (442,131,289) 1,916,996,638 $ - $ 1,281,808 16,033,276 576,138 46,261 37,977,848 75 851,442 417,045 4,142,806 31,848 930,000 46,929,712 83,025,348 14,133,393 11,375,000 440,000 1,155,280,084 43,381,453 2,629,593 104,103 36,310 390,323,634 120,352,902 4,220,000 47,669,538 1,030,775 10,192,096 26,644,669 9,068,610 10,084,562 43,196,426 10,845,564 398,999,272 (446,659,277) 2,045,592,314 $ - $ 1,334,824 16,033,276 576,138 46,261 37,977,848 75 851,442 417,045 4,347,695 31,848 930,000 46,929,712 83,025,348 14,133,393 11,908,333 440,000 1,154,960,124 43,483,453 2,651,542 106,103 36,310 390,323,634 121,264,902 4,220,000 47,669,538 1,280,775 10,360,096 26,644,669 9,068,610 9,526,657 45,704,395 11,403,469 398,999,272 (445,391,667) 2,051,295,120 $ 5 $ 1,104,062 8,743,003 581,114 35,221 38,141,342 961 783,579 224,631 4,660,305 36,621 711,528 47,247,964 83,011,417 14,754,216 12,295,527 300,961 1,145,236,424 43,907,920 2,694,974 99,703 37,537 40,000 404,109,786 120,606,087 4,601,690 47,690,530 1,221,622 9,769,027 26,483,838 8,863,938 10,794,361 45,257,491 11,034,010 134,699,317 (403,800,232) 1,825,980,482 $ - $ 855,797 15,997,531 37,977,848 85 522,795 162,689 4,712,780 36,350 750,000 52,565,987 63,419,448 15,232,361 12,252,430 334,000 1,287,410,273 30,983 2,279,664 125,242 39,500 40,000 87,540,957 137,326,586 4,815,000 15,073,396 1,018,844 10,596,904 23,116,120 8,665,674 10,840,375 44,943,109 11,190,138 (263,258,273) 1,586,614,593 $ (479,027) (35,745) (576,138) (46,261) 10 (328,647) (254,356) 365,085 4,502 (180,000) 5,636,275 (19,605,900) 1,098,968 344,097 (106,000) 132,450,149 (43,452,470) (371,878) 19,139 3,190 40,000 (302,782,677) 16,061,684 595,000 (32,596,142) (261,931) 236,808 (3,528,549) (402,936) (761,286) (213,331) (398,999,272) 182,133,394 (464,680,527) -78% 13% 14% -68% -20% 2% -13% -4% 0% -2% -2% -100% 41% -23% MARICOPA COUNTY $ 2,070,746,654 $ 2,196,940,232 $ 2,205,462,040 $ 1,988,504,172 $ 1,755,414,729 $ (450,047,311) -20% 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 16,000,848 $ 16,859,270 $ 16,972,630 $ 17,459,082 $ 15,234,000 $ (1,738,630) -10% 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ 10,908,895 $ 10,835,598 $ 10,755,598 $ 10,427,767 $ 10,649,898 $ 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 70,932,831 $ 78,669,638 $ 77,835,976 $ 72,627,223 $ 97,202,138 $ 19,366,162 25% MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 2,168,589,228 $ 2,303,304,738 $ 2,311,026,244 $ 2,089,018,244 $ 1,878,500,765 $ (432,525,479) -19% 39 (105,700) -36% 0% -100% -100% 0% 13% -39% -61% 8% 14% -19% 12% -24% 8% 3% -24% 11% -100% -14% 18% 9% -1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL BRANCH 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ SUBTOTAL ELECTED OFFICIAL 120 ASSESSOR 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 210 ELECTIONS 250 CONSTABLES 360 RECORDER 370 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 430 TREASURER 500 SHERIFF $ $ SUBOTAL APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD 180 FINANCE 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 14,283 15,298,078 15,312,361 $ 159,456 6,616,189 4,060,559 1,937,476 1,705,336 14,460,264 446,833 3,257 5,036,985 34,426,355 $ $ 10 747,161 730 455,463 39,797 864,125 25,575 99,136,697 820,415,803 79,500 80,792 18,433 3,449 92,118 223,161 922,182,814 MARICOPA COUNTY $ MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ SUBTOTAL $ $ $ 14,000 15,028,261 15,042,261 $ 133,669 6,105,265 4,392,856 2,071,000 1,517,468 10,300,000 155,000 4,000 5,848,594 30,527,852 $ $ 576,138 75 150,000 31,848 930,000 20,000 83,025,348 866,773,056 43,381,453 52,000 19,700 20,000 78,000 127,000 995,184,618 971,921,529 $ 971,921,529 $ $ $ $ 14,000 15,028,261 15,042,261 $ 133,669 6,105,265 4,455,809 2,071,000 1,517,468 10,300,000 155,000 4,000 5,848,594 30,590,805 $ $ 576,138 75 150,000 31,848 930,000 20,000 83,025,348 866,773,056 43,483,453 52,000 19,700 20,000 78,000 127,000 995,286,618 1,040,754,731 $ 1,040,754,731 $ 40 $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 22,973 15,631,096 15,654,069 $ 14,000 15,028,261 15,042,261 $ 179,012 6,547,768 4,404,305 5,275,954 1,771,057 13,058,128 202,276 4,712 5,869,052 37,312,266 $ 133,669 6,105,265 5,082,022 1,048,100 1,771,057 12,093,600 155,000 4,000 5,947,027 32,339,740 $ $ 5 581,114 961 192,093 1,176 36,621 711,528 24,221 83,011,417 882,324,758 42,984,982 68,183 13,300 23,970 40,000 98,992 189,594 1,010,302,915 1,040,919,684 $ 1,040,919,684 $ $ $ $ $ - 626,213 (1,022,900) 253,589 1,793,600 98,433 1,748,935 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% -49% 17% 17% 0% 0% 2% 6% $ 85 150,000 36,350 750,000 1,594,188 63,419,448 942,368,829 30,983 52,000 19,700 20,000 40,000 95,555 116,959 26,000 1,008,720,097 $ (576,138) 10 4,502 (180,000) 1,574,188 (19,605,900) 75,595,773 (43,452,470) 40,000 17,555 (10,041) 26,000 13,433,479 1,063,269,250 $ 1,056,102,098 $ 15,182,414 1% 1,063,269,250 $ 1,056,102,098 $ 15,182,414 1% -100% 13% 0% 14% -19% 7871% -24% 9% -100% 0% 0% 0% 23% -8% 1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) SPECIAL REVENUE JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ SUBTOTAL ELECTED OFFICIAL 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 360 RECORDER 500 SHERIFF SUBTOTAL APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 220 HUMAN SERVICES 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 640 TRANSPORTATION 670 SOLID WASTE 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 850 AIR QUALITY 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 12,890,918 16,028,368 13,112,407 42,031,694 6,330,203 10,633,637 6,658,498 38,357,269 61,979,607 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,091,003 9,625,761 37,401,309 467,297 1 4,823,662 12,247,770 366,000 228,350,172 2,127,525 1,867,336 86,963 12,453 97,373,614 4,296,823 9,084,743 9,816,453 43,736,268 11,776,334 474,551,487 $ 578,562,788 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS SUBTOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY 13,919,776 17,000,483 15,632,663 46,552,922 5,996,350 11,531,357 5,370,000 36,327,176 59,224,883 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,281,808 16,033,276 37,977,848 851,442 267,045 4,159,806 11,375,000 440,000 249,177,516 2,577,593 84,403 16,310 98,907,104 3,770,000 9,068,610 10,084,562 43,196,426 10,845,564 500,114,313 $ 605,892,118 16,000,848 $ 4,343,886 $ $ 70,932,831 $ 669,840,352 14,136,067 16,551,675 16,068,316 46,756,058 6,089,350 12,137,992 5,370,000 38,180,454 61,777,796 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,334,824 16,033,276 37,977,848 851,442 267,045 4,382,695 11,908,333 440,000 248,857,556 2,599,542 86,403 16,310 99,819,104 3,770,000 9,068,610 9,526,657 45,704,395 11,403,469 504,047,509 $ 612,581,363 16,859,270 $ 4,686,821 $ $ 78,669,638 $ 706,107,847 13,463,194 15,738,999 14,141,712 43,343,906 6,649,669 11,450,108 6,071,718 42,041,955 66,213,450 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,104,062 8,743,003 38,141,342 783,579 32,538 4,676,129 12,295,527 300,961 248,152,010 922,938 2,626,791 86,403 13,567 103,363,242 4,050,454 8,863,938 10,794,361 45,257,491 11,034,010 501,242,348 $ 610,799,703 16,972,630 $ 4,856,821 $ $ 77,835,976 $ 712,246,790 41 14,482,944 15,479,533 16,674,245 46,636,722 7,879,477 12,284,672 5,370,000 49,247,264 74,781,413 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 346,877 605,929 (1,072,142) (119,336) 2% 4% -6% 0% 1,790,127 146,680 11,066,810 13,003,617 29% 1% 0% 29% 21% -36% 0% 0% -39% -95% 8% 3% -24% 15% $ $ 855,797 15,997,531 37,977,848 522,795 12,689 4,747,780 12,252,430 334,000 286,038,249 2,227,664 105,542 19,500 107,960,305 4,150,000 8,665,674 10,840,375 44,943,109 11,164,138 548,815,426 $ (479,027) (35,745) (328,647) (254,356) 365,085 344,097 (106,000) 37,180,693 (371,878) 19,139 3,190 8,141,201 380,000 (402,936) 1,313,718 (761,286) (239,331) 44,767,917 $ 670,233,561 $ 57,652,198 9% 17,459,082 $ 15,234,000 $ 19,366,162 25% 4,425,656 $ 5,123,621 $ (1,738,630) -10% $ 72,627,223 $ 97,202,138 $ 266,800 5% $ 705,311,664 $ 787,793,320 $ 75,546,530 11% -14% 22% 20% 8% 10% -4% 14% -2% -2% 9% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % DEBT SERVICE 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT SUBTOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY 680 STADIUM DISTRICT MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ $ 39,322,747 39,322,747 $ $ 7,867,500 7,867,500 $ $ 7,867,500 7,867,500 $ $ 8,219,792 8,219,792 $ $ 7,265,671 7,265,671 $ $ (601,829) (601,829) -8% -8% $ 39,322,747 $ 7,867,500 $ 7,867,500 $ 8,219,792 $ 7,265,671 $ (601,829) -8% $ 5,972,808 $ 5,515,094 $ 5,515,094 $ 5,577,254 $ 5,515,094 $ $ 45,295,555 $ 13,382,594 $ 13,382,594 $ 13,797,046 $ 12,780,765 $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED - 0% (601,829) -4% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % CAPITAL PROJECTS 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 640 TRANSPORTATION 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT $ $ 18,420,270 69,978,849 48,585,819 136,984,938 $ $ 31,462,012 83,141,666 47,591,538 162,195,216 $ 136,984,938 $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ 1,595,800 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ SUBTOTAL MARICOPA COUNTY $ $ 31,462,012 82,687,896 47,591,538 161,741,446 162,195,216 $ $ 2,293,820 52,644,000 $ 191,224,738 $ $ $ $ 6,539,864 78,484,943 47,591,538 132,616,345 $ 51,737,524 96,842,069 14,977,841 163,557,434 161,741,446 $ $ 2,093,820 63,446,899 $ 227,935,935 $ $ 20,275,512 14,154,173 (32,613,697) 1,815,988 132,616,345 $ 163,557,434 $ 1,815,988 1% $ 2,084,995 $ 2,093,820 $ - 0% 59,631,823 $ 53,327,784 $ 70,816,471 $ 11,184,648 19% 223,467,089 $ 188,029,124 $ 236,467,725 $ 13,000,636 6% FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 64% 17% -69% 1% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ENTERPRISE 600 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS 670 SOLID WASTE 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM SUBTOTAL $ $ 457,946,448 395,796 386,427,354 844,769,598 MARICOPA COUNTY $ MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ $ $ $ 390,323,634 450,000 481,891,112 872,664,746 $ 390,323,634 450,000 481,891,112 872,664,746 844,769,598 $ 872,664,746 $ 844,769,598 $ 872,664,746 $ $ $ $ 404,109,786 551,236 217,591,157 622,252,179 $ 87,540,957 665,000 88,205,957 872,664,746 $ 622,252,179 $ 872,664,746 $ 622,252,179 $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ (302,782,677) 215,000 (481,891,112) (784,458,789) -78% 48% -100% -90% 88,205,957 $ (784,458,789) -90% 88,205,957 $ (784,458,789) -90% FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % INTERNAL SERVICE 200 COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT $ $ 669,093 38,117,246 15,372,896 935,907 9,583,323 26,084,386 90,762,851 MARICOPA COUNTY $ MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ SUBTOTAL $ $ $ 46,261 46,909,712 14,133,393 903,775 10,192,096 26,644,669 98,829,906 $ 46,261 46,909,712 14,133,393 1,153,775 10,360,096 26,644,669 99,247,906 90,762,851 $ 98,829,906 $ 90,762,851 $ 98,829,906 $ 42 $ $ $ 35,221 47,223,743 14,754,216 1,032,028 9,769,027 26,483,838 99,298,072 $ 50,971,799 15,232,361 901,885 10,596,904 23,116,120 100,819,069 99,247,906 $ 99,247,906 $ $ $ (46,261) 4,062,087 1,098,968 (251,890) 236,808 (3,528,549) 1,571,163 -100% 9% 8% -22% 2% -13% 2% 99,298,072 $ 100,819,069 $ 1,571,163 2% 99,298,072 $ 100,819,069 $ 1,571,163 2% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Fund Type / Department (Continued) FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ELIMINATIONS 300 PARKS & RECREATION 640 TRANSPORTATION 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 980 ELIMINATIONS SUBTOTAL $ (29,520) $ (57,000,000) (92,416,987) (442,131,289) (591,577,796) $ (17,000) $ (61,695,868) (82,891,840) (446,659,277) (591,263,985) $ (35,000) $ (61,242,098) (82,891,840) (445,391,667) (589,560,605) $ (17,000) $ (61,242,098) (82,891,840) (403,800,232) (547,951,170) $ (35,000) $ (67,475,788) (263,258,273) (330,769,061) $ (6,233,690) 82,891,840 182,133,394 258,791,544 0% -10% 100% 41% 44% $ (591,577,796) $ (591,263,985) $ (589,560,605) $ (547,951,170) $ (330,769,061) $ 258,791,544 44% 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ (1,003,599) $ (1,660,137) $ (1,710,137) $ (1,660,137) $ (2,082,637) $ (372,500) -22% 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ (52,644,000) $ (63,446,899) $ (59,631,823) $ (53,327,784) $ (70,816,471) $ (11,184,648) -19% MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ (645,225,395) $ (656,371,021) $ (650,902,565) $ (602,939,091) $ (403,668,169) $ 247,234,396 38% MARICOPA COUNTY $ 43 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Revenues by Department and Fund Type General Fund JUDICIAL 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ Special Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service Internal Service Enterprise Sub-Total Eliminations Total Funds SUBTOTAL $ - $ 14,000 15,028,261 15,042,261 $ 14,482,944 $ 15,479,533 16,674,245 46,636,722 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,482,944 $ 15,493,533 31,702,506 61,678,983 $ - $ - $ 14,482,944 15,493,533 31,702,506 61,678,983 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 $ 6,105,265 5,082,022 1,048,100 1,771,057 12,093,600 155,000 4,000 5,947,027 32,339,740 $ - $ 7,879,477 12,284,672 5,370,000 49,247,264 74,781,413 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 133,669 $ 13,984,742 17,366,694 1,048,100 1,771,057 17,463,600 155,000 4,000 55,194,291 107,121,153 $ - $ - $ 133,669 13,984,742 17,366,694 1,048,100 1,771,057 17,463,600 155,000 4,000 55,194,291 107,121,153 APPOINTED 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT $ - $ 855,797 $ 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 15,997,531 220 HUMAN SERVICES 37,977,848 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 85 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 522,795 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 150,000 12,689 300 PARKS & RECREATION 4,747,780 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 36,350 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 750,000 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 1,594,188 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 63,419,448 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 12,252,430 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 334,000 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 942,368,829 286,038,249 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 30,983 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 52,000 2,227,664 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 19,700 105,542 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 20,000 19,500 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 40,000 600 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS 640 TRANSPORTATION 107,960,305 670 SOLID WASTE 4,150,000 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 95,555 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 116,959 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 8,665,674 850 AIR QUALITY 10,840,375 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 44,943,109 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 26,000 11,164,138 980 ELIMINATIONS SUBTOTAL $ 1,008,720,097 $ 548,815,426 $ - $ - $ 7,265,671 51,737,524 96,842,069 14,977,841 7,265,671 $ 163,557,434 $ - $ - $ 855,797 $ - $ 855,797 15,997,531 15,997,531 37,977,848 37,977,848 85 85 522,795 522,795 162,689 162,689 4,747,780 (35,000) 4,712,780 36,350 36,350 750,000 750,000 50,971,799 52,565,987 52,565,987 63,419,448 63,419,448 15,232,361 15,232,361 15,232,361 12,252,430 12,252,430 334,000 334,000 1,287,410,273 1,287,410,273 30,983 30,983 2,279,664 2,279,664 125,242 125,242 39,500 39,500 40,000 40,000 87,540,957 87,540,957 87,540,957 204,802,374 (67,475,788) 137,326,586 665,000 4,815,000 4,815,000 15,073,396 15,073,396 901,885 1,018,844 1,018,844 10,596,904 10,596,904 10,596,904 23,116,120 23,116,120 23,116,120 8,665,674 8,665,674 10,840,375 44,943,109 44,943,109 11,190,138 11,190,138 (263,258,273) (263,258,273) 88,205,957 $ 100,819,069 $ 1,917,383,654 $ (330,769,061) $ 1,586,614,593 $ 1,056,102,098 $ 670,233,561 $ 7,265,671 $ 163,557,434 $ 88,205,957 $ 100,819,069 $ 2,086,183,790 $ (330,769,061) $ 1,755,414,729 MARICOPA COUNTY 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ - $ 15,234,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15,234,000 $ - $ 15,234,000 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ - $ 5,123,621 $ 5,515,094 $ 2,093,820 $ - $ - $ 12,732,535 $ (2,082,637) $ 10,649,898 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ - $ 97,202,138 $ - $ 70,816,471 $ - $ - $ 168,018,609 $ (70,816,471) $ 97,202,138 MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 1,056,102,098 $ 787,793,320 $ 12,780,765 $ 236,467,725 $ 44 88,205,957 $ 100,819,069 $ 2,282,168,934 $ (403,668,169) $ 1,878,500,765 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 Licenses & Permits Intergovernmental Revenues Charges for Services Fine & Forfeits Miscellaneous Other Financing Sources Basis for Estimating Revenue According to the Budgeting for Results Budget Policy Guidelines, revenues are estimated conservatively for budgetary purposes, because it is preferable to under-estimate revenues than over-estimate 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 2005-06. CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS SPECIAL REVENUE GENERAL FUND 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 PROCEEDS OF FINANCING TRANSFERS IN TOTA REVENUE $ 371,224,118 11,834,653 1,854,000 72,854,181 8,029,157 407,330,479 126,127,849 23,125,479 4,831,073 52,848 12,457,158 4,503,265 2,336,555 9,541,283 1,056,102,098 $ $ 76,709,440 121,632,044 29,775,980 129,482,238 73,312,490 419,975 94,948,883 8,530,000 45,526,982 334,000 1,198,557 5,792,797 1,788,590 51,853,983 200,000 146,287,361 787,793,320 CAPITAL PROJECTS DEBT SERVICE $ $ 5,215,094 3,293,935 1,700,000 2,571,736 12,780,765 $ $ 29,366,281 243,683 4,398,623 39,000,000 163,459,138 236,467,725 45 INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE $ $ 300,000 125,000 81,569,822 240,000 5,971,135 88,205,957 $ $ 20,370,137 8,863,604 70,672,443 900,000 12,885 100,819,069 SUBTOTAL $ $ 447,933,558 11,834,653 126,847,138 31,629,980 129,482,238 199,497,024 8,449,132 407,330,479 94,948,883 134,657,849 77,641,065 75,837,516 82,821,227 18,249,955 9,375,538 58,602,046 200,000 39,000,000 327,830,653 2,282,168,934 ELIMINATIONS $ $ - $ (75,837,516) (327,830,653) (403,668,169) $ ALL FUNDS 447,933,558 11,834,653 126,847,138 31,629,980 129,482,238 199,497,024 8,449,132 407,330,479 94,948,883 134,657,849 77,641,065 82,821,227 18,249,955 9,375,538 58,602,046 200,000 39,000,000 1,878,500,765 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) 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 General Year Fund 1995-96 $ 176,554,624 1996-97 172,143,843 1997-98 184,371,372 1998-99 198,905,506 1999-00 222,975,967 2000-01 239,737,516 2001-02 259,584,026 2002-03 288,869,601 2003-04 319,350,322 2004-05* 351,090,060 2005-06** 383,058,771 Special Revenue Funds $ 129,829,133 145,750,489 91,239,254 98,611,890 149,751,499 156,127,504 156,318,430 153,280,375 172,153,810 187,156,465 198,341,484 Debt Service $ 20,072,454 23,628,785 22,510,213 22,783,249 21,008,968 24,148,892 21,368,629 24,594,477 24,485,207 5,682,498 5,215,094 Total $ 326,456,211 341,523,117 298,120,839 320,300,645 393,736,434 420,013,912 437,271,085 466,841,008 516,073,357 543,964,830 586,615,349 * Projected Actual ** Budget 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 operations and capital improvements carried out by the Flood Control and the Library Districts. Prior to FY 2004-05, the County also assessed a secondary tax to finance repayment of outstanding voterapproved General Obligation bonds. These bonds were fully repaid at the end of FY 2003-04. 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. Taxes are paid in arrears in two installments, due November 1 and May 1. 46 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) 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 the adopted tax rates for FY 2005-06. Preliminary Tax Levy Secondary Primary Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 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 28,070,870 31,010,284 Primary Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) $ 1.1580 1.1054 1.1265 1.1472 1.1884 1.1641 1.1832 1.2108 1.2108 1.2108 1.1971 Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 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 30,066,987 33,197,218 Debt Service Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) $ 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.) $ 0.0099 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0421 0.0521 0.0521 0.0521 Flood Control Net Assessed Value (Thousands) $ 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 26,585,248 29,605,196 Flood Control District Tax Rate (per $100 N.A.V.) $ 0.3332 0.3425 0.3425 0.3270 0.2858 0.2534 0.2319 0.2119 0.2119 0.2119 0.2119 Combined Rate $ 1.6475 1.6475 1.6475 1.6475 1.6248 1.5748 1.5448 1.5448 1.5448 1.4748 1.4611 The combined FY 2005-06 property tax rate for Maricopa County and the Library and Flood Control Districts as fixed and determined by the Board of Supervisors will be reduced to $1.4611 per $100 net assessed value. The primary rate will be reduced to $1.1971 per $100 net assessed value as a result of the constitutionally determined levy limit. The Library District and Flood Control District rates will remain at $0.0521 and $0.2119 per $100 of net assessed value, respectively. The FY 2005-06 adopted budget for the Library District was based on the preliminary tax rate of $0.0421; the Board of Supervisors subsequently fixed the tax rate at the prior year level of $0.0521 per $100 of net assessed value. The following table depicts the primary and secondary property tax levies for the last ten fiscal years, plus the adopted levies for FY 2005-06: Primary Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 * 2005-06 ** General Fund $ 156,257,472 154,487,036 169,045,638 183,750,071 207,540,697 225,396,514 252,676,223 276,640,863 307,700,421 339,972,141 371,224,118 Preliminary Tax Levy Secondary Debt Service $ 20,670,863 22,590,472 21,446,852 22,058,679 20,264,361 24,037,880 20,071,906 19,354,444 18,928,489 352,055 - Flood Control District $ 36,078,354 38,118,477 42,339,342 44,670,223 44,310,754 45,042,553 45,322,696 44,165,629 50,550,367 56,334,141 62,733,411 * Projected Actual ** Budget Note: Excludes SRP, Payments in Lieu of Taxes 47 Library District $ 1,397,824 6,038,469 6,619,593 7,078,280 7,862,946 8,586,315 9,646,430 10,182,607 14,162,234 16,075,112 17,295,751 $ Total 214,404,513 221,234,454 239,451,425 257,557,253 279,978,758 303,063,262 327,717,255 369,697,987 391,341,511 412,733,449 447,933,558 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) The chart below illustrates how Maricopa County Property Taxes have consistently been reduced over the last 14 years: Property Tax Rate Trend $1.70 $1.65 $1.60 $1.55 $1.50 $1.45 $1.40 06 FY 04 FY 02 FY 00 FY 98 FY 94 96 FY FY FY 92 $1.35 The FY 2005-06 budget includes an estimated primary property tax levy (excluding Payments in Lieu of Taxes from the Salt River Project) of $371,224,118, an increase of $31,342,019 (9.22%) from the FY 2004-05 adopted primary levy. The increase is due to the growth in net assessed value, of which half is a result of new construction. The remaining change in net assessed value is on existing property, which is partly attributable to the impact of biannual property valuation by the County Assessor. 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 several years. For further information, refer to the “Comparative Tax Data” schedule, as well as the Levy Limit and Truth in Taxation comparisons. Property Taxes (General Fund) $339,882,099 $339,972,141 $371,224,118 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 $0 FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL 48 FY 06 BUDGET Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Tax Penalties and 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 2004-05 projections are higher than the budget for the same period. The FY 2005-06 budget is a conservative estimate based on historical collection trends. Special Sales Taxes The County and Stadium District levy special sales taxes that are dedicated to 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 (Major League Spring Training) 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. 49 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 * 2005-06 ** Jail Excise Tax NA NA NA $ 41,477,224 91,984,716 97,752,375 98,177,716 106,516,708 107,441,209 114,747,212 121,632,044 Stadium District Car Rental Surcharge $ 4,818,487 5,326,147 5,443,369 5,400,000 5,722,238 5,637,184 5,536,163 4,865,038 5,556,717 5,330,443 5,215,094 Stadium District Major League Baseball $87,061,064 96,058,302 35,997,339 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total $ 91,879,551 101,384,449 41,440,708 46,877,224 97,706,954 103,389,559 103,713,879 111,381,746 112,997,927 120,077,655 126,847,138 * Projected Actual ** Budget In November 1998, Maricopa County voters approved a limited 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 $121,632,044 in FY 2005-06, an increase of $6,884,832 (6.0%) from what is projected for FY 2004-05. Jail Excise Tax revenue is budgeted based on the pessimistic forecast. Jail Excise Tax Forecasts "Pessimistic Scenario" Total Annual % Cumulative Fiscal Year Collections Chg. Collections 2005-06 $ 121,632,044 6.0% $ 772,148,025 2006-07 127,105,486 4.5% 899,253,511 2007-08 132,825,234 4.5% 1,032,078,745 2008-09 138,802,369 4.5% 1,170,881,114 2009-10 145,048,475 4.5% 1,315,929,589 2010-11 151,575,657 4.5% 1,467,505,246 2011-12 158,396,561 4.5% 1,625,901,807 2012-13 165,524,406 4.5% 1,791,426,213 2013-14 172,973,005 4.5% 1,964,399,218 2014-15 180,756,790 4.5% 2,145,156,008 2015-16 188,890,846 4.5% 2,334,046,854 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. 50 "Most Likely" Scenario Total Annual % Cumulative Collections Chg. Collections $ 124,277,247 7.5% $ 775,652,767 131,236,773 5.6% 906,889,540 138,586,032 5.6% 1,045,475,572 146,346,850 5.6% 1,191,822,422 154,542,273 5.6% 1,346,364,695 163,196,641 5.6% 1,509,561,336 172,335,653 5.6% 1,681,896,989 181,986,449 5.6% 1,863,883,438 192,177,690 5.6% 2,056,061,128 202,939,641 5.6% 2,259,000,769 214,304,261 5.6% 2,473,305,030 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) 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 licenses and permit revenues recorded for the last nine fiscal years, along with projected actual collections for FY 200405 and estimated revenues for FY 2005-06. Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05* 2005-06** Licenses & Permits Revenues Special Revenue General Fund Fund Total $ 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 52,000 28,140,973 28,192,973 1,306,694 30,322,689 31,629,383 1,369,806 29,863,434 31,233,239 1,854,000 29,775,980 31,629,980 * Projected Actual ** Budget Note: Prior to FY1999-00, Plannng and Development fees were deposited in the General Fund General Fund license and permit revenues include license fees paid by cable television companies for operation in unincorporated areas, which are being aggressively developed Licenses and Permits General Fund Department General Government General Government Clerk of Superior Court Sheriff Total FY 2004-05 Budget $50,000 1,357,500 55,936 $1,463,436 FY 2005-06 Budget $50,000 1,357,500 400,000 46,500 $1,854,000 Description Liquor Licenses Cable Television Franchise Fees Marriage Licenses Pawnshop & Peddler's Licenses Note: Marriage Licenses were misclassified to Other Charges for Services in prior years. 51 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Major sources of Special Revenue Fund license and permit revenue include Planning and Development fees, environmental health permits, and air quality permits. As noted earlier, the increase to licenses in FY 2005-06 is due to previous misclassification of this revenue source. Licenses & Permits Revenue (General Fund) $1,854,000 $1,463,436 $2,000,000 $1,369,806 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL FY 06 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. The reimbursement from the Health Care Delivery System of the Disproportionate Share match payment to the State of Arizona has historically been received as a Transfer In. Due to the formation of the Special Health Care District in January, 2005 that payment match is an intergovernmental payment in FY 2005-06, which is the source of the large increase in Intergovernmental Revenue in the General Fund for FY 2005-06. Additional Capital Projects funds revenue is due to an increase in project partnerships with cities and towns. The increase in Debt Services funds is attributed to the Special Health Care District. Maricopa County will make the payments for the Health Care District debt and be reimbursed by the District through Intergovernmental Revenue. Prior to the formation of the District, these payments were handled as a fund transfer. 52 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Listed below are the actual intergovernmental and grant revenues recorded for the last nine fiscal years prior to FY 2004-05, projected actual collections for FY 2004-05, and the amounts budgeted for FY 2005-06. Intergovernmental Revenues Fiscal Year General Fund Special Revenue Funds 1995-96 $ 312,660,997 $ 73,921,706 $ 1996-97 340,111,217 79,444,270 1997-98 342,821,757 167,199,736 1998-99 380,989,403 230,206,978 1999-00 402,400,291 282,270,743 2000-01 421,036,415 279,008,462 2001-02 439,548,553 287,759,808 2002-03 486,655,500 272,041,176 2003-04 489,807,845 277,488,820 2004-05* 606,580,388 280,111,983 2005-06** 614,341,666 306,693,586 Internal Service Funds Enterprise Funds 6,506,520 $ - $ 13,010,680 8,093,439 34,434 93,391,643 873,340 3,062,855 1,118,844 5,302,492 1,215,513 4,896,368 5,093,478 300,000 20,370,137 Capital Projects Funds Debt Service Total 87,061,064 $ 277,295 $ 480,427,582 96,058,302 279,935 515,893,724 42,238,451 262,793 565,533,417 1,335,329 612,531,710 859,370 685,530,404 278,259 708,451,009 12,784,358 399,224 834,756,926 7,320,885 339,376 770,538,636 9,384,689 339,376 783,538,735 16,938,423 679,187 914,299,828 29,366,281 3,293,935 974,365,605 * Projected Actual ** Budget Notes: 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. Although it is a quasi-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. Please refer to the Comparative Tax Data schedule for additional information on the SRP Payments in Lieu of Taxes. All calculations are in accordance with ARS 48-241 and 48-242. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (General Fund) $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,390,681 $5,200,823 $6,490,154 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,539,003 $1,539,003 $1,539,003 $0 FY 05 REVISED Federal FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL Salt River Project 53 FY 06 BUDGET Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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%. A portion of each of these taxes, ranging from 0 to 80%, is allocated to a pool for distribution to the cities, counties and state. Of this pool, 40.51% 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. State Shared Sales Tax Collections Fiscal Year General Fund 1995-96 $ 231,009,128 1996-97 242,352,311 1997-98 257,643,630 1998-99 279,386,536 1999-00 309,009,200 2000-01 322,429,593 2001-02 325,728,202 2002-03 330,260,143 2003-04 358,056,954 2004-05* 384,274,037 2005-06** 407,330,479 Listed at the right are the actual state shared sales tax collections for the last nine fiscal years, projected totals for FY 2004-05 plus the budget for FY 2005-06. State shared sales tax collections suffered the 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. Collections for FY 2004-05 are projected to exceed the budget, ending 7.3% higher than FY 2003-04 collections. Given continuing economic recovery, the FY 2005-06 budget for the General Fund estimates a 6.0% growth rate; resulting in $23,056,442 of additional State Shared Sales Tax revenue above the * Projected Actual ** Budget FY 2004-05 projected actual collections. State Shared Sales Tax $384,274,037 $450,000,000 $407,330,479 $374,939,056 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL 54 FY 06 BUDGET Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) The 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 200102. State Shared Sales Tax Forecast "Pessimistic Scenario" "Most Likely" Scenario Fiscal Annual Year Annual Collections % Chg. Collections % Chg. 2005-06 $ 407,330,479 6.0% $ 418,858,700 7.5% 2006-07 425,660,350 4.5% 443,990,222 6.0% 2007-08 444,815,066 4.5% 468,853,674 5.6% 2008-09 464,831,744 4.5% 495,109,480 5.6% 2009-10 485,749,173 4.5% 522,835,611 5.6% 2010-11 507,607,885 4.5% 552,114,405 5.6% 2011-12 530,450,240 4.5% 583,032,812 5.6% 2012-13 554,320,501 4.5% 615,682,649 5.6% 2013-14 579,264,924 4.5% 650,160,878 5.6% Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Company 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. At the right is a table showing actual and projected vehicle license tax collections from FY 1995-96 to FY 2005-06. Prior to FY 2001-02, VLT was budgeted at the midpoint between the “pessimistic” and “most likely” forecasts, but has since been budgeted at the pessimistic level due to uncertainties about the impact of biennial collection. In FY 2004-05, VLT collections have been strong, and projected actual revenue is anticipated to exceed budget by 2.23%. State Shared Vehicle License Tax Fiscal General Year Fund 1995-96 $ 53,421,417 1996-97 64,600,858 1997-98 67,164,259 1998-99 81,053,747 1999-00 88,147,523 2000-01 93,389,137 2001-02 99,372,045 2002-03 103,532,051 2003-04 116,054,332 2004-05* 120,696,506 2005-06** 126,127,849 * Projected Actual ** Budget 55 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) State Shared Vehicle License Tax (General Fund) $120,696,506 $118,057,605 $126,127,849 $130,000,000 $110,000,000 $90,000,000 $70,000,000 $50,000,000 FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL FY 06 BUDGET Based on the pessimistic forecast of 4.5% growth, the FY 2005-06 budget assumes a $5.6 million increase in Vehicle License Tax revenue above the FY 2004-05 projected actual collections. State Shared Vehicle License Tax Forecast Fiscal Year "Pessimistic Scenario" "Most Likely" Scenario % % Annual Collections Chg. Annual Collections Chg. 2005-06 $ 126,127,849 2006-07 131,172,962 2007-08 136,419,881 2008-09 141,876,676 2009-10 147,551,743 2010-11 153,453,813 2011-12 159,591,966 2012-13 165,975,644 2013-14 172,614,670 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. 4.5% $ 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 56 129,777,757 138,862,200 148,582,554 158,983,333 170,112,166 182,020,018 194,761,419 208,394,719 222,982,349 6.5% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) State Shared Highway User Revenues The State of Arizona collects highway user revenue, principally from a $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% to the State Highway Fund, 30% to cities and towns and 20% 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 Operations Fund to support the Maricopa County Department of Transportation. Listed at the right are the actual collections of the highway user revenues for the last nine fiscal years, projected totals for FY 2004-05, and the budget for FY 2005-06. Each fiscal year a portion of the monies in the Highway User Revenue Fund is distributed to the Department of Public Safety for funding a portion of highway patrol costs. The distribution is to be made in 8 installments in each of the first 8 months of the fiscal year, and not to exceed $10,000,000 (A.R.S. 286537) beginning in FY 2000. However, beginning in FY2000, the legislature has provided for the transfer of additional HURF monies to the Department of Public Safety. Since these monies are deducted prior to the distribution to the counties, the increased funds diverted to the Department of Public Safety has the effect of reducing the amount of monies the counties receive from this fund. Other Intergovernmental Revenue Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05* 2005-06** State Shared Highway User Revenues $ 68,763,760 73,249,850 67,408,288 72,392,313 77,317,632 78,243,269 78,285,212 82,153,375 86,598,735 92,270,705 94,948,883 * Projected Actual ** Budget 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) $94,870,020 $100,000,000 $72,854,181 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $8,594,302 $20,000,000 $0 FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL 57 FY 06 BUDGET Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Detail of FY 2005-06 General Fund Other Intergovernmental Revenue is shown in the following table. Most of the increase is due to reimbursements from the Special Health Care District for the Disproportionate Share match payment. This payment was treated as a fund transfer before the creation of the District. Department Contract Counsel County Attorney Elections Employee Health Initiatives Enviromental General Government Health Care Mandates Juvenile Probation FY 2004-05 Budget $ 15,000 2,050,000 249,773 5,999 Legal Defender Legal Advocate Medical Examiner Public Defender Sheriff’s Office Superintendent of Schools Trial Courts 19,700 20,000 60,000 44,000 5,207,358 60,000 862,472 Total $ 8,594,302 Other Intergovernmental Revenue General Fund FY 2005-06 Budget Description $ 40,000 State Grand Jury Reimbursements 557,257 Legal Services to Housing Authority and Special Health Care District 1,031,000 Election Services 1,226,397 Contract Premium, Administrative Fee 1,000 IGA with City of Peoria 249,773 Shared State Lottery Sales 63,366,600 Disproportionate share match reimbursement 5,999 Reimbursement from U.S. Marshals for housing of federal juvenile prisoners 19,700 State Grand Jury Reimbursements 20,000 State Grand Jury Reimbursements - IGAs with Yavapai County for laboratory services 44,000 State Grand Jury Reimbursements 5,315,227 Patrol Services, Social Security Administration pay for inmate information 120,000 National Forest Fees for Schools 857,228 IGA with City of El Mirage for use of court space; State Reimbursement for JP Salaries and IGA Revenue from Gila Bend for Lease Space $ 72,854,181 Charges for Services Maricopa County charges fees for various services. County policy is to fully recover the cost for providing services. When setting fees, care is exercised in establishing charges for services so that they do not unfairly discriminate against those most in need of services. The County Board of Supervisors approves all fee schedules, unless fees are specifically set forth in State statute. Charges for service are also levied internally within Maricopa County government for internal services provided by one County department to another department, but are eliminated within the overall County budget. Examples of charges for services to the public include court filing fees, kennel fees, landfill charges, park entrance fees, vital statistic document fees, probation service fees, and patient service charges. Examples of internal charges for services include motor pool charges and long distance telephone charges. 58 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Listed below are the revenues recorded for the last eight fiscal years, projected revenue for FY 2004-05, and the budget amount for FY 2005-06 for other charges for service, internal service charges, patient service charges, and fines and fees. The reduction of revenue in the Enterprise Funds is due to the transfer of the Health Care Delivery System to the Special Health Care District and the discontinuation of the Health Plans scheduled for September 30, 2005. Fiscal General Year Fund 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 25,932,256 2003-04 30,266,056 2004-05* 28,760,130 2005-06** 28,009,400 Special Revenue Funds $ 22,713,435 30,598,649 33,636,546 40,987,616 43,365,082 32,432,540 36,564,318 41,538,814 43,248,510 47,059,539 Charges for Service Debt Capital Service Projects Enterprise Fund Funds Funds $ 302,898 $ 64,018 $ 459,442,809 180,180 231,215 465,456,904 352,643 16,630 498,120,261 280,976 13,389 545,219,766 125,432 1,526 582,350,811 577,445,943 695,504,915 773,743,235 546,420,897 81,694,822 Internal Service Funds $ 85,204,601 66,587,939 70,147,479 87,758,508 47,269,363 48,199,803 73,435,665 86,558,352 85,930,945 79,536,047 Elimination Fund $ Total - $589,226,660 586,340,301 625,555,600 695,004,558 695,456,533 (138,734,084) 542,410,644 (74,326,480) 757,110,673 (161,468,141) 770,638,317 (172,480,735) 531,879,747 (75,837,516) 160,462,292 * Projected Actual ** Budget Includes Fees, Charges for Service and Patient Revenue Patient Charges Fiscal Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05* 2005-06** General Fund $2,444,637 647,580 87,872 101,118 66,046 49,448 18,746 38,917 52,848 $ Patient Charges and Patient Care – Revenue Allowances Special Internal Revenue Enterprise Service Capital Projects Funds Funds Funds Funds Eliminations Total 532,007 $ 323,663,351 $ - $ - $ (54,232,273) $ 272,408,322 602,542 508,799,795 (40,707,215) 469,342,702 1,060,650 584,897,791 (47,811,146) 538,106,404 1,242,215 187,203,802 188,547,135 1,228,270 577,401,082 (91,278,716) 487,416,682 1,142,428 695,449,087 12,424,598 (5,248,439) 703,817,091 1,504,145 773,534,090 7,871,064 (79,149,895) 703,778,150 1,099,056 546,270,073 (90,672,752) 456,735,294 1,198,557 81,569,822 82,821,227 * Projected Actual ** Budget In the General Fund, the residual long-term care program generates patient service revenues. The long-term care residual population will decline because no new patients are enrolled in the program. 59 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Patient Charges (General Fund) $100,000 $52,848 $52,848 $80,000 $38,917 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL FY 06 BUDGET FY 2005-06 Patient Charges Summary General Fund Department Health Care Mandates Total FY 2004-05 Budget $52,848 $52,848 FY 2005-06 Budget Description $52,848 Residual LTC Patient Share of Cost $52,848 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 FY 2005-06 Internal Service Charges is in Employee Health Initiatives. These charges are for the employer paid portion of the employee health benefits in the self-funded benefits program. It should be noted that the increase in Internal Service Charges is not due a significant increase in benefits but due rather to a change in the way these payments are being reported. All Internal Service Charge revenues are eliminated in the consolidated reports. Other Charges for Services Actual collections of Other Charges for Service are anticipated to exceed budget in FY 2004-05 in the General Fund by $2.6 million. Internal Fiscal Year Service Funds 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 48,426,383 2003-04 50,987,566 2004-05* 46,455,208 2005-06** 70,672,443 * Projected Actual ** Budget 60 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) FY 2005-06 General Fund Other Charges for Services are budgeted conservatively and are anticipated to increase $1,403,619 from the FY 2004-05 budget. Other Charges for Services (General Fund) $21,721,860 $24,358,311 $23,125,479 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL FY 06 BUDGET The table below identifies the various sources of other charges for service revenue. While many of the charges will remain constant as compared to the FY 2004-05 budget, Recorder charges reflect a notable increase. This is a result of an increase in the number of documents filed due to refinancing. The FY 2005-06 budget is a conservative representation of the anticipated Recorder fees. Their FY 2004-05 actual fees are projected to be in excess of $10 million. FY 2005-06 revenue was budgeted consistent with the current year projections. Many revenue sources are volume driven and the anticipated revenue is based on the projected population growth in Maricopa County. While most of the revenue source increases are minor, overall the impact to the county for FY 2006-07 is an anticipated revenue increase of approximately $2 million. FY 2005-06 Other Charges for Service Summary General Fund Department Clerk of the Superior Court Constables Elections General Government Human Resources Juvenile Probation $ Medical Examiner Public Defender Public Fiduciary Recorder Sheriff Superintendent of Schools Total Compensation Treasurer Trial Courts Total $ FY 2004-05 3,914,000 1,517,468 2,000,000 26,640 8,001 FY 2005-06 $ 3,500,000 1,771,057 3,500 2,075,000 35,950 8,001 90,000 8,000 930,000 8,962,170 465,500 95,000 20,000 4,000 3,681,081 150,000 8,000 750,000 11,000,000 465,500 35,000 25,212 4,000 3,294,259 21,721,860 $ 23,125,479 61 Description Filing Fees Writ & Restitution Collection Fees Certifications Tax Sale Fees Garnishments, Copies and Lost Bus Card Fees Miscellaneous Charges and Indian Ward Custody 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 COBRA Administration Miscellaneous Charges Defensive Driving Fees and Other Miscellaneous Court Fees; Civil Trial Jury Fees Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Fines and Forfeits Through statutory and enforcement authority, Maricopa County collects various fines such as citations, court fines, and library fines. Fines & Forfeits Special Fiscal General Revenue Year Fund Funds 1996-97 $ 9,552,255 $ 1,947,305 1997-98 10,552,336 1,908,335 1998-99 10,954,594 2,472,263 1999-00 10,871,790 3,711,582 2000-01 11,989,817 2,918,598 2001-02 12,886,929 3,458,507 2002-03 11,940,884 4,390,695 2003-04 12,858,597 4,307,781 2004-05* 13,422,333 5,678,298 2005-06** 12,457,158 5,792,797 $ Total 11,499,560 12,460,671 13,426,857 14,583,372 14,908,415 16,345,436 16,331,579 17,166,378 19,100,631 18,249,955 * Projected Actual ** Budget In the General Fund, the Trial Courts, Clerk of the Superior Court, Environmental Services, Sheriff and the Elections Department collect fines and forfeits. Based on collections through March, the forecasted revenue is expected to exceed budget in FY 2004-05. The FY 2005-06 budget anticipates General Fund Fines and Forfeits above the FY 2004-05 budgeted collections. The largest source of General Fund fine revenue is the Trial Courts, which comprises 82.2% of the total Fines and Forfeits in the General Fund. The table below summarizes the sources of General Fund Fines and Forfeits. FY 2005-06 Fines and Forfeits Summary General Fund Department Clerk of the Superior Court Elections Environmental Services Sheriff Trial Courts Total FY 2004-05 Budget $ 2,165,000 6,000 1,400 9,975,620 $ 12,148,020 FY 2005-06 Budget $ 2,180,000 3,600 25,000 1,400 10,247,158 $ 12,457,158 Description Superior Court Fines Campaign Finance Penalty Fees Code Enforcement Fines Civil Sanctions and Traffic Fines Justice Court Traffic and Misdemeanor Note: Code Enforcement Fines were mis-posted to a special revenue fund in prior years. 62 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) Miscellaneous Revenue Miscellaneous revenues are any revenues that do not fall within another 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 bond proceeds, recorded for the last nine fiscal years, projected amounts for FY 2004-05, plus the budget for FY 2005-06. Miscellaneous revenues are recorded in all of the fund types. Fiscal Year 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05* 2005-06** $ General Fund 22,698,183 12,052,384 10,170,063 12,514,416 13,968,176 20,448,749 16,376,321 11,657,516 9,818,704 11,062,838 6,839,820 $ Special Revenue Funds 13,368,020 19,343,464 32,181,062 24,642,605 25,334,749 38,295,643 33,229,869 37,321,397 22,198,630 24,708,366 53,842,573 $ Miscellaneous Revenue Debt Capital Service Projects Funds Funds 1,075,861 $ 1,287,867 622,445 10,056,965 524,591 100,241,220 400,000 407,093 400,000 1,325,000 4,927,850 113,020,718 5,913,617 12,369,884 3,193,710 5,994,977 1,586,395 10,505,604 3,992,250 4,574,007 1,700,000 4,642,306 Enterprise Funds $ 5,249,093 5,221,705 1,292,308 78,878,826 21,320,726 26,279,616 8,543,553 4,857,068 7,081,380 3,473,736 240,000 $ Internal Service Funds 104,646 741,659 269,866 2,594,804 941,625 2,344,981 2,230,495 1,672,982 625,811 747,422 912,885 * Projected Actual ** Budget Miscellaneous Revenue (General Fund) $11,062,838 $12,000,000 $8,267,026 $6,839,820 $9,000,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL 63 FY 06 BUDGET $ Total 43,783,670 48,038,622 144,679,110 119,437,744 63,290,276 323,266,125 96,947,240 73,886,337 51,816,523 48,558,619 68,511,584 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Revenue Sources and Variance Commentary (Continued) As in prior years, the largest single component of miscellaneous revenues in the General Fund is interest income, which is budgeted at $4.5 million in FY 2005-06. The General Fund budget for Miscellaneous Revenue is decreasing in FY 2005-06 because the FY 2004-05 budget included one-time revenues associated with the NACO conference and the Security Building. Interest revenue is based on an estimate provided by the Department of Finance based on projected fund balances and prevailing interest rates. FY 2005-06 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 Trial Courts FY 2004-05 $ 2,810,000 133,669 26,265 36,271 15,000 78,000 576,138 2,494,082 5,208 75 127,000 1,337,830 118,400 509,088 Total $ 8,267,026 FY 2005-06 $ 133,669 25,265 36,271 10,000 95,555 4,580,000 400 85 116,959 1,093,600 118,400 629,616 $ 6,839,820 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 Other Financing Sources Other Financing Sources include Proceeds of Financing (debt) and Fund Transfers In. Fund Transfers In Details on Fund Transfers In and Transfers In (General Fund) Out are included later in this document. Fund transfers in to the $133,601,730 General Fund for FY 2005-06 are $150,000,000 comprised solely of Central Service Allocation charges to non-General $125,000,000 Fund departments. The $100,000,000 $50,983,695 reimbursement from the Health Care $75,000,000 Delivery System of the $50,000,000 $9,541,283 Disproportionate Share match $25,000,000 payment to the State of Arizona has $0 historically been received as a FY 05 REVISED FY 05 PROJ ACTUAL FY 06 BUDGET Transfer In. Due to the formation of the Special Health Care District in January, 2005 that payment match is an intergovernmental payment in FY 2005-06. 64 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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, and Library. The adopted budget for the Library District assumed the preliminary tax rate of $0.0421. The Board of Supervisors subsequently fixed and determined a tax rate of $0.0521 for the District. FY 2005-06 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY Primary, Debt Service, Flood Control District and Library District Levies Description Assessed Value MARICOPA COUNTY PRIMARY: $ 31,010,284,705 FY 2005-06 Adopted 31,010,284,705 FY 2005-06 Preliminary 28,070,870,413 FY 2004-05 Final $ 2,939,414,292 Variance FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: $ FY 2005-06 Adopted FY 2005-06 Preliminary FY 2004-05 Final $ Variance 29,605,196,407 29,605,196,407 26,585,248,023 3,019,948,384 LIBRARY DISTRICT: FY 2005-06 Adopted FY 2005-06 Preliminary FY 2004-05 Final Variance 33,197,218,398 33,197,218,398 30,066,986,670 3,130,231,728 $ $ Salt River Proj. Effective Assessed Value $ $ $ $ $ $ 542,156,376 542,156,376 445,216,494 96,939,882 90,480,096 90,480,096 64,942,150 25,537,946 542,156,376 542,156,376 445,216,494 96,939,882 Total Assessed Value w/SRP $ $ $ $ $ $ 31,552,441,081 31,552,441,081 28,516,086,907 3,036,354,174 29,695,676,503 29,695,676,503 26,650,190,173 3,045,486,330 33,739,374,774 33,739,374,774 30,512,203,164 3,227,171,610 GRAND TOTALS: FY 2005-06 Adopted FY 2005-06 Preliminary FY 2004-05 Final Variance Revenue from 1-cent Levy $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,155,244 3,155,244 2,851,609 303,635 2,969,568 2,969,568 2,665,019 304,549 3,373,937 3,373,937 3,051,220 322,717 Tax Rates $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 65 1.1971 $ 1.1971 1.2108 (0.0137) $ 0.2119 0.2119 0.2119 - 0.0521 0.0421 0.0521 - SRP Payments in Lieu (PILT) Property Tax Levy $ $ $ 371,224,118 371,224,118 339,882,099 31,342,019 62,733,411 62,733,411 56,334,141 6,399,270 $ $ $ $ $ $ 17,295,751 13,976,029 15,664,900 1,630,851 1.4611 $ 1.4511 1.4748 (0.0137) $ 451,253,280 447,933,558 411,881,140 39,372,140 $ $ $ 6,490,154 6,490,154 5,390,681 1,099,473 191,727 191,727 137,612 54,115 Total Tax Levy & PILT $ $ $ $ 282,463 228,248 187,436 95,027 $ 6,964,344 6,910,129 5,715,729 1,248,615 $ $ $ 377,714,272 377,714,272 345,272,780 32,441,492 62,925,138 62,925,138 56,471,753 6,453,385 17,578,214 14,204,277 15,852,336 1,725,878 458,217,624 454,843,687 417,596,869 40,620,755 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Levy Limit and Truth-In-Taxation Comparisons PRELIMINARY LEVY VS. FY 2005-06 LIMIT FY 2005-06 Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit Maximum Rate $ 371,224,118 $ 1.1971 FY 2005-06 Preliminary Primary Levy (excluding SRP): Primary Levy Rate $ 371,224,118 $ 1.1971 Amount Under/(Over) Limit: $ - PRELIMINARY FY 2005-06 LEVY VS. TRUTH-IN-TAXATION LEVY Current NAV Subject to Taxation in Prior Year FY 2004-05 Primary Levy FY 2005-06 Truth-in-Taxation Rate FY 2005-06 Current Net Assessed Value FY 2005-06 Truth-in-Taxation Levy $ 29,514,263,431 $ 339,882,099 $ 1.1516 $ 31,010,284,705 $ 357,114,439 FY 2005-06 Preliminary Primary Levy (excluding SRP) FY 2005-06 Preliminary Primary Rate $ $ 371,224,118 1.1971 Amount Under/(Over) Truth-in-Taxation Levy Amount Under/(Over) Truth-in-Taxation Rate $ $ (14,109,679) (0.0455) Truth-in-Taxation Assessment on a $100,000 Home: Recommended Primary Levy on a $100,000 Home: (Increase)/Decrease $ $ $ 115.16 119.71 (4.55) -4.0% Impact of Overall Rate on a $100,000 home: FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 Net Impact on Taxpayer $ $ $ 147.48 151.94 (4.46) -3.0% 66 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 balances for the upcoming fiscal year, and resulting estimated fund balances at the end of FY 2005-06. “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. Fund designations are explained in greater detail later in this section. A list of fund balance designations is provided in the following section. The process for estimating all beginning fund balances for FY 2005-06 begins with audited actual fund balance information at the end of FY 2003-04, 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. Grant Funds A number of grant funds reflect negative unreserved/undesignated beginning fund balances as a result of recent changes in Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) financial reporting requirements disallowing the inclusion of revenues received after 60 days following the end of the fiscal year. The Department of Finance and the Office of Management and Budget are working with affected departments to improve upon their financial reporting practices to ensure that annual expenditures remain within authorized grant awards and that any reimbursements due from the federal government are received in a timely manner to minimize the number of negative fund balances. In addition to the grant funds, the following fund is projected to have a deficit fund balance at the end of FY 2005-06: Equipment Services (Fund 654) The existing deficit is due to various management and business process deficiencies. In FY 2003-04 OMB and Equipment Services engaged the services of Eclipse Consulting to assist in identifying business process improvements. Equipment Services and OMB began implementing the consultant’s recommendations in FY 2004-05 and will update fees to reflect the recommendations in FY 2005-06. The FY 2005-06 budget includes measures to partially address the negative fund balance. County Improvement Fund (Fund 435) Due to timing, the General Fund will cover the funding shortfall. until additional funding is secured from tax exempt borrowing in FY07. 67 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) 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 212 SHERIFF RICO FUND 213 COUNTY ATTORNEY RICO 214 SHERIFF JAIL ENHANCEMENT FUND 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 PROBATION GRANTS 228 JUVENILE PROBATION SPECIAL FEES 229 JUVENILE RESTITUTION FUND 230 PARKS & REC. GRANTS 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 233 PUBLIC DEFENDER GRANTS 235 DEL WEBB SPECIAL FUND 236 RECORDERS SURCHARGE 238 TRIAL COURTS 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 COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 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 259 TRIAL COURTS 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 273 VICTIM LOCATION 274 CLERK OF THE COURT EDMS Unreserved/ Undesignated Beginning Fund Balance $ 102,333,473 $ $ $ Revenue & Transfers In 1,056,102,098 168,695,348 $ 3,861,921 $ 28,941 2,500,292 133,795 196,921 1,797,101 134,015 498,864 21,787 (33,543) 33,279 921,869 193,689 (461,130) 1,115,236 186,157 (1,573,531) (217,476) 376,944 17,035,507 (780,885) 853,666 65,396 78,554 15,119,993 595,373 8,720,003 (34,078) 21,302 1,574,111 1,833,822 (4,596) 1,229,307 4,041,673 2,712,036 390,848 2,535,379 172,273 13,215,322 4,452,656 152,023 67,177,774 172,280 204,969 2,332,523 12,347 377,935 549,034 9,218 253,964 680,540 252,550 364,677 177,149 471,799 145,257 294,713 79,148 583,932 787,793,320 8,843,000 16,400 608,704 1,098,925 299,626 1,287,192 507,294 79,500 5,639,944 745,000 1,300,000 2,050,000 556,171 1,476,516 15,997,531 1,487,544 6,560,517 1,000,000 1,266,624 37,977,848 1,892,962 12,689 442,500 12,077,430 14,284,904 900,000 10,000 282,839 106,067,343 406,661 175,000 5,370,000 1,930,131 105,000 1,383,951 2,373,490 25,000 160,000 15,209,000 2,062,052 18,491,844 507,500 4,739,549 15,283,653 4,616,121 149,715 293,738,752 372,000 1,545,000 6,488,262 334,000 875,000 1,392,366 46,385 1,547,846 3,350,761 720,031 1,361,500 36,000 40,000 45,000 444,500 3,300 2,900,000 68 Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 1,158,435,571 $ 858,593,884 8,896,950 16,400 608,704 1,223,925 337,366 1,761,555 507,294 564,274 5,639,944 745,000 1,300,000 2,050,000 556,171 1,476,516 15,997,531 1,527,544 6,560,517 1,000,000 1,266,624 37,977,848 1,892,962 12,689 683,000 13,527,517 14,284,904 900,000 50,000 357,839 121,187,336 406,661 171,184 7,509,286 1,930,131 105,000 1,383,951 2,773,048 25,000 271,000 15,231,294 2,062,052 18,391,844 482,288 4,739,549 10,058,412 3,615,507 301,738 342,571,400 372,000 1,545,000 6,569,262 334,000 875,000 1,392,366 46,385 1,547,846 3,747,060 720,031 1,361,500 126,000 465,000 85,000 444,500 37,718 3,100,000 Appropriated Fund Balance $ 113,106,801 $ 48,832,648 48,832,648 - Operating Expenditures $ 1,045,328,770 $ 809,761,236 8,896,950 16,400 608,704 1,223,925 337,366 1,761,555 507,294 564,274 5,639,944 745,000 1,300,000 2,050,000 556,171 1,476,516 15,997,531 1,527,544 6,560,517 1,000,000 1,266,624 37,977,848 1,892,962 12,689 683,000 13,527,517 14,284,904 900,000 50,000 357,839 121,187,336 406,661 171,184 7,509,286 1,930,131 105,000 1,383,951 2,773,048 25,000 271,000 15,231,294 2,062,052 18,391,844 482,288 4,739,549 10,058,412 3,615,507 301,738 293,738,752 372,000 1,545,000 6,569,262 334,000 875,000 1,392,366 46,385 1,547,846 3,747,060 720,031 1,361,500 126,000 465,000 85,000 444,500 37,718 3,100,000 Unreserved/ Undesignated Ending Fund Balance $ - $ $ 97,894,783 3,807,971 28,941 2,500,292 8,795 159,181 1,322,738 134,015 14,090 21,787 (33,543) 33,279 921,869 153,689 (461,130) 1,115,236 186,157 (1,573,531) (217,476) 136,444 15,585,420 (780,885) 853,666 25,396 3,554 599,189 6,580,717 (34,078) 21,302 1,574,111 1,434,264 (4,596) 1,118,307 4,019,379 2,712,036 490,848 2,560,591 172,273 18,440,563 5,453,270 18,345,126 172,280 204,969 2,251,523 12,347 377,935 549,034 9,218 253,964 284,241 252,550 364,677 87,149 46,799 105,257 294,713 44,730 383,932 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) 275 JUVENILE PROBATION DIVERSION 276 SPOUSAL MAINT ENF ENHANCEMENT 281 CHILDRENS ISSUES EDUCATION 282 DOM REL MEDIATION EDUCATION 290 WASTE TIRE 292 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH GRANT 503 AIR QUALITY 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 989 FLOOD CONTROL GRANTS 991 FLOOD CONTROL SPECIAL REVENUE Unreserved/ Undesignated Beginning Fund Balance 472,835 94,472 154,924 192,763 5,298,598 17,765 (1,064,891) 1,420,650 (454,600) 834,486 (2,595,426) 313,831 (1,548) 351,247 9,804 5,815,815 $ 168,695,348 $ DEBT SERVICE 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 DEBT SERVICE $ $ CAPITAL PROJECTS 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS CAPITAL PROJECTS $ $ $ $ 30,624,865 28,408,183 2,216,682 30,624,865 113,528,221 38,672,702 1,108,008 34,409,878 13,513,636 10,679,194 9,164,377 5,980,426 113,528,221 $ $ $ ENTERPRISE 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE $ $ INTERNAL SERVICE 652 HS SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 673 REPROGRAPHICS 675 RISK MANAGEMENT 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 685 BENEFITS TRUST INTERNAL SERVICE $ $ $ ELIMINATIONS $ - $ ALL FUNDS $ 449,119,149 $ $ 4,409,513 2,578 90 4,406,844 4,409,513 $ Revenue & Transfers In 284,629 111,750 100,000 170,000 4,150,000 513,895 3,639,375 7,201,000 11,164,138 41,592,348 5,437,716 356,726 2,871,232 97,202,138 787,793,320 12,780,765 7,265,671 5,515,094 12,780,765 236,467,725 96,842,069 19,612,524 24,000,000 8,125,000 2,093,820 14,977,841 70,816,471 236,467,725 $ 88,205,957 29,485,332 58,055,625 665,000 88,205,957 29,527,729 2,300,953 $ (2,321,978) 768,999 13,033,575 3,720,040 12,026,140 29,527,729 $ 100,819,069 21,514,935 10,596,904 901,885 23,116,120 15,232,361 29,456,864 100,819,069 $ Expenditures & Transfers Out 284,629 111,750 100,000 170,000 4,075,553 513,895 3,635,225 7,163,459 11,556,337 41,592,348 5,436,355 356,726 2,871,232 103,017,953 $ 858,593,884 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (403,668,169) $ 1,878,500,765 69 $ 23,341,996 17,416,902 5,925,094 23,341,996 278,207,110 110,634,054 5,691,348 66,674,304 10,262,404 3,000 22,800,000 62,142,000 278,207,110 88,346,783 29,485,332 58,055,625 805,826 88,346,783 Appropriated Fund Balance $ 48,832,648 $ - $ - $ Operating Expenditures 284,629 111,750 100,000 170,000 4,075,553 513,895 3,635,225 7,163,459 11,556,337 41,592,348 5,436,355 356,726 2,871,232 103,017,953 $ 809,761,236 $ $ - $ $ $ - $ $ $ - $ (403,668,169) $ - $ 161,939,449 $ 103,056,236 21,439,935 10,575,177 866,797 26,130,901 14,886,562 29,156,864 103,056,236 2,106,313,411 $ $ $ $ $ 23,341,996 17,416,902 5,925,094 23,341,996 278,207,110 110,634,054 5,691,348 66,674,304 10,262,404 3,000 22,800,000 62,142,000 278,207,110 Unreserved/ Undesignated Ending Fund Balance 472,835 94,472 154,924 192,763 5,373,045 17,765 (1,060,741) 1,458,191 (454,600) 442,287 (2,595,426) 315,192 (1,548) 351,247 9,804 $ 97,894,783 $ $ $ $ $ 88,346,783 29,485,332 58,055,625 805,826 88,346,783 $ $ 103,056,236 21,439,935 10,575,177 866,797 26,130,901 14,886,562 29,156,864 103,056,236 $ $ $ $ (403,668,169) $ 1,944,373,962 $ 20,063,635 18,256,952 1,806,682 20,063,635 71,788,836 24,880,717 15,029,184 (8,264,426) 11,376,232 12,770,014 1,342,218 14,654,897 71,788,836 4,268,687 2,579 90 4,266,018 4,268,687 27,290,562 2,375,953 (2,300,251) 804,087 10,018,794 4,065,839 12,326,140 27,290,562 221,306,503 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 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. 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. Amounts are designated in the General Fund to cover the equity requirements associated with the Maricopa Health and Long Term Care plans. Amounts are also designated in Public Health, Environmental Services, and Animal Care & Control Special Revenue funds for capital improvement projects spending that will not occur until after FY 2005-06. In addition, funds are designated in the Risk Management Fund for potential liabilities that will occur in future fiscal years. 70 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Beginning Fund Balance and Variance Commentary (Continued) FY 2005-06 Fund Balance Designations Fund/Designation General Fund (Fund 100) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax Cash Flow/Jail Tax MHP Equity MLTCP Equity Budget Stabilization Fund FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 $ (Inc.)/Dec. 80,619,104 5,000,000 74,226,339 $ 159,845,443 $ 85,471,404 6,114,413 12,249,508 79,899,509 $ 183,734,834 $ Flood Control District (Fund 991) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax $ 11,880,471 $ 7,653,929 $ 4,226,542 (1) Library District (Fund 244) Budget Stabilization: Cash Flow/Property Tax $ 1,443,926 $ 2,701,481 $ (1,257,555) (1) Public Health Fees (Fund 265) Future Capital Projects $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ - (4) Air Quality Fees (Fund 504) Future Capital Projects $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ - (4) Environmental Health (Fund 506) Future Capital Projects $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 $ - (4) Animal Care and Control License/Shelter (Fund 572) Future Capital Projects $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - (4) Animal Care and Control Field Operations (Fund 574) Future Capital Projects $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ - (4) Maricopa Health Plan (Fund 541) Equity Requirement $ 6,772,650 $ - $ 6,772,650 (5) Long Term Care Plan (Fund 551) Equity Requirement $ 13,632,000 $ - $ 13,632,000 (5) Risk Management (Fund 675) Future Year Liabilities $ - $ 5,150,000 $ (5,150,000) (6) $ (4,852,300) 5,000,000 (6,114,413) (12,249,508) (5,673,170) (23,889,391) (1) (2) (5) (5) (3) (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) This reserve has been established to be utilized for economic downturns or unexpected financial losses. (4) Amount needed to fund "pay as you go" capital projects benefiting these departments, 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). (5) Amounts needed to cover equity requirements associated with the Health Plans. These amounts are now designated in the General Fund. (6) Amount needed to fund future year one-time potential liabilities. 71 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Expenditure Limitation 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 2005-06 for Disproportionate Share payments to the Special Health Care District. 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 2005-06 Expenditure Limitation Est. Adjustment for Disproportionate Share Payments FY 2005-06 Adjusted Limitation $ $ $ 936,891,301 (63,366,600) 873,524,701 FY 2005-06 Expenditures Subject to Limitation $ 873,524,700 Expenditures (Over)/Under Limitation $ 1 72 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund ALL FUNDS JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ SUBTOTAL 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 APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 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 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS 640 TRANSPORTATION 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 850 AIR QUALITY 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 980 ELIMINATIONS SUBTOTAL $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 55,790,004 45,738,082 70,191,535 171,719,621 $ 219,407 222,073 228,062 186,943 233,522 15,624,828 1,339,479 29,171,332 63,783,504 6,984,394 1,716,309 6,144,973 1,898,675 3,737,821 160,940,176 292,431,499 $ $ $ 59,588,673 53,670,391 76,934,821 190,193,885 $ 249,676 249,676 249,676 249,676 249,676 15,808,896 1,298,676 29,783,314 67,424,669 10,494,469 1,780,046 7,599,401 1,984,742 3,952,730 183,996,007 325,371,330 $ $ $ 61,251,739 54,098,007 78,961,933 194,311,679 $ 257,627 257,627 257,627 257,627 257,627 16,506,289 1,398,665 30,514,637 69,486,925 10,586,149 1,854,923 7,698,746 2,020,547 4,010,126 190,479,532 335,844,674 $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED 58,271,142 49,816,659 75,062,108 183,149,909 $ 221,157 224,201 225,252 194,959 227,827 15,903,644 1,354,315 28,505,605 67,268,807 12,925,623 1,838,939 7,454,028 1,887,130 4,009,733 185,514,456 327,755,674 $ $ $ 64,839,938 57,672,053 83,809,808 206,321,798 $ (3,588,199) (3,574,046) (4,847,875) (12,010,119) -6% -7% -6% -6% 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 18,118,945 1,555,385 35,257,413 70,320,166 7,255,771 1,908,645 9,623,982 2,165,072 4,147,293 221,160,795 373,046,042 $ $ (48,888) (48,888) (48,888) (48,888) (48,888) (1,612,656) (156,720) (4,742,776) (833,241) 3,330,378 (53,722) (1,925,236) (144,525) (137,167) (30,681,263) (37,201,368) -19% -19% -19% -19% -19% -10% -11% -16% -1% 31% -3% -25% -7% -3% -16% -11% (33,480) 466,628 35,745 (408,129) (5,324) (42,344) (43,487) (1,667,109) (372,772) (1,059,571) 57,881 (80,440) (11,299,377) 19,960,974 (1,514,715) 1,096,676 (809,583) 106,000 (70,023,258) 129,890,209 (127,488) (457,237) (253,821) (267,019) (4,631,917) 300,592,599 (34,386,430) (461,540) 19,064,259 159,275 (662,540) (60,185) 349,249 (1,112,819) 107,407 (446,865) 391,520,430 (182,133,394) 551,046,487 -7% 29% 0% -15% 0% 0% -4% -4% -8% -18% 2% -4% -27% 6% -8% 20% -6% 24% -16% 45% -5% -1% -3% -4% -49% 77% -26% -10% 34% 6% -7% 0% 4% -2% 1% -3% 100% -41% 28% $ $ 462,191 $ 1,347,126 9,582,595 2,352,570 1,756,304 37,316,187 1,005,480 45,032,166 4,398,096 5,521,602 2,696,509 1,958,091 34,204,174 309,058,943 17,384,571 4,205,967 8,846,650 415,997 256,802,021 188,015,909 1,947,438 30,749,822 5,910,048 5,313,624 12,349,749 483,439,101 95,875,074 5,886,229 85,253,054 2,148,587 10,243,132 22,934,802 8,040,604 51,927,866 9,060,932 10,877,871 266,238,375 (442,131,289) 1,598,428,167 $ 478,788 $ 1,538,989 16,033,276 2,532,036 1,961,971 39,764,880 1,035,910 40,974,419 4,456,694 5,757,830 3,113,833 1,983,422 41,623,455 321,129,985 18,864,864 5,435,481 11,109,948 440,000 453,543,177 291,727,658 2,507,135 33,677,672 7,105,584 6,399,647 9,384,406 388,133,556 130,940,134 4,412,422 55,431,491 2,186,857 9,751,777 26,070,716 9,106,379 49,787,818 10,239,068 12,431,025 391,520,430 (446,659,277) 1,965,933,456 $ 503,413 $ 1,593,925 16,033,276 2,678,509 1,991,237 40,002,738 1,065,767 41,547,700 4,610,876 6,005,961 3,208,177 2,105,805 41,623,455 321,194,668 18,995,463 5,494,888 12,889,118 440,000 435,128,267 291,829,658 2,650,003 34,601,823 7,283,141 6,546,730 9,530,400 388,133,556 131,852,134 4,419,839 55,703,284 2,515,656 9,912,637 26,070,716 9,388,755 53,015,085 10,906,091 12,847,516 391,520,430 (445,391,667) 1,960,449,030 $ 433,017 $ 1,116,967 7,804,812 2,376,282 1,707,699 39,332,793 1,090,596 43,633,256 4,722,030 5,523,021 3,062,387 1,974,308 41,942,402 319,556,016 19,950,938 4,745,879 11,252,140 361,959 294,170,586 210,884,864 2,128,306 33,582,087 6,830,872 6,293,197 14,622,047 411,453,773 110,342,531 4,879,995 29,779,551 2,366,002 10,209,789 25,592,487 9,131,189 51,722,961 10,057,652 11,989,235 208,933,396 (403,800,232) 1,561,756,790 $ 536,893 $ 1,127,297 15,997,531 3,086,638 1,996,561 40,045,082 1,109,254 43,214,809 4,983,648 7,065,532 3,150,296 2,186,245 52,922,832 301,233,694 20,510,178 4,398,212 13,698,701 334,000 505,151,525 161,939,449 2,777,491 35,059,060 7,536,962 6,813,749 14,162,317 87,540,957 166,238,564 4,881,379 36,639,025 2,356,381 10,575,177 26,130,901 9,039,506 54,127,904 10,798,684 13,294,382 (263,258,273) 1,409,402,542 $ MARICOPA COUNTY $ 2,062,579,287 $ 2,481,498,671 $ 2,490,605,383 $ 2,072,662,373 $ 1,988,770,383 $ 501,835,000 20% 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ 16,540,574 $ 16,345,796 $ 17,276,224 $ 15,618,449 $ 15,256,294 $ 2,019,930 12% 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ 8,267,574 $ 7,436,960 $ 10,575,924 $ 7,387,948 $ 7,943,252 $ 2,632,672 25% 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ 74,187,561 $ 79,633,043 $ 85,354,063 $ 82,980,674 $ 94,343,482 $ (8,989,419) -11% MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 2,161,574,997 $ 2,584,914,470 $ 2,603,811,594 $ 2,178,649,444 $ 2,106,313,411 $ 73 497,498,183 19% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS $ SUBTOTAL 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 $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 43,162,423 11,244,792 60,031,460 114,438,675 $ 45,668,897 11,832,089 61,302,158 118,803,144 $ 219,407 222,073 228,062 186,943 233,522 15,624,828 1,339,479 23,148,142 52,897,504 6,984,394 1,716,309 1,914,027 1,898,675 3,737,821 43,938,599 154,289,786 $ 249,676 249,676 249,676 249,676 249,676 15,808,896 1,298,676 23,147,694 54,621,793 10,494,469 1,780,046 1,991,183 1,984,742 3,952,730 48,023,458 164,352,067 $ $ $ $ 478,788 155,628 2,532,036 1,915,710 1,787,032 1,035,910 3,461,426 4,189,649 1,271,316 3,113,833 1,983,422 2,258,750 321,129,985 5,208,429 261,919,756 196,689,269 2,507,135 31,100,074 7,021,181 6,383,337 9,384,406 12,154,679 1,354,842 385,109 6,590,367 1,369,912 887,381,981 $ $ 47,115,672 12,155,459 62,893,617 122,164,748 $ 257,627 257,627 257,627 257,627 257,627 16,506,289 1,398,665 23,786,017 56,077,414 10,586,149 1,854,923 2,036,833 2,020,547 4,010,126 49,919,400 169,484,498 $ $ $ 503,413 157,548 2,678,509 1,944,976 2,024,890 1,065,767 3,514,260 4,343,831 1,234,258 3,208,177 2,105,805 2,258,750 321,194,668 5,339,028 248,341,890 196,791,269 2,650,003 32,002,276 7,196,738 6,530,420 9,530,400 13,930,424 1,421,635 397,513 7,222,536 1,389,988 878,978,972 $ $ FY 2005-06 45,305,680 11,210,807 62,471,511 118,987,998 $ 221,157 224,201 225,252 194,959 227,827 15,903,644 1,354,315 22,411,823 55,153,971 12,925,623 1,838,939 1,913,950 1,887,130 4,009,733 49,568,400 168,060,922 $ $ $ 433,017 156,792 2,376,282 1,672,478 2,024,880 1,090,596 3,476,664 4,689,492 1,229,354 3,062,387 1,974,308 2,049,576 319,556,016 6,019,513 187,365,696 144,782,899 2,128,306 31,307,137 6,744,469 6,279,630 14,622,047 10,740,945 1,375,710 397,516 7,151,473 1,030,992 763,738,177 $ $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED 50,303,044 11,680,865 67,135,563 129,119,471 $ 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 18,118,945 1,555,385 26,383,155 57,520,494 7,255,771 1,908,645 2,114,696 2,165,072 4,147,293 54,730,461 177,432,492 $ $ $ 536,893 233,760 3,086,638 1,996,561 2,067,234 1,109,254 3,580,435 4,970,959 1,526,694 3,150,296 2,186,245 2,326,033 301,233,694 5,623,616 317,099,893 113,106,801 2,777,491 32,831,396 7,431,420 6,794,249 14,162,317 11,660,411 1,489,584 375,193 8,788,496 1,738,045 851,883,608 $ $ (3,187,372) 474,594 (4,241,946) (6,954,723) -7% 4% -7% -6% (48,888) (48,888) (48,888) (48,888) (48,888) (1,612,656) (156,720) (2,597,138) (1,443,080) 3,330,378 (53,722) (77,863) (144,525) (137,167) (4,811,061) (7,947,994) -19% -19% -19% -19% -19% -10% -11% -11% -3% 31% -3% -4% -7% -3% -10% -5% $ (33,480) (76,212) (408,129) (51,585) (42,344) (43,487) (66,175) (627,128) (292,436) 57,881 (80,440) (67,283) 19,960,974 (284,588) (68,758,003) 83,684,468 (127,488) (829,120) (234,682) (263,829) (4,631,917) 2,270,013 (67,949) 22,320 (1,565,960) (348,057) 27,095,364 -7% -48% -15% -3% -2% -4% -2% -14% -24% 2% -4% -3% 6% -5% -28% 43% -5% -3% -3% -4% -49% 16% -5% 6% -22% -25% 3% $ $ APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 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 $ 462,191 146,900 2,352,570 1,045,054 945,707 1,005,480 7,777,526 4,180,621 1,121,520 2,696,509 1,958,091 1,736,388 309,058,943 4,472,516 177,710,229 127,956,740 1,947,438 29,065,076 5,833,349 5,303,639 12,349,749 10,065,507 1,323,090 304,042 6,789,565 821,299 718,429,737 MARICOPA COUNTY $ 987,158,198 $ 1,170,537,192 $ 1,170,628,218 $ 1,050,787,097 $ 1,158,435,571 $ 12,192,647 1% MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 987,158,198 $ 1,170,537,192 $ 1,170,628,218 $ 1,050,787,097 $ 1,158,435,571 $ 12,192,647 1% $ 74 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) SPECIAL REVENUE JUDICIAL BRANCH 110 ADULT PROBATION 201 ADULT PROBATION FEES 211 ADULT PROBATION GRANTS Dept Total 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 227 JUVENILE PROBATION GRANTS 228 JUVENILE PROBATION SPECIAL FEE 229 JUVENILE RESTITUTION FUND 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 275 JUVENILE PROBATION DIVERSION Dept Total 800 TRIAL COURTS 204 JUSTICE CT JUDICIAL ENHANCEMNT 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 238 SUPERIOR COURT GRANTS 245 JUSTICE COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 256 PROBATE FEES 257 CONCILIATION COURT FEES 259 SUPERIOR COURT SPECIAL REVENUE 261 LAW LIBRARY FEES 264 SUPERIOR COURT FILL THE GAP 271 EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT 276 SPOUSAL MAINT ENF ENHANCEMENT 281 CHILDREN'S ISSUES EDUCATION 282 DOM REL MEDIATION EDUCATION Dept Total JUDICIAL BRANCH TOTAL 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 259 SUPERIOR COURT SPECIAL REVENUE 270 CHILD SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT 273 VICTIM LOCATION 274 CLERK OF THE COURT EDMS Dept Total 190 COUNTY ATTORNEY 213 COUNTY ATTORNEY RICO 219 COUNTY ATTORNEY GRANTS 220 DIVERSION 221 COUNTY ATTORNEY FILL THE GAP 266 CHECK ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 267 CRIM JUSTICE ENHANCEMENT 268 VICTIM COMP AND ASSISTANCE 269 VICTIM COMP RESTITUTION INT Dept Total 360 RECORDER 236 RECORDER'S SURCHARGE Dept Total 500 SHERIFF 203 SHERIFF DONATIONS 212 SHERIFF RICO FUND 214 SHERIFF JAIL ENHANCEMENT FUND 251 SHERIFF GRANTS 252 INMATE SERVICES 254 INMATE HEALTH SERVICES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total ELECTED OFFICIAL TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED 7,857,866 4,769,715 12,627,581 $ 14,635,885 831,189 49,515 18,117,678 216,401 33,850,668 $ 163,717 186,942 1,333,872 64,970 376,742 1,454,155 3,762,368 778,625 1,400,654 398,233 69,027 49,000 121,770 10,160,075 56,638,323 $ $ $ $ $ 1,082,404 773,070 1,242,827 1,332,987 174,964 91,411 1,325,528 6,023,190 $ $ $ 560,238 5,985,011 907,805 1,549,021 698,309 1,160,914 23,844 858 10,886,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,300,000 5,619,776 13,919,776 $ 15,722,058 1,000,000 50,000 24,405,284 268,425 41,445,767 $ 608,704 600,000 1,565,584 2,062,052 392,000 1,554,010 5,707,262 810,700 1,525,690 425,661 95,000 110,000 176,000 15,632,663 70,998,206 $ $ $ $ $ 1,098,925 1,065,055 1,326,528 1,427,544 181,000 100,000 36,568 1,400,000 6,635,620 $ $ $ 1,300,000 5,827,233 1,000,000 2,023,143 700,000 1,361,500 126,000 465,000 12,802,876 4,230,946 4,230,946 $ $ 3,346 5,854,799 7,530,478 63,514 101,983,281 115,435,419 136,575,554 $ $ $ $ 8,516,291 5,619,776 14,136,067 $ 15,273,250 1,000,000 50,000 24,958,338 268,425 41,550,013 $ 608,704 600,000 1,930,131 2,062,052 392,000 1,597,801 5,707,262 810,700 1,547,846 425,661 95,000 110,000 181,159 16,068,316 71,754,396 $ $ $ $ $ 1,098,925 1,158,055 1,326,528 1,427,544 181,000 100,000 36,568 1,400,000 6,728,620 $ $ $ 1,300,000 6,413,837 1,000,000 2,023,143 720,031 1,361,500 126,000 465,000 13,409,511 5,608,218 5,608,218 $ $ 16,400 395,000 1,100,000 3,992,275 9,911,744 309,168 119,382,619 135,107,206 160,153,920 $ $ $ $ 75 8,366,787 4,598,675 12,965,462 $ 14,547,604 962,905 43,811 22,501,907 229,980 38,286,207 $ 285,226 238,464 1,374,423 1,144,268 323,153 1,595,493 4,550,872 755,010 1,547,067 413,921 79,887 109,157 173,656 12,590,597 63,842,266 $ $ $ $ $ 1,092,831 489,727 1,235,856 1,375,091 133,146 36,472 12,166 1,718,495 6,093,782 $ $ $ 1,000,000 6,396,916 917,917 1,841,661 720,031 1,136,811 89,300 12,200 12,114,836 5,661,913 5,661,913 $ $ 16,400 745,000 2,050,000 4,510,865 9,946,432 309,168 122,116,924 139,694,789 165,494,833 $ $ $ $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED % VARIANCE 8,896,950 5,639,944 14,536,894 $ 14,284,904 900,000 50,000 30,471,655 284,629 45,991,188 $ 608,704 600,000 1,930,131 2,062,052 372,000 1,545,000 6,307,262 875,000 1,547,846 444,500 111,750 100,000 170,000 16,674,245 77,202,327 $ $ $ $ $ 1,223,925 1,161,555 1,476,516 1,527,544 262,000 85,000 37,718 3,100,000 8,874,258 $ $ $ 1,300,000 6,560,517 1,000,000 1,266,624 720,031 1,361,500 126,000 465,000 12,799,672 5,540,077 5,540,077 $ $ 15,701 715,751 1,274,689 3,533,032 7,591,962 72,969 121,892,591 135,096,696 158,845,392 $ $ $ $ $ (380,659) (20,168) (400,827) -4% 0% -3% 988,346 100,000 (5,513,317) (16,204) (4,441,175) 6% 10% 0% -22% -6% -11% 20,000 52,801 (600,000) (64,300) (18,839) (16,750) 10,000 11,159 (605,929) (5,447,931) 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3% -11% -8% 0% -4% -18% 9% 6% -4% -8% (125,000) -11% (3,500) 0% (149,988) -11% (100,000) -7% (81,000) -45% 15,000 15% (1,150) -3% (1,700,000) -121% (2,145,638) -32% $ (146,680) 756,519 609,839 0% -2% 0% 37% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 7,509,286 7,509,286 $ $ (1,847,373) (1,847,373) -33% -33% 16,400 745,000 2,050,000 4,739,549 10,058,412 301,738 148,519,235 166,430,334 195,613,550 $ (228,684) (111,980) 7,430 (26,402,311) (26,735,545) (30,118,717) 0% 0% 0% -5% -1% 2% -22% -25% -18% $ $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) SPECIAL REVENUE (Continued) APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 207 PALO VERDE 215 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED Dept Total $ 275,671 924,555 1,200,226 Dept Total $ $ 9,582,595 9,582,595 $ $ 16,033,276 16,033,276 $ $ 16,033,276 16,033,276 $ $ 7,804,812 7,804,812 $ $ 15,997,531 15,997,531 $ $ 35,745 35,745 0% 0% Dept Total $ $ 36,370,480 36,370,480 $ $ 37,977,848 37,977,848 $ $ 37,977,848 37,977,848 $ $ 37,307,913 37,307,913 $ $ 37,977,848 37,977,848 $ $ - 0% 0% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST 220 HUMAN SERVICES 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 292 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH GRANT $ $ $ 287,138 1,096,223 1,383,361 $ $ 287,138 1,149,239 1,436,377 $ $ 229,709 730,466 960,175 ADOPTED VS. REVISED % VARIANCE $ $ 337,366 556,171 893,537 $ (50,228) 593,068 542,840 Dept Total $ 36,087,074 399,350 36,486,424 $ 36,512,414 842,542 37,354,956 $ 37,032,861 842,542 37,875,403 $ 39,202,587 717,791 39,920,378 $ 39,120,480 513,895 39,634,375 Dept Total $ $ 217,475 217,475 $ $ 267,045 267,045 $ $ 267,045 267,045 $ $ 32,538 32,538 $ $ 12,689 12,689 $ $ $ $ $ 683,000 357,839 105,000 1,383,951 2,773,048 271,000 5,573,838 $ $ 317,606 49,941 64,025 1,419,205 2,207,098 252,791 4,310,666 $ $ 419,588 67,470 105,000 1,512,286 2,421,870 280,489 4,806,703 $ $ 410,500 67,470 52,000 1,500,951 2,236,340 236,253 4,503,514 $ $ 374,285 160,549 79,530 1,536,015 2,254,976 24,248 4,429,603 $ $ 4,205,967 4,205,967 $ $ 5,435,481 5,435,481 $ $ 5,494,888 5,494,888 $ $ 4,745,879 4,745,879 $ $ 4,398,212 4,398,212 $ $ $ $ $ 13,527,517 171,184 13,698,701 $ $ 11,093,468 158,672 11,252,140 $ $ 12,725,278 163,840 12,889,118 $ $ 10,947,590 162,358 11,109,948 $ $ 8,729,869 116,781 8,846,650 $ $ 415,997 415,997 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 361,959 361,959 $ $ $ $ $ 66,985 9,731,209 9,798,194 $ $ 527,069 8,875,705 40,313,507 49,716,281 $ $ 527,069 10,896,891 42,676,768 54,100,728 $ $ 11,485 2,989,183 3,000,668 $ $ 60,059,168 60,059,168 $ $ 95,038,389 95,038,389 $ $ 95,038,389 95,038,389 $ $ $ 316,804 373,658 994,284 1,684,746 $ 413,751 379,717 1,784,130 2,577,598 $ 413,751 401,666 1,784,130 2,599,547 $ 34,244 42,455 76,699 $ 40,403 44,000 84,403 $ 40,403 46,000 86,403 $ 9,985 9,985 $ 11,310 5,000 16,310 $ 11,310 5,000 16,310 $ 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 224 MEDICAL EXAMINER GRANT FUND 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 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Dept Total 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES 235 DEL WEBB SPECIAL FUND 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 233 PUBLIC DEFENDER GRANTS Dept Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 76 $ $ $ $ (2,087,619) 328,647 (1,758,972) 254,356 254,356 -17% 52% 38% -6% 39% -5% 95% 95% (263,412) -63% (290,369) -430% 0% 128,335 8% (351,178) -15% 9,489 3% (767,135) -16% 1,096,676 1,096,676 20% 20% $ (802,239) (7,344) (809,583) -6% -4% -6% 334,000 334,000 $ $ 106,000 106,000 24% 24% $ $ 564,274 18,391,844 69,050,556 88,006,674 66,101,965 66,101,965 $ $ 48,832,648 48,832,648 $ $ 413,751 401,661 1,459,538 2,274,950 $ 433,637 401,661 1,392,366 2,227,664 $ 40,403 46,000 86,403 $ 59,157 46,385 105,542 $ 11,486 2,081 13,567 $ 14,500 5,000 19,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (37,205) -7% (9,516,139) -107% (28,737,049) -71% (38,290,393) -77% 46,205,741 46,205,741 49% 49% (19,886) 5 391,764 371,883 -5% 0% 22% 14% (18,754) (385) (19,139) -46% -1% -22% (3,190) (3,190) -28% 0% -20% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) SPECIAL REVENUE (Continued) APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 640 TRANSPORTATION 223 TRANSPORTATION GRANTS 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS $ Dept Total 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT 242 LIBRARY DISTRICT GRANTS 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED 15,838 100,977,402 100,993,240 $ 250,000 114,426,951 114,676,951 $ $ $ $ 25,000 16,320,796 16,345,796 $ 1,162,000 114,426,951 115,588,951 $ $ $ 41,099 17,235,125 17,276,224 $ 100,000 113,575,376 113,675,376 $ $ $ 19,918 15,598,531 15,618,449 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED % VARIANCE 1,892,962 121,187,336 123,080,298 $ $ $ 25,000 15,231,294 15,256,294 $ $ $ Dept Total $ 139,095 16,401,479 16,540,574 Dept Total $ $ 3,398,927 3,398,927 $ $ 3,419,169 3,419,169 $ $ 3,426,586 3,426,586 $ $ 4,141,596 4,141,596 $ $ 4,075,553 4,075,553 $ $ $ 27,006 3,771,751 3,798,757 $ 109,318 3,469,685 3,579,003 $ 109,709 5,658,258 5,767,967 $ 21,504 4,913,509 4,935,013 $ 482,288 3,615,507 4,097,795 $ $ $ $ 103,017,953 103,017,953 $ $ 187,682 83,871,199 84,058,881 $ $ 116,243 90,293,140 90,409,383 $ $ 91,003,439 91,003,439 670 SOLID WASTE 290 WASTE TIRE 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 250 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS 253 BALLPARK OPERATIONS Dept Total 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 989 FLOOD CONTROL GRANTS 991 FLOOD CONTROL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (730,962) (6,760,385) (7,491,347) -63% -6% -6% 16,099 2,003,831 2,019,930 39% 12% 12% (648,967) (648,967) -19% -19% (372,579) -340% 2,042,751 36% 1,670,172 29% 116,243 (12,724,813) (12,608,570) 100% -14% -14% Dept Total $ 260,502 78,829,285 79,089,787 Dept Total $ $ 322,592 322,592 $ $ 4,530,318 4,530,318 $ $ 3,026,366 3,026,366 $ $ 1,246,125 1,246,125 $ $ 2,178,614 2,178,614 $ $ 847,752 847,752 28% 28% $ 5,180,228 345,088 2,211,246 7,736,562 $ 5,504,069 468,857 2,748,344 8,721,270 $ 5,747,535 468,857 2,774,850 8,991,242 $ 5,688,581 316,767 2,728,325 8,733,673 $ 5,436,355 356,726 2,871,232 8,664,313 $ 311,180 112,131 (96,382) 326,929 5% 24% -3% 4% (240,288) 693,429 453,141 -7% 2% 1% 16,013 91,394 107,407 0% 2% 1% 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 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 850 AIR QUALITY 504 AIR QUALITY FEES 503 AIR QUALITY GRANT Dept Total 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH Dept Total APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE TOTAL DEBT SERVICE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICE 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,645,404 41,492,897 45,138,301 $ $ 5,470,283 3,590,650 9,060,932 $ 577,119 9,479,453 10,056,572 442,722,927 635,936,805 $ $ $ $ $ 3,419,643 39,777,808 43,197,451 $ $ $ 6,324,064 3,915,004 10,239,068 $ 720,280 10,340,833 11,061,113 573,096,435 804,248,561 $ $ $ $ $ 3,506,772 42,285,777 45,792,549 $ $ $ 7,179,472 3,726,619 10,906,091 $ 908,665 10,548,863 11,457,528 577,320,476 814,569,705 $ $ $ $ $ 2,999,111 41,572,377 44,571,487 $ $ $ 6,718,959 3,338,693 10,057,652 $ 115,352 10,842,891 10,958,243 482,968,034 705,655,692 $ $ $ $ $ 3,747,060 41,592,348 45,339,408 11,556,337 11,556,337 585,778,007 858,593,884 $ FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED Dept Total $ Dept Total APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL DEBT SERVICE TOTAL $ $ $ $ 5,118,480 5,118,480 54,755,636 54,755,636 $ $ 48,131,226 48,131,226 $ $ 48,131,226 48,131,226 $ $ $ $ 5,515,094 5,515,094 53,646,320 53,646,320 $ $ $ $ 5,515,094 5,515,094 53,646,320 53,646,320 77 $ $ 356,127 43,797,737 44,153,864 $ $ $ $ 3,360,572 3,360,572 47,514,436 47,514,436 $ $ $ ACTUAL $ $ 7,163,459 3,635,225 10,798,684 FY 2003-04 21,004,139 28,633,017 49,637,156 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 $ $ $ $ $ $ 908,665 (1,007,474) (98,809) (8,457,532) (44,024,180) 100% -10% -1% -1% -5% ADOPTED VS. REVISED % VARIANCE $ $ 17,416,902 17,416,902 $ 30,714,324 30,714,324 64% 64% $ $ $ $ 5,925,094 5,925,094 23,341,996 23,341,996 $ $ $ $ (410,000) (410,000) 30,304,324 30,304,324 -7% -7% 56% 56% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) CAPITAL PROJECTS JUDICIAL BRANCH 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED % VARIANCE Dept Total $ $ 642,622 642,622 $ $ 392,535 392,535 $ $ 392,535 392,535 $ $ 319,645 319,645 $ $ - $ $ 392,535 392,535 100% 100% JUDICIAL BRANCH TOTAL $ 642,622 $ 392,535 $ 392,535 $ 319,645 $ - $ 392,535 100% $ $ $ 1,566,158 1,566,158 1,566,158 $ $ $ 865,343 865,343 865,343 $ $ $ 865,343 865,343 865,343 $ $ $ 849,360 849,360 849,360 $ $ $ - $ $ $ 865,343 865,343 865,343 100% 100% 100% $ $ 768,216 768,216 $ $ 158,037 158,037 $ $ 158,037 158,037 $ $ 236,214 236,214 $ $ - $ $ 158,037 158,037 100% 100% $ $ $ 5,691,348 66,674,304 10,262,404 82,628,056 $ $ 11,383,199 15,400,180 26,069,453 52,852,832 $ $ 20,642,997 38,557,198 29,738,675 88,938,870 $ $ 21,095,594 38,557,198 29,738,675 89,391,467 $ $ 15,932,142 4,909,885 5,611,942 26,453,969 $ $ 51,881,834 51,881,834 $ $ 77,959,051 77,959,051 $ $ 77,505,281 77,505,281 $ $ 57,909,254 57,909,254 $ $ $ $ $ 752,500 752,500 $ $ 1,003,000 1,003,000 $ $ 3,000 3,000 $ $ 351,435 2,500 353,935 $ $ 47,741,774 47,741,774 $ $ 52,076,503 52,076,503 $ $ 54,576,503 54,576,503 $ $ $ $ $ $ 74,864,955 74,864,955 202,064,684 204,273,465 $ $ $ $ 38,746,494 38,746,494 258,334,552 259,592,430 $ $ $ $ 38,746,494 38,746,494 260,928,185 262,186,063 $ $ $ $ ELECTED OFFICIAL 500 SHERIFF 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Dept Total ELECTED OFFICIAL TOTAL APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Dept Total 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV Dept Total 640 TRANSPORTATION 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Dept Total 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 410 BALLPARK CONSTRUCTION 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE Dept Total 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS Dept Total 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Dept Total APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL ENTERPRISE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 600 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 561 HEALTH SELECT Dept Total 670 SOLID WASTE 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Dept Total 900 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Dept Total APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL ENTERPRISE TOTAL $ $ 14,951,649 (28,117,106) 19,476,271 6,310,814 72% -73% 65% 7% 110,634,054 110,634,054 $ $ (33,128,773) (33,128,773) -43% -43% $ $ 3,000 3,000 $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 100% 100% 52,249,577 52,249,577 $ $ 62,142,000 62,142,000 $ $ (7,565,497) (7,565,497) -14% -14% 17,792,481 17,792,481 181,792,858 182,961,862 $ $ $ $ 22,800,000 22,800,000 278,207,110 278,207,110 $ $ $ $ 15,946,494 15,946,494 (17,278,925) (16,021,047) 41% 41% -7% -6% FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED $ $ 158,371,134 260,958,312 64,109,655 483,439,101 $ $ 124,659,416 213,681,088 49,793,052 388,133,556 $ $ 124,659,416 213,681,088 49,793,052 388,133,556 $ $ $ $ 124,869,639 259,051,633 27,532,501 411,453,773 2,487,302 2,487,302 $ $ 993,253 993,253 $ $ 993,253 993,253 $ $ $ $ 358,655,362 358,655,362 $ $ 474,412,270 474,412,270 $ $ 474,412,270 474,412,270 $ $ 844,581,765 844,581,765 $ $ 863,539,079 863,539,079 $ $ 863,539,079 863,539,079 78 ADOPTED VS. REVISED % VARIANCE $ $ 29,485,332 58,055,625 87,540,957 $ 95,174,084 155,625,463 49,793,052 300,592,599 76% 73% 100% 77% 738,400 738,400 $ $ 805,826 805,826 $ $ 187,427 187,427 19% 19% $ $ 291,825,236 291,825,236 $ $ - $ $ 474,412,270 474,412,270 100% 100% $ $ 704,017,409 704,017,409 $ $ 88,346,783 88,346,783 $ $ 775,192,296 775,192,296 90% 90% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Department / Fund (Continued) FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED % VARIANCE INTERNAL SERVICE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 200 COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Dept Total 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 652 HS SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND 685 BENEFITS TRUST $ $ 711,251 711,251 $ $ 46,261 46,261 $ $ 46,261 46,261 $ $ 35,221 35,221 $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ 21,439,935 29,156,864 50,596,799 $ $ 17,871,906 22,020,919 39,892,825 $ $ 16,831,359 22,533,346 39,364,705 $ $ 16,831,359 22,533,346 39,364,705 46,261 46,261 100% 100% Dept Total $ 15,497,553 16,970,234 32,467,787 Dept Total $ $ 12,912,055 12,912,055 $ $ 13,656,435 13,656,435 $ $ 13,656,435 13,656,435 $ $ 13,931,425 13,931,425 $ $ 14,886,562 14,886,562 $ $ Dept Total $ $ 825,497 825,497 $ $ 832,015 832,015 $ $ 1,094,021 1,094,021 $ $ 990,292 990,292 $ $ 866,797 866,797 $ $ 227,224 227,224 21% 21% Dept Total $ $ 10,243,132 10,243,132 $ $ 9,751,777 9,751,777 $ $ 9,912,637 9,912,637 $ $ 10,209,789 10,209,789 $ $ 10,575,177 10,575,177 $ $ (662,540) (662,540) -7% -7% Dept Total APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE TOTAL $ $ $ $ 22,934,802 22,934,802 80,094,523 80,094,523 $ $ $ $ 26,070,716 26,070,716 89,721,909 89,721,909 $ $ $ $ 26,070,716 26,070,716 90,144,775 90,144,775 $ $ $ $ 25,592,487 25,592,487 90,652,039 90,652,039 $ $ $ $ 26,130,901 26,130,901 103,056,236 103,056,236 $ $ $ $ (60,185) (60,185) (12,911,461) (12,911,461) 0% 0% -14% -14% 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 673 REPROGRAPHICS 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 675 RISK MANAGEMENT ELIMINATIONS APPOINTED DEPARTMENT 300 PARKS & RECREATION 900 ELIMINATIONS FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED $ (4,608,576) (6,623,518) (11,232,094) -27% -29% -29% (1,230,127) (1,230,127) -9% -9% ADOPTED VS. REVISED % VARIANCE Dept Total $ $ (29,520) $ (29,520) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (35,000) $ (35,000) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (35,000) $ (35,000) $ - 0% 0% Dept Total $ $ (57,000,000) $ (57,000,000) $ (61,695,868) $ (61,695,868) $ (61,242,098) $ (61,242,098) $ (61,242,098) $ (61,242,098) $ (67,475,788) $ (67,475,788) $ 6,233,690 6,233,690 10% 10% Dept Total $ $ (1,003,599) $ (1,003,599) $ (1,660,137) $ (1,660,137) $ (1,710,137) $ (1,710,137) $ (1,660,137) $ (1,660,137) $ (2,082,637) $ (2,082,637) $ 372,500 372,500 22% 22% Dept Total $ $ (52,644,000) $ (52,644,000) $ (63,446,899) $ (63,446,899) $ (59,631,823) $ (59,631,823) $ (53,327,784) $ (53,327,784) $ (70,816,471) $ (70,816,471) $ 11,184,648 11,184,648 19% 19% Dept Total $ $ (92,416,987) $ (92,416,987) $ (82,891,840) $ (82,891,840) $ (82,891,840) $ (82,891,840) $ (82,891,840) $ (82,891,840) $ Dept Total APPOINTED DEPARTMENT TOTAL ELIMINATIONS TOTAL $ $ $ $ 640 TRANSPORTATION 900 ELIMINATIONS 680 STADIUM DISTRICT 900 ELIMINATIONS 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 900 ELIMINATIONS 900 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM 900 ELIMINATIONS 980 ELIMINATIONS 900 ELIMINATIONS (442,131,289) (442,131,289) (645,225,395) (645,225,395) $ $ $ $ (446,659,277) (446,659,277) (656,371,021) (656,371,021) $ $ $ $ 79 (445,391,667) (445,391,667) (650,902,565) (650,902,565) $ $ $ $ (403,800,232) (403,800,232) (602,939,091) (602,939,091) $ $ $ $ (263,258,273) (263,258,273) (403,668,169) (403,668,169) $ $ $ $ $ $ (82,891,840) -100% (82,891,840) -100% (182,133,394) (182,133,394) (247,234,396) (247,234,396) -41% -41% -38% -38% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Department and Fund Type GENERAL FUND JUDICIAL 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS SUBTOTAL 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 APPOINTED 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 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 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS 640 TRANSPORTATION 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 850 AIR QUALITY 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 980 ELIMINATIONS SUBTOTAL $ $ $ $ $ SPECIAL REVENUE 50,303,044 11,680,865 67,135,563 129,119,471 $ 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 18,118,945 1,555,385 26,383,155 57,520,494 7,255,771 1,908,645 2,114,696 2,165,072 4,147,293 54,730,461 177,432,492 $ $ $ $ CAPITAL PROJECTS DEBT SERVICE 14,536,894 45,991,188 16,674,245 77,202,327 $ 8,874,258 12,799,672 7,509,286 166,430,334 195,613,550 $ $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $ INTERNAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE - $ - $ $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $ SUBTOTAL - $ - $ $ $ $ ELIMINATIONS 64,839,938 57,672,053 83,809,808 206,321,798 $ 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 18,118,945 1,555,385 35,257,413 70,320,166 7,255,771 1,908,645 9,623,982 2,165,072 4,147,293 221,160,795 373,046,042 $ $ $ $ ALL FUNDS - $ - $ $ $ 64,839,938 57,672,053 83,809,808 206,321,798 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 306,515 18,118,945 1,555,385 35,257,413 70,320,166 7,255,771 1,908,645 9,623,982 2,165,072 4,147,293 221,160,795 373,046,042 $ 536,893 233,760 3,086,638 1,996,561 2,067,234 1,109,254 3,580,435 4,970,959 1,526,694 3,150,296 2,186,245 2,326,033 301,233,694 5,623,616 317,099,893 113,106,801 2,777,491 32,831,396 7,431,420 6,794,249 14,162,317 11,660,411 1,489,584 375,193 8,788,496 1,738,045 851,883,608 $ 893,537 15,997,531 37,977,848 39,634,375 12,689 5,573,838 4,398,212 13,698,701 334,000 88,006,674 48,832,648 2,227,664 105,542 19,500 123,080,298 4,075,553 2,178,614 8,664,313 10,798,684 45,339,408 11,556,337 463,405,965 $ 17,416,902 17,416,902 $ 82,628,056 110,634,054 22,800,000 216,062,110 $ 87,540,957 805,826 88,346,783 $ 50,596,799 14,886,562 866,797 10,575,177 26,130,901 103,056,236 $ 536,893 1,127,297 15,997,531 3,086,638 1,996,561 40,045,082 1,109,254 43,214,809 4,983,648 7,100,532 3,150,296 2,186,245 52,922,832 301,233,694 20,510,178 4,398,212 13,698,701 334,000 505,151,525 161,939,449 2,777,491 35,059,060 7,536,962 6,813,749 14,162,317 87,540,957 233,714,352 4,881,379 36,639,025 2,356,381 10,575,177 26,130,901 9,039,506 10,798,684 54,127,904 13,294,382 1,740,171,603 $ - $ (35,000) (67,475,788) (263,258,273) (330,769,061) $ MARICOPA COUNTY $ 1,158,435,571 $ 736,221,842 $ 17,416,902 $ 216,062,110 $ 88,346,783 $ 103,056,236 $ 2,319,539,444 $ (330,769,061) $ 650 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ - $ 15,256,294 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15,256,294 $ 680 STADIUM DISTRICT $ - $ 4,097,795 $ 5,925,094 $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ 10,025,889 $ (2,082,637) $ 7,943,252 690 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT $ - $ 103,017,953 $ - $ 62,142,000 $ - $ - $ 165,159,953 $ (70,816,471) $ 94,343,482 MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 1,158,435,571 $ 858,593,884 $ 23,341,996 $ 278,207,110 $ 88,346,783 $ 103,056,236 $ 2,509,981,580 $ (403,668,169) $ 2,106,313,411 80 - $ 536,893 1,127,297 15,997,531 3,086,638 1,996,561 40,045,082 1,109,254 43,214,809 4,983,648 7,065,532 3,150,296 2,186,245 52,922,832 301,233,694 20,510,178 4,398,212 13,698,701 334,000 505,151,525 161,939,449 2,777,491 35,059,060 7,536,962 6,813,749 14,162,317 87,540,957 166,238,564 4,881,379 36,639,025 2,356,381 10,575,177 26,130,901 9,039,506 10,798,684 54,127,904 13,294,382 (263,258,273) 1,409,402,542 1,988,770,383 15,256,294 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code 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 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 805 SUPPLIES - ALLOCATION OUT 806 SUPPLIES - ALLOCATION IN 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 872 SERVICES - ALLOCATION OUT 873 SERVICES - ALLOCATION IN 880 TRANSFERS OUT SUBTOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE 955 CAPITAL - ALLOCATION OUT 956 CAPITAL - ALLOCATION IN SUBTOTAL FUND TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED 583,633,492 $ 6,229,955 17,008,402 158,501,937 8,558,578 (48,588,938) 47,969,799 773,313,225 $ 648,997,426 $ 7,530,144 14,049,625 192,010,889 48,880,145 (49,759,645) 48,603,192 910,311,776 $ 666,878,583 $ 7,564,897 14,315,508 195,986,881 37,793,646 (51,618,357) 50,159,138 921,080,298 $ 566,724,766 $ 8,050,226 13,401,078 165,006,566 10,298,161 (46,166,236) 45,879,216 763,193,777 $ 534,942,808 $ 6,483,833 6,277,982 186,206,137 89,452,165 (51,333,402) 52,469,462 824,498,985 $ 131,935,775 1,081,065 8,037,526 9,780,744 (51,658,518) (284,955) (2,310,324) 96,581,312 20% 14% 56% 5% -137% -1% -5% 10% 55,797,618 $ 65,864,728 3,530,367 9,812,013 (438,390) 438,390 29,953,781 523,220,698 128,270,014 24,297,107 26,266,313 315,148,932 (38,976,428) 7,299,840 5,978,502 (18,875,820) 22,865,607 451,323 14,049,859 (157,123) 125,785 (74,231,694) 1,100,691,424 $ 52,438,240 $ 65,509,251 2,989,736 10,044,900 (2,217,246) 2,137,492 40,841,069 443,440,351 358,096,712 24,521,263 32,563,304 324,831,122 (42,348,728) 7,919,592 7,424,713 (22,534,361) 26,461,154 875,527 335,000 (7,992,697) 7,597,196 1,332,933,590 $ 53,083,017 $ 65,839,971 3,333,318 9,179,786 (3,131,055) 3,304,586 41,025,818 439,815,452 351,734,071 24,966,945 39,912,257 325,455,605 (41,603,238) 8,504,442 7,579,128 (22,534,024) 28,148,436 875,527 335,000 (7,872,499) 7,376,787 1,335,329,330 $ 47,753,597 $ 47,268,269 3,969,729 4,805,854 (3,145,329) 3,076,795 44,726,041 423,420,629 192,088,792 22,619,506 34,672,791 399,499,998 (42,200,938) 7,926,837 6,645,890 (21,558,443) 20,893,014 1,143,725 (7,488,880) 7,063,861 1,193,181,737 $ 44,047,781 $ 20,587,410 8,368,853 12,916,653 (3,305,342) 3,308,211 58,699,841 138,049,372 296,087,248 23,035,924 34,298,085 296,238,443 (40,347,013) 6,832,464 5,392,793 840,274 27,065,311 (11,655,221) 8,032,308 928,493,394 $ 9,035,236 45,252,561 (5,035,535) (3,736,867) (17,674,023) 301,766,080 55,646,823 1,931,021 5,614,172 29,217,162 (1,256,225) 1,671,978 2,186,335 (23,374,298) 1,083,125 875,527 335,000 406,835,935 17% 69% -151% -41% 0% 0% -43% 69% 16% 8% 14% 9% -3% 20% 29% -104% 4% 100% 100% 0% 0% 34,709,531 $ 147,485,852 8,739,401 10,786,946 96,024,168 43,926,082 (357,031) 354,155 341,669,104 $ 39,684,469 $ 150,186,413 10,568,088 11,479,676 89,030,190 46,081,594 (335,959) 707,495 347,401,966 $ 39,593,614 $ 85,694,923 3,937,319 9,777,246 58,595,901 24,606,638 (635,105) 703,394 222,273,930 $ 9,667,310 $ 138,326,062 6,463,603 12,217,215 133,868,883 52,777,997 (312,738) 312,699 353,321,031 $ 30,017,159 11,860,351 4,104,485 (737,539) (44,838,693) (6,696,403) (5,919,065) 76% 8% 39% -6% -50% -15% 0% 0% -2% 497,498,183 19% $ 32,697,420 109,750,952 11,820,278 8,053,957 62,242,150 63,005,590 287,570,348 $ $ $ 2,161,574,997 $ 2,584,914,470 $ 2,603,811,594 81 $ 2,178,649,444 $ 2,106,313,411 $ 30% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) 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 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 805 SUPPLIES - ALLOCATION OUT 806 SUPPLIES - ALLOCATION IN 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 872 SERVICES - ALLOCATION OUT 873 SERVICES - ALLOCATION IN 880 TRANSFERS OUT SUBTOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE 955 CAPITAL - ALLOCATION OUT 956 CAPITAL - ALLOCATION IN SUBTOTAL FUND TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED 248,289,203 $ 2,690,480 1,707,466 66,847,521 2,129,216 (36,063,197) 18,009,817 303,610,507 $ 261,567,622 $ 3,662,388 2,101,605 77,867,399 20,113,723 (21,612,967) 5,521,116 349,220,886 $ 270,779,163 $ 3,732,061 2,240,133 79,307,641 11,375,470 (23,320,136) 6,823,670 350,938,002 $ 259,545,202 $ 4,349,614 3,388,694 75,096,869 2,845,034 (23,603,555) 7,580,349 329,202,207 $ 281,885,828 $ 3,244,725 2,403,917 91,404,070 48,311,676 (28,983,830) 9,792,376 408,058,762 $ (11,106,664) 487,336 (163,784) (12,096,429) (36,936,207) 5,663,694 (2,968,706) (57,120,760) -4% 13% -7% -15% -325% 24% -44% -16% 14,469,615 $ 685,237 1,439,009 1,396,251 (410,372) 410,372 22,827,286 2,092,842 26,550,787 9,954,829 10,896,373 298,629,264 17,443,074 2,807,191 3,230,523 361,937 11,217,464 (32,981) 1,643 240,195,732 664,166,076 $ 9,989,154 $ 533,086 1,360,060 188,187 (1,469,052) 407,326 36,096,664 7,554,554 183,653,815 11,384,805 14,383,644 299,900,807 18,034,807 3,251,217 3,797,657 563,369 7,057,921 (2,328,199) 23,217 169,199,149 763,582,188 $ 10,728,201 $ 489,577 1,427,547 691,142 (1,469,052) 661,899 36,345,532 2,612,687 184,682,732 11,764,122 14,358,883 299,761,842 17,879,241 3,356,850 3,776,286 563,369 7,028,365 (2,446,477) 23,217 169,199,149 761,435,113 $ 10,072,855 $ 578,407 2,058,747 554,477 (1,631,227) 684,345 40,657,961 2,320,610 59,212,117 11,193,216 12,188,344 299,897,992 16,905,872 3,262,360 4,066,482 563,276 7,356,453 (2,435,324) 25,085 213,561,745 681,093,791 $ 13,040,355 $ 498,491 1,958,095 5,509,577 (1,782,983) 118,365 53,701,419 2,522,855 140,368,285 13,227,323 14,217,215 271,788,612 18,315,870 2,054,413 3,709,059 563,774 11,514,535 (2,826,217) 384,700 162,437,732 711,321,475 $ (2,312,154) (8,914) (530,548) (4,818,435) (17,355,887) 89,832 44,314,447 (1,463,201) 141,668 27,973,230 (436,629) 1,302,437 67,227 (405) (4,486,170) 6,761,417 50,113,637 -22% -2% -37% -697% 0% 0% -48% 3% 24% -12% 1% 9% -2% 39% 2% 0% -64% 0% 0% 4% 7% 20,980,531 $ 14,005,014 71,795 3,497,284 19,459,961 (283,334) 2,867 57,734,118 $ 19,925,969 $ 15,074,103 111,125 3,564,284 19,495,263 (283,334) 367,693 58,255,103 $ 18,752,039 $ 13,428,576 99,509 3,337,535 5,235,556 (607,397) 245,280 40,491,099 $ - $ 16,339,390 416,140 4,866,500 17,614,226 (196,824) 15,902 39,055,334 $ 19,925,969 (1,265,287) (305,015) (1,302,216) 1,881,037 19,199,769 100% -8% -274% -37% 10% 0% 0% 33% $ 4,800,000 7,493,288 719,944 3,414,528 2,953,856 19,381,615 $ $ $ 987,158,198 $ 1,170,537,192 $ 1,170,628,218 82 $ 1,050,787,097 $ 1,158,435,571 $ 12,192,647 1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) 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 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 805 SUPPLIES - ALLOCATION OUT 806 SUPPLIES - ALLOCATION IN 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 872 SERVICES - ALLOCATION OUT 873 SERVICES - ALLOCATION IN 880 TRANSFERS OUT SUBTOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE 955 CAPITAL - ALLOCATION OUT 956 CAPITAL - ALLOCATION IN SUBTOTAL FUND TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED 186,943,658 $ 3,475,483 6,215,356 54,717,574 3,197,731 (12,444,910) 25,977,573 268,082,466 $ 226,545,297 $ 3,809,407 2,703,194 73,356,600 27,015,954 (17,606,057) 27,631,388 343,455,783 $ 235,047,516 $ 3,780,326 2,830,549 75,847,265 24,603,903 (17,844,307) 27,763,463 352,028,715 $ 213,786,712 $ 3,659,098 9,867,749 66,735,398 5,271,042 (13,925,226) 26,828,790 312,223,565 $ 246,220,978 $ 3,219,939 3,669,505 88,107,808 41,010,419 (17,410,794) 31,432,322 396,250,177 $ 27,341,928 $ 15,033,487 1,934,511 6,248,093 (28,018) 28,018 1,773,656 18,776,928 54,402,897 7,668,313 8,187,953 12,342,344 16,210,836 3,778,088 1,280,790 116,606 2,372,585 1,817 (124,142) 124,142 166,387,148 343,857,979 $ 27,572,100 $ 14,350,619 1,507,162 4,885,110 (748,194) 1,730,166 1,525,374 12,901,447 116,340,222 7,455,827 10,282,111 24,698,029 17,369,571 3,784,943 1,402,444 48,889 11,360,985 (1,909,176) 3,818,657 181,497,049 439,873,335 $ 27,579,932 $ 14,724,848 1,790,707 4,681,375 (1,662,003) 2,642,687 1,461,255 13,681,503 106,822,511 7,549,718 17,660,610 25,463,997 17,112,803 4,264,159 1,576,930 49,226 11,505,796 (1,670,700) 3,598,248 177,296,203 436,129,805 $ 26,935,635 $ 15,128,060 1,876,192 4,182,913 (1,514,101) 2,392,450 523,543 17,414,837 63,988,592 7,148,623 16,771,335 16,285,928 16,347,355 3,603,605 1,183,331 1,024,900 6,161,339 (668) (1,284,210) 3,427,416 170,924,164 372,521,239 $ 27,381,744 $ 16,563,215 1,855,429 7,349,339 (1,409,682) 3,070,796 1,563,814 12,738,700 108,177,475 7,408,664 17,313,440 24,097,831 15,034,388 4,030,406 984,634 276,500 10,004,563 (5,099,109) 7,528,078 163,455,595 422,325,820 $ - $ 7,255,846 2,994,653 7,068,662 3,322,691 (73,697) 351,288 20,919,443 $ - $ 8,442,846 4,534,010 7,704,251 5,442,901 (52,625) 339,802 26,411,185 $ 4,644 $ 5,642,381 3,504,627 6,308,389 5,020,441 (27,709) 458,114 20,910,887 $ - $ 15,110,616 5,234,213 7,087,726 450,000 11,954,450 (84,624) 265,507 40,017,888 $ $ 1,539,620 3,602,635 10,242,009 4,633,004 40,179 3,938,912 23,996,359 $ $ $ 635,936,805 $ 804,248,561 $ 814,569,705 83 $ 705,655,692 $ 858,593,884 $ (11,173,462) 560,387 (838,956) (12,260,543) (16,406,516) (433,513) (3,668,859) (44,221,462) -5% 15% -30% -16% -67% -2% -13% -13% 198,188 $ 0 (1,838,367) -12% (64,722) -4% (2,667,964) -57% 0% 0% (102,559) -7% 942,803 7% (1,354,964) -1% 141,054 2% 347,170 2% 1,366,166 5% 2,078,415 12% 233,753 5% 592,296 38% (227,274) -462% 1,501,233 13% 0% 0% 13,840,608 8% 13,803,985 3% (6,667,770) (700,203) 616,525 (450,000) (6,511,549) (13,606,703) -120% 0% 0% -52% (44,024,180) -5% -79% -15% 8% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) DEBT SERVICE SUPPLIES & SERVICES 880 TRANSFERS OUT FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED SUBTOTAL $ $ 232,539 232,539 $ $ 33,118,452 33,118,452 $ $ 33,118,452 33,118,452 $ $ 33,474,579 33,474,579 $ $ 482,500 482,500 $ $ 32,635,952 32,635,952 99% 99% SUBTOTAL $ $ 54,523,097 54,523,097 $ $ 20,527,868 20,527,868 $ $ 20,527,868 20,527,868 $ $ 14,039,857 14,039,857 $ $ 22,859,496 22,859,496 $ $ (2,331,628) (2,331,628) -11% -11% FUND TOTAL $ 54,755,636 $ 53,646,320 $ 53,646,320 $ 47,514,436 $ 23,341,996 $ 30,304,324 56% CAPITAL OUTLAY 950 DEBT SERVICE 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 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 810 LEGAL SERVICES 812 OTHER SERVICES 820 RENT & OPERATING LEASES 825 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 830 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 842 TRAVEL & EDUCATION 843 POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING 850 UTILITIES 872 SERVICES - ALLOCATION OUT 873 SERVICES - ALLOCATION IN 880 TRANSFERS OUT SUBTOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 910 LAND 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 940 INFRASTRUCTURE 950 DEBT SERVICE SUBTOTAL FUND TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED 3,193,763 $ 14,322 26,409 728,983 54,402 (17,388) 3,912,979 7,913,470 $ 907,387 $ 13,620 243,530 (1,140,287) 7,859,744 7,883,994 $ 828,297 $ 13,620 232,700 28,810 (1,053,580) 7,979,961 8,029,808 $ 1,756,709 $ 14,706 17,253 609,433 12,860 (1,311,681) 4,322,169 5,421,449 $ 6,401,784 6,401,784 $ 87,432 1,007 3,085 19,474 7,558,208 143,449 71,798 1,171,038 13,211 109 27,643 9,096,455 102,074 1,500 12,458,390 50,026 30,957 811,420 8,373 500 5,873 8,166,387 21,635,500 174,524 1,500 15,489,885 20,975 20,957 612,351 8,373 500 5,873 8,268,387 24,603,325 84,681 $ 569 1,214 27,429,936 57,088 47,888 786 893,945 558 7,936 (14,024) 14,024 9,399,326 37,923,927 $ 22,048,032 63,045 22,111,077 $ $ 26,357,800 98,655,029 34,754 6,423 62,201,972 7,563 187,263,540 $ 204,273,465 $ $ $ $ 13,729,000 120,315,992 96,024,168 3,776 230,072,936 $ 259,592,430 $ $ $ $ 19,758,500 120,760,464 89,030,190 3,776 229,552,930 $ 262,186,063 84 $ $ $ $ 20,836,931 60,174,613 58,595,901 9,042 139,616,487 $ 182,961,862 $ $ 9,667,310 106,608,056 133,418,883 249,694,249 $ 278,207,110 $ $ $ 828,297 13,620 232,700 28,810 (1,053,580) 1,578,177 1,628,024 174,524 1,500 (6,558,147) 20,975 20,957 612,351 8,373 500 5,873 8,205,342 2,492,248 100% 100% 100% 100% -100% 20% 20% 100% 100% -42% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 99% 10% $ 10,091,190 14,152,408 (44,388,693) 3,776 (20,141,319) 51% 12% -50% 100% -9% $ (16,021,047) -6% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) 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 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 801 GENERAL SUPPLIES 802 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 803 FUEL 804 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 805 SUPPLIES - ALLOCATION OUT 806 SUPPLIES - ALLOCATION IN 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 872 SERVICES - ALLOCATION OUT 873 SERVICES - ALLOCATION IN 880 TRANSFERS OUT SUBTOTAL $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 139,421,611 19,804 8,973,515 34,537,952 3,106,264 418 186,059,564 $ 7,102,468 50,144,998 121,260 2,091,530 538,209,032 15,577,930 4,819,826 4,772,791 3,884,271 6,935,003 643,494 1,450,435 4,419,261 425,859 1,699,583 656,347,599 $ $ $ $ CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE 955 CAPITAL - ALLOCATION OUT 956 CAPITAL - ALLOCATION IN SUBTOTAL $ 757,612 2 1,416,988 2,174,602 FUND TOTAL $ 844,581,765 $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED 154,396,541 $ 20,000 9,126,500 38,850,812 1,715,509 (9,400,334) 7,497,383 202,206,411 $ 154,415,376 $ 19,993 9,126,500 38,856,555 1,715,509 (9,400,334) 7,497,383 202,230,982 $ 86,364,888 $ 2,641 1,202 20,992,548 2,079,039 (7,325,774) 7,059,013 109,173,556 $ 958,138 $ 15,000 72,200 4,806,197 86,000 (4,938,778) 4,778,448 5,777,205 $ 153,457,238 4,993 9,054,300 34,050,358 1,629,509 (4,461,556) 2,718,935 196,453,777 99% 25% 99% 88% 95% -47% 36% 97% 8,488,992 $ 50,625,546 103,455 3,528,000 454,407,601 21,724,030 4,105,883 5,583,680 8,266 7,223,787 806,828 2,216,587 63,096 4,473,658 875,527 (3,755,322) 3,755,322 85,130,554 649,365,490 $ 8,488,992 $ 50,625,546 95,955 3,528,000 454,407,601 21,727,673 4,105,883 5,581,894 8,266 7,204,859 806,828 2,216,587 63,096 4,473,658 875,527 (3,755,322) 3,755,322 85,130,554 649,340,919 $ 3,586,879 $ 31,561,207 14,322 433,396,689 19,889,797 2,479,784 2,736,808 82,972,500 3,879,903 1,023,700 1,384,312 63,096 2,210,484 1,144,393 (3,755,322) 3,597,336 2,156,392 588,342,280 $ 1,035,300 $ 3,525,704 15,829 3,000 (112,677) 119,050 74,813,733 3,515,627 782,540 135,300 241,337 689,935 690,800 104,417 (3,729,895) 119,530 520,699 82,470,228 $ 7,453,692 47,099,842 80,126 3,525,000 379,593,868 18,212,046 3,323,343 5,446,594 8,266 6,963,522 116,893 1,525,787 63,096 4,369,241 875,527 84,609,855 566,870,690 88% 93% 84% 100% 0% 0% 84% 84% 81% 98% 100% 97% 14% 69% 100% 98% 100% 0% 0% 99% 87% 5,891,000 $ 5,657,953 418,225 11,967,178 $ 863,539,079 $ 85 5,891,000 5,657,953 418,225 11,967,178 863,539,079 $ $ 6,443,952 53,412 4,208 6,501,572 $ $ $ 704,017,409 $ - $ 54,589 44,760 (31,290) 31,290 99,349 $ 88,346,783 $ 5,891,000 5,657,953 (54,589) 373,465 11,867,829 775,192,296 100% 100% 89% 0% 0% 99% 90% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Consolidated Expenditures by Fund Type / Object Code (Continued) 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 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 855 INTEREST EXPENSE 865 DEPRECIATION 880 TRANSFERS OUT SUBTOTAL $ $ $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 5,785,256 $ 29,867 85,655 1,669,907 70,964 (63,860) 69,429 7,647,218 $ $ $ 18,000 15,000 221,000 193,561 447,561 $ 89,721,909 $ $ 80,094,523 FUND TOTAL $ $ FUND TOTAL $ 6,285,920 17,559 1,443,603 3,219,031 36,284,066 23,920,255 1,524,722 2,282,912 224,020 1,611,935 68,231 7,525 3,562,717 335,000 942,150 81,729,646 $ 65,960 165,175 231,135 ELIMINATIONS SUPPLIES & SERVICES 811 HEALTH CARE SERVICES 839 INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 845 SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS 880 TRANSFERS OUT SUBTOTAL $ 6,796,175 32,502 56,666 5,352,839 23,937,428 24,180,191 1,710,690 2,337,399 293,052 1,581,867 57,857 16,644 4,828,655 23,647 1,010,558 72,216,170 CAPITAL OUTLAY 915 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 920 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 930 VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP 950 DEBT SERVICE SUBTOTAL $ 5,580,579 38,349 104,706 1,692,548 34,959 93,561 7,544,702 $ 5,808,231 32,518 104,706 1,742,720 69,955 94,661 7,852,791 $ 6,111,368 17,609 279,269 3,219,031 36,820,979 23,011,270 1,526,247 2,289,913 221,500 1,618,146 68,231 8,825 5,134,744 335,000 942,150 81,604,282 $ $ $ 18,000 265,000 211,141 193,561 687,702 $ 90,144,775 $ $ FY 2005-06 5,271,255 24,167 126,181 1,572,317 90,185 88,895 7,173,000 $ 7,073,547 27 19,254 68,464 3,544,537 37,751,531 21,568,349 1,740,795 2,928,415 342,792 1,579,970 36,615 11,765 5,156,802 942,150 82,765,012 $ $ $ 5,400 279,771 131,322 297,535 714,027 $ 90,652,039 $ $ FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL RESTATED ADOPTED RESTATED REVISED RESTATED PROJ. ACT. RESTATED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % ADOPTED 5,877,864 4,169 132,361 1,888,062 44,070 64,532 8,011,058 $ 2,590,382 4,539,500 54,737 3,434,608 47,974,084 21,977,829 1,617,397 2,632,130 352,000 1,898,908 57,710 8,300 5,441,796 871,082 93,450,463 $ $ $ 268,000 813,250 208,400 305,065 1,594,715 $ 103,056,236 $ $ $ $ (69,633) 28,349 (27,655) (145,342) 25,885 30,129 (158,267) -1% 87% -26% -8% 37% 32% -2% 3,520,986 58% (4,521,891) -25679% 224,532 80% (215,577) -7% (11,153,105) -30% 1,033,441 4% (91,150) -6% (342,217) -15% (130,500) -59% (280,762) -17% 10,521 15% 525 6% (307,052) -6% 335,000 100% 71,068 8% (11,846,181) -15% $ (250,000) (548,250) 2,741 (111,504) (907,013) -1389% -207% 1% -58% -132% $ (12,911,461) -14% FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (59,795,532) $ (82,318,246) (19,354,363) (483,757,254) (645,225,395) $ (67,707,317) $ (87,400,248) (23,209,715) (478,053,741) (656,371,021) $ (67,707,317) $ (86,030,638) (23,209,715) (473,954,895) (650,902,565) $ (67,463,037) $ (81,807,983) (23,209,715) (430,458,356) (602,939,091) $ - $ (75,837,516) (327,830,653) (403,668,169) $ (67,707,317) (10,193,122) (23,209,715) (146,124,242) (247,234,396) -100% -12% -100% -31% -38% $ (645,225,395) $ (656,371,021) $ (650,902,565) $ (602,939,091) $ (403,668,169) $ (247,234,396) -38% 86 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules General Government Expenditure Summary FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED DESCRIPTION General Fund (100) 4711 - General Contingency General Contingency 4711 - Reserved Items Compensation Reserve Contract Counsel Reserve Debt Financing Health/Dental Premium Increase (unallocated) Public Fiduciary Computer Software Sheriff Overtime Technology Reserve Unfunded Liabilities Justice Reserve Health Reserve Special Needs Transportation 24,295,310 $ - $ 23,644,626 $ $ 18,000,000 5,000,000 14,355,927 4,140,428 14,000 300,000 2,000,000 5,018,200 73,828,555 $ 8,285,991 4,822,834 12,566,743 2,562,404 14,000 300,000 1,992,473 5,018,200 59,857,955 $ - $ 32,693,265 4,788,838 14,000 300,000 10,000,000 6,549,271 4,088,812 325,000 82,403,812 $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ 4721 - Dues and Memberships Arizona Association of Counties County Supervisors Association Maricopa Association of Government National Association of Counties 4722 - Taxes and Assessments City of Phx. Downtown Mun. Serv. Dist. ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE $ Subtotal $ 4716 - Debt Service/Cap. Lease 16.8m COP Admin. Fee Arbitrage Bond Attorney Downtown Consolidated Justice Courts Financial Advisor FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 25,000,000 Subtotal $ 4714 - Central Service Costs Annual County Wide Major Maintenance Programs Base-Level Internal Service Charges Enterprise Software License Utilities Maintenance Contracts Lobbyist Contracts Research and Reporting Ombudsman Combined Charitable Campaign FY 2004-05 PROJ. RESTATED $ Subtotal $ 4712 - Other General Fund Programs Article V Procurement/MWBE Board NW Regional Service Charges Board Resolution (911 Reward Fund) Citizens Tax Education County Contribution Desktop/Laptop Refresh Program Downtown Juror/Employee Parking Shuttle Emergency Management: Disaster Fund Human Resources Peak Performers Jail Excise Tax Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Real Estate Evaluation, Acquisition & Divestiture Security Bldg. Income Tax Special Health Care District Loan Purchase 32nd St & Van Buren Debt Financing County Wide Floor Care Vehicle Replacement Master Plans FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 5,000 5,280 10,000 200,000 5,402,800 50,000 325,000 133,176,891 133,025 7,500 50,000 3,130,284 142,495,780 $ 3,600,000 15,312,949 6,453,764 4,204,269 256,302 307,871 97,050 6,500 30,238,705 $ 2,425,734 15,000 25,000 40,000 60,000 2,565,734 $ Subtotal $ 52,124 113,647 42,487 45,248 253,506 $ Subtotal $ 111,804 111,804 $ $ $ $ 5,000 5,280 10,000 200,000 5,402,800 50,000 325,000 133,176,891 133,025 7,500 43,200 200,000 3,130,284 142,688,980 $ 3,600,000 15,112,949 6,453,764 3,010,921 387,727 307,871 43,489 6,500 28,923,221 $ 2,425,734 15,000 25,000 40,000 1,789,184 60,000 4,354,918 $ $ 52,124 114,033 42,487 44,862 253,506 $ $ 111,804 111,804 87 $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,280 200,000 5,402,800 325,000 133,176,891 133,025 43,200 200,000 2,675,035 142,161,231 $ 3,069,530 15,112,949 6,248,778 3,969,106 303,728 307,871 65,677 2,863 29,080,502 $ 2,425,734 15,000 25,000 40,000 1,789,184 60,000 4,354,918 $ $ 52,124 114,033 42,487 44,862 253,506 $ $ 107,796 107,796 $ $ $ $ $ 83,880 5,280 10,000 200,000 347,351 200,000 50,000 650,000 145,724,861 94,275 15,000,000 12,985,504 4,828,600 500,000 180,679,751 $ 3,600,000 15,119,810 2,339,967 10,949,910 5,373,912 392,727 330,806 43,489 6,500 38,157,121 $ 2,382,857 15,000 25,000 40,000 60,000 2,522,857 $ $ $ $ $ 54,730 151,235 44,611 44,778 295,354 $ $ $ $ 111,804 111,804 $ $ 650,684 (24,407,274) 4,822,834 12,566,743 (2,226,434) (8,007,527) 5,018,200 (6,549,271) (4,088,812) (325,000) (22,545,857) (78,880) 5,402,800 (347,351) (200,000) (325,000) (12,547,970) 38,750 7,500 (15,000,000) 43,200 (12,985,504) 200,000 (1,698,316) (500,000) (37,990,771) (6,861) (2,339,967) (4,496,146) (2,362,991) (5,000) (22,935) (9,233,900) 42,877 1,789,184 1,832,061 (2,606) (37,202) (2,124) 84 (41,848) - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules General Government Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED DESCRIPTION 4724 - Consultants Unallocated Chairman's Fund Down Town Phoenix Partnership Economic Development Payroll Economic Consultant Executive Search General Government Administration Internal Audit Public Health Costs Correctional Health Recruiting Consultant Environmental Services Fee Study Luke Air Force Base Support OMB Support Security Building HP Consulting Carla Carter & Associates Special Projects Manager $ 398,069 20,000 804 10,112 85,000 100,000 62,576 318,787 6,000 20,000 240,000 25,000 7,256 2,980 55,000 50,000 1,401,584 Subtotal $ 1,081,295 20,000 10,112 85,000 100,000 62,576 318,787 2,980 1,680,750 $ Subtotal $ $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ $ 4732 - Major Maintenance Admin. Bldg. Infrastructure Improvements $ Adult Probation Day Reporting Center Adult Probation Office Mesa Building Assessment Projects MCSO Bartlett Lake Substation Improvements MCSO Avondale Improvements Elections Warehouse/Electrical Generator Environmental Issues Environmental Projects Clerk of Courts Improvements (Jackson St.) Durango Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements Central Courts Building Infrastructure 5th Avenue Parking Infrastructure Improvements Old Court House Building Improvements Public Health Abatement/Demolition Program Fees Code Compliance Reserve Building Security Projects Life/Safety Projects MCSO Surprise Substation Improvements Non-Project Subtotal $ 100,000 34,000 33,000 150,000 100,000 210,000 170,146 1,180,000 330,000 33,000 290,000 2,630,146 $ 4741 - Tax Appeals $ Subtotal $ 4742 - Judgments FY 2004-05 PROJ. RESTATED $ $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ $ $ $ 300,000 150,000 210,000 100,000 170,146 1,180,000 330,000 190,000 2,630,146 1,300,000 1,300,000 $ $ $ Subtotal $ 500,000 500,000 4743 - Outside Legal Counsel $ Subtotal $ 4771 - Burial of Indigents ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE $ $ 20,000 15,000 85,000 300,000 65,784 400,000 7,000 31,000 106,488 1,030,272 $ 398,069 804 (4,888) (200,000) (3,208) (81,213) 6,000 20,000 240,000 25,000 256 2,980 24,000 (56,488) 371,312 1,637,268 1,637,268 $ $ 1,750,000 1,750,000 $ $ (250,000) (250,000) $ 300,000 (119,000) $ 119,000 200,000 41,000 371,000 250,000 50,000 593,000 250,000 300,000 250,000 10,146 2,434,146 $ $ 255,876 143,089 213,695 104,346 141,787 1,127,041 287,621 2,273,455 $ (41,000) (371,000) (250,000) (50,000) 150,000 210,000 100,000 170,146 (593,000) 1,180,000 80,000 (300,000) (250,000) 179,854 196,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 $ $ 1,300,000 1,300,000 $ $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ $ (200,000) (200,000) $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 $ $ 2,000,000 2,000,000 $ $ $ Subtotal $ 400,000 400,000 $ $ 400,000 400,000 $ $ 400,000 400,000 $ $ 400,000 400,000 $ $ 4774 - Non-Profit Funding $ Subtotal $ 2,154,776 2,154,776 $ $ 2,159,776 2,159,776 $ $ 2,159,776 2,159,776 $ $ 2,554,776 2,554,776 $ $ 4775 - Accommodation Schools $ Subtotal $ 530,000 530,000 $ $ 530,000 530,000 $ $ 530,000 530,000 $ $ 530,000 530,000 $ $ - 4776 - Cooperative Extension $ Subtotal $ 230,000 230,000 $ $ 230,000 230,000 $ $ 230,000 230,000 $ $ 230,000 230,000 $ $ - Total General Fund $ 261,919,756 $ 248,341,890 $ 187,365,696 $ 317,099,893 $ 88 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 10,000 804 10,112 85,000 3,000 62,576 318,787 6,000 20,000 220,729 25,000 7,256 2,980 55,000 50,000 877,244 4726 - Tuition Reimbursement $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED (500,000) (500,000) (395,000) (395,000) (68,758,003) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules General Government Expenditure Summary (Continued) DESCRIPTION Waste Management Fund (210) 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 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ Total $ General Government Grant Fund (249) 4711 - General Government Grants Compensation Reserve Courts Fee Increases Internal Audit Grant Kids Vote Grant Passthrough Potential Fee Increases $ Total $ 70,336 98,995 103,462 103,197 64,333 30,000 56,746 527,069 7,500,000 1,500,000 30,000 1,866,891 10,896,891 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 70,336 98,995 103,462 103,197 64,333 30,000 56,746 527,069 $ $ 5,582,355 1,500,000 30,000 1,763,350 8,875,705 $ 89 FY 2004-05 PROJ. RESTATED $ $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 11,639 54,346 1,000 66,985 - $ $ $ $ 65,535 105,833 55,954 110,035 70,171 100,000 56,746 564,274 7,500,000 15,000 35,000 10,841,844 18,391,844 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE $ $ $ $ 4,801 (6,838) 47,508 (6,838) (5,838) (70,000) (37,205) (1,917,645) 1,500,000 15,000 (35,000) (9,078,494) (9,516,139) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules General Government Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED DESCRIPTION Detention Fund (255) 4711 - Contingency Detention Fund Operating 4711 - Reserved Contingency Compensation Reserve Health/Dental Premium Increase (unallocated) Technology Reserve New Facilities Operating Costs Sheriff Overtime Sheriff Vehicles Health Reserve 9,928,842 $ - $ 9,381,000 $ $ 3,712,826 1,657,788 16,544,838 150,000 981,667 33,047,119 $ 1,055,015 1,657,788 15,273,496 150,000 619,567 28,684,708 $ - $ 10,283,948 2,317,824 7,000,000 10,000,000 300,000 6,400,000 45,682,772 $ $ 500,000 412,200 912,200 $ $ 500,000 911,700 1,411,700 $ $ Subtotal $ 4,302,510 308,839 1,400,000 6,011,349 4732 - Major Maintenance Durango Juvenile Prob Bldg Infrastructure Improv $ Building Assessment Projects Durango Jail Bldg Infrastructure Improvements Estrella Jail Infrastructure Improvements Lower Buckeye Jail Central Plant Building Security Projects S.E. MCSO Substation Infrastructure Improvements Life/Safety Projects Program Fees Code Compliance Reserve SE Juvenile Infrastructure Improvements Towers Jail Bldg Infrastructure Improvements Subtotal $ 525,000 480,000 400,800 1,300,300 2,706,100 $ Total Detention Fund $ Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund (422) 4713 - Intergovernmental Capital Projects Buckeye Hills Shooting Range Election Facility Human Services Building McDowell Track Comfort Station Comfort Station Improvement Project Reserve Environmental Services Building Sheriff Property/Evidence Warehouse Non Project Southwest Consolidated Justice Court ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE $ Subtotal $ County Improvement Debt Fund (320) 4710 - County Improvement Debt FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 10,000,000 $ 4714 - Central Service Costs Utilities Maintenance Contracts Annual Detention Facilities Maintenance Programs FY 2004-05 PROJ. RESTATED $ Subtotal $ 4712 - Other Programs Sheriff Recruiting Desktop/Laptop Refresh Program Debt Financing Vehicle Replacement Master Plans FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ 4,302,510 1,808,489 1,400,000 7,510,999 $ $ $ 1,125,000 480,000 400,800 700,300 2,706,100 42,676,768 $ $ Total $ 48,131,226 48,131,226 $ 1,428,390 16,596,000 50,000 534,657 2,180,000 306,547 21,095,594 Total $ 474,289 474,289 $ $ $ 4,302,510 1,418,756 1,242,830 6,964,096 $ $ $ 1,129,598 410,162 334,000 419,064 2,292,824 40,313,507 $ $ $ 48,131,226 48,131,226 $ 1,428,390 2,872 16,428,290 50,000 534,057 1,980,757 218,631 20,642,997 $ $ 90 500,000 4,592 8,003,066 952,900 500,000 9,960,558 $ $ $ 547,842 (9,228,933) (660,036) (7,000,000) 5,273,496 (150,000) 619,567 (6,400,000) (16,998,064) (4,592) (8,003,066) (41,200) (500,000) (8,548,858) 7,810,000 1,491,126 1,400,000 10,701,126 $ $ $ 50,000 275,000 271,000 316,000 100,000 303,000 100,000 1,291,100 2,706,100 $ 1,125,000 (50,000) 205,000 (271,000) (316,000) (100,000) (303,000) (100,000) 400,800 (1,291,100) 700,300 - 9,731,209 $ 69,050,556 $ (28,737,049) $ $ 43,797,737 43,797,737 $ $ 17,416,902 17,416,902 $ $ 30,714,324 30,714,324 $ 150,000 2,872 8,000,000 1,880,757 218,631 1,130,939 11,383,199 $ 1,778,390 219,100 244,801 534,057 100,000 - $ (350,000) 2,872 16,428,290 (169,100) (244,801) 1,880,757 218,631 $ $ $ $ 2,815,000 5,691,348 $ $ (3,507,490) 317,363 (3,190,127) (2,815,000) 14,951,649 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules General Government Expenditure Summary (Continued) DESCRIPTION County Improvement Fund (435) 4713 - Capital Projects New Admin Services Building Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts Downtown Consolidated Justice Courts Human Services Campus New Admin Services Parking Public Health Clinic Project Reserve NW Consolidated Justice Courts Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ Total $ Capital Improvements Fund (445) 4713 - Capital Projects New Admin Service Building NE Sup Crt/Justice Court Expansion Comfort Station Improvement Downtown Consolidated Justice Courts McDowell Park Visitors Center McDowell Track Comfort Station Maricopa Regional Trail System Project Reserve NW Consolidated Justice Courts Star Call Center R&R Build out San Tan Mountain Park Improvements Security Building Water Tank Restoration Non-Project $ 3,100,000 7,829,769 911,917 9,627,100 588,412 6,500,000 8,000,000 2,000,000 38,557,198 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 627,322 2,892,690 7,829,769 896,090 9,811,327 6,500,000 8,000,000 2,000,000 38,557,198 $ $ Total $ 575,000 14,600,000 493,250 168,133 202,000 80,900 20,128 500,000 70,000 595,204 4,821,059 50,000 7,563,001 29,738,675 Total All Funds $ 453,543,177 FY 2004-05 PROJ. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 575,000 14,600,000 493,250 168,133 100,000 80,900 20,128 500,000 70,000 595,204 4,821,059 50,000 7,665,001 29,738,675 $ 435,128,267 91 627,322 20,000 2,000,000 1,531 9,211,327 3,500,000 40,000 15,400,180 - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 685,710 11,727,337 60,724 499,987 100,000 47,000 479,238 70,000 591,797 4,092,659 50,000 7,665,001 26,069,453 $ 294,170,586 5,080,000 30,250,000 11,981,290 894,559 600,000 973,455 3,000,000 8,000,000 5,895,000 66,674,304 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE $ $ 627,322 (2,187,310) (22,420,231) (11,981,290) 1,531 9,211,327 (973,455) 3,500,000 (3,895,000) (28,117,106) $ $ 2,500,000 908,376 80,900 953,000 20,128 5,800,000 10,262,404 $ 575,000 12,100,000 (415,126) 168,133 100,000 (953,000) 500,000 70,000 595,204 (978,941) 50,000 7,665,001 19,476,271 $ 505,151,525 $ (70,023,258) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED DESCRIPTION FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE General Fund (100) 4811 - Contingencies General Contingencies $ 27,603,548 $ 24,846,494 $ 1,130,939 $ 23,552,218 $ 1,294,276 $ 8,321,300 1,500,000 1,500,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 49,924,848 $ 8,321,300 1,500,000 1,500,000 9,382,000 1,000,000 46,549,794 $ 1,130,939 $ 6,342,658 1,500,000 15,000,000 2,618,626 11,476,484 4,476,716 1,510,878 66,477,580 $ 1,978,642 1,500,000 (5,618,000) 1,000,000 (2,618,626) (11,476,484) (4,476,716) (1,510,878) (19,927,786) 1,000,000 119,424 11,826,270 1,100,000 7,750,000 45,000,000 5,525,876 2,019,131 1,827,619 500,000 20,000,000 3,369,095 528,665 614,433 397,186 20,000 624,854 231,600 174,000 56,809 1,000,000 500,000 37,650 104,222,612 $ 3,108,000 325,000 272,000 11,826,270 1,100,000 7,750,000 45,000,000 5,525,876 2,019,131 1,827,619 500,000 20,000,000 3,369,095 528,665 614,433 397,186 20,000 624,854 231,600 74,054 174,000 56,809 1,000,000 500,000 37,650 106,882,242 $ 3,108,000 325,000 272,000 11,826,270 12,491,300 11,190,708 28,405,000 5,525,876 2,019,131 1,827,619 20,000,000 3,369,095 269,889 390,854 20,000 624,854 231,600 74,054 174,000 1,000,000 500,000 32,441 103,677,691 $ 3,289,122 1,162,374 4,808,761 500,000 3,897,400 614,433 348,436 231,600 56,809 500,000 1,500,000 55,000 8,125,000 25,088,935 $ $ 1,949,423 1,593,939 90,000 20,369,582 1,638,390 250,000 500,000 51,000 850,000 355,000 27,647,334 $ 1,949,423 1,593,939 64,659 20,369,582 1,638,390 845,908 51,000 850,000 355,000 27,717,901 $ 25,341 204,092 274,306 2,500,000 3,003,739 $ Subtotal $ 2,330,000 300,000 90,000 20,980,531 1,638,390 500,000 51,000 850,000 26,739,921 4814-Technology Projects County Attorney - County Counsel Case Management System $ Clerk of the Superior Court Financial System Schools New Financial System MCSO Technology (LanDesk) HR Imaging System HR System Upgrades (The Eagle Project) Subtotal $ 36,020 511,000 805,000 1,900,000 3,252,020 $ 36,020 618,000 511,000 805,000 1,900,000 3,870,020 $ 36,020 46,915 134,487 295,295 1,900,000 2,412,717 $ 571,085 430,513 320,000 509,705 1,831,303 $ 4811 - Reserved Items CIP Contingency Health Care Consultant Reserve Relocations/New Facility Start-Up Technology Projects Parks Trails Health Plan Subsidy Long Term Care Operating Subsidy Justice Reserve Health Reserve Subtotal $ 4812-Other Programs West Nile Virus Accommodation Schools-Tempe Pappas Adult Probation: North Central Lease Delivery System Operating Subsidy Health Plans Operating Subsidy Senior Select Operating Subsidy Long Term Care Operating Subsidy Health Plans Claims Tail and Administration Benefits Trust Reserve Health Select Reserve Health Care District Consultant ASRS Contributions Not Withheld Unfunded Liabilities Pre-Paid Enterprise Software License 2004 NACO Conference Sheriff Central Service Complex Voice System Sheriff: Records Management System Sheriff: Boating Safety Aid Stn/Education Ctr Grant Match Sheriff: Patrol Staffing Equip/Supplies County Contribution: Mid-Decade Special Census Survey Gainsharing Program Awards Maricopa Regional Trails Staffing and Operations Parks & Rec.:Guadalupe Road Bridge Grant Match Special Health Care District Transition Compensation Project Relocations/New Facility Start-Up NE Justice Court move Transfer to General Fund Cty Improv. (445) Clerk of the Court: Dependency Growth Start-up Equipment $ Subtotal $ 4813-Infrastructure/CIP Administration Building Tenant Improvements Black Canyon Tenant Improvement Buckeye Hills Regional Park Public Shooting Range Design Property Acquisition Transfer to Intergovernmental Capital Projects (422) Trial Courts: New Facility Start-up Equipment Master Plans Purchase of 32nd St. & Van Buren Property CIO Chambers Lease Public Health Lease $ $ $ $ $ 92 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (181,122) 325,000 272,000 11,826,270 (62,374) 7,750,000 (4,808,761) 45,000,000 5,525,876 2,019,131 1,827,619 16,102,600 3,369,095 528,665 48,750 20,000 624,854 74,054 174,000 1,000,000 (1,500,000) (55,000) (8,125,000) 37,650 81,793,307 1,949,423 1,593,939 64,659 20,369,582 1,638,390 45,908 500,000 51,000 575,694 (2,145,000) 24,643,595 36,020 46,915 80,487 (320,000) 295,295 1,900,000 2,038,717 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED DESCRIPTION 4824-Consultants Financial Consultant Unallocated $ Subtotal $ 4832-Major Maintenance Administration Building Improvements Adult Probation - Black Canyon Improvements Adult Probation - Durango Apache Lake Aid Station and Boat House Bartlett Lake Improvements Blue Point Building Infrastructure Improvements Canyon Lake Aid Station Supervisors Auditorium Clerk of the Court Improvements (Jackson St) Durango Complex Infrastructure Improvements Durango Juvenile Infrastructure Improvements Estrella Campground Design East Courts Building Infrastructure Improvements Emergency Services Administration Improvements Lake Pleasant Improvements Durango McDowell Park Contact Station Old Court House Building Improvements Public Health Trailer Gld Public Health Trailer 7th S.E. MCSO Substation Infrastructure Improvements Smith Peak Radio Security Center Building Infrastructure Improvements MCSO Warehouse Building Infrastructure Improvements West Court Building Infrastructure Improvements West Mesa Justice Court Non Project $ 100,000 100,000 Subtotal $ 330,000 125,000 130,000 200,000 120,000 1,718,000 35,279 3,910,000 650,000 250,000 230,000 3,581,589 500,000 140,000 530,000 12,449,868 Total General Fund $ 196,689,269 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ 100,000 100,000 $ 330,000 300,000 130,000 200,000 120,000 1,718,000 35,279 3,910,000 650,000 250,000 102,000 230,000 3,126,600 500,000 140,000 11,741,879 $ 196,791,269 93 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ 100,000 100,000 $ 220,785 258,332 86,664 133,332 80,000 1,583,161 23,519 2,606,664 433,332 166,664 84,000 153,332 3,126,600 338,933 93,332 355,000 9,743,651 $ 144,782,899 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ 1,500,000 1,500,000 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE $ $ $ 100,000 (1,500,000) (1,400,000) $ 1,800,000 928,000 1,415,000 545,000 1,300,000 150,000 2,323,000 4,782,000 350,000 580,000 191,000 110,244 24,000 17,000 367,000 123,000 200,000 15,205,244 $ (1,470,000) 300,000 130,000 (928,000) (1,215,000) 120,000 (545,000) (1,300,000) (150,000) 1,718,000 (2,323,000) 35,279 (872,000) 300,000 (330,000) (191,000) (8,244) 230,000 (24,000) (17,000) (367,000) (123,000) 3,126,600 300,000 140,000 (3,463,365) $ 113,106,801 $ 83,684,468 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance Expenditure Summary (Continued) FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED DESCRIPTION FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE Detention Fund (255) 4811 - Contingencies General Contingencies $ 6,415,916 $ 6,415,916 $ - $ 9,190,489 $ (2,774,573) $ 10,000,000 441,000 1,204,587 18,061,503 $ 9,840,312 441,000 1,204,587 17,901,815 $ - $ 725,000 50,000 5,000,000 14,965,489 $ 9,840,312 441,000 1,204,587 (725,000) (50,000) (5,000,000) 2,936,326 $ 472,750 21,891 8,279,771 1,507,368 8,883,504 381,000 64,883 2,501,048 1,515,135 313,808 2,550 44,172 306,440 47,591,538 71,885,858 $ 12,771 5,426 5,515,206 1,018,876 5,989,198 64,883 821,490 1,515,135 313,808 2,550 44,172 306,440 47,591,538 63,201,493 $ 459,979 16,465 2,764,565 488,492 2,894,306 809,511 14,977,841 22,411,159 $ Subtotal $ 472,750 21,891 8,279,771 1,507,368 8,883,504 381,000 64,883 2,341,360 1,515,135 313,808 2,550 44,172 306,440 47,591,538 71,726,170 4832-Major Maintenance Durango Complex Infrastructure Improvements $ Durango Juvenile Probation Building Infrastructure Improvements Durango Jail Building Infrastructure Improvements Estrella Jail Improvements Lower Buckeye Jail Central Plant SE Juvenile Detention Improvements Towers Jail Improvements Subtotal $ 1,163,000 150,000 1,229,716 1,508,000 900,000 300,000 5,250,716 $ $ $ 5,080,000 2,200,000 476,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 11,456,000 $ $ 775,332 100,000 819,808 1,005,332 200,000 2,900,472 $ $ 1,163,000 150,000 1,229,716 1,508,000 900,000 300,000 5,250,716 $ 1,163,000 (4,930,000) 1,229,716 (692,000) (476,000) (900,000) (1,600,000) (6,205,284) Total Detention Fund $ 95,038,389 $ 95,038,389 $ 66,101,965 $ 48,832,648 $ 46,205,741 Total All Funds $ 291,727,658 $ 291,829,658 $ 210,884,864 $ 161,939,449 $ 129,890,209 4811 - Reserved Items New Facility Start-Up Sheriff: Jail Surveillance System Reserved Contingency, Jail Projects Justice Reserve Health Reserve Technology Reserve Subtotal $ 4812-Other Programs Sheriff: Records Management System Sheriff: New Jail Pre-Booking System Sheriff: Central Service Complex Voice System Sheriff: Jail Surveillance System Sheriff's Office New Detention Facility Start-up Relocations Correctional Health: Secured Network Correctional Health: New Facility Start Up Costs Correctional Health: New Facility Pharmacy Equipment Telecom: Durango Juvenile Court and Detention Telecom: Durango Parks Building Telecom: Adult Facilities Data Equipment Telecom: Mesa Juvenile Court & Detention Detention Fund Transfer $ $ $ 94 $ $ $ $ $ $ 12,771 5,426 5,515,206 1,018,876 5,989,198 381,000 64,883 1,691,537 1,515,135 313,808 2,550 44,172 306,440 32,613,697 49,474,699 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Major Maintenance Project Summary YEAR 1 FY 2005-06 YEAR 2 FY 2006-07 YEAR 3 FY 2007-08 YEAR 4 FY 2008-09 YEAR 5 FY 2009-10 5-YEAR TOTAL 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT General Fund (Fund 100) Ongoing Major Maintenance ANNUAL CNTY-WIDE MAINT PROGS $ ADMIN BLDG INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS GLENDALE ADULT PROBATION GARFIELD ADULT PROBATION ADULT PROBATION OFFICE MESA MSCO BARTLETT LAKE SUBST IMPRV BLUE POINT BLDG INFRAS IMPROV MCSO AVONDALE IMPROVEMENTS CHANDLER JUSTICE COURTS DRNGO JUV INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS DOWNTOWN JUSTICE CENTER ELECTION WARESHOUSE ELCTRICAL GENERATOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ENVIRMOENTAL PROJECTS FMD DURANGO WAREHOUSE FORENSIC SCIENCE CENTER PROPERTY & EVIDENCE MCSO TRAINING NE COURT COMPLEX NW JUSTICE COURTS PHOENIX PUBLIC HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH CLINIC BUILDING ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS BUILDING SECURITY PROGRAMS LIFE/SAFETY PROGRAMS CODE COMPLIANCE RESERVE S.E.MCSO SUBSTN INFRAS IMPRV SAGUARO LAKE SW JUSTICE COURTS NON-PROJECT Subtotal Ongoing Major Maintenance (Fund 100) $ 119,000 41,000 371,000 250,000 50,000 593,000 200,000 300,000 250,000 250,000 10,146 2,434,146 Detention Fund (Fund 255) Ongoing Major Maintenance ANNUAL CNTY-WIDE MAINT PROGS $ MCSO AVONDALE IMPROVEMENTS DRNGO JUV INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS DRNGO JAIL INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS ESTR JAIL INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS LOWER BUCKEYE JAIL CENTRAL PLANT BUILDING ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS BUILDING SECURITY PROGRAMS SE MCSO SUBSTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS LIFE/SAFETY PROGRAMS SE JUV INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS Subtotal Ongoing Major Maintenance (Fund 255) $ 275,000 271,000 316,000 50,000 100,000 303,000 100,000 1,291,100 2,706,100 TOTAL - 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ $ $ - 58,000 131,000 57,000 779,000 173,000 495,000 287,500 57,500 12,500 300,000 150,000 215,000 322,500 268,750 268,750 70,000 230,000 3,875,500 $ $ $ $ 250,000 53,750 107,500 750,000 107,500 1,746,000 4,014,750 5,140,246 $ 191,000 367,000 1,300,000 4,782,000 350,000 150,000 200,000 110,244 7,450,244 $ 854,000 100,000 330,625 66,125 12,500 300,000 50,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 231,125 346,688 288,906 288,906 3,218,875 $ $ $ $ 300,000 375,000 57,781 115,563 115,563 1,294,900 4,258,807 7,890,250 $ 781,000 260,000 299,000 459,000 7,000,000 8,799,000 $ 12,500 300,000 380,219 76,044 12,500 300,000 50,000 150,000 175,000 75,000 250,000 248,459 372,689 310,574 310,574 100,000 3,123,559 $ $ $ $ 300,000 375,000 62,115 124,230 124,230 150,000 3,135,575 7,477,682 $ 321,471 52,886 1,138,779 7,000,000 516,460 5,600,000 14,629,596 $ 12,500 300,000 437,252 87,450 12,500 300,000 50,000 150,000 175,000 75,000 250,000 267,094 400,641 333,867 333,867 100,000 3,285,171 $ $ $ 58,000 131,000 119,000 98,000 1,633,000 173,000 25,000 495,000 700,000 371,000 1,685,596 337,119 50,000 1,200,000 150,000 600,000 450,000 150,000 593,000 600,000 1,161,678 1,742,518 1,452,097 1,452,097 70,000 230,000 200,000 10,146 15,937,251 - $ 279,000 300,000 375,000 66,773 133,547 133,547 150,000 3,437,867 $ $ 279,000 900,000 275,000 271,000 1,691,000 290,419 580,840 1,053,000 580,840 4,632,000 17,553,099 6,259,134 $ 6,723,038 $ 33,490,350 321,471 52,886 1,138,779 5,218,000 516,460 5,600,000 12,847,596 $ 321,471 52,886 1,138,779 516,460 5,600,000 7,629,596 $ 191,000 2,112,413 1,718,658 299,000 3,875,337 24,000,000 1,899,380 150,000 17,000,000 110,244 51,356,032 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE General Fund (Fund 100) Major Maintenance DURANGO $ SE REG INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS SUPERVISOR'S AUDITORIUM MC FORENSIC SICENCE CTR -TRANS OLD COURT HOUSE BLDG IMPRVMTS EAST CRTS INFRASTRUC IMPRVMNTS EMERGENCY SVCS AMDMIN IMP CLRK OF CRT IMPRV (JACKSON ST) WEST COURT INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTN MCDOWELL PARK CONTACT STATION Subtotal Major Maintenance (Fund 100) $ $ 95 $ $ $ $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Major Maintenance Project Summary (Continued) YEAR 1 FY 2005-06 YEAR 2 FY 2006-07 YEAR 3 FY 2007-08 YEAR 4 FY 2008-09 YEAR 5 FY 2009-10 5-YEAR TOTAL 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE (Continued) Facility Renovations ADMIN BLDG INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS $ COMPLEX - ADMIN AGRICULTURE EXTEN CO-OP APACHE LAKE GLENDALE - REGIONAL DAY MESA - DAY REPORTING CT ASRS BUILDING MSCO BARTLETT LAKE SUBST IMPRV MCSO AVONDALE IMPROVEMENTS COMPLEX - ADMIN CENTRAL COURT BLDG FOOD COURT - CAFETERDIA CANYON LAKE DURANGO WAREHOUSE FMD DURANGO WAREHOUSE FMD DURANGO GYM DURANGO WAREHOUSE FMD DURANGO WAREHOUSE MCSO DURANGO HVAC SHOP VEHICLE PROCESSING CENTER DURANGO -MCSO SWAT DURANGO -MCSO MOTORS DURANGO -ADULT PROBATION DURANGO -MCSO FLEET MGMT DURANGO -CAFETERIA SOLID WASTE MGMT DURANGO - PUB DEF VECTOR CONTROL OFFICE VERTOR CONTROL STORAGE DURANGO COMPLEX KENNEL RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT C RESID MGMT A CHILLER EQUIP. ROOM DURANGO CRTS BLDG INFRAS IMPRV DRNGO JUV INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS DURANGO EMERGENCY SVC BLD SANTA FE DEPOT BLDG IMPRVMTS EXECTIONS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE EMERGENCY SVC STORAGE EMERGENCY SVC WAREHOUSE FOUNTIAN HILLS - SUBSTATION GILA BEND - SUBSTATION GEORGE CAMPBELL HORSESHOE LAKE STORAGE MCSO/IT CTR INFRASTRUC IMPRVMT LAKE PLEASANT IMPROVEMENTS SUN CITY WEST SHOOTING RANGE MT ORD - TRANS BLDG NORTH SCOTTSDALE ASSESS PUBLIC HEALTH-WIC TRAILER GLD PUBLIC HEALTH-WIC TRAILER 7TH PROTECTIVE SERVICES SE FOOD DIST CTR S.E.MCSO SUBSTN INFRAS IMPRV SE JUVENILE PARKING GARAGE SE JUV INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS SOUTHPORT PROBATION OFFICES SCOTTSDALE JC SURPRISE - HOUSING DIV SURPRISE - N VALLEY SURPRISE - SUBSTATION OATMAN MOUNTAIN -RADIO THOMPSON PEAK TRANS BLD SMITH PEAK-RADIO MCSO WAREHOUSE BLDG INFR IMPRV WHITE TANK COUNTY CEMETERY WEST MESA JUSTICE COURTS YARNELL HILL - TRANS BLDG Subtotal Facility Renovations (Fund 100) $ 1,800,000 928,000 1,415,000 545,000 2,323,000 580,000 24,000 17,000 123,000 7,755,000 $ TOTAL 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE FUND 100 $ 15,205,244 $ $ 1,200,000 206,000 1,406,000 $ 10,205,000 96 $ $ 2,656,248 188,326 270,731 155,159 89,400 424,878 7,206,182 457,383 340,182 340,182 5,223 340,182 71,184 3,686 196,302 299,318 12,111 108,833 17,863 547,376 60,053 10,877 400 11,658 68,800 1,569,919 161,276 60,280 200 67,389 33,660 51,642 179,580 6,491 67,902 1,820 98,202 2,707 197,874 843,713 11,321 1,096,195 25,601 1,913 15,921 60,720 112,327 10,413 36,920 58,690 2,360 22,312,940 $ $ 2,656,248 188,326 270,731 155,159 89,400 424,878 7,206,182 457,383 340,182 340,182 5,223 340,182 71,184 3,686 196,302 299,318 12,111 108,833 17,863 547,376 60,053 10,877 400 3,000 11,658 68,800 1,569,919 161,276 60,280 67,389 33,660 51,642 179,580 6,491 67,902 1,820 98,202 197,874 843,713 11,321 1,096,195 25,601 1,913 15,921 60,720 112,327 10,413 36,920 58,690 2,360 22,313,033 $ 36,942,536 $ $ 2,656,248 188,326 270,731 155,159 89,400 424,878 7,206,182 457,383 340,182 340,182 5,223 340,182 71,184 3,686 196,302 299,318 12,111 108,833 17,863 547,376 60,053 10,877 400 11,658 68,800 1,569,919 161,276 60,280 67,389 33,660 51,642 179,580 6,491 67,902 350,000 1,820 98,202 197,874 843,713 11,321 1,096,195 25,601 1,913 15,921 60,720 112,327 10,413 36,920 58,690 2,360 22,660,033 $ 10,968,744 564,978 928,000 812,193 465,477 268,200 1,415,000 1,274,634 21,618,546 1,372,149 545,000 1,020,546 1,020,546 15,669 1,020,546 213,552 11,058 588,906 897,954 36,333 326,499 53,589 1,642,128 180,159 32,631 1,200 3,000 34,974 206,400 2,323,000 4,709,757 483,828 180,840 200 202,167 100,980 154,926 538,740 19,473 203,706 580,000 350,000 5,460 294,606 24,000 17,000 2,707 593,622 2,531,139 33,963 3,288,585 76,803 5,739 47,763 182,160 336,981 206,000 31,239 123,000 110,760 176,070 7,080 76,447,006 $ 35,160,629 $ 30,289,629 $ 127,803,038 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Major Maintenance Project Summary (Continued) YEAR 1 FY 2005-06 Detention Fund (Fund 255) Major Maintenance DRNGO JUV INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS $ DRNGO JAIL INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS ESTR JAIL INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS LBJ CENTRAL PLANT SE JUV INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS TOWERS JAIL INFRASTRUC IMPRVMT Subtotal Major Maintenance (Fund 255) $ Facility Renovations DURANGO BARRACK A $ DURANGO BARRACK B TENT CITY EDUCATION TRAILER MDSON JAIL INFRASTRUC IMPRVMTS Subtotal Facility Renovations (Fund 255) $ YEAR 2 FY 2006-07 2,540,000 1,100,000 476,000 900,000 950,000 5,966,000 $ $ YEAR 3 FY 2007-08 3,457,000 1,000,000 4,457,000 - $ - $ - $ 5,966,000 $ 4,457,000 TOTAL - 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE $ 21,171,244 $ 14,662,000 TOTAL 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE FUND 255 - - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 31,860 270,880 302,740 $ 8,536,180 $ 45,478,716 - 97 3,659,140 1,000,000 686,600 2,887,700 8,233,440 YEAR 4 FY 2008-09 3,659,140 1,000,000 686,600 2,887,700 8,233,440 YEAR 5 FY 2009-10 $ $ $ $ 31,860 270,880 302,740 $ 8,536,180 $ 43,696,809 3,659,140 686,600 2,887,700 7,233,440 5-YEAR TOTAL $ $ $ 16,974,420 3,000,000 3,159,800 476,000 900,000 9,613,100 34,123,320 $ 31,860 270,880 302,740 $ 95,580 812,640 908,220 $ 7,536,180 $ 35,031,540 $ 37,825,809 $ 162,834,578 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Health Care Mandates Revenue and Expenditure Detail Report FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED Description FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE FY 2005-06 ADOPTED REVENUES Disproportionate Share Refund Long Term Residual TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ $ 82,972,500 52,848 83,025,348 Administration $ Indigent Behavioral Health Arnold v. Sarn General Mental Health $ $ $ 82,972,500 52,848 83,025,348 2,548,142 $ $ $ 30,010,500 5,099,404 35,109,904 $ $ $ $ 82,972,500 38,917 83,011,417 7,196,520 $ $ $ 30,030,500 5,099,404 35,129,904 82,972,500 $ 38,659,236 3,853,800 3,228,049 45,741,085 23,129,895 68,870,980 $ $ $ 63,366,600 52,848 63,419,448 $ $ (19,605,900) (19,605,900) 7,114,404 $ 2,561,085 $ 4,635,436 $ $ 32,089,626 5,099,404 37,189,030 $ $ 29,811,301 4,977,988 34,789,289 $ (2,059,126) (2,059,126) 82,972,500 $ 82,972,500 $ 63,366,600 $ 19,605,900 38,659,236 3,853,800 3,300,441 45,813,477 13,355,222 59,168,699 $ 38,659,236 3,853,800 3,300,441 45,813,477 13,317,114 59,130,591 $ 31,959,200 31,959,200 25,000,000 56,959,200 $ 6,700,036 3,853,800 3,300,441 13,854,277 (11,644,778) 2,209,499 EXPENDITURES SUBTOTAL Disproportionate Share Match Indigent Health Care AHCCCS Contribution Acute Contribution Uncompensated Care/ Expanded Coverage Administrative Costs Sub-Total AHCCCS Contribution Pre-AHCCCS Liability SUBTOTAL Pre-AHCCCS Liability Management Litigation Support Arbitration $ $ $ $ SUBTOTAL Indigent Long Term Health Care ALTCS Contribution Long Term Care Residual $ $ 1,520,096 1,520,096 $ 125,610,000 180,463 125,790,463 Medical Education $ Restoration to Competency (1) Trial Delivery Mental Health Orders Mental Health Testimony SUBTOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,224,778 305,286 6,530,064 $ 125,610,000 137,212 125,747,212 3,547,900 $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,532,335 147,848 5,680,183 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,588,317 6,588,317 $ $ $ $ (363,539) 305,286 (58,253) $ 125,610,000 137,212 125,747,212 $ 130,003,100 180,462 130,183,562 (4,393,100) (43,250) (4,436,350) 3,547,900 $ 3,547,900 $ 3,547,900 $ - $ 63,868 $ 124 $ - $ 63,868 $ $ $ 50,000 288,000 338,000 $ $ 30,093 288,000 318,093 $ $ 50,000 288,000 338,000 $ - SUBTOTAL $ 50,000 220,000 270,000 SUBTOTAL $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ 255,720 255,720 $ $ 500,000 500,000 $ $ - TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 321,129,985 $ 321,194,668 $ 319,556,016 $ 301,233,694 $ 19,960,974 Infectious Disease Control & Treatment Tuberculosis (1) Restoration to Competency has been moved to Correctional Health Services. Some expenses were incorrectly allocated to this Activity in FY 200405. 98 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Results Initiatives Summary FY 2005-06 REQUESTED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED FY 2006-07 REQUESTED FY 2006-07 ADOPTED ALL FUNDS 110 ADULT PROBATION Pre-trial Services Bail/Bond Unit Pre-trial Supervision & Electronic Monitoring Services Standard Probation SUBTOTAL 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DUI Commissioner Family Court Expansion Northeast Regional Court Complex Northwest Regional Court Commissioner Post Dissolution SUBTOTAL 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH New Facility Operations SUBTOTAL 270 JUVENILE PROBATION Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care Juvenile Competency Restoration Youth Recovery Academy SUBTOTAL 500 SHERIFF Alpha Program Jail Educator $ 172,830 523,266 914,899 1,610,995 $ $ $ 96,559 476,761 817,465 96,559 246,009 1,733,353 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ SUBTOTAL 800 TRIAL COURTS DUI Commissioner Family Court Expansion Interpreters: Phase I Mental Health Case Monitoring Mental Health Consolidation Northeast Regional Court (E-courtroom Expansion) Northwest Regional Court Commissioner Post Dissolution SUBTOTAL 860 PUBLIC HEALTH Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Vital Registration Staffing $ $ $ 172,830 558,486 914,899 1,646,215 $ $ $ 96,559 263,348 817,465 96,559 246,009 1,519,940 4,734,323 4,734,323 $ $ 483,585 600,000 1,511,096 2,594,681 $ 316,362 51,766 368,128 $ $ $ $ 185,065 283,801 322,649 89,544 109,087 65,417 92,532 185,065 1,333,160 $ $ $ 164,980 493,266 860,949 1,519,195 $ $ $ 91,759 450,361 896,970 91,759 231,610 1,762,459 $ 91,759 251,348 881,774 91,759 231,610 1,548,250 - $ $ 4,684,321 4,684,321 $ $ - 483,585 600,000 1,511,096 2,594,681 $ 660,127 600,000 1,700,350 2,960,477 $ 660,127 600,000 1,700,350 2,960,477 716,362 51,766 768,128 $ 522,724 51,766 574,490 $ $ $ $ 185,065 283,801 161,324 92,243 109,087 65,417 92,532 185,065 1,174,534 $ $ $ 770,240 807,116 1,577,356 $ $ $ $ 164,980 543,006 860,949 1,568,935 922,724 51,766 974,490 185,065 322,649 89,544 109,087 65,417 185,065 191,065 1,147,892 $ $ $ - $ 770,240 807,116 1,577,356 $ $ 185,065 283,801 161,324 92,243 109,087 65,417 185,065 185,065 1,267,067 SUBTOTAL $ - SUB TOTAL $ $ 1,400 - $ $ 361,883 361,883 $ $ 1,400 361,883 $ $ 361,883 361,883 TOTAL INITIATIVES $ 12,376,040 $ 9,642,737 $ 12,650,234 $ 10,258,458 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES West Nile Virus 99 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Results Initiatives Summary (Continued) FY 2005-06 REQUESTED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED FY 2006-07 REQUESTED FY 2006-07 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND 110 ADULT PROBATION Pre-trial Services Bail/Bond Unit Pre-trial Supervision & Electronic Monitoring Services Standard Probation SUBTOTAL 172,830 558,486 783,092 1,514,408 $ $ $ 96,559 263,348 817,465 96,559 246,009 1,519,940 600,000 600,000 $ $ $ $ 185,065 283,801 322,649 89,544 109,087 65,417 92,532 185,065 1,333,160 SUBTOTAL $ $ SUB TOTAL TOTAL INITIATIVES 160 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DUI Commissioner Family Court Expansion Northeast Regional Court Complex Northwest Regional Court Commissioner Post Dissolution SUBTOTAL 270 JUVENILE PROBATION Juvenile Competency Restoration SUBTOTAL 800 TRIAL COURTS DUI Commissioner Family Court Expansion Interpreters: Phase I Mental Health Case Monitoring Mental Health Consolidation Northeast Regional Court (E-courtroom Expansion) Northwest Regional Court Commissioner Post Dissolution SUBTOTAL 860 PUBLIC HEALTH Tuberculosis Prevention and Control 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES West Nile Virus $ 172,830 523,266 914,899 1,610,995 $ 164,980 493,266 860,949 1,519,195 $ $ $ 96,559 476,761 817,465 96,559 246,009 1,733,353 $ $ 91,759 450,361 896,970 91,759 231,610 1,762,459 $ 91,759 251,348 881,774 91,759 231,610 1,548,250 $ $ 600,000 600,000 $ $ 600,000 600,000 $ $ 600,000 600,000 $ $ $ 185,065 322,649 89,544 109,087 65,417 185,065 191,065 1,147,892 $ $ 185,065 283,801 161,324 92,243 109,087 65,417 92,532 185,065 1,174,534 $ 185,065 283,801 161,324 92,243 109,087 65,417 185,065 185,065 1,267,067 - $ $ 770,240 770,240 $ $ - $ $ 770,240 770,240 $ $ 1,400 1,400 $ $ 361,883 361,883 $ $ 1,400 1,400 $ $ 361,883 361,883 $ 5,278,908 $ 5,941,005 $ 5,030,946 $ 6,038,518 $ $ 100 $ $ $ 164,980 543,006 783,092 1,491,078 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Results Initiatives Summary (Continued) FY 2005-06 REQUESTED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED FY 2006-07 REQUESTED FY 2006-07 ADOPTED SPECIAL REVENUE 110 ADULT PROBATION Standard Probation SUBTOTAL $ $ - $ $ 131,807 131,807 $ $ - $ $ 77,857 77,857 SUBTOTAL $ $ 4,734,323 4,734,323 $ $ - $ $ 4,684,321 4,684,321 $ $ - $ 483,585 1,511,096 1,994,681 $ 483,585 1,511,096 1,994,681 $ 660,127 1,700,350 2,360,477 $ 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH New Facility Operations 270 JUVENILE PROBATION Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care Youth Recovery Academy SUBTOTAL 500 SHERIFF Alpha Program Jail Educator $ $ $ SUBTOTAL $ SUB TOTAL $ $ - $ $ 807,116 807,116 $ $ - $ $ 807,116 807,116 TOTAL INITIATIVES $ 7,097,132 $ 3,701,732 $ 7,619,288 $ 4,219,940 101 $ $ 716,362 51,766 768,128 $ 316,362 51,766 368,128 860 PUBLIC HEALTH Vital Registration Staffing $ $ 660,127 1,700,350 2,360,477 $ $ 522,724 51,766 574,490 $ 922,724 51,766 974,490 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Eliminations Summary FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED DESCRIPTION Maricopa County: Fund Transfers (see schedule) $ 412,946,705 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 412,612,935 $ 373,208,557 $ 254,931,545 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (157,681,390) -38.2% Payments from Departments to Benefits Trust Fund for EmployerPaid Health & Dental Premiums 16,370,754 15,884,301 16,126,408 - Internal Service Charges 55,004,957 55,317,910 51,056,109 75,837,516 Payments from Correctional Health to Health System 3,961,426 3,961,426 3,961,426 - (3,961,426) -100.0% Payments from Health Care Mandates to Health System for Public Health TB Hospitalization 500,000 500,000 255,720 - (500,000) -100.0% Payments from Maricopa Health Plans to Health System for Patient Services and Attendant Care 82,891,840 82,891,840 82,891,840 - (82,891,840) -100.0% Payments from Departments to Health Select Self-Insured Trust Fund for Employer Health Premiums 16,024,537 14,828,427 14,625,466 - (14,828,427) -100.0% 3,563,766 3,563,766 3,563,766 - (3,563,766) -100.0% $ 545,689,292 $ 330,769,061 $ (258,791,544) Payments from Health Select to Health System for Patient Services and Attendant Care Subtotal Maricopa County $ (15,884,301) -100.0% 20,519,606 37.1% 591,263,985 $ 589,560,605 $ 63,446,899 $ 59,631,823 $ 53,327,784 $ 70,816,471 $ 11,184,648 18.8% $ 1,660,137 $ 1,710,137 $ 1,660,137 $ 2,082,637 $ 372,500 21.8% Total Maricopa County & Districts $ 656,371,021 $ 650,902,565 Flood Control District: Capital Projects Fund Transfer Stadium District: Cap. Projects, Debt Service Fund Tansfers 102 $ 600,677,213 $ 403,668,169 $ (247,234,396) -43.9% -38.0% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers In by Fund FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 133,499,730 82,972,500 9,955,777 7,563,001 33,008,452 - FY 2004-05 PROJECTED RESTATED $ 50,983,695 9,954,115 7,665,001 33,008,452 356,127 - $ SPECIAL REVENUE 236 RECORDERS SURCHARGE Transfer from General Fund County Improvement $ $ 133,418,891 70,000 70,000 $ $ 133,436,891 70,000 70,000 $ $ 134,544,479 70,000 70,000 $ $ 146,287,361 - 241 PARKS ENHANCEMENT FUND Transfer from Parks Souvenir Fund $ 17,000 17,000 $ 35,000 35,000 $ 17,000 17,000 $ 35,000 35,000 250 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS Transfer from Stadium District Debt Service $ 110,000 110,000 $ 110,000 110,000 $ 110,000 110,000 $ 482,500 482,500 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Jail Excise Tax Maintenance of Effort $ 133,176,891 133,176,891 $ 133,176,891 133,176,891 $ 133,176,891 133,176,891 $ 145,724,861 145,724,861 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES Vital Statistics $ 45,000 45,000 $ 45,000 45,000 $ 39,649 39,649 $ 45,000 45,000 504 AIR QUALITY FEES General Fund Transfer to Reimburse for Public Health Clinic SPECIAL REVENUE $ 133,418,891 $ 133,436,891 $ 1,130,939 1,130,939 134,544,479 $ 146,287,361 DEBT SERVICE 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT COPS and Capital Lease Refinancing DEBT SERVICE $ $ 3,443,111 3,443,111 3,443,111 3,443,111 $ $ 3,443,111 3,443,111 3,443,111 3,443,111 $ $ 3,443,111 3,443,111 3,443,111 3,443,111 $ $ CAPITAL PROJECTS 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Transfer from Transportaiton Operating Fund $ $ 175,922,832 61,695,868 61,695,868 $ $ 171,703,986 61,242,098 61,242,098 $ $ 166,480,886 61,242,098 61,242,098 $ $ 163,459,138 67,475,788 67,475,788 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ Transfer from Parks Grant Fund Transfer from Parks Enhancement Fund Transfer from Parks Donation Fund $ 1,638,390 1,638,390 - $ 1,638,390 1,638,390 - $ 2,769,329 2,769,329 - $ 463,901 150,000 250,901 63,000 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV Transfer from General Fund Project Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ 8,125,000 8,125,000 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE Transfer from MLB Operations Fund $ 1,550,137 1,550,137 $ 1,600,137 1,600,137 $ 1,550,137 1,550,137 $ 1,600,137 1,600,137 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Transfer from Detention Operations Fund $ 47,591,538 47,591,538 $ 47,591,538 47,591,538 $ 47,591,538 47,591,538 $ 14,977,841 14,977,841 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS Transfer from Flood Control Operating Fund CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 63,446,899 63,446,899 175,922,832 $ 59,631,823 59,631,823 171,703,986 $ 53,327,784 53,327,784 166,480,886 $ 70,816,471 70,816,471 163,459,138 $ $ 103 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 9,541,283 9,510,300 25,500 5,483 GENERAL FUND Dispro. Share Match Reimbursement Central Service Allocation Transfer from General Fund County Improvement Transfer from County Improvement Debt Fund Transfer from Bond Debt Service Fund Transfer from Parks Donation Fund Transfer from Park Enhancement Fund $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 133,601,730 82,972,500 9,955,777 7,665,001 33,008,452 - $ $ $ 2,571,736 2,571,736 2,571,736 2,571,736 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers In by Fund (Continued) FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 24,224,170 15,374,170 11,826,270 3,547,900 FY 2004-05 PROJECTED RESTATED $ 67,461,178 $ 15,374,170 11,826,270 3,547,900 $ $ 541 HEALTH PLAN Transfer from General Fund to Cover Deficit $ 1,100,000 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 1,100,000 $ 13,180,000 13,180,000 $ 1,162,374 1,162,374 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN Transfer from General Fund to Cover Deficit Transfer from General Fund for Claims Tail and Admin. $ - $ - $ 27,000,000 27,000,000 - $ 4,808,761 4,808,761 - 561 SENIOR SELECT Transfer from General Fund to Cover Deficit ENTERPRISE $ 7,750,000 7,750,000 24,224,170 $ 7,750,000 7,750,000 24,224,170 $ 11,907,008 11,907,008 67,461,178 $ 5,971,135 INTERNAL SERVICE 652 HS SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND Transfer from General Fund for Reserves $ $ 7,545,007 2,019,131 2,019,131 $ $ 7,545,007 2,019,131 2,019,131 $ $ 7,545,007 2,019,131 2,019,131 $ $ - 685 BENEFITS TRUST Transfer from General Fund for Reserves INTERNAL SERVICE $ 5,525,876 5,525,876 7,545,007 $ 5,525,876 5,525,876 7,545,007 $ 5,525,876 5,525,876 7,545,007 $ - ELIMINATIONS Maricopa County Flood Control District Stadium District $ $ $ $ (478,053,741) $ (412,946,705) (63,446,899) (1,660,137) 104 $ $ (473,954,895) $ (412,612,935) (59,631,823) (1,710,137) $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 5,971,135 - ENTERPRISE 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Operating Subsidy from General Fund Teaching Program Subsidy from General Fund $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 24,224,170 15,374,170 11,826,270 3,547,900 $ $ (430,458,356) $ (375,470,435) (53,327,784) (1,660,137) (327,830,653) (254,931,545) (70,816,471) (2,082,637) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers Out by Fund FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 169,199,149 133,176,891 11,826,270 3,547,900 45,000 1,100,000 7,750,000 2,425,734 108,571 35,386 5,525,876 2,019,131 1,638,390 - $ FY 2004-05 PROJECTED RESTATED 213,561,745 133,176,891 11,826,270 3,547,900 39,649 13,180,000 11,907,008 27,000,000 2,425,734 108,571 35,386 5,525,876 2,019,131 1,638,390 1,130,939 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 162,437,732 145,724,861 45,000 1,162,374 4,808,761 2,382,857 141,659 47,220 8,125,000 $ 163,455,595 $ 24,282 24,282 GENERAL FUND Jail Excise Tax Maintenance of Effort Health Care Delivery System Operating Subsidy Health Care Delivery System Teaching Program Subsidy Public Health Vital Statistics Transfer to Health Plans to Cover Deficit Transfer to Senior Select to Cover Deficit Transfer to ALTCS to Cover Deficit General Govn't COPS/Capital Lease Refinancing MCSO COPS/Capital Lease Refinancing Medical Examiner COPS/Capital Lease Refinancing Transfer to Benefits Trust Fund for Reserves Transfer to Health Select Fund for Reserves Transfer to Intergov. Capital Projects Transfer to General Fund County Improvement Cap. Fund Transfer to Air Quality Fund for Public Health Clinic Reimb. $ SPECIAL REVENUE 207 PALO VERDE Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ $ 181,497,049 20,527 20,527 $ $ 177,296,203 20,527 20,527 $ $ 170,924,164 20,527 20,527 215 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 58,642 58,642 $ 58,642 58,642 $ 58,642 58,642 $ 62,952 62,952 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 26,824 26,824 $ 26,824 26,824 $ 26,824 26,824 $ 26,537 26,537 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 744,223 744,223 $ 744,223 744,223 $ 744,223 744,223 $ 845,243 845,243 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 295,744 295,744 $ 295,744 295,744 $ 295,744 295,744 $ 371,093 371,093 230 PARKS & REC. GRANTS Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Projects $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 150,000 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transportation CIP Transfer $ 63,091,909 1,396,041 61,695,868 $ 62,638,139 1,396,041 61,242,098 $ 62,638,139 1,396,041 61,242,098 $ 69,060,233 1,584,445 67,475,788 235 DEL WEBB SPECIAL FUND Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 6,543 6,543 $ 6,543 6,543 $ 6,543 6,543 $ 7,586 7,586 239 PARKS SOUVENIR FUND Transfer to Parks Enhancement Fund $ 17,000 17,000 $ 35,000 35,000 $ 17,000 17,000 $ 35,000 35,000 241 PARKS ENHANCEMENT FUND Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Projects Transfer to General Fund for Entry Station Project $ - $ - $ - $ 256,384 250,901 5,483 243 PARKS DONATIONS FUND Transfer to Intergovernmental Cap. Projects Transfer to General Fund for Entry Station Project $ - $ - $ - $ 88,500 63,000 25,500 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 706,043 706,043 $ 706,043 706,043 $ 706,043 706,043 $ 913,635 913,635 105 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 169,199,149 133,176,891 11,826,270 3,547,900 45,000 1,100,000 7,750,000 2,425,734 108,571 35,386 5,525,876 2,019,131 1,638,390 - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers Out by Fund (Continued) FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED SPECIAL REVENUE (Continued) 250 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJECTED RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 441 441 $ 441 441 $ 441 441 $ 612 612 253 BALLPARK OPERATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transfer to B.O.B. Long Term Reserve $ 1,584,437 34,300 1,550,137 $ 1,634,437 34,300 1,600,137 $ 1,584,437 34,300 1,550,137 $ 1,634,713 34,576 1,600,137 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS Transfer to Detention Capital Projects $ 47,591,538 47,591,538 $ 47,591,538 47,591,538 $ 47,591,538 47,591,538 $ 14,977,841 14,977,841 260 RESEARCH & REPORTING Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 31,636 31,636 $ 31,636 31,636 $ 31,636 31,636 $ 34,502 34,502 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 264,333 264,333 $ 264,333 264,333 $ 264,333 264,333 $ 202,918 202,918 290 WASTE TIRE Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 39,654 39,654 $ 39,654 39,654 $ 39,654 39,654 $ 38,660 38,660 503 AIR QUALITY GRANT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ - $ 54,410 54,410 $ 38,087 38,087 $ 69,102 69,102 504 AIR QUALITY FEES Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 181,440 181,440 $ 181,440 181,440 $ 181,440 181,440 $ 259,522 259,522 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 54,410 54,410 $ - $ 16,323 16,323 $ 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 328,286 328,286 $ 328,286 328,286 $ 328,286 328,286 $ 322,066 322,066 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 1,468,012 1,468,012 $ 1,468,012 1,468,012 $ 1,468,012 1,468,012 $ 1,564,748 1,564,748 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 407,297 407,297 $ 407,297 407,297 $ 407,297 407,297 $ 368,797 368,797 573 ANIMAL CONTROL GRANTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ - $ - $ - $ 14,275 14,275 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 199,544 199,544 $ 199,544 199,544 $ 199,544 199,544 $ 169,118 169,118 991 FLOOD CONTROL Central Service Allocation - General Fund Transportation CIP Transfer SPECIAL REVENUE $ 64,378,566 931,667 63,446,899 181,497,049 $ 60,563,490 931,667 59,631,823 177,296,203 $ 54,259,451 931,667 53,327,784 170,924,164 $ $ $ $ 71,957,276 1,140,805 70,816,471 $ 163,455,595 DEBT SERVICE 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICE Transfer to General Fund $ $ 33,118,452 - $ $ 33,118,452 - $ $ 33,474,579 356,127 356,127 $ $ 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT Transfer to General Fund $ 33,008,452 33,008,452 $ 33,008,452 33,008,452 $ 33,008,452 33,008,452 $ 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 Transfer to Stadium District Special Revenue Fund DEBT SERVICE $ 110,000 110,000 33,118,452 $ 110,000 110,000 33,118,452 $ 110,000 110,000 33,474,579 $ $ 106 $ $ - $ 482,500 482,500 482,500 482,500 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Transfers Out by Fund (Continued) FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 8,166,387 320,883 320,883 CAPITAL PROJECTS 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ $ 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ Transfer to Air Quality to Reimburse for Public Health Clinic $ 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV Transfer to General Fund Transfer to Recorder Surcharge $ 7,633,001 7,563,001 70,000 $ 7,735,001 7,665,001 70,000 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS Central Service Allocation - General Fund CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 212,503 212,503 8,166,387 $ ENTERPRISE 535 HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Dispro. Share Reimb. - General Fund Central Service Allocation - General Fund MIHS COPS/Capital Lease Refinancing $ $ 85,130,554 84,993,416 82,972,500 1,176,424 844,492 541 HEALTH PLAN Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN Central Service Allocation - General Fund - $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 8,268,387 320,883 320,883 $ $ $ 7,735,001 7,665,001 70,000 $ - 212,503 212,503 8,268,387 $ 212,503 212,503 9,399,326 $ 63,045 $ $ 85,130,554 84,993,416 82,972,500 1,176,424 844,492 $ $ 2,156,392 2,020,916 1,176,424 844,492 $ $ 520,699 - 15,686 15,686 $ 15,686 15,686 $ 15,686 15,686 $ 235,325 235,325 $ 49,541 49,541 $ 49,541 49,541 $ 49,541 49,541 $ 234,993 234,993 561 SENIOR SELECT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 3,329 3,329 $ 3,329 3,329 $ 1,667 1,667 $ 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Central Service Allocation - General Fund Solid Waste COPS/Capital Lease Refinancing ENTERPRISE $ 68,582 39,654 28,928 85,130,554 $ 68,582 39,654 28,928 85,130,554 $ 68,582 39,654 28,928 2,156,392 $ INTERNAL SERVICE 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ $ 942,150 480,618 480,618 $ $ 942,150 480,618 480,618 $ $ 942,150 480,618 480,618 $ $ 871,082 403,417 403,417 673 REPROGRAPHICS Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 34,130 34,130 $ 34,130 34,130 $ 34,130 34,130 $ 54,836 54,836 675 RISK MANAGEMENT Central Service Allocation - General Fund $ 114,652 114,652 $ 114,652 114,652 $ 114,652 114,652 $ 119,335 119,335 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Central Service Allocation - General Fund INTERNAL SERVICE $ 312,750 312,750 942,150 $ 312,750 312,750 942,150 $ 312,750 312,750 942,150 $ 293,494 293,494 871,082 ELIMINATIONS Maricopa County Flood Control District Stadium District $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ (478,053,741) $ (412,946,705) (63,446,899) (1,660,137) 107 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 63,045 $ 63,045 63,045 1,130,939 1,130,939 - - $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJECTED RESTATED 9,399,326 320,883 320,883 $ $ $ (473,954,895) $ (412,612,935) (59,631,823) (1,710,137) - $ $ $ 50,381 50,381 520,699 (430,458,356) $ (327,830,653) (375,470,435) (254,931,545) (53,327,784) (70,816,471) (1,660,137) (2,082,637) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Personnel Summary by Department FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL 110 ADULT PROBATION 270 JUVENILE PROBATION 800 TRIAL COURTS FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE Subtotal 1,153.00 1,012.50 1,330.33 3,495.83 1,166.00 962.00 1,376.03 3,504.03 1,193.00 966.00 1,399.03 3,558.03 27.00 4.00 23.00 54.00 Subtotal 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.50 321.00 33.00 695.95 989.55 54.00 30.00 70.25 32.00 59.50 3,214.50 5,516.75 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 321.00 33.00 683.00 996.50 55.00 30.00 80.25 32.00 59.75 3,223.50 5,529.