051815 FY 2016 TENTATIVE BUDGET PRESENTATION FINAL WITH NOTES.PDF

•The total county budget for FY 2016 will be $2,234,405,833
•This is a .6% increase ( $12.4 million) over the current revised budget.
•Operating Budget is increasing by (52.5)million
•Non-Recurring Budget is decreasing by 40.1 million
•While the property tax levy is increasing slightly, Maricopa County will be
$157.2 million below the maximum levy and still $21. million below the levy in
FY2011.
•We are recommending increasing operating contingency in the General Fund to
$8.4 million and increasing reserves to the 2 months of operating expenses in
both the general and detention funds.
1

The budget presentation will be broken up into various
parts. It will include:
•Budget Overview and Challenges
•Economic Development
•Property Taxes
•Revenue Trends
•Departmental Budget
•Detention Fund Departments
•General Fund Justice System Departments
•General Government & Health Care Programs
•Capital Improvement Program
•Conclusion and Achievements
2

3

• Donations - $5,000 (Small)
• Grants - $5.7 million
• IGAs - $0.8 million
TOTAL: $6.4 million Operational Adjustments
• Grants - $3.7 million
• IGAs - $0.5 million
TOTAL: $4.5 million Non-recurring Adjustments
GRAND TOTAL: $10.9 million
4

• The Total County Budget is increasing $12.4 million
• The total operating budget is increasing by $52.5 million or 2.5%;
• Public Safety changes include:
- 2 New IA courts
- Public Defense costs are rising over $8.2 Million
- Graves V. Arpaio costing over $2 million more between new staff and inmate transport
- $6.8 Million more related to Melendres
- County-wide almost $11 million more for retirement related costs in Public Safety plans
- Fixed Benefits County-wide are increasing about $11.4 million in the General and Detention funds
• Non-recurring or one-time expenditures are decreasing by $40.1 million.
This amount is largely attributed to the reductions in the General Fund. The Jail is included in the Budget but only
$10million is budgeted in FY 2016.
• In the General Fund, the increase is $59.1 million or 5.26%.
Most of the change is related to public safety with the largest item the almost $19 million transfer to the Detention fund
in addition to the $2.7 million change to the base level MOE
In addition, $6.2 million of the increase is for Public Safety Retirement benefits
The $8.2 million increase in Public Defense is borne by the General Fund as well as $2.7 million increase to outside
counsel and more than $300k for the County Attorney,
Fixed Benefits in the General Fund are increasing about $7.6 million
State mandated payments are going up $4 million
• There is decrease of $39.7 in the General Fund non recurring
These are primarily a reduction in one-time resources transferred to the Capital funds ($23M)as well as changes for
the elections cycle ($9m) and Non Recurring costs at MCSO for the Airplane ($5M)/helicopter ($850l)and Melendres
Body Cams ($4.2m).
These reductions were offset by an increase to contingency related to Melendres of over $4 million
5

1. State Shared Sales $492,019,045 22.02%
2. Property Taxes, Penalties and Interest $476,626,393 21.33%
3. Fund Balances $362,932,778 16.24%
4. Permits, Patient Revenue, Fees, Fines & Charges $261,241,655 11.69%
5. Other Intergovernmental & Grants $218,282,758 9.78%
6. State Shared Vehicle License Taxes $147,090,706 6.58%
7. Local Sales Tax (Jail Tax) $146,085,926 6.54%
8. Highway User Revenues $98,175,564 4.39%
9. Miscellaneous & Interest $31,951,008 1.43%
6

1. Public Safety $1,158,162,350 51.83%
Sheriff’s Office , County Attorney’s Office, Superior Court, Justice Courts,
Adult & Juvenile Probation & Public Defense Services
2. Health, Welfare & Sanitation $511,782,556 22.90%
Mandated Health Care, Public Health, CHS (Correctional Health Services),
Medical Examiner & Waste Resources & Recycling
3. General Government $365,288,603 16.35%
BOS, Assessor, Recorder, Elections, Treasurer, County Manager,
Human Resources, Finance, Procurement, OMB
4. Highways and Streets $155,189,161 6.95%
MCDOT
5. Education $31,078,876 1.39%
MCESA
6. Culture and Recreation $12,904,287 .58%
Parks & Recreation
7

Maricopa County is cost effective. Above is a list of County comparisons.
Population: Used 2013 Estimates
Maricopa, AZ $551 Population: 4,009,412
Salt Lake, UT $1,138 Population: 1,079,721
Pima, AZ $1,193 Population: 996,554
San Diego, CA $1,583 Population: 3,211,252
Multnomah, OR $1,715 Population: 766,135
Orange, CA $1,749 Population: 3,114,363
Clark, NC $2,151 Population: 2,027,868
Santa Clara, CA $2,644 Population: 1,862,041
Los Angeles, CA $2,709 Population: 10,017,068
8

9

Zero-based budgeting is an approach to planning and decision-making which
starts from a "zero base" and analyzes every function within an organization for
its needs and costs. Budgets are then built around what is needed for the
upcoming period, regardless of whether the budget is higher or lower than the
previous period. It differs from incremental budgeting during which departmental
managers generally justify only variances between their requested new year
budget and the previous year’s budget or forecasted spending. This incremental
approach is based on the assumption that the "baseline" is automatically
approved. Zero-based budgeting eliminates this assumption, and forces
departmental managers to justify expenses related to existing programs in the
same way that they would do so for new programs.
Zero-based budgeting is heavily dependent upon data. Workload volumes,
along with processing time and efforts, must be collected or estimated. Staffing
types and levels should be tied directly to the nature and volume of work
expected. In the government setting, particular attention is paid to services that
are mandated versus discretionary.
Traditionally, zero-based budgets are presented in discrete “decision packages.”
Typically, a decision package represents a program or inter-related set of
activities in which the department engages or wishes to engage. In Maricopa
County, decision packages could be based on programs, activities, services, or
10

even organizational unit (existing or proposed). A complete decision package
should concisely communicate what service(s) is being performed, who is
receiving the service, why the service is being delivered, the number of required
services to be delivered, and the cost of service delivery. Decision packages
should not combine “base” or minimally required service level efforts with
enhanced efforts when the two can be represented separately. For example, if
there is a desire to expand services to a new population, this should be reflected
in a decision package separate from the base service level package. Decision
packages also should not combine operating and one-time budget requests.
These should be submitted separately since they will likely be funded from
different sources. If interdependencies exist between decision packages, they
should be disclosed. Conversely, if a decision package is submitted that should
be considered as an alternative to a base service level, that should also be
disclosed.
How data is collected and then applied to develop cost estimates varies based
on the type of service provided. In some cases, a true “cost per unit of service”
is calculable and meaningful. In others where services are very unique, work
efforts or resources vary widely. In such instances it may be more meaningful to
determine an average level of service for a particular cost unit (e.g., average
number of cases per attorney). Time/motion studies, surveys, work logs, and
benchmarks from other jurisdictions are all useful sources of data for decision
packages.
10

11

12

The impact of Prop 117 occurs in this budget year
Passed by the voters in November, 2012
After 4 years of planning since it passed in 2012, Prop 117 is now in effect.
There will only be a primary valuation of property now. This resulted in reductions in the
Assessed Valuation for the Flood and Library Districts.
Flood’s Reduction: $257.3 billion in assessed valuation
Library’s Reduction: $377.0 billion in assessed valuation
The Assessor fielded many calls from cities and towns asking when the secondary value would
be available.
Also in this legislation is the cap on appreciation to 5% or actual, whichever is less. So even if a
rapid boom growth occurs, we will not see the expansion we did in the past.
This circumvents the economic recovery for property taxes by limiting the assessed
valuation growth to 5%, rather than the true market increases.
13

