Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

This inventory includes emissions of coarse particulate matter <10 µm in diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and ammonia. Emissions are calculated for both Maricopa County and the PM10 nonattaiment area. Annual totals as well as typical daily emissions are provided for all source categories.

Arizona public school districts' dollars spent in the classroom. In November 2000, voters approved Proposition 301, which increased the State’s sales tax from 5 percent to 5.6 percent to provide additional money for educational programs. The enabling legislation for Proposition 301 requires the Auditor General to “. . . monitor school districts to determine the percentage of every dollar spent in the classroom by a school district.” This report presents our analysis of the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom for the most recently completed school year.

The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality has prepared this document to be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX. The purpose of the Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan is to determine if the network is achieving the air monitoring objectives specified in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D, which mandate adherence to certain number, type and location requirements of monitoring sites and specific site criteria such as monitoring inlet height. The review should also determine if modifications should be made to the network (e.g. through the termination or relocation of unnecessary stations or addition of new stations). In addition, the review is necessary in order to ensure that the residents of Pima County are provided adequate, representative and useful air quality data, and to provide adequate protection to public health.

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.

In fiscal year 2012, Duncan Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’, and the District operated efficiently overall. Although the District’s administrative costs per pupil were slightly higher than the peer districts’ average, the District has taken steps to reduce its costs by reducing its number of administrative positions. The District’s plant operations, food service, and transportation programs were efficient with lower costs per square foot, per meal, and per mile, respectively, than peer districts’ averages. However, the District needs to improve its purchasing and computer controls. The District also needs to accurately determine, and report to the Arizona Department of Education, its ridership information to help ensure the District is properly funded and to allow it the ability to calculate and monitor transportation performance measures such as cost per rider and bus capacity utilization. Further, the District should ensure that its inmate worker documentation complies with statute.

In fiscal year 2012, Fowler Elementary School District’s student achievement was slightly higher than the peer districts’ averages, and the District operated efficiently. The District’s administrative cost per pupil was similar to the peer districts’ average, and it employed proper accounting and computer controls. The District’s plant operations costs per pupil and per square foot were lower than the peer districts’ averages primarily because of lower energy costs. Additionally, the District’s food service cost per meal was lower than the peer districts’ average, and the program was self-sufficient, in part, because the District paid the vendor that ran its program lower administrative and management fees than peer districts, on average. Further, the District’s transportation program was efficient, with lower costs per mile and per rider and efficient bus routes. However, the District did not accurately report its number of riders transported, which resulted in substantial overfunding for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.