Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

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.

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, Scottsdale Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’, on average, but it compared less favorably in operational efficiencies. The District’s food service program operated efficiently with a cost per meal that was lower than the peer district average. However, the District’s administrative costs were higher than peer districts’, primarily because it employed more administrative staff. In addition, the District inaccurately reported its costs on its Annual Financial Report and it lacked sufficient computer controls. The District’s plant operations cost per pupil was higher than peer districts’, on average, because the District maintained more square footage per student than the peer districts’ and many of its schools operated far below their designed capacities. Further, the District’s transportation cost per mile was much higher than the peer districts’ average, in part, because of inefficient bus routes.

In fiscal year 2012, Osborn Elementary 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 costs lower than peer districts’. The District’s administrative cost per pupil was slightly lower than the peer districts’ average, and its food service program operated efficiently with a lower cost per meal, on average. However, the District’s transportation program operated less efficiently, and although the District made some improvements to the program in fiscal year 2013, better oversight is still needed. Further, the District’s plant operations costs were much higher than peer districts’, primarily because the District maintained a large amount of excess building space, even after closing a school at the end of fiscal year 2011. Lastly, the District needs to strengthen some of its computer controls.

In fiscal year 2012, Payson Unified School District’s student achievement was slightly higher than peer district averages, and the District’s operations were reasonably efficient in most areas. The District’s administrative costs were similar to the peer district average, but the District lacked adequate controls over user access to its computer network and systems. The District’s plant operations cost per square foot was similar to the peer districts’ average, but its cost per pupil was higher because it operated more building space per pupil. The District’s transportation program costs were higher than peer district averages, but the program was reasonably efficient, with efficient bus routes and proper fuel usage monitoring. However, the District’s food service program was less than efficient, with a higher cost per meal than the peer districts’ average because of higher staffing costs and some food service vendor contract terms that were not favorable to the District. As a result, the District spent $24,590 of its Maintenance and Operation Fund monies to subsidize its food service program.

In September 2005, some concerned Walker residents contacted the Arizona Department of Health Services in regards to the quality of groundwater in the area. The residents petitioned ADHS to perform well water tests to determine the character of the water, and whether there is any potential health risk associated with consuming or using the water. In response to the concerned community members and in agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ADHS collected water samples from the site and completed a health consultation. This health consultation evaluates if the levels of lead and other metals in the private wells in Walker area pose any adverse health effects.

The Stoneridge subdivision is a growing rural community with approximately 5,000 residents. The Prescott Valley Water Company (Prescott Valley, AZ) provides drinking water for residents in this area. A resident in the community indicated that there is a “paint thinner” type odor coming from the tap water. The Prescott Valley Water Company sampled the water due to request of the resident. On July 27, 2004, the resident called the Arizona Department of Health Services to express his/her concern regarding the analytical results of benzene in tap water samples collected from faucets inside the house. As a result, the Arizona Department of Health Services completed a health consultation to evaluate if benzene and other volatile organic compounds in the water supplied by the Prescott Valley Water Company pose any adverse health effects.

In August 2001, a resident of New River contacted the Arizona Department of Health Services, Office of Environmental Health to request information on the health risks of arsenic in drinking water. The resident collected two well water samples and submitted them to a private laboratory for arsenic analysis. The analyses detected arsenic at 560 and 600 μg/L. To confirm these very high arsenic results, ADHS staff sampled the well for arsenic and submitted the samples for analysis by the ADHS State Laboratory. Arsenic was detected at 340 μg/L. After that, a large number of people requested health advice on arsenic in their well water. This public health consultation primarily evaluates arsenic levels found in private wells and documents health advice provided to well owners. When other metals were found at levels of concern, health advice was provided to well owners regarding exposure to those metals too.

In August 2001 a resident of New River contacted the Arizona Department of Health Services, Office of Environmental Health to request information on the health risks of arsenic in drinking water. The resident collected two well water samples and submitted them to a private laboratory for arsenic analysis. The analyses detected arsenic at 560 and 600 μg/L. To confirm these very high arsenic results, ADHS staff sampled the well for arsenic and submitted the samples for analysis by the ADHS State Laboratory. Arsenic was detected at 340 μg/L. ADHS determined that the health risk posed by arsenic levels in this range and the exclusive reliance of area residents on private wells warranted further investigation. Consequently ADHS initiated a private well sampling program to determine if arsenic contamination of private wells was a widespread problem in the New River area. The objective of this public health consultation is to evaluate the potential health effects from exposure to arsenic in private drinking water wells in the New River, Arizona area.

The purpose of the consultation is to identify any current groundwater use in the Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site area that might result in human exposure to site contaminants. The Arizona Department of Health Services previously evaluated well use in Operable