Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

The purpose of the Arizona Trails 2015 Plan is to gather information and recommendations to guide Arizona State Parks and other land management agencies in the management of motorized and non­‐motorized trails, and guide the distribution and expenditures of the Off‐Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and the Federal Recreational Trails Program. The Arizona Trails Plan is updated every five years.

This planning document details the results of extensive surveys of Arizonans’ thoughts, preferences and priorities regarding trails and off-highway vehicle routes. Throughout the year 2008, staff at Arizona State Parks and faculty at Arizona State University partnered to solicit information from more than 5,500 Arizonans about what types of motorized or non-motorized trails they use, how often they use trails, what they like or don’t like about trails, and what trail managers should focus their time and dollars on to make the trail experience better.

This strategic plan identifies the management direction that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has provided to the Department for the next six years. The plan discusses the most important issues facing the Department, including the recruitment and retention of hunters, anglers and shooting sports participants, and explains how the Department plans to respond to those issues.

Prior strategic plans focused on just one of the programmatic areas for which the Department is responsible; for example, Wildlife 2006 was solely a wildlife strategic plan. In contrast, Wildlife 2012 provides strategic guidance for all programs within the Arizona Game and Fish Department. It emphasizes wildlife management, which is the Department’s primary focus. However, Wildlife 2012 also addresses off-highway vehicle and watercraft recreation beyond their impacts to wildlife resources, as well as the administration of the Department.

In fiscal year 2011, Paradise Valley Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ and it operated efficiently overall. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were lower than peer districts’, and its food service and transportation programs operated efficiently. The District’s plant operations cost per square foot was lower than peer districts’. However, the District did not gain the full benefit of potential savings from this lower cost per square foot because it maintained a large amount of excess building space. The District should continue to review options to address its excess building capacity. Additionally, the District’s solar power system contracts are unlikely to meet expectations for cost savings, and although the District has taken action to recover estimated financial losses, it should continue to monitor its solar power production and electricity usage. The District also needs to strengthen controls over its computer systems.

Outlines a comprehensive and systematic process for setting priorities for construction of planned, future trail segments of the Flagstaff Urban Trails System. Fifty miles of urban trails exist in the system as of November 2010, but 80 additional miles are needed to complete it. Limitations on funding for new trail construction require that priorities be established.

A report by a committee, members of which were appointed by the Flagstaff City Council to study and make recommendations on establishing an urban trails system for Flagstaff. Issues addressed include which properties (public or private) should be included in the system, funding sources, maintenance and promotion of the system, refinement of existing urban trails plans, and coordination with other trail systems in the area.

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.