This report provides information about two public housing youth whose poster entries to the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), “What Home Means to Me” contest were selected as winners. A calendar of all the winning entries will be distributed to the Mayor and City Council.

THE ISSUE

A nationwide poster contest sponsored by the Housing America campaign and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) took place in summer 2009. Children associated with affordable housing and community development programs nationwide submitted posters based on the theme "What Home Means to Me." There were three age categories: Elementary (K to 5th grade), Middle School (6th to 8th grades), and High School (9th to 12th grades). Each state was able to enter three entries, one for each category. State winners would receive a $50 savings bond. The National Grand Prize winner would be awarded a $500 savings bond and their entry would be featured in the 2010 NAHRO Calendar. Other winners at the National level would receive a $100 savings bond and their poster would be included on the 2010 NAHRO Calendar.

During the month of July 2009, the Resident Services Division from the Housing Department purchased art supplies for children to use. Staff from the City of Phoenix Housing Resident Services and Human Services Department Family Self Sufficiency program visited the public housing sites Marcos De Niza, Luke Krohn, Sydney P. Osborn, and Foothills Village with art supplies allowing children who wanted to enter the contest an opportunity to draw their poster. A total of 48 posters were submitted from all four public housing sites.

All 48 posters displayed at the Arizona NAHRO Conference in August, and two were selected as winners at the state level. This gave the two state winners the right to compete at the national level where they also won. One entry was from the Middle School age category and the other was from the High School age category.

The national winner from the Middle School age category is David Avila who resides at Foothills Village. David lives with his mother, father and younger sister. He is currently a sixth grader attending Back to Basics Charter School. He attended the art event at the Parks and Recreation Department Foothills location.

Karen Guzman won the High School age category. Karen lives at Marcos De Niza with her mother and two older brothers. Karen is a Junior at Metro Tech High School and also attends Franklin High School. Karen drew her picture on her own time and submitted her poster to Resident Services so it could be entered into the contest. David and Karen’s entries represent July and August in the calendar.

OTHER INFORMATION

NAHRO is a professional membership organization comprised of 22,500 housing and community development agencies and officials throughout the United States who administer a variety of affordable housing and community development programs at the state and local level. NAHRO's mission is to create affordable housing and safe, viable communities that enhance the quality of life for all Americans, especially those of low- and moderate-income.

HOUSING IMPACT

It is an honor to have two City of Phoenix Housing residents get national recognition from NAHRO. The children each won a $150 savings bond along with their entries being published in the 2010 NAHRO calendar.

RECOMMENDATION

This report is for information only. No Council action is required.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
POLICY AGENDA
TO:	Ed Zuercher Assistant City Manager	AGENDA DATE:		February 2, 2010
FROM:	Cathleen Gleason Budget and Research Director	ITEM:	4
SUBJECT:	2009-10 AND 2010-11 TRIAL BUDGET

This report provides proposed actions, including program and service cuts, to balance the City’s General Fund budget. The total deficit for 2009-10 and 2010-11 combined is $241.4 million. Several initiatives are proposed to reduce the amount of program and service cuts to $139.2 million. At this level of service cuts, 1,310.4 General Fund positions are proposed for elimination. Up to an additional 62.0 positions are proposed for reduction from special revenue and enterprise-funded departments. Another 7.0 positions are proposed for elimination due to department consolidations. In total, 1,379.4 positions are proposed for elimination.

THE ISSUE

Last year at this time, economists were predicting that the recession would end last summer or early fall, and that local economic conditions would see marked improvement this fiscal year in part due to the federal stimulus program. As we finished last fiscal year, it was apparent that revenue collections were not going to be enough to fund current operations this year.

Even though we cut General Fund programs and services by $156.0 million last year, the recession has been deeper and lasted longer than any recession experienced in recent times. In order to balance our expenditures with expected revenue in the current year, we must make mid-year cuts again this year. In addition, by making cuts now, we can spread the cuts over fifteen months rather than twelve, resulting in fewer cuts to programs and services.

Since 2002-03, we have made program and service cuts of almost $350 million from our General Fund budget. Departments worked very hard during our technical budget process last fall to find alternative funding and to look for efficiencies wherever possible. This resulted in savings of more than $35 million. Without these efforts, we would be making cuts of more than $175 million to programs and services.

