Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget Book
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NAVAJO COUNTY ADOPTED BUDGET FY 2011-12 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 NAVAJO COUNTY DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD FY 2011-12 The Government Finance Officers Association of the United State and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Navajo County, Arizona, for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010. 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 is the second consecutive year that the Navajo County Finance Department has received this award. 4 NAVAJO COUNTY BUDGET RESOLUTION FY 2011-12 5 NAVAJO COUNTY ADOPTED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2011 - 2012 FY 2011-12 J.R. DeSpain Jerry Brownlow District 3 District 5 Jesse Thompson David Tenney Jonathan M. Nez District 2 District 4 District 1 James G. Jayne County Manager E.L. ―Dusty‖ Parsons Assistant County Manager BUDGET TEAM James Menlove, Finance Director Mary Springer, Deputy Finance Director Cris Parisot, Senior Accountant Bill Chaddick, Accountant Aaron Adams, Financial Analyst 6 NAVAJO COUNTY NAVAJO COUTNY DISTRICT MAP FY 2011-12 TABLE OF CONTENTS Prefix County Attorney 98 Distinguished Budget Presentation Award 3 County Constables 103 Budget Resolution 4 Facilities Management 106 County Supervisors 5 Information Technology 111 District Map 6 Judicial Department 115 Table of Contents 7 Superior Court 120 Letter to Citizens 9 Clerk of the Court 122 Justice Courts 126 Budget Summary Adult Probation 128 Budget Summary - General 15 Juvenile Probation 131 Policies that Guide the Budget 20 Juvenile Detention 133 Legal Defender 135 Fund Types 30 Library District 139 Analysis of Revenues 31 Public Defender 145 Analysis of Expenditures 34 Public Fiduciary 149 Department Expenditures by Function 36 Public Health Services District 154 Community Profile Public Works 164 Location and History 37 Engineering 168 Native American Populations 41 Fiscal/Contracts/GIS 170 Tourism 43 Fleet Operations 171 People and Land 45 Highways 172 Economy 47 Office Administration 175 Planning & Zoning 175 County Leadership Flood Control 179 Mission Statement 52 Code Enforcement 182 Vision Statement 52 Recorder/Voter Registration/Elections 186 Strategic Plan 53 Sheriff/Patrol 194 Long-Term Non-Financial Goals 55 Sheriff/Jail 203 Organization Chart 56 Superintendent of Schools 207 Elected Officials /Department Directors 57 Treasurer 211 Elected Officials Biographies 59 Workforce Investment Act 215 Department Profiles Capital Improvement Plan Administration/Board of Supervisors 72 Introduction 220 Public Works 222 Emergency Management 73 Flood Control 241 Grants Administration 74 County Bonds 251 Intergovernmental Affairs 75 Risk Management 76 Summary Financial Statements 255 Board of Supervisors 78 Tax Rates/Tax Levies 263 Finance : Accounting 80 County Personnel 267 Finance: Purchasing 83 Finance: Special Districts 86 Schedules A-F 275 Human Resources 88 Glossary 299 Assessor 93 8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LETTER TO CITIZENS 10 NAVAJO COUNTY LETTER TO CITIZENS FY 2011-12 July 26, 2011 Dear Citizens of Navajo County, Arizona Revised Statutes §11.705, §42-17101 — §42.17110 charges county boards of supervisors with the responsibility of passing a balanced budget each fiscal year. For fiscal year 2011-12, the Navajo County Board of Supervisors has adopted a balanced budget that reinforces our strategic priorities: Provide Excellent Customer Service Ensure Safe Communities Promote and Protect the Public Health of Our Citizens Organizational Health and Fiscal Responsibility Natural Resources and Cultural Preservation Regional Leadership As you read through this budget presentation, you will be able to see how each department has identified goals that directly contribute to meeting the strategic priorities mentioned above. Guidelines for Budget Development In developing the budget for fiscal year 2011-12, the Navajo County Board of Supervisors was faced with similar financial challenges as prior years during the economic downturn. In an effort to provide direction and guidance to elected officials and department directors the Board of Supervisors adopted the following guidelines: 1. Protect employees. a. No new non-grant funded employees. b. Hold positions open when possible. c. Utilize special revenue funds for personnel and other expenses when possible. d. No anniversary raises. e. Evaluation of the 2.5% salary reduction. 2. No non-grant departmental budget increases. 3. Budget for expected increases for employee related expenses. 4. Limited capital expenditures for vehicles and equipment. These guidelines are nearly identical to those that were adopted for the fiscal year 2010-11. The primary change to the budget guidelines came in the form of language added to clarify that budget increases and new positions are authorized if grant funding is obtained. Protecting employees and minimizing lay-offs was a deciding factor for the budget guidelines. To achieve this objective in addition to salary reductions and forgone raises, vacant positions have been held open whenever possible, and new positions may not be added unless they are funded by a grant. 