Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

Presenting the budget in these volumes allows users to select the level of information that meets their needs. Volume I, the Adopted Budget Summary, provides summary level information. Volume II, the Adopted Budget Operating Detail, provides detailed information on staffing and city services. Volume III, the Approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, provides detailed information on capital projects.

In fiscal year 2011, Chino Valley Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer district and state averages, and its operational efficiencies were mixed with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s per-pupil administrative costs were slightly higher than peer districts’ because the District employed more administrative positions per pupil. The District’s plant operations, food service, and transportation programs operated reasonably efficiently, with cost measures such as cost per square foot, cost per meal, and cost per mile that were similar to or lower than peer districts’ averages. However, the District needs to improve controls over access to critical information systems and strengthen controls over its fuel purchase cards.

The Finance Department provides financial information and service to Gila County governmental departments and offices so they can effectively manage their resources. Thorough review and management of the County’s financials, along with developing and complying with internal policies and procedures, provides Administration with the tools for making fiscally sound management decisions.

This report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of Coconino County. Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the County has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the County’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

In fiscal year 2011, Elfrida Elementary School District’s student AIMS scores for reading and writing were similar to the peer districts’ averages, and its math scores were lower. The District’s operational efficiencies compared favorably to peer district averages in most areas. All of the District’s nonclassroom areas operated with lower per pupil costs than peer districts’ averages and were reasonably efficient overall considering the District’s small size. However, the District’s transportation cost per mile was 59 percent higher than the peer districts’ average, partly because of slightly higher staffing levels. Providing transportation services cooperatively with neighboring districts could help bring costs closer to the peer district average. Further, the District needs to strengthen its accounting and computer controls.

In fiscal year 2011, Pearce Elementary School District’s student AIMS scores were similar to peer districts’ averages. Although per pupil costs were high in some operational areas, the District was reasonably efficient overall. Pearce ESD’s per pupil administration costs were similar to the peer districts’ average, and although its plant operations, food service, and transportation program operated with higher per pupil costs than peer districts, these areas operated in a reasonably efficient manner considering factors such as the age of the District’s buildings, number of meals served, and transportation miles driven. Although relatively efficient, the District should strengthen some of its accounting controls, including ensuring proper separation of duties for its payroll and purchasing processes and ensuring purchases are properly approved before they are made. The District should also strengthen some of its computer controls, such as the requirements for network passwords.

In fiscal year 2011, McNeal Elementary School District’s student AIMS scores were lower than or similar to peer districts’ averages. Although per pupil costs were high in some operational areas, the District was relatively efficient overall. McNeal ESD’s per pupil administrative costs were higher than the peer districts’ average, but only because the District served fewer students. The District’s food service program also had higher per pupil costs, but its cost per meal was similar to the peer districts’ average. However, the District subsidized its food service program with $23,000 that otherwise potentially could have been spent in the classroom. In addition, McNeal ESD’s plant operations and transportation program were both reasonably efficient, with lower costs per square foot and per mile, respectively. McNeal ESD paid a neighboring district to transport high school students living within McNeal ESD’s boundaries. As allowed by law, both districts received full funding for the route miles. Lastly, the District needs to strengthen some of its purchasing and computer controls.