The proposed cuts in this year’s Trial Budget are extremely difficult. Our residents will all be impacted by one or more of these reductions. For the first time, it is necessary to propose reductions of filled police officer and firefighter positions.

It is important to note that these reductions assume no change to current state-shared revenue formulas. The amount of state-shared sales and income tax we have received has gone down significantly over the past two years, and income tax will go down again next year by almost $50 million using existing formulas. This budget proposal accounts for this loss.

GENERAL FUND BUDGET DEFICIT

City and state-shared sales taxes make up about one-half of the General Fund budget. Our revised revenue forecasts indicate city sales tax collections will decline for the third year in a row in 2009-10, and only improve slightly in 2010-11. When added with the declines in state-shared sales and income tax, total General Fund revenues for 2010-11 are expected to be less than what was collected in 2005-06, and city sales tax collections will be less than what was collected in 2004-05.

In early November, non-public safety departments were asked to submit proposed budget reductions of 30 percent. Public Safety departments (Police, Fire, Court, Prosecutor and Public Defender) were asked to provide proposed reductions of 15 percent. The hiring freeze that began in January 2008 has not been lifted and only critical positions have been filled. Excluding sworn positions, we currently have 885 full-time vacancies in all funds. Of those 885 vacancies, 431 are in the General Fund. Our estimated expenditures for this year already account for the savings generated by these vacancies.

Many of the positions proposed for reduction are currently vacant, but about two-thirds are filled. A large number of the remaining vacancies are technical in nature and will likely not be a good fit for many of our displaced employees. Human Resources will work very hard to place employees, but we expect significant layoffs.

A comprehensive review of department expenditure estimates for the remainder of this year and next year was completed in December. After updating our revenue estimates, a budget deficit of $244.7 million was projected for the combined 2009-10 and 2010-11 fiscal years. However, information normally received during January on in-lieu property tax transfers and central service costs paid by the enterprise funds has since become available. This additional information resulted in reducing the deficit to $241.4 million.

DEFICIT REDUCING FINANCIAL INITIATIVES

Working closely with the Finance Department, we developed a number of financial transactions that total $90.9 million. These transactions include debt-restructuring, lease-purchase financing of critical fleet equipment, using property tax to pay for involuntary torts and claims as allowed by state law, and severely curtailing any pay-as-you-go capital improvements. These actions reduce the amount of program and service cuts required to balance the budget. While these actions help reduce the deficit this year, many of them mean that we are still spending more money than we are taking in. This will have to be addressed in future budgets.

In addition to these financial transactions, the City Manager determined that, for the second year in a row, executives and middle managers would receive no merit or longevity pay next fiscal year. This resulted in salary cuts of almost $1.3 million in the General Fund.

The financial transactions and other initiatives total $92.2 million, reducing the $241.4 million deficit to $149.2 million.

INNOVATION AND EFFICIENCY TASK FORCE

The City Manager’s Innovation and Efficiency Task Force has been charged with finding $10 million in savings for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 fiscal years, and began its work this month. This task force will look at process improvements, revenue enhancements, right sourcing and service cuts and department/function consolidations. Some very early consolidation decisions are recommended as part of this proposal, resulting in savings of $200,000. Using this $10 million as a placeholder for savings, the final deficit requiring cuts to programs and services becomes $139.2 million.

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED DEPARTMENT REDUCTIONS

As in past years, we prepared this budget-balancing proposal with the understanding that Public Safety is both the community and the City Council’s number one priority. Unfortunately, after years of making budget cuts and avoiding any layoffs of sworn employees, the revenue shortfalls are just too large to avoid cutting filled sworn positions this year. The overall reductions proposed for the Public Safety Departments, including “credits” for efficiency and alternative funding solutions, range from 11.0% to 14.1%. Proposed reductions for all other departments range from 15% to more than 30%. Before this budget balancing proposal, the Public Safety Departments were 70.1% of the General Fund operating budget (excluding contingency). After these reductions, the Public Safety Departments will have grown to 71.4% of the General Fund.