14

Rate change for PSPRS cost the County $4.9 million, mostly General Fund
Rate change for CORP cost the County $3.0 million, mostly Detention fund
PORP change cost the county $3 million (about $1.7 General fund $1.2
Detention fund $100k other funds) STATEWIDE PLAN
ASRS rate change resulted in savings county-wide of $660,800, of which
$384 thousand was saved in the General Fund, $66 thousand was saved in
the Detention Fund and $210 thousand was savings in special revenue
funds
ASRS-Arizona State Retirement System
PSPRS – Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
CORP – Corrections Officer Retirement Plan
EORP – Elected Officials Retirement Plan
PORP – Probation Officer Retirement Plan
15

Our total of unfunded liability is $616,138,644 without interest.
If we don’t pay down our liability, we will add $319 million in interest costs to the
PSPRS over the 22 years that it will take to fund to 100%, based on the current
estimate.
16

Originally, Maricopa County asked for 1/3 of a cent and received approval from
the legislature for 1/5 of a cent in sales taxes.
The Jail Excise Tax is a local tax approved by the voters in 1998 for use in
building and operating the adult and juvenile detention facilities and to lower the
inmate and juvenile populations. This sales-based tax is a 1/5 of a cent tax and
will expire in FY 2027. This tax has been most problematic this past year and is
still not meeting the budgeted level in FY 2015. Because of the slow growth in
this revenue stream, the detention fund cannot sustain structural balance
without assistance from the County’s General Fund. The budget for next year is
$146.1 million, which is a 3.4% growth, more than 2% points below the State-
shared Sales Tax. Staff will continue to keep a close eye on this revenue.
17

Revenue increasing at the Pollack Most Likely forecast for Jail Excise Tax and
MOE at Most Likely GDP Price Deflator
Expenditures increasing at 5% annually which is a general estimate based on
the growth pattern over the last 4 years.
(the average of the increases over the past 4 years has been 4.96%)
18

• In October 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
issued a Judgment Order in the Melendres v. Arpaio.
• The Judgment Order stated requirements which MCSO must follow in order to
comply with Courts ruling.
• In April 2014, the Judgment Order was amended to make the Court Monitor
responsible for Community Outreach rather than MCSO.
19

• Further increases in costs due to the Contempt of Court hearings or
expansions in the Monitor’s duties could occur over the summer.
Contingencies have been budgeted to be used, if necessary. ($4.3 million in
One-Time and $2.0 million in operating costs)
• The cost of legal defense is also increasing. Budgeted at $____ million for
next year, but may more due to Maricopa County being added as a party by
the Court of Appeals. This component is not in the cost estimate.
20

Executive Summary:
f) Any additional payments mandated through subsequent actions of the
Fifty-second Legislature may require the County to pursue any and all additional
sources of revenue, including monies of any countywide special taxing
jurisdiction, for which the Board of Supervisors sits as the Board of Directors, or
any special revenue fund within appointed, judicial, or elected offices.
21

22

The economic news has been improving ever so slowly; some indicators of
growth have improved, but caution is still warranted.
The first quarter of this fiscal year GDP was weak, but Pollack’s analysis is that
the causes were temporary, such as blizzards back east and the port strike
troubles on the west coast.
Locally, homeownership continues to be lack luster, falling steadily since 2005.
23

24

25

26

'15 Super Bowl visitors boosted tax revenue by double digits
Peter Corbett, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:18 p.m. MST May 7, 2015
Super Bowl visitors boosted spending in the Valley by double digits for
restaurants, bars and hotels
Ninety-five percent of the Valley's hotel rooms were filled on the eve of the
Super Bowl
The NFL sold roughly $90 million worth of tickets to the Super Bowl.
Combined sales tax revenue for January and February totaled $14 million in
roughly similar categories for restaurants, bars, hotels and retail in downtown
Phoenix, Westgate and Scottsdale. That was up 19.5 percent over the same
time a year ago.
The collaboration among Valley cities helped the Arizona Super Bowl Host
Committee achieve its goals of creating economic impact, worldwide exposure
and a lasting legacy for Arizona, said Jay Parry, committee president and CEO.
"Super Bowl was a phenomenal success for the region," she said, adding that its
success will create momentum for the coming mega-events of the College
Football Playoff National Championship in January and the NCAA Final Four
basketball games in 2017.
27

Phoenix Forward is a collaboration between the City of Phoenix, Arizona
Commerce Authority and Maricopa County and the Greater Phoenix Chamber of
Commerce
Focus on Business Retention and Expansion
Business Retention and Expansion
80% of new jobs come from the expansion of existing companies within the
community
Ongoing Activities:
Establish Industry Councils and Adopt Final Charters
Business Outreach for Retention and Expansion
Industry Intelligence
Regional Image Building
Policy and Advocacy
Training and Collaboration
28

We will schedule a presentation by Elliott D Pollack and Co. for later this
summer.
A summary recently provided indicates the items you see here, that confidence
is improving, unemployment is declining and the housing market is rebounding.
More consumer spending, more business investments are assisting the
economy.
29 29 29

30

As you can see, the levy was at its lowest in FY2014 ($409.8 million), but is
climbing again as the economy improves. Still we are $21 million below the levy
highpoint in FY10 and FY 11.
31

Year Primary Tax Bill Flood Library Combined County Tax Bill
FY 2005 $131.37 $23.31 $5.73 $160.41
FY 2006 $141.86 $26.06 $6.41 $174.33
FY 2007 $145.66 $25.49 $6.31 $177.45
FY 2008 $156.58 $29.28 $7.47 $193.33
FY 2009 $167.56 $30.01 $7.75 $205.31
FY 2010 $174.50 $26.36 $6.81 $207.66
FY 2011 $154.47 $22.16 $6.13 $182.75
FY 2012 $154.47 $22.16 $6.13 $182.75
FY 2013 $137.72 $19.76 $5.46 $162.94
FY 2014 $130.63 $14.21 $4.47 $149.32
FY 2015 $146.09 $16.65 $6.65 $169.39
FY 2016 $157.97 $18.48 $6.45 $182.90
32

The Arizona Constitution caps the growth on our property tax levy to 2% growth.
Going back to FY92, you can see that for the most of the last two decades,
Maricopa County has been at or close to the Max.
However, as the NAV declined, and the Board controlled the rates; there is now
a significant gap between the maximum and the proposed levy. In FY 2016, we
will be at $471m, or $157 below the cap.
This indicates that Maricopa county continues to do more with less.
33

34

Looking now at all General Fund Revenues, we see a similar picture.
- State-shared Sales Taxes
- Property Taxes
- State-shared Vehicle License Taxes
- IGAs
- Fines, Fees
- Licenses & Permits
- Misc
Still $21 million below our FY2007 high of $1.2 Billion, but clearly climbing out of
the hole we were in in FY 2013.
35

FY15 YTD thru April is $384,875,486, which is 6.3% above FY 2014 receipts
and just 1.3% ahead of the FY 2015 budget.
The FY 2015 Forecast, based on Pollack’s most recent Most Likely Scenario
5.9% above FY 2014 actual operating revenues.
FY 2016 Tentative budget is based on Pollack’s Most Likely Scenario of
$492,019,045, which is 5.7% or $26.7 Million above the current budget
(465,300,725).
36

FY15 YTD thru April is $111,322,907, which is 7.1% above FY 2014 receipts and
just 1.7% ahead of the FY 2015 budget.
The FY 2015 Forecast, based on Pollack’s most recent Most Likely Scenario is
$132,120,977, or 4.7% above FY 2014 actuals.
FY 2016 Tentative budget is also based on Pollack’s Most Likely Scenario of
$138,282,676, which is $5.4 million greater than the FY 2015 budget of
132,858,100 (4%).
37