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 331.00 33.00 743.00 992.50 54.00 30.00 80.25 33.00 59.75 3,558.00 5,929.50 10.00 60.00 (4.00) (1.00) 1.00 334.50 400.50 Subtotal 7.00 15.00 10.00 42.00 20.75 461.00 15.00 380.75 66.00 86.50 51.00 34.00 26.00 30.00 105.00 19.00 159.00 8.75 21.50 466.80 96.00 78.50 7.25 364.49 479.00 12.00 301.50 35.00 60.75 20.00 144.00 556.55 219.75 3,691.44 8,091.28 7.00 16.00 10.00 44.00 21.00 478.20 15.00 380.63 66.00 88.00 55.00 37.00 30.00 31.00 106.17 18.00 185.00 8.75 25.00 470.10 96.00 78.50 9.50 364.49 477.00 12.00 301.00 35.00 59.75 20.00 151.00 134.00 564.05 194.84 3,691.44 8,280.42 7.35 15.00 10.00 44.00 21.00 463.00 15.00 348.10 70.00 88.00 55.00 36.00 23.00 31.00 109.00 18.00 190.00 7.25 32.00 470.10 96.00 79.50 9.50 368.67 477.00 13.00 263.50 35.00 53.75 20.00 149.00 131.00 574.93 196.79 4,520.44 0.35 (1.00) (15.20) (32.53) 4.00 (1.00) (7.00) 2.83 5.00 (1.50) 7.00 1.00 4.18 1.00 (37.50) (6.00) (2.00) (3.00) 10.88 1.95 (3,691.44) (3,759.99) MARICOPA COUNTY 17,103.86 17,313.45 14,007.97 (3,305.49) LIBRARY DISTRICT STADIUM DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ALL DISTRICTS 147.00 5.00 227.00 379.00 151.69 5.00 209.00 365.69 150.69 5.00 208.00 363.69 (1.00) (1.00) (2.00) 17,482.86 17,679.14 14,371.65 (3,307.49) 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 APPOINTED 060 CLERK OF THE BOARD 150 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 180 FINANCE 200 COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICER 220 HUMAN SERVICES 230 INTERNAL AUDIT 260 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 290 MEDICAL EXAMINER 300 PARKS & RECREATION 310 HUMAN RESOURCES 340 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 350 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES 390 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 410 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 420 INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO 440 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 460 RESEARCH & REPORTING 490 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 520 PUBLIC DEFENDER 540 LEGAL DEFENDER 550 LEGAL ADVOCATE 560 CONTRACT COUNSEL 600 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS 640 TRANSPORTATION 670 SOLID WASTE 700 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 730 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 740 EQUIPMENT SERVICES 750 RISK MANAGEMENT 790 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 850 AIR QUALITY 860 PUBLIC HEALTH 880 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 900 HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM MARICOPA COUNTY & DISTRICTS 108 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Direct Assessment Special Districts Secondary Roll MARICOPA COUNTY DIRECT ASSESSMENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS SECONDARY ROLL FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 DIST. NO. DISTRICT NAME Fairview Lane East Fairview Lane Bond Interest $ Bond redemption Subtotal $ 907 3,505 4,412 Bond Interest $ Bond redemption Subtotal $ 3,111 460 3,571 Bond Interest $ Bond redemption Subtotal $ 1,441 3,842 5,283 Queen Creek Water Improv Bond Interest $ Bond redemption Subtotal $ 3,468 5,471 8,939 White Fence Farms 104th Place/University Dr. Central Ave Billings Street Marquerite Drive 7th Street North Improv. 28530 28531 28548 28532 28795 28546 28529 28793 28539 28835 ESTIMATED 2005-06 LESS 2005-06 2004-05 EXPENDITURES BUDGET AVAILABLE DIRECT LEVY PURPOSE BUDGET 2004-05 REQUEST FUNDS ASSESSMENT Bond Interest $ 544 $ 544 $ 229 $ - $ 229 Bond redemption 216 216 5,082 5,082 Subtotal $ 760 $ 760 $ 5,311 $ - $ 5,311 129th Avenue 14th Street 192nd Ave. Avenida Del Sol Circle City Community Park Desert Foothills North Estrella Dells Queen Creek Water Improv West Phoenix Estates 10 20th Street $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bond Interest $ Bond redemption Subtotal $ 7,228 23,631 30,859 $ Bond Interest $ Bond redemption Subtotal $ 256 486 742 $ Bond Interest $ Bond redemption Subtotal $ 3,534 6,067 9,601 Bond Interest $ Bond redemption Subtotal $ 6,593 6,006 12,599 General General General General General General General General General General $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ 123 1,172 2,522 13,800 15,340 74,828 21,000 10,125 138,910 Total $ 215,676 109 907 3,505 4,412 3,111 460 3,571 1,441 3,842 5,283 3,468 5,471 8,939 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,228 23,631 30,859 $ 256 486 742 $ 3,534 6,067 9,601 6,593 6,006 12,599 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 123 1,172 2,522 13,800 15,340 74,828 21,000 10,125 138,910 $ 215,676 501 3,368 3,869 1,900 8,445 10,345 1,009 5,763 6,772 3,201 5,471 8,672 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,786 19,153 22,939 $ 171 776 947 $ 2,345 2,855 5,200 4,084 6,006 10,090 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 273 645 1,230 245 15,000 5,310 75,000 21,000 10,125 108,500 237,328 $ 311,473 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ 501 3,368 3,869 1,900 8,445 10,345 1,009 5,763 6,772 3,201 5,471 8,672 3,786 19,153 22,939 171 776 947 2,345 2,855 5,200 4,084 6,006 10,090 $ $ - $ 273 645 1,230 245 15,000 5,310 75,000 21,000 10,125 108,500 237,328 $ - $ 311,473 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll DIST # 13001 13003 13005 13010 13051 13056 13057 13059 13069 13070 13072 13075 13078 13079 13103 13107 13109 13121 13122 13128 13132 13147 13169 13176 13177 13178 13184 13188 13191 13203 13210 13219 13220 13221 13223 13226 13228 13247 13248 13263 13264 13268 13271 13281 DESCRIPTION Sun City 38B Sunrise Unit 5 Ph 2 Golden West 2 Empire Gardens 2 Towne Meadows The Vineyards of Mesa Clark Acres Country Meadows 9 Sun Lakes 09 Camelot Golf Club Est. 1 Desert Sands Golf & CC 3 Litchfield Park 19 Sunrise Meadows 1 Estate Ranchos Desert Foothills Est 5 Desert Foothills Est 6 Apache Wells Mobile P 3A Desert Sands Golf & CC 4 Sun Lakes 07 Litchfield Park 17 Valencia Village Superstition View #1 Sun Lakes 22 Villa Royale Coronado Acres Sun Lakes 10 Hopeville Sun Lakes 21 Dreamland Villa-19 Sun Lakes 19 Crestview Manor Sun Lakes 12 Sun Lakes 14 Sun Lakes 16 &16A Sun Lakes 18 Sun Lakes 11 & 11A Crimson Cove Sun City 57 Apache Wells Mobile P 3B Sun City 10 Sun Lakes 03A Sun Lakes 08 Mesquite Trails Sun City 10A MARICOPA COUNTY STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LEVIES SECONDARY ROLL FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 Estimated Estimated DIRECT 2004-05 2005-06 TAX BUDGET BUDGET LEVY 2,449 2,449 2,504 2,160 2,160 2,160 7,961 8,385 9,442 975 1,026 1,238 17,589 18,487 20,889 8,772 9,233 10,039 715 759 891 14,897 16,890 19,493 2,256 2,378 2,670 3,972 4,173 4,773 5,250 5,537 6,371 3,980 4,570 5,329 197 206 0 893 937 1,115 3,663 3,851 4,351 4,784 5,037 5,693 1,966 2,063 2,311 8,776 9,220 10,753 3,184 3,348 3,818 3,235 3,588 4,040 6,137 6,163 6,712 3,260 3,426 3,895 4,012 4,212 4,802 590 619 697 577 609 687 7,091 7,443 8,471 1,049 1,443 1,663 10,395 10,913 12,458 775 814 929 4,905 5,165 6,020 775 814 932 7,227 7,587 8,598 5,893 6,186 6,968 9,322 9,797 11,137 12,594 13,280 14,676 1,323 1,388 1,562 1,745 1,831 2,052 8,845 10,011 10,719 2,945 3,092 3,499 20,185 22,996 24,209 1,827 1,925 2,159 3,114 3,285 3,808 3,419 3,596 3,893 18,846 21,410 22,904 110 TAX YEAR 2005 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 755,050 1,064,980 1,910,800 255,600 7,657,789 1,898,350 352,130 2,637,550 776,850 1,006,040 991,901 1,904,850 5,936,763 485,700 1,471,118 1,542,030 345,302 1,953,661 895,380 826,800 1,336,827 630,400 3,529,280 774,049 230,100 3,086,510 238,326 5,189,114 356,100 2,375,200 194,750 2,525,952 2,273,900 3,504,943 3,980,730 1,067,000 213,063 1,692,200 737,972 4,050,954 545,200 690,150 825,813 3,781,900 Estimated 2005 TAX RATE 0.3316 0.2028 0.4941 0.4844 0.2728 0.5288 0.2530 0.7391 0.3437 0.4744 0.6423 0.2798 0.0000 0.2296 0.2958 0.3692 0.6693 0.5504 0.4264 0.4886 0.5021 0.6179 0.1361 0.0900 0.2986 0.2745 0.6978 0.2401 0.2609 0.2535 0.4786 0.3404 0.3064 0.3178 0.3687 0.1464 0.9631 0.6334 0.4741 0.5976 0.3960 0.5518 0.4714 0.6056 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13287 13288 13290 13291 13298 13303 13310 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 DESCRIPTION Empire Gardens 3 Empire Gardens 4 Sun Lakes 15 Sun City 50A Sun City West Sun Lakes 17 Casa Mia 2A 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 I 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 2004-05 BUDGET 983 1,144 5,575 3,225 720,000 10,213 1,930 2,221 563 2,520 15,789 2,063 4,677 3,683 12,341 7,840 2,359 1,781 2,811 1,551 17,764 2,535 18,838 18,788 2,315 3,932 2,581 2,279 5,816 11,339 9,318 14,076 6,491 4,177 11,863 10,897 7,433 135,000 3,527 9,872 25,943 16,152 17,016 1,926 3,821 19,717 2,908 8,126 2,892 Estimated 2005-06 BUDGET 1,032 1,205 5,852 3,426 711,342 10,721 2,040 2,353 597 2,656 17,311 2,177 4,979 3,865 13,488 8,532 2,476 1,878 2,811 1,628 19,929 2,620 19,857 19,806 2,444 4,126 2,660 2,407 6,103 11,933 9,795 15,883 6,836 4,287 13,644 12,521 8,564 127,051 4,114 10,100 30,112 18,603 19,202 2,035 4,344 21,931 3,052 8,826 3,040 111 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 1,141 1,393 6,753 3,475 727,555 12,190 2,330 2,406 676 3,079 18,189 2,432 5,863 4,382 14,274 8,922 2,767 2,160 3,084 1,849 20,923 2,614 22,613 22,430 2,803 4,746 2,520 2,792 6,980 12,935 11,281 18,183 7,821 4,308 14,733 13,406 9,333 125,691 4,655 11,234 34,972 21,890 21,969 2,313 4,568 23,094 3,555 9,946 3,371 TAX YEAR 2005 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 264,300 286,900 2,397,300 468,350 192,069,564 3,248,000 505,500 635,430 354,940 666,843 2,584,080 364,700 927,660 627,200 2,315,250 1,809,030 738,450 247,950 1,378,230 504,650 3,148,363 296,050 3,682,842 3,713,150 613,202 743,340 301,900 598,100 2,522,413 2,941,347 2,985,575 3,618,272 1,306,850 345,429 2,341,350 2,594,047 1,846,950 34,716,983 1,218,650 1,790,200 7,063,386 3,967,901 3,432,500 453,750 906,398 3,694,072 1,628,030 2,285,625 699,870 Estimated 2005 TAX RATE 0.4317 0.4855 0.2817 0.7420 0.3788 0.3753 0.4609 0.3786 0.1905 0.4617 0.7039 0.6668 0.6320 0.6987 0.6165 0.4932 0.3747 0.8711 0.2238 0.3664 0.6646 0.8830 0.6140 0.6041 0.4571 0.6385 0.8347 0.4668 0.2767 0.4398 0.3779 0.5025 0.5985 1.2471 0.6293 0.5168 0.5053 0.3620 0.3820 0.6275 0.4951 0.5517 0.6400 0.5098 0.5040 0.6252 0.2184 0.4352 0.4817 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13418 13419 13420 13421 13422 13423 13424 13432 13433 13434 13437 13438 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 DESCRIPTION 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 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 2004-05 BUDGET 2,908 23,910 3,683 2,124 950 1,329 3,486 3,494 5,733 5,990 816 3,334 15,895 15,581 5,205 1,523 13,435 3,932 963 1,224 5,835 1,541 9,906 3,010 2,945 2,859 7,119 1,539 6,502 9,339 2,876 1,258 16,158 21,712 9,179 5,395 1,551 4,128 14,015 8,460 17,388 2,475 3,355 4,500 1,740 5,514 12,580 1,924 5,052 Estimated 2005-06 BUDGET 3,052 26,683 3,865 2,219 1,003 1,404 3,676 3,512 6,044 6,293 858 3,611 18,020 17,219 5,673 1,608 14,255 4,126 1,017 1,292 6,185 1,628 10,454 3,186 3,117 3,019 8,454 1,635 6,865 9,831 3,029 1,337 18,166 24,654 9,828 5,738 1,628 4,333 15,756 8,755 19,311 2,849 3,523 4,688 1,839 5,836 13,318 2,037 5,351 112 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 3,197 28,169 4,026 2,509 1,145 1,656 4,277 3,848 6,620 6,767 1,036 3,766 19,170 17,950 6,420 1,721 16,138 4,749 1,168 1,495 7,076 1,837 12,116 3,578 3,472 3,487 9,353 1,899 7,685 10,716 3,475 1,624 19,292 26,190 10,971 6,420 1,866 4,986 16,879 9,712 20,373 3,027 3,943 5,159 2,098 6,672 14,995 2,304 6,195 TAX YEAR 2005 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 268,995 4,537,404 492,498 631,850 296,250 218,900 678,750 767,950 1,446,045 1,456,805 216,900 786,500 3,643,132 3,131,566 3,453,609 381,000 3,272,717 1,721,100 232,350 461,250 1,192,650 316,400 2,360,830 757,910 687,500 774,853 765,037 370,799 1,965,598 1,991,505 723,800 199,170 3,820,528 4,118,822 3,391,156 1,880,550 312,100 1,344,200 2,271,447 1,355,159 2,882,450 403,800 1,406,638 1,728,446 873,450 1,851,600 4,389,100 784,250 2,027,370 Estimated 2005 TAX RATE 1.1885 0.6208 0.8175 0.3971 0.3865 0.7565 0.6301 0.5011 0.4578 0.4645 0.4776 0.4788 0.5262 0.5732 0.1859 0.4517 0.4931 0.2759 0.5027 0.3241 0.5933 0.5806 0.5132 0.4721 0.5050 0.4500 1.2226 0.5121 0.3910 0.5381 0.4801 0.8154 0.5050 0.6359 0.3235 0.3414 0.5979 0.3709 0.7431 0.7167 0.7068 0.7496 0.2803 0.2985 0.2402 0.3603 0.3416 0.2938 0.3056 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13817 13820 13821 13825 13827 13830 13836 13837 13838 13839 13840 13844 13848 13849 13850 13851 13853 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 DESCRIPTION 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 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 2004-05 BUDGET 6,024 1,543 6,831 3,089 10,286 1,539 1,721 3,664 3,475 9,674 2,509 5,019 10,610 10,774 6,988 4,453 8,870 1,899 4,904 2,051 6,526 1,182 1,928 5,784 2,432 1,463 2,165 25,777 15,535 10,794 7,137 6,027 5,207 1,736 1,158 4,241 5,523 1,539 1,139 10,833 3,911 1,721 1,899 165 33,906 14,041 6,077 4,195 2,445 Estimated 2005-06 BUDGET 6,376 1,633 7,228 3,261 10,889 1,630 1,814 3,879 3,676 10,244 2,643 5,298 11,225 11,395 7,399 4,706 9,385 2,006 5,170 2,169 6,932 1,251 2,040 6,123 2,574 1,547 2,277 27,261 16,440 11,423 7,536 6,379 5,575 1,836 1,225 4,488 5,829 1,630 1,204 11,427 4,123 1,814 2,006 180 33,917 14,040 6,419 4,431 2,584 113 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 7,368 1,910 8,284 3,771 12,653 1,862 1,954 4,446 4,144 11,838 3,005 6,187 12,714 13,024 8,586 5,172 10,714 2,309 5,899 2,405 7,820 1,414 2,321 7,092 3,138 1,766 2,410 31,097 19,027 13,040 8,628 7,167 6,492 1,982 1,385 4,869 6,736 1,867 1,357 12,926 5,103 2,151 2,341 0 33,934 15,300 7,498 4,993 2,942 TAX YEAR 2005 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 2,114,387 1,367,500 3,250,050 784,050 4,591,483 724,950 350,350 1,776,100 1,520,900 3,290,000 1,477,757 1,133,205 4,069,920 4,281,699 2,977,230 1,560,500 4,201,600 475,600 1,016,820 783,900 2,163,010 537,100 933,600 1,998,712 1,129,402 380,699 509,100 9,957,250 5,928,300 8,667,350 2,446,274 2,566,250 2,411,083 736,700 475,200 1,968,350 1,176,650 494,150 249,470 3,654,400 1,083,779 312,600 614,780 551,900 4,937,850 2,712,453 1,458,300 1,144,359 343,550 Estimated 2005 TAX RATE 0.3485 0.1397 0.2549 0.4810 0.2756 0.2568 0.5577 0.2503 0.2725 0.3598 0.2033 0.5460 0.3124 0.3042 0.2884 0.3314 0.2550 0.4855 0.5801 0.3068 0.3615 0.2633 0.2486 0.3548 0.2778 0.4639 0.4734 0.3123 0.3210 0.1504 0.3527 0.2793 0.2693 0.2690 0.2915 0.2474 0.5725 0.3778 0.5440 0.3537 0.4709 0.6881 0.3808 0.0000 0.6872 0.5641 0.5142 0.4363 0.8564 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13923 13924 13925 13926 13927 13928 13929 13930 13931 13932 13933 13934 13935 13936 13937 13938 13939 13940 13941 13942 13943 13944 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 DESCRIPTION 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 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 2004-05 BUDGET 25,750 23,636 10,224 8,946 10,741 8,486 1,899 5,891 36,573 27,723 3,240 3,805 248,360 3,663 5,507 4,675 28,288 2,430 6,999 31,459 7,984 17,416 27,885 6,658 9,270 10,446 25,242 2,533 3,418 5,090 7,871 32,133 17,146 8,471 32,238 18,611 7,916 12,759 5,786 2,511 6,748 15,749 13,447 12,329 3,102 6,668 2,884 12,432 8,360 Estimated 2005-06 BUDGET 25,748 23,635 10,368 9,948 11,779 9,210 2,009 6,222 39,264 29,336 3,553 3,805 270,938 3,868 5,820 4,808 30,342 2,455 7,542 33,054 8,431 19,179 30,406 7,030 10,368 11,102 27,308 2,683 3,611 5,404 8,352 35,836 18,819 9,390 36,266 18,643 8,355 13,466 6,109 2,651 7,460 17,570 15,011 13,783 3,255 7,086 3,066 14,451 8,835 114 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 25,980 23,628 10,505 10,422 12,235 9,733 2,174 6,656 40,660 30,387 3,647 4,074 285,672 4,423 6,617 4,927 31,570 2,658 7,940 34,216 9,657 20,321 31,637 7,996 10,945 12,372 28,523 3,016 4,110 5,634 9,331 37,873 19,707 9,962 38,509 20,363 9,390 15,464 7,076 3,007 8,045 18,736 16,000 14,697 3,700 7,319 3,231 15,227 10,164 TAX YEAR 2005 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 4,302,994 3,626,886 2,003,477 1,850,065 2,236,585 1,480,750 549,050 1,414,800 6,241,577 4,432,752 1,100,378 598,800 30,571,683 513,202 1,284,050 976,200 5,068,668 407,100 1,470,650 5,513,602 1,887,695 2,563,026 4,749,975 1,485,900 1,254,250 3,129,743 3,337,414 422,790 552,200 568,500 2,475,001 6,418,086 3,352,400 1,835,050 5,730,350 7,777,704 1,977,620 3,747,868 2,257,354 751,130 1,974,150 3,770,640 2,132,430 2,329,200 1,313,030 2,599,167 692,150 2,271,700 2,147,872 Estimated 2005 TAX RATE 0.6038 0.6515 0.5243 0.5633 0.5470 0.6573 0.3960 0.4705 0.6514 0.6855 0.3314 0.6804 0.9344 0.8618 0.5153 0.5047 0.6228 0.6529 0.5399 0.6206 0.5116 0.7929 0.6660 0.5381 0.8726 0.3953 0.8546 0.7134 0.7443 0.9910 0.3770 0.5901 0.5878 0.5429 0.6720 0.2618 0.4748 0.4126 0.3135 0.4003 0.4075 0.4969 0.7503 0.6310 0.2818 0.2816 0.4668 0.6703 0.4732 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules Street Lighting Improvement District Levies Secondary Roll (Continued) DIST # 13999 23076 23137 23145 23176 23189 23254 23255 23324 23344 23352 23353 23360 23375 23399 23452 13435 23104 DESCRIPTION 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 Litchfield Vista Views IIIA&B Az Skies Mobile Est. W 2 Litchfield Vista Views 2004-05 BUDGET 4,437 2,489 12,102 1,810 6,983 384,000 1,025 3,699 76,200 30,000 1,680 10,200 15,600 4,800 30,000 720 Estimated 2005-06 BUDGET 4,968 2,550 12,231 1,855 7,358 428,220 1,097 5,155 71,400 35,786 1,424 10,822 16,577 3,101 37,978 933 Estimated DIRECT TAX LEVY 5,239 2,914 13,362 2,095 8,212 531,131 1,377 6,326 77,519 40,609 941 9,570 13,943 1,761 44,852 1,044 3,460,052 3,655,902 3,983,228 1,908 1,680 2,016 1,660 115 2,070 1,844 TAX YEAR 2005 NET ASSESSED VALUATION 1,632,975 1,401,100 3,281,700 1,404,940 1,057,400 52,956,242 371,080 3,314,520 15,754,013 17,491,200 736,405 5,040,818 10,029,030 2,297,300 19,949,069 2,180,960 Estimated 2005 TAX RATE 0.3208 0.2080 0.4072 0.1491 0.7766 1.0030 0.3711 0.1909 0.4921 0.2322 0.1278 0.1899 0.1390 0.0767 0.2248 0.0479 2005 SQUARE FOOTAGE 314,226 1,351,641 0.6588 0.1364 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Summary Schedules 116 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Personnel Plan Introduction Human Resources recently changed its mission and vision statements to better reflect its future goals. The mission of Human Resources is to establish and administer effective human resources programs to recruit, develop and retain a qualified and diverse workforce so the County can achieve its public service goals. The vision of Human Resources is “to recruit, develop and retain an A+ workforce and be an Employer of Choice”. Employee Satisfaction and Attrition Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction 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 remained relatively constant during the past five years. FY05 FY04 FY03 FY02 FY01 2 3 4 5 6 Scores Above 5 =Positive Strongly Agree = 8 Scores Below 5 = Negative Strongly Disagree = 2 7 8 Another key metric is the rate of attrition. During FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04, the turnover rate in Maricopa County decreased as there was a great deal of economic uncertainty after the events of 9/11/01. In 2005, the turnover rate increased to a level similar to that experienced pre-9/11/01. Maricopa County vs. State of Arizona Attrition 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Data source for State of Arizona is the Arizona Department of Administration Human Resources System 2005 Annual Report Covered and Uncovered Employees. 2001 2002 Maricopa County 117 2003 2004 State of Arizona 2005 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Human Resources Infrastructure Maricopa County is fast approaching the two-year anniversary since the implementation of a new Human Resources Information System, PeopleSoft, on December 22, 2003. The PeopleSoft system reduces manual processes by integrating the key human resource functions of payroll, records, recruiting/staffing, benefits management, timekeeping, employee development, and employee/manager self-service .The most important benefits of PeopleSoft are the ability of managers and employees to access to real-time integrated data and the elimination of manual Human Resources processes. In the coming year, Maricopa County will work to complete an upgrade from the 8.8 to the 8.9 version. Maricopa County Human Resources has begun to implement its Employee Records Automation Project, known as Image Now, the software product. This project will revolutionize how Maricopa County maintains employee personnel files by creating a paperless electronic database that will interface with the PeopleSoft system. Maricopa County also implemented an on-line tuition reimbursement process to help improve processing time and to eliminate paper transactions. Maricopa County continues to look for ways to eliminate paper processes; during the next year Maricopa County will begin conducting employee performance management plans and employee evaluations on-line. Position Control Throughout the year, departmental staffing needs change. These changes are handled through the Position Management process. This process requires that departments submit detailed requests to add, delete or change positions with full funding identified by source. Compensation Analysts verify the position description, market range information, and position attributes (such as whether the position is classified or unclassified). The Management and Budget Analysts verify that all authorized positions are fully funded on an annualized basis, that the positions are consistent with approved staffing plans, and that positions support the department’s strategic plan. Once approved, the position changes are entered into the PeopleSoft position database. 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 staff, 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. FTE Staffing Levels Department Judicial Elected Appointed Special District FY 1996-97 Actual 2,297.35 3,938.55 6,556.56 373.66 Total 13,166.12 FY 1997-98 Actual 2,534.00 4,058.00 6,125.00 382.00 13,099.00 FY 1998-99 Actual 2,741.00 4,160.00 5,687.00 375.00 12,963.00 FY 1999-00 Actual 2,992.00 4,393.00 5,868.00 373.00 13,626.00 118 FY 2000-01 Actual 3,101.71 4,490.50 7,181.09 344.25 15,117.55 FY 2001-02 Actual 3,283.56 4,494.05 7,834.27 362.50 15,974.38 FY 2002-03 Actual 3,233.81 4,628.25 7,561.73 365.50 15,789.29 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 Actual Actual Adopted 3,310.33 3,504.03 3,558.03 4,941.30 5,441.00 5,842.50 8,021.72 8,234.42 4,607.44 364.50 365.69 363.69 16,637.85 17,545.14 14,371.65 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Human Resources Employment Services The purpose of the Employment Services Activity is to provide recruitment, staffing and personnel processing services for County departments to attract and maintain a highly qualified and diverse workforce. Requisitions for Vacant Positions During FY 2004-05 there was a significant increase in the number of requisitions received. A major contributing factor to this increase was the approval of a large number of new positions for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office new 4th Avenue Jail. In Number of Requisition for FY 2004-05, Human Resources processed 5,894 requisitions for various positions within Maricopa Vacant Positions Received County. The prior year, Human Resources 6,000 processed 4,093 requisitions. It is important to note that the “total number of requisitions” does 5,000 not necessarily reflect the number of vacancies at Maricopa County. From July 2003 to December 4,000 2003, departments and agencies were able to list multiple vacancies or position control numbers on 3,000 requisitions. Revisions to Maricopa County’s position management control process and the 2,000 implementation of PeopleSoft in December 2003, now require that requisitions for vacant positions 1,000 be assigned a single position control number. In 0 order to help departments in processing FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 requisitions, Human Resources revised the requisition form and now allows departments to submit it electronically via email, which helped reduce the processing time. In addition to automating several Human Resources functions and improving the metric reporting function, PeopleSoft was customized to produce full position management control so that only approved budgeted positions can be filled through the recruitment process. This feature ensures that all positions are fully-funded on an annualized basis. Applications Received Total Applications Received The number of applications increased by about 55% from FY 2003-04 to FY 2004-05. The significant increase can be attributed to the fact that candidates applying for open competitive recruitments submit their applications electronically via Maricopa County’s Human Resources website (http://www.maricopa.gov/human_resources). By submitting their applications on-line, candidates are able to apply for more jobs without having to “write” individual applications. 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 Maricopa County went live with eRecruit on January 18, 2005. The eRecruit module allows internal and external candidates to view all job postings and apply for all positions directly over the Internet or Intranet. The eRecruit module has eliminated the need for paper applications, and 20,000 10,000 0 119 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan allows candidates to enter their own information into the system. By having electronic candidate information and data, Human Resources will be able to electronically disseminate recruiting information to hiring managers throughout Maricopa County. Typically, Human Resources is able to provide hiring lists to the hiring managers within forty-eight hours after the position closes. The hiring manager will receive an electronic hiring list and completed applications for candidates via email. This saves time and costs from the traditional methods of making copies and mailing the paperwork via the Maricopa County mailroom. In addition, candidate information will flow through the PeopleSoft system into the employee data base, so double data-entry is eliminated for the individuals who are hired. Number of Written Examinations Conducted Departments and agencies have an obligation to select the most highly qualified candidates to fill vacancies. When applications are received for open recruitments, each application 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. Number of Candidates Admitted for Written Examinations 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 Job qualification and other skill assessments allow Human Resources to create a pool of qualified 1,000 candidates, ranked by their scores on the specific 500 examinations. Included in the assessments are 0 examinations for Juvenile and Adult Probation FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Officers, Clerical/Office Administration and promotional exams for Law Enforcement or Trial Courts employees. Overall, written examinations increased by 12.6% from FY 2003-04 to FY 2004-05. Workforce Administration The PeopleSoft allows Maricopa County the ability to automate its payroll and benefits administration, as well as its time-entry processes for all departments. Maricopa County continues to rollout the ability for all employees to enter their time in PeopleSoft using programs, activities, and services codes (PAS). Using PAS codes allows Maricopa County to monitor the costs of all the services that are provided to the community. Maricopa County will continue to enhance the Employee Self Service (ESS) and Manager Self Service (MSS) functions of PeopleSoft. The ESS allows employees to access and change their personal information and biographical data, view current and previous pay slips, make applicable changes to their benefits, and print W2s. Changes are made directly in the PeopleSoft system, eliminating much of the paper that previously flowed through Human Resources. The MSS function grants managers viewing access to their employees’ information, including contact information, leave accrual balances, and compensation histories. Managers will also be able to initiate and complete the Performance Management Process (PMP) through the ePerformance module; thus, allowing Maricopa County to automate its PMP and performance evaluation process. During FY 2006-07, Human Resources will work on implementing a high-level succession planning module that will track the key levels of management at Maricopa County. The objective is to pilot succession planning looking at Deputy County Manager down through the departmental division managers. 120 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Staff Development Human Resources’ Staff Development unit provides a variety of leadership and competency development opportunities for employees that allow them to improve their job performance and enhance their careers within Maricopa County. The EDGE Program Maricopa County’s Executive Development School for Governmental Employees Program (EDGE) is committed to partnering with Maricopa County leadership as it develops and sustains the high performance of its diverse, professional, and qualified workforce. The EDGE program upgrades the level of training for County employees. Consisting of an Executive Development School for upper managers and a Leadership School for supervisors, the primary speakers in the Schools are community and thought leaders. This infusion of new ideas from business, academic, and civic leaders provides participants a broader context of the community in which Maricopa County operates its business and delivers its services and programs. The competency-based learning experience of the EDGE Program is designed to increase skills and experience levels within the County’s supervisor and upper-level manager and leaders. Exposure to new management ideas and business models, this learning series also reinforces for participants common language and processes across 54 departments, enhancing communications, Managing for Results, performance management, critical thinking, and customer orientation. Innovations include guest lecturers, participant interviews of community leaders, journaling, and curriculum that follows the latest research in adult and accelerated learning techniques. In March of 2005, a Supervision 101 School was added to compliment the two EDGE Schools. Designed for new supervisors, Supervision 101 is a 3-day School that covers human resources law and compliance topics and policies related to Maricopa County. The first two Schools graduated 36 new supervisors. As of June 2005, three Leadership Schools have graduated 80 supervisors with 100% stating they had increased their knowledge and skills. As of December 2004, the first Executive Development School graduated 23 managers with 100% stating they had increased their knowledge and skills. In July of 2005, the EDGE Program received a National Association of Counties Achievement Award. The EDGE program was recognized as an innovative program that contributes to and enhances county government in the United States. Adjunct Faculty Program Adjunct Faculty include managers, supervisors, and subject matter experts who are used extensively to deliver classes related to Maricopa County business practices and to facilitate the internationally known Achieve/Global classes on communication, leadership, and customer service topics. Extensive use of the Adjunct Faculty is a cost-effective method of service delivery for training and staff development. An upgrade to Achieve/Global instructor certification was delivered, bringing the number of Adjunct Faculty able to deliver all Achieve/Global modules to 29. Employee Course Catalog Human Resources Staff Development publishes an annual Employee Course Catalog that provides the description and relevance of all the courses and classes offered. Previously the catalog was published and made available to all employees in book form only. This year, fewer hard catalogs were published; instead, they were made available on-line and on CD saving hundreds of dollars in printing cost. In addition to the catalogs that list the course offerings for the year, Staff Development also publishes monthly training calendars 121 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan that list specific dates, times, and locations of all training classes. The calendars are sent to all County departments. These classes are also marketed through the Learning Resource Network for designated target audiences and posted at strategic locations throughout the County. Classes are organized using the Learning Management System according to skill building competencies. In FY 2004-05, Staff Development offered 266 courses and 7,049 employees attended 445 different classes. Maricopa County continues to be a learning leader! On-line Classes Online classes are fast becoming a major choice of training delivery in Maricopa County. In FY On-Line Class Usage 2003-04 employees were able to choose from over 80 online learning modules. Online classes constitute over 33% of attendance in County 4,000 classes. These classes are tracked by the 3,500 County’s Learning Management System and on employees’ official County training transcript. On3,000 line classes offer a good alternative to employees 2,500 who cannot attend classroom training during the 2,000 standard workweek or need ‘just-in-time’ training. This delivery method is used as a strategy for 1,500 rolling-out curriculum on countywide initiatives 1,000 quickly and cost-effectively. For instance, two County departments needed to take HIPAA 500 compliance training within a very short timeframe. 0 On-line classes were used as a solution to meet FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 this need. On-line training was also used to train employees on the self-service modules for PeopleSoft. This proved to be effective and eliminated the need for costly and time-consuming classroom training. On-Site Classes Several onsite college degree programs are coordinated for employees to attend after work. Employees attend classes to earn degrees at the downtown Administration building. Four different cohorts of students attend undergraduate and graduate classes one night per week. A new Associate level degree program was coordinated through Rio Salado College in Public Administration. This program emphasizes the role of a public administrator in Maricopa County government, and acquaints students with the policies and procedures of the County. Classes with 25 – 30 County employees are on going in this exciting new program. Educational Assistance The Educational Assistance Program is designed to help employees gain skills for their current jobs and to give them the knowledge and credentials to promote within the County. In response to a survey conducted by Maricopa County's Office of Staff Development last fall, the Tuition Reimbursement policy was revised and is now the Educational Assistance Policy. Employee suggestions were utilized to improve and extend the reach of the program. Educational Assistance can now be used for job-related classes and degree programs needed for employees to promote within their career path. Reimbursement of tuition and fees is based on the grade earned. A new feature of the policy allows employees attending community college classes to be reimbursed 100% , including textbooks, for any passing grade. This is to encourage employees to begin their education and to assist 122 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan employees at the lower pay scales in obtaining a degree. It also encourages employees to take classes at a lower overall cost to the County. Another improvement was the automation of the program’s application process. This improvement greatly streamlined the approval process. In the past, it took 1–3 weeks for an application to move through the approval process. It can now be done within minutes. With the online application, an employee completes the form and a web link is sent by email to their supervisor for approval. Upon their approval, the data moves to the automated tracking system. This eliminates the need for data entry and other manual processing. Last year, 621 employees attended 2,061 college classes. The County invested $1,453,246.34 in employee education through the Educational Assistance Program. Amount of Tuition Besides increasing employee skills, the County has benefited from the program by having a very high Reimbursement Paid retention rate among program participants. Since the inception of the Tuition Reimbursement/Educational $1,600,000 $1,400,000 Number of Employees Participating in Tuition Reimbursement $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 640 $600,000 620 $400,000 600 $200,000 $0 580 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 560 540 Assistance program, an average of less than 4% of program participants per year have left County employment. That is compared to an average overall turnover rate of 15%, 520 500 480 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Performance Management Human Resources administers the County’s Performance Management policy. This year, the performance management process was moved on-line, using the PeopleSoft system. The system was piloted in several departments and will roll-out Countywide in the coming year. The on-line format eliminates paper forms, and provides online tools to assist managers and supervisors in providing feedback and guiding developmental activities to enhance employee performance. The system will provide Personnel Liaisons with administrative access to monitor their department’s performance management activity. The County’s performance management system aligns employee goals with those of the department and focuses on the results achieved by the employee in reaching those goals. 123 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Payroll & Records Payroll continues to provide services to allow departments to pay employees accurately and on time so departments can effectively manage and forecast their labor expenses. The Records unit is responsible for maintaining and filing documents in personnel files for the County’s 13,000+ employee base and accurately recording required employment actions on the Personnel Agenda for Board of Supervisor approval. In the continual pursuit of going paperless, Payroll continues to explore ways to offer on-line services to employees. On-line W-2s continue to be successful. To date, over 7,000 employees have consented to receive their W-2s electronically. Maricopa County does not have to print paper W2s for employees who consent to receive them on-line, which is a significant savings to the taxpayers. Also, since W-2s are now electronic, employees are able to access their W-2s by January 4 each year instead of the January 31st deadline. Payroll introduced E-pay this past June. Employees are able to view their paycheck on-line, make changes to their tax withholding and update their direct deposit information. Since July 1, 2004, via ESS, there have been 2,399 changes made to direct deposit accounts and 2,309 changes to tax withholdings. To help facilitate an increase in direct deposit and print fewer live warrants, Payroll introduced the PayTM card May 1, 2005. To date, 132 employees have signed up for the new card. As of June 30, 2005, Maricopa County has a direct deposit rate of 87.56% Records Activity Records began the implementation of the new imaging system, Image Now, which will allow all personnel files to be maintained and retrieved electronically. New scanning stations were constructed within the Records area and Records staff have prepared over 25% of the active Personnel Files for scanning through July 2005. The goal is to have this project completed in the first six to nine months of FY 2006-07. Records began scanning all current Personnel Actions Forms and other related paperwork with an effective date of May 23, 2005 and after. An outside vendor will scan the backdated Personnel Files, which will include 2003, 2004 and 2005 terminations. Since employees can now change their own personal data, such as name, address, phone numbers, marital status, e-mail addresses and emergency contact information, via ESS, the number Personal Data Forms that need to be submitted by departmental personnel liaisons on behalf of the employees has been reduced. Employee Relations Employee Relations (ER) staff provide a variety of services to Departments and individual employees of Maricopa County, including consultations on organizational alignments, proposed reorganizations, performance management, progressive discipline, and merit rule interpretation. The ER Analysts also receive, investigate and make appropriate recommendations to address allegations of unlawful discrimination and sexual harassment. ER Analysts serve as Adjunct Faculty to Staff Development, presenting multiple sessions annually on Workplace Professionalism and on Progressive Discipline. Additional training modules will be developed for FY 2005-2006 on identifying and addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. Departmental Human Resource Liaisons regularly consult with ER staff to determine accurate interpretation and consistent application of merit resolutions and rules. 124 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan During FY 2005-06, Human Resources outsourced the Ombudsman function to a third party vendor. Employees are encouraged to raise questions or concerns about the following issues: • The application of Merit Rules and Human Resources Plans (Employee Leave Plan and the Employee Compensation Plan). • Human Resources Administrative Procedures. • Departmental Work Rules. • Unsafe or unhealthy work environments. Employees are encouraged to discuss these issues with their immediate supervisor and whenever possible, resolve their concerns. However, in those instances where an employee’s concerns cannot be resolved through the supervisor to the employee’s satisfaction, Maricopa County provides Ombudsman Services to mediate and resolve employee issues. Merit Commission The purpose of the Merit Commission Activity is to provide administrative and operational support to the Merit Commission so that employees who go before the Merit Commission can receive timely consideration for their appeal. Special Corporate Initiatives Trip Reduction Program (Commute Options) In 1988 the Arizona Legislature passed the Air Quality Bill (A.R.S. 49-581 et seq.) to meet the Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide. Arizona’s Air Quality Bill mandated a Trip Reduction program for employers and schools located in Maricopa County. To ensure compliance, Maricopa County passed an ordinance that required employers/schools with 100 or more employees and/or driving-age students to implement a Trip Reduction Program. However, the original County ordinance has been revised twice, and now requires employer/schools that have 50 employees and/or driving-age students, who report to a work/school site, at least three times a week or six months per year, to have a Trip Reduction Program. Maricopa County commuter benefits program helps employees take advantage of alternatives to driving alone to work. Maricopa County’s innovative program benefits both employees and the environment by contributing to a work-life balance, as well as reducing global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. The program is administered by the Human Resources Department and includes the following components: annual employee survey to measure our success; 100% bus transportation subsidy; $56 per month per employee Valley Metro Vanpool lease subsidy; free emergency ride home cab service for alternative mode users; designated carpool parking; compressed work week schedules; telecommuting; work site showers; secured bike parking; drawings for movie tickets to reward alternative mode users on a monthly basis and during high pollution advisories; annual training for agency Trip Reduction Coordinators, and special events such as Bike to Work Day. The Trip Reduction Program has successfully reduced the Single Occupancy Vehicle Rate of our workforce to 62%, with 4,000 employees using bus cards, 20 vanpools, 150 movie ticket giveaways each year, and a financial commitment of close to one-half million dollars each fiscal year. During the last quarter of FY 200405, Maricopa County received notification that it was going to be designated as one of the Best Workplaces for Commuters by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Transportation. 125 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Combined Charitable Campaign (CCC) Staff Development also coordinated the Combined Charitable Campaign (CCC) intranet web page with the Office of the Chief Information Officer. Casual Day and the Craft Fair were two of the special events sponsored by Staff Development. These two events generated greater enthusiasm for the CCC and, along with the HR Baskets drawing, raised thousands for the CCC. Once again, Staff Development served as a collection point for pledge cards and cash from Special Events. The 2005 CCC raised $417,425; which was 87% of its goal. Staff Development continues to administer the important Employees Assisting and Supporting Employees (EASE) Program. The EASE program is a contingency fund that is used to assist Maricopa County employees with unanticipated financial emergency situations. The EASE fund is designed to offer an alternative to eligible participants if other sources of financial aid are unavailable for emergency health or human services, such as housing, utilities, and food. As a result of this program, forty-one County employees were provided assistance that helped them avert mortgage foreclosures, rental evictions, and utility shut-offs. All the money from this program comes from the generous donations of our County employees. Corporate Initiative Diversity In partnership with the newly appointed Director of Diversity, Staff Development assembled a curriculum committee which identified the need for a diversity awareness class. Working in concert with the committee, Staff Development took the leadership role in the design and development of a 4-hour diversity class called Organizational Values: Valuing Diversity. Once completed and beta tested, a Train the Trainer was conducted for more that 50 instructors representing key departments in the organization. The diversity class was designed as a resource to assist departments in reaching their diversity objectives. The trained instructors are continuing to deliver the training in their respective departments. Staff Development also supported the Diversity initiative by publishing the Diversity site on the Intranet. Content is updated monthly to keep employees informed of diversity events and resources. Compensation and Awards Gainsharing Initiative Maricopa County continued the Gainsharing Initiative in FY 2005. This initiative offers 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. The fiscal results of these programs are currently being evaluated. Several of these programs will continue into FY 2006 with additional programs being implemented. 126 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Salary Advancements Salary advancements are defined in the Maricopa County Compensation Plan as “An increase in an employee’s base rate to a higher base rate as the result of any process other than a recruitment process”. Salary advancements are typically market or merit based. On July 4, 2005, the County implemented the FY 20052006 Performance-Based Salary Advancement Plan as a continuation of last year’s plan. The goal of the plan is to provide employees with performance-based salary increases in an equitable and consistent manner so that they will be motivated to continue to perform. The average salary increase was 4.5%; however, the plan provided flexibility to department management to allow them to vary increases based on performance and recognize outstanding performers. Number of Salary Advancements Processed 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Employee Health Initiatives Program Maricopa County continues to be able to offer a competitive benefits program to active, benefit-eligible employees and their families. This program enhances benefit choices and provides flexibility to balance payroll deductions for benefit premiums against sixteen health care coverage options. To accomplish this, ‘consumerism’ and ‘cost-sharing’ of health care expenses have been introduced to encourage using the most appropriate place of service when seeking medical care and choosing the most cost-effective prescription drugs. To remain very competitive compared to other Arizona public sector entities, 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. Market Range Salary Issues Attracting competent, qualified applicants and retaining skilled, trained and experienced current employees is a goal of Maricopa County. In FY 2005-06, funds have been set aside to cover market adjustments for certain positions. Due to limited funding for market increases, not all positions will be considered for market adjustments in FY 2005-06. Market studies are being prioritized based on demonstrated recruitment and retention difficulties, as well as the impact on service delivery and ability to meet departmental goals. 127 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Future Directions for Human Resources Human Resources will be implementing several new certificate programs to train department budget, finance, human resource, IT, and facilities management staff on policies and standard County business practices. A new Manager Center will be launched for Supervisors to manage their employee’s development plans and training activities. The automated Performance Management system will be rolled out to all departments during the coming year. HR will engage in the upgrade process of PeopleSoft further refining business processes into electronic modes. HR will expand the curriculum of its newly developed Diversity Training Program and create Countywide Diversity Council. To assist employees with career mobility and to accurate predict future staffing needs Human Resources will engage in a County-wide succession planning process. A new succession plan will be launched to ensure that there is a pool of qualified internal candidates available for replacing key positions throughout the County and to deal with expected increases in retirement-based attrition. As mentioned earlier, Human Resources recently changed its mission and vision statements to better reflect its future goals. Over the next five years, Human Resources will focus on the following strategic goals: • By January 2006, HR will have 90% participation in either direct deposit or pay cards and reduce/eliminate live checks. • By May 2006, Human Resources will develop metrics reporting and communication tools to monitor the implementation of the Maricopa County’s Diversity Plan. • By July 2006 HR will help seek opportunities to build partnerships and relationships with all area governments, including Tribal Nations, in order to create a fuller sense of community. • By September 2006, Human Resources will develop a written succession plan for managers and directors that identify the leadership roles and associated skills necessary for upward mobility in County departments. • By December 2006, Human Resources will complete a review and revision of all Human Resources policies to ensure legal compliance and compatibility with technology needs. • By December 2006, increase accountability to the public for results-oriented government by fully implementing the Managing for Results and performance-based budgeting initiatives. • By July 2007 HR will eliminate hard copy personnel files. • By July 2007 ensure ethnicity base of the County employees is keeping pace with the changing demographics of our growing and diverse community. • By January 2008 assist in the implementation of a total compensation package, workforce development plan to enhance recruitment, retention, and advancement that results in improved customer service to Maricopa County citizens. • By May 2010, improve access to the services offered by the County to ensure the inclusion and participation of our diverse community. 128 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Budgeted FTE Summary In order to more accurately follow past staffing and human resource allocation decisions by program, a tenyear 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 AIR QUALITY ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE ASSESSOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 CALL CENTER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE COUNTY ATTORNEY ELECTIONS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FINANCE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT GENERAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM HEALTH CARE MANDATES 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 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC FIDUCIARY PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER RESEARCH & REPORTING RISK MANAGEMENT SHERIFF SOLID WASTE STADIUM DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SUPERIOR COURT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSPORTATION TREASURER TRIAL COURTS Total Departments FY 1996-97 Actual 851.00 120.00 297.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 10.00 106.00 596.25 10.00 26.00 135.78 12.00 737.30 57.00 14.00 238.60 63.00 183.40 53.00 240.00 7.00 2,630.50 1.00 64.00 96.00 256.00 349.19 8.00 228.75 540.00 126.66 22.00 377.50 53.00 337.50 45.50 76.84 54.00 41.00 503.25 63.00 14.50 12.00 2,108.00 45.00 7.00 28.00 677.60 42.00 511.00 66.00 13,166.12 FY 1997-98 Actual 937.00 125.00 334.00 7.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 20.00 70.00 589.00 11.00 27.00 165.00 13.00 742.00 55.00 14.00 245.00 65.00 158.00 49.00 241.00 7.00 2,099.00 1.00 63.00 81.00 286.00 421.00 10.00 244.00 589.00 134.00 21.00 444.00 47.00 342.00 47.00 77.00 66.00 37.00 460.00 66.00 14.00 19.00 2,188.00 19.00 7.00 29.00 764.00 45.00 522.00 64.00 13,099.00 FY 1998-99 Actual 949.00 135.00 329.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 20.00 64.00 596.00 10.00 29.00 177.00 15.00 796.00 53.00 14.00 272.00 60.00 158.00 46.00 222.00 1.00 1,812.00 1.00 64.00 82.00 281.00 459.00 12.00 294.00 679.00 146.00 22.00 361.00 38.00 263.00 50.00 74.00 65.00 33.00 441.00 65.00 8.00 19.00 2,235.00 17.00 7.00 29.00 819.00 41.00 512.00 64.00 12,963.00 FY 1999-00 Actual 1,045.00 130.00 325.00 7.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 32.00 62.00 599.00 10.00 29.00 223.00 13.00 831.00 54.00 14.00 267.00 60.00 192.00 42.00 222.00 11.00 1,766.00 1.00 64.00 79.00 295.00 446.00 16.00 36.00 280.00 794.00 143.00 24.00 353.00 39.00 298.00 52.00 80.00 93.00 33.00 479.00 69.00 7.00 19.00 2,428.00 18.00 8.00 29.00 873.00 42.00 511.00 64.00 13,626.00 129 FY 2000-01 Actual 1,120.50 146.00 1.00 326.00 7.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 33.00 67.00 620.00 10.00 30.00 220.40 16.00 850.00 54.00 15.00 266.75 62.00 202.50 36.00 222.25 9.00 3,013.25 46.00 64.00 81.00 287.00 466.25 1.00 15.00 287.01 784.00 118.00 18.00 345.70 38.00 292.50 54.00 86.50 108.00 35.00 459.24 69.00 34.50 19.00 2,482.50 18.00 4.00 30.00 910.20 42.00 511.50 64.00 15,117.55 FY 2001-02 Actual 1,175.00 132.50 321.80 7.80 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 33.00 67.00 666.00 10.00 30.00 8.25 263.75 18.00 828.50 54.00 15.00 15.00 283.00 63.00 235.00 43.00 223.00 1.00 3,326.01 41.00 64.00 67.25 368.00 14.00 16.00 300.06 827.50 53.00 69.00 135.50 22.00 357.47 39.00 291.50 64.00 98.46 115.00 433.30 35.00 523.48 71.25 9.50 20.00 2,465.00 12.00 4.00 30.00 981.00 42.00 504.00 64.00 15,974.38 FY 2002-03 Acutal 1,092.00 140.00 322.00 8.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.50 34.00 66.50 689.00 7.50 10.00 30.00 7.25 264.78 11.33 917.25 54.00 15.00 16.00 273.50 63.00 248.25 44.00 226.00 1.00 3,326.01 34.00 64.00 66.20 369.00 15.00 16.00 868.50 60.50 74.75 135.50 22.00 357.47 40.00 63.00 104.00 125.00 430.30 35.00 534.89 71.25 6.75 19.00 2,487.75 14.00 4.00 30.00 43.00 477.75 64.00 1,273.31 15,789.29 FY 2003-04 Acutal 1,144.00 143.60 321.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.50 33.00 62.00 695.00 9.00 10.00 30.00 7.25 363.75 13.50 987.55 54.00 15.00 24.00 300.50 60.75 269.00 42.00 225.00 3,528.29 31.00 51.00 436.00 21.00 15.00 919.00 63.50 79.00 135.50 21.00 415.43 35.00 66.00 87.00 159.00 435.80 34.00 567.60 70.25 8.75 19.00 2,731.50 13.00 4.00 32.00 42.00 479.00 57.00 1,247.33 16,637.85 FY 2004-05 Actual 1,166.00 134.00 151.00 321.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 33.00 106.17 683.00 10.00 30.00 9.50 380.63 21.00 996.50 55.00 16.00 30.00 194.84 59.75 301.00 44.00 209.00 3,691.44 31.00 55.00 478.20 18.00 15.00 962.00 78.50 96.00 151.69 25.00 364.49 35.00 66.00 88.00 185.00 470.10 37.00 564.05 80.25 8.75 20.00 3,223.50 12.00 5.00 32.00 477.00 59.75 1,376.03 17,679.14 FY 2005-06 Adopted 1,193.00 131.00 149.00 331.00 7.35 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 33.00 109.00 743.00 10.00 30.00 9.50 348.10 21.00 992.50 54.00 15.00 23.00 196.79 53.75 263.50 44.00 208.00 31.00 55.00 463.00 18.00 15.00 966.00 79.50 96.00 150.69 32.00 368.67 35.00 70.00 88.00 190.00 470.10 36.00 574.93 80.25 7.25 20.00 3,558.00 13.00 5.00 33.00 477.00 59.75 1,399.03 14,371.65 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Within each department, positions may be budgeted from a variety of funding sources. In general, as discussed earlier, the General Fund and Special Revenue Fund cover the bulk of Personnel Services, with monies from Capital Project, Enterprise and Internal Service funds covering the rest. The following chart displays this breakdown. FTE DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDING SOURCE - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGETED FTE DEPARTMENT ADULT PROBATION AIR QUALITY ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL ASSESSOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 5 CALL CENTER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER CLERK OF THE BOARD CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSTABLES CONTRACT COUNSEL CORRECTIONAL HEALTH COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE ELECTIONS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT SERVICES FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FINANCE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT HEALTH CARE MANDATES HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN SERVICES INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO INTERNAL AUDIT JUVENILE PROBATION LEGAL ADVOCATE LEGAL DEFENDER LIBRARY DISTRICT MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC FIDUCIARY PUBLIC HEALTH RECORDER RESEARCH & REPORTING RISK MANAGEMENT SHERIFF SOLID WASTE STADIUM DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS TRANSPORTATION TREASURER TRIAL COURTS Total Departments 2 GENERAL FUND 915.80 331.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 33.00 63.00 7.35 614.00 30.00 9.50 21.00 848.85 21.00 54.00 2.00 23.00 19.00 220.77 44.00 31.00 55.00 15.00 219.00 79.50 95.50 32.00 24.00 70.00 16.00 446.80 36.00 131.51 44.25 998.00 33.00 59.75 1,170.53 6,829.11 3 SPECIAL REVENUE 277.20 131.00 149.00 129.00 10.00 327.10 143.65 13.00 177.79 42.73 208.00 463.00 18.00 747.00 0.50 150.69 72.00 190.00 23.30 443.42 36.00 7.25 2,560.00 4.25 5.00 477.00 228.50 7,034.38 4 DEBT SERVICE - 130 5 CAPITAL PROJECTS - 6 ENTERPRISE 368.67 8.75 377.42 7 INTERNAL SERVICE 46.00 53.75 11.00 20.00 130.75 9 TOTAL FUNDS 1,193.00 131.00 149.00 331.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 33.00 109.00 7.35 743.00 10.00 30.00 9.50 348.10 992.50 21.00 54.00 15.00 23.00 196.79 53.75 263.50 44.00 208.00 31.00 55.00 463.00 18.00 15.00 966.00 79.50 96.00 150.69 32.00 368.67 35.00 70.00 88.00 190.00 470.10 36.00 574.93 80.25 7.25 20.00 3,558.00 13.00 5.00 33.00 477.00 59.75 1,399.03 14,371.65 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan Countywide staffing from FY 2004-05 to FY 2005-06 decreased by 3,307.49 full-time equivalents (FTE’s), or 18.71%. Significant changes in staffing levels from FY 2004-05 to FY 2005-06 are provided under the specific department in the Departmental Schedules later in this Annual Business Strategies document. Significant Staffing Variances: Adult Probation: Net increase due to approval of Results Initiative Requests associated with Supervision Services to address increased volume and improve results. Clerk of the Court: Increase due to staffing for new facilities, increased demand for services and process improvement associated with the electronic data management system. Correctional Health: Reduction due to reorganization and outsourcing of functions. Facilities Management: Reduction due to transfer of detention facility janitorial function to Sheriff. Healthcare Delivery System: Reduction of 3,691.44 FTE’s due to the creation of the Special Health Care District on 1/1/05. All staff of this department became employees of the new district. Human Services: Reduction due to loss of grant funding Public Health: Increase associated with staffing of Results Initiative Requests addressing community health issue. Sheriff: Increase associated with the staffing of the new detention facilities and the transfer of detention facility janitorial functions to the Sheriff from Facilities Management. Trial Courts: Increase associated with staffing for new facilities, increased volume and staff necessary to process cases within established standards.. 131 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Personnel Plan 132 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 integrates the Managing for Results (MfR) policy when outlining its funding sources, project costs, 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, to 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 the 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, voter-authorized taxes, other forms of long-term financing such as Certificates of Participation (COPs), operating funds, contributions from other public and private entities, and grants. The CIP spans a five-year period beginning with Fiscal Year 2005-06 and ending Fiscal Year 2009-10. The total anticipated cost for projects presented in the FY 2005-06 CIP is $893.0 million with the largest amount of planned spending, $278.2 million in Fiscal Year 2005-06 (see table below). CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2005-06 through FY 2009-10 ALL FUNDS Maricopa County, Flood Control District, and Transportation $278,204,110 $183,101,000 $159,560,500 $146,138,000 $125,968,000 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 133 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program The largest portion of expenditures for the County’s five-year Capital Improvement Program is the Department of Transportation with 40.5% of the total. Flood Control District Projects are next with 22.7%, followed by the County Improvement Fund (COPs) at 24.0%. The Detention Capital Projects Fund comprises 8.3% of the total expenditures, and the Intergovernmental Capital Projects Fund follows with 6.1% of the CIP. The remainder of the five-year program is funded by the General Fund County Improvements Fund with 2.6% of the total. FY 2005-06 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Distinction by Fund 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 8.3% 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 24.0% 445 GENERAL FUND COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 2.6% 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 22.7% 422 INTERGOVERNMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 6.1% 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 40.5% 134 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program. FY 2005-06 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Five-Year Total By Fund REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 THROUGH FY 2008-09 CIP Allocation by Fund General Fund 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV $ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ Subtotal General Fund $ 31,674,524 49,058,194 26,467,997 107,200,715 Special Revenue 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Subtotal Special Revenue $ 111,990,198 346,757,804 458,748,002 Maricopa County Total $ ADOPTED FY 2005-06 THROUGH FY 2009-10 $ $ $ $ $ 16,299,170 (8,019,820) 6,799,260 15,078,610 $ 92,792,500 384,909,054 477,701,554 $ 19,197,698 (38,151,250) (18,953,552) 565,948,717 $ 575,829,610 $ (3,874,942) Special Districts 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS $ Special DistrictsTotal $ 275,518,503 275,518,503 $ $ 317,142,000 317,142,000 $ $ (41,623,497) (41,623,497) TOTAL COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 841,467,220 $ 892,971,610 $ (45,498,439) 135 $ 20,387,404 69,639,304 8,101,348 98,128,056 (Increase)/ Decrease Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Budget The capital projects budget is the first year of the CIP. The recommended FY 2005-06 Maricopa County and Special Districts’ capital project budget is $278.2 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 2004-05 expenditures are shown in the table below. CAPITAL BUDGET BY FUND FUND General Fund 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV $ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ Subtotal General Fund $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 22,175,674 38,557,198 21,095,594 81,828,466 $ $ Special Revenue Funds 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT Subtotal Special Revenue Funds $ 40,162,409 77,959,051 118,121,460 $ Maricopa County Total $ 22,073,674 38,557,198 20,642,997 81,273,869 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACTUAL RESTATED $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 18,404,452 15,400,180 10,252,260 44,056,892 $ $ $ 22,800,000 110,634,054 133,434,054 $ 10,262,404 66,674,304 5,691,348 82,628,056 $ $ 40,162,409 77,505,281 117,667,690 $ 19,197,700 57,909,254 77,106,953 199,949,926 $ 198,941,559 $ 121,163,846 $ 216,062,110 Special Districts 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS $ Special Districts Total $ 52,076,503 52,076,503 $ $ 54,576,503 54,576,503 $ $ 52,249,577 52,249,577 $ $ 62,142,000 62,142,000 TOTAL COUNTY & DISTRICTS $ 252,026,429 $ 253,518,062 $ 173,413,422 $ 278,204,110 136 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 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. Completed capital projects 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 ten-year financial forecast. The estimated annual operating costs for the new general fund and detention facilities include utility costs, housekeeping staff, general maintenance commodities, e.g., janitorial supplies, and miscellaneous contract costs, e.g., janitorial contracts. The following table illustrates the estimated ongoing operating costs associated with the new facilities constructed or acquired through the CIP. NEW FACILITY OPERATING COSTS FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 GENERAL FUND PROJECTS Buckeye Hills Shooting Range $ Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts Downtown Justice Center Environmental Services Building (Public Health) Human Services Campus McDowell Track Comfort Station Northeast Superior Court/Justice Court Expansion Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Southeast Consolidated Justice Crts/Parking Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts Public Health Clinic Security Building Subtotal General Fund $ 231,501 $ 14,893 273,204 3,790 153,803 177,347 140,769 520,851 615,648 2,131,806 $ 238,446 $ 108,347 1,052,673 43,567 213,928 182,638 188,271 144,946 492,508 634,117 3,299,441 $ 245,600 $ 103,120 1,065,838 44,335 220,346 1,500 188,087 193,889 170,579 238,191 504,515 653,141 3,629,141 $ 252,967 $ 97,530 1,079,399 45,354 226,956 1,500 193,700 199,676 175,696 239,454 516,881 672,735 3,701,848 $ 260,556 91,772 1,093,366 46,287 233,765 1,500 57,763 205,636 180,967 246,608 529,618 692,917 3,640,755 DETENTION FUND PROJECTS Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center $ Fourth Avenue Jail Lower Buckeye Jail Subtotal Detention Fund $ 5,070,363 $ 24,284,337 26,052,846 55,407,546 $ 5,218,128 $ 24,388,589 26,150,783 55,757,500 $ 5,370,220 $ 24,495,965 26,251,652 56,117,837 $ 5,527,493 $ 24,608,087 26,357,316 56,492,896 $ 4,069,698 24,723,573 22,729,530 51,522,801 TOTAL FUNDS $ 57,539,352 $ 59,056,941 $ 59,746,978 $ 60,194,744 $ 55,163,556 137 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program County Departments Intergovernmental and County Improvement Capital Projects General Fund and 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 Program project requests, excluding the Transportation Department and the Flood Control District, which have previously established processes for capital improvement plans. 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. The process begins with the FRC approving instructions to be used for Capital Improvement Program 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 2. Concept 3. Design 4. Construction 5. Occupancy There are specific requirements for each phase as outlined in the aforementioned policy. Recommended projects are entered into the CIP in the latter portion of the concept phase and before the design phase. The new policy has resulted in more consistency and efficiency in capital project planning and implementation. It also ensures that projects are congruent with Countywide, long-term goals and initiatives. Project Detail A total of seven (7) capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board for support from the Intergovernmental Capital Project Fund (Fund 422). A total of eight (8) capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board for support from the County Improvements Fund (Fund 435). A total of six (6) 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. 138 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ Continuing Projects Buckeye Hills Shooting Range (Infrastructure) Comfort Station Improvements Environmental Services Facility Human Services Campus McDowell Mountain Regional Park Competitive Track Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts/Parking Structure Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts Project Reserve Subtotal PRIOR YEARS PROJECTED FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 71,610 522,081 4,667,710 $ 5,261,401 $ 150,000 1,880,757 8,000,000 $ 10,030,757 $ 1,778,390 244,801 100,000 219,100 2,815,000 534,057 $ 5,691,348 $ 2,410,000 $ 2,410,000 $ $ $ $ - $ Subtotal $ 2,000,000 3,079,012 6,587,916 3,666,301 2,677,513 $ 18,010,742 TOTAL FUND 422 $ 23,272,143 $ 10,252,260 $ 5,691,348 $ 2,410,000 PRIOR YEARS 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND Continuing Projects Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts $ Downtown Justice Center Human Services Campus New Administrative Services/Forensic Science Ctr. Parking 8,838,282 Public Health Clinic 3,215,773 Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts/Parking Structure Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts Project Reserve Subtotal $ 12,054,055 PROJECTED FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 Completed Projects Northeast Superior Court/Justice Court Expansion Elections Facility Sheriff's Property & Evidence Warehouse Sheriff's Training Facility West Regional Center Completed Projects New Administrative Services Building Closeout Downtown Development/Property Acquisition Facilities Mangement Building Medical Examiner/Forensic Science Facility Security Building (including CAFR adjustments) Clerk of the Court Service Center Cost of Issuance Jackson Street Garage Justice Court Co-location Projects Juvenile Detention 40-Bed Expansion Juvenile Detention 80-Bed Expansion Mesa Justice Court Facility Multi-purpose MMC Campus Regional Land Acquisition Relocation of Scottsdale Justice Courts Sheriff Replacement Vehicles Spur Cross Ranch (SCAAP grant) $ Capital Improvement Program $ 2,872 218,631 221,503 $ $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ 5,080,000 30,250,000 11,981,290 894,559 600,000 3,000,000 8,000,000 5,895,000 973,455 $ 66,674,304 2,965,000 $ 2,965,000 $ $ $ $ 627,322 - $ Subtotal $ 627,322 $ TOTAL FUND 435 $ 88,086,430 $ 15,400,180 - $ 66,674,304 - $ 2,965,000 $ 139 $ - $ - $ - FY 2009-10 - $ $ $ - $ - $ FY 2007-08 20,000 2,000,000 1,531 9,211,327 3,500,000 40,000 $ 14,772,858 $ 11,658,041 614,957 2,134,980 17,992,205 9,868,130 12,384,465 1,251,182 2,468,612 1,688,832 3,572,424 1,266,988 132,687 23,939 254,124 1,701,041 5,320,798 3,698,970 $ 76,032,375 $ FY 2008-09 - $ $ $ - $ - $ FY 2008-09 $ $ $ - $ - $ - 5-YEAR TOTAL (FY 2006-2010) TOTAL PROJECT Page FY 2009-10 $ $ $ - $ - $ - 1,778,390 244,801 100,000 219,100 2,410,000 2,815,000 534,057 8,101,348 $ $ $ - $ 2,000,000 3,081,884 6,806,547 3,666,301 2,677,513 18,232,245 $ 8,101,348 $ 41,625,751 $ 5-YEAR TOTAL (FY 2006-2010) $ $ $ 5,080,000 30,250,000 11,981,290 894,559 600,000 3,000,000 10,965,000 5,895,000 973,455 69,639,304 $ 2,000,000 244,801 2,502,838 12,667,710 219,100 2,410,000 2,815,000 534,057 23,393,506 109 114 120 122 126 140 142 TOTAL PROJECT Page $ $ $ 5,100,000 32,250,000 11,981,290 9,734,372 13,027,100 6,500,000 10,965,000 5,935,000 973,455 96,466,217 $ - $ 12,285,363 614,957 2,134,980 17,992,205 9,868,130 12,384,465 1,251,182 2,468,612 1,688,832 3,572,424 1,266,988 132,687 23,939 254,124 1,701,041 5,320,798 3,698,970 76,659,697 $ 69,639,304 $ 173,125,914 111 114 122 129 133 133 140 142 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program PRIOR YEARS PROJECTED FY 2004-05 $ 2,372,663 428,400 2,801,063 $ 11,727,337 60,724 47,000 4,092,659 15,927,720 $ 2,500,000 908,376 953,000 80,900 5,800,000 20,128 10,262,404 $ 1,000,000 6,125,000 7,125,000 $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 2,500,000 908,376 4,953,000 80,900 6,125,000 5,800,000 20,128 20,387,404 $ 16,600,000 969,100 5,000,000 80,900 6,125,000 10,321,059 20,128 39,116,187 $ 685,710 499,987 100,000 479,238 70,000 591,797 50,000 $ 2,476,732 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ Subtotal $ 2,299,642 893,930 13 832,908 213,916 951,315 224,045 320,762 1,403,366 56,203 11,000 3,698,967 130,632 70,530 $ 11,107,229 $ 2,985,352 893,930 500,000 832,908 213,916 951,315 100,000 224,045 800,000 1,473,366 648,000 11,000 50,000 3,698,967 130,632 70,530 9,683,832 TOTAL FUND 445 $ 13,908,292 $ 18,404,452 $ 10,262,404 $ 1,000,000 $ 20,387,404 $ 48,800,019 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV Continuing Projects Northeast Superior Court/Justice Court Expansion Comfort Station Improvements Maricopa Regional Trail System McDowell Mountain Regional Park Competitive Track Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts/Parking Structure Security Building Project Reserve Subtotal Completed Projects New Administration Services Building Closeout New Administration Services Parking Downtown Justice Center Downtown Development/Property Acquisition Facilities Mangement Building Land Acquisition near Lake Pleasant McDowell Mountain Regional Park Visitor Center Medical Examiner/Forensic Science Facility Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts Star Call Center/R&R Buildout San Tan Mountain Park Improvement Southeast Regional Land Acquisition Water Tank Restoration Spur Cross Ranch Relocation of Scottsdale Justice Courts Justice Courts Consolidation FY 2005-06 $ FY 2006-07 $ $ 7,125,000 140 FY 2007-08 $ $ 1,000,000 FY 2008-09 $ $ 1,000,000 FY 2009-10 $ 5-YEAR TOTAL (FY 2006-2010) TOTAL PROJECT Page 131 111 124 126 140 139 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Buckeye Hills Shooting Range (Infrastructure) User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Sheriff’s Office Buckeye Hills Recreation Area 5 Facilities Management Arizona State Parks and Salt River Project (SRP) June 2006 (Construction) Project Description This project involves two phases of construction. Phase I will cover infrastructure improvements for the general site and is estimated at $3,000,000. Additional funding beyond the current project budget of $1,500,000 will be required in order to complete the infrastructure. Phase II includes the construction of a regional facility for the Sheriff’s Office and other regional law enforcement agencies for firearms training and certification. Phase II has not been completely funded to date and has a shortfall of $7.3 million. There may be a $500,000 contribution towards Phase II which could be available once the County funds the project. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) $ 71,610 $ 150,000 $ 1,278,390 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,278,390 $ 1,500,000 Other Sources 500,000 500,000 500,000 Project Total $ 71,610 $ 150,000 $ 1,778,390 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,778,390 $ 2,000,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Supplies & Services $ - $ - $ 37,336 $ 38,456 $ 39,610 $ 40,798 $ 156,200 Capital Outlay 201,110 207,143 213,358 219,758 841,369 $ - $ - $ 238,446 $ 245,599 $ 252,967 $ 260,556 $ 997,569 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Supplies & Services $ - $ - $ 37,336 $ $ - $ - $ 37,336 $ 38,456 $ 38,456 $ 39,610 $ 39,610 $ 40,798 $ 40,798 $ 156,200 156,200 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Supplies & Services $ $ 38,456 $ 38,456 $ 39,610 $ 39,610 $ 40,798 $ 40,798 $ 156,200 156,200 - $ - $ - $ - $ 37,336 $ 37,336 $ Managing for Results Purpose Statement The Purpose of the Buckeye Hills Shooting Range is to provide a place where sworn and non sworn personnel can practice marksmanship skills so that they can acquire and maintain mandated efficiency/proficiency standards. 141 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Buckeye Hills Shooting Range (Infrastructure) (Continued) Strategic Goals By July 2007, and based on available funding, the Sheriff’s Office will obtain the technology, equipment and tools required to meet the demands placed upon law enforcement and detention due to population and business growth in Maricopa County Strategic Plan Program Supported • Enforcement, Detention, and HR Programs Strategic Activities Supported • Mandated MCSO Training Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of FTE maintaining applicable efficiency standards OUTPUT: Number of FTE that meet efficiency standards mandated by the legislation and judicial system DEMAND: Number of FTE that meet efficiency standards mandated by the legislation and judicial system EFFICIENCY: Cost per Employee Maintaining Mandated Firearms Efficiency /Proficiency Standards FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 142 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 100% 100% 100% 2,377 2,185 2,454 2,377 2,185 2,454 $ 1,988 $ 2,307 $ 2,105 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Trial Courts and Clerk of the Court City of Chandler 1 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2006 (Construction) Project Description The project includes the design and construction of the Maricopa County Chandler Consolidated Justice Court. The Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts project will provide a single facility to house the Chandler Court and an unassigned court for a future precinct. The work consists of approximately 26,500 square feet of two courts, judicial suites, and administrative space. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project County Improvement Fund (435) $ - $ 20,000 $ 5,080,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,080,000 $ 5,100,000 Project Total $ - $ 20,000 $ 5,080,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,080,000 $ 5,100,000 143 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project $ 2,752,012 $ 2,907,267 $ 2,994,485 $ 3,084,320 $ 3,176,849 $ 3,272,155 $ 18,187,087 1,220,424 1,245,807 1,283,181 1,321,677 1,361,327 1,402,167 7,834,583 $ 3,972,436 $ 4,153,074 $ 4,277,666 $ 4,405,996 $ 4,538,176 $ 4,674,321 $ 26,021,670 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 2,752,012 $ 2,907,267 $ 2,994,485 $ 3,084,320 $ 3,176,849 $ 3,272,155 $ Supplies & Services 1,220,424 939,187 967,362 996,383 1,026,275 1,057,063 Capital Outlay 289,056 289,056 289,056 289,056 289,056 $ 3,972,436 $ 4,135,510 $ 4,250,903 $ 4,369,758 $ 4,492,180 $ 4,618,273 $ Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ - 18,187,087 6,206,694 1,445,280 25,839,061 $ $ $ $ $ $ (306,620) (315,819) (325,294) (335,052) (345,104) (1,627,889) 289,056 289,056 289,056 289,056 289,056 1,445,280 $ (17,564) $ (26,763) $ (36,238) $ (45,996) $ (56,048) $ (182,609) Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 3,541 $ Supplies & Services 28,916 $ - $ 32,457 $ 21,246 $ 113,864 135,110 $ 22,078 $ 117,280 139,358 $ 22,728 $ 120,798 143,526 $ 23,398 $ 124,422 147,820 $ 92,991 505,280 598,271 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 3,541 $ Supplies & Services 28,916 $ - $ 32,457 $ 21,246 $ 113,864 135,110 $ 22,078 $ 117,280 139,358 $ 22,728 $ 120,798 143,526 $ 23,398 $ 124,422 147,820 $ 92,991 505,280 598,271 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ - $ 3,541 $ 21,246 $ 22,078 $ 22,728 $ 23,398 $ 92,991 Supplies & Services (277,704) (201,955) (208,014) (214,254) (220,682) (1,122,609) Capital Outlay 289,056 289,056 289,056 289,056 289,056 1,445,280 $ - $ 14,893 $ 108,347 $ 103,120 $ 97,530 $ 91,772 $ 415,662 Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts project is to co-locate existing justice courts from leased building spaces into County-owned and geographically co-located facilities for Maricopa Count residents so their limited jurisdiction court needs can be handled in a more efficient and effective manner. 144 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Chandler Consolidated Justice Courts (Continued) Strategic Goals By June 2005, the Court will provide speedy and fair justice in case processing as follows: 95% of all Justice Court cases shall be disposed in compliance with established limited jurisdiction court standards. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Case Management Strategic Activities Supported • Justice Courts Case flow Management Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent justice court cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards OUTPUT: Number of justice court cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards DEMAND: Number of justice court cases filed EFFICIENCY: Cost per justice court case resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 145 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 40% 45% 50% 6,476 16,189 7,290 16,200 8,499 16,998 $89.68 $75.97 $78.00 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Comfort Station Improvements User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Parks and Recreation Usery, McDowell, Estrella, and White Tank Mountain Regional Parks 1, 2, 4, & 5 Parks and Recreation Not Applicable December 2005 Project Description The purpose of this request is to fund the construction of replacement restroom buildings throughout the Maricopa County Park System (MCPRD). MCPRD is a non-mandated department; however, it is one of the most popular departments with the citizens of Maricopa County, thus our responsibility to respond to the public’s needs and demands. The MCPRD Visitor Study, September 2003, conducted by Arizona State University Department of Recreation Management and Tourism, states that restrooms are the highest amenity requested by those surveyed. Comfort station improvements will include site planning, engineering, and construction of 5 new comfort stations. The old comfort stations will be demolished and new comfort stations built. MCPRD’s comfort stations are literally coming apart, are a danger to the public, are a maintenance and operation nuisance, and are a cost-consuming problem to the staff and park system. Adding new comfort stations to the park system will reduce the maintenance costs and more importantly attract more visitors to the parks. The construction cost is estimated to be $1,135,445 and the architectural contract is $72,918, plus a change order of $5,538, for a total of $78,456. There are no costs associated with Facilities Management for any Parks related projects, and there are no direct staffing increases due to the new comfort station. As these buildings are all replacement restrooms, there are no resulting increases in operating costs. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project General Fund Imp Fund (445) $ - $ 60,724 $ 908,376 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 908,376 $ 969,100 Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) 244,801 244,801 244,801 Project Total $ - $ 60,724 $ 1,153,177 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,153,177 $ 1,213,901 146 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Comfort Station Improvements (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project $ 3,893,075 $ 4,102,571 $ 4,102,571 $ 1,419,978 1,917,929 1,917,929 283,499 575,541 575,541 $ 5,596,552 $ 6,596,041 $ 6,596,041 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,098,217 5,255,836 1,434,581 - $ 18,788,634 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Services $ 3,893,075 $ 4,102,571 $ 4,102,571 $ Supplies & Services 1,419,978 1,917,929 1,917,929 Capital Outlay 283,499 575,541 575,541 $ 5,596,552 $ 6,596,041 $ 6,596,041 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,098,217 5,255,836 1,434,581 - $ 18,788,634 Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Comfort Station Improvements Construction project is to build five new comfort stations at four MCPRD’s parks for the Maricopa County citizens and out of town visitors so that they may have a pleasant outdoor experience and return to the parks. Strategic Goals We will increase community involvement and awareness through improved marketing and education programs in order to increase park attendance, revenues and funding. By July 2006 we will identify and fund the additional needed facilities and operational costs for each park for the next five years. 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 party. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Park Support Program Strategic Activities Supported • Maintenance and Development Strategic Services Supported • • • Utilities Clean Facilities Remodeled Structures/Improvements\ 147 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Comfort Station Improvements (Continued) Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of park user satisfaction as related to facilities OUTPUT: Number of A/E contracts managed OUTPUT: Number of construction contracts managed DEMAND: Expected number of new structure/facility requests per year EFFICIENCY: Amount per new structure/facility constructed FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 148 FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement FY 2004-05 Estimated 4.39 9 4.00 9 4.75 5 11 11 8 9 100 8 $300,000 $500,000 $400,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Downtown Justice Center User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Trial Courts, Clerk of the Court, Adult Probation, ICJIS, Public Defender, Office of Contract Counsel Between 6th Ave & 7th Ave, Jackson St & Madison St 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable November 2006 (Construction) Project Description The project includes the design and construction of the Maricopa County Downtown Consolidated Justice Courts. The Downtown Consolidated Justice Courts project will provide a single facility to house the East Phoenix # 1 Court, South Phoenix Court, Central Phoenix Court, West Phoenix Court, and East Phoenix # 2 Court. The facility consists of approximately 262,000 square feet within a five story building including: five courts, judicial suites, and administrative space for Superior Court, Clerk of Superior Court, Public Defender and Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project County Improvement Fund (435) $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 30,250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,250,000 $ 32,250,000 General Fund Imp Fund (445) 13 499,987 500,000 Project Total $ 13 $ 2,499,987 $ 30,250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,250,000 $ 32,750,000 149 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Downtown Justice Center (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project $ 2,420,508 $ 2,518,152 $ 2,593,697 $ 2,671,507 $ 2,751,653 $ 2,834,202 $ 15,789,719 842,145 863,067 888,959 915,628 943,097 971,390 5,424,285 $ 3,262,653 $ 3,381,219 $ 3,482,656 $ 3,587,135 $ 3,694,749 $ 3,805,592 $ 21,214,004 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 2,420,508 $ 2,518,152 $ 2,593,697 $ 2,671,507 $ 2,751,653 $ 2,834,202 $ 15,789,719 Supplies & Services 842,145 122,082 125,745 129,517 133,403 137,405 1,490,296 Capital Outlay 613,824 613,824 613,824 613,824 613,824 3,069,120 $ 3,262,653 $ 3,254,058 $ 3,333,266 $ 3,414,848 $ 3,498,879 $ 3,585,431 $ 20,349,135 Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Supplies & Services (740,985) (763,214) (786,111) (809,694) (833,985) (3,933,989) Capital Outlay 613,824 613,824 613,824 613,824 613,824 3,069,120 $ - $ (127,161) $ (149,390) $ (172,287) $ (195,870) $ (220,161) $ (864,869) Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 54,621 $ 163,864 $ 168,780 $ 173,843 $ 179,059 $ 1,069,345 1,101,425 1,134,468 Supplies & Services 345,744 1,038,199 $ - $ 400,365 $ 1,202,063 $ 1,238,125 $ 1,275,269 $ 1,313,527 $ 740,167 4,689,181 5,429,348 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 54,621 $ 163,864 $ 168,780 $ 173,843 $ 179,059 $ Supplies & Services 345,744 1,038,199 1,069,345 1,101,425 1,134,468 $ - $ 400,365 $ 1,202,063 $ 1,238,125 $ 1,275,269 $ 1,313,527 $ 740,167 4,689,181 5,429,348 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ - $ 54,621 $ 163,864 $ 168,780 $ 173,843 $ 179,059 $ Supplies & Services (395,241) 274,985 283,234 291,731 300,483 Capital Outlay 613,824 613,824 613,824 613,824 613,824 $ - $ 273,204 $ 1,052,673 $ 1,065,838 $ 1,079,399 $ 1,093,366 $ 740,167 755,192 3,069,120 4,564,479 Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Downtown Consolidated Justice Courts project is to co-locate existing justice courts from leased building spaces into County-owned and geographically co-located facilities for Maricopa County residents so their limited jurisdiction court needs can be handled in a more efficient and effective manner. 150 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Downtown Justice Center (Continued) Strategic Goals By June 2005, the Court will provide speedy and fair justice in case processing as follows: 95% of all Justice Court cases shall be disposed in compliance with established limited jurisdiction court standards. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Case Management Strategic Activities Supported • Justice Courts Case Flow Management Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of justice court cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards OUTPUT: Number of justice court cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards DEMAND: Number of justice court cases filed EFFICIENCY: Cost per justice court case resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 151 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 40% 45% 50% 6,476 16,189 7,290 16,200 8,499 16,998 $89.68 $75.97 $78.00 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Environmental Services Facility User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Environmental Services 16th St and Roosevelt St 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable September 2005 Project Description This project is an approximately 2,492 square foot facility, which has been incorporated into the Public Health Clinic project. 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, and operationally efficient environment. The site is located at Roosevelt and 16th Streets near the current Environmental Services site, which is ideal for air monitoring equipment currently in use and is one-half 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. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) $ 522,081 Project Total $ 522,081 FY04-05 Projected $ 1,880,757 $ 1,880,757 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ - Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ - Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Total Project $ 2,502,838 $ 2,502,838 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project 990,070 163,600 1,153,670 $ 1,228,439 163,600 $ 1,392,039 $ 1,253,008 195,400 36,000 $ 1,484,408 $ 1,278,068 163,600 $ 1,441,668 $ 1,303,629 163,600 $ 1,467,229 $ 1,329,702 163,600 $ 1,493,302 $ 7,382,916 1,013,400 36,000 $ 8,432,316 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 990,070 Supplies & Services 163,600 $ 1,153,670 $ 1,228,912 166,917 $ 1,395,829 $ 1,256,771 235,204 $ 1,491,975 $ 1,281,944 204,172 $ 1,486,116 $ 1,307,621 204,962 $ 1,512,583 $ 1,333,814 205,775 $ 1,539,589 $ 7,399,132 1,180,630 $ 8,579,762 $ $ $ $ $ $ Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay $ $ Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services $ - $ 473 3,317 3,790 152 $ 3,763 39,804 43,567 $ 3,763 40,572 44,335 $ 3,992 41,362 45,354 $ 4,112 42,175 46,287 $ 16,103 167,230 183,333 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Environmental Services Facility (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Environmental Services Facility Project is to construct a new facility that meets the requirements for Environmental Services to serve County residents so functions are provided in an efficient manner. Strategic Goals Manage department programs to meet the increasing demand for essential environmental services resulting from Maricopa County growth. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Environmental Health Services Strategic Activities Supported • Specialized Activities Strategic Services Supported • Foodborne and waterborne illness investigations Performance Measures Not Available. 153 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Human Services Campus User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Public Health Between 9th Ave & 13th Ave, and Madison St & Jackson St 5 Facilities Management Human Services Campus LLC December 2006 Phase I Project Description The Human Services Campus is a 150,000 square foot facility which 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. The total project budget is $24,649,000 and is funded through a $6,996,000 contribution from the County and $17,653,000 in funding from non-County sources. The project is split into two phases. The first phase is under construction and will be complete in December 2006. The second phase is the completion of the NOVA Safe Haven building. NOVA will start construction once the existing CASS building is vacated at the end of calendar year 2005. The NOVA building is dependant upon public donations for funding. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) $ 4,667,710 $ 2,328,290 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,996,000 Other Sources 5,671,710 11,981,290 11,981,290 17,653,000 Project Total $ 4,667,710 $ 8,000,000 $ 11,981,290 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,981,290 $ 24,649,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 20,568 $ 47,394 $ 48,816 $ 50,280 $ 51,789 $ 218,847 Supplies & Services 133,235 166,534 171,530 176,676 181,976 829,951 $ - $ 153,803 $ 213,928 $ 220,346 $ 226,956 $ 233,765 $ 1,048,798 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 20,568 $ Supplies & Services 133,235 $ - $ 153,803 $ 47,394 $ 166,534 213,928 $ 48,816 $ 171,530 220,346 $ 50,280 $ 176,676 226,956 $ 51,789 $ 218,847 181,976 829,951 233,765 $ 1,048,798 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services $ 47,394 $ 166,534 213,928 $ 48,816 $ 171,530 220,346 $ 50,280 $ 176,676 226,956 $ 51,789 $ 218,847 181,976 829,951 233,765 $ 1,048,798 - $ - $ 20,568 $ 133,235 153,803 $ 154 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies 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 the cycle of homelessness and poverty can be broken. Strategic Goals Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas in a fiscally responsible manner and advance the proposed homeless assistance center to the point of assurance of success. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Health Care for the Homeless Strategic Activities Supported • Primary Care Clinic Strategic Services Supported • • • • • Examinations Laboratory tests Referrals for dental and vision care Mental health assessments and referrals Outreach encounters Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of homeless in metropolitan area seen at least once at clinic OUTPUT: Number of homeless seen in metropolitan area (unduplicated) DEMAND: Number of homeless in metropolitan area presenting (unduplicated) EFFICIENCY: Cost per patient contact FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 155 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 26% 50% 51% 3,383 6,000 6,500 3,383 $59.13 6,000 $62.00 6,500 $61.00 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Maricopa Regional Trail System User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Parks and Recreation Multiple Locations All Parks and Recreation Department Not Applicable August 2013 Project Description The Maricopa Trail program will design and build a regional trail system to connect the Maricopa County Parks with a shared use, non-motorized recreational linear park experience. It will link and assist communities to become more livable and will create open space corridors to protect natural and cultural resources. It will provide an enhanced health, informed education and increased recreational opportunity and park amenity. The Maricopa Trail was initiated and recommended by the Board of Supervisors in 2000. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project General Fund Imp Fund (445) $ - $ 47,000 $ 953,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 4,953,000 $ 5,000,000 Project Total $ - $ 47,000 $ 953,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 4,953,000 $ 5,000,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services $ Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project 110,346 $ 130,468 $ 130,468 $ 130,468 $ 130,468 $ 130,468 $ 11,024 43,532 43,532 43,532 43,532 43,532 121,370 $ 174,000 $ 174,000 $ 174,000 $ 174,000 $ 174,000 $ 762,686 228,684 991,370 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 110,346 $ 130,468 $ 130,468 $ 130,468 $ 130,468 $ 130,468 $ Supplies & Services 11,024 43,532 43,532 43,532 43,532 43,532 $ 121,370 $ 174,000 $ 174,000 $ 174,000 $ 174,000 $ 174,000 $ 762,686 228,684 991,370 $ Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) $ - $ - $ 156 - $ - $ - $ - $ - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Maricopa Regional Trail System (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the project is to build a trail system for the citizens of Maricopa County and out of town visitors so they may have a pleasant outdoor experience. Strategic Goals • • • We will increase community involvement and awareness through improved marketing and education programs in order to increase park attendance, revenues and funding. By July 2006 we will identify and fund the additional needed facilities and operational costs for each park for the next five years. 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 party. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Park Support Program Strategic Activities Supported • Maintenance and Development Strategic Services Supported • New Structures Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Satisfaction rate of park users OUTPUT: Number of visitors at desert parks and Lake Pleasant DEMAND: Expected number of visitors at desert parks and Lake Pleasant EFFICIENCY: Cost per visitor FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 91% FY 2004-05 Estimated 91% FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 92% 647,423 1,272,023 1,272,023 647,423 $ 1.42 1,272,023 $ 1.16 1,272,023 $ 1.30 157 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program McDowell Mountain Regional Park Competitive Track User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Parks and Recreation McDowell Mountain Regional Park 2 Parks and Recreation Arizona State Parks and Salt River Project December 2006 Project Description The purpose of this request is to fund the construction of a restroom building with showers at the McDowell Mountain Regional Park Competitive Track. The multi-use track is used frequently by casual recreational users and for special racing events and is composed of three routes of varying difficulty and length. The 2.9-mile technical loop is most difficult; the 3.0-mile Sport Loop is designed for beginners and intermediate riders and the 8.2-mile Long Loop is an intermediate test for all riders. Together, the 14.3 miles of track may be used in various combinations to test all riders from beginners to the local elite athletes who regularly use the track for training. It was completed in 1998 and immediately used to host the Cactus Cup Mountain Bike Race. It continues to host a stop on the Dust Devil Mountain Bike Series; 24-Hours of Adrenalin; and other locally sponsored races. The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department (MCPRD) Visitor Study, September 2003, conducted by Arizona State University Department of Recreation Management and Tourism, states that restrooms are the highest amenity requested by those surveyed. Also, the study shows that 58.1% of McDowell Park visitors come to mountain bike. This project is a grant project and MCPRD staff, as a partial grant match, will provide site adaptation design, and construction administration and the comfort station construction will include constructing a new comfort station with showers. Adding a new comfort station to the McDowell competitive track, will provide new opportunities for more local and national events, such as mountain biking races, and increased day use activity by allowing visitors to come early, ride, and then shower before going to work; thus increasing revenue. The grant award is $150,000 by Arizona State Parks Local, Regional, and State Parks Heritage Fund; MCPRD will do a 50% match with $69,100 in labor value and $80,900 in monetary contribution. Further, Salt River Project will donate the installation of power to the new restroom building. This project is highly needed because currently the closest restroom facility to this highly used track is 2.5 miles away. The park installs port-a-johns for large events but the capacity is such that these temporary restrooms are not sufficient to meet the demand and there is no available drinking fountain. The first and most important impact of not building a restroom facility would be the continued unsanitary conditions. Many competitive track users use the parking lot and desert as an alternative to the port-a-johns and this is hazardous to park staff cleaning up the human waste and to the desert where waste is washed into the surface and ground water and may contaminate the water system. Second, the competitive track restroom facility would serve a large recreating public that has not had access to reasonable restroom facilities; last year McDowell Mountain Regional Park (MMPR) had 60,550 visitors. Third, the negative impact of not having the restroom facility funded would cause MMPR to lose the economic opportunities to host local and national events that are profitable and vital to the park’s operating budget. Last, the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department would not be meeting their mission statement to provide recreational and educational opportunities while protecting park resources for residents and visitors so they can enjoy a safe and meaningful outdoor experience. 158 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program McDowell Mountain Regional Park Competitive Track (Continued) There are no costs incurred by the Facilities Management Department for any Parks related projects, and there are no direct staffing increases due to the new comfort station. Supply, utility, and operating costs will be minimal and will be more than offset by new event revenues. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) $ - $ - $ 219,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 219,100 $ 219,100 General Fund Imp Fund (445) 80,900 80,900 80,900 Project Total $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project 219,571 $ 213,434 $ 213,434 $ 213,434 $ 213,434 $ 213,434 $ 1,286,741 57,962 54,881 54,881 54,881 54,881 54,881 332,367 277,533 $ 268,315 $ 268,315 $ 268,315 $ 268,315 $ 268,315 $ 1,619,108 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 219,571 $ 213,434 $ 213,434 $ 213,434 $ 213,434 $ 213,434 $ 1,286,741 Supplies & Services 57,962 54,881 54,881 56,381 56,381 56,381 336,867 $ 277,533 $ 268,315 $ 268,315 $ 269,815 $ 269,815 $ 269,815 $ 1,623,608 Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) Supplies & Services $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 4,500 4,500 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Supplies & Services $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 4,500 4,500 - $ - $ Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the project is to build a new comfort station at McDowell Mountain Regional Park for the park visitors, Maricopa County citizens, and out of town visitors so that they may have a pleasant outdoor experience and return to the parks. • • • Direct purpose: Customers will visit and return to McDowell Regional Park and increase MCPRD‘s revenue, which is 80% revenue based. (58.1% McDowell visitors come to mountain bike, MCPRD Visitor Study, 2003). Direct customer: Maricopa County taxpayers, out of town visitors, and visitors at McDowell Mountain Regional Park. Direct result: Customers will return and enjoy the parks and this is measured the MCPRD Visitor Study. 159 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program McDowell Mountain Regional Park Competitive Track (Continued) Strategic Goals • • • We will increase community involvement and awareness through improved marketing and education programs in order to increase park attendance, revenues and funding. By July 2006 we will identify and fund the additional needed facilities and operational costs for each park for the next five years. 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 party. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Park Support Program Strategic Activities Supported • Maintenance and Development Strategic Services Supported • New Structures Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of park user satisfaction as related to facilities OUTPUT: Number of construction contracts managed DEMAND: Expected number of new structure/facility requests per year EFFICIENCY: Cost per new structure/facility constructed FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 160 FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement FY 2004-05 Estimated 4.39 4 4.75 11 11 8 9 10 8 $300,000 $500,000 $400,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program New Administrative Services/Forensic Science Parking Garage User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Various County Departments 301 West Jefferson St 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2006 (Construction) Project Description This project consists of an 8-level, 985-space parking structure. Downtown administrative services have 903 dedicated parking spaces and the Forensic Science Center has 82 spaces. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project County Improvement Fund (435) $ 8,838,282 $ 1,531 $ 894,559 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 894,559 $ 9,734,372 Project Total $ 8,838,282 $ 1,531 $ 894,559 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 894,559 $ 9,734,372 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. Managing for Results Purpose Statement The Purpose of the New Administrative Services/Forensic Science Center Parking facility is to provide parking for County Departments, Agencies and visitors so that they can efficiently access parking close to their business or work site. Strategic Goals • By the end of FY07, the customer satisfaction rating for security services provided to all County owned, non-Court facilities, will be 98% or higher, as reported on the annual Research & Reporting customer service survey. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Protective Services Program Strategic Activities Supported • Parking Management 161 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program New Administrative Services/Forensic Science Parking Garage (Continued) Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of cars parked to the number of spaces available to employees within a 3 block area of their work site OUTPUT: Number of cars parked per day DEMAND: Number of cars expected to be parked per day EFFICIENCY: Average management cost per parking space FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 162 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 100% 2,298 100% 2,500 100% 2,500 2,298 2,500 2,500 $0.33 $0.46 $0.46 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Northeast Superior Court/Justice Court Expansion User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Trial Courts, Superior Courts and Clerk of the Court Union Hills Rd and 40th St 3 Facilities Management Not Applicable August 2005 (Construction) Project Description The Northeast Superior Court Project is Phase I of what is planned to eventually become the Northeast Regional Center for Maricopa County. The facility houses 12 Superior Court courtrooms including court administration and support space in approximately 73,500 square feet. Four new justice courts are also included in the building with required support space. The total building square footage is 104,900. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project General Fund Imp Fund (445) $ 2,372,663 $ 11,727,337 $ 2,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,500,000 $ 16,600,000 Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) 2,000,000 2,000,000 Project Total $ 4,372,663 $ 11,727,337 $ 2,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,500,000 $ 18,600,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 20,547 $ 21,134 $ 21,738 $ 22,360 $ - $ 85,779 Supplies & Services 156,800 161,504 166,349 171,340 655,993 $ - $ 177,347 $ 182,638 $ 188,087 $ 193,700 $ - $ 741,772 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 20,547 $ 21,134 $ 21,738 $ 22,360 $ Supplies & Services 156,800 161,504 166,349 171,340 $ - $ 177,347 $ 182,638 $ 188,087 $ 193,700 $ - $ 85,779 655,993 - $ 741,772 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ - $ 20,547 $ 21,134 $ 21,738 $ 22,360 $ Supplies & Services 156,800 161,504 166,349 171,340 $ - $ 177,347 $ 182,638 $ 188,087 $ 193,700 $ - $ 85,779 655,993 - $ 741,772 Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Northeast Superior Court/Justice Courts Expansion project is to provide cost efficient expansion space for the Superior Court and consolidated space for Justice Courts so that they may provide best in class services to Maricopa County residents. 163 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Northeast Superior Court/Justice Court Expansion (Continued) Strategic Goals The public will experience increased access to the court system through improved affordability, convenience and understanding of court processes, while maintaining the efficiency and quality of court services. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Case Management Strategic Activities Supported • Justice Court Case Flow Management Strategic Services Supported • Active case management Performance Measures Not Available. 164 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Trial Courts and Clerk of the Court Statler Blvd & Tierra Buena Ln 4 Facilities Management Not Applicable December 2005 (Construction) Project Description The Northwest Consolidated Justice Court will serve the Peoria, North Valley, Glendale, and Wickenburg Justice Courts. The court is a 35,271 square foot building which includes four courts, Clerk of the Court, Constables, and Court administration space. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project County Improvement Fund (435) $ - $ 3,500,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 6,500,000 General Fund Imp Fund (445) 320,762 479,238 800,000 Project Total $ 320,762 $ 3,979,238 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 7,300,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 31,869 $ 43,092 $ 44,355 $ 45,656 $ 46,995 $ 211,967 Supplies & Services 108,900 145,179 149,534 154,020 158,641 716,274 $ - $ 140,769 $ 188,271 $ 193,889 $ 199,676 $ 205,636 $ 928,241 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 31,869 $ 43,092 $ 44,355 $ 45,656 $ 46,995 $ Supplies & Services 108,900 145,179 149,534 154,020 158,641 $ - $ 140,769 $ 188,271 $ 193,889 $ 199,676 $ 205,636 $ 211,967 716,274 928,241 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services $ 211,967 716,274 928,241 - $ 31,869 $ 43,092 $ 44,355 $ 45,656 $ 46,995 $ 108,900 145,179 149,534 154,020 158,641 - $ 140,769 $ 188,271 $ 193,889 $ 199,676 $ 205,636 $ 165 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Northwest Consolidated Justice Courts (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Northeast Superior Court/Justice Courts Expansion project is to provide cost efficient expansion space for the Superior Court and consolidated space for Justice Courts so that they may provide best in class services to Maricopa County residents. Strategic Goals The public will experience increased access to the court system through improved affordability, convenience and understanding of court processes, while maintaining the efficiency and quality of court services. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Case Management Strategic Activities Supported • Justice Court Case Flow Management Strategic Services Supported • Active case management Performance Measures Not Available 166 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Public Health Clinic User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Public Health and Environmental Services 16th St & Roosevelt St 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable August 2005 (Construction) Project Description The Public Health Clinic upgrades and replaces an aging clinical facility for Public Health. The site is located near the current public health facility, which is one-half 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. The building is approximately 53,500 square feet, which includes 2,492 square feet for the Environmental Services Facility (completed under a separate project). The facility also includes approximately 200 underground parking spaces. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project County Improvement Fund (435) $ 3,215,773 $ 9,211,327 $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ 13,027,100 Project Total $ 3,215,773 $ 9,211,327 $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ 13,027,100 167 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Public Health Clinic (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 39,052,914 2,522,644 2,522,644 2,522,644 2,522,644 2,522,644 2,522,644 15,135,864 10,169 10,169 10,169 10,169 10,169 10,169 61,014 $ 9,041,632 $ 9,041,632 $ 9,041,632 $ 9,041,632 $ 9,041,632 $ 9,041,632 $ 54,249,792 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 6,508,819 $ 39,052,914 Supplies & Services 2,522,644 2,654,934 2,614,934 2,614,934 2,614,934 2,614,934 15,637,314 Capital Outlay 10,169 29,502 29,502 29,502 10,169 10,169 119,014 $ 9,041,632 $ 9,193,255 $ 9,153,255 $ 9,153,255 $ 9,133,922 $ 9,133,922 $ 54,809,242 Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) Supplies & Services $ - $ 132,290 $ $ - $ 132,290 $ 92,290 $ 92,290 $ 92,290 $ 92,290 $ 92,290 $ 92,290 $ 92,290 $ 92,290 $ 501,450 501,450 Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 106,561 $ 109,758 $ 113,051 $ 116,442 $ 119,935 $ 565,747 Supplies & Services 282,000 290,460 299,174 308,149 317,393 1,497,176 $ - $ 388,561 $ 400,218 $ 412,225 $ 424,591 $ 437,328 $ 2,062,923 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 106,561 $ 109,758 $ 113,051 $ 116,442 $ 119,935 $ 565,747 Supplies & Services 282,000 290,460 299,174 308,149 317,393 1,497,176 $ - $ 388,561 $ 400,218 $ 412,225 $ 424,591 $ 437,328 $ 2,062,923 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services $ - $ 106,561 $ 109,758 $ 113,051 $ 116,442 $ 119,935 $ 565,747 414,290 382,750 391,464 400,439 409,683 1,998,626 - $ 520,851 $ 492,508 $ 504,515 $ 516,881 $ 529,618 $ 2,564,373 Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Public Health Clinic Project is to construct a new facility that meets the requirements for the Public Health Department to serve County residents so functions are provided in an efficient manner. 168 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Public Health Clinic (Continued) Strategic Goals By June 2007, develop public health facilities that will ensure that client service needs are met in safe, efficient and regionally located working environments. Strategic Plan Programs Supported • • • • • • • • Chronic Disease and Tobacco Control Family Health HIV/HCV Services Immunization Services Infectious Disease Control and Treatment Nutrition Information Technology Oral Health Strategic Activities Supported • • • • • • • • • • • Childhood Injury Prevention/General Health Education HIV Counseling and Testing HIV Prevention Hepatitis Education, Prevention Adult and Childhood Immunizations Hansen’s Disease Services Infectious Disease Control for Refugees • Jail Work Release Examinations Public Health Laboratory Public Health Pharmacy Sexually Transmitted Disease Testing and Treatment Tuberculosis Services • • • • • • Adult immunizations Foreign travel immunizations Jail work release screenings Pharmacy services STD testing and treatment Tuberculosis clinic service Strategic Services Supported • • • • • • Examinations Laboratory tests Referrals for dental and vision care Mental health assessments and referrals Outreach encounters HIV tests and diagnoses 169 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Public Health Clinic (Continued) Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of clients who said their HIV test result was explained clearly and simply OUTPUT: Number of clients receiving pretest counseling DEMAND: Number of people needing HIV tests EFFICIENCY: Average time spent per client (includes travel, paperwork, and time spent directly with client) in hours FY 2004-05 YTD Actual RESULT: Percent of clients receiving adult immunizations OUTPUT: Number of clients served DEMAND: Number of people calling to request service EFFICIENCY: Number of clients per hour per nurse 170 FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement FY 2004-05 Estimated 88 88 90 3,786 3,786 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 1.2 1.5 1.5 58% 2,622 57% 3,400 50% 3,500 4,536 6,000 7,000 1.8 1.8 2.5 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Security Building User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Capital Improvement Program Various County Departments 234 N Central Ave 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2006 (Construction) Project Description This project covers tenant improvements within the Security Building historic 8th and 9th floors that are necessary to modify the current vacant space for future occupancy by County/Arizona State University tenants. The remaining vacant floors, with the exception of the Bureau of Land Management and Human Services located on the 2nd and 3rd floors, will be remodeled. The exterior east and west elevations are to be renovated to the original historic condition. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project General Fund Imp Fund (445) $ 428,400 $ 4,092,659 $ 5,800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,800,000 $ 10,321,059 Project Total $ 428,400 $ 4,092,659 $ 5,800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,800,000 $ 10,321,059 Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Current Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 239,768 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 239,768 Supplies & Services 1,055,048 1,055,048 $ 1,294,816 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,294,816 Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 265,648 $ 273,617 $ 281,826 $ 290,281 $ 298,989 $ 1,410,361 Supplies & Services 1,274,328 1,312,558 1,351,935 1,392,493 1,434,267 6,765,580 $ - $ 1,539,976 $ 1,586,175 $ 1,633,761 $ 1,682,773 $ 1,733,257 $ 8,175,942 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ (239,768) $ 265,648 $ 273,617 $ 281,826 $ 290,281 $ 298,989 $ 1,170,593 Supplies & Services (1,055,048) 350,000 360,500 371,315 382,454 393,928 803,150 $ (1,294,816) $ 615,648 $ 634,117 $ 653,141 $ 672,735 $ 692,917 $ 1,973,743 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ (239,768) $ 265,648 $ 273,617 $ 281,826 $ 290,281 $ 298,989 $ 1,170,593 Supplies & Services (1,055,048) 350,000 360,500 371,315 382,454 393,928 803,150 $ (1,294,816) $ 615,648 $ 634,117 $ 653,141 $ 672,735 $ 692,917 $ 1,973,743 171 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts/Parking Structure User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Trial Courts East Maricopa County 2 Facilities Management Not Applicable December 2007 Project Description The project will include the design and construction of the Maricopa County Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts. The project will provide a single 36,000 square foot facility to house the North Mesa, East Mesa, West Mesa, and South Mesa/Gilbert Justice Courts. Other County facilities may be located at the site. The project funding also includes a 1,000-car parking garage based on the needs of the current County Southeast Mesa facility. Alternate site selection is currently ongoing. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 County Improvement Fund (435) $ $ 8,000,000 $ 2,965,000 $ Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) 2,410,000 General Fund Imp Fund (445) 6,125,000 Project Total $ - $ - $ 8,000,000 $ 11,500,000 $ - Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ - $ - 5-Year Total Total Project $ 2,965,000 $ 10,965,000 2,410,000 2,410,000 6,125,000 6,125,000 $ 11,500,000 $ 19,500,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ - $ - $ 38,286 $ 39,435 $ 40,618 $ 118,338 Supplies & Services 132,293 136,262 140,350 408,904 $ - $ - $ - $ 170,579 $ 175,696 $ 180,967 $ 527,243 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ - $ Supplies & Services $ - $ - $ - $ 38,286 $ 132,293 - $ 170,579 $ 39,435 $ 40,618 $ 136,262 140,350 175,696 $ 180,967 $ 118,338 408,904 527,243 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services $ - $ 38,286 $ 132,293 - $ 170,579 $ 39,435 $ 40,618 $ 136,262 140,350 175,696 $ 180,967 $ 118,338 408,904 527,243 - $ - $ - $ - $ 172 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts/Parking Structure (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Southeast Consolidated Justice Courts project is to co-locate existing justice courts from leased building spaces into County-owned and geographically co-located facilities for Maricopa County residents so their limited jurisdiction court needs can be handled in a more efficient and effective manner. Strategic Goals By June 2005, the Court will provide speedy and fair justice in case processing as follows: 95% of all Justice Court cases shall be disposed in compliance with established limited jurisdiction court standards. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Case Management Strategic Activities Supported • Justice Courts Case Flow Management Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of justice court cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards OUTPUT: Number of justice court cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards DEMAND: Number of justice court cases filed EFFICIENCY: Cost per justice court case resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 173 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 40% 45% 50% 6,476 16,189 7,290 16,200 8,499 16,998 $89.68 $75.97 $78.00 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Trial Courts and Clerk of the Court City of Avondale 4 Facilities Management Not Applicable January 2007 (Construction) Project Description The Southwest Consolidated Justice Court will serve the Buckeye, Gila Bend, Maryvale, and Tolleson Justice Courts, and a future growth court. The court is a 50,500 square foot building which includes 5 courts, Clerk of the Court, Constables, and Court administration space. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Intergovernmental Cap Proj (422) $ - $ - $ 2,815,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,815,000 $ County Improvement Fund (435) 40,000 5,895,000 5,895,000 Project Total $ - $ 40,000 $ 8,710,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,710,000 $ Total Project 2,815,000 5,935,000 8,750,000 Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ - $ 21,346 $ 43,092 $ 44,355 $ 45,656 $ 154,449 Supplies & Services 123,600 195,099 195,099 200,952 714,750 $ - $ - $ 144,946 $ 238,191 $ 239,454 $ 246,608 $ 869,199 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ - $ 21,346 $ 43,092 $ 44,355 $ 45,656 $ Supplies & Services 123,600 195,099 195,099 200,952 $ - $ - $ 144,946 $ 238,191 $ 239,454 $ 246,608 $ 154,449 714,750 869,199 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services $ 154,449 714,750 869,199 - $ - $ - $ 21,346 $ 43,092 $ 44,355 $ 45,656 $ 123,600 195,099 195,099 200,952 - $ 144,946 $ 238,191 $ 239,454 $ 246,608 $ 174 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts (Continued) Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Southwest Consolidated Justice Courts project is to co-locate existing justice courts from leased building spaces into County-owned and geographically co-located facilities for Maricopa County residents so their limited jurisdiction court needs can be handled in a more efficient and effective manner. Strategic Goals By June 2005, the Court will provide speedy and fair justice in case processing as follows: 95% of all Justice Court cases shall be disposed in compliance with established limited jurisdiction court standards. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Case Management Strategic Activities Supported • Justice Courts Case Flow Management Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of justice court cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards OUTPUT: Number of justice court cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards DEMAND: Number of justice court cases filed EFFICIENCY: Cost per justice court case resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 175 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 40% 45% 50% 6,476 16,189 7,290 16,200 8,499 16,998 $89.68 $75.97 $78.00 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Detention Fund Summary Criminal Justice Facilities Capital Improvement Projects for adult jails and juvenile detention total $92.8 million, 8.3% of the recommended 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 for three projects continues into 2005 and includes completion of all work and closeout of contracts. In addition to the Facilities Review Committee (FRC) process, a Citizens’ Jail Oversight Committee (CJOC) reviews projects funded by the Jail Excise Tax. 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 subject of the Committee’s charge. RNL Design, in association with Chinn Planning, Inc. and Liebert & Associates, was contracted by Maricopa County to complete a needs assessment and master plan of the adult and juvenile criminal justice detention system. The Committee met on 15 occasions 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 in the future 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 of the Committee’s Final Report, which constitutes the Maricopa County Criminal Justice System Master Plan. In November 2002, the Maricopa County voters approved an extension of the November 1998 voter approved jail tax for an additional 20 years. 176 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Project Detail A total of six (6) 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 noted in the table below. PROJECTED PRIOR YEARS FY 2004-05 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS Continuing Projects Durango Jail Demolition Fourth Avenue Jail Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center Lower Buckeye Jail Madison Street Jail Renovations Towers Jail Renovations $ FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 135,247,432 76,127,337 215,474,690 $ 426,849,459 $ 5,372,921 6,155,680 7,661,599 7,500 $ 19,197,700 $ 50,000 2,700,000 11,100,000 4,000,000 4,850,000 100,000 $ 22,800,000 $ 30,000,000 3,000,000 $ 33,000,000 $ 24,992,500 10,000,000 $ 34,992,500 $ $ 4,710,164 23,705,476 427,601 8,764,831 10,954,751 $ - $ $ $ $ Subtotal $ 48,562,823 $ - $ - TOTAL FUND 455 $ 475,412,282 $ 19,197,700 $ 34,992,500 Subtotal Completed Projects FMD Operations and Maintenance Building Mesa Juvenile Detention Center Southeast Regional Courtroom Buildout MCSO Training Facility Jackson Street Garage - $ 22,800,000 $ - $ 33,000,000 177 $ FY 2009-10 2,000,000 2,000,000 $ $ $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 5-YEAR TOTAL (FY 2006-2010) - $ $ $ - $ - $ TOTAL PROJECT Page 2,050,000 2,700,000 11,100,000 4,000,000 59,842,500 13,100,000 92,792,500 $ $ $ - $ 4,710,164 23,705,476 427,601 8,764,831 10,954,751 48,562,823 $ 92,792,500 $ 587,402,482 $ $ 2,050,000 143,320,353 93,383,017 227,136,289 59,850,000 13,100,000 538,839,659 146 150 147 153 156 158 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Durango Jail Demolition User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Sheriff’s Office, Correctional Health 3225 W Gibson Ln 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2009 Project Description This project is for the abatement and demolition of the Durango Jail. Planning for a replacement facility will be funded from a separate project, the Jail Master Plan Update. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Detention Fund (455) $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. Managing for Results Not Available. 178 Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ - Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 Total Project $ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Juvenile Probation South of Durango St. between 27th Ave & 35th Ave 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2006 (Construction) Project Description The approximately 270,000 square foot project contains 220 beds, 12 new courts with judicial suites and associated office space for support staff and related functions. The Court building is currently open and occupied. The project includes the site improvements around the project, including repaving and realignment of Gibson Lane. The total project is scheduled to complete in Fiscal Year 2005-06. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Detention Fund (455) $ 76,127,337 $ 6,155,680 $ 11,100,000 $ Project Total $ 76,127,337 $ 6,155,680 $ 11,100,000 $ - 179 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project $ - $ - $ - $ 11,100,000 $ 93,383,017 $ - $ - $ - $ 11,100,000 $ 93,383,017 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project $ 21,269,263 $ 23,154,691 $ 23,826,177 $ 24,517,136 $ 25,228,133 $ 25,959,749 $ 143,955,149 2,946,474 3,469,667 3,570,287 3,673,826 3,780,367 3,889,997 21,330,618 189,547 217,347 223,650 230,136 236,810 243,677 1,341,167 $ 24,405,284 $ 26,841,705 $ 27,620,114 $ 28,421,098 $ 29,245,310 $ 30,093,424 $ 166,626,934 Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 21,783,441 $ 25,273,545 $ 26,006,478 $ 26,760,666 $ 27,536,725 $ 28,335,290 $ 155,696,144 Supplies & Services 2,984,316 4,980,763 5,125,205 5,273,836 5,426,777 5,584,154 29,375,051 Capital Outlay 190,581 217,347 223,650 230,136 236,810 243,677 1,342,201 $ 24,958,338 $ 30,471,655 $ 31,355,333 $ 32,264,638 $ 33,200,312 $ 34,163,121 $ 186,413,397 Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ 514,178 $ 2,118,854 $ 2,180,301 $ 2,243,529 $ 2,308,592 $ 2,375,541 $ 11,740,995 Supplies & Services 37,842 1,511,096 1,554,918 1,600,010 1,646,411 1,694,157 8,044,433 Capital Outlay 1,034 1,034 $ 553,054 $ 3,629,950 $ 3,735,219 $ 3,843,540 $ 3,955,003 $ 4,069,698 $ 19,786,463 Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 288,361 $ 297,011 $ 305,922 $ 315,100 $ Supplies & Services 1,152,052 1,185,898 1,220,758 1,257,381 $ - $ 1,440,413 $ 1,482,909 $ 1,526,680 $ 1,572,480 $ - $ - $ 1,206,394 4,816,089 6,022,482 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 288,361 $ 297,011 $ 305,922 $ 315,100 $ Supplies & Services 1,152,052 1,185,898 1,220,758 1,257,381 $ - $ 1,440,413 $ 1,482,909 $ 1,526,680 $ 1,572,480 $ - $ - $ 1,206,394 4,816,089 6,022,482 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ 514,178 $ 2,407,215 $ 2,477,312 $ 2,549,451 $ 2,623,692 $ 2,375,541 $ 12,947,389 Supplies & Services 37,842 2,663,148 2,740,816 2,820,768 2,903,791 1,694,157 12,860,522 Capital Outlay 1,034 1,034 $ 553,054 $ 5,070,363 $ 5,218,128 $ 5,370,220 $ 5,527,483 $ 4,069,698 $ 25,808,945 Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Juvenile Facility is to expand the number of beds available in detention for juveniles awaiting a court hearing or as a disposition alternative for judicial officers so juveniles can become responsible citizens and public safety is enhanced. Strategic Goals None 180 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Durango Juvenile Detention/Treatment Center (Continued) Strategic Plan Program Supported • Detention Program Strategic Activities Supported • • • • • Juvenile Detention Assessment Juvenile Detention Medical Assessment Juvenile Pre-Disposition Secure Care Juvenile Detention Behavioral Health Juvenile Post-Disposition Secure Care Strategic Services Supported • • • • • • • • Juvenile Detention Assessment Juvenile Clinic Medical Treatment Juvenile Clinic Medical Evaluation Juvenile Pre-Disposition Detention Supervision Juvenile Pre-Disposition Detention Transportation Juvenile Post-Disposition Aftercare Juvenile Post-Disposition Supervision Juvenile Detention Suicide Assessment/Review Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of juveniles ordered into Secure Care Detention who appear for court OUTPUT: Number of detained juveniles who appear for court DEMAND: Number of juveniles admitted to Secure Care Detention EFFICIENCY: Cost per detained juvenile who appears for court FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 181 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 100% 100% 100% 5,769 9,762 10,006 5,769 9,762 10,006 $2,182.35 $2,159.43 $2,456.18 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Fourth Avenue Jail User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Sheriff’s Office and Trial Courts 4th Ave and Madison St 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2006 (Construction) Project Description This project resulted in an approximate 560,000 square foot mid-rise jail in downtown Phoenix that consists of a basement, ground level and three levels with mezzanines. The jail accommodates 2,100 pre-trial jail beds, an intake-processing center, two initial appearance courtrooms, two early disposition courtrooms and administrative support space. A tunnel system connects the new facility with the existing Madison Street Jail and courts. Funds for Fiscal Year 2005-06 will cover any miscellaneous close-out costs for this project. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project Detention Fund (455) $ 135,247,432 $ 5,372,921 $ 2,700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,700,000 $ 143,320,353 Project Total $ 135,247,432 $ 5,372,921 $ 2,700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,700,000 $ 143,320,353 182 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Fourth Avenue Jail (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 2,201,326 $ 18,888,592 $ 18,888,592 $ 18,888,592 $ 18,888,592 $ 18,888,592 $ 96,644,286 Supplies & Services 314,134 1,869,971 1,869,971 1,869,971 1,869,971 1,869,971 9,663,989 Capital Outlay 7,167 14,334 14,334 14,334 14,334 14,334 78,837 $ 2,522,627 $ 20,772,897 $ 20,772,897 $ 20,772,897 $ 20,772,897 $ 20,772,897 $ 106,387,112 Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ 2,201,326 $ 18,888,592 $ 18,888,592 $ 18,888,592 $ 18,888,592 $ 18,888,592 $ 96,644,286 Supplies & Services 314,134 1,869,971 1,869,971 1,869,971 1,869,971 1,869,971 9,663,989 Capital Outlay 7,167 7,167 $ 2,522,627 $ 20,758,563 $ 20,758,563 $ 20,758,563 $ 20,758,563 $ 20,758,563 $ 106,315,442 Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 1,046,608 $ Supplies & Services 2,479,166 $ - $ 3,525,774 $ 1,078,006 $ 2,552,020 3,630,026 $ 1,110,346 $ 1,143,656 $ 1,177,966 $ 5,556,582 2,627,056 2,705,868 2,787,044 13,151,153 3,737,402 $ 3,849,524 $ 3,965,010 $ 18,707,736 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 1,046,608 $ Supplies & Services 2,479,166 $ - $ 3,525,774 $ 1,078,006 $ 2,552,020 3,630,026 $ 1,110,346 $ 1,143,656 $ 1,177,966 $ 5,556,582 2,627,056 2,705,868 2,787,044 13,151,153 3,737,402 $ 3,849,524 $ 3,965,010 $ 18,707,736 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ 2,201,326 $ 19,935,200 $ 19,966,598 $ 19,998,938 $ 20,032,248 $ 20,066,558 $ 102,200,868 Supplies & Services 314,134 4,349,137 4,421,991 4,497,027 4,575,839 4,657,015 22,815,142 Capital Outlay 7,167 7,167 $ 2,522,627 $ 24,284,337 $ 24,388,589 $ 24,495,965 $ 24,608,087 $ 24,723,573 $ 125,023,178 Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Fourth 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 for staff. Strategic Goals 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. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Custody Management Program 183 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Fourth Avenue Jail (Continued) Strategic Activities Supported • • • Detention Management Activity Inmate Processing Activity Mandated Inmate Programs and Services Activity Strategic Services Supported • • • • • • Proactive detention management strategies Inmate intakes Inmate classifications Reactive detention management strategies Inmate releases Mandated inmate services Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of inmates properly processed OUTPUT: Number of inmates processed DEMAND: Number of inmates expected to be received EFFICIENCY: Cost per inmate per day FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 184 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 100% 78,701 100% 120,931 100% 124,759 78,701 $47 120,931 $47 124,759 Not Available Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Lower Buckeye Jail User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Sheriff’s Office and Correctional Health Lower Buckeye Rd, East of 35th Ave 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2006 Project Description The Lower Buckeye Jail contains 2,449 beds including maximum custody adult beds, minimum custody adult beds, remanded juvenile beds, psychiatric beds, and 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). Funding for Fiscal Year 2005-06 will be for any miscellaneous close out costs and settlement of an SRP easement issue. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project Detention Fund (455) $ 215,474,690 $ 7,661,599 $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000 $ 227,136,289 Project Total $ 215,474,690 $ 7,661,599 $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000 $ 227,136,289 185 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Lower Buckeye Jail (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Project Post Construction User Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ 1,541,487 $ 20,682,011 $ 20,682,011 $ 20,682,011 $ 20,682,011 $ 20,682,011 $ 104,951,542 Supplies & Services 321,745 2,047,519 2,047,519 2,047,519 2,047,519 2,047,519 10,559,340 Capital Outlay 4,333 14,334 14,334 14,334 14,334 14,334 76,003 $ 1,867,565 $ 22,743,864 $ 22,743,864 $ 22,743,864 $ 22,743,864 $ 22,743,864 $ 115,586,885 Net User Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ 1,541,487 $ 20,682,011 $ 20,682,011 $ 20,682,011 $ 20,682,011 $ 20,682,011 $ 104,951,542 Supplies & Services 321,745 2,047,519 2,047,519 2,047,519 2,047,519 2,047,519 10,559,340 Capital Outlay 4,333 4,333 $ 1,867,565 $ 22,729,530 $ 22,729,530 $ 22,729,530 $ 22,729,530 $ 22,729,530 $ 115,515,215 Post Construction Facilities Management Department Operating Costs Personal Sevices $ - $ 1,068,389 $ 1,100,441 $ 1,133,454 $ 1,167,458 $ Supplies & Services 2,254,927 2,320,812 2,388,668 2,460,328 $ - $ 3,323,316 $ 3,421,253 $ 3,522,122 $ 3,627,786 $ - $ 4,469,742 9,424,735 - $ 13,894,477 Net Facilities Management Department Operating Costs (post less current) Personal Sevices $ - $ 1,068,389 $ 1,100,441 $ 1,133,454 $ 1,167,458 $ Supplies & Services 2,254,927 2,320,812 2,388,668 2,460,328 $ - $ 3,323,316 $ 3,421,253 $ 3,522,122 $ 3,627,786 $ - $ 4,469,742 9,424,735 - $ 13,894,477 Total User and FMD Net Operating Costs (net plus net) Personal Sevices $ 1,541,487 $ 21,750,400 $ 21,782,452 $ 21,815,465 $ 21,849,469 $ 20,682,011 $ 109,421,284 Supplies & Services 321,745 4,302,446 4,368,331 4,436,187 4,507,847 2,047,519 19,984,075 Capital Outlay 4,333 4,333 $ 1,867,565 $ 26,052,846 $ 26,150,783 $ 26,251,652 $ 26,357,316 $ 22,729,530 $ 129,409,692 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 for staff. Strategic Goals 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. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Custody Management Program 186 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Lower Buckeye Jail (Continued) Strategic Activities Supported • • • Detention Management Activity Inmate Processing Activity Mandated Inmate Programs and Services Activity Strategic Services Supported • • • • • • Proactive detention management strategies Inmate intakes Inmate classifications Reactive detention management strategies Inmate releases Mandated inmate services Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of inmates properly processed OUTPUT: Number of inmates processed DEMAND: Number of inmates expected to be received EFFICIENCY: Cost per inmate per day FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 187 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 100% 78,701 100% 120,931 100% 124,759 78,701 $47 120,931 $47 124,759 Not Available Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Madison Street Jail Renovations User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Sheriff’s Office, Correctional Health 225 W Madison St 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2008 Project Description The first year will provide an analysis of facility upgrades and needs as well as a determination of how to best approach this future work. In addition the design phase will be completed. Years two and three will provide construction of necessary renovations based on the results of facility analysis and design. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 Detention Fund (455) $ - $ 7,500 $ 4,850,000 Project Total $ - $ 7,500 $ 4,850,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 30,000,000 $ 30,000,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total $ 24,992,500 $ - $ - $ 59,842,500 $ 24,992,500 $ - $ - $ 59,842,500 Total Project $ 59,850,000 $ 59,850,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Madison Street Jail Renovations 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 for staff. Strategic Goals 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. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Custody Management Program Strategic Activities Supported • • • Detention Management Activity Inmate Processing Activity Mandated Inmate Programs and Services Activity 188 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Madison Street Jail Renovations (Continued) Strategic Services Supported • • • • • • Proactive detention management strategies Inmate intakes Inmate classifications Reactive detention management strategies Inmate releases Mandated inmate services Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of inmates properly processed OUTPUT: Number of inmates processed DEMAND: Number of inmates expected to be received EFFICIENCY: Cost per inmate per day FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 189 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 100% 78,701 100% 120,931 100% 124,759 78,701 $47 120,931 $47 124,759 Not Available Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Towers Jail Renovations User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Sheriff’s Office, Correctional Health 3127 W Gibson Ln 5 Facilities Management Not Applicable June 2008 Project Description This is for the remodel and renovation of the existing Towers Jail at the County’s Durango Campus. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Detention Fund (455) $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total $ 10,000,000 $ - $ - $ 13,100,000 $ 10,000,000 $ - $ - $ 13,100,000 Total Project $ 13,100,000 $ 13,100,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Towers Jail Renovations 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 for staff. Strategic Goals 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. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Custody Management Program Strategic Activities Supported • • • Detention Management Activity Inmate Processing Activity Mandated Inmate Programs and Services Activity 190 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Towers Jail Renovations (Continued) Strategic Services Supported • • • • • • Proactive detention management strategies Inmate intakes Inmate classifications Reactive detention management strategies Inmate releases Mandated inmate services Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of inmates properly processed OUTPUT: Number of inmates processed DEMAND: Number of inmates expected to be received EFFICIENCY: Cost per inmate per day FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 191 FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 100% 78,701 100% 120,931 100% 124,759 78,701 $47 120,931 $47 124,759 Not Available Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Maricopa County Department of Transportation Summary The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) employs an objective planning procedure for evaluating and ranking potential projects for inclusion in its five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This procedure includes using equally weighted, objective criteria to score and rank potential projects. The ranking criteria used by the Department of Transportation for future roadway improvements include: • • • • • • Safety (crash history), pavement conditions, and current sufficiency levels of roadways Land use, regional travel usage, and environmental factors Current and future traffic volumes compared to the physical capacity of the roadway A benefit/cost analysis that measures reductions in delay due to improvements Joint sponsorship of the project and the actual commitment of funds by partnering agencies Bonus points for intelligent transportation systems, alternative modes and environmental enhancements Separate ranking systems exist for evaluating potential bridges, channel upgrades, bicycle, pedestrian, and other multi-modal improvements. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) annually approves the TIP. This annual approval authorizes expenditures by MCDOT for making transportation improvements to roadways and bridges, acquiring rights-ofway, developing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and conducting future studies of county roadways. MCDOT staff, representatives from cities and towns, and the public recommend projects for inclusion in the TIP. MCDOT then internally prepares its recommendations for future roadway improvements. Funding from all available sources is then matched against the proposed projects. MCDOT typically considers the highest rated projects first and subsequently recommends improvements based on the rankings, potential financial partners, and available budget. The recommended projects are then submitted to the Transportation Advisory Board for their review and input. 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), the Maricopa Association of Governments, and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). Other funding sources arise through partnerships with local jurisdictions, federal, state agencies, or private corporations. 192 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Project Detail A total of 99 capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board from MCDOT. The recommended projects are as follows: PRIOR PROJECTED 5-YEAR TOTAL YEARS FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 (FY 2006-2010) TOTAL PROJECT 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT TIP DEVELOPMENT $ 725,983 $ 120,454 $ 363,045 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ 1,823,045 $ 2,669,482 PROJECT RESERVES ACCOUNT 1,176,389 5,950,000 3,450,000 12,950,000 25,950,000 44,700,000 93,000,000 94,176,389 SPECIAL PROJECTS 1,299 11,126 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 5,012,425 WARRANTED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 1,982 86 500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 12,500,000 12,502,068 CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT REPORTS 719,652 195,289 800,000 800,000 800,000 850,000 850,000 4,100,000 5,014,941 UNALLOCATED FORCE ACCOUNT 55,156 290,982 1,401,595 2,539,000 2,751,000 2,842,000 3,173,000 12,706,595 13,052,733 PREVIOUS YEAR'S PROJECTS 1,873,530 1,726,396 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 1,400,000 4,999,926 PROP MGMT/PRIOR YEARS PROJECTS 54,151 143,813 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 447,964 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 3,007,171 SMALL CITIES ASSIST PROG 1,202,250 304,921 300,000 300,000 300,000 ROW IN-FILL/ROAD INVENTORY SYS 14,801,315 996,824 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 21,500,000 37,298,139 GENERAL CIVIL ENGINEERING 230,950 312,165 500,000 500,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 13,000,000 13,543,115 GDACS:GEOD DNSIF/CADAST SRVYS 5,040,600 1,669,752 250,000 250,000 6,960,352 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION 902,457 62,414 370,000 370,000 1,334,871 BELL RD: SR 303 -L101 ITS IMP 336,000 131,027 1,070,000 1,070,000 1,537,027 PM10 PROGRAM 2,074,952 788,370 100,000 100,000 3,150,000 3,150,000 6,500,000 9,363,322 PM10: (PH3) NE AREA 341,926 269,641 205,000 205,000 816,567 PM10: BOX BAR & NEEDLE ROCK 284,088 9,725 10,000 1,105,000 1,115,000 1,408,813 395,000 636,021 PM10: 12TH ST, CIR MTN - TNF 25,464 215,557 395,000 PM10: (PH4) IN SE VALLEY 10,494 742,536 800,000 800,000 1,553,030 PM10: (PH4) IN NORTH VALLEY 20,141 774,712 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,844,853 PM10: (PH4) IN SW VALLEY 10,497 461,067 770,000 770,000 1,241,564 115TH AVE BRIDGE AT GILA RIVER 9,687,557 1,067 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 9,694,624 CAVE CRK LONE MT - CRFREE HWY 1,008,803 30 1,000 1,000 2,000 1,010,833 ELLSWORTH: UIV - MCLELLAN 2,045,376 3,109,998 6,275,000 6,275,000 11,430,374 RAY RD LINDSAY - GREENFIELD 1,138 1,000 552,000 552,000 554,138 ELLSWORTH GERMAN - BASELINE 6,311,000 4,258,578 17,385,000 8,310,000 25,695,000 36,264,578 ALMA SCH:MCLELLAN - MCKELLIPS 119,879 369,790 1,000 2,101,000 2,102,000 2,591,669 51ST AVE: BROADWAY - BASELINE 1,949,423 6,866 2,946,000 2,946,000 4,902,289 GILBERT RD:MCDOWELL - SR 87 6,208,447 107,442 8,820,000 1,020,000 9,840,000 16,155,889 MC 85: COTTON LN-ESTRELLA PKWY 978,215 273,275 3,000 705,000 3,360,000 4,068,000 5,319,490 QUEEN CRK RD: AZ AVE - MCQUEEN 739,747 1,162,189 1,010,000 310,000 3,470,000 4,790,000 6,691,936 POWER RD: GUADALUPE - BSELINE 1,202,873 137,135 755,000 5,775,000 6,530,000 7,870,008 83RD AVE: NORTHERN OLIVE 656,966 5,056 710,000 2,540,000 3,250,000 3,912,022 CHAND HGTS: CULVER AT E CANAL 209,238 1,206,029 6,000 6,000 1,421,267 WILLIAMS FLD: GILBERT -LINDSAY 141,497 24,000 482,000 20,000 502,000 667,497 75TH AVE: MC 85 - VAN BUREN 441,041 280,019 2,670,000 2,670,000 3,391,060 OCOTILLO RD: EOM - PALO VERDE 197,641 500,000 500,000 697,641 WILLIAMS FLD AT HIGLEY 747,940 130,889 320,000 320,000 1,198,829 MCDOWELL: SHOULDERS WIDENING 123,702 34,000 10,000 1,320,000 1,330,000 1,487,702 MC 85: 107TH AVE - 91ST AVE 299,161 557,227 440,000 2,910,000 3,110,000 7,451,000 13,911,000 14,767,388 MC 85: 91ST AVE - 75TH AVE 287,517 6,067 950,000 3,450,000 2,640,000 8,130,000 15,170,000 15,463,584 CHAND HGTS AT SANOKI WASH 119,710 59,244 5,000 10,000 2,230,000 2,245,000 2,423,954 BELL RD AT R H JOHNSON 114,361 39,000 2,080,000 2,080,000 2,233,361 GLBRT RD: WARNER - WATER TANK 4,293 4,000 401,000 401,000 409,293 BROWN RD: ELLSWORTH - CRISMON 109,618 16,290 1,175,000 1,175,000 1,300,908 85,000 85,000 186,469 DEER VALLEY RD: 83RD - 91ST AV 19,441 82,028 BUSH HWY: USERY - STEWART MTN 7,810 40,017 10,000 10,000 57,827 67TH AVE: PINNACLE P - HAPPY V 54,023 55,000 55,000 109,023 MC85: JACKRABBIT - PERRYVILLE 1,000 225,000 5,000 231,000 231,000 MC85: PERRYVILLE - COTTON LN 1,015 1,000 440,000 441,000 442,015 ALMA SCH:N BRDG GRD CTRL STRC 154,101 110,023 1,000 2,545,000 1,155,000 3,701,000 3,965,124 POWER RD: ELLIOT TO GUADALUPE 438 450,000 450,000 450,438 VAL VISTA: THOMAS TO SOUTHERN 149,372 401,000 401,000 550,372 BELL RD:SR303L /GRAND AV (ITS) 4,000 5,000 389,000 394,000 398,000 253,750 299,584 NORTHERN AVE @ 107TH AVE 6,956 38,878 253,750 CHANDLER HTS RD @ 124TH ST 7,307 42,435 135,000 135,000 184,742 RIGGS RD @ SR347 38,346 21,000 287,500 287,500 346,846 LOWER BUCKEYE RD @ 67TH AVE 2,155 53,103 217,000 217,000 272,258 GREENWAY RD @ SR303 7,496 467,848 30,000 30,000 505,344 BETHANY HOME RD @ DYSART RD 9,353 29,674 367,500 367,500 406,527 MISSOURI AVE @ DYSART RD 12,018 24,500 265,000 265,000 301,518 MC 85 @ MILLER RD 22,688 18,049 150,000 150,000 190,737 MONTEREY AVE @ POWER RD 2,099 34,658 200,000 200,000 236,757 53,750 64,249 FIRE STA@11TH AV 3,644 6,855 53,750 MC85:SR85/75TH AV 321,000 110,000 110,000 431,000 EL MIRAGE:NORTH'N/BELL 13,000 150,000 150,000 163,000 51ST AVE: SANTA CRUZ-GRIC BDRY 103,000 85,000 85,000 188,000 MCDOWELL: ALMA SCHOOL - SR87 1,016 100,000 100,000 101,016 MC 85 EXT: SR 85 TO TURNER RD 369,000 426,500 1,702,914 1,702,914 2,498,414 193 Page 257 240 250 261 183 258 239 241 249 247 202 201 248 178 230 234 232 231 235 233 236 170 184 198 243 196 172 165 204 215 242 238 169 187 263 168 226 262 220 214 213 186 177 205 181 190 182 167 216 217 173 237 259 179 224 185 244 210 206 180 222 211 223 200 218 195 166 221 212 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT SUN CITY MILL & OVERLAY: PH 1 SUN CITY MILL & OVERLAY: PH 2 SUN CITY MILL & OVERLAY: PH 3 SUN CITY MILL & OVERLAY: PH 4 LOW VOLUME ROADS PROGRAM 7THST:CAREFREEHWY-DESERT HILLS ELLSWORTH RD: HUNT HWY - RIGGS SUN VALLEY PKWY CORRIDOR STUDY COTTON LN BRIDGE @ GILA RIVER BEARDSLEY RD @ AGUA FRIA RIVER DEER VALLEY @ AGUA FRIA RIVER OLD STAGE: N RVR - COYOTE PASS FIG SPRINGS: NEW RVR - TNF DYNAMITE BLVD: CC RD - 56TH ST INDIAN SCH: LITCHFIELD-DYSART GILBERT RD: LOOP 202 - PECOS OLD US 80 BRIDGE @ GILA RIVER APACHE BL BRIDGE/TEMPE CANAL DYSART BRIDGE @ COLTER CHANNEL VINYARD/143RD AVE: PIR RIO VERDE DR: FOREST TO 136TH DESERT HILLS @ SKUNK CREEK HONDA BOW: 7TH AVE TO 11TH AVE NORTHERN AVE: SR 303 TO GRAND TABLE MESA RD: I-17 TO TNF ROW MCDOWELL MTN N PARK ENTRANCE AVONDALE BLVD: I-10 - MCDOWELL DOBSON RD BRIDGE @ SALT RIVER OLIVE AVE @ BEARDSLEY CANAL RIGGS RD: GILBERT TO VAL VISTA AIRPORT INFORMATION SYSTEM NON-PROJECT PRIOR YEARS - PROJECTED FY 2004-05 3,510,000 13,000 230 283,000 3,398,676 253,000 242,000 101,000 102,000 100,000 129,000 1,630,000 255,450 Capital Improvement Program FY 2005-06 2,020,000 2,050,000 470,000 270,000 160,000 25,595,000 205,000 205,000 30,000 30,000 290,000 1,085,000 835,000 175,000 1,000 320,000 4,500,000 185,000 85,000 510,000 1,000 170,000 155,000 280,000 193,000 305,000 510,000 FY 2006-07 3,520,000 3,020,000 7,740,000 3,780,000 30,000 505,000 501,000 20,000 500,000 30,000 30,000 3,540,000 310,000 92,000 - FY 2007-08 2,220,000 3,020,000 280,000 230,000 2,030,000 100,000 - FY 2008-09 1,920,000 3,020,000 6,650,000 1,180,000 2,030,000 400,000 - FY 2009-10 2,030,000 - 5-YEAR TOTAL (FY 2006-2010) TOTAL PROJECT 2,020,000 5,530,000 3,520,000 3,520,000 2,220,000 2,220,000 1,920,000 1,920,000 11,110,000 11,123,000 470,000 470,000 270,000 270,230 160,000 443,000 33,335,000 36,733,676 205,000 458,000 205,000 447,000 30,000 131,000 30,000 132,000 290,000 390,000 4,865,000 4,994,000 865,000 2,495,000 7,610,000 7,610,000 502,000 502,000 340,000 340,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 1,440,000 1,440,000 215,000 215,000 85,000 85,000 10,140,000 10,140,000 311,000 311,000 170,000 170,000 155,000 155,000 280,000 280,000 385,000 385,000 400,000 400,000 305,000 305,000 510,000 765,450 TOTAL FUND 234 $ 63,230,254 $ 34,102,416 $ 110,634,054 $ 72,601,000 $ 58,568,000 $ 78,138,000 $ 64,968,000 $ 384,909,054 $ Page 251 252 253 254 209 164 197 255 188 176 189 227 199 193 208 203 228 174 194 260 246 191 207 225 256 219 175 192 229 245 171 482,241,723 Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the Build Roads and Bridges program is to provide design and construction of roads and bridges for the traveling public so that they can get to their destination in a safe and efficient manner. Strategic Goals By December 2006, MCDOT will demonstrate support for the MAG Regional Transportation Plan and cooperation with our regional partners by proactively establishing partnership agreements with other local governments on the regional arterial projects contained in the Plan. Beginning in FY 2005, MCDOT will plan for and improve the consistency of our delivery of budgeted projects by improving our capital expenditure rate to 85% and our operations expenditure rate to more than 95%, but less than 98%. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Build Roads and Bridges Strategic Activities Supported • Roadway Construction 194 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of lane miles completed that were planned for completion OUTPUT: Number of lane miles constructed DEMAND: Number of lane miles to be constructed EFFICIENCY: Construction cost per lane mile FY 2004-05 YTD Actual RESULT: Percent of bridges completed that were planned for completion OUTPUT: Number of bridges completed DEMAND: Number of bridges to be completed EFFICIENCY: Construction cost per bridge completed FY 2004-05 Estimated FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement 174% 174 187% 187 85% 67 100 $55,699 100 $110,321 79 $118,880 20% 1 5 60% 3 5 100% 2 2 $1,526,165 $1,187,800 $10,150,000 Note: Efficiency increased for both measures due to the type of projects being completed compared to prior years. 195 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 7th St: Carefree Hwy – Desert Hills Dr User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 7th St: Carefree Hwy - Desert Hills Dr 3 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for widening the roadway so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the project is approximately 3 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 470,000 $ 470,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 470,000 $ 470,000 Total Project $ 470,000 $ 470,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 4,235 400 4,635 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 196 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 51st Ave: Broadway Rd – Baseline Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 51st Ave: Broadway Rd - Baseline Rd 5 Transportation City of Phoenix 2006 Project Description 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. Total length of the project is 1.8 miles. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that the wider road will have increased capacity with improved drainage and be safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 1,949,423 Project Total $ 1,949,423 FY04-05 Projected $ 6,866 $ 6,866 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 2,946,000 $ 2,946,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,946,000 $ 2,946,000 Total Project $ 4,902,289 $ 4,902,289 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 197 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 51st Ave: Santa Cruz Rd – Gila River Indian Community Boundary Corridor Study User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 51st Ave: Santa Cruz – Gila River Indian Community Boundary 5 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this corridor study is to examine current and proposed development along the corridor to identify what type and when roadway improvements will be required for widening the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and used for future planning and programming. Total length of the study is approximately 4 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that not only does it identify future roadway improvement phasing requirements so that when the roadway is eventually widened, the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer, less congested and more economical to travel. It also it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 103,000 $ 103,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 85,000 $ 85,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 85,000 $ 85,000 Total Project $ 188,000 $ 188,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 198 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 67th Ave: Pinnacle Peak Rd – Happy Valley Rd DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 67th Ave: Pinnacle Peak Rd – Happy Valley Rd 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project was to develop a design concept report (DCR) 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. Total length of the study is approximately 1.0 miles. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 54,023 $ 54,023 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 55,000 $ 55,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 55,000 $ 55,000 Total Project $ 109,023 $ 109,023 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 199 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 75th Ave: MC 85 – Van Buren St User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 75th Ave: MC 85 – Van Buren St 5 Transportation City of Phoenix 2006 Project Description This project will result in 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 City of Phoenix will construct a storm sewer along 75th Ave and has requested to assume project lead. The County’s portion of the project will be a cash contribution of $2,650,000. Total length of the project is approximately 1.0 mile. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that the wider road will have increased capacity with improved drainage and be safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 441,041 Project Total $ 441,041 FY04-05 Projected $ 280,019 $ 280,019 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 2,670,000 $ 2,670,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,670,000 $ 2,670,000 Operating Cost Summary The City of Phoenix is expected to annex the roadway and assume maintenance responsibilities. 200 Total Project $ 3,391,060 $ 3,391,060 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 83rd Ave: Northern Ave – Olive Ave User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 83rd Ave: Northern Ave – Olive Ave 4 Transportation City of Peoria 2007 Project Description The purpose of this project is to widen 83rd Avenue for the traveling public from two travel lanes to four travel lanes with a center left turn lane to reduce congestion and increase safety. Construction is contingent upon finalization of an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Peoria for their financial participation in construction and for them to assume maintenance responsibilities for 83rd Ave. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that the wider road will have increased capacity with improved drainage and be smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 656,966 Project Total $ 656,966 FY04-05 Projected $ 5,056 $ 5,056 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 710,000 $ 710,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 2,540,000 $ 2,540,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 3,250,000 $ 3,250,000 Total Project $ 3,912,022 $ 3,912,022 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 201 Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 115th Ave Bridge at Gila River User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 115th Ave Bridge at Gila River 5 Transportation State of Arizona and City of Avondale 2008 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a means to track payments. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 9,163,890 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 523,667 Project Total $ 9,687,557 FY04-05 Projected $ 1,067 $ 1,067 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project $ (521,667) $ (521,667) $ (521,667) $ (523,667) $ (523,667) $ (2,612,335) $ 6,552,622 523,667 523,667 523,667 523,667 523,667 2,618,335 3,142,002 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ - $ 6,000 $ 9,694,624 Negative numbers indicate repayment of funds expended in an earlier year. Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 202 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Airport Information System User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Sky Harbor Car Rental Facility 5 Transportation Federal Government 2005 Project Description The project will install travel time and traffic incident information dissemination systems at strategic locations at the new rental car facility currently under construction at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it will provide the traveling public with real time traffic information so that their travel is smoother, safer and more economical. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 305,000 $ 305,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 305,000 $ 305,000 Total Project $ 305,000 $ 305,000 Operating Cost Summary Estimated Cost to Maintain System Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 203 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 1,000 1,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 8,000 1,000 $ 9,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 8,000 1,000 $ 9,000 Total Project $ 32,000 4,000 $ 36,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Alma School Rd: McLellan Rd – McKellips Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Alma School Rd: McLellan Rd – McKellips Rd 1&2 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that the wider road will have increased capacity and be smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 119,879 Project Total $ 119,879 FY04-05 Projected $ 369,790 $ 369,790 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 2,101,000 $ 2,101,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,102,000 $ 2,102,000 Total Project $ 2,591,669 $ 2,591,669 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 204 Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Alma School Rd: N Bridge Grade Control Structure User Department: Project Location: District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Alma School: N Bridge Grade Control Structure Supervisor 2 Transportation Not Applicable 2008 Project Description The project will replace the existing grade control structure, which is needed to protect the Alma School Road Bridge foundations from floodwater eroding the soil. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will better protect the bridge structure when water is flowing under the bridge so that the bridge will not have to be closed during water releases making their commute safer and easier. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 154,101 Project Total $ 154,101 FY04-05 Projected $ 110,023 $ 110,023 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 2,545,000 $ 2,545,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 1,155,000 $ 1,155,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 3,701,000 $ 3,701,000 Total Project $ 3,965,124 $ 3,965,124 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 205 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Apache Blvd Bridge at Tempe Canal User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Apache Blvd Bridge at Tempe Canal 1 Transportation Not Applicable 2007 Project Description The Apache Road Bridge over the Tempe Canal must be strengthened before the light rail line can use the bridge. Rather than reinforce the existing bridge it was decided to replace the bridge with a stronger wider bridge. Valley Metro Rail will replace the bridge with the County contributing $500,000 to the project. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, the new bridge will allow light rail line traffic. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 501,000 $ 501,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 502,000 $ 502,000 Total Project $ 502,000 $ 502,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 206 Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Avondale Blvd: I-10 – McDowell Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Avondale Blvd: I-10 – McDowell Rd 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for widening the roadway so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the project is approximately 0.4 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 155,000 $ 155,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 155,000 $ 155,000 Total Project $ 155,000 $ 155,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study has no impact on maintenance operations. 207 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Beardsley Rd at Agua Fria River DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Beardsley Rd at Agua Fria River 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) on the feasibility of constructing a bridge over the Agua Fria River at Beardsley Road to improve traffic conditions in the Sun City West/Surprise Bell Road corridor. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and the results of the Deer Valley Road Bridge at Agua Fria River DCR. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and preferred location for the bridge, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed bridge and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 253,000 $ 253,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 205,000 $ 205,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 208 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 205,000 $ 205,000 Total Project $ 458,000 $ 458,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Bell Rd at R H Johnson Blvd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Bell Rd at R H Johnson Blvd 4 Transportation City of Surprise 2006 Project Description 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 and when constructed, the improved roadway will reduce congestion and increase safety. The City of Surprise has annexed this portion of Bell Road and will contribute $550,000 toward construction. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will improve traffic flow through the intersection by providing a dedicated right turn lane for traffic going into Sun City West so that the current curb lane can be used for through traffic. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 114,361 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ 114,361 FY04-05 Projected $ 39,000 $ 39,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,530,000 550,000 $ 2,080,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,530,000 550,000 $ 2,080,000 Total Project $ 1,683,362 550,000 $ 2,233,362 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 209 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Bell Rd: SR 303 – Loop 101 (ITS) User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Bell Rd: SR 303 – Loop 101 4 Transportation City of Peoria and City of Surprise 2006 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that it provides real time traffic data to the cities and the county so that signal adjustments can be made and information provided to commuters so that they have a faster and safer commute. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 336,000 Federal Funds Project Total $ 336,000 FY04-05 Projected $ 131,027 $ 131,027 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 295,000 775,000 $ 1,070,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 295,000 775,000 $ 1,070,000 Total Project $ 426,027 336,000 775,000 $ 1,537,027 Operating Cost Summary Estimated Cost to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 1,000 1,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 The majority of the system will be maintained by the adjoining cities. 210 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 9,000 1,000 $ 10,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 9,000 1,000 $ 10,000 Total Project $ 36,000 4,000 $ 40,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Bell Rd: SR 303 – Grand Ave (ITS) User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Bell Rd: SR 303L – Grand Ave 4 Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2007 Project Description The purpose of this project is to design and 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. This project will be funded from Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and from Federal monies. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will provide technological improvements to county roads for the traveling public so that congestion will be reduced and safety will be improved. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Federal Funds Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 85,800 303,200 $ 389,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 90,800 303,200 $ 394,000 Total Project $ 94,800 303,200 $ 398,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 211 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Bethany Home Rd at Dysart Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Bethany Home Rd at Dysart Rd 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that the intersection improvement provides traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer, smoother and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 9,353 Project Total $ 9,353 FY04-05 Projected $ 29,674 $ 29,674 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 367,500 $ 367,500 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 367,500 $ 367,500 Total Project $ 406,527 $ 406,527 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenance Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 212 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Brown Rd: Ellsworth Rd – Crismon Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Brown Rd: Ellsworth Rd – Crismon Rd 2 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to widen Brown Road from two to four lanes beginning at 94th Street and ending just short of Crismon Road. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it eliminates a scalloped street condition making travel safer. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 109,618 Project Total $ 109,618 FY04-05 Projected $ 16,290 $ 16,290 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,175,000 $ 1,175,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,175,000 $ 1,175,000 Total Project $ 1,300,908 $ 1,300,908 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 213 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Bush Hwy: Usery Pass Rd – Stewart Mountain Dam Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Bush Hwy: Usery Pass Rd – Stewart Mountain Dam Rd 2 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description 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 and safety improved. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project with construction contingent on receiving federal funding. The benefit to the public is that it will add paved shoulders for bicycle lanes on this popular bicycling route increasing safety for cyclists and motorists. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 7,810 Project Total $ 7,810 FY04-05 Projected $ 40,017 $ 40,017 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Total Project $ 57,828 $ 57,828 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 214 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Candidate Assessment Reports User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Various All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description The purpose of this fund is to reserve monies for advance planning studies and an initial assessment of potential projects (candidate assessment reports or CARS) so that sufficient information is developed to make further program development decisions. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. The benefit to the public is that it provides funding for advance planning and more accurate initial assessments of projects, which results in a better use of public funds. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 719,652 Project Total $ 719,652 FY04-05 Projected $ 195,289 $ 195,289 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 215 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 850,000 $ 850,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 850,000 $ 4,100,000 $ 850,000 $ 4,100,000 Total Project $ 5,014,941 $ 5,014,941 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Cave Creek Rd: Lone Mountain Rd – Carefree Hwy User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Cave Creek Rd: Lone Mountain Rd – Carefree Hwy 3 Transportation Town of Cave Creek 2008 Project Description The purpose of this project is to monitor for intergovernmental agreement (IGA) compliance of annual deferred payments from the Town of Cave Creek for construction completed in FY 2002. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it allowed early construction of improvements on Cave Creek Road making the road safer and easier to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 891,348 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 117,455 Project Total $ 1,008,803 FY04-05 Projected $ 30 $ 30 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ (44,455) $ (44,455) $ (45,455) $ 45,455 45,455 45,455 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total Total Project $ (134,365) $ 757,013 136,365 253,820 $ 2,000 $ 1,010,833 Negative numbers indicate repayment of funds expended in an earlier year. Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 216 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Chandler Heights Rd at 124th St User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Chandler Heights Rd at 124th St 1 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that these intersection improvement projects provide traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 7,307 Project Total $ 7,307 FY04-05 Projected $ 42,435 $ 42,435 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 135,000 $ 135,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 135,000 $ 135,000 Total Project $ 184,743 $ 184,743 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenance Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 217 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Chandler Heights Rd at Sonoqui Wash User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Chandler Heights Rd at Sonoqui Wash 1 Transportation Not Applicable 2008 Project Description The purpose of this project is to construct a five-lane bridge (68’ wide) over Sonoqui Wash. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it will provide an all weather crossing making travel safer. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 119,710 Project Total $ 119,710 FY04-05 Projected $ 59,244 $ 59,244 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 2,230,000 $ 2,230,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,245,000 $ 2,245,000 Total Project $ 2,423,954 $ 2,423,954 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 218 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Chandler Heights Rd Culvert at Eastern Canal User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Chandler Heights Rd Culvert at Eastern Canal 1 Transportation City of Chandler and Roosevelt Water Conservation District 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to replace existing inadequate pipe with a wider box culvert to allow future widening of the road. The City of Chandler is participating financially in the project and the Roosevelt Water Conservation district is replacing a canal structure as part of the project. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that the wider road will have increased capacity with improved drainage and be smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 209,238 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ 209,238 FY04-05 Projected $ 1,206,029 $ 1,206,029 Year 1 Year 2 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 $ (169,720) $ 175,720 $ 6,000 $ - Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total Total Project $ (169,720) $ 1,245,548 175,720 175,720 $ 6,000 $ 1,421,268 Negative numbers indicate repayment of funds expended in prior years. Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 219 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Cotton Ln Bridge at Gila River User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85 & Cotton Lane across the Gila River to Estrella Parkway 5 Transportation City of Goodyear 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to construct a new bridge over the Gila River on the Cotton lane alignment along with a new road beginning at MC 85 and extending to Estrella Parkway. At both MC 85 and at Estrella Parkway, new intersections will be constructed. The City of Goodyear will provide $15,000,000 in funding for construction and will assume maintenance responsibilities upon completion. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it provides another bridge crossing of the Gila River in the southwest valley so that the traveling public living south of the river in a rapidly developing area will have a safe and reliable commute. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 3,398,676 $ 3,398,676 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 12,095,000 13,500,000 $ 25,595,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 2,740,000 5,000,000 $ 7,740,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Operating Cost Summary The City of Goodyear will maintain the road and bridge upon completion. 220 Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 14,835,000 18,500,000 $ 33,335,000 Total Project $ 18,233,676 18,500,000 $ 36,733,676 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Deer Valley Rd Bridge at Agua Fria River DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Deer Valley Rd at Agua Fria River 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) on the feasibility of constructing a bridge over the Agua Fria River at Deer Valley Road to improve traffic conditions in the Sun City West/Surprise Bell Road corridor. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and the results of the Beardsley Road Bridge @ Agua Fria River DCR. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and preferred location for the bridge, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed bridge and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 242,000 $ 242,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 205,000 $ 205,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 221 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 205,000 $ 205,000 Total Project $ 447,000 $ 447,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Deer Valley Rd: 83rd Ave – 91st Ave DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Deer Valley Rd: 83rd Ave – 91st Ave 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to complete a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for paving the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the study area is approximately 1 mile. This project is adjacent to an area being studied by the Flood Control District. The results of their study may impact the DCR results. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 19,441 Project Total $ 19,441 FY04-05 Projected $ 82,028 $ 82,028 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 85,000 $ 85,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 85,000 $ 85,000 Total Project $ 186,469 $ 186,469 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 222 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Desert Hills Dr at Skunk Creek DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Desert Hills Drive west of 7th Ave 3 Transportation Not Applicable 2007 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for an all weather crossing so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. At Skunk Creek there is a dip crossing, which during heavy storms, prevents emergency vehicles and school buses to cross. Total length of the project is approximately 0.1 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 185,000 $ 185,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 215,000 $ 215,000 Total Project $ 215,000 $ 215,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study will not impact current maintenance operations. 223 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Dobson Rd Bridge at Salt River User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Dobson Rd Bridge at Salt River 1&2 Transportation Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, City of Mesa and Maricopa Association of Governments 2013 Project Description This project will construct a new bridge across the Salt River from the current end of Dobson Rd to McKellips Rd. Total project length is approximately three miles. This project is included in the Regional Transportation Plan as a phase I project with $15.3 million allocated to the project. Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, City of Mesa and the County will provide additional local funding. The initial cost of the project is estimated to be $25 million. The first step will be the completion of an environmental assessment and a design concept report (DCR) to identify the preferred bridge location and design. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 280,000 $ 280,000 Total Project $ 280,000 $ 280,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study has no impact on maintenance operations. 224 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Dynamite Blvd: Cave Creek Rd – 56th St DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Dynamite Blvd: Cave Creek Rd – 56th St 3 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for paving the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Currently, the road is two lanes and is in poor condition due to high traffic volume resulting from development in the area. The City of Phoenix is a potential funding partner. Total length of the project is approximately 2.2 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 290,000 $ 290,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 290,000 $ 290,000 Total Project $ 390,000 $ 390,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study has no impact on maintenance operations. 225 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Dysart Rd Bridge at Colter Channel User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation On Dysart Rd north of Camelback Rd 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2007 Project Description The purpose of this project is to replace the existing two-lane bridge with a new bridge that will accommodate four lanes of traffic. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, the new bridge will not create a bottleneck as development occurs. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 320,000 $ 320,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 340,000 $ 340,000 Total Project $ 340,000 $ 340,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year FY 05-06 4,235 $ 400 4,635 $ - 226 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program El Mirage Rd: Northern Ave – Bell Rd Corridor Study User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation El Mirage Rd: Northern Ave – Bell Rd 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this corridor study is to examine current and proposed development along the corridor to identify what type and when roadway improvements will be required for widening the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and used for future planning and programming. Total length of the study area is approximately 6 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time. The study results will identify future required projects. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies future roadway improvement phasing requirements so that when the roadway is eventually widened the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer, less congested and more economical to travel, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 13,000 $ 13,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Total Project $ 163,000 $ 163,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 227 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Ellsworth Rd: Germann Rd – Baseline Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Ellsworth Rd: Germann Rd – Baseline Rd 1&2 Transportation City of Mesa and Maricopa County Flood Control District 2007 Project Description 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 project will be constructed in two phases. Phase I is from Germann to Ray Rd. Phase II is from Ray to Elliot Rd. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that the wider road will have increased capacity and with improved drainage and signalized intersections, be safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ 6,311,000 FY04-05 Projected $ 4,258,578 $ 4,258,578 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 10,087,200 $ 17,385,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 5,824,800 $ 8,310,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 15,912,000 $ 25,695,000 Total Project $ 20,170,578 $ 36,264,578 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year FY 05-06 4,235 $ 400 4,635 $ - 228 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ - Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Ellsworth Rd: Hunt Hwy – Riggs Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Ellsworth Rd: Hunt Hwy – Riggs Rd 1 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for an all weather crossing so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the project is approximately 1 mile. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 230 $ 230 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 270,000 $ 270,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 270,000 $ 270,000 Total Project $ 270,230 $ 270,230 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 229 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Ellsworth Rd: University Dr – McLellan Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Ellsworth Rd: University Dr – McLellan Rd 2 Transportation City of Mesa 2006 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 2,045,376 Project Total $ 2,045,376 FY04-05 Projected $ 3,109,998 $ 3,109,998 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 3,116,000 3,159,000 $ 6,275,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 3,116,000 3,159,000 $ 6,275,000 Total Project $ 6,225,998 5,204,376 $ 11,430,374 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - - 230 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Fig Springs Rd: New River Rd – Tonto National Forest DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Fig Springs Rd: New River Rd – Tonto National Forest 3 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for paving the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the project is approximately 1.75 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 102,000 $ 102,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Total Project $ 132,000 $ 132,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study has no impact on maintenance operations. 231 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Fire Station at 111th Ave User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 111th Ave, 2 blocks south of Grand Ave 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the fire station to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that these intersection improvement projects provide traffic signals for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 3,644 Project Total $ 3,644 FY04-05 Projected $ 6,855 $ 6,855 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 53,750 $ 53,750 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 53,750 $ 53,750 Total Project $ 64,249 $ 64,249 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenance Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 232 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program GDACS: Geodetic Densification and Cadastral Study User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation County-wide All Transportation Maricopa County Flood Control District, Town of Gilbert, City of Glendale, City of Phoenix and Town of Queen Creek 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to provide more and better land survey points for 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will provide a more accurate survey system for Maricopa County. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 4,485,545 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 555,055 Project Total $ 5,040,600 FY04-05 Projected $ 1,669,752 $ 1,669,752 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Total Project $ 6,405,297 555,055 $ 6,960,352 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 233 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 400 400 $ 30,400 $ 30,400 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 30,000 400 $ 30,400 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 30,000 400 $ 30,400 Total Project $ 120,000 1,600 $ 121,600 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program General Civil Engineering User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation General Civil Engineering All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a mechanism for funding unexpected work, reducing costly delays in projects. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 230,950 Project Total $ 230,950 FY04-05 Projected $ 312,165 $ 312,165 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 234 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 4,000,000 $ 13,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 13,000,000 Total Project $ 13,543,115 $ 13,543,115 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Gilbert Rd: Loop 202 – Pecos Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Gilbert Rd: Loop 202 – Pecos Rd 1 Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation 2007 Project Description This project will result in the widening of Gilbert Road from SR 202 to Pecos as part of the work to construct the SR 202 Gilbert Rd intersection. The County agreed to pay $1,630,000 as our part of the cost and will make the final payment of $815,000 in FY 06 to complete our involvement. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, motorists will have a roadway that is safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 1,630,000 $ 1,630,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 835,000 $ 835,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 865,000 $ 865,000 Total Project $ 2,495,000 $ 2,495,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 235 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Gilbert Rd: McDowell Rd – SR 87 with LWC User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Gilbert Rd: McDowell Rd – SR 87 2 Transportation City of Mesa, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community and Arizona Department of Transportation 2007 Project Description 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 are 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. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, motorists will have a roadway that is safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 6,051,658 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 156,789 Project Total $ 6,208,447 FY04-05 Projected $ 107,442 $ 107,442 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 8,820,000 $ 8,820,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 520,000 500,000 $ 1,020,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 9,340,000 500,000 $ 9,840,000 Total Project $ 15,499,100 656,789 $ 16,155,889 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ Year 2 FY 06-07 - 236 $ $ - Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 12,705 1,200 $ 13,905 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Gilbert Rd: Warner Rd – Water Tank User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Gilbert Rd: Warner Rd – Water Tank 2 Transportation Town of Gilbert 2006 Project Description 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 County will contribute to construction. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, motorists will have a roadway that is safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 4,293 Project Total $ 4,293 FY04-05 Projected $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 401,000 $ 401,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - Operating Cost Summary The City of Gilbert will annex the roadway. 237 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 401,000 $ 401,000 Total Project $ 409,293 $ 409,293 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Greenway Rd at SR 303 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Greenway Rd at SR 303 4 Transportation City of Surprise 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that the intersection improvements provide traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 7,496 Project Total $ 7,496 FY04-05 Projected $ 467,848 $ 467,848 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Total Project $ 505,344 $ 505,344 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenance Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 238 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Honda Bow Rd: 7th Ave – 11th Ave DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Honda Bow Rd: 7th Ave – 11th Ave 3 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for paving the roadway so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. At Skunk Creek, there is a dip crossing, which during heavy storms, prevents emergency vehicles and school buses to cross. Total length of the project is approximately 0.5 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 85,000 $ 85,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 85,000 $ 85,000 Total Project $ 85,000 $ 85,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study will not impact current maintenance operations. 239 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Indian School Rd: Litchfield Rd – Dysart Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Indian School Rd: Litchfield Rd – Dysart Rd 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2007 Project Description The purpose of this project is to widen Indian School Road from the current two lanes to four lanes plus a center dual left turn lane. Initially a Design Concept Report (DCR) will be prepared to establish design parameters, right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. The City of Litchfield Park borders the roadway on the north and the City of Avondale borders the roadway on the south. Both are potential construction funding partners. Total length of the project is approximately 1.4 miles. Construction is planned for FY 2007 using either design-build or construction manager at risk procurement strategy. Construction is contingent on study results, partnership formation, and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, it eliminates a congested portion of Indian School and the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 129,000 $ 129,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,085,000 $ 1,085,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 3,780,000 $ 3,780,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 4,865,000 $ 4,865,000 Total Project $ 4,994,000 $ 4,994,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year FY 05-06 4,235 $ 400 4,635 $ - Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - Avondale and Litchfield Park will assume maintenance responsibilities upon construction. 240 $ $ - Total Project $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Low Volume Roads Program User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Various locations to be determined All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description The purpose of this program is to pave dirt roads that do not qualify for federal funding inside and outside of the PM10 Non-Attainment area for dust mitigation and make drainage improvements for the traveling public so that safety will be improved and dust problems will be reduced. Presently, a consultant is identifying and prioritizing all dirt roads in the county that meets the criteria for paving. Once completed, specific roads will be identified. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once repairs are completed to reduce dust particulate (PM10) pollution and improve safety, the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 13,000 $ 13,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 3,020,000 $ 3,020,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 3,020,000 $ 3,020,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 3,020,000 $ 3,020,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 11,110,000 $ 11,110,000 Total Project $ 11,123,000 $ 11,123,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 241 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Lower Buckeye Rd at 67th Ave User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Lower Buckeye Rd at 67th Ave 5 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that this intersection improvement project provides traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 2,155 Project Total $ 2,155 FY04-05 Projected $ 53,103 $ 53,103 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 217,000 $ 217,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 217,000 $ 217,000 Total Project $ 272,258 $ 272,258 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenance Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 242 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program MC 85 at Miller Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85 at Miller Rd 4 Transportation Town of Buckeye 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Town of Buckeye has requested to become the lead agency. The county’s involvement will be a payment of up to $150,000 or 50% of the construction costs, whichever is less. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that these intersection improvement projects provide traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 22,688 Project Total $ 22,688 FY04-05 Projected $ 18,049 $ 18,049 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - Operating Cost Summary Buckeye will maintain the signal. 243 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Total Project $ 190,737 $ 190,737 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program MC 85 Extension: SR 85 – Turner Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85 Extension: SR 85 – Turner Rd 4 Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation 2006 Project Description The intent of this project is to construct a new two-lane paved road to provide for local traffic to traverse between MC 85 and Old US 80. Presently, the traveling public and area residents use SR 85 to interconnect between these two roadways. The Arizona State Department of Transportation (ADOT) has plans to improve SR 85 to a higher speed, multi-lane, controlled access facility, and desires to have this slower moving local traffic rerouted. ADOT will reimburse the costs to the County to build the MC 85 Extension. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that by building the extension, it eliminates a potential hazardous intersection and improves safety on both MC 85 and SR 85. Total length of the project is approximately 1.0 mile. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 369,000 Project Total $ 369,000 FY04-05 Projected $ 426,500 $ 426,500 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ 1,702,914 1,702,914 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ 5-Year Total - $ $ 1,702,914 1,702,914 Total Project $ 426,500 2,071,914 $ 2,498,414 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Maintenance on this new road will begin approximately one year after completion. 244 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program MC 85: 91st Ave – 75th Ave User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85: 91st Ave – 75th Ave 5 Transportation Not Applicable 2009 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, motorists will have a roadway that is safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 287,517 Project Total $ 287,517 FY04-05 Projected $ 6,067 $ 6,067 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 3,450,000 $ 3,450,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 2,640,000 $ 2,640,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 8,130,000 $ 8,130,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 15,170,000 $ 15,170,000 Total Project $ 15,463,583 $ 15,463,583 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 245 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ - Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program MC 85: 107th Ave – 91st Ave User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85: 107th Ave – 91st Ave 5 Transportation Not Applicable 2009 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, motorists will have a roadway that is safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 299,161 Project Total $ 299,161 FY04-05 Projected $ 557,227 $ 557,227 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 440,000 $ 440,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 2,910,000 $ 2,910,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 3,110,000 $ 3,110,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 7,451,000 $ 7,451,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 13,911,000 $ 13,911,000 Total Project $ 14,767,387 $ 14,767,387 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 246 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ - Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program MC 85: Cotton Ln – Estrella Pkwy User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85: Cotton Ln – Estrella Pkwy 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2008 Project Description 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 lanes. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, motorists will have a roadway that is safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 978,215 Project Total $ 978,215 FY04-05 Projected $ 273,275 $ 273,275 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 705,000 $ 705,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 3,360,000 $ 3,360,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 4,068,000 $ 4,068,000 Total Project $ 5,319,490 $ 5,319,490 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 247 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program MC 85: Jackrabbit Tr – Perryville Rd DCR User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85: Jackrabbit Tr – Perryville Rd 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2008 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the project is approximately 1 mile. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their views on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 231,000 $ 231,000 Total Project $ 231,000 $ 231,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 248 Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program MC 85: Perryville Rd – Cotton Ln User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85: Perryville Rd – Cotton Ln 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2007 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the project is approximately 2 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their views on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 1,015 $ 1,015 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 440,000 $ 440,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 441,000 $ 441,000 Total Project $ 442,015 $ 442,015 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 249 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program MC 85: SR 85 – 75th Ave Corridor Study Update User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation MC 85: SR 85 – 75th Ave 4&5 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this corridor study is to examine current and proposed development along the corridor to identify what type and when roadway improvements will be required for widening the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and used for future planning and programming. Total length of the study area is approximately 23 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that not only identifies future roadway improvement phasing requirements so that when the roadway is eventually widened the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer, less congested and more economical to travel, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their views on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 321,000 $ 321,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Total Project $ 431,000 $ 431,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 250 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program McDowell Mountain Park North Entrance User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation McDowell Mountain Park 2 Transportation Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department 2006 Project Description This project will construct a paved road from Rio Verde Drive to the north entrance of the McDowell Mountain Park approximately along the 176th Street alignment, construct a north entrance for the park, and connect to existing park roads. This first phase is to complete a design concept report to identify the design parameters, right-of-way required and estimate the cost to pave the road. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it provides a new paved park entrance for the traveling public. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 170,000 $ 170,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 170,000 $ 170,000 Total Project $ 170,000 $ 170,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study has no impact on maintenance operations. 251 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program McDowell Mountain Rd: Shoulders Widening User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation McDowell Mountain Rd North of Fountain Hills 2 Transportation Not Applicable 2007 Project Description 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 on this popular bicycle route. Federal Funds will be used to help pay for construction. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, motorists and cyclists will have a roadway that is safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 123,702 Federal Funds Project Total $ 123,702 FY04-05 Projected $ 34,000 $ 34,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 787,000 533,000 $ 1,320,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 797,000 533,000 $ 1,330,000 Total Project $ 954,702 533,000 $ 1,487,702 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 252 Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program McDowell Rd: Alma School Rd – SR 87 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation McDowell Rd: Alma School to SR 87 2 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to design plans for the widening of this existing roadway to be consistent with the section to the west and to establish design parameters for paving the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the project is approximately 0.75 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on forming a partnership with the Salt River Indian Community and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 1,016 $ 1,016 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Total Project $ 101,016 $ 101,016 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 253 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Missouri Ave at Dysart Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Missouri Ave at Dysart Rd 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that these intersection improvement projects provide traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 12,018 Project Total $ 12,018 FY04-05 Projected $ 24,500 $ 24,500 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 265,000 $ 265,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 265,000 $ 265,000 Total Project $ 301,518 $ 301,518 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenace Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 254 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Monterey Ave at Power Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Monterey Ave at Power Rd 2 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The City of Gilbert is responsible for one-fourth of the intersection and negotiations are underway to have them participate financially in this project. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that these intersection improvement projects provide traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 2,099 Project Total $ 2,099 FY04-05 Projected $ 34,658 $ 34,658 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Total Project $ 236,757 $ 236,757 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenance Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 255 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Northern Ave at 107th Ave User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Northern Ave at 107th Ave 4 Transportation City of Glendale and City of Peoria 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that these intersection improvement projects provide traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 6,956 Project Total $ 6,956 FY04-05 Projected $ 38,878 $ 38,878 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 253,750 $ 253,750 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 253,750 $ 253,750 Total Project $ 299,584 $ 299,584 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenance Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 256 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Northern Ave: SR 303 – Grand Ave User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Northern Ave: SR 303 – Grand Ave 4 Transportation City of Glendale, City of Peoria and Maricopa Association of Governments TBD Project Description Northern Avenue is included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a major arterial improvement. This project begins the preliminary engineering work to identify the preferred alignment, identify the right-of-way needed, and to begin environmental clearances. Once the environmental assessment is completed, right-ofway acquisition will begin to preserve the corridor. The County is expected to take the lead on the project with financial participation from the cities of Glendale and Peoria and MAG (RTP funding). The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, begins the right-of-way acquisition process for the corridor, and, allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 510,000 $ 510,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 3,040,000 500,000 $ 3,540,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 2,030,000 $ 2,030,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,030,000 $ 2,030,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 2,030,000 $ 9,640,000 500,000 $ 2,030,000 $ 10,140,000 Total Project $ 9,640,000 500,000 $ 10,140,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study will not impact current maintenance operations. 257 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Ocotillo Dr: EOM – Palo Verde User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation South of Wickenburg 4 Transportation Town of Wickenburg 2008 Project Description The purpose of this project is to pave Ocotilla to reduce dust, improve safety, and improve traffic flow. The Town of Wickenburg has agreed to enter in an agreement to annex the roadway. The County’s obligation will be to participate financially in the project by paying up to $500,000 towards construction once an agreement is completed. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that these intersection improvement projects provide traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 197,641 Project Total $ 197,641 FY04-05 Projected $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ Year 2 FY 06-07 - $ $ - Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Total Project $ 697,641 $ 697,641 Operating Cost Summary The Town of Wickenburg is expected to annex the roadway and assume maintenance responsibilities. 258 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Old Stage Rd: New River Rd – Coyote Pass User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Old Stage Rd from New River Rd north to Coyote Pass then south on Coyote Pass to New River Rd 3 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to prepare a Design Concept Report (DCR) to establish design parameters for paving the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way, drainage, utility relocation and environmental requirements can be identified and an accurate cost estimate can be made for increasing the capacity and safety of the roadway. Total length of the project is approximately 4.5 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 101,000 $ 101,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Total Project $ 131,000 $ 131,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 4,235 400 400 400 8,470 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The study has no impact on maintenance operations. 259 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 6,235 $ 31,645 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Old US 80 Bridge at Gila River User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation On Old US 80 B at the Gila River just south of the Gillespie Dam 5 Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2009 Project Description This historic bridge was constructed in 1929 and is in need of major repairs, which will require closing the bridge and constructing a temporary by-pass road. Federal funds will be requested to pay for a portion of the repairs. Initially, an assessment will be made to identify the extent of the repairs needed and their cost prior to requesting federal funding. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once repairs are completed the service life of the bridge will be extended for several years. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Federal Funds Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 505,000 $ 505,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 280,000 $ 280,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 6,650,000 $ 6,650,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ (1,000,000) $ 6,610,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ - $ 7,610,000 Total Project $ 6,610,000 1,000,000 $ 7,610,000 Negative numbers indicate repayment of funds spent in prior years. Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 260 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Olive Ave at Beardsley Canal User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Olive Ave at Beardsley Canal 4 Maricopa County Flood Control District Maricopa County Flood Control District 2008 Project Description The Flood Control District is constructing three culverts to accommodate storm water runoff on Olive Avenue and Reems Road. MCDOT will contribute $385,000 to widen the culverts to accommodate future road widening. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that by widening the box culverts now, it will not only accommodate storm water runoff, but also save money and accommodate future road widening. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 193,000 $ 193,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 92,000 $ 92,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 385,000 $ 385,000 Total Project $ 385,000 $ 385,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 The improved culverts will not have a significant impact on maintenance costs. 261 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program PM10 Program User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation County wide All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description The purpose of this program is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM10 Non-Attainment 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. The benefit to the public is that it reduces fugitive dust particulates improving public health and making the roads safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Federal Funds 2,074,952 Project Total $ 2,074,952 FY04-05 Projected $ 788,370 $ 788,370 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ (900,000) $ (900,000) $ 3,150,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 3,150,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 262 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 3,150,000 $ 3,150,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 4,500,000 2,000,000 $ 6,500,000 Total Project $ 5,288,370 4,074,952 $ 9,363,322 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program PM10: 12th St: Circle Mountain Rd – Tonto National Forest User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation 12th St, Circle Mountain Rd – Tonto National Forest 3 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to reduce dust on dirt roads within the PM10 area for travelers on the road and citizens living within the PM10 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it reduces fugitive dust particulates improving public health and making the roads safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 25,464 Project Total $ 25,464 FY04-05 Projected $ 215,557 $ 215,557 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 395,000 $ 395,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 395,000 $ 395,000 Total Project $ 636,021 $ 636,021 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 263 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program PM10: Box Bar Rd & Needle Rock Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Northeast County 2 Transportation U. S. Forest Service 2006 Project Description 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. The U. S. Forest Service is completing the environmental assessment for this project. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it reduces fugitive dust particulates improving public health and making the roads safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 284,088 Project Total $ 284,088 FY04-05 Projected $ 9,725 $ 9,725 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 1,105,000 $ 1,105,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000 Total Project $ 1,408,813 $ 1,408,813 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 264 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program PM10 Roads: (Ph4) In North Valley User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation North County north of Carefree Highway 3 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that it reduces fugitive dust particulates improving public health and making the roads safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 20,141 Project Total $ 20,141 FY04-05 Projected $ 774,712 $ 774,712 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,050,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,050,000 $ 1,050,000 Total Project $ 1,844,853 $ 1,844,853 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 265 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program PM10 Roads: (Ph3) Northeast Area User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation PM 10 Roads (Ph 3) in NE Area 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2005 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that it reduces fugitive dust particulates improving public health and making the roads safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 341,926 Project Total $ 341,926 FY04-05 Projected $ 269,641 $ 269,641 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 205,000 $ 205,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 205,000 $ 205,000 Total Project $ 816,567 $ 816,567 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 266 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program PM10 Roads: (Ph4) In Southeast Valley User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Southeast County 1 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that it reduces fugitive dust particulates improving public health and making the roads safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 10,494 Project Total $ 10,494 FY04-05 Projected $ 742,536 $ 742,536 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Total Project $ 1,553,030 $ 1,553,030 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 267 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program PM10 Roads: (Ph4) In Southwest Valley User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation South Central County 5 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that it reduces fugitive dust particulates improving public health and making the roads safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 10,497 Project Total $ 10,497 FY04-05 Projected $ 461,067 $ 461,067 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 770,000 $ 770,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 770,000 $ 770,000 Total Project $ 1,241,564 $ 1,241,564 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 268 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Power Rd: Elliot Rd – Guadalupe Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Power Rd: Elliot Rd – Guadalupe Rd 1&2 Transportation City of Mesa 2007 Project Description This is a project to improve Power Road to the City of Mesa standards. The City of Mesa is the lead agency. Maricopa County will participate under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) and pay $450,000 towards construction of the road. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will result in the widening of the road to six through-lanes with a continuous center-turn lane that will be safer and more economical to drive. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 438 Project Total $ 438 FY04-05 Projected $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Total Project $ 450,438 $ 450,438 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 269 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Power Rd: Guadalupe Rd – Baseline Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Power Rd: Guadalupe Rd – Baseline Rd 1&2 Transportation City of Gilbert and City of Mesa 2008 Project Description This project will result in the widening of Power Road from four to six lanes. Both the City of Gilbert and the City of Mesa will participate financially in the project This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will result in the widening of the road to six through-lanes that will be safer and more economical to drive. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 1,202,873 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ 1,202,873 FY04-05 Projected $ 137,135 $ 137,135 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 755,000 $ 755,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 2,621,000 3,154,000 $ 5,775,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 3,376,000 3,154,000 $ 6,530,000 Total Project $ 4,716,008 3,154,000 $ 7,870,008 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 270 Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Previous Year's Projects User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation N/A All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a funding mechanism for unanticipated costs on completed projects. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 1,287,142 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 586,388 Project Total $ 1,873,530 FY04-05 Projected $ 1,726,396 $ 1,726,396 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 271 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 Total Project $ 4,413,538 586,388 $ 4,999,926 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Project Reserves Account User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation N/A All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description 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 reserve. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a funding mechanism for unanticipated project costs and helps to keep projects on schedule for completion by eliminating funding delays. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 1,176,389 $ 1,176,389 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 5,950,000 $ 5,950,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 3,450,000 $ 3,450,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 272 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 12,950,000 $ 12,950,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 40,450,000 $ 40,450,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 50,450,000 $113,250,000 $ 50,450,000 $113,250,000 Total Project $114,426,389 $114,426,389 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Property Management on Prior Years Projects User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation N/A All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description The purpose of this reserve fund is to pay for land acquisition related expenses that occurred in previous fiscal years so that prior fiscal year contractual debts are paid. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. The benefit to the public is that it provides for better fiscal management. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 45,781 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 8,370 Project Total $ 54,151 FY04-05 Projected $ 143,813 $ 143,813 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 273 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 5-Year Total $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Total Project $ 439,594 8,370 $ 447,964 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Queen Creek Rd: Arizona Ave – McQueen Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Queen Creek Rd: Arizona Ave – McQueen Rd 1 Transportation Not Applicable 2008 Project Description 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. The benefit to the public is that it will result in the widening of the road to six through-lanes that will be safer and more economical to drive. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 739,747 Project Total $ 739,747 FY04-05 Projected $ 1,162,189 $ 1,162,189 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,010,000 $ 1,010,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 310,000 $ 310,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 3,470,000 $ 3,470,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 4,790,000 $ 4,790,000 Total Project $ 6,691,936 $ 6,691,936 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 274 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Ray Rd: Lindsay – Greenfield User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Ray Rd: Lindsay – Greenfield 1&2 Transportation Town of Gilbert 2006 Project Description 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. The County will pay $550,000 toward construction of the road. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will result in the widening of the road and it will be safer and more economical to drive. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 1,138 Project Total $ 1,138 FY04-05 Projected $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 552,000 $ 552,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 552,000 $ 552,000 Total Project $ 554,138 $ 554,138 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 275 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Riggs Rd at SR 347 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Intersection of Riggs Rd & Maricopa Rd 5 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to install traffic signals at the intersection to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve traffic flow. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that these intersection improvement projects provide traffic signals and roadway widening for the traveling public so that they will have an intersection that is safer and experience less travel delay. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 38,346 Project Total $ 38,346 FY04-05 Projected $ 21,000 $ 21,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 287,500 $ 287,500 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 287,500 $ 287,500 Total Project $ 346,847 $ 346,847 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenace Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 276 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Riggs Rd: Gilbert Rd – Val Vista User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Riggs Rd: Gilbert Rd – Val Vista 1 Transportation City of Chandler 2009 Project Description The purpose of this project is to widen the roadway from 2 & 4 lanes to 6 lanes. Total length of the project is approximately two miles. The City of Chandler will be the lead agency and the County will contribute approximately $400,000 towards the cost of construction, which is expected to begin in FY 2009. The exact amount will be determined by an Intergovernmental Agreement to be developed. As part of the agreement, the City of Chandler will annex the road. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it will better accommodate the future traffic demand for the roadway providing the traveling public with a roadway that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ Year 2 FY 06-07 - $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - Operating Cost Summary The City of Chandler will maintain the road. 277 $ $ - Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Total Project $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Rio Verde Dr: Forest Rd – 136th St User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Rio Verde Dr: Forest Rd – 136th St 2 Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2009 Project Description Rio Verde Drive is part of a popular bicycling route. The project will widen the existing road to provide adequate shoulders for use as a bicycle path. Federal funds for this type of project are available and funds have been requested. Construction is contingent upon receipt of federal funds The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once constructed, both motorists and bicyclists will have a roadway that is safer to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 1,180,000 $ 1,180,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,440,000 $ 1,440,000 Total Project $ 1,440,000 $ 1,440,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 278 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 25,410 2,400 $ 27,810 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Right Of Way In-Fill/Road Inventory System User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Various All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description The purpose of this project is to obtain fee title on existing roads so that the traveling public has continued access to the existing roadway system. In the early years, the county roads were built to allow farmers to get their products to market. Citizens were happy to get the road and often title to the land used for the road was not transferred to the county. This fund is used to obtain fee title when these situations are identified. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a funding mechanism for acquisition of public right-ofway for existing county roads. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 14,796,603 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 4,712 Project Total $ 14,801,315 FY04-05 Projected $ 996,824 $ 996,824 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 279 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 5,500,000 $ 21,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 21,500,000 Total Project $ 37,293,427 4,712 $ 37,298,139 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Signal Modernization User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Various All Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description 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. The upgraded hardware allows signal timing changes to be made from a Traffic Control Center rather than on-site manual adjustment. This allows real time traffic management. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it allows real time traffic management, making it safer and more economical to drive. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 902,457 Project Total $ 902,457 FY04-05 Projected $ 62,414 $ 62,414 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 370,000 $ 370,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 280 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 370,000 $ 370,000 Total Project $ 1,334,871 $ 1,334,871 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Small Cities Transportation Assistance Program (SCTAP) User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Various All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description The purpose of this project is to provide transportation project funding to smaller cities and towns of the county, 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. The benefit to the public is that it makes it possible for smaller cities to complete transportation projects that they would otherwise not be able to afford, making their roads smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 1,202,250 Project Total $ 1,202,250 FY04-05 Projected $ 304,921 $ 304,921 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 281 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 Total Project $ 3,007,171 $ 3,007,171 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Special Projects User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation To Be Determined All Transportation Not Applicable 2009 Project Description The purpose of this project is to reserve monies for special needs projects recommended by Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) members so that MCDOT can take advantage of rapidly developing cost-sharing opportunities that may not be available in the future. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a rapid funding mechanism for unanticipated projects that will benefit the residents of Maricopa County Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 1,299 Project Total $ 1,299 FY04-05 Projected $ 11,126 $ 11,126 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 282 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 1,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Total Project $ 5,012,425 $ 5,012,425 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Sun City Mill & Overlay: Phase 1 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Sun City 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this project is to mill (remove the existing asphalt surface) and overlay (replace with new asphalt) to rehabilitate the existing deteriorated pavement. The developer constructed many of the roads in Sun City, 35 – 40 years ago. Maintenance efforts have increased in frequency over the last decade, and rehabilitation has become necessary. This is the first of four phases to complete the resurfacing. Total length of the project is approximately 28 miles. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once resurfaced, the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 3,510,000 $ 3,510,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 2,020,000 $ 2,020,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Operating Cost Summary Maintenance on this project will be minimal for the next five years. 283 Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,020,000 $ 2,020,000 Total Project $ 5,530,000 $ 5,530,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Sun City Mill & Overlay: Phase 2 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Sun City 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2007 Project Description The purpose of this project is to mill (remove the existing asphalt surface) and overlay (replace with new asphalt) to rehabilitate the existing deteriorated pavement. The developer constructed many of the roads in Sun City, 35 – 40 years ago. Maintenance efforts have increased in frequency over the last decade, and rehabilitation has become necessary. This is the second of four phases to complete the resurfacing. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once resurfaced, the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 3,520,000 $ 3,520,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 3,520,000 $ 3,520,000 Total Project $ 3,520,000 $ 3,520,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Maintenance will be minimal after completion for the remainder of the five year plan. 284 Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - Total Project $ 8,470 800 $ 9,270 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Sun City Mill & Overlay: Phase 3 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Sun City 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2008 Project Description The purpose of this project is to mill (remove the existing asphalt surface) and overlay (replace with new asphalt) to rehabilitate the existing deteriorated pavement. The developer constructed many of the roads in Sun City, 35 – 40 years ago. Maintenance efforts have increased in frequency over the last decade, and rehabilitation has become necessary. This is the third of four phases to complete the resurfacing. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once resurfaced, the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ Year 2 FY 06-07 - $ $ - Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 2,220,000 $ 2,220,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 2,220,000 $ 2,220,000 Total Project $ 2,220,000 $ 2,220,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Maintenance will be minimal after completion for the remainder of the five year plan. 285 Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - Total Project $ 12,705 1,200 $ 13,905 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Sun City Mill & Overlay: Phase 4 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Sun City 4 Transportation Not Applicable 2009 Project Description The purpose of this project is to mill (remove the existing asphalt surface) and overlay (replace with new asphalt) to rehabilitate the existing deteriorated pavement. The developer constructed many of the roads in Sun City, 35 – 40 years ago. Maintenance efforts have increased in frequency over the last decade, and rehabilitation has become necessary. This is the fourth of four phases to complete the resurfacing. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that once resurfaced, the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer and more economical to travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ Year 2 FY 06-07 - $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ - Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 1,920,000 $ 1,920,000 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 1,920,000 $ 1,920,000 Total Project $ 1,920,000 $ 1,920,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 286 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - Total Project $ 12,705 1,200 $ 13,905 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Sun Valley Pkwy Corridor Study User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Sun Valley Parkway: I-10 – SR 303 4&5 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description The purpose of this corridor study is to examine current and proposed development along the corridor to identify what type and when roadway improvements will be required for widening the roadway for the traveling public so that right-of-way and roadway needs can be identified and used for future planning and programming. Total length of the study area is approximately 40 miles. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on both the study results and funding availability. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this study. The benefit to the public is that it not only identifies future roadway improvement phasing requirements so that when the roadway is eventually widened, the traveling public will have a roadway that is smoother, safer, less congested and more economical to travel, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their view on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ 283,000 $ 283,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 160,000 $ 160,000 Total Project $ 443,000 $ 443,000 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 287 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Table Mesa Rd: I-17 – Tonto National Forest Row User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Table Mesa Rd: I-17 – Tonto National Forest 3 Transportation State of Arizona (Department of Game and Fish) and US Forest Service TBD Project Description The purpose of this project is to identify and purchase the necessary right-of-way to preserve access to the national forest against future encroachment. Table Mesa Road is an unpaved road providing access to the Tonto National Forest from I-17. The County currently maintains a portion of the road. MCDOT was approached by Tonto National Forest and Arizona Department of Game and Fish to apply for a Heritage Fund Grant to preserve the right-of-way. If approved, the grant and other funding will be used to secure the necessary right-of-way. Initially, a survey will be performed to identify the location of the existing road and then a preliminary engineering effort will determine route suitability prior to identification of the right-of-way to be purchased. Total project length is approximately 5 miles. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The benefit to the public is that it preserves access to the national forest for the traveling public. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 160,000 150,000 $ 310,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ Operating Cost Summary The road will be designated a primitive road and will not receive regular maintenance. 288 - 5-Year Total $ 161,000 150,000 $ 311,000 Total Project $ 161,000 150,000 $ 311,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Transportation Improvement Program Development User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation N/A All Transportation Not Applicable 2009 Project Description The purpose of this project is to provide for overall management of the five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) including budget monitoring and schedule support. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a funding mechanism to identify project management costs. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 725,983 Project Total $ 725,983 FY04-05 Projected $ 120,454 $ 120,454 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 362,886 $ 362,886 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 289 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 365,000 $ 1,822,886 $ 365,000 $ 1,822,886 Total Project $ 2,669,323 $ 2,669,323 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Unallocated Force Account User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation N/A All Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description The purpose of this project 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 project. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a funding mechanism for MCDOT labor charges consistent with historic averages. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 55,156 Project Total $ 55,156 FY04-05 Projected $ 290,982 $ 290,982 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 1,401,595 $ 1,401,595 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 2,539,000 $ 2,539,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 290 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 2,751,000 $ 2,751,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,842,000 $ 2,842,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 3,173,000 $ 12,706,595 $ 3,173,000 $ 12,706,595 Total Project $ 13,052,733 $ 13,052,733 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Val Vista Dr: Thomas Rd – Southern Canal User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Val Vista Dr: Thomas Rd – Southern Canal 2 Transportation City of Mesa 2007 Project Description This is a project to improve Val Vista Road to the City of Mesa standards. The City of Mesa is the lead agency. Maricopa County will participate under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) and pay $400,000 towards construction. 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 four through-lanes with a continuous center-turn lane. This Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will result in the widening of the road and it will be safer and more economical to drive. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 149,372 Project Total $ 149,372 FY04-05 Projected $ $ Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 401,000 $ 401,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 401,000 $ 401,000 Total Project $ 550,372 $ 550,372 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year 1 Year 2 Year FY 05-06 FY 06-07 4,235 $ 4,235 $ 400 400 4,635 $ 4,635 $ - 291 Year 3 Year 4 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 21,175 2,000 $ 23,175 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Vineyard Ave and 143rd Ave: Phoenix International Raceway User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Vineyard/143rd Ave: Estrella Pky to Indian Springs Rd 5 Transportation State of Arizona and Phoenix International Raceway 2007 Project Description This project will widen Vineyard Road beginning at Estrella Parkway eastward to 143rd Ave and 143rd Ave south and eastward to the 115th Ave Bridge. The state legislature approved the use of up to $5 million in state sales tax to fund construction of the project in 12 payments beginning in FY 2008. The County will provide up to $100,000 for design and site evaluation. If construction is authorized, the plan is to complete construction prior to the fall NASCAR race. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this project. The public benefits by improved access to Phoenix International Raceway by reducing race day congestion and air pollution. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ - FY04-05 Projected $ $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 83,333 416,667 $ 500,000 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total $ (416,667) $ (416,667) $ (416,667) $ 3,333,332 416,667 416,667 416,667 1,666,668 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 Negative numbers indicate repayment of funds expended in an earlier year. Operating Cost Summary The City of Goodyear will maintain the road upon completion. 292 Total Project $ 3,333,332 1,666,668 $ 5,000,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Warranted Traffic Improvements User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Various 2 Transportation Not Applicable Ongoing Project Description Growth in the valley creates changes in traffic patterns that often require the addition of traffic signals at intersections or the addition of turning lanes at locations that previously were quiet county roads. The purpose of this project is to reserve money for safety projects that are immediately needed. As a safety project is identified, funds are allocated to that project by Board action. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this fund. The benefit to the public is that it provides better fiscal management by providing a funding mechanism for unanticipated traffic improvements resulting in safer and more economical travel. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 1,982 Project Total $ 1,982 FY04-05 Projected $ 86 $ 86 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 293 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Year 5 5-Year FY 09-10 Total $ 3,000,000 $ 12,500,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 12,500,000 Total Project $ 12,502,068 $ 12,502,068 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Williams Field Rd at Higley Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Williams Field Rd at Higley Rd 1 Transportation Not Applicable 2006 Project Description 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. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended construction of this project. The benefit to the public is that it will result in the widening of the road and it will be safer and more economical to drive. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 747,940 Project Total $ 747,940 FY04-05 Projected $ 130,889 $ 130,889 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 320,000 $ 320,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ $ Year 3 FY 07-08 - $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 320,000 $ 320,000 Total Project $ 1,198,829 $ 1,198,829 Operating Cost Summary Average Maintenace Cost Current per Signalized Intersection Year Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ - Year 1 FY 05-06 $ $ - Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 3,200 3,200 $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 2,600 3,200 $ 5,800 Total Project $ 10,400 12,800 $ 23,200 Signalized intersections require periodic maintenance to replace light bulbs, clean or replace lenses, repaint striping, adjust timing etc. Routine maintenance begins in the year following construction with materials being the largest portion. 294 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Williams Field Rd: Gilbert Rd – Lindsay Rd User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Transportation Williams Field Rd: Gilbert Rd – Lindsay Rd 1 Transportation Not Applicable 2007 Project Description 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. Construction is not scheduled at this time and is contingent on funding availability and partnership formation. The Town of Gilbert is a potential funding partner. The Maricopa County Transportation Advisory Board recommended this design effort. The benefit to the public is that not only does it identify the cost and design parameters for construction, it allows area residents and other concerned individuals an opportunity to express their views on the proposed project and be involved in the decision making process. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. Funding Source Actual Highway User Revenue Funds $ 141,497 Project Total $ 141,497 FY04-05 Projected $ 24,000 $ 24,000 Year 1 FY 05-06 $ 482,000 $ 482,000 Year 2 FY 06-07 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Year 3 FY 07-08 $ $ Year 4 FY 08-09 - $ $ Year 5 FY 09-10 - $ $ - 5-Year Total $ 502,000 $ 502,000 Total Project $ 667,497 $ 667,497 Operating Cost Summary Average Cost per Mile to Maintain Project Personal Sevices $ Supplies & Services Total $ Current Year Year 1 FY 05-06 - $ $ - 295 Year 2 Year 3 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 $ 4,235 $ 4,235 400 400 $ 4,635 $ 4,635 Year 4 FY 08-09 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Year 5 FY 09-10 $ 4,235 400 $ 4,635 Total Project $ 16,940 1,600 $ 18,540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Flood Control District of Maricopa County Summary The Flood Control District employs a separate planning procedure than that utilized by the County at large. The procedure includes 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 follows: • • • • • • • • • • • 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 studies, or 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 submitted 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 additional future structural maintenance responsibility to only those projects that are multi-jurisdictional and regional in nature and involve main watercourses. 296 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Project Detail A total of 23 capital projects are identified and recommended to the Board by the Flood Control District. The recommended projects are as follows: 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS PROJECT RESERVES (FLOOD) CITY OF CHANDLER TOWN OF GUADALUPE S PHOENIX DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PARADISE VLY, SCOTTSDALE,PHX EAST MARICOPA FLOODWAY SALT/GILA RIVER WHITE TANKS DAM #4 MCMICKEN DAM BUCKEYE #1 WICKENBURG ADMS SKUNK CREEK/NEW RIVER SPOOK HILL ADMP EAST MESA ADMP GLENDALE/PEORIA ADMP WHITE TANKS ADMP QUEEN CREEK ADMP HIGLEY ADMP ADOBE DAM ADMP DURANGO ADMP ACDC ADMP SCATTER WASH CHANNEL MARYVALE ADMP METRO ADMP NON-PROJECT PROJECTED 5-YEAR TOTAL PRIOR YEARS FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 (FY 2006-2010) TOTAL PROJECT $ - $ 611,291 $ 350,000 $ 2,199,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 3,290,000 $ 4,750,000 $ 12,789,000 $ 13,400,291 4,301,141 760,528 5,061,669 8,650,363 385,000 385,000 9,035,363 27,395,548 7,132,600 1,037,000 1,210,000 440,000 3,620,000 3,660,000 9,967,000 44,495,148 3,030,581 1,917,800 1,817,000 1,817,000 6,765,381 34,739,880 6,474,386 4,709,000 6,515,000 9,120,000 9,160,000 5,250,000 34,754,000 75,968,266 840,267 1,104,000 50,000 1,040,000 40,000 40,000 1,170,000 3,114,266 2,246,579 20,000 1,510,000 3,970,000 4,110,000 9,610,000 11,856,579 7,422,677 1,622,063 2,665,000 2,665,000 11,709,740 12,406 20,000 810,000 1,820,000 8,180,000 8,260,000 19,090,000 19,102,406 3,941,461 565,000 650,000 340,000 1,040,000 4,200,000 6,230,000 10,736,461 57,267,110 2,221,849 9,853,000 10,000 9,863,000 69,351,959 4,990,017 357,601 1,162,000 2,620,000 4,910,000 4,750,000 4,200,000 17,642,000 22,989,617 25,734,795 3,504,199 2,861,000 5,400,000 6,220,000 14,481,000 43,719,995 46,009,608 1,663,713 4,028,000 5,180,000 2,465,000 4,080,000 5,250,000 21,003,000 68,676,321 53,665,158 6,332,001 12,227,000 11,466,000 10,730,000 8,080,000 9,210,000 51,713,000 111,710,159 7,996,336 3,507,799 580,000 5,700,000 3,890,000 1,060,000 1,600,000 12,830,000 24,334,136 5,034,232 510,000 10,000 10,000 5,554,231 3,764,771 1,079,105 20,000 330,000 2,780,000 1,050,000 5,200,000 9,380,000 14,223,876 3,424,049 3,264,619 4,315,000 4,690,000 2,080,000 4,160,000 6,300,000 21,545,000 28,233,669 27,946,665 109,000 335,000 1,570,000 1,060,000 2,965,000 31,020,665 1,498,149 10,000 630,000 400,000 1,030,000 2,538,149 40,062,206 6,855,551 10,433,000 7,550,000 5,510,000 3,460,000 26,953,000 73,870,757 142,914 1,150,000 1,118,000 1,260,000 1,140,000 540,000 1,060,000 5,118,000 6,410,914 23,322 3,252,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,220,000 5,260,000 24,132,000 24,155,322 TOTAL FUND 990 $ 370,116,913 $ 50,776,428 $ 62,142,000 $ 65,000,000 $ 65,000,000 $ 65,000,000 $ 60,000,000 $ 317,142,000 $ Page 294 291 285 273 288 298 282 270 299 290 293 275 277 295 286 279 267 272 268 289 280 283 738,035,340 Managing for Results Purpose Statement The purpose of the project in terms 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. Strategic Goals Beginning in FY 2004-05 and for each year for the next five years, the Flood Control District will continue to provide maximum flood hazard mitigation to the people who live and work in Maricopa County by completing 10% of the structural projects listed in the 5-year CIP plan (40). To the extent allowed by its enabling statutes, the District will include provisions for multiple use opportunities incorporating the principles of landscape architecture and land use planning in their siting, planning, and design. Strategic Plan Program Supported • Flood Hazard Remediation Strategic Activities Supported • Flood Control Structures 297 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Performance Measures Measure RESULT: Percent of structural projects on the current 5-year capital project plan that are completed in the current fiscal year OUTPUT: Number of structural projects on the current 5-year capital project plan that are completed DEMAND: Total number of structural projects on the current 5-year capital project plan EFFICIENCY: Cost per structural project completed FY 2004-05 YTD Actual 298 FY 2005-06 Estimated with Capital Improvement FY 2004-05 Estimated 0% 10% 18% 0 4 7 40 40 40 $355,436 $864,872 $3,215,250 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Adobe Dam Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County North Phoenix – Multiple Locations 3 To Be Determined City of Phoenix and possibly Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Arizona Department of Transportation, City of Phoenix, and Central Arizona Project 2011 Project Description Adobe Dam/Desert Hills ADMP The major objectives of the Adobe Dam/Desert Hill ADMP are to quantify selected drainage, flooding, and erosion hazards within the study area; identify solutions to alleviate potential flood and erosion damage within the watershed by mitigating the expected increase in runoff due to development and preserving the ability of the primary wash corridors to convey storm water; develop a plan that area floodplain managers, municipalities, and developers will use as a basis for drainage and watershed regulation, improvements, and design; and identify cost-effective, sustainable flood and erosion control solutions for the study area that may be implemented together or individually, based on scheduling, funding, and cost sharing. Skunk Creek Channel at 35th Avenue The project includes a bridge to be constructed by the City of Phoenix across Skunk Creek, associated channelization work, bank protection, and removing and relocating a drop structure. The proposed channel improvements will bridge the gap between the south edges of the existing Skunk Creek Channel and the drop structure upstream of the Pinnacle Peak Road Bridge. Currently, the 100-year design floodwater breaks over the levee and flows across the Pinnacle Peak Road into the Paseo Highlands Park on the south side. The channel improvement project will eliminate the split flow over the existing levee and also any potential flooding on the west bank of the Skunk Creek Channel. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 3,764,771 $ 1,079,105 $ 20,000 $ 330,000 $ 2,780,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 5,200,000 $ 3,764,771 $ 1,079,105 $ 20,000 $ 330,000 $ 2,780,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 5,200,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 299 5-Year Total Total Project 9,380,000 $ 14,223,876 9,380,000 $ 14,223,876 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Arizona Canal Diversion Channel Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Vicinity of 9th St to 10th St, North of Arizona Canal Diversion Channel 3 Flood Control District of Maricopa County City of Phoenix 2008 Project Description 10th Street Wash Improvements (Alice to ACDC) The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (District) conducted the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel (ACDC) Area Drainage Master Study in June of 1992. The study recommended this project to be completed along with upstream improvements such as 10th Street Wash Basin #1, Basin #2a and #2b. The portion of the 10th Street Wash to be improved is from Alice Avenue to ACDC. The project is located within the jurisdiction of City of Phoenix, Township 3N, Range 3E, Section 33 of GSRBM. The project is about 3,000 feet in length starting at just south of Alice Avenue along 10th Street to ACDC. Most of the project will be within the existing drainage rights-of-way. The project will include multiple pipes or box culvert with small open channel on top of the box and/or pipes. Several inlet structures (catch basins etc…) will be located along the east side of the channel to capture sheet flows. Several utilities may need to be relocated to facilitate the new pipe/box culverts. The 10th Street Improvements Project: • • • • • • Eliminates the existing floodplain containing 84 homes and commercial properties, Eliminates the existing hazard of a deep and unsafe open channel without any type of security fence and/or guard rail, Provides positive outfall for the storm drain coming from the east along El Caminito Blvd. Connects the east and west neighborhood currently divided by the drainage channel, Enhances the quality of life through diminishing the impacts of flooding; and Increases opportunities for multi-use corridor facilities The District anticipated starting the final design by January 2005 with the completion date of September 2005. The construction funding may not be available until the District’s fiscal year 2006/2007. The anticipated construction time frame is approximately six (6) months. The City will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the completed project. 9th Avenue Storm Drain The 9th Avenue Storm Drain Project is located in the Sunnyslope Area of the Cave Creek Watershed. This project has a high priority with the City of Phoenix and is a recommendation from the Sunnyslope Candidate Assessment Report. The 9th Avenue Storm Drain will collect and convey the 10-year flood event from Peoria Avenue downstream to the ACDC, providing a 10-year level of flood protection. The number of structures in the protected area is approximately 480, many of which have been flooded in the past. The watershed includes a significant amount of mountain runoff as well as the outflows from two upstream flood control dams. 300 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Arizona Canal Diversion Channel Area Drainage Master Plan (Continued) The storm drain project includes four laterals, which are the following: 1) North Lane Lateral, west of 9th Avenue, which will collect the flow that currently runs through private property in an undersized culvert. A downstream privately owned culvert can be abandoned; 2) Cheryl Drive Lateral from 9th to 7th Avenues will collect flow from the existing channel outfall at 7th Avenue and Cheryl. The Cheryl lateral would also collect flow from the intersection at 8th Avenue, allowing a downstream private culvert to be abandoned; 3) Cinnabar Avenue Lateral from 9th to 7th Avenues will collect a significant concentration of runoff at the southwest corner of Mountain View Park, which includes the discharge from the upstream flood control dam. This lateral will also collect the discharge from the middle school detention basin at 9th Avenue, allowing a privately owned 60inch culvert downstream to be abandoned; and 4) The Cochise Street Lateral will connect to the existing 11th Avenue storm drain. It will drain the low spot in Cochise Street and allow a privately owned culvert downstream to be abandoned. The area protected by this project is inclusive of all properties between 7th and 11th Avenues from Peoria Avenue to Mountain View Road and properties between 9th and 11th Avenues, from Mountain View Road to the ACDC. The City of Phoenix will be the lead agency for the project and will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the completed project. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ 27,946,665 $ 109,000 $ 87,000 $ 820,000 $ 560,000 $ - $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 248,000 750,000 500,000 Project Total $ 27,946,665 $ 109,000 $ 335,000 $ 1,570,000 $ 1,060,000 $ - $ - $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 301 5-Year Total Total Project 1,467,000 $ 29,522,665 1,498,000 1,498,000 2,965,000 $ 31,020,665 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Buckeye #1 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Western slopes of the White Tank Mountains, the north side of I-10 for 7.1 miles to the Hassayampa River 4 Flood Control District of Maricopa County Possibly Natural Resources Conservation Service 2010 Project Description Buckeye FRS #1 is the western most dam of the series of three flood control dams that were all designed and built by the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service – NRCS) between 1973 and 1975. The dam is located along the western slopes of the White Tank Mountains and parallels the north side of Interstate 10 for 7.1 miles west to the Hassayampa River. The dam is operated and maintained by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (District) and is regulated under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). Since the dam’s original construction, the dam has experienced considerable transverse cracking. ADWR has identified the transverse cracking in Buckeye FRS #1 as a dam safety deficiency that must be corrected. The District has completed Phase I Assessments of the dam and has requested federal cost share assistance under Public Law 106-472, The Small Watershed Amendment, with NRCS for a rehabilitation project to address the dam safety concerns and to maintain flood control benefits to downstream properties for the next 100 years. Alternatives may include a modified dam, floodways, or basins, which will provide a minimum of 100-year flood protection. Buckeye FRS #1 has been identified as a major component of the proposed Maricopa Regional Trail Phase 3 Master Plan. Project planning will include the coordination of any interested stakeholders for the incorporation of a recreational federal cost share component to the rehabilitation project. Initially, the reconstructed dam will not require the current level of maintenance; however, the long-term maintenance requirements will be similar to today’s efforts. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project 12,406 - $ 20,000 $ 810,000 $ 610,000 $ 1,740,000 $ 1,820,000 5,000,000 $ 5,012,406 1,210,000 6,440,000 6,440,000 14,090,000 14,090,000 12,406 $ - $ 20,000 $ 810,000 $ 1,820,000 $ 8,180,000 $ 8,260,000 $ 19,090,000 $ 19,102,406 302 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Buckeye #1 (Continued) Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services $ Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project Subtotal $ 46,000 $ 28,000 74,000 $ 47,000 $ 28,000 75,000 $ 48,000 $ 29,000 77,000 $ 36,000 $ 18,000 54,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 177,000 103,000 280,000 Total Current Costs $ 74,000 $ 75,000 $ 77,000 $ 54,000 $ - $ - $ 280,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 74,000 $ 75,000 $ 77,000 $ 54,000 $ - $ - $ 280,000 303 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Durango Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County I-10 south to the Salt River and Gila River, and from approximately 27th Ave west to the Agua Fria River, and along 75th Ave., Van Buren St to the Salt River 5 City of Phoenix and To Be Determined City of Phoenix 2011 Project Description Durango ADMP The study consists of an area drainage master plan to determine guidelines for storm water management and structural mitigation measures for flooding in the Durango Study area. The study includes analysis of approximately 68 square miles of watershed, which extends from I-10 south to the Salt/Gila Rivers and from approximately 27th Avenue west to the Agua Fria River. The study identifies drainage problems, updates the existing hydrology due to development and new hydrologic methodology, develops cost effective solutions for a storm water collection and conveyance system and identifies potential outfall alternatives. The design and construction phase will involve the implementation of solutions to flooding that are identified once the planning and conceptual design phases have been completed, and remedial actions have been specified. Total expenditures proposed for the CIP are now estimated at $130 million for identified projects, which includes the costs for the 75th Avenue Storm Drain & Durango Regional Conveyance Channel. 75th Avenue Storm Drain/Durango Regional Conveyance Channel The 75th Avenue Storm Drain and Durango Regional Conveyance Channel Project will provide an interim regional outfall for the City of Phoenix, and is the first phase of the Durango Regional Conveyance Channel Project. The area north of the UPRR railroad has associated flooding hazards. The improvements will reduce the flooding hazards and remove approximately 71 structures from an identified floodplain. The project was requested by the City of Phoenix for inclusion into the District's CIP in the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Prioritization Procedure. The City of Phoenix will operate and maintain the completed project. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project 3,424,049 $ 2,798,620 $ 2,830,000 $ 2,955,000 $ 1,080,000 $ 2,160,000 $ 3,300,000 12,325,000 $ 18,547,669 466,000 1,485,000 1,735,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 9,220,000 9,686,000 3,424,049 $ 3,264,620 $ 4,315,000 $ 4,690,000 $ 2,080,000 $ 4,160,000 $ 6,300,000 $ 21,545,000 $ 28,233,669 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 304 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program East Maricopa Floodway User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County East Maricopa Floodway – Multiple Locations 1 Flood Control District of Maricopa County Town of Gilbert 2008 Project Description Rittenhouse 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 8,500 cfs. The existing condition 100-yr. is about 15,000 cfs. The study proposed to mitigate the problem by constructing two large off line detention basins. The Rittenhouse Basin is one of those two off line basins, and it will mitigate flows from the EMF channel. This project is being accomplished solely by the District, and consists of a pre-design, a final design and construction. The design has been completed, and construction began 3rd quarter Fiscal Year 2004-05. Because of the size of the basin and because of the cost, construction will be phased over a number of years. The District is negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Gilbert for the town’s recreational use of the basin. The Town of Gilbert would fund the recreation amenities and assume responsibility for certain operation and maintenance obligations. 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 8,500 cfs. The existing condition 100-yr. is about 15,000 cfs. The study proposed to mitigate the problem by constructing two large off line detention basins. The Chandler Heights Basin is one of those two off line basins, and it will mitigate flows from the Queen Creek and Sonoqui Washes into the EMF. This project is being accomplished solely by the District, and consists of a pre-design, a final design and construction. The design has been completed, and construction has begun. Because of the size of the basin and the cost, construction will be phased over a number of years. The District will be negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Gilbert for the town’s recreational use of the basin in the future. The Town of Gilbert would fund the recreation amenities and assume responsibility for certain operation and maintenance obligations. District operation and maintenance will be increased, unless the Town of Gilbert implements park facilities, in which case the District maintenance will be minor. 305 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program East Maricopa Floodway (Continued) Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ 34,739,880 $6,474,386 $ 4,459,000 $ 6,515,000 $ 9,120,000 $ 9,160,000 $ 5,250,000 34,504,000 $ 75,718,266 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 250,000 250,000 250,000 Project Total $ 34,739,880 $ 6,474,386 $ 4,709,000 $ 6,515,000 $ 9,120,000 $ 9,160,000 $ 5,250,000 $ 34,754,000 $ 75,968,266 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 306 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Mesa – Multiple Locations 1&2 Flood Control District of Maricopa County and Maricopa County Department of Transportation City of Mesa, Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2008 Project Description Elliot Basin & Channel The Elliot Basin & Channel is a project that is 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 Channel component of the project extends along Elliot Road from the 104th Street alignment to the East Maricopa Floodway. A large diameter storm drain collects storm flow from the Siphon Draw Wash and extends west along Elliot Road to west of Ellsworth Road where it will connect to the Santan Freeway Drainage System. Most improvements have been constructed. The remaining features are a channel, extending from Ellsworth Road to the future San Tan Freeway, and a channel along the Crismon Road Alignment, from Paloma Avenue to Elliot Road. The City of Mesa, MCDOT and the District have cooperated on the completed features and will share in the costs of the remaining features. The City of Mesa will operate and maintain the completed project. Ellsworth Channel Design and construction of the Ellsworth Channel will be included in MCDOT’s Ellsworth Road - Germann to Baseline project (Project). Ellsworth Channel was identified as a high priority component of the regional flood plan in the East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan. MCDOT developed a Design Concept Report (DCR) for the Project, which provided a preliminary design for the flood control features. Ellsworth Channel will begin at Pecos and Ellsworth roads and convey the future 100-year storm flows and Ellsworth Road drainage to the East Maricopa Floodway, and alleviate significant flooding problems for the upgraded Ellsworth Road. MCDOT is the lead agency for the Project. IGA 2000A002 authorizes design and construction of the Ellsworth Channel, and identifies a cost share of 50 percent FCD, 40 percent City of Mesa, and 10 percent MCDOT, for the channel part of the project. The City of Mesa will assume operation and maintenance of the completed project. 307 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program East Mesa Area Drainage Master Plan (Continued) Siphon Draw Drainage Improvements This project is the final element of the recommended plan for the East Mesa ADMP for the area south of the Superstition Freeway and north of Warner Road. This project, as currently envisioned, will collect sheet flow from east of Meridian Road and convey it along the existing power-lines and along Siphon Draw Wash through new basins on City of Mesa owned rights-of-way. The basins will outlet into a new storm drain connecting into the Elliot Basin and Channel project near the 104th Street alignment. It is assumed that the District will be the lead agency for design and construction and that the City of Mesa will assume operation and maintenance responsibilities. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ 25,734,795 $ 3,137,200 $ 2,253,000 $ 4,100,000 $ 5,120,000 $ - $ - $ 11,473,000 $ 40,344,995 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 367,000 608,000 1,300,000 1,100,000 3,008,000 3,375,000 Project Total $ 25,734,795 $ 3,504,200 $ 2,861,000 $ 5,400,000 $ 6,220,000 $ - $ - $ 14,481,000 $ 43,719,995 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services $ Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project Subtotal $ 212,000 $ 216,000 $ 220,000 $ 225,000 $ 230,000 $ 235,000 $ 1,338,000 96,000 98,000 100,000 102,000 104,000 106,000 606,000 308,000 $ 314,000 $ 320,000 $ 327,000 $ 334,000 $ 341,000 $ 1,944,000 Total Current Costs $ 308,000 $ 314,000 $ 320,000 $ 327,000 $ 334,000 $ 341,000 $ 1,944,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 308,000 $ 314,000 $ 320,000 $ 327,000 $ 334,000 $ 341,000 $ 1,944,000 308 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Glendale/Peoria Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County North Peoria and Glendale – Multiple Locations 4 Flood Control District of Maricopa County, City of Glendale and City of Peoria City of Glendale and City of Peoria 2011 Project Description Glendale/Peoria ADMP The District and the cities of Glendale and Peoria developed 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 assisted the Cities and the District in the prioritization and development of drainage infrastructure needs for the area, and included preliminary design plans for a recommended 9-Phase Improvement Projects program. The Improvement Projects program consists 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 $34.3 million with several potential cost-sharing partners, including the City of Peoria as the primary partner. The Peoria City Council adopted the recommendations of the ADMP Update study, and submitted Phases 1, 2, and part of 3 to the District during the FY 01/02 Prioritization Procedure. The submittals were favorably evaluated and the District’s 5-year CIP budget includes this funding to begin implementation of these phases, dependent upon priorities and costsharing availability. Six other phased projects will be addressed as funding becomes available in the future. Rose Garden Lane Channel The District completed the Glendale/Peoria Area Drainage Master Plan Update Study (G/P ADMP) in May 2001. The Study made several recommendations for regional drainage infrastructure to provide 100-year protection for the G/P ADMP watershed. The Rose Garden Lane Channel is a high priority recommendation of the G/P ADMP and ranks as a high priority flood control project for the City of Peoria. The Peoria City Council adopted the recommendations of the G/P ADMP in May 2001, and the Board of Directors for the District adopted the G/P ADMP recommendations in December 2001 (Resolution FCD 2001R012). The channel is an open channel along the north side of Rose Garden Lane and will provide 100-year level of protection, though a lesser level of protection may be appropriate if agreed to by Peoria and the District. The channel will benefit an area between approximately Lake Pleasant Road and the Agua Fria River, south of Rose Garden Lane. The channel will accept flows, which currently flow over Rose Garden Lane and overflow the Beardsley Channel, and divert them to the Agua Fria River. An approved intergovernmental agreement between the District and the City of Peoria defines the project partners' responsibilities for construction, construction management and operations and maintenance. The City of Peoria is the project lead agency with the District as a 50% cost-share partner. The City of Peoria will operate and maintain the completed project. 309 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Glendale/Peoria Area Drainage Master Plan (Continued) 83rd Avenue/Pinnacle Peak Road Improvements The 83rd Avenue/Pinnacle Peak Road Drainage Improvements Project is a high priority recommendation of the Glendale/Peoria (G/P) ADMP and ranks as a high priority flood control project for the City of Peoria. Resolution FCD 2001R012 authorized the District to cost share in the project, and to undertake the design, land and rights-of-way (R/W) acquisitions, construction, construction management, and operation and maintenance of the Project. An intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for design has been approved and the District is the lead agency. A draft IGA has been negotiated for construction and operation and maintenance. The project will provide 100-year level of protection, though a lesser level of protection may be appropriate if agreed to by the Peoria and the District. The project will benefit an area between approximately 83rd and 89th Avenues, south of Calle Lejos (one-half mile north of Pinnacle Peak Road), and ties in to existing infrastructure on the east side of 83rd Avenue, south of Williams Road. The project includes the following components: 1) Two detention basins - one near the northeast corner of Calle Lejos and 88th Avenue (the Calle Lejos Basin), and the other at the northwest corner of 83rd Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road (the Pinnacle Peak Road Basin); 2) A storm drain outlet flowing east from the Calle Lejos Basin to 83rd Avenue; 3) An open channel collector flowing south on the west side of 83rd Avenue from Calle Lejos to the Pinnacle Peak Road Basin; 4) A storm drain collector along the north side of Pinnacle Peak Road flowing east to the Pinnacle Peak Road Basin from approximately 87th Avenue; and 5) A storm drain outlet from the Pinnacle Peak Road Basin flowing south along 83rd Avenue to an existing open channel on the east side of 83rd Avenue, south of Williams Road. The City of Peoria will be responsible for operations and maintenance of the completed project. 67th Avenue Storm Drain The project has been proposed by the City of Glendale and will 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 City of Peoria. The District is contributing 50% of the project costs. The estimated cost for the project is $3 million, which includes the design, land acquisition, utility relocations, construction and construction management. The City of Glendale is the lead agency for the design and construction of the project, and will own, operate and maintain the completed project. The Phases of the project include: Phase 1 – 200’ Storm Drain Installation at Intersection with Peoria Avenue – Construction Completed Phase 2 – Remainder of Storm Drain Installation to Cactus – Construction scheduled for FY 07/08 Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ 46,009,608 $ 977,713 $ 2,199,000 $ 3,661,000 $ 1,965,000 $ 2,080,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 12,655,000 $ 59,642,321 Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 686,000 1,829,000 1,519,000 500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 8,348,000 9,034,000 Project Total $ 46,009,608 $ 1,663,713 $ 4,028,000 $ 5,180,000 $ 2,465,000 $ 4,080,000 $ 5,250,000 $ 21,003,000 $ 68,676,321 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 310 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Higley Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County SE Corner Queen Creek Rd and McQueen Rd 1 City of Chandler City of Chandler 2007 Project Description The City of Chandler submitted to the CIP Prioritization a request for the design and construction of the Queen Creek Road Basin, which is an element of the Higley ADMP. The City asked that the District prepare a rough grading plan and excavate the Basin to contain the 100-year storm flows. The City would then prepare a final design, which would incorporate landscaping, and a multi-use facility, which the City would then construct. Previously, the District and the City of Chandler cost shared in the acquisition of the basin site. The Basin is needed to prevent development from occurring within the 100-year floodplain and to help prevent flows from overtopping the Consolidated Canal. It is anticipated that this Basin may eventually be part of a regional drainage system. The flow in the area drains to the west from the Eastern Canal across Cooper Road to the Consolidated Canal where the flow ponds, creating a floodplain during large storm events. This area is experiencing significant residential development. Upon completion of the basin excavation, the City will landscape the basin and add park amenities. An estimated cost for the rough grading plan and excavation of the retention basin is $1,500,000. The City is going to be the lead agency for the advertising for a consultant, design and construction of the basin. The District’s cost share amount is not to exceed $1,500,000. The District will also be involved with the selection of the design consultant and Contractor and will review plan submittals. The City will prepare final design plans, fine grade the basin, furnish landscaping and park amenities and be responsible for operation and maintenance. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 5,034,232 $ 509,999 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,034,232 $ 509,999 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 311 5-Year Total Total Project 10,000 $ 5,554,231 10,000 $ 5,554,231 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Maryvale Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Along the Grand Canal extending westerly from 63rd Ave to the New River and 25th Dr and 26th Dr, north of Thomas Rd 4&5 Flood Control District of Maricopa County and City of Phoenix City of Glendale, City of Phoenix 2009 Project Description Bethany Home Outfall The Bethany Home Road Outfall Channel project includes a linear basin and channel along the Grand Canal extending westerly from 63rd 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 freeway drainage channel to accommodate additional flows from the Maryvale area. Phase II of the project includes 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 tenyear 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 approximately 50% District and 25% each for the cities of Glendale and Phoenix. The first reach of the Phase II project (Loop 101 to 83rd Avenue) is completed. Design and construction of the remainder or the improvements will be phased over several years, with completion anticipated in 2009. Each of the cities will own, operate and maintain the completed project within their jurisdictions. 312 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Maryvale Area Drainage Master Plan (Continued) 26th Avenue/Verde Lane Basin The City of Phoenix has accepted the Maryvale Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) as the hydrological basis for future drainage improvements within the ADMP watershed. A Design Concept Report for 26th Avenue & Verde Lane area was prepared by the City of Phoenix. The recommended basin alternative will provide a retention volume for the 100-year, 24-hour storm. The recommended alternative will incorporate a storm drain system designed to intercept flow from along the I-17 frontage road. Flows will be intercepted along 25th and 26th Drives, eliminating flooding for storms up to and including the 10-year event. The Verde Lane Detention Basin will provide a positive outfall location for the proposed storm drains thereby precluding ponding from occurring within the streets and houses. The new basin will drain into the existing 27th Avenue storm drain system after the peak flows have passed. This project cost will be shared equally with the city. Design is underway and many of the houses that have been previously flooded have been acquired by the City of Phoenix. After asbestos is removed from the houses, they will be demolished, allowing the basin’s construction. The City of Phoenix will own, operate and maintain the completed project. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ 40,062,206 $ 3,341,551 $ 6,366,000 $ 3,310,000 $ 3,439,000 $ 91,000 $ - $ 13,206,000 $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 3,514,000 4,067,000 4,240,000 2,071,000 3,369,000 13,747,000 Project Total $ 40,062,206 $ 6,855,551 $ 10,433,000 $ 7,550,000 $ 5,510,000 $ 3,460,000 $ - $ 26,953,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 313 Total Project 56,609,757 17,261,000 73,870,757 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program McMicken Dam User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County East of the Beardsley Canal, north of Olive Ave 4 Flood Control District of Maricopa County Not Applicable 2006 Project Description 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 has determined that significant ground subsidence has 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 initiated Structures Assessment Program Phase I studies for McMicken Dam and several Geotechnical Investigations for McMicken Dam. The results of a geotechnical study 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 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. Initially, the reconstructed dam will not require the current level of maintenance; however, the long-term, maintenance requirements will be similar to today’s efforts. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 7,422,677 $ 1,622,063 $ 2,665,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,422,677 $ 1,622,063 $ 2,665,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5-Year Total Total Project 2,665,000 $ 11,709,740 2,665,000 $ 11,709,740 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services $ Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project Subtotal $ 84,000 $ 68,000 $ 88,000 $ 90,000 $ 92,000 $ 94,000 $ 74,000 60,000 77,000 78,000 80,000 82,000 158,000 $ 128,000 $ 165,000 $ 168,000 $ 172,000 $ 176,000 $ 516,000 451,000 967,000 Total Current Costs $ 158,000 $ 128,000 $ 165,000 $ 168,000 $ 172,000 $ 176,000 $ 967,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 158,000 $ 128,000 $ 165,000 $ 168,000 $ 172,000 $ 176,000 $ 967,000 314 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Metro Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County From the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel on the North to the Grand Canal in the South and between I-17 on the West to 19th Ave on the East 3 City of Phoenix City of Phoenix 2011 Project Description 24th Avenue/Camelback Basin A Drainage Study was prepared by the City of Phoenix in 2003 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 within a 3.6 square mile drainage area in the vicinity of 24th Avenue and Camelback Road. The watershed extends from the ACDC on the North to the Grand Canal in the South and between I-17 on the West to 19th Avenue on the East. The study recommends construction of four basins and associated storm drains to collect and dispose of the floodwater. The basins are located at the Grand Canal, Camelback Road, at Washington Park and at Northern Avenue. The basins are proposed to be constructed in phases with the basin and storm drain in the vicinity of 24th Avenue and Camelback Road constructed in Phase 1. The basins are designed to contain runoff from a 100year flood. Phoenix will be the lead agency for Phase I of this project. Phase I includes design, utility relocations, construction and construction management. The project cost will be shared equally between the District and the City. Design commenced in Fiscal Year 2004-05 and construction is scheduled in Fiscal Year 2005-06. The City of Phoenix will own, operate and maintain the completed project. 24th Avenue/Camelback Basin Phase 4 A Design Concept Report (DCR) was prepared by the City of Phoenix in 2003 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 within a drainage area in the vicinity of 24th Avenue and Camelback Road. The watershed extends from the ACDC on the North to the Grand Canal in the South and between I-17 on the West to 19th Avenue on the East. The study recommends construction of four basins and associated storm drains to collect and dispose of the floodwater. The basins are located at the Grand Canal, Camelback Road, at Washington Park and at Northern Avenue. The basins are proposed to be constructed in phases with the basin and storm drain in the vicinity of 20th Avenue and Turney Avenue at the Grand Canal constructed in Phase IV. The basins are designed to contain runoff from a 100-year flood. Phoenix will be the lead agency for Phase IV of this project. Phase IV includes design, utility relocations, construction and construction management. The project cost will be shared equally between the District and the City. Design is proposed to commence in Fiscal Year 2006-07 and construction in Fiscal Year 2007-08. It is anticipated that the City will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the completed project. 315 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Metro Area Drainage Master Plan (Continued) Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 142,914 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,118,000 $ 1,260,000 $ 1,140,000 $ 540,000 $ 1,060,000 $ 142,914 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,118,000 $ 1,260,000 $ 1,140,000 $ 540,000 $ 1,060,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 316 5-Year Total 5,118,000 $ 5,118,000 $ Total Project 6,410,914 6,410,914 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Phoenix User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County East of Scottsdale Rd from Thunderbird Rd to Sweetwater Ave along 71st St from Cactus Rd to the Mescal Basin 2 Flood Control District of Maricopa County and City of Scottsdale City of Scottsdale 2006 Project Description This project includes improving an existing earthen drainage channel just east of Scottsdale Road from Thunderbird Road to Sweetwater Avenue with a closed system such as pipe and/or box culvert. The City will be the lead agency for the Scottsdale Road Drainage components of the project. The improvements will be designed to convey 10-year flows. The City will own, operate and maintain the system once constructed. The District will be the lead agency for the 71st Street Storm Drain, Mescal Basin and Cactus Basin components of the project. The City of Scottsdale will operate and maintain the completed projects. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 3,030,581 $1,478,800 $ 1,378,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 439,000 439,000 3,030,581 $ 1,917,800 $ 1,817,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 317 5-Year Total Total Project 1,378,000 $ 5,887,381 439,000 878,000 1,817,000 $ 6,765,381 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Queen Creek Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Sonoqui Wash, west of Higley Rd to Chandler Heights Rd, and Sonoqui Wash, Chandler Heights Rd to Riggs Rd, and Queen Creek Wash, from Recker Rd to Higley Rd 1 Flood Control District of Maricopa County and Town of Gilbert Town of Gilbert and Town of Queen Creek 2011 Project Description Sonoqui Wash Channelization The project design includes channelization from Queen Creek Wash, just west of Higley Road to Chandler Heights Road. The existing wash does not contain 100-yr flows and is subject to flooding adjacent property owners. The proposed channel will be designed to collect and convey the 100-year flow. The current floodplain encompasses approximately 800 acres of land. After completion of the project, a 200’ wide strip of land will be conveying most of the floodwaters and remaining land can be removed from the floodplain. This is a joint project between the District, and both the towns of Gilbert and Queen Creek. The District will be the lead agency for the design of the project including bank improvements, major roadway crossings, channel stabilization, and landscape and trail improvements. The District will be constructing the channel grading as shown on construction plans and both of the towns will be required to implement the proposed landscaping of the channel at their own expense. Both of the towns are expected to take responsibility of owning, operating and maintaining their portion of the channel. The adjacent developers, as per their development agreement with the towns, will dedicate most of the land required for construction of the channel. Sonoqui Wash Channelization (Chandler Heights Road to Riggs Road) The Sonoqui Wash Floodplain Delineation Study from Higley Road to Riggs Road indicated that significant ponding and breakouts of flood flows occur along the wash. Results from the Queen Creek & Sonoqui Wash Hydraulic Master Plan for Queen Creek and Sonoqui Washes indicate that the most feasible solution to contain breakouts from Sonoqui Wash is to increase the cross section of the wash to contain the 100-year flood flows. In conjunction with the Town of Queen Creek, the District is undertaking this project. The project design includes channelization from Chandler Heights Road to Riggs Road. The proposed channel will be designed to collect and convey the 100-year flow. The total length of the project is approximately 2 miles. The District will be the lead agency for the design and other related tasks including bank improvements, major roadway crossings, channel stability analysis and landscape and trail improvements. The existing floodplain within this reach contains 115 acres of developable land. Once the project is constructed, the floodplain can be removed from these properties. The Town of Queen Creek has requested the project and will be required to assume the maintenance responsibilities of the project after completion. 318 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Queen Creek Area Drainage Master Plan (Continued) Queen Creek Wash (Recker to Higley) The Town of Gilbert has proposed improvements to Queen Creek Wash from Recker to Higley Roads. Improvements have already been made to the wash upstream of Recker Road, and have been designed for the wash downstream of Higley Road as part of the District’s EMF Basins project. The Queen Creek Wash improvements downstream of Higley Road will be constructed in FY05/06. The Town of Gilbert s proposed to be the lead agency for design, utility relocation, construction, and construction management. They will also be the lead agency for rights-of-way acquisition and will own, operate and maintain the completed project. The proposed improvements are to replace the existing wash with a natural desert vegetated 100-year, 24-hour capacity channel. The total cost of the project, excluding force, is estimated to be $2,400,000 and will be shared between the District and the Town of Gilbert with the District’s cost-share capped at $1,000,000. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project 7,996,336 $ 3,012,800 $ 580,000 $ 3,200,000 $ 2,240,000 $ 1,060,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 8,680,000 $ 19,689,136 495,000 2,500,000 1,650,000 4,150,000 4,645,000 7,996,336 $ 3,507,800 $ 580,000 $ 5,700,000 $ 3,890,000 $ 1,060,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 12,830,000 $ 24,334,136 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 319 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Salt River/Gila River Regional Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Along the Salt and Gila Rivers from about 83rd Ave to the Agua Fria River 5 US Army Corps of Engineers City of Avondale, City of Phoenix and Maricopa County 2007 Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Project Description The Tres Rios Project is a federal project under the auspices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The local sponsor is the City of Phoenix. The project is located in and along the Salt and Gila Rivers from about 83rd Avenue to the Agua Fria River. The project consists of the restoration of habitat within and along the river, including constructed wetlands, open water marshes, and riparian corridors. Along the north bank of the river from approximately 105th Avenue to the Agua Fria River will be constructed a flood control levee with interior drainage facilities to remove property and homes along the river from the floodplain. The District's participation is presently limited to attending meetings, reviewing design concepts and contributing input pertaining to the design of the levee. The Board of Directors has approved a Resolution. An Intergovernmental Agreement with the city is currently being negotiated which will identify the District's future role in the project, including cost sharing for the levee. It is anticipated that the District’s current operation and maintenance of the Holly Acres Levee (113th Ave – 123rd Ave) will be doubled when the Tres Rios north bank levee (105th Ave – Agua Fria River) is completed. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 840,267 $1,103,999 $ 50,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ - $ 840,267 $ 1,103,999 $ 50,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ - $ 5-Year Total Total Project 1,170,000 $ 3,114,266 1,170,000 $ 3,114,266 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services $ Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project Subtotal $ 9,000 $ 4,000 13,000 $ 9,400 $ 4,100 13,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,400 8,100 26,500 Total Current Costs $ 13,000 $ 13,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26,500 Post Construction/Managing Department Operating Costs Personal Services $ - $ Supplies & Services - $ Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41,000 $ 18,000 59,000 $ 42,000 $ 18,000 60,000 $ 83,000 36,000 119,000 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 59,000 $ 60,000 $ 119,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 13,000 $ 13,500 $ - $ - $ 59,000 $ 60,000 $ 145,500 320 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Scatter Wash Channel User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Scatter Wash immediately downstream of I-17 3&4 Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation and City of Phoenix 2007 Project Description The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has proposed a channel and basin improvement project for Scatter Wash immediately downstream west of Interstate 17 (I-17). This project would be a joint project among ADOT, the City of Phoenix and the Flood Control District. The project would provide 100-year flood protection to this reach of Scatter Wash, and it would consist of improvements to Scatter Wash at the I-17 crossing, channel improvements downstream of I-17 and construction of an off-line basin. It is proposed that ADOT be the lead agency for design and construction and that the city would own, operate and maintain the channel and basin improvements. The project partners are now in the process of developing an Intergovernmental Agreement. ADOT has a consultant under contract for the design of the project in conjunction with improvements planned for I-17. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 1,498,149 $ 10,000 $ 630,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,498,149 $ 10,000 $ 630,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 321 5-Year Total Total Project 1,030,000 $ 2,538,149 1,030,000 $ 2,538,149 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Skunk Creek and New River User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County The reach of New River from Grand Ave north to the Skunk Creek confluence with New River 4 Flood Control District of Maricopa County City of Peoria 2006 Project Description 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 Skunk Creek confluence with New River. Recommended improvements include channelization and bank protection for approximately 2 miles of New River, and an 800-foot reach on the west side of New River south of Bell Road. The City of Peoria will be a project partner. The city and the District are property owners along and within the New River alignment. Intergovernmental agreements have been entered into with the city for design, construction, and operations and maintenance of the project. 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. Construction will be completed in 2006, and the City of Peoria will assume the operations and maintenance responsibilities. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ 57,267,110 $ - $ 6,029,849 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 2,221,849 3,823,151 Project Total $ 57,267,110 $ 2,221,849 $ 9,853,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 322 5-Year Total Total Project 6,039,849 $ 63,306,959 3,823,151 6,045,000 9,863,000 $ 69,351,959 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program South Phoenix Drainage Improvement User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, 23rd Ave & Roeser Rd Basin, 43rd Ave and Baseline Rd & 27th Ave and South Mountain Ave Basins 5 Flood Control District of Maricopa County and City of Phoenix City of Phoenix 2010 Project Description Laveen Area Conveyance Channel (LACC) The Laveen Area Conveyance Channel (LACC) is a public and private partnership to improve the existing Maricopa Drain into a regional flood control facility. This project, consisting of 5.8 miles of conveyance channel and a detention basin at 43rd Avenue and Southern Avenue will reduce flooding in the Laveen area. The channel and basin will also function as park facilities for the city. Construction of the channel is complete. The irrigation and landscaping for the channel has begun and will be completed in 2005. 23rd Avenue/Roeser Road Storm Drain & Detention Basin The 23rd Avenue/Roeser Road Storm Drain & Detention Basin is identified as an element for regional flood control infrastructure as defined by the recommended plan for the South Phoenix / Laveen Drainage Improvement Project. The Preliminary Design Report was completed in July 1997. A proposed 10-acre detention basin, to be located on the northeast corner of 23rd Avenue and Roeser Road, will intercept flows from the north and the east. The Basin will be designed to intercept flows from a 100-year storm and will then discharge approximately 40cfs to a storm drain that will be constructed along Roeser Road. This storm drain will then discharge to a new storm drain to be constructed along 27th Avenue from Roeser Road to Broadway Road. An existing 108-inch storm drain will then convey the flow from Broadway Road to the Salt River. The City of Phoenix will operate and maintain the completed project. 323 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program South Phoenix Drainage Improvement (Continued) South Phoenix Detention 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 South Phoenix Detention 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 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 in its 2006 bond program for this project. The goal is for the District to contribute approximately 50% of the project cost of the South Phoenix Drainage Improvements. The District acquired the basin sites when Baseline Road was widened and the Baseline Road Storm Drain was constructed. The City of Phoenix will operate and maintain the completed project. Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ 27,395,548 $4,782,600 $ 1,000 $ 496,000 $ 240,000 $ 1,870,000 $ 1,910,000 $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 2,350,000 1,036,000 714,000 200,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 Project Total $ 27,395,548 $ 7,132,600 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,210,000 $ 440,000 $ 3,620,000 $ 3,660,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 324 5-Year Total Total Project 4,517,000 $ 36,695,148 5,450,000 7,800,000 9,967,000 $ 44,495,148 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Spook Hill Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County 16 square miles in east Mesa (Future projects) and McDowell Rd/Hermosa Vista Rd Drainage System 2 Flood Control District of Maricopa County City of Mesa, Possibly Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2011 Project Description Spook Hill ADMP The Spook Hill Area Drainage Master Plan updated and expanded the existing Spook Hill Area Drainage Master Study conducted in 1987. Since the 1987 study, much of the watershed has been developed, additional drainage infrastructure now exists, and man-made changes have occurred in the watershed. The Spook Hill area in 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. The study identified current area flooding problems and produced a recommended alternative to resolve the current flooding problems. A preferred alternative has been chosen and adopted by the City and County officials. The recommended plan is a series of underground pipes, open channels, and offline detention basins to reduce the flooding in the area and provide a 100-year level of protection. The total cost for the design and construction of the plan is estimated at $32 million. An intergovernmental agreement (IGA) has been drafted and approved between the City of Mesa and the District for the purchase of lands necessary for the detention basins and for the design of the McDowell Road/Hermosa Vista features. Much of the City of Mesa’s funding will be included in future City bond programs. McDowell Road/Hermosa Vista Drainage System The Spook Hill Area Drainage Master Plan updated and expanded the existing Spook Hill Area Drainage Master Study conducted in 1987. A preferred alternative has been chosen and adopted by the City of Mesa City Council and Flood Control District Board of Directors. Two elements of the preferred plan are the McDowell Road / Hermosa Vista Road Drainage System. The system includes an underground storm drain as well as off line basins. An intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Mesa and the District has been approved and design is underway. A separate IGA will be negotiated for the project construction. It is anticipated that the City of Mesa will assume operation and maintenance of the features constructed in Mesa and that MCDOT will assume operations and maintenance of the McDowell Road storm drain features. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Project 4,990,017 $ 287,600 $ 952,000 $ 1,885,000 $ 3,125,000 $ 3,525,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 13,687,000 $ 18,964,617 70,000 210,000 735,000 1,785,000 1,225,000 3,955,000 4,025,000 4,990,017 $ 357,600 $ 1,162,000 $ 2,620,000 $ 4,910,000 $ 4,750,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 17,642,000 $ 22,989,617 Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 325 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Town Of Guadalupe User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Near I-10 & Warner Road 5 City of Tempe City of Tempe 2008 Project Description The project provides a storm drain collection system and four retention basins located along the Highline Canal that will capture and convey the 10-year storm event within Tempe and east of Avenida Del Yaqui. Runoff from within the city results in flooding of low-lying houses and collects along the Highline Canal where it eventually overtops the canal and causes damage to downstream properties within Tempe. Three of the basins are located within the city, and one along the east side of the canal in Tempe. The three basins within the Tempe have been landscaped and now serve as city parks. The basin in Tempe, because of its small size and its depth, has been landscaped and fenced. Tempe owns, operates and maintains the storm drain system and the four basins. Construction of the project has been completed with the exception of a future pump station that will be designed and constructed by the City of Tempe as part of this project. The District will share in the cost of the pump station. The pump station will be located in a large drainage basin near I-10 & Warner Road. The City of Tempe will own, operate and maintain the pump station after it is completed. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 8,650,363 $ - $ - $ - $ 385,000 $ - $ - $ 8,650,363 $ - $ - $ - $ 385,000 $ - $ - $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 326 5-Year Total Total Project 385,000 $ 9,035,363 385,000 $ 9,035,363 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County East to the Agua Fria River – Multiple Locations 4&5 Flood Control District of Maricopa County City of Goodyear, City of Surprise and Maricopa Water District 2011 Project Description White Tanks FRS #3 Modifications White Tanks FRS #3 is ranked first in the nation by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) under their dam rehabilitation priority ranking process. The District and NRCS, therefore, propose to proceed with the Project under “The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendment” (Public Law 106-472), which authorizes NRCS to assist watershed project sponsors with rehabilitation of aging dams on a 65% federal, 35% local cost share basis. The District and NRCS completed the final work plan and environmental assessment in 2004. The District developed and signed an IGA with NRCS in 2004. In Fiscal Year 2003-2004, under Contract FCD 2003C014, alternatives were evaluated that would maintain the same flood protection as the existing dam. The project alternative selected was a dam modification. The dam modification design will be completed during fiscal year 2004-2005 and the District will initiate construction of the modified dam in 2005. It is intended that White Tanks FRS #3 Rehabilitation Project will be constructed in three phases as follows: • • • Phase I: White Tanks FRS #3 Rehabilitation Phase I Phase II: White Tanks FRS #3 Rehabilitation Phase II Phase III: White Tanks FRS #3 North Inlet Channel Improvements The federal cost share for Phase I is estimated to be $6 million. Federal funds for Phase I have been allocated for future fiscal years. It is intended that cost sharing of Phase II and Phase III will be supplements to the IGA; however, federal funding of Phase II and III will be subject to future approval of federal appropriations. The District will continue to operate and maintain the rehabilitated dam. White Tanks FRS #3 North Inlet Channel The White Tanks FRS #3 North Inlet Channel (NIC) Project includes a two-mile long earthen flood control channel from just north of Olive Avenue to the Glendale Avenue alignment, out letting to the White Tanks FRS#3; diversion structures/box culverts at Olive and Northern Avenues; erosion protection at Cholla Wash; and aesthetic treatments per District policy. The NIC Project will provide 100-year level of protection. Construction of the Channel will cut off flows from Waterfall Wash and Cholla Wash from flowing southeast over the Beardsley Canal, protecting existing and future development. The Maricopa Water District will be responsible for maintaining the channel north of Northern Avenue and the District will maintain it south of Northern Avenue. 327 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan (Continued) Reems Road Channel This project will provide a flood control channel along the west side of Reems Road, south of Peoria Avenue south of Peoria and a new 42-acre basin north of Olive Avenue. The channel and basin will provide 100-year flood protection and outlet to the Dysart Drain within the Falcon Dunes Golf Course. The City of Surprise is constructing the channel from Peoria Avenue north to Waddell Road, and the District is constructing the channel and basin south of Peoria Avenue, and also cost-sharing with the City of Surprise on the box culvert to be constructed at Cactus Road. The District will operate the channel south of Peoria Avenue and the new basin until a recreation/park partner can be identified. Bullard Wash Phase 2 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 the detention basins north of I-10 and west of Dysart Road, with an outlet to the Agua Fria River. Landscaping, fencing and other multi-use facilities are anticipated along the channel alignment and within the basins. The project will channelize the floodplain north of the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport. It will reduce the floodplain width and protect the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport and nearby development from flooding. For the area north of I-10, the project will collect and convey storm-water currently draining by sheet flow to Bullard Wash. This storm water will otherwise collect in streets, businesses, farm fields, and residential areas. The District has entered an intergovernmental agreement with the city for design of the project, and design of the project from Lower Buckeye Road to I-10 will be completed in 2005. An intergovernmental agreement with the city for construction of the project, is awaiting city approval. Construction is tentatively scheduled to commence during FY 07/08. The City of Goodyear will operate and maintain the completed project. White Tanks ADMP/Loop 303 Corridor The study consists of an area drainage master plan to determine guidelines for storm water management and structural mitigation measures for flooding in the White Tanks area. The study includes analysis of approximately 208 square miles of watershed, which extends from Grand Avenue south to the Gila Rivers, and from the White Tank Mountains east to the Agua Fria River. The study identifies drainage problems, updates the existing hydrology due to development and new hydrologic methodology, develops cost effective solutions for a storm water collection and conveyance system and identifies potential outfall alternatives. The design and construction phase will involve the implementation of solutions to flooding that are identified once the planning and conceptual design phases have been completed, and remedial actions have been specified. Total expenditures proposed for the CIP are now estimated at $400 million for identified projects, which includes the costs for the Loop 303 Regional Drainage Channel and Basins. It is anticipated that the District and ADOT will enter into IGAs to define agency responsibilities. 328 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program White Tanks Area Drainage Master Plan (Continued) Funding/Cost Summary Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Funding Source Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ 53,665,158 $ 4,460,001 $ 2,204,000 $ 4,537,000 $ 9,130,000 $ 5,855,000 $ 7,635,000 $ 29,361,000 $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA 1,872,000 10,023,000 6,929,000 1,600,000 2,225,000 1,575,000 22,352,000 Project Total $ 53,665,158 $ 6,332,001 $ 12,227,000 $ 11,466,000 $ 10,730,000 $ 8,080,000 $ 9,210,000 $ 51,713,000 $ Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 329 Total Project 87,486,159 24,224,000 111,710,159 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program White Tanks Dam #4 User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Van Buren St, west of Tuthill Rd 4 Flood Control District of Maricopa County Possibly Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009 Project Description White Tanks Flood Retarding Structure #4 (White Tanks FRS #4), operated and maintained by the District, requires corrective action to bring the structure into compliance with current dam safety standards and requirements. In addition, an inlet from White Tanks FRS #3 to #4 is required, and an outlet channel from White Tanks FRS #4 to the Gila River is required. The District has completed Phase I Assessments for White Tanks FRS #4. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (state agency with regulatory authority) has classified the dam as having safety deficiencies that require corrective action. These deficiencies include transverse cracking of the embankment, left spillway adequacy, and unprotected corrugated metal pipe outlets. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has also identified these same deficiencies that require corrective action. The District submitted an Application to NRCS for federal funding assistance under Public Law 106-472 (Small Watershed Amendment) in May 2004. The District has initiated the alternatives evaluation and pre-design efforts under the operating budget for the project in FY 2004-05. Initially, the reconstructed dam will not require the current level of maintenance; however, the long-term maintenance requirements will be similar to today’s efforts. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Partnership Contributions/IGA/IDA Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 2,246,579 $ - $ 20,000 $ 1,510,000 $ 720,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ 3,250,000 3,910,000 2,246,579 $ - $ 20,000 $ 1,510,000 $ 3,970,000 $ 4,110,000 $ - $ 5-Year Total Total Project 2,450,000 $ 4,696,579 7,160,000 7,160,000 9,610,000 $ 11,856,579 Operating Cost Summary Current Year Current Operating Costs Personal Services Supplies & Services $ Year 1 FY 05-06 Year 2 FY 06-07 Year 3 FY 07-08 Year 4 FY 08-09 Year 5 FY 09-10 Total Project Subtotal $ 30,000 $ 11,000 41,000 $ 31,000 $ 12,000 43,000 $ 32,000 $ 12,000 44,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 93,000 35,000 128,000 Total Current Costs $ 41,000 $ 43,000 $ 44,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 128,000 Post Construction/Managing Department Operating Costs Personal Services $ - $ Supplies & Services - $ Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 $ 10,000 40,000 $ 30,000 10,000 40,000 Total Post Construction Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ 40,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 41,000 $ 43,000 $ 44,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ 168,000 330 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program Wickenburg Area Drainage Master Plan User Department: Project Location: Supervisor District: Managing Department: Project Partner(s): Completion Date: Flood Control District of Maricopa County Along the Sols Wash from the proposed SR 93/ Hassayampa River to approximately Hospital Wash 4 Flood Control District of Maricopa County Town of Wickenburg and Arizona Department of Transportation 2009 Project Description The project includes facilities along the Sols Wash from the proposed SR 93/Hassayampa River to approximately Hospital Wash to mitigate 100-year storm flows that cause flooding hazards to downtown Wickenburg. Additionally, this project is contingent on the enhancement of the proposed ADOT SR-93 Interim Bypass Project roadway embankment to be certified as a FEMA levee to protect the downtown of Wickenburg from the existing Hassayampa FEMA delineated floodplain. The Town of Wickenburg will assume operation and maintenance responsibility for the flood control improvements. Funding/Cost Summary Funding Source Flood Control Dist. Property Taxes $ Project Total $ Prior Yrs. FY04-05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Actual Projected FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 3,941,461 $ 565,000 $ 650,000 $ 340,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 3,941,461 $ 565,000 $ 650,000 $ 340,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 4,200,000 $ - Operating Cost Summary Not Applicable. 331 $ $ 5-Year Total Total Project 6,230,000 $ 10,736,461 6,230,000 $ 10,736,461 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Capital Improvement Program 332 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. Revenues, as well as needs, should drive the County’s debt issuance program. 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, 2004. 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, 2004. 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-bonded obligations are added by most security analysts when calculating an issuer’s debt ratios. Debt Issuance History The County has used debt financing for many years to finance capital projects. The following chart illustrates the amount of debt, as well as, categories of outstanding debt for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004. 333 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies 2000 GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITES: Bonds, loans, and other payables: General obligation bonds Lease revenue bonds 1 Stadium District revenue bonds Stadium District contractual 1 obligations Stadium District debt with 1 governmental commitment Special assessment debt with 1 governmental commitment 3 Housing Department bonds 3 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 Advances from other funds Total Business-type activities $ $ $ $ 99,910,000 25,504,259 - Debt Service LONG-TERM LIABILITIES All Categories of Debt (2) Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2004 Year Ending June 30 2001 2002 $ 79,595,000 104,355,000 28,658,512 - $ 58,370,000 104,355,000 58,225,000 - 2003 $ 39,515,000 91,558,756 57,225,000 7,888,888 $ 27,935,000 729,448 589,431 458,977 368,573 343,102 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 50,811 1,641,310 5,808,084 19,414,904 223,471,326 10,820,105 186,551,478 5,666,171 608,794 6,274,965 $ $ 20,500,000 11,824,853 229,159 3,023,111 35,577,123 $ $ $ 20,500,000 11,768,519 2,607,815 34,876,334 - 20,165,000 93,569,383 55,225,000 6,428,888 29,125,000 $ - 2004 $ $ $ 17,986,244 10,940,368 2,350,524 31,277,136 - $ $ $ 16,670,618 5,865,000 1,252,094 493,243 24,280,955 Notes: 1 Does not represent an obligation of the County. 2 Long-term liabilities excludes claims and judgments payable, reported and incurred but not reported claims, and liabilities for closure and post closure costs. 3 On July 1, 2003, the Housing Authority of Maricopa County became a legally separate entity and will be reported as a discretely presented component unit. During fiscal year 2004, the Authority implemented HUD Flyer No. 4. As a result, long-term debt (bonds and loans) were written off as the debt is ultimately secured by HUD. 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 situation 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. 334 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 the use of current revenues can be adjusted in a given budget year, pay-as-you-go financing can 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. If the jurisdiction is forced to finance the improvements 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 and ongoing mandated services. Grants Government grants stem from a variety of sources, but the majority of grant revenues for capital projects come from federal and state governments. Grants often 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 (TANs) 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 TANs. 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. The Board of Supervisors must approve any agreement with financial institutions for the acquisition of lines or letters of credit. On July 1, 2001, the County entered into a $35,000,000 municipal revolving line of credit with an interest rate of 65% of the bank’s prime rate and a maturity date of June 30, 2004. The municipal revolving line of credit was renewed to July 1, 2005, for $35,000,000. Outstanding principal and interest is due on June 30 of each year. During fiscal year 2004, the County had not borrowed against the line of credit. On July 1, 2003, the County entered into a $9,058,610 irrevocable standby letter of credit issued to the Industrial Commission of Arizona for unfunded workers’ compensation claims. The irrevocable standby letter of credit matured on July 1, 2004. The letter of credit was reserved against the municipal revolving line of credit. During fiscal year 2004, the letter of credit had not been drawn upon. The irrevocable standby letter of credit was renewed to July 1, 2005 for $8,503,093. General Obligation Bonds (GO) Bond security is the taxing power of the state or local government, as referenced in the Chapter 3, Article 3, for new GO bonds and Title 35, Chapter 3, Article 4 for refunding bonds. a GO bond secured by its full faith and credit attaches to that issue its broadest pledge. security of these bonds very high. The full faith and credit backing of a GO bond includes 335 A.R.S., Title 35, An issuer selling This makes the the pledge of all Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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. 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 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. 336 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 2003-04 Constitutional General Obligation Bonding Capacity Maricopa County, Arizona 2003-04 Secondary Assessed Valuation 15% of Secondary Assessed Valuation Less: GO Bonded Debt Outstanding Plus: GO Debt Service Fund Balance Unused Fifteen Percent Borrowing Capacity $ 24,477,987,528 $ 4,121,698,129 (20,165,000) 4,101,533,129 Rating Agency Analysis Independent assessments of the relative credit worthiness of municipal securities are provided by rating agencies. They furnish letter grades that convey their 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. These rating agencies have provided 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 existing and proposed debt issuance. The following shows how the ratings reflect creditworthiness, ranging from very strong securities to speculative and default situations. 337 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service Examples of the rating systems are: BOND RATINGS Explanation of corporate/municipal bond ratings Premium quality High quality Medium quality Medium grade, lower quality Predominantly speculative Speculative, low grade Poor to default Highest speculation Lowest quality, no interest In default, in arrears Questionable value RATING AGENCIES Fitch Moody’s Standard & Poor’s AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC CC C DDD DD D Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa Ca C 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 On November 11, 2003, Maricopa County received a bond rating upgrade from AA to AA+ from Fitch Ratings. Fitch Ratings Press Release dated November 11, 2003, states that the bond rating “upgrades are based on the imminent transfer of the county’s health care delivery system to a separate voter-approved special health district with its own property tax levy. The upgrades also reflect continued financial improvement despite slower growth in the county’s predominant revenue source, a record of continued economic growth and diversification, successful fiscal reforms, and the county’s very modest debt profile.” The following illustrates a history of the County’s various debt ratings. Type of Debt General Obligation Fitch AA+ AA AA Date Rating Assigned 11/11/03 12/4/01 4/5/00 Stadium District Revenue Bonds Moody’s Aa3 Aa3 A-1 A-2 A Aa Aa-1 Aa Aaa1 Date Rating Assigned 12/6/01 5/26/00 11/6/98 3/17/97 6/13/94 7/26/93 8/21/81 12/6/72 Standard & Poor’s A+ A AA Date Rating Assigned 4/11/97 5/27/94 6/2/76 AAA1 Note: 1 Bonds are insured, no underlying rating. 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 338 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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 adjacent to the following tables. There are an infinite number of ratios, which could be calculated to measure the County’s debt burden. The following analysis focuses on commonly used ratios instead of creating customized ones. The ratios calculated are for governmental activities and do not include business-type activities. The source of repayment is from either the secondary tax levy or by appropriation from the general fund for debt service payments. Debt for which there is a source of repayment; i.e. pledged revenues for car rental service charge, debt service has been excluded. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITES General Obligation Less: Amount available for Retirement of General Obligation Debt Lease Revenue Bonds Certificate of Participation Capital Leases DIRECT AND OVERALL NET DEBT MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA Audited Unaudited 6/30/03 6/30/04 $ 39,515,000 $ 20,165,000 (722,346) 91,558,756 5,808,084 19,414,905 Projected 6/30/05 $ 93,569,383 10,820,105 Projected 6/30/06 - $ 85,894,077 5,620,713 78,044,580 2,210,131 Direct Net Debt 1 Overlapping Debt $ 155,574,399 5,216,661,101 $ 124,554,488 5,343,308,638 $ 91,514,790 5,460,861,428 $ 80,254,711 5,581,000,379 Overall Net Debt $ 5,372,235,500 $ 5,467,863,126 $ 5,552,376,218 $ 5,661,255,090 Population Estimate 2 Full Value of Taxable Property 3,296,250 3 3,396,875 3,515,766 3,638,817 $ 194,235,322 $ 226,293,569 $ 246,659,990 $ 268,859,389 Ratios Direct Net Debt Per Capita $ 47.20 $ 36.67 $ 26.03 $ 22.06 Overall Net Debt Per Capita $ 1,629.80 $ 1,609.67 $ 1,579.28 $ 1,555.80 4 Direct Net Debt As Percentage Of Full Value Property Overall Net Debt As % Of FV Property FV Property Per Capita $ .0801% .0550% .0371% .0299% 2.77% 2.42% 2.25% 2.11% 58,926.15 $ 66,618.16 $ 70,158.25 $ 73,886.48 Notes: 1 Projected overlapping debt for 2005 and 2006 was based on a three year average of 2.2%. 2 Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security. Projections for 2005 and 2006 are based on a 3.5% estimated annual growth rate. 3 Taxable Property Estimates: 2004 provided by the Assessor’s Office; 2005 and 2006 based on a 9% estimated annual growth; amounts are in billions (000’s omitted). 4 Summary of Debt Ratios: • Direct net debt per capita = Direct net debt/Population • 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. 339 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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. 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, 2004, the County net general obligation debt was $20,165,000, (0.07% of taxable property), while the 6 percent limit was $1,648,679,252 and the 15 percent limit was $4,121,698,129. The following tables and chart illustrate the existing debt service for the outstanding general obligation bonded debt currently paid by ad valorem taxes as of June 30, 2004. As of July 1, 2004, all general obligation bonds for Maricopa County have been paid in full. DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY General Obligation Bonds Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2004 Year Ending June 30 Principal Interest Debt Service 2005 $ 20,165,000 $ 403,300 $ 20,568,300 TOTAL $ 20,165,000 $ 403,300 $ 20,568,300 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2004 Bond Issue Amount 2001 Bond Issue – Refunding $ 20,165,000 TOTAL $ 20,165,000 Lease Revenue Bonds On June 1, 2001, the Maricopa County Public Finance Corporation issued $124,855,000 of Lease Revenue Bonds to pay for the acquisition, construction and equipment for a planned 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. The County will make lease payments to extinguish the debt. Lease payments will equal the aggregate amount of principal and interest due at that 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 made by the County. On December 3, 2003, the Maricopa County Public Finance Corporation issued Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2003, of $16,880,000 (par value) with an interest rate ranging from 2.5% to 4% and maturing on July 1, 2012. The proceeds were used to advance refund the 2000 certificates of participation principal of 340 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service $4,103,000, 1996 certificates of participation principal of $1,576,452, 1994 certificates of participation principal of $3,815,000, 1993 certificates of participation principal of $580,000, and several capital leases aggregating $11,104,817. The bonds were issued at a premium of $457,156 and debt service reserve accounts previously established totaling $4,461,354 were used for the advance refunding and to pay cost of issuance expense. Under the terms of the bond indentures, the Corporation received the proceeds to advance refund County debt obligations and the County will make lease payments to extinguish the debt. The County will be obligated to pay on each lease payment date an amount equal to the lease payments then due. The County’s obligation to pay the lease payments will continue until all lease payments due under the lease have been paid. The County’s obligation to make lease payments will be subject to and dependent upon annual appropriations made by the County. DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Lease Revenue Bonds Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2004 Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Principal Interest Principal Interest $ 7,675,306 $ 4,495,656 $ 1,419,694 $ 823,323 7,849,497 4,179,726 1,465,503 695,633 7,967,462 3,807,995 1,537,538 627,290 6,871,009 3,481,208 1,613,991 564,171 7,114,314 3,168,611 1,485,686 503,768 38,723,846 9,985,613 6,551,154 1,509,229 17,367,949 956,846 2,597,051 143,079 $ 93,569,383 $ 30,075,655 $ 16,670,617 $ 4,866,493 Year Ending June 30 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-14 2015 Total SUMMARY OF LEASE REVENUE BOND AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2004 Bond Issue Amount 2001 Lease Revenue Bonds $ 93,360,000 2003 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds 16,880,000 TOTAL $ 110,240,000 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., 341 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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. 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, 2004 Year Ending Total June 30 Debt Service Principal Interest 2005 $ 2,490,000 $ 2,862,094 $ 5,352,094 2006 2,685,000 2,737,592 5,422,592 2007 2,820,000 2,603,345 5,423,345 2008 2,960,000 2,462,344 5,422,344 2009 3,105,000 2,314,344 5,419,344 2010-14 17,940,000 9,162,994 27,102,994 2015-19 23,225,000 3,875,912 27,100,912 TOTAL $ 55,225,000 $ 26,018,625 $ 81,243,625 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2004 Bond Issue Amount Total Stadium District Revenue Bonds, Series 2002 $ 55,225,000 342 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Stadium District Revenue Bonds 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 Interest Principal 2,000,000 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 0 2005 1,000,000 Stadium District Contractual Commitments On February 17, 1994, the Stadium District entered into an agreement with the Arizona Diamondbacks (Team) to provide for the financing of a portion of the costs of acquisitions and construction of a new major league baseball stadium. In connection with the agreement, the Stadium District committed to provide up to $253,000,000 for the cost of the new stadium. The $253,000,000 was funded through the use of $238,000,000 of the special sales tax levy imposed on April 1, 1995. Under the Facility Development Agreement for the major league baseball stadium, the Stadium District was obligated to obtain a loan in the amount not to exceed $15 million to pay for part of the Stadium District’s portion of construction costs. The Team agreed to include the Stadium District loan in its financing in order to allow the Stadium District to obtain more favorable financing terms, and the Stadium District agreed to repay the Team for this increase in the Team’s borrowing. At June 30, 2004, the Stadium District had contractual commitments outstanding of $6,428,888 with a fixed interest rate of 7.15%. DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Stadium District Contractual Commitments Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2004 Year Ending Total June 30 Debt Service Principal Interest 2005 $ $ 459,921 $ 459,921 2006 459,921 459,921 2007 459,921 459,921 2008 459,921 459,921 2009 459,921 459,921 2010-14 1,666,668 2,120,753 3,787,421 2015-19 2,777,780 1,206,635 3,984,415 2020-24 1,984,440 258,416 2,242,856 TOTAL $ 6,428,888 $ 5,885,409 $ 12,314,297 343 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service Special Assessment Districts A Special Assessment District (County 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 fiftyone 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 contain 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 for 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 County 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. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2004 Bond Issue Amount Grandview Manor $ 20,860 Queen Creek Water 76,597 Fairview Lane 6,155 East Fairview Lane 10,755 White Fence Farms 33,092 104th Place/University Drive 17,928 Central Avenue 75,276 Billings Street 2,766 Marquerite Drive 39,614 7th Street North 60,059 TOTAL $ 343,102 Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation represent proportionate interests in semiannual lease payments. The County’s obligation to make lease payments is subject to annual appropriations made by the County for that purpose. 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. 344 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS TO MATURITY Certificates of Participation Maricopa County, Arizona As of June 30, 2004 Year Ending Business-Type Activities June 30 Principal Interest 2005 $ 365,000 $ 289,508 2006 385,000 271,786 2007 400,000 253,043 2008 420,000 233,258 2009 445,000 212,170 2010-14 2,595,000 692,961 2015-16 1,255,000 69,683 TOTAL $ 5,865,000 $ 2,022,409 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING BY ISSUE As of June 30, 2004 Certificate of Participation Issue Amount Series 2000 Certificates of Participation $ 5,865,000 TOTAL $ 5,865,000 Capital Leases (Lease-Purchase Obligations) Maricopa County uses lease-purchase financing to expand its borrowing power. This financing technique provides long-term financing through a lease (with a mandatory purchase provision). Lease-purchase agreements use non-appropriation clauses to avoid being classified as long-term debt, which might be subject to State legal restrictions. This clause allows the government to terminate the lease without penalty. However, because it is not likely that the County would be willing to forego the property, lease-purchase agreements are considered long-term obligations for policy planning purposes, regardless of the legal structure. The County maintains many capital leases, with the majority relating to the computer equipment refresh program where most personal computers are replaced every three years. 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, 2004. Capital Leases Governmental Activities Maricopa County, Arizona Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2004 $ 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total minimum lease payments Less: Amount representing interest Present value of net minimum lease payments 345 $ 5,398,977 3,503,240 2,176,267 62,860 11,141,344 (321,239) 10,820,105 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 $2,382,705. The future minimum payments required under the contracts at June 30, 2004, are as follows. Installment Purchase Contracts Payable Business-Type Activities Maricopa County, Arizona Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total minimum lease payments Less: Amount representing interest Present value of net minimum lease payments $ $ 404,040 378,731 358,051 208,863 1,349,685 (97,636) 1,252,049 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 County Manager is the Chief Executive of the County. With the exception of those responsibilities specifically assigned by state statute to the Chief Financial Officer, the County Manager 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 County Manager. The Chief Financial Officer is also responsible for attestation of disclosure and other bond related documents. References to the “County Manager 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 346 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service expected to result in an insufficient number or competitive bids. Advantages of using a competitive sale is that the issuer is getting the lowest net interest cost on that day time and all parties are given an equal opportunity, but timing is very inflexible. 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. Advantages of a negotiated sale is that timing is extremely flexible, the size of the issue can be easily changed at last minute and the issuer has influence over the underwriter selection and bond distribution. Use of Bond Insurance This is an insurance policy purchased by an issuer or an underwriter for either an entire issue or specific maturities. It will guarantee the payment of principal and interest, which in turn provides a higher credit rating and thus a lower borrowing cost for an issuer. The present value of the estimated debt service savings from insurance should be at least equal to or greater than the insurance premium when insurance is purchased directly by the County. The bond insurance company will usually be chosen based on an estimate of the greatest net present value insurance benefit (present value of debt service savings less insurance premium). Arbitrage Liability Management Arbitrage 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 347 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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. Copies of official statements for future issuance’s of its bonds will be available through the following recognized municipal repositories: Bloomberg Municipal Repositories 100 Business Park Drive Skillman, NJ 08558 Phone: (609) 279-3225 Fax: (609) 279-5962 Email: Munis@Bloomberg.com DPC Data Inc. One Executive Drive Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 346-0701 Fax: (201) 947-0107 Email: nrmsir@dpcdata.com FT Interactive Data Attn: NRMSIR 100 Williams Street New York, NY 10038 Phone (212) 771-6999 Fax: (212) 771-7390 Email: NRMSIR@FTID.com Standard & Poor’s Security Evaluations, Inc. 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. 348 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 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 Manager. Significant policy changes will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval. 349 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Debt Service 350 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance County At A Glance County Profile Maricopa County was created in 1871 from Yavapai and Pima Counties. It was named after the Maricopa Indian Tribe, which is known to have inhabited the area as early at 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%, and the State of Arizona 11%, leaving the remaining 16% publicly owned land. Maricopa County Profile Population Population 3,501,001 4th Most Populous County in the US Population Larger than 21 States Land Mass 9,203 Square Miles 14th Largest County in Land Size in the US Larger than 7 States United States of America State of Arizona Nation’s Largest Regional Park System Over 120,000 Acres Maricopa County Maricopa County’s total size of 9,224 square miles is comprised of 6,996 square miles are unincorporated and 2,228 incorporated square miles. The County measures 132 miles from east to west and 103 miles from north to south. Within the boundaries are 9,126 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 faces many challenges as one of the fastest growing counties in the nation with a population of over 3.5 million. These challenges are inferred in Maricopa County’s mission, to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Maricopa County is Arizona’s largest local government; it operates without powers of self government. 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 Maricopa County divided geographically and by population to Supervisor District Map include a mix of urban and rural District 4 constituencies. Members are elected to fourDistrict 3 Buckeye District 2 Phoenix year terms and may serve an unlimited El Mirage Apache Junction number of terms. A County Manager, Glendale Carefree Litchfield Park appointed by the Board of Supervisors, is Cave Creek Peoria Fountain Hills responsible for the administration of Maricopa Surprise Gilbert County. Wickenburg Mesa Paradise Valley Scottsdale Youngtown District 5 Avondale Gila Bend Goodyear Guadalupe Tolleson District 1 Chandler Queen Creek Tempe 351 As demonstrated on the Maricopa County Supervisorial District Map at the left, Maricopa County has five supervisorial district and twenty-five incorporated municipalities. Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance 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 occurs. The County’s boundaries have not changed since 1881. District 2 District 3 District 4 Andrew Kunasek Max Wilson Don Stapley 609,493 607,783 629,606 Apache Junction* Phoenix Buckeye Carefree El Mirage Cave Creek Glendale Fountain Hills Litchfield Park Gilbert Peoria* Mesa Surprise Paradise Valley Wickenburg Scottsdale Youngtown ° The population listed is information from the 2000 U.S. Census. * The boundaries of this municipality crosses Maricopa County boundaries into another county. Supervisor Population° Incorporated Municipalities District 1 Fulton Brock 597,949 Chandler Queen Creek* Tempe Arizona County Population Distribution Pima Pinal Yavapai Mohave Yuma Cochise Coconino Navajo Apache Gila Santa Cruz Graham La Paz Greenlee District 5 Mary Rose Wilcox 627,318 Avondale Gila Bend Goodyear Guadalupe Tolleson Maricopa County has the largest population of the 15 counties in the State of Arizona. Additionally, Maricopa County houses the largest city 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. 