Over the years, departments have made significant cuts in administrative functions, and staff departments like Finance, Human Resources, City Auditor and Budget and Research have taken severe reductions in staff. Many departments have fewer staff even before these cuts than they had twenty years ago. As a result of that, last year, we were forced to make significant reductions to services that our residents rely on. The proposed reductions in this report will have a significant impact on the way our city looks and operates. Many programs and services will be eliminated or severely cut back. While all of these programs and services are important, we no longer have the revenue to continue them all at current levels.

Finally, we recommend eliminating the authorized, but unfunded sworn positions in the Police and Fire Departments. With the new economic reality we find ourselves in, there is little likelihood that funding for these positions will be available for several years. The positions recommended for elimination include positions held vacant as part of last year’s budget reductions, as well as positions eliminated to balance this year’s budget. We know that when our economic picture improves, restoring sworn police and fire positions will be a high priority.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NON-GENERAL FUNDS

We are also making recommendations for non-General Fund reductions. The Development Services Department’s workload continues to be severely depressed, so several New Construction inspectors are proposed for reduction. Both Transit and the Convention Center’s sales tax revenues continue to experience significant declines, so we are proposing reductions in both bus and light rail services in Transit, and staffing reductions and other service reductions in the Convention Center.

In Solid Waste, reductions are proposed in order to eliminate the need for a monthly fee increase. The proposal includes reducing bulk trash pick-ups from four per year to three. In order to restore proposed reductions, the Solid Waste fee would need to be increased by $0.50 per month.

In order to comply with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s new permit requirements for the City’s municipal storm sewer system, we are proposing a fee increase from $0.20 to $0.70 per month beginning in September to support the needed staff and equipment.

DEDICATED PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDS

As we have shared in previous reports, the sales tax funds that are dedicated to public safety are also experiencing significant declines in revenue. Several of these funds spent more money than was available last fiscal year and are expected to do so again this year. The revenue coming in continues to be less than necessary to pay for the filled positions at current costs. We estimate that these funds will have spent $48.2 million more than the revenue they have received by the end of fiscal year 2010-11.

Vacancies have not been filled in these funds for several months in order to reduce costs. Last fiscal year, based on then current revenue forecasts, we had hoped these funds would get back into balance through attrition and holding positions vacant. Since revenue and expenditure estimates were refined in the fall, it has become apparent that attrition will not be enough to balance these funds.

Since balancing the General Fund is our first priority this year, and doing so may result in layoffs to sworn positions, we plan to address the shortfall in these funds early next fiscal year when we have a clearer picture on labor costs and revenues. We also propose that any authorized but vacant positions in these funds above the number originally contemplated in their respective ballot items be eliminated.

FURTHER REDUCTIONS IF STATE-SHARED REVENUES ARE REDUCED

It is important to repeat that this budget-balancing proposal assumes no change to current state-shared revenue formulas. These revenues are shared with cities and towns as a result of three separate voter-initiatives approved by Arizona voters since the 1940s.

If state-shared revenues are reduced beyond the reductions already occurring due to the poor economy, the impact to the community will be extremely severe. If further reductions are required, we will have to recommend additional closures of community centers, libraries, and senior centers in addition to further cuts in filled public safety positions.

RETIREMENT INCENTIVES AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

As described at the January 12 Work Study meeting, we are proposing a 40 percent reduction in the severance formula the City has used over the last several reduction-in-force processes. In our targeted program, incentives are only offered to those employees already eligible to retire and whose retirement will save a layoff. In order to control the cost of the program, we do not offer retirement incentives to everyone willing to retire, as many other governments have done. The General Fund cost of the retirement incentive program will also be capped at $3 million. In addition, for employees offered an incentive that work in an enterprise or special revenue department, those funds will pay the incentive, not the General Fund.

We are also recommending that voluntary and involuntary severance payments be offered to full-time and part-time employees separating employment. Since these employees will not have a pension check to rely on, we are not recommending a 40 percent reduction in the formula or a cap, but we are recommending a 20 percent reduction in the formula.

NEXT STEPS

After our review of this budget-balancing proposal with the Mayor and City Council, a tabloid summarizing the proposal will be made available to the public. As a money-saving measure, this tabloid will not be published as an insert in local newspapers again this year, but rather will be available electronically on the City’s website. For those that do not have internet access, we will make copies available at all senior centers and libraries. As always, hard copies will be available at all community budget hearings in both English and Spanish. We will publicize where to find the electronic version in the Arizona Republic and La Voz.