FY15 YTD thru April is $114,552,105, which is 5.1% above FY 2014 receipts, but
1.2 percent below the FY 2015 budget.
This is an improvement over early in the year when we were 3% behind the
budget.
The FY 2015 Forecast, based on Pollack’s most recent Most Likely Scenario is
$139,316,149, or 4.8% above FY 2014 actuals.
FY 2016 Tentative budget is also based on Pollack’s Most Likely Scenario of
$146,085,926 or 3.4% = $4.8 million above the FY 2015 Budget.
38

Expenditures changes will be in the slides that follow.
Brian Hushek & Cindy Goelz will review the changes.
39

40

In the past, revenues outpaced expenditures providing the funding to build a
new jail facility.
More recently, expenditures are growing more rapidly than revenues, resulting in
a structural imbalance in the detention fund since FY 2014.
Fund balance has been used to make up the difference; however, with the
proposed construction of a new jail, these resources will no longer be available
to fill this gap.
Forecasts indicate the gap will widen
The forecast are based on a 5% increase in expenditures per year based on
recent average and assumes revenue increases based on Pollack Most likely jail
tax and MOE at most likely GDP
41

Caseload are increasing throughout Adult Probation.
There was a spike in the pretrial electronic monitoring during FY 2014 and
current caseload continues at that level.
Funding is recommended for additional equipment for this area.
42

Detention Fund Operating increase: 21.8% $5.978 Million
Includes:
Baseline Adjustments for
Allocation in from General Fund for Indirect cost allocation $4,125,456
Retirement contributions $649,467
Risk Management increase $36,614
Staff/Expenditure Increases for:
Prison Re-Entry 3 fte where caseloads grew 20% in FY 2014 and based on
department projections will have similar growth in FY 2015 (18%) 1:20 3 probation officers
Intensive Probation 7 fte ; Since the end of FY 2015 through March, caseload
increased by 145, 16%. Recommending that 6 po’s and a supervisor are added to address the
growth –1:15 6 probation officers and one supervisor
Drug Court 2 FTE Based on a staffing ratio of 1:40, the program currently has
capacity for 520. FY 2015 has had average of 617 cases; recommending that 2 staff be added
to address the increase in cases 2 probation officers
Pretrial Electronic Monitoring Device
Non recurring funding of $171,000 General for body armor, new staff start up and vehicle
computer mounts and $55,800 in detention for body armor and new staff start up
43

Current average daily population: 171;
Maricopa County has been doing a great job with innovative programs get kids
the services they need outside of costly detention settings like the County’s
Juvenile Detention Center as well as the AZ Juvenile Corrections Center. This
has kept our detention population low and has also kept the number of kids sent
to corrections low. Had the census of the corrections facility been used to
calculated the State Payment for the ADJC, we would have faired better.
Detained population and probation population decreasing.
Increased costs due to shift in focus on incarceration alternatives.
Implementation of new Arizona Code of Judicial Administration Code (Mandated
the use of uniform risk and needs assessments)
Increased concentration on dual wards (dependency and delinquent)
44

Picture is Detention Assembly area
Adjusted Personnel Savings from 6.43% to 9.28% (achieving
11.21%). This offset the community based alternatives program –
community based structured supervision and cognitive
programming and short term residential placement such as
shelter/respite E.H.R maintenance costs and change to retirement
rate.
45

This results in an increase in the Average Daily Population and the Average
Length of Stay
46

Retirement increasing by $2.9 million in the detention fund
Personnel Savings were adjusted -$5.5m
Adjustments were made based on the ZBB submission and FY 2015 trends for Overtime $2.5 million; Laundry/food
supplies $800K ; Lease $136K
Staffing changes in the Jails for the 4noted areas.
SIMS (Sheriff’s Information Management Services) Staffing
($119,698) 3.0 FTE
SIMS Division staff converts information from legal source documents and enters the information in to the
Jail Management Computer System (JMS) from initial booking until defendant is released from custody of
the Sheriff’s Office.
SIMS is responsible for the continuous updating in the JMS for each defendant’s judicial data throughout the
entire period of incarceration and for the dissemination of that information to the public and federal and local
criminal justice agencies. Handles telephone calls concerning inquiries on defendants and maintains staff of
telephone operators to respond to callers.
SIMS also process defendant transfers and transportations instructions within the JMS for court
appearances and the AZ Department of Corrections.
SIMS handles transactions and processing of inmate money deposits, money and property release and the
collection of bonds and fines.
47

Victim Notification Unit Staffing
($119,698) 3.0 FTE
Unit is responsible for notifying victims of their rights and the status of the defendant’s
case. They also provide victim education and escorting victims to court.
Sexually Violent Persons Unit Staffing
($39,899) 1.0 FTE
Unit is responsible for screening inmates to determine if they qualify as Sexually Violent
Persons and communicating this information to the County Attorney’s Office.
General Fund 2.0 FTE Unfunded Mandate ($170,432)
Additional staff needed to handle a shift in workload from the Department of
Public Safety associated with sexually violent person registration.
Criminal Intelligence Analysts
($254,011) 4.0 FTE
This staff is responsible for monitoring the phone system and the new web-based video
visitation in the jails.
Grant Shortfall
CES4 and CES5 $547,000
Grant Shortfall RISK and PSPRS $87,177
47

IVR is carryforward at $905K
Kitchen equipment is 300 K for food service trays/chuckwagons -- food delivery
carts---and tray dishwashers.
Laundry equipment $340K for Air compressors, sorting bins conveyors, rail and
lift system
48

Detention Fund highlights
Operating increase of 3.1%
Decrease in retirement contributions: (30,672)
Reduction in risk management: 445,121)
Increase for pharmaceutical costs: $2,350,000
Increase for Administration Costs: $150,000
Re - Allocation to Graves v. Arpaio: (193,973)
Graves v. Arpaio – 9.5 FTE total
3=====2.0 Physician Assistants (3.0 PA offset by deletion of 1.0 Physicians)
4.0 Mental Health Assistants
2.0 Registered Nurse
0.5 Radiological Technician
Contingency received in FY 2015: $1,129,426
Increase in medical transport: $999,034 --- half for do’s half for OT
Reallocation from Detention Fund Operating for positions $193,973
Mandates from the Fourth Amended Judgment have increased the need for mental
health visits. This will also lead to an increase in the infirmary and mental health inpatient units.
49

50

Baseline adjustment for increase in retirement of $4.3 Million
Shift of Melendres was reduction of just over $3.m
Change to Personnel Savings of more than $3.1M
Offset increases to OT of $1.9 million and other payroll related costs of about
$750K (8 hours/pay rate changes)
Plus costs for Grant shortfalls of 635K and IT/BroadBand $480K
51

Carryforward of 2 projects – Security System for Property/Evidence 248K and
records management for civil process of $676
52

Adult Probation is seeing increases in caseloads that typically remained
relatively stable. In the first 8 months of FY 2015, the Standard Probation
caseload increase over 3% and the growth the number of cases is anticipated to
rise
Largest General Fund increase. $898,078.
53

Operating increase:
Sex Offender: $255,091 == 4 fte == caseload ratio is 2 to 60; increasing about
5.5% based on current staff level need to add 2 teams to meet fy2015
projections ; 2 probation officers and 2 surveillance officers
Domestic Violence: $127,545 == 2 fte == caseload 2 to 60; increase average of
about 5%; 1 probation officer and one surveillance officer
Standard Probation: $898,078 == 12 fte 11 probation officers and one supervisor
General Fund Operating decrease: -3.5% $1,740,431
Includes: Increase in Retirement Rates $1.196,293
Increase for iPhone Service = $108k
Increase in cost on Communication Center = $90K
Annual Maintenance of Records Storage and Scanning = $15K
Sex Offender increase
Domestic Violence
Standard Probation
Allocation to General Fund for Indirect Cost Allocation $4.1 million
Risk Management
Non recurring funding of $171,000 General for body armor, new staff start up
54

and vehicle computer mounts and
54

Detained population and probation population decreasing.
Increased costs due to shift in focus on incarceration alternatives.
Implementation of new Arizona Code of Judicial Administration Code (Mandated
the use of uniform risk and needs assessments)
Increased concentration on dual wards (dependency and delinquent)
55