11 NAVAJO COUNTY LETTER TO CITIZENS FY 2011-12 Maintaining the financial position of the general fund was another critical influence in the budget process. In this effort, non-grant department budget increases were not allowed, while increases in certain anticipated employee related expenditures have been accounted for in the budget. In addition, travel expenditures have been strictly limited and purchases of supplies and services have been reduced to the greatest extent possible. Finally, expenditures for capital equipment and vehicles have been restricted to emergency replacement purchases only. State Budget – Legislative Impacts to Navajo County The Governor‘s initial estimate of the State of Arizona fiscal year 2011-12 budget deficit was approximately $1.147 billion. The budget deficit consists of $39.9 million in lost revenues and balance adjustments; as well as an increase in expenditures of $1.107 billion. The solutions proposed at the state level included $18.8 million in impacts to cities, and according to the Arizona County Supervisors Association, $93 million to counties. Arizona County impacts were related to the following: Highway Users Revenue Fund (HURF) Shifts to Department of Public Safety (DPS) - The HURF revenues for Navajo County have decreased 18% from fiscal years 2007-2011. For Navajo County, the state‘s shift from HURF to DPS is estimated at $746,317, an increase of $275,000 over fiscal year 2010-11. The additional monies transferred from HURF to DPS in the 2012 budget will result in a reduction of the county‘s ability to provide services to the citizens of Navajo County. Navajo County HURF revenues are determined by a state formula largely based on fuel consumption, consequently higher fuel prices and more fuel efficient vehicles have resulted in lower HURF revenues in general over the last five years. Additionally, in the last 6 years (2007-2012) the DPS transfer from HURF has increased from 1% of total statewide revenues to 10%. The combination of reduced HURF revenues, a trend that is expected to continue, and increased diversion of HURF revenues to DPS has had and will continue to have a negative impact on the integrity and safety of our roads. Modernizations (including lane widening, adding lanes, shoulder improvements, and other improvements that require re-engineering the road pathway) are completely beyond current HURF funding levels. Additional transfers to DPS, or other state functions, will result in a further deterioration of the county‘s transportation infrastructure. On-going impacts from previous years: Requiring Counties to pay for 50% of the cost of Sexually Violent Prisoners (SVP) housed at the Arizona State Hospital (ASH) - Previously the county‘s responsibility required payment of 25% of the costs associated with treatment provided by the Arizona State Hospital for Violent Sex Offenders. For fiscal year 2011-12, the state has required Counties to pay 50% of the costs, at an estimated cost to Navajo County of $88,394. 12 NAVAJO COUNTY LETTER TO CITIZENS FY 2011-12 Payment for 100% of the Restoration to Competency (RTC) costs for applicable state prisoners - The estimated impact to Navajo County is $354,288. However, Navajo County has taken proactive steps to lessen this impact by entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Yavapai County to provide services to the state‘s RTC clients that resided within Navajo County. The IGA allows for quality care at a reduced cost to Navajo County. Reduction of State Share of Justice of the Peace (JP) Salaries - The State of Arizona permanently lowered the percentage it pays for JP salaries from 38.5% to 19.25%. This resulted in an increased cost to Navajo County of approximately $99,089. County Assistance Fund - Beginning in fiscal year 2009-10 the State County Assistance Fund began diverting revenues to pay for the State‘s debt service obligations. In fiscal year 2010-11 all distributions to counties were eliminated. This resulted in a permanent loss of $550,000 in general fund revenues. Increasing Costs Fiscal year 2011–12 also brought challenges due to increased costs. Increased contribution rates for employee retirement plans, a total estimated increase of $256,000. FY 11 Net Plan Name FY10 Rate Rate Change Elected Official Retirement Plan 17.42% 17.96% .54% Public Safety Retirement Plan 21.93% 24.50% 2.57% Corrections Officer Retirement Plan 6.02% 6.28% .26% AOC – CORP 11.64% 13.13% 1.49% Arizona State Retirement 9.60% 9.87% 0.27% Arizona State Retirement – LTD .25% .24% -0.01% Alternate Contribution Rates were adopted late in June 2011 by the Public Safety Retirement Plan and the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan. This will result in an increased cost of approximately $40,000. Indigent Health Care Costs Navajo County‘s contribution to the State of Arizona Long-Term Care System (ALTCS) increased by approximately $607,800 due to the elimination of the federal subsidy for the state‘s medicare program.