Next, a series of community budget hearings will be held beginning February 10 and running through February 24. A schedule of those hearings is contained in this packet. As is our practice, we will take careful notes of the comments made at each hearing and will transmit them each week in the Council packet.

We will return to the Mayor and Council on March 2 with a final recommendation to balance the budget. Program and service reductions will be effective April 5. The formal, legal steps required to adopt the budget and the property tax levy will occur in June and July as required by State law and City Charter.

CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED

Council approval is requested for the reduction to the retirement incentive and severance payment formulas. Council action is also requested to eliminate authorized but unfunded sworn Police and Fire positions in the General Fund and the Public Safety Funds.

ATTACHMENTS

Schedule 1: Proposed General Fund Budget Reductions by Department (white)

Schedule 2: Proposed Non-General Fund Budget Reductions by Department (blue)

Schedule 3: Proposed Full-time Position Reductions by Employee Category (yellow)

Schedule 4: Proposed General Fund New Capital Facility Costs (pink)

Schedule 5: Proposed Non-General Fund New Capital Facility Costs (goldenrod)

Schedule 6: Proposed Non-General Fund Budget Additions (green)

Schedule 7: Proposed Department / Function Consolidations (tan)

Schedule 8: Schedule of Community Budget Hearings (gray)

Table of Contents

2009-10 AND 2010-11

BUDGET REDUCTIONS

SCHEDULE 1

Summary - Proposed General Fund 2009-10 and 2010-11 Budget

Reductions By Department....................................................................................................... 1

Detail – Proposed General Fund Budget Reductions by Department

Budget and Research................................................................................................................. 2

City Auditor................................................................................................................................... 2

City Clerk...................................................................................................................................... 3

City Council.................................................................................................................................. 5

City Manager’s Office.................................................................................................................. 6

Community and Economic Development.................................................................................. 7

Development Services................................................................................................................ 8

Engineering and Architectural Services.................................................................................... 8

Environmental Programs............................................................................................................ 9

Equal Opportunity........................................................................................................................ 9

Finance........................................................................................................................................ 11

Fire............................................................................................................................................... 15

Government Relations................................................................................................................ 18

Historic Preservation.................................................................................................................. 19

Human Resources...................................................................................................................... 20

Human Services......................................................................................................................... 22

Information Technology Services.............................................................................................. 25

International and Phoenix Sister Cities.................................................................................... 27

Law – Civil................................................................................................................................... 27

Law – City Prosecutor................................................................................................................ 29

Library.......................................................................................................................................... 31

Mayor........................................................................................................................................... 33

Municipal Court........................................................................................................................... 33

Neighborhood Services............................................................................................................. 35

Office of Arts and Culture........................................................................................................... 37

Parks and Recreation................................................................................................................ 38

Phoenix Convention Center – General Fund Garages........................................................... 55

Planning....................................................................................................................................... 56

Police........................................................................................................................................... 58

Public Defender.......................................................................................................................... 64

Public Information....................................................................................................................... 65

Public Transit.............................................................................................................................. 67

Public Works............................................................................................................................... 70

Street Transportation................................................................................................................. 72

SCHEDULE 2

Proposed Non-General Fund Budget Reductions By Department

Community and Economic Development – Grant Funds....................................................... 83

Fire – Development Services Funds........................................................................................ 83

Human Services – Grant Funds................................................................................................ 83

Parks and Recreation – Grant Funds....................................................................................... 84

Phoenix Convention Center....................................................................................................... 84

Police – Public Safety Enhancement Funds........................................................................... 85

Public Transit – T2000 Funds................................................................................................... 86

Public Transit; Light Rail – T2000 Funds................................................................................. 87

Solid Waste................................................................................................................................. 88

Water........................................................................................................................................... 90

SCHEDULE 3

Proposed Full-Time Position Reductions By Employee Category

Civilian Employees..................................................................................................................... 92

Police – Sworn............................................................................................................................ 92

Fire – Sworn................................................................................................................................ 92

SCHEDULE 4

Proposed General Fund New Capital Facility Costs

Fire............................................................................................................................................... 93