Picture: Probation Community Service
Baseline increases for increase to retirement of $536K
Personnel Savings adjustment reduced budget by $1.6m offset by
increases for SR Fund shortfalls of $488k and increase for
preplacement services – for detained youth awaiting placement
such as cognitive stills programming of $210K
Probation Caseload: The Juvenile Probation caseload is decreasing as the
department focuses resources on reducing recidivism. Further, the Department
is actively engaged in development of a more structured case plan geared
toward risk and need factors identified by the Arizona Youth Assessment
System. In addition, a new graduated response matrix is in development and
should be implemented in the next fiscal year. Both of these are expected to
reduce recidivism for youth
56

57

Changed personnel savings by over $1.6m from 4.23% to 6% achieving 6.88%
(37,527) Retirement Contributions
13,460 Increase in Risk management costs
521,069 Personnel Costs for IA Courts
35,000 X-Ray Service Contract
16,200 Supplies and Services for IA Courts
461,138 Parent Conference Reports
425,000 Interpreter Contract
Exp Rev
FY 2015 Revised Budget $ 81,477,438 $ 1,880,100
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $ 82,134,317 $ 1,880,100
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $ 81,897,616 $ 1,880,100
Percent Change from Baseline Amount -0.3% 0.0%
Change from Baseline to Recommended $(236,701)
58

$ 668,000 Disaster Recovery Equipment – servers/ load
balancers
$ 1,500,000 Courtroom Technology (For the Record Equipment)
30 courts
$ 1,899,500 Case Management System (ISIS) Integrated Case
Information System
$ 245,926 Start-up Costs for IA Courts – per FMD cost about
$122K to furnish each new courtroom
Electronic Courtrooms are the future for judges, lawyers and litigants in
Maricopa County. Each courtroom is equipped with cameras activated by
sensitive microphones, flat screen monitors for evidence display and touch
screen technology, among other tools. Proceedings in E-Courtrooms are
recorded. The audio/video technology creates a verbatim record without the use
of a court reporter.
59

General Fund operating increase of $289K primarily comprised of:
* Fill The Gap – Personal Services allocation to the General Fund of $191K
* 4.0 FTE Clerks for Superior Courts new IA courts $205K
General Fund Operating Exp
Rev
FY 2015 Revised Budget $32,410,682 $9,500,000
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $32,520,011 $9,500,000
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $32,809,080 $7,802,467
Percent Change from Baseline Amount 0.9%
-17.9%%
Threshold to Recommended Change $289,069 $
$(1,697,533)
The decline in revenue is partly attributed to they types of filings. There is a decline in the types of filings
where fees are charged. In addition, deferrals are also contributing to the decline in revenue.
FY 2015 General Fund Non Recurring Expenditures: $2,292,400 for RFR Project Carryforward. $1.5M in
contingency for use if needed once the RFR project is fully vetted. Plus funding for 4 staff for IA Court
$12K
60

Filings continue downward trend
26% reduction since 2008
All categories of cases down year-over-year except:
small claims and eviction actions
This contributes to the decline in revenue.
61

Base adjustments for ($10,964) Retirement Contributions
($3,542) Decrease Risk Management Charges
Revenue reduction ($1,026,969)
Exp Rev
FY 2015 Revised Budget $ 17,471,692 $ 14,538,738
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $ 17,485,322 $ 14,538,738
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $ 17,470,816 $ 12,511,769
Percent Change from Baseline Amount -0.1% -7.1%
Baseline to Recommended Change ($14,506)
62

This chart represents cases handled by the MCAO. Case data was provided by MCAO. Calendar
year 2015 data is Forecast. Forecast is an average of the previous seven years data.
The charts clearly indicates the positive impact of market increase for attorneys.
F/T Avg case
Year Submittals Filings Dispositions Prosec Vac % filled load
All Actives
200 55,240 39,168 40,483 257 13 94.94% 150.07
7/18/08
2009 52,287 36,165 38,782 231 5 97.84% 150.69
7/17/09
2010 50,587 34,271 35,519 246 18 92.68% 144.00
7/16/10
2011 51,079 34,451 37,247 236 19 91.95% 152.44
7/13/11
2012 50,417 33,329 32,999 250 26 89.60% 143.66
7/16/12
2013 50,907 33,986 30,574 257 11 95.72% 130.21
7/15/13
2014 50,343 34,724 35,025 286 16 94.41% 126.73
7/14/14
2015* 51,551 35,156 35,804 289 14 95.16% 128.31
5/4/15
63

2016** 55,060 35,156 35,804 289 14 95.16% 127.84 5/4/15
63

Request Over Baseline $2,185,324
18 one-time positions 1,458,992
26 new positions 1,225,019
Additional Work Day 258,181
Grant & Special Revenue Fund Moves 221,971
Various other Adjustments (51,556)
Various Supplies & Services Adjustments (927,284)
FY 2015 Revised to FY 2016 Tentative Adjustments:
ASRS Retirement Decrease (favorable) $(56,170)
Decrease ACR for Investigators $(111,739)
(Alternative Contribution Rate)
Decrease PSRSI $(24,083)
(Public Safety Retirement System for Investigators)
Decrease for 9 FTE’s shifted to F220 $ (774,662)
Decrease for 2 FTE’s shifted to F267 $ (196,727)
Decrease for 4 FTE’s shifted to F219 $ (221,972)
15 position reallocation: (1,193,361)
Risk Management Increase (unfavorable) $ 9,463
Increase Salary Savings (4.25% to 5.3%) $ (719,019)
Increase to Alloc In For FTE’s returned to F219 $ 221,972
General Fund Operating Summary
FY 2015 Revised Budget $84,358,029
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $84,377,666
FY 2016 Revised Baseline $84,330,959
FY 2016 Tentative Budget $84,690,053
FY15 Rev to FY16 Recomm $332,024
64

FY16 Baseline to FY 16 Recomm $312,387 (.37%)
64

Fiscal Year New Dependency Expenditures
Case Assignments
FY07 5,619 $10,655,478.70
FY08 6,369 $10,729,586.21
FY09 7,589 $12,639,829.51
FY10 7,177 $10,583,862.58
FY11 7,963 $10,968,709.02
FY12 10,415 $13,642,503.68
FY13 11,031 $15,789,130.50
FY14 13,148 $19,609,966.09
FY15 Proj 14,424 $24,357,416.00
FY16 Rec 17,365 $30,030,467.00
65

Fiscal Year Average Cases Expenditures
Open Monthly
FY10 112 $16,744,102.19
FY11 84 $16,098,257.53
FY12 79 $15,077,470.86
FY13 82 $15,479,792.11
FY14 84 $16,946,234.91
FY15 Proj 93 $18,067,781.00
FY16 Rec 102 $19,705,239.00
66