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 and precipitation are listed below. Maricopa Avg Temp (F) Avg Max Temp (F) Avg Min Temp (F) Avg Rain (Inches) Jan 53.5 65.7 41.4 0.82 Maricopa County Monthly Average Tempatures and Precipitation Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 57.6 62.3 69.9 78.6 87.8 92.9 91.2 85.7 70.4 75.5 84.1 93.2 102.8 105.2 103.4 98.6 44.8 49.1 55.6 64.0 72.9 80.6 79.0 72.7 0.68 0.89 0.27 0.14 0.11 0.89 1.02 0.72 Oct 74.5 88.2 60.8 0.62 Nov 61.8 75.0 48.5 0.61 Dec 54.0 66.4 41.6 0.89 Maricopa County offers a broad range of community and cultural facilities and activities. Professional sports prosper in Maricopa County. Teams include the Arizona Cardinals (National Football League); Arizona Diamondbacks (National Baseball League); Arizona Rattlers (Arena Football League), the Arizona Sting (National Lacrosse League), the Phoenix Coyotes (National Hockey League), the Phoenix Mercury (Women’s National Basketball Association); and the Phoenix Suns (National Basketball Association). Maricopa County is home to many other professionals sports and events including outdoor soccer, 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 Golf Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association and the Senior Professional Golf Association, such as the Phoenix Open. Maricopa County is home to the Phoenix International Raceway where residents and visitors can witness a variety of NASCAR races. Maricopa County owns Chase Field, formerly 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 352 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance addition, the City of Glendale will be home to the new Cardinal Football Stadium, currently under construction and expected to open 2006. Maricopa County is also home to the nation’s largest regional parks system measuring over 120,000 acres. There are 26 major hospitals within the County, including the Maricopa Medical Center that offers the only regional burn center in the State of Arizona. Maricopa County’s Library District offers 3 Regional Libraries, 11 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. County Seal and Flag The current County Seal was redesigned and adopted in 2001. When the seal was updated, great care was taken to maintain many of the key elements of the old seal while taking the opportunity to update and improve. The colors used in the seal reflect our unique desert environment. Maricopa County Seal 1871 Banner Maricopa County Established February 14, 1871 Scales Legal Services Tree, Horse & Rider Parks & Recreation Arizona State Flower Saguaro Cactus Blossom The seal contains icons that are relevant to Maricopa County. The Saguaro Cactus is indigenous to the area and is found throughout Maricopa County. The Saguaro Cactus Blossom, which is the State Flower, blooms in the spring. The Scales of Justice refer to our legal system and law enforcement. Our health services are represented by the Caduceus and the Scenic Highway scene represents our public works departments. Lastly, the tree, horse and rider represent our Parks and Recreation facilities that can be found throughout the County. Scenic Highway Land, Roads & Flood Control Caduceus Health Services The County flag is divided into three main color blocks: red, yellow and blue. The Seal of Maricopa County is emblazoned on a block of red, symbolizing the striking beauty of the sunrises and sunsets and the desert flowers and the energy and lifeblood commitment of so many citizens who have built and continue to build Maricopa County, thereby safeguarding it for future generations. The central golden band signifies the great abundance of what gives the Valley of the Sun its moniker. It also represents one of the first stimulants to local commerce – the gold mines of the Wickenburg area that brought settlers into the area and led to the creation of the original concept of a county called Maricopa. It symbolizes the continuing prosperity of Maricopa County, which truly is the “golden corridor” of economic growth for the State of Arizona. Maricopa County Flag The blue field represents the infinite blue skies that embrace the county nearly every day of the year, and the waters of the rivers, lakes and canals, which have made our desert lush with vegetation and ripe with recreation. It represents the dreams of all who have come here and those who have gone before us, leaving their mark for others to see. In the blue field are five stars. They represent the five groups of Yuman-speaking Native Americans—the “Maricopa” for whom the county is named. They represent the five influxes of diversified peoples: Native Americans, Europeans, Hispanics, Americans, and the people of all other nationalities. Together, we have created a cultural dynamic in the Sonoran desert in which heritage and future are symbiotic. The five stars also represent the five supervisory districts into which the County is divided. This flag is a banner for the people of 353 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Maricopa County – a prosperous, environmentally beautiful community where everyone can aspire to their full potential. Economy Maricopa County Actual/Forecast After more than two years of declining interest rates, jobs, and production, Maricopa County’s economy is beginning to improve, although somewhat slowly. Short of some catastrophic event such as a largescale terrorism attack on U.S. soil, the Maricopa County economy is expected to perform nicely for the next several quarters. The combination of fiscal and monetary incentives, along with low interest rates, has properly supported the economy through its weak stages. Although the current recovery is expected to be moderate by industry standards, inflation is not expected to place a significant threat. 10.0% 8.0% Percent Change 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Population Employment Personal Income Retail Sales 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 3.0% 2.7% 2.9% 2.0% 3.0% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% Local economist Elliott D. Pollack, states factors that 1.1% 3.1% 4.1% 4.2% affect the County’s current economic condition include 5.3% 6.7% 7.2% 4.1% population, employment, personal income and retail 8.2% 8.0% 7.5% 7.5% Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. sales. The growth of these indicators is shown in the chart at the right. Population continues to grow at a steady pace while local employment increased significantly in 2005 and retail sales showed a considerable increase, which is expected to continue throughout 2006. According to the Department of Economic Security, employment will grow by more than 3.5% in 2005, which equates to more than 70,000 jobs and represents the strongest job performance since 2000. High productivity may hinder job growth in the short-term, but in the long-term employment and wages will increase and Maricopa County’s economy will certainly benefit. Maricopa County’s employment numbers are improving as shown in the chart at the left. This improvement creates disposable income and additional spending power for the consumer. Maricopa County’s tourism industry, which the County depends heavily upon, appears to be improving along with the economy. Leisure and hospitality employment is expected to grow 3.9% in FY 2005. Workforce figures reveal that Arizona’s economy continued to grow at a pace of 2.4% over the same period one year earlier according to the Department of Economic Security. Maricopa County Employment Actual/Forecast 5% 4.1% 4% 3.1% 2.7% 3% 2% 1% 1.3% 1.1% 0% FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 . FY 2005 Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. 354 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Arizona Population & Employment Distribution The Arizona State University Center for Business Research reports that Maricopa County’s annual population grew more in the last year than in the prior year, due primarily to migration. The chart at the right compares the current population distribution to that of employment in the State of Arizona by largest counties. The two largest counties in the state are Maricopa County (encompassing the greater Phoenix area) and Pima County (encompassing the greater Tucson area). Real gross domestic product (GDP) represents the output of goods and services produced by labor and property in the United States. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP increased by 3.6% in the first and second quarters in 2005, Population Distribution Employment Distribution Balance of State 16% Balance of State 24% Pima County 15% Pima County 16% Maricopa County 60% Maricopa County 69% Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product respectively, outperforming the preliminary estimate of 2.8%. The major contributors to the increase in real GDP were nonresidential fixed investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), residential fixed investment, private inventory investment, exports, and government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased. The chart at the left demonstrates the impact that the events of September 11, 2001 combined with a national recession had on real GDP, and the improvement of the economy in the years following. 5% 4.7% 4% 3% 0.8% 3.6% 3.0% 2% 1% 1.9% Other qualities of Maricopa County that contributed to improving the economy include quality of life, cost of 2002 2003 2004 living, a skilled work force, good universities and a 2005 favorable business climate. Phoenix, the largest city Source: Elliott D. Pollack & Co. within Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona, was ranked as one of the top 10 cities in the 7th annual “America’s 50 Hottest Cities” report, published in the January 2005 issue of Expansion Management magazine. The International Genomics Consortium and the Transnational Genomics Research Institute (TGEN) are evidence of Maricopa County’s leadership in bioscience, and will provide a base of expertise and knowledge that will enhance the area’s ability to develop and attract bioscience related companies. In addition, the new Arizona State University-Capital Center campus, being built downtown, will enhance downtown and the businesses located there. 0% 2001 . 355 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Population According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Maricopa County’s estimated population as of July 1, 2004 stands at 3,501,001. 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. 61 percent of Arizona’s population resides in Maricopa County. Maricopa County 4 5 2 3 As reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, Maricopa County was first in the nation, among large population counties, in gaining residents from July 2003 to July 2004. The chart at the right illustrates the top six counties in population gains. According to a statewide economic study prepared by Eller College of Business & Public Administration at the University of Arizona, annual population and employment growth is expected to be 3.3% and 3.4% respectively. The state’s employment to population ratio will continue to increase. 2. Riverside 1.9 million 112,233 3.3% 89,128 5.0% 3. Los Angeles 9.9 million 77,357 0.8% 4. Clark 1.7 million 75,285 4.8% 5. San Bernardino 1.9 million 58,936 3.2% 6. Harris 3.6 million 51,278 1.4% Incremental Growth 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 United States 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Arizona 2.8% 2.7% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% Maricopa County 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 3.0% 2.9% 3.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Economic Security, Elliott D. Pollack & Co. 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. 4,021 3,864 3,943 3,787 3,710 3,633 3,481 3,557 3,330 3,405 3,254 3,104 3,179 3.5 million 3.5% Maricopa County Population Projections 3,029 6 1. Maricopa Incremental Population Growth Comparison Maricopa County’s actual population, including projections through the year 2014, are displayed on the chart below. Population projections are based on estimated births, deaths and net migration. The County’s growth reflects a national trend of population shifts to the Sunbelt states. Employment opportunity is the most significant migration driver in Maricopa County. Thousands 1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau The chart at the right compares Maricopa County’s incremental population growth to that of Arizona and the United States. Population growth in Maricopa County is expected to continue to outpace that of Arizona and the nation as a whole. Maricopa County is expected to gain 75,198 citizens in the coming year, reflecting a 2.2% increase in population. 4,500 Top six counties in population gains July 1, 2003 - July 1, 2004 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security 356 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Maricopa County Migration Trends Net migration, as used within this document, represents the sum of 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 other neighboring states, or more distant but populous states such as New York and Illinois. Births Deaths Net Migration Net Change 140 120 Thousands 100 As provided on the chart below, the largest portion of our current population lies in the 25-34 and 35-44 age groups. Significant growth is projected in the 35-44 and the 45-54 age groups by 2010. Such trends must be considered in the County’s long range financial forecast, as average citizen age may impact revenues (through changes in consumer spending patterns) and expenditures (as a result of services needs). 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: University of Arizona, Arizona Department of Economic Security, Elliott D. Pollack & Co. Maricopa County Population by Age 1990 2000 Data from the U.S. Census Bureau, shown in the table below, indicates that growth in the Hispanic/Latino population was significantly higher than that of other ethnic groups from 2001 to 2002 2010 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 s yr + rs rs 4y -8 85 rs 4y 75 -7 4y 65 -6 60 55 -5 9y rs rs 4y -5 45 -4 4y rs rs 4y 35 -2 25 20 -3 4y rs rs rs 4y -1 -1 9y rs 10 15 4y 0- 5- 9y rs 0 Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Elliott D. Pollack & Co. RACE White Persons Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin Other Origins Black or African American Persons Asian Persons American Indian and Alaska Native Persons JULY 1, 2001 63.4% 20.4% 9.8% 3.1% 1.8% 1.5% 357 JULY 1, 2002 64.1% 27.1% 1.2% 3.6% 2.3% 1.6% INCREASE/ DECREASE 1.1% 33.0% -8.8% 16.0% 28.0% 6.7% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Employment Non-Farm Wage & Salary Employment Maricopa County makes up 68.9% of the state’s employment base. According to the July 2005 edition of the University of Arizona’s Economic Outlook, between 2004 and 2005, the percent of increase for non-farm employment in Maricopa County was 5.8%. The State of Arizona’s increase during that same time was 5.3%. Other Services Leisure & Hospitality Edu & Health Svcs Professional & Business Services Financial Activities Information Trade, Transportation & Utilities Manufacturing Construction Natural Resources & Mining 0% 36,633 15,218 14,447 Banner Health 15% 20% 25% Employers with more than 9,000 employees working within Maricopa County are listed on the chart at left. 13,617 City of Phoenix 10% According to Elliott D. Pollack & Company, Maricopa County government is the 3rd largest employer in Maricopa County. Maricopa County employment figures are based upon actual number of regular employees. However, as of January 1, 2005, the Maricopa Medical Center belongs to a new Special Health Care District. When that transition took place, approximately 3,700 jobs also moved to the District. 19,510 Maricopa County 5% Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Arizona Department of Economic Security, Elliott D. Pollack & Co. Maricopa County Major Employers Wal-Mart United States Government 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 largest proportion is in Trade, Transportation, and Utilities, at 19.4% in the United States, 19.2% in Arizona and 20.3% in Maricopa County. The smallest proportion is in Natural Resources and Mining, at 0.4% in the United States, 0.3% in Arizona, and 0.1% in Maricopa County. State of Arizona (Percent Distribution) Arizona Maricopa County 12,000 Honeywell 11,406 US Postal Service Wells Fargo 11,000 ASU 10,530 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Source: Elliot D. Pollack & Co The trends in population and employment growth, shown at the right, continue to increase, although at a slower rate than that of a decade ago. Maricopa County Population & Employment Growth 4,500 Thousands 4,000 3,500 Population Trend 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 Employment Trend 1,000 Employment Growth 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 0 2000 500 Population Growth Source: Elliot D. Pollack & Co 358 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Personal Income Percent Change Actual/Forecast According to the University of Arizona Economic Outlook, in 2004, higher productivity allowed companies to provide employees with real wage increases in 2004, as reflected in the chart at the left. Real compensation rose by 2.0% last year, creating additional consumer spending power which helped to fuel the economic recovery. 10% 9% 3% 2% 2006 7.7% 2005 5.3% 3.3% 4% 3.3% 5% 5.7% 6% 7.2% 7% 7.3% 8% 2002 2003 1% 0% 2001 2004 2007 Source: University of Arizona, Economic Outlook Unemployment Comparison United States Arizona Since April 2004, Maricopa County’s unemployment rate has fluctuated between 4.5% and 3.9%, as illustrated on the chart at the left. According to local economists, Arizona and Maricopa County‘s job market is recovering, and local unemployment rates continue to be lower than national levels. The Department of Economic Security recently updated the economic forecast for 2005, and shows a job growth estimate of 3.5%, which equates to 70,000 more jobs. Maricopa County 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% M Ap r04 ay -0 Ju 4 n04 Ju l0 Au 4 g0 Se 4 p04 O ct -0 4 N ov -0 4 D ec -0 4 Ja n0 Fe 5 b05 M ar -0 Ap 5 r05 M ay -0 Ju 5 n05 Ju l-0 5 0.0% Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security Retail Sales Maricopa County Aggregate Annual Retail Sales Retail Sales Actual/Forecast Retail Sales Trendline $50 $45 $40 Millions Maricopa County’s retail sales continue to increase at a greater rate than that of Arizona as a whole. Maricopa County’s retail sales represent nearly 70% of total retail sales in the state. Aggregate annual retail sales for Maricopa County are provided in the chart at the right. The year-over-year retail sales growth trend line shows moderate growth through FY 2007-08. $35 $37.0 $31.1 $39.8 $42.4 $44.8 $47.3 $33.7 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 Source: Elliot D. Pollack & Co 359 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. Maricopa County is part of the Arizona Affordable Housing Profile which determines the affordability of housing and identifies efforts undertaken to produce new affordable units by community, county and statewide. One of the objectives in the housing profile is to identify the “affordability gap” for the State. The “gap” is the difference between the number of households within each income range and the number of housing units affordable to the households. It typically occurs at the lower end of the income range where there are more households than affordable units. For these households to find housing in the community, they must invest more than 28% of their income in shelter. For the first quarter in 2005, the Housing Opportunity Index indicates that Phoenix-Mesa is at 60.1% of the share of homes affordable for median income of $58,300 which is ranked 87th compared to other cities in the United States. Single Family Homes Median Prices As indicated in the chart at the left, the median price of single-family homes (resale and new) have increased by $27,789 since last year, an average of $6,947 per quarter. Home sales continued to grow as well. The increase in single-family home sales may be due to the continually low interest rates and the relative ease of obtaining a mortgage. According to Elliott D. Pollack & Company “as much as 25% of the recent housing market activity can be attributed to investors, second home purchases, and those moving from apartments or double occupancies. For Calendar Year 2004 New $207 $185 $198 $178 $191 $170 $181 $150 $160 Thousands Resale $200 $100 $50 $0 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Source: Elliot D. Pollack & Co Elliott D. Pollack & Company further states “despite concerns about the housing bubble bursting in the Greater Phoenix Area, the County can consider this a low probability event. Current supply/demand imbalances would assure that even if large quantities of investor homes enter the market at the same time, the excess supply would be consumed within a matter of months, rather than years.” Maricopa County’s housing permits continue to increase at record levels. As indicated on the chart below, of the 70,408 single-family housing units authorized in Arizona during FY 2004-05*, 39,587 or 56% were authorized for Maricopa County. 4,052 County units, or nearly 6% of Maricopa County’s total single-family housing units, were authorized for unincorporated areas. Recent numbers also show that Maricopa County still has a strong forward momentum in home sales, housing starts and house prices. Housing permits for the first quarter of FY 2004-05 were only 3,622 less than the total number issued for FY 2003-04. *Fiscal year to date through March 2005 360 Single Family Housing Units Authorized Arizona Maricopa County Total Maricopa County Unincorporated 80,000 74,030 70,408 70,000 58,647 60,000 50,000 40,000 48,963 32,790 51,258 46,382 32,812 39,587 36,875 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 3,181 FY 00-01 4,725 FY 01-02 5,302 FY 02-03 5,289 FY 03-04 4,052 FY 04-05 Source: Elliot D. Pollack & Co Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Maricopa County Multi-Family Market Inventory Multi-Family housing inventory grew by 1.2% during 2004, and the vacancy rate of 7.9% for 2004 is a 1.7% decrease from last year. Vacancy rates are expected to continue to decline, remaining in the mid 6 to 7% range at the end of 2005 as indicated by Elliott D. Pollack and Company. Between 1994 and 2004 multifamily unit inventories have increased by 46% and vacancy rates have increased by 4.1%. The chart at the left shows the growth pattern. According to Grubb & Ellis Annual Report, mortgage rates remained low in 2004 but started to rise toward the end of the year. If interest rates continue to rise during 2005, the number of first-time buyers will decrease, increasing the demand for multi-family housing. % Vacant 350,000 12% 300,000 10% 250,000 8% 200,000 6% 150,000 4% 100,000 2% 50,000 0 0% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Maricopa County Office Market Source: Elliot D. Pollack & Co The office market will benefit from a recovery in vacancy rates in the years to come. As stated by Elliott D. Pollack & Company, absorption actually exceeded new supply in 2004, as indicated in the chart at the right and is projected to do the same in 2005. Currently, the vacancy rate is 16.4%; however, the vacancy rate is expected to drop to 15.2% by the end of 2005 mainly due to two years of relatively modest construction. Year Inventory 2000 52,456,482 2,618,765 3,068,284 9.9% 2001 57,480,257 4,460,813 1,535,151 16.0% 2002 59,785,848 2,282,876 707,037 18.8% 60,111,965 388,992 1,245,156 18.3% 61,732,827 1,385,444 2,222,880 16.4% 2003 2004 Health Care Year of Transition New Supply Absorption % Vacant Source: Elliot D. Pollack & Co The FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget reflects major changes in Maricopa County’s role in health care delivery. For over a century, Maricopa County operated a public hospital, Maricopa Medical Center. The Maricopa Integrated Healthcare System (MISH) eventually grew into a network of medical and behavioral health delivery institutions and health plans with over 4,000 employees and a consolidated annual budget of nearly $780 million. MIHS could not operate without a subsidy from the County General Fund, and the system’s needs could not be met within the County’s fiscal structure. Counties in Arizona are not mandated to operate hospitals, while demands have continued to increase for criminal justice, public safety and public health services that are mandated. In early 2003, a Citizen’s Task Force appointed by the County Board of Supervisors recommended transferring MIHS to a separate District entity with its own dedicated source of tax revenue. In November 2003, County voters approved the creation of a new Special Health Care District. The MIHS Healthcare Delivery System (Maricopa Medical Center, Desert Vista Behavioral Health Facility, and several outpatient clinics) was transferred to the District and its newly-elected Board of Directors in January 2005. The remaining components of MIHS, the health plans operated by the Maricopa Managed Care System, are either being transferred to the District or being phased out. Health Plans The Health Plans operated by MIHS are insurance programs responsible for managing, contracting, and paying for the health care services provided to enrolled members. By FY 2004-05, two health plans remained in operation. The Maricopa Health Plan provided coverage for acute medical care for enrollees in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), the State’s Medicaid program. The Maricopa Long Term Care Plan 361 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance covered long-term care for enrollees in the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS), the AHCCCS long-term care program. The county set out to stabilize the financial position of the health plans before transferring them to the Special Health Care District. The Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and the District did not set a specific date for transfer of the plans, but provided a schedule of periodic status discussions. However, the financial position of the Health Plans remained difficult to determine given problems associated with the OAO claims payment system. In order to resolve these problems, ongoing medical claims processing was outsourced by the County early in FY 2004-05. The most serious issue has been the inability of the Health Plans to pay their medical claims on a timely basis, and as a result properly calculate the amount to report as Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) liabilities. Additionally, it appears that IBNR had been understated prior to OAO implementation. Through Fiscal Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the health plans drained significant financial resources from the County General Fund. In March 2005, it was projected that General Fund cash infusions to the health plans would reach $95 million through the end of the fiscal year. A review by an outside actuarial firm concluded that the losses would not be reduced enough to forestall further cash infusion from the General Fund. Consequently, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted in May 2005 to ask the District to decide whether or not it would take one or both of the plans by September 30, 2005; the Board stated its intention to close either or both plans by that date if the District declined to take them on. In June 2005, the District notified the County of its intention to take over the Maricopa Health Plan, but declined to transfer the Maricopa Long Term Care Plan. The district took over operation of MHP on September 30, 2005, and on that date the MLTCP was closed and its members transferred to other ALTCS plans. As of this date, the transition to the Special Healthy Care District was complete. Criminal Justice Sheriff’s Office The mission of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is to provide law enforcement, detention and crime prevention to the public so that they can be safe and secure in our community. The Sheriff’s Office 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 basic enforcement. The Sheriff’s Office operates one of the largest jail systems operated by a sheriff in the nation. Average Daily Adult Jail Population 10000 9000 8657 9054 8044 8000 7557 7059 6804 7000 6520 6768 6660 5922 6000 5000 5503 4861 4000 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY In FY 2004-05, Maricopa County’s jail facilities housed an average of 9,054 inmates daily, an increase of 4.6 percent over the previous year. Last year the Sheriff’s Office booked 119,694 adult inmates. Adults make-up approximately 95 percent of Maricopa County’s inmate population while remanded juveniles comprise the remaining 5 percent. 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 94 The Sheriff’s Office houses approximately 1,500 sentenced inmates, both men and women, in tents. A gleaning program results in costs of less than 23 cents per inmate meal served. The Sheriff’s Office utilizes men and women on chain gangs, and has a volunteer posse of over 3,000 men and women. These volunteers spend their time and money to train to be volunteers helping to keep the county free from crime. 362 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance In 1998, County voters approved a 1/5-cent Jail Excise tax for construction of new adult and juvenile detention facilities. Construction was completed and phased-in operations began in FY 2004-05. Details on each new adult detention facility are as follows: • 4th Avenue Jail – The new 4th Avenue Jail is a mid-rise high-security jail located in downtown Phoenix. This Jail contains 1,360 cells, including 144 special management cells for close-custody (“Super Max”) inmates. 4th Avenue Jail will house the new Central Intake Unity (capable of handling 600 bookings every 12 hours), two Initial Appearance (IA) 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. Phased-in operations for this new facility began in FY 2004-05. • Lower Buckeye Jail – The Lower Buckeye Jail contains 1,867 cells as well as units for remanded juveniles and maximum sentenced adults, a psychiatric unit and a minimum-security adult dormitory. In addition, the Jail will house a new Infirmary, medical clinic, Correctional Health Services Administration and Programs/Education Administration. Phased-in operations for this new facility began in FY 2004-05. County Attorney’s Office 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. As the chief advocate for the State and the citizens of the community in criminal matters, the County Attorney seeks to provide the highest quality service and to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system. Criminals must be held accountable, while assuring that the statutory right and emotional needs of the victims and witnesses are properly addressed. In addition, the County Attorney seeks to implement, promote and participate in programs that reduce crime and enhance the quality of community life. Indigent Representation System: Public Defender, Legal Defender, Legal Advocate and Contract Counsel The collective mission of the Indigent Representation Agencies is to provide quality legal representation to indigent individuals as assigned by the court, thus safeguarding the fundamental legal rights of each member of the community. In order to provide constitutionally mandated legal representation to indigent individuals in the most cost-effective manner, Maricopa County created three in-house defender offices and maintains a limited number of contracts with private attorneys. Multiple offices are necessary to address legal conflicts of interest that rise primarily because of prior representation by attorneys of co-defendants, victims, or witnesses. Collectively, the Indigent Representation agencies provide legal defense services to indigent defendants in the following instances: • Criminal proceedings including felony, misdemeanor, probation violation, appeals, post-conviction relief, and cases in which defendants oppose extradition; • Juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges; • Witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court; • Indigent individuals at risk of a loss of liberty in civil mental health proceedings; and • Those involved in civil child dependency or severance proceedings. Clerk of the Superior Court The mission of the Clerk of Superior Court is to demonstrate flexibility and make innovative changes in order to meet customers' expectations when providing access to court-related records, financial and family support services to the public, legal community and Superior Court. 363 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance The Clerk of the Superior Court provides legally mandated services, including fiduciary, family support and court records information management. The Clerk of the Superior Court further supports the Superior Court of Arizona by maintaining court files, records, and exhibits in a timely and accurate manner. Constables The mission of the Constables is to provide execution of mandated civil and criminal process to citizens of Maricopa County so that they can receive timely, cost effective and professional service. Maricopa County’s 23 elected Constables serve the criminal and civil process of the Justice Courts and other legal parties. Constables are the Executive and Enforcement Branch of the Justice Courts. The duties of the Constables are to execute and return writs of possession or restitution (evictions); serve orders of protection and orders prohibiting harassment; summons Jurors; serve criminal and civil summons and subpoenas; judicial security; levy and return writs of execution (seize property to satisfy judgments); store personal property levied on; and conduct Constable sales of property levied on to satisfy judgments. Judicial Branch The Judicial Branch includes the Superior Court, Justice Courts, Adult Probation and Juvenile Probation as follows. Superior Court 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. 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 2004-05, a total of 154,996 cases were filed in Superior Court versus 155,460 cases filed in FY 200304, representing a 0.3 percent decrease. Superior Court criminal cases and juvenile court cases decreased 0.2 percent and 2.5 percent respectively, while family court cases increased by 1.7 percent. SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS COURT DEPT FY 2001 % FY 2002 % FY 2003 % FY 2004 % FY 2005 % Civil 28,052 24.4% 31,188 26.1% 35,956 28.0% 37,840 24.3% 38,016 24.5% Criminal 28,106 24.4% 30,020 25.1% 35,200 27.4% 38,685 24.9% 38,605 24.9% Family Court 30,695 26.6% 29,894 25.0% 29,414 22.9% 49,098 31.6% 49,918 32.2% Juvenile 18,984 16.5% 18,367 15.3% 17,847 13.9% 19,317 12.4% 18,825 12.1% Probate 6,569 5.7% 7,047 5.9% 6,740 5.3% 7,067 4.5% 6,624 4.3% Mental Health 1,640 1.4% 2,104 1.8% 2,163 1.7% 2,178 1.4% 1,994 1.3% Tax Court 1,140 1.0% 1,008 0.8% 1,053 0.8% 1,275 0.8% 1,014 0.7% Annual Totals 115,186 119,628 128,373 364 155,460 154,996 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Justice Courts Maricopa County’s 23 Justice Courts are limited jurisdiction courts that process traffic and civil cases, and are responsible for some criminal misdemeanors through preliminary hearing. Statistics regarding Justice Court case filings are illustrated in the following chart. 350,000 335,016 Maricopa County Justice Courts Filings by Case Types, FY 2001 - 2005 355,170 351,278 348,040 375,970 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 Adult Probation 50,000 0 The mission of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department is to provide FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 assistance and adult probation services to neighborhoods, courts, adult probationers DUI Criminal Traffic Civil Traffic Misdemeanor and victims so that they experience enhanced safety and well-being. The duties of the Adult Probation Department are as follows: FY 2005 Felony Civ • Managing offender risk by enforcing Court orders; • Encouraging probationers to engage in pro-social change, law-abiding behavior, and personal accountability under general and intensive supervision; • Providing pre-sentence reports to assess offender risk and needs in order to help guide Court decisions and to apply the appropriate level of service. • Working in community partnerships to provide crime prevention and intervention services. • Facilitating victim involvement and restorative justice services. Adult Probation Caseload 28,000 Recovery from State cuts due to County funding. 27,000 1,456 1,267 26,000 1,564 25,000 1,079 24,000 23,000 1,556 1,666 22,000 21,000 26,091 25,400 24,448 22,446 22,788 FY 00 FY 01 23,957 20,000 FY 02 FY 03 Standard Intensive FY 04 FY 05 365 In FY 2003-04, Maricopa County assumed program responsibility for funding most Adult Probation services, including intensive probation supervision, State Aid Enhancement, Interstate Compact and the Community Punishment Program. From FY 2003-04 to FY 2004-05, the average annual Standard Probation caseload increased by 8.9 percent from 23,597 to 26,091. The average annual Intensive Probation caseload increased by 34.9 percent from 1,079 to 1,456. During FY 2003-04, additional County funding was applied to restore caseload capacity. The full turnaround can be seen with the FY 2004-05 caseload as noted in the chart on the left. Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Juvenile Probation Average Daily Juvenile Detention Population 450 431 407 400 398 443 401 400 376 363 350 350 339 334 311 300 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 94 The mission of the Juvenile Probation Department is to provide information, services, and programs to county residents so that they can resolve problems associated with juvenile crime. The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over the illegal acts of juveniles, except juveniles 15 and older accuse of homicide, aggravated assault and other violent crimes. The Juvenile Probation Department operates two juvenile detention centers, supervises the probation of juvenile offenders and administers community-based crime prevention programs targeted at the County’s youth population. As noted in the table on the left, the average daily juvenile detention population increased from 431 to 443, or 2.8 percent, from FY 2003-04 to FY 2004-05. Per Juvenile Probation, the increase can be attributed to three things: (1) an overall increase in the average length of stay; (2) Judges are keeping more juveniles in detention after having been detained on warrants; and (3) Judges are using detention more frequently as a post-disposition consequence. The Jail Excise Tax also supports construction and operation of new Juvenile Detention facilities. Phased-in operation of the new facilities was complete in FY 2004-05. Details on each new juvenile detention facility are as follows: Southeast (SEF) – The approximately 80,000 square foot project contains a court building, 128 juvenile beds, a parking structure with 400 parking spaces for staff as well as space for supporting educational, program and administrative functions. Construction of this facility began in 2001 and was complete in 2003. Phased-in operation of this facility began in FY 2003-04 and was complete in FY 2004-05. Durango - The approximately 270,000 square feet project contains 220 beds, 12 new courts with judicial suites and associated office space for central administrative support staff and related functions. Operation of this facility began in FY 2003-04 and was complete in FY 2004-05. Residential Treatment Center – The Residential Treatment Center is located at the corner of Durango and 35th Avenue. Construction of this facility began in 2001 and was complete in 2003. The Juvenile Probation Department is currently under contract with Spectrum Health System to provide substance abuse treatment to male juveniles utilizing the first 24 beds. Operation of the remaining 24 beds will begin this fiscal year and will provide residential substance abuse treatment to the female juvenile population Legislative Strategies 2005 Legislative Session For Maricopa County, the First Regular Session of the 47th Arizona State Legislature brought a number of very beneficial changes. All of Maricopa County’s top legislative objectives were achieved, in that the proposals contained in the Board of Supervisors’ 2005 legislative package were passed, and even more importantly, all of Maricopa County’s innovative budgetary initiatives remained intact, surviving an initial gubernatorial veto of the first package of budget bills passed by the Legislature and contained within the final state budget as ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. 366 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance In addition, defeat of unfavorable proposed legislation must also always be, unfortunately, a major part of the Board’s annual legislative program. Maricopa County was required to play a great deal of defense during the 2005 legislative session, but the hoped-for outcome was achieved in that none of the unfavorable bills targeted for defeat were enacted into law; they were either stopped during the legislative process or were vetoed. 2005 Budget Highlights: This year, Maricopa County’s highest priority was to seek a budget agreement with the State that recognized Maricopa County’s significant financial and programmatic contributions to assisting with the State budget deficit over the past several years. Given the improvement in the State’s fiscal situation, Maricopa County sought offsetting relief for the $32 million in mutually agreed-upon cost-shifts absorbed in FY 2003-04. This was achieved. This year’s state budget passed and signed by the Governor included the following elements of direct benefit to Maricopa County: • Complete elimination of the “County contribution fund” which cost Maricopa County $5.4 million last year and the “County transportation contribution fund” which cost the County $4.8 million. One of the County’s top priorities was to make sure these contribution funds were not reauthorized. • The State must re-assume its responsibility for 50% of the ALTCS growth and an adjustment made to Maricopa AHCCCS payments to reflect Maricopa County's continuing assumption of Adult Probation program. This item has two pieces: (1) Eliminate the $6.5 million in additional ALTCS contributions by Maricopa County imposed for FY 2002-03, thereby restoring the statutory funding formula; and (2) Reduce the base AHCCCS Acute Care contribution for Maricopa County by $6.7 million. The savings will increase each year with an annual downward adjustment for inflation. • Eliminate Maricopa County Contribution to AHCCCS Administration (This will eliminate the County's $3.3 million mandatory contribution to AHCCCS for eligibility costs related to implementation of previously voter-passed Proposition 204, plus avoidance of subsequent annual increases that would have occurred.) • Eliminate Maricopa County Disproportionate Uncompensated Share (“DUC”) contribution (This will eliminate the County’s $3.9 million mandatory Disproportionate Uncompensated Care contribution to AHCCCS, which was originally intended to expire in FY 2003-04.) • Allow Maricopa County to retain the money it collects from the $5 Probation Surcharge placed on civil and criminal traffic violations within the county, which is deposited in the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund (JCEF). (This will redirect some Probation Surcharge funds collected in Maricopa County to Maricopa County’s probation programs. These funds have been diverted to fund probation in other counties. The actual amount that will accrue to Maricopa County has yet to be determined.) • Revise Maricopa County’s mandated reimbursement to the Arizona State Hospital from 100% down to 86% of the costs of a defendant’s inpatient restoration to competency (RTC) treatment in FY 20052006. (This should provide a savings of at least $200,000 with the potential of much more. This will depend on ASH rates and how many county inmates are sent to ASH for treatment rather than using the County’s own in-house RTC program.) • The impact on counties of diversion of HURF (Highway User Revenue Fund) monies was ultimately much less than what was originally proposed. This continues to be a problem every year as HURF money is diverted as a way to relieve pressure on the general fund, rather than keeping HURF dollars directed solely to the transportation purposes they were intended for. At various points during the process the Senate and Executive budgets included a $5.5 million shift in HURF monies to the 367 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance Department of Public Safety to pay for officer salary increases and equipment purchases. In the end, the hit to all counties combined was approx. $1.4 million. The only elements in the state budget package that we have ascertained as unfavorable to counties as a whole statewide include: • Sweeping of the air quality “in-lieu” fund this year and elimination of the fund next year. This was considered a priority item for Republican leadership, and the Governor agreed to the item in her compromise on the budget. Counties receive a portion of this money for important air quality programs. • Elimination of the Summer Youth Program. The Legislature made a policy decision not to fund this program this year and again, this was agreed to in the budget compromise with the Governor. „ Also passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor as part of the budget package was a bill to reduce businesses’ commercial property taxes. Commercial property tax relief was a long-simmering idea whose time had come this year. A bill was passed as part of the budget package (HB 2779) that phases in over five years a reduction in the commercial assessment ratio from 25% to 20% of full cash value. At our and other local governments’ insistence, the period of time for the decrease was lengthened out to ten years instead of the five years originally proposed. The idea of the longer phase-in period was to slow down the speed of the decrease so that growth will help cover the impact. The bill attempts to hold homeowners harmless through an increase in the homeowners’ rebate program, which will result in increased state General Fund costs. 2005 Bill Highlights: „ All of the bills in the Board’s legislative package were passed and signed by the Governor, discussed in detail below: SB 1013 RESTORATION OF COMPETENCY (Chapter 252) (Jarrett) This strike-everything bill is comprised of two separately introduced bills in the Board’s package, SB 1217; Restoration to Competency, and HB 2236; Competency Evaluation Examinations; Costs. The two-part legislation requires the court to commit a defendant to the competency restoration treatment program designated by the county board of supervisors if the county has such a program, and requires nonindigent defendants to pay for court-ordered mental health competency evaluations. The bill requires the court to commit the defendant to the Restoration to Competency (RTC) program designated by the county board of supervisors (Board) if the court determines that confinement is necessary for treatment and allows the court to commit the defendant to the Arizona State Hospital (ASH) for RTC treatment if the Board has not designated an RTC program. Thus, a county’s in-house RTC program would become the "default" restoration of competency provider, which courts shall use first, before sending inmates to the much more expensive ASH. The bill also transfers responsibility of payment for court-ordered competency examinations from the courts to non-indigent defendants. The county or city will still pay for all or part of the evaluation if the court finds the defendant is unable to pay the cost or if the prosecution requested the examination. Currently, counties are required to pay for all competency examinations regardless of the requesting party or the status of the defendant. SB 1019 COUNTY PROPERTY LEASES; PROCEDURES (Chapter 43) (Waring) The legislation eliminates notice and public auction requirements relating to county leases of land or buildings under specific circumstances. Previously, Maricopa County’s Department of Transportation was required to lease land and buildings by public auction only. The bill removes the requirement for public auction if the lease expires 368 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance in less than four years of the date that the county acquired the property or the county leases to the immediate past possessor at the time of purchase or condemnation of the property. This is a time/cost benefit that will allow the County to enter into short-term leases with the immediate seller without going through the longer public auction process, a process which is often not advantageous to the immediate past possessor as they must often wait months before knowing if they can stay in their homes or businesses. This change would apply most often in cases where the County has purchased property for roadway improvement projects. This allows the County to give assurances during negotiations with property owners that the owner will be able to lease back the property until the project for which the property was needed begins. The legislation would also allow the County to lease the property to a third party for a period not exceeding four years. Enactment of this legislation will add much-needed flexibility to the process while assuring that tax dollars are used wisely. SB 1127 HEALTH CARE DISTRICTS; SINGLE LICENSURE (Chapter 88) (C. Allen) This legislation extends current single licensure provisions to allow the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) to provide a Special Health Care District a single group health care institution license for its hospital and its separately located facilities. Following the Maricopa County Special Health Care District’s (District) takeover of responsibility for the Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS), including the county hospital and eleven health care facilities, a statutory change became necessary to allow the District to continue to license its hospital and associated clinics under a single group license. The bill authorizes ADHS to issue a single group health care institution license to a Special Health Care District in a county with a population of more than one million persons and stipulates that any sale, lease or management agreement of the Special Health Care District does not affect its licensure. This legislation will assist the new Special Health Care District, and assure, as well, that the State continues to receive the highest level of reimbursement for services to the Seriously Mentally Ill. The District operates a psychiatric hospital in Mesa, Desert Vista, which serves many seriously mentally ill patients, particularly those covered under Title XIX. Because this facility has been under the license of the main hospital, the reimbursement from the Federal government has been at the highest rate. If Desert Vista had no longer been licensed under the District’s general hospital and considered a separate facility, the reimbursement rate could have dropped significantly, with an attendant loss of federal dollars. SB 1144 SERVICE TO INDIGENT DEFENDANTS; FEES Flake, Gould, Harper, Jarrett) (Chapter 145) (Huppenthal, In an effort to try to help contain the County’s ever-growing costs for indigent representation, the legislation provides that expert witnesses and investigators appointed for indigent defendants shall be reimbursed only at the rates that the county contracts for those services. Current statute provides that indigent defendants in capital cases may have investigators and expert witnesses appointed by the court to assist in presenting the defendant’s case at trial and at any other subsequent proceeding. Compensation is paid by the county and established by the court. This bill allows reimbursement for expert witnesses and investigators appointed for indigent defendants in felony cases at the rates that the county contracts for those services. The bill also states that if an expert witness represents a discipline or has a skill that the county does not have a contract for, the county may either promptly procure those services, or ask the court to establish a reasonable fee for that witness. It also requires the court to establish a reasonable fee for expert witnesses or investigators serving an indigent defendant if no investigator or expert witness under contract with the county is available, and the defendant is unable to obtain the services at the county rate. 369 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance SB 1318 FLOOD CONTROL OMNIBUS LEGISLATION Arzberger, Bee, Blendu, Chase, Nelson) (Chapter 257) (Flake, Maricopa County proposed this legislation to reflect changes in the language of the Federal Code and Regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program, meet Federal enforcement requirements and make clarifying changes in language. The bill allows a County Flood Control District to inspect development on properties located in a floodplain, allows a District to enter into contracts to implement flood control enhancement solutions, and modifies the definition of development as it relates to management of floodplains and watercourses. Further, the bill expands the District’s authority to utilize property owner assistance, floodplain restoration and out-of-district flood warning systems. The legislation provides explicit authorization for the District or its agent to obtain access during business hours for exterior inspection of any development on property that is located in a floodplain or erosion-prone area. It also prohibits any development in a delineated floodplain that will divert, retard or obstruct the flow of waters in any watercourse without authorization from the District in which the watercourse is located. The Federal Emergency Management Agency offers federally subsidized flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. This program underwrites flood insurance normally required for mortgages on and protection of property in floodplains. But in order for a community to participate in the program it must have adopted adequate flood plain management regulations and pursue appropriate enforcement of those regulations. The purpose of the legislation is to incorporate some of the new federal language in the Arizona statutes, which will benefit homeowners and help keep more people and structures safe from flooding. Lastly, the bill allows corporations, partnerships, trustees, administrators of estates and guardians of minors who own real property within the boundaries of a Flood Protection District to register and cast votes as qualified electors and serve as Directors of a division. HB 2242 MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (Hershberger, Bradley, O’Halleran, Giffords) (Chapter 291) The legislation requires persons who are considered persistently or acutely disabled (PAD) and placed on courtordered treatment to receive an annual examination, review, and evaluation. Current statute requires that gravely disabled persons submit to an annual exam in order to evaluate their court-ordered treatment. While persons with PAD are also ordered into treatment, PAD cases are not required to submit to this annual review. Instead, statute requires a PAD person who has completed his or her treatment to be discharged from treatment at the end of the court order unless the person accepts voluntary treatment or a new petition is filed to continue the treatment. This bill requires people who have been diagnosed as PAD, put on court-ordered treatment and have not been successfully restored after a year and is noncompliant with their court order to be subject to the same annual review and examination process as gravely disabled persons. The Maricopa County Board worked closely with Superior Court Presiding Judge-elect Barbara Mundell on this legislation which will assist with the County’s SMI efforts. HB 2344 COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL; CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS (McClure, Gray C., Reagan) (Chapter 75) The legislation allows counties with animal control enforcement agencies to establish or acquire charitable organizations. These organizations will be able to solicit and accept donations to support the performance of nonmandated programs and services or for funding capital improvements for animal control. Many concerned citizens have repeatedly attempted to donate money and services to assist in this endeavor. Residents will be able to donate for low-cost spay and neuter services, comprehensive public outreach and education campaigns, pet adoption efforts, care for pets that are victims of cruelty or neglect and support for volunteer programs, and other preventive programs designed to reduce pet overpopulation and increase pet retention. The charitable foundation will be subject to annual audit by an independent party as designated by the county board of supervisors. 370 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance HB 2364 COUNTY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS; TRANSFER (Chapter 273) (Nelson) The legislation allows counties to establish procedures for the transfer of development rights between consenting property owners, a new authority long-sought by counties. The transfer of development rights is a technique that encourages the voluntary transfer of growth from areas where a community would like to see less development (sending areas) to areas where a community would like to see more development (receiving areas). Sending areas are areas with floodplains, natural habitats, recreation areas or parklands or lands that have unique aesthetic, architectural or historic value. Receiving areas are areas the local community has agreed are appropriate for extra development because they are close to jobs, shopping, schools, transportation and other public infrastructure. The bill allows the county board of supervisors to establish procedures, methods and standards for the transfer of development rights and requires the transfer of development rights to be subject to the approval and consent of the sending and receiving property owners. It also allows a county with more than 1.2 million persons to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with a municipality to allow the municipality to enforce county ordinances regulating adult entertainment and building codes in county islands (only), excluding licensing and permits. The bill repeals the authority to transfer development rights on December 31, 2009. What’s Next: The Governor’s vetoes, after the session ended, of several major provisions in the compromise budget package has precipitated a significant rift between the Governor and legislative leadership and most rank and file Republicans. It appeared as if a number of major issues under contention had been settled by session’s end – full-day kindergarten; funding for a downtown medical center; corporate tuition tax credits for private schools; additional funding for Child Protective Services, the Department of Water Resources, juvenile corrections, and child care subsidies; a judges’ 12.5% salary increase, commercial property tax relief, etc. In addition, the Legislature took up the “Flores vs. Arizona” issue in the last few days of the session, a federal court case brought by the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest requiring the State to appropriate more money to provide sufficient educational funding for non-English speaking students. The Governor had turned all the negotiations on this issue over to Democrat leadership, but in the end no compromise on Flores could be reached by the parties involved and virtually all of the Democrats in both the House and Senate angrily voted against the bill. The federal court had ruled that Arizona must comply with the court order by the end of the session or risk losing federal funding for state programs. A lawsuit has since been brought over this issue that could place federal highway funds in jeopardy. The Governor’s subsequent vetoes of the Flores bill and the corporate tuition tax credit bill, her three line-item vetoes including reversing the Legislature’s elimination of a state subsidy to the Arizona Cardinals stadium, and her vetoes of a number of immigration bills have all now contributed to poor relations between the Executive and the legislative majority. It is unclear what will happen next; there may be a special legislative session to resolve these outstanding issues, but when is unknown. Finally, one major issue of great interest to the County that legislators were not able to reach consensus on during the 2005 legislative session was the subject of State Trust Land Reform. A coalition of interested parties is now attempting to gather sufficient signatures for a citizens’ initiative to be placed on the 2006 general election ballot. 371 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies County At A Glance The 2006 Legislative Session opens on Monday, January 9, 2006, and in an election year promises to be a very volatile session. Development of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 2006 legislative package is currently underway. While the Board has not yet adopted its package, a key objective will likely be securing the statutory changes necessary to permanently shift funding responsibility for Adult Probation to Maricopa County, and seeking a base reduction in the County’s significant, mandatory financial contributions it is required to make to help fund the State AHCCCS and ALTCS programs. 372 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results Managing For Results Introduction For the past four years, Maricopa County has been one of the nation’s local government leaders in Managing and Budgeting for Results. It has become part of our culture, our identity, and is a major part of how we manage our organization. We expect the Managing for Results (MfR) process to become even more valuable as we get better data to utilize, and start seeing the results and achieving our strategic visions. Effective cost accounting is one of the most important elements of MfR, and is the linchpin of Budgeting for Results. The implementation of the PeopleSoft Human Resource Information System in January 2004 has helped us improve the tracking of our personnel costs. That, along with a renewed emphasis on correctly allocating supplies and services costs will go a long way towards improving our cost accounting accuracy. Accurately reporting the cost to provide services allows policy-makers and managers to gauge the efficiency of services, as well as analyze expenditure trends and develop meaningful budgets. Managing for Results and Budgeting for Results require that Program/Activity/Service expenditures and revenues are aligned with outputs and results. Furthermore, aligning program revenues with expenditures by Activity (or Service) provides information useful for determining how well program revenues recover program costs. In order to facilitate this, departments are now required to match revenue received to one of their Programs or Activities. Maricopa County utilizes its Managing for Results and Budgeting for Results processes to ensure successful implementation and achievement of its strategic plan and, in 2005, the County completed an update to its entire strategic plan. Starting in December 2004, County departments were asked to conduct “environmental scans” with their customers, employees, advisory/community boards, and other interested stakeholders to identify issues and trends for consideration by the County strategic planning team (Corporate Review Team). Submissions from County departments were reviewed by the Corporate Review Team and grouped into like categories. A two-day strategic planning session was then held with the Board of Supervisors and the County Manager to review and discuss the issues and to identify areas where the County would need to focus its attention and resources over the next 2-5 years in order to ensure the successful, sound and stable delivery of County services to a rapidly growing and changing community. A draft set of strategic priorities and goals were shared with County departments for additional review and comment and a final strategic plan, summarized as follows, was approved by the Board on June 6, 2004. Maricopa County Mission Statement: The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Strategic Priorities: • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and costeffectiveness of services provided by the County. Strategic Goals: In support of each priority, the Board of Supervisors established a set of strategic goals which are included in the Attachments section of this document. 373 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results Managing for Results continues to be a part of the budgeting process. The Office of Management and Budget annually evaluates departmental funding requests based on the Board of Supervisors’ strategic direction and budget goals, ensuring that requests align with departments' strategic plans. The financial cost accounting system and the budgeting software were re-structured to include Programs, Activities, and Services (PAS) delineated within each department strategic plan. 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: 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 374 Budgeting for Results • Demand for Services • Performance Budget • Resource Allocation Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results 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: 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. 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 375 Issue Statements Common Purpose = Program Purpose Statement Result = Accomplishment of - Key Result A - Key Result B - Key Result C Common Purpose = Program Purpose Statement Result = Accomplishment of - Key Result D - Key Result E MISSION / VISION Common Purpose STRATEGIC GOALS Service Service Service Service Service Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results Defining levels of operation in this manner makes it possible to demonstrate how each level contributes to results at higher levels, 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. 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. 376 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results 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 of service 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. Countywide, on a quarterly basis, departments report performance measure information via the Managing for Results on-line database. This process 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 agencies. Each department’s strategic plan can be viewed at http://www.maricopa.gov/mfr. 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 is sufficiently complete, accurate, valid and consistent. Performance audits provide assurance that reported data can be relied upon for decision-making purposes. In addition, taxpayers and other organizations are interested in determining the effectiveness of results produced by governments. One well-known evaluation of governments was the Government Performance Project (GPP). The GPP was a national project conducted by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in partnership with Governing magazine. The study collected, evaluated, and compared information about how well governmental jurisdictions were 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? 377 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results Since the time of the project’s initiation in 1996, four studies were 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. 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 projected results 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. Most Maricopa County employees use MfR as part of their every workday lives. It is embedded in nearly all of our processes. The chart below shows many of the ways the County uses MfR information. Program Revenue Agenda Processing Employee Evaluations Cost Accounting (Advantage) Budget Request Employee Performance Plans Managing For Results Payroll Personnel Additions Purchase Orders 378 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results 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 essential information for making policy and budget decisions that produce a high return on taxpayer dollars. 379 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Managing For Results 380 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 2005-06 version forecasts revenues, expenditures and ending fund balances for five years, beginning with the FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget. 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 • Detention (Jail Excise Tax) Fund – Operating and Capital Projects “Pessimistic” versions and years 6-10 for both 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; as such, the forecast provides the County with a useful assessment of the long-term impact of current policies. The forecast is based on the following assumptions: • Continued steady growth in assessed values, but at lower levels than current. As Maricopa County’s primary (general operating) property tax levy is at its constitutional limit starting in FY 2005-06, increases in assessed values due to market appreciation will drive reductions in the primary property tax rate. • Maricopa County will discontinue its role as an operator of Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) and Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) health plans, and no further patient care liabilities for these plans will accrue beyond FY 2005-06. The County will, nonetheless, continue to make mandated contributions to the State to fund the non-Federal match for these programs overall. The County’s discontinuation of its ALTCS plan will cause an increase in capitation rates, which will drive up County contributions in the near term. • There will be no future liabilities associated with operating losses of the Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS), which has been transferred to the new Special Health Care District. • A key assumption is that the County will continue to pursue its policy of “pay-as-you-go” financing of capital improvements. In the Most Likely scenario, General Fund operating surpluses are applied to debt service payments associated with funding the Capital Improvement Program in lieu of a bond issue supported by dedicated taxes. 381 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial 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” or “optimistic” scenario is provided in some instances, but is not considered in the County’s financial plan. The key issues in the latest forecast update include: • Slowed growth in property tax revenues as a result of the constitutional primary property tax levy limit. • Escalating costs associated with jail and juvenile detention operations due to opening of new facilities, as well as the general impact of criminal justice system caseloads that are increasing faster than the growth in the overall population. • Sizable increases in mandated payments to the State of Arizona for health care, in particular the ALTCS program. On a positive note, the FY 2005-06 budget reflects the discontinuation of several mandated contributions to AHCCCS and a reduction in the base ALTCS contribution, altogether totaling over $20 million in additional operating budget capacity. These reductions were made in exchange for Maricopa County’s assumption of funding responsibility for Adult Probation in FY 2003-04. Nonetheless, the growth in these programs, particularly ALTCS, will continue to strain County resources. • Steady increases in employee compensation and health care, including continuing efforts to restore salary levels to market-competitive levels. • Funding requirements for the Capital Improvement Program. The Most Likely scenario in this year’s forecast indicates that the health of the General Fund will decline throughout this forecast period, as property tax levy limits do not meet increasing service demands and cost drivers. Though the General Fund forecast reflects operating surpluses through FY 2008-09, operating expenditure increases in excess of forecasted revenue growth cause growing operating deficits in subsequent years. In addition, onetime expenditures (largely associated with major maintenance) are projected to contribute to a decline in the unreserved fund balance. The Pessimistic scenario indicates a General Fund operating deficit beginning in FY 2007-08, with the fund balance exhausted the following year. In the Most Likely scenario, annual General Fund revenue growth declines over the five year period (from a high of 8.7% in FY 2006-07 to a low of 5.1% in FY 2012-13), while expenditures and fund transfers increase by 5.7%-8.3%. In the Pessimistic scenario, General Fund revenue growth rates are lower, ranging from 3.5% to 5.0%, while expenditure increases are higher. The Detention Fund Most Likely scenario projects operating surpluses to continue throughout the forecast period, though excess fund balances decline and funds will not be available for funding CIP after FY 2006-07. By FY 2007-08, the balance in the Detention Capital Projects Fund is forecasted to be in deficit. The Pessimistic scenario reflects operating deficits beginning in FY 2009-10, with a deficit fund balance by the end of FY 2007-08. Neither scenario includes provisions for new detention capital construction, which will very likely be a necessity by the end of the forecast period. If shortfalls were to occur in the Detention Fund, they would likely need to be offset by additional transfers from the General Fund in addition to the statutory Maintenance of Effort. Revenue The Board of Supervisors reduced the primary property tax rate for FY 2005-06 by $0.0137 from the prior year’s level, while holding the Flood Control District and Library District rates flat. The primary rate is projected to continue to naturally decline throughout the forecast period, as a result of continued growth in assessed values and the statutory cap on the County’s levy amount. The Library District and Flood Control District rates were held flat through the forecast horizon. Estimated growth rates in net assessed values 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 382 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast further changes in the property tax system. Forecasts of other revenue sources are based on economic forecasts and historical trends. 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 annual performance-based pay increases averaging 5%. Consistent with the increases seen in the employer contribution rate for the Arizona State Retirement System in FY 2005-06, the forecast assumes annual increases to the contribution rates for all retirement plans. 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 an important factor in the forecast results. For over a decade, the AHCCCS contribution has been held at a flat dollar amount in annual State appropriations bills, and the Most Likely scenario assumes that this practice will continue. In the Pessimistic scenario, it is assumed that the AHCCCS contribution begins to increase in light with forecasted annual increases in the overall program. Forecasted ALTCS contributions in both scenarios assume continuation of current State law requiring the State and the County to share the annual growth in the non-federal match. ALTCS growth rates are forecasted higher because the withdrawal of Maricopa County as a program contractor to ALTCS has caused a significant increase in capitation rates. 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 the Consumer Price Index. General Fund license and permit revenue sources include liquor licenses, fiber optic franchise permits, and permits for peddlers and pawnbrokers. Intergovernmental Revenue (Excluding State Shared Sales Tax and Vehicle License Tax): Intergovernmental revenue is projected to grow in line with inflation; where appropriate, population growth is also considered. The major sources of intergovernmental revenue are Sheriff’s Office Patrol Service reimbursements, election reimbursements, Justice of the Peace salary reimbursements, and Disproportionate Share (though this revenue is essentially a passthrough between the State and the Special Health Care District). 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 normalize between 4.5% to 5.6% 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 through FY 2003-04 due to special financing incentives. Both VLT forecast scenarios assume continued growth, ranging from 4.0% to 7.0% annually, depending on the forecast scenario. 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. 383 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast 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 recent historical interest earnings relative to total revenue and fund balances. Miscellaneous Revenue: Major sources of miscellaneous revenue include Trial Courts fees for copies and other miscellaneous services, Recorder fees for micro-graphics, and Assessor Map and Copy fees. The forecast assumes no change in current miscellaneous fee rates. Sale of Fixed Assets: No major property liquidations are anticipated through the forecast period. No revenue is projected through the forecast period. Operating Transfers-In: Operating transfers-in represent General Fund Departments’ central service cost allocation. Prior years also reflected the reimbursement from the Maricopa Integrated Health System for Disproportionate Share withholding, which is now reflected as an Intergovernmental Revenue as a result of the creation of the Special Health Care District. The forecast assumes that Central Service transfers-in will increase with inflation. Expenditure Assumption Detail Wages & Salaries: Wages and salaries include the performance pay increases of 4.5% in FY 2005-06, and 5.0% annually thereafter. Employee Benefits: Fiscal Year 2005-06 forecasted benefit costs are predicated upon known and projected increases in all retirement plans. Annual increases to all retirement plans are assumed to continue for several more fiscal years thereafter. The forecast also predicts the continuing rise in employee health and dental insurance costs based on recent historical trends. Supplies and Services: population growth. Supplies and services are projected to increase at the anticipated rates of inflation and 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 2005-06 General Fund budget of approximately $23.6 million increases each year at 5%, similar to the 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. • Debt service payments are included in the Most Likely scenario to support “pay-as-you-go” financing of capital improvement projects. Jail/Juvenile Detention Maintenance of Effort: 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. New facility operations have been and will continue to be phased in over several years. Election Costs: The incremental cost of administering primary and general elections is forecasted based on a four year recurring cycle. 384 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Health Care Mandates: Health Care Mandates include a variety of mandated and Board-sponsored health care related costs: the Arnold v. Sarn 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. Capital Projects Capital Project expenditures are forecasted based on the current approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for the Detention Fund, Transportation, and Flood Control District. For the General Fund, the forecast assumes debt service payments and one-time resources finance a $420 million capital improvement program that includes a new downtown criminal court tower and regional court facilities, major park improvements, downtown office space for attorneys, and administrative and support buildings for the Sheriff’s Office to replace leased space and clear the First Avenue Jail site for other uses. 385 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast General Fund Forecast Adopted FY 2005-06 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 Internal Service Charges Other Charges for Services Patient Service Revenue Fines & Forfeits Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenue Net Growth Rate Fund Transfers-In 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 Disproportionate Share Match Total Uses Net Growth Rate Projected Surplus/Deficit: Percent of Total Expenditures Fund Balance: Beg. Unreserved Balance Designation for Cash Flow Designation for Budget Stabilization Designation for Health Plans Unreserved/Undesig. Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Appropriated Fund Balance Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. Ending Unres. Fund Balance $ 2 FY 2006-07 371,224,118 11,834,653 1,854,000 72,854,181 8,029,157 407,330,479 126,127,849 4,831,073 23,125,479 52,848 12,457,158 4,503,265 2,336,555 $ 1,046,560,815 $ $ $ $ $ 9,541,283 9,541,283 3 FY 2007-08 4 FY 2008-09 5 FY 2009-10 398,220,868 $ 433,078,421 $ 460,413,759 $ 496,416,182 12,986,000 13,930,000 15,149,000 16,105,000 1,901,475 1,950,179 2,000,143 2,051,402 74,495,373 75,272,073 75,210,173 73,784,973 8,184,921 8,180,697 8,340,098 8,490,210 450,177,034 475,386,948 502,008,617 530,121,099 139,751,934 149,534,570 160,001,990 171,202,129 4,947,019 5,065,747 5,187,325 5,311,821 28,867,190 29,703,476 30,563,667 31,458,063 42,278 29,066 12,830,800 13,215,600 13,611,900 14,020,100 2,615,079 1,638,602 1,150,945 372,124 2,379,404 2,453,194 2,529,342 2,607,866 $ 1,137,399,375 $ 1,209,438,572 $ 1,276,166,959 $ 1,351,940,970 8.7% 6.3% 5.5% 5.9% 9,770,000 9,770,000 $ $ 10,000,000 10,000,000 $ $ 10,240,000 10,240,000 $ $ 10,490,000 10,490,000 $ 1,056,102,098 $ 1,147,169,375 $ 1,219,438,572 $ 1,286,406,959 $ 1,362,430,970 8.6% 6.3% 5.5% 5.9% $ $ 356,851,394 65,729,300 4,414,489 171,375,031 161,962,300 145,724,861 75,904,794 63,366,600 $ 1,045,328,769 434,593,618 $ 494,149,442 $ 556,804,414 $ 617,053,152 72,963,378 75,662,919 81,161,469 81,340,668 4,656,050 4,910,829 5,179,549 5,462,974 143,536,554 151,856,635 158,962,412 166,670,183 173,086,722 184,507,795 196,032,696 207,442,348 160,896,071 168,572,971 172,618,722 176,761,571 51,350,570 52,664,145 51,219,757 53,860,884 63,366,600 63,366,600 63,366,600 63,366,600 $ 1,104,449,563 $ 1,195,691,336 $ 1,285,345,619 $ 1,371,958,380 5.66% 8.26% 7.50% 6.74% $ 10,773,329 $ $ 286,068,307 (85,471,404) (79,899,509) (18,363,921) 102,333,473 10,773,329 (113,106,801) 183,734,835 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 42,719,812 $ 3.87% 183,734,835 (91,700,000) (55,222,478) 36,812,357 42,719,812 (47,205,000) 32,327,168 179,249,647 386 $ $ $ $ 23,747,236 $ 1.99% 179,249,647 (99,700,000) (59,784,567) 19,765,080 23,747,236 (73,942,536) (30,430,220) 129,054,347 $ $ $ $ 1,061,340 $ 0.08% 129,054,347 (106,000,000) (64,267,281) (41,212,934) 1,061,340 (72,160,629) (112,312,223) 57,955,058 $ $ $ $ (9,527,410) -0.69% 57,955,058 (114,300,000) (54,739,871) (111,084,813) (9,527,410) (66,789,629) (187,401,852) (18,361,981) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Detention Fund – Operations Forecast Adopted FY 2005-06 2 FY 2006-07 3 FY 2007-08 4 FY 2008-09 5 FY 2009-10 Most Likely Sources of Funds Revenues: Jail Excise Tax Jail Per Diem & Miscellaneous Charges for Services Interest Income Total Revenues $ 121,632,044 26,262,947 8,900 110,000 $ 148,013,891 $ 134,189,333 29,195,858 9,114 30,039 $ 163,424,344 $ 141,703,936 30,793,456 9,332 $ 172,506,724 $ 149,639,356 32,478,474 9,556 13,255 $ 182,140,641 $ 158,019,160 34,255,696 9,786 18,068 $ 192,302,709 Fund Transfers In: Base Maintenance of Effort Above Base Maintenance of Effort Total Transfers In Total sources $ 145,724,861 $ 145,724,861 $ 293,738,752 $ 160,896,071 $ 160,896,071 $ 324,320,415 $ 168,572,971 $ 168,572,971 $ 341,079,695 $ 172,618,722 $ 172,618,722 $ 354,759,363 $ 176,761,571 $ 176,761,571 $ 369,064,280 $ 176,834,491 43,745,064 1,453,243 $ 222,032,798 $ 211,414,952 46,138,794 1,532,764 $ 259,086,511 $ 236,334,447 48,663,509 1,616,637 $ 286,614,593 $ 253,019,391 51,326,376 1,705,100 $ 306,050,866 $ 268,452,947 54,134,955 1,798,403 $ 324,386,305 $ $ $ $ $ OPERATIONS (Fund 255) Uses of Funds: Operating Expenditures Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Subtotal - Current Operations 69,050,556 27,175,473 28,233,977 27,433,149 28,566,012 Non-Departmental/Contingencies (Includes Major Maintenance) Total Operating Expenditures $ 291,083,354 $ 286,261,983 $ 314,848,570 $ 333,484,015 $ 352,952,317 Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $ 2,655,398 $ 38,058,432 $ 26,231,124 $ 21,275,348 $ 16,111,963 $ 33,854,807 $ 13,857,000 $ 18,136,180 $ 18,336,180 $ 2,655,398 $ 2,160,760 $ $ 36,510,205 $ 16,017,760 $ $ $ $ 17,536,180 17,536,180 Transfer to Detention Cap. Projects $ 14,977,841 $ 40,385,798 $ Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 51,488,046 $ 56,403,558 $ Total Expenditures (Operating Plus Non-Operating) $ 342,571,400 Total Projected Surplus/Deficit (Operating Plus Non-Operating) $ (48,832,648) $ (18,345,126) $ $ 67,177,774 $ (48,832,648) 18,345,126 $ 18,345,126 $ (18,345,126) $ Non-Recurring Expenditures Appropriated Fund Balance Integ. Crim. Justice Info. Sys. Projects Sub-Total Non-Recurring Fund Balance: Beginning Fund Balance Projected Surplus/Deficit Ending Fund Balance $ $ 342,665,541 387 18,136,180 18,136,180 $ 332,984,750 $ $ $ $ 18,336,180 18,336,180 $ $ 17,536,180 $ 351,820,195 $ 370,488,497 8,094,944 $ 2,939,168 $ (1,424,217) 8,094,944 8,094,944 $ 8,094,944 2,939,168 11,034,112 $ 11,034,112 (1,424,217) 9,609,895 $ $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Detention Fund – Capital Projects Forecast CAPITAL PROJECTS (Fund 455) Adopted FY 2005-06 2 FY 2006-07 3 FY 2007-08 Most Likely Sources of Funds: Transfer-In from Detention Operating Fund Total Sources $ $ 14,977,841 14,977,841 $ $ 40,385,798 40,385,798 $ $ Uses of Funds $ 22,800,000 $ 33,000,000 $ Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (7,822,159) $ 7,385,798 $ $ 9,164,377 $ (7,822,159) 1,342,218 $ 1,342,218 7,385,798 8,728,016 $ Unreserved Fund Balance: Beginning Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Balance $ 388 $ - 4 FY 2008-09 $ $ - $ - (34,992,500) $ (2,000,000) $ - 8,728,016 $ (34,992,500) (26,264,484) $ (26,264,484) $ (2,000,000) (28,264,484) $ 34,992,500 $ $ $ - 5 FY 2009-10 2,000,000 (28,264,484) (28,264,484) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Transportation Forecast – Operations and Capital Projects Forecast Adopted FY 2005-06 2 FY 2006-07 3 FY 2007-08 4 FY 2008-09 5 FY 2009-10 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 Proceeds of Financing Total Sources Net Growth Rate Uses of Funds: Expenditures Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Net Growth Rate Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Debt Service Allocation Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out $ 1,800,000 $ 1,898,496 $ 2,002,382 $ 2,111,952 $ 2,227,518 63,460 64,983 66,543 68,140 69,775 94,948,883 100,128,773 104,602,889 108,834,097 113,340,128 8,530,000 9,127,100 9,765,997 10,449,617 11,181,090 380,000 350,952 367,394 383,230 400,101 145,000 148,480 152,044 155,693 159,429 200,000 204,800 209,715 214,748 219,902 $ 106,067,343 $ 111,923,584 $ 117,166,963 $ 122,217,477 $ 127,597,944 8.68% 5.52% 4.68% 4.31% 4.40% 106,067,343 $ $ $ $ 22,063,910 $ 26,288,889 3,774,304 52,127,103 $ 4.01% 24,018,521 $ 27,727,417 3,864,887 55,610,825 $ 6.68% 25,827,320 $ 29,244,661 3,957,645 59,029,626 $ 6.15% 27,788,729 $ 30,844,929 4,052,628 62,686,286 $ 6.19% 29,917,717 32,532,764 4,149,891 66,600,372 6.24% 1,584,445 67,475,788 69,060,233 1,730,904 54,581,855 56,312,759 1,881,410 56,255,927 58,137,337 2,045,907 57,485,283 59,531,190 2,225,820 58,771,752 60,997,572 $ $ Total Uses $ 121,187,336 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ (15,119,993) $ $ Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Balance $ 111,923,584 15,119,993 $ (15,119,993) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 117,166,963 $ 122,217,477 $ 127,597,944 - $ - $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ CAPITAL PROJECTS (FUND 234) Mos t L ikely Sources of Funds: Revenue Fund Transfers In Total Sources Uses of Funds: Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Sources Less Uses Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ 29,366,281 67,475,788 96,842,069 $ 2,942,100 56,255,927 59,198,027 $ 110,634,054 $ 38,672,702 $ 24,880,717 $ (13,791,985) (17,283,895) $ 24,880,717 $ 7,596,822 $ $ $ $ 735,250 54,581,855 55,317,105 $ 72,601,000 $ 389 $ $ $ 57,000 57,485,283 57,542,283 $ $ 58,771,752 58,771,752 58,568,000 $ 78,138,000 $ 64,968,000 7,596,822 630,027 8,226,849 $ 8,226,849 $ (12,368,868) (20,595,717) (6,196,248) $ (12,368,868) $ (18,565,116) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Flood Control District – Operations Forecast Adopted FY 2005-06 2 FY 2006-07 3 FY 2007-08 4 FY 2008-09 5 FY 2009-10 OPERATIONS (FUND 991) Most Likely Sources of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Licenses & Permits Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Gain on Fixed Assets Total Sources Net Growth Rate 62,733,411 $ 505,000 23,288,000 191,727 325,000 10,159,000 97,202,138 $ 37.43% 67,695,865 $ 530,250 23,846,912 196,329 324,939 10,402,816 102,997,111 $ 5.96% 76,115,149 $ 545,627 24,419,238 201,041 354,119 10,652,484 112,287,657 $ 9.02% 80,664,772 $ 561,450 25,005,300 205,866 373,004 10,908,143 117,718,535 $ 4.84% 87,486,144 577,733 25,605,427 210,806 397,463 11,169,939 125,447,511 6.57% 11,023,651 $ 18,606,197 1,430,829 31,060,677 $ 40.19% 12,007,873 $ 19,624,328 1,509,124 33,141,325 $ 6.70% 12,900,863 $ 20,698,171 1,591,703 35,190,737 $ 6.18% 13,867,723 $ 21,830,775 1,678,801 37,377,300 $ 6.21% 14,915,532 23,025,355 1,770,665 39,711,553 6.25% $ $ 1,474,037 78,267,198 79,741,235 $ $ 1,355,279 74,741,641 76,096,920 $ $ 1,246,437 67,963,278 69,209,715 $ $ 1,140,805 70,816,471 71,957,276 $ 1,603,678 83,332,280 84,935,958 Total Uses $ 103,017,953 $ 102,351,040 $ 111,287,657 $ 117,118,535 $ 124,647,511 Projected Surplus/(Deficit): $ (5,815,815) $ 646,071 $ 1,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 800,000 $ 13,469,744 (7,653,929) 5,815,815 (5,815,815) 7,653,929 $ 8,300,000 (9,300,000) (1,000,000) 1,000,000 9,300,000 $ Uses of Funds: Expenditures: Personal Services Supplies & Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Fund Balance Designations Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,653,929 (8,300,000) (646,071) 646,071 8,300,000 390 $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,300,000 (9,900,000) (600,000) 600,000 9,900,000 $ $ $ $ 9,900,000 (10,700,000) (800,000) 800,000 10,700,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Flood Control District – Capital Projects Forecast Adopted FY 2005-06 2 FY 2006-07 3 FY 2007-08 4 FY 2008-09 5 FY 2009-10 CAPITAL PROJECTS (FUND 990) Most L ikely Sources of Funds: Revenue Fund Transfers In Total Sources Uses of Funds: Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Sources Less Uses Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ $ $ 70,816,471 70,816,471 $ $ $ $ 1,301,481 67,963,278 69,264,759 62,142,000 $ 5,980,426 8,674,471 14,654,897 $ $ $ 1,339,481 74,741,641 76,081,122 65,000,000 $ 14,654,897 4,264,759 18,919,656 $ 391 $ $ $ $ 63,000 78,267,198 78,330,198 $ 1,873,585 83,332,280 85,205,865 65,000,000 $ 65,000,000 $ 60,000,000 18,919,656 11,081,122 30,000,778 $ 30,000,778 13,330,198 43,330,976 $ 43,330,976 25,205,865 68,536,841 $ $ $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Financial Forecast Library District Forecast Adopted FY 2005-06 2 FY 2006-07 3 FY 2007-08 4 FY 2008-09 5 FY 2009-10 19,442,774 20,243,863 21,557,684 OPERATIONS (FUND 244) Most Likely Source of Funds: Revenue Property Taxes Grants Other Intergovernmental Payments in Lieu of Taxes Other Charges for Services 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 17,694,550 18,251,101 2,000,000 228,248 58,069 480,420 50,000 309,758 $ 20,821,045 $ 31.31% 1,299,920 1,763,278 2,253,267 2,771,068 289,243 296,184 303,293 310,572 59,463 60,890 62,351 63,848 494,833 447,417 404,456 380,773 48,281 50,739 54,731 59,999 58,295 67,379 75,303 83,170 20,501,135 $ 22,128,660 $ 23,397,264 $ 25,227,114 -1.54% 7.94% 5.73% 7.82% $ 9,222,851 $ 10,061,444 $ 10,982,600 $ 11,995,371 4,091,626 4,189,826 4,290,381 4,393,350 6,553,949 6,000,460 6,031,967 5,333,657 19,868,427 $ 20,251,729 $ 21,304,948 $ 21,722,378 -3.25% 1.93% 5.20% 1.96% 8,300,584 $ 3,995,729 8,239,074 $ 20,535,387 $ 30.91% Fund Transfers Out Gen. Fund-Central Service Alloc. Debt Service Allocation Capital Projects Fund Total Transfers Out $ 913,635 913,635 $ 905,176 905,176 Total Uses $ 21,449,022 $ 20,773,603 Projected Surplus/Deficit: $ Fund Balance: Beginning Unreserved Balance Fund Balance Designations Unreserved/Undesignated Balance Net Surplus/Deficit Ending Unres./Undesig. Fund Bal. Ending Unreserved Fund Balance $ $ $ $ $ $ (627,977) $ 6,743,154 (2,701,481) 4,041,673 (627,977) 3,413,696 6,115,177 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 21,196,512 (272,468) $ 6,115,177 (2,800,000) 3,315,177 (272,468) 3,042,709 5,842,709 392 944,783 944,783 $ $ $ $ 932,148 5,842,709 (3,000,000) 2,842,709 932,148 3,774,857 6,774,857 $ $ 1,017,771 1,017,771 $ $ 1,062,618 1,062,618 $ 22,322,719 $ 22,784,996 $ 1,074,545 $ $ 6,774,857 (3,100,000) 3,674,857 1,074,545 4,749,401 7,849,401 $ $ $ $ 2,442,118 7,849,401 (3,300,000) $ 4,549,401 2,442,118 $ 6,991,519 $ 10,291,519 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates Mandates Introduction Maricopa County faces major issues relating to the vast growth in and significant cost of providing mandated services. A significant portion of the County’s budget is committed to satisfying unfunded mandates. Mandated services influence Maricopa County’s strategic planning process, operating policies and financial structure. Mandates, as defined for this study, are functions or services that meet constitutional, statutory or court-ordered requirements from either Federal or State entities. These mandates are generally not funded by the State or Federal government, forcing the County to provide funding. They 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 2005-06 budget process, the Office of Management and Budget surveyed every County department in order to update the mandate study performed during FY 2004-05. County departments supplied the information contained herein. The mandate financial information provided within the Annual Business Strategies does not include expenditures made in debt service funds or eliminations. The FY 2005-06 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. 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 Maricopa County faces a number of challenges in providing services to its citizens. Increased demands for 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, energy, water, land, building and infrastructure services, as well as criminal justice related activities and 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. Maricopa County Population & Expenditure Growth Comparison Population Expenditures FY 2002 3,289,600 $ 2,130,670,774 FY 2003 3,386,100 $ 2,359,608,623 FY 2004 2.8% 3,487,500 9.7% $ 2,332,530,390 FY 2005 2.9% 3,595,700 -1.2% $ 2,230,724,731 FY 2006 3.0% 3,689,113 -4.6% $ 2,486,639,585 2.5% 10.3% As illustrated in the table on the following page, $1,610,721,986 or 64.8% of the Maricopa County FY 2005-06 budgeted expenditures of $2,486,639,585 (not including debt service of $23,341,996, and eliminations of -$403,668,169) are committed to satisfying mandated services. In addition, $492,185,922 or 19.8% in administrative mandates provides essential support to mandated services. The remaining expenditures of $383,731,677 or 15.4% are non-mandated. 393 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Fund General Fund $ Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Total All Funds $ Mandates 835,186,803 562,387,964 213,030,720 116,499 1,610,721,986 Percent of Administrative Percent of Budget Mandates Budget 33.6% $ 319,156,982 12.8% $ 22.6% 93,188,714 3.7% 8.6% 3,031,390 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 76,808,836 3.1% 64.8% $ 492,185,922 19.8% $ NonPercent of Mandates Budget 4,091,787 0.2% 203,017,206 8.2% 62,145,000 2.5% 88,346,783 3.6% 26,130,901 1.1% 383,731,677 15.4% The table below shows the dollar amount allocated for each fund type for the FY 2005-06 consolidated mandates (i.e., Mandates and Administrative Mandates) as well as each fund’s percentage of total mandates. Consolidated General Fund mandates of $1.15 billion represents 54.9% of all mandated expenditures, while Special Revenue, Capital & Internal Services Funds represent 31.2%, 10.3% and 3.7% of mandated expenditures, respectively. FY 2005-06 Consolidated Mandates by Fund Fund General Fund Special Revenue Fund Capital Projects Fund Internal Service Fund $ $ $ $ The chart at right shows the breakdown of mandated and non-mandated expenditures, by fund, in the FY 2005-06 budget. Mandated $1,000 $800 $600 $400 Non-Mandate $200 50% 27.3% 33.3% $0 Education General Highway & Government Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Services Public Safety 0.5% 0.0% expenditures fall in the areas of Public Safety, General Government and Health, Welfare and Sanitation. 6.0% 14.5% 0.1% 1.1% 0.6% 0% 0.1% 10% 9.3% 20% 7.3% 30% Non-Mandated $1,200 Mandated Vs. Non-Mandated Expenditures as Percent of Budget 40% Percent of Total Mandates 54.9% 31.2% 10.3% 3.7% Maricopa County FY 2005-06 Budget Mandate Comparison by Fund 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. The bulk of mandated Mandate Mandates 1,154,343,785 655,576,678 216,062,110 76,925,335 Culture & Recreation Maricopa County’s FY 2005-06 mandated versus nonmandated expenditures as a percent of the total budget are shown on the chart on the left. The expenditures are presented by category and include all funds. 394 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2005-06 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 total FY 2005-06 budget, excluding debt service funds and eliminations, is comprised of 84.6% mandated services. The following tables below show total budgeted expenditures versus mandated expenditures by expenditure category. Mandated Expenditures By Category and Type For All Funds Expenditure Category Education $ General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Totals $ Judicial Branch 206,321,799 206,321,799 $ $ Elected Officials 2,165,072 42,233,951 328,647,019 373,046,042 Appointed Departments $ 787,023,184 231,821,390 361,498,885 120,995,295 $ 1,501,338,754 Special Districts $ $ 22,201,313 22,201,313 $ $ Total 2,165,072 829,257,135 231,821,390 361,498,885 678,165,426 2,102,907,908 FY 2005-06 Budgeted Expenditures vs. Mandated Expenditures For All Funds Expenditure Category Education $ Culture & Recreation General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Total $ Budget Expenditures FY 2005-06 17,421,366 11,201,327 856,219,895 233,714,352 541,942,766 826,139,878 2,486,639,585 Mandated Expenditures FY 2005-06 $ 2,165,072 829,257,135 231,821,390 361,498,885 678,165,426 $ 2,102,907,908 United States In Millions $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 Annual Percent Change 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 0.5% 0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FY 2004-05. The decrease is attributed to the Maricopa Health Care Delivery System transitioning operations to the newly created Special Health Care District in January 2005 and the anticipated closure of the Maricopa Managed Care Plans effective September 30, 2005. However, mandated expenditures increased by $52.1 million or 2.5% over the same period of time. $500 Budget Expenditures Maricopa County 1.0% $1,000 $0 Arizona 3.0% Maricopa County’s Budgeted Expenditures & Mandated Expenditures – Year over Year FY 2005-06 0.1% 0.0% 39.4% 11.0% 17.2% 32.2% 100.0% 3.5% As shown below, Maricopa County’s total budgeted expenditures decreased $696.7 million or 21.8% from FY 2004-05 % Mandates of Total Mandates Population Growth Comparison The chart on the right compares actual and projected 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 2.9% during 2004, which mirrored the state’s population increase for the same period. The nation’s population increased by 1.0% in 2004. Growth of this magnitude requires additional resources to support additional services. $3,500 % Mandates of Total Expenditures 0.1% 0.0% 33.3% 9.3% 14.5% 27.3% 84.6% Mandate Expenditures 395 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2005-06 General Fund Mandates General Fund mandates total $1,154,343,785, or 99.6% of the General Fund budget. Maricopa County’s General Fund budgeted expenditures decreased $7,760,035, or .7% from FY 2004-05. Mandated expenditures decreased similarly by $7,652,400, or .7% over the same period of time. 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 Totals $ Judicial Branch 129,119,473 129,119,473 $ $ Elected Officials 2,165,072 34,724,665 140,542,755 177,432,492 Appointed Departments $ 465,651,857 317,106,387 65,033,576 $ 847,791,820 Special Districts $ - $ $ $ Total 2,165,072 500,376,522 317,106,387 334,695,804 1,154,343,785 General Fund Expenditure & Mandate Summary FY 2005-06 Budget FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Mandates Judicial Branch $ 129,119,473 $ 129,119,473 Elected Officials 177,432,492 177,432,492 Appointed Departments 851,883,607 847,791,820 Totals $ 1,158,435,572 $ 1,154,343,785 % Variance FY 2005-06 Budget Total Budget Non-Mandated 11.1% $ 15.3% 73.2% 4,091,787 99.6% $ 4,091,787 General Fund Mandates Year-Over-Year Comparison General Fund mandates of $1.54 billion equate to 46.4% of all funds budgeted for FY 2005-06; and total 54.9% of FY 2005-06 budgeted mandates for all funds. Mandated FY 2005-06 General Fund mandated expenditures by major department are shown on the chart below. 100% 1.7% 0.4% 0.4% 80% 70% 60% 50% 98.0% 98.3% 99.6% 99.6% FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 40% 30% $301.2 $316.8 $350 $250 2.0% Non-Mandated 90% General Fund Mandated Expenditures by Major Departments $300 % Variance Total Budget 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 20% 10% 0% $200 $50.3 Adult Probation $11.7 Facilities Management $67.1 $57.5 County Attorney Trial Courts Sheriff Health Care Mandates $0 General Government $50 Appropriated Fund Balance $112.9 $100 $54.7 $150 General Fund non-mandated expenditures represent $4.1 million or 0.35% of the FY 2005-06 General Fund budget, as outlined on the table on the following page. 396 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2005-06 General Fund Non-Mandated Expenditures Appropriated Fund Balance General Government Human Services Parks & Recreation $ 167,053 330,806 2,067,234 1,526,694 4,091,787 Total $ General Fund Health, Welfare & Sanitation Mandates Expenditures for Health, Welfare and Sanitation activities in the General Fund total $317.1 million or 27.5% of General Fund mandates. The only nonmandated, General Fund expenditures in Health, Welfare and Sanitation are for Human Services at $2.06 million for FY 2005-06. The distribution of mandates versus non-mandates in the FY 2005-06 General Fund budget for Health, Welfare & Sanitation is shown on the chart on the left. FY 2005-06 General Fund Budget Health, Welfare & Sanitation Mandates Mandates 99.4% 100% of all General Fund expenditures in Animal Care & Control, Environmental Services, Medical Examiner, Public Health and Health Care Mandates departments are mandated. 100% of the Human Services General Fund Expenditures are non-mandated. Non-Mandates 0.6% 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 programs that control the release of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere. Maricopa County is required to provide for the indigent sick and general mental health of its indigent population. The County is mandated to enforce rabies quarantine and animal vaccine requirements. General Fund Public Safety Mandates General Fund Public Safety mandates total $334.7 million or 29.0% of total General Fund mandates. 100% of all General Fund Public Safety expenditures in the FY 2005-06 budget are mandated. These expenditures provide for the safety of Maricopa County citizens while protecting their unalienable rights by providing due process. Maricopa County funds prosecutors, defenders, the Judicial Branch, jails and policing activities, among other Criminal Justice activities. 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 comprise General Fund Public Safety mandated expenditures. 9000 8657 9054 8044 8000 7557 7059 6804 7000 6520 6768 6660 5922 6000 5000 5503 4861 4000 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 94 397 10000 FY Maricopa County’s population growth, particularly in the unincorporated areas of the County, impacts public safety expenditures. The chart at right shows the average daily adult jail population in Maricopa County. Since 1991, Maricopa County’s adult jail population has almost doubled, which has significantly increased mandated Public Safety expenditures. Average Daily Adult Jail Population Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. Maricopa County General Fund General Government Mandates $316.77 General Government $112.94 Appropriated Fund Balance Assessor Facilities Management Elections Chief Information Officer $5.62 Treasurer $4.15 Human Resources The General Fund County departments that provide General Government mandated services are shown on the chart at right. $18.12 $11.66 $7.26 $3.15 Finance $3.09 Employee Health Initiatives $2.33 Management & Budget $2.78 Public Fuduciary $2.19 Recorder $2.11 $2.00 The General Government category includes a $1.56 $1.49 department called General Government. The majority $1.53 of the General Fund General Government $1.11 $0.54 expenditures reside in this department. General $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 Government department expenditures benefit the In Millions County as a whole. Examples of these General Government department expenditures include: Major Maintenance, Debt Service, Outside Legal Counsel, Tax Appeals, and Indigent Burials. County Manager's Office Call Center Materials Management Board of Supervisors Internal Audit Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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 operation of schools in the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. The department of Superintendent of Schools is the only department within the education category in the General Fund. FY 2005-06 Mandates Excluding the General Fund The rapid population growth 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 $948.6 million. The table below provides a breakdown of these mandates. Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service $ Total $ Mandates 655,576,678 216,062,110 76,925,335 948,564,123 % Budget Non-Mandates 76.4% $ 203,017,206 77.7% 62,145,000 0.0% 88,346,783 74.6% 26,130,901 71.4% $ 379,639,890 398 % Budget 23.6% 22.3% 100.0% 25.4% 28.6% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates Mandate Study - Summary Schedules Consolidated Mandates – Including All Funds Consolidated Mandates - All Funds by Category Expenditure Category Culture & Recreation $ Education General Government Highways & Streets Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety Totals $ FY 2005-06 Budgeted Expenditures 11,201,327 17,421,366 856,219,895 233,714,352 541,942,766 826,139,878 2,486,639,585 FY 2005-06 Mandated Expenditures $ $ 2,165,072 829,257,135 231,821,390 361,498,885 678,165,426 2,102,907,908 Percent of FY 2005-06 NonBudget Mandated Expenditures 0.0% $ 11,201,327 12.4% 15,256,294 96.9% 26,962,760 99.2% 1,892,962 66.7% 180,443,881 82.1% 147,974,452 84.6% $ 383,731,677 Percent of Budget 100.0% 87.6% 3.1% 0.8% 33.3% 17.9% 15.4% Consolidated Mandates - All Funds by Department Type Expenditure Type Judicial Branch $ Elected Officials Appointed Departments Special Districts Totals $ FY 2005-06 Budgeted Expenditures 206,321,799 373,046,042 1,722,754,702 184,517,042 2,486,639,585 FY 2005-06 Mandated Expenditures $ 206,321,799 373,046,042 1,501,338,754 22,201,313 $ 2,102,907,908 Percent of FY 2005-06 NonBudget Mandated Expenditures 100.0% $ 100.0% 87.1% 221,415,948 12.0% 162,315,729 84.6% $ 383,731,677 Percent of Budget 0.0% 0.0% 12.9% 88.0% 15.4% Consolidated Mandates - By Fund Type Expenditure Type General Fund $ Speical Revenue Fund Capital Projects Enterprise Internal Service Fund Totals $ FY 2005-06 Budgeted Expenditures 1,158,435,572 858,593,884 278,207,110 88,346,783 103,056,236 2,486,639,585 FY 2005-06 Mandated Expenditures $ 1,154,343,785 655,576,678 216,062,110 76,925,335 $ 2,102,907,908 399 Percent of FY 2005-06 NonBudget Mandated Expenditures 99.6% $ 4,091,787 76.4% 203,017,206 77.7% 62,145,000 0.0% 88,346,783 74.6% 26,130,901 84.6% $ 383,731,677 Percent of Budget 0.4% 23.6% 22.3% 100.0% 25.4% 15.4% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2005-06 Budgeted Mandates by Department and Fund Department General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Funds Internal Service Total Mandates Judicial Branch Adult Probation Juvenile Probation Trial Courts $ 50,303,044 $ 11,680,865 67,135,564 Sub-Total $ 129,119,473 $ 14,536,894 $ 45,991,188 16,674,244 77,202,326 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 64,839,938 57,672,053 83,809,808 206,321,799 $ - $ 8,874,258 12,799,672 7,509,286 166,430,334 195,613,550 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,118,945 1,532,575 1,555,385 35,257,413 1,908,645 70,320,166 7,255,771 9,623,982 221,160,795 2,165,072 4,147,293 373,046,042 375,193 112,939,748 536,893 5,623,616 14,162,317 3,580,434 1,996,561 233,760 2,326,033 1,738,045 11,660,411 3,086,638 316,769,087 301,233,694 3,150,296 1,109,254 6,794,249 7,431,420 2,777,491 1,489,584 4,970,959 32,831,396 2,186,245 8,788,496 847,791,820 $ 10,798,684 8,307,587 48,832,648 39,120,480 893,537 11,518,469 2,178,614 88,006,674 4,398,212 19,500 105,542 12,689 9,196,784 2,227,664 9,679,516 4,075,553 121,187,336 360,559,489 $ 22,800,000 82,628,056 110,634,054 216,062,110 $ - $ - $ - $ 22,201,313 $ 22,201,313 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Total Mandates $ 1,154,343,785 $ 655,576,678 $ 216,062,110 $ - $ Elected Officials Assessor Board of Supervisors Call Center Clerk of the Court Constables County Attorney Elections Recorder Sheriff Superintendent of Schools Treasurer 18,118,945 $ 1,532,575 1,555,385 26,383,155 1,908,645 57,520,494 7,255,771 2,114,696 54,730,461 2,165,072 4,147,293 Sub-Total $ 177,432,492 $ Appointed Departments Air Quality Animal Care & Control Appropriated Fund Balance Board of Supervisors Clerk Chief Information Officer Community Development Contract Counsel Correctional Health County Manager's Office Emergency Management Employee Health Initiatives Environmental Services Equipment Services Facilities Management Finance General Government Health Care Mandates Health Plans Human Recources 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 Public Health Research & Reporting Risk Management Solid Waste Transportation Sub-Total $ Special Districts Flood Control District Library District Stadium District $ Sub-Total $ 400 - $ 10,798,684 8,682,780 161,772,396 536,893 14,886,562 20,510,178 14,162,317 42,700,914 1,996,561 1,127,297 50,596,799 52,922,832 13,256,514 10,575,177 10,575,177 36,639,025 3,086,638 487,403,817 301,233,694 3,150,296 4,398,212 1,109,254 6,813,749 7,536,962 2,777,491 866,797 2,356,381 4,983,648 9,196,784 35,059,060 2,186,245 18,468,012 4,075,553 231,821,390 76,925,335 $ 1,501,338,754 - $ - $ 22,201,313 22,201,313 76,925,335 $ 2,102,907,908 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates Departments with the greatest allocation of mandated dollars budgeted include General Government with $487.4 million, Health Care Mandates 301.2 million, Appropriated Fund Balance with $161.8, the Sheriff’s Office with $222.2 million, Transportation with $231.8 million, and the Trial Courts with $83.8 million. FY 2005-06 Budget All Funds Mandated Expenditures by Type Special Districts 1.1% Judicial Branch 9.8% Mandate Expenditure Comparison by Category $700 192.4 $400 379.6 $500 361.5 $600 $300 $200 2 $100 $0 Health, Welfare & Sanitation Public Safety General Government Highways & Streets 2.2 599.2 $800 678.2 $900 231.8 877.7 FY 2005-06 829.3 FY 2004-05 $1,000 In Millions The chart on the right compares mandated FY 200405 budgeted expenditures for all funds to those of FY 2005-06, by category. Overall, expenditures for mandates increased by 2.5% from FY 2004-05. The largest increase occurred in Public Safety followed by Highways & Streets. Mandated Expenditures for General Government and Health, Welfare & Sanitation decreased from FY 2004-05. The Public Safety increases are associated with the on-going operating expenses associated with the new detention facilities. Highways and Streets expenditures increased for capital projects in the Transportation Department’s Build Roads and Bridges Program. Decreases in General Government category occurred primarily in Appropriated Fund Balance and were due to one-time expenditures incurred in FY 2004-05 for new facility start-up costs, property acquisition, and transfers to the benefits trust funds. Education The chart at left and table below provides mandated expenditures by type for all funds as a percent of total mandates. FY 2005-06 Mandated Expenditures By Type for All Funds Elected Officia 17.7% Mandate Type Judicial Branch Elected Officials Appointed Departments Special Districts $ Total $ Total Funds 206,321,799 373,046,042 1,501,338,754 22,201,313 2,102,907,908 Appointed Departments 71.4% The table below compares year-over-year budgeted expenditures and year-over-year mandated expenditures for all funds. The total FY 2005-06 expenditure budget for all funds decreased by 28.0% from FY 2004-05, whereas mandated expenditure increased by 2.5% over the same period of time. Budget Budget Mandate Mandate Expenditures Expenditures % Budget Expenditures Expenditures % Mandate Expenditure Category FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 Variance FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 Variance Culture & Recreation $ 9,356,833 $ 11,201,327 16.5% $ $ 0.0% Education 18,330,538 17,421,366 -5.2% 1,984,742 2,165,072 8.3% General Government 906,820,910 856,219,895 -5.9% 877,697,766 829,257,135 -5.8% Highways & Streets 192,636,002 233,714,352 17.6% 192,386,002 231,821,390 17.0% Health, Welfare & Sanitation 1,329,907,373 541,942,766 -145.4% 379,560,575 361,498,885 -5.0% Public Safety 726,245,930 826,139,878 12.1% 599,184,519 678,165,426 11.6% -28.0% $ 2,050,813,604 $ 2,102,907,908 2.5% Totals $ 3,183,297,586 $ 2,486,639,585 401 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates FY 2005-06 Budget and Mandate Comparison by Category for All Funds Expenditure Category Culture & Recreation Parks & Recreation $ Stadium District Culture & Recreation Total $ Budget Expenditures Mandated Expenditures Administrative Mandates Non-Mandated Expenditures % Mandates of Department Expenditures % Mandates of Total Expenditures 7,100,532 $ 4,100,795 11,201,327 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,100,532 4,100,795 11,201,327 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Education Total $ 2,165,072 $ 15,256,294 17,421,366 $ 2,165,072 $ 2,165,072 $ - $ - $ 15,256,294 15,256,294 100.00% 0.00% 12.43% 0.10% 0.00% 0.10% General Government Appropriated Fund Balance $ Assessor Board of Supervisors Call Center Chief Information Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Manager' Office Elections Employee Health Initiatives Equipment Services Facilities Management Finance General Government Human Resources Internal Audit Management & Budget Materials Management Public Fuduciary Recorder Research & Reporting Risk Management Treasurer General Government Total $ 161,939,449 $ 18,118,945 1,532,575 1,555,385 20,510,178 536,893 1,996,561 7,255,771 52,922,832 10,575,177 36,639,025 3,086,638 487,734,623 3,150,296 1,109,254 2,777,491 2,356,381 2,186,245 9,623,982 334,000 26,130,901 4,147,293 856,219,895 $ 500,000 $ 18,118,945 1,532,575 1,555,385 536,893 7,255,771 116,499 22,950,000 281,355,466 36,500 2,186,245 9,623,982 4,147,293 349,915,554 $ 161,272,396 $ 20,510,178 1,996,561 52,922,832 10,458,678 13,689,025 3,086,638 206,048,351 3,150,296 1,072,754 2,777,491 2,356,381 479,341,581 $ 167,053 330,806 334,000 26,130,901 26,962,760 99.90% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.93% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 96.85% 7.69% 0.86% 0.07% 0.07% 0.98% 0.03% 0.09% 0.35% 2.52% 0.50% 1.74% 0.15% 23.18% 0.15% 0.05% 0.13% 0.11% 0.10% 0.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 39.43% Highways & Streets Transportation $ Highways & Streets Total $ 233,714,352 $ 233,714,352 $ 231,821,390 $ 231,821,390 $ - $ - $ 1,892,962 1,892,962 99.19% 99.19% 11.02% 11.02% Health, Welfare & Sanitation Air Quality $ Animal Care & Control Community Development Environmental Services Health Care Mandates Human Services Maricopa Managed Care Medical Examiner Public Health Solid Waste Health, Welfare & Sanitation Total $ 10,798,684 9,039,506 15,997,531 13,294,382 301,233,694 40,045,082 87,540,957 4,983,648 54,127,904 4,881,379 541,942,766 $ 10,798,684 8,682,780 13,256,514 291,956,678 4,983,648 14,900,687 4,075,553 348,654,544 $ 9,277,016 3,567,325 12,844,341 $ 356,726 15,997,531 37,868 40,045,082 87,540,957 35,659,892 805,826 180,443,882 100.00% 96.05% 0.00% 99.72% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 34.12% 83.49% 66.70% 0.51% 0.41% 0.00% 0.63% 14.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.88% 0.19% 17.19% Public Safety Adult Probation $ Clerk of the Superior Court Constables Contract Counsel Correctional Health County Attorney Emergency Management Flood Control District Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Juvenile Probation Legal Advocate Legal Defender Planning & Development Public Defender Sheriff Trial Courts Public Safety Total $ 64,839,938 $ 35,257,413 1,908,645 14,162,317 43,214,809 70,320,166 1,127,297 165,159,953 4,398,212 57,672,053 6,813,749 7,536,962 13,698,701 35,059,060 221,160,795 83,809,808 826,139,878 $ 64,839,938 $ 35,257,413 1,908,645 14,162,317 42,700,914 70,320,166 1,127,297 22,201,313 4,398,212 57,672,053 6,813,749 7,536,962 9,196,784 35,059,060 221,160,795 83,809,808 678,165,426 $ - $ - $ 513,895 142,958,640 4,501,917 147,974,452 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.81% 100.00% 100.00% 13.44% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 67.14% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 82.09% 3.08% 1.68% 0.09% 0.67% 2.03% 3.34% 0.05% 1.06% 0.21% 2.74% 0.32% 0.36% 0.44% 1.67% 10.52% 3.99% 32.25% Grand Total $ 2,486,639,585 $ 1,610,721,986 $ 492,185,922 $ 383,731,677 84.57% 100.00% Education Superintendent of Schools Library District $ 402 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates The table below compares year-over-year budgeted expenditures and year-over-year mandated expenditures for all funds. The total FY 2005-06 expenditure budget for all funds decreased by 28.0% from FY 2004-05, whereas mandated expenditure increased by 2.5% over the same period of time. Budget Budget Mandate Mandate Expenditures Expenditures % Budget Expenditures Expenditures % Mandate Expenditure Category FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 Variance FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 Variance Culture & Recreation $ 9,356,833 $ 11,201,327 16.5% $ $ 0.0% Education 18,330,538 17,421,366 -5.2% 1,984,742 2,165,072 8.3% General Government 906,820,910 856,219,895 -5.9% 877,697,766 829,257,135 -5.8% Highways & Streets 192,636,002 233,714,352 17.6% 192,386,002 231,821,390 17.0% Health, Welfare & Sanitation 1,329,907,373 541,942,766 -145.4% 379,560,575 361,498,885 -5.0% Public Safety 726,245,930 826,139,878 12.1% 599,184,519 678,165,426 11.6% -28.0% $ 2,050,813,604 $ 2,102,907,908 2.5% Totals $ 3,183,297,586 $ 2,486,639,585 403 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates General Fund Budgeted Mandates FY 2005-06 By Category and Department Mandates Education Superintendent of Schools $ Education Total $ 2,165,072 $ 2,165,072 $ General Government Appropriated Fund Balance $ Assessor Board of Supervisors Call Center Chief Information Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Manager's Office Elections Employee Health Initiatives Facilities Management Finance General Government Human Resources Internal Audit Management & Budget Materials Management Public Fiduciary Recorder Treasurer General Government Total $ Health, Welfare & Sanitation Animal Care & Control $ Environmental Services Health Care Mandates Medical Examiner Public Health Health, Welfare & Sanitation Total $ Public Safety Adult Probation Clerk of the Superior Court Constables Contract Counsel Correctional Health County Attorney Emergency Management Juvenile Probation Legal Advocate Legal Defender Public Defender Sheriff Trial Courts $ Administrative Mandates Consolidated Mandates $ $ 2,165,072 2,165,072 500,000 $ 18,118,945 1,532,575 1,555,385 536,893 7,255,771 150,000 155,929,578 36,500 2,186,245 2,114,696 4,147,293 194,063,881 $ 112,439,748 $ 5,623,616 1,996,561 2,326,033 11,510,411 3,086,638 160,839,509 3,150,296 1,072,754 2,777,491 1,489,584 306,312,641 $ 112,939,748 18,118,945 1,532,575 1,555,385 5,623,616 536,893 1,996,561 7,255,771 2,326,033 11,660,411 3,086,638 316,769,087 3,150,296 1,109,254 2,777,491 1,489,584 2,186,245 2,114,696 4,147,293 500,376,522 375,193 $ 1,738,045 291,956,678 4,970,959 5,221,171 304,262,046 $ $ 9,277,016 3,567,325 12,844,341 $ 375,193 1,738,045 301,233,694 4,970,959 8,788,496 317,106,387 Public Safety Total $ 50,303,044 $ 26,383,155 1,908,645 14,162,317 3,580,434 57,520,494 233,760 11,680,865 6,794,249 7,431,420 32,831,396 54,730,461 67,135,564 334,695,804 $ Total General Fund Mandates $ 835,186,803 $ 404 - - $ $ 50,303,044 26,383,155 1,908,645 14,162,317 3,580,434 57,520,494 233,760 11,680,865 6,794,249 7,431,420 32,831,396 54,730,461 67,135,564 334,695,804 319,156,982 $ 1,154,343,785 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates General Fund Mandate Comparison General Fund Budgeted Mandates FY 2004-05 General Fund Budgeted Mandates FY 2005-06 $ Variance Increase (Decrease) % Variance Increase (-)Decrease Mandated Services Judicial Branch Adult Probation $ Juvenile Probation Trial Courts Judicial Branch Total $ 45,668,897 $ 11,832,089 61,268,643 118,769,629 $ 50,303,044 $ 11,680,865 67,135,564 129,119,473 $ 4,634,147 (151,224) 5,866,921 10,349,844 9.2% -1.3% 8.7% 8.0% Elected Officials Assessor $ Board of Supervisors Call Center Clerk of the Superior Court Constables County Attorney Elections Recorder Sheriff Superintendent of Schools Treasurer Elected Officials Total $ 15,808,896 $ 1,248,380 1,298,676 23,181,209 1,780,046 50,280,208 10,494,469 1,991,183 47,355,136 1,984,742 3,952,730 159,375,675 $ 18,118,945 $ 1,532,575 1,555,385 26,383,155 1,908,645 57,520,494 7,255,771 2,114,696 54,730,461 2,165,072 4,147,293 177,432,492 $ 2,310,049 284,195 256,709 3,201,946 128,599 7,240,286 (3,238,698) 123,513 7,375,325 180,330 194,563 18,056,817 12.7% 18.5% 16.5% 12.1% 6.7% 12.6% -44.6% 5.8% 13.5% 8.3% 4.7% 10.2% 385,109 $ 500,000 375,193 $ 500,000 (9,916) - -2.6% 0.0% Appointed Departments Animal Care & Control Appropriated Fund Balance $ Clerk of the Board Communications Contract Counsel Correctional Health 478,788 707,968 9,384,406 3,461,426 536,893 14,162,317 3,580,434 58,105 (707,968) 4,777,911 119,008 10.8% #DIV/0! 33.7% 3.3% Emergency Management Environmental Services Facilities Management General Government Health Care Mandates Internal Audit Legal Advocate Legal Defender Medical Examiner Public Defender Public Fiduciary Public Health Appointed Departments Total $ 155,628 1,369,912 200,000 145,869,051 317,071,747 35,000 6,383,337 7,021,181 4,189,649 31,100,074 1,983,422 3,853,494 534,150,192 $ 233,760 1,738,045 150,000 155,929,578 291,956,678 36,500 6,794,249 7,431,420 4,970,959 32,831,396 2,186,245 5,221,171 528,634,838 $ 78,132 368,133 (50,000) 10,060,527 (25,115,069) 1,500 410,912 410,239 781,310 1,731,322 202,823 1,367,677 (5,515,354) 33.4% 21.2% -33.3% 6.5% -8.6% 4.1% 6.0% 5.5% 15.7% 5.3% 9.3% 26.2% -1.0% $ 812,295,496 $ 69.7% 835,186,803 $ 72.1% 22,891,307 2.7% Appropriated Fund Balance $ General Government Health Care Mandates Human Services Parks & Recreation Non-Mandated Services Total $ 991,074 $ 150,000 1,787,032 1,271,316 4,199,422 $ 167,053 $ 330,806 2,067,234 1,526,694 4,091,787 $ (824,021) 180,806 280,202 255,378 (107,635) -493.3% 54.7% -100.0% 13.6% 16.7% -2.6% $ 4,199,422 $ 0.4% 4,091,787 $ 0.4% (107,635) -2.6% Appropriated Fund Balance $ Chief Information Officer County Manager's Office Employee Health Initiatives Facilities Management Finance General Government Health Care Mandates Human Resources Internal Audit Management & Budget Materials Management Public Health Administrative Mandates Total $ 195,198,195 $ 5,208,429 1,358,665 2,649,479 17,133,572 2,532,036 111,834,449 4,058,238 2,872,815 1,000,910 1,762,186 1,354,842 2,736,873 349,700,689 $ 112,439,748 $ 5,623,616 1,996,561 2,326,033 11,510,411 3,086,638 160,839,509 9,277,016 3,150,296 1,072,754 2,777,491 1,489,584 3,567,325 319,156,982 $ (82,758,447) 415,187 637,896 (323,446) (5,623,161) 554,602 49,005,060 5,218,778 277,481 71,844 1,015,305 134,742 830,452 (30,543,707) -73.6% 7.4% 31.9% -13.9% -48.9% 18.0% 30.5% 56.3% 8.8% 6.7% 36.6% 9.0% 23.3% -9.6% Total Administrative Mandates Percent of General Fund Expenditures $ 349,700,689 $ 30.0% 319,156,982 $ 27.6% (30,543,707) -9.6% Grand Total of General Fund Expenditures $ 1,166,195,607 $ 1,158,435,572 $ (7,760,035) -0.7% Total Mandated Services Percent of General Fund Expenditures Non-Mandated Services Total Non-Mandated Services Percent of General Fund Expenditures Administrative Mandates 405 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Mandates 406 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Department 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 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 serves 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 47 appointed departments, including 3 Special Districts, for which the County Board of Supervisors acts as the Board of Directors. Countywide Organization 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 Clerk of the Board County Manager Internal Audit STAR Call Center Elections Deputy County Manager Legal Defender Deputy County Manager Management & Budget Human Resources Research & Reporting Chief Finance Officer Contract Counsel Public Defender Community Services Asst. County Manager Legal Advocacy Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Regional Dvlpmnt Srvcs Asst. County Manager Info Tech Officer Asst. County Manager Finance Parks & Recreation Planning & Development Risk Management Community Development Emergency Management Transportation Materials Management Human Services Facilities Management Solid Waste E-Government Technology Public Fiduciary Library District Equipment Services Flood Control District Customer Support Center Animal Care & Control Services Stadium District Environmental Services Public Works Office of the CIO Telecommunications General Government Health Care Mandates Health Plans Employee Health Initiatives Medical Examiner Public Health Correctional Health Phase II 407 Air Quality Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Countywide Organization Chart (Continued) Integrated Judicial Branch of Arizona in Maricopa County Judges of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Superior Court Judges Administrative Advisory Committees Judicial Executive Committee Presiding Judge and Associate Presiding Judge Limited Jurisdiction Advisory Committees Superior Court Bench Juvenile Probation Department Adult Probation Department Trial Courts Administration - 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 - Collections - Alternate Dispute Resolution - Jury Office 408 Justices of the Peace Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Judicial Branch Judicial Organization 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 Northwest Trial Courts Facility Tax Court Special Assignment Department Northeast Trial Courts 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 - Collections - Alternate Dispute Resolution - Jury Office Court Jurisdiction The Judicial Branch of Arizona is responsible for the operational oversight of both general and limited jurisdiction courts in Maricopa County. Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction and is funded both through the County and by the State of Arizona. Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County presides over legal cases relating to; criminal (felonies), juvenile, family, probate/mental health, tax and civil (proposed settlements of 10,000 dollars or more). The Superior Court is part of an integrated judicial system in the State under administrative authority of the Arizona Supreme Court. Maricopa County Over 3.6 million of Arizona’s 5.5 million people reside in Maricopa County. The land mass of Maricopa County is approximately 10,000 square miles and has the largest population of the 15 counties in Arizona. The Court has five facilities and is located throughout Maricopa County, the locations are; downtown Phoenix (four buildings), Durango (Phoenix, juvenile cases only), Southeast (Mesa), Northwest (Surprise) and Northeast (Scottsdale). Judges Of The Court Superior Court’s judicial bench is comprised of 93 judges and 49 commissioners. Under the Merit Selection System, patterned after the ‘Missouri Plan’, judges are appointed by the governor and must stand for retention every four years. During local elections voters must decide, in addition to voting for local politicians or officials, which judges should retain their position by a simple yes-no vote. The Court also utilizes volunteer judges called ‘pro tempores’ who are attorneys in good standing with the Arizona Bar. These attorneys are utilized on an ‘as needed’ basis. 409 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Judicial Organization Chart (Continued) Court Judicial Departments The Court is comprised of five departments; family, criminal, tax, probate/mental health, and civil. Each department has an assigned presiding judge and administrator. The departmental presiding judges generally serve in that assignment for two to four years. The Court rotates judges’ calendar assignments approximately every two years. After the filing process, cases are assigned to a calendar and will remain with that calendar until adjudication. When a judge leaves a calendar for rotation purposes, already assigned cases will remain with the calendar and not the judge. The Presiding Judge The Court’s presiding judge oversees the Trial Courts, Adult and Juvenile Probation departments in Maricopa County, both the Superior Court and the justice courts (limited jurisdiction courts). The presiding judge is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the Arizona Supreme Court. Associate presiding judges are selected by the presiding judge to assist with administrative duties. The Trial Courts Administrator The Trial Courts Administrator functions in the capacity of assisting the Presiding Judge charged with the responsibility of overseeing non-judicial personnel for both Superior Court and Justice Courts, long-term future growth, caseflow management and is involved with many national and statewide committees committed to sharing information and pursuing excellence in the field of court administration. Non-Judicial Staffing Trial Courts Administration, Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, and the Clerk of the Court comprise the four groups of non-judicial staff. Within the Trial Courts Administration ancillary services such as Court Technical Services, Law Library, Conciliation and the Copy Center provides needed services to the Court and the public. 410 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Presiding Superior Court Judge – Biography Hon. Barbara Rodriquez Mundell, Presiding Judge – Superior Court Barbara Rodriguez Mundell was appointed to the Superior Court of Arizona bench in 1991. She is presently serving a 5-year term as the Presiding Judge for the Maricopa County Superior Court as of July 1, 2005. In her tenure as a judge, she has served on Civil, Juvenile, Family Court, Criminal, and Probate and Mental Health assignments. Prior to her appointment, Judge Mundell was with the juvenile department as a Maricopa County Superior Court Commissioner. As an attorney, she was in private practice, specializing in Workers’ Compensation and Social Security cases. She received her B.A. and J.D. degrees from Arizona State University. Judge Mundell has served on a number of Arizona Supreme Court committees including the Committee on Keeping the Record, the Fiduciary Advisory Committee, the Committee on Superior Court, and as the past chair of the Commission on Judicial Conduct. She is a member of a number of civic and professional organizations including the Maricopa County Bar Association and the Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association. 411 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Maricopa County Judges and Justices of the Peace Judge Thomas W. O'Toole Rebecca A. Albrecht Frank T. Galati Ronald S. Reinstein Ruth H. Hilliard Barry C. Schneider Jeffrey A. Hotham Michael O. Wilkinson Mark W. Armstrong Kenneth L. Fields Pamela J. Franks David R. Cole Thomas Dunevant, III Gregory H. Martin Paul A. Katz Steven D. Sheldon Colin F. Campbell Silvia R. Arellano J. Kenneth Mangum Johnathan H. Schwartz Brian R. Hauser Barbara R. Mundell Dennis W. Dairman Michael R. McVey Louis A. Araneta Anna M. Baca Brian K. Ishikawa Norman J. Davis Mark F. Aceto Michael D. Jones Marion J. Hoag a c e g i k Department Trial Courts Juvenile Criminal Probate/Mental Health Southeast Northwest Justice of the Peace G Michael Osterfeld C Steven McMurry Ronald D Johnson R Wayne Johnson Carlos Mendoza Michael W Orcutt John R Ore Joe B Getzwiller Quentin V Tolby Hercules Dellas Lester Pearce Gerald A. Williams Div 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Judge James H. Keppel Linda A. Akers Crane McClennen Eddward P. Ballinger, Jr. Robert H. Oberbillig Peter C. Reinstein David M. Talamante Bethany G. Hicks F. Pendleton Gaines, III Edward O. Burke Cathy M. Holt Maria del Mar Verdin Arthur T. Anderson Joseph B. Heilman Eileen S. Willett Alfred M. Fenzel Karen L. O’Connor Warren J. Granville John M. Gaylord Margaret H. Downie Emmet J. Ronan Douglas L. Rayes J. Richard Gama Gary E. Donahoe Janet E. Barton Robert A. Budoff Carey Snyder Hyatt Mark R. Santana Colleen A. McNally Roland J. Steinle, III John R. Ditsworth Judicial Officer Hon. B. R. Mundell Hon. E. Ronan Hon. J. Keppel Hon. K. O’Connor Hon. S. Arellano Hon. E. Ballinger Precinct Buckeye Central Phoenix Chandler East Mesa East Phoenix #1 East Phoenix #2 East Tempe Gila Bend Glendale Maryvale North Mesa North Valley 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 John A. Buttrick Cari A. Harrison Sherry K. Stephens Andrew G. Klein Teresa A. Sanders Richard J. Trujillo David K. Udall Connie Contes Craig Blakey Linda H. Miles Margaret R. Mahoney Robert C. Houser Harriett Chavez Larry Grant George H. Foster, Jr. Peter B. Swann Raymond Lee Sally S. Duncan John Rea Rosa Mroz Jeanne M. Garcia Michael W. Kemp Helene F. Abrams Bruce R. Cohen Jo Lynn Gentry-Lewis Kristin C. Hoffman Timothy J. Ryan Michael D. Gordon Effective October 11, 2005 Department Associate Civil Family Tax Northeast b d f h j 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 Justice of the Peace Lex E Anderson Sam Goodman Pamela C Gutierrez Joe “Pep” Guzman Clayton Hamblen Rachel Torres Carrillo Victor Wilkins John Henry Jacqueline McVay Michael Reagan Rebecca Macbeth Judicial Officer Hon. M. Downie Hon A. Baca Hon. Norman Davis Hon. M. Armstrong Hon C. McNally Effective July 1, 2005 Precinct Peoria South Mesa/Gilbert South Phoenix Tolleson West Mesa West Phoenix West Tempe Wickenburg Dreamy Draw McDowell Mountain Moon Valley Effective as of October 24, 2005 412 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Departmental Schedules Adult Probation Analysis by Ryan Wimmer, Senior Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Criminal Department Presiding Judge Adult Probation Barbara Broderick Chief Probation Officer Administration, Budget & Finance Community Supervision Assessment & Development Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department (MCAPD) is to provide assistance and adult pre-trial and probation services to neighborhoods, courts, offenders 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. Strategic Goals • • “Crime Reduction” -- by the end of fiscal year 2007, MCAPD will enhance public safety by: - Reducing the number of probationers committed to the Department of Corrections to 20%. - Reducing the number of probationers convicted of a new felony offense to 10% - Increase the rate of successful completions from probation to 65% - Increase the rate of successful completions from Pretrial Supervision to 80%. Status: Department of Corrections’ commitment rates and new felony offense rates are reported annually. Successful completion for Standard Probation is 66% and is 79% for Pretrial Services. “Compensation/Retention” -- By the end of fiscal year 2007, employee resignations from MCAPD because of pay will be reduced to 30%. Status: The FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget includes funding to address county-wide compensation issues. 413 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) • • • “Process Improvement” -- By the end of fiscal year 2007, MCAPD will improve case processing as evidenced by: - Maintaining at least a 97% on-time rate for submitting pre-sentence reports to the Court without a continuance. - Increasing the rate of restitution collected to 80%. - Increasing the rate of community work service completed to 50%. - Increasing use of the Offender Screening Tool to 75% for newly sentenced probationers. - Making use of the Field Reassessment Offender Screening Tool to develop case management plans at least 67% of the time. Status: The department is achieving progress in each facet of this goal, and anticipates attaining each part of the goal by the end of fiscal year 2007. In a preliminary sample, the Offender Screening Tool was used with 70.4% of newly sentenced probationers. “Customer Satisfaction” -- By the end of fiscal year 2007, MCAPD will improve customer satisfaction as evidenced by the following measurable increase in customers who report satisfaction: - 60% of victims will be satisfied with services provided by MCAPD. - 67% of offenders will be satisfied with services provided by MCAPD. - 75% of criminal court judges will be satisfied with services provided by MCAPD. - Staff satisfied with MCAPD will improve to an overall satisfaction score of 5.50 on the Employee Satisfaction Survey - The percentage of community and criminal justice partners satisfied with MCAPD will be maintained at level of 90% or higher. Status: The department is progressing in each facet of in this goal, and anticipates attaining each part of the goal by the end of fiscal year 2007. “Infrastructure” -- By the end of fiscal year 2007, 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. - Attaining 100% of technology standards and replacement schedules recommended by the County Chief Information Officer. Status: The department has achieved progress in each facet of in this goal, and anticipates being able to attain each part of the goal by the end of fiscal year 2007. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES BEHAVIORAL CHANGE $ COMMUNITY JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,675,550 8,520,402 694,966 12,890,918 EXPENDITURES BEHAVIORAL CHANGE $ COMMUNITY JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 13,952,863 37,754,619 2,585,202 1,497,320 55,790,004 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,347,037 8,572,739 13,919,776 14,747,434 40,520,336 2,812,583 1,508,320 59,588,673 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,347,037 8,789,030 14,136,067 14,949,366 41,827,762 2,938,804 1,535,807 61,251,739 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,459,539 9,003,655 13,463,194 13,498,302 39,959,742 3,280,685 1,532,413 58,271,142 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 4,112,317 10,370,627 14,482,944 15,988,088 44,192,323 3,123,143 1,536,384 64,839,938 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (1,234,720) 1,581,597 346,877 -23.1% 18.0% (1,038,722) (2,364,561) (184,339) (577) (3,588,199) -6.9% -5.7% -6.3% 0.0% -5.9% 2.5% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $378,485 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. 414 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT ASSESSMENT and BEHAVIORAL CHANGE Percent of probationers who successfully completed MCAPD operated and/or funded treatment and residential services during the reporting period Percent of students who successfully complete MCAPD operated education classes during the reporting period Percent of presentence investigation reports submitted to the Court that did not have continuances submitted by MCAPD during the reporting period FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 57.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 63.0% 60.0% 60.0% 62.0% 63.0% 3.0% 5.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 78.0% 78.0% 78.0% 78.0% 80.0% 2.0% 2.6% 61.0% 62.0% 62.0% 63.0% 64.0% 2.0% 3.2% 86.0% 85.0% 85.0% 86.0% 86.0% 1.0% 1.2% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% 0.0% 84.0% 85.0% 85.0% 86.0% 86.0% 1.0% 1.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Percent of defendants who successfully complete release conditions without termination during the reporting period COMMUNITY JUSTICE Percent of Standard probationers who successfully complete probation Percent of active IPS probationers not convicted of a new felony offense while supervised Percent of probationers paying restitution and/or performing community work service during the reporting period Percent of warrants cleared during the reporting period Percent of probationers appropriately monitored according to Indirect Services standards Percent of jailed probationers who receive services under the In-Custody Management Activity ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,705,818 8,039,210 111,429 34,461 12,890,918 49,078,857 754,580 5,259,260 697,306 55,790,004 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,457,776 8,305,000 105,000 52,000 13,919,776 54,384,553 628,277 4,319,666 256,177 59,588,673 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,457,776 8,521,291 105,000 52,000 14,136,067 56,550,910 700,785 3,743,867 256,177 61,251,739 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,600,834 8,677,361 85,000 99,999 13,463,194 53,192,691 639,968 4,159,563 278,921 58,271,142 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 5,499,944 8,843,000 90,000 50,000 14,482,944 59,222,994 586,580 4,422,575 607,789 64,839,938 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 42,168 321,709 (15,000) (2,000) 346,877 0.8% 3.8% -14.3% -3.8% 2.5% (2,672,084) 114,205 (678,708) (351,612) (3,588,199) -4.7% 16.3% -18.1% -137.3% -5.9% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 201 ADULT PROBATION FEES 211 ADULT PROBATION GRANTS $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 201 ADULT PROBATION FEES 211 ADULT PROBATION GRANTS $ ALL FUNDS $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 8,069,775 4,821,143 12,890,918 $ 43,162,423 7,857,866 4,769,715 55,790,004 $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 8,300,000 5,619,776 13,919,776 $ 45,668,897 8,300,000 5,619,776 59,588,673 $ 415 $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 8,516,291 5,619,776 14,136,067 $ 47,115,672 8,516,291 5,619,776 61,251,739 $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 8,727,361 4,735,833 13,463,194 $ 45,305,680 8,366,787 4,598,675 58,271,142 $ $ $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 8,843,000 5,639,944 14,482,944 $ 50,303,044 8,896,950 5,639,944 64,839,938 $ $ $ 326,709 20,168 346,877 (3,187,372) (380,659) (20,168) (3,588,199) 3.8% 0.4% 2.5% -6.8% -4.5% -0.4% -5.9% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 201 ADULT PROBATION FEES 211 ADULT PROBATION GRANTS TOTAL FUNDS • • • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 886.30 173.20 93.50 1,153.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 890.80 176.70 98.50 1,166.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 915.80 178.70 98.50 1,193.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 25.00 2.00 27.00 FY 2004-05 Mid-year Increase for Pretrial Services - (5.0) FTE (General Fund). Transferred positions to Clerk of the Superior Court - (3.0) FTE (General Fund). Pre-Trial Bail/Bond Review Results Initiative - 4.0 FTE (General Fund). Standard Probation Supervision Results Initiative - 19.0 FTE (17.0 General Fund, 2.0 Adult Probation Fees Fund). Pre-trial Supervision & Electronic Monitoring Results Initiative - 12.0 FTE (General Fund). Base Adjustments Revenue • • Grant revenue increase from Justice Assistance Grant. Forecasted increase in Probation Fee collections. Expenditures • • • • • • Reduced expenditures due to increasing budgeted Personnel Savings rate from 4% to 5%. Increased expenditures to fund increase in Shift Differential pay rates. Community Restoration Activity reallocated from the General Fund to the Grant Fund based on anticipated increases in the Justice Assistance Grant. Annualized mid-year increases in the Pre-trial Supervision Activity. Increased Other Benefits in the Adult Probation Fees Fund for projected CY 2006 employee health and dental premium increases. Increased Debt Service in the Adult Probation Fees Fund for payment of capital leases. Results Initiatives The following Results Initiatives are recommended for FY 2005-06: • • Pre-trial Services Bail/Bond Unit - $172,830 ($164,980 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 4.0 FTE to start a new Bail/Bond Review Activity. The new Activity will allow for review of in-custody defendants who are awaiting adjudication to determine if there is a change in status that would allow a modification to their release decision. Expected Result: 25% of inmates reviewed will be appropriately released from custody, thereby relieving jail overcrowding Standard Probation Field Services - $783,092 ($860,949 annualized) General Fund/ $77,957 Adult Probation Fees Fund: Initiative adds 19.0 FTE to meet current and projected increases in demand. $53,950 will be funded from the Adult Probation Fees Fund (201) Fund Balance. Expected Result: The percentage of offenders who successfully complete probation will be maintained, and slightly increased to 64%. 416 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) • Pre-trial Supervision and Electronic Monitoring Services - $558,486 ($543,006 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 12.0 FTE and associated supplies and equipment to meet increased demand in the Pre-trial Supervision Activity. Expected Result: The percentage of defendants who successfully complete release conditions without termination during the reporting period will be increased from a projected 78 percent in FY 2004-05 to 81 percent in FY 2005-06 and 82 percent in FY 2006-07. Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 45,668,897 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 1,144,547 302,228 1,446,775 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 47,115,672 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 47,115,672 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 604,456 882,303 232,074 271,504 1,990,337 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ 49,106,009 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Request Under Target-Transfer 3.0 FTE to Clerk of Court $ Personnel Savings Adjustment Increase Employee Shift Differential Adjustment to Community Restoration Activity Increase Pretrial Services Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 48,788,636 RESULTS INITIATIVES: Pre-trial Bail/Bond Unit $ Standard Probation Field Services Pre-trial Supervision & Electronic Monitoring RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 172,830 783,092 558,486 1,514,408 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: - $ 50,303,044 $ 417 $ (98,732) (414,319) 46,379 (53,000) 202,299 (317,373) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Adult Probation Fees (201) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 8,300,000 $ 8,300,000 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 216,291 $ 216,291 $ 216,291 216,291 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 8,516,291 $ 8,516,291 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 8,516,291 $ 8,516,291 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ $ 8,516,291 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Revenue Request Above Target $ Personnel Savings Adjustment Increase Employee Shift Differential Adjustment for Anticipated Fixed Benefit Increases Increase Debt Service BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 326,709 $ 326,709 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: RESULTS INITIATIVES: Standard Probation Field Services $ 8,843,000 $ 118,123 168,935 (454,579) 123,665 43,856 8,516,291 (77,857) 18,194 164,417 144,098 248,852 8,765,143 $ RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 77,857 77,857 NON-RECURRING EXPENDITURES FROM FUND BALANCE: Standard Probation Field Services RIR - Equipment $ NON-RECURRING FUND BALANCE SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 53,950 53,950 8,843,000 $ 8,896,950 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 418 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Adult Probation Grants (211) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,619,776 $ 5,619,776 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 5,619,776 $ 5,619,776 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 5,619,776 $ 5,619,776 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ $ 5,619,776 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Request Under Target $ Community Restoration Activity - Increase Justice Assistance Grant BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (32,832) $ 53,000 20,168 $ 63,767 85,943 (216,469) 66,759 5,619,776 (32,832) 53,000 20,168 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 5,639,944 $ 5,639,944 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,639,944 $ 5,639,944 419 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 12,094,117 $ 40,556,800 $ 14,521,960 $ 37,826,109 $ 43,502,800 $ 12,627,583 $ 46,924,525 $ 13,125,677 $ 50,303,044 $ 14,536,894 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 52,650,917 52,348,069 56,130,383 60,050,202 64,839,938 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 12,094,117 $ 40,510,322 $ 14,521,960 $ 37,826,109 $ 43,502,800 $ 12,627,583 $ 46,924,525 $ 13,125,677 $ 50,303,044 $ 14,536,894 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 52,604,439 52,348,069 56,130,383 60,050,202 64,839,938 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 46,478 - Special Revenue $ 46,478 $ $ $ $ - NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Adult Probation Mandates Vs. Expenditures Adult Probation FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Other Fund Mandated 22.4% Non-Mandated 0.0% $70.0 $60.0 Dollars in Millions MANDATE INFORMATION $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0 General Fund Mandated 77.6% Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 420 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 52.7 12.1 40.5 0 52.3 14.5 37.8 0 56.1 43.5 12.6 0 60.1 46.9 13.1 0 66.3 51.5 14.8 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 328,885 $ 2,660,870 $ 848,249 $ 1,887,624 $ 924,762 $ 2,031,739 $ 1,148,125 $ 1,027,777 $ 1,325,365 $ 1,409,324 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise Funds - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,989,755 2,735,873 2,956,501 2,175,902 2,734,689 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 twenty-five persons at one time, and a three-person intensive probation team shall supervise no more than forty persons at one time. The intensive probation team shall…exercise close supervision and observation over persons sentenced to intensive probation including (a) visual contact with each probationer at least 4 times per week, and (b) weekly contact with the employer of the probationer. Adult Intensive Probation FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 593,870 $ 8,009,213 660,083 $ 7,169,684 7,565,679 $ 378,219 7,990,824 $ 398,004 8,789,311 $ 397,120 421 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,603,083 7,829,767 7,943,898 8,388,828 9,186,431 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 27,211 $ 151,781 27,551 $ 151,868 317,570 $ 105,861 329,152 $ 125,448 383,463 $ 138,852 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 178,992 179,419 423,431 454,600 522,315 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. 422 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 62,169 $ 1,502,961 63,223 $ 2,051,119 489,397 $ 1,626,182 658,460 $ 1,660,618 1,474,323 $ 1,755,996 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,565,130 2,114,342 2,115,579 2,319,078 3,230,319 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 148,122 $ 442,496 166,289 $ 446,156 739,566 $ 235,688 662,027 $ 199,063 746,336 $ 224,012 423 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 590,618 612,445 975,254 861,090 970,348 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 163,301 $ 1,337,999 114,548 $ 940,669 365,960 $ 517,664 527,804 $ 465,390 538,998 $ 556,454 424 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,501,300 1,055,217 883,624 993,194 1,095,452 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 pre-sentence 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 6,231,604 $ 20,239,348 6,180,150 $ 19,242,684 24,316,152 $ 3,865,560 25,721,120 $ 5,049,493 26,333,857 $ 5,247,669 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 26,470,952 25,422,834 28,181,712 30,770,613 31,581,526 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 35,173 $ 1,120,219 119,555 $ 1,125,184 615,603 $ 192,623 508,362 $ 195,574 552,468 $ 210,731 425 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,155,392 1,244,739 808,226 703,936 763,199 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 3,835,925 $ 4,203,750 3,641,076 $ 3,500,662 3,866,174 $ 3,040,386 4,998,174 $ 3,300,845 4,749,973 $ 3,480,338 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,039,675 7,141,738 6,906,560 8,299,019 8,230,311 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 282,867 $ 479,889 304,544 $ 591,121 566,104 $ 528,811 526,170 $ 479,810 795,292 $ 624,442 426 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 762,756 895,665 1,094,915 1,005,980 1,419,734 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 384,990 $ 261,796 384,347 $ 190,848 380,621 $ 104,850 373,015 $ 89,712 435,678 $ 110,102 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 646,786 575,195 485,471 462,727 545,780 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget TITLE Pretrial Services FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue $ 100,000 105,048 $ 47,589 320,720 $ 272,506 $ 19,926 300,000 $ 136,800 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 100,000 152,637 320,720 292,432 436,800 Pretrial Services $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue $ $ 3,034,492 $ 3,208,786 $ 114,017 3,877,980 $ 245,054 427 Total 3,034,492 3,322,803 4,123,034 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Adult Probation (Continued) TITLE Mandatory Payment to State of Arizona Mandatory Payment to State of Arizona FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget * No longer mandated $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,907,297 $ 480,901 $ $ $ - 428 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ $ $ 2,388,198 - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation Analysis by Ryan Wimmer, Senior Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Acting Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Barbara Broderick Operations Juvenile Court Services Probation Juvenile Court Services Detention Research Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department is to provide information, services, and programs to county residents so that 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. Strategic Goals • • • To reduce the dangers to children and staff and the increased expenses resulting from overcrowding, by July 2006 our detention facilities will be at or below capacity every day. Status: Planned new Juvenile Detention facilities funded by the 1/5th cent Jail Excise Tax are now operational. To provide high quality services to juveniles, and to provide awareness of that to the public, by July 2006 our detention facilities will be accredited by the American Correctional Association. Status: The department is making procedural changes to achieve this goal. We will retain and develop staff positions to achieve the following retention rates by July 2006: Youth Supervisor: 0 - 2 years at 85% 3 - 5 years at 90% Over 5 years at 95% All Other Positions: 0 - 2 years at 90% 3 - 5 years at 90% Over 5 years at 95% and achieve and maintain an average staffing of 96.5% filled positions by July 2006. Status: The department is meeting or exceeding retention rate goals in five of the six areas (with the exception of Youth Supervisors over 5 years = 94%). 429 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) • • • To provide a higher level of service to those families whose primary language is Spanish, by July 2006 all documents used by the public will be printed in both Spanish and English; 15% of our staff will be proficient in Spanish. Status: The department has not yet reviewed public documents to determine availability in Spanish. 11.4% of staff is proficient in Spanish. To provide judicial officers with reliable and validated information about a juvenile’s risk to the community, and to facilitate the use of the Risk/Needs instrument as a casework tool for probation officers, by July 2006 computer programs will be written that incorporate the Risk/Needs Instrument required by statute in all probation officer reports and case plans. Status: The department estimates that this goal is 20% complete. By July 2006 we will have reviewed all our programs and practices based on risk, needs, and benchmarks for successful outcomes. We will also match them to one or more of the competing needs of our stakeholders, including juveniles and their families. Status: The department is pursuing a number of initiatives to benchmark current programs and develop new programs consistent with best practices and outcomes. The FY 2005-06 budget reflects a significant update of the department’s Managing For Results structure and performance measures. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES JUVENILE EARLY INTERVENTION $ JUVENILE DETENTION JUVENILE PROBATION SUPERVISION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,924,495 7,195,729 3,821,494 100,933 16,042,651 EXPENDITURES JUVENILE EARLY INTERVENTION $ JUVENILE DETENTION JUVENILE INFORMATION JUVENILE PROBATION SUPERVISION JUVENILE TREATMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 6,682,738 801,111 31,498,888 1,757,858 3,686,269 1,311,218 45,738,082 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,050,925 9,797,044 2,096,514 70,000 17,014,483 6,462,190 1,760,843 38,140,266 1,644,981 4,035,649 1,626,462 53,670,391 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,050,925 9,348,236 2,096,514 70,000 16,565,675 6,737,110 2,365,350 37,319,693 1,667,694 4,307,185 1,700,975 54,098,007 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,858,814 9,322,676 1,524,679 55,803 15,761,972 6,311,330 1,847,342 34,812,845 1,663,262 3,773,396 1,408,484 49,816,659 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 5,596,985 786,634 9,048,637 8,001 53,276 15,493,533 6,217,691 26,583,256 408,443 14,642,101 4,378,187 3,687,408 1,754,966 57,672,053 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 546,060 786,634 (299,599) (2,088,513) (16,724) (1,072,142) 10.8% -3.2% -99.6% -23.9% -6.5% 519,419 7.7% (24,217,906) -1023.9% (408,443) 22,677,592 60.8% (2,710,493) -162.5% 619,777 14.4% (53,991) -3.2% (3,574,046) -6.6% Notes: • Due to a major revision of the department’s Managing for Results structure, significant expenditure shifts between Programs occurred from FY 2004-05 to FY 2005-06. • Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $297,292 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. 430 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT JUVENILE EARLY INTERVENTION Percent of at-risk youth and families who received Prevention and/or Diversion services JUVENILE TREATMENT Percent of juveniles who received Juvenile Treatment Services JUVENILE PROBATION SUPERVISION Percent of juveniles supervised by Standard or JIPS Probation that comply with the orders of the Court FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% JUVENILE DETENTION Percent of juveniles who receive services through Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care, Pre-Disposition Secure Care or Post-Disposition Secure care that appear in Court as required by the law 0.0% JUVENILE INFORMATION Percent of juvenile records that are entered into the department IT system, within 48 hours of receipt, during the reporting period 0.0% Note: Due to the recent revision of the Department’s Managing for Results structure, Key Results information was not yet available at the time this report was completed. Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 14,683,452 1,176,456 44,069 138,675 16,042,651 39,084,296 1,419,442 4,950,186 138,675 145,483 45,738,082 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 15,728,057 1,276,426 10,000 17,014,483 47,046,571 1,586,774 4,581,945 455,101 53,670,391 431 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 15,279,249 1,276,426 10,000 16,565,675 47,218,717 1,595,886 4,827,269 456,135 54,098,007 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 14,551,052 1,173,574 37,346 15,761,972 43,428,730 1,418,440 4,658,927 310,562 49,816,659 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 14,290,903 1,192,630 10,000 15,493,533 48,192,652 1,496,662 7,470,748 511,991 57,672,053 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (988,346) (83,796) (1,072,142) (973,935) 99,224 (2,643,479) (55,856) (3,574,046) -6.5% -6.6% 0.0% -6.5% -2.1% 6.2% -54.8% -12.2% -6.6% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 227 JUVENILE PROBATION GRANTS 228 JUVENILE PROBATION SPECIAL FEES 229 JUVENILE RESTITUTION FUND 275 JUVENILE PROBATION DIVERSION $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 227 JUVENILE PROBATION GRANTS 228 JUVENILE PROBATION SPECIAL FEES 229 JUVENILE RESTITUTION FUND 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 275 JUVENILE PROBATION DIVERSION 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ ALL FUNDS $ 14,283 14,830,483 845,817 97,076 254,994 16,042,651 11,244,792 14,635,885 831,189 49,515 18,117,678 216,401 642,622 45,738,082 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 14,000 15,722,058 1,000,000 10,000 268,425 17,014,483 11,832,089 15,722,058 1,000,000 50,000 24,405,284 268,425 392,535 53,670,391 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 14,000 15,273,250 1,000,000 10,000 268,425 16,565,675 12,155,459 15,273,250 1,000,000 50,000 24,958,338 268,425 392,535 54,098,007 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 22,973 14,547,604 889,950 11,444 290,001 15,761,972 11,210,807 14,547,604 962,905 43,811 22,501,907 229,980 319,645 49,816,659 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 14,000 14,284,904 900,000 10,000 284,629 15,493,533 11,680,865 14,284,904 900,000 50,000 30,471,655 284,629 57,672,053 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (988,346) (100,000) 16,204 (1,072,142) 0.0% -6.5% -10.0% 0.0% 6.0% -6.5% 474,594 988,346 100,000 (5,513,317) (16,204) 392,535 (3,574,046) 3.9% 6.5% 10.0% 0.0% -22.1% -6.0% 100.0% -6.6% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 227 JUVENILE PROBATION GRANTS 228 JUVENILE PROBATION SPECIAL FEES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 275 JUVENILE PROBATION DIVERSION 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL FUNDS • • • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 218.00 302.50 18.00 461.00 4.00 9.00 1,012.50 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 219.00 262.00 17.00 464.00 4.00 966.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 3.00 (2.00) (1.00) 4.00 4.00 Net increase of office support positions as well as the creation of additional Probation Officer positions in the Diversion Activity – 3.0 FTE (General Fund) Reduction of Grant funding – (2.0) FTE (Grants Fund) Reduction of a Human Resources position due to Court consolidation of administrative services – (1.0) FTE (Special Fees Fund) Results Initiative increase of Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care positions – 3.0 FTE (Detention Operations Fund). Results Initiative increase of Youth Recovery Academy position – 1.0 FTE (Detention Operations Fund) Base Adjustments Revenue • FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 216.00 264.00 18.00 460.00 4.00 962.00 Reduced Probation Fee revenue collections. 432 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Expenditures • • • • • • Increase in Shift Differential pay rates. Reduced expenditures due to increase in the Detention Fund Personnel Savings rate from 8.8% to 10%. Authorization to spend Juvenile Restitution Fund balance on restitution payments. Increased expenditure authority in the Juvenile (Crime) Prevention Activity to correspond with increased Juvenile Probation Diversion Fund revenue. Corrections to allocation of expenditures from General Fund to Detention Fund for the Juvenile Detention Assessment Activity and the Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care Activity. Four security guards funded to staff intake and patrol the parking lots at both the Southeast and Durango facilities. Results Initiatives The following Results Initiatives are recommended for FY 2005-06: • • • (Juvenile) Competency Restoration - $600,000 ($600,000 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds $600,000 to fund competency restoration services for juveniles that are not wards of the Court. Expected Result: 70% of juveniles receiving services will attain competency within 180 days. Youth Recovery Academy Expansion - $1,511,096 ($1,700,350 annualized) Detention Fund: Initiative adds 1.0 FTE and expands the Youth Recovery Academy (formerly called the “Residential Treatment Center”) to operate an additional 24 beds, specifically for female offenders. The additional funding allows for gender-specific, family-based programming to include physical, emotional, psychiatric, substance abuse and academic services. Expected Result: 70% of juveniles will successfully complete treatment and not receive a new delinquent referral within 6 months. Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care - $483,585 ($660,127 annualized) Detention Fund: Initiative adds 3.0 FTE and funding to expand community-based alternatives to detention. Expected Result: 89% of juveniles ordered to Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care Detention will not receive a new delinquent referral while in the program. 433 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 14,000 $ - $ 11,832,089 $ 272,903 50,467 323,370 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 14,000 $ 12,155,459 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 14,000 $ 12,155,459 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Departmental Overhead Reallocation TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase Employee Shift Differential $ Re-allocate Juvenile Detention Assessment Activity to Detention Fund Re-allocate Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care Activity to Detention Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: RESULTS INITIATIVES: (Juvenile) Competency Restoration $ $ RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 434 - $ 100,934 221,946 55,335 98,660 (267,596) 209,279 14,000 $ 12,364,738 - $ $ $ 14,000 $ - 43,040 (552,607) (774,306) (1,283,873) 11,080,865 $ $ 600,000 600,000 14,000 $ 11,680,865 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Juvenile Probation Grants (227) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 15,722,058 $ $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (448,808) $ (448,808) $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 15,273,250 $ 15,273,250 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 15,273,250 $ 15,273,250 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Reduced Grant Awards TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 15,722,058 (448,808) (448,808) 140,057 269,383 220,523 (629,963) - $ 15,273,250 $ $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (988,346) $ (988,346) $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 14,284,904 $ 14,284,904 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 14,284,904 $ 14,284,904 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Request Under Target 435 15,273,250 (988,346) (988,346) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Juvenile Probation Special Fees (228) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 8,334 16,803 13,122 (38,259) - $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Reduction to Interest Revenue - Financial Services Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (100,000) $ (100,000) $ (100,000) (100,000) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 900,000 $ 900,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Juvenile Probation Restitution (229) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 10,000 $ 50,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 10,000 $ 50,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 10,000 $ 50,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: One Time Expenses $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ (40,000) (40,000) FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 10,000 $ 10,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 10,000 $ 10,000 NON-RECURRING EXPENDITURES FROM FUND BALANCE: Diversion - Restitution Payments $ NON-RECURRING FUND BALANCE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 436 - $ $ 40,000 40,000 10,000 $ 50,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Juvenile Probation Detention Operations (255) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 24,405,284 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase Health and Dental Benefits Increases $ $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 375,174 106,722 71,158 553,054 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 24,958,338 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 24,958,338 - $ 213,443 400,510 76,072 46,282 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Juvenile Detention Assessment Nurse Market Increase Adjustment Detention Psychologist - 50% of cost allocated to APD Fees Annualization of FY 2005 Initiatives - Durango Staffing Departmental Overhead Reallocation TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ (8,986) 30,697 41,945 815,808 267,596 1,883,367 - $ 26,841,705 - $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Personnel Savings Adjustment $ Increase Employee Shift Differential Re-allocate Juvenile Detention Assessment Activity from General Fund Re-allocate Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care Activity from General Fund Court Security Guards for Intake and Parking Lots BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ (254,400) 448,276 552,607 774,306 114,480 1,635,269 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 28,476,974 RESULTS INITIATIVES: Youth Recovery Academy Alternatives to Juvenile Secure Care $ $ RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 1,511,096 483,585 1,994,681 $ - $ 30,471,655 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 437 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Juvenile Probation Diversion (275) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 268,425 $ 268,425 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 268,425 $ 268,425 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 268,425 $ 268,425 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 1,852 4,309 2,916 (9,077) - $ 268,425 $ 268,425 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Juvenile Crime Prevention Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 16,204 $ 16,204 $ 16,204 16,204 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 284,629 $ 284,629 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 284,629 $ 284,629 438 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 10,601,402 $ 28,318,438 $ 11,038,054 $ 28,632,843 $ 11,434,359 $ 33,049,533 $ 12,101,681 $ 37,504,633 $ 11,680,865 $ 45,991,188 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ 506,121 $ $ 642,622 $ $ 326,166 $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 38,919,840 40,177,018 45,126,514 49,932,480 57,672,053 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 10,601,402 $ 28,318,438 $ 11,038,054 $ 28,632,843 $ 11,434,359 $ 33,049,533 $ 12,101,681 $ 37,504,633 $ 11,680,865 $ 45,991,188 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ 506,121 $ $ 642,622 $ $ 326,166 $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 38,919,840 40,177,018 45,126,514 49,932,480 57,672,053 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Juvenile Probation FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures General Fund Mandated 20.3% $60.0 $50.0 Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 0.0% Juvenile Probation Mandates Vs. Expenditures $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 79.7% 439 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 38.9 10.6 28.3 0 40.2 11 29.1 0 45.1 11.4 33.7 0 49.9 12.1 37.8 0 57.7 11.7 46 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE AUTHORITY Juvenile Community Services Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-205: Powers and duties of juvenile court personnel Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-234: Treatment, community restitution, restraining and protective orders Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-321: Referrals; diversions; conditions; community based alternative programs; definition Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-322: Juvenile probation services fund; program and contract requirements Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-342: Residential treatment services Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-388: Notice of diversion Laws of 1994, 2nd Session, Ch. 201 § 23,25,33: Safe Schools programs HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The purpose of the Juvenile Community Services: Early Intervention Program is to provide Prevention and Diversion opportunities to juveniles and families to prevent them from entering the juvenile court process. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Diversion services to provide eligible juveniles with information and opportunities so they can participate in community based programs as required by A.R.S. Failure to fulfill this mandate would result in: Increased costs to the State and County, increased child welfare concerns and decreased public safety. Community Justice Intervention is the most cost effect means available to deal with Juvenile crime. Lack of programs available for early intervention. Inability to “divert” juveniles from entering the formal Court system. Inability to meet ARS statute mandates for diverting cases. Increased delinquency, crime and increased incarceration rates. Inability to meet victim rights legislation. Inability to participate in school safety and law related education programs. Community Services FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 1,826,850 $ 5,748,255 1,727,593 $ 6,076,756 1,989,739 $ 5,484,903 2,210,710 $ 5,367,459 1,970,798 $ 5,616,451 440 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,575,104 7,804,349 7,474,642 7,578,169 7,587,249 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Juvenile Probation Services Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-268: Juvenile probation fund; use Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-203: Court employees; appointment; certification; qualifications; salary; bond Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-203.01: Fingerprinting juvenile probation officers; affidavit Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-205: Powers and duties of juvenile court personnel Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-321: Referrals; diversions; conditions; community based alternative programs; definition Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-341: Disposition and commitment; definitions Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-350: Dangerous offenders; sex offenders; notification to schools; definition Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-394: Notice of delinquent's status Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-396: Notice of probation modification, termination or revocation disposition matters; notice of arrest Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-404: Impact statement; predisposition report Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-406: Probation modification, revocation disposition or termination proceedings Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-407: Victim's discretion; form of statement Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court: Delinquency and incorrigibility proceedings The purpose of the Juvenile Probation Supervision Program is to provide appropriate levels of community supervision to adjudicated juveniles who have been placed on probation so that they can become law abiding members of the community and public safety is enhanced. In addition to Probation Supervision, the Juvenile Treatment Program provides individualized treatment to juveniles so that they receive necessary therapy in order to meet legal obligations and reduce future court involvement. 441 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) MANDATE DESCRIPTION The director of juvenile court services shall recommend the appointment of deputy probation officers, detention personnel, other personnel and office assistants as the director deems necessary. Subject to the limitations of this chapter and chapter 3 of this title or as imposed by the juvenile court, an authorized juvenile court officer shall: 1. Except as provided by section 8-323, receive and examine all referrals or Arizona uniform traffic ticket and complaint forms involving an alleged delinquent juvenile or incorrigible child. 2. Perform other duties as required or prescribed by the presiding judge of the juvenile court. 3. Have the authority of a peace officer in the performance of the court officer's duties. 4. Receive petitions alleging a child or children as dependent and transmit the petitions to the juvenile court. After receiving and considering the evidence on the proper disposition of the case, the court may enter judgment as follows: 1. It may award a delinquent juvenile: (b) To a probation department, subject to any conditions as the court may impose, including a period of incarceration in a juvenile detention center of not more than one year. 2. It may award an incorrigible child: (b) To the protective supervision of a probation department, subject to any conditions as the court may impose. A juvenile probation officer shall prepare a disposition summary report for every juvenile who has been adjudicated of a delinquent act or of a technical violation of probation. Probation Services FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 6,354,048 $ 4,921,144 6,261,740 $ 4,813,743 5,900,316 $ 4,348,405 5,867,495 $ 4,102,226 5,192,155 $ 5,628,513 442 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 11,275,191 11,075,483 10,248,721 9,969,721 10,820,668 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY Juvenile Detention Center Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-305: Detention center; jail; separate custody Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-306: Supervision and inspection of juvenile detention center and shelter care facilities Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-321: Referrals; diversions; conditions; community based alternative programs; definition Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-341: Disposition and commitment; definitions Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-393: Notice of release or escape Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-394: Notice of delinquent's status Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-401: Detention hearing Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-402: Post-arrest detention decisions HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The purpose of the Juvenile Detention Center is to provide a structured detention setting for juveniles so that they appear for court hearings and public safety is enhanced. MANDATE DESCRIPTION The county board of supervisors or the county jail district, if authorized pursuant to title 48, chapter 25, shall maintain a detention center that is separate and apart from a jail or lockup in which adults are confined and where juveniles who are alleged to be delinquent or children who are incorrigible and within the provisions of this article shall be detained when necessary before or after a hearing or as a condition of probation. The board of supervisors or the county jail district, if authorized pursuant to title 48, chapter 25, may provide for the detention of juveniles who are accused or convicted of a criminal offense in a jail or lockup in which adults are confined. A juvenile who is confined in a jail or lockup in which adults are confined shall be kept in a physically separate section from any adult who is charged with or convicted of a criminal offense, and no sight or sound contact between the juvenile and any charged or convicted adult is permitted, except to the extent authorized under federal laws or regulations. A juvenile, pending a juvenile hearing, shall not be confined with adults charged with or convicted of a crime, except that: 1. A juvenile who is accused of a criminal offense or who is alleged to be delinquent may be securely detained in such location for up to six hours until transportation to a juvenile detention center can be arranged if the juvenile is kept in a physically separate section from any adult who is charged with or convicted of a crime and no sight or sound contact between the juvenile and any charged or convicted adult is permitted, except to the extent authorized under federal laws or regulations. 443 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) 2. A juvenile who is transferred as provided in section 8-327 to the criminal division of the superior court may be securely detained if the juvenile is kept in a physically separate section from any adult charged with or convicted of a crime, and no sight or sound contact with any charged or convicted adult is permitted, except to the extent authorized under federal laws or regulations. 3. A juvenile who is arrested for an offense listed in section 13-501 may be detained in a juvenile facility until formally charged as an adult. After a juvenile has been formally charged as an adult the juvenile may be securely detained in an adult facility if the juvenile is detained separately from any adult charged with or convicted of a crime, except to the extent authorized under federal laws or regulations. A child who is alleged to be delinquent or who is alleged to be incorrigible shall not be securely detained in a jail or lockup in which adults charged with or convicted of a crime are detained. A child may be non-securely detained if necessary to obtain the child's name, age, residence or other identifying information for up to six hours until arrangements for transportation to any shelter care facility, home or other appropriate place can be made. A child who is non-securely detained shall be detained separately from any adult charged with or convicted of a crime, and no sight or sound contact with any charged or convicted adult is permitted, except to the extent authorized under federal laws or regulations. Juvenile Detention Center FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 73,052 $ 12,832,636 79,220 $ 12,802,714 64,712 $ 17,293,044 1,923 $ 21,865,491 47,656 $ 27,732,499 444 Capital Projects $ $ 506,121 $ 642,622 $ 326,166 $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 12,905,688 13,388,055 18,000,378 22,193,580 27,780,155 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY Juvenile Research and Planning Services (RAPS) Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 1-501: Court automation standards Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 6-302: Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-203: Court employees; appointment; certification; qualifications; salary; bond Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-205: Powers and duties of juvenile court personnel Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-208: Juvenile court records; public inspection; exceptions Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2005-37: Special access to records and information concerning dependent and delinquent minors Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2005-41: Probation Personnel Practices Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 90-55: Order Directing Development of Statistical Reporting Standards for Arizona Courts HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 90-55 ordered that the Administrative Office of the Courts develop a plan for the adoption and implementation of such a [court statistical reporting] system. MANDATE DESCRIPTION The system and standards shall include reporting requirements for caseload, financial, and personnel information, and such other information as deemed necessary. It is further ordered that all segments of the judicial department cooperate and assist as needed in the development and implementation of this plan. Research and Planning Services (RAPS) FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 912,293 $ 351,298 977,585 $ 659,160 1,148,098 $ 280,757 1,632,208 $ 328,137 1,596,256 $ 577,656 445 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,263,591 1,636,745 1,428,855 1,960,345 2,173,912 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY Juvenile Executive Services Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-268: Juvenile probation fund; use Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-203: Court employees; appointment; certification; qualifications; salary; bond Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-357: Budget requests Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2005-32: Presiding Judges Authority 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 executive office provides administrative and managerial direction to an organization of over 800 staff responsible for provision of services in accordance with statutory and court directed mandates. The executive office consist of the position of the Director and Appointing Authority for the department, two Assistant Directors, and administrative staff specialists, including the transition team that is responsible for facilities and programs associated with the Jail Tax. The Director/Appointing Authority and designees are responsible for the overall operations of the organization, have signatory authority over all personnel, financial and program matters, and are responsible to insure that the appointed staff fulfills their statutory obligations. Failure to fulfill these obligations will place the Court in jeopardy of not having the information required to make legal decisions regarding cases and compromise the health and safety of the youth in custodial care, as well as those under the supervision of the Court in the community. Executive Services FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 256,478 $ 183,808 221,292 $ 140,628 245,623 $ 154,304 296,211 $ 224,107 358,759 $ 643,406 446 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 440,286 361,920 399,927 520,318 1,002,165 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY Juvenile Administrative Services Americans with Disabilities Act: Federal regulations regarding persons with disabilities Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 1-501: Court automation standards Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 5-204: Administration of Victims Rights Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 6-102: Probation general administration financial requirements Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 6-103: Victims' Rights Requirements for Probation Personnel Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 6-106: Probation Personnel Practices Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-268: Juvenile probation fund; use Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-502: Jurisdiction, venue and procedure; additional enforcement provisions Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-964: Lien of judgment; duration; exemption of homestead; acknowledgment of satisfaction by judgment creditor Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-1750: Central state repository; department of public safety; duties; funds; accounts; definitions Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-203.01: Fingerprinting juvenile probation officers; affidavit Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-321: Referrals; diversions; conditions; community based alternative programs; definition Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-344: Restitution Payments Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-346: Restitution fund; restitution contracts Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-349: Destruction of juvenile records; electronic research records Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2000-71: Procurement Rules for the Judicial Branch Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2004-56: Probation Treatment and Education Payments Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2004-94: Arizona Code of Judicial Administration §5-204: Administration of Victims' Rights; and §6-103: Victims' Rights Requirements for Probation Personnel Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2005-32 : Presiding Judges Authority Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 92-33: Arizona Judiciary Sexual Harassment Policy 447 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 97-62 : Revised Minimum Accounting Standards for Arizona Courts Arizona Supreme Court Rules, Rule 123(g)(5): Access to Audiotape, Videotape, Microfilm, Computer or Electronic Based Records. Fair Labor Standards Act: Federal regulations regarding employment Family & Medical Leave Act: Federal regulations regarding employment Maricopa County Superior Court Administrative Order 2002-036: Adoption of the Procurement Rules for the Judicial Branch, authorizing purchasing authority and approvals HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The purpose of Administrative Services is to provide standardized performance data on a variety of internal administrative and support services for County departments and the Board of Supervisors so they can conduct benchmarking analyses and track program performance and costs. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Administrative Services supports the entire department. The Finance unit ensures fiscal accountability, bills for fees, prepares delinquent accounts for the State Debt Set-Off Program and private collection agencies and procures services and supplies in accordance with the Judicial Procurement Code. The Personnel Unit is responsible for human resource activities in accordance with State and Federal Laws, as well as County and Court policies and procedures. The Staff Development Unit monitors department compliance with COJET educational standards. Administrative Services FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 1,178,681 $ 515,372 1,770,624 $ 500,812 1,332,058 $ 753,022 1,436,718 $ 1,018,445 1,855,700 $ 1,388,602 448 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,694,053 2,271,436 2,085,080 2,455,163 3,244,302 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) TITLE AUTHORITY Juvenile Intensive Probation Services (JIPS) Arizona Code of Judicial Administration 6-302: Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-350: Dangerous offenders; sex offenders; notification to schools; definition Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-352: Intensive probation; evaluation; criteria; limit; conditions Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-353: Juvenile intensive probation teams; duties; case load limit Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-354: Modification of supervision Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-355: School; employment; community restitution programs Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-356: Waiver of standards Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-358: Juvenile intensive probation guidelines; report Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-394: Notice of delinquent's status Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-396: Notice of probation modification, termination or revocation disposition matters; notice of arrest Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-406: Probation modification, revocation disposition or termination proceedings HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The purpose of Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision is to provide juveniles with statutorily mandated supervision so that they comply with the orders of the Court. MANDATE DESCRIPTION The chief juvenile probation officer or the director of court services in each county, with approval of the presiding juvenile court judge of the superior court, shall appoint juvenile probation teams consisting of two juvenile probation officers or one juvenile probation officer and one surveillance officer or one juvenile probation officer and two surveillance officers. A two person intensive probation team shall supervise no more than twenty-five juveniles at one time. A three person team shall supervise no more than forty juveniles at one time. 449 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Juvenile Probation (Continued) The juvenile intensive probation team shall do all of the following: Secure and keep a complete identification record of each juvenile supervised by the team and a written statement of the conditions of the probation; Exercise close supervision and observation over juveniles who are ordered to participate in the intensive probation program including both of the following; Obtain and maintain information concerning the conduct of the juvenile participating in the intensive probation program; Request the county attorney to bring a noncompliant probationer before the court; Monitor the payment of restitution and probation fees and request the county attorney to bring before the court any probationer who fails to pay restitution or probation fees; and Perform any other responsibilities required by the terms and conditions imposed by the court. JIPS FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,765,925 $ 3,639,030 753,813 $ 4,735,098 656,416 $ 4,598,768 659,541 $ 4,404,061 450 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,765,925 3,639,030 5,488,911 5,255,184 5,063,602 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts Analysis by Lisa Johnson, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Superior Court Judges Administrative Advisory Committees Presiding Judge and Associate Presiding Judge Judicial Executive Committee Limited Jurisdiction Advisory Committees Superior Court Branch Judges (91) Commissioners (48) Adult Probation Department Trial Courts Administration Justices of the Peace (23) Juvenile Probation Department Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Trial Courts is to provide people with access to a public forum for dispute resolution and court services so that 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 family, 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. Strategic Goals • • By June 2005, the Court will provide speedy and fair justice in case processing as follows: -95% of all cases, Superior Court and Justice Courts, shall be disposed in compliance with established trial court and limited jurisdiction court standards. Status: 93% of civil cases, 88% of Family Court cases, 83% of criminal cases, and 80% Juvenile delinquency and Juvenile dependency cases are processed within established trial court standards. Results Initiative will maintain or improve this performance in criminal and family court. To prevent delay in judicial decisions, by June 2005, 95% of needs assessments, screenings, and evaluative reports will be made available to judges within guidelines adopted by the court. Status: Unnecessary delay has been reduced in judicial decisions, evidenced by 75% of needs assessments, 85% of CASA reports, and 97% of competency evaluations submitted to judges within guidelines. 451 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) • • • Families will experience satisfactory resolution of their legal issues through earlier assessment, more individualized, appropriate decision-making, and coordinated use of available resources and court services as evidenced by: 80% of cases referred to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) through June 2005 will be resolved by ADR. Status: 87% of the cases referred to ADR are resolved in ADR. The public will experience increased access to the court system through improved affordability, convenience and understanding of court processes, while maintaining the efficiency of court services, as evidenced by: 85% of customers surveyed through June 2005 report satisfaction with the services and education provided through the Court's Self Service Centers. Status: The court is currently developing a survey instrument to measure customer satisfaction. After testing, implementation of the survey court-side is anticipated in the Fall 2005. By September 2004, the court and justice agencies will make informed decisions using timely, accurate and coordinated information provided through an enhanced, integrated Court Information System (iCIS), expanded to include Juvenile Detention Management. In addition, by June 2005, Maricopa County Justice Courts and Adult Probation Pretrial Services Agency will be fully integrated within iCIS. By December 2005, Juvenile Court and Juvenile Probation Department will also be fully integrated within iCIS. Status: The Trial Courts are currently on schedule to achieve all the incremental IT goals listed. ICIS, the court’s Integrated Court Information System, was enhanced in September 2004 with a fully functioning Juvenile Detention Management module. Pretrial Services Agency is on schedule to be fully integrated within iCIS by June 2005. The first three Maricopa County Justice Courts to be integrated with iCIS will coincide with the opening of the Northeast Regional Court Facility in September 2005. This facility includes the Scottsdale, Northeast, and Northwest Justice Courts. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES PRE-ADJUDICATION PROGRAM $ COURT INFORMATION SERVICES CASE MANAGEMENT ADR/EARLY ASSESSMENT COURT OPERATIONS SUPPORT TRIAL DELIVERY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL REVENUES $ 523,493 1,021,203 6,050,056 1,599,975 897,701 14,940,598 3,063,427 314,032 28,410,485 EXPENDITURES PRE-ADJUDICATION PROGRAM $ COURT INFORMATION SERVICES CASE MANAGEMENT ADR/EARLY ASSESSMENT COURT OPERATIONS SUPPORT TRIAL DELIVERY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 547,307 2,512,065 16,439,880 1,790,082 9,171,804 29,084,322 7,042,926 3,603,149 70,191,535 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 460,224 1,128,700 7,544,980 1,664,010 684,246 16,455,330 1,132,001 1,591,433 30,660,924 507,371 2,659,784 18,861,476 1,937,085 9,686,792 32,460,822 7,039,470 3,782,021 76,934,821 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 454,388 1,304,109 7,567,229 1,859,209 732,847 17,500,643 478,704 1,199,448 31,096,577 532,474 2,695,603 20,410,032 2,664,604 10,899,542 27,444,684 9,837,361 4,477,633 78,961,933 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 464,305 1,211,163 6,193,196 1,809,325 608,882 18,764,736 156,349 564,851 29,772,808 550,454 2,527,515 19,211,246 2,642,231 9,638,613 27,785,964 8,616,322 4,089,763 75,062,108 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 463,831 1,163,000 24,116,355 1,787,450 699,102 1,892,757 495,518 1,084,493 31,702,506 538,448 2,690,476 22,674,337 2,708,358 11,999,524 28,866,025 9,937,419 4,395,221 83,809,808 $ $ $ $ 9,443 (141,109) 16,549,126 (71,759) (33,745) (15,607,886) 16,814 (114,955) 605,929 2.1% -10.8% 218.7% -3.9% -4.6% -89.2% 3.5% -9.6% 1.9% (5,974) 5,127 (2,264,305) (43,754) (1,099,982) (1,421,341) (100,058) 82,412 (4,847,875) -1.1% 0.2% -11.1% -1.6% -10.1% -5.2% -1.0% 1.8% -6.1% Notes: • Trial Courts is working to restructure its Programs and Activities. corrections to current allocations by Program and Activity. • Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services, Case Management, and ADR/Early Assessment Programs include $376,669 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. 452 Expenditures and revenue shifts reflect Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT PRE-ADJUDICATION PROGRAM Percent of reports submitted within guidelines established by C.A.S.A. standards COURT INFORMATION SERVICES Percent self-represented litigants reporting that they are better prepared for litigation or judicial proceedings CASE MANAGEMENT Percent of criminal cases resolved within established trial court standards Percent of civil cases resolved within established trial court standards Percent of Family Court cases (pre-decree) resolved within established trial court standards Percent of Juvenile Dependency cases (pre-finding) resolved within established statutory standards FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 75.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 85.0% 5.0% 6.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 83.3% 91.0% 92.0% 94.0% 94.0% 2.0% 2.2% 93.9% 97.0% 97.0% 96.0% 99.0% 2.0% 2.1% 85.2% 93.0% 93.0% 90.0% 90.0% -3.0% -3.2% 88.1% 95.0% 95.0% 90.0% 95.0% 0.0% 0.0% 48.0% 70.0% 70.0% 60.0% 46.0% -24.0% -34.3% 57.4% 75.0% 75.0% 65.0% 65.0% -10.0% -13.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 92.9% 97.0% 97.0% 95.0% 100.0% 3.0% 3.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 95.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86.9% 95.0% 95.0% 85.0% 80.0% -15.0% -15.8% Percent of DUI cases resolved within established limited jurisdiction court standards ADR/EARLY ASSESSMENT Percent cases referred to ADR reach resolution through ADR services provided COURT OPERATIONS SUPPORT Percent of security alarms received with the appropriate and timely response from court security Percent of monies (revenues) collected in relation to the total amounts assessed in Justice Courts Percent of defendants determined by IDR to have the ability to contribute to the cost of their defense TRIAL DELIVERY Percent judges receiving Judicial Performance Review (JPR) with a minimum 80% approval rating Percent of jurors reporting for service that are sent to a courtroom Note: Trial Courts is working to restructure its Programs and Activities. corrections to current allocations by Program and Activity. ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Expenditures and revenue shifts reflect Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,951,023 11,504,292 11,296,090 659,079 28,410,485 57,827,625 2,928,113 8,588,370 847,428 70,191,535 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,113,581 14,158,833 10,642,442 746,068 30,660,924 63,761,768 3,525,968 8,826,771 820,314 76,934,821 453 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,728,367 13,970,430 10,582,272 815,508 31,096,577 66,109,618 2,542,276 9,258,499 1,051,540 78,961,933 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,012,169 12,698,843 11,195,617 866,178 29,772,808 62,956,231 2,000,416 8,962,819 1,142,642 75,062,108 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 5,668,560 14,391,262 10,833,027 809,657 31,702,506 70,492,786 2,358,841 9,971,096 987,085 83,809,808 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (59,807) 420,832 250,755 (5,851) 605,929 -1.0% 3.0% 2.4% -0.7% 1.9% (4,383,168) 183,435 (712,597) 64,455 (4,847,875) -6.6% 7.2% -7.7% 6.1% -6.1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 204 JUSTICE CT JUDICIAL ENHANCEMNT 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 238 TRIAL COURTS GRANTS 245 JUSTICE COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 256 PROBATE FEES 257 CONCILIATION COURT FEES 259 TRIAL COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 261 LAW LIBRARY FEES 264 SUPERIOR COURT FILL THE GAP 271 EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT 276 SPOUSAL MAINT ENF ENHANCEMENT 281 CHILDRENS ISSUES EDUCATION 282 DOM REL MEDIATION EDUCATION $ ALL FUNDS $ 100 GENERAL 204 JUSTICE CT JUDICIAL ENHANCEMNT 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 238 TRIAL COURTS GRANTS 245 JUSTICE COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 256 PROBATE FEES 257 CONCILIATION COURT FEES 259 TRIAL COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 261 LAW LIBRARY FEES 264 SUPERIOR COURT FILL THE GAP 271 EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT 276 SPOUSAL MAINT ENF ENHANCEMENT 281 CHILDRENS ISSUES EDUCATION 282 DOM REL MEDIATION EDUCATION $ ALL FUNDS $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 15,298,078 $ 589,393 394,510 1,376,303 1,335,484 386,020 1,483,608 4,321,666 840,719 1,606,251 399,298 89,210 116,367 173,577 28,410,485 $ 15,028,261 $ 608,704 600,000 1,565,584 2,062,052 392,000 1,554,010 5,707,262 810,700 1,525,690 425,661 95,000 110,000 176,000 30,660,924 $ 15,028,261 $ 608,704 600,000 1,930,131 2,062,052 392,000 1,597,801 5,707,262 810,700 1,547,846 425,661 95,000 110,000 181,159 31,096,577 $ 15,631,096 $ 627,918 395,565 1,357,384 1,998,346 370,212 1,544,283 4,623,357 874,238 1,525,644 444,251 111,408 99,581 169,524 29,772,808 $ 15,028,261 608,704 600,000 1,930,131 2,062,052 372,000 1,545,000 6,307,262 875,000 1,547,846 444,500 111,750 100,000 170,000 31,702,506 $ 60,031,460 $ 163,717 186,942 1,333,872 64,970 376,742 1,454,155 3,762,368 778,625 1,400,654 398,233 69,027 49,000 121,770 70,191,535 $ 61,302,158 $ 608,704 600,000 1,565,584 2,062,052 392,000 1,554,010 5,707,262 810,700 1,525,690 425,661 95,000 110,000 176,000 76,934,821 $ 62,893,617 $ 608,704 600,000 1,930,131 2,062,052 392,000 1,597,801 5,707,262 810,700 1,547,846 425,661 95,000 110,000 181,159 78,961,933 $ 62,471,511 $ 285,226 238,464 1,374,423 1,144,268 323,153 1,595,493 4,550,872 755,010 1,547,067 413,921 79,887 109,157 173,656 75,062,108 $ 67,135,563 608,704 600,000 1,930,131 2,062,052 372,000 1,545,000 6,307,262 875,000 1,547,846 444,500 111,750 100,000 170,000 83,809,808 $ $ $ (20,000) (52,801) 600,000 64,300 18,839 16,750 (10,000) (11,159) 605,929 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -5.1% -3.3% 10.5% 7.9% 0.0% 4.4% 17.6% -9.1% -6.2% 1.9% (4,241,946) 20,000 52,801 (600,000) (64,300) (18,839) (16,750) 10,000 11,159 (4,847,875) -6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 3.3% -10.5% -7.9% 0.0% -4.4% -17.6% 9.1% 6.2% -6.1% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 204 JUSTICE CT JUDICIAL ENHANCEMNT 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 238 TRIAL COURTS GRANTS 245 JUSTICE COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 256 PROBATE FEES 257 CONCILIATION COURT FEES 259 TRIAL COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 264 SUPERIOR COURT FILL THE GAP 271 EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT 272 CHILD SUPPORT AUTOMATION 276 SPOUSAL MAINT ENF ENHANCEMENT 280 OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION 281 CHILDRENS ISSUES EDUCATION 282 DOM REL MEDIATION EDUCATION TOTAL FUNDS • • • • • • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 1,130.83 32.00 18.00 9.00 31.00 61.50 30.00 12.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1,330.33 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 1,140.53 5.00 7.00 33.00 21.00 9.00 29.00 80.50 33.00 11.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1,376.03 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 1,170.53 5.00 7.00 33.00 21.00 9.00 30.00 72.50 33.00 11.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1,399.03 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 30.00 1.00 (8.00) 23.00 Results Initiative - Court Expansion – Divisions 92 & 93 – 6.0 FTEs (General Fund) Results Initiative - Court Expansion – Post Dissolution Commissioner – 3.0 FTEs (General Fund) Results Initiative - Court Expansion – DUI Commissioner (Blakely Case) – 3.0 FTEs (General Fund) Results Initiative - Interpreters – 3.0 FTEs (General Fund) Results Initiative - Court Expansion – Second Commissioner Northwest RCC – 3.0 FTEs (General Fund) Results Initiative - Mental Health Consolidation – 3.0 FTEs (General Fund) Results Initiative - Probate Case Monitoring – 2.0 FTEs (General Fund) Results Initiative - E-Courtroom Expansion at the NE Regional Courts – 2.0 FTEs (General Fund) 454 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) • • 2.0 FTEs added to General Fund for creation of Indigent Defense Reimbursement Unit (IDRU). Net reduction of 4.0 FTEs (General Fund, Conciliation Court Fees Fund and Trial Courts Special Revenue Fund) for general position adjustments made by Court Administration. Base Adjustments Revenue • • Decreased revenue (based on current projections) for the following funds: Probate Fees, Conciliation Court Fees, Trial Courts Special Revenue, Children’s Issues Education, and Domestic Relations Medication Education. Increased revenue authority (based on current projections) for the following funds: Law Library Fees, Expedited Child Support, and Spousal Maintenance Enforcement Enhancement. Expenditures • • • • • • Increased General Fund for continuation of the Juror Shuttle Bus, Employee Shift Differential, Judicial Conference travel expenses, and Juror mileage per diem. Increased General Fund for annualization of mid-year adjustment for Security Staffing currently pending Board of Supervisor approval for mid-year funding. Budgeted Personnel Savings was eliminated in the following funds: Probate Fees, Expedited Child Support and Domestic Relation Mediation Education. Decreased expenditures in line with revenue reductions for the following funds: Probate Fees, Conciliation Court Fees, Trial Courts Special Revenue, Children’s Issues Education, and Domestic Relations Medication Education. Increased expenditure authority (based on current projections) for the following funds: Law Library Fees, Expedited Child Support, and Spousal Maintenance Enforcement Enhancement. Transferred money to the General Fund for Special Revenue costs not supported by projected revenue in the following funds: Probate Fees, Conciliation Court Fees, Superior Court Fill the Gap, and Domestic Relations Mediation Education. Results Initiatives The following Results Initiatives are recommended for FY 2005-06: • • • Family Court Judgeships – Divisions 92 & 93 - $283,801 ($283,801 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 6.0 FTEs, including two Superior Court Judges, to expand the Family Court Original Case Filings Activity. Expected Result: The Courts will be able to better meet their obligation to resolve original case filings within established trial court standards. Family Court Post Dissolution Commissioner - $185,065 ($185,065 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 3.0 FTEs, including one commissioner, to expand the Family Court Case Modifications and Enforcement Activity. Expected Result: The Courts will be able to better resolve Family Court case modifications and enforcements within established trial court standards. DUI Commissioner (Blakely) - $185,065 ($185,065 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 3.0 FTEs, including one commissioner, to the DUI Court. Expected Result: This will enable the temporary commissioner to return to his/her regular assignment without any negative DUI case processing effects. 455 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) • • • • • Interpreters: Phase I Expansion - $161,324 ($161,324 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 3.0 FTEs to meet the growing demand for interpretation and translation services. Expected Result: These additional interpreters will address the immediate increase in demand for these services so that established trial court standards are met. Commissioner for Northwest (Glendale) RCC - $92,533 ($185,065 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 3.0 FTEs, including one commissioner and two support staff, to expand the services provided at the Northwest RCC. Expected Result: More judicial services will be available to the public at the Northwest RCC. This will enable cases to be processed within the established trial court standards. Mental Health Consolidation - $116,642 ($116,642 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 3.0 FTEs to provide a consolidated Mental Health Court Department that would address the issues of early identification, increased communication between the court that deals with this population and the increasing problem of recidivism by combining the administration of the civil and criminal departments. Expected Result: More effective sharing of information and collaborative decision-making in order to provide more supervision and treatment services to reduce the number that return to Mental Health Court. Probate Case Monitoring - $92,243 ($92,243 annualized) General Fund: Initiative add two case management FTEs to the Probate Department to meet the existing and increasing demand due to additional mandated and court-ordered file reviews. Expected Result: This will allow Probate cases to be reviewed within 30 days of the required due date. E-Courtroom Expansion at the NE Regional Courts (Central Monitors) - $65,417 ($65,417 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 2.0 FTEs to provide digital recordings. Expected Result: This will expedite caseflow and allow judicial officers to review matters under advisement without having to wait for transcript preparation. This will allow for an increase in efficiency while minimizing future staffing needs. 456 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Adjustment $ Fringe Benefit Rate Adjustment Cost Recovery Program for Indigent Defense Representation Salary Adjustment from Clerk of the Superior Court Pay for Performance Increase MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ RESTATEMENTS: Special Work Assignment Wages from the Clerk of the Superior Court $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Annualization of FY 2005 Initiatives Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase Juror Mgmt Activity for Juror Shuttle Bus $ Increase Juror Mgmt Activity for Increase in Juror Mileage Per Diem Increase for Employee Shift Differential Increase Judicial Division Activity for Judicial Conference Travel Expenses Increase for Transfer of Special Revenue Costs Not Supported by Revenue Increase for Court Security Staffing Increase Court Security Staffing Amount to Include Start-up Costs Allocation Out of Juvenile Security Costs BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ RESULTS INITIATIVES: Family Court Judgeships $ Family Court Post Dissolution Commissioner DUI Commissioner Interpreters: Phase I Expansion Northwest (Glendale) RCC Mental Health Consolidation Probate Case Monitoring NE Regional Court E-Courtroom Expansion RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 457 15,028,261 15,028,261 15,028,261 15,028,261 15,028,261 15,028,261 EXPENDITURES $ $ $ 61,268,643 1,079,141 219,381 113,462 99,023 80,452 1,591,459 $ 62,860,102 $ $ 33,515 33,515 $ 62,893,617 $ $ $ $ $ 438,762 1,427,349 221,638 (214,044) 218,812 156,986 2,249,503 65,143,120 120,000 100,000 25,000 50,000 137,608 476,496 23,284 (114,480) 817,908 $ 65,961,028 $ $ 283,801 185,065 185,065 161,324 92,533 109,087 92,243 65,417 1,174,535 $ 67,135,563 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Justice Court Judicial Enhancement (204) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 608,704 $ 608,704 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 608,704 $ 608,704 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 608,704 $ 608,704 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Retirement Contributions Structural Balance $ - TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ 6,960 (6,960) - FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 608,704 $ 608,704 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 608,704 $ 608,704 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 608,704 $ 608,704 Judicial Enhancement (208) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 600,000 $ 600,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 600,000 $ 600,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 600,000 $ 600,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Retirement Contributions Structural Balance $ - TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ 7,863 (7,863) - FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 600,000 $ 600,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 600,000 $ 600,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 600,000 $ 600,000 458 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Trial Courts Grants (238) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 1,356,000 $ 1,356,000 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Indirect Costs associated with Grant Funding $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 364,547 $ 364,547 $ 364,547 364,547 $ 1,720,547 $ 1,720,547 RESTATEMENTS: Fund Consolidated to Trial Courts Grants from Fund 246 $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 209,584 $ 209,584 $ 209,584 209,584 1,930,131 $ 1,930,131 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 12,416 24,489 (57,147) 20,242 - FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 1,930,131 $ 1,930,131 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,930,131 $ 1,930,131 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,930,131 $ 1,930,131 Justice Courts Special Revenue (245) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,062,052 $ 2,062,052 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 2,062,052 $ 2,062,052 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 2,062,052 $ 2,062,052 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 6,984 18,512 (38,060) 12,564 - FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 2,062,052 $ 2,062,052 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 2,062,052 $ 2,062,052 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,062,052 $ 2,062,052 459 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Probate Fees (256) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 392,000 $ 392,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 392,000 $ 392,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 392,000 $ 392,000 - 3,492 7,622 (17,396) 6,282 - TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Reduced Revenue in Superior Court & Juvenile Court $ Caseflow Management Activity Increase in Fixed Benefits Reserve Personnel Savings Adjustment Transfer of Costs not supported by Revenue to General Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ 392,000 $ 392,000 (20,000) $ - (20,000) $ 4,655 2,898 (27,553) (20,000) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 372,000 $ 372,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 372,000 $ 372,000 460 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Conciliation Court Fees (257) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 1,554,010 $ 1,554,010 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 43,791 $ 43,791 43,791 $43,791 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,597,801 $ 1,597,801 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,597,801 $ 1,597,801 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Adjustment TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ $ 1,597,801 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Reduced Revenue in Early Intervention Activity $ Increase for Fixed Benefits Reserve Transfer of Costs Not Supported by Revenue to General Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (52,801) $ (52,801) $ 12,028 32,426 (74,971) 21,638 8,879 1,597,801 21,638 (74,439) (52,801) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,545,000 $ 1,545,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,545,000 $ 1,545,000 461 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Trial Courts Special Revenue (259) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 4,989,262 $ 4,989,262 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 4,989,262 $ 4,989,262 RESTATEMENTS: Fund Consolidated to Trial Courts Special Revenue from Funds 258/280/748 $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 718,000 $ 718,000 $ 718,000 718,000 5,707,262 $ 5,707,262 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ $ 5,707,262 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Fixed Benefits Reserve $ Increase in Superior Court and Juvenile Court Caseflow Management Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ 600,000 600,000 $ 23,862 69,727 (136,516) 42,927 5,707,262 (152,911) 752,911 600,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 6,307,262 $ 6,307,262 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 6,307,262 $ 6,307,262 Law Library Fees (261) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 810,700 $ 810,700 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 810,700 $ 810,700 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 810,700 $ 810,700 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 810,700 $ 810,700 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increased Revenue in Law Library Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 64,300 $ 64,300 $ 64,300 64,300 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 875,000 $ 875,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 875,000 $ 875,000 462 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Superior Court Fill the Gap (264) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 1,525,690 $ 1,525,690 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Indirect Costs associated with Grant Funding $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 22,156 $ 22,156 $ 22,156 22,156 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,547,846 $ 1,547,846 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,547,846 $ 1,547,846 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase for Fixed Benefits Reserve $ Transfer of Costs Not Supported by Revenue to General Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 1,547,846 $ - $ $ 11,640 28,870 (61,450) 20,940 1,547,846 20,490 (20,490) - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,547,846 $ 1,547,846 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,547,846 $ 1,547,846 463 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Expedited Child Support (271) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 425,661 $ 425,661 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 425,661 $ 425,661 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 425,661 $ 425,661 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Retirement Contributions Structural Balance $ - TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: $ Increased Revenue in Superor Court and Juvenile Court Caseflow Increase for Fixed Benefits Reserve Personnel Savings Adjustment Increase in Superior Court and Juvenile Court Caseflow Management Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ 8,147 (8,147) - 425,661 $ 425,661 18,839 $ 18,839 $ 8,748 4,030 6,061 18,839 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 444,500 $ 444,500 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 444,500 $ 444,500 Spousal Maint. Enf Enhancement (276) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 95,000 $ 95,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 95,000 $ 95,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 95,000 $ 95,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Retirement Contributions Structural Balance $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 1,543 (1,543) - $ 95,000 $ 95,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Superior Court and Juvenile Court Caseflow Management Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 16,750 $ 16,750 $ 16,750 16,750 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 111,750 $ 111,750 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 111,750 $ 111,750 464 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Children’s Issues Education (281) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 110,000 $ 110,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 110,000 $ 110,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 110,000 $ 110,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: $ Reduced Revenue in Early Intervention Activity Increase for Fixed Benefits Reserve Decrease Other Services in Early Intervention Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 388 1,745 (2,831) 698 - 110,000 $ 110,000 (10,000) $ (10,000) $ 698 (10,698) (10,000) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 100,000 $ 100,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 100,000 $ 100,000 465 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Dom Rel Mediation Education (282) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 176,000 $ 176,000 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 5,159 $ 5,159 $ 5,159 5,159 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 181,159 $ 181,159 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 181,159 $ 181,159 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Adjustment TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ $ 181,159 $ 1,164 3,648 (7,952) 2,094 1,046 181,159 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: $ Reduced Revenue in Early Intervention Activity Reduced Revenue in Superor Court and Juvenile Court Caseflow Adjustment to Fixed Benefits Reserve Personnel Savings Adjustment Transfer of Costs Not Supported by Revenue to General Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (11,159) $ (901) 4,868 (15,126) (11,159) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 170,000 $ 170,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 170,000 $ 170,000 466 (1,786) $ (9,373) - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 57,338,629 $ 8,451,710 $ 57,242,411 $ 8,778,463 $ 59,357,714 $ 9,626,749 $ 63,389,589 $ 13,721,523 $ 67,135,564 $ 16,674,244 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 65,790,339 66,020,873 68,984,463 77,111,113 83,809,808 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 57,338,629 $ 8,451,710 $ 57,242,411 $ 8,778,463 $ 59,357,714 $ 9,626,749 $ 63,389,589 $ 13,721,523 $ 67,135,564 $ 16,674,244 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 65,790,339 66,020,873 68,984,463 77,111,113 83,809,808 Trial Courts Mandates Vs. Expenditures Trial Courts FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $80.0 Non-Mandated 0.0 $70.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.2 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 0.8 467 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 63.2 54.4 8.7 0 65.8 57.3 8.5 0 66 57.2 8.8 0 69 59.4 9.6 0 76.9 61.3 15.6 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) 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. §12-223 Attendance At And Report Of Proceedings; Sale Of Transcripts; A.R.S. §12-224 Salary; Fees For Transcripts; Free Transcripts; Office Supplies; A.R.S. §12-225 Appointment Of Deputies; Compensation; A.R.S. §12-231 Appointment And Duties (Bailiff); A.R.S. §12-241 Appointment; Court Attendance (Interpreters); A.R.S. §12-242 Interpreters For Deaf Persons; Proceedings; Definitions. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The status of the courts as a separate branch of the government is established by the Federal and state constitutions. 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. 468 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Trial Courts (Continued) 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. 469 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules ELECTED OFFICIALS Elected Officials Organization Chart Maricopa County Citizens Superintendent of Schools Dr. Sandra Dowling Sheriff Joe Arpaio Constables (23) County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas Board of Supervisors Board of Directors for Flood Control, Library and Stadium Districts Clerk of the Court Michael Jeanes Treasurer David Schweikert Assessor Keith Russell Recorder Helen Purcell 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. 470 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) Elected Biographies Fulton Brock, District 1 (Republican) R. Fulton Brock was elected to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in 1996 and was reelected to the office in 2000 and 2004. Supervisor Brock has twice served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and three times as Vice Chairman. He has served as Chairman of Maricopa County Hospital Board. He currently serves on the Greater Phoenix Economic Council Board of Directors, the Maricopa Association of Governments' (MAG) Regional Aviation System Planning Committee and the Phoenix & Valley of the Sun Convention & Visitors Bureau. A former member of the Arizona House of Representatives, he also served on the Governor's Science and Technology Council. Other activities include the Governor's Merit Award; National Federation of Independent Business Guardian of Small Business Award; Arizona Management Society; Tempe YMCA fund-raiser; Boy Scouts of America Eagle Scout and Scoutmaster; Pop Warner and Little League sports, Mesa Rotary Club, and advisor to United Food Bank. Mr. Brock is active in private business as an investment advisor. Supervisor Brock, his wife of 23 years, Susan, and their three daughters are residents of Chandler. Don Stapley, District 2 (Republican) Don Stapley was elected to his second term as Chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in January 2002. Currently in his fourth term representing District 2, Mr. Stapley also served as chairman and vice-chairman in previous years. In addition, he served as the Chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Adjustments as a private citizen. Mr. Stapley was named County Leader of the Year in 2004 by the American City & County Magazine for his leadership locally and nationally. In July 2005, he was elected second vice-president of the National Association of Counties. Mr. Stapley is serving on the following NACo task forces: Medicaid/Medicare Reform, Homeland Security, and NACo Governance. In addition, Mr. Stapley was the past Chairman of the Large Urban County Caucus (LUCC). Mr. Stapley has also served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Lutheran Health Care Network for more than 10 years. Mr. Stapley is an honorary member of the Mesa Baseline Rotary Club. He is the owner of Stapley and Company, a real estate management firm and holds an active broker's license. Mr. Stapley lives in the East Valley. He is active in his church and the youth activities his church sponsors. Mr. Stapley is married to Kathy. They have four children and four grandchildren. 471 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) Andrew Kunasek, District 3 (Republican) By the unanimous vote of his fellow members, Andy Kunasek was appointed to the Board of Supervisors in September of 1997. Supervisor Kunasek was subsequently elected by the constituency of District 3 in 1998 and reelected in 2000 and 2004. He was then elected Chair of the Board for 2000 and again in 2004. Supervisor Kunasek is an Arizona native and is a graduate of Mountain View High School. He earned a bachelor degree in management from Arizona State University in 1986. Mr. Kunasek owns interests in citrus and cattle operations, and is president of Mercado Management, a diversified land acquisition and real estate management company. Mr. Kunasek has been active in his community having served as treasurer of the Maricopa County Republican Party; Maricopa County Trail Court Selection Committee; Maricopa County Charter Committee; and the Maricopa County Citizens Judicial Advisory Council. He was also a 1996 Delegate to the Republican National Convention. In 2003, the National Association of County Parks and Recreation voted him the county’s Outstanding Public Official of the Year. Mr. Kunasek serves on the Public Lands Steering Committee and the Large Urban Caucus Steering Committee for National Association of Counties. Mr. Kunasek, his wife Kim, and their three children live in North Phoenix. Max Wilson, District 4 - Chairman (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. 472 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) 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 2004 for a fourth four-year term. Ms. Wilcox previously served on the Phoenix City Council for nine years. She was honored as being the first Hispanic women ever to serve on the Phoenix City Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Wilcox is involved with numerous boards and commissions, which include the Downtown Phoenix Partnership; the Governor’s Latino Advisory Council, and the Ryan White Policy Council. She is the Chairwoman for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO). As an advocate for housing, she received the Governor’s Housing HERO Award in 2005. Ms. Wilcox and her husband Earl have a daughter and five grandsons. Keith Russell, Assessor (Republican) Keith Russell has been involved in the real estate market in Arizona since 1976. In 1985 he formed Sunset Appraisal which is an appraisal firm specializing in commercial real estate throughout Arizona. Mr. Russell has done work throughout Arizona including a large number of the rural counties and communities. Mr. Russell is a member of the Appraisal Institute and has earned the Institute's highest designation, the MAI. He is and has been very active in the Appraisal Institute on a local level as well as regionally and nationally. Mr. Russell served as the President of the Phoenix Chapter of the Appraisal Institute in 2002 and has recently been approved as an Associate Instructor with the Appraisal Institute. He is a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser with the Arizona State Board of Appraisal and had the opportunity to serve as a member of the State Board of Appraisal from 1998 to 2000. 473 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) Andrew P Thomas, Attorney (Republican) Elected Maricopa County Attorney in November 2004, Andrew Thomas is recognized as a noted author and leading authority on the criminal justice system. He received his B.A. in political science from the University of Missouri in 1988 and his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1991. After graduating from law school, Andrew moved to the Valley of the Sun and joined a large law firm in Phoenix, where he practiced civil litigation. Leaving private practice in 1994 to serve as an Assistant Attorney General for Arizona, he prosecuted both civil and criminal cases. Andrew subsequently served as deputy counsel and criminal justice policy advisor to the governor of Arizona. In this capacity he helped draft and campaign for the Stop Juvenile Crime Initiative, which Arizona voters approved in 1996. After his service in the governor’s office, Andrew became the chief attorney at the Arizona Department of Corrections. There, he helped lead a successful crackdown on prison gangs. Joining the Maricopa County Attorney’s staff as a deputy county attorney in 2003, he prosecuted numerous felonies in both the pretrial and juvenile divisions. In 2004, Andrew ran successfully for the office of Maricopa County Attorney. He took office in January 2005. Andrew is the author of four books. His most recent book is The People vs. Harvard Law: How America’s Oldest Law School Turned Its Back on Free Speech. He is also the author of Clarence Thomas: A Biography and Crime and Sacking of America: The Roots of Chaos, both of which received wide critical acclaim. His writings on crime, law and public policy have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review and many other publications. Andrew has testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and other legislative bodies regarding criminal justice issues. Andrew and his wife, Ann Estrada Thomas, have four children and reside in Phoenix, Arizona. Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of the Superior Court (Republican) Michael K. Jeanes is the Clerk of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. He was elected to this position in November 1998 by the voters of Maricopa County. In November 2002, he was re-elected to the Office to serve a second four-year term. He earned his Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from Loyola University of Chicago and a Master of Public Administration Degree from Arizona State University. He has 25 years of court/county management and policy experience, which include 18 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. He is responsible for administering a $37+ million budget; processing over $105 million in victim restitution, trust monies, fines and fees and over 7.4 million new pieces of paper per year; overseeing 720 employees; and providing services to over 140 judges and commissioners. He leads an office that serves the fourth largest county in the nation. In effect, he is the public’s liaison to the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Mr. Jeanes is active in many local and national professional organizations. Michael and his wife, Jill, have three sons. 474 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) 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. She was appointed to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Advisory Board and is the only County member appointed by the Chairman of the EAC to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee. She was recently appointed at NACO’s 2005 Annual Conference as Vice Chair of NACo’s Member Programs and Services Committee and Chair of the Technology Subcommittee of the Telecommunications & Technology Steering Committee. Her responsibilities include recording and maintaining 8,000 to 10,000 documents for public record per day and administering the Elections Department that conducts all national, state and county wide elections, and provide support for cities, towns, schools, and other jurisdictions. She has two sons, Mark and Todd, and four grandsons. Joseph M Arpaio, Sheriff (Republican) Joseph M. Arpaio took office as Sheriff of Maricopa County in January 1993 and won re-election in 1996, 2000 and again in 2004. 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. He has enjoyed a distinguished law enforcement career spanning more than 45 years, primarily with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. That experience shaped the philosophy that guides his actions today 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. 475 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elected Officials (Continued) 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 & 2004. As Superintendent, her responsibilities include serving as fiscal agent for 40 school districts, providing educational programs, maintaining payroll services for 20,000 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 Arizona State University. In 1994, she received her doctorate degree in school finance and education law from Northern Arizona University. Dr. Dowling and her husband Dennis live in Litchfield Park. They have four children and two grandchildren. David Schweikert, Treasurer (Republican) Maricopa County is now the third most populated county in the United States, with over 1.5-million parcels. The Treasurer’s Office maintains an investment pool that exceeds 3-billion dollars. In December 2004, David Schweikert was sworn-in as Maricopa County Treasurer. He has both a Bachelor’s Degree in Finance/Real Estate and a MBA from W.P. Carey/Arizona State University. Before becoming Treasurer, David served as Chief Deputy Treasurer. Prior to that, he served as Chairman of the Arizona State Board of Equalization. David has worked as an investment analyst for numerous real estate projects. He has been involved in the Real Estate industry and property tax issues for 25 years. In 1990, David was elected to represent Northeast Maricopa County in the Arizona House of Representatives. In 1992 he was selected to the position of Majority Whip. 476 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Assessor Analysis by Cynthia Goelz, Principal Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens County Assessor Keith E. Russell Administration Personal Property Real Property Support Services Information Services Quality Assurance 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 The Vision of the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office is to do our very best. Strategic Goals • • • • By June 2005 and annually thereafter, maintain an employee retention rate of at least 95% of quality, experienced employees exclusive of retirees. Status: The recent market adjustment and adopted budget support this goal. By June 2005 and annually thereafter, make fair and equitable valuation of property that continues to meet or exceed Department of Revenue guidelines. Status: The adopted budget for the Property Assessment Program and the addition of the 10 staff for the Real and Personal Property Assessment Team supports this goal. By June 2006 and annually thereafter, have quality customer service and information that annually “satisfies” at least 95% of the public and taxing jurisdictions based upon satisfaction surveys. Status: The adopted budget for the Information Resource Program supports this goal. By June 2005 and annually thereafter, achieve timely and accurate identification of property owners that are updated within 30 days of a recorded change 95% of the time. Status: The adopted budget for the Property Assessment Program supports this goal. 477 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Assessor (Continued) • By June 2005 and annually thereafter, have new construction added to our system within 30 days of completion 99% of the time and passing audit compliance 98% of the time. Status: The adopted budget for the Property Assessment Program supports this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES INFORMATION RESOURCE $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 117,380 42,076 159,456 EXPENDITURES INFORMATION RESOURCE $ PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 537,288 6,127,668 7,193,652 1,766,221 15,624,828 $ 133,669 133,669 $ $ $ 1,012,426 12,071,583 655,125 2,069,762 15,808,896 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 133,669 133,669 $ $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 968,461 12,622,511 853,680 2,061,637 16,506,289 $ $ $ $ 179,012 179,012 936,494 12,432,377 798,348 1,736,425 15,903,644 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 133,669 133,669 1,052,706 13,920,035 898,470 2,247,734 18,118,945 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ - $ $ $ (84,245) (1,297,524) (44,790) (186,097) (1,612,656) 0.0% 0.0% -8.7% -10.3% -5.2% -9.0% -9.8% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Administrative Services Program include $102,492 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT INFORMATION RESOURCE Percent of public and other government agencies that rate our quality customer service as "satisfied" or better. Percent of satisfied data distribution customers PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Percent of recorded documents processed within 45 days Percent of accurate digitized maps completed within 30 days Percent of new construction parcels processed within 30 days of completion Percent of fair and equitable valuations that meet or exceed DOR guidelines Percent of accurate and informative notifications Percent of property owners satisfied with their valuations Percent of Property Assessment services reviewed within a two year cycle FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 478 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Assessor (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 159,456 159,456 $ $ 133,669 133,669 $ $ 133,669 133,669 $ $ 179,012 179,012 $ $ 133,669 133,669 $ $ $ 13,022,021 562,604 1,742,700 297,503 15,624,828 $ 13,563,023 319,598 1,813,796 112,479 15,808,896 $ 14,311,079 272,594 1,810,137 112,479 16,506,289 $ 13,612,887 367,086 1,766,883 156,787 15,903,644 $ 15,595,526 302,034 1,988,127 233,258 18,118,945 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ $ $ - 0.0% 0.0% (1,284,447) (29,440) (177,990) (120,779) (1,612,656) $ -9.0% -10.8% -9.8% -107.4% -9.8% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 159,456 159,456 $ $ 133,669 133,669 $ $ 133,669 133,669 $ $ 179,012 179,012 $ $ 133,669 133,669 $ $ $ ALL FUNDS $ 15,624,828 15,624,828 $ $ 15,808,896 15,808,896 $ $ 16,506,289 16,506,289 $ $ 15,903,644 15,903,644 $ $ 18,118,945 18,118,945 $ $ - (1,612,656) (1,612,656) 0.0% 0.0% -9.8% -9.8% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 321.00 321.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 321.00 321.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 331.00 331.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 10.00 10.00 Adopted Budget increases FTE by 10 Appraiser III positions to establish a Real and Personal Property Audit Team. Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • Adjustment to Personnel Savings based on historical experience of 7.16%. Adjustment to Regular Pay and Regular Benefits for over budgeted positions. Adjustment to Customer Service Activity for over budgeted Internal Service Charges. Results Initiatives The following Results Initiatives are recommended for FY 2005-06: • • Real & Personal Property Team - $528,981 ($528,981 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 10.0 FTE to establish a team used to verify the field appraisers’ collection of data, data entry, and valuations. Additionally they will be utilized to conduct reviews of specific areas or types of property, both real and personal, in problematic areas. Information Technology Hardware Needs - $29,969 ($29,969 annualized) General Fund: Initiative will enable current staff to maximize their efficiency through the purchase of precision dual processing CPUs for the modeling and mapping work units. 479 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Assessor (Continued) • • Network Copiers - $50,000 ($50,000 annualized) General Fund: Initiative will enable the upgrade of current leased copier fleet to networked copiers, including assorted network connection on-going costs. By utilizing network copiers, department will decrease reliance on desktop printers and the associated maintenance, supplies, and replacement costs. Annual Land Valuation Modelers - $100,000 ($100,000 annualized) General Fund: Initiative will assist department in meeting Arizona Department of Revenue goals associated with moving the Land Valuation Cycle from a 2-year to a 1-year basis by allowing for outsourcing of a portion of this additional demand. Demand and staff/contract output will be studied during FY 2005-06 to gauge proper future staff sizing. The following Results Initiatives will be considered after further review and clarification of costs and expected results: • • • • • Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal Software and Conversion – estimated $5,000,000 (estimated $175,000 annualized) General Fund: Request would allow Assessor’s Office to purchase software and services associated with additional storage on an existing Storage Area Network server. Successful implementation of the software will assist the Assessor’s Office in producing reports, maintaining storage, and meeting Department of Revenue statutory mandates in a timely manner. Drawing Program – estimated $3,000,000 (estimated $90,000 annualized) General Fund: Request would allow Assessor’s Office to purchase software and services that will allow complex structures, drawn by the appraisal staff, to be captured digitally. Successful implementation of the software will assist the Assessor’s Office in producing reports, accurate valuations, and will reduce possible litigation. Document Storage and Retrieval Service – estimated $3,000,000 (estimated $90,000 annualized) General Fund: Request would allow Assessor’s Office to purchase software and services associated with document storage and retrieval. Successful implementation will allow for the reduction in reliance on paper documents and will increase service to internal and external customers. Current filing space will be used to provide space for employees. High Speed Scanners - $60,000 ($0 annualized) General Fund: Request would allow Assessor’s Office to purchase high speed scanners to digitize documents and ready them for storage. Successful implementation will allow the Assessor’s Office to meet ARS Title 42 mandates relating to document retrieval and will also allow for more consistent report presentation. Geodetic Densification and Cadastral Survey - $2,437,300 (estimated $75,000 annually) General Fund: Request would allow the Assessor’s Office to purchase software, engage a contract vendor, and hire four technical temporary employees that would implement a process for the sharing of digitally registered parcels and associated land based data with the public and other governmental entities. Successful implementation will allow the Assessor’s Office to settle discrepancies in the accurate use of land based information systems in the region. 480 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Assessor (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ CY 2005 Health and Dental Premium Changes C-49-05-024-8-00 Market Adjustments C-49-05-015-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 133,669 $ - 15,808,896 $349,432 69,336 341,177 $759,945 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 133,669 $ 16,568,841 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 133,669 $ 16,568,841 - 138,672 283,172 78,506 24,033 1,018,220 7,501 1,550,104 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustment for Market Adjustments Elected Official Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Regular Pay Personnel Savings $ Adjusment to Benefits Personnel Savings Adjustment to Regular Salary Pay Adjustment to Regular Benefits Reduction to Internal Service Charges in CUST activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: RESULTS INITIATIVES: Real & Personal Property Audit Team Information Technology Hardware Needs Network Copiers Annual Land Valuation Modelers 133,669 - $18,118,945 $ $ 133,669 $ $ - $ 481 $ $ RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ $ (505,012) (176,176) (21,234) (3,375) (3,153) (708,950) 17,409,995 $ 528,981 29,969 50,000 100,000 708,950 133,669 $ 18,118,945 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Assessor (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 14,494,126 $ $ 14,410,210 $ $ 15,623,329 $ $ 15,624,828 $ $ 18,118,945 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 14,494,126 14,410,210 15,623,329 15,624,828 18,118,945 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 14,494,126 $ $ 14,410,210 $ $ 15,623,329 $ $ 15,624,828 $ $ 18,118,945 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 14,494,126 14,410,210 15,623,329 15,624,828 18,118,945 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Assessor FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Other Fund Mandated 0.0% Assessor FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Other Fund Mandated 0.0% Non-Mandated 0.0% General Fund Mandated 100.0% Non-Mandated 0.0% General Fund Mandated 100.0% 482 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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. 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. 483 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Assessor (Continued) 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 484 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board of Supervisors Mission The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, innovatively, efficiently and effectively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Priorities • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,041,302 $ $ 1,047,197 $ $ 1,090,007 $ $ 1,235,304 $ $ 1,532,575 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,041,302 1,047,197 1,090,007 1,235,304 1,532,575 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,041,302 $ $ 1,047,197 $ $ 1,090,007 $ $ 1,235,304 $ $ 1,532,575 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,041,302 1,047,197 1,090,007 1,235,304 1,532,575 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. 485 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board of Supervisors (Continued) Board of Supervisors FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Board of Supervisors Mandates Vs. Expenditures $1.2 Non-Mandated 0.0% $1.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $0.8 $0.6 $0.4 $0.2 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 1.1 1.1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 Mandate Information TITLE Board of Supervisors AUTHORITY 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. § 483901, and the Stadium District A.R.S. § 48-4202, as well as numerous special districts. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 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. 486 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board of Supervisors District 1 Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors District 1 - Fulton Brock Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Manager Internal Audit Mission The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Priorities • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. 487 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 1 (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 219,407 219,407 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 221,157 221,157 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 209,356 3,472 3,439 3,141 219,407 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 221,752 9,727 15,200 2,997 249,676 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 230,722 8,709 15,199 2,997 257,627 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 213,171 1,500 4,254 2,232 221,157 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 277,967 8,009 18,860 1,679 306,515 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (47,245) 700 (3,661) 1,318 (48,888) $ -20.5% 8.0% -24.1% 44.0% -19.0% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL $ ALL FUNDS $ 219,407 219,407 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 221,157 221,157 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 3.00 3.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 3.00 3.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 3.00 3.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • • • Increase to expenditures associated with Employee Heath/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes. Increase to expenditures associated with Retirement Contributions. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of Pay for Performance Increases. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop/Laptop Replacement. Increase to expenditures associated with Mandated Elected Official Salary Increase. 488 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 1 (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Elected Official Salary Increase 2005-2006 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 7,227 8,037 2,124 807 7,501 25,696 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 23,192 23,192 $ - $ 306,515 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Other Pay FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 489 $ 249,676 $4,337 3,614 $7,951 $ $283,323 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 2 Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors District 2 - Don Stapley Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Manager Internal Audit Mission The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Priorities • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. 490 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 2 (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 222,073 222,073 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 224,201 224,201 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 201,251 1,981 17,746 1,095 222,073 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 212,723 12,107 22,859 1,987 249,676 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 229,518 3,773 22,349 1,987 257,627 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 209,315 1,237 11,617 2,032 224,201 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 277,048 7,334 19,983 2,150 306,515 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (47,530) (3,561) 2,366 (163) (48,888) $ -20.7% -94.4% 10.6% -8.2% -19.0% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL $ ALL FUNDS $ 222,073 222,073 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 224,201 224,201 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 3.00 3.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 3.00 3.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 3.00 3.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • • • Increase to expenditures associated with Employee Heath/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes. Increase to expenditures associated with Retirement Contributions. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of Pay for Performance Increases. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop/Laptop Replacement. Increase to expenditures associated with Mandated Elected Official Salary Increase. 491 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 2 (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Elected Official Salary Increase 2005-2006 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 7,227 8,037 2,124 807 7,501 25,696 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 23,192 23,192 $ - $ 306,515 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Other Pay FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 492 $ 249,676 $4,337 3,614 $7,951 $ $283,323 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 3 Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors District 3 - Andrew Kunasek Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Manager Internal Audit Mission The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Priorities • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. 493 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 3 (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 228,062 228,062 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 225,252 225,252 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 220,032 1,558 5,983 489 228,062 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 227,814 8,564 11,955 1,343 249,676 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 235,761 8,566 11,957 1,343 257,627 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 218,287 1,500 4,422 1,043 225,252 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 289,066 6,362 9,532 1,555 306,515 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (53,305) 2,204 2,425 (212) (48,888) $ -22.6% 25.7% 20.3% -15.8% -19.0% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL $ ALL FUNDS $ 228,062 228,062 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 225,252 225,252 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 3.50 3.50 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 3.00 3.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 3.00 3.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • • • Increase to expenditures associated with Employee Heath/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes. Increase to expenditures associated with Retirement Contributions. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of Pay for Performance Increases. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop/Laptop Replacement. Increase to expenditures associated with Mandated Elected Official Salary Increase. 494 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 3 (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Elected Official Salary Increase 2005-2006 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 7,227 8,037 2,124 807 7,501 25,696 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 23,192 23,192 $ - $ 306,515 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Other Pay FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 495 $ 249,676 $4,337 3,614 $7,951 $ $283,323 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 4 Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors District 4 - Max Wilson Chairman Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Manager Internal Audit Mission The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Priorities • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. 496 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 4 (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 186,943 186,943 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 194,959 194,959 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 184,813 1,341 789 186,943 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 215,826 17,856 15,237 757 249,676 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 226,118 15,516 15,236 757 257,627 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 191,249 1,500 1,460 750 194,959 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 272,739 6,898 25,326 1,552 306,515 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (46,621) 8,618 (10,090) (795) (48,888) $ -20.6% 55.5% -66.2% -105.0% -19.0% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL $ ALL FUNDS $ 186,943 186,943 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 194,959 194,959 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 4.00 4.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 3.00 3.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 3.00 3.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • • • Increase to expenditures associated with Employee Heath/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes. Increase to expenditures associated with Retirement Contributions. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of Pay for Performance Increases. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop/Laptop Replacement. Increase to expenditures associated with Mandated Elected Official Salary Increase. 497 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 4 (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Elected Official Salary Increase 2005-2006 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 7,227 8,037 2,124 807 7,501 25,696 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 23,192 23,192 $ - $ 306,515 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Other Pay FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 498 $ 249,676 $4,337 3,614 $7,951 $ $283,323 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 5 Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors District 5 - Mary Rose Wilcox Respective Direct Report Staff Constituent Services Administration Clerk of the Board County Manager Internal Audit Mission The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Priorities • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. 499 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 5 (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 233,522 233,522 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 227,827 227,827 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 217,963 1,781 12,926 853 233,522 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 234,240 3,420 9,901 2,115 249,676 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 244,419 2,695 8,398 2,115 257,627 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 215,589 1,725 8,410 2,103 227,827 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 279,298 6,420 17,896 2,901 306,515 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (34,879) (3,725) (9,498) (786) (48,888) $ -14.3% -138.2% -113.1% -37.2% -19.0% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL $ ALL FUNDS $ 233,522 233,522 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 249,676 249,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 257,627 257,627 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 227,827 227,827 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 306,515 306,515 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (48,888) (48,888) -19.0% -19.0% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 3.50 3.50 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 3.00 3.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 3.00 3.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • • • Increase to expenditures associated with Employee Heath/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes. Increase to expenditures associated with Retirement Contributions. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of Pay for Performance Increases. Increase to expenditures associated with Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop/Laptop Replacement. Increase to expenditures associated with Mandated Elected Official Salary Increase. 500 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Board Of Supervisors District 5 (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 257,627 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Elected Official Salary Increase 2005-2006 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 7,227 8,037 2,124 807 7,501 25,696 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 23,192 23,192 $ - $ 306,515 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Other Pay FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 501 $ 249,676 $4,337 3,614 $7,951 $ $283,323 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court Analysis by Wendy Johnson, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Clerk of the Superior Court Michael K. Jeanes Administrative Services Financial Services Customer Service Information Technology Group Mission The mission of the Clerk of Superior Court is to demonstrate flexibility and make innovative changes in order to meet customers' expectations when providing access to court-related records, financial and family support services to the public, legal community and Superior Court. Vision The vision of the Clerk of Superior Court is to anticipate, meet, and exceed the expectations of our customers. Strategic Goals • • • By January 2007, the Clerk of Superior Court will have implemented the appropriate electronic system(s) by which up-to-date court/case user-appropriate data can be accessed appropriately by its customers. Status: An Electronic Document Management fee increase was approved in March 2005 to financially support the implementation process. By January 2006, the Clerk of Superior Court's restructured Human Resources program will have developed and implemented a written employee development plan which offers essential training, clarifies opportunities for personal and professional advancement, and encourages greater work schedule flexibility. Status: A training and development program is under development; a revised version of this goal will be implemented in FY 2005-06. By the beginning of FY 2005-06 customer expectations will be more fully met when the Clerk of Superior Court begins providing family and civil court services at the new Northeast Court Facility, and by initiating criminal case electronic filings from County justice entities. Status: The Northeast Court Facility is scheduled to open mid-FY 2005-06. Additionally, an electronic filing pilot program was initiated in mid- April FY 2004-05. 502 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) • By July 2007, the Clerk of Superior Court will have drafted, proposed, and (if approved) implemented revisions to the Supreme Court Rule 123 to balance privacy concerns with public access needs. Status: The draft is pending review and comment by the public. The revised version is anticipated to be voted on by the Supreme Court in May 2005 with an effective date of January 1, 2007. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES COURT RECORDS $ FIDUCIARY SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL REVENUES $ 5,701,978 4,542,857 404,979 2,123,066 173,512 12,946,392 EXPENDITURES COURT RECORDS $ FIDUCIARY SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 21,331,886 1,716,439 224,062 3,024,543 2,874,402 29,171,332 $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 5,799,189 6,121,426 181,000 12,101,615 22,236,447 1,762,633 215,442 3,218,099 2,350,693 29,783,314 $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 5,799,189 6,214,426 181,000 12,194,615 22,459,544 1,821,975 230,957 3,152,237 2,849,924 30,514,637 $ $ $ $ 6,182,643 6,364,767 370,808 102,682 176,537 13,197,437 20,949,327 1,722,083 221,383 3,024,607 2,588,206 28,505,605 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 7,509,177 5,494,565 800,000 181,000 13,984,742 25,913,402 2,019,801 317,306 3,393,123 3,613,781 35,257,413 $ $ $ $ 1,709,988 (719,861) 800,000 1,790,127 29.5% -11.6% (3,453,858) (197,826) (86,349) (240,886) (763,857) (4,742,776) -15.4% -10.9% -37.4% -7.6% -26.8% -15.5% 0.0% 14.7% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services, Information Technology, and Fiduciary Services Programs include $190,932 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT COURT RECORDS Percent of docketed and indexed documents processed within set time frames. Percent of documents filed within established time frames. Percent of Writs of Execution are served withing sixty days of issue. Percent of minute entries generated within established time frame. Percent of Juvenile minute entries generated within established time frame. FIDUCIARY SERVICES Percent CFO payments posted within established time frames. Percent billing payments posted within established time frames. Percent checks disbursed within established timeframes. PUBLIC SERVICES Percent applications (notary, marriage and passports) completed within established time standards. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED NA NA NA NA NA 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% NA NA NA NA NA 93.2% 93.2% 93.2% 93.2% 97.6% 97.6% 97.6% 94.0% 94.0% NA ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 0.0% 0.0% 93.2% 0.0% 0.0% 97.6% 97.6% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 94.0% 94.0% 0.0% 0.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 503 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,078,763 7,587,141 2,121,086 159,401 12,946,392 25,931,751 954,989 1,787,764 496,828 29,171,332 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,887,755 7,992,505 2,165,000 56,355 12,101,615 26,546,600 944,285 1,926,000 366,429 29,783,314 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,980,756 8,000,121 2,165,000 48,738 12,194,615 27,262,524 746,838 2,118,761 386,514 30,514,637 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,876,735 7,492,774 2,792,607 35,321 13,197,437 25,655,457 657,982 1,755,571 436,596 28,505,605 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 400,000 2,265,345 9,101,520 2,180,000 37,877 13,984,742 31,035,975 1,222,056 2,376,302 623,080 35,257,413 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 400,000 284,589 1,101,399 15,000 (10,861) 1,790,127 14.4% 13.8% 0.7% -22.3% 14.7% (3,773,451) (475,218) (257,541) (236,566) (4,742,776) -13.8% -63.6% -12.2% -61.2% -15.5% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 205 COURT DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 216 CLERK OF THE COURT GRANTS 218 CLERK OF COURT FILL THE GAP 259 TRIAL COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 270 CHILD SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT 273 VICTIM LOCATION 274 CLERK OF THE COURT EDMS $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 205 COURT DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 216 CLERK OF THE COURT GRANTS 218 CLERK OF COURT FILL THE GAP 259 TRIAL COURTS SPECIAL REVENUE 270 CHILD SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT 273 VICTIM LOCATION 274 CLERK OF THE COURT EDMS $ ALL FUNDS $ 6,616,189 1,042,292 728,598 1,490,516 1,469,623 173,512 34,478 3,319 1,387,864 12,946,392 23,148,142 1,082,404 773,070 1,242,827 1,332,987 174,964 91,411 1,325,528 29,171,332 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 6,105,265 1,098,925 501,192 1,326,528 1,427,544 181,000 45,000 16,161 1,400,000 12,101,615 23,147,694 1,098,925 1,065,055 1,326,528 1,427,544 181,000 100,000 36,568 1,400,000 29,783,314 504 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 6,105,265 1,098,925 594,192 1,326,528 1,427,544 181,000 45,000 16,161 1,400,000 12,194,615 23,786,017 1,098,925 1,158,055 1,326,528 1,427,544 181,000 100,000 36,568 1,400,000 30,514,637 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 6,547,768 1,059,100 687,000 1,376,272 1,410,542 176,537 47,336 3,332 1,889,550 13,197,437 22,411,823 1,092,831 489,727 1,235,856 1,375,091 133,146 36,472 12,166 1,718,495 28,505,605 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 6,105,265 1,098,925 687,192 1,476,516 1,487,544 181,000 45,000 3,300 2,900,000 13,984,742 26,383,155 1,223,925 1,161,555 1,476,516 1,527,544 262,000 85,000 37,718 3,100,000 35,257,413 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 93,000 149,988 60,000 (12,861) 1,500,000 1,790,127 0.0% 0.0% 15.7% 11.3% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% -79.6% 107.1% 14.7% (2,597,138) (125,000) (3,500) (149,988) (100,000) (81,000) 15,000 (1,150) (1,700,000) (4,742,776) -10.9% -11.4% -0.3% -11.3% -7.0% -44.8% 15.0% -3.1% -121.4% -15.5% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 205 COURT DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL 208 JUDICIAL ENHANCEMENT 216 CLERK OF THE COURT GRANTS 218 CLERK OF COURT FILL THE GAP 273 VICTIM LOCATION 274 CLERK OF THE COURT EDMS TOTAL FUNDS • • • • • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 565.69 36.00 2.00 25.26 38.00 1.00 28.00 695.95 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 571.00 35.00 5.00 5.00 38.00 1.00 28.00 683.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 614.00 29.00 5.00 5.00 38.00 1.00 51.00 743.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 43.00 (6.00) 23.00 60.00 23.0 FTEs added for Electronic Document Management in FY 2004-05 (EDMS Fund) Transfer of 3.0 Courier FTEs from Adult Probation General Fund (General Fund) Results Initiative Court Expansion – Divisions 92 & 93– 5.0 FTE (General Fund) Results Initiative Court Expansion – Post Decree Commissioner – 6.0 FTE (General Fund) Results Initiative Court Expansion – DUI Commissioner (Blakely Case) – 2.0 FTE (General Fund) Results Initiative Court Expansion – Second Commissioner Glendale RCC – 2.0 FTE (General Fund) Results Initiative Northeast Facility – 19.0 FTE (General Fund) Base Adjustments Revenue • • Annualized mid-year increase in the Document Filing Activity from fee increase as approved by the Board of Supervisors in February 2005. Decreased Fiduciary Services Activity to reflect the anticipated reduction of interest revenue in the Victim Location Fund. Expenditures • • Increased expenditures to Document Filing Activity to include the full annualization of the mid-year adjustment for a fee increase approved by the Board of Supervisors in February 2005. Non-recurring expenditures from Fund Balance: CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FY 2005-06 REQUESTED EXPENDITURES FROM FUND BALANCE Fund Court Document Retrieval Fund (205) Summary of Request Shelving Units for Document File Storage Micrographic Film Operation Expansion Start Up Costs Micrographic Film Operation Expansion Subtotal Court Document Retrieval Fund (205) Judicial Enhancement Fund (208) Clerk of the Court Fill-the-Gap (218) Court Automated Services Fund (258) Child Support Enhancement (270) Victim Location Fund (273) Clerk of the Court EDMS Fund (274) Carryover Projects and New One-time Technology Initiatives One-time Program Support for the ICJIS TADS Disposition Reporting and Electronic Warrants Processing Projects One-time Technology Related Items One-time Technology Related Items USPS Automatic Address Service One-time Software Licensing, hardware/software maintenance contracts and upgrade/refresh of equpment necessary to support the EDM system Est. Avail. Fund Amount Amount Balance Requested Adopted $ 133,795 $ 30,000 $ 45,000 45,000 80,000 80,000 $ 133,795 $ 155,000 $ 125,000 $ 345,302 145,257 79,148 583,932 $ 505 1,797,101 $ 193,689 3,278,223 $ 474,363 $ 40,000 474,363 40,000 81,000 40,000 45,000 200,000 81,000 40,000 200,000 1,035,363 $ 960,363 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Results Initiatives The following Results Initiatives are recommended for FY 2005-06: • • • • • Court Expansion – Divisions 92 & 93 - $263,348 ($251,348 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 11.0 FTEs and associated supplies and equipment to support two new judicial divisions as requested by the Court. Expected Result: Assist the Courts to better meet their obligation to ensure efficient and effective processing of legal disputes. Court Expansion – Post Decree Commissioner - $246,009 ($231,609 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 6.0 FTEs and associated supplies to support the addition of a new Court Commissioner as requested by the Court. Expected Result: Assist the Courts to better meet the needs of litigants and other affected parties for timely resolution of family cases. Court Expansion – DUI Commissioner (Blakely Case) - $96,559 ($91,759 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 2.0 FTEs and associated supplies and equipment to support the addition of a new Court Commissioner as requested by the Court. Expected Result: Assist the Courts to meet their obligation to ensure efficient and effective processing of DUI cases so the temporary commissioner is able to return to his/her regular assignment without any negative DUI case processing effects. Court Expansion – Second Commissioner Glendale RCC - $96,559 ($91,759 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 2.0 FTEs and associated supplies and equipment to support the addition of a new Court Commissioner as requested by the Court. Expected Result: More judicial services will be available to the public at the Northwest RCC. Northeast Facility - $817,465 ($881,774 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 19.0 FTEs and associated supplies and equipment to support the 12 Superior Court divisions that are being planned for the new Northeast Regional Court Complex. Expected Result: Judicial services will be available to the public at an additional location with the opening of a new Court Complex. 506 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Adjustment $ Fringe Benefit Rate Adjustment One Time Expenditure (Cash Receipt System) Salary Adjustments to Trial Courts MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ RESTATEMENTS: Special Work Assignment Wages to Trial Courts $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Transfer of 3.0 FTEs from Adult Probation $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ RESULTS INITIATIVES: Court Expansion-Division 92 & 93 $ Court Expansion-Post Decree Commissioner Court Expansion-DUI Commissioner Court Expansion-Second Commissioner Glendale RCC Northeast Facility RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 507 EXPENDITURES 6,105,265 $ - $ $ 6,105,265 $ - $ $ 6,105,265 $ - 584,981 132,280 20,085 (99,023) 638,323 23,819,532 (33,515) (33,515) 23,786,017 $ 264,559 465,613 43,564 155,465 49,265 978,466 6,105,265 $ 24,764,483 - $ 23,181,209 $ $ 98,732 98,732 6,105,265 $ 24,863,215 - $ 263,348 246,009 96,559 96,559 817,465 1,519,940 6,105,265 $ 26,383,155 $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Court Document Retrieval (205) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,098,925 $ 1,098,925 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,098,925 $ 1,098,925 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,098,925 $ 1,098,925 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dentral Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Non-Recurring Expenses from Fund Balance $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 1,098,925 $ - 17,496 22,015 (65,755) 26,244 1,098,925 $ $ 125,000 125,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,098,925 $ 1,223,925 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,098,925 $ 1,223,925 508 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Judicial Enhancement (208) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 501,192 $ 1,065,055 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 93,000 $ 93,000 93,000 $93,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 594,192 $ 1,158,055 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 594,192 $ 1,158,055 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dentral Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases One Time Revenue/Expenditures TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ (93,000) (93,000) $ 1,458 2,881 (79,982) 2,187 (583,407) (656,863) FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 501,192 $ 501,192 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: JCEF-IFIS Project Grant $ Non-Recurring Expenses from Fund Balance BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 660,363 660,363 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 687,192 $ 1,161,555 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 687,192 $ 1,161,555 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Newly Awarded JCEF State Grant 509 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Clerk Of The Court Grants (216) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,326,528 $ 1,326,528 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,326,528 $ 1,326,528 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,326,528 $ 1,326,528 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dentral Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 15,508 17,509 (56,279) 23,262 - $ 1,326,528 $ 1,326,528 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Additional Grant Revenue in Adult Court Proceedings Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 149,988 $ 149,988 $ 149,988 149,988 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,476,516 $ 1,476,516 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,476,516 $ 1,476,516 Clerk Of Court Fill The Gap (218) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,427,544 $ 1,427,544 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,427,544 $ 1,427,544 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,427,544 $ 1,427,544 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dentral Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 18,468 27,826 (73,996) 27,702 - $ 1,427,544 $ 1,427,544 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increased Collections Trend $ Non-Recurring Expenses from Fund Balance Salary/Benefits Increase BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 40,000 60,000 100,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,487,544 $ 1,527,544 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,487,544 $ 1,527,544 510 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Trial Courts Special Revenue (259) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 181,000 $ 181,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 181,000 $ 181,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 181,000 $ 181,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 181,000 $ 181,000 - $ $ 81,000 81,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Non-Recurring Expenses from Fund Balance $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 181,000 $ 262,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 181,000 $ 262,000 Child Support Enhancement (270) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 45,000 $ 100,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 45,000 $ 100,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 45,000 $ 100,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: One Time Expenditures $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Non-Recurring Expenses from Fund Balance $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 45,000 $ - (55,000) (55,000) 45,000 $ $ 40,000 40,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 45,000 $ 85,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 45,000 $ 85,000 511 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Victim Location (273) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 16,161 $ 36,568 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 16,161 $ 36,568 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 16,161 $ 36,568 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dentral Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases One Time Expenditures TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 486 684 (1,899) 729 (20,407) (20,407) $ 16,161 $ 16,161 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Reduced Revenue due to Lower Interest Rate $ Temporary Clerical Position from Fund Balance BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (12,861) $ (12,861) $ 21,557 21,557 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 3,300 $ 37,718 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 3,300 $ 37,718 512 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Clerk Of The Court EDMS (274) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dentral Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 13,608 19,885 (53,905) 20,412 - $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Electronic Document Management System Fee Increase $ Revenue Trend Increase Non-Recurring Expenses from Fund Balance Misc. Expenditures as result of Fee Increase BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 1,450,000 $ 50,000 1,500,000 $ 1,450,000 200,000 50,000 1,700,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 2,900,000 $ 3,100,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,900,000 $ 3,100,000 513 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Superior Court (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 20,147,782 $ 7,513,068 $ 20,713,646 $ 7,927,268 $ 23,257,552 $ 6,513,125 $ 24,118,052 $ 4,482,495 $ 26,383,155 $ 8,874,258 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 27,660,850 28,640,914 29,770,677 28,600,547 35,257,413 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 20,147,782 $ 7,513,068 $ 20,713,646 $ 7,927,268 $ 23,257,552 $ 6,513,125 $ 24,118,052 $ 4,482,495 $ 26,383,155 $ 8,874,258 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 27,660,850 28,640,914 29,770,677 28,600,547 35,257,413 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Clerk of the Superior Court FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Non-Mandated 0.0% $35.0 $30.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 21.9% Clerk of the Superior Court Mandates Vs. Expenditures $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 78.1% TITLE Clerk of the Superior Court 514 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 27.7 20.1 7.5 0 28.6 20.7 7.9 0 29.8 23.3 6.5 0 28.6 24.1 4.5 0 33.8 26.4 7.4 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 were 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 Maricopa County Clerk of the Superior 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. 515 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Constables Analysis by Scott Rothe, Principal Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Constables Constable Joe Arredondo Constable Frank Canez Constable Alfredo Gamez Constable Phillip Hazlett Constable Edward Malles Constable Joe Reyes Constable John Powers Constable Armando Saldate Jr. Constable Murel Stephens Constable Bill Taylor Constable Bob Weaver Constable Fred Arnett Constable Phil Freestone Constable Jimmie Munoz Constable Don Calender Constable Kevin Jones Constable Doug Middleton Constable Frank Outcalt Constable Billy Joe Spurlock Constable Leonard McCloskey Constable Glenn Gill Constable Annette Clark Constable Ron Myers County Manager David Smith Executive Manager Constable Coordinator Mission The mission of the Constables is to provide execution of mandated civil and criminal process to citizens of Maricopa County so that 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. Strategic Goals • • • By calendar year end 2006, all Writs of Restitution shall be served within 5 business days of issuance from the court. Status: Constables fully expect to attain this goal. By calendar year end 2006, all Writs of Execution shall be served within 60 working days of issuance from the court. Status: By more evenly assigning Deputy Constables, the Constables intend to meet this goal. By the end of FY 2006, all citizen concerns and complaints will be resolved within 3 days of receipt. Status: Constables intend to meet this goal. 516 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Constables (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES SERVICE OF PROCESS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,705,336 1,705,336 $ $ 1,517,468 1,517,468 $ $ 1,517,468 1,517,468 $ $ 1,771,057 1,771,057 $ $ 1,771,057 1,771,057 $ $ 253,589 253,589 16.7% 16.7% EXPENDITURES SERVICE OF PROCESS $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,670,254 46,055 1,716,309 $ 1,723,186 56,860 1,780,046 $ 1,795,681 59,242 1,854,923 $ 1,778,197 60,741 1,838,939 $ 1,865,075 43,570 1,908,645 $ (69,394) 15,672 (53,722) -3.9% 26.5% -2.9% $ $ $ $ $ Note: Budget Expenditures for the Constable Administrative Services Program include $2,001 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT SERVICE OF PROCESS Percent of Writs of Restitution served within five working days. Percent of Writs of Execution served within sixty days of issue. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 1,705,336 1,705,336 $ $ 1,517,468 1,517,468 $ $ 1,517,468 1,517,468 $ $ 1,771,057 1,771,057 $ $ 1,771,057 1,771,057 $ $ 253,589 253,589 16.7% 16.7% $ 1,645,984 35,027 35,298 1,716,309 $ 1,698,664 38,547 36,778 6,057 1,780,046 $ 1,739,137 53,709 56,020 6,057 1,854,923 $ 1,756,170 40,656 36,796 5,316 1,838,939 $ 1,816,756 49,242 36,590 6,057 1,908,645 $ (77,619) 4,467 19,430 (53,722) -4.5% 8.3% 34.7% 0.0% -2.9% EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,705,336 1,705,336 $ $ 1,517,468 1,517,468 $ $ 1,517,468 1,517,468 $ $ 1,771,057 1,771,057 $ $ 1,771,057 1,771,057 $ $ 253,589 253,589 16.7% 16.7% $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,716,309 1,716,309 $ $ 1,780,046 1,780,046 $ $ 1,854,923 1,854,923 $ $ 1,838,939 1,838,939 $ $ 1,908,645 1,908,645 $ $ (53,722) (53,722) -2.9% -2.9% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 30.00 30.00 517 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 30.00 30.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 30.00 30.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Constables (Continued) Base Adjustments Revenue • Service of Process revenue continues to increase. Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases Process Server Market Range Increase MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 1,517,468 $ - $ 1,780,046 $ 7,968 9,105 20,507 37,580 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,517,468 $ 1,817,626 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,517,468 $ 1,817,626 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Contract Deputy Constable Salary Adjustment for 6 Constables Non-Recurring Expenses Temporary Deputy Constables TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ - 18,210 84,663 2,313 20,710 25,094 $ $ 1,517,468 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increased Revenue in Service of Process Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 253,589 $ 253,589 $ (59,971) 91,019 1,908,645 - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,771,057 $ 1,908,645 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,771,057 $ 1,908,645 518 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Constables (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,535,013 $ $ 1,575,484 $ $ 1,716,309 $ $ 1,815,868 $ $ 1,908,645 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,535,013 1,575,484 1,716,309 1,815,868 1,908,645 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,535,013 $ $ 1,575,484 $ $ 1,716,309 $ $ 1,815,868 $ $ 1,908,645 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,535,013 1,575,484 1,716,309 1,815,868 1,908,645 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Constables FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures NonMandated 0.0% $2.0 $1.8 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% Constables Mandates Vs. Expenditures $1.6 $1.4 $1.2 $1.0 $0.8 $0.6 $0.4 $0.2 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 519 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 1.5 1.5 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 1.9 1.9 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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. 520 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney Analysis by Scott Rothe, Principal Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas Southeast Division Investigation Division Executive Division Major Crimes Division Juvenile Crimes Division Victim Services Division Paralegal Division Trials Division Pre-Trial Division Administrative Services Division Appeals Division Support Services Division Training and Development Division County Counsel Division Information Technology 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. Strategic Goals • • • 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. Status: A market range study for Attorneys is underway. 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; analyze the need for enhanced victim services and community interaction; analyze the case processing impact of Rule 8, Rule 15 and Capital Death Penalty cases, in order to incorporate this information into future strategic plans. Status: This is an ongoing goal. 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. Status: New goals will be established during FY 2005-06. 521 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) • • • • By 2005, 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. This includes further enhancements to CAIS and VNS. Status: New goals will be established during FY 2005-06. By 2005, implement designated projects in accordance with the Maricopa County Integrated Criminal Justice Information 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. Status: MCAO has worked closely with ICJIS in completing Phase I projects. Continuation of this goal will depend on future ICJIS financing. By 2005, 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. Status: New goals will be established during FY 2005-06. Ensure that the MCAO will keep pace with the increased number of criminal filings by regularly assessing staffing and related resource needs. Status: This is an ongoing goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES PROSECUTION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES PROSECUTION EMPLOYEE TRNG AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 4,024,668 $ 2,692,739 9,538,772 (1,561,983) 14,694,196 $ 4,356,585 1,570,295 9,931,818 65,515 15,924,213 5,927,342 2,754,191 45,948,188 1,237,035 4,426,611 3,490,137 63,783,504 6,320,221 2,067,758 52,353,547 1,138,357 2,555,463 2,989,323 67,424,669 $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,419,538 2,032,922 10,141,341 16,593,801 6,479,583 2,553,336 53,282,322 1,190,231 2,934,936 3,046,517 69,486,925 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,367,902 2,436,727 9,049,784 15,854,414 6,084,230 2,505,850 51,273,190 1,187,218 3,339,246 2,879,072 67,268,807 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 5,045,751 2,219,602 10,101,341 17,366,694 6,775,664 2,932,191 52,862,989 1,217,823 3,415,515 3,115,984 70,320,166 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 626,213 186,680 (40,000) 772,893 14.2% 9.2% -0.4% (296,081) (378,855) 419,333 (27,592) (480,579) (69,467) (833,241) -4.6% -14.8% 0.8% -2.3% -16.4% -2.3% -1.2% 4.7% Note: Budget Expenditures for the Office’s Administrative Services Program include $396,482 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. 522 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES Percent of requests for advice, claims, protests, lawsuits and appeals completed. COMMUNITY SERVICES Percent of uncontested adoptions cases completed. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 0.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA 100.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA 84.0% 69.0% 69.0% 69.0% 71.0% 2.0% 2.9% 32.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA 74.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 73.0% 3.0% 4.3% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 65.0% -5.0% -7.1% Percent of Writs of Execution are served withing sixty days of issue. Percent of victim compensation claims completed. Percent of sexually violent predator cases completed. EMPLOYEE TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT Percent of MCAO employees who received training. PROSECUTION Percent of cases closed within expected timeframes. ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 7,748,776 4,688,829 2,167,844 88,747 14,694,196 52,203,403 2,332,741 8,281,095 966,265 63,783,504 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 7,652,314 5,149,141 3,036,000 86,758 15,924,213 55,892,316 1,512,606 9,551,321 468,426 67,424,669 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,233,918 5,212,094 3,056,031 91,758 16,593,801 56,978,371 1,629,940 10,335,188 543,426 69,486,925 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 7,986,789 5,078,432 2,724,839 64,354 15,854,414 55,447,783 1,841,240 9,357,470 622,315 67,268,807 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 8,922,855 5,296,050 3,056,031 91,758 17,366,694 58,456,377 1,624,221 9,643,202 596,366 70,320,166 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 688,937 83,956 772,893 (1,478,006) 5,719 691,986 (52,940) (833,241) 8.4% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% -2.6% 0.4% 6.7% -9.7% -1.2% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 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 $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 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 $ ALL FUNDS $ 4,060,559 560,238 5,977,888 739,669 1,119,392 799,599 1,339,011 87,478 10,361 14,694,196 52,897,504 560,238 5,985,011 907,805 1,549,021 698,309 1,160,914 23,844 858 63,783,504 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,392,856 1,300,000 5,827,233 1,000,000 1,266,624 700,000 1,361,500 36,000 40,000 15,924,213 54,621,793 1,300,000 5,827,233 1,000,000 2,023,143 700,000 1,361,500 126,000 465,000 67,424,669 523 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,455,809 1,300,000 6,413,837 1,000,000 1,266,624 720,031 1,361,500 36,000 40,000 16,593,801 56,077,414 1,300,000 6,413,837 1,000,000 2,023,143 720,031 1,361,500 126,000 465,000 69,486,925 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,404,305 1,000,000 6,396,916 917,917 1,176,934 720,031 1,136,811 89,300 12,200 15,854,414 55,153,971 1,000,000 6,396,916 917,917 1,841,661 720,031 1,136,811 89,300 12,200 67,268,807 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 5,082,022 1,300,000 6,560,517 1,000,000 1,266,624 720,031 1,361,500 36,000 40,000 17,366,694 57,520,494 1,300,000 6,560,517 1,000,000 1,266,624 720,031 1,361,500 126,000 465,000 70,320,166 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 626,213 146,680 772,893 (1,443,080) (146,680) 756,519 (833,241) 14.1% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% -2.6% 0.0% -2.3% 0.0% 37.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -1.2% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 219 COUNTY ATTORNEY GRANTS 220 DIVERSION 221 COUNTY ATTORNEY FILL THE GAP 266 CHECK ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 267 CRIM JUSTICE ENHANCEMENT TOTAL FUNDS • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 841.10 77.45 3.00 26.50 15.50 26.00 989.55 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 848.05 76.45 3.00 26.50 16.50 26.00 996.50 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 848.85 72.65 3.00 26.50 15.50 26.00 992.50 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 0.80 (3.80) (1.00) (4.00) Reductions in grants resulted in the shift of a 0.8 FTE position to the General Fund and the loss of 3.0 FTE grant-funded positions. Reduction of 1.0 FTE position to maintain structural balance of Check Enforcement Program Fund. Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • $384,904 requested for salary adjustments from the General Fund was reallocated to support anticipated performance-based and market salary adjustments. Increase Grant Fund Revenue and Expenditures by $146,680 to reflect greater than anticipated grant revenue. Authorized non-recurring expenditures from the fund balances of the Victim Compensation Restitution Fund ($126,000) and the Victim Compensation Interest Fund ($465,000). 524 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 51,271 $ $ $ 51,271 $ 51,672,876 $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 4,404,538 $ 4,404,538 $ 4,404,538 4,404,538 $ 4,455,809 $ 56,077,414 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Increase in County Counsel expenditures to reflect indirect cost recovery, other negotiated increases and decreases Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Non-Recurring Expenses Start-up Costs -- Initial Appearance Court ($17,270); IT Debt Services Service Financing ($198,958) Elected Official Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Reallocate Other Pay for possible market adjustments from Legal $ Advice Activity ($28,636) & Office of the Director Activity ($356,268) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - 626,213 $ 50,280,208 1,248,840 143,828 1,392,668 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: RESTATEMENTS: County Counsel Retainer Restatement EXPENDITURES $ - 287,656 1,061,564 253,221 317,928 116,541 (216,228) 626,213 $ 7,302 1,827,984 5,082,022 $ 57,905,398 - $ $ (384,904) (384,904) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 5,082,022 $ 57,520,494 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,082,022 $ 57,520,494 525 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) RICO Fund (213) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 County Attorney Grants Fund (219) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,827,233 $ 5,827,233 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Grant Reconciliation Grant Reconciliation $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 586,604 $ 198,572 785,176 $ 586,604 198,572 785,176 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 6,612,409 $ 6,612,409 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 6,612,409 $ 6,612,409 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ (198,572) (198,572) $ 26,488 92,871 54,602 (372,533) (198,572) $ 6,413,837 $ 6,413,837 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Additional Grant Revenue & Expenditures $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 146,680 $ 146,680 $ 146,680 146,680 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 6,560,517 $ 6,560,517 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 6,560,517 $ 6,560,517 526 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) County Attorney Diversion (220) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 1,026 3,374 2,115 (6,515) - FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 County Attorney Fill the Gap (221) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,266,624 $ 2,023,143 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,266,624 $ 2,023,143 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,266,624 $ 2,023,143 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance Non-Recurring Expenses Vehicle & Criminal Case Filing Tracking System TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 9,063 23,505 18,683 (57,770) (750,000) - $ (756,519) FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 1,266,624 $ 1,266,624 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,266,624 $ 1,266,624 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,266,624 $ 1,266,624 527 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Check Enforcement Program (266) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 20,031 $ 20,031 $ 20,031 20,031 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 720,031 $ 720,031 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 720,031 $ 720,031 - 5,301 11,841 10,928 (32,132) 4,062 - MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance Pay for Performance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 720,031 $ 720,031 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 720,031 $ 720,031 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 720,031 $ 720,031 Note: The County Attorney's Office is looking at ways to ensure that the Check Enforcement's budget remains in balance. OMB and the County Attorney's Office will monitor revenue and expenditures in both FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06 and will recommend adjustments as necessary to maintain structural balance. Criminal Justice Enhancement (267) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,361,500 $ 1,361,500 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,361,500 $ 1,361,500 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,361,500 $ 1,361,500 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 1,361,500 $ 1,361,500 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,361,500 $ 1,361,500 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,361,500 $ 1,361,500 528 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Victim Compensation Restitution (268) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 36,000 $ 126,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 36,000 $ 126,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 36,000 $ 126,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Non-Recurring Expenses $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ $ 36,000 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Non-Recurring Victim Comp Activity Expenditure from Fund Balance $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - (90,000) (90,000) 36,000 $ $ 90,000 90,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 36,000 $ 126,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 36,000 $ 126,000 Victim Compensation Interest (269) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 40,000 $ 465,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 40,000 $ 465,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 40,000 $ 465,000 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Non-Recurring Expenses $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Non-Recurring Victim Comp Activity Expenditure from Fund Balance $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 40,000 $ - (425,000) (425,000) 40,000 $ $ 425,000 425,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 40,000 $ 465,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 40,000 $ 465,000 529 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Attorney (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 41,507,122 $ 9,277,059 $ 42,880,245 $ 9,868,171 $ 48,872,846 $ 10,886,000 $ 51,379,891 $ 11,917,888 $ 57,520,494 $ 12,799,672 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 50,784,181 52,748,416 59,758,846 63,297,779 70,320,166 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 41,507,122 $ 9,277,059 $ 42,880,245 $ 9,868,171 $ 48,872,846 $ 10,886,000 $ 51,379,891 $ 11,917,888 $ 57,520,494 $ 12,799,672 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 50,784,181 52,748,416 59,758,846 63,297,779 70,320,166 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. County Attorney FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Non-Mandated 0.0% $70.0 $60.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 20.3% County Attorney Mandates Vs. Expenditures $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 79.7% 530 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 49.1 40.1 8.9 0 50.8 41.5 9.3 0 52.7 42.9 9.9 0 59.8 48.9 10.9 0 63.1 50.3 12.8 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 Antiracketeering 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 information. 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. 531 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Recorder Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Recorder Helen Purcell, County Recorder Micrographics Administration Public Records Mailout Recorder’s Information System Document Processing Southeast Office Mission The mission of the Recorder’s 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. Strategic Goals • • • “Electronic Documentation” - Increase the percentage of documents recorded from digital and electronic sources to 55% by 2006. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Process Improvement” -- Input legal descriptions, parcel #s and addresses on all recordings and make that data available to the public in a searchable format by 2005. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Records Management” -- Reduce the space needed for document storage by 50% by 2006. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. 532 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Recorder (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES RECORDER'S PROGRAM $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL REVENUES $ 7,068,151 10,792,039 3,258,572 21,118,762 EXPENDITURES RECORDER'S PROGRAM $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,215,947 482,563 3,446,463 6,144,973 $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 15,600,000 70,000 15,670,000 $ 15,475,000 70,000 125,000 15,670,000 $ 1,654,282 5,945,119 7,599,401 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ 13,058,128 70,000 6,001,718 19,129,846 $ 2,676,493 802,363 4,219,890 7,698,746 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ 12,093,600 5,370,000 17,463,600 $ 2,218,423 1,652,252 3,583,353 7,454,028 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ 2,280,350 603,303 6,740,329 9,623,982 $ $ $ (3,381,400) -21.9% (70,000) -100.0% 5,245,000 4196.0% 1,793,600 11.4% 396,143 199,060 (2,520,439) (1,925,236) 14.8% 24.8% -59.7% -25.0% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT RECORDER'S PROGRAM The Average time to index a document. Average Time to return documents. The percentage of daily CD Master Reports completed within three work days following presentation The percentage of all copy requests of fewer than 10 pages completed within one hour and of all larger requests completed within 24 hours. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 14.04 Days 16.38 Days 10 Days 20 Days 10 Days 20 Days N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 83.5% 95.0% 95.0% N/A N/A N/A 99.9% 99.5% 99.5% N/A N/A N/A FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED % ADOPTED VARIANCE Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 19,657,679 1,461,083 21,118,762 3,281,344 323,592 1,073,042 1,466,995 6,144,973 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 14,137,170 1,462,830 70,000 15,670,000 3,508,180 1,011,100 2,300,121 780,000 7,599,401 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 14,137,170 1,462,830 70,000 15,670,000 3,780,191 1,011,100 2,127,455 780,000 7,698,746 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 17,719,101 1,340,745 70,000 19,129,846 3,391,278 1,556,432 2,015,940 490,378 7,454,028 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 16,210,000 1,253,600 17,463,600 4,116,698 637,300 4,294,984 575,000 9,623,982 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 2,072,830 (209,230) (70,000) 1,793,600 14.7% -14.3% -100.0% 11.4% (336,507) 373,800 (2,167,529) 205,000 (1,925,236) -8.9% 37.0% -101.9% 26.3% -25.0% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 236 RECORDERS SURCHARGE $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 236 RECORDERS SURCHARGE $ ALL FUNDS $ 14,460,264 6,658,498 21,118,762 1,914,027 4,230,946 6,144,973 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 10,300,000 5,370,000 15,670,000 1,991,183 5,608,218 7,599,401 533 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 10,300,000 5,370,000 15,670,000 2,036,833 5,661,913 7,698,746 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 13,058,128 6,071,718 19,129,846 1,913,950 5,540,077 7,454,028 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 12,093,600 5,370,000 17,463,600 2,114,696 7,509,286 9,623,982 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 1,793,600 1,793,600 17.4% 0.0% 11.4% (77,863) (1,847,373) (1,925,236) -3.8% -32.6% -25.0% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Recorder (Continued) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 236 RECORDERS SURCHARGE TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 44.25 26.00 70.25 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 44.25 36.00 80.25 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 44.25 36.00 80.25 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Revenue • Increased volume drives a budgeted increase in Other Charges for Services of $2,037,830. Expenditures • • Budgeted decrease in One-Time Expenditures of $2,363,601 associated with the completion of the Microfiche Conversion project. Base adjustment increases in expenditures of $4,122,766 associated with the Records Conversion Project and associated IT Hardware one-time costs. 534 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Recorder (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 10,300,000 $ - 1,991,183 $ 33,702 11,948 $45,650 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 10,300,000 $ 2,036,833 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 10,300,000 $ 2,036,833 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Elected Official Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Other Charges for Services $ Adjustment to Miscellaneous Revenue $ Adjustment to Regular Pay Personnel Savings Adjustment to Other Pay Adjustment to Temporary Pay Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Benefits Personnel Savings Adjustment to Temporary Benefits BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 10,300,000 2,037,830 $ (244,230) 1,793,600 $ 23,895 35,557 10,910 7,501 77,863 $2,114,696 14,117 (67,831) 96,300 (35,836) (14,117) 7,367 - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 12,093,600 $ 2,114,696 FY 2005-06 RECOMMENDED BUDGET: $ 12,093,600 $ 2,114,696 535 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Recorder (Continued) Recorder’s Surcharge (236) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ C-49-05-008-6-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 5,370,000 $ - 5,608,218 $53,695 $53,695 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 5,370,000 $ 5,661,913 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 5,370,000 $ 5,661,913 - 14,040 45,020 18,850 (2,363,601) 10,298 (2,275,393) TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases One Time Expenses - Microfiche Conversion/IT Upgrades Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment for Records Conversion Project $ Adjustment for IT Hardware One-Time Costs BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ 5,370,000 - $3,386,520 $ $ 3,411,593 711,173 4,122,766 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,370,000 $ 7,509,286 FY 2005-06 RECOMMENDED BUDGET: $ 5,370,000 $ 7,509,286 536 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Recorder (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,777,221 $ 3,657,080 $ 1,820,448 $ 4,459,282 $ 1,914,027 $ 4,230,995 $ 1,929,079 $ 4,980,392 $ 2,114,696 $ 7,509,286 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,434,301 6,279,730 6,145,022 6,909,471 9,623,982 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,777,221 $ 3,657,080 $ 1,820,448 $ 4,459,282 $ 1,914,027 $ 4,230,995 $ 1,929,079 $ 4,980,392 $ 2,114,696 $ 7,509,286 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,434,301 6,279,730 6,145,022 6,909,471 9,623,982 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Recorder Mandates Vs. Expenditures Recorder FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $10.0 General Fund Mandated 22.0% $9.0 Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 0.0% $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 78.0% 537 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 5.4 1.8 3.7 0 6.3 1.8 4.5 0 6.1 1.9 4.2 0 6.9 1.9 5 0 9.6 2.1 7.5 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Recorder (Continued) 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. 538 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff Analysis by Ryan Wimmer, Senior Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio Chief of Operations Chief of Enforcement Patrol Investigations Patrol Resource Chief of Special Operations Selective Enforcement Criminal Investigations Support Services Research & Development Chief of Custody Custody Region I Director of Administration Custody Region II Custody Region III Financial Management Technology Management Administration Management Internal Affairs 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. Strategic Goals • • By FY 2006, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will recruit, hire and train the required number of staff as agreed upon from the Liebert Study to fill positions in the County Jail System so that the facilities can be operated safely and efficiently. Status: The 616 baseline staffing detention positions have been recruited, hired and trained. The second phase, hiring 713 detention positions for operation of the two new jails, has begun. The Sheriff’s Office estimates that all new jail positions will be recruited and hired by December 2005. By July 2005, increase to 50% the number of Priority 1 calls responded to within acceptable standards in areas served by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. (Note: FY 2004--32%) Status: The current percentage of Priority 1 calls responded to by patrol (i.e. officer on scene) within acceptable standards is 47%, in part due to the addition of 42 additional patrol deputy sheriffs. 539 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) • • • • • • By January 2006, the Sheriff’s Office will increase the average annual clearance rate for investigations cases by 7% (to 69%) using innovative and cooperative (inter and intra agency) strategies. Status: The Sheriff’s Office reports that although clearance rates have declined in the first half of FY 2005, it is likely too early to assess progress made on this goal. 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. Status: The Sheriff’s Office is attempting to meet constitutional standards for care, custody and control of inmates. Aggressive recruitment and hiring contribute toward the fulfillment of this goal. The Sheriff’s Office will increase recruitment and retention success percentages by increasing the competitiveness of its compensation and benefits packages for all classifications to be consistently within 10% of regional law enforcement average, to the extent that County funding is made available, so that law enforcement and detention services can be delivered. Status: The Sheriff’s Office has an aggressive recruitment and compensation program, recently hiring over 600 detention positions for the current jail system. Law enforcement recruitment continues to present challenges due to competition for qualified candidates. 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. Status: In order to accommodate increased demands for services, the Sheriff’s Office has submitted a staffing proposal to support the court system’s requirements. By FY2006, the backlog in Criminal Records and ID will be reduced by 25%. Status: The Sheriff’s Office received funding for additional positions in FY 2004-05 in order to reduce the backlog of Criminal Records and ID. The backlog has not yet been reduced as the additional output associated with the new positions has not yet been realized. By July 2007, and based on available funding, the Sheriff’s Office will obtain the technology, equipment and tools required to meet the demands placed upon law enforcement and detention due to population and business growth in Maricopa County. Status: The Sheriff’s Office has identified technology, equipment and tools to help meet demands. 540 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES CUSTODY MANAGEMENT $ ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 30,868,937 6,109,517 6,415,800 43,394,254 EXPENDITURES CUSTODY MANAGEMENT $ CENTRALIZED MCSO OPERATIONS ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 85,251,494 11,143,856 47,637,497 16,907,330 160,940,176 $ 33,327,373 8,433,997 414,400 42,175,770 $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 101,666,027 14,001,589 50,865,487 17,462,904 183,996,007 $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 34,248,864 9,365,784 414,400 44,029,048 106,359,194 14,168,485 53,283,897 16,667,956 190,479,532 $ $ $ $ 38,393,718 9,302,761 214,528 47,911,007 101,687,070 12,219,357 52,448,611 19,159,418 185,514,456 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 44,667,541 10,112,350 414,400 55,194,291 128,155,644 15,560,632 57,694,236 19,750,283 221,160,795 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 10,418,677 746,566 11,165,243 30.4% 8.0% 0.0% 25.4% (21,796,450) (1,392,147) (4,410,339) (3,082,327) (30,681,263) -20.5% -9.8% -8.3% -18.5% -16.1% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $218,445 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Budgeted expenditures for the Custody Management Program include $9,737 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT CENTRALIZED MCSO OPERATIONS Percent of MCSO vehicle pool replaced annually Percent of applicants hired Percent of Sheriff's Office employees lost in association with Internal Affairs investigations Percent of system availability (24x7) Percent of recruits successfully completing the sworn basic training academy Percent of detention recruits who graduate from the detention training academy CUSTODY MANAGEMENT Percent of staff not assaulted while on duty Percent of uses of force meeting standards for appropriateness Percent of staffing costs in food service and laundry saved by using inmate labor Percent of inmates properly processed in the intake area within 24 hours Percent of inmates released according to procedure from custody Percent of inmate population transported to court daily Percent of food inventory supply comprised of donated/gleaned food ENFORCEMENT Percent of level 1 priority calls dispatched within standards Percent of Enforcement Program Activities that are enhanced through the use of volunteer services (5 activities) Percent of reports (Jail Intelligence) forwarded to criminal investigation Percent of investigations cases cleared. Percent of arrests completed in compliance with pertinent laws FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 18.4% 7.9% 30.0% 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% N/A 10.0% N/A 10.0% 0.04% N/A N/A N/A N/A 99.5% 99.8% 99.8% 99.5% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 85.0% 74.0% 74.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 0.0% 0.0% 99.5% -0.3% -0.3% 80.0% 80.0% 10.0% 14.3% 74.0% 74.0% 0.0% 0.0% 96.8% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 99.90% 99.95% 99.95% 99.95% 99.95% 0.0% 0.0% 99.82% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 0.0% 0.0% 5.26% 6.00% 6.00% 5.46% 5.46% -0.5% -9.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86.1% 86.3% 86.3% 87.6% 86.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.0% 43.8% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 62.0% 48.0% 48.0% 48.0% 69.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 541 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE TAXES LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 45,000 30,821,238 816,281 535,674 11,176,060 43,394,254 129,050,898 15,651,564 14,146,762 2,090,952 160,940,176 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 55,936 31,531,675 644,365 396,400 9,547,394 42,175,770 150,134,951 14,738,588 17,780,240 108,571 1,233,657 183,996,007 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 55,936 33,000,265 644,365 746,400 9,582,082 44,029,048 155,683,890 16,566,167 16,489,180 108,571 1,631,724 190,479,532 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 41,050 11,550 32,860,135 629,908 737,850 13,630,514 47,911,007 152,882,252 16,962,200 14,189,287 108,571 1,372,145 185,514,456 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 46,500 38,367,723 614,365 746,400 15,419,303 55,194,291 180,991,960 19,067,257 18,213,564 141,659 2,746,355 221,160,795 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (9,436) 5,367,458 (30,000) 5,837,221 11,165,243 -16.9% 16.3% -4.7% 0.0% 60.9% 25.4% (25,308,070) (2,501,090) (1,724,384) (33,088) (1,114,631) (30,681,263) -16.3% -15.1% -10.5% -30.5% -68.3% -16.1% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 203 SHERIFF DONATIONS 212 SHERIFF RICO FUND 214 SHERIFF JAIL ENHANCEMENT FUND 251 SHERIFF GRANTS 252 INMATE SERVICES 254 INMATE HEALTH SERVICES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 203 SHERIFF DONATIONS 212 SHERIFF RICO FUND 214 SHERIFF JAIL ENHANCEMENT FUND 251 SHERIFF GRANTS 252 INMATE SERVICES 254 INMATE HEALTH SERVICES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ ALL FUNDS $ 5,036,985 9,518 6,098,559 11,039,497 113,653 21,096,042 43,394,254 43,938,599 3,346 5,854,799 7,530,478 63,514 101,983,281 1,566,158 160,940,176 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,848,594 16,400 395,000 1,100,000 3,992,275 9,411,744 179,715 21,232,042 42,175,770 48,023,458 16,400 395,000 1,100,000 3,992,275 9,911,744 309,168 119,382,619 865,343 183,996,007 542 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,848,594 16,400 745,000 2,050,000 4,510,865 9,446,432 179,715 21,232,042 44,029,048 49,919,400 16,400 745,000 2,050,000 4,510,865 9,946,432 309,168 122,116,924 865,343 190,479,532 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,869,052 15,922 737,538 1,241,146 4,077,240 13,418,816 148,056 22,403,238 47,911,007 49,568,400 15,701 715,751 1,274,689 3,533,032 7,591,962 72,969 121,892,591 849,360 185,514,456 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 5,947,027 16,400 745,000 2,050,000 4,739,549 15,283,653 149,715 26,262,947 55,194,291 54,730,461 16,400 745,000 2,050,000 4,739,549 10,058,412 301,738 148,519,235 221,160,795 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 98,433 228,684 5,837,221 (30,000) 5,030,905 11,165,243 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 61.8% -16.7% 23.7% 25.4% (4,811,061) (228,684) (111,980) 7,430 (26,402,311) 865,343 (30,681,263) -9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -5.1% -1.1% 2.4% -21.6% 100.0% -16.1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 251 SHERIFF GRANTS 252 INMATE SERVICES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL FUNDS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 974.00 33.00 82.05 2,099.45 26.00 3,214.50 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 979.00 33.00 82.05 2,104.45 25.00 3,223.50 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 998.00 26.00 37.05 2,496.95 3,558.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 19.00 (7.00) (45.00) 392.50 (25.00) 334.50 Transfer of Jail Custodial services from the Facilities Management Department (+3.0 FTE) (General Fund). Transfer of Court Security from Detention Operations Fund (+17.0 FTE) (General Fund). Department reduced budgeted staffing by 1.0 FTE in its Base Request (General Fund). Reduction of 7.0 FTE due to the discontinuation of the “Detention Strategy” grant (Grants Fund). Transfer of 53.0 Inmate Classification personnel to Detention Operations Fund (Inmate Services Fund). An increase of 8.0 Teachers and Teachers Assistants FTEs (Inmate Services Fund). Transfer of Jail Custodial services from Facilities Management (19.0 FTE), as well as the reallocation of funding from the General Fund (25.0 FTE), a combined increase of 44.0 FTE (Detention Operations Fund). Transfer of Inmate Classification from the Inmate Services Fund (+53.0 FTE) (Detention Operations Fund). Transfer of Court Security to the General Fund (-17.0 FTE) (Detention Operations Fund). Additional Ward 41 staff (+8.5 FTE) (Detention Operations Fund). Phase I future detention staffing of rank positions (+90.0 FTE) (Detention Operations Fund). Phase II future detention staffing (+215.0 FTE) (Detention Operations Fund). Department reduced budgeted staffing by 1.0 FTE in its Base Request (Detention Operations Fund). Elimination of 25.0 FTE Transition Team due to the completion of capital projects (Detention Capital Projects Fund) Base Adjustments Revenue • • • • Reduction of inmate health services revenue due to inmate health co-pay revenue not increasing as rapidly as was anticipated. Increase in booking and per diem revenue due to rate increases. Reduction of grant revenue due to a technical change in budgeting for grant matches. Projects Fund). 543 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued)Expenditures • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Transfer and restatement of Jail Custodial from the Facilities Management Department (FMD). Reallocation of Jail Custodial staff from the General Fund to the Detention Operations Fund. Funding for the Sheriff’s Office higher average health and dental benefit costs of Jail Custodial positions transferred from FMD. Transfer Inmate Classification from the Inmate Services Fund to the Detention Operations Fund to reflect a more appropriate use of the Inmate Services Fund. Transfer Court Security from the Detention Operations Fund to the General Fund. Market range adjustments for all command and rank positions Staffing increase for the Detention Ward (Ward 41) at Maricopa Medical Center. Technical adjustments to the General Fund, Inmate Services Fund, and Detention Operations Fund to remove expenditure allocations from the Grants Fund. Funding of Phase II of future detention staffing. Funding of rank personnel for new detention facilities. Increased funding for a payment resulting from recent refinancing. Reduction of operating expenditure authority and an increase of one-time expenditure authority in the Inmate Health Services Fund. Transfer of funding for the ALPHA Program from the Detention Operations Fund to the Inmate Services Fund. Funding of capital leases for replacement of Deputy and Detention Officer radios. Reduction of expenditures in the Grants Fund to remove salary and benefits costs charged to other funds. Funding for a pilot drug treatment program for the seriously mentally ill. The budget details and performance measures will be finalized between Tentative and Final Adoption. Funding of the expansion of existing ALPHA drug treatment for inmates. The budget details and performance measures will be finalized between Tentative and Final Adoption. Funding of additional positions and a potential market increase for Remanded Juvenile Education. Transfer of funding for teachers, chaplains, and an investigator, as well as related supplies from the Detention Operations Fund to the Inmate Services Fund for a more appropriate use of the Fund. Reduction of operating expenditure authority in the Inmate Service Fund and an increase in nonrecurring expenditure authority. Funding for ongoing LANDesk operations and maintenance costs. Results Initiatives The following Results Initiatives are recommended for FY 2005-06: • • Alpha Program - $716,362 ($922,724 annualized) Inmate Services Fund: Initiative replaces reduced grant funding of substance abuse treatment in the Alpha Program and expands funding to meet the entire demand for the Activity. The program has been found to significantly reduce the rate of recidivism for participating offenders. Expected Result: 88% of Alpha program graduates will not return to jail within two years. Jail Educator - $51,766 ($51,766 annualized) Inmate Services Fund: Initiative adds 1.0 GED Educator at Lower Buckeye Jail to offer educational programs to inmates. Expected Result: The percentage of inmates participating in education/rehabilitation programs will increase (by less than 1%). 544 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Warrants Activity - Records Clerks $ SmartZone System Performance Pay Increase Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ RESTATEMENTS: Transfer Custodial Services from Facilities Management $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Warrants Activity - Records Clerks SmartZone System - TFP Payment SmartZone System - One-Time Expenditure Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Elected Official Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: EXPENDITURES 5,848,594 $ 47,355,136 - $ 149,983 7,527 1,490,129 267,850 1,915,489 5,848,594 $ 49,270,625 - $ $ 1,296,484 1,296,484 5,848,594 $ 50,567,109 - 535,700 1,312,599 - $ $ $ $ 5,848,594 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Patrol Activity - IGA Revenue $ Reallocation of Jail Custodial to the Detention Fund Jail Custodial Fixed Benefit Adjustment Transfer of Court Security from Detention Fund Command and Rank Market Adjustment Adjustment to Allocation In from Grants Fund Refinance of Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Capital Lease Replacement of Deputy Radios LANDesk Ongoing Operating and Maintenance BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 98,433 $ 98,433 $ 141,984 3,585 (7,527) 302,146 245,795 5,953 2,540,235 53,107,344 (1,165,910) 1,746 1,080,840 1,441,537 (49,184) 33,088 243,000 38,000 1,623,117 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 5,947,027 $ 54,730,461 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,947,027 $ 54,730,461 545 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Sheriff Donations (203) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 16,400 $ 16,400 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 16,400 $ 16,400 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 16,400 $ 16,400 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 16,400 $ 16,400 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 16,400 $ 16,400 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 16,400 $ 16,400 Sheriff RICO (212) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 395,000 $ 395,000 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 350,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 745,000 $ 745,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 745,000 $ 745,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 745,000 $ 745,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 745,000 $ 745,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 745,000 $ 745,000 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Increased RICO Revenue Sheriff Jail Enhancement (214) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Increased Jail Enhancement Revenue $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 950,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 546 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Sheriff Grants (251) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 3,992,275 $ 3,992,275 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Arizona Methamphetamine Program $ FBI Violent Crime Task Force Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant FBI Violent Crime Task Force Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Program FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force FBI Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Force Fire Detail Enforcement Support USDOA Special Education for Juveniles FBI Violent Gang Task Force Overtime MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 371,054 $ 986 52,159 2,648 1,360 986 987 17,775 17,582 11,000 476,537 $ 371,054 986 52,159 2,648 1,360 986 987 17,775 17,582 11,000 476,537 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 4,468,812 $ 4,468,812 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 4,468,812 $ 4,468,812 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 18,150 32,619 (76,905) 26,136 - $ 4,468,812 $ 4,468,812 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increased Grant Funding $ Technical Adjustment for Grant Matches BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 443,735 $ (172,998) 270,737 $ 443,735 (172,998) 270,737 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 4,739,549 $ 4,739,549 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 4,739,549 $ 4,739,549 547 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Sheriff Inmate Services (252) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 9,411,744 $ 9,911,744 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 34,688 $ 34,688 $ 34,688 34,688 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 9,446,432 $ 9,946,432 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 9,446,432 $ 9,946,432 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance Annualization of FY 2005 Initiatives - Jails Baseline Staffing CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization Non-Recurring Expense - Inmate Accounting System TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 45,127 70,332 (253,753) 66,276 64,984 7,034 (500,000) (500,000) $ 9,446,432 $ 9,446,432 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Inmate Canteen and Telephone Revenue $ Transfer of Inmate Class Counselors to Detention Fund Adjustment to Allocation In from Grants Fund Transfer Alpha Program Costs from the Detention Fund Transfer Teachers/Chaplains/Investigator from Detention Fund Pilot Program - Drug Treatment for Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) Additional Teachers Staffing and Salary Increase Inmate Accounting System - Move to Non-Recurring Funding BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 5,837,221 $ 5,837,221 $ (2,500,542) (36,417) 281,724 870,463 551,880 676,744 (500,000) (656,148) 15,283,653 $ 8,790,284 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ RESULTS INITIATIVES: ALPHA Program Jail Educator $ RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 716,362 51,766 768,128 NON-RECURRING EXPENDITURES FROM FUND BALANCE: Inmate Accounting System $ NON-RECURRING FUND BALANCE SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 500,000 500,000 15,283,653 $ 10,058,412 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 548 $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Sheriff Inmate Health Services (254) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 179,715 $ 309,168 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 179,715 $ 309,168 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 179,715 $ 309,168 - $ $ (129,453) (129,453) $ 179,715 $ 179,715 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Detention Management Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (30,000) $ (30,000) $ (30,000) (30,000) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: 149,715 $ 149,715 - $ $ 152,023 152,023 149,715 $ 301,738 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Non-Recurring Capital Outlay $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ NON-RECURRING EXPENDITURES FROM FUND BALANCE: Capital Outlay - Medical Equipment $ NON-RECURRING FUND BALANCE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 549 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Sheriff Detention Operations (255) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Fingerprint Analysts - 11.0 FTE $ Performance Pay Increase Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: RESTATEMENTS: Restate Custodial Services from FMD $ $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Fingerprint Analysts - 11.0 FTE Annualization of FY 2005 Initiatives - Completion of Baseline Staffing Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 21,232,042 $ - $ 307,154 1,830,255 577,349 2,714,758 21,232,042 $ 121,469,205 - $ 118,754,447 $ $ 966,351 966,351 21,232,042 $ 122,435,556 $ 1,154,698 1,617,230 209,684 2,778,597 371,112 59,467 6,190,788 $ 21,232,042 $ 128,626,344 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Detention Management Revenue/Jail Per Diem Rate Increase $ Reallocation of Jail Custodial from the General Fund Jail Custodial Fixed Benefit Adjustment Transfer of Inmate Class Couns from Inmate Services Fund Transfer of Court Security to General Fund Maricopa Medical Center Detention Ward (Ward 41) Staffing Future Detention Staffing - Phase II Rank Personnel for New Facilities Command and Rank Market Adjustment Adjustment to Allocation In from Grants Fund Transfer Alpha Program Costs to the Inmate Services Fund Capital Lease Replacement of DO Radios Transfer Teachers/Chaplains/Investigator to Inmate Services Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 5,030,905 $ 5,030,905 $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ 1,165,910 25,608 2,500,542 (1,080,840) 620,468 9,271,887 5,273,851 3,003,913 (11,661) (281,724) 275,400 (870,463) 19,892,891 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 26,262,947 $ 148,519,235 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 26,262,947 $ 148,519,235 550 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Sheriff (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 37,811,831 $ 92,871,223 $ 36,876,553 $ 97,745,672 $ 42,617,353 $ 115,246,193 $ 48,950,161 $ 138,765,335 $ 54,730,461 $ 166,430,334 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ 1,559,971 $ $ 1,566,159 $ $ 837,475 $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 130,683,054 136,182,196 159,429,705 188,552,971 221,160,795 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 37,811,831 $ 92,871,223 $ 36,876,553 $ 97,745,672 $ 42,617,353 $ 115,246,193 $ 48,950,161 $ 138,765,335 $ 54,730,461 $ 166,430,334 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ 1,559,971 $ $ 1,566,159 $ $ 837,475 $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 130,683,054 136,182,196 159,429,705 188,552,971 221,160,795 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Sheriff FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $250.0 General Fund Mandated 24.7% Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 0.0% Sheriff Mandates Vs. Expenditures $200.0 $150.0 $100.0 $50.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 75.3% 551 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 130.7 37.8 92.9 0 136.2 36.9 99.3 0 159.4 42.6 116.8 0 188.6 49 139.6 0 221.2 54.7 166.4 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 §363701 to 36-3716, 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 judgment 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. 552 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Superintendent Of Schools Analysis by Cynthia Goelz, Principal Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Superintendent of Schools Sandra E. Dowling, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent of Schools Administration Education Services Technology Finance Mission The Mission of the Superintendent of Schools 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. Strategic Goals • • • • By December 2005, Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools will begin implementation of new school district business software and have all districts converted. Status: The adopted FY2005-06 budget for the Education program supports this goal. By July 2006, the Maricopa County Educational Service Agency will increase its annual (school-year) number of training participants by 20% from the 2003-2004 participant count. Status: The adopted FY2005-06 budget for the Education program supports this goal. By July 2006, 100% of our staff will have received the necessary training to support school districts and we will have completed reorganization as necessitated by the implementation of the new school district business software. Status: The adopted FY2005-06 budget for the Education program supports this goal. By December 2005 Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools will begin phasing out obsolete equipment and software and we will finalize the implementation of new school district business software and have all districts converted by July 2006. Status: The adopted FY2005-06 budget for the Education program supports this goal. 553 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) • By July 2006 Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools will develop a comprehensive grant manual which will include policies and procedures for grant development, writing, implementation and management of all of the Educational Service Agency grants. Status: The adopted FY2005-06 budget for the Education program supports this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES EDUCATION $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 359,111 87,723 446,833 EXPENDITURES EDUCATION $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,466,368 432,307 1,898,675 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 155,000 155,000 $ $ $ $ 155,000 155,000 $ 1,540,402 444,340 1,984,742 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ 1,563,787 456,760 2,020,547 $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 59,486 142,790 202,276 $ 155,000 155,000 $ 1,508,135 378,996 1,887,130 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ 1,679,718 485,354 2,165,072 $ - $ $ (115,931) (28,594) (144,525) 0.0% 0.0% -7.4% -6.3% -7.2% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Administrative Services Program include $12,522 reserved for funding performancebased salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM EDUCATION RESULT FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 73.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 0.0% 0.0% Percent of Home School families who report who reported on the annual survey "satisfied / very satisfied" with the services provided by the Home School Division Percent of customers who report good/excellent service on annual district support survey Percent of customers who report overall good/excellent service on annual small schools district support survey FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES $ CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 353,892 92,941 1 446,833 1,648,156 128,546 107,161 14,812 1,898,675 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 120,000 35,000 155,000 1,832,489 39,380 105,302 7,571 1,984,742 554 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 60,000 95,000 155,000 1,876,798 39,633 96,545 7,571 2,020,547 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 120,000 80,576 1,700 202,276 1,741,234 53,169 84,299 8,428 1,887,130 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 120,000 35,000 155,000 2,005,371 47,603 98,593 13,505 2,165,072 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 60,000 (60,000) - 100.0% -63.2% (128,573) (7,970) (2,048) (5,934) (144,525) -6.9% -20.1% -2.1% -78.4% -7.2% 0.0% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 446,833 446,833 $ $ 155,000 155,000 $ $ 155,000 155,000 $ $ 202,276 202,276 $ $ 155,000 155,000 $ $ $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,898,675 1,898,675 $ $ 1,984,742 1,984,742 $ $ 2,020,547 2,020,547 $ $ 1,887,130 1,887,130 $ $ 2,165,072 2,165,072 $ $ - (144,525) (144,525) 0.0% 0.0% -7.2% -7.2% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 32.00 32.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 32.00 32.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 33.00 33.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 1.00 1.00 During FY 2004-05, a new position was added to the Superintendent of Schools staff complement which was not reflected in the FY 2004-05 Revised Restated version. Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • Department’s budget submission was over target for annualized costs associated with the new Educational Services Agency Director Position. Adjustment for over budgeted Other Benefits. Increase to fully fund Debt Service payments. 555 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ CY 2005 Health and Dental Premium Changes C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 155,000 $ - 1,984,742 $32,749 3,056 $35,805 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 155,000 $ 2,020,547 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 155,000 $ 2,020,547 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustment to add ESA Director Position Elected Official Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department submission over Target for ESA Director $ Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Debt Service BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 155,000 - 6,112 41,146 9,716 5,076 74,974 7,501 144,525 $2,165,072 $ $ 5,294 (6,152) 858 - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 155,000 $ 2,165,072 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 155,000 $ 2,165,072 556 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,435,236 $ $ 1,657,474 $ $ 1,898,675 $ $ 1,920,742 $ $ 2,165,072 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,435,236 1,657,474 1,898,675 1,920,742 2,165,072 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,435,236 $ $ 1,657,474 $ $ 1,898,675 $ $ 1,920,742 $ $ 2,165,072 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,435,236 1,657,474 1,898,675 1,920,742 2,165,072 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Superintendent of Schools FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Superintendent of Schools Mandates Vs. Expenditures $2.5 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 557 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 1.4 1.4 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 1.9 1.9 0 0 1.9 1.9 0 0 2.2 2.2 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 MANDATE DESCRIPTION The County Superintendent of Schools is an elected officer of the county. The first County School Superintendent in Maricopa County was elected in 1871. Distribute all laws, reports, circulars, instructions and forms received for the use of school officers. Record all official acts. Appoint governing board members of school districts to fill all vacancies for the remaining portion of the term. Make reports, when directed by the superintendent of public instruction, showing matters relating to schools in his county as may be required on the forms furnished by the superintendent of public instruction, including a yearly report indicating the amount of monies received from state school funds, special school district taxes and other sources, the total expenditures for school purposes and the balance on hand to the credit of each school district at the close of the school year. Contracts with the Board of Supervisors to conduct all regular school district elections. Be responsible, in cooperation with the governing boards and the Board of Supervisors, for all special school district elections. Maintain teacher and administrator certification records of effective dates and expiration dates of teachers' and administrators' certificates in compliance with state guidelines. Adhere to the uniform system of financial records and accounting procedures proscribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Auditor General and, for those school districts for which the county school superintendent is the fiscal agent, draw warrants on the County Treasurer for all necessary expenses against the school funds of the districts. Keep a register of warrants showing the funds upon which the warrants have been drawn. May provide educational services of an accommodation school using the facilities of the accommodation school or school district and determine the per student cost of such services which shall be reimbursed by the school district. File in writing with the governing board of each school district in the county and the Board of Supervisors an estimate of the amount of school moneys required by each school district for the ensuing year, including: student count; total amount to be reviewed for each school district from the county school fund and the special county school reserve fund; ending cash balance from the previous year; anticipated interest earnings; and an estimate of additional amounts needed for each school district from the primary property tax and secondary 558 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Superintendent Of Schools (Continued) 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. 