Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

Includes profiles of Chandler and its government; a statement of budget policies, process, and decisions; financial and personnel overviews; sources of revenue; detailed expenditures for each unit of the city government; details of capital budget and bonded debt; and budget schedules in formats that conform to Arizona Office of the Auditor General and Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement requirements.

In fiscal year 2012, Winslow Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, but its cost-efficiency in noninstructional areas was mixed. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were much higher than peer districts’, on average, primarily because it employed more administrative positions. The District’s plant costs were higher primarily because it maintained a large amount of excess school building space, which was likely not needed because most of the District’s schools operated far below their designed capacities. The District’s food service program operated with slightly higher costs that may have been a result of it not sufficiently overseeing the vendor operating the program. The District’s transportation program operated in a reasonably efficient manner, despite having higher costs per pupil, but the District needs to strengthen controls over fuel purchases.

In fiscal year 2013, Safford USD's student achievement was similar to peer districts', and the District operated efficiently overall with most costs lower than, or similar to, the peer districts' averages. The District's administrative cost per pupil was similar to the peer districts' average, and its plant operations and food service program operated efficiently. Further, despite a higher cost per rider, the District's transportation program was reasonably efficient. However, the District should strengthen controls over its computer network and systems.

In fiscal year 2012, Santa Cruz Valley USD's student achievement was similar to peer districts', and its operations were reasonably efficient overall despite having some higher costs than peer districts', on average. However, the District needs to improve its computer controls, pay its credit cards in full to avoid interest charges, and accurately report its costs.

In fiscal year 2012, Tolleson ESD's student achievement was similar to peer districts', and its operational efficiencies were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts', on average. Specifically, the District's plant operations and food service program operated efficiently, but its administration and transportation program operated less efficiently with higher costs than peer districts' averages.

In fiscal year 2012, Wenden ESD's student test scores on Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) were mixed compared to peer district averages, with similar scores in reading but lower scores in math, writing, and science. Although the District's costs in noninstructional areas were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts' averages, the District was reasonably efficient overall. However, auditors identified several opportunities for improved procedures and controls.

In fiscal year 2012, Kayenta Unified School District’s student achievement was slightly higher than peer districts’, and the District’s efficiency in noninstructional areas was mixed, with some costs higher and some lower than peer districts’, on average. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were similar to peer districts’, on average, but the District needs to strengthen controls over its computer network and systems. The District’s plant operations costs were much higher partly because it provided employee housing and had some unique facilities that other districts typically do not have. However, the District also had excess space at its schools. To its credit, the District has taken steps to reduce some of this excess space, but more needs to be done. The District’s food service program operated efficiently with a much lower cost per meal than peer districts averaged, and although the District’s transportation costs were higher, the long bus route times limit the ability to reduce these costs. Finally, the District did not ensure that bus preventative maintenance was systematically performed.