General Fund Operating
PDS – Total Operating Budget: Expenditures Revenue
FY 2015 Revised Budget $117,856,339 $ 56,961
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $117,941,560 $ 56,961
FY 2016 Tentative Budget $126,295,749 $ 38,332
Percent Change from Baseline Amount 7.0% -32.7%
Baseline to Tentative Variance $ 8,354,189 ($ 18,629)
Tentative Operating Expenditure Budget – Activities
-- Capital Trial $ 19,705,239 – ($1,540,773 above Baseline – Based on 8 More
Pending Cases)
-- Capital Post Conviction Relief 4,118,871 – ($454,410 above Baseline – Based on 3 More
Pending Cases)
-- Non-Capital Felony 42,304,181 – ($868,576 above Baseline – Based on 2%
Demand Growth)
-- Violation of Probation 2,184,467 – ($134,852 above Baseline – Based on 10%
Demand Growth)
-- Other Adult Criminal Activities 6,669,954 – ($5,688 below Baseline)
-- Indigent Rep. Support Services 1,904,549 – ($522,500 above Baseline – Based on 25%
Demand Growth)
-- Parental Dependency 15,808,535 – ($2,079,700 above Baseline – Based on 20%
Demand Growth)
-- Juvenile Guardian ad Litem 12,806,491 – ($1,836,678 above Baseline – Based on 20%
Demand Growth)
-- Child Dependency 1,880,332 – ($327,218 above Baseline – Based on 25%
Demand Growth)
-- Juvenile Delinquency 2,859,508 – ($20,191 above Baseline – Based on 2% Demand
67

Growth)
-- Juvenile Appeal 793,604 – ($55,337 above Baseline – Based on 5% Demand
Growth)
-- Other Juvenile Activities 415,765 – ($2,414 below Baseline)
-- Adult Guardian ad Litem 2,194,187 – ($252,846 above Baseline – Based on 13% Demand
Growth)
-- Mental Health 1,819,651 – ($85,327 above Baseline – Based on 3%
Demand Growth)
-- Probate Representation 515,476 – ($55,118 above Baseline – Based on 12% Demand
Growth)
-- Other Adult Civil Activities 391,074 – ($165 below Baseline)
-- Indirect Support Activities 7,291,721 – ($10,390 below Baseline)
-- General Overhead Activities 2,026,909 – ($139,638 above Baseline)
-- Information Technology Activities 605,235 – ($318 below Baseline)
TOTAL OPERATING: $126,295,749 – ($8,354,189 above Baseline)
PDS – Total Non Recurring Expenditure Budget:
FY 2015 Revised Budget $1,240,501
FY 2016 Baseline Budget 0
FY 2016 Tentative Budget $3,652,470
Percent Change from Baseline Amount 7.0%
Baseline to Tentative Variance $3,652,470
Tentative Non Recurring Expenditure Budget – Activities
-- Capital Post Conviction Relief $3,652,470 – (Focus on reducing backlog cases to zero by FY
2018)
67

68

Mandated payments to the state
SVP decreasing based on current trend of number of individuals and the rate
charged by the state.
69

Will be maximizing Special Revenue funds and fund balances to support
positions.
Funding provided from forest fees for a 3 –month continuation of the pilot. If an
agreement is reached on the goals/outcomes, funding is in contingency in the
Detention Fund to finish out FY 2016.$868L
Also funded marketing position with new year forest fees; MCESA to work with
finance to build cost in to service fees
New Research position – grant
New Garnishment position- General
New Tech Position - Fee fund
Continue 2 stem in SR funds and add 1 stem pd via SR fund
70

Signed budget agreement
$23,810,684 GF Operating Budget (0.1% Increase)
EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $23,747,839 $240,000
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $23,776,245 $240,000
FY 2016 Tentative Budget $23,810,684 $240,000
Percent Change from Baseline Amt .02% 0%
FY15 Revised to FY16 Recom increased $62,845
$-0-
FY16 Baseline to FY16 Recommended $ 34,439 $-0-
Increase Risk Management Charges $50,119
Decrease Retirement Contributions ($15,680)
Net Increase $34,439

Revenue remaining flat in the General Fund is based on a leveling out in the foreclosure market and the documents
that are required to be recorded.
Revenue Decrease in the Surcharge Fund is due to more documents being filed electronically.
Currently have 7 kiosks-Surprise-NW Library, Fountain Hills Library, Anthem-North Valley Library, White Tanks Branch
Library and Queen Creek Branch Library, adding this year Good year and Sun City, with an 8th in process at Paradise
Valley Library
-Partnership with Environmental Services and Air Quality-NW Regional Library.
-Three more Kiosks planned for FY 2016-Gila Bend, Wickenburg and another service departments now with forms on
the kiosks, (Air and Environmental depts.).
-Want to have 15 kiosks by 2017.
Signed budget agreement EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $2,157,950 $7,000,000
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $2,158,151 $7,000,000
FY 2016 Tentative Budget $2,158,549 $7,000,000
Percent Change from Baseline 0% 0%
FY15 Rev to FY16 Recom increase $599 $-0-
Baseline to recommended increase $398 $-0-
$2,158,549 GF Operating Budget (0% increase)
$3,792,689-Surcharge Expenditures Operating Budget
Non-Recurring IT Upgrades:
$1,698,269-1x Surcharge Budget (Fund Balance Forecasted at $2,753,527)
IT Hardware $666,000
IT Refresh $705,000
IT Supplies and Service $327,269
Seven kiosks: Surprise-NW Library, Fountain Hills Library, Anthem-North Valley Library, White Tanks Branch Library
and Queen Creek Branch Library, adding this year Goodyear and Sun City; with an eighth in process at Paradise Valley
Library.

On May 12, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell will unveil the product of a partnership with the
Maricopa County Environmental Service Department and the Air Quality Department. The event will take place at the
Northwest Regional Library, 16089 N. Bullard Avenue in Surprise, Arizona.
The partnership will allow Maricopa County residents to file documents with both the Environmental Service Department
and the Air Quality Department through the Recorder’s Digital Recording Kiosks. Documents able to be filed through the
Recording Kiosks include subcontractor registrations, dust permit cancellations and special event applications. A full list
of the services and locations is available at http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recorder/kiosk.aspx.
The collaboration builds upon the successful partnership between the Recorder’s Office and the Maricopa County
Library District, which placed the Digital Recording Kiosks in libraries throughout Maricopa County.
“Our Digital Recording Kiosks already offer unparalleled convenience to Maricopa County Residents,” Purcell said, “and
now as a result of this collaboration, the services provided through the kiosks will be even more extensive.” The first
Digital Recording Kiosk was introduced in 2010, allowing for the convenient recording of documents without traveling to
the Recorder’s Office in Phoenix or Mesa. Since then, seven additional kiosks have been placed in locations throughout
Maricopa County.
“This is a culmination of county agencies working together, being fiscally responsible and making it easier for our
residents to do business in Maricopa County,” said Clint Hickman, Maricopa County District 4 Supervisor.
“We are pleased to offer these services to Maricopa County residents and invite the public to join us for this special
event,” said Purcell. Mrs. Purcell will be joined at the event by Maricopa County District 4 Supervisor Clint Hickman,
Maricopa County Manager Tom Manos, Maricopa County Library District Director Cindy Kolaczynski, Environmental
Services Director Steven Goode, and Air Quality Director Phillip McNeely.
72

$4,329,156 is the FY 2016 budget for Primary and General Elections Cycle.
$7,205,119 Transfer from Non-Departmental General Fund into Fund 445.
FY 16 Decrease over FY 15 was $7,751,990.
Signed Budget Agreement EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $8,960,779 $1,844,910
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $8,965,192 $1,844,910
FY 2016 Tentative Budget $8,960,617 $1,853,410
Percent Change from Baseline Amt -0.1% 0.5%
FY15 Rev to FY16 Rec Change ($162) $8,500
FY16 Baseline to FY16 Recom Change ($4,575) $8,500
Decrease Risk Management Charges ($2,066)
Decrease Retirement Contributions ($2,509)
Increase Program Revenue $8,500
Carryforward Savings from FY15 Primary and General Elections $1,676,335 . Will be used to partially fund the
Presidential Preference