559 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Treasurer Analysis by Cynthia Goelz, Principal Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens County Treasurer David Schweikert 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. Strategic Goals • • By FY 2007, the Treasurer will excel in customer service using technological advances to provide taxpayers with access to all tax information via INTERNET applications through increased budget allocations of personnel and capital resources. Achievements will be measured by growth in internet business applications and daily internet activity during the two year period. Status: The adopted budget supports this goal. By FY 2007, the Treasurer will improve and refine all tax collection and revenue apportionment functions by upgrading computer hardware and software aspects related to these procedures. By 2007 the goal of the Treasurer is to have collected and apportioned to the appropriate county jurisdictions 98.0% of the annual levy effective the conclusion of the tax year. After the subsequent Tax Lien Auction held the following February, this collection rate will have increased to 99.3% each year. Results will be measured by comparing tax collections with the adjusted annual levy at each month-end as well as at the end of the tax year. Status: The adopted budget supports this goal. 560 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Treasurer (Continued) • • Per House Bill 2428 Legislation, by FY 2005, the Treasurer will have initiated the 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. By FY 2007 the Treasurer will have fully integrated 100% of all collection and apportionment procedures of the UPPS process into an efficient and streamlined “unified” Property Tax Levy collection and apportionment system. Incremental accomplishments of the new system will be measured based on monthly collection percentages of the unified levy and monthly dollar amounts apportioned to county jurisdictions. Status: The adopted budget supports this goal. By FY 2006, the Treasurer will have contracted with its servicing bank affiliate, Bank One, to accept property tax payments and issue Treasurer’s Office receipts in branch bank locations throughout the county. Status: The adopted budget supports this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES PROPERTY TAX PROGRAM $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,257 3,257 EXPENDITURES ACCOUNTING PROGRAM $ PROPERTY TAX PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 356,483 1,211,655 1,452,413 717,270 3,737,821 $ 4,000 4,000 $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 343,367 1,247,315 1,444,678 917,370 3,952,730 $ $ $ $ 4,000 4,000 349,930 1,490,660 1,263,196 906,340 4,010,126 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,998 2,714 4,712 369,467 1,398,916 1,429,303 812,047 4,009,733 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 4,000 4,000 346,903 1,502,323 1,377,448 920,619 4,147,293 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ - $ $ $ 3,027 (11,663) (114,252) (14,279) (137,167) 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% -0.8% -9.0% -1.6% -3.4% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Administrative Services Program include $21,838 reserved for funding performancebased salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT ACCOUNTING Percent of Treasurer's Journal Entries created by month-end Percent of Cash Receipts Actually Processed Tax Apportionments - Percent of Levy apportioned Month-end Closings - Percent time month-end balance/close by due date PROPERTY TAX Payments Posted - Percent of Levy collected Percent of levy collected by LockBox (LB) facility Percent of Tax Bills Correctly Mailed Back Tax Sale - Percent of BTX Collected FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 96.8% 97.0% 97.0% 51.0% 97.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 96.8% 97.0% 97.0% 51.0% 97.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.8% 39.0% 39.0% 20.0% 39.0% 0.0% 0.0% 95.0% 55.6% 96.0% 45.0% 96.0% 45.0% 96.0% 0.0% 96.3% 45.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 561 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Treasurer (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 3,257 3,257 $ $ 4,000 4,000 $ $ 4,000 4,000 $ $ 4,712 4,712 $ $ 4,000 4,000 $ $ $ 2,953,962 126,809 651,585 5,466 3,737,821 $ 3,178,500 60,300 686,507 27,423 3,952,730 $ 3,292,222 59,056 631,425 27,423 4,010,126 $ 3,217,819 60,725 682,759 48,430 4,009,733 $ 3,428,004 54,144 618,870 46,275 4,147,293 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ $ $ - 0.0% 0.0% (135,782) 4,912 12,555 (18,852) (137,167) $ -4.1% 8.3% 2.0% -68.7% -3.4% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 3,257 3,257 $ $ 4,000 4,000 $ $ 4,000 4,000 $ $ 4,712 4,712 $ $ 4,000 4,000 $ $ $ ALL FUNDS $ 3,737,821 3,737,821 $ $ 3,952,730 3,952,730 $ $ 4,010,126 4,010,126 $ $ 4,009,733 4,009,733 $ $ 4,147,293 4,147,293 $ $ Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 59.50 59.50 562 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 59.75 59.75 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 59.75 59.75 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - - (137,167) (137,167) 0.0% 0.0% -3.4% -3.4% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Treasurer (Continued) Base Adjustments Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ CY 2005 Health and Dental Premium Changes C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 4,000 $ - 3,952,730 $43,205 14,191 $57,396 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 4,000 $ 4,010,126 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 4,000 $ 4,010,126 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Elected Official Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 28,381 70,166 28,029 3,090 7,501 137,167 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 4,000 $ 4,147,293 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 4,000 $ 4,147,293 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 4,000 $ 4,147,293 563 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Treasurer (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,505,567 $ $ 3,527,577 $ $ 3,737,821 $ $ 3,955,477 $ $ 4,147,293 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,505,567 3,527,577 3,737,821 3,955,477 4,147,293 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,505,567 $ $ 3,527,577 $ $ 3,737,821 $ $ 3,955,477 $ $ 4,147,293 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,505,567 3,527,577 3,737,821 3,955,477 4,147,293 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Treasurer FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Treasurer Mandates Vs. Expenditures $4.5 $4.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 564 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 3.5 3.5 0 0 3.5 3.5 0 0 3.7 3.7 0 0 4 4 0 0 4.2 4.2 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Treasurer (Continued) 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. 565 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Appointed Appointed Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Board of Supervisors Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, Chairman, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Elected Appointed Clerk of the Board Fran McCarroll County Manager David Smith Internal Audit Ross Tate Deputy County Manager Sandra Wilson Chief Finance Officer Tom Manos Legal Advocacy Community Services Assistant County Manager William Scalzo Public Defender Regional Development Services Assistant County Manager Joy Rich Contract Counsel Information Technology Assistant County Manager Jim Price Legal Defender 566 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality Analysis by Nadia Feeser, Senior Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Air Quality Bob Kard, Director Air Quality Monitoring Air Quality Administration Air Quality Permit Engineering Air Quality Compliance Earthmoving & Dust Compliance Mission The Mission of the Department of Air Quality is to provide air quality services to stakeholders and citizens so that they can enjoy air that meets national ambient air quality standards. Vision The vision of the Department of Air Quality is to provide market competitive air quality regulatory and enforcement services that are safe, consistent, timely, and convenient for our constituents. Strategic Goals • • • Develop and implement a Department business plan that addresses staffing, training, revised job descriptions, compensation, and space requirements. Status: Adopted budget includes funding to address these issues. Develop and implement uniform Department standard operating procedures that are supported by automated processes whenever possible. Status: The Department’s procedures are being developed and are projected to be documented with automation support by the end of FY 2006. Develop and maintain an annual productivity rate sufficient to meet the mandated state implementation plan, statutory and state delegation agreement levels while staying within budget limits. Status: The Department’s efforts are focused on achieving this long-term goal once the standard operating procedures are created and all proposed staff positions have been filled and trained. 567 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED REVENUES AIR QUALITY PROGRAM $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 9,913,818 $ (97,366) 9,816,453 $ 10,084,562 10,084,562 EXPENDITURES AIR QUALITY PROGRAM $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 8,641,726 419,206 9,060,932 9,241,638 997,430 10,239,068 $ $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 9,076,999 449,658 9,526,657 $ $ $ $ 9,240,041 1,666,050 10,906,091 $ 10,777,721 16,640 10,794,361 $ 7,943,998 2,113,654 10,057,652 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 10,781,375 59,000 10,840,375 8,437,144 2,361,540 10,798,684 $ $ $ $ 1,704,376 (390,658) 1,313,718 15.8% -662.1% 12.1% 802,897 (695,490) 107,407 10.1% -30.0% 1.0% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $47,684 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT COUNTYWIDE AIR QUALITY MONITORING Percent of actual samples collected of scheduled samples TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM Percent of TRP plans approved DUST CONTROL EARTHMOVING Percent of inspections completed DUST CONTROL VACANT LOT Percent of vacant lot sites in compliance with EPA Standards LARGE SOURCE PERMIT COMPLIANCE Percent of required inspections completed SMALL SOURCE PERMIT COMPLIANCE Percent of required inspections completed LARGE SOURCE PERMIT ENFORCEMENT Percent of actions taken of those required SMALL SOURCE PERMIT ENFORCEMENT Percent of actions taken of those required FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 0% 102% 93% 93% 95% 95% 2% 2% 53% 53% 53% 53% 80% 27% 51% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 41% 43% 31% 27% 27% -4% -14% 78% 83% 83% 83% 98% 15% 18% 74% 75% 75% 75% 95% 20% 27% 56% 63% 63% 63% 80% 17% 27% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 5,331,135 3,992,916 432,721 59,681 9,816,453 5,644,786 583,804 2,368,323 293,938 170,082 9,060,932 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,191,000 4,184,562 650,000 59,000 10,084,562 6,346,514 420,622 2,631,828 181,440 658,664 10,239,068 568 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,200,502 3,626,657 14,960 634,020 50,518 9,526,657 6,668,276 497,836 2,775,441 235,850 728,688 10,906,091 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,171,653 3,398,920 6,702 1,035,885 50,262 1,130,939 10,794,361 6,281,998 856,016 2,267,653 219,527 432,458 10,057,652 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 6,300,000 3,639,375 42,000 800,000 59,000 10,840,375 7,076,433 298,050 2,343,339 328,624 752,238 10,798,684 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 1,099,498 12,718 27,040 165,980 8,482 1,313,718 (408,157) 199,786 432,102 (92,774) (23,550) 107,407 21.1% 0.4% 180.7% 26.2% 16.8% 13.8% -6.1% 40.1% 15.6% -39.3% -3.2% 1.0% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 503 AIR QUALITY GRANT 504 AIR QUALITY FEES $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 503 AIR QUALITY GRANT 504 AIR QUALITY FEES $ ALL FUNDS $ 3,976,170 5,840,283 9,816,453 3,590,650 5,470,283 9,060,932 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,184,562 5,900,000 10,084,562 3,915,004 6,324,064 10,239,068 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,626,657 5,900,000 9,526,657 3,726,619 7,179,472 10,906,091 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,384,271 7,410,090 10,794,361 3,338,693 6,718,959 10,057,652 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 3,639,375 7,201,000 10,840,375 3,635,225 7,163,459 10,798,684 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 12,718 1,301,000 1,313,718 0.4% 22.1% 13.8% 91,394 16,013 107,407 2.5% 0.2% 1.0% Personnel by Fund 503 AIR QUALITY GRANT 504 AIR QUALITY FEES TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED - FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 33.00 101.00 134.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 32.00 99.00 131.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (1.00) (2.00) (3.00) The Department of Air Quality was established in January 2005. Adopted budget reflects intended organizational structure, which results in a net adjustment of 3.0 FTE positions. Base Adjustments Revenue • • Decrease grant awards to reflect a 3% reduction in EPA grant awards. Forecasted increase in Air Quality fee revenues. Expenditures • • • • • Decrease grant awards to reflect a 3% reduction in EPA grant awards. Reduce expenditures by increasing budgeted Personnel Savings rate from 0% to 6% (Grant Fund) and from 0% to 8% (Fees Fund). Increase for the County Counsel retainer in the Fees Fund. Decrease expenditures for over budgeted costs. Increase allocation of Department Administration and IT from the Fees Fund to the Grant Fund. Increase Fees Fund to fund 30 vehicles for field positions. 569 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality (Continued) Reconciliation Air Quality Grant (503) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ - FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ - RESTATEMENTS: Transfer Air Quality Program from Environmental Services $ Transfer Air Quality Program from Environmental Services - REVISED Annualize Transfer of Air Quality Program from Environmental Services $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 2,085,913 $ (545,192) 2,404,571 3,945,292 $ 1,969,929 (429,208) 2,404,571 3,945,292 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: 3,945,292 $ 3,945,292 (305,917) $ (305,917) $ (709,729) (99,384) 14,187 1,744 29,838 453,277 (310,067) $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Decrease in Grant Awards $ Increase Personnel Savings to 6% Workers's Compensation - Human Resources Activity Unemployment Insurance - Human Resources Activity CY 2006 Fixed Benefits Increase Allocation of Dept Administration and IT from Fees Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 3,639,375 $ 3,635,225 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 3,639,375 $ 3,635,225 570 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality (Continued) Air Quality Fees (504) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ 19 FTEs for Dust Control Earthmoving Activity MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Annualization of FY 2005 Initiative - Agua Fria River Air Quality Study Fund Balance Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustment - 19 FTEs for Dust Control Earthmoving Activity Non-Recurring Expenditures - Non-capital equipment & vehicles from Fund Balance Pay for Performance Annualization Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 5,900,000 $ - $ 129,451 725,957 855,408 5,900,000 $ 7,179,472 - $ 6,324,064 $ 29,949 82,949 55,875 (300,000) 322,377 1,048,334 1,033,334 $ (216,200) 26,228 (247,316) (246,138) $ 6,933,334 $ 6,933,334 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Fee Revenue - Increased volume $ Base Request - Over Target Increase Personnel Savings to 8% Workers's Compensation - Human Resources Activity Unemployment Insurance - Human Resources Activity CY 2006 Fixed Benefits County Counsel Retainer - Office of the Director Activity Correct Personal Services Allocation In - Over Budget Increase Allocation of Dept Administration and IT from Fees Fund Purchase 30 Vehicles - Various Activities BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 267,666 $ 267,666 $ 545,810 (462,005) 33,929 4,170 55,875 186,165 (228,042) (453,277) 547,500 230,125 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: (15,000) - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 7,201,000 $ 7,163,459 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 7,201,000 $ 7,163,459 571 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 68,514 $ 8,123,633 $ 49,633 $ 10,178,224 $ 2,485 $ 9,337,635 $ $ 8,328,141 $ $ 10,798,684 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,192,147 10,227,857 9,340,120 8,328,141 10,798,684 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 68,514 $ 8,123,633 $ 49,633 $ 10,178,224 $ 2,485 $ 9,337,635 $ $ 8,328,141 $ $ 10,798,684 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,192,147 10,227,857 9,340,120 8,328,141 10,798,684 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total - NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Air Quality Mandates Vs. Expenditures Air Quality FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $10.0 Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 0.00% $12.0 General Fund Mandated 0.00% $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 100.00% 572 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 8.2 0.1 8.1 0 10.2 0 10.2 0 9.3 0 9.3 0 8.3 0 8.3 0 9.9 0 9.9 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality (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 49474.03. 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 FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 68,514 $ 691,614 49,633 $ 650,524 2,485 $ 587,728 $ 653,995 $ 750,000 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 760,128 700,157 590,213 653,995 750,000 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 5,588,154 $ 7,667,856 $ 6,625,611 $ 6,237,945 $ 8,190,109 573 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,588,154 7,667,856 6,625,611 6,237,945 8,190,109 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality (Continued) 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. 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. The SBAP advocates the needs of the small business community with respect to departmental activities, while making the permit application process more user-friendly. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Title 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 Trip Reduction Program FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 899,326 $ 867,568 $ 986,870 $ 680,061 $ 948,575 574 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 899,326 867,568 986,870 680,061 948,575 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Air Quality (Continued) Title Grant-Trip Reduction Program TEA21 Grant-Trip Reduction Program FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 944,540 $ 992,276 $ 1,137,426 $ 756,140 $ 910,000 575 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 944,540 992,276 1,137,426 756,140 910,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control Analysis by Dexter C. Thomas, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Chief Financial Officer Animal Care & Control Rodrigo A. Silva MVZ, MPH, Director Controller Field Services Public Programs Administration Shelter Operations/ Medicine Licensing/Call Center Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Animal Care and Control Department is to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of pets and people in Maricopa County Vision Animal Care & Control 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 of its natural life and will not suffer due to abuse, neglect or ignorance. Strategic Goals • • • Develop and obtain funding for a master plan to build new animal care centers by June 2005. Status: A draft facilities master plan has been developed, and a fee study is near completion. Both will be finalized in FY 2005-06. By June 2006, increase the compliance rate for issuance of dog licenses by 2.5 percent from the FY 2004 level. Status: The department is achieving progress toward this goal by increasing the compliance rate for issuance of dog licenses to 45 percent. By 2010, reduce the euthanasia rate of “healthy adoptable” animals to zero percent. Status: The department will evaluate their business strategies to insure that this goal is still applicable for the department. 576 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES ANIMAL CONTROL PROGRAM $ PET ADOPTION PROGRAM PET LICENSING PROGRAM ANIMAL SHELTERING PROGRAM ANIMAL WELFARE SAFTEY NET PRG BIO DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 2,478,069 923,580 3,696,459 1,167,225 819,409 9,084,743 EXPENDITURES ANIMAL CONTROL PROGRAM $ PET ADOPTION PROGRAM PET LICENSING PROGRAM ANIMAL SHELTERING PROGRAM ANIMAL WELFARE SAFTEY NET PRG BIO DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,215,348 $ 1,380,793 568,336 2,150,883 1,679,132 46,111 8,040,604 $ $ $ 2,901,763 40,000 3,900,106 2,166,741 60,000 9,068,610 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 2,972,206 $ 2,028,397 790,380 1,709,260 374,491 1,169,392 62,253 9,106,379 $ 2,845,037 282,000 3,900,106 1,854,610 84,000 102,857 9,068,610 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 2,853,817 $ 813,738 3,550,353 1,453,076 175,065 24,906 (7,015) 8,863,938 $ 2,871,232 475,716 3,700,000 1,262,000 356,726 8,665,674 2,917,415 $ 1,608,803 920,251 2,205,005 343,432 93,331 1,236,648 63,870 9,388,755 $ 2,805,525 $ 1,310,805 858,722 1,875,045 241,982 47,820 1,938,684 52,607 9,131,189 $ 2,814,574 1,850,899 831,714 2,087,815 183,561 1,222,517 48,426 9,039,506 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 26,195 193,716 (200,106) (592,610) 272,726 (102,857) (402,936) 0.9% 68.7% -5.1% -32.0% 324.7% -100.0% 102,841 (242,096) 88,537 117,190 159,871 93,331 14,131 15,444 349,249 3.5% -15.0% 9.6% 5.3% 46.6% 100.0% 1.1% 24.2% 3.7% -4.4% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $38,491 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,702,862 2,478,069 2,088,451 9,749 393,484 412,127 9,084,743 5,182,584 914,467 1,065,777 588,590 289,185 8,040,604 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,837,382 2,986,636 1,877,334 10,532 356,726 9,068,610 5,623,690 1,271,657 1,253,706 606,841 350,485 9,106,379 577 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,900,106 2,977,362 1,814,610 10,532 366,000 9,068,610 6,018,232 1,135,573 1,207,624 606,841 420,485 9,388,755 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,597,983 2,907,172 2,052,831 5,742 300,211 8,863,938 6,069,472 865,771 1,110,832 606,841 478,273 9,131,189 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 3,700,000 2,926,155 1,675,716 7,077 356,726 8,665,674 6,137,083 888,656 940,945 552,190 520,632 9,039,506 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (200,106) (51,207) (138,894) (3,455) (9,274) (402,936) -5.1% -1.7% -7.7% -32.8% -2.5% (118,851) 246,917 266,679 54,651 (100,147) 349,249 -2.0% 21.7% 22.1% 9.0% -23.8% 3.7% -4.4% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER 573 ANIMAL CONTROL GRANTS 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER 573 ANIMAL CONTROL GRANTS 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION $ ALL FUNDS $ 6,258,379 335,271 2,491,093 9,084,743 304,042 5,180,228 345,088 2,211,246 8,040,604 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,754,716 468,857 2,845,037 9,068,610 385,109 5,504,069 468,857 2,748,344 9,106,379 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,754,716 468,857 2,845,037 9,068,610 397,513 5,747,535 468,857 2,774,850 9,388,755 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,699,665 316,451 2,847,822 8,863,938 397,516 5,688,581 316,767 2,728,325 9,131,189 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 5,437,716 356,726 2,871,232 8,665,674 375,193 5,436,355 356,726 2,871,232 9,039,506 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (317,000) (112,131) 26,195 (402,936) -5.5% -23.9% 0.9% -4.4% 22,320 311,180 112,131 (96,382) 349,249 5.6% 5.4% 23.9% -3.5% 3.7% Personnel by Fund 572 ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE/SHELTER 573 ANIMAL CONTROL GRANTS 574 ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD OPERATION TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 89.00 4.00 51.00 144.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 96.00 4.00 51.00 151.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 96.00 2.00 51.00 149.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (2.00) (2.00) 2.0 vacant FTE positions were removed from Animal Control Grants Fund due to elimination of BioDefense Grant funding for Animal Care & Control. Base Adjustments Revenue • • • Grant revenue decreased due to elimination of Bio-Defense Grant funding for Animal Care & Control. Animal License/Shelter Fund revenue decreased in Dog License fee collections. Intergovernmental reimbursements based on recent trends for Field Services increased in line with base expenditures. Expenditures • • • Animal License/Shelter Fund expenditures reduced in line with the decrease in Dog Licensing fee revenue. Animal Control Grants Fund expenditures reduced due to elimination of Bio-defense Grant funding for Animal Care & Control. Administrative cost allocations were adjusted by fund. 578 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 385,109 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 12,404 $12,404 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 397,513 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 397,513 $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 2,515 2,515 $ - $ 400,028 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ (24,835) (24,835) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 375,193 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 375,193 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Annualization FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Correct Indirect Cost Allocation 579 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Animal Care & Control License/Shelter Fund (572) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Six Data Entry Clerks for Dog Licensing Walk In Cooler & Auxiliary Trailer MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 5,754,716 $ - $ 5,504,069 $ 69,925 103,541 70,000 243,466 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 5,754,716 $ 5,747,535 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 5,754,716 $ 5,747,535 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of FY 2005 Initiative/Baseline Staffing CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization Non-Recurring Expenditure: Walk In Cooler & Auxiliary Trailer TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ $ 5,754,716 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Updated Trend Analysis in Revenue and Expenditures $ Correct Indirect Cost Allocation BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (317,000) $ (317,000) $ 46,458 74,462 (125,469) 67,551 14,179 (70,000) 7,181 5,754,716 (317,000) (1,361) (318,361) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 5,437,716 $ 5,436,355 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,437,716 $ 5,436,355 580 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Animal Care & Control Grant Fund (573) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 468,857 $ 468,857 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 468,857 $ 468,857 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 468,857 $ 468,857 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 2,088 3,596 (8,720) 3,036 - $ 468,857 $ 468,857 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (112,131) $ (112,131) $ (112,131) (112,131) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 356,726 $ 356,726 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 356,726 $ 356,726 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Bio-Defense Grant funding eliminated 581 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Animal Care & Control Field Operations Fund (574) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 2,845,037 $ - 2,748,344 $ $ 26,506 26,506 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 2,845,037 $ 2,774,850 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 2,845,037 $ 2,774,850 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 26,622 38,618 (39,137) 38,709 5,375 70,187 $ 2,845,037 $ 2,845,037 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to IGA Revenue/Correct Indirect Cost Allocation $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 26,195 $ 26,195 $ 26,195 26,195 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 2,871,232 $ 2,871,232 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,871,232 $ 2,871,232 582 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 304,041 $ 6,604,265 $ 304,041 $ 9,045,888 $ 304,041 $ 7,581,735 $ 385,122 $ 7,817,719 $ 375,193 $ 8,664,313 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,908,306 9,349,929 7,885,776 8,202,841 9,039,506 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 304,041 $ 6,604,265 $ 304,041 $ 9,045,888 $ 304,041 $ 7,581,735 $ 385,122 $ 7,571,076 $ 375,193 $ 8,307,587 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,908,306 9,349,929 7,885,776 7,956,198 8,682,780 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ 246,643 $ 356,726 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Total 246,643 356,726 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Animal Care & Control FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Animal Care & Control Mandates Vs. Expenditures $10.0 General Fund Mandated 4.3% $9.0 Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 0.0% $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 95.7% 583 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 6.9 0.3 6.6 0 9.3 0.3 9 0 7.9 0.3 7.6 0 8 0.4 7.6 0 8.7 0.4 8.3 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Animal Care & Control (Continued) 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. 584 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance Department Budget Information Total Budget by Category 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE BUDGET BY CATEGORY TOTAL PROGRAMS ALL FUNDS FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES $ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES TOTAL REVENUE $ 2,127,525 79,500 2,207,025 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,642,301 9,092,923 12,365,849 147,326,530 17,588,305 188,015,909 $ $ $ $ 2,810,000 40,571,453 43,381,453 220,800 124,733 175,676,521 77,451,205 38,254,399 291,727,658 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJECTED RESTATED 2,810,000 40,673,453 43,483,453 853,815 2,311,099 172,679,787 77,451,205 38,533,752 291,829,658 $ 922,938 1,955,402 41,029,580 43,907,920 $ $ $ 942,052 1,725,517 52,711,831 121,819,152 33,686,312 210,884,864 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 30,983 30,983 $ $ $ 1,000,000 11,075,000 94,129,229 29,073,976 26,661,244 161,939,449 VARIANCE $ $ $ $ % 2,810,000 40,642,470 43,452,470 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% (146,185) (8,763,901) 78,550,558 48,377,229 11,872,508 129,890,209 -17.1% -379.2% 45.5% 62.5% 30.8% 44.5% Total Budget by Fund 480 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE BUDGET BY FUND TOTAL PROGRAMS 100 GENERAL 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED $ 79,500 2,127,525 ALL FUNDS $ 2,207,025 $ ALL FUNDS $ 127,956,740 60,059,168 188,015,909 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 43,381,453 $ 43,381,453 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 43,483,453 $ 43,483,453 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 42,984,982 922,938 $ 43,907,920 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 30,983 $ 30,983 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (43,452,470) -99.9% $ (43,452,470) -99.9% $ $ $ $ $ $ 196,689,269 95,038,389 291,727,658 $ 196,791,269 95,038,389 291,829,658 $ 144,782,899 66,101,965 210,884,864 $ 113,106,801 48,832,648 161,939,449 $ (19,546,413) 46,205,741 129,890,209 -14.7% 48.6% 44.5% Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 11,806,236 $ $ 53,193,429 $ 103,004,854 $ 83,562,264 $ 60,063,927 $ 72,862,160 $ 60,491,447 $ 113,106,801 $ 48,832,648 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ $ $ 173,558 $ $ $ $ 1,107,271 $ $ 500,000 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ 585 Total 11,806,236 156,198,283 143,626,190 133,353,607 161,939,449 Total 173,558 1,107,271 500,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Appropriated Fund Balance (Continued) Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 11,806,236 $ $ 52,974,700 $ 103,004,854 $ 82,629,359 $ 60,063,927 $ 71,120,171 $ 60,491,447 $ 112,439,748 $ 48,832,648 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ $ $ 45,172 $ $ 932,905 $ $ 634,718 $ $ 167,053 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 11,806,236 155,979,553 142,693,285 131,611,618 161,272,396 Total 45,172 932,905 634,718 167,053 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Appropriated Fund Balance FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Appropriated Fund Balance Mandates Vs. Expenditures Non-Mandated 0.1% $180.0 $160.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 30.2% $140.0 $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 $0.0 General Fund Mandated 69.7% Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 586 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 11.8 11.8 0 0 156.2 53.1 103 0 143.6 82.6 60.1 0.9 133.4 72.2 60.5 0.6 161.9 112.9 48.8 0.2 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Call Center Analysis by Marc Kuffner, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart STAR BOARD Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Clerk of the Court STAR Call Center David Sobieski, 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 The vision of the STAR Center is to increase efficiency by expanding the information available on the 24-hour automated system. Strategic Goals • • “Enhanced Customer Access” -- by the end of 2005, 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 users to obtain polling place and other information on a 24 hour basis. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow department to make steady progress toward achieving their technology plan. “Automated Voice Prompting” -- by the end of 2005, 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. Status: FY 2005-06 Adopted budget includes the ability to address this goal. 587 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Call Center (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES STAR CENTER $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 972,039 367,440 1,339,479 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 1,081,838 216,838 1,298,676 $ $ 1,284,181 114,484 1,398,665 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 1,297,215 57,100 1,354,315 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 1,428,555 126,830 1,555,385 $ $ (144,374) (12,346) (156,720) -11.2% -10.8% -11.2% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT STAR CALL CENTER Percent of calls answered within 30 seconds FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 79.0% 75.0% 80.0% 80.0% 77.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % -3.0% -4% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,128,381 11,127 199,971 1,339,479 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 1,179,054 9,383 81,721 28,518 1,298,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 1,279,042 8,384 82,721 28,518 1,398,665 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 1,254,078 6,953 64,805 28,479 1,354,315 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 1,422,061 13,913 90,893 28,518 1,555,385 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (143,019) (5,529) (8,172) (156,720) -11.2% -65.9% -9.9% 0.0% -11.2% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,339,479 1,339,479 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 1,298,676 1,298,676 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 1,398,665 1,398,665 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 33.00 33.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 33.00 33.00 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 1,354,315 1,354,315 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 1,555,385 1,555,385 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (156,720) (156,720) -11.2% -11.2% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 33.00 33.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Expenditures • Increased expenditures due to market range study and subsequent salary increases in the Telephone Activity. 588 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Call Center (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay For Performance Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 Compensation Funding Analysis C-49-05-015-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES - $ 1,298,676 - - $ $ $ $ 29,580 7,557 62,852 99,989 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,398,665 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,398,665 - $ 15,114 23,046 7,388 108,525 154,073 4,230 158,303 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ Department Submission Over Target REVISED TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ $ $ $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Telephone Support Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ (1,583) (1,583) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,555,385 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,555,385 589 $1,556,968 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Call Center (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,301,396 $ $ 1,323,323 $ $ 1,226,882 $ $ 1,315,115 $ $ 1,555,385 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,301,396 1,323,323 1,226,882 1,315,115 1,555,385 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,301,396 $ $ 1,323,323 $ $ 1,226,882 $ $ 1,315,115 $ $ 1,555,385 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,301,396 1,323,323 1,226,882 1,315,115 1,555,385 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. County Call Center FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures County Call Center Mandates Vs. Expenditures $1.6 Non-Mandated 0.0% $1.4 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $1.2 $1.0 $0.8 $0.6 $0.4 $0.2 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 590 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 1.3 1.3 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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. 12-283 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. 591 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Chief Information Officer Analysis by Marc Kuffner, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Chief Information Officer Jim Price Chief Information Officer Administration Enterprise Infrastructure Enterprise Service Desk Enterprise Applications Enterprise IT Management & Oversight 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 Strategic Goals • • “Anywhere - Anytime” -- County employees will have the ability to fully perform their day-to-day jobs, within a secured IT environment, on demand from anywhere at any time by July 2008. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. “Online Processing” -- The public and outside organizations will have the ability, within a secured IT environment, to obtain information from and conduct business transactions online with the County on demand from anywhere at any time by July 2008. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. 592 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Chief Information Officer (Continued) • • • “On-Demand IT Access” -- County decision-makers will have the ability to readily and easily access data and/or information on demand to make informed business decisions by July 2008. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. “Standardized Information” -- Through Countywide standardized information technology; the County will maximize the use of its available support resources, optimize the cost of doing business, and expedite the sharing and distributing of data and information between systems utilized by distinct business units on demand by July 2008. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. “Standards, Staff and Business Process” -- The County’s IT strategic goals will be achieved through information technology standards; experienced, knowledgeable, and informed staff; and transformed business processes through enabling IT services by July 2008. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED REVENUES INFO TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 13,926,864 1,446,033 15,372,896 $ 14,133,393 14,133,393 EXPENDITURES INFO TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION $ INFO TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFO TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,045,841 $ 12,275,490 (197,824) 1,203,305 3,057,759 17,384,571 $ 1,102,159 12,954,255 564,129 1,310,682 2,933,639 18,864,864 $ $ $ $ $ 14,133,393 14,133,393 994,629 12,905,737 605,388 1,533,644 2,956,065 18,995,463 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 14,726,954 27,262 14,754,216 1,363,323 13,315,603 937,297 1,187,752 3,146,962 19,950,938 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 15,232,361 15,232,361 1,278,560 14,197,713 510,179 1,399,611 3,124,115 20,510,178 $ $ $ $ 1,098,968 1,098,968 (283,931) (1,291,976) 95,209 134,033 (168,050) (1,514,715) 7.8% 7.8% -28.5% -10.0% 15.7% 8.7% -5.7% -8.0% Key Results by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 95.0% 5.0% 5.6% Percentage of customers satisfied with financial applications development service request outcome. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Percentage of customers satisfied with HR applications development service request outcome. 87.5% 87.5% 87.5% 87.5% 90.0% 2.5% 2.9% 84.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 97.0% 7.0% 7.8% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 0.0% 0.0% PROGRAM RESULT INFO TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION Percentage of customers satisfied with budget & MFR applications development service request outcome. INFO TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Percentage of time we complete work orders to our customers' satisfaction and within our committed time frames INFO TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT Percent of total IT purchases that are made via TFP 593 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Chief Information Officer (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 523,449 14,821,877 27,570 15,372,896 6,336,466 1,222,690 9,184,968 355,342 285,105 17,384,571 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 514,141 13,608,252 11,000 14,133,393 6,849,015 3,334,338 8,013,634 312,750 355,127 18,864,864 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 514,141 13,608,252 11,000 14,133,393 7,167,685 1,740,221 9,419,680 312,750 355,127 18,995,463 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 471,955 14,241,398 40,863 14,754,216 6,592,401 2,051,965 10,412,128 312,750 581,695 19,950,938 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 546,079 14,675,282 11,000 15,232,361 7,588,609 1,168,311 9,774,317 293,494 1,685,447 20,510,178 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 31,938 1,067,030 1,098,968 (420,924) 571,910 (354,637) 19,256 (1,330,320) (1,514,715) 6.2% 7.8% 0.0% 7.8% -5.9% 32.9% -3.8% 6.2% -374.6% -8.0% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 15,372,896 15,372,896 $ $ 14,133,393 14,133,393 $ $ 14,133,393 14,133,393 $ $ 14,754,216 14,754,216 $ $ 15,232,361 15,232,361 $ $ 1,098,968 1,098,968 7.8% 7.8% $ 4,472,516 12,912,055 17,384,571 $ 5,208,429 13,656,435 18,864,864 $ $ 6,019,513 13,931,425 19,950,938 $ 5,623,616 14,886,562 20,510,178 $ $ 5,339,028 13,656,435 18,995,463 (284,588) (1,230,127) (1,514,715) -5.3% -9.0% -8.0% FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 63.00 42.00 105.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 62.17 44.00 106.17 ALL FUNDS $ $ $ $ $ Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOTAL FUNDS • • FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 63.00 46.00 109.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 0.83 2.00 2.83 Increase .83 FTE for offset credit from the Eagle project funding. Increase 2 FTE’s due to increased work orders and continued support requirements. Base Adjustments Revenue • Continued demand for improved technology is generating increased work orders and increased revenue. Expenditures • • • • Increased expenditures due to pay for performance annualization, retirement contributions and health/dental plan changes. Increased expenditures due to annualization of PeopleSoft program costs. Customer driven work orders and customer service creating a 2 FTE increase. Fund Balance expenses for capital equipment upgrades. 594 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Chief Information Officer (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Market Range Adjustments C-49-05-011-6-00 $ Health and Dental Mid-Year Appropriation C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES - $ 5,208,429 - $ $ $ 113,557 17,042 130,599 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 5,339,028 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 5,339,028 - $ $ - $ 34,083 95,939 29,725 15,514 98,276 273,537 1,778,747 2,052,284 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Annualization of PeopleSoft Server Upgrade TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ Department Submission Over Target REVISED TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Salary and Benefit Pay (4 FTE's) $ Adjustment to Personnel Savings Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to Temporary Pay & Benefits Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Non Capital Equipment Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Rent and Operating Lease Adjustment to Repairs and Maintenance Adjustment to Internal Service Charge Adjustment to Travel & Education Adjustment to Debt Service (TFP) PeopleSoft Base Budget Increase BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ (387,608) (66,728) (4,704) (32,295) (769) (102,490) (15,860) (661,625) (78,998) (209,797) (10,012) (55,572) (152,289) 11,051 (1,767,696) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 5,623,616 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 5,623,616 595 $7,391,312 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Chief Information Officer (Continued) Telecommunications (681) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 14,133,393 $ 13,656,435 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 14,133,393 $ 13,656,435 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 14,133,393 $ 13,656,435 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Request Over Target $ Adjustment to Revenue Adjustment to Overtime and Overtime Benefits Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to Personnel Services Alloc In Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Repairs and Maintenance Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Travel & Education Adjustment to Transfers Out (CSCA) Adjustment to Vehicle Construction and Equipment BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 14,133,393 811,601 $ 287,367 1,098,968 $ 4,788 58,718 31,626 95,132 $13,751,567 1,134,995 (5,846) 24,782 (23,185) 4,883 (55,000) 55,000 15,769 (13,735) 2,332 (5,000) 1,134,995 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 15,232,361 $ 14,886,562 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 15,232,361 $ 14,886,562 596 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Chief Information Officer (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 5,157,517 $ $ 5,195,691 $ $ 4,472,561 $ $ 5,254,896 $ $ 5,623,616 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 14,837,863 $ 12,622,738 $ 14,414,056 $ 15,858,252 $ 14,886,562 $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,995,380 17,818,429 18,886,617 21,113,148 20,510,178 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Funds FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 5,157,517 $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Actuals* $ 5,195,691 $ $ $ FY 2003-04 Actuals* $ 4,472,561 $ $ $ FY 2004-05 Actuals* $ 5,254,896 $ $ $ FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ 5,623,616 $ $ $ *Includes expenditures that were part of Department 760 Telecommunications NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Internal Service $ 14,837,863 $ 12,622,738 $ 14,414,056 $ 15,858,252 $ 14,886,562 $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,995,380 17,818,429 18,886,617 21,113,148 20,510,178 Chief Information Officer FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Chief Information Officer Mandates Vs. Expenditures $6.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% $5.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 597 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 5.2 5.2 0 0 5.2 5.2 0 0 5.2 5.2 0 0 4.5 4.5 0 0 5.2 5.2 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. Strategic Goals • • “Records Management” -- By June 2006, 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. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Records Management” -- By June 2006, move the record filing system in the Clerk's Office to imaged / stored documents versus paper copies in concert with a county-wide effort. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. 598 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ TOTAL REVENUES $ 10 10 $ $ EXPENDITURES EXECUTIVE SERVICES $ INFORMATION RESOURCES STATUTORY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 201,215 126,445 8,369 126,162 462,191 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED - $ $ 183,159 133,811 28,864 132,954 478,788 $ - $ 180,034 139,167 28,595 155,617 503,413 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 5 5 $ $ $ 160,717 119,258 16,063 136,978 433,017 $ $ $ - 198,176 152,163 22,038 164,516 536,893 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ - $ (18,142) (12,996) 6,557 (8,899) (33,480) $ -10.1% -9.3% 22.9% -5.7% -6.7% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT EXECUTIVE SERVICES Percent of customers reporting they received the advice, answers, and assistance they needed Percent of elected and appointed officials who received materials and support within statutory or specified time frames INFORMATION RESOURCES Percent of documents managed in accordance with retention schedule Percent of requestors who are able to access the information they asked for in a specified time period FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% STATUTORY SERVICES Percent of applicants who obtain a fully processed license or permit application within the statutory time frame. ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE LICENSES & PERMITS EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 10 10 $ $ $ 385,316 9,390 66,601 883 462,191 $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ - 403,840 10,552 62,377 2,019 478,788 599 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ - 428,455 10,490 62,449 2,019 503,413 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 5 5 $ $ $ 363,374 5,414 62,161 2,068 433,017 $ $ $ - 445,726 10,000 78,342 2,825 536,893 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ - $ (17,271) 490 (15,893) (806) (33,480) $ -4.0% 4.7% -25.4% -39.9% -6.7% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ ALL FUNDS $ 10 10 $ $ $ ALL FUNDS $ 462,191 462,191 $ $ - 478,788 478,788 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ - 503,413 503,413 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 5 5 $ $ $ $ 433,017 433,017 $ $ - 536,893 536,893 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ - $ $ (33,480) (33,480) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 7.00 7.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 7.00 7.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 7.35 7.35 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 0.35 0.35 Department requested an increase of .35 personnel in order to off-set increased workload. Base Adjustments Expenditures • • Increase in Personnel Services expenses. Increase funding for projected additional expenditures associated with the Board of Equalization. 600 -6.7% -6.7% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 478,788 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Market Range Increases C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 Pay for Performance C-49-05-008-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 6,445 11,057 7,123 $24,625 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 503,413 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 503,413 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 22,113 7,789 2,873 705 33,480 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Regular Pay & Benefits $ Adjustment to Temporary Pay & Benefits Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Non-Capital Equipment Adjustment to Legal Services Asjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Travel & Education BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 15,632 (6,355) (45) (11,842) (2,490) (2,000) (2,153) 10,003 (168) (582) - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 536,893 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 536,893 601 - $ $536,893 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 427,717 $ $ 463,725 $ $ 458,417 $ $ 478,788 $ $ 536,893 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 427,717 $ $ 463,725 $ $ 458,417 $ $ 478,788 $ $ 536,893 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 427,717 463,725 458,417 478,788 536,893 $ $ $ $ $ Total 427,717 463,725 458,417 478,788 536,893 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Board of Supervisors Clerk FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Board of Supervisors Clerk Mandates Vs. Expenditures $0.5 $0.5 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $0.4 $0.4 $0.3 $0.3 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 602 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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. 603 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Community Development Analysis by Victor Wickersham, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Community Services Community Development Jim Prante, 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 sub-recipients not eligible for direct United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding so they can develop viable communities to primarily benefit low and moderate income people. 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. Strategic Goals • “Grant Administration” -- Meet the increasing demand for administrative services generated from population growth and any anticipated new HUD grant requirements, with a reduction in funding for such administrative services, by June 30, 2010. Status: Community Development likely will be impacted by Federal budget reductions. However, staff indicates that the grant amounts for FY 2005/06 are definite. Therefore any further budget reductions will not occur until FY 2006/07. 604 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Community Development (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES COMMUNITY DEV. BLOCK GRANT $ HOME ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,783,677 5,513,647 328,437 9,625,761 EXPENDITURES COMMUNITY DEV. BLOCK GRANT $ HOME ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,051,619 5,530,834 142 9,582,595 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 6,807,894 9,225,382 16,033,276 $ $ 6,807,894 9,225,382 16,033,276 $ $ 6,807,894 9,225,382 16,033,276 $ $ 6,807,894 9,225,382 16,033,276 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 4,252,519 4,490,484 8,743,003 $ $ 3,691,856 4,099,413 13,543 7,804,812 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 6,858,901 9,138,630 15,997,531 6,827,925 9,138,630 30,976 15,997,531 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 51,007 (86,752) (35,745) 0.7% -0.9% (20,031) 86,752 (30,976) 35,745 -0.3% 0.9% -0.2% 0.2% Key Results by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED Percent of dollars spent versus dollars awarded for subrecipient 132.6% 93.2% 93.2% 93.2% 100.0% 6.8% 7.3% Percent of dollars spent versus dollars awarded for subrecipient 90.2% 88.7% 88.7% 88.7% 100.0% 11.3% 12.7% PROGRAM CDBG RESULT ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % HOME Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 9,617,029 8,732 0 9,625,761 585,442 33,863 8,942,064 21,225 9,582,595 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 16,033,276 16,033,276 688,750 26,500 15,291,202 26,824 16,033,276 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 16,033,276 16,033,276 688,753 26,500 15,291,199 26,824 16,033,276 FY 2004-05 PRO. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,742,237 636 130 8,743,003 574,067 23,486 7,180,435 26,824 7,804,812 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 15,997,531 15,997,531 684,525 18,000 15,265,314 26,537 3,155 15,997,531 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (35,745) (35,745) 4,228 8,500 25,885 287 (3,155) 35,745 -0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 32.1% 0.2% 1.1% 0.2% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST EXPENDITURES 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 9,625,761 9,625,761 $ $ 16,033,276 16,033,276 $ $ 16,033,276 16,033,276 $ $ 8,743,003 8,743,003 $ $ 15,997,531 15,997,531 $ $ (35,745) (35,745) -0.2% -0.2% $ ALL FUNDS $ 9,582,595 9,582,595 $ $ 16,033,276 16,033,276 $ $ 16,033,276 16,033,276 $ $ 7,804,812 7,804,812 $ $ 15,997,531 15,997,531 $ $ 35,745 35,745 0.2% 0.2% 605 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Community Development (Continued) Personnel by Fund 217 CDBG, HOUSING TRUST TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 10.00 10.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 10.00 10.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 10.00 10.00 Base Adjustments Revenue • Revenue has been reduced by $35,745 to keep the grant fund balanced. Expenditures • • • Reduce Temporary Pay and Benefits. Reduce Non Capital Equipment. Increase Debt Service for hardware replacement. 606 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Community Development (Continued) Reconciliation CDBG Housing Trust (217) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 16,033,276 $ 16,033,276 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 16,033,276 $ 16,033,276 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 16,033,276 $ 16,033,276 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Grants Revenue $ Adjustment to Temporary Pay & Benefits Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Non Capital Equipment Adjustment to Transfer Out (Central Service) Adjustment to Travel & Education Adjustment to Postage/Freight/Shipping Adjustment to Debt Service (TFP) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 16,033,276 (35,745) $ (35,745) $ 4,660 13,421 (42,426) 8,590 15,755 $16,033,276 (14,317) (13,421) (8,500) 538 (2,000) (1,200) 3,155 (35,745) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 15,997,531 $ 15,997,531 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 15,997,531 $ 15,997,531 607 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Community Development (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 7,755,494 $ 5,896,916 $ 9,566,275 $ 8,324,898 $ 15,997,531 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,755,494 5,896,916 9,566,275 8,324,898 15,997,531 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 7,755,494 $ 5,896,916 $ 9,566,275 $ 8,324,898 $ 15,997,531 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,755,494 5,896,916 9,566,275 8,324,898 15,997,531 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Community Development FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Community Development Mandates Vs. Expenditures $16.0 Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $14.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $12.0 $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100.0% 608 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 7.8 0 0 7.8 5.9 0 0 5.9 9.6 0 0 9.6 8.3 0 0 8.3 16 0 0 16 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health Analysis by Dexter C. Thomas, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Deputy County Manager Correctional Health Services Lindy Funkhouser, Interim Director Medical Operations Finance Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Correctional Health Services (CHS) Department is to provide medically necessary health care to persons in Maricopa 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. Strategic Goals • • • CHS will maintain a community standard of care in correctional setting as evidenced by continued accreditation status granted by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), while implementing a Managed Care Model of service. Status: The department is achieving this goal and will shift attention to the issues, changes and mission of the department as they relate to delivering health care services. By 2007, CHS will restructure and implement a Managed Care Model to provide constitutionally mandated health care services to those incarcerated in the Maricopa County jails to reduce the impact of the rising cost associated with delivering health care services. Status: The department will revise the goal to identify the impact internal operational changes will have on the future delivery of managed health care. CHS will improve the efficiency of health care delivery to the incarcerated population in Maricopa County jails by full implementation of telemedicine by FY 2008. Status: The department has achieved progress in this goal and will benchmark the accomplishments to date and describe the impact future issues, changes, and mission of the department will have on the completion of this goal. 609 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES ADULT/REMAND JUV INMATE TRTMT $ HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT INMATE ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ EXPENDITURES ADULT/REMAND JUV INMATE TRTMT $ HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT INMATE ASSESSMENT RESTORATION TO COMPENTENCY BIO DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 491,946 $ 5,359 (30,008) 467,297 $ 15,944,488 2,839,909 4,639,115 7,739,628 14,982 13,710,518 143,526 45,032,166 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 842,542 8,900 851,442 $ 24,335,015 1,495,222 7,824,543 3,461,426 44,947 3,289,320 523,946 40,974,419 $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 842,542 8,900 851,442 $ $ 24,390,459 1,867,215 7,811,490 3,514,260 44,947 3,381,575 537,754 41,547,700 $ $ 681,654 5,998 93,432 2,495 783,579 $ $ 23,969,826 2,446,662 8,144,291 3,476,682 44,947 5,166,652 384,195 43,633,256 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 472,611 8,900 41,284 522,795 21,753,179 1,644,359 9,969,511 3,580,435 5,887,927 379,399 43,214,809 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (369,931) 41,284 (328,647) -43.9% 0.0% -38.6% 2,637,280 222,856 (2,158,021) (66,175) 44,947 (2,506,352) 158,355 (1,667,109) 10.8% 11.9% -27.6% -1.9% 100.0% -74.1% 29.4% -4.0% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services and Restoration to Competency Programs include $154,243 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT ADULT/REMANDED JUVENILE INMATE TREATMENT Percent of inmate medical sick call treatments provided per average daily population. HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT Percent of inmates with a communicable disease or significant infection per ADP. INMATE ASSESSMENT Percent of assessments completed within 14 days of booking. RESTORATION TO COMPETENCY PROGRAM Percent of competency determinations performed within 78 days. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 25.4% 28.3% 28.3% 35.7% 30.7% 2.4% 8.5% N/A N/A N/A 4.7% 4.9% N/A N/A 64.5% 64.5% 64.5% 52.5% 52.5% -12.0% -18.6% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 458,969 5,359 2,969 467,297 15,102,216 3,841,644 25,088,676 999,630 45,032,166 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 842,542 8,900 851,442 21,045,730 3,769,277 15,167,227 992,185 40,974,419 610 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 842,542 8,900 851,442 22,151,372 3,777,796 14,641,256 977,276 41,547,700 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 775,086 5,998 2,495 783,579 19,948,565 4,157,963 18,835,192 691,536 43,633,256 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 513,895 8,900 522,795 22,570,093 5,553,404 14,474,410 616,902 43,214,809 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (328,647) (328,647) -39.0% 0.0% -38.6% (418,721) (1,775,608) 166,846 360,374 (1,667,109) -1.9% -47.0% 1.1% 36.9% -4.0% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 292 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH GRANT $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 292 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH GRANT 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ ALL FUNDS $ 9,108 458,189 467,297 7,777,526 36,087,074 399,350 768,216 45,032,166 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,900 842,542 851,442 3,461,426 36,512,414 842,542 158,037 40,974,419 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,900 842,542 851,442 3,514,260 37,032,861 842,542 158,037 41,547,700 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,914 774,666 783,579 3,476,664 39,202,587 717,791 236,214 43,633,256 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 8,900 513,895 522,795 3,580,435 39,120,480 513,895 43,214,809 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (328,647) (328,647) 0.0% -39.0% -38.6% (66,175) (2,087,619) 328,647 158,037 (1,667,109) -1.9% -5.6% 39.0% 100.0% -4.0% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL FUNDS • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 18.00 358.75 4.00 380.75 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 23.00 353.63 4.00 380.63 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 21.00 327.10 348.10 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (2.00) (26.53) (4.00) (32.53) 26.53 FTEs were eliminated in Detention Operations Fund due to a re-organization and outsourcing of some functions. 2.0 FTEs were eliminated in General Fund due to unfilled vacancies. 4.0 FTEs were eliminated in Detention Capital Projects Fund due to the completion of capital projects in FY 2004-05. Base Adjustments Revenue • Reduction in Correctional Health Grants Fund due to decrease in grant award for Telemedicine and elimination of Bio-Defense Grant funding for Correctional Health Services. Expenditures • • • • Increased Detention Operations Fund due to Phase II staffing changes and consulting services, increased pharmaceutical costs, and Outside Medical Care for Cities costs. Reduced expenditures in Detention Operations Fund due to savings in Outside Medical Services as a result of improvements to utilization. Reduction in Correctional Health Grants Fund due to decrease in grant award for Telemedicine and elimination of Bio-Defense Grant funding for Correctional Health Services. Reduction in Detention Capital Projects Fund due to the completion of capital projects in FY 2004-05. 611 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 3,461,426 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 46,840 5,994 52,834 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 3,514,260 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 3,514,260 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of Mid -Year Adjustments/Nurse Market Adjustment TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 11,988 31,519 9,497 13,171 66,175 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ 3,580,435 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 3,580,435 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 3,580,435 612 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Detention Operations Fund (255) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Performance Pay Increase Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 8,900 $ - $ $ 36,512,414 336,359 64,957 119131 520,447 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 8,900 $ 37,032,861 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 8,900 $ 37,032,861 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of FY 2005 Initiative/Baseline Staffing Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Phase II Proposed Staffing Changes $ Increased Pharmaceutical Costs Savings in Outside Medical Services Due to Improved Utilization Capital Equipment Phase II Consulting Fees Cost of Outside Medical Services for Cities BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 238,261 626,567 74,048 68,202 25,024 1,032,102 8,900 $ 38,064,963 - $ $ $ 4,056 1,710,952 (1,574,535) (140,473) 626,186 429,331 1,055,517 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 8,900 $ 39,120,480 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 8,900 $ 39,120,480 613 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Correctional Health Grant Fund (292) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 842,542 $ 842,542 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 842,542 $ 842,542 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 842,542 $ 842,542 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 842,542 $ 842,542 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Decrease in Telemedicine Grant Bio-Defense Grant Funding Eliminated $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (321,157) $ (7,490) (328,647) $ (321,157) (7,490) (328,647) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 513,895 $ 513,895 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 513,895 $ 513,895 614 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,838,332 $ 20,779,507 $ 4,972,450 $ 25,826,324 $ 7,074,648 $ 36,717,994 $ 2,950,475 $ 35,359,949 $ 3,580,434 $ 39,634,375 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ 156,499 $ $ 116,600 $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 24,617,839 30,798,774 43,949,141 38,427,024 43,214,809 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,838,332 $ 20,779,507 $ 4,972,450 $ 25,826,324 $ 7,074,648 $ 36,717,994 $ 2,950,475 $ 35,359,949 $ 3,580,434 $ 39,120,480 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ 156,499 $ $ 116,600 $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 24,617,839 30,798,774 43,949,141 38,427,024 42,700,914 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Correctional Health FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Correctional Health Mandates Vs. Expenditures $50.0 $45.0 General Fund Mandated 7.6% Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 0.0% $40.0 $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 92.4% 615 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 24.6 3.8 20.8 0 30.8 5 25.8 0 43.9 7.1 36.9 0 46 3 43 0 47.9 3.6 44.3 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) 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. Health Care to Indigents in County Correctional Facilities FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 18,230,886 $ 21,500,694 $ 26,243,830 $ 27,832,496 $ 34,195,440 Capital Projects $ $ $ 156,499 $ 116,600 $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 18,230,886 21,500,694 26,400,329 27,949,096 34,195,440 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. TITLE: Correctional Health Claims Correctional Health Claims ‡ General Fund Special Revenue FY 2001-02 Actuals $ $ 2,548,621 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ $ 4,325,630 FY 2003-04 Actuals $ $ 10,474,164 FY 2004-05 Actuals $ $ 7,527,453 FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ 4,925,040 ‡ Prior to FY04-05, this mandate was performed by Health Care Mandates. 616 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,548,621 4,325,630 10,474,164 7,527,453 4,925,040 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Correctional Health (Continued) 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. TITLE: Competency Restoration Competency Restoration ‡ General Fund Special Revenue FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 3,838,332 $ FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 4,972,450 $ FY 2003-04 Actuals $ 7,074,648 $ FY 2004-05 Actuals $ 2,950,475 $ FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ 3,580,434 $ ‡ Prior to FY04-05, this mandate was performed by Health Care Mandates. 617 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,838,332 4,972,450 7,074,648 2,950,475 3,580,434 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Manager’s Office Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart Board of Supervisors County Manager David R. Smith Government Relations Administration Office of Communications Mission The mission of the County Manager’s Office 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. Strategic Goals • • • “Quality of Life” -- Maricopa County will publish Livability Index and Value Driver reports under the Managing For Results system by June 2006. Status: With the assistance of the Office of Management and Budget this goal has been accomplished in FY 2004-05. “Criminal Justice Efforts” -- By June 2006, increase efficiencies in the criminal justice systems to 90% of cases processed within 180 days. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Criminal Justice Efforts” -- By June 2005, restore Adult Probation caseload levels back to December 2002 levels. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. 618 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Manager’s Office (Continued) • • • • • “Criminal Justice Efforts” -- Increase juvenile crime prevention efforts by January 2006 by utilizing recommendations from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Targeted Community Action Planning report and implementing myriad best practices strategies. Anticipate juvenile crime reduction by 10% within the first year of implementation. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Human Services Efforts” -- Complete construction of the Human Services Campus in downtown Phoenix by December 2005. Expected fundraising efforts to yield $27.6 million. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Employee Compensation” -- Establish a competitive salary structure by June 2006 to increase staff recruitment and retention efforts by 10% and identify funding structure to support this initiative. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Employee Diversity” -- By June 2006, increase by 10% the number of staff in supervisory positions who have diverse backgrounds that is reflective of the current workforce. These efforts will be carried out in conjunction with the Diversity Director. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Employee Satisfaction” -- By June 2006, establish Maricopa County as “One of the Best Places to Work” as identified by Fortune magazine. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES COMMUNICATIONS $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ EXPENDITURES COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE $ GOVERNMENT RELATIONS JUSTICE SYSTEM COORDINATION OMBUDSMAN COMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 507,901 161,192 669,093 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 46,261 46,261 436,434 $ 341,240 73,852 (32,418) 393,900 543,297 1,756,304 $ 329,064 255,240 78,705 97,050 671,671 530,241 1,961,971 619 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 46,261 46,261 348,163 299,556 64,681 22,188 685,698 570,951 1,991,237 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 35,221 35,221 495,296 225,670 45,466 586,822 354,445 1,707,699 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ - 410,998 322,458 63,163 734,625 465,317 1,996,561 $ $ $ $ (46,261) (46,261) -100.0% -100.0% (62,835) (22,902) 1,518 22,188 (48,927) 105,634 (5,324) -18.0% -7.6% 2.3% 100.0% -7.1% 18.5% -0.3% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Manager’s Office (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Percentage of Citizens satisfied with County services. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 71.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Percentage of complaints/concerns responded to within three days. GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Percentage of targeted bills passed, favorably amended or defeated: Low, Medium, or High Dificulty Percentage of Board of Supervisors and County Manager's Office satisfied with research activities provided. Percentage of grant dollars achieved vs. applied for. JUSTICE SYSTEMS COORDINATION Percentage of users satisfied with the utility report. COMMUNICATIONS Percentage of Board of Supervisors, County Manager, department directors, and PIO satisfied with services provided by the Communications Office. ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 669,093 669,093 $ $ 46,261 46,261 $ $ 46,261 46,261 $ $ 35,221 35,221 $ $ $ 1,350,565 12,204 376,024 17,511 1,756,304 $ 1,636,626 22,583 274,998 27,764 1,961,971 $ 1,640,965 25,488 302,914 21,870 1,991,237 $ 1,414,665 12,669 250,837 29,528 1,707,699 $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ $ - 1,557,429 10,195 344,217 84,720 1,996,561 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (46,261) (46,261) -100.0% -100.0% $ 83,536 15,293 (41,303) (62,850) (5,324) 5.1% 60.0% -13.6% -287.4% -0.3% $ Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 681 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ ALL FUNDS $ 669,093 669,093 $ $ 46,261 46,261 $ $ 46,261 46,261 $ $ 35,221 35,221 $ $ $ 1,045,054 711,251 1,756,304 $ 1,915,710 46,261 1,961,971 $ 1,944,976 46,261 1,991,237 $ 1,672,478 35,221 1,707,699 $ ALL FUNDS $ $ $ $ $ - 1,996,561 1,996,561 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (46,261) (46,261) -100.0% -100.0% $ (51,585) 46,261 (5,324) -2.7% 100.0% -0.3% $ Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 20.75 20.75 620 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 21.00 21.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 21.00 21.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Manager’s Office (Continued) Base Adjustments Expenditures • Decrease in Expenditure of $200,923 associated with the following restatements: • Restatement of Lobbyist Contracts to General Government • Urban Fellow funding restated from General Government • Project Management Position partially funded by General Government restated to County Manager’s Office. • Employee Ombudsman position deleted and funding restated to General Government Contracts. • Decrease in expenditure of $72,340 associated with the removal of the Employee Assistance Program position from the County Manager’s Office. • Increase in expenditure of $49,728 for IGA with City of Phoenix for use of Video Facility. • Increase in expenditure of $31,241 for Executive Compensation. 621 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Manager’s Office (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Merger of Communications with the CMO Market Range Adjustment ECP Adjustments C-49-05-015-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 2,126,834 RESTATEMENTS: Transfer of Lobbyist Contracts to General Government $ Urban Fellow from General Government Postion Partially Funded by Gen Gov to County Manager's Office Employee Ombudsman funding to General Government Contracts RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ (267,727) 50,000 60,293 (43,489) (200,923) FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,925,911 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments - Removal of EAP Position Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ (10,876) 28,982 (72,340) 14,419 269 (39,546) FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Temporary Pay and Benefits $ Adjustment to Personnel Services Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Travel & Education Adjustment to Postage/Freight/Shipping IGA with City of Phoenix for use of Video Facility Executive Compensation Increases BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,996,561 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,996,561 622 $ 1,358,665 $16,948 714,206 6,080 30,935 $768,169 $ $1,886,365 $ (18,897) 16,507 (11,813) 50,000 (5,070) (1,500) 49,728 31,241 110,196 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules County Manager’s Office (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,253,252 $ $ 1,277,490 $ $ 1,076,392 $ 711,251 $ 1,750,182 $ 7,663 $ 1,996,561 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ 224,104 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,253,252 1,501,594 1,787,643 1,757,845 1,996,561 Total Administrative Mandates General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Enterprise Funds FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 1,253,252 $ $ $ FY 2002-03 Actuals* $ 1,277,490 $ $ $ FY 2003-04 Actuals* $ 1,076,392 $ 711,251 $ $ FY 2004-05 Actuals* $ 1,750,182 $ 7,663 $ $ FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ 1,996,561 $ $ $ *Includes expenditures which were part of Department 710 Communications NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Internal Service $ $ 224,104 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,253,252 1,501,594 1,787,643 1,757,845 1,996,561 County Manager’s Office FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $1.4 Non-Mandated 0.0% $1.2 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% County Manager’s Office Mandates Vs. Expenditures $1.0 $0.8 $0.6 $0.4 $0.2 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated* Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 623 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 1.2 1.2 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elections Analysis by Daren Frank, Management & Budget Coordinator Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Recorder Elections 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. Strategic Goals • • • • “Early Voting” -- Increase the percentage of early votes to 55% by 2005. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Candidate Filing” -- Reduce the number of candidates fined to less than 10% of the total filing by 2005. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Process Improvement” -- Reduce the hours worked per eligible voter by 5% by 2005. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. “Process Improvement” -- Reduce the ratio of provisional ballots to ballots cast by 5% by 2005. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. 624 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elections (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES ELECTIONS $ VOTER REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,927,731 3,782 5,962 1,937,476 EXPENDITURES ELECTIONS $ VOTER REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,056,652 995,923 1,931,819 6,984,394 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 2,071,000 2,071,000 $ $ $ $ 2,071,000 2,071,000 $ 8,470,982 958,986 1,064,501 10,494,469 $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 8,487,126 1,013,254 1,085,769 10,586,149 $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 5,270,167 5,728 60 5,275,954 $ 1,041,500 6,600 1,048,100 $ 10,462,150 1,354,608 1,108,865 12,925,623 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ 4,404,303 1,783,877 1,067,591 7,255,771 $ $ $ (1,029,500) 6,600 (1,022,900) -49.7% -49.4% 4,082,823 (770,623) 18,178 3,330,378 48.1% -76.1% 1.7% 31.5% Key Results by Program PROGRAM ELECTIONS RESULT FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% 0.0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0% 98.1% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 0.0% 0% Percentage of deliveries of supplies and equipment delivered to the correct precinct Fines levied as a percentage of active political committees The percentage of ballots returned for which a correct ballot selection was issued Percentage of elections not postponed because of improper boundaries The number of complaints about polls per vote cast at polls Percentage of board worker positions filled one week out from election Percentage of cost for ballots reprinted The percentage of special ballots processed in time to meet the statutory deadline VOTER REGISTRATION Percentage of all valid registrations processed in time to meet election deadlines The percentage of valid registrations scanned and indexed in time to meet election deadlines ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 0.7% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES $ CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,906,028 4,459 7,281 19,708 1,937,476 3,094,700 505,524 3,376,014 8,155 6,984,394 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,050,000 6,000 15,000 2,071,000 4,301,554 104,151 6,088,764 10,494,469 625 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,050,000 6,000 15,000 2,071,000 4,449,683 104,651 6,031,815 10,586,149 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,241,134 2,004 17,891 14,925 5,275,954 4,746,831 182,336 7,996,456 12,925,623 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 1,031,000 3,500 3,600 10,000 1,048,100 3,493,853 594,937 3,166,981 7,255,771 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (1,019,000) 3,500 (2,400) (5,000) (1,022,900) 955,830 (490,286) 2,864,834 3,330,378 -49.7% -40.0% -33.3% -49.4% 21.5% -468.5% 47.5% 31.5% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elections (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,937,476 1,937,476 $ $ 2,071,000 2,071,000 $ $ 2,071,000 2,071,000 $ $ 5,275,954 5,275,954 $ $ 1,048,100 1,048,100 $ $ (1,022,900) (1,022,900) -49.4% -49.4% $ ALL FUNDS $ 6,984,394 6,984,394 $ $ 10,494,469 10,494,469 $ $ 10,586,149 10,586,149 $ $ 12,925,623 12,925,623 $ $ 7,255,771 7,255,771 $ $ 3,330,378 3,330,378 31.5% 31.5% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 54.00 54.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 55.00 55.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 54.00 54.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (1.00) (1.00) Revised Restated is overstated by one FTE due to delay in processing position management paperwork. Base Adjustments Revenue • There is a drop in revenue of $1,022,900 due to reductions in Intergovernmental Payments associated with the fact that there will be few General Elections and no Primary Election during FY 2005-06. Expenditures • There is a reduction in expenditures of $3,965,601 associated with the reduction in the number of elections projected in FY 2005-06. Results Initiatives • Proposition 200 Mandates - $595,186 ($545,186 Annualized): The Adopted budget shows an increase in Other Personnel Services and General Supplies associated with more stringent “proof of citizenship” document processing associated with the Proposition 200 mandate from the voters. 626 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elections (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 2,071,000 $ - 10,494,469 $ 73,563 18,117 $91,680 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 2,071,000 $ 10,586,149 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 2,071,000 $ 10,586,149 (1,370,980) $ - 36,234 53,937 (1,370,980) $ (3,965,601) 15,583 (3,859,847) 700,020 $6,726,302 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Primary and General Elections $ Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes Retirement Contributions Primary and General Elections - Presidential Primary ($1,370,980); Primary/General ($2,594,621); Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Revenue $ Adjustement to Regular Pay and Benefits Adjustment to Repairs & Maintenance BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ RESULTS INITIATIVES: Adjustment to Other Personnel Services (Prop 200 Mandate) $ Adjustment to General Supplies (Prop 200 Mandate) RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 627 348,080 $ 348,080 $ 1,048,100 $ - (64,517) (1,200) (65,717) 6,660,585 $ $ $ 125,936 469,250 595,186 1,048,100 $ 7,255,771 - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elections (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 5,937,614 $ $ 9,946,890 $ $ 6,984,394 $ $ 13,082,479 $ $ 7,255,771 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,937,614 9,946,890 6,984,394 13,082,479 7,255,771 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 5,937,614 $ $ 9,946,890 $ $ 6,984,394 $ $ 13,082,479 $ $ 7,255,771 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,937,614 9,946,890 6,984,394 13,082,479 7,255,771 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Elections FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Elections Mandates Vs. Expenditures $14.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% $12.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 628 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 5.9 5.9 0 0 9.9 9.9 0 0 7 7 0 0 13.1 13.1 0 0 7.3 7.3 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Elections (Continued) 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. 629 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Eliminations Department Budget Information Total Budget by Category 980 ELIMINATIONS BUDGET BY CATEGORY TOTAL PROGRAMS ALL FUNDS FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJECTED RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VARIANCE % REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES TOTAL REVENUE $ (92,871,088) $ (349,260,201) (442,131,289) $ (95,425,440) $ (351,233,837) (446,659,277) $ (94,055,830) $ (351,335,837) (445,391,667) $ (89,588,895) $ (314,211,337) (403,800,232) $ (75,837,516) $ (187,420,757) (263,258,273) $ (18,218,314) (163,915,080) (182,133,394) 19.4% 46.7% 40.9% EXPENDITURES SERVICES $ OTHER FINANCING USES TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ (92,871,088) $ (349,260,201) (442,131,289) $ (95,425,440) $ (351,233,837) (446,659,277) $ (94,055,830) $ (351,335,837) (445,391,667) $ (89,588,895) $ (314,211,337) (403,800,232) $ (75,837,516) $ (187,420,757) (263,258,273) $ (18,218,314) (163,915,080) (182,133,394) 19.4% 46.7% 40.9% Total Budget by Fund 980 ELIMINATIONS BUDGET BY FUND TOTAL PROGRAMS 900 ELIMINATIONS FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 ADOPTED VS. REVISED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED VARIANCE % (442,131,289) (446,659,277) (445,391,667) (403,800,232) (263,258,273) $ 182,133,394 -40.9% ALL FUNDS $ (442,131,289) $ (446,659,277) $ (445,391,667) $ (403,800,232) $ (263,258,273) $ 182,133,394 -40.9% EXPENDITURES 900 ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS $ (442,131,289) (442,131,289) $ (446,659,277) (446,659,277) $ 630 (445,391,667) (445,391,667) $ (403,800,232) (403,800,232) $ (263,258,273) $ (263,258,273) $ 182,133,394 182,133,394 -40.9% -40.9% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Emergency Management Analysis by Marc Kuffner, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Emergency Management Osman Aloyo, Director Support Services Plans & Operations Mission The mission of the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management is to provide community-wide education, planning, coordination, and continuity of government for the people of Maricopa County in order to protect lives, property and the environment in the event of a major emergency. Vision We will be a respected and effective leader in providing all aspects of a comprehensive emergency management program, including mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, in a proactive manner. Strategic Goals • • • “Career Paths” -- By June 2006, develop career paths focusing on training, education, and experience, along with appropriate salary levels, for all non-exempt department employees. Status: The department has achieved progress in each facet of in this goal, and their FY 2005-06 budget supports the continuation of this goal. “Hazard Analysis” -- By June 2006, complete hazard analyses for 16 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. Status: The department has achieved progress of this goal, and their FY 2005-06 budget supports the continuation of this goal. “Geographical Information Systems” -- By June 2006, establish the department as a regional resource for Geographical Information System (GIS) support in emergency management through continued GIS development and creation of a web-based map delivery service. Status: The department has achieved progress of this goal, and their FY 2005-06 budget supports the continuation of this goal. 631 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) • “Citizen’s Corps” -- By July 2006, ensure that all Citizen Corps programs (CERT, MRC, VIPS, USA on Watch) in the County are formed under a parent Citizen Corps Council in the local jurisdiction or under the Maricopa Citizen Corps Council. Status: The department has achieved progress of this goal, and their FY 2005-06 budget supports the continuation of this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED REVENUES MITIGATION $ PREPAREDNESS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 54,567 $ 1,072,678 (36,241) 1,091,003 $ 1,281,808 1,281,808 EXPENDITURES MITIGATION $ PREPAREDNESS RESPONSE AND RECOVERY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 168,467 770,851 23,964 383,845 1,347,126 27,982 1,007,789 46,179 457,039 1,538,989 $ $ $ 1,334,824 1,334,824 $ $ 27,587 1,001,784 50,397 514,157 1,593,925 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 22,493 1,063,931 17,638 1,104,062 $ $ 17,049 656,378 29,211 414,329 1,116,967 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 855,797 855,797 6,785 682,371 136,877 301,264 1,127,297 $ $ $ $ (479,027) (479,027) 20,802 319,413 (86,480) 212,893 466,628 -35.9% -35.9% 75.4% 31.9% -171.6% 41.4% 29.3% Key Results by Program PROGRAM MITIGATION RESULT FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% -100.0% -100% 76.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% Percent of multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans developed. PREPAREDNESS Percent of county and city/town emergency operations plans updated within the past four years. RESPONSE AND RECOVERY Percent of days 24-hour-a-day response and recovery capability was maintained. ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,084,721 6,283 1,091,003 844,020 75,541 407,302 20,264 1,347,126 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,281,808 1,281,808 811,402 50,089 487,562 79,169 110,767 1,538,989 632 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,334,324 500 1,334,824 841,154 55,182 507,077 79,169 111,343 1,593,925 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,095,769 8,293 1,104,062 712,183 42,639 188,363 79,169 94,613 1,116,967 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ 855,297 500 855,797 889,721 35,723 87,063 87,234 27,556 1,127,297 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ (479,027) (479,027) -35.9% 0.0% -35.9% (48,567) 19,459 420,014 (8,065) 83,787 466,628 -5.8% 35.3% 82.8% -10.2% 75.3% 29.3% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 207 PALO VERDE 215 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 207 PALO VERDE 215 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT $ ALL FUNDS $ 247,253 843,751 1,091,003 146,900 275,671 924,555 1,347,126 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 258,628 1,023,180 1,281,808 155,628 287,138 1,096,223 1,538,989 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ 258,628 1,076,196 1,334,824 $ 157,548 287,138 1,149,239 1,593,925 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 2.00 3.00 10.00 15.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 2.00 4.00 10.00 16.00 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 259,513 844,549 1,104,062 156,792 229,709 730,466 1,116,967 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 299,626 556,171 855,797 233,760 337,366 556,171 1,127,297 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 40,998 (520,025) (479,027) 15.9% -48.3% -35.9% (76,212) (50,228) 593,068 466,628 -48.4% -17.5% 51.6% 29.3% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 207 PALO VERDE 215 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 2.00 3.00 10.00 15.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (1.00) (1.00) Reduction of one administrative position Base Adjustments Revenue • • • • Reduction in revenue from the expiration of the HMPG Mitigation Grant Reduction in revenue from the expiration of the FEMA FY02 Supplemental Grant Reduction in revenue from the expiration of the State Homeland Security Grant Increased revenue due to Public Health allocation of Cert funding position. Expenditures • • Increased expenditures due to market range study and subsequent salary increases to the Planner positions in the planning activity. Reduction in expenditures due to completion of the Mitigation plans and analysis and the expiration of the Mitigation grant. 633 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 155,628 C-49-05-008-6-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 1,920 1,920 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 157,548 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 157,548 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ (940) 2,012 368 1,440 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Other Pay $ Adjustment to Personnel Services Alloc In Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Internal Service Charges BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 233,760 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 233,760 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Market Range Adjustment 634 $ $158,988 $ (9) 69,372 (368) 11,677 (6,500) 600 74,772 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) Reconciliation Palo Verde (207) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 258,628 $ 287,138 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 258,628 $ 287,138 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 299,626 $ 287,138 - (1,880) 3,145 (33,436) 1,805 1,856 (28,510) 31,695 3,185 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance Pay for Performance Annualization CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ Department Request Over Target REVISED TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Regular Pay and Benefits $ Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Non Capital Equipment Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Repairs and Maintenance Adjustment to Transfer Out (Central Service) Adjustment to Travel & Education Adjustment to Debt Service (TFP) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ $ 299,626 - $290,323 $ $ 12,197 (6,931) (1,000) 40,998 (2,650) 218 (2,365) 6,576 47,043 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 299,626 $ 337,366 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 299,626 $ 337,366 635 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) Reconciliation Emergency Management (215) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 1,023,180 $ 1,096,223 C-15-05-004-3-00 $ C-15-05-001-M-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 52,516 $ 500 53,016 $ 52,516 500 53,016 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,076,196 $ 1,149,239 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,076,196 $ 1,149,239 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Maricopa Indian Reservation Grant Arch Donation TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Special Grant Removal - Maricopa Indian Reservation C-15-05-004-3-00 $ Arch Donation C-15-05-001-M-00 Structural Balance Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes Pay for Performance Annualization Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ Department Submission Under Target REVISED TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Grant Revenue (3 expirations) $ Adjustment to Other Intergovernmental Revenue Adjustment to Bio-Defense Grant Revenue Adjustment to Regular Pay and Benefits Adjustment to Overtime Pay and Benefits Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to Personnel Services Alloc Out Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Transfer Out (Central Service) Adjustment to Capital Equipment BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (52,516) $ (500) (53,016) $ (53,016) $ 1,023,180 (52,516) (500) (91,070) (4,700) 6,806 11,281 4,640 (126,059) (275,577) (401,636) $747,603 (467,588) $ (46,371) 46,950 (467,009) $ 10,961 (579) (9,298) (45,897) (7,162) 543 (140,000) (191,432) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 556,171 $ 556,171 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 556,171 $ 556,171 636 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Emergency Management (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 59,182 $ 726,732 $ 65,898 $ 816,618 $ 146,900 $ 1,160,661 $ 149,454 $ 1,016,226 $ 233,760 $ 893,537 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 785,914 882,516 1,307,561 1,165,680 1,127,297 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 59,182 $ 726,732 $ 65,898 $ 816,618 $ 146,900 $ 1,160,661 $ 149,454 $ 1,016,226 $ 233,760 $ 893,537 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 785,914 882,516 1,307,561 1,165,680 1,127,297 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Emergency Management FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Emergency Management Mandates Vs. Expenditures $1.4 Dollars in Millions $1.2 Non-Mandated 0.0% Other Fund Mandated 80.4% General Fund Mandated 19.6% $1.0 $0.8 $0.6 $0.4 $0.2 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 637 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 0.8 0.1 0.7 0 0.9 0.1 0.8 0 1.3 0.1 1.2 0 1.2 0.1 1 0 1.2 0.2 1 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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);; Presidential Decision Directives 39, & 62, The Homeland Security Act of 2002; Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 5, HSPD 8, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), National Incident Management System (NIMS), USDHS National Response Plan; 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 13; 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. 638 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Employee Health Initiatives Analysis by Cynthia Goelz, Principal Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Deputy County Manager Employee Health Initiatives Michael Schaiberger, Director Mission The mission of the Employee Health Initiatives 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. Strategic Goals • • • By June 30, 2006, increase Maricopa County employee satisfaction with pay by 2% over the FY02 level as measured by the annual employee satisfaction survey. Status: This is no longer a goal for Employee Health Initiatives, as the compensation staff is now in OMB. OMB recommends the Department update their plan to delete this goal. By June 30, 2006, increase Maricopa County employee satisfaction with benefits by 2% over the FY02 level as measured by the annual employee satisfaction survey. Status: The department has been successful in meeting this goal. Overall satisfaction with benefits has increased from 86% in 2002 to 93% in 2004. The adopted budget for the Employee Health Initiatives program supports their efforts to continue to meet and exceed this goal. Over the next four 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. Status: Competitive analysis shows that the Benefit Premium increases for Maricopa County are below the local market (City of Phoenix & State of Arizona). The adopted budget for the Employee Health Initiatives program will assist them in meeting this goal in the future. 639 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Employee Health Initiatives (Continued) • • 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. Status: The department has been successful in achieving this goal. The County Counsel action plan was implemented in 2003. There have not been additional requirements from proposed legislation. The adopted budget for the Employee Health Initiatives program will allow them to address any additional requirements related to HIPAA. By June 30, 2006 increase Maricopa County department up-to-date job descriptions by 20% (11) per year from baseline year ending June 2004. Status: This is no longer a goal for Employee Health Initiatives, as the compensation staff is now in OMB. OMB recommends the Department update their plan to delete this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION $ EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 35,774,567 2,368,254 38,142,821 EXPENDITURES EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION $ EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 36,345 33,774,389 393,440 34,204,174 $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 7,545,007 39,384,705 46,929,712 14,973 41,320,306 288,176 41,623,455 $ $ $ $ 5,525,876 41,403,836 46,929,712 7,364 41,332,187 283,904 41,623,455 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 47,221,938 26,026 47,247,964 11,013 41,572,814 358,575 41,942,402 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 52,563,534 2,453 52,565,987 52,536,840 385,992 52,922,832 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (5,525,876) 11,159,698 2,453 5,636,275 -100.0% 27.0% 7,364 (11,204,653) (102,088) (11,299,377) 100.0% -27.1% -36.0% -27.1% 12.0% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Administrative Services Program include $10,707 reserved for funding performancebased salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION Percent of employees voluntarily leaving employment who report pay as the primary reason for leaving Maricopa County EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES Percent of employees voluntarily leaving employment who report benefits as the primary reason for leaving Maricopa County FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 31.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% NA NA NA 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 640 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Employee Health Initiatives (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES $ CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 35,595,746 173,075 2,374,000 38,142,821 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 39,384,705 7,545,007 46,929,712 1,172,366 $ (118,111) 33,149,920 34,204,174 $ 1,544,186 16,075 40,055,768 7,426 41,623,455 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 39,382,282 2,423 7,545,007 46,929,712 $ $ 1,543,785 18,386 40,053,083 8,201 41,623,455 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 39,499,542 203,415 7,545,007 47,247,964 $ $ 1,319,250 13,019 40,602,246 7,888 41,942,402 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 13,748,413 38,442,574 375,000 52,565,987 $ $ 1,587,416 23,699 51,298,386 13,331 52,922,832 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ 13,748,413 (939,708) -2.4% 372,577 15376.7% (7,545,007) -100.0% 5,636,275 12.0% $ $ $ (43,631) (5,313) (11,245,303) (5,130) (11,299,377) -2.8% -28.9% -28.1% -62.6% -27.1% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 652 HS SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND 685 BENEFITS TRUST $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 652 HS SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND 685 BENEFITS TRUST $ ALL FUNDS $ 25,575 18,631,791 19,485,455 38,142,821 1,736,388 15,497,553 16,970,234 34,204,174 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 20,000 18,850,490 28,059,222 46,929,712 2,258,750 16,831,359 22,533,346 41,623,455 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 20,000 18,850,490 28,059,222 46,929,712 2,258,750 16,831,359 22,533,346 41,623,455 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 24,221 18,646,140 28,577,602 47,247,964 2,049,576 17,871,906 22,020,919 41,942,402 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 1,594,188 21,514,935 29,456,864 52,565,987 2,326,033 21,439,935 29,156,864 52,922,832 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 1,574,188 2,664,445 1,397,642 5,636,275 (67,283) (4,608,576) (6,623,518) (11,299,377) 7870.9% 14.1% 5.0% 12.0% -3.0% -27.4% -29.4% -27.1% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 26.00 26.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 30.00 30.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 23.00 23.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (7.00) (7.00) 7 FTE’s from the Compensation Management Unit now report to the Office of Management and Budget. Base Adjustments Revenue • • • • • Adjustment to revenue for rate variances associated with the increase in premiums and for volume variances associated with number of participants. Increase in revenue for administrative fees charged to third party purchasers of benefits. Adjustment to revenue for interest income on fund balances. Reallocation of revenue between activities based on the premiums generating the revenue. Adjustment to revenue to exclude the one-time fund transfer which occurred in FY 2004-05. 641 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Employee Health Initiatives (Continued) Expenditures • • • • • Adjustments to expenditures for rate variances associated with the increase in premiums and for volume variances associated with number of participants. Reallocation of expenditures between activities to insure structural balance. Adjustment to personnel savings to 4.35% based on experience. Adjustment to temporary pay based documented need. Reallocation of personnel expenditures associated with project manager. Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 20,000 $ 2,649,479 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 20,000 $ 2,649,479 RESTATEMENTS: Debt Service from Human Resources for 17 PC's $ Compensation Management Unit to Office of Management and Budget RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 642 - $ $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ $ 4,220 (394,949) (390,729) 2,258,750 (3,550) 31,045 60,061 2,590 90,146 $2,348,896 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Employee Health Initiatives (Continued) General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation (Continued) REVENUE BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department request above target for Contract Premium Revenue and Administrative Fees in the Health Select General Medical (CSGM )Activity Fully Insured Dental (DETL) Activity Fully Insured General Medical (FIGM) Activity Self Insured Dental (SIDE) Activity Fully Insured Behavioral Health (FIHT) Activity Self Insured Incentive (INCE) Activity Fully Insured Vision (VISN) Activity Self Insured Consumer Choice Pharmacy (SICC) Activity Self Insured Pharmacy (MACY) Activity Wellness (WELL) Activity $ OMB Change to Contract Premium Revenue to adjust to detail, increase for volume/rate variances and reallocate revenue to activities where contracts charged in the Health Select General Medical (CSGM )Activity Fully Insured Dental (DETL) Activity Fully Insured Generla Medical (FIGM) Activity Self Insured Dental (SIDE) Activity Fully Insured Behavioral Health (FIHT) Activity Self Insured Incentive (INCE) Activity Fully Insured Vision (VISN) Activity Self Insured Consumer Choice Pharmacy (SICC) Activity Self Insured Pharmacy (MACY) Activity Wellness (WELL) Activity Flexible Spending (FSAA) Activity Employee Assistance Program (EAPP) Activity Office of the Director (ODIR) Activity Reduction to Self-Insured RX Activity (MACY) in Temporary Pay (705) Reduction to Self-Insured RX Activity (MACY) in Temporary Benefits (750) Adjustment to Self-Insured RX Activity (MACY) in Regular Pay Personnel Savings (701) Adjustment to Self-Insured RX Activity (MACY) in Benefit Personnel Savings (750) Reallocate Other Services (812) from ODIR to Self Insured Medical Activity (CSGM) Reallocate Other Services (812) from ODIR to Fully Insured Medical Activity (FIGM) Reallocate Other Services (812) from ODIR to MACY Reallocate Other Services (812) to other PAS codes Reallocate Regular Pay (701) from Compensation Management and Analysis Activity (COPT) to ODIR Reallocate Regular Benefits (750) from COPT to ODIR Realloated Regular Pay Salary Savings (701) from COPT to ODIR Reallocate Regular Pay (701) to ODIR from COPT Reallocate Regular Benefits (750) to ODIR from COPT Realloated Regular Pay Salary Savings (701) to ODIR from COPT BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 1,527,473 301,342 4,602 996,734 28,728 7,278 3,186 4,860 13,522 164,671 2,550 EXPENDITURES $ 46,715 98,598 (603) (466,809) 52,681 10,588 258 6,797 2,616 125,801 2,477 45,777 166,081 2,453 - - (612) (47) - (19,015) - (3,189) - 128,331 - 62,492 107,500 (298,323) 1,574,188 $ (22,891) (3,640) 2,000 22,891 3,640 (2,000) (22,863) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,594,188 $ 2,326,033 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,594,188 $ 2,326,033 643 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Employee Health Initiatives (Continued) Health Select Self-Insured Trust Fund (652) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 18,850,490 $ 16,831,359 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 18,850,490 $ 16,831,359 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 18,850,490 $ 16,831,359 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 18,850,490 $ 16,831,359 4,572,047 $ 3,877,035 525,568 207,174 13,394 (51,124) 4,572,047 4,092,003 352,460 92,848 34,736 - BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department request above target for rate and volume increases in the Health Select General Medical (CSGM )Activity Self Insured Pharmacy (MACY) Activity Self Insured Consumer Choice Pharmacy (SICC) Activity Wellness (WELL) Activity Fully Insured General Medical (FIGM) Activity $ OMB's changes to adjust to detail, increase for change in volume/rates and reallocate for structural balance by program in the Health Select General Medical (CSGM )Activity Self Insured Pharmacy (MACY) Activity Self Insured Consumer Choice Pharmacy (SICC) Activity Wellness (WELL) Activity 36,529 1,436,878 (1,406,390) 30,648 (24,607) OMB adjustment to include Interest Income in the MACY Activity 36,529 (394,805) 95,691 333,332 2,311 75,000 Eliminate requested Transfer In in the MACY Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - (2,019,131) 2,664,445 $ 4,608,576 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 21,514,935 $ 21,439,935 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 21,514,935 $ 21,439,935 644 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Employee Health Initiatives (Continued) Benefits Trust Fund (685) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 28,059,222 $ 22,533,346 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 28,059,222 $ 22,533,346 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 28,059,222 $ 22,533,346 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 28,059,222 $ 22,533,346 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department requested changes due to rate and volume in the Self Insured Pharmacy (MACY) Activity Self Insured Consumer Choice Pharmacy (SICC) Activity Short Term Disability (STDD) Wellness (WELL) Activity Self Insured Dental (SIDE) Activity Self Insured Incentive (INCE) Activity Fully Insured General Medical (FIGM) Activity $ OMB's changes to adjust to detail, increase for change in volume/rates and reallocate for structural balance by program in the Self Insured Pharmacy (MACY) Activity Self Insured Consumer Choice Pharmacy (SICC) Activity Short Term Disability (STDD) Wellness (WELL) Activity Self Insured Dental (SIDE) Activity Self Insured Incentive (INCE) Activity Fully Insured General Medical (FIGM) Activity Flexible Spending (FSAA) Activity OMB adjustment to include Interest Income in the MACY Activity 4,333,014 $ 3,182,138 567,800 80,172 46,607 505,984 65,293 (114,980) 4,332,931 1,983,348 560,074 482,350 35,168 873,611 398,680 (300) 2,290,504 746,478 80,857 720,952 (20,154) 769,709 (14,204) 6,949 (83) 2,290,587 694,613 565,103 259,140 14,425 628,840 38,552 89,914 300,000 Eliminate requested Transfer In in the COPT activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - (5,525,876) 1,397,642 $ 6,623,518 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 29,456,864 $ 29,156,864 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 29,456,864 $ 29,156,864 645 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Employee Health Initiatives (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue N/A N/A $ 980,542 $ $ 2,041,288 $ $ 2,154,411 $ $ 2,326,033 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds N/A N/A $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service N/A $ 13,806,513 $ 25,080,623 $ 35,753,627 $ 50,596,799 $ $ $ $ Total N/A 14,787,055 27,121,911 37,908,038 52,922,832 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 970,183 $ $ 980,542 $ $ 2,041,288 $ $ 2,154,411 $ $ 2,326,033 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 6,606,958 $ 13,806,513 $ 25,080,623 $ 35,753,627 $ 50,596,799 $ $ $ $ $ Total 7,577,141 14,787,055 27,121,911 37,908,038 52,922,832 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Employee Health Initiatives FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $45.0 General Fund Mandated 6.3% $40.0 Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 0.0% Employee Health Initiatives Mandates Vs. Expenditures $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 93.7% 646 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 #VALUE! #VALUE! 0 #VALUE! 7.6 1 6.6 0 14.8 1 13.8 0 27.1 2 25.1 0 42 2.6 39.4 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services Analysis by Nadia Feeser, Senior Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Environmental Services John Power, Acting Director Water & Waste Water Management Division Business & Community Services Division Environmental Health Division Mission The mission of the Environmental Services Department is to provide effective environmental management to the people of Maricopa County so 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. Strategic 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. Status: The Department is engaged in a reorganization process, and will update its business plan in the coming fiscal year. Manage department programs to meet the increasing demand for essential environmental services resulting from Maricopa County growth. Status: A staffing adjustment and supporting fee package are under development, and will be finalized during FY 2005-06. 647 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES BIO DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS $ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES MOSQUITO & RAT CONTROL PROGRAM WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 10,646,338 1,129,996 11,776,334 EXPENDITURES BIO DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS $ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES MOSQUITO & RAT CONTROL PROGRAM STORM WATER CONTROL PROGRAM WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 72,576 7,142,213 716,563 2,426,299 520,220 10,877,871 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 403,029 7,056,674 3,385,861 10,845,564 288,005 6,713,119 1,050,882 125,473 2,416,614 1,836,932 12,431,025 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 955,304 6,685,215 23,115 2,448,945 1,290,890 11,403,469 269,181 6,535,396 852,066 326,189 2,673,219 2,191,465 12,847,516 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 74,624 7,057,841 3,859,784 41,760 11,034,010 6,671 6,534,510 758,949 96,568 2,328,837 2,263,700 11,989,235 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 7,259,138 1,000 3,930,000 11,190,138 6,576,573 1,101,936 264,470 2,774,528 2,576,875 13,294,382 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (955,304) 573,923 7.9% (22,115) -2211.5% 1,481,055 37.7% (1,290,890) (213,331) -1.9% 269,181 (41,177) (249,870) 61,719 (101,309) (385,410) (446,865) -0.6% -33.6% 23.3% -3.8% -16.0% -3.5% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $69,513 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. 648 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT FOOD SERVICE LICENSING Percent of Food Service Licenses issued of those required FOOD SERVICE INSPECTIONS Percent of comprehensive food service inspections completed that meet the demand FOOD AND WATER BORNE ILLNESS INVESTIGATION Percent of foodborne and waterborne complaints investigated ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ENFORCEMENT Percent of facilities placed on probationary status that did not require permit revocation to correct and eliminate critical violations ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERMIT COMPLIANCE Percent of non-food facility inspections that meet the demand NON-PERMIT RELATED COMPLIANCE Percent of environmental nuisance complaints that require investigation and resolution ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PLAN REVIEW Percent of plans approved and construction inspections completed that meets the demand SWIMMING POOL PLAN REVIEW Percent of plans approved and construction inspections completed that meets the demand SOLID WASTE COMPLIANCE AND PERMITTING Percentage of solid waste compliance reviews completed within timeframes WASTE WATER COMPLIANCE AND PERMITTING Percentage of waste water compliance reviews completed within timeframes PUBLIC WATER COMPLIANCE AND PERMITTING Percentage of public water compliance reviews completed within timeframes FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED PROJ. ACT. FY 2005-06 RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED RESTATED ADOPTED VARIANCE % 63% 70% 70% 70% 68% -2% -3% 83% 71% 71% 71% 61% -10% -14% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 0% 0% 88% 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 0% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 0% 1% 76% 75% 75% 75% 76% 1% 1% 83% 79% 79% 79% 76% -3% -4% 88% 12% 20% 20% 19% -1% -5% 100% 100% 100% 96% 26% -74% -74% 78% 71% 68% 67% 53% -15% -22% 77% 79% 79% 81% 54% -25% -32% ADOPTED VS. REVISED Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 8,637,147 1,191,675 545,377 1,402,135 11,776,334 8,766,699 441,492 1,055,932 293,938 319,809 10,877,871 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,832,986 450,722 523,856 3,000 1,035,000 10,845,564 9,945,709 369,080 1,472,105 382,696 261,435 12,431,025 649 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,832,986 1,008,627 523,856 3,000 1,035,000 11,403,469 9,966,101 848,240 1,437,382 328,286 267,507 12,847,516 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 9,127,009 115,352 663,887 27,036 1,100,725 11,034,010 9,849,724 238,152 1,387,916 344,609 168,833 11,989,235 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 9,230,545 1,000 777,000 50,000 1,131,593 11,190,138 10,185,271 806,162 1,663,935 322,066 316,948 13,294,382 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 397,559 4.5% (1,007,627) -99.9% 253,144 48.3% 47,000 1566.7% 96,593 9.3% (213,331) -1.9% (219,170) 42,078 (226,553) 6,220 (49,441) (446,865) -2.2% 5.0% -15.8% 1.9% -18.5% -3.5% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,193,109 10,583,225 11,776,334 821,299 577,119 9,479,453 10,877,871 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 450,722 10,394,842 10,845,564 1,369,912 720,280 10,340,833 12,431,025 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,008,627 10,394,842 11,403,469 1,389,988 908,665 10,548,863 12,847,516 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 115,352 10,918,658 11,034,010 1,030,992 115,352 10,842,891 11,989,235 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 26,000 11,164,138 11,190,138 1,738,045 11,556,337 13,294,382 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 26,000 (1,008,627) 769,296 (213,331) -100.0% 7.4% -1.9% (348,057) 908,665 (1,007,474) (446,865) -25.0% 100.0% -9.6% -3.5% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GRANT 506 ENVIRONMTL SVCS ENV HEALTH TOTAL FUNDS • • • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 16.00 29.00 174.75 219.75 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 15.00 6.00 173.84 194.84 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 19.00 177.79 196.79 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 4.00 (6.00) 3.95 1.95 Transferred 1.0 FTE from Grant Fund to the General Fund to reflect the end of Bio-Defense grant funding to the Department of Environmental Services. Increased 2.0 FTE positions in the General Fund for the West Nile Virus Results Initiative. Net increase of 1.0 FTE in the General Fund due to adjustment in administrative staff. Removed 5.0 FTE positions from Grant Fund to reflect the end of Bio-Defense grant funding to Environmental Services. Net increase of 3.95 FTE positions in the Fees Fund resulting from the separation of Air Quality. Base Adjustments Revenue • • • • Increase Code Enforcement Fines in the General Fund. Shift City of Peoria IGA Intergovernmental Revenues from Grant Fund to General Fund. Decrease Bio-Defense grant revenues. Forecast increase in fee revenues. 650 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Expenditures • • • • • • • • • • Reduce expenditures by increasing budgeted Personnel Savings rate from 3% to 5% (General Fund) and from 3% to 8% (Fees Fund). Shift Bio-Defense grant funded position and associated supplies and services to the General Fund. Remove expenditures for the Bio-Defense grant. Shift expenditures for the City of Peoria IGA from the Grant Fund to the General Fund. Increase allocation of Department Administration and IT from the Fees Fund to the General Fund. Fully fund positions that moved from the Air Quality Fees Fund to the Environmental Services Fees Fund. Increase for the County Counsel retainer in the Fees Fund. Decrease personnel services due to removal of 0.05 FTE Environmental Specialist and 1.0 HR Generalist. Increase Debt Service for IT equipment. Increase expenditures for remodel costs due to the movement of the Air Quality Program to a new Department. Results Initiatives The following West Nile Virus Results Initiatives are recommended for FY 2005-06: • • • • • Vector Surveillance and Testing - $163,933 ($163,933 annualized) General Fund/ $68,215 Appropriated Fund Balance: Initiative funds 0.5 FTE and associated supplies and services to meet the projected demand. The recurring expenditures will be funded in the Environmental Services General Fund while the non-recurring expenditures will be funded from Appropriated Fund Balance. Expected Result: Collect and test 100% of all mosquito trap samples within 48 hours. Mosquito Adulticiding - $(42,188) ($(42,188) annualized) General Fund/ $273,491 Appropriated Fund Balance: Initiative reduces the current allocation of expenditures from this Activity to the appropriate Activities and funds supplies and services to meet the projected demand. The recurring expenditures will be funded in the Environmental Services General Fund while the non-recurring expenditures will be funded from Appropriated Fund Balance. Expected Result: Reduce the population of adult mosquitoes. Mosquito Larviciding - $167,615 ($167,615 annualized) General Fund/ $1,668,797 Appropriated Fund Balance: Initiative funds 1.0 FTE and associated supplies and services to meet the projected demand. The recurring expenditures will be funded in the Environmental Services General Fund while the non-recurring expenditures will be funded from Appropriated Fund Balance. Expected Result: Reduce the population of adult mosquitoes. Vector Control Complaint Management - $72,523 ($72,523 annualized) General Fund/ $640,022 Appropriated Fund Balance: Initiative funds 0.5 FTE and associated supplies and services to meet the projected demand. The recurring expenditures will be funded in the Environmental Services General Fund while the non-recurring expenditures will be funded from Appropriated Fund Balance. Expected Result: Increase the percent of complaints resolved within 1 day from to 58%; Increase the percent of complaints resolved with 5 days to 100%. Vector Public Education - $274,307 ($0 annualized) Appropriated Fund Balance: Initiative funds various public education materials including advertisements, public relation consultants, media packets, printing and distribution costs, and video production. Expected Result: Increase the percent of citizens that understand WNV and the County’s role. 651 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 1,369,912 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 16,860 3,216 20,076 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,389,988 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2005 Initiatives - WNV and Storm Water Abatement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 6,432 14,745 3,419 (187,944) (163,348) FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ 1,226,640 25,000 1,000 - $ 1,000 (17,377) 52,009 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: $ Code Enforcement Fines - Environmental Health Enforcement Activity City of Peoria IGA from Grant Fund - Mosquito and Rat Abatement Activity Increase Personnel Savings by 2% - Various Activities Move Bio-Defense grant funded FTE from Grant Fund - Mosquito and Rat Control Program Move Bio-Defense grant funded supplies and services from Grant Fund Planning and Training Activity Workers's Compensation - Human Resources Activity Unemployment Insurance - Human Resources Activity Remove over budgeted costs - Mosquito and Rat Control Activity Increase Allocation of Dept Administration and IT from Fees Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ RESULTS INITIATIVES: West Nile Virus - Vector Surveillance & Testing Activity $ West Nile Virus - Mosquito Adulticiding Activity West Nile Virus - Mosquito Larviciding Activity West Nile Virus - Vector Control Complaint Management Activity RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 652 9,683 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 5,346 657 (2,000) 100,204 149,522 1,376,162 - $ - $ 163,933 (42,188) 167,615 72,523 361,883 26,000 $ 1,738,045 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Environmental Services Grant (505) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 4,635,284 $ 4,635,284 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 4,635,284 $ 4,635,284 RESTATEMENTS: Move 6 mo. of Air Quality to new Dept 850 $ Move 6 mo. of Air Quality to new Dept 850 - REVISED Move all Air Quality to Air Quality Dept 850 $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (2,085,913) $ 545,192 (2,404,571) $ (3,945,292) $ (1,969,929) 429,208 (2,404,571) (3,945,292) 689,992 $ 689,992 $ (313,000) (313,000) $ 17,286 41,044 32,250 (313,000) (90,580) (313,000) $ 376,992 $ 376,992 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Elimination of Bio-Defense Grant City of Peoria IGA to General Fund - Mosquito and Rat Abatement Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (375,992) (1,000) (376,992) $ (375,992) (1,000) (376,992) FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Non-Recurring Expenditures - Air Monitoring Equipment Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ - 653 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Environmental Services Fees (506) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of FY 2005 Initiative - Mobile Food Inspections CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization Non-Recurring Expenditures - Vehicle Replacement from Fund Balance Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Fee Revenue - Increased volume by 2% over FY 2005 Projected Actual $ Base Request - Over Target Fully Fund Postions from Air Quality Fees Fund Vehicles - Fund Balance Decrease Allocation of Dept Administration and IT to Grant Fund Increase Allocation of Dept Administration and IT to General Fund County Counsel Retainer - Office of the Director Activity Increase Personnel Savings by 5% - Various Activities Remove over budgeted costs - Office of the Director Activity Remove temporary pay - Financial Services Activity Workers's Compensation - Human Resources Activity Unemployment Insurance - Human Resources Activity CY 2006 Fixed Benefits Central Service Cost Allocation - Financial Services Activity Remove Vacant Position - Human Resources Activity Move 1.05 Environmental Specialist to 1 HR Generalist - Office of the Director Activity IT costs replacing outdate equipment - Office of the Director Activity Remodel Costs due to movement of Air Quality to a new Department BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 10,394,842 $ - 10,340,833 $ $208,030 208,030 10,394,842 $ 10,548,863 - $ $ 10,394,842 $ 68,641 193,474 (87,600) 128,063 42,181 (117,000) (381,780) (154,021) 10,394,842 769,296 $ - 962,862 115,094 138,900 50,843 (100,144) 82,451 (522,880) (20,981) (6,459) 66,002 8,111 128,063 8,882 (45,480) (29,282) 769,296 $ 51,513 274,000 1,161,495 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 11,164,138 $ 11,556,337 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 11,164,138 $ 11,556,337 654 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 714,499 $ 8,330,264 $ 616,423 $ 9,975,680 $ 818,813 $ 9,452,817 $ 1,023,897 $ 10,460,746 $ 1,738,045 $ 11,556,337 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 9,044,763 10,592,103 10,271,631 11,484,643 13,294,382 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 714,499 $ 8,319,303 $ 616,423 $ 9,958,290 $ 818,813 $ 9,423,518 $ 1,023,897 $ 10,321,574 $ 1,738,045 $ 11,518,469 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 9,033,802 10,574,713 10,242,331 11,345,471 13,256,514 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 10,961 17,390 29,299 139,172 37,868 Special Revenue $ 10,961 $ 17,390 $ 29,299 $ 139,172 $ 37,868 Environmental Services FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Environmental Services Mandates Vs. Expenditures $14.0 $12.0 Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 0.27% General Fund Mandated 12.70% $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Other Fund Mandated 87.03% Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 655 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 9 0.7 8.3 0 10.6 0.6 10 0 10.3 0.8 9.4 0 11.5 1 10.3 0.1 13.9 1.8 12.1 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Environmental Services (Continued) Mandate Information 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 Judgment 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. 656 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Equipment Services Analysis by Marc Kuffner, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Equipment Services John J. Cantu, Director Service Stations Fuel & Environmental Parts Room Motor Pool Automotive Equipment 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. Strategic Goals • • • “Cost per Vehicle Equivalent” -- Bring the Total Maintenance & Repair Cost per Vehicle Equivalent (VE) into line with industry standards of $1,010 - $1,390 annually by end of calendar year 2006. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to achieve this goal. “Direct Billed Hours” -- Bring the annual number of hours charged per FTE technician to the industry standard of 1,400 – 1,500 direct-billed hours by end of calendar year 2006. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to achieve this goal with a reduction of two FTE’s. “Preventative Maintenance” -- Increase the PM Compliance rate to 95% or better by end of calendar year 2006 through customer education and notification of needed services. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to achieve this goal. 657 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) • • • “Daily Completion of Work Orders” -- Increase the percentage of work orders completed in one day to the industry standard of 80% - 90% by end of calendar year 2006. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to achieve this goal. “Replacement Vehicles” -- Decrease the replacement backlog of vehicles due or overdue for replacement to the industry standard of 10% - 15% by end of fiscal year 2007. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to achieve this goal. “Customer Satisfaction” -- Increase the level of overall customer satisfaction with our services to 85% by end of calendar year 2006. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to achieve this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES FLEET MANAGEMENT $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 9,506,403 76,920 9,583,323 EXPENDITURES FLEET MANAGEMENT $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 6,815,820 3,307,287 120,025 10,243,132 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 10,192,096 10,192,096 $ $ $ $ 8,362,824 1,342,038 46,915 9,751,777 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 10,360,096 10,360,096 $ $ $ 8,455,703 1,403,359 53,575 9,912,637 $ $ $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 9,776,378 $ (7,351) 9,769,027 $ 7,806,577 2,295,398 107,814 10,209,789 10,596,904 10,596,904 $ $ $ 10,209,517 213,132 152,528 10,575,177 $ $ $ 236,808 236,808 (1,753,814) 1,190,227 (98,953) (662,540) 2.3% 2.3% -20.7% 84.8% -184.7% -6.7% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT FLEET MANAGEMENT Percentage of customers satisfied with service as measured by Internal Audit for Directors & Liaisons FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85.0% 85.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85.0% 85.0% Percentage of customers satisfied with service as measured by ESD survey cards distributed to vehicle operators ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES $ CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 692,064 $ 8,883,759 18,325 (10,825) 9,583,323 $ 2,849,969 5,903,300 972,993 493,031 23,839 10,243,132 $ $ 515,906 9,676,190 10,192,096 3,075,825 4,850,279 1,098,154 480,618 246,901 9,751,777 658 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 683,906 9,676,190 10,360,096 3,095,481 5,002,442 1,097,054 480,618 237,042 9,912,637 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 1,012,488 $ 8,782,656 (7,337) (18,780) 9,769,027 $ 2,688,852 6,084,382 819,644 480,618 136,293 10,209,789 $ $ 1,262,383 9,334,521 10,596,904 2,939,632 6,149,563 926,432 403,417 156,133 10,575,177 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 578,477 (341,669) 236,808 84.6% -3.5% 155,849 (1,147,121) 170,622 77,201 80,909 (662,540) 5.0% -22.9% 15.6% 16.1% 34.1% -6.7% 2.3% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES EXPENDITURES 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 9,583,323 9,583,323 $ $ 10,192,096 10,192,096 $ $ 10,360,096 10,360,096 $ $ 9,769,027 9,769,027 $ $ 10,596,904 10,596,904 $ $ 236,808 236,808 2.3% 2.3% $ ALL FUNDS $ 10,243,132 10,243,132 $ $ 9,751,777 9,751,777 $ $ 9,912,637 9,912,637 $ $ 10,209,789 10,209,789 $ $ 10,575,177 10,575,177 $ $ (662,540) (662,540) -6.7% -6.7% Personnel by Fund 654 EQUIPMENT SERVICES TOTAL FUNDS • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 60.75 60.75 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 59.75 59.75 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 53.75 53.75 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (6.00) (6.00) Two (2) administrative vacancies are eliminated, bringing the total administrative positions in line with other Counties operating a similar size fleet. Four (4) mechanic vacancies are eliminated, bringing the mechanic level in line with the industry average for direct billed hours and the department’s goal. Base Adjustments Revenue • • • Increased revenue due to the increasing price of fuel. Increased parts revenue due to an increase in parts mark-up from 16% to 24%. Increased revenue from re-engineered labor amounts for specific services rather than one labor charge for all services. Expenditures • • Increased expenditure due to the increasing price of fuel. Increased expenditures due to pay for performance annualization, retirement contributions and health/dental plan changes. 659 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) Reconciliation Equipment Services (654) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 10,192,096 $ 9,751,777 C-74-05-001-8-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 168,000 $ 168,000 $ 160,860 160,860 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 10,360,096.00 $ 9,912,637 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 10,360,096.00 $ 9,912,637 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Fuel - IGA City of Buckeye TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Revenue $ Adjustment to Salary and Benefit Pay (2 FTE's) Adjustment to Personnel Savings Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Other Pay Adjustment to Temporary Pay & Benefits Adjustment to General Supplies (relocate fuel) Adjustment to Fuel Adjustment to Non Capital Equipment Adjustment to Other Service Adjustment to Rent and Operating Leases Adjustment to Repairs and Maintenance Adjustment to Capital Equipment Adjustment to Vehicels and Construction Equipment (Motor Pool) Adjustment to Debt Service (TFP) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 10,360,096 236,808 $ 236,808 $ 22,052 58,589 82,991 46,352 209,984 $10,122,621 (102,022) (374) 21,586 (48,053) (30,518) (3,819,619) 4,518,450 (463) (6,062) (153) (23,012) (2,000) (49,937) (5,267) 452,556 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 10,596,904 $ 10,575,177 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 10,596,904 $ 10,575,177 660 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Equipment Services (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 9,030,607 $ 9,683,882 $ 10,238,628 $ 11,207,834 $ 10,575,177 $ $ $ $ $ Total 9,030,607 9,683,882 10,238,628 11,207,834 10,575,177 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 112,485 $ 67,440 $ 79,298 $ 93,370 $ 116,499 $ $ $ $ $ Total 112,485 67,440 79,298 93,370 116,499 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 8,918,122 $ 9,616,442 $ 10,159,330 $ 11,114,464 $ 10,458,678 $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,918,122 9,616,442 10,159,330 11,114,464 10,458,678 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Equipment Services FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Equipment Services Mandates Vs. Expenditures $12.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% $10.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 100.0% 661 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 10.1 0 10.1 0 9 0 9 0 9.7 0 9.7 0 10.2 0 10.2 0 9.8 0 9.8 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 nonattainment 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). 662 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management Analysis by Jamie Rullo, Senior Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Facilities Management Steve Conner, Director Business Services Operations & Maintenance Capital Facilities Development Protective Services Mission The Mission of the Facilities Management Department (FMD) 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. Strategic Goals • • • “County-Wide Master Plan” -- By the end of FY09, Facilities Management will develop a County-wide Master Plan addressing the space needs of all County departments in order to develop a strategic and comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan. This will be done within the annually approved budget. Status: The adopted budget will enable the department to work toward meeting this goal. “Facilities Database” -- By the end of FY07, Facilities Management will have a database in place that will track project and operating historical trends, using available technology that will promote the development of improved budgeting and scheduling methodologies in order to deliver projects within the Board of Supervisors’ approved budget and timeline. Status: The department is making progress towards meeting this goal by the established deadline. “County Facility Condition Index” -- By the end of FY08, Facilities Management will improve the average County Facility Condition Index (FCI) by 4% from the FY05 level by developing appropriate annual major maintenance and preventive major maintenance programs, which will result in an estimated $.20 per square foot reduction in operating costs. Status: The department is making progress towards meeting this goal by the established deadline. 663 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) • • “Customer Satisfaction Rating for Security Services” -- By the end of FY07, the customer satisfaction rating for security services provided to all County owned, non-Court facilities, will be 98% or higher, as reported on the annual Research & Reporting customer service survey. Status: The department is making progress towards meeting this goal by the established deadline. “Capital Project/Major Maintenance Categories” -- By the end of FY06, the capital improvement program and the major maintenance program (projects only) will be categorized as follows: preventive maintenance, renovation/tenant improvement, major maintenance, deferred major maintenance, and new construction. Status: The department is making progress towards achieving this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & RENOV $ BLDG OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 469,598 333 48,208,006 48,677,937 EXPENDITURES BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & RENOV $ BLDG OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PLANNING PROTECTIVE SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 75,530,104 5,365,779 203,665 2,547,422 1,158,793 447,292 85,253,054 $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 47,669,538 47,669,538 39,556,179 11,512,586 103,311 2,464,867 1,330,309 464,239 55,431,491 $ $ $ $ 47,669,538 47,669,538 39,364,749 11,414,412 352,517 2,634,064 1,363,438 574,104 55,703,284 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 23,795,772 185 23,894,573 47,690,530 18,432,033 6,614,465 281,061 2,590,545 1,179,495 681,952 29,779,551 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 14,977,841 95,555 15,073,396 23,666,652 7,643,138 449,792 2,832,919 1,359,205 687,319 36,639,025 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 14,977,841 (47,573,983) (32,596,142) -99.8% -68.4% 15,698,097 3,771,274 (97,275) (198,855) 4,233 (113,215) 19,064,259 39.9% 33.0% -27.6% -7.5% 0.3% -19.7% 34.2% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT BUILDING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Percent of utility consumption reduced Percent of maintenance work orders completed BUILDING RENOVATION AND MINOR CONSTRUCTION Percent of major maintenance work completed on time and on budget PLANNING Percent of master plan projects delivered PROTECTIVE SERVICES 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 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED -5.0% 96.0% -2.0% 96.0% 3.0% 98.0% 3.0% 98.0% 3.0% 98.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0% 6.3% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0% 664 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 92,118 48,585,819 48,677,937 9,316,012 933,332 611,755 74,391,955 85,253,054 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 78,000 47,591,538 47,669,538 $ $ 11,787,500 3,297,514 1,160,326 39,186,151 55,431,491 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 78,000 47,591,538 47,669,538 $ $ 12,041,916 1,731,667 2,691,481 39,238,220 55,703,284 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 98,992 47,591,538 47,690,530 $ $ 9,270,381 1,309,074 875,889 18,324,207 29,779,551 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 95,555 14,977,841 15,073,396 $ $ 11,749,837 1,454,694 556,494 22,878,000 36,639,025 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ 17,555 (32,613,697) (32,596,142) 22.5% -68.5% -68.4% 292,079 276,973 2,134,987 16,360,220 19,064,259 2.4% 16.0% 79.3% 41.7% 34.2% $ $ Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 455 DETENTION CAPITAL PROJECTS $ ALL FUNDS $ 92,118 48,585,819 48,677,937 10,065,507 322,592 74,864,955 85,253,054 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 78,000 47,591,538 47,669,538 12,154,679 4,530,318 38,746,494 55,431,491 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 78,000 47,591,538 47,669,538 13,930,424 3,026,366 38,746,494 55,703,284 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 98,992 47,591,538 47,690,530 10,740,945 1,246,125 17,792,481 29,779,551 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 95,555 14,977,841 15,073,396 11,660,411 2,178,614 22,800,000 36,639,025 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ 17,555 (32,613,697) (32,596,142) 22.5% -68.5% -68.4% 2,270,013 847,752 15,946,494 19,064,259 16.3% 28.0% 41.2% 34.2% $ $ Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS TOTAL FUNDS • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 237.58 63.92 301.50 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 237.08 63.92 301.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (16.31) (21.19) (37.50) Fund 100: 25.81 FTEs transferred to the Sheriff’s Office for Jails Custodial services; 3.0 FTEs transferred from Public Health for security services; 6.5 FTEs added to staff new facilities opening in FY 2005-06 Fund 255: 21.19 FTEs transferred to the Sheriff’s Office for Jails Custodial services Base Adjustments Revenue • FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 220.77 42.73 263.50 Miscellaneous Revenue was increased according to forecast. 665 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Expenditures • • • • • Regular Pay and Fringe Benefits were decreased as a result of the transfer of positions to the Sheriff’s Office. Expenditures in Overtime, General Supplies, Fuel, Other Services, Healthcare Services, Repairs and Maintenance, Internal Service Charges, Travel and Education were reduced as a result of the transfer of the Jails Custodial service to the Sheriff’s Office. All contracted services were removed from the Facilities Management budget and budgeted in General Government (470). Non-Capital Equipment was increased to accommodate needed equipment purchases for three new facilities opening in Fiscal Year 2005-06. Capital Project expenditures were budgeted in Fund 455 for the Fourth Avenue Jail project, Durango Juvenile Detention Center project, Lower Buckeye Jail project, and Detention Facilities Renovations project. 666 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Blue Point Building Services C-70-05-009-8-00 $ Pay for Performance Adjustment C-49-05-008-6-00 Health and Dental Premium Increase C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 78,000 $ 17,333,572 - $ $ 17,377 182,508 56,663 256,548 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 78,000 $ 17,590,120 RESTATEMENTS: Restate Contracts to General Government Restate Custodial Services to Sheriff's Office $ - $ $ (4,819,410) (1,296,484) (6,115,894) 78,000 $ 11,474,226 - $ - 113,326 209,513 3,475 320,702 - 14,202 (91,100) 63,816 633,934 RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Blue Point Building Services Annualization of FY 2005 Initiatives Northeast Superior Court and Public Health Clinic Annualization of FY 2005 Desktop PC Replacement One Time Expenses Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ $ 78,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Expenditure Request Over Target $ Adjustment to Miscellaneous Revenue Adjustment to Regular Pay and Benefits Adjustment to Overtime Adjustment to Other Pay Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to Personnel Services Allocated Out Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Fuel Adjustment to Non-Capital Equipment Adjustment to Healthcare Services Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Repairs and Maintenance Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Travel and Education Adjustment to Postage/Freight/Shipping Adjustment to Utilities BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 17,555 17,555 $ $ 5,711,261 (837,756) (22,368) 1,248 (43,250) (141,761) (289,346) (2,000) 22,200 (3,200) (195,600) (3,996,910) (917) (18,750) (321,000) (309,600) (447,749) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 95,555 $ 11,660,411 $ 667 $12,108,160 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Detention Operations (255) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 5,467,329 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Health and Dental Premium Increase C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 15,245 15,245 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 5,482,574 RESTATEMENTS: Restate Contracts to General Government Restate Custodial Services to Sheriff's Office $ - RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ $ (1,491,126) (966,351.00) (2,457,477) $ - $ 3,025,097 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions One Time Expenses Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 2,274,175 (729,759) (10,000) (23,700) (309,400) (1,000) (500) (6,200) (1,386,926) (1,500) (2,100) 2,000 (100,000) (294,910) $ - $ 2,178,614 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Request Over Target Adjustment to Regular Pay and Benefits Adjustment to Overtime Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Medical Supplies Adjustment to Healthcare Services Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Repairs and Maintenance Adjustment to Internal Service Cahrges Adjustment to Travel and Education Adjustment to Postage/Freight/Shipping Adjustment to Utilities FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 668 $ 30,490 45,204 (631,400) 4,133 (551,573) $2,473,524 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Detention Capital Projects (455) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 47,591,538 $ 38,746,494 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 47,591,538 $ 38,746,494 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 47,591,538 $ 38,746,494 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 47,591,538 $38,746,494 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Transfers In Expenditure Request Below Target $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (32,613,697) $ (32,613,697) $ (15,946,494) (15,946,494) $ 14,977,841 $ 22,800,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 669 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 178,203,254 $ $ 196,748,909 $ $ 100,628,811 $ 985,234 $ 16,357,913 $ 2,870,558 $ 11,660,411 $ 2,178,614 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ 154,960,729 $ $ 171,303,896 $ $ 74,479,972 $ $ 14,183,320 $ $ 22,800,000 $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 333,163,983 368,052,805 176,094,017 33,411,791 36,639,025 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 155,103,059 $ $ 171,503,364 $ $ 74,524,458 $ $ 37,918 $ $ 150,000 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ 154,960,729 $ $ 171,303,896 $ $ 74,479,972 $ $ 14,183,320 $ $ 22,800,000 $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 310,063,788 342,807,260 149,004,430 14,221,238 22,950,000 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 23,100,195 $ $ 25,245,545 $ $ 26,104,353 $ 985,234 $ 16,319,995 $ 2,870,558 $ 11,510,411 $ 2,178,614 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 23,100,195 25,245,545 27,089,587 19,190,553 13,689,025 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Facilities Management FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Facilities Management Mandates Vs. Expenditures Non-Mandated 0.0% $400.0 $350.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 31.8% $300.0 $250.0 $200.0 $150.0 $100.0 $50.0 $0.0 Other Fund Mandated 68.2% Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 670 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 333.2 178.2 155 0 368.1 196.7 171.3 0 176.1 100.6 75.5 0 33.4 16.4 17.1 0 36.6 11.7 25 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) 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 DESCRIPTION Design and construct the new adult and juvenile detention and justice facilities. Construction of Jail Detention and Justice Facilities FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - 671 Capital Projects $ 154,960,729 $ 171,303,896 $ 74,479,972 $ 14,183,320 $ 22,800,000 Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ 154,960,729 $ 171,303,896 $ 74,479,972 $ 14,183,320 $ 22,800,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Facilities Management (Continued) 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 incident-related reports have been timely filed with OSHA, EPA, ADEQ and County Environmental officials. Environment FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 142,330 $ 199,468 $ 44,486 $ 37,918 $ 150,000 $ - 672 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 142,330 199,468 44,486 37,918 150,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Finance Analysis by Marc Kuffner, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Chief Financial Officer Tom Manos Department of Finance Finance Financial Reporting Financial Services Real Estate Administrative Services 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. Strategic Goals • • “Enhanced Financial System” -- by June 2007, in order to meet the increasing demands for governmental accountability; meet the increasing needs to improve our customers ability to manage results through enhancement and full utilization of our existing financial system, and ensure our customers ability to fully report results. We will develop financial reporting procedures for MFR, provide training to departments to ensure a complete understanding of the procedures, and provide training to departments on the PAS Code reporting models currently available on Info Advantage and Report Web. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to continue making steady progress toward achieving this goal. “Satisfaction Rating” -- we will obtain and maintain a satisfaction rating of 6.0 or above for overall satisfaction within our department as measured annually by the employee satisfaction survey by the end of the fiscal year 2006. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to continue making steady progress toward achieving this goal. 673 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Finance (Continued) • • • • • “Turnover Rate” -- we will obtain a turnover rate of less than 10% for all professional level staff as measured annually by Employee Compensation by June 2008. Status: Turnover has been higher than past years due to the reorganization of the department. The FY 2005-06 Adopted budget supports this effort. “Increase Collections” -- we will develop and implement new strategies to increase collections by 20% each year to reach an FY 2009 collected amount of $5,000,000. Status: The FY 2005-06 Adopted budget supports this effort. Through the first two quarters of FY 2004-05, the department has collected $1,155,496. “Generate Revenue” -- by July 2007, we will generate $5,225,000 in revenue from the sale of surplus real estate assets. Status: The FY 2005-06 Adopted budget supports this effort. “Lease Bond Revenue” -- we will refine, implement and complete a strategic plan to utilize all residual 2001 Lease Revenue Bond proceeds on specifically identified Board approved projects and report the financial activity by June 2007. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving their strategic plan. “Restructure” -- by June 2006, we will reengineer the Department of Finance to develop a stronger business structure, increased staffing levels with a competitive salary structure to improve recruitment and retention of qualified professional level staff to meet the increasing demands of governmental accountability and the increasing demands for governmental services from a technical and financial perspective. Status: Adopted budget allows the department to make the necessary staffing changes to complete their reorganization. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES FINANCIAL SERVICES $ REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 32,747 714,413 747,161 EXPENDITURES FINANCIAL REPORTING $ FINANCIAL SERVICES REAL ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 536,088 1,490,922 285,202 40,358 2,352,570 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 576,138 576,138 565,311 1,655,094 286,804 24,827 2,532,036 674 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 576,138 576,138 663,503 1,683,945 320,958 10,103 2,678,509 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 581,114 581,114 566,577 1,477,640 308,080 23,985 2,376,282 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ - 1,115,612 1,640,095 312,820 18,111 3,086,638 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (576,138) (576,138) (452,109) 43,850 8,138 (8,008) (408,129) -100.0% -100.0% -68.1% 2.6% 2.5% -79.3% -15.2% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Finance (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT FINANCIAL REPORTING Percent of customers who indicate our reports facilitate informed decision-making. Percent of customers satisfied with the Advantage financial information provided on Report Web. 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 FINANCIAL SERVICES Percent of payments processed within the established turnaround time. Percent of customers satisfied with the debt related services. Percent of customers satisfied regarding the processing of various non-payment transactions. Percent of accounts that are active and paying. REAL ESTATE Percent of property/rights requests fulfilled. Percent of studies and reports completed. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 0% 0% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 0% 0% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 0% 0% 95% 95% 90% 90% 95% 5% 6% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 0% 0% 97% 99% 99% 99% 99% 0% 0% 44% 49% 49% 49% 65% 16% 33% 77% 75% 77% 75% 77% 75% 77% 75% 77% 0% 0% -75% 0% -100% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 747,161 747,161 $ $ 576,138 576,138 $ $ 576,138 576,138 $ $ 581,114 581,114 $ 2,074,417 26,447 241,276 10,430 2,352,570 $ 2,223,856 22,969 267,878 17,333 2,532,036 $ 2,356,603 26,883 277,690 17,333 2,678,509 $ 2,099,491 20,436 234,947 21,408 2,376,282 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ - 2,781,518 25,775 255,758 23,587 3,086,638 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ (576,138) (576,138) -100.0% -100.0% (424,915) 1,108 21,932 (6,254) (408,129) -18.0% 4.1% 7.9% -36.1% -15.2% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ ALL FUNDS $ 747,161 747,161 $ $ 576,138 576,138 $ $ 576,138 576,138 $ $ 581,114 581,114 $ $ $ ALL FUNDS $ 2,352,570 2,352,570 $ $ 2,532,036 2,532,036 $ $ 2,678,509 2,678,509 $ $ 2,376,282 2,376,282 $ $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 42.00 42.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 44.00 44.00 - 3,086,638 3,086,638 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (576,138) (576,138) -100.0% -100.0% $ $ (408,129) (408,129) -15.2% -15.2% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 44.00 44.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Increase two (2) FTE’s during the reorganization process in FY 2004-05. No recommended changes in staffing for FY 2005-06. 675 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Finance (Continued) Base Adjustments Revenue • Revenue decreases with the loss of external tenants in the Security building. Expenditures • • Increased expenditures due to pay for performance annualization, retirement contributions and health/dental plan changes. Increased expenditures for the development of a grant oversight division. Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Health and Dental Benefits Increase C-49-05-024-8-00 Pay for Performance Adjustment C-49-05-008-6-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 576,138 - EXPENDITURES $ 2,532,036 $ $ 21,887 124,586 146,473 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 576,138 $ 2,678,509 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 576,138 $ 2,678,509 $ 43,774 52,896 40,158 7,501 8,162 152,491 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Revenue $ Adjustment to Temporary Pay & Benefits Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Repairs and Maintenance (Advantage) Adjustment to Travel & Education Adjustment to Postage/Freight/Shipping Adjustment to Debt Service (TFP) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 576,138 $2,831,000 (576,138) $ (576,138) $ 5,310 255,938 (1,000) (5,090) 13,366 (700) (6,876) (5,310) 255,638 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 3,086,638 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 3,086,638 676 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Finance (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,859,183 $ $ 2,059,490 $ $ 2,352,569 $ $ 2,343,595 $ $ 3,086,638 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,859,183 2,059,490 2,352,569 2,343,595 3,086,638 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals * FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,859,183 $ $ 2,059,490 $ $ 2,352,569 $ $ 2,343,595 $ $ 3,086,638 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,859,183 2,059,490 2,352,569 2,343,595 3,086,638 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. * Note: This is an unaudited figure and not adjusted for any year-end transactions Finance Mandates Vs. Expenditures Finance FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $3.5 Non-Mandated 0.0% $3.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 677 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 1.9 1.9 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 3.1 3.1 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Finance (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Department of Finance AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 11-251 Powers of the Board (Sale of County real estate); A.R.S. § 11-256 Lease or sublease of county lands and buildings; exceptions; A.R.S. § 11-256.01. Lease or sublease of county lands and buildings to governmental entity, county fair association or nonprofit corporation; exception; A.R.S. § 11-604.01 Revolving line of credit; uses; procedures; bids; application of revenues; exception; A.R.S. § 11-622 Demand; time limit for presentation of claim (Payment of Claims); A.R.S. § 11-631. Warrants; record; A.R.S. § 11-632. Issuance of duplicate warrant; A.R.S. § 11-644. Failure to present county check or warrant for payment (Stale Dated Warrants); A.R.S. § 11-651. Lease-purchase agreements; terms and conditions; A.R.S. § 11951. Definitions; A.R.S. § 11-952. Intergovernmental agreements and contracts; A.R.S. § 11-952. Intergovernmental agreements and contracts (Version #2); A.R.S. § 35-501. Department of revenue records of bond issues; debt level analysis and report (Requires County to report bond issues, debt level analysis, definition of outstanding indebtedness to the Arizona Department of Revenue); A.R.S. § 35-502. Reports to department of revenue; omission or refusal to comply; classification (Notification requirements to Department of Revenue on retirement of a bond); A.R.S. § 35-503. Calculation of debt limits; A.R.S. § 38-511. Cancellation of political subdivision and state contracts; definition (Cancellation of State Contracts); A.R.S. § 41-1279.07 Uniform expenditure reporting system; reports by counties, community college districts, cities and towns; certification and attestation; assistance by auditor general; violation; classification (Issuance of the Expenditure Limitations Report); A.R.S. § 411346 State and local public records management; violation; classification; definition; A.R.S. § 42-11102. Exemption for government property; application of procedural provisions (Exemption of taxable real estate); A.R.S. § 42-17051. Limit on county, municipal and community college primary property tax levy (Levy limits); A.R.S. § 4217101. Annual county and municipal financial statement and estimate of expenses (Annual Financial Statements - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)); A.R.S. § 42-17151. County, municipal, community college and school tax levy (Setting the tax rate); A.R.S. § 45-182. Claim of right to withdraw, divert or use public waters; exception; administration by director of water resources; IRS Guidelines - Reporting requirements for Form 1099; Federal OMB Circular A-102 - Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments; Federal OMB Circular A-87 - Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; Federal OMB Circular A133 - Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations (Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards) 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 678 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules transactions. 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), Expenditure Limitation Reports and Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards; 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 calculate the tax rates for the County, cities, schools and special districts; The Finance Department will issue warrants and manage the outstanding warrants. 679 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules General Government Department Budget Information Total Budget by Category 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET BY CATEGORY TOTAL PROGRAMS ALL FUNDS FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUE TAXES $ LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES TOTAL REVENUE $ 445,720,021 1,261,684 482,717,908 1,800,846 3,500 13,638,213 161,366,821 1,106,508,992 EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES $ SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 154,119 15,633 49,206,393 125,925,502 81,500,374 256,802,021 $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 463,161,312 1,407,500 500,630,507 2,070,000 10,946,596 177,064,169 1,155,280,084 46,179,731 64,000 109,828,604 176,244,078 121,226,764 453,543,177 $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJECTED RESTATED 463,161,312 1,407,500 500,630,507 2,070,000 10,626,636 177,064,169 1,154,960,124 31,633,066 64,000 106,183,083 176,346,078 120,902,040 435,128,267 $ $ $ $ 466,148,276 1,358,251 512,666,829 1,972,510 13,747,112 149,343,446 1,145,236,424 368,389 5,721 53,499,667 177,833,144 62,463,666 294,170,586 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 504,690,815 1,407,500 545,066,193 2,145,000 28,704,967 205,395,798 1,287,410,273 86,709,140 2,389,967 136,797,483 148,107,718 131,147,217 505,151,525 VARIANCE $ $ $ $ % (41,529,503) (44,435,686) (75,000) (18,078,331) (28,331,629) (132,450,149) -9.0% (0) (0) (2) (0) -11.5% (55,076,074) (2,325,967) (30,614,400) 28,238,360 (10,245,177) (70,023,258) -174.1% (36) (0) 0 (0) -16.1% Total Budget by Fund 470 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET BY FUND TOTAL PROGRAMS 100 GENERAL 210 WASTE MANAGEMENT 249 GENERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICE 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 440 CRIM JUSTICE CAPITAL PROJECTS 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 210 WASTE MANAGEMENT 249 GENERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS 312 BOND-DEBT SERVICE 320 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DEBT 422 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAP PROJ 435 COUNTY IMPROVEMENT FUND 445 GENERAL FUND CTY IMPROV FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED $ 820,415,803 80,493 3,584 228,266,095 20,281,793 19,040,954 5,294,741 3,666,981 9,458,548 ALL FUNDS $ 1,106,508,992 $ ALL FUNDS $ 177,710,229 11,485 2,989,183 21,004,139 28,633,017 15,932,142 4,909,885 5,611,942 256,802,021 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 866,773,056 72,000 3,396,892 245,708,624 7,867,500 15,888,390 456,039 14,750,000 367,583 $ 1,155,280,084 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 866,773,056 72,000 3,076,932 245,708,624 7,867,500 15,888,390 456,039 14,750,000 367,583 $ 1,154,960,124 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 882,324,758 84,100 33,807 248,034,103 356,127 7,863,665 5,364,094 671,401 504,369 $ 1,145,236,424 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 942,368,829 79,500 18,491,844 267,466,905 7,265,671 19,612,524 24,000,000 8,125,000 $ 1,287,410,273 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ 75,595,773 8.7% 7,500 10.4% 15,414,912 501.0% 21,758,281 8.9% (601,829) -7.6% 3,724,134 23.4% 23,543,961 5162.7% (14,750,000) -100.0% 7,757,417 2110.4% $ 132,450,149 11.5% $ $ $ $ $ $ 261,919,756 527,069 10,896,891 42,676,768 48,131,226 21,095,594 38,557,198 29,738,675 453,543,177 680 $ 248,341,890 527,069 8,875,705 40,313,507 48,131,226 20,642,997 38,557,198 29,738,675 435,128,267 $ 187,365,696 66,985 9,731,209 356,127 43,797,737 11,383,199 15,400,180 26,069,453 294,170,586 $ 317,099,893 564,274 18,391,844 69,050,556 17,416,902 5,691,348 66,674,304 10,262,404 505,151,525 $ 68,758,003 37,205 9,516,139 28,737,049 (30,714,324) (14,951,649) 28,117,106 (19,476,271) 70,023,258 27.7% 7.1% 107.2% 71.3% -63.8% -72.4% 72.9% -65.5% 16.1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules General Government (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,545,124 $ $ 1,463,898 $ $ 1,639,404 $ $ 1,861,170 $ $ 2,777,491 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,545,124 1,463,898 1,639,404 1,861,170 2,777,491 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,545,124 $ $ 1,463,898 $ $ 1,639,404 $ $ 1,861,170 $ $ 2,777,491 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,545,124 1,463,898 1,639,404 1,861,170 2,777,491 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. General Government FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures General Government Mandates Vs. Expenditures Non-Mandated 0.1% $500.0 $450.