Library.......................................................................................................................................... 93

Parks and Recreation................................................................................................................ 93

SCHEDULE 5

Proposed Non-General Fund New Capital Facility Costs

Parks and Recreation – PPPI Funds....................................................................................... 94

Public Transit (T2000 Funds).................................................................................................... 94

Wastewater................................................................................................................................. 95

Water........................................................................................................................................... 96

SCHEDULE 6

Proposed Non-General Fund Budget Additions

Storm Water Management Program........................................................................................ 97

SCHEDULE 7

Proposed Department/Function Consolidations

Phase I......................................................................................................................................... 98

Phase II........................................................................................................................................ 99

SCHEDULE 8

Schedule of Community Budget Hearings.............................................................................. 100

SCHEDULE 1 - SUMMARY

PROPOSED GENERAL FUND 2009-10 AND 2010-11

BUDGET REDUCTIONS BY DEPARTMENT

(IN THOUSANDS)

Department Name	"Credit" for Efficiency Savings	Proposed Reduction %	Proposed Reduction $	Total "Credit" and Proposed Reductions %	Proposed Position Reductions (FTEs)
City Auditor	-21.1%	21.3%	$571	0.2%	6.0
Municipal Court	-4.0%	15.0%	4,972	11.0%	57.0
Public Defender	0.7%	10.4%	504	11.1%	-
City Prosecutor	3.8%	10.2%	1,875	14.1%	17.0
Police	2.3%	11.7%	53,515	14.1%	409.0
Fire	3.5%	10.6%	25,814	14.1%	175.3
Parks and Recreation	-3.1%	18.2%	17,183	15.1%	298.5
Finance	3.4%	11.9%	2,624	15.3%	24.0
Government Relations	0.1%	17.0%	247	17.1%	-
Phoenix Convention Center - Garages	4.0%	14.2%	236	18.2%	-
Budget and Research	14.9%	5.0%	163	20.0%	2.0

Planning	1.7%	18.7%	$1,143	20.3%	10.0
Equal Opportunity	3.8%	16.8%	470	20.6%	4.0
Public Transit	-	21.1%	4,128	21.1%	4.0
Library	2.4%	19.0%	6,857	21.4%	73.5
City Clerk and Elections	6.6%	15.8%	871	22.5%	11.3
Human Resources	14.6%	8.5%	1,017	23.1%	5.0
Public Information	3.2%	20.5%	584	23.7%	5.5
Office of Arts and Culture	0.5%	24.1%	243	24.6%	1.0

Public Works	20.4%	5.1%	$1,102	25.4%	16.0
Family Advocacy Center	27.0%	-	-	27.0%	-
Street Transportation	10.6%	16.5%	4,272	27.1%	51.0
Environmental Programs	18.1%	9.3%	113	27.4%	1.0
Historic Preservation	-1.9%	30.0%	189	28.1%	1.0
Law	4.4%	23.8%	712	28.2%	5.0
City Council	4.1%	24.2%	1,039	28.4%	13.0
Community & Economic Development	17.4%	11.7%	639	29.0%	4.0
Neighborhood Services	23.3%	5.8%	771	29.1%	6.0
Human Services	11.1%	18.4%	4,555	29.4%	65.3
Information Technology	9.1%	20.9%	1,124	30.0%	17.0
Engineering & Architectural Services	-	30.0%	111	30.0%	17.0
International & Sister Cities	5.3%	24.7%	136	30.0%	1.0
Education and Youth	30.0%	-	-	30.0%	-
Development Services ^1/	-	-	151	-	1.0
Mayor	5.2%	24.8%	522	30.0%	2.0

City Manager's Office	3.4%	29.1%	$720	32.5%	7.0

Total			139,173		1,310.4


^{1/ This} proposal also includes cutting the one General Funded position in Development Services.