Signed budget agreement EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $5,002,464 $37,000
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $5,005,445 $37,000
FY 2016 Tentative Budget $5,000,623 $40,000
Percent Change from Baseline Amt -0.1% 8.1%
FY15 Rev to FY16 Reco Change ($1,841) $3,000
FY16 Baseline to FY16 Recom Change ($4,822) $3,000
Decrease Risk Management Charges ($1,357)
Decrease Retirement Benefits ($3,465)
$5,000,623 -GF Operating Budget (-0.1% Decrease)
$304,341-TIF Operating Budget (Fund Balance at $335,977)
Stats listed are from FY 2014 published report on Treasurer’s Website.
Juvenile Corrections State Cost Shift $7.2M

Hire additional staff.
Start countywide mass media marketing campaign focused on the benefits of dog licensing.
Additional kennel space.
Develop other satellite adoption sites.
Consider fee increases and a mandatory micro-chipping program.
New shelter for East valley needed.
Action Items / Strategies
Hire 6 additional veterinarians and technicians for clinic, 6 additional Animal/Kennel Care
Technicians, an additional Public Information Officer staff member, a Lost & Found Coordinator
to spend time searching for owners and taking action on lost and found reports, a grant writer to
serve the department, and a 2nd Volunteer Coordinator.
- Hire 6 additional veterinarians and technicians for clinic $901,890
- 4-in-1 (DHPP for dogs) and Bordetella at intake.
- Cost of Bortetella for East included in FY16 budget request already provided at West $17,680
- Adequate supplies for E-room.
- Booster vaccines for animals staying longer than 3 weeks.
- Additional shade, bedding, toys, treats, for day foster program at East. Kuranda beds/bedding
at West.
- (4) MS Surface Tablets compatible with Chameleon database. $7,800
- Hire 6 additional Animal/Kennel Care Technicians. $272,100
- Transfer of “long-timer” animals at East to West.
- Assign / Hire a Lost & Found Coordinator to spend time searching for owners and taking
action on lost and found reports.
- Invest in a $1M, one-year, countywide mass media marketing campaign focused on the
benefits of dog licensing.
- Hire a 2nd Volunteer Coordinator $56,600
75

- Hire one additional Public Information Officer staff member $80,000
- Licensing fee increase. Revenue
$686,349
- Breeder and stud licensing fee. Revenue
$137,263
- West shelter debt forgiveness for 3 to 5 years ($1,139,868)
- New shelter for East valley.
- Separate kennel space for new arrivals, puppies/kittens, animals recovering from surgery,
isolation and quarantine wards at East and West locations.
- Proper bathing / grooming station at the East shelter location.
- Increase the number of grant submittals and awards each year by hiring a grant writer to serve
the department. $75,000
- Develop other satellite adoption sites.
- Consider a mandatory micro-chipping program. $85,000
- Research the feasibility of establishing a 3rd party contractual agreement for the collection of
fines and fees.
- $500,000 in General Fund Contingency for Shelter Operations.
75

Issues:
Fund 100 – Operating
Additional Cyber Security Staff
$353,082
Fund 100 – Major Maintenance - Operating
Major Maintenance - Phoenix IO Maintenance
$34,100
Major Maintenance - CGI 3x Maintenance
$2,166,203
Major Maintenance - CGI 3x Connectivity
$38,810
Operating Budget
Fund 100 EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $10,689,517 $465,100
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $10,702,830 $465,100
Variance $13,313 $0
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $10,702,830 $465,100
Retirement Contributions ($12,343)
Decrease Services for Risk Management ($25,802)
Increase Risk Management Charges $25,802
Cyber Security Personnel $353,082
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $11,043,569 $465,100
Variance $340,739 $0
Operating Budget
Fund 100 – Major Maintenance EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $12,867,264 $0
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $13,827,264 $0
Variance $960,000 $0
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $13,827,264 $0
CGI 3x Maintenance $2,166,203
CGI 3x Connectivity $38,810

Phoenix IO Colocated Data Services $34,100
Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement ($1,089,579)
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $14,976,798 $0
Variance $1,149,534 $0
Operating Budget
Fund 255 EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $1,024,713 $0
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $1,027,470 $0
Variance $2,757 $0
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $1,027,470 $0
List Changes from Recon tables
Decrease Personnel Services Alloc In ($66,019)
Increase Supplies $18,300
Increase Services $6,733
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $986,484 $0
Variance ($40,986) $0
76

Issues:
Fund 100 – Non-Recurring
Advantage 2x Hosting
$1,153,944
VMWare
$1,382,000
Content Management System – Web
$1,250,000
Cyber Security eDiscovery Carryforward Request
$650,000
Cyber Security Request
$2,935,000
Major Maintenance – Enterprise Data Center Carryforward Request
$2,200,000
Major Maintenance – Enterprise Data Center Request
$2,406,700
Major Maintenance – Cyber Security
$185,149
Major Maintenance – Telephony
$565,000
Fund 255 – Non-Recurring
CHS Zone H Access Controls
$150,000
Non Recurring
Fund 100 – Non-Recurring Non-Project
Content Mgmt System Web – CMW1 $1,250,000
Advantage 2X Hosting Charges – CGI2 $1,153,944
Cyber Security – CYB1 $3,585,000

eDiscovery Carryforward
Tools and Software Services
VMWare – VMW1 $1,382,000
Non Recurring
Fund 100 – Major Maintenance Non-Recurring
Cyber Sec. Tools Major Main. – CYBS $185,149
Enterprise Data Center Systems – EDCS $4,606,700
EDCS Carryforward
EDCS Additional Request
Telephony Major Maintenance – ETPS $565,000
Total Fund 100 FY2016 Non Recurring $12,727,793 $0
Non Recurring
Fund 255
CHS Zone H Access Controls – 0001 $150,000
Total Fund 255 FY2016 Non Recurring $150,000 $0
77

Clockwise from top left.
Public Safety Radio Project (Humboldt
Mountain Radio Tower Being Installed)
8th Floor East Court Build Out for Courts Master
Plan
Chambers Building Remodel
Safety Edge Shoe Paving Demonstration for Low Volume Road Program Dust
Mitigation and Dirt Road Paving
78

Public Safety: $108,775,518 –4th Avenue Jail (Flat Cell Conversion & Cell Door Release), Intake
Transfer Release Jail, South Court Tower (litigation), Jail Management Information System,
CHS Electronic Health Records, Lower Buckeye Jail (Flat Cell Conversion & Cell Door
Release), East Court Improvements, Jail Security System Upgrade, Southwest Justice Courts,
Public Safety Radio System.
Highways & Streets: $94,370,570 - MCDOT Projects
Culture & Recreation: $727,424 - Park’s Trail System, Vulture Mountain Study
General Government: $73,466,236 - County Telephone System, Infrastructure Refresh,
Enterprise Data Center, BIX Room Study, Chambers Building Remodel, Computer Aided Mass
Appraisal System (CAMA), Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERPS)
Enterprise Data Center Project was reduced by $2,751,194 and was moved to Infrastructure
Refresh Phase 2 for remote sites.
The amounts on this slide represent the FY16– FY20 (5 year) cost
CHAMBERS BUILDING 2,127,591 – General Fund
COURT TOWER 911,412 – General Fund
EAST COURT IMPROVEMENTS 4,699,814– General Fund
MARICOPA REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM 1,202,052 – General Fund
SOUTHWEST JUSTICE COURTS 29,405,000 – General Fund
VULTURE MOUNTAIN 42,751– General Fund
WEST COURT IMPROVEMENTS 944,182 – General Fund
BIX ROOM BYTE INFO EXCHANGE 4,374,901 – General Fund
79