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 35.0% $400.0 $350.0 $300.0 $250.0 $200.0 $150.0 $100.0 $50.0 $0.0 General Fund Mandated 65.0% Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 681 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 266.3 123.1 137.8 5.4 195 155.8 36.1 3.2 185.4 156.4 28.9 0.1 242.3 183.5 58.7 0.1 487.8 316.8 170.6 0.3 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Health Care Mandates Analysis by Nadia Feeser, Senior Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Deputy County Manager Health Care Mandates Shawn Nau, Administrator Litigation/Arbitration Operations Claims Resolution Medical Review Records Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Health Care Mandates Department is to provide indigent and inmate health-related risk management services for Maricopa County Administration so that 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. Strategic Goals • • By January 1, 2007, reduce the average annual litigation judgments/settlements rate by 7% compared to the 1998 rate. Status: The Department has achieved progress and anticipates being able to attain this goal by January 1, 2007. By June 30, 2007, reduce average turn-around time of all Health Services claims processing to within 60 days of submission. Status: The Department has reduced average turn-around time of claims to within 30 days of submission. 682 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE MATCH $ INDIGENT HEALTH CARE INDIGENT LONG-TERM CARE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ EXPENDITURES INDIGENT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH $ DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE MATCH INDIGENT HEALTH CARE HEALTH SYSTEM SUBSIDY PRE-AHCCCS LIABILITY MGMT INDIGENT LONG-TERM CARE MEDICAL EDUCATION RESTORATION TO COMPENTENCY TRIAL DELIVERY INFECT DISEASE CNTRL & TREATMT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 99,115,000 2,951 18,746 99,136,697 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 82,972,500 52,848 83,025,348 33,037,919 $ 99,115,000 48,344,061 11,826,270 1,544,617 105,966,184 3,547,900 (0.46) 278,790 78,678 5,319,524 309,058,943 $ 35,109,904 82,972,500 68,870,980 1,520,096 125,790,463 3,547,900 270,000 500,000 2,548,142 321,129,985 $ 82,972,500 52,848 83,025,348 $ $ 35,129,904 82,972,500 59,168,699 6,530,064 125,747,212 3,547,900 63,868 338,000 500,000 7,196,520 321,194,668 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 82,972,500 38,917 83,011,417 $ $ 34,789,289 82,972,500 59,130,591 5,680,183 125,747,212 3,547,900 124 318,093 255,720 7,114,404 319,556,016 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 63,366,600 52,848 63,419,448 37,189,030 63,366,600 56,959,200 6,588,317 130,183,562 3,547,900 338,000 500,000 2,561,085 301,233,694 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (19,605,900) 52,848 (52,848) (19,605,900) (2,059,126) 19,605,900 2,209,499 (58,253) (4,436,350) 63,868 4,635,436 19,960,974 -23.6% -100.0% -23.6% -5.9% 23.6% 3.7% -0.9% -3.5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 64.4% 6.2% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $11,947 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT LITIGATION SUPPORT Percent of full billed charges not paid in Litigation FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 93.8% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 0.0% 0.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 18,746 2,951 99,115,000 99,136,697 1,518,969 25,889 292,096,527 15,374,170 43,388 309,058,943 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 52,848 82,972,500 83,025,348 1,872,375 65,277 315,554,072 3,547,900 90,361 321,129,985 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 52,848 82,972,500 83,025,348 1,937,712 34,942 315,583,753 3,547,900 90,361 321,194,668 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 82,972,500 38,917 0 83,011,417 1,782,309 33,757 314,114,415 3,547,900 77,635 319,556,016 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 63,366,600 52,848 63,419,448 2,000,276 56,575 299,148,489 28,354 301,233,694 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 63,366,600 (82,972,500) (19,605,900) -100.0% -23.6% (62,564) (21,633) 16,435,264 3,547,900 62,007 19,960,974 -3.2% -61.9% 5.2% 100.0% 68.6% 6.2% 0.0% Note: Elimination of Other Financing Sources and Uses is due to the transition of Maricopa Medical Center to the Special Health Care District. Disproportionate Share Match reimbursement revenues are now reflected as Intergovernmental Revenues. 683 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 99,136,697 99,136,697 $ $ 83,025,348 83,025,348 $ $ 83,025,348 83,025,348 $ $ 83,011,417 83,011,417 $ $ 63,419,448 63,419,448 $ $ (19,605,900) (19,605,900) $ ALL FUNDS $ 309,058,943 309,058,943 $ $ 321,129,985 321,129,985 $ $ 321,194,668 321,194,668 $ $ 319,556,016 319,556,016 $ $ 301,233,694 301,233,694 $ $ 19,960,974 19,960,974 -23.6% -23.6% 6.2% 6.2% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 30.00 30.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 31.00 31.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 31.00 31.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Revenue • Decreased Disproportionate Share Match to reflect the State Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting’s preliminary estimate for the FY 2006 withholding. Expenditures • • • • • • • • • Decreased Disproportionate Share Match to reflect the State Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting’s preliminary estimate for FY 2006. Increase for AHCCCS Administration Contribution to reflect the statutory inflation adjustment. Increase for ALTCS Contribution to reflect the State Joint Legislative Budget Committee’s recommended County contribution for FY 2006. Increase Arnold v. Sarn payments in accordance with the contractual formula. Increase County Counsel retainer costs in the Litigation Activity. Increase Pre-AHCCCS Liability based on current estimates. Increase Arnold v. Sarn to reflect anticipated increase in funding for the Court Monitor. Decrease ALTCS Contribution to reflect State’s budget adjustment. Decrease AHCCCS Acute Care to reflect State’s budget adjustment. 684 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Performance Pay Increase - Executive Compensation Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES 83,025,348 $ - 321,129,985 $42,506 $17,572 4,605 $64,683 - $ 83,025,348 $ 321,194,668 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement FY 2006 Dispro Share Hospital Payments AHCCCS Contribution ALTCS Contribution Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustment-Exec Comp Plan Arnold v. Sarn IGA Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ (19,605,900) (19,605,900) $ 9,210 32,973 8,619 3,229 (19,605,900) 167,082 10,893,100 3,563 1,980,693 (6,507,431) FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Base Request Under Target $ County Counsel Retainer Adjustment to Litigation Activity Increase Pre-AHCCCS Liability Activity Arnold v. Sarn Court Monitor Increase ALTCS Contribution State Budget Adjustment AHCCCS Contribution State Budget Adjustment BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 63,419,448 $314,687,237 - $ - $ (47,394) 4,817 7,031,959 78,433 (6,500,000) (14,021,358) (13,453,543) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 63,419,448 $ 301,233,694 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 63,419,448 $ 301,233,694 685 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 259,434,988 $ 2,548,621 $ 291,157,330 $ 4,325,630 $ 321,499,208 $ 10,474,164 $ 307,657,992 $ $ 301,233,694 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 261,983,609 295,482,960 331,973,372 307,657,992 301,233,694 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 233,449,714 $ 2,548,621 $ 273,543,209 $ 4,325,630 $ 301,936,423 $ 10,474,164 $ 297,882,415 $ $ 291,956,678 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 235,998,335 277,868,839 312,410,587 297,882,415 291,956,678 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 5,199,976 $ $ 3,787,358 $ $ 5,736,022 $ $ 9,775,577 $ $ 9,277,016 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 5,199,976 3,787,358 5,736,022 9,775,577 9,277,016 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 20,785,298 $ $ 13,826,763 $ $ 13,826,763 $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 20,785,298 13,826,763 13,826,763 - NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Health Care Mandates Mandates Vs. Expenditures Health Care Mandates FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $350.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% $300.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $250.0 $200.0 $150.0 $100.0 $50.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 686 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 262 238.6 2.5 20.8 295.5 277.3 4.3 13.8 332 307.7 10.5 13.8 307.7 307.7 0 0 301.2 301.2 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 State Legislature sets the level of funding. 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 42,959,692 $ 45,547,566 $ 45,669,938 $ 45,813,477 $ 31,959,200 $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 42,959,692 45,547,566 45,669,938 45,813,477 31,959,200 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. The State Legislature sets county contributions annually. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Maricopa County is required to contribute financial support to the State long-term 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 101,811,878 $ 112,950,818 $ 110,407,460 $ 125,610,000 $ 130,003,100 $ - 687 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 101,811,878 112,950,818 110,407,460 125,610,000 130,003,100 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 4,451,863 $ 4,451,863 $ 4,856,576 $ 4,856,576 $ 5,099,404 $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,451,863 4,451,863 4,856,576 4,856,576 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 25,965,737 $ 25,965,737 $ 28,060,186 $ 29,572,802 $ 31,981,193 $ - 688 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 25,965,737 25,965,737 28,060,186 29,572,802 31,981,193 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 231,481 $ 128,967 $ 222,514 $ 69,282 $ 52,848 $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 231,481 128,967 222,514 69,282 52,848 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 onethird 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 6,589 $ 639 $ 11,500 $ 28,927 $ 108,433 $ - 689 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,589 639 11,500 28,927 108,433 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 4,118,468 $ 1,229,490 $ 2,614,502 $ 4,558,763 $ 25,000,000 $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,118,468 1,229,490 2,614,502 4,558,763 25,000,000 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. 690 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Mental Health Orders; Mental Health Testimony FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 216,435 $ 244,250 $ 277,520 $ 211,525 $ 338,000 $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 216,435 244,250 277,520 211,525 338,000 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 19921993…” 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 3,547,899 $ 3,547,899 $ 3,547,900 $ 3,547,901 $ 3,547,900 $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,547,899 3,547,899 3,547,900 3,547,901 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 405,840 $ 258,329 $ 78,679 $ 83,062 $ 500,000 $ - 691 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 405,840 258,329 78,679 83,062 500,000 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 General Fund Special Revenue FY 2001-02 Actuals $ $ 2,548,621 FY 2002-03 Actuals $ $ 4,325,630 FY 2003-04 Actuals $ $ 10,474,164 ‡ FY 2004-05 Actuals $ $ FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ ‡ Correctional Health incurred expenses beginning FY 2004-05 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,548,621 4,325,630 10,474,164 - 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. 692 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Health Care Mandates (Continued) Competency Restoration General Fund Special Revenue FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 3,838,332 $ FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 4,972,450 $ FY 2003-04 Actuals $ 7,074,648 $ ‡ FY 2004-05 Actuals $ $ FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ ‡ Correctional Health incurred expenses beginning FY 2004-05 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,838,332 4,972,450 7,074,648 - TITLE Disproportionate Share Match Program AUTHORITY Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981, Boren Amendment, P.L. 97-35; OBRA 1986, P.L. 99-509; OBRA 1997, PL100-203; Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider-Specific Tax Amendments of 1991, PL 102-224; OBRA 1993, PL 10366; Balanced Budget Act of 1997, PL105-33; Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, PL 106-554; Laws 2004, Chapter 279, Section 9 (B.); Proposition 204 (2002).. A.R.S. §48-5561.01. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The original rationale for the Medicare Disproportionate Share (DSH) payment adjustment was to compensate hospitals for the higher operating costs they incur in treating a large share of low-income patients. Over time, however, a second justification for the DSH adjustment emerged. Most policy makers now agree that DSH funds preserve access to care for Medicare and low-income populations by financially assisting the hospitals they use. MANDATE DESCRIPTION Federal law requires state Medicaid programs to “take into account the situation of hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients with special needs” when determining payment rates for inpatient hospital care. TITLE: Disproportionate Share FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget Disproportionate Share $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 45,895,500 $ 74,245,201 $ 99,115,000 $ 83,530,100 $ 63,366,600 $ - 693 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 45,895,500 74,245,201 99,115,000 83,530,100 63,366,600 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Resources Analysis by Cynthia Goelz, Principal Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Deputy County Manager Human Resources Gwynn Simpson, Director Payroll Records Administration Employee Relations/ Merit Commission Recruiting & Selection Information Services Staff Development Mission 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 Residents we service. Vision To become an “Employer of Choice,” we will work and create cost efficient services for the residents of Maricopa County. Human Resources will re-engineer its business practices and policies to help Maricopa County to become an “Employer of Choice.” Strategic Goals • • • By September 2006, Human Resources will develop a written succession plan for managers and directors that identify the leadership roles and associated skills necessary for upward mobility in County departments. Status: The adopted budget for the Staff Development activity supports the department’s efforts in achieving this goal. By May 2006, Human Resources will develop metrics to monitor the implementation of Maricopa County’s diversity plan. Status: The adopted budgets for the Staff Development, Employee Relations, and Recruiting and Staffing activities support the department’s efforts in achieving this goal. By December 2006, Human Resources will complete a review and revision of all Human Resources policies to ensure legal compliance and compatibility with technology needs. Status: The adopted budgets for the Merit Commission, Staff Development, Employee Relations, Recruiting and Staffing, and Payroll activities support the department’s efforts in achieving this goal. 694 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Resources (Continued) • • • • By January 2006, Human Resources will require 100% of County employees to have either direct deposit or utilize a pay card to eliminate the use of live checks. Status: The adopted budget for the Payroll activity supports the department’s efforts in achieving this goal. By September 2006, Human Resources will achieve a rating of 80% satisfaction level or higher from their customers. Status: The adopted budgets for each of the Human Resources activities support the department’s efforts in achieving this goal. By July 2006, Human Resources will develop and implement a PeopleSoft training plan for all decentralized Human Resources Liaisons, Supervisors and Managers to update them on PeopleSoft system capability. Status: The adopted budgets for the Staff Development, Recruiting and Staffing, Payroll, and Records activities support the department’s efforts in achieving this goal. By July 2007, Human Resources will eliminate hard copy personnel files and tuition reimbursement application forms. Status: The adopted budgets for the Staff Development, Recruiting and Staffing, and Records activities support the department’s efforts in achieving this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT $ CORPORATE INITIATIVES EMPLOYMENT SERVICES PAYROLL & RECORDS MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 695 114 31,532 7,457 39,797 EXPENDITURES EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT $ CORPORATE INITIATIVES EMPLOYMENT SERVICES PAYROLL & RECORDS MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 587,505 616,882 532,807 959,314 2,696,509 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 31,848 31,848 677,679 906,165 808,335 721,654 3,113,833 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 31,848 31,848 729,740 918,827 798,719 760,891 3,208,177 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,145 56 33,962 459 36,621 693,167 887,664 725,943 755,612 3,062,387 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 950 35,400 36,350 725,703 107,305 933,588 785,844 597,856 3,150,296 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ 950 3,552 4,502 4,037 (107,305) (14,761) 12,875 163,035 57,881 11.2% 14.1% 0.6% -1.6% 1.6% 21.4% 1.8% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Administrative Services Program include $20,150 reserved for funding performancebased salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. 695 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Resources (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT CORPORATE INITIATVES Percent Of Combined Charitable Campaign goal reached. Percent Of County employees who use an alternative mode of transportation. EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT Percent Customers who reported a satisfied or higher rating with Employee Relations Services Percent Of participants in a Staff Development sponsored activity that reported they were satisfied with the training EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Percent Of first certification lists that are sent to departments within 48 hours. Percent Of customers reporting satisfied or higher with the recruiting/staffing process PAYROLL AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT Percent of paychecks accurately processed Percent of active personnel records accurately maintained FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 101.0% 100.0% 100.0% 87.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 98.9% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.5% 0.5% 0.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 31,492 8,305 39,797 2,392,081 91,065 213,363 2,696,509 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 26,640 5,208 31,848 2,896,093 46,700 149,407 21,633 3,113,833 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 26,640 5,208 31,848 2,990,437 46,700 149,407 21,633 3,208,177 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 31,720 4,901 36,621 2,862,291 37,430 140,963 21,704 3,062,387 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 35,950 400 36,350 2,927,832 35,375 165,087 22,002 3,150,296 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 9,310 (4,808) 4,502 34.9% -92.3% 14.1% 62,605 11,325 (15,680) (369) 57,881 2.1% 24.3% -10.5% -1.7% 1.8% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 39,797 39,797 $ $ 31,848 31,848 $ $ 31,848 31,848 $ $ 36,621 36,621 $ $ 36,350 36,350 $ $ 4,502 4,502 14.1% 14.1% $ ALL FUNDS $ 2,696,509 2,696,509 $ $ 3,113,833 3,113,833 $ $ 3,208,177 3,208,177 $ $ 3,062,387 3,062,387 $ $ 3,150,296 3,150,296 $ $ 57,881 57,881 1.8% 1.8% 696 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Resources (Continued) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 51.00 51.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 55.00 55.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 55.00 55.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - A new programmer position was added to the administrative services program early in FY 2004-05. 3 new positions were added to the Recruitment Activity in FY 2004-05 to address the documented increase in demand. Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • • • • Department requested budget over/ (under) target. Adjustment to Personnel Savings based on historical experience of 7%. Adjustment to Travel and Education for all activities. Adjustment to the Recruiting Activity for over budgeted salary and benefit expenditures. Increase to the Office of the Director Activity for supply expenditures. Increase to the Merit Activity for legal services. 697 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Resources (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ CY 2005 Health and Dental Premium Changes C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ RESTATEMENTS: Programmer from General Government $ Supervisor/Manager differential from General Government Three recruitment staff from General Government Debt service for 17 PC's to Employee Health Initiatives RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department Request over/(under) target $ Adjustment to Other Pay Sub-line RECR Adjustment to Other Benefits Sub-line In RECR Adjustment to Regular Pay Personnel Savings Adjustment to Benefits Personnel Savings Adjustment to Supplies in ODIR Adjustment to Travel and Education in ODIR Adjustment to Travel and Education in BUDG Adjustment to Travel and Education in STDV Adjustment to Travel and Education in PAYR Adjustment to Travel and Education in MERT Adjustment to Legal Services in MERT BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 31,848 $ - $78,228 16,116 $94,344 31,848 $ - $ $ 31,848 $ - 2,872,815 $ $ 31,848 4,502 $ 4,502 $ 2,967,159 102,565 23,905 118,768 (4,220) 241,018 3,208,177 32,232 60,427 20,061 2,116 114,836 $3,323,013 (62,158) (12,501) (1,988) (80,539) (27,351) 6,000 (750) (550) (2,500) (200) (180) 10,000 (172,717) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 36,350 $ 3,150,296 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 36,350 $ 3,150,296 698 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Resources (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 4,416,912 $ $ 3,568,317 $ $ 2,696,509 $ $ 2,908,000 $ $ 3,150,296 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,416,912 3,568,317 2,696,509 2,908,000 3,150,296 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 4,416,912 $ $ 3,568,317 $ $ 2,696,509 $ $ 2,908,000 $ $ 3,150,296 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,416,912 3,568,317 2,696,509 2,908,000 3,150,296 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Human Resources FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $4.5 Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $4.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% Human Resources Mandates Vs. Expenditures $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100.0% 699 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 4.4 4.4 0 0 3.6 3.6 0 0 2.7 2.7 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 3.2 3.2 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Services Analysis by Dexter C. Thomas, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Community Services Human Services Annette Stein, Director General Services Division Education Division Community Services/Special Transportation Services Division Workforce Development Division Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Human Services Department (HSD) is to provide education, employment and basic needs services for individuals, children and families, so that they have opportunities to enhance their economic, social and physical well-being. Vision All Maricopa County residents will have opportunities to achieve economic self-sufficiency and enjoy a high quality of life. Strategic Goals • By June 2006, HSD will meet or exceed all contract performance standards established by all external funding agencies. Status: Human Services will expand its goals to encompass the various issues and business obstacles affecting its ability to deliver their current Programs and Activities to the citizens of Maricopa County. 700 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Services (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES COMMUNITY SERVICES $ EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SR. ADULT INDEPENDENT LIVING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,575,193 17,630,703 3,129,284 4,612,876 7,453,253 37,401,309 EXPENDITURES COMMUNITY SERVICES $ EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SR. ADULT INDEPENDENT LIVING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,829,876 17,660,178 3,605,946 7,264,882 3,363,095 592,210 37,316,187 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,137,651 17,915,612 4,533,244 6,886,919 3,075,935 428,487 37,977,848 5,570,651 18,902,278 4,869,590 6,229,456 872,032 3,320,873 39,764,880 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,969,525 18,638,199 4,647,290 6,496,666 3,226,168 37,977,848 5,244,308 18,291,572 5,054,509 6,744,345 1,109,890 3,537,783 20,331 40,002,738 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,009,141 20,041,125 4,142,135 6,935,605 1,277,848 735,487 38,141,342 4,871,485 18,894,248 4,224,429 6,965,451 1,320,267 2,623,251 433,662 39,332,793 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 4,969,525 19,354,938 4,647,290 6,496,666 2,509,429 37,977,848 5,845,966 18,976,346 4,418,645 5,364,584 2,310,526 2,610,050 518,965 40,045,082 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 716,739 (716,739) - 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% -22.2% 0.0% (601,658) -11.5% (684,774) -3.7% 635,864 12.6% 1,379,761 20.5% (1,200,636) -108.2% 26.2% 927,733 (498,634) -2452.6% (42,344) -0.1% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $118,566 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 37,226,259 175,050 37,401,309 13,725,602 2,172,301 20,225,031 358,254 835,000 37,316,187 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 37,737,848 240,000 37,977,848 17,553,485 2,813,892 18,085,430 744,223 567,850 39,764,880 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 37,703,565 274,283 37,977,848 19,354,269 2,872,022 16,464,374 744,223 567,850 40,002,738 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 37,846,728 294,615 38,141,342 19,175,629 2,040,143 16,816,716 744,223 556,082 39,332,793 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 37,703,565 274,283 37,977,848 18,698,274 1,469,644 18,186,304 845,243 845,617 40,045,082 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 655,995 1,402,378 (1,721,930) (101,020) (277,767) (42,344) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 48.8% -10.5% -13.6% -48.9% -0.1% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 37,401,309 37,401,309 $ $ 37,977,848 37,977,848 $ $ 37,977,848 37,977,848 $ $ 38,141,342 38,141,342 $ $ 37,977,848 37,977,848 $ $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ 945,707 36,370,480 37,316,187 $ 1,787,032 37,977,848 39,764,880 $ 2,024,890 37,977,848 40,002,738 $ 2,024,880 37,307,913 39,332,793 $ 2,067,234 37,977,848 40,045,082 $ (42,344) (42,344) -2.1% 0.0% -0.1% ALL FUNDS $ $ 701 $ $ $ $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Services (Continued) Personnel by Fund 222 HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 461.00 461.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 478.20 478.20 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 463.00 463.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (15.20) (15.20) Elimination of vacant positions no longer supported by grants – 15.2 FTE (Grant Fund) Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • • Reduced expenditures in General Fund to correct the allocation of indirect costs. Increased expenditure in General Fund to maintain structural balance. Increase expenditures in General Fund to fund increase costs in Rent and Operating Leases for the Senior Adult Independent Living Program (SAIL). Increase outside agency funding to the Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) for homeless services. Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 1,787,032 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Indirect Cost Allocation for SAIL Program $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 237,858 237,858 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 2,024,890 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 2,024,890 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ 2,024,890 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Correct Indirect Cost Allocation $ Structural Balance Adjustment to Rent & Operating Leases Increase Outside Agency Funding to CASS BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ (126,961) 56,020 68,285 45,000 42,344 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 2,067,234 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 2,067,234 702 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Services (Continued) Human Service Grant Fund (222) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 37,977,848 $ 37,977,848 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 37,977,848 $ 37,977,848 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 37,977,848 $ 37,977,848 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 309,331 608,331 (1,750,301) 320,856 511,783 - FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 37,977,848 $ 37,977,848 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 37,977,848 $ 37,977,848 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 37,977,848 $ 37,977,848 703 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Human Services (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,307,798 $ 29,860,848 $ 1,267,078 $ 33,505,461 $ 945,707 $ 35,891,855 $ 2,021,890 $ 35,749,115 $ 2,067,234 $ 37,977,848 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 31,168,647 34,772,539 36,837,562 37,771,005 40,045,082 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,307,798 $ 29,860,848 $ 1,267,078 $ 33,505,461 $ 945,707 $ 35,891,855 $ 2,021,890 $ 35,749,115 $ 2,067,234 $ 37,977,848 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 31,168,647 34,772,539 36,837,562 37,771,005 40,045,082 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Human Services FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Human Services Mandates Vs. Expenditures $45.0 Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $40.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100.0% 704 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 31.2 0 0 31.2 34.8 0 0 34.8 36.8 0 0 36.8 37.8 0 0 37.8 40.1 0 0 40.1 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System Analysis by Scott Rothe, Principal Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Public Defender Organizational Chart County Manager Public Defender James J. Haas Adult Felony Representation & Adult Misdemeanor Representation Juvenile Delinquency & Incorrigibility Representation Administrative Services Appellate Representation Mental Health Representation Information Technology Legal Defender Organizational Chart County Manager Legal Defender Robert B. Briney Dependency Representation Adult Felony Representation Information Technology Administration Services Legal Advocate Organizational Chart County Manager Legal Advocate Susan Sherwin Appeals Child Dependency Sexually Violent Person 705 Felony Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Contract Counsel Organizational Chart County Manager Contract Counsel Mark Kennedy Mission The mission of the Indigent Representation System 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 Public Defender and Contract Counsel: The vision of the Public Defender’s Office is to deliver America’s promise of justice for all. Legal Defender: 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. Legal Advocate: Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Goals Public Defender • • By July 2006, the goal of the Public Defender’s Office is to establish and maintain an effective, Countysanctioned case-weighting and counting system that includes acceptable performance standards, meets all ethical guidelines, and provides a mechanism for maintaining appropriate workloads consistent with the 2003 Spangenberg Case Weighting Study. Status: The implementation of Budgeting for Results in FY 2005-06 and the planned implementation of a case management system in FY 2006-07 will provide the tools and data to address case-weighting and performance standards. By July 2006, the goal of the Public Defender’s Office is to advocate for and work cooperatively with our justice system partners to develop an effective approach to indigency screening, which includes specific guidelines to distinguish defendants who, based on their financial status, qualify for courtappointed counsel from those who can afford private counsel and those who can contribute to the cost of a court-appointed defense. Status: An Indigent Defense Reimbursement Unit Pilot Project was implemented in mid-FY 2004-05. The results will be analyzed. 706 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) • • • By July 2006, the goal of the Public Defender’s Office is to implement a case management system that will meet our need for comprehensive case information, while simultaneously offering a tool to improve our ability to manage cases and share information, knowledge and resources, thus improving our ability to focus on case-specific work. Status: Phase I of a three-phase (three-year) development of the Indigent Representation Information System (IRIS) is scheduled to result in a new Public Defender case system by July 2005. Future phases will replace the current Time Matters system for the Public Defender, Legal Defender and Legal Advocate by July 2006, and will replace the existing case system for Contract Counsel by July 2007. By July 2007, the goal of the Public Defender’s Office is to reduce the number of cases requiring administrative withdrawal by effectively advocating for the development of an Indigent Representation staffing plan that includes a commitment to sufficient funding and timely response to workload increases. Status: Full implementation of Budgeting for Results in FY 2005-06 by allocating Demand and Output per Office will result in cost/benefit data that will help justify the appropriateness of staffing allocation requests. An ongoing goal of the Public Defender’s Office is to maintain cost effectiveness by limiting the percentage of increases in the annual cost per case to no more than the percentage of increase in the overall annual funding of the County’s justice group. Status: Full implementation of Budgeting for Results in FY 2005-06 will provide the tools along with the data to achieve this goal. Legal Defender • • By July 2006, the Office of the Legal Defender, working with OMB, will establish a case weighting methodology that accurately portrays the Office’s workload. Status: The implementation of Budgeting for Results in FY 2005-06 and the planned implementation of a case management system in FY 200607 will provide the tools and data to address case-weighting and performance standards. By July 2006, with appropriate funding, the Office of the Legal Defender will assume all Office of Contract Counsel Criminal and Parental Representation cases that can be represented by the Office at a cost savings to Maricopa County. Status: The FY 2005-06 Adopted budget assumes that 35% of Parental Dependency Representation Activity cases will be assigned to the Legal Defender with remaining cases assigned to the Contract Counsel. Legal Advocate (OLA) • • By July 2006, OLA Dependency attorneys will accept 100% of demand without compromising quality, in response to the Court’s request that complex Dependency case are handled by OLA. Status: The FY 2005-06 Adopted budget assumes that 70% of Child Dependency Representation Activity cases will be assigned to the Legal Advocate with remaining cases assigned to the Contract Counsel. By July 2006, OLA Capital attorneys, in conjunction with the Public Defender Office and the Legal Defender Office, will accept 100% of demand, with “demand” being defined as all cases referred from the Courts, less those which constitute an actual legal conflict. Status: The FY 2005-06 Adopted budget assumes that 14 (47%) of the 30 capital cases estimated to be resolved to conclusion during the year will be completed by the Contract Counsel. 707 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) • • • • By July 2007, OLA Felony attorneys will accept 100% of demand for serious felony cases, with “serious felony” cases being defined as Class 2, 3 or higher and “demand” being defined as all cases referred from the Public Defender Office and the Legal Defender Office including “caseload withdrawals”, less those which constitute an actual legal conflict. Status: OLA is budgeted in FY 2005-06 to resolve to conclusion 6.7% of the Class 2 & 3 Felony cases assigned to the Indigent Representation System. By July 2006, OLA Appeal attorneys will accept 100% of demand for appeals. “Demand” is defined as appeals in all capital and non-capital cases tried by OLA attorneys, and those referred by PD and OCC, except those cases for which an actual legal conflict exists. Status: OLA is budgeted in FY 2005-06 to resolve to conclusion 14.1% of the Adult Appeal Representation Activity cases assigned to the Indigent Representation System. By July 2006, OLA Appeal attorneys will accept 100% of demand for post-conviction relief cases in change of plea cases. “Demand” is defined as all post-conviction relief matters assigned by the Courts as well as any referrals from the Public Defender and Office of Contract Counsel, except those cases for which an actual legal conflict exists. Status: OLA is budgeted in FY 2005-06 to resolve to conclusion 27.4% of the Post Conviction Relief Representation Activity cases assigned to the Indigent Representation System. By July 2007, OLA SVP attorneys will collaborate with mental health evaluators to establish true “SVP” standards, work within the legal system to place additional pre-trial protections in the law, and influence systemic changes toward more expedient treatment of SVP clients in the state hospital, which will ensure due process, prevent clients from being inappropriately labeled as “sexually violent persons,” and expedite the release of clients, thereby reducing state expenditures. Status: The number of SVP cases assigned (all of which are assigned to OLA) is projected to decline from 52 in FY 2003-04 to 34 in FY 2005-06. Much of this decline, according to OLA, is due to the vigorous defense offered by OLA attorneys to prevent clients from being inappropriately labeled as a “sexually violent person”. Contract Counsel • • By July 2006, the goal of the Office of Contract Counsel is to advocate for and work cooperatively with our justice system partners to develop an effective approach to indigency screening, which includes specific guidelines to distinguish defendants who, based on their financial status, qualify for courtappointed counsel from those who can afford private counsel and those who can contribute to the cost of a court-appointed defense. Status: An Indigent Defense Reimbursement Unit Pilot Project was implemented in mid-FY 2004-05. The results will be analyzed. An ongoing goal of the Office of Contract Counsel is to maintain cost effectiveness by limiting the percentage of increases in the annual cost per case to no more than the percentage of increase in the overall annual funding of the County’s justice group. Status: Full implementation of Budgeting for Results in FY 2005-06 will provide the tools along with the data to achieve this goal. 708 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION ADULT MISDEMNR REPRESENTATION DEPENDENCY REPRESENTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES 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 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ $ 1,533,855 2,989 532,581 2,069,425 77,998 29,466,101 961,779 4,202,768 8,492,788 11,274 4,577,484 938,215 5,145,558 449,278 54,323,243 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,501,977 5,000 454,154 808,875 2,770,006 237,586 30,870,762 725,450 3,872,563 7,466,208 150,942 6,183,946 1,050,951 4,664,613 1,344,288 56,567,309 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,525,926 5,000 454,154 808,875 2,793,955 237,586 31,211,630 908,354 3,745,164 7,291,801 150,767 6,352,560 1,106,536 5,467,227 1,490,469 57,962,094 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,536,230 2,081 525,028 808,875 2,872,214 645,383 32,311,441 966,313 4,300,831 9,783,719 149,402 5,147,369 1,031,517 5,584,333 1,407,894 61,328,204 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 1,504,853 5,000 532,794 441,759 2,484,406 727,140 34,121,567 960,126 4,600,218 9,519,413 164,619 5,175,482 1,109,955 6,030,285 1,163,283 63,572,088 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (21,073) 78,640 (367,116) (309,549) -1.4% 0.0% 17.3% -45.4% -11.1% (489,554) (2,909,937) (51,772) (855,054) (2,227,612) (13,852) 1,177,078 (3,419) (563,058) 327,186 (5,609,994) -206.1% -9.3% -5.7% -22.8% -30.5% -9.2% 18.5% -0.3% -10.3% 22.0% -9.7% Note: Budget Expenditures for the Indigent Representation System’s Administrative Services Program include $287,888 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. 709 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Key Results by Program Public Defender PROGRAM RESULT ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney capital caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney "Other Homicide" caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Class 2 and 3 felony caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Class 4, 5, and 6 caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Felony DUI caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Violation of Probation caseload guideline. ADULT MISDEMEANOR REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney misdemeanor caseload guideline. APPELLATE REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney adult appeal caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney post conviction relief caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney juvenile appeal caseload guideline. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY & INCORRIGIBILITY Percent of variance from current annual attorney felony-level juvenile delinquency caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney incorrigibility & misdemeanor-level juvenile delinquency caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney juvenile violation of probation caseload guideline. MENTAL HEALTH REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current attorney mental health caseload guideline. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 70.0% -134.0% -243.0% -243.0% -243.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.0% 10.0% 14.0% 14.0% 9.0% -5.0% -35.7% 28.0% 10.0% 14.0% 14.0% 9.0% -5.0% -35.7% 28.0% 10.0% 14.0% 14.0% 9.0% -5.0% -35.7% 28.0% 10.0% 14.0% 14.0% 9.0% -5.0% -35.7% 28.0% 10.0% 14.0% 14.0% 9.0% -5.0% -35.7% 28.0% 10.0% 14.0% 14.0% 9.0% -5.0% -35.7% 39.0% 39.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 0.0% 0.0% 39.0% 39.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56.0% 50.0% 57.0% 57.0% 57.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 31.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 31.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 31.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.0% 14.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED -149.0% -63.0% -45.0% -45.0% -45.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.0% 19.0% 18.0% 15.0% 15.0% -3.0% -16.7% 32.0% 19.0% 18.0% 15.0% 15.0% -3.0% -16.7% 32.0% 19.0% 18.0% 15.0% 15.0% -3.0% -16.7% 32.0% 19.0% 18.0% 15.0% 15.0% -3.0% -16.7% 32.0% 19.0% 18.0% 15.0% 15.0% -3.0% -16.7% 8.0% 4.0% -12.0% -12.0% -17.0% -5.0% 41.7% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Legal Defender PROGRAM RESULT ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney capital caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney "Other Homicide" caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Class 2 and 3 felony caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Class 4, 5, and 6 caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Felony DUI caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Violation of Probation caseload guideline. DEPENDENCY REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney Parental Dependency Representation Caseload Guideline. 710 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Advocate PROGRAM RESULT ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney capital caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney "Other Homicide" caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Class 2 and 3 felony caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney Class 4, 5, and 6 caseload guideline. APPELLATE REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney adult appeal caseload guideline. Percent of variance from current annual attorney post conviction relief caseload guideline. DEPENDENCY REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney child dependency caseload guidance MENTAL HEALTH REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current attorney Sexually Violent Person caseload guideline. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 84.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 80.0% 5.0% 6.7% 73.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 60.0% -10.0% -14.3% 8.0% 9.0% 5.0% 2.0% 8.0% 3.0% 60.0% 11.0% 10.0% 10.0% 2.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 47.0% -3.0% -6.0% -1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% -3.0% -5.0% -250.0% 26.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.0% 10.0% -15.0% -60.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Contract Counsel PROGRAM RESULT ADULT CIVIL REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Total Expenses for Privately Represented Adult Civil Cases. ADULT FELONY REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Total Expenses for Privately Represented Felony Cases. ADULT MISDEMEANOR REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Total Expenses for Privately Represented Misdemeanor Cases. APPELLATE REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Percent of variance from current annual attorney adult appeal caseload guideline. DEPENDENCY REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Total Expenses for Privately Represented Dependency Cases. JUVENILE CIVIL REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Total Expenses for Privately Represented Juvenile Civil Cases. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY & INCORRIGIBILITY Percent of variance from current annual attorney juvenile delinquency private counsel caseload guideline. MENTAL HEALTH REPRESENTATION PROGRAM Total Expenses for Privately Represented Mental Health Cases. 711 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,405,801 658,285 5,339 2,069,425 36,222,423 714,231 17,201,068 185,521 54,323,243 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,291,296 1,464,710 14,000 2,770,006 39,890,782 735,640 15,386,227 554,660 56,567,309 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,359,245 1,420,710 14,000 2,793,955 41,442,110 883,831 15,021,991 614,162 57,962,094 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,425,634 1,437,192 9,388 2,872,214 40,098,495 850,854 19,871,085 507,770 61,328,204 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 1,451,763 1,020,945 11,698 2,484,406 42,786,022 695,434 19,635,324 455,308 63,572,088 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 92,518 (399,765) (2,302) (309,549) 6.4% -39.2% -19.7% -12.5% (1,343,912) 188,397 (4,613,333) 158,854 (5,609,994) -3.2% 21.3% -30.7% 25.9% -9.7% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 209 PUBLIC DEFENDER TRAINING 233 PUBLIC DEFENDER GRANTS 262 PUBLIC DEFENDER FILL THE GAP 263 LEGAL DEFENDER FILL THE GAP $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 209 PUBLIC DEFENDER TRAINING 233 PUBLIC DEFENDER GRANTS 262 PUBLIC DEFENDER FILL THE GAP 263 LEGAL DEFENDER FILL THE GAP $ ALL FUNDS $ 102,673 422,304 493,227 1,005,846 45,374 2,069,425 52,551,813 361,034 373,658 994,284 42,455 54,323,243 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 91,700 465,464 384,712 1,784,130 44,000 2,770,006 53,888,998 465,464 384,717 1,784,130 44,000 56,567,309 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 91,700 465,464 406,661 1,784,130 46,000 2,793,955 55,259,834 465,464 406,666 1,784,130 46,000 57,962,094 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 145,453 492,889 403,742 1,784,130 46,000 2,872,214 58,953,284 465,640 403,742 1,459,538 46,000 61,328,204 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 131,700 507,294 406,661 1,392,366 46,385 2,484,406 61,219,382 507,294 406,661 1,392,366 46,385 63,572,088 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 40,000 41,830 (391,764) 385 (309,549) 43.6% 9.0% 0.0% -22.0% 0.8% -11.1% (5,959,548) (41,830) 5 391,764 (385) (5,609,994) -10.8% -9.0% 0.0% 22.0% -0.8% -9.7% Budget by Department FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE PUBLIC DEFENDER LEGAL DEFENDER LEGAL ADVOCATE CONTRACT COUNSEL $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES PUBLIC DEFENDER LEGAL DEFENDER LEGAL ADVOCATE CONTRACT COUNSEL $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,948,128 105,396 15,902 2,069,425 30,749,822 5,910,048 5,313,624 12,349,749 54,323,243 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,629,593 104,103 36,310 2,770,006 33,677,672 7,105,584 6,399,647 9,384,406 56,567,309 712 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,651,542 106,103 36,310 2,793,955 34,601,823 7,283,141 6,546,730 9,530,400 57,962,094 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,694,974 99,703 37,537 40,000 2,872,214 33,582,087 6,830,872 6,293,197 14,622,047 61,328,204 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 2,279,664 125,242 39,500 40,000 2,484,406 35,059,060 7,536,962 6,813,749 14,162,317 63,572,088 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (371,878) 19,139 3,190 40,000 (309,549) -14.0% 18.0% 8.8% -11.1% (457,237) (253,821) (267,019) (4,631,917) (5,609,994) -1.3% -3.5% -4.1% -48.6% -9.7% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 209 PUBLIC DEFENDER TRAINING 233 PUBLIC DEFENDER GRANTS 262 PUBLIC DEFENDER FILL THE GAP 263 LEGAL DEFENDER FILL THE GAP TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 624.75 1.50 7.00 14.80 0.50 648.55 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 630.30 1.50 7.00 14.80 0.50 654.10 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 631.30 1.50 7.00 14.80 0.50 655.10 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 1.00 1.00 1.0 FTE increase due to restoration of Legal Advocate Juvenile Dependency Attorney position that had been diverted to take on additional adult felony cases and avert contract costs. Base Adjustments Expenditures • • • • • • • • Reduction of $38,527 from the General Fund in over-budgeted Workers Compensation and Unemployment Insurance in the Public Defender Office. Addition of 1.0 FTE Attorney for the Legal Advocate’s Child Dependency Activity and associated Personal Services expenditures of $75,896 from the General Fund. Increase of $4,628,603 from the General Fund for Contract Counsel Legal Services. Full implementation of Budgeting for Results has provided the tools and data to make it possible to fully fund the Office of Contract Counsel at $14,154,379 at the commencement of FY 2005-06, ending the longtime need of reserving several million dollars in contingency for year-end allocation to ensure that Contract Counsel expenditures do not exceed appropriated expenditures. Increase of $41,830 in Training Fund expenditures due to increasing revenue. Technical adjustments to the Grants Fund resulting in zero net change. Reduce Public Defender Fill the Gap by $391,764 in FY 2005-06 reflecting one-time expenditures from fund balance in FY 2004-05 for the IRIS case management system. Increase the FY 2005-06 Revenue and Expenditure appropriation for the Legal Defender Fill the Gap Fund by $385 to fully fund Workers Compensation and Unemployment Insurance payments. The Adopted Budget for FY 2005-06 includes $32,287 in the Office of Director Activity for the annualized cost of the Executive pay for performance increase approved for FY 2004-05. 713 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Reconciliation Public Defender - General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases IRIS Case Mngt System & 1.5 FTE Positions Add 1.0 FTE Management Specialist Transfer Portion of Financial Manager Salary to Legal Defender ($8,144) & Contract Counsel ($4,072) MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 52,000 $ 31,100,074 - $ 727,236 51,668 84,840 50,674 (12,216) - $ 902,202 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 52,000 $ 32,002,276 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 52,000 $ 32,002,276 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments 1.5 FTE for IRIS Case Mngt System $21,831; 1.0 FTE Mngt Specialist $8,974; Budget Liaison Salary Alloc to Legal Defender ($8,144) & Contract Counsel ($4,072). Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Technical Adjustment to Risk Management Activity $ Pay for Performance - Office of Director Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - - $ 103,335 570,706 147,458 18,589 $ 16,805 856,893 52,000 $ 32,859,169 - $ $ (38,527) 10,754 (27,773) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 52,000 $ 32,831,396 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 52,000 $ 32,831,396 714 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Defender - General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases Transfer Portion of Public Def Budget Liaison Salary MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 19,700 $ - $ 7,021,181 $ 136,280 31,133 8,144 175,557 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 19,700 $ 7,196,738 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 19,700 $ 7,196,738 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Public Defender Budget Liaison Salary Alloc to Legal Defender Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance - Office of Director Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 62,266 130,722 27,633 8,144 $ 1,410 230,175 19,700 $ 7,426,913 - $ $ 4,507 4,507 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 19,700 $ 7,431,420 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 19,700 $ 7,431,420 715 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Advocate - General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 20,000 $ - $ 6,383,337 $ 128,714 18,369 147,083 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 20,000 $ 6,530,420 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 20,000 $ 6,530,420 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Add 1.0 FTE Dependency Attorney $ Pay for Performance - Office of Director Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 36,738 112,983 26,099 3,025 178,845 20,000 $ 6,709,265 - $ $ $ 75,896 9,088 84,984 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 20,000 $ 6,794,249 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 20,000 $ 6,794,249 716 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Contract Counsel - General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 9,384,406 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases Transfer Portion of Public Def Budget Liaison Salary Add 2.0 FTE to Process Increasing Contract Workload MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 11,363 4,067 4,072 126,492 145,994 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 9,530,400 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 9,530,400 - $ 8,134 8,683 2,179 (24,966) TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Public Defender Budget Liaison Salary Alloc to Contract Counsel $4,072; 2.0 FTE to Process Increasing Contract Workload ($29,038) Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ - $ 1,346 (4,624) 9,525,776 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Revenue for Office of Director Activity $ Increase Legal Services - Adult Civil Rep Program Increase Legal Services - Adult Felony Rep Program Increase Legal Services - Adult Misdemeanor Rep Program Increase Legal Services - Appellate Rep Program Increase Legal Services - Dependency Rep Program Increase Legal Services - Juvenile Civil Rep Program Increase Legal Services - Juvenile Delinquency/Incorrigibility Rep Program Increase Legal Services - Mental Health Rep Program Pay for Performance - Office of Director Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 40,000 $ 14,162,317 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 40,000 $ 14,162,317 717 64,374 2,298,981 (1,270) 161,513 2,104,863 38,150 (68,688) 30,680 7,938 4,636,541 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Public Defender - Training Fund (209) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 413,751 $ 413,751 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 413,751 $ 413,751 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 413,751 $ 413,751 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health & Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 349 2,047 1,052 (3,448) - $ 413,751 $ 413,751 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Training Revenue (Human Resources Activity) $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 19,886 $ 19,886 $ 19,886 19,886 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 433,637 $ 433,637 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 433,637 $ 433,637 Legal Defender - Training Fund (209) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 40,403 $ 40,403 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 40,403 $ 40,403 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 40,403 $ 40,403 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 40,403 $ 40,403 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Training Revenue (Human Resources Activity) $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 18,754 $ 18,754 $ 18,754 18,754 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 59,157 $ 59,157 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 59,157 $ 59,157 718 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Advocate - Training Fund (209) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 11,310 $ 11,310 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 11,310 $ 11,310 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 11,310 $ 11,310 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 11,310 $ 11,310 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Training Revenue (Human Resources Activity) $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 3,190 $ 3,190 $ 3,190 3,190 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 14,500 $ 14,500 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 14,500 $ 14,500 Public Defender - Grants Fund (233) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 379,712 $ 379,712 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Grant Revenue & Expenditure Adjustment $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 21,949 $ 21,949 $ 21,949 21,949 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 401,661 $ 401,661 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 401,661 $ 401,661 - 1,631 7,942 4,907 (14,480) - TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health & Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Technical Adjustment to Class 4, 5, 6 Felony Rep Activity $ Technical Adjustment to Class 2, 3 Felony Rep Activity Technical Adjustment to Misdemeanor Activity Technical Adjustment to Human Resources Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ 401,661 $ - $ $ 401,661 (3,437) (206) (1,264) 4,907 - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 401,661 $ 401,661 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 401,661 $ 401,661 719 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Advocate - Grants Fund (233) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Public Defender - Fill the Gap (262) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,784,130 $ 1,784,130 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,784,130 $ 1,784,130 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,784,130 $ 1,784,130 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health & Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 3,448 19,743 10,375 (33,566) - $ 1,784,130 $ 1,784,130 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Reduction Reflecting Case Management Expenditures in FY 2004-05 $ from Fund Balance BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (391,764) $ (391,764) $ (391,764) (391,764) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 1,392,366 $ 1,392,366 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,392,366 $ 1,392,366 720 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Defender - Fill the Gap (263) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 44,000 $ 44,000 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase - Revenue Adjustment $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 2,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 46,000 $ 46,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 46,000 $ 46,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 46,000 $ 46,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase Other Benefits in Class 4, 5, 6 Felony Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 385 $ 385 $ 385 385 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 46,385 $ 46,385 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 46,385 $ 46,385 721 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Public Defender Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 25,059,114 $ 3,067,894 $ 26,683,834 $ 3,194,984 $ 29,145,868 $ 3,552,082 $ 30,960,606 $ 4,150,598 $ 32,831,396 $ 2,227,664 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 28,127,009 29,878,818 32,697,950 35,111,205 35,059,060 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 25,059,114 $ 3,067,894 $ 26,683,834 $ 3,194,984 $ 29,145,868 $ 3,552,082 $ 30,960,606 $ 4,150,598 $ 32,831,396 $ 2,227,664 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 28,127,009 29,878,818 32,697,950 35,111,205 35,059,060 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Public Defender FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Public Defender Mandates Vs. Expenditures $40.0 $35.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 6.4% $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 93.6% 722 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 28.1 25.1 3.1 0 29.9 26.7 3.2 0 32.7 29.1 3.6 0 35.1 31 4.2 0 35.1 32.8 2.2 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Public Defender 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 post-conviction relief cases. Legal representation of juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. Legal representation of defendants opposing extradition. Legal representation in postconviction relief cases of persons sentenced to death. Legal representation of witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court. 723 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Public Defender 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). 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. 724 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Defender Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 4,311,968 $ 123,577 $ 4,783,350 $ 160,945 $ 5,851,782 $ 163,662 $ 6,756,854 $ 160,398 $ 7,431,420 $ 105,542 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,435,545 4,944,295 6,015,444 6,917,252 7,536,962 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 4,311,968 $ 123,577 $ 4,783,350 $ 160,945 $ 5,851,782 $ 163,662 $ 6,756,854 $ 160,398 $ 7,431,420 $ 105,542 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,435,545 4,944,295 6,015,444 6,917,252 7,536,962 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Legal Defender FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Legal Defender Mandates Vs. Expenditures $8.0 $7.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 1.4% $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 98.6% 725 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 4.4 4.3 0.1 0 4.9 4.8 0.2 0 6 5.9 0.2 0 6.9 6.8 0.2 0 7.5 7.4 0.1 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Defender 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. 726 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Advocate Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,069,586 $ 25,442 $ 4,212,527 $ 13,537 $ 5,303,639 $ 9,985 $ 6,359,937 $ 4,305 $ 6,794,249 $ 19,500 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,095,028 4,226,064 5,313,624 6,364,242 6,813,749 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,069,586 $ 25,442 $ 4,212,527 $ 13,537 $ 5,303,639 $ 9,985 $ 6,359,937 $ 4,305 $ 6,794,249 $ 19,500 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,095,028 4,226,064 5,313,624 6,364,242 6,813,749 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Legal Advocate FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Legal Advocate Mandates Vs. Expenditures $7.0 $6.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.3% $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 99.7% 727 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 2.2 2.2 0 0 3.1 3.1 0 0 4.2 4.2 0 0 5.3 5.3 0 0 6.4 6.4 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Advocate 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 costeffectiveness 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 post-conviction relief cases. Legal representation of juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. Legal representation of defendants opposing extradition. Legal representation in post-conviction relief cases of persons sentenced to death. Legal representation of witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court. 728 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Legal Advocate Mandate Information 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 §§ 11584 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). 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. 729 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Contract Counsel Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 10,187,421 $ $ 11,210,498 $ $ 12,349,749 $ $ 15,155,986 $ $ 14,162,317 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 10,187,421 11,210,498 12,349,749 15,155,986 14,162,317 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 10,187,421 $ $ 11,210,498 $ $ 12,349,749 $ $ 15,155,986 $ $ 14,162,317 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 10,187,421 11,210,498 12,349,749 15,155,986 14,162,317 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Contract Counsel Mandates Vs. Expenditures Contract Counsel FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $16.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% $14.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $12.0 $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 730 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 10.2 10.2 0 0 11.2 11.2 0 0 12.3 12.3 0 0 15.2 15.2 0 0 14.2 14.2 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Contract Counsel 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 post-conviction relief cases. Legal representation of juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. Legal representation of defendants opposing extradition. Legal representation in postconviction relief cases of persons sentenced to death. Legal representation of witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court. 731 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Indigent Representation System (Continued) Contract Counsel 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). 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. 732 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Analysis by Scott Rothe, Principal Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Don Thomas, Director Business Project Managers Administration 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. 733 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) Strategic Goals • • • By December 2005, ICJIS will facilitate the electronic exchange of information by developing and deploying prioritized data exchanges through the Integration Engine so that participating justice and law enforcement county agencies can reduce data entry associated with increasing workloads through the elimination of redundant data entry. Status: Remaining Phase I data exchange projects will be implemented in FY 2006-07. By December 2005, 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. Status: Remaining Phase I interface projects will be completed during FY 200506. By December 2005, the ICJIS agency will provide the information links necessary for criminal justice departments to develop and implement management information systems, including the Accused-InProcess system to provide more complete information regarding individual cases and case processing, leading to better decision making. Status: Remaining Phase I information links will be completed during FY 2005-06. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG $ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 871,479 3,334,489 4,205,967 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 883,962 4,551,519 5,435,481 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 900,756 4,594,132 5,494,888 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 903,650 3,842,229 4,745,879 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 984,636 3,413,576 4,398,212 $ $ (83,880) 1,180,556 1,096,676 -9.3% 25.7% 20.0% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Administrative Services Program include $11,972 reserved for funding performancebased salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,800,209 698,113 1,470,033 237,612 4,205,967 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 1,745,235 668,536 2,718,312 303,398 5,435,481 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 1,722,860 694,968 2,773,662 303,398 5,494,888 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 1,835,914 649,005 1,996,238 264,723 4,745,879 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 1,729,713 481,245 1,692,507 494,747 4,398,212 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (6,853) 213,723 1,081,155 (191,349) 1,096,676 -0.4% 30.8% 39.0% -63.1% 20.0% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS $ ALL FUNDS $ 4,205,967 4,205,967 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 5,435,481 5,435,481 734 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 5,494,888 5,494,888 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 4,745,879 4,745,879 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 4,398,212 4,398,212 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ 1,096,676 1,096,676 20.0% 20.0% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) Personnel by Fund 255 DETENTION OPERATIONS TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 19.00 19.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 18.00 18.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 18.00 18.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Multi-Year Project Budget Summary ICJIS PROJECT COST SUMMARY - PHASE I ADOPTED Prior Years NON- PROJECT $ 1,766,906 89,061 2,641,679 996,908 725,708 5,073,826 1,130,312 219,051 110,363 15,410 385,506 32,975 162,698 3,747,411 1,764,199 $ 17,095,107 TOTAL Cumulative Total PROJECTS: Accused in Process Convergent Architecture Common Case Number Common Code Table Data Exchanges DPS Interface Data Quality Electronic Signatures External Data Exchanges ITSM Management Information Pre-Booking Project Overhead Secured Network Backbone Sub-Total Projects $ 2,706,215 Year 1 FY 2005-06 Year 2 FY 2006-07 Year 3 FY 2007-08 $ 800,466 $ 1,653,900 977,406 2,631,306 $ 19,801,322 $ 4,398,212 $ 19,801,322 $ 24,199,534 $ Year 4 FY 2008-09 $ - $ - $ 800,466 $ 25,000,000 Year 5 FY 2009-10 $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000,000 5-Year Total Total Project $ - $ 2,567,372 $ $ - 1,653,900 977,406 $ 2,631,306 $ $ - $ - $ - $ 5,198,678 $ 25,000,000 $ 25,000,000 5,273,587 89,061 2,641,679 996,908 725,708 6,727,726 1,130,312 219,051 110,363 15,410 385,506 32,975 162,698 4,724,817 1,764,199 $ 19,726,413 $ 25,000,000 Summary Approval of the original Jail Excise Tax called for $25 million in funding for a new Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS). Following are brief descriptions of each ICJIS project: • • • Accused in Process: The purpose of this project is to develop a shared real-time index of information for authorized ICJIS agencies so that they can track subjects while in the County Justice System and capture information for subject history worksheets. Data Exchange Project: The purpose of this project is to provide electronic feeds of information between criminal justice agencies so that they can have more timely and accurate information and reduce duplicate data entry. Convergent Architecture: The purpose of this project is to provide industry standard application development tools for justice agencies so that they can realize more efficient and cost-effective data sharing. 735 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) • • • • • • • • • • Common Case Number: The purpose of the Common Case Number project is to develop and implement a unique identifying element for case information for participating agencies so that they can more readily share information. Common Code Table: The purpose of this project is to define specific shared data fields, validation tables, and data validation applications for ICJIS agencies so that they can realize more efficient and cost-effective data sharing DPS Interface: The purpose of this project is to replace the current interface between the Sheriff’s Office Jail Management System (JMS) and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for justice agencies so that they can securely and effectively share information. Data Quality: The purpose of this project is to implement Data Quality standards, software tools, and audit capability for ICJIS agencies so that they can assure data accuracy and reliability. Electronic Signatures: The purpose of this project is to develop a strategy to implement on-line document authentication for County justice agencies so that they can readily create, receive, exchange, and store electronic documents. This Project was put on hold in August 2003. External Data Exchanges: The purpose of this project is to explore and identify potential interfaces with external agency computer system applications for County justice agencies so that they can share data and eliminate duplicate data entry. TSM: The purpose of Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) is to provide service support and delivery to justice agencies so that they can assure that ICJIS Agency IT systems and applications are effectively maintained, supported and enhanced throughout their life cycle. Management Information: The purpose of this project is to survey existing and desired management reporting needs of ICJIS agencies so that they can enhance program planning, evaluation, management, and statistical reporting. Pre-Booking: The purpose of this project is to implement a system for entry of arrest and booking data to arresting officers so that reduce data entry errors better utilize their time. Secured Network Backbone: The purpose of this project is to separate criminal justice network traffic from other that of other County departments and encrypt it for justice agencies so that they can comply with federal requirements. OMB Recommendation Funding beyond the original $25 million allocation has not been approved; the Adopted FY 2005-06 Budget includes total expenditures of $4,398,212 with cumulative expenditures reaching $25,000,000 in mid FY 200607 (see the Phase I Multi-Year Recommendation table, above). Funding of ongoing operating costs is still to be determined. Future Funding For ICJIS The FY 2004-05 budget recommendation, subsequently adopted by the Board of Supervisors, specified requirements for consideration of ICJIS project funding beyond the $25 million cap. The requirements are as follows: • Funding for ongoing operating and maintenance costs must be supported by recapture of direct operational savings that have been realized by the criminal justice agencies. For example, reductions in staff time and/or other operating expenses directly related to implementation of the Phase I elements. 736 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) • It must be demonstrated that implementation of the Phase I elements has resulted in direct savings and/or indirect benefits (e.g., improvement in timeliness or quality of work by criminal justice agencies) that significantly exceed its cost (i.e., a positive return on investment). • ICJIS must demonstrate that implementation of the proposed Phase II projects will result in a positive return on investment. The ICJIS Department is presently finalizing its Return on Investment (ROI) analysis. This analysis should address the requirements of (a) and (b) as listed above. In regard to item (a), the analysis must show specific instances in which the agencies that have directly benefited from ICJIS projects have saved staff time and other resources, and account for the disposition of the savings. To the extent that the agencies can demonstrate that savings have been reallocated to at least partially offset increased demands for services without corresponding budget increases, such bona fide “cost avoidance” will satisfy the requirement. Base Adjustments Expenditures • • The Adopted Budget includes minor technical adjustments that result in a net reduction of $22,246 to the Business Application Development Activity. The Adopted Budget for FY 2005-06 includes $9,761 in the Office of Director Activity for the annualized cost of the Executive pay for performance increase approved for FY 2004-05. 737 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) Reconciliation Detention Fund (255) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 5,435,481 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 51,066 8,341 59,407 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 5,494,888 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 5,494,888 - $ 16,682 38,000 13,289 3,229 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Non-Recurring Expenses Technology Projects Approved for FY 2004-05 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ (3,776,936) (3,705,736) $ - $ 1,789,152 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Technical Adjustments to Business Applications Development Activity $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ FY 2005-06 NON-PROJECT EXPENDITURE BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 1,766,906 $ - $ 1,653,900 977,406 FY 2005-06 PROJECT EXPENDITURE BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 2,631,306 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 4,398,212 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: Project Budgets: Data Exchanges Project Overhead 738 (22,246) (22,246) Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 3,655,715 $ 2,997,299 $ 4,205,852 $ 3,923,232 $ 4,398,212 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,655,715 2,997,299 4,205,852 3,923,232 4,398,212 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 3,655,715 $ 2,997,299 $ 4,205,852 $ 3,923,232 $ 4,398,212 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,655,715 2,997,299 4,205,852 3,923,232 4,398,212 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Integrated Criminal Justice Information System FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Mandates Vs. Expenditures $4.5 $4.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 100.0% 739 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 3.7 0 3.7 0 3 0 3 0 4.2 0 4.2 0 3.9 0 3.9 0 4.4 0 4.4 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems (Continued) 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. Additionally A.R.S. § 42-6109.01 - Taxes under this section shall be levied beginning in the month following the expiration of the tax under section 42-6109 and may continue for not more than twenty years after the date the tax collection begins. This statute continues 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. Proposition 411 approved November 2002 by the voters approves the continuance and funding of the Integrated Criminal Justice Information System department. “This department is responsible for providing automated systems and information technology expertise that will promote efficient sharing of criminal justice information between criminal justice agencies to enhance public safety.” MANDATE DESCRIPTION “Implement An Integrated Criminal Justice Information System.” 740 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Internal Audit Analysis by Marc Kuffner, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Board of Supervisors Audit Committee County Management Internal Audit 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. Strategic Goals • • • “Annual Audit Plan” -- Annually, Internal Audit will assist the County in its mission to provide fiscally responsible public services by completing 90% of the Board of Supervisors' approved annual Audit Plan and reporting this objective, accurate, and meaningful information to the Board in a timely manner; no later than 90 days after the fiscal year-end. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain their annual audit plan. “Satisfaction Rating” -- Annually, Internal Audit will assist the County in its mission to provide fiscally responsible public services by providing objective, accurate, and meaningful information in a way that earns a 90% customer satisfaction rating each year from our primary customers, namely, the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow department to maintain a high satisfaction rating. “Implementation of Recommendations” -- Annually, Internal Audit will assist the County in its mission to provide fiscally responsible public services by working with clients to ensure that 90% of audit report recommendations are implemented within three years of being reported. This goal will also assist Internal Audit in its vision to facilitate positive change throughout the County. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain this goal. 741 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Internal Audit (Continued) • “Regional Leadership” -- Annually, Internal Audit will assist the County in its mission to become a regional leader by creating and producing at least three innovative, effective audit products and methodologies. These developed products and methodologies will be shared on a regional and national level through publications, presentations, and award programs. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES AUDIT SERVICES $ MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 170 255 305 730 EXPENDITURES AUDIT SERVICES $ MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 423,179 301,929 280,372 1,005,480 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED - $ - 75 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 36 925 961 75 - - $ 75 $ 75 $ $ 179,741 649,256 206,913 1,035,910 $ 171,905 669,497 224,365 1,065,767 $ $ $ 202,073 662,131 226,391 1,090,596 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ - $ - 85 $ 85 $ $ 278,476 632,782 197,996 1,109,254 $ $ 10 13.3% 10 13.3% - $ (106,571) 36,715 26,369 (43,487) -62.0% 5.5% 11.8% -4.1% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT AUDIT SERVICES Percent of recommendations concurred with by clients MANAGEMENT SERVICES Percent satisfaction rating from customers FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 79.0% 75.0% 80.0% 80.0% 77.0% -3.0% -3.8% 100.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 100.0% 5.0% 5.3% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 730 730 $ $ 75 75 $ $ 75 75 $ $ 961 961 $ $ 85 85 $ $ $ 974,653 5,153 23,411 2,262 1,005,480 $ 1,005,213 3,548 21,101 6,048 1,035,910 $ 1,033,406 3,535 22,778 6,048 1,065,767 $ 1,065,442 2,942 16,096 6,115 1,090,596 $ 1,072,070 3,911 23,550 9,723 1,109,254 $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ 742 $ $ $ $ 10 10 (38,664) (376) (772) (3,675) (43,487) 13.3% 13.3% -3.7% -10.6% -3.4% -60.8% -4.1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Internal Audit (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 730 730 $ $ 75 75 $ $ 75 75 $ $ 961 961 $ $ 85 85 $ $ $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,005,480 1,005,480 $ $ 1,035,910 1,035,910 $ $ 1,065,767 1,065,767 $ $ 1,090,596 1,090,596 $ $ 1,109,254 1,109,254 $ $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 15.00 15.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 15.00 15.00 10 10 (43,487) (43,487) 13.3% 13.3% -4.1% -4.1% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 15.00 15.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Revenue • Increased revenue due to the price of one (1) report being $85.00, not $75.00. Expenditures • • Increased expenditures due to a reduction in budgeted Personnel Savings rate from 2% to 1%. Increased expenditures due to pay for performance annualization, retirement contributions and health/dental plan changes. 743 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Internal Audit (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 75 $ 1,065,767 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 75 $ 1,065,767 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 75 $ 1,065,767 $ 3,720 21,283 6,696 3,999 35,698 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Revenue $ Adjustment to Personnel Savings Adjustment to Temporary Pay & Benefits Adjustment to Rent and Operating Lease Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Travel & Education BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ 75 10 $ $ 10 $ $1,101,465 11,031 (1,692) 700 (400) (1,850) 7,789 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 85 $ 1,109,254 FY 2005-06 RECOMMENDED BUDGET: $ 85 $ 1,109,254 744 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Internal Audit (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 967,480 $ $ 999,417 $ $ 1,005,479 $ $ 1,070,772 $ $ 1,109,254 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 967,480 999,417 1,005,479 1,070,772 1,109,254 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 36,679 $ $ 45,189 $ $ 33,876 $ $ 45,280 $ $ 36,500 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 36,679 45,189 33,876 45,280 36,500 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 930,801 $ $ 954,228 $ $ 971,603 $ $ 1,025,492 $ $ 1,072,754 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 930,801 954,228 971,603 1,025,492 1,072,754 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Internal Audit FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Internal Audit Mandates Vs. Expenditures $1.2 Non-Mandated 0.0% $1.0 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $0.8 $0.6 $0.4 $0.2 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 745 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 0.97 0.97 0 0 1 1 0 0 1.01 1.01 0 0 1.07 1.07 0 0 1.14 1.14 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 sub-recipients fiscal year have an audit performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. Federal Grants Sub-recipient Monitoring for Compliance with the Single Audit Act FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 15,282 $ $ 12,933 $ $ 11,232 $ $ 15,025 $ $ 10,000 $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise Funds - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 15,282 12,933 11,232 15,025 10,000 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 97-62 HISTORY/ BACKGROUND Internal Audit performs financial and operational tests to ensure courts and judicial departments maintain effective controls over financial functions. This agreed-uponprocedures 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 21,397 $ $ 32,256 $ $ 22,644 $ $ 30,255 $ $ 26,500 $ - 746 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise Funds - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 21,397 32,256 22,644 30,255 26,500 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Management & Budget Analysis by Jack Patton, Senior Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson Office of Management and Budget Budget Monitoring & Development Budget Monitoring & Development Managing for Results Budget Administration Compensation 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. Strategic Goals • • By June 30th of each year, develop a structurally balanced budget for the Board that maintains a consistent level of service without a combined overall tax rate increase. Status: The department has achieved this goal each year, and has exceeded it by reducing the overall tax rate. By June 30, 2006, Managing for Results will be implemented to a stage where departments are allocating expenses by program, activity, or service so that OMB can make meaningful budget recommendations tied to service levels and results. Status: The department is on target to meet this goal, as evidenced by implementation of Budgeting for Results beginning in FY 2005-06 budget development. 747 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Management & Budget (Continued) • • • • By June 30, 2006, OMB will implement an annual report that communicates the results of high-level countywide measures that are grouped by various categories of departments. Status: In FY 2004-05, the department prepared and distributed reports on community indicators and value drivers which assessed the status of various health, environment, public safety, transportation, and other initiatives. Each year for the legislative agenda, OMB will submit policy recommendations to the Board to be used by Government Relations in successful lobbying that result in passage of favorable legislative action to enhance Maricopa County's fiscal independence by June 30, 2006. Status: OMB has achieved substantial progress toward this goal. OMB developed policy proposals aimed at achieving fiscal independence by reducing Maricopa County’s mandated contributions to State AHCCCS programs by $20 million in exchange for County assumption of Adult Probation funding. County Government Relations was successful in getting these proposals included in the State’s FY 2005-06 budget. By June 30, 2007, establish a plan to fund all the facility needs known at 6/30/04 while maintaining an overall flat tax rate. Status: All facility needs have been identified by the Facility Review Committee. By June 30th of each year, OMB will re-evaluate and recommend appropriate reserves to secure fiscal stability. Status: OMB continues to forecast and budget revenues conservatively, and has established a budget stabilization designation which may be needed in the event of a fiscal crisis. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION $ INFO TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION BUDGET MANAGEMENT MULTI-YEAR PLANNING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 236,013 1,466,791 55,893 188,741 1,947,438 $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 394,949 1,576,245 458,366 77,575 2,507,135 $ $ 394,949 4,044 1,718,634 443,744 88,632 2,650,003 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 337,686 24,291 1,477,410 170,276 118,643 2,128,306 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 365,585 1,908,125 372,766 131,015 2,777,491 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ 29,364 4,044 (189,491) 70,978 (42,383) (127,488) 7.4% 100.0% -11.0% 16.0% -47.8% -4.8% Note: Budget Expenditures for the Office’s Administrative Services Program include $16,362 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT BUDGET MANAGEMENT Percentage of departmental budgets approved by the BOS as recommended Percentage of departments that stay within approved (by fund type) FY budgt allocations Percentage of Board members who are satisified with the information they received during their breifings MULTI-YEAR PLANNING Percent of forecasts (most likely scenarios) within 10% of actual Percentage of County departments/agencies with authorized strategic plans FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 748 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Management & Budget (Continued) Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,874,538 13,811 51,479 7,610 1,947,438 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ 2,413,037 57,198 25,720 11,180 2,507,135 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ 2,550,781 55,810 28,022 15,390 2,650,003 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 2,036,136 53,203 24,011 14,956 2,128,306 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ 2,680,189 56,760 24,822 15,720 2,777,491 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (129,408) (950) 3,200 (330) (127,488) $ -5.1% -1.7% 11.4% -2.1% -4.8% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,947,438 1,947,438 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 2,507,135 2,507,135 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 2,650,003 2,650,003 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 2,128,306 2,128,306 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 2,777,491 2,777,491 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ (127,488) (127,488) -4.8% -4.8% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 21.50 21.50 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 25.00 25.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 32.00 32.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 7.00 7.00 Recommended budget increases FTE by 7 positions as the result of the Employee Compensation Unit transferring from Total Compensation and to the Office of Management and Budget. 749 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Management & Budget (Continued) Base Adjustments Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,905,054 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,905,054 $ RESTATEMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 350,000 394,949 744,949 $ - $ 2,650,003 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 41,415 50,026 31,322 4,725 127,488 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ 2,777,491 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 2,777,491 RESTATEMENTS: MFR Unit from General Government Employee Comp Unit from Total Comp FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: 750 $ $2,777,491 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Management & Budget (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,545,124 $ $ 1,463,898 $ $ 1,639,404 $ $ 1,861,170 $ $ 2,777,491 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,545,124 1,463,898 1,639,404 1,861,170 2,777,491 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,545,124 $ $ 1,463,898 $ $ 1,639,404 $ $ 1,861,170 $ $ 2,777,491 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,545,124 1,463,898 1,639,404 1,861,170 2,777,491 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Management & Budget FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Management & Budget Mandates Vs. Expenditures $3.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% $2.5 Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 751 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 1.5 1.5 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 1.9 1.9 0 0 2.8 2.8 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Maricopa Managed Care Systems Analysis by Nadia Feeser, Senior Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Deputy County Manager Maricopa Managed Care Systems Chief Executive Officer Phyllis Biedess TPA Implementation/ Oversight Compliance/Risk Management Chief Medical Officer Maricopa Long Term Care Plan Chief Operating Officer Administration Member Services Provider Relations Finance Contracting OAO Claims Information Technology Mission The mission of Maricopa Managed Care Systems is to provide quality, customer oriented health care services for 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. Note: The Maricopa County Special Health Care District intends to take over the Maricopa Health Plan on October 1, 2005. The Maricopa Long Term Care Plan will be terminated on September 30, 2005. 752 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Maricopa Managed Care Systems (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES MARICOPA LONG TERM CARE $ MARICOPA HEALTH PLAN SL - SENIOR EVERCARE (SENIOR SELECT) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 227,176,739 135,328,199 51,683,100 43,758,410 457,946,448 $ EXPENDITURES MARICOPA LONG TERM CARE $ MARICOPA HEALTH PLAN SL - SENIOR EVERCARE (SENIOR SELECT) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 240,150,224 150,233,826 63,339,928 29,715,123 483,439,101 $ $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 215,054,264 123,086,922 42,041,474 10,140,974 390,323,634 $ 192,953,479 114,377,715 46,500,301 32,710,582 1,591,479 388,133,556 $ $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 215,054,264 123,086,922 42,041,474 10,140,974 390,323,634 $ 192,953,479 114,377,715 46,500,301 32,710,582 1,591,479 388,133,556 $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 213,222,781 116,881,551 20,762,000 53,243,454 404,109,786 $ 237,503,482 112,491,934 25,215,500 34,651,379 1,591,479 411,453,773 $ $ $ 53,246,864 28,322,958 5,971,135 87,540,957 53,435,549 25,589,375 8,117,204 398,829 87,540,957 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ (161,807,400) -75.2% (94,763,964) -77.0% (42,041,474) -100.0% (4,169,839) -41.1% $ (302,782,677) -77.6% $ 139,517,930 72.3% 88,788,339 77.6% 46,500,301 100.0% 24,593,378 75.2% 1,192,650 74.9% $ 300,592,599 77.4% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 414,188,038 608,410 43,150,000 457,946,448 18,948,415 3,864,911 459,868,163 757,612 483,439,101 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 380,182,660 1,290,974 8,850,000 390,323,634 21,202,721 3,108,316 363,695,268 68,556 58,695 388,133,556 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 380,182,660 1,290,974 8,850,000 390,323,634 21,202,721 3,108,316 363,695,268 68,556 58,695 388,133,556 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 350,866,332 1,156,446 52,087,008 404,109,786 20,629,434 6,455,760 384,248,273 66,894 53,412 411,453,773 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 81,569,822 5,971,135 87,540,957 5,417,587 4,563,004 77,027,468 470,318 62,580 87,540,957 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (298,612,838) (1,290,974) (2,878,865) (302,782,677) -78.5% -100.0% -32.5% -77.6% 15,785,134 (1,454,688) 286,667,800 (401,762) (3,885) 300,592,599 74.4% -46.8% 78.8% -586.0% -6.6% 77.4% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 561 SENIOR SELECT $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 561 SENIOR SELECT $ ALL FUNDS $ 139,360,899 255,881,528 62,704,021 457,946,448 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 158,371,134 $ 260,958,312 64,109,655 483,439,101 $ 124,610,139 215,887,444 49,826,051 390,323,634 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 124,659,416 $ 213,681,088 49,793,052 388,133,556 $ 753 124,610,139 215,887,444 49,826,051 390,323,634 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ 124,659,416 $ 213,681,088 49,793,052 388,133,556 $ 130,273,159 241,150,187 32,686,440 404,109,786 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ 29,485,332 58,055,625 87,540,957 124,869,639 $ 259,051,633 27,532,501 411,453,773 $ 29,485,332 58,055,625 87,540,957 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (95,124,807) (157,831,819) (49,826,051) (302,782,677) -76.3% -73.1% -100.0% -77.6% (95,174,084) (155,625,463) (49,793,052) 300,592,599 -76.3% -72.8% -100.0% 77.4% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Maricopa Managed Care Systems (Continued) Personnel by Fund 541 HEALTH PLAN 551 LONG TERM CARE PLAN 561 SENIOR SELECT TOTAL FUNDS • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 219.31 143.18 2.00 364.49 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 219.31 143.18 2.00 364.49 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 218.71 149.96 368.67 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (0.60) 6.78 (2.00) 4.18 Net decrease of 0.6 FTE positions for administrative staff (Health Plan). Increased 6.8 FTE positions to absorb various functions previously performed by Maricopa Medical Center (Long Term Care Plan). Closure of Senior Select Plan - 2.0 FTE positions (Senior Select). Base Adjustments Revenue • • • • • • • Increased Patient Service Revenues due to change in capitation rate in the Long Term Care Plan. Increased General Fund Subsidies for the Long Term Care Plan. Decreased Patient Service Revenues due to decline in Health Plan membership. Increased General Fund Subsidies for the Health Plan. Decreased Revenues due to the closure of the Senior Select Plan. Decreased revenues to reflect transfer of Health Plans to the Special Health Care District on October 1, 2005. Decreased revenues due to the closure of the Long Term Care Plan on September 30, 2005. Expenditures • • • • • Decreased expenditures due to a decrease in Medical Management and Outstanding Claims in the Health Plan. Increased expenditures due to higher medical expenses in the Long Term Care Plan. Decreased expenditures due to the closure of the Senior Select Plan. Decreased expenditures to reflect transfer of Health Plans to the Special Health Care District on October 1, 2005. Decreased expenditures due to the closure of the Long Term Care Plan on September 30, 2005. 754 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Maricopa Managed Care Systems (Continued) Reconciliation Health Plan (541) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 124,610,139 $ 124,659,416 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 124,610,139 $ 124,659,416 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 16,847 46,519 30,622 (143,265) (49,277) $ 124,610,139 $ 124,610,139 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Decline in Membership - Patient Svc Rev in various Activities $ General Fund Subsidy to Offset Operating Losses $ Decrease expenses for Medical Management & OAO payment issues Transfer of Health Plans on 10/1/05 to Special Health Care District BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (3,908,369) $ 3,781,000 (94,997,438) (95,124,807) $ (127,369) (94,997,438) (95,124,807) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 29,485,332 $ 29,485,332 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 29,485,332 $ 29,485,332 755 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Maricopa Managed Care Systems (Continued) Long Term Care Plan (551) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 215,887,444 $ 213,681,088 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 215,887,444 $ 213,681,088 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ $ 113,368 301,355 206,070 620,793 215,887,444 $ 214,301,881 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Capitation Rate - Patient Svc Rev in various Activities $ 6,676,264 $ Rate Relief - Patient Svc Rev in various Activities (10,439,789) General Fund Subsidy to Offset Operating Losses 16,285,245 Increase in Medical Expenses in various Activities Closure of the Long Term Care Plan on 9/30/05 (170,353,539) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (157,831,819) $ 14,107,283 (170,353,539) (156,246,256) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 58,055,625 $ 58,055,625 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 58,055,625 $ 58,055,625 Senior Select (561) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation FY 2005-06 APPROPRIATED BUDGET RECONCILIATION 600 MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS 561 SENIOR SELECT REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 49,826,051 $ 49,793,052 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 49,826,051 $ 49,793,052 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 49,826,051 $ 49,793,052 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 49,826,051 $ 49,793,052 BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (49,826,051) (49,826,051) $ (49,793,052) (49,793,052) BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Closure of Senior Select Plan FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ - $ - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ - 756 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Maricopa Managed Care Systems (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 1,860,224 $ 1,889,242 $ 1,972,640 $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ 399,648,196 $ $ 412,907,438 $ $ 444,245,083 $ $ 379,621,936 $ $ 87,540,957 Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 401,508,420 414,796,680 446,217,723 379,621,936 87,540,957 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 1,860,224 $ 1,889,242 $ 1,972,640 $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ 399,648,196 $ $ 412,907,438 $ $ 444,245,083 $ $ 379,621,936 $ $ 87,540,957 Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 401,508,420 414,796,680 446,217,723 379,621,936 87,540,957 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Maricopa Managed Care FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $450.0 $400.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% Maricopa Managed Care Mandates Vs. Expenditures $350.0 $300.0 $250.0 $200.0 $150.0 $100.0 $50.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100 0% 757 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 401.5 0 0 401.5 414.8 0 0 414.8 446.2 0 0 446.2 379.6 0 0 379.6 87.5 0 0 87.5 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Materials Management Analysis by Marc Kuffner, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Chief Financial Officer Materials Management 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. Strategic Goals • • • “Procurement Transaction Costs” -- Reduce procurement transactional costs by a measurable amount over the next five years. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. “E-Procurement” -- Implement an E-Procurement application by June 2007. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. “Partnerships” -- Increase partnerships with other governmental entities to leverage resources and aggregate purchasing power to lower costs and increase service levels to internal customers. This would include sharing systems and applications, conducting collaborative procurement activities, and reducing commodity and services costs from previous contracts. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. 758 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Materials Management (Continued) • • “Services” -- Increase services and capabilities offered to Graphics customers through targeted enhancement of skills, equipment, and systems as measured by the percentage of production produced in-house. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward achieving this goal. “Customer Satisfaction” -- Maintain an annual customer satisfaction score of 90% or greater as measured through the Research and Reporting Internal Services Customer Survey. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to make steady progress toward continuing customer satisfaction. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES BUSINESS SERVICES $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 131,277 1,027,791 1,159,068 EXPENDITURES BUSINESS SERVICES $ CONSULTING SYSTEMS AND SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 851,779 462,980 240,684 593,143 2,148,587 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 1,010,775 20,000 1,030,775 $ $ 1,204,926 456,824 225,660 299,447 2,186,857 $ $ 1,260,775 20,000 1,280,775 $ $ 1,335,352 482,631 235,236 462,437 2,515,656 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 670,410 551,212 1,221,622 $ $ 1,264,534 474,566 231,212 395,690 2,366,002 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 1,018,844 1,018,844 1,252,496 561,654 266,656 275,575 2,356,381 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (241,931) (20,000) (261,931) -19.2% -100.0% -20.5% 82,856 (79,023) (31,420) 186,862 159,275 6.2% -16.4% -13.4% 40.4% 6.3% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT BUSINESS SERVICES Percent of clients satisfied with Procurement Products provided. CONSULTING Percent of clients satisfied with Graphic Communications customer support results. SYSTEMS AND SUPPORT Percent of clients satisfied with Procurement System and Support services. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 95.0% 5.0% 5.6% 84.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 97.0% 7.0% 7.8% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 0.0% 0.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 936,466 222,601 1,159,068 1,713,004 236,686 111,800 39,559 47,537 2,148,587 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 900,000 130,775 1,030,775 1,709,752 256,719 152,116 34,130 34,140 2,186,857 759 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,150,000 130,775 1,280,775 1,797,414 257,026 139,441 34,130 287,645 2,515,656 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,032,028 189,594 1,221,622 1,771,507 195,537 79,650 34,130 285,178 2,366,002 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 900,000 118,844 1,018,844 1,911,294 232,059 141,785 54,836 16,407 2,356,381 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (250,000) (11,931) (261,931) -21.7% -9.1% -20.5% (113,880) 24,967 (2,344) (20,706) 271,238 159,275 -6.3% 9.7% -1.7% -60.7% 94.3% 6.3% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Materials Management (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 673 REPROGRAPHICS $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 673 REPROGRAPHICS $ ALL FUNDS $ 223,161 935,907 1,159,068 1,323,090 825,497 2,148,587 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 127,000 903,775 1,030,775 1,354,842 832,015 2,186,857 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 127,000 1,153,775 1,280,775 1,421,635 1,094,021 2,515,656 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 189,594 1,032,028 1,221,622 1,375,710 990,292 2,366,002 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 116,959 901,885 1,018,844 1,489,584 866,797 2,356,381 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (10,041) (251,890) (261,931) -7.9% -21.8% -20.5% (67,949) 227,224 159,275 -4.8% 20.8% 6.3% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 673 REPROGRAPHICS TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 24.00 11.00 35.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 24.00 11.00 35.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 24.00 11.00 35.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Revenue • Reprographics revenue remains consistent. The reduction is resulting from a one-time fund balance use for equipment. Expenditures • • • Increased expenditures due to a reduction in budgeted Personnel Savings rate from 5% to 2%. Increased expenditures due to market range study and subsequent salary increases in the Procurement activity. Increased expenditures due to pay for performance annualization, retirement contributions and health/dental plan changes. 760 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Materials Management (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Market Range Adjustments C-49-05-005-6-00 $ Health and Dental Premium Increase C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 127,000 $ - 1,354,842 $ $ $ 52,513 14,280 66,793 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 127,000.00 $ 1,421,635 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 127,000.00 $ 1,421,635 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Revenue $ Adjustment to Personnel Savings Adjustment to Other Pay Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Other Personnel Services Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Rent and Operating Lease Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Travel & Education Adjustment to Postage/Freight/Shipping Adjustment to Debt Service (TFP) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 127,000 (10,041) $ (10,041) $ 28,560 28,044 10,640 705 67,949 $1,489,584 24,252 (4,860) (3,775) (6,797) (7,360) 172 923 (3,751) (906) 2,102 - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 116,959 $ 1,489,584 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 116,959 $ 1,489,584 761 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Materials Management (Continued) Reprographics (673) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 903,775 $ 832,015 C-73-05-001-8-00 $ C-49-05-008-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 250,000 $ $ 250,000 $ 250,000 12,006 262,006 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,153,775 $ 1,094,021 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,153,775 $ 1,094,021 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Equipment Purchases C-73-05-001-8-00 $ Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (250,000.00) $ (250,000) $ (250,000) 13,090 8,867 3,151 9,163 (215,729) 903,775 $878,292 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Equipment Purchases Market Range Adjustment FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Miscellaneous Revenue $ Adjustment to Request Over Target Adjustment to Personnel Savings Adjustment to Other Pay Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Overtime and Overtime Benefits Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Non Capital Equipment Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Transfer Out (Central Service) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (1,890) $ (1,890) $ 104 34,634 (3,154) (12,623) (2,667) (44,152) (2,100) (2,243) 20,706 (11,495) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 901,885 $ 866,797 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 901,885 $ 866,797 762 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Materials Management (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,383,197 $ $ 1,381,452 $ $ 1,343,589 $ $ 1,402,243 $ $ 1,489,584 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 856,778 $ 955,803 $ 834,991 $ 1,081,191 $ 866,797 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,239,975 2,337,255 2,178,580 2,483,434 2,356,381 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,383,197 $ $ 1,381,452 $ $ 1,343,589 $ $ 1,402,243 $ $ 1,489,584 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 856,778 $ 955,803 $ 834,991 $ 1,081,191 $ 866,797 $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,239,975 2,337,255 2,178,580 2,483,434 2,356,381 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Materials Management FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Materials Management Mandates Vs. Expenditures Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions $2.5 Other Fund Mandated 36.8% $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 General Fund Mandated 63.2% $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 763 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 2.2 1.4 0.9 0 2.3 1.4 1 0 2.2 1.3 0.8 0 2.5 1.4 1.1 0 2.4 1.5 0.9 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Medical Examiner Analysis by Dexter C. Thomas, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Community Services Medical Examiner Dr. Philip Keen, Director Medical Staff Investigations & Transport Administration Admissions Examination Laboratory Office Operations Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Office of 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 The Office of Medical Examiner is serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively and will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Goals • • By 2007, the Office of Medical Examiner will improve service to families and other agencies by completing cases within established time frames of 90% of cases closed within 45 days, and 100% of cases closed within 90 days. Status: Adopted budget will help make significant progress towards achieving this goal in FY 2005-06. By 2007, the Office of Medical Examiner will receive accreditation from the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) and the Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT) to increase the expertise of staff investigating death related cases. Status: The department will revise the goal to provide strategic business information as it relates to the issues, changes and mission of the department. 764 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) • By 2007, the Office of Medical Examiner will increase certification of investigative staff by 10% to compliment the cooperative efforts with law enforcement agencies, public health, and county attorney investigating death related cases to insure the safety and welfare of the residents of Maricopa County. Status: The department will revise the goal to provide strategic business information as it relates to the issues, changes and mission of the department. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES MEDICAL EXAMINERS $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 455,463 1 455,464 EXPENDITURES MEDICAL EXAMINERS $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,974,158 423,938 4,398,096 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 411,795 5,250 417,045 4,071,679 385,015 4,456,694 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 411,795 5,250 417,045 4,202,684 408,192 4,610,876 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 224,631 224,631 4,363,690 358,340 4,722,030 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 12,689 150,000 162,689 4,474,765 508,883 4,983,648 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (399,106) -96.9% 144,750 2757.1% (254,356) -61.0% (272,081) (100,691) (372,772) -6.5% -24.7% -8.1% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $28,436 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 130,189 325,275 455,464 3,806,627 277,233 224,296 89,940 4,398,096 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 327,045 90,000 417,045 3,878,559 257,047 230,986 35,386 54,716 4,456,694 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 327,045 90,000 417,045 4,032,871 256,919 230,984 35,386 54,716 4,610,876 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 79,716 144,915 224,631 4,099,405 282,821 250,437 35,386 53,981 4,722,030 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 12,689 150,000 162,689 4,378,986 240,073 262,653 47,220 54,716 4,983,648 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (314,356) 60,000 (254,356) -96.1% 66.7% -61.0% (346,115) 16,846 (31,669) (11,834) (372,772) -8.6% 6.6% -13.7% -33.4% 0.0% -8.1% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL 224 MEDICAL EXAMINER GRANT FUND $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 224 MEDICAL EXAMINER GRANT FUND $ ALL FUNDS $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 455,463 1 455,464 $ $ 4,180,621 217,475 4,398,096 $ $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 150,000 267,045 417,045 $ 4,189,649 267,045 4,456,694 $ 765 $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 150,000 267,045 417,045 $ $ 4,343,831 267,045 4,610,876 $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 192,093 32,538 224,631 $ $ 4,689,492 32,538 4,722,030 $ $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 150,000 12,689 162,689 $ $ 4,970,959 12,689 4,983,648 $ $ (254,356) (254,356) 0.0% -95.2% -61.0% (627,128) 254,356 (372,772) -14.4% 95.2% -8.1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 224 MEDICAL EXAMINER GRANT FUND TOTAL FUNDS • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 63.00 3.00 66.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 63.00 3.00 66.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 70.00 70.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 7.00 (3.00) 4.00 3.0 FTEs transferred to General Fund due to the elimination of Bio-Defense Grant funding for Office of Medical Examiner. 4.0 FTEs added to General Fund to address critical service demands. Base Adjustments Revenue • Reduction in Medical Examiner Grants fund due to elimination of the Bio-Defense Grant funding for Office of Medical Examiner. Expenditures • • • • • Transfer expenditures from Medical Examiner Grant Fund to General Fund due to the elimination of Bio-Defense Grant funding for Office of Medical Examiner. Increased Personnel Costs in General Fund to address critical service demands as follows: • Admitting Clerk (1 FTE): This position is added to staff a 24/7 operation of admitting and releasing cases in the Medical Examiner Office to reduce overtime and provide adequate shift coverage. • Medical Investigator (1 FTE): This position is added to reduce response time to the scene of a decedent case to an acceptable level for the Medical Examiner Office. • Forensic Chemist (1 FTE): This position is added to address growing backlogs and delays in toxicology testing and reports, produced by Medical Examiner Office. • Forensic Technician (1 FTE): This position is added to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the performance of autopsies by the Medical Examiner Office. Increased expenditure in General Fund to pay refinancing charges for Certificate of Participation (COPS). Increased expenditure in General Fund for adjustment to Executive Compensation Adjustment to Medical Examiner Grant Fund to carryover FY 2004-05 funds in NFSIA training grant. 766 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Fully Fund Staffing Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 150,000 $ - $ 4,189,649 $ 98,128 39,296 16,758 154,182 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 150,000 $ 4,343,831 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 150,000 $ 4,343,831 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Transfer 3 FTEs from Bio-Defense Grant to General Fund $ Increase in Fund Transfer for Debt Services Adjustment to Executive Compensation Annualization of 4 FTEs-Critical Service Demand Increases BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 33,516 77,123 19,897 2,756 133,292 150,000 $ 4,477,123 - $ - $ 267,045 11,834 39,541 175,416 493,836 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 150,000 $ 4,970,959 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 150,000 $ 4,970,959 767 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) Medical Examiner Grant Fund (224) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 267,045 $ 267,045 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 267,045 $ 267,045 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 267,045 $ 267,045 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 1,596 4,647 (8,382) 2,139 - $ 267,045 $ 267,045 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Elimination of Bio-Defense Grant Funding $ FY 2004-05 Carryover Amount in NFSIA Training Grant BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (267,045) $ 12,689 (254,356) $ (267,045) 12,689 (254,356) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 12,689 $ 12,689 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 12,689 $ 12,689 768 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Medical Examiner (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,472,800 $ $ 3,888,275 $ $ 4,089,211 $ 217,475 $ 4,910,379 $ 73,347 $ 4,970,959 $ 12,689 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,472,800 3,888,275 4,306,686 4,983,726 4,983,648 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,472,800 $ $ 3,888,275 $ $ 4,089,211 $ 217,475 $ 4,910,379 $ 73,347 $ 4,970,959 $ 12,689 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,472,800 3,888,275 4,306,686 4,983,726 4,983,648 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Medical Examiner FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Medical Examiner Mandates Vs. Expenditures $4.5 $4.0 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 6.0% $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 94.0% 769 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 3.4 3.4 0 0 3.5 3.5 0 0 3.9 3.9 0 0 4.3 4.1 0.2 0 4.5 4.2 0.3 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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. 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. MANDATE DESCRIPTION 770 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation Analysis by Victor Wickersham, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Community Services William Scalzo Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Commission West Side Parks East Side Parks Engineering Manager Design Construction/Trails Administrator Grants/Accounting Marketing/Contracts/ Administration 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. Strategic Goals • • “Buffer Zones” -- By July 2006, we will continue to expand the buffer zones around existing parks and acquire lands and trail segments identified through the Arizona Preserve Initiative, Bureau of Land Management Recreation and Public Purpose lease applications and the Maricopa Regional Trail Plan, at McDowell Mountain Regional Park, Cave Creek Regional Park, White Tank Mountain Regional Park and Lake Pleasant. Status: This remains a worthwhile goal. OMB understands that the Arizona Preserve Initiative has come under a legal challenge. This could have an impact on the accomplishment of this goal. “Funding Sources” -- By December 2006, in order to meet the increased park usage and demand for park services, we will identify a funding source for each of the capital projects in the improvement plan for the park system. Status: This projected increase is not reflected in the related Performance by Activity Family of Measures. The number of expected park users is flat. 771 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) • • “Alternate Funding” -- By December 2009, Parks and Recreation will become non-reliant on the general fund through alternate means of funding, which may include the development of a strong nonprofit foundation or other special revenue sources. Status: This remains a worthwhile goal. However, the department needs to plan for the non general funds to begin paying for their share of Central Support costs. “Expand Park Knowledge” -- By July 2007, we will increase community involvement and awareness through improved marketing and education programs thereby reducing the percentage of the general population reporting “little or no knowledge” of county parks from 72.2% (March 2000) to 65%. Status: There are specific marketing and education programs included in the FY 2005-06 budget request. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED REVENUES PARK ED & RECREATION PRGM $ PARK SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,327,810 $ 482,545 (16,213) 4,794,142 $ 3,909,706 233,100 4,142,806 EXPENDITURES PARK ED & RECREATION PRGM $ PARK SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,015,464 2,319,281 1,180,098 6,760 5,521,602 2,245,873 2,481,560 1,017,062 13,335 5,757,830 $ $ $ 4,172,695 175,000 4,347,695 $ $ 2,484,816 2,321,545 1,185,814 13,786 6,005,961 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 4,444,524 215,781 4,660,305 $ $ 2,454,740 1,971,251 1,074,400 22,629 5,523,021 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 4,545,480 167,300 4,712,780 2,669,040 3,123,276 1,250,220 22,996 7,065,532 $ $ $ $ 372,785 (7,700) 365,085 8.9% -4.4% (184,224) (801,731) (64,406) (9,210) (1,059,571) -7.4% -34.5% -5.4% -66.8% -17.6% 8.4% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT PARK EDUCATION AND RECREATION Satisfaction rate of park users Percent of park visitors who attend a program Percent of satisfaction from permit evaluations PARKS SUPPORT Percent of park user satisfaction as related to facilities FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 91.4% 6.4% 0.0% 91.4% 6.5% 0.0% 91.4% 6.5% 0.0% 91.4% 6.5% 0.0% 93.0% 6.7% 0.0% 1.6% 0.2% 0.0% 1.8% 3.1% 89.3% 89.3% 89.3% 89.3% 90.0% 0.7% 0.8% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 671,201 2,854,770 1,200 1,263,474 3,497 4,794,142 3,760,185 471,780 753,153 60,366 476,119 5,521,602 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 502,470 2,766,101 874,235 4,142,806 3,945,044 633,256 814,865 364,665 5,757,830 772 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 567,470 2,793,721 986,504 4,347,695 4,113,002 465,971 1,135,323 291,665 6,005,961 FY 2004-05 PRO. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 692,846 2,928,187 4,536 1,034,737 4,660,305 3,893,075 439,468 958,510 231,968 5,523,021 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 762,839 2,882,200 2,500 1,065,241 4,712,780 4,248,698 573,526 1,322,883 494,884 425,541 7,065,532 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 195,369 88,479 2,500 78,737 365,085 (135,696) (107,555) (187,560) (494,884) (133,876) (1,059,571) 34.4% 3.2% 8.0% 8.4% -3.3% -23.1% -16.5% -45.9% -17.6% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED REVENUE 100 GENERAL $ 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 900 ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS $ $ 450,999 40,714 79,530 1,513,484 2,226,843 512,093 (29,520) 4,794,142 $ $ 410,500 57,470 52,000 1,383,951 2,095,885 160,000 (17,000) 4,142,806 $ $ 410,500 57,470 105,000 1,383,951 2,265,774 160,000 (35,000) 4,347,695 $ 1,176 $ 440,741 108,187 60,329 1,506,556 2,372,649 187,667 (17,000) 4,660,305 $ $ 442,500 282,839 105,000 1,383,951 2,373,490 160,000 (35,000) 4,712,780 $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL $ 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 900 ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS $ 1,121,520 $ 374,285 160,549 79,530 1,536,015 2,254,976 24,248 (29,520) 5,521,602 $ 1,271,316 $ 410,500 67,470 52,000 1,500,951 2,236,340 236,253 (17,000) 5,757,830 $ 1,234,258 $ 419,588 67,470 105,000 1,512,286 2,421,870 280,489 (35,000) 6,005,961 $ 1,229,354 $ 317,606 49,941 64,025 1,419,205 2,207,098 252,791 (17,000) 5,523,021 $ 1,526,694 $ 683,000 357,839 105,000 1,383,951 2,773,048 271,000 (35,000) 7,065,532 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 32,000 225,369 107,716 365,085 (292,436) (263,412) (290,369) 128,335 (351,178) 9,489 (1,059,571) 7.8% 392.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.4% -23.7% -62.8% -430.4% 0.0% 8.5% -14.5% 3.4% 0.0% -17.6% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 225 SPUR CROSS RANCH CONSERVATION 240 LAKE PLEASANT RECREATION SVCS 241 PARKS ENHANCEMENT FUND TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 16.50 3.00 15.00 52.00 86.50 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 16.00 3.00 15.00 54.00 88.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 16.00 3.00 15.00 54.00 88.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Revenue • • • Fund 225 increased by $32,000 due to IGA revenue increase. Increased Grant Funding by $225,369 for Fund 230 due to 4 new grants. Increased miscellaneous revenue by $107,716 due to Adobe & Paradise Valley concessions for Fund 241. 773 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Expenditures • • • • • • Increased Personnel Services adjustments for Director, Management Analyst and the Regional Trails Program for Fund 100. Increased Capital Buildings & Improvements by $250,000 for design consultant for Spur Cross, Fund 225. Increase of $225,369 for 4 new grants, Fund 230. Increase of $75,000 for wildlife viewing pond at Usery and Buckeye Shooting Range design, Fund 230. Increase of $271,625 for: one time projects of the customer satisfaction survey by ASU $45,000, fencing at White Tank Regional Park $90,000, tractor at Usery Regional Park $43,845, as well as $92,780 on-going other services which include market adjustments and maintenance, Fund 241. Also, increase $181,801 for Comfort Station improvement, $48,365 for Ramada, and $5,483 for the Entry Station. Increase of $111,000 for maintenance & development, Fund 243. 774 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ - $ 1,271,316 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-008-6-00 $ Movement of Personnel to Fund 241 C-35-05-007-8-00 Health and Dental Benefits Increases C-49-05-024-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 35,169 ($73,927) 1,700 ($37,058) FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,234,258 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,234,258 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 3,399 18,151 8,645 30,195 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $1,264,453 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Temporary Pay & Benefits Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Personnel Services Allocation Out (Director) Adjustment to Personnel Services Allocation In (Management Analyst) Adjustment to Regular Salary Pay & Benefits (Director's Increase) Adjustment to Allocation Out (Regional Trails Program) Adjustment to Supplies Allocation Out (Regional Trails Program) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ (8,612) (13,468) 47,091 44,233 18,997 130,468 43,532 262,241 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,526,694 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ - $ 1,526,694 775 $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Spur Cross Ranch (225) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Adjustment $ C-49-05-008-6-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 410,500 $ - 410,500 $ $ 9,088 9,088 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 410,500 $ 419,588 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 410,500 $ 419,588 - 618 2,518 (16,188) 2,169 1,795 (9,088) TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department over Target - Increase From IGA $ Dept Budget Over Target - Fund Balance $250,000 & Revenue Increase $32,000 Increase Employee Shift Differential Adjustment to Community Restoration Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ 410,500 32,000 $ $410,500 - 32,000 $ 282,000 (4,000) (5,500) 272,500 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 442,500 $ 683,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 442,500 $ 683,000 776 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Parks & Recreation Grants (230) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 57,470 $ 67,470 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 57,470 $ 67,470 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 57,470 $ 67,470 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Structural Balance $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ (10,000) (10,000) $ 57,470 $ 57,470 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increase in Grant Funding (4 New Grants Approved by BOS) $ Department Budget Over Target - Draw From Fund Balance BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 225,369 $ 225,369 $ 225,369 75,000 300,369 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 282,839 $ 357,839 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 282,839 $ 357,839 Parks & Recreation Souvenir Fund (239) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 52,000 $ 52,000 C-30-05-012-8-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 53,000 $ 53,000 $ 53,000 53,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 105,000 $ 105,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 105,000 $ 105,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 105,000 $105,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 105,000 $ 105,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 105,000 $ 105,000 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Souvenir Revolving Fund Increase 777 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Parks & Recreation Lake Pleasant Rec. Svcs (240) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Gainsharing Adjustment $ C-35-05-007-8-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 1,383,951 $ - 1,500,951 $11,335 $11,335 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,383,951 $ 1,512,286 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,383,951 $ 1,512,286 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases One Time Expenses TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department Budget Over Target - General Supplies $ Adjustment to Miscellaneous Revenue BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 1,383,951 3,090 10,691 (141,626) 10,845 (11,335) (128,335) $1,383,951 5,949 $ (5,949) $ 5,949 (5,949) - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,383,951 $ 1,383,951 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 1,383,951 $ 1,383,951 778 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Parks & Recreation Enhancement Fund (241) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 2,095,885 $ 2,236,340 C-30-05-012-8-00 $ C-35-05-007-8-00 C-49-05-008-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 18,000 $ 151,889 169,889 151,889 33,641 $185,530 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 2,265,774 $ 2,421,870 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 2,265,774 $ 2,421,870 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Transfer from Souvenir Fund Gainsharing Agenda Item Pay for Performance Adjustment TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Increased Revenue from Adobe & Paradise Valley Concessions $ Department Budget Over Target - $163,909 Fund Balance, $107,716 Rev. Parks Comfort Station Improvement Project Parks Enhancement Fund Ramada Parks Entry Station BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 2,265,774 10,712 44,665 (274,253) 37,596 25,184 (156,096) $2,265,774 107,716 $ 107,716 $ 271,625 181,801 48,365 5,483 507,274 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,373,490 $ 2,773,048 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,373,490 $ 2,773,048 779 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Parks & Recreation Donations Fund (243) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ C-49-05-008-6-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 160,000 $ 236,253 - $44,236 $44,236 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 160,000 $ 280,489 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 160,000 $ 280,489 - (120,489) (120,489) TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Structural Balance $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department Budget Over Target - Draw From Fund Balance $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ 160,000 - $160,000 $ $ 111,000 111,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 160,000 $ 271,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 160,000 $ 271,000 780 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Parks & Recreation (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,611,737 $ 6,750,568 $ 1,688,468 $ 7,141,350 $ 1,148,975 $ 4,400,083 $ 1,232,504 $ 4,357,654 $ 1,526,694 $ 5,573,838 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,362,305 8,829,818 5,549,058 5,590,158 7,100,532 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,611,737 $ 6,750,568 $ 1,688,468 $ 7,141,350 $ 1,148,975 $ 4,400,083 $ 1,232,504 $ 4,357,654 $ 1,526,694 $ 5,573,838 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 8,362,305 8,829,818 5,549,058 5,590,158 7,100,532 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Parks & Recreation FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Parks & Recreation Mandates Vs. Expenditures $9.0 Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $8.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $7.0 $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100.0% 781 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 5.4 0 0 5.4 8.4 0 0 8.4 8.8 0 0 8.8 5.5 0 0 5.5 5.8 0 0 5.8 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Planning & Development Analysis by Jamie Rullo, Senior Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Joy Rich Planning & Development Administration Technology Services Development Services Planning Services 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. Strategic Goals • • • “One Stop Shop Process” -- By the end of FY06, the first review turn around time for plan reviews in the One Stop Shop (OSS) process will be thirty (30) days or less. Status: The adopted budget will enable the department to meet this goal. “One Stop Shop Representatives” -- By the end of FY06, all One Stop Shop (OSS) participating departments will have representatives physically located together to enhance customer service and reduce travel requirements of customers. Status: The department has made progress in achieving this goal. “Drainage Administration Functions” -- By the end of FY06, integrate Drainage Administration functions into Planning and Development Department. This will provide better administration and coordination of drainage regulations with planning and development activities resulting in more comprehensive inspections. Status: The adopted budget will enable the department to meet this goal. 782 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) • • “Training” -- By the end of FY06, training/certification processes will be implemented to ensure 100% of inspectors are qualified to conduct both building and flood drainage inspections. Status: The department is working to achieve this goal and should achieve it by the established deadline. “Application Processing” -- By the end of FY07, digital intake and online processing of application submissions will be available. Status: The adopted budget will enable the department to meet this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES ONE STOP SHOP $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 10,702,156 1,545,613 12,247,770 EXPENDITURES ONE STOP SHOP $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,568,738 3,256,718 1,021,194 8,846,650 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 11,138,503 236,497 11,375,000 $ $ 6,190,878 3,600,587 1,318,483 11,109,948 $ $ 11,138,503 769,830 11,908,333 $ $ 8,614,845 2,753,361 1,520,912 12,889,118 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 12,116,180 179,347 12,295,527 $ $ 6,647,397 3,029,737 1,575,006 11,252,140 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 12,252,430 12,252,430 9,351,361 2,154,046 2,193,294 13,698,701 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 1,113,927 (769,830) 344,097 10.0% -100.0% 2.9% (736,516) 599,315 (672,382) (809,583) -8.5% 21.8% -44.2% -6.3% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT ONE STOP SHOP Percent of OSS actions taken within OSS targets FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 82.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 0.0% 0.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE LICENSES & PERMITS CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 8,931,835 3,135,319 675 179,941 12,247,770 6,255,885 374,309 1,598,613 254,112 363,730 8,846,650 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,211,968 2,908,294 2,328 252,410 11,375,000 8,068,395 585,748 1,831,437 302,287 322,081 11,109,948 783 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,745,301 2,908,294 2,328 252,410 11,908,333 9,177,502 521,584 2,332,234 302,287 555,511 12,889,118 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 8,957,004 3,158,657 2,672 177,194 12,295,527 7,982,090 670,497 1,916,622 302,287 380,645 11,252,140 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 8,240,435 3,838,595 900 172,500 12,252,430 9,755,698 893,384 2,433,842 378,679 237,098 13,698,701 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (504,866) 930,301 (1,428) (79,910) 344,097 -5.8% 32.0% -61.3% -31.7% 2.9% (578,196) (371,800) (101,608) (76,392) 318,413 (809,583) -6.3% -71.3% -4.4% -25.3% 57.3% -6.3% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES 235 DEL WEBB SPECIAL FUND $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES 235 DEL WEBB SPECIAL FUND $ ALL FUNDS $ 11,966,600 281,169 12,247,770 8,729,869 116,781 8,846,650 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 11,200,000 175,000 11,375,000 10,947,590 162,358 11,109,948 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 11,733,333 175,000 11,908,333 12,725,278 163,840 12,889,118 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 12,138,899 156,628 12,295,527 11,093,468 158,672 11,252,140 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 12,077,430 175,000 12,252,430 13,527,517 171,184 13,698,701 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 344,097 344,097 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% (802,239) (7,344) (809,583) -6.3% -4.5% -6.3% Personnel by Fund 226 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES 235 DEL WEBB SPECIAL FUND TOTAL FUNDS • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 156.20 2.80 159.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 182.20 2.80 185.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 187.20 2.80 190.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 5.00 5.00 4.0 FTEs added to enhance the One Stop Shop program 1.0 FTE added to enhance the Information Technology program Base Adjustments Revenue • Increased revenue in the One Stop Shop program according to forecasts of increased service activity. Expenditures • • • • • Increased Pay and Fringe Benefits to accommodate additional staffing and position upgrades for the One Stop Shop program. Increased General Supplies expenditures to accommodate increased activity in the One Stop Shop program as well as software needs for the Business Applications Development activity. Increased Other Services expenditures to accommodate contract expenses in the Drainage Administration activity. Decreased Travel and Education expenditures to be more in line with current spending. Decreased Capital Equipment expenditures as there are no increased planned purchases in Fiscal Year 2005-06. 784 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) Reconciliation Planning and Development Fees (266) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 11,200,000 $ 10,947,590 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Transfer of Drainage Admin. from Flood Control C-44-05-003-0-00 $ Pay for Performance Adjustment C-49-05-008-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 533,333 $ 533,333 $ 1,745,585 32,103 1,777,688 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 11,733,333 $ 12,725,278 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 11,733,333 $ 12,725,278 $ 266,664 72,469 190,249 872,792 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments C-44-05-003-0-00 Transfer of Drainage Admin. from Flood Control Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases One Time Expenses - Purchases for Drainage Admin. Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 266,664 $ 11,999,997 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Request Over Target $ Adjustment to Other Charges for Services Adjustment to Interest Earnings Adjustment to Miscellaneous Revenue Adjustment to Regular Pay and Benefits Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Travel and Education Adjustment to Transfers Out Adjustment to Postage/Freight/Shipping Adjustment to Debt Service BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 1,600,903 $ (1,480,000) (30,000) (13,470) 77,433 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 12,077,430 $ $ 785 (1,730,329) 125,446 (454,234) 198,326 (725,281) $11,999,997 1,533,269 (18,978) (235,000) 268,213 (45,200) 8,248 2,600 14,368 1,527,520 13,527,517 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) Del Webb Special Fund (235) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 175,000 $ 163,840 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 175,000 $ 163,840 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 175,000 $ 163,840 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Request Over Target Adjustment to Transfers Out $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 786 - $ $ 175,000 - 1,291 3,043 2,234 612 7,180 $171,020 $ $ 15 149 164 175,000 $ 171,184 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 6,787,741 $ 7,686,397 $ 8,846,649 $ 12,644,817 $ 13,698,701 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 6,787,741 7,686,397 8,846,649 12,644,817 13,698,701 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 4,222,810 $ 4,845,070 $ 5,469,256 $ 7,949,614 $ 9,196,784 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,222,810 4,845,070 5,469,256 7,949,614 9,196,784 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 2,564,931 $ 2,841,327 $ 3,377,393 $ 4,695,203 $ 4,501,917 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,564,931 2,841,327 3,377,393 4,695,203 4,501,917 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Planning & Development FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Planning & Development Mandates Vs. Expenditures $12.0 General Fund Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions $10.0 Non-Mandated 34.1% $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Other Fund Mandated 65.9% Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 787 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 6.9 0 3.8 3.1 6.8 0 4.2 2.6 7.7 0 4.8 2.8 8.8 0 5.5 3.4 11.1 0 7.3 3.8 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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. 11-322 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. In October 2002 the International Building Code was adopted with an effective date of January 1, 2004. 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 2,277,655 $ 2,659,526 $ 3,180,424 $ 4,205,237 $ 4,367,915 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,277,655 2,659,526 3,180,424 4,205,237 4,367,915 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. In October 2002 the International Building Code was adopted with an effective date of January 1, 2004. 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. 788 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) Building Construction and Inspection FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 1,119,160 $ 1,426,518 $ 1,439,354 $ 1,601,189 $ 1,792,348 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,119,160 1,426,518 1,439,354 1,601,189 1,792,348 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 1969. 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 FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 626,336 $ 561,875 $ 648,530 $ 851,114 $ 1,019,303 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 626,336 561,875 648,530 851,114 1,019,303 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 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. 789 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Planning & Development (Continued) County Comprehensive Plan FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 199,659 $ 197,151 $ 200,948 $ 272,576 $ 334,245 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 199,659 197,151 200,948 272,576 334,245 TITLE Drainage Regulation and Inspection AUTHORITY A.R.S. 11-151, Sections 30 and 36 and A.R.S. 11-251.05 which authorizes the Board of Supervisors to adopt and enforce all ordinances as necessary and to enforce standards for excavation, landfill and grading HISTORY/ BACKGROUND The Board of Supervisors adopted the Drainage Regulation for the Unincorporated Area of Maricopa County, Arizona, effective September 26, 1988. The Regulation was amended by the Board of Supervisors effective December 14, 1994. The Regulation was administered and enforced by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County until November 8, 2004, when these duties were transferred to the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department. The Drainage function at that time was incorporated into the “One Stop Shop” program in a more integrated manner than could previously be accomplished. MANDATE DESCRIPTION It is a violation of the Drainage Regulation to develop, construct, alter, use, repair, improve, fill, divert, obstruct, remove or commence the creation, construction, alteration, repair, improvement, filling, diversion, obstruction or removal of any wash, culvert, easement, channel, ditch, berm, retention basin, wall fence, other structure or use which may affect any natural drainage or improved drainage design or drainage system without obtaining a drainage clearance from the Drainage Administrator. Drainage Regulation and Inspection FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ 1,019,498 $ 1,682,973 790 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - Total $ $ $ $ $ 1,019,498 1,682,973 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Fiduciary Analysis by Victor Wickersham, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Chief Financial Officer Public Fiduciary Richard T. Vanderheiden, Director Investigation Services Probate and Conservator Services Burial Services Estate Operations Administrative Support and Legal Coordination Guardian Services Mission The Mission of the Maricopa County Public Fiduciary is to provide guardianship, conservatorship, decedent services and court ordered investigations for vulnerable persons so their estates and well being are protected. Vision To be a recognized leader in providing professional, efficient and compassionate fiduciary services. Strategic Goals • • “Knowledge Management” -- By September 1, 2006, we will develop and integrate a Knowledge Management system with our Case Management Plan into an upgraded case management application in order to achieve a 10% increase in fiduciary program productivity over fiscal ’03 – ’04 benchmarks. Status: This goal needs to be updated. For example, long before September 2006, the Output projected for FY 2004-05 and requested for FY 2005-06 will exceed the goal of a 10% increase over FY 2003-04 in Estate Operations and Guardianship Services. Conversely, Estate Administration is projected to decline from the FY 2003-04 level. “Mental Health Guardianship” -- By November 1, 2006, we will develop a mental health guardianship division for the efficient and effective intake and administration of these cases. Status: Adopted budget is projected to allow the department to maintain goal as stated. 791 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Fiduciary (Continued) • “Position Evaluation” -- By January 1, 2007 we will have mapped all departmental operations and updated critical skill and core competency matrices for each position. Status: The Department is making progress toward meeting this goal. They have completed their first survey of all staff soliciting feedback regarding critical skills and core competencies. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES BURIAL SERVICES PROGRAM $ FIDUCIARY SERVICES PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 671,228 192,897 864,125 EXPENDITURES BURIAL SERVICES PROGRAM $ FIDUCIARY SERVICES PROGRAM INVESTIGATION SERVICES PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 102,383 1,545,291 155,417 155,000 1,958,091 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 930,000 930,000 $ $ 79,614 1,694,731 55,246 153,831 1,983,422 $ $ 27,900 902,100 930,000 $ $ 83,618 1,787,696 81,225 153,266 2,105,805 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 711,528 711,528 $ $ 84,367 1,577,107 115,448 197,386 1,974,308 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 15,000 735,000 750,000 88,968 1,855,813 70,947 170,517 2,186,245 $ $ $ $ (12,900) (167,100) (180,000) -46.2% -18.5% (5,350) (68,117) 10,278 (17,251) (80,440) -6.4% -3.8% 12.7% -11.3% -3.8% -19.4% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $12,887 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT BURIAL SERVICES Percent of determinations made within 5 business days FIDUCIARY SERVICES Percent of inventories filed with the Court on time Percent of Court accountings filed with the Court on time Percent of annual Guardian reports filed with the Court on time. INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES Percent of cases resulting in substantiation of financial exploitation Percent of timeliness in filing mental health mandated reports & court ordered reports FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 0.0% 0.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 92.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 100.0% 10.0% 11.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 100.0% 2.0% 2.0% 36.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 100.0% 4.0% 4.2% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PRO. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ TOTAL REVENUE $ 864,125 864,125 $ $ 930,000 930,000 $ $ 930,000 930,000 $ $ 711,528 711,528 $ $ 750,000 750,000 $ $ (180,000) (180,000) -19.4% -19.4% $ 1,713,906 18,707 224,613 864 1,958,091 $ 1,730,867 26,887 216,042 9,626 1,983,422 $ 1,850,168 30,964 215,047 9,626 2,105,805 $ 1,710,310 26,919 227,854 9,225 1,974,308 $ 1,925,944 26,139 214,265 19,897 2,186,245 $ (75,776) 4,825 782 (10,271) (80,440) -4.1% 15.6% 0.4% -106.7% -3.8% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ 792 $ $ $ $ Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Fiduciary (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 100 GENERAL EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 864,125 864,125 $ $ 930,000 930,000 $ $ 930,000 930,000 $ $ 711,528 711,528 $ $ 750,000 750,000 $ $ (180,000) (180,000) -19.4% -19.4% $ ALL FUNDS $ 1,958,091 1,958,091 $ $ 1,983,422 1,983,422 $ $ 2,105,805 2,105,805 $ $ 1,974,308 1,974,308 $ $ 2,186,245 2,186,245 $ $ (80,440) (80,440) -3.8% -3.8% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 34.00 34.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 37.00 37.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 36.00 36.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (1.00) (1.00) One temporary Legal Support Specialist was added to assist in meeting the increased case demand for mental illness guardianship services for FY 2004-05. It is anticipated in FY 2005-06 that more cases will be assigned to Value Options as opposed to Fiduciaries. Base Adjustments Revenue • Revenue reduced by $180,000 based on FY 2004-05 projections and prior year actuals as well as increased competition from the private sector for conservator and probate cases. Expenditures • • • • • Increased Personnel Savings to right-size the Personal Services budget. Reduced Temporary Pay, Other Benefits, and Other Services to align budget with Target. Reduced Fuel, Other Services, and Internal Service Charges to match schedule provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Increased Debt Service for replacement of a server and scanner. Increase of $26,561 to budget annualization of Executive Compensation increases. 793 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Fiduciary (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ EXPENDITURES 930,000 $ 1,983,422 . MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase Add Two Guardian Positions C-49-05-008-6-00 $ C-34-05-002-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 46,564 75,819 122,383 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 930,000 $ 2,105,805 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 930,000 $ 2,105,805 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid Year Adjustment Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Revenue Based on Projection and Prior Year's Actual $ Department Budget Over Target Adjustment to Regular Pay & Benefits Adjustment to Temporary Pay & Benefits Adjustment to Executive Compensation Adjustment to Other Benefits Adjustment to Fuel Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Capital - Debt Service BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ (3,264) 36,677 31,639 9,115 1,949 76,116 930,000 $ 2,181,921 (180,000) $ (180,000) $ 4,165 (19,698) (3,230) 26,561 (1,893) (430) (935) (2,772) 2,557 4,324 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 750,000 $ 2,186,245 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 750,000 $ 2,186,245 794 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Fiduciary (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,820,125 $ $ 1,809,435 $ $ 1,958,091 $ $ 2,031,014 $ $ 2,186,245 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,820,125 1,809,435 1,958,091 2,031,014 2,186,245 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 1,820,125 $ $ 1,809,435 $ $ 1,958,091 $ $ 2,031,014 $ $ 2,186,245 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,820,125 1,809,435 1,958,091 2,031,014 2,186,245 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Public Fiduciary FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Public Fiduciary Mandates Vs. Expenditures $2.5 Non-Mandated 0.0% Dollars in Millions Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated General Fund Mandated 100.0% 795 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 1.8 1.8 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2.2 2.2 0 0 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 Statue 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 FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 1,733,689 $ 1,724,377 $ 1,855,708 $ 1,938,630 $ 2,097,277 $ - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,733,689 1,724,377 1,855,708 1,938,630 2,097,277 TITLE Indigent Burial Services AUTHORITY A.R.S. §36-831 Burial Responsibility 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 FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 86,436 $ 85,058 $ 102,383 $ 92,384 $ 88,968 $ - 796 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Enterprise - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 86,436 85,058 102,383 92,384 88,968 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health Analysis by Nadia Feeser, Senior Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Deputy County Manager Public Health Jacquelynn. Meeks, PhD., Executive Director HIV/HCV Services Community Development & Minority Health Administrative Services Maternal, Child & Family Health Chronic Disease & Tobacco Control Public Health Emergency Management Epidemiology/Vital Registration Public Health Clinical Services 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. Strategic Goals • • • Meet or exceed performance objectives for 95% of the Department’s program service output measures by the end of FY 2006. Status: The projected results for most programs have not changed in FY 2006 compared to FY 2005. Activity structures and the related family of measures will be comprehensively revised for FY 2007. By June 2007, increase the amount of new or expanded grant awards, contracts, and allowable fees/reimbursements by 4% to develop new programs to meet the emerging demand for public health services. Status: The FY 2006 Adopted Budget includes 2% less grant expenditures compared to FY 2005 Revised. By June 2007, develop public health facilities that will ensure that client service needs are met in safe, efficient and regionally located working environments. Status: A new Public Health clinic will open before the end of FY 2005. 797 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) • • • • Develop, by June 2006, 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; developing and sustaining the ability of the HHS workforce to respond as needed in an emergency; and, at a minimum, meeting ADHS deliverables and federal requirements. Status: The Adopted Budget reflects a major restructuring of the Bio-Defense grants in cooperation with the State. A zero-based comprehensive review will be conducted during the summer. By June 2006, the Public Health Department will develop a 3-year maternal, child and family health strategic plan to reduce targeted health disparities in women, children, and families. Status: This goal will be addressed in an Organizational and Performance Review project, which will entail updates to all Department plans and processes. By June 2006, develop and implement a comprehensive strategic plan for reducing modifiable risk factors that lead to chronic disease and injuries. Status: This goal will be addressed in an Organizational and Performance Review project, which will entail updates to all Department plans and processes. By June 2007, identify and prioritize community and minority populations at risk for health disparities and establish a relationship with health related coalitions in the identified at-risk populations. Status: This goal will be addressed in an Organizational and Performance Review project, which will entail updates to all Department plans and processes. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES 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 REVENUES $ 669,321 163,350 8,020,910 3,062,502 2,518,554 3,238,263 2,290,378 8,367,424 5,538,283 8,086,941 345,726 1,434,616 43,736,268 EXPENDITURES 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 EXPENDITURES $ 1,676,528 893,653 7,316,091 3,206,871 2,870,901 3,868,723 2,314,467 11,378,723 6,743,690 8,175,433 477,451 2,326,525 678,809 51,927,866 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,078,680 110,000 7,963,426 2,535,190 2,235,273 4,477,785 2,105,331 7,811,424 5,471,948 8,029,292 378,077 43,196,426 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ 2,526,740 90,768 7,853,309 2,655,836 2,235,273 4,501,827 2,229,239 8,104,545 5,572,533 9,373,659 357,854 202,812 45,704,395 2,425,677 $ 257,984 7,828,380 3,123,932 2,307,529 4,571,120 2,199,635 11,028,331 6,253,714 8,686,752 481,212 626,195 (2,643) 49,787,818 $ 1,802,137 442,916 6,351,350 3,424,534 3,201,127 4,682,555 2,246,211 12,407,018 6,647,228 10,235,864 534,265 839,029 200,851 53,015,085 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,539,001 177,211 7,868,136 2,210,670 2,296,154 4,437,816 2,413,675 7,871,898 5,016,603 9,982,445 336,141 53,003 54,737 45,257,491 1,577,092 434,714 6,166,038 3,042,109 2,950,219 4,292,382 2,224,326 11,897,685 6,875,641 9,956,637 544,511 1,225,121 536,487 51,722,961 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 1,435,050 253,050 6,151,823 2,195,525 2,828,762 3,946,249 1,917,837 8,830,446 5,744,689 7,852,267 502,582 3,241,362 43,467 44,943,109 1,428,105 416,875 6,144,506 2,918,098 3,616,466 4,162,556 1,944,377 12,780,125 6,918,422 8,303,701 581,284 4,002,282 911,107 54,127,904 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (1,091,690) 162,282 (1,701,486) (460,311) 593,489 (555,578) (311,402) 725,901 172,156 (1,521,392) 144,728 3,038,550 43,467 (761,286) -76.1% 64.1% -28.0% -21.0% 20.8% -14.1% -16.2% 8.3% 3.0% -19.4% 28.8% 89.6% 100.0% -1.7% 374,032 26,041 206,844 506,436 (415,339) 519,999 301,834 (373,107) (271,194) 1,932,163 (47,019) (3,163,253) (710,256) (1,112,819) 26.1% 6.2% 3.4% 17.3% -14.7% 12.4% 15.4% -2.9% -3.9% 23.1% -8.1% -82.6% -77.6% -2.1% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Department Administrative Services Program include $182,465 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. 798 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT BIO-DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS Percent of plan developed for community-based surveillance system COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Percent of grants facilitated by Community Development with Community-Based Organizations and Health Coalitions Percent of Executive Committee members who indicate they are satisfied with Planning Council Support's performance of administrative duties HIV/HCV SERVICES Percent of participating inmates attaining a score of 80% or above on class post-test Percent of clients who said that their HIV test result was explained clearly and simply FAMILY HEALTH Percent of Coalition members who report that there is progress towards implementation of plan goals. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 0% 100% 95% 95% 95% 0% 0% 3% 7% 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 84% 85% 85% 85% 85% 0% 0% 73% 85% 85% 85% 93% 8% 9% 86% 88% 88% 88% 80% -8% -9% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 0% 0% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 0% 0% 100% 95% 95% 95% 100% 5% 5% 14% 10% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 51% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% 63% 50% 50% 50% 51% 1% 2% 30% 35% 35% 35% 40% 5% 14% 48% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% Percent of babies referred from the Newborn Intensive Care Unit that receive a home visit HEALTH RELATED DATA Percent of data requests filled within 5 business days CHRONIC DISEASE & TOBACCO CONTROL Percentage of students participating in the P.L.A.Y. activity who receive the President’s Physical Activity Award. Percent of women who complete the Women Together for Health activity HEALTHCARE FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS Percent of homeless in Phoenix metropolitan area seen at least once at clinic INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL & TREATMENT Percent of communicable disease reports investigated IMMUNIZATION SERVICES Percent of children ages 0-2 receiving full complement of immunizations ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 39,795,442 3,871,469 20,144 49,213 43,736,268 23,503,626 15,156,856 11,554,170 1,463,271 249,943 51,927,866 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 39,680,808 3,469,618 1,000 45,000 43,196,426 25,923,133 11,416,534 10,589,350 1,777,345 81,456 49,787,818 799 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 42,188,777 3,469,618 1,000 45,000 45,704,395 27,638,600 12,545,452 10,972,646 1,777,345 81,042 53,015,085 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 41,986,770 3,212,248 18,824 39,649 45,257,491 26,427,101 12,551,648 10,854,132 1,771,994 118,086 51,722,961 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 41,458,518 3,437,541 2,050 45,000 44,943,109 28,487,176 12,714,165 10,858,494 1,812,666 255,403 54,127,904 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (730,259) (32,077) 1,050 (761,286) -1.7% -0.9% 105.0% 0.0% -1.7% (848,576) (168,713) 114,152 (35,321) (174,361) (1,112,819) -3.1% -1.3% 1.0% -2.0% -215.1% -2.1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 100 GENERAL 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS $ ALL FUNDS $ 3,894,885 39,841,384 43,736,268 6,789,565 3,645,404 41,492,897 51,927,866 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,418,618 39,777,808 43,196,426 6,590,367 3,419,643 39,777,808 49,787,818 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,418,618 42,285,777 45,704,395 7,222,536 3,506,772 42,285,777 53,015,085 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,048,206 42,209,286 45,257,491 7,151,473 2,999,111 41,572,377 51,722,961 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 3,350,761 41,592,348 44,943,109 8,788,496 3,747,060 41,592,348 54,127,904 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (67,857) (693,429) (761,286) -2.0% -1.6% -1.7% (1,565,960) (240,288) 693,429 (1,112,819) -21.7% -6.9% 1.6% -2.1% Personnel by Fund 100 GENERAL 265 PUBLIC HEALTH FEES 532 PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS TOTAL FUNDS • • • • • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 86.92 53.78 415.85 556.55 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 92.46 46.07 425.52 564.05 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 131.51 48.19 395.23 574.93 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE 39.05 2.12 (30.29) 10.88 Shift 32.0 FTE positions from the Grant Fund to the General Fund to reflect a change in accounting for indirect costs. Increase 11.0 FTE positions in the General Fund for the Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Results Initiative. Shift 2.0 FTE positions from the General Fund to the Grant Fund to fund increases in nurse salary adjustments. Decrease 2.0 FTE positions from the General Fund to reflect the end of funding for the West Nile Virus call center. Increase 2.0 FTE positions in the Fees Fund for the Vital Registration Results Initiative. Base Adjustments Revenue • • • • • • Reduce fee revenues to reflect the shift of the Infectious Disease Control for Refugees Activity personnel to the Grant Fund, which reduces fee revenues. Reduce grant revenues to reflect shift of Bio-Defense grant funded positions to the General Fund. Decrease grant revenues to reflect shift of nurse market salary increases to the General Fund. Increase grant revenues to reflect shift of General Fund Bio-Defense positions to the Grant Fund. Reduce grant reimbursement for Department Administration and IT. Increase Ryan White program revenues and reduce grant reimbursements for Department Administration and IT costs in the Grant Fund. 800 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) Expenditures • • • • • • • • • • • Reduce expenditures in the Fees Fund to reflect the change in funding of the Infectious Disease Control for Refugees Activity from a fee based service to grant reimbursement. Shift Bio-Defense grant funded positions to the General Fund. Shift Bio-Defense positions from the General Fund to the Grant Fund. Shift nurse market salary increases from the Grant Fund to the General Fund. Adjust expenditures in the Grant Fund to reflect allocation of costs to the appropriate Activity. Decrease allocation of Department Administration and IT from the General Fund to the Grant and Fees Fund. Decrease for lease adjustments in the General Fund. Increase expenditures for new equipment for the new Public Health clinic. Increase General Fund costs for the HIV Surveillance Activity to fund a mandated service as a result of a reduction in grant funding. Shift Epidemiologist positions from the Fees Fund to the General Fund. Increase Ryan White program costs in the Grant Fund and reduce the allocation of Department Administration and IT costs from the General Fund. Results Initiatives The following Results Initiatives are recommended for FY 2005-06: • • • Tuberculosis (TB) Prevention and Control - $770,240 ($770,240 annualized) General Fund: Initiative adds 11.0 FTEs for the Tuberculosis Services Activity to effectively manage and prevent the spread of TB due to an increase in demand. This request would maintain results, as measured by intervening in 100% of all suspects or cases as required by law. Expected Result: Intervene in 100% of all TB suspects or cases. West Nile Virus - $364,292 ($0 annualized) Appropriated Fund Balance: Initiative funds 5.0 FTEs for epidemiologic and pesticide surveillance tasks, an increase of 0.97 FTEs over the FY 2005 Revised Budget, to increase the number of WNV cases reviewed and investigated. This request would maintain results, as measured by reviewing 100% of all WNV cases. Expected Result: Review and investigate 100% of all WNV cases. Vital Registration - $807,116 ($410,816 annualized) Public Health Fees Fund: Initiative shifts 4.0 FTEs from the Birth and Death Certificates Activity to the Birth and Death Records Activity and adds 2.0 FTEs and to the Birth and Death Records Activity. Initiative also adds associated supplies, services, and capital costs to both Activities, and reduces revenues by $24,809 from the Adopted Base Budget to reflect a more accurate projection of fees. Expected Result: The percentage of birth and death certificate copies provided and the percentage of births and deaths recorded within 5 business days will increase from 95% in FY 2004-05 Projected Actual to 100% in FY 2005-06 Adopted. 