SCHEDULE 1 – DETAIL

PROPOSED GENERAL FUND

BUDGET REDUCTIONS BY DEPARTMENT

	Department	2009-10	2010-11	Total
	Budget and Research
1.	Eliminate two Budget Analyst II positions. These positions are responsible for highly complex financial analysis and other budgetary reporting functions. Eliminating these positions will threaten the department’s ability to meet State and City legal requirements for budget adoption and reporting.	$--- (1.0)	$(163,000) (1.0)	$(163,000) (2.0)

	Total	$--- (1.0)	$(163,000) (1.0)	$(163,000) (2.0)


	City Auditor
1.	Eliminate one of four audit teams. This will eliminate a Deputy City Auditor, four Internal Auditors, and a Secretary III position. The audit team reviews rate and fee models, evaluates programs, and tests financial and computer systems. Elimination of these positions will reduce output by 28 major audits annually, thereby increasing the risk of exposing City assets to fraud, waste, and abuse. This will result in a 30% decrease in auditing services available to General Fund departments.	$(128,000) (6.0)	$(443,000) ---	$(571,000) (6.0)

	Total	$(128,000) (6.0)	$(443,000)	$(571,000) (6.0)

	Department	2009-10	2010-11	Total

City Clerk
1.	Reduce staff support for preparing budgets, EO/AA plans, and the monitoring of software maintenance agreements that support electronic mail, anti-spam, anti-virus, and wireless handheld devices. This will result in delays developing and monitoring EO/AA plans, preparing annual budgets, and processing work order charges. This reduction will decrease the City’s ability to provide uninterrupted compliance with software licensing requirements and will delay creation of email accounts for employees.	$(15,000) (1.0)	$(61,000)	$(76,000) (1.0)

2.	Eliminate a User Technology Specialist position in the Office Systems Division responsible for supervising the Technology Helpdesk and managing Service Level Agreements with 14 City departments. This reduction will result in significantly diminished assistance with new technology initiatives, delays in responding to requests for technical assistance, and reduced support for staff training.	(17,000) (1.0)	(66,000)	(83,000) (1.0)

3.	Eliminate a Desktop Publisher and Offset Press Operator responsible for designing, estimating job costs, and producing printed materials for client departments. This will result in longer turnaround times and diminished product quality.	(20,000) (2.0)	(82,000)	(102,000) (2.0)

	Department	2009-10	2010-11	Total
4.	Eliminate Elections/Annexation Specialist positions and related contract security services. This reduction will likely extend the time to complete early ballot processing from three days to up to a week following the election. It will also decrease staff’s ability to plan and implement Voting Centers, manage the emergency operations hotline, and maintain quality control standards for election materials printed and mailed to voters. In addition, it will result delays in processing annexation requests.	(54,000) (2.3)	(201,000)	(255,000) (2.3)

5.	Eliminate one of five Senior User Technology Specialist positions. This reduction will increase high priority response time for technical support by 20% and lower priority requests will be delayed up to two business days resulting in longer computer down-time for staff.	(15,000) (1.0)	(64,000)	(79,000) (1.0)

6.	Eliminate two of seven Mail Services Worker positions. This reduction will eliminate one of four mail routes, resulting in the delivery and pick-up of external and interoffice mail being reduced from twice daily to once daily.	(19,000) (2.0)	(77,000)	(96,000) (2.0)

7.	Eliminate a Council Reporter Coordinator position responsible for supervising the recording of formal City Council meetings, and scheduling invocators and language interpreters for Council meetings. This will greatly reduce the effective coordination of Formal and Recessed Council meetings.	(21,000) (1.0)	(83,000)	(104,000) (1.0)

	Department	2009-10	2010-11	Total
8.
Eliminate one of three Business License Service Clerk positions in the Office System Division responsible for issuing licenses, processing liquor applications, regulatory revocations, and responding to public records requests. This will result in increased wait times for customers seeking licensing that is legally required for their business or occupation. Wait time for customers at the front counter will increase 20-30% and license application processing will be extended by 5-10 business days. In addition, this reduction will result in periods of time when there are no Spanish speaking personnel at the front counter.	(15,000) (1.0)	(61,000)	(76,000) (1.0)

	Total	$(176,000) (11.3)	$(695,000)	$(871,000) (11.3)

	City Council
1.	Reduce discretionary spending and eliminate various office and clerical support staff from the central office and each council district. These reductions will impact the Council Office’s ability to respond to citizen concerns and inquiries in a timely and efficient manner.	$(221,000) (12.0)	$(818,000) (1.0)	$(1,039,000) (13.0)