COMPUTER AIDED MASS APPRAISAL 20,274,493 – General Fund
COUNTY TELEPHONE SYSTEM 14,458,269 – General Fund
ENTERPRISE DATA CENTER 14,388,694 – General Fund
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYS 16,631,063 – General Fund
INFRASTRUCTURE REFRESH PHASE 1 1,393,288– General Fund
INFRASTRUCTURE REFRESH PHASE 2 17,544,011– General Fund
PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM 85,407,216 – General Fund
4TH AVENUE JAIL 1,201,805 – Detention Fund
INTAKE TRANSFER RELEASE PROJECT 185,000,000 – Detention Fund
LOWER BUCKEYE JAIL 1,296,001 – Detention Fund
CHS ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS 2,455,284 – Detention Fund
JAIL MGMT INFORMATION SYSTEM 1,229,637 – Detention Fund
JAIL SECURITY SYSTEM UPGRADE 4,591,960 – Detention Fund
79

Maricopa County has extremely low debt levels compared to the national benchmark average.
The County‟s low debt is the result of a conservative “pay-as-you-go” policy.
In FY 2014, the County‟s long-term debt was only $55 per person.
For this report Internal Audit uses the June 30, 2013 County long-term liability debt number on page 56 in the CAFR
($215,773,727) divided by Maricopa population (3,944,859) (found in the demographic and economic statistics
schedule of the CAFR) to arrive at $55 (54.6974).
FY 2013: $64
FY 2012: $84
FY 2011: $91
FY 2010: $85
FY 2009: $91
FY 2008: $96
FY 2007: $95
FY 2006: $69
FY 2005: $81
FY 2004: $86
FY 2003: $98
FY 2002: $157
80

East Court 8th Floor Build Out Budget $4,699,814.
Courts Master Plan
Low $210 million (accelerated savings potential)
Hi $239 million
Southwest Justice Courts Project will start in FY 2016. The project will consist
of the construction of a single story 60,000 square foot facility to house the
White Tank, Country Meadows, Agua Fria, and Maryvale Justice Courts, as well
as providing for a future precinct.
81

Intake Transfer Release FY 2016 Budget $10,000,000.
GIVE ME ALL YEARS
Courts Master Plan
Low $587 million (accelerated savings potential)
Hi $617 million
ITR: Will provide flexible open plan that serves short-term
needs of the intake process without additional transfers and
relocations that add time and cost to processing. In
addition, the facility serves the needs of pre-sentencing.
82

Projects with Estimates
AC&C - Animal Care & Control Southeast $19,258,000
AC&C - Animal Care & Control, West $6,311,000
APO - Adult Probation, Black Canyon Expansion $9,885,000
APO - Adult Probation, Northport $3,236,000
APO - Adult Probation, Southport $3,236,000
APO - Buckeye APO (Convert old FHC to APO Office) $1,067,000
EM - Emergency Operations Center $12,181,000
MC - Block 70 Parking Garage for Block 69 $48,872,000
MC - Block 69 Bldg to Replace Leases, AQ, PH, Env, P&D, CA, APO, McESA, Vital $181,137,000
MC - Durango Campus Drainage Solution $3,806,800
MC - Durango Campus FCI Corrections $13,621,571
MC - Extend Cooling Loop at Durango $4,774,464
MC - Plaza Demolition/Remodel/Redesign/First Ave Jail Demo $44,216,650
MCSO - APS Power to Buckeye Hills Range and Shoot House only $1,171,213
MCSO - MASH Unit Relocation Design & Construction $6,311,000
OET - Chambers Interior Remodel $1,273,723
OPS - Procurement Build out $1,822,748
Parks - 5-year CIP (2015-2019) $55,000,000
Parks - Vulture Mountain $14,000,000
SC - Demolition of Round Juvenile Court Building $276,000
SC - Video Court Relocation $35,000
SC - Courts Master Plan $152,700,186
MCSO - Jails Master Plan $432,000,000
MC - Network Architecture and Optimization $3,000,000
MC - Constituent Relationship Mgmt System $1,790,000
MC - Enterprise On-Base Document Mgmt $356,352
OET - 10-yr Equipment refresh needs 2019-2025 $195,226,269
MCSO - Avondale Substation $5,805,921
MCSO - Blue Point Substation $1,199,791
MCSO - SWAT K9 Kennels $1,096,496
MCSO - SWAT Major Crimes Building $4,776,704
COSC - Clerk of the Superior Court NW Regional Facility $260,219
SC - Superior Court Parking at Southeast Regional $104,690
JUV - Superior Court Parking at Southeast Juvenile $111,580
MCSO - Crime Lab at Durango $1,600,647
MCSO - Towers/Estrella Jail Work Furlough $142,109
Legal Defender Carpeting at Security Building $209,555
MC - Network Refresh - Remote Sites Phase II $5,722,252 83
MC - Network Refresh - Remote Sites Phase III $7 202 364

• A collaborative approach to strategic
planning and budgeting resulted in a
shared vision for the future of
Maricopa County.
• Continue to be fiscally prudent,
responsible stewards, by adding to
our reserves and responsibly funding
our mandates, primarily criminal
justice (51.19%).
• Cautious optimism will direct our
budgetary approach as we enter FY
84

2016.
84

85

86

87

88

Chase Ballpark
White Tank Library
Indian Bend Wash in Scottsdale
89

90

Picture is – New River Dam
FY 16 expenditure budget is $98,840,393
The five-year CIP is increase by $26 million from $40m to $66m from FY 2015 5-year plan
Secondary Property Tax Rate at truth in taxation is $0.1417. Rate: $0.1592
This has increased the Flood Control District Levy to $49,512,136 (collection of $48,917,990) in
FY 2016, an increase of $5,851,804 from FY 2015.
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) revenue totals $34,453,000 for cost-sharing with other
governmental entities on capital projects.
In FY 2016, the Flood Control District has budgeted operating revenue of $49.6 million, which is
$5.6m more than in Fiscal Year 2015.
Operating Budget
Fund 989 EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $0 $0
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $0 $0
91

Variance $0 $0
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $0 $0
List Changes from Recon tables 0% 0%
$0 $0
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $0 $0
Variance $0 $0
Non Recurring
Grants, Donations and IGA’s $345,000 $345,000
Total FY2016 Non Recurring $345,000 $345,000
Operating Budget
Fund 991 EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $32,495,393 $44,021,673
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $32,495,393 $44,021,673
Variance $0 $0
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $32,495,393 $44,021,673
Retirement Contributions ($13,029)
Other Base Adjustments ($41,742)
Internal Service Charges
Increase Risk Management $54,771
Program Revenue Decrease ($80,314)
Interest Revenue ($150,000)
Payments In Lieu of Taxes $33,570
Property Taxes $5,817,325
0% 12.8%
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $32,495,393 $49,642,254
Variance $0 $5,620,581
Non Recurring
Transfer to Capital Project Fund $34,195,616
Total FY2016 Non Recurring $34,195,616
91

Operating Budget
Fund 990 EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $40,000,000 $5,700,000
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $0 $0
Variance $0 $0
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $0 $0
Capital Improvement Program Adj $66,000,000 $34,453
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $66,000,000 $34,453
Non Recurring
Capital Improvement Program Adj $34,195,616
Total FY2016 Non Recurring $34,195,616
91

FY Rate FCD Levy Tax Bill
2005 $0.21 50.55 $23.31
2006 $0.21 62.733 $26.06
2007 $0.20 67.096 $25.49
2008 $0.15 70.423 $29.28
2009 $0.14 74.674 $30.01
2010 $0.14 74.996 $26.36
2011 $0.15 68.019 $22.16
2012 $0.18 62.401 $22.16
2013 $0.18 54.842 $19.76
2014 $0.14 39.843 $14.21
2015 $0.14 43.66 $16.65
2016 $0.16 49.512 $20.80
92