801 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) Reconciliation General Fund (100) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ EXPENDITURES - $ 6,590,367 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ Nurse Market Adjustments Health and Dental Benefits Increases MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ - $ 120,682 490,365 21,122 632,169 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ - $ 7,222,536 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustment - Nurse Market Adjustment Non-Recurring Expenditures - WNV Call Center Base Adjustment TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ 42,243 194,029 24,470 4,844 (99,237) (114,364) 51,985 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: $ Shift BDPR grant positions - Health and Disease Statistics Activity Shift BDPR grant positions - Office of the Director Activity Shift BDPR grant positions - Planning and Training Activity Shift BDPR grant positions - Bio-Defense Intelligence Activity Nurse salary adjustment allocation to General Fund - Family Planning Activity Nurse salary adjustment allocation to General Fund - Primary Care ClinicHomeless Activity Lease Adjustment - Community Nutrition Activity Servers, PCs, and printers for new clinic building - Business Applications Copier fo Refugee/Foreign Travel for new clinic - Infectious Disease Control Grant funded costs allocated to General Fund - HIV Surveillance Activity Decrease Allocation of Dept Administration and IT to Grant Fund Decrease Allocation of Dept Administration and IT to Fees Fund Shift Epidemiologist positions from Fees Fund - Health & Disease Statistics Activity Ryan White program reduction in administrative costs reimbursement - Office of the Director Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $7,274,521 $ - 245,896 61,412 (299,680) (48,394) 53,157 38,074 (125,164) 19,333 2,400 44,337 165,486 146,884 288,742 - $ 151,252 743,735 $ - $ 8,018,256 $ RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 770,240 770,240 $ - $ 8,788,496 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: RESULTS INITIATIVES: Tuberculosis Prevention and Control - $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 802 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) Public Health Fees (265) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 3,418,618 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase Nurse Market Adjustment $ - $ 63,278 23,851 87,129 $ 3,418,618 $ 3,506,772 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustment - Nurse Market Adjustment Non-Recurring Expenditures - WNV Call Center Fund Balance Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ 16,960 16,960 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Base Request - Under Target $ Shift Epidemiologist positions to General Fund - Health & Disease Statistics Activity Reduce allocation of Dept Administrative costs from the General Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 3,419,643 3,435,578 $ (60,008) $ 26,137 42,280 12,830 38,722 16,960 (47,200) (160,923) (71,194) 3,435,578 (60,008) (288,742) (60,008) $ (146,884) (495,634) $ 3,375,570 $ 2,939,944 RESULTS INITIATIVES: Vital Registration - Birth and Death Certificates Activity $ Vital Registration - Birth and Death Records Activity RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ (74,529) $ 49,720 (24,809) $ 40,236 370,580 410,816 $ $ 137,120 259,180 396,300 3,350,761 $ 3,747,060 NON-RECURRING EXPENDITURES FROM FUND BALANCE Vital Registration - Birth and Death Certificates Activity Vital Registration - Birth and Death Records Activity RESULTS INITIATIVE SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 803 - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) Public Health Grant (532) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 39,777,808 $ 39,777,808 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 2,507,969 $ 2,507,969 $ 2,507,969 2,507,969 $ 42,285,777 $ 42,285,777 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments - Nurse Market Adjustment CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Structural Balance TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ 188,290 188,290 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Grant award adjustment FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Base Request - Under Target Shift BDPR grant positions - Health and Disease Statistics Activity Shift BDPR grant positions and nurse salary adjustment allocation - Office of the Director Activity Shift BDPR grant positions - Planning and Training Activity Shift BDPR grant positions - Bio-Defense Intelligence Activity $ 42,474,067 $ $ (822,872) $ (245,896) Nurse salary adjustment allocation to General Fund - Family Planning Activity Nurse salary adjustment allocation to General Fund - Primary Care ClinicHomeless Activity Net reduction in grant reimbursement for Dept Admin and IT - Office of the Director Activity Allocate costs from Office of the Director Activity Allocate costs to Business Allocations Development Activity Decrease Allocation of Dept Administration and IT from General Fund Increase in Ryan White program costs - Public Health Pharmacy Activity Increase in Ryan White program costs - Services for People with HIV/A Activity Ryan White program reduction in administrative costs reimbursement - Office of the Director Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 202,103 870,957 188,290 299,412 (1,372,472) 188,290 42,474,067 (665,729) (245,896) (61,412) 299,680 48,394 (61,412) 299,680 48,394 (53,157) (38,074) (53,157) (38,074) (8,382) - - (27,983) 27,944 (165,486) 77,246 77,246 74,006 74,006 (151,252) (881,719) $ (151,252) (881,719) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 41,592,348 $ 41,592,348 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 41,592,348 $ 41,592,348 804 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 5,827,343 $ 36,609,715 $ 6,333,479 $ 39,732,825 $ 6,789,565 $ 45,095,423 $ 7,112,352 $ 45,342,980 $ 8,788,496 $ 45,339,408 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 42,437,058 46,066,304 51,884,989 52,455,332 54,127,904 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 3,211,999 $ 8,675,915 $ 3,830,692 $ 11,255,412 $ 4,390,238 $ 11,942,184 $ 3,889,247 $ 8,986,009 $ 5,221,171 $ 9,679,516 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 11,887,914 15,086,104 16,332,422 12,875,256 14,900,687 Total Administrative Mandates FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund Special Revenue $ 2,615,344 $ $ 2,502,787 $ $ 2,399,327 $ $ 3,223,105 $ $ 3,567,325 $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,615,344 2,502,787 2,399,327 3,223,105 3,567,325 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 27,933,801 28,477,413 33,153,240 36,356,971 35,659,892 Special Revenue $ 27,933,801 $ 28,477,413 $ 33,153,240 $ 36,356,971 $ 35,659,892 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Public Health FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Public Health Mandates Vs. Expenditures General Fund Mandated 16.2% $60.0 Dollars in Millions $50.0 Non-Mandated 61.7% Other Fund Mandated 22.1% $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated 805 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 42.4 5.8 8.7 27.9 46.1 6.3 11.3 28.5 51.9 6.8 11.9 33.2 52.5 7.1 11 34.3 54.1 8.8 11.9 33.4 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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. §§ 36-711 Through 738 (1997) Tuberculosis Control. A.R.S. 36-662 Access to Records. A.R.S. 36-104 Powers and Duties. Arizona Administrative Code R9-6-309 Chlamydia, R9-6-323 Gonorrhea, and R9-6-360 Syphilis. 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 non-compliant individuals with or suspected of having active tuberculosis. Since the enactment of these statutes, MCDPH has issued less than 6 emergency custody orders. ADHS has also delegated control measures (follow-up on positive test results) and contact control measures (interview infected individuals, elicit contacts, and arrange treatment of contacts) for Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Syphilis to the local Health Department. This includes the identification and follow-up on all reported positive Syphilis serologies on infants with Congenital Syphilis in Maricopa County. 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. § 36-663. Section B lists specific procedures a health care provider must follow in order to obtain written or oral consent of a patient in order to conduct an HIV test. Section C mandates that providers obtaining oral consent to conduct an HIV test must sign a form to that effect and return it to the ADHS. 806 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) 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.36693). Control and Treatment of Contagious FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 1,362,355 $ 1,873,474 1,435,484 $ 2,036,832 1,669,242 $ 2,224,979 1,656,524 $ 1,887,430 2,374,977 $ 1,894,670 TITLE Medical Care of Indigent AUTHORITY Per A.R.S. 11-291 county. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND N/A MANDATE DESCRIPTION N/A Medical Care of Indigent** FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,235,829 3,472,316 3,894,221 3,543,954 4,269,647 Medical Care of the Indigent is no longer a mandate for the Special Revenue $ 1,765,399 $ 2,035,842 $ 2,300,822 $ $ - 807 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,765,399 2,035,842 2,300,822 - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) 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. § 36322 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. 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 1,349,433 $ 1,715,014 $ 2,054,326 $ 1,834,098 $ 2,092,702 808 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,349,433 1,715,014 2,054,326 1,834,098 2,092,702 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Public Health (Continued) 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund Special Revenue 644,393 $ 810,585 $ 836,129 $ 612,977 $ 925,347 $ - 809 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 644,393 810,585 836,129 612,977 925,347 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects FY 2001-02 Actuals $ 1,205,252 $ 3,687,608 $ FY 2002-03 Actuals $ 1,584,623 $ 5,467,724 $ FY 2003-04 Actuals $ 1,884,867 $ 5,362,057 $ FY 2004-05 Actuals $ 1,619,746 $ 5,264,481 $ FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ 1,920,847 $ 5,692,144 $ *Beginning in FY02, the value of donated vaccines is included in Special Revenue. **Medical Care of the Indigent no longer a mandate. 810 Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 4,892,860 7,052,347 7,246,924 6,884,227 7,612,991 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Research & Reporting Analysis by Don Tellis, Management Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Deputy County Manager Research & Reporting 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. Strategic Goals • • • By July 2006, establish and/or identify an oversight, review and evaluation mechanism for each County Sponsored Survey. Status: Research & Reporting is achieving this goal through informal communication with County leadership regarding the usefulness of survey results. By July 2005, incorporate each County Sponsored Survey into the countywide MfR plan. Status: The Office of Management and Budget will produce an MFR newsletter and incorporate the satisfaction survey results in it. This will help the County “tell its story” regarding demands, outputs, and results achieved. The department plans to focus next on how to use the results of the exit interviews to identify areas of improvement. By July 2005, develop and distribute a process to departments to contract for Research and Reporting services. Status: This goal will likely be modified in the upcoming fiscal year to specifically address the creation of a fee schedule for services. 811 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Research & Reporting (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % REVENUES RESEARCH AND REPORTING $ TOTAL REVENUES $ 366,000 366,000 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 300,961 300,961 $ $ 334,000 334,000 $ $ (106,000) (106,000) -24.1% -24.1% EXPENDITURES RESEARCH AND REPORTING $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 415,997 415,997 $ 414,720 25,280 440,000 $ 420,564 19,436 440,000 $ 301,008 60,951 361,959 $ 317,856 16,144 334,000 $ 102,708 3,292 106,000 24.4% 16.9% 24.1% $ $ $ $ $ Note: Budgeted expenditures for the department’s Administrative Services Program include $2,025 reserved for funding performance-based salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT RESEARCH AND REPORTING Percent of eligible respondents who are interviewed (Rate of Reponse or Participation Rate) FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED NA NA NA 75.0% 75.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % NA NA Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES $ CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 90,000 276,000 0 366,000 305,945 4,084 72,843 33,125 415,997 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 152,000 288,000 440,000 310,261 11,560 85,281 31,636 1,262 440,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 152,000 288,000 440,000 310,261 11,560 85,281 31,636 1,262 440,000 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 63,073 $ 238,000 (112) 300,961 $ 334,000 334,000 302,218 7,818 18,788 31,636 1,499 361,959 207,213 11,000 79,547 34,502 1,738 334,000 $ $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (152,000) 46,000 (106,000) -100.0% 16.0% 103,048 560 5,734 (2,866) (476) 106,000 33.2% 4.8% 6.7% -9.1% -37.7% 24.1% -24.1% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 260 RESEARCH & REPORTING EXPENDITURES 260 RESEARCH & REPORTING FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 366,000 366,000 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 300,961 300,961 $ $ 334,000 334,000 $ $ (106,000) (106,000) -24.1% -24.1% $ ALL FUNDS $ 415,997 415,997 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 440,000 440,000 $ $ 361,959 361,959 $ $ 334,000 334,000 $ $ 106,000 106,000 24.1% 24.1% 812 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Research & Reporting (Continued) Personnel by Fund 260 RESEARCH & REPORTING TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 8.75 8.75 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 8.75 8.75 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 7.25 7.25 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (1.50) (1.50) Department eliminated of 3 vacant part time positions. Base Adjustments Revenue • Base adjustment of $106,000 in revenue due to the fact that intergovernmental agreements have not been established with the Maricopa County Special Health Care District or the State of Arizona. Expenditures • • Elimination of 3 vacant part time positions for a reduction of expenditures of $40,133. Decrease of expenditures in the amount of $65,867 to offset the adjustment in revenues. 813 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Research & Reporting (Continued) Reconciliation Research & Reporting (260) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 440,000 $ 440,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 440,000 $ 440,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 440,000 $ 440,000 - 4,550 6,427 (25,557) 5,670 8,910 - TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ $ 440,000 $ 440,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Agreements with other governmental entities not established. $ Adjustment to Target - department request under target Adjustment to Outside Agency Contract Survey Activity Adjustment to County Department Contracted Survey Activity Adjustment to County Sponsored Survey Activity Adjustment to Financial Services Activity Adjustment to Human Resources Activity BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (106,000) (106,000) $ (40,133) (39,467) (17,760) (8,204) (218) (218) (106,000) FY 2005-06 RECOMMENDED BASE BUDGET: $ 334,000 $ 334,000 FY 2005-06 RECOMMENDED BUDGET: $ 334,000 $ 334,000 814 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Research & Reporting (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 375,189 $ 337,588 $ 415,997 $ 285,345 $ 334,000 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 375,189 337,588 415,997 285,345 334,000 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 375,189 $ 337,588 $ 415,997 $ 285,345 $ 334,000 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 375,189 337,588 415,997 285,345 334,000 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Research & Reporting FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Research & Reporting Mandates Vs. Expenditures $0.4 Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $0.4 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $0.3 $0.3 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100.0% 815 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 0.4 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.4 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.4 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.4 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Risk Management Analysis by Cynthia Goelz, Principal Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Chief Financial Officer Risk Management Peter Crowley, Manager Administration Safety & Loss Control Environmental Consulting Claims 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. Strategic Goals • • • • Over the next two to five years, departmental decisions involving risk to County assets will be made consistent with established risk management protocols. Status: Risk Management protocols are being reviewed and finalized. Departments will be advised of such protocols when established. 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. Status: Timely and relevant information is being submitted to departments via quarterly loss reports. In addition, meetings or consultations with departments are held when requested. County losses will be reduced by a measurable amount over each of the next five years. Status: The number of claims opened on a quarterly basis has increased. The quarterly injury incident rate (employee injuries) also has increased. These quarterly figures indicate an increase in annual third party claims costs and annual indemnity payments. These increases may be due in part to expanded County services and either an increase in the number of County employees or County turnover. 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. Status: The attrition rate in Risk Management is greater than 10% at the present time. Attempts to retain experienced employees have been effected by budget and salary limitations. 816 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Risk Management (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED REVENUES ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROG $ RISK MGMT SELF-INSURANCE PROG ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 131,731 $ 26,085,641 (132,986) 26,084,386 $ 26,644,669 26,644,669 EXPENDITURES CLAIMS RESOLUTION/LIT MGT PROG $ ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROG RISK MGMT SELF-INSURANCE PROG SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 16,968,062 338,173 4,724,571 475,491 428,506 22,934,802 24,214,702 558,265 530,389 502,868 264,492 26,070,716 $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 26,644,669 26,644,669 $ $ 24,176,868 555,093 542,072 519,083 277,600 26,070,716 $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 10,482 26,473,356 26,483,838 $ 23,116,120 23,116,120 $ 21,543,697 527,112 2,660,321 569,979 291,378 25,592,487 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ 24,154,479 556,967 563,371 561,409 294,675 26,130,901 $ $ $ (3,528,549) (3,528,549) 22,389 (1,874) (21,299) (42,326) (17,075) (60,185) -13.2% -13.2% 0.1% -0.3% -3.9% -8.2% -6.2% -0.2% Note: Budgeted expenditures for the Administrative Services Program include $9,067 reserved for funding performancebased salary adjustments that will be reallocated to other programs. Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT CLAIMS RESOLUTIONS AND LITIGATION MANAGEMENT Percent decrease/increase of third party claims costs compared to a 3 year average Percent decrease/increase of third party indemnity payments compared to a 3 year average ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Percent reduction/increase in possible environmental liability exposures RISK MANAGEMENT SELF-INSURANCE Percent of risk management expenditures to County expenditures showing the cost of risk Percent of expenditures within budget SAFETY MANAGEMENT Percent reduction/increase of County quarterly injury incident rate compared to a 3 year average rate FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 56.0% 56.0% 56.0% 56.0% 60.0% 4.0% 7.1% -23.0% -23.0% -23.0% -23.0% -20.0% 3.0% -13.0% -4.3% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 0.0% 0.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -18.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2.0% 20.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ $ $ $ 25,676,986 407,400 26,084,386 1,209,016 32,294 21,568,377 122,626 2,490 22,934,802 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 26,144,669 500,000 26,644,669 1,277,371 41,380 24,611,047 114,652 26,266 26,070,716 817 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 26,144,669 500,000 26,644,669 1,324,639 45,880 24,559,279 114,652 26,266 26,070,716 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,609,035 22,364,322 510,481 26,483,838 1,288,862 48,500 24,114,209 114,652 26,265 25,592,487 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 6,039,659 16,551,461 525,000 23,116,120 1,389,341 48,000 24,547,782 119,335 26,443 26,130,901 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 6,039,659 (9,593,208) 25,000 (3,528,549) -36.7% 5.0% -13.2% (64,702) (2,120) 11,497 (4,683) (177) (60,185) -4.9% -4.6% 0.0% -4.1% -0.7% -0.2% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Risk Management (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 675 RISK MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURES 675 RISK MANAGEMENT FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ ALL FUNDS $ 26,084,386 26,084,386 $ $ 26,644,669 26,644,669 $ $ 26,644,669 26,644,669 $ $ 26,483,838 26,483,838 $ $ 23,116,120 23,116,120 $ $ (3,528,549) (3,528,549) -13.2% -13.2% $ ALL FUNDS $ 22,934,802 22,934,802 $ $ 26,070,716 26,070,716 $ $ 26,070,716 26,070,716 $ $ 25,592,487 25,592,487 $ $ 26,130,901 26,130,901 $ $ (60,185) (60,185) -0.2% -0.2% Personnel by Fund 675 RISK MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 20.00 20.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 20.00 20.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 20.00 20.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Revenue • Reduction in reimbursement-based revenue to amount needed to cover claims expenditures. Expenditures • • • Adjustment to Personnel Savings. Adjustment to Regular Pay and Regular Benefits for over budgeted expenditures. Adjustment to Claims and Litigation Management Activity for County Counsel and Other Services charges. 818 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Risk Management (Continued) Reconciliation Risk Management Fund (675) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 26,644,669 $ 26,070,716 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 26,644,669 $ 26,070,716 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 26,644,669 $ 26,070,716 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department Requested Reduction to Revenue $ Adjustment to Regular Pay Salary Savings in all Activities Adjustment to Benefit Savings in all Activities Adjustment to Other Pay in all Activities Adjustment to Other Benefits in all Activities Increase to Claims and Litigation Management Activity for County Counsel Charges Decrease to Claims and Litigation Management Activity Other Services BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 26,644,669 12,160 27,078 11,747 17,700 (8,500) 60,185 $26,130,901 (3,528,549) $ - (13,332) (7,584) (26,664) (4,240) (3,528,549) $ 332,113 (280,293) - FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE BUDGET: $ 23,116,120 $ 26,130,901 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 23,116,120 $ 26,130,901 819 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Risk Management (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 19,468,077 $ 18,408,417 $ 22,944,313 $ 25,772,181 $ 26,130,901 $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,468,077 18,408,417 22,944,313 25,772,181 26,130,901 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ 19,468,077 $ 18,408,417 $ 22,944,313 $ 25,772,181 $ 26,130,901 $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,468,077 18,408,417 22,944,313 25,772,181 26,130,901 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Risk Management FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Risk Management Mandates Vs. Expenditures $30.0 Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $25.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100.0% 820 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 19.5 0 0 19.5 18.4 0 0 18.4 22.9 0 0 22.9 25.8 0 0 25.8 26.1 0 0 26.1 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Solid Waste Analysis by Jamie Rullo, Senior Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Public Works Director Solid Waste Bill Thornton, Acting Director Administration Landfill Closure & Post- Closure, Transfer Stations Operation Tire Recycling Program Environmental Monitoring & Operations Mission The Mission of the Solid Waste Management Department is to provide collection sites and tire recycling programs for residents and businesses so they may conveniently dispose of waste and tires 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. Strategic Goals • • • “Household Hazardous Waste Program” -- By 2007, formulate a west side area wide community consortium to collaboratively address and implement a Household Hazardous Waste Program or conduct multi-area events. Status: The adopted budget will allow the department to make progress in meeting this goal. “Public/Private Partnership” -- By 2008, develop a public/private partnership program to recycle used tires into useable products. Status: The department is working towards achieving this goal. “Illegal Dumping Clean Up Program”-- By 2008, continue to expand the ongoing Illegal dumping cleanup program by collaborating with the west side communities. Status: The department may achieve this goal sooner than Fiscal Year 2007-08. 821 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT $ WASTE DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 223,247 89,276 4,380,095 4,692,619 EXPENDITURES ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT $ WASTE DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,112,080 1,719,169 1,054,980 5,886,229 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 3,770,000 50,000 400,000 4,220,000 $ $ 3,665,774 499,639 247,009 4,412,422 $ $ 3,770,000 50,000 400,000 4,220,000 $ $ 3,795,704 416,089 208,046 4,419,839 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 4,050,454 95,000 456,236 4,601,690 $ $ 4,243,074 449,231 187,690 4,879,995 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 4,150,000 665,000 4,815,000 4,263,541 391,924 225,914 4,881,379 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 380,000 10.1% 615,000 1230.0% (400,000) -100.0% 595,000 14.1% (467,837) 24,165 (17,868) (461,540) -12.3% 5.8% -8.6% -10.4% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT Percent of funded household hazardous waste events requested Percent of tires recycled (in tons) WASTE DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT Percent of customers satisfied Percent of groundwater well tests completed FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 92.0% 100.0% 95.0% 100.0% 95.0% 100.0% 92.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,066,015 209,145 417,458 4,692,619 532,118 44,815 4,940,666 177,117 191,512 5,886,229 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,950,000 50,000 220,000 4,220,000 553,866 48,000 3,623,111 108,236 79,209 4,412,422 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,950,000 50,000 220,000 4,220,000 556,865 40,500 3,635,029 108,236 79,209 4,419,839 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,112,933 150,824 337,933 4,601,690 524,022 43,291 4,125,238 108,236 79,208 4,879,995 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 4,300,000 155,000 360,000 4,815,000 589,996 66,352 3,919,021 89,041 216,969 4,881,379 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 350,000 105,000 140,000 595,000 8.9% 210.0% 63.6% 14.1% (33,131) (25,852) (283,992) 19,195 (137,760) (461,540) -5.9% -63.8% -7.8% 17.7% -173.9% -10.4% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 290 WASTE TIRE 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 290 WASTE TIRE 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT $ ALL FUNDS $ 4,296,823 395,796 4,692,619 3,398,927 2,487,302 5,886,229 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,770,000 450,000 4,220,000 3,419,169 993,253 4,412,422 822 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 3,770,000 450,000 4,220,000 3,426,586 993,253 4,419,839 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 4,050,454 551,236 4,601,690 4,141,596 738,400 4,879,995 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 4,150,000 665,000 4,815,000 4,075,553 805,826 4,881,379 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 380,000 215,000 595,000 10.1% 47.8% 14.1% (648,967) 187,427 (461,540) -18.9% 18.9% -10.4% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Personnel by Fund 290 WASTE TIRE 580 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 6.50 5.50 12.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 5.50 6.50 12.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 4.25 8.75 13.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (1.25) 2.25 1.00 1.0 FTE was added by converting a temporary Public Service Representative position into a regular position. This position was classified as temporary for more than three years, and the Department has determined that the position is necessary to the operations of the Waste Tire Management activity and should be made a permanent position. Base Adjustments Revenue • Other Intergovernmental Revenue was increased for the Waste Tire Management activity due to anticipated increased tire sales and resulting tax revenue. Expenditures • • • • • • • Increased Pay and Fringe Benefits for the additional position in the Waste Tire Management activity and the increased health and dental premiums. Decreased General Supplies expenditures to be more in line with current spending patterns. Increased Fuel expenditures to accommodate rising fuel costs. Increased Other Services to accommodate increase in waste tire recycling contract fee. Decreased Internal Service Charges according to usage schedules. Decreased Utilities to be more in line with current and historical expenditures. Capital expenditures were increased for the purchase of a truck and construction of a scale house for the Waste Tire Management activity. 823 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Reconciliation Waste Tire (290) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Adjustment $ C-49-05-008-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 3,770,000 $ - 3,419,169 $ 7,417 7,417 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 3,770,000 $ 3,426,586 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 3,770,000 $ 3,426,586 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments Position Elimination due to Public Works Merger CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Revenue (Other Charges and Interest Earnings) $ Expenditure Request Above Target Adjustment to Regular Pay and Benefits Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Transfers Out Adjustment to Vehicles and Construction Equipment Adjustment to Infrastructure BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 824 - $ $ 3,770,000 5,159 5,196 (35,290) 4,318 1,423 (19,194) $3,407,392 380,000 $ 380,000 $ 255 (112,616) 600,000 322 30,200 150,000 668,161 4,150,000 $ 4,075,553 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Solid Waste Management (580) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 450,000 $ 993,253 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 450,000 $ 993,253 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 450,000 $ 993,253 - 5,159 4,459 (51,363) (512,684) TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance One Time Expenses Home Hazardous Waste; Illegal Dumping; AZDPES Permitting CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ - $ $ 4,318 6,858 (543,253) 450,000 $450,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Expenditure Request Over Target $ Adjustment to Other Intergovernmental Revenue Adjustment to Other Charges for Services Adjustment to Interest Earnings Adjustment to Regular Pay and Fringe Benefits Adjustment to Personnel Services Allocated In Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Utilities Adjustment to Services - Allocation In Adjustment to Vehicles and Construction Equipment Adjustment to Debt Services Adjustment to Transfers Out BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ 50,000 75,000 90,000 215,000 $ 76 122,065 8,502 (2,600) 200,000 3,000 (6,910) 30,200 1,160 333 355,826 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 665,000 $ 805,826 $ 825 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Solid Waste (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 2,349,862 $ 2,679,414 $ 3,399,096 $ 4,136,881 $ 4,075,553 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ 745,428 $ $ 653,853 $ $ 2,510,264 $ $ 951,797 $ $ 805,826 Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,095,290 3,333,267 5,909,360 5,088,678 4,881,379 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 2,349,862 $ 2,679,414 $ 3,399,096 $ 4,136,881 $ 4,075,553 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,349,862 2,679,414 3,399,096 4,136,881 4,075,553 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ $ $ $ $ - Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ 745,428 $ $ 653,853 $ $ 2,510,264 $ $ 951,797 $ $ 805,826 Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 745,428 653,853 2,510,264 951,797 805,826 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Solid Waste FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures General Fund Mandated 0.0% $6.0 $5.0 Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 16.5% Solid Waste Mandates Vs. Expenditures $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 83.5% 826 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 3.1 0 2.3 0.7 3.3 0 2.7 0.7 5.9 0 3.4 2.5 5.1 0 4.1 1 4.9 0 4.1 0.8 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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. 827 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation Analysis by Jamie Rullo, Senior Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Transportation Mike Ellegood, Public Works Director Technology Planning & Community/ Governmental Relations Project Management & Construction Engineering Administration Lands/ Right of Way Operations 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 costeffective journey. Vision We set a standard of excellence regionally enabling us to consistently deliver on our commitment to provide the right transportation system for Maricopa County at the right time and the right cost. Strategic Goals • • “Transportation System Plan” - By December 2006, the Department of Transportation will complete a transportation system plan update, including specific policies and strategies that support the implementation of the MAG Regional Transportation Plan. Status: The department has achieved progress in meeting this goal. “Partnership Agreements” - By December 2006, the Department of Transportation will demonstrate support for the MAG Regional Transportation Plan and cooperation with our regional partners by proactively establishing partnership agreements with other local governments on the regional arterial projects contained in the Plan. Status: The department has achieved progress in meeting this goal. 828 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation (Continued) • • • • “Safety Improvement Projects” – The Department of Transportation will optimize the existing roadway system by annually deploying 25 safety improvement projects in addition to the Transportation Improvement Program. Status: The adopted budget includes funding to address this goal. “Satisfaction Survey” - By June 2006, the Department of Transportation will increase customer satisfaction and MCDOT institutional recognition through improved, proactive stakeholder involvement processes and initiatives to a stakeholder satisfaction survey rating of 6 as reported in the annual survey conducted by MCDOT Community Relations. Status: The department has achieved progress in meeting this goal. “Expenditure Rate” - Beginning in FY 2005, the Department of Transportation will plan for and improve the consistency of our delivery of budgeted projects by improving our capital expenditure rate to 85% and our operations expenditure rate to more than 95%, but less than 98%. Status: The department has achieved progress in meeting this goal. “Occupational Injuries” - Annually, the occupational injury rate and severity of injuries and illnesses at the Department of Transportation will decrease 5% from the previous year. Status: The department has achieved progress in meeting this goal. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES BUILD ROADS AND BRIDGES $ MANAGE TRAFFIC MAINTAIN ROADS AND BRIDGES SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG GENERAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL REVENUES $ EXPENDITURES BUILD ROADS AND BRIDGES $ MANAGE TRAFFIC MAINTAIN ROADS AND BRIDGES SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 13,006,306 184,383 122,961 2,168,663 94,869,107 1,043 110,352,463 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ 75,265,642 2,873,893 20,706,304 6,500,349 12,305,179 2,701,535 120,352,902 (1,038,567) $ 2,382,111 23,803,257 3,762,247 63,676,276 3,289,750 95,875,074 $ 80,520,265 3,728,913 27,358,193 6,144,636 9,606,272 3,581,855 130,940,134 829 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 21,469,798 1,162,000 72,000 1,807,825 88,753,279 8,000,000 121,264,902 80,411,289 4,663,579 27,320,547 5,652,756 10,071,219 3,732,744 131,852,134 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 17,320,012 105,400 198,815 1,941,110 92,874,765 8,164,599 1,387 120,606,087 61,497,851 2,691,683 28,011,319 5,036,892 10,007,614 3,097,172 110,342,531 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 29,468,281 1,932,962 23,320 1,843,140 104,058,883 137,326,586 113,979,317 4,905,418 27,574,533 5,595,552 10,762,711 3,421,033 166,238,564 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 7,998,483 37.3% 770,962 66.3% (48,680) -67.6% 35,315 2.0% (88,753,279) -100.0% 96,058,883 1200.7% 16,061,684 13.2% (33,568,028) (241,839) (253,986) 57,204 (691,492) 311,711 (34,386,430) -41.7% -5.2% -0.9% 1.0% -6.9% 8.4% -26.1% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT BUILD ROADS AND BRIDGES Percent Particulate Matter (PM-10) roads that have been paved per County Air Quality regulations for dust suppression/mitigation Percent of lane miles completed that were planned for new or improved roadway construction (excluding PM 10 roads) Percent of bridges completed that were planned for new or improved construction Percent of utility relocation permits completed w/o delays MAINTAIN ROADS AND BRIDGES Percent of total road mileage with pavement condition rating of "good" or better Percent of bridges with sufficiency rating of "good" of better MANAGE TRAFFIC Percent reduction in accidents per intersection or roadway segment SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Percent of MCDOT projects that go to bid and are eligible for partnerships and have partnerships in place Percent increase in customer satisfaction and institutional recognition FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 81.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 0.0% -80.0% -100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 96.0% -1.0% -1.0% 73.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 72.0% 2.0% 2.9% 87.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.0% 67.0% 62.0% 62.0% 65.0% 3.0% 4.8% 78.3% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,719,371 104,157,522 4,475,570 110,352,463 23,436,176 2,141,396 19,530,324 2,006,719 48,760,459 95,875,074 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,700,000 117,658,622 994,280 120,352,902 24,789,006 2,076,786 32,105,421 1,716,924 70,251,997 130,940,134 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,700,000 118,570,622 994,280 121,264,902 25,909,093 2,490,526 35,063,445 1,716,924 66,672,146 131,852,134 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,800,143 117,708,948 1,096,995 120,606,087 24,358,414 2,489,912 45,052,659 1,716,924 36,724,622 110,342,531 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 1,800,000 134,801,586 725,000 137,326,586 26,109,856 2,483,306 43,328,415 1,647,490 92,669,497 166,238,564 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 100,000 16,230,964 (269,280) 16,061,684 5.9% 13.7% -27.1% 13.2% (200,763) 7,220 (8,264,970) 69,434 (25,997,351) (34,386,430) -0.8% 0.3% -23.6% 4.0% -39.0% -26.1% Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % REVENUE 223 TRANSPORTATION GRANTS $ 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT 900 ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS $ 147,692 $ 97,225,922 69,978,849 (57,000,000) 110,352,463 $ 250,000 $ 98,657,104 83,141,666 (61,695,868) 120,352,902 $ 1,162,000 $ 98,657,104 82,687,896 (61,242,098) 121,264,902 $ 100,000 $ 103,263,242 78,484,943 (61,242,098) 120,606,087 $ 1,892,962 $ 106,067,343 96,842,069 (67,475,788) 137,326,586 $ 730,962 7,410,239 14,154,173 (6,233,690) 16,061,684 62.9% 7.5% 17.1% 10.2% 13.2% 223 TRANSPORTATION GRANTS $ 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 234 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECT 900 ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS $ 15,838 $ 100,977,402 51,881,834 (57,000,000) 95,875,074 $ 250,000 $ 114,426,951 77,959,051 (61,695,868) 130,940,134 $ 1,162,000 $ 114,426,951 77,505,281 (61,242,098) 131,852,134 $ 100,000 $ 113,575,376 57,909,254 (61,242,098) 110,342,531 $ 1,892,962 $ 121,187,336 110,634,054 (67,475,788) 166,238,564 $ (730,962) (6,760,385) (33,128,773) 6,233,690 (34,386,430) -62.9% -5.9% -42.7% -10.2% -26.1% 830 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation (Continued) Personnel by Fund 223 TRANSPORTATION GRANTS 232 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 479.00 479.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 1.00 476.00 477.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 1.00 476.00 477.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Revenue • • • Increased Licenses and Permits, State Shared Highway User Revenue, and State Shared Vehicle License Revenue according to forecasts. Increased Other Intergovernmental Revenue as established by the department’s projected partnerships and agreements. Increased Grant Revenue for three grants: Regional Archived Data, MAG/Surprise REACT, AZTech Integrated Communications Network. Expenditures • • • • Decreased Regular Pay in anticipation of additional personnel salary and benefit savings based on historical vacancies. Increased Fringe Benefits expenditures to accommodate increases in employee health and dental premiums, health enrollment changes, and retirement contributions. Increased Other Services expenditures to accommodate increased spending in the Maintain Roads and Bridges program. Increased Capital Projects expenditures according to the department’s transportation capital project schedule for the Build Roads and Bridges program. 831 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation (Continued) Reconciliation Transportation Grants (223) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 250,000 $ 250,000 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: AZTech ITS Integrated Communications Network C-64-05-057-2-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 912,000 $ 912,000 $ 912,000 912,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 1,162,000 $ 1,162,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 1,162,000 $ 1,162,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 1,162,000 $1,162,000 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Revenue Request AboveTarget Expenditure Request Above Target $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 730,962 $ 730,962 $ 730,962 730,962 $ 1,892,962 $ 1,892,962 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 832 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation (Continued) Transportation Operations (232) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 98,657,104 $ 114,426,951 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 98,657,104 $ 114,426,951 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 98,657,104 $ 114,426,951 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases Pay for Performance Annualization Less Transfer to Capital Projects Fund TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Licenses and Permits $ Adjustment to Other Intergovernmental Revenue Adjustment to Miscellaneous Revenue Adjustment to State Shared Highway User Revenue Adjustment to State Shared Vehicle License Revenue Adjustment to Interest Earnings Adjustment to Regular Pay and Fringe Benefits Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Transfers Out BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BASE OPERATING BUDGET: $ Plus Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 833 - $ $ 98,657,104 192,156 785,461 (17,296,438) 374,274 174,700 (67,475,788) (83,245,635) $31,181,316 100,000 $ (69,240) 73,875 6,875,759 530,000 (100,155) 7,410,239 $ (588,557) (411,339) 23,530,128 22,530,232 106,067,343 $ 53,711,548 - $ 67,475,788 106,067,343 $ 121,187,336 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation (Continued) Transportation Capital Projects (234) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 83,141,666 $ C-49-05-008-6-00 $ C-49-05-008-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (453,770) $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 82,687,896 $ 77,505,281 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 82,687,896 $ 77,505,281 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 82,687,896 $77,505,281 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Adjustment Pay for Performance Adjustment BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Revenue Request Under Target $ Adjustment to Other Intergovernmental Revenue Adjustment to Transfers In from Operating Fund Expenditure Request Above Target Adjustment to Legal Services Adjustment to Other Services Adjustment to Infrastructure Adjustment to Transfers Out BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 834 (453,770) $ 77,959,051 (453,770) (453,770) (13,425,955) $ 4,050,000 23,530,128 14,154,173 $ 47,168,614 (450,000) (520,000) (13,070,000) 159 33,128,773 96,842,069 $ 110,634,054 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 45,239,435 $ 46,476,736 $ 43,867,392 $ 51,771,470 $ 123,080,298 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ 48,684,801 $ $ 56,164,787 $ $ 51,407,046 $ $ 50,477,073 $ $ 110,634,054 $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 93,924,236 102,641,523 95,274,438 102,248,543 233,714,352 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 45,215,397 $ 45,794,755 $ 43,851,554 $ 51,273,234 $ 121,187,336 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ 48,684,801 $ $ 56,164,787 $ $ 51,407,046 $ $ 50,477,073 $ $ 110,634,054 $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 93,900,198 101,959,542 95,258,600 101,750,307 231,821,390 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 24,038 $ 681,981 $ 15,838 $ 498,236 $ 1,892,962 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 24,038 681,981 15,838 498,236 1,892,962 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Transportation FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures $180.0 General Fund Mandated 0.0% $160.0 Dollars in Millions Non-Mandated 1.1% Transportation Mandates Vs. Expenditures $140.0 $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Other Fund Mandated 98.9% 835 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 93.9 0 93.9 0 102.6 0 102 0.7 95.3 0 95.3 0 102.2 0 101.8 0.5 166.2 0 164.3 1.9 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Transportation (Continued) Mandate Information TITLE Transportation System Operation, 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. 836 Maintenance, Improvement, Planning and Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Special Districts Special Districts Organizational Chart Maricopa County Citizens Flood Control District Board of Directors Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, Chairman, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Stadium District Board of Directors Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, Chairman, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Library District Board of Directors Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, Chairman, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Timothy S. Phillips, P.E., Chief Engineer/General Manager David Smith Executive Director Harry Courtright, Director 837 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District Analysis by Jamie Rullo, Senior Management and Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Flood Control District Board of Directors County Manager Assistant County Manager Regional Development Services Agency Public Works Director Flood Control District Timothy S. Phillips, 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. 838 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Strategic Goals • • • • • • “Flood Hazard Risk Mitigation” -- By FY 2008-09, the Flood Control District will develop and implement a model for flood hazard risk mitigation that measures the amount of risk mitigated through actions taken by each of its programs in terms of the number of people affected and the inflation adjusted cost per resident. Status: The District is making progress towards meeting this goal. “Flood Delineation” -- Beginning in FY 2004-05 and for each year for the next five years, the Flood Control District will continue to identify flood and erosion hazard areas by delineating at least 5% of the existing (3,334) linear miles of undelineated watercourses and conducting studies on 5% of the total number of square miles (7,070) of watershed needing study. Status: The adopted budget includes funding to meet this goal. “Flood Hazard Mitigation” -- Beginning in FY 2004-05 and for each year for the next five years, the Flood Control District will continue to provide maximum flood hazard mitigation to the people who live and work in Maricopa County by completing 10% of the structural projects listed in the 5-year CIP plan. And, to the extent allowed by its enabling statutes, the District will include provisions for multiple use opportunities incorporating the principles of landscape architecture and land use planning in their siting, planning, and design. Status: The adopted budget includes funding to achieve this goal. “Floodplain Permitting and Enforcement” -- Beginning in FY 2004-05 and for each year for the next five years, the Flood Control District will provide floodplain compliance guidance, direction, permitting, and enforcement so that 100% of the structures permitted for building within delineated floodplains are in compliance with applicable state and federal laws and are not flooded during storm runoff events. Status: The adopted budget includes funding to achieve this goal. “Public Education” -- Beginning in FY 2004-05 and for each year for the next five years, 50% of those who live in and visit Maricopa County will be exposed to flood hazard information, flood mitigation project information, and flood safety guidance through mass media and public education programs. Status: The adopted budget includes funding for education programs in order for the District to meet this goal. “Community Rating System” -- By the end of calendar year 2007, the Flood Control District will have the requisite number of 500 points to increase its Community Rating System rating from a level 5 to a level 4; thereby saving the property owners in unincorporated Maricopa County an additional 5% on their annual flood insurance premiums. Status: The District is working towards achieving this goal. 839 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUES FLOOD HAZARD REGULATION PROGRA $ FLOOD HAZARD IDENTIFICATION FLOOD HAZARD REMEDIATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG GENERAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,825,255 201 17,326,668 51,339,695 441,012 70,932,831 EXPENDITURES FLOOD HAZARD REGULATION PROGRA $ FLOOD HAZARD EDUCATION PROGRAM FLOOD HAZARD IDENTIFICATION FLOOD HAZARD REMEDIATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,176,223 409,223 9,002,404 20,045,058 39,046,132 2,508,522 74,187,561 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 2,101,404 19,696,481 56,871,753 78,669,638 3,083,056 521,950 9,188,716 60,574,586 4,585,494 1,679,241 79,633,043 840 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 1,151,499 116,243 19,696,481 56,871,753 77,835,976 2,239,097 889,369 11,100,048 64,502,839 4,961,212 1,661,498 85,354,063 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 910,906 116,263 14,726,852 413,778 56,432,261 27,163 72,627,223 2,627,115 697,770 9,512,446 63,596,166 4,813,047 1,734,130 82,980,674 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 225,000 33,547,000 140,000 63,250,138 40,000 97,202,138 1,666,337 715,838 10,856,688 2,711,322 76,396,930 1,996,367 94,343,482 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (926,499) (116,243) 13,850,519 (56,731,753) 63,250,138 40,000 19,366,162 -80.5% -100.0% 70.3% -99.8% 24.9% 572,760 25.6% 173,531 19.5% 243,360 2.2% 61,791,517 95.8% (71,435,718) -1439.9% (334,869) -20.2% (8,989,419) -10.5% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT FLOOD HAZARD EDUCATION PROGRAM Percent of presentation, program, and stormwater quality consultation requests completed. Percent of dollar value of positive media attention received at a rating of five or above (on a scale of one to nine). FLOOD HAZARD IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Percent of square miles of watershed identified for plan studies where the studies were completed in the fiscal year. Percent of cumulative linear miles of watercourses requiring approximate or detailed delineation that were delineated up to the end of the current fiscal year. Percent of sensor days that was operational during the quarter. FLOOD HAZARD REGULATION PROGRAM Percent of storm water samples collected Percent of drainage complaint cases in which an initial site investigation is conducted within 30 days of receipt of violation complaint. Percent of inspection stops completed within one day of receiving the request for an inspection. Percent of drainage plans reviews completed in the quarter within the One-Stop-Shop goals. Percent of floodplain complaint cases in which an initial site investigation is conducted within 30 days of receipt of violation complaint. Percent of Flood Determinations responded to within 24 hours of receiving the request Percent of floodplain plans reviews completed in the quarter within the One-Stop-Shop goals. FLOOD HAZARD REMEDIATION Percent of eligible property acquired in the fiscal year FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 113.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% -100% -100% 90.0% 92.0% 92.0% 72.0% 89.0% -3% -3% 11.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 10.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% -1% -13% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 96.0% -3% -3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 68.0% 72.0% 68.0% 90.0% 0.0% -68% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 72.0% 50.0% 69.0% 56.0% 0.0% -69% -100% 100.0% 98.0% 99.0% 96.0% 0.0% -99% -100% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 87.0% 0.0% -97% -100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 96.0% 96.0% 98.0% 98.0% 100.0% 2% 2% 22.0% 94.0% 94.0% 94.0% 100.0% 6% 6% 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. Percent of budgeted revenue realized through the use or sale of Flood Control District property. ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % -100% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE TAXES LICENSES & PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 50,550,367 2,000,338 16,761,216 1,620,909 70,932,831 12,882,330 1,228,536 18,701,719 1,136,127 40,238,850 74,187,561 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 56,334,141 2,101,404 19,694,612 539,481 78,669,638 13,318,350 1,046,864 19,599,268 1,144,170 44,524,391 79,633,043 841 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 56,334,141 1,151,499 19,810,855 539,481 77,835,976 13,188,140 1,244,687 22,098,837 1,144,170 47,678,229 85,354,063 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 56,334,141 1,209,642 13,384,285 1,699,155 72,627,223 12,212,126 1,122,980 22,137,715 1,144,170 46,363,683 82,980,674 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 62,733,411 505,000 23,479,727 10,484,000 97,202,138 13,465,651 1,593,612 20,341,585 1,140,805 57,801,829 94,343,482 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 6,399,270 11.4% (646,499) -56.1% 3,668,872 18.5% 9,944,519 1843.3% 19,366,162 24.9% (277,511) (348,925) 1,757,252 3,365 (10,123,600) (8,989,419) -2.1% -28.0% 8.0% 0.3% -21.2% -10.5% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % REVENUE 989 FLOOD CONTROL GRANTS $ 991 FLOOD CONTROL 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS 900 ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS $ 203,666 $ 70,729,165 52,644,000 (52,644,000) 70,932,831 $ $ 78,669,638 63,446,899 (63,446,899) 78,669,638 $ 116,243 $ 77,719,733 59,631,823 (59,631,823) 77,835,976 $ 254,322 $ 72,372,901 53,327,784 (53,327,784) 72,627,223 $ $ 97,202,138 70,816,471 (70,816,471) 97,202,138 $ (116,243) 19,482,405 11,184,648 (11,184,648) 19,366,162 -100.0% 25.1% 18.8% 18.8% 24.9% EXPENDITURES 989 FLOOD CONTROL GRANTS $ 991 FLOOD CONTROL 990 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL PROJECTS 900 ELIMINATIONS ALL FUNDS $ 260,502 $ 78,829,285 47,741,774 (52,644,000) 74,187,561 $ $ 91,003,439 52,076,503 (63,446,899) 79,633,043 $ 116,243 $ 90,293,140 54,576,503 (59,631,823) 85,354,063 $ 187,682 $ 83,871,199 52,249,577 (53,327,784) 82,980,674 $ $ 103,017,953 62,142,000 (70,816,471) 94,343,482 $ 116,243 (12,724,813) (7,565,497) 11,184,648 (8,989,419) 100.0% -14.1% -13.9% -18.8% -10.5% Personnel by Fund 991 FLOOD CONTROL TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 227.00 227.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 209.00 209.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 208.00 208.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (1.00) (1.00) Base Adjustments Revenue • • Property Taxes and Payments In Lieu of Taxes were increased according to forecasts. Licenses and Permits revenue was decreased due to the transfer of the Drainage Administration activity to the Planning and Development Department. Expenditures • • • Regular Pay was decreased due to the transfer of Drainage Administration personnel to Planning and Development, the transfer of personnel to Public Works (Transportation Department), and the elimination of positions identified through the Public Works’ merger of operations. Fringe Benefits were increased to accommodate health and dental premium increases, retirement contribution increases, and health/dental plan enrollment changes. General Supplies expenditures were increased to accommodate infrastructure maintenance for the Flood Hazard Remediation program. 842 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Reconciliation Flood Control (991) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 78,669,638 $ 91,003,439 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Transfer of Drainage Admin. to Planning & Development C-69-05-031-0-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ (949,905) $ (949,905) $ 77,719,733 $ (710,299) (710,299) 90,293,140 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: 77,719,733 $ 90,293,140 $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Annualization of Mid-Year Adjustments C-69-05-031-0-00 $ Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes Retirement Contributions Structural Balance CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases One-Time Expenses for Equipment not Received in FY05 Pay for Performance Annualization Less Estimated Transfer to Capital Projects Fund TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ (474,952) $ (474,952) $ 77,244,781 (355,150) 120,083 588,099 (13,808,261) 173,655 450,000 86,375 (70,819,471) (83,564,670) $6,728,470 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Revenue Request Above Target $ Adjustment to Property Taxes Adjustment to Miscellaneous Revenue Expenditure Request Above Target for Dam Safety Expenditure Request Above Target for CIP Transfer Adjustment to Regular Pay and Fringe Benefits Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Travel and Education Adjustment to Legal Services Adjustment to Postage/Freight/Shipping Adjustment to Vehicle and Construction Equipment Adjustment to Transfers Out to Capital Projects Fund BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 17,208,826 $ 2,716,804 31,727 19,957,357 $ 600,000 16,318,438 (393,130) 21,710 (27,048) (55,648) 6,843 324,376 8,677,471 25,473,012 FY 2005-06 RECOMMENDED BASE OPERATING BUDGET: 97,202,138 $ 32,201,482 Plus Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $ $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 843 - $ 70,816,471 97,202,138 $ 103,017,953 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Flood Control Capital Projects (990) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 63,446,899 $ 52,076,503 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase C-49-05-009-6-00 $ Floodplain Delineation, Planning, and Education C-69-05-058-M-00 Radio Communications Upgrade C-69-05-022-M-00 Floodprone Properties Acquisition Program C-69-05-056-M-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ (266,219) $ (2,153,000) (1,395,857) (3,815,076) $ 59,631,823 $ 2,500,000 2,500,000 54,576,503 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 59,631,823 $ 54,576,503 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 59,631,823 $54,576,503 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Revenue Request Above Target $ Adjustment to Transfers In from Operating Fund Expenditure Request Above Target Adjustment to Other Services per Project Revisions Adjustment to Land per Project Revisions Adjustment to Infrastructure per Project Revisions BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 2,507,177 $ 8,677,471 11,184,648 $ 7,565,497 (1,128,000) 2,130,000 (1,002,000) 7,565,497 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: 70,816,471 $ 62,142,000 $ 844 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 20,240,575 $ 55,518,204 $ 78,829,285 $ 81,943,881 $ 103,017,953 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ 45,933,266 $ $ 40,773,261 $ $ 47,719,673 $ $ 42,692,819 $ $ 62,142,000 $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 66,173,841 96,291,465 126,548,958 124,636,700 165,159,953 Total Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 13,499,531 $ 14,101,198 $ 18,339,179 $ 19,076,327 $ 22,201,313 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 13,499,531 14,101,198 18,339,179 19,076,327 22,201,313 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 6,741,044 $ 41,417,006 $ 60,490,106 $ 62,867,554 $ 80,816,640 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ 45,933,266 $ $ 40,773,261 $ $ 47,719,673 $ $ 42,692,819 $ $ 62,142,000 $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 52,674,310 82,190,267 108,209,779 105,560,373 142,958,640 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Flood Control District FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Other Fund Mandated 12.4% $180.0 $160.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% Flood Control District Mandates Vs. Expenditures $140.0 $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 87.6% 845 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 66.2 0 13.5 52.7 96.3 0 14.1 82.2 126.5 0 18.3 108.2 124.6 0 19.1 105.6 163.2 0 20.3 143 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 § 12-15-1219 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 FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 1,182,780 $ 1,199,727 $ 1,421,190 $ 3,271,132 $ 3,569,579 846 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 1,182,780 1,199,727 1,421,190 3,271,132 3,569,579 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) TITLE Floodplain Administration AUTHORITY A.R.S. § 48-3609 Floodplain Delineation And Regulation Of Use. A.R.S. § 48-3610 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 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 3,136,398 $ 2,587,362 $ 2,857,852 $ 1,098,440 $ 1,154,960 847 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,136,398 2,587,362 2,857,852 1,098,440 1,154,960 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 3,110,548 $ 3,503,051 $ 5,260,529 $ 7,167,512 $ 7,798,486 848 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,110,548 3,503,051 5,260,529 7,167,512 7,798,486 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Flood Control District (Continued) 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 FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 3,874,262 $ 4,276,303 $ 6,062,535 $ 7,106,189 $ 9,678,288 849 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 3,874,262 4,276,303 6,062,535 7,106,189 9,678,288 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental 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 FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget $ $ $ $ $ General Fund - Special Revenue $ 2,195,543 $ 2,534,755 $ 2,737,073 $ 433,054 $ - 850 Capital Projects $ $ $ $ $ - Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 2,195,543 2,534,755 2,737,073 433,054 - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Library District Analysis by Victor Wickersham, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Library District Board of Directors County Manager Assistant County Manager Community Services Library Director/County Librarian Harry Courtright Service Agencies Service Coordinators Support Services Finance & Facilities Information Technology Mission The Mission of Maricopa County Library District 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. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Goals • • • “Electronic Resources” -- By December 31, 2005, develop a new model for providing equitable access to electronic resources to 75% of public libraries in the county. Status: OMB is aware of the Library Districts efforts to achieve this goal. Meetings have been held with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) to foster a working relationship with other public libraries in the county. This could enable this goal to be met. “Customer Satisfaction” -- By June 30, 2006, customer satisfaction with the library’s collection of books and other materials will increase to 90%. Status: This goal is not reflected in the department’s performance measures. It should be included in the next revision of the strategic plan. “Cardholder Increase” -- By June 30, 2007, increase the number of library cardholders by 27% over cardholders on June 30, 2004. Status: This goal is not reflected in the department’s performance measures. It should be included in the next revision of the strategic plan. 851 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Library District (Continued) • • “Resource Usage” -- By June 30, 2008, increase resource usage to meet or exceed the average increase of 10 benchmark libraries. Status: This goal is not reflected in the department’s performance measures. It should be included in the next revision of the strategic plan. “Active Cardholders” -- By June 30, 2009, increase the number of active (card is used at least 3 times in 12 months) cardholders by 40% over cardholders on June 30, 2004. Status: This goal is not reflected in the department’s performance measures. It should be included in the next revision of the strategic plan. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,139,496 14,861,352 16,000,848 EXPENDITURES PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE $ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 12,427,650 3,497,317 615,607 16,540,574 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 16,401,681 457,589 16,859,270 $ $ 13,521,769 2,060,183 763,844 16,345,796 $ $ 655,920 464,374 15,852,336 16,972,630 $ $ 13,344,894 2,971,213 960,117 17,276,224 $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ 8,709,007 239,434 8,510,641 17,459,082 $ $ 12,848,128 2,109,113 661,208 15,618,449 $ FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 976,963 52,760 14,204,277 15,234,000 11,437,700 3,012,974 805,620 15,256,294 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ 321,043 (411,614) (1,648,059) (1,738,630) 48.9% -88.6% -10.4% -10.2% 1,907,194 (41,761) 154,497 2,019,930 14.3% -1.4% 16.1% 11.7% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICES Percent of Library users who report that they received the information in a timely manner. FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 98.4% 98.0% 98.0% 98.4% 99.1% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 1.1% 1.1% Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE TAXES INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES & FORFEITS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 14,162,234 799,284 27,902 479,128 532,301 16,000,848 6,872,194 3,133,247 2,086,051 681,388 3,767,695 16,540,574 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 15,664,900 264,361 27,420 445,000 457,589 16,859,270 8,124,356 5,157,603 2,096,151 706,043 261,643 16,345,796 852 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 15,664,900 323,520 27,420 445,000 511,790 16,972,630 8,471,330 3,732,366 2,272,095 706,043 2,094,390 17,276,224 FY 2004-05 PRO. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 16,075,112 413,397 52,782 470,956 446,835 17,459,082 7,379,065 3,825,209 2,022,059 706,043 1,686,073 15,618,449 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 13,976,029 266,008 58,069 480,420 453,474 15,234,000 8,300,584 1,680,059 2,340,670 913,635 2,021,346 15,256,294 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (1,688,871) (57,512) 30,649 35,420 (58,316) (1,738,630) -10.8% -17.8% 111.8% 8.0% -11.4% -10.2% 170,746 2,052,307 (68,575) (207,592) 73,044 2,019,930 2.0% 55.0% -3.0% -29.4% 3.5% 11.7% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Library District (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 242 LIBRARY DISTRICT GRANTS 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ ALL FUNDS $ EXPENDITURES 242 LIBRARY DISTRICT GRANTS 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT $ ALL FUNDS $ 139,222 15,861,626 16,000,848 139,095 16,401,479 16,540,574 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 25,000 16,834,270 16,859,270 25,000 16,320,796 16,345,796 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 41,099 16,931,531 16,972,630 41,099 17,235,125 17,276,224 FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 43,153 17,415,929 17,459,082 19,918 15,598,531 15,618,449 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 25,000 15,209,000 15,234,000 25,000 15,231,294 15,256,294 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (16,099) (1,722,531) (1,738,630) -39.2% -10.2% -10.2% 16,099 2,003,831 2,019,930 39.2% 11.6% 11.7% Personnel by Fund 244 LIBRARY DISTRICT TOTAL FUNDS • FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 147.00 147.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 151.69 151.69 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 150.69 150.69 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE (1.00) (1.00) The 1 FTE variance is due to the Library District staff restructure. The department added 1 Librarian and 1 Library Supervisor and eliminated 3 Public Service Representatives for a net reduction of 1 FTE. Base Adjustments Revenue • • Increase Property Tax by $1,130,392 for Fund 244 based on the 2005 secondary net assessed value. Increase Payment in Lieu of Taxes by $40,812 for Fund 244. Expenditures • • Reduce Regular Pay & Benefits Savings by $172,105 for Fund 244 for positions budgeted higher than actual expenditures. Increase Buildings and Improvements by $225,000 for Fund 244 for the Aguila Library. Reconciliation Library District Grants (242) Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 25,000 $ 25,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 25,000 $ 25,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 25,000 $ 25,000 FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 25,000 $25,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 25,000 $ 25,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 25,000 $ 25,000 853 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Library District (Continued) Library District (244) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Adjustment C-49-05-010-6-00 $ Acquisition Sun Lakes Library land & building C-65-05-004-1-00 Acquisition modular building Aguila Library C-65-05-008-8-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 16,834,270 $ - $ 16,320,796 $ 117,068 350,000 350,000 817,068 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 16,834,270 $ 17,137,864 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 16,834,270 $ 17,137,864 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases North Valley Library Opening Day One Time Tax Levy Acquisition of Building - Ed Robson Library Modular Building for Aguila Collection & Automation System at Avondale Library Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ (2,819,263) (2,819,263) $ 40,094 150,967 108,375 (350,000) (2,819,263) (350,000) (350,000) 1,500,000 112,801 (1,957,026) FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: 14,015,007 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Revenue over target $ Adjustment to bring back to target Adjustment to Property Taxes Adjustment to Payment in Lieu of Taxes Adjustment to Misc Revenue Adjustment to Regular Pay & Benefits Savings Adjustment to Fuel Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Postage Adjustment to Transfers Out Adjustment to Buildings & Improvements (Aguila) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 2,842,052 $ (2,842,052) 1,130,392 40,812 22,789 1,193,993 $ $15,180,838 - (172,105) (2,000) 1,239 (10,000) 8,322 225,000 50,456 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 15,209,000 $ 15,231,294 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 15,209,000 $ 15,231,294 854 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Library District (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 10,032,880 $ 12,633,244 $ 16,484,097 $ 15,773,084 $ 15,256,294 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 10,032,880 12,633,244 16,484,097 15,773,084 15,256,294 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 10,032,880 $ 12,633,244 $ 16,484,097 $ 15,773,084 $ 15,256,294 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 10,032,880 12,633,244 16,484,097 15,773,084 15,256,294 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Library District FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Library District Mandates Vs. Expenditures $18.0 Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $16.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $14.0 $12.0 $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100.0% 855 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 10 0 0 10 12.6 0 0 12.6 16.5 0 0 16.5 15.8 0 0 15.8 15.3 0 0 15.3 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Stadium District Analysis by Victor Wickersham, Management & Budget Analyst Departmental Information Organizational Chart Stadium District Board of Directors Executive Director David Smith Executive Director Representative William C. Scalzo Financial Management Department Administration Event Management Mission The mission of the Maricopa County Stadium District is to provide fiscal resources and asset management of BankOne Ballpark and funding for Cactus League facilities for the community and visitors to Maricopa County so they can attend Major League Baseball games and other entertainment events in state-of-the-art, wellmaintained facilities. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Goals • • “Maintenance” -- 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 compliant with 95% of the required inspections within 5 years beginning July 2005. Status: A major step towards meeting this goal was taken in FY 04/05 with the Board approval of spending $1 million from the Long Term Project Reserve to perform capital repairs necessary to maintain the facility. “Increase Revenue” -- The District will increase Bank One Ballpark revenues for non-baseball activities by 30% within 3 years beginning July 2003. Status: The responsibility for booking and conducting “Day Uses” at the ballpark was transferred to the Stadium District in FY 04/05. The Department considers this goal to be on target. 856 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Stadium District (Continued) • • “Increase Ballpark Use” -- 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 three years beginning July 2003. Status: The responsibility for booking and conducting “Day Uses” at the ballpark was transferred to the Stadium District in FY 04/05. The District promotes use of the facility for non-baseball uses and considers this goal to be on target. “New Revenue Sources” -- The District will obtain 5 new entrepreneurial revenue sources within 5 years beginning July 2003 to ensure the future stability of the Stadium District. Status: The District has reported that it has obtained 2 of the revenue sources and is currently pursuing 2 new entrepreneurial revenue sources. Department Budget Information Total Budget by Program FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED REVENUES ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT $ FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG TOTAL REVENUES $ 709,589 10,170,331 28,975 10,908,895 EXPENDITURES ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT $ FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROG GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 270,305 7,773,012 224,257 8,267,574 $ FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 824,971 10,010,627 10,835,598 $ $ 324,493 6,800,313 312,154 7,436,960 $ $ FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED 937,471 9,818,127 10,755,598 $ $ $ $ 198,230 10,110,778 266,916 10,575,924 $ 420,470 10,007,297 10,427,767 $ 448,135 6,422,002 267,186 250,625 7,387,948 $ ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 662,500 9,987,398 10,649,898 191,615 7,529,972 221,665 7,943,252 $ $ $ $ (274,971) 169,271 (105,700) 6,615 2,580,806 45,251 2,632,672 -29.3% 1.7% -1.0% 3.3% 25.5% 17.0% 24.9% Key Results by Program PROGRAM RESULT ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT Percent increase in Revenue FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Percent increase in Reserves FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED -24% -3% -3% -3% 0% 3% -100% 15% 25% 22% 18% 22% 0% 0% ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % Total Budget by Category FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE TAXES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ TOTAL REVENUE $ EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES OTHER FINANCING USES CAPITAL OUTLAY $ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 5,640,736 5,268,159 10,908,895 594,708 2,090 391,815 36,253 7,242,708 8,267,574 FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,215,094 5,620,504 10,835,598 801,491 9,306 720,640 34,741 5,870,782 7,436,960 857 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,215,094 5,540,504 10,755,598 903,106 9,306 757,989 34,741 8,870,782 10,575,924 FY 2004-05 PRO. ACT. RESTATED $ $ $ $ 5,366,250 5,061,517 10,427,767 605,687 2,358 405,949 34,741 6,339,213 7,387,948 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED $ $ $ $ 5,215,094 5,434,804 10,649,898 847,022 2,931 1,293,066 35,188 5,765,045 7,943,252 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % $ $ $ $ (105,700) (105,700) 0.0% -1.9% -1.0% 56,084 6,375 (535,077) (447) 3,105,737 2,632,672 6.2% 68.5% -70.6% -1.3% 35.0% 24.9% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Stadium District (Continued) Total Budget by Fund FY 2003-04 ACTUAL RESTATED REVENUE 250 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS 253 BALLPARK OPERATIONS 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 410 BALLPARK CONSTRUCTION 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE 900 ELIMINATIONS $ ALL FUNDS $ 250 CACTUS LEAGUE OPERATIONS 253 BALLPARK OPERATIONS 370 STADIUM DIST DEBT SERIES02 410 BALLPARK CONSTRUCTION 450 LONG TERM PROJECT RESERVE 900 ELIMINATIONS $ ALL FUNDS $ FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED FY 2004-05 PROJ. ACT. RESTATED FY 2005-06 ADOPTED ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE % 223,151 $ 4,120,735 5,972,808 351,435 1,244,365 (1,003,599) 10,908,895 $ 169,000 $ 4,517,821 5,515,094 2,293,820 (1,660,137) 10,835,598 $ 169,000 $ 4,687,821 5,515,094 2,093,820 (1,710,137) 10,755,598 $ 165,530 $ 4,260,126 5,577,254 2,084,995 (1,660,137) 10,427,767 $ 507,500 $ 4,616,121 5,515,094 2,093,820 (2,082,637) 10,649,898 $ 338,500 (71,700) (372,500) (105,700) 200.3% -1.5% 0.0% 27,006 $ 3,771,751 5,118,480 351,435 2,500 (1,003,599) 8,267,574 $ 109,318 $ 3,469,685 5,515,094 3,000 (1,660,137) 7,436,960 $ 109,709 $ 5,658,258 5,515,094 1,003,000 (1,710,137) 10,575,924 $ 21,504 $ 4,913,509 3,360,572 752,500 (1,660,137) 7,387,948 $ 482,288 $ 3,615,507 5,925,094 3,000 (2,082,637) 7,943,252 $ (372,579) 2,042,751 (410,000) 1,000,000 372,500 2,632,672 -339.6% 36.1% -7.4% Personnel by Fund 253 BALLPARK OPERATIONS TOTAL FUNDS FY 2004-05 ADOPTED RESTATED 5.00 5.00 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED 5.00 5.00 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED 5.00 5.00 ADOPTED VS. REVISED VARIANCE - Base Adjustments Revenue • • Reduced Interest Revenue by $105,700 for Funds 250 & 253 Increased Transfer In by $372,500 for Fund 250 for the Sports & Tourism payment Expenditures • • • Increased Other Services by $372,500 for Fund 250 for the Sports & Tourism payment Adjusted Personnel Services for Assistant Director, Management Analyst and Director Increased Transfers Out by $372,500 for Fund 370 for the Sports & Tourism payment 858 0.0% 21.8% -1.0% 99.7% -21.8% 24.9% Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Stadium District (Continued) Reconciliation Cactus League Operations (250) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Performance Pay Increase $ C-49-05-008-6-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 169,000 $ - 109,318 $ $ 391 391 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 169,000 $ 109,709 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 169,000 $ 109,709 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Pay for Performance Annualization $ TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: - $ $ 79 79 $ 169,000 $109,788 $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ (34,000) $ 372,500 338,500 $ 372,500 372,500 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 507,500 $ 482,288 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 507,500 $ 482,288 BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Interest Revenue Adjustment to Transfer In (From 370) Adjustment to Other Services 859 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Stadium District (Continued) Ballpark Operations (253) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: EXPENDITURES $ 4,517,821 $ 3,469,685 C-78-01-006-2-01 $ C-78-98-053-1-08 C-68-05-001-8-00 C-49-05-008-6-00 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ 70,000 $ 100,000 170,000 $ 70,000 100,000 2,000,000 18,573 2,188,573 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 4,687,821 $ 5,658,258 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 4,687,821 $ 5,658,258 - 6,650 6,950 3,320 (2,000,000) 7,300 (1,975,780) MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Sheriff Services Rate Increase Facility Development Agreement Prepayment on District Loan Performance Pay Increase TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions CY 2006 Health and Dental Premium Increases One Time Expenses - Prepayment of Debt Service C-68-05-001-8-00 Pay for Performance Annualization TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjustment to Interest Revenue $ Adjustment to General Supplies Adjustment to Internal Service Charges Adjustment to Travel & Education Adjustment to Postage Adjustment to Transfer Out (Central Service) Adjustment to Other Personnel Services (Asst. Dir.) Adjustment to Personnel Services Allocation Out (Mgmt Analyst) Adjustment to Personnel Services Allocation In (Director) BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 4,687,821 (71,700) $ (71,700) $ $3,682,478 (6,189) 1,310 (2,850) (600) 278 32,404 (44,233) (47,091) (66,971) FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 4,616,121 $ 3,615,507 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 4,616,121 $ 3,615,507 860 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Stadium District (Continued) Stadium District Debt Series 02 (370) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE EXPENDITURES FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,515,094 $ 5,515,094 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 5,515,094 $ 5,515,094 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 5,515,094 $ 5,515,094 TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: Employee Health/Dental Plan Enrollment Changes $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ BASE ADJUSTMENTS: Department Submission Over Target - Planned Debt Service Increase $ Adjustment to Transfers Out (To 250) - Sports & Tourism Payment BASE ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ - $ $ 5,515,094 - $5,515,094 $ $ 37,500 372,500 410,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,515,094 $ 5,925,094 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 5,515,094 $ 5,925,094 Long Term Project Reserve (450) Appropriated Budget Reconciliation REVENUE FY 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGET: MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS: Capital Repair/Replacement $ C-68-05-005-8-00 $ MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ EXPENDITURES 2,093,820 $ 3,000 - $1,000,000 $1,000,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED BUDGET: $ 2,093,820 $ 1,003,000 FY 2004-05 REVISED RESTATED BUDGET: $ 2,093,820 $ 1,003,000 - (1,000,000) (1,000,000) TARGET ADJUSTMENTS: One Time Expenses - Capital Repair/Replacement C-68-05-005-8-00 $ Retirement Contributions Pay for Performance Annualization Annualization of FY 2004-05 Desktop PC Replacement TARGET ADJUSTMENTS SUBTOTAL: $ $ $ FY 2005-06 BUDGET TARGET: $ 2,093,820 $3,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,093,820 $ 3,000 FY 2005-06 ADOPTED BUDGET: $ 2,093,820 $ 3,000 861 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Departmental Schedules Stadium District (Continued) Mandate Consolidated Financial Data Total Department Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 12,467,581 $ 1,711,610 $ 2,995,158 $ 3,661,810 $ 4,097,795 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ 6,616,203 $ $ 92,707 $ $ 353,935 $ $ 1,532,973 $ $ 3,000 $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,083,784 1,804,317 3,349,093 5,194,783 4,100,795 Total Non-Mandated Expenditures FY 2001-02 Actuals FY 2002-03 Actuals FY 2003-04 Actuals FY 2004-05 Actuals FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget General Fund $ $ $ $ $ - Special Revenue $ 12,467,581 $ 1,711,610 $ 2,995,158 $ 3,661,810 $ 4,097,795 Capital Projects Enterprise Funds $ 6,616,203 $ $ 92,707 $ $ 353,935 $ $ 1,532,973 $ $ 3,000 $ - Internal Service $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Total 19,083,784 1,804,317 3,349,093 5,194,783 4,100,795 NOTE: Mandate financials do not include appropriated beginning fund balance, debt service, or eliminations. Stadium District FY 2005-06 Budget Expenditures Stadium District Mandates Vs. Expenditures $20.0 Other Fund Mandated 0.0% $18.0 Dollars in Millions General Fund Mandated 0.0% $16.0 $14.0 $12.0 $10.0 $8.0 $6.0 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 Expenditures General Fund Mandated Other Fund Mandated Non-Mandated Non-Mandated 100.0% 862 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 19.1 0 0 19.1 1.8 0 0 1.8 3.3 0 0 3.3 5.2 0 0 5.2 4.1 0 0 4.1 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Maricopa County’s Vision Statements Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, innovatively, efficiently and effectively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Maricopa County’s Strategic Priorities • • • • • • • Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and costeffectiveness of services provided by the County. Maricopa County’s Strategic Goals Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. • By June 2007, reduce property crime rates and violent crime rates in Maricopa County by establishing and implementing a crime-prevention strategy that encompasses evidence-based practices. • By July 2007, develop a plan to meet the demands placed upon law enforcement and detention operations due to population and business growth in Maricopa County. • By 2010, fully integrate National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) best practices into a consistent approach to disaster and emergency management throughout Maricopa County at all jurisdictional levels and across all related functional disciplines. • Ensure that by June 2006, Maricopa County is equipped and able to respond rapidly to a bioterrorist attack or other public health emergency by expanding and enhancing emergency response plans, developing and sustaining the ability of the public health workforce to respond as needed in an emergency, and by meeting state and federal requirements. Promote and protect the public health of the community. • By January 2010, in support of the public health and health education objectives of Healthy People 2010, increase the quality and years of healthy life (longevity) of Maricopa County residents and work to eliminate the health disparities that exist among the County’s diverse populations. • By July 2008, form successful community partnerships with health care providers and other governmental agencies throughout Maricopa County to cooperatively address public health issues. • Educate the public about how to achieve a healthy lifestyle and increase participation in educational and recreational opportunities provided in the County. 863 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Maricopa County’s Strategic Goals (Continued) Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. • By June 2009, annually complete 85% of planned transportation infrastructure projects on-time and within budget. • By January 2006, identify and recommend alternative strategies to increase the capacity and the ease of voting in the County. • By July 2007, complete all phases, including fund-raising, for the regional human-services campus for the homeless and partner with other organizations working to prevent homelessness and support home ownership in the County. • By July 2006, establish a policy to encourage Departments to seek opportunities to build partnerships and relationships with all area governments, including Tribal Nations, in order to create a fuller sense of community for all residents of Maricopa County. • Promote, expand, and improve County-sponsored programs and activities for young people in Maricopa County to help them build their skills, develop a sense of civic involvement in the community, and successfully complete their education. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. • Ensure that applications for development in the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County comply with state law, are consistent with open space initiatives, and allow for the continuation of highway and street corridors into and through new developments. • Improve the quality of life in Maricopa County by building a regional trail system, enhancing our parks, supporting noise and pollution reduction efforts, and encouraging developers to construct environmentally friendly buildings. • Continue to preserve military installations in Maricopa County, including Luke Air Force Base. • By June 2006, enhance and expand conservation programs in order to reduce energy and water consumption. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. • Continue to strive to reduce the overall property tax rate. • Maricopa County will seek to eliminate all mandated fixed contributions to the State in exchange for reductions in State funding of County programs with the goal of reducing such contributions to 15% or less of total General Fund expenditures by Fiscal Year 2009-10. • As part of the budget, by July 2007, develop, identify funding, and begin implementing a long-range plan for addressing the County’s capital infrastructure needs in a manner consistent with the County’s interests in strengthening its financial position. • By July 2006, develop a plan and strategy for implementing new economic and contracted commercial ventures that will generate additional revenues for the County. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace, and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. • By January 2008, adopt and implement a competitive total compensation package and a workforce development plan to enhance recruitment, retention, and advancement that results in improved customer service to Maricopa County citizens. • By July 2007, ensure that the ethnicity base of County employees is keeping pace with the changing demographics of our growing and diverse community. • By July 2006, complete a review of the employee suggestion program and recommend methods for increasing and promoting higher levels of participation by County employees in generating creative ideas that save the County money and/or improve program and service delivery. 864 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Maricopa County’s Strategic Goals (Continued) Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and costeffectiveness of services provided by the County. • By December 2006, increase accountability to the public for results-oriented government by fully implementing the Managing for Results and performance-based budgeting initiatives. • By April 2008, develop a County-wide IT Strategic Plan, a set of County-wide IT Architecture Specifications, introduce an updated set of County-wide IT performance metrics, and develop and implement an IT governance review process. • By May 2010, improve access to the services offered by the County to ensure the inclusion and participation of our diverse community. • By July 2010, complete a review of county programs to delete non-essential services and improve the performance of other programs. • Establish a comprehensive public outreach and communication plan to increase the County’s effectiveness in communicating about the services it provides so that by September 2008 the percentage of citizens who rate the County’s communication effectiveness as poor in the Annual Population Satisfaction Survey will have decreased to 10% or less. 865 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines Introduction The purpose of this policy is to set forth the guidelines for developing budgets for Maricopa County, as well as the Flood Control, Library, and Stadium Districts. Maricopa County’s budget process provides for responsible management of taxpayers’ resources, while insuring that funds are directed towards achieving results at all levels. Definitions Budgeting for Results: A process in which budgetary decisions are based on or informed by performance information that describes the cost or efficiency of producing an activity and the results achieved for customers. This is accomplished by structuring the accounting and budgeting systems according to the structure of Departments' Strategic Plans. Structurally Balanced Budget: A budget in which all recurring expenditures are fully supported by recurring sources of funding. Policy Guidelines General Guidelines for Budget Development 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. 866 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 Initiative 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. 867 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines (Continued) Budget Process All Appointed, Elected and Judicial Branch Departments/Special Districts will follow these policy guidelines in preparing their annual budget requests. All Appointed, Elected, and Judicial Branch Departments/Special Districts will submit budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) following the detailed timeline, directions and format prescribed by OMB. Department/Special District financial reporting structures will be established by the Financial Reporting Review Committee and must be finalized prior to budget submission. All budget requests will be submitted at a detailed level by department, fund, organization unit, Program/Activity, object/revenue source, and month. Departments/Special Districts will prepare their budget requests in the budget preparation system provided by the Office of Management and Budget, and will follow all system instructions. The Deputy County Manager (DCM) will negotiate budget recommendations with Elected Officials and Judicial Branch departments. If agreement cannot be reached with the DCM, the Presiding Judge and elected officials may first continue negotiation directly with the County Manager 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. 868 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budgeting for Results Policy Guidelines (Continued) 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. 869 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Priorities – Maricopa County (Approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2004.) 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 2005-06. 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 2004-05 approved Results Initiative Requests; the annualized impact of FY 2004-05 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; and other technical adjustments as required. All departments must submit base budget requests within their budget targets. Employee Related Budget Adjustments The Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Total Compensation Department, is directed to allocate funding for salary and health care increases. Therefore, departments should not include funding for these items in their budget submissions. Requests for Additional Funding (Results Initiative Requests) Results Initiative Requests that are funded by the original $900 million of Jail Excise Tax for phased-in 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. Results Initiative Requests in support of critical justice, public safety and public health will also be considered, but must be presented to the Board prior to review by the Office of Management and Budget. 870 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Priorities – Flood Control District (Approved by the Board of Directors on December 13, 2004.) The purpose of these guidelines and priorities is to provide direction from the Board of Directors to the Office of Management and Budget and District management so that a structurally balanced budget is developed for FY 2005-06. Base Budget Targets Budgets for all funds will be prepared within target amounts equal to their current budgets plus authorized adjustments. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to adjust budget targets for the following: • • • • the annualized cost of FY 2004-05 approved Results Initiative Requests; the annualized impact of FY 2004-05 mid-year appropriation adjustments; the annualized impact of other items including intergovernmental agreements approved by the Board if the impact was disclosed at the time of Board approval; and other technical adjustments as required. The District shall submit its base budget request within its budget target. Employee Related Budget Adjustments The Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Total Compensation Department, is directed to allocate funding for salary and health care increases. Therefore, the District should not include funding for these items in its budget submission. 871 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Priorities – Library District (Approved by the Board of Directors on December 13, 2004.) The purpose of these guidelines and priorities is to provide direction from the Board of Directors to the Office of Management and Budget and District management so that a structurally balanced budget is developed for FY 2005-06. Base Budget Targets Budgets for all funds will be prepared within target amounts equal to their current budgets plus authorized adjustments. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to adjust budget targets for the following: • • • • the annualized cost of FY 2004-05 approved Results Initiative Requests; the annualized impact of FY 2004-05 mid-year appropriation adjustments; the annualized impact of other items including intergovernmental agreements approved by the Board if the impact was disclosed at the time of Board approval; and other technical adjustments as required. The District shall submit its base budget request within its budget target. Employee Related Budget Adjustments The Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Total Compensation Department, is directed to allocate funding for salary and health care increases. Therefore, the District should not include funding for these items in its budget submission. 872 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Priorities – Stadium District (Approved by the Board of Directors on December 13, 2004.) The purpose of these guidelines and priorities is to provide direction from the Board of Directors to the Office of Management and Budget and District management so that a structurally balanced budget is developed for FY 2005-06. Base Budget Targets Budgets for all funds will be prepared within target amounts equal to their current budgets plus authorized adjustments. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to adjust budget targets for the following: • • • • the annualized cost of FY 2004-05 approved Results Initiative Requests; the annualized impact of FY 2004-05 mid-year appropriation adjustments; the annualized impact of other items including intergovernmental agreements approved by the Board if the impact was disclosed at the time of Board approval; and other technical adjustments as required. The District shall submit its base budget request within its budget target. Employee Related Budget Adjustments The Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Total Compensation Department, is directed to allocate funding for salary and health care increases. Therefore, the District should not include funding for these items in its budget submission. 873 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Budget Calendar 12/13 Board Approves Budget Guidelines 11/18 – 12/13 OMB Develops Targets and Instructions 11/29 – 1/3 Budget Targets Distributed to Departments, Budget Prep Instructions & Information Available, Budget Prep System Training, Budget Prep System Available to Departments 11/29 – 1/31 Departments Prepare Budgets 1/31 Final Due Date for Department Budget Submittals 12/17 – 3/18 OMB Analyzes Base Budget Requests/Develops Recommendations 2/10 Assessed Values are Available 3/1 – 4/1 Department Meetings and Negotiations as Needed 4/1 – 4/22 OMB Consolidates and Finalizes Budget Recommendations 4/29 Recommended Budget Document Complete 5/2 – 5/6 Board Briefings 5/16 County Manager Presents FY 2005-06 Budget to Board 5/18 Board Adopts Tentative Budget 6/20 Final Adoption of FY 2005-06 Budget 8/15 Board sets Tax Rates Note: Dates are subject to change. 874 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 appropriation by month, organization unit, program/ activity/service, object/source, and position. Special District: All Maricopa County Special Districts, including the Flood Control District, Library District, and Stadium District. Policy Guidelines Budgets shall be appropriated and controlled by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors at the level of Department/Special District and fund and, where applicable, by capital improvement project. 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. 875 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. 876 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. 877 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Funded Position Policy (Continued) Position requests must be sent to the Office of Management and Budget 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 under funded. 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 under funded 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. 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. 878 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 and 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 Performance Management policy. 879 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Managing for Results Policy (Continued) The County Manager 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. 880 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 four-step cycle: Develop Performance Plan - Supervisors and employees shall collaborate in the development of an individualized annual Performance Plan that supports the overall department/division results. This written plan should clearly communicate performance expectations and behaviors. It should describe what results are expected and should establish how each employee’s performance will be measured and tracked. The Performance Plan will include a Planning & Alignment Worksheet and an Employee Development Plan. Employees will document that they reviewed the performance factors that will be rated. They will also record the support they will need to accomplish the goals and expectations. These documents shall be filed in the official employee personnel file at Human Resources at the beginning of the cycle. 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. 881 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. 882 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Performance Management Process Policy (Continued) 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. 883 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. 884 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. 885 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes Each year, the Department of Finance, in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget, calculates the minimum fund balances needed for the upcoming fiscal year to avoid short-term borrowing (such as Line of Credit, Tax Anticipation Note, or Internal Borrowing Agreement) in the General Fund, Flood Control District, and Library District. OMB uses trend analysis to estimate revenue collection and spending patterns for each fund. In addition, the calculation model assumes growth commensurate with the Consumer Price Index. The model assumptions are re-examined each year and modified when necessary. Calculated minimum fund balance requirements for FY 2005-06 are listed in the table below, followed by fund-specific information. Required Minimum Fund Balance Fund General $85,471,404 Flood Control District $7,653,929 Library District $2,701,481 General Fund Cash from a variety of sources can be used in the calculation of the minimum fund balance requirement for the General Fund. These include: 1) General Fund 2) Internal Service Funds 3) a. Equipment Services Fund b. Reprographics Fund c. Telecommunications Fund Enterprise Funds a. Solid Waste Fund The internal service funds listed above are included because they are an extension of General Fund activities 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 the General Fund and that it is not anticipated that these post-closure costs will ever require significant draws on this cash, the balance is available for the County’s administrative/operational cashflow needs. 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. 886 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Minimum Fund Balances for Cashflow Purposes (Continued) Flood Control District The Flood Control District has one fund available to finance its operational expenditures. The District utilizes a separate capital projects fund for its CIP, with expenditures supported by fund transfers from the Flood Control District’s operational Fund. The Flood Control District’s operational fund is primarily funded with property tax. As a result, it shares the same pattern of fiscal low and high points as the General Fund. For purposes of calculating the minimum fund balance, it is assumed that major intergovernmental revenue will be collected and transfers to the capital projects fund will occur uniformly during the year. Library District Similar to the Flood Control District, 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. 887 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Policy for Administering Grants Introduction The purpose of this policy is to serve as the frame work for Departments/Special Districts to follow when applying for grants and negotiating the terms and conditions of the agreements and/or contracts to ensure optimum financial and administrative arrangements for Maricopa County or the Special District. Definitions Central Service Costs (A-87): refers to costs, benefiting both grant and non-grant activities for inclusion as part of indirect cost in grants. The allocation is calculated in compliance with the Federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87. Department: 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 Department shall act as the agent of the County for purposes of this policy. Department Overhead: Departmental/Special District costs incurred for 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. 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. In-Kind: refers to contributions in the form of goods or services rather than in cash. 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). Special District: Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Maricopa County Library District, Maricopa County Stadium District. Policy Maricopa County and Special Districts receive significant funding from Federal, state, and local agencies annually. The following policy statements will ensure that the County or Special District is managing grants to its optimum potential. The Board of Supervisors or Board of Directors must formally accept all grant awards prior to any funds being expended. Departments/Special Districts will consistently negotiate grant agreements to meet County or Special District goals and policies. This includes conducting a cost/benefit study to determine the appropriateness of Maricopa County or a Special District pursuing a particular grant. 888 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) Departments/Special Districts will negotiate for advance funding financial arrangements first, and only accept reimbursement funding as the final option. Departments/Special Districts will clearly define any matching requirements required by Maricopa County or Special District during the application process. To minimize interest expense to Maricopa County, Departments/Special Districts will attempt to and negotiate a reimbursement schedule that is in alignment with this policy. Departments/Special Districts will closely monitor their expenditures and claim reimbursement whenever expenses exceed $100,000, or on a monthly basis. Maricopa County or Special District will utilize the County financial system to track, monitor and report all grant financial activity. All grant activity must be closed out within 150 days of the grant end date. Departments/Special Districts are required to charge indirect costs on all grants unless prohibited by the grant contract, law, County Board of Supervisors approval or Special District Board of Directors approval. • • Indirect costs will always be included (applied for) in the financial section of the grant application. Indirect costs will be recovered at the maximum allowed by the Grantor or as defined on the Indirect Cost Plan that is approved by the Department of Finance. Departments/Special Districts do not have the authority to negotiate a lower indirect cost reimbursement in order to increase program funding. Departments will expend all grant funds prior to expending any general fund appropriations, or in the case of Special Districts, before expending other Special District revenues in relation to grant programs. Guidelines This Policy shall serve as the framework for Departments/Special Districts to follow when applying for grants and negotiating the terms and conditions of the agreements. The Policy is not intended to discourage Departments/Special Districts 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 or Special District and to enhance Board of Supervisors or Board of Directors acceptance of grants conforming to this Policy. Specific information and detailed procedures are contained in the Maricopa County Grant Manual, which is located at ebc.maricopa.gov/library/finance. The Grant Manual will be updated as necessary by the Department of Finance. Initial Grant Application Departments/Special Districts are not required to obtain Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors approval prior to submitting an application for grant funding if the application complies fully with this policy. Departments/Special Districts are required to obtain the approval of the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors prior to submitting an application for grant funding for any type of deviation from this policy including full indirect cost recovery. The information on the agenda must be clear and describe the nature of the deviation(s). It must also be clearly noted the intent or non-intent to apply for further grants from this particular grantor of this nature. After this grant has been reviewed and accepted by the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors, subsequent grants in that fiscal year from the same Grantor Agency with like provisions do not require the Board’s review and acceptance during the application process. 889 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) 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 must be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors for review and acceptance. Departments/Special Districts may seek approval for both the Grant Submittal and Grant Award Acceptance at the pre-submission stage, provided that all terms of the grant are in compliance with this policy and the information presented to the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors is consistent. Departments/Special Districts will provide to the Department of Finance a copy of all grant agreements which must specifically include the award amount, grant period dates, availability of indirect costs and the indirect cost percentage (%), distinction between reimbursement or advance funding and a complete description of the grant. The provided information will be used to establish controls on the County financial system and will not be changed or modified (award period, grant award, etc.) without supporting documentation from the Grantor. On-Going Grant Application From year to year, Departments/Special Districts may receive grant funding from the same Grantor for the continuation of a program. In this case, Departments must notify the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors in an annual or more frequent presentation of their intent to apply for all ongoing grants. 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 and Special Districts’ preference to receive funding on an advance basis instead of a reimbursement basis. Therefore, every effort is to be made by Departments/Special Districts to obtain advance funding from the Grantor Agency. This is especially critical for one-time grant funded programs where the County or Special District is advancing funds to nonprofit subcontractors. The Department/Special District may be requested by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to present the cost/benefits of accepting a grant versus not accepting a particular grant. The cost/benefit analysis must take into account if the grant-funded services are mandated and comply with the MfR Budgeting format. 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/Board of Directors. Program costs, which Departments/Special Districts wish to continue once the grant funding has been depleted, will be identified and reported to the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors at the time of submittal for consideration. The Department must present analysis and information to the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors to assist the Board in deciding whether the County or Special District should fund expenses for the project or program from other County or Special District funds following the depletion of the grant funds. 890 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) Claiming Reimbursement Departments/Special District will record and track grant revenues and expenditures utilizing the County financial system. Departments/Special District shall submit claims to the Grantor Agency as frequently as permitted under the grant agreement. This will be no less frequent than monthly or when the expenditures reach $100,000, unless otherwise established by the grantor. At grant year-end, each Department/Special District 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. All grant closing documentation will be submitted to the Finance Department to ensure the grants are accurately closed on the financial system within 150 days after the grant end date as represented on the County financial system. All unreimbursed costs must be identified and a plan of action defined to ensure an alternate funding source is identified and the grant is effectively closed within the 150 day timeframe. All unresolved grant balances/(deficits) after the 150 day timeframe will be reported to the Board of Supervisors by the Department of Finance and the Office of Management and Budget by utilizing the Fund Balance Report. Indirect Costs (A-87 Charges) Federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87 recognizes indirect costs as legitimate grant expenses. As such, it is the intention of Maricopa County or Special District to recover indirect costs at all opportunities. In order to do so, the Department of Finance will prepare the following plans on an annual basis: A-87 County-wide Central Services Cost Allocation Plan. The Department of Finance is responsible for preparing and negotiating the County-wide A-87 plan with Maricopa County’s cognizant agency, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Department of Health and Human Services is Maricopa County’s assigned cognizant agency regarding audit issues. Whenever permitted by the Grantor Agency, grants requiring County or Special District matching funds may utilize County Overhead (A-87) as a last option. All other opportunities must be exhausted to meet the in-kind match before utilizing County Overhead (A87). If the required match exceeds the amount of in-kind and/or County Overhead (A-87) or Overhead is not an allowable expense by the Grantor Agency the Department must inform the Board of Supervisors/Board of Directors of the exception and estimate the relative financial inkind impact. Departmental Indirect Cost Allocation Plan(s). 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/Special Districts receiving grant funds shall submit a written request to the Department of Finance to prepare a Departmental A-87 Indirect Cost Allocation Plan. In some cases the grantor may limit the recovery of indirect costs to 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. Specific accounting information and examples can be found in the County Grant Manual located at ebc.Maricopa.gov/library/finance. 891 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) Purchase of Computing and Network Systems Relating to Grant Supported Programs To ensure compatibility and supportability of the County computing and network infrastructure, Departments/Special Districts 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 purchases under the provisions of the County’s Procurement Code. Departments/Special Districts are to utilize the Technology Financing Program unless the grant specifically does not provide for this type of activity. As an example, a grant that is Board-approved for two (2) years would not allow for the purchase of computers under the Technology Financing Program as the Technology Financing Program is a 36-month program. To ensure effective asset management and tracking, all computer-related items must be tagged with an asset number by the Technology Finance Program Coordinator and recorded in an asset database. This information is utilized for the projection of asset replacement purposes. 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. Department of Finance Responsibility While each Department/Special District 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. At a minimum, the Department of Finance will: • • • • • • • • • Review and approve grant agenda items when they comply with County policy and the County Grant Manual. Establish a Board approved grant on the County financial system when all supporting documentation is provided. Prepare and provide to the Departments/Special Districts a monthly grant report (Fund Balance Report). This report will include inception to date financial activity for each individual grant. This report will be used to ensure the effective management and maintenance of grant activity. Ensure that grant expenditures do not exceed grant awards. Review individual grant balances, utilizing the Fund Balance Report, on a quarterly basis to identify departments that are not requesting reimbursement from the Grantor Agency on a timely basis. Departments/Special Districts that are not regularly claiming reimbursements will be contacted by the Department of Finance. Communicate with the Office of Management and Budget regarding fund balance and/or deficit issues. Initiate the preparation of the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan by providing a copy of the current plan, detailed listing of expenditures and other supporting data. Provide support, guidance and direction to Departments/Special Districts to assist them in the preparation of their Indirect Cost Allocation Plan. Review Fund Balance Report for closed Grants to determine compliance with fund balance/(deficits). Review and recommend approval of proposed Grant applications when Department/Special District is not in full compliance with Grant policy. 892 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Policy for Administering Grants (Continued) Office of Management and Budget Responsibilities • • • • • • • • Review and recommend approval of grant agenda items when they comply with County policy and the County Grant Manual. Review and recommend approval of Department’s/Special District’s proposed grant budget. Review and recommend approval of adjustments to Department’s/Special District’s grant budget as necessary. Review and take action as necessary to correct any deficit in Grant Funded Budgets. Review and take action as necessary to minimize lost interest earnings to the General Fund due to negative cash positions in Grant funds. Review and take action as necessary regarding departmental indirect cost rate plans. Ensure maximum reimbursement of all allowable indirect costs. Consistent with Board policy, review departments spending to ensure that Grant Funds are used before General Fund dollars, and for Special Districts, to ensure that Grant Funds are used before other Special District revenues. Review and recommend approval of proposed Grant applications when Department/Special District is not in full compliance with Grant policy. Department/Special District Responsibilities Each Department/Special District will ensure the following general maintenance activities are completed as defined below: • • • • • • Review, reconcile and certify the monthly Fund Balance Report. Any discrepancies are to be reported to the Department of Finance within two (2) weeks of receiving the Fund Balance Report. A written response must be received by the Department of Finance to validate the monthly certification. Reconcile and close expired grants on the County financial system within 150 days of the grant end date (as entered on the County financial system). Communicate with the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Finance regarding grants with a negative balance (unreimburseable expense). The Department/Special District must develop a plan of action to resolve the deficit. For departments, the plan should only consider utilizing General Funds as a last option. Prepare the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan in the format defined by the Department of Finance. Obtain Departmental/Special District approval of the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan and provide a complete copy of the plan with all supporting documentation to the Department of Finance and the Office of Management and Budget by the timeline established by the Department of Finance. Comply with all reporting requirements as defined by the grantor. Comply with all record retention requirements as defined by the grantor. 893 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 Board-approved 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 Manager, 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 Manager 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. 894 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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 Manager 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. 895 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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, and 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. 896 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Vehicle Replacement Policy (Continued) 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. 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. 897 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. 201 Adult Probation Fees — 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. §12-116; 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 Court 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. §12-284.01. 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 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. §12-113. 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 Waste Management — 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. 212 Sheriff RICO Fund — This fund consists of monies received as result of participation in any investigation or prosecution, whether by final judgment, settlement, or otherwise. Monies may be used for the funding of gang prevention programs, substance abuse prevention programs substance abuse education programs and witness protection or for any purposes permitted by federal law relating to the disposition of any property that is transferred to a law enforcement agency. 213 County Attorney 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. 898 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 214 Sheriff Jail Enhancement Fund — Per A.R.S. 41-2401, the Arizona State Department of Corrections allocates criminal justice enhancement funds to County Sheriffs for the purpose of enhancing County Jail facilities and operations. 215 Emergency Management — Emergency Management activity consists of disaster planning and training. 216 Clerk of the 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. 218 Clerk of Court Fill the GAP — This fund was set up as indicated by A.R.S. 41-2421F and accounts for monies distributed under A.R.S. 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997 – 1998 by the counties for the processing of criminal cases in the Superior Court, including the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court, and Justice Courts. 219 County Attorney Grants — 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 Diversion — 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 A.R.S. 412421F and accounts for monies distributed under A.R.S. 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by the counties for the processing of criminal cases by county attorneys. 222 Human Services Grants — 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. 224 Medical Examiner Grant Fund — Accounts for the grant funds that are utilized to support the County’s anti-bioterrorism efforts. 225 Parks Spur Cross Ranch Conservation — 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 Fees — Performs mandated community planning functions. Funding is provided mainly through license and impact fees. 227 Juvenile Probation Grants — Accounts for the grant funds that are utilized for the child nutrition program, family counseling and safe schools program. 228 Juvenile Probation Special Fees — 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. 899 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 229 Juvenile Restitution Fund — 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 Operations — Plans and implements an environmentally balanced multi-model transportation system. Operations are funded through highway user taxes. 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 Project — 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 Highway User’s Tax. 235 Del Webb Special Revenue Fund — A special revenue fund to account for revenue received from the Del Webb Anthem community that is restricted to expenditure for development services (the implementation and enforcement of the development master plan) and recreational services (trail system and library) supporting that community. 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 Fund — Accounts for sales proceeds of sundry items at the Maricopa County Parks. 240 Lake Pleasant Recreation Services — 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 Fund — Accounts for park and recreation revenues and expenditures associated with enhancing parks and recreation programs pursuant to A.R.S. §11-941. 242 Library District Grants — Library District Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the County Library District. 243 Parks Donations Fund — Contributions accounts for activities that are financed through donations by citizens or groups. 244 Library District — Provides and maintains library services for the residents of Maricopa County. Operations are funded by a secondary tax levy. 245 Justice Court Special Revenue — 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. 249 General Government Grants — General Government Grants was set up to account for all nondepartment specific grant activity. 900 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 250 Cactus League Operations — 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 Inmate Services — 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 Ballpark Operations — Accounts for all revenues and expenditures related to Chase Field. 254 Inmate Health Services — Accounts for the co-payments received from inmates for self initiated health service pursuant to A.R.S. §31-161 and A.R.S. §31-162. 255 Detention Operations — was established under the authority of propositions 400 and 401, which were passed in the General Election of November 3, 1998 and extended in the General Election of November 5, 2002. These propositions authorized a temporary 1/5-cent sales tax to be used for the construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. 256 Probate Fees — Administers the monies received by the Clerk of the Superior 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 Fees — 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. 259 Superior Court Special Revenue — 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 Fees — Established by A.R.S. §12-305 to account for a portion of the fees collected by the Clerk of the 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 A.R.S. 412421F and accounts for monies distributed under A.R.S 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by counties for the processing of criminal cases by the county public defender, legal defender and contract indigent defense counsel in each county. 263 Legal Defender Fill the Gap — Legal Defender Fill the Gap was set up as indicated by A.R.S. 412421F and accounts for monies distributed under A.R.S. 41-2421. Funds are to be used to supplement, not supplant, funding at the level provided in fiscal year 1997-1998 by counties for the processing of criminal cases by the county public defender, legal defender and contract indigent defense counsel in each county. 264 Superior Court Fill the Gap— Superior Court Fill the Gap was set up as indicated by A.R.S 41-2421F and accounts for monies distributed under A.R.S. 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. 901 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 265 Public Health Fees — Accounts for public health programs that are self-supported by Vital Health fees and pharmacy operations. 266 Check Enforcement Program — Accounts for fees that are collected pursuant to A.R.S. sections 131809 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 A.R.S. section 131802, 13-1807, 13-2002 or 13-2310, whether by final judgment, settlement or otherwise. The monies in the fund shall be used for the investigation, prosecution and deferred prosecution of theft, forgery and fraud. 267 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 (A.R.S. 41-2401). The funds are to be used for the purpose of enhancing prosecutorial efforts. 268 Victim Compensation Restitution Fund— Victim Compensation and Assistance Fund was established to administer funding provided from the State Victim Compensation and Assistance fund (AR.S. 41-2407) and from prisoner supervision fees under A.R.S.31-418. Fund is used for establishing, maintaining and supporting programs that compensate and assist victims of crime. 269 Victim Compensation Interest Fund— The County Attorney Victim Compensation and Restitution Fund was established as authorized by A.R.S 11-538 consisting of monies that are distributed pursuant to A.R.S. 12-286 (seventy-five per cent of the interest earned on restitution monies that are received in trust). The County Attorney shall use monies in the fund to assist eligible victims of crime with medical, counseling and funeral expenses and lost wages. 270 Child Support Enhancement — 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. 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 the Court EDMS — The Clerk of the 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 — The Juvenile Probation Diversion fund was established by A.R.S 11537 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 A.R.S. 8-321. 276 Spousal Maintenance Enforcement Enhancement — The Spousal Maintenance Enforcement Fund is established for the Clerk of the Superior Court consisting of monies received pursuant to A.R.S. §12289. The Clerk will spend monies in the fund to enhance enforcement of spousal maintenance orders. In addition to the fees required by 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. 902 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 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. 282 Domestic Relations Mediation 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 — Accounts for the operations activity 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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and supplement the syphilis screening activities at the Madison Street Jail. 320 County Improvement Debt — Accounts for the debt service on the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2001. Funding is provided by transfers from the General Fund. 370 Stadium District Debt Series02 — Debt associated with the Stadium District projects. 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. 445 General Fund County Improvements — General Fund Capital Projects account for capital project spending funded from General Funds. 450 Long Term Project Reserve — Accounts for sales tax (Stadium Tax) proceeds collected in excess of the $238,000,000 cap imposed by County Board Resolution. 455 Detention Capital Projects — Accounts for the proceeds associated with the 1/5 of one-cent sales tax approved by voters in the General Election on November 3, 1998 and extended by voters in the General Election on November 5, 2002. The proceeds are for the construction and operation of adult and juvenile detention facilities. 503 Air Quality Grant - Air Quality Grants was set up to account for all Grant activity administered by the County Air Quality Department 504 Air Quality Fees — 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. 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. 903 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 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. 541 Health Plan — 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 Long-Term Care Plan — 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). 572 Animal Control License/Shelter — 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. . 574 Animal Control Field Operation — Animal Control Field Services was set up in FY2002-03 to segregate field services which are an optional County service from Animal Control Pound Activities which are required by Arizona State Statute. 580 Solid Waste Management — 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. 652 Health Select Self-Insured Trust Fund — This fund collects employee and employer contributions for payment of the employees’ health insurance premiums for the County-run insurance plan. 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. 685 Benefits Trust — This fund collects employee and employer contributions for payment of the employees’ dental and short-term disability benefits. 989 Flood Control Grant — This fund accounts for the Flood Control District grant funding and activity. 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. 904 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Fund Descriptions (Continued) 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. 905 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments FY 2005-06 Revenue Object and Sub-Object Codes Revenue Source 0601 0601 0601 0601 0601 0605 0606 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0610 0615 0615 0615 0615 0620 0620 0620 0620 0620 0620 0620 0620 0620 0621 0621 0621 0621 0625 0626 0630 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 Sub-Revenue Source 00 01 02 03 04 00 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 00 01 02 03 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 00 01 02 03 00 00 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Sub-Revenue Source Name PROPERTY TAXES REAL PROP TAXES - CURRENT YEAR REAL PROP TAXES - PRIOR YEAR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES CURRENT PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES PRIOR TAX PENALTIES & INTEREST SALES TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS LIQUOR LICENSES PAWN SHOP LICENSES PEDDLERS LICENSES AIR POLLUTION PERMITS ANIMAL LICENSES BUILDING SAFETY PERMITS ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS FLOOD CONTROL LICENSES MARRIAGE LICENSES MOBILE HOME MOVING PERMIT MOBILE HOME USE PERMIT PLANNING VARIANCE PERMIT PUBLIC HEALTH ENG PERMIT COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY USE CABLE TV LICENSE FEES GRANTS FEDERAL STATE OTHER GRANTS OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL FEDERAL SHARED REVENUE OTHER SHARED REVENUE FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS STATE SHARED REVENUE STATE SHARE OF COST OTHER GOVERNMENT SHARE OF COST INTRGV-EMPLOYER PREM HLTH/LIFE INTRGV-EMPLOYEE PREM HLTH/LIFE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES SALT RIVER PROJECT FEDERAL STATE STATE SHARED SALES TAX STATE SHARED HIGHWAY USER REV STATE SHARED VEHICLE LICENSE OTHER CHARGES FOR SERVICES CABLE TV RECEIPTS FEE GARNISH & SUPPORT FEES TAX SALE FEES CABLE TV APPLICATION FEES CERTIFICATIONS COURT FEES CONSTABLE FEES FIDUCIARY FEES JURY FEES LEGAL SERVICES PASSPORTS PROBATE FEES RECORDING FEES RECORD AUTOMATION SURCHARGE SUBDIVISION FEES ZONING CLEAR REVIEW FEES ZONING APPLICATION ROOM & BOARD PROBATION Revenue Source 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0635 0636 0636 0637 0637 0637 0637 0637 0637 0638 0638 0638 0638 0638 0638 0638 0638 0638 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 906 Sub-Revenue Source 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 00 01 00 01 02 03 04 05 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 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 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 ACCRUED REVENUE-PAYROLL HEALTH SELECT INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES ISF CHARGE-CTY PREM HLTH/LIFE FINES & FORFEITS CIVIL SANCTIONS TRAFFIC COURT FINES LIBRARY FINES ANTI-RACKETEERING FINES DIVERSION FINE PATIENT SERVICES REVENUE REVENUE DEDUCTIONS CAPITATION REVENUE PROTEASE CAPITATION REVENUE REINSURANCE REVENUE THIRD PARTY LIABILITY REVENUE HOSPITAL SUPPLEMENT REVENUE SOBRA KICK PATIENT CONTRIBUTIONS HCBS PLACEMENT RECONCILIATION SOC RECONCILIATION 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 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments FY 2005-06 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes Object 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0705 0710 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0750 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0790 0795 0796 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 Sub Object 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 00 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 00 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Sub Object Name REGULAR PAY FULL TIME REGULAR SALARIES PERMANENT PART TIME OTHER SALARIES & WAGES COMPENSATORY TIME HOLIDAY PAY VACATION PAY JURY DUTY ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY ON THE JOB INJURY LEAVE MILITARY LEAVE SICK LEAVE TEMPORARY PAY OVERTIME FRINGE BENEFITS FICA MEDICARE TAX ELECTED OFFICIALS RETIREMENT CORRECTIONS OFFICERS RETIREMNT PUBLIC SAFETY RETIREMENT STATE RETIREMENT PLAN DENTAL PLAN EMPLOYER'S DENTAL SERVICES HEALTH SELECT PLAN CIGNA HEALTH PLAN MANUFACTURERS LIFE ON THE JOB INJURY INSURANCE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BUS FARE SUBSIDY PLAN ASRS LONG TERM DISABILITY INVESTIGATOR RETIREMENT CONCORDIA DENTAL RELIASTER LIFE MEDICAL/DENTAL WAIVER CIGNA DEDUCTIBLE PARK RANGERS RETIREMENT SELF-INSURED PHARMACY OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES PRODUCTION BONUS DIFFERENTIALS WORKING CONDITION WEEKEND PREMIUM STANDBY PAY REGULAR OVER BUDGET PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE AWARD BUDGET DEFERRED HOURS PAID LUMP SUM PAYMENT EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION AWARD AWARDS PROGRAM CREDIT OTHER ADJUSTMENTS PEAK PERFORMERS PERSONAL SERVICE ALLOC OUT PERSONAL SERVICE ALLOC IN GENERAL SUPPLIES AUTO-GAS OIL LUBE AUTO-TIRES TUBES BATTERY OTHER AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY BEDDING & LINEN CLEANING & JANITORIAL CLOTHING/UNIFORMS TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIES Object 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0802 0803 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0804 0805 0806 0808 907 Sub Object 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 00 00 00 Sub Object Name SOFTWARE EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLIES FOOD-PERISHABLE FOOD-PREPARATION FOOD-NON PERISHABLE FOOD-SPECIAL FUNCTIONS FOOD-NOURISHMENTS KITCHEN & DINING SUPPLIES LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES SAFETY APPAREL SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT FURNITURE UNDER $1000 LAUNDRY SUPPLIES PROCUREMENT CARD BOOK/PAMPHLET/SUBSCRIPTIONS AUTOMOTIVE R&M SUPPLIES BUILDING R&M SUPPLIES COMMUNICATION R&M SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL R&M SUPPLIES GROUNDS R&M SUPPLIES HEAT/LIGHT/COOL R&M SUPPLIES OFFICE R&M SUPPLIES PLUMBING R&M SUPPLIES ROAD R&M SUPPLIES OTHER R&M SUPPLIES MEDICAL SUPPLIES DENTAL SUPPLIES LABORATORY SUPPLIES LAB-REAGENTS & MEDIA LAB-CONSUMABLES RADIOLOGY SUPPLIES X-RAY FILM X-RAY CONTRAST & MEDIA PHARMACEUTICALS BLOOD & PLASMA SUPPLIES ANESTHETIC SUPPLIES OXYGEN & OTHER GASES RADIOACTIVE SUPPLIES O R INSTRUMENTS MEDICAL R&M SUPPLIES DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT FUEL NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT CONS EQUIP NON-MOTORIZED EDUCATION/REC EQUIPMENT ENGR/SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT KITCHEN/LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT HEAT/COOL/LIGHT EQUIPMENT MEDICAL/LAB EQUIPMENT OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT SHOP EQUIPMENT WEAPONS/GUNS COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FURNITURE OVER $1000 SUPPLIES-ALLOCATION OUT SUPPLIES-ALLOCATION IN LEGAL - GROSS PROCEEDS Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments FY 2005-06 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (continued) Object 0809 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0810 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 Sub Object 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Sub Object Name DAMAGES PAID LEGAL SERVICES PARALEGAL/STUDENT TIME ATTORNEYS CRIM INDIG-COURT ATTORNEYS NON-CRIMIN COURT ATTORNEYS-JUVENILE COURTRT ATTORNEYS OTHER NON-COURT EXPERT WITNESS FEES/EXPENSE EYE WITNESS FEES/EXPENSE INTERPRETER FEES/EXPENSE VISITING JUDGES FEES MENTAL EXAMINATION FEES RULE 11 EXAM RULE 26.5 EXAM DEPOSITION REPORT SERVICE PRELIM HEARING/GRAND JURY TRIALS REPORT SERVICE APPEALS TRANSRIPTION SERVICE DEPOSITION TRANS SERVICE PRELIM HEAR/GRAND JURY TR S TRANSCRIPT MISCELLANEOUS JURY FEES JURY LODGING JURY MEALS JURY MILEAGE ARBITRATION EXPENSE JUDGEMENTS/SETTLEMENTS LITIGATION EXPENSE MERIT SYSTEM HEARING EXPENSE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE COURT IN INVESTIGATION TIME INVESTIGATION EXPENSE OTHER LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION HEALTH CARE SERVICES NURSES MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DENTISTS PHYSICIANS CONTRACT MEDICAL PROVIDER HOSPITAL/MEDICAL SERVICES PRIMARY CARE SERVICES THERAPY SERVICES RADIOLOGY SERVICES EMERGENCIES PRESCRIPTIONS LABORATORY SERVICES TRANSPORTATION/AMBULANCE PATIENT TRANSPORT SVCS - MMC BAD DEBT EXPENSE REBATES SHORT-TERM DISABILITY CLAIMS INPATIENT HOSPITALIZATION OUTPATIENT MEDICAL COMPENSATION NURSING FACILITY HOME HEALTH FAMILY PLANNING VENTILATION INSTITUTION CARE HOME & COMMUNITY BASED SVC SANCTION FEES Object 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0811 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 0812 908 Sub Object 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Sub Object Name INSTITUTION-INTERMEDIATE ATTENDANT CARE ADULT FOSTER CARE ACH/ACHT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NURSING HOMES-IBNR ACH/AFC-IBNR DENTAL-IBNR SRL'S-IBNR OTHER SERVICES ACCOUNTING & AUDITING ACTUARIAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HSA ALLOCATION ARCHITECTURAL APPRAISAL SERV CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT BROKER FEES EDUCATORS & TRAINERS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING SECURITY GUARD SVCS CLAIMS ADMIN SERVICE FEE ARCOR PERSONNEL SERVICES ELECTION WORKERS OUTSIDE LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING SVCS PERSONNEL HIRE/TEST SVCS TEMPORARY HELP OUTSIDE COLLECTION FEES JTPA-OCCUPATIONAL/VOCATIONAL JTPA-OJT GP - AUTO LIABILITY GP - GENERAL LIABILITY GP - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE OTHER INSURANCE AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE CLAIMS AUTO LIABILITY CLAIMS ENVIRONMENTAL LIAB CLAIMS BOILER INSURANCE COURSE CONST INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE WORKMENS COMP INDEMNITY WORKMENS COMP INSURANCE WORKMENS COMP MEDICAL DENTAL INSURANCE DISABILITY INSURANCE HEALTH CLAIMS HEALTH INSURANCE INDIVIDUAL/BLANKET BONDS UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS PROPERTY CLAIMS PROPERTY INSURANCE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS MALPRACTICE INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM NOTARY BONDS SIGHT CARE PRINTING-BINDING-DUPLICATION TAX SALE PUBLICATION Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments FY 2005-06 Expenditure Object and Sub-Object Codes (continued) 0812 0812 0812 0820 0820 0820 0820 0820 0820 0820 0820 0820 0820 0820 0825 0825 0825 0825 0825 0825 0825 0825 0825 0825 0825 0825 0830 0830 0830 0839 0839 0839 0839 0839 0839 0839 0839 0839 0839 0839 0842 0842 0842 0842 0842 0842 0842 0842 0842 0842 0842 0842 0843 0843 0843 0843 0843 0843 0845 0845 0845 52 53 54 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 00 01 02 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 00 01 02 03 04 05 00 01 02 OTHER PUBLICATION & ADV EXP RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES MEMBERSHIPS/CERT/LICENSE RENT & OPERATING LEASES RENT AUTOMOBLE RENT BUILDING RENT SPECIAL FUNCTION RENT COPYING EQUIPMENT RENT COMMUNICATION EQUIP RENT DATA PROCESSING EQUIP RENT GROUNDS/LAND RENT MEDICAL EQUIPMENT RENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENT REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AUTOMOTIVE R&M BUILDING R&M CONSTRUCTION EQUIP R&M COMMUNICATION EQUIP R&M DATA PROCESS EQUIP R&M GROUNDS R&M HEAT/LIGHT/COOL R&M MEDICAL/LAB EQUIP R&M COPYING EQUIP R&M OFFICE EQUIP R&M JANITORIAL SERVICE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS TAXES & ASSESSMENTS MANDATED HEALTH CARE PAYMENTS INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES TELECOM DISCRETIONARY COUNTY COUNSEL BASE LEVEL EQ SERVICES CHARGES RISK MANAGEMENT BASE LEVEL TELECOM TELECOM WIRELESS SYSTEMS REPROGRAPHICS MOTOR POOL CELL PHONE RESEARCH AND REPORTING TRAVEL & EDUCATION COUNTY SPONSORED TRAINING AIRLINE/BUS/TAXI MEALS LODGING EVENT COST MILEAGE ALLOWANCE EDUCATION SEMINAR FEES INVESTIGATIVE TRAVEL WITNESS TRAVEL PRISONER/COURT WARD TRAVEL POSTAGE/FREIGHT/SHIPPING FREIGHT MOVING SERVICES POSTAGE SHIPPING COURIER SERVICE SUPPORT AND CARE OF PERSONS BURIAL OF INDIGENTS PERSONAL CARE 0845 0845 0845 0850 0850 0850 0850 0850 0850 0850 0850 0850 0850 0850 0855 0865 0870 0870 0870 0870 0871 0872 0873 0880 0880 0890 0910 0910 0910 0910 0915 0915 0915 0920 0920 0920 0920 0920 0920 0920 0920 0920 0920 0930 0930 0930 0930 0930 0930 0930 0930 0940 0950 0950 0950 0950 0950 0950 0950 0955 0956 909 03 04 05 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 00 00 00 02 04 05 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 01 02 03 00 01 02 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 00 00 HOME MEALS SERVICE JTPA-FINANCIAL ASST.(NBP/NRP) NURSING HOMES UTILITIES MICROWAVE U S WEST CHARGES LONG DISTANCE CHARGES OTHER COMMUNICATION SERVICES ELECTRICITY NATURAL/PROPANE GAS REFUSE REMOVAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL WATER INFECTIOUS WASTE DISPOSAL INTEREST EXPENSE DEPRECIATION OTHER ADJUSTMENTS ITEMS FOR RESALE ITEMS FOR INVENTORY INTERGOVT HOLDING ACCOUNT INVENTORY SERVICES-ALLOCATION OUT SERVICES-ALLOCATION IN TRANSFERS OUT CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCAT LOSS ON FIXED ASSETS LAND LAND ACQUISITION-ROW LAND ACQUISITION-OTHER RELOCATION-FACILITIES BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS CAP EQUIPMENT CONS CAP EQUIP NON-MOTORIZED EDUCATION/REC CAP EQUIPMENT ENGR/SCIENTIFIC CAP EQUIPMENT KITCHEN/LAUNDRY CAP EQUIPMENT HEAT/COOL/LIGHT CAP EQUIPMENT MED/LAB/ CAP CAP EQUIPMENT SHOP CAP EQUIPMENT COMPUTER CAP EQUIPMENT VEHICLES & CONSTRUCTION EQUIP CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES TRAILERS OTHER MECHANIZED TRUCKS WATERCRAFT AIRCRAFT\HELICOPTERS PASSENGER VEHICLES INFRASTRUCTURE DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL BOND INTEREST BOND PRINCIPAL COP INTEREST COP PRINCIPAL CAPITAL LEASE INTEREST CAPITAL LEASE CAPITAL-ALLOCATION OUT CAPITAL-ALLOCATION IN Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule A) 910 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule B) MARICOPA COUNTY Summary of Tax Levy and Tax Rate Information Fiscal Year 2005-06 2004-05 FISCAL YEAR 1. Maximum allowable primary property tax levy. A.R.S. §42-17051(A). $ 2. Amount received from primary property taxation in the 2004-05 fiscal year in excess of the sum of that year's maximum allowable primary property tax levy. A.R.S. §42-17102(A)(18). $ 2005-06 FISCAL YEAR 346,394,541 $ 371,224,118 339,882,099 $ 371,224,118 3. Property tax levy amounts A. Primary property taxes $ B. Secondary property taxes General Fund - Override election Flood Control District Library District $ $ 56,334,141 15,664,900 Total secondary property taxes C. Total property tax levy amounts 62,733,411 13,976,029 $ 71,999,041 $ 76,709,440 $ 411,881,140 $ 447,933,558 $ 339,882,099 $ 339,882,099 4. Property taxes collected* A. Primary property taxes (1) 2004-05 year's levy (2) Prior years’ levies (3) Total primary property taxes B. Secondary property taxes (1) 2004-05 year's levy (2) Prior years’ levies (3) Total secondary property taxes $ 71,999,041 $ 71,999,041 C. Total property taxes collected $ 411,881,140 5. Property tax rates A. County tax rate (1) Primary property tax rate (2) Secondary property tax rate General Fund - Override election Flood Control District Library District (3) Total county tax rate 1.2108 1.1971 0.2119 0.0521 0.2119 0.0421 1.4748 1.4511 B. Special assessment district tax rates Secondary property tax rates * Includes actual property taxes collected as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus estimated property tax collections for the remainder of the fiscal year. 911 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule C) MARICOPA COUNTY Summary by Fund Type of Revenues Other Than Property Taxes Fiscal Year 2005-06 ESTIMATED REVENUES 2004-05 SOURCE OF REVENUES ACTUAL REVENUES 2004-05* ESTIMATED REVENUES 2005-06 GENERAL FUND Taxes Tax Penalties & Interest Payments in Lieu of Taxes State-Shared Sales Tax State-Shared Vehicle License Tax 10,857,480 $ 6,929,684 374,939,056 118,057,605 11,117,919 $ 6,739,826 384,274,037 120,696,506 1,463,436 1,369,806 1,854,000 8,594,302 94,865,879 5,592 72,854,181 Charges for services Charges for Service Patient Service Revenue Internal Service Charges 21,688,915 52,848 4,341,585 24,358,311 38,917 4,362,902 23,125,479 52,848 4,831,073 Fines and forfeits Fines & Forfeits 12,208,032 13,422,333 12,457,158 Investments Interest Earnings 2,417,347 5,774,596 4,503,265 5,822,612 5,286,791 2,336,555 567,372,902 $ 672,313,414 $ $ Licenses and permits Licenses & Permits Intergovernmental Intergovernmental Grants 11,834,653 8,029,157 407,330,479 126,127,849 Rents, royalties, and commissions Contributions Voluntary contributions Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Total General Fund $ 675,336,697 * Includes actual revenues recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus estimated revenues for the remainder of the fiscal year. 912 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule C) (Continued) ESTIMATED REVENUES 2004-05 SOURCE OF REVENUES SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Road Fund Transportation ACTUAL REVENUES 2004-05* ESTIMATED REVENUES 2005-06 $ 98,657,104 $ 103,263,242 $ 106,067,343 Total Road Fund $ 98,657,104 $ 103,263,242 $ 106,067,343 $ 1,352,910 $ 1,099,056 $ 1,198,557 Total Health Services Fund $ 1,352,910 $ 1,099,056 $ 1,198,557 $ 400,679,901 $ 393,995,504 $ 457,530,619 $ 400,679,901 $ 393,995,504 $ 457,530,619 Total Special Revenue Funds $ 500,689,915 $ 498,357,802 $ 564,796,519 $ 4,424,389 $ 5,515,094 4,424,626 $ 5,577,254 4,693,935 5,515,094 Total Debt Service Funds $ 9,939,483 $ 10,001,880 $ 10,209,029 21,445,798 $ 973,622 743,683 23,163,103 $ 17,242,845 $ 3,770,535 534,858 21,548,238 $ 29,366,281 4,148,623 493,683 34,008,587 $ $ $ Total Permanent Funds $ - $ - $ - Health Plans $ Health Care Delivery System Solid Waste Total Enterprise Funds $ 381,473,634 $ 466,516,942 450,000 848,440,576 $ 352,022,778 $ 202,216,987 551,236 554,791,001 $ 81,569,822 665,000 82,234,822 Health Services Fund Patient Service Revenue Grants, Misc. Revenue, etc. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Debt Service Stadium District CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Transportation $ General Government Stadium District Total Capital Projects Funds $ PERMANENT FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $ Equipment Services 10,192,096 $ Employee Health Initiatives 39,364,705 Materials Management 903,775 Chief Information Officer 26,644,669 Telecommunications 14,133,393 Communications 46,261 91,284,899 $ Total Internal Service Funds $ * Includes actual revenues recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as prepared, plus estimated revenues for the remainder of the fiscal year. 913 9,787,807 $ 10,596,904 39,678,736 50,971,799 1,032,028 901,885 26,483,838 23,116,120 14,754,216 15,232,361 35,221 91,771,845 $ 100,819,069 of the date the proposed budget was Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule C) (Continued) SOURCE OF REVENUES ESTIMATED REVENUES 2004-05 ACTUAL REVENUES 2004-05* ESTIMATED REVENUES 2005-06 ELIMINATIONS FUNDS Eliminations $ Total Eliminations Funds $ (178,317,280) $ (178,317,280) $ (172,480,735) $ (172,480,735) $ TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 1,862,573,598 $ 1,676,303,445 $ (75,837,516) (75,837,516) 1,391,567,207 * Includes actual revenues recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus estimated revenues for the remainder of the fiscal year. 914 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule D) MARICOPA COUNTY Summary by Fund Type of Other Financing Sources/ and Interfund Transfers Fiscal Year 2005-06 OTHER FINANCING 2005-06 SOURCES FUND GENERAL FUND Medical Examiner $ General Government Appropriated Fund Balance Sheriff Public Health Total General Fund $ SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Emergency Management $ Community Development Human Services Parks and Recreation Planning and Development Research and Reporting General Government Appropriated Fund Balance Transportation Library District Solid Waste Stadium District Flood Control District Animal Care and Control Air Quality Public Health Environmental Services Total Special Revenue Funds $ DEBT SERVICE FUNDS General Government Stadium District $ Total Debt Service Funds $ INTERFUND TRANSFERS 2005-06 IN - $ - $ - $ 9,541,283 - $ - $ 9,541,283 $ - $ - $ - $ 35,000 47,220 148,107,718 14,096,135 141,659 45,000 162,437,732 87,234 26,537 845,243 529,884 378,679 34,502 145,724,861 482,500 45,000 - $ - $ 146,287,361 $ $ $ 2,571,736 $ 14,977,841 69,060,233 913,635 38,660 1,635,325 71,957,276 552,190 328,624 1,767,666 322,066 163,455,595 482,500 - $ 915 - $ 2,571,736 $ 482,500 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule D) (Continued) OTHER FINANCING 2005-06 SOURCES FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS General Government $ Transportation Stadium District Flood Control District Facilities Management Total Capital Projects Funds $ 39,000,000 $ INTERFUND TRANSFERS 2005-06 IN $ 39,000,000 $ - $ 8,588,901 $ 67,475,788 1,600,137 70,816,471 14,977,841 163,459,138 $ $ $ $ $ Total Permanent Funds $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ 5,971,135 $ 470,318 50,381 Total Enterprise Funds $ - $ - $ 5,971,135 $ 520,699 $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 293,494 54,836 403,417 119,335 871,082 63,045 63,045 PERMANENT FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Maricopa Managed Care System Solid Waste INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Chief Information Officer $ Materials Management Equipment Services Risk Management Total Internal Service Funds $ ELIMINATIONS FUNDS Parks and Recreation $ Transportation Stadium District Flood Control District Eliminations Total Eliminations Funds $ $ $ - $ - $ (35,000) $ (67,475,788) (2,082,637) (70,816,471) (187,420,757) (327,830,653) $ TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 39,000,000 $ - $ - $ 916 (35,000) (67,475,788) (2,082,637) (70,816,471) (187,420,757) (327,830,653) - Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule E) MARICOPA COUNTY Summary by Department of Expenditures/Expenses Within Each Fund Type Fiscal Year 2005-06 FUND/DEPARTMENT ADOPTED BUDGETED EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2004-05 EXPENDITURE/ EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED 2004-05 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2004-05* BUDGETED EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2005-06 GENERAL FUND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 1 $ 249,676 $ 7,951 $ 221,157 $ 306,515 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 2 249,676 7,951 224,201 306,515 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 3 249,676 7,951 225,252 306,515 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 4 249,676 7,951 194,959 306,515 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 5 249,676 7,951 227,827 306,515 CLERK OF THE BOARD 478,788 24,625 433,017 536,893 ADULT PROBATION 45,668,897 1,446,775 45,305,680 50,303,044 ASSESSOR 15,808,896 697,393 15,903,644 18,118,945 CALL CENTER 1,298,676 99,989 1,354,315 1,555,385 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 155,628 1,920 156,792 233,760 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COU 23,147,694 638,323 22,411,823 26,383,155 FINANCE 2,532,036 146,473 2,376,282 3,086,638 COUNTY ATTORNEY 54,621,793 1,455,621 55,153,971 57,520,494 COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE 1,915,710 29,266 1,672,478 1,996,561 ELECTIONS 10,494,469 91,680 12,925,623 7,255,771 HUMAN SERVICES 1,787,032 237,858 2,024,880 2,067,234 INTERNAL AUDIT 1,035,910 29,857 1,090,596 1,109,254 CONSTABLES 1,780,046 74,877 1,838,939 1,908,645 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH 3,461,426 52,834 3,476,664 3,580,435 JUVENILE PROBATION 11,832,089 323,370 11,210,807 11,680,865 MEDICAL EXAMINER 4,154,263 154,182 4,654,106 4,923,739 PARKS & RECREATION 1,271,316 (37,058) 1,229,354 1,526,694 HUMAN RESOURCES 3,113,833 94,344 3,062,387 3,150,296 PUBLIC FIDUCIARY 1,983,422 122,383 1,974,308 2,186,245 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIV 2,258,750 (0) 2,049,576 2,326,033 RECORDER 1,991,183 45,650 1,913,950 2,114,696 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 1,984,742 35,805 1,887,130 2,165,072 HEALTH CARE MANDATES 317,582,085 64,683 316,008,116 301,233,694 CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 5,208,429 130,599 6,019,513 5,623,616 3,952,730 TREASURER 57,396 4,009,733 4,147,293 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 126,317,131 (13,577,866) 51,763,071 168,992,175 APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 166,829,602 102,000 70,555,285 99,010,666 MANAGEMENT & BUDGET 2,507,135 142,868 2,128,306 2,777,491 SHERIFF 47,914,887 1,895,942 49,459,829 54,588,802 PUBLIC DEFENDER 31,100,074 902,202 31,307,137 32,831,396 LEGAL DEFENDER 7,021,181 175,557 6,744,469 7,431,420 LEGAL ADVOCATE 6,383,337 147,083 6,279,630 6,794,249 CONTRACT COUNSEL 9,384,406 145,994 14,622,047 14,162,317 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 12,154,679 1,775,745 10,740,945 11,660,411 MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 1,354,842 66,793 1,375,710 1,489,584 ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 385,109 12,404 397,516 375,193 TRIAL COURTS 61,302,158 1,591,459 62,471,511 67,135,563 PUBLIC HEALTH 6,545,367 632,169 7,111,824 8,743,496 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1,369,912 20,076 1,030,992 1,738,045 1,001,338,043 $ 91,026 $ 837,225,352 $ 995,997,839 Total General Fund $ * Includes actual expenditures/expenses recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus estimated expenditures/expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year. 917 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule E) (Continued) FUND/DEPARTMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ADULT PROBATION $ EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTY ATTORNEY HUMAN SERVICES CORRECTIONAL HEALTH JUVENILE PROBATION MEDICAL EXAMINER PARKS & RECREATION RECORDER INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUST INFO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH & REPORTING GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE SHERIFF PUBLIC DEFENDER LEGAL DEFENDER LEGAL ADVOCATE TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY DISTRICT SOLID WASTE STADIUM DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL TRIAL COURTS AIR QUALITY PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Total Special Revenue Funds $ DEBT SERVICE FUNDS GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ STADIUM DISTRICT Total Debt Service Funds $ EXPENDITURE/ EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED 2004-05 ADOPTED BUDGETED EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2004-05 13,919,776 1,304,192 6,635,620 16,006,452 12,802,876 37,233,625 37,354,956 41,445,767 267,045 4,486,514 5,608,218 5,435,481 10,807,661 408,364 54,100,728 47,446,851 135,107,206 2,577,598 84,403 16,310 51,585,042 15,639,753 3,379,515 1,994,125 26,624,873 4,530,318 8,114,429 15,632,663 10,057,628 41,465,106 10,678,417 622,751,512 622,751,512 15,122,774 5,405,094 20,527,868 20,527,868 $ $ $ $ 216,291 $ 53,016 93,000 606,635 520,447 104,246 285,189 53,695 59,407 1,779,170 (4,384,447) 4,587,583 21,949 2,000 1,365,770 930,428 7,417 2,138,964 3,221,020 (1,503,952) 269,972 435,653 612,613 2,595,098 450,825 14,521,990 $ 14,521,990 - BUDGETED EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2005-06 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2004-05* $ $ 12,965,462 881,006 6,093,782 7,777,988 12,114,836 36,563,690 39,920,378 38,286,207 32,538 4,293,666 5,540,077 4,745,879 10,949,853 330,323 9,798,194 18,510,427 135,096,696 2,274,950 86,403 13,567 51,037,237 14,912,406 4,101,942 3,350,135 29,799,430 1,246,125 8,126,832 12,590,597 9,838,125 42,839,142 10,613,634 534,731,527 534,731,527 $ 10,789,285 3,250,572 14,039,857 14,039,857 $ $ $ 14,536,894 806,303 8,874,258 15,970,994 12,799,672 37,132,605 39,634,375 45,991,188 12,689 5,043,954 7,509,286 4,398,212 13,320,022 299,498 88,006,674 33,854,807 166,430,334 2,227,664 105,542 19,500 54,020,065 14,342,659 4,036,893 2,462,470 31,060,677 2,178,614 8,112,123 16,674,245 10,470,060 43,571,742 11,234,271 695,138,289 695,138,289 17,416,902 5,442,594 22,859,496 22,859,496 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH $ 158,037 $ - $ 236,214 $ JUVENILE PROBATION 392,535 319,645 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 81,758,466 (554,597) 43,986,892 82,628,056 SHERIFF 865,343 849,360 TRANSPORTATION 77,638,168 (453,770) 57,588,371 110,571,009 STADIUM DISTRICT 3,000 1,000,000 752,500 3,000 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 51,864,000 2,500,000 52,037,074 62,142,000 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 38,746,494 17,792,481 22,800,000 251,426,043 $ 2,491,633 $ 173,562,536 $ 278,144,065 Total Capital Projects Funds $ * Includes actual expenditures/expenses recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus estimated expenditures/expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year. 918 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments Arizona State Auditor General Forms (Schedule E) (Continued) FUND/DEPARTMENT ENTERPRISE FUNDS MARICOPA MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS $ SOLID WASTE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM Total Enterprise Funds $ INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE $ EMPLOYEE HEALTH INITIATIVES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER MATERIALS MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT Total Internal Service Funds $ ELIMINATIONS FUNDS HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM $ ELIMINATIONS Total Enterprise Funds $ TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ ADOPTED BUDGETED EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2004-05 EXPENDITURE/ EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED 2004-05 388,065,000 924,671 389,418,854 778,408,525 778,408,525 $ 46,261 39,364,705 13,343,685 797,885 9,271,159 25,956,064 88,779,759 88,779,759 $ $ $ (82,891,840) $ (95,425,440) (178,317,280) $ (178,317,280) 2,584,914,470 $ - ACTUAL EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2004-05* $ $ - $ (0) 262,006 160,860 422,866 $ 422,866 1,369,610 1,369,610 1,369,610 18,897,124 $ $ $ BUDGETED EXPENDITURES/ EXPENSES 2005-06 411,386,879 669,818 289,804,320 701,861,017 701,861,017 $ 35,221 39,892,825 13,618,675 956,162 9,729,171 25,477,835 89,709,889 89,709,889 $ $ $ (82,891,840) $ (89,588,895) (172,480,735) $ (172,480,735) 2,178,649,444 $ 87,070,639 755,445 87,826,084 87,826,084 50,596,799 14,593,068 811,961 10,171,760 26,011,566 102,185,154 102,185,154 (75,837,516) (75,837,516) (75,837,516) 2,106,313,411 * Includes actual expenditures/expenses recognized on the modified accrual or accrual basis as of the date the proposed budget was prepared, plus estimated expenditures/expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year. 919 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Attachments 920 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 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. Balanced Budget: An annual budget in which expenditures or uses do not exceed available resources. Must take into account current year spending as well as future spending obligations. 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. 921 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Glossary Carryover Funding: An amount budgeted for FY 2005-06 to pay for a capital expenditure budgeted for FY 2004-05 for which an obligation has been incurred that cannot be paid by June 30, 2005. 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. 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. DCM: Deputy County Manager. 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 922 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Glossary 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. 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. 923 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Glossary MFR (Managing for Results): A systemic approach to management decision-making, resource allocation, and accountability for results. It includes an integrated system of processes: Planning for Results, Budgeting for Results, Delivering Services and Collecting Data, Reporting Results, Evaluating Results, and Decision Making. MHP: Maricopa Health Plans. MHS: Maricopa Health System or Maricopa Health Delivery System. MIHS: Maricopa Integrated Health System. Mission: A clear, concise statement of purpose for the entire department. The mission focuses on the broad, yet distinct, results the department will achieve for its customers. MMC: Maricopa Medical Center. MOE: Maintenance of Effort. Maintaining funding of maintenance and operational expenditures, including detention personnel compensation, employee related expenses, utility expenses of the facility, costs of food and care of prisoners, administrative support costs and costs of maintaining and repairing the facility and grounds, at a level before the voter approved detention excise tax. Object Code: Identifies the balance sheet account (assets, liabilities, or fund equity), revenue source, or expenditure/expense type (e.g., cash, accounts payable, real property taxes, salaries and wages). OMB: Office of Management and Budget. Org: A level two budget under the budget org. This usually denotes a unit under the division. 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 and personnel allocations out/in. 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 the 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. 924 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Glossary Restatement: A budgetary transfer which provides for a specific increase for programs or expenditures in one department with a corresponding decrease in other programs and expenditures in another department for a net impact of zero (or less). Result Measure: A performance measure that measures the impact or benefit that customers experience as a consequence of receiving a department’s services, stated as a percentage or rate. Examples include percentage of job trainees who had jobs for six months or longer or percentage of building inspections completed within seventy-two hours. Results Initiative: A request for funding above the budget base to support a program, activity and strategic goal identified in the strategic planning process. Results initiatives address mandates, demands for service caused by demographic changes, new programs, or expansion of existing programs. Results initiatives must clearly relate to the department’s mission and be supported by relevant performance measures. Service: A service is the deliverable or product that the customer receives from a department. Services are described as nouns, not verbs, thus defining services in terms of what the customer receives rather than in terms of what the department does. Special Revenue Fund: A fund that accounts for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (other than major capital projects) that is legally restricted to specific purpose expenditures. Strategic Goal: A strategic goal translates resources into significant results to be achieved over the next two to five years, providing the basis for evaluating the department as a whole. Strategic Plan: A strategic plan sets forth the purpose, strategic goals, operational organization, and performance expectations for a department. The strategic plan provides information to department staff, corporate decision makers, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the public about how the department is organized to deliver results and what results the department is accountable for achieving. The plan provides the opportunity for all department staff to see how they contribute at all levels in the organization. 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. 925 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Glossary 926 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The Fiscal Year 2005-06 Maricopa County Annual Business Strategies was made possible with the help of many dedicated individuals. Most importantly, the Board of Supervisors and the County Manager 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 Manager, 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: LeeAnn Bohn, Christopher Bradley, Thomas Brandt, Frances Delgado, Neeraj Deshpande, Nadia Feeser, Daren Frank, Cindy Goelz, Brian Hushek, Kirk Jaeger, Lisa Johnson, Wendy Johnson, Marc Kuffner, Jack Patton, Scott Rothe, Jamie Rullo, Monica Staats, Don Tellis, Dexter Thomas, Maria Tutelman, Sharon Walker, Victor Wickersham, Sandi Wilson and Ryan Wimmer. We would also like to thank Derek Neighbors, David Hill, Duane Lee and Debbie Fisher 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 2005-06 Budget on June 20, 2005, and the corresponding tax rates on August 15, 2005, we start down the path of developing the FY 2006-07 Budget. 927 Maricopa County, Arizona FY 2005-06 Annual Business Strategies Acknowledgements 928