	Total	$(221,000) (12.0)	$(818,000) (1.0)	$(1,039,000) (13.0)

	Department	2009-10	2010-11	Total
	City Manager’s Office
1.	Eliminate an Administrative Secretary position providing administrative support for coordinating and assembling agendas for City Council meetings. This will result in reassigning duties, severely impacting secretarial support to members of the executive team.	$(13,000) (1.0)	$(52,000)	$(65,000) (1.0)

2.	Eliminate a Deputy City Manager and Administrative Secretary position. Departments and functions assigned to this Deputy will be assigned to other Deputies, resulting in a greater workload and less time available to address the management issues affecting a large number of city programs.	$ (51,000) (2.0)	$ (196,000)	$ (247,000) (2.0)

3.	Eliminate an Executive Assistant to the City Manager position and an Administrative Secretary position. Management oversight duties will be assigned to remaining members of the executive team, significantly reducing the amount of time available for management issues, delaying response times to departments and the public, and decreasing administrative support.	(22,000) (2.0)	(173,000)	(195,000) (2.0)

4.	Eliminate a Deputy City Manager and Administrative Secretary position. Departments and functions assigned to this Deputy will be assigned to other Deputies, resulting in an excessive workload, limiting time available to adequately address important management issues affecting a large number of city programs.	(41,000) (2.0)	(172,000)	(213,000) (2.0)

	Total	$(127,000) (7.0)	$(593,000)	$(720,000) (7.0)
	Department	2009-10	2010-11	Total
	Community and Economic Development
1.	Eliminate a Management Assistant II position assigned to the Artist Storefront Program. This reduction eliminates the Artist Storefront Program and will negatively affect the establishment of small, art-oriented businesses.	$(46,000) (1.0)	$(80,000)	$(126,000) (1.0)

2.	Reduce funding for business attraction and transit-oriented development. This reduction will impact the City’s ability to attract businesses looking to relocate to Phoenix and limit transit-oriented development.	(15,000)	(24,000)	(39,000)

3.	Eliminate the Administrative Aide assigned to the Management Services Division. This reduction will have a significant impact on a variety of clerical support functions.	(17,000) (1.0)	(66,000)	(83,000) (1.0)

4.	Eliminate the Business Assistance Administrator which oversees the Special Projects Division. The loss of this position will impact the department’s ability to oversee the development of the Discovery Triangle and coordination of the Infill Housing program.	(37,000) (1.0)	(158,000)	(195,000) (1.0)

5.	Consolidate the Business Attraction and Small Business Divisions by eliminating a Deputy Economic Development Director position. Eliminating this position will increase span of control and adversely impact business development.	(38,000) (1.0)	(158,000)	(196,000) (1.0)

	Total	$(153,000) (4.0)	$(486,000)	$(639,000) (4.0)

	Department	2009-10	2010-11	Total
	Development Services
1.	Eliminate a Building Code Examiner position on the Non-permitted Construction Team. This will reduce investigations of non-permitted construction, further adding to the current backlog of over 5,000 complaints. This may result in unsafe conditions and deterioration in the quality and livability of neighborhoods.	$(31,000) (1.0)	$(120,000)	$(151,000) (1.0)

	Total	$(31,000) (1.0)	$(120,000)	$(151,000) (1.0)


Engineering and Architectural Services
1.	Eliminate two part-time positions that support Central Records and the Geographic Technology Services Divisions. Also eliminate two part-time Engineering Technician positions that are used for college interns in the summer months.	$(8,000) (4.0)	$(34,000)	$(42,000) (4.0)

2.	Reduce funding needed to maintain and support the Project Management Information System (PROMIS). This reduction will negatively affect the system’s performance and could lead to customer delays.	(8,000)	(61,000)	(69,000)

Official Web Site of the City of Phoenix

Phoenix - All America City - 2009

Department

Department

Department

Department

Department

Department

Department

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
POLICY AGENDA
TO:	Jerome Miller Interim Deputy City Manager	AGENDA DATE:		February 2, 2010
FROM:	Kim Dorney Housing Director	ITEM:	3
SUBJECT:	TWO PHOENIX YOUTH WIN NATIONAL POSTER CONTEST: “WHAT HOME MEANS TO ME”