93

Photo is of Child Photographer.
The Library District revenue budget (all functions) for FY 2016 is $25,347,613 and expenditure budget for FY 2016 is $29,489,719.
The tax levy will decrease from $19,504,284 to $19,250,761 (collection of $19,019,752) in FY 2016. The tax rate will remain flat at $0.0556 per $100 of assessed value.
Secondary Property Tax Rate at truth in taxation is $0.0573. Flat Rate: $0.0556
The net assessed value is decreasing by $455,976,270 from FY 2015 to FY 2016
Digital circulation has increased by 34% from FY 15. The fund balance was reduced by $3,504,810 million in FY 2015.
State contribution for Department of Revenue of $4.2 million.
Operating Budget
Fund 244 EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $21,091,815 $20,900,722
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $21,091,271 $20,899,178
Variance ($544) ($1,544)
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $21,091,271 $20,899,178
Retirement Contributions ($5,727)
Other Base Adjustments ($384,648)
Internal Service Charges $9,249
Payments in Lieu of Taxes $57,894
Property Taxes ($189,033)
-1.8% -0.6%
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $20,710,145 $20,768,039
Variance ($381,126) ($131,139)
Non Recurring
Transfer to Capital Project Fund $248,803
State Contribution $4,200,000
Total FY2016 Non Recurring $4,448,803 $0
Operating Budget
Fund xxx EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $4,579,574 $4,579,574
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $4,579,574 $4,579,574
Variance $0 $0
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $4,579,574 $4,579,574
Retirement Contributions ($1,868)
Other Base Adjustments $1,868
0% 0%
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $4,579,574 $4,579,574
Variance $0 $0
Non Recurring
Non Recurring Fund Transfer $415,931
Total FY2016 Non Recurring $415,931 $0
Operating Budget
Fund 465 EXP REV
FY 2015 Revised Budget $0 $0
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $0 $0
Variance $0 $0
EXP REV
FY 2016 Baseline Budget $0 $0
FY 2016 Recommended Budget $0 $0
Variance $0 $0
Non Recurring
Transfer to Capital Project Fund $0 $664,734
Total FY2016 Non Recurring $0 $664,734
94

95

• Concrete repairs continue to be a major maintenance project for the Stadium District and they will
be moving into Phase V in FY16. There are no capital needs (other than Debt Service) for the
Stadium District in FY16.
• Car Rental Surcharge Increase of $24,417 (0.5%) in FY16 Budget.
• Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 in the amount of $25.14M (par value) with an interest rate of
2.28%. The District effectively bought down the debt, which allowed for a lower interest rate and
lower annual debt service payments. In FY 2014, the outstanding balance of the Bonds, was
$19,260,000. The District will pay $3.25M in principal in FY 2015, leaving a balance of $16M.
Operating Budget Exp Rev
FY 2014 Revised Budget 6,689,186 10,458,111
FY15 Baseline Budget 6,689,186 10,458,111
FY 2015 Tentative Budget 6,712,934 10,539,553
Percent Change from Baseline -0.4% 0.8%
Baseline to Recommended Change (23,748) 81,442
- (Increase in Expenditures is: Debt Service & Other Services of $1,245 in Fund 370 – Increase to
Structural Balance of $22,503 in Fund 250)
- (Increase in Revenue is: $22,503 in Fund 250; Increase $76,778 Other IGA and Decrease of $17,084 for
Misc. Revenue in Fund 253)
Non Recurring Non Project Budget 4,000,000 Concrete Repairs (On Issues List -
Funded)
Total Stadium District Budget 10,712,934 10,539,553
If Needed:
• In FY 2014, $1,539,921 of excess car rental surcharge revenue was remitted to the Arizona Sports
96

and Tourism Authority (AZSTA). As a result of the reduction in principal and interest payments, it is
expected that excess car rental surcharge revenue will continue to be available for remittance to
AZSTA in FY 2015 and 2016.
• In FY 2014, loans payable of $5,706,857 were paid in full to the Arizona Diamondbacks.
96

97

98

99

YTD thru April: Receipts $ $ 362,096,236 which is 6.6% above FY 2013
receipts and 2% ahead of FY 2014 Budget
FY 2014 Forecast based on Pollack most likely of $$443,783,567 or 6% above
FY 2013
FY 2015 Budget is base on Pollack most likely $466,300,725 less $1 million for
change to utilities in mfg for a total of $465,300,725 about 5% more
FY2015 Risk between pessimistic & most likely is $8 Million.
Through FY2018 it is $64.9 Million.
100

FY 2014 YTD through April is $ 103,925,310 or 7.7% above FY 2013 receipts
and is 6.3% ahead of YTD budget
FY 2014 Forecast is based on Pollack most likely of $125,920,104 or 6.5%
above FY 13
FY 2015 budget based on Pollack Most Likely of $132,858,100 or 5.5% above
FY 2014
FY2015 Risk between pessimistic & most likely is $3.6 Million.
Through FY2018 it is $25 Million.
101

FY 2014 actual through April is $ 109,020,960 or 7.8% above FY 2013
receipts; 2.5% ahead of YTD budget
FY 2014 forecast is Pollack most likely $133,210,387 or 6.9% more than FY
2013
FY 2015 budget also based off Pollack most likely $141,295,781 or 6.1%
greater than FY 2014 forecast
FY2015 Risk between pessimistic & most likely is $2.0 Million.
Through FY2018 it is $18.6 Million.
102

103

Caseload are increasing throughout Adult Probation.
The department statistics reflect YTD increases in
104

Largest General Fund increase. $898,078.
Standard Probation population in creased from 14,682 in 2013 to an expected
16,160 at the end of FY 2016.
105

106

Forecasted to have 2 benefit holidays in FY 2015. In FY 2015, the benefits
holidays were budgeted at $10.3 million
Forecasted to have 1 benefit holiday in FY 2016. In FY 2016, the benefits
holiday is estimated to be $5.7 million
107

General Fund Reserves:
FY 2010 $187,306,776
FY 2011 $162,000,000
FY 2012 $159,000,000
FY 2013 $ 94,700,000
FY 2014 $94,700,000
FY 2015 $154,396,285
FY 2016 $187,284,795
108

Here you can see that the tax bill on a median value home is essentially the
same as it was in FY 2011 and 12. And they are still lower than FY 08 thru FY
10.
Notice in the footnote that the median home value is the same for the county
and the districts. With Prop 117 allowing for only one NAV calculation.
109

Bookings continue to exceed releases year-to-date in the jail
110

Here you can see that the tax bill on a median value home is essentially the
same as it was in FY 2011 and 12. And they are still lower than FY 08 thru FY
10.
Notice in the footnote that the median home value is the same for the county
and the districts. With Prop 117 allowing for only one NAV calculation.
111

Year Primary Tax Bill
FY 2005 $131.37
FY 2006 $141.86
FY 2007 $145.66
FY 2008 $156.58
FY 2009 $167.56
FY 2010 $174.50
FY 2011 $154.47
FY 2012 $154.47
FY 2013 $137.72
FY 2014 $130.63
FY 2015 $146.09
FY 2016 $157.97
112

Maricopa County is cost effective. Above is a list of County comparisons.
Population: Used 2013 Estimates
Maricopa, AZ $551 Population: 4,009,412
Salt Lake, UT $1,138 Population: 1,079,721
Pima, AZ $1,193 Population: 996,554
San Diego, CA $1,583 Population: 3,211,252
Multnomah, OR $1,715 Population: 766,135
Orange, CA $1,749 Population: 3,114,363
Santa Clara, CA $2,644 Population: 1,862,041
Los Angeles, CA $2,709 Population: 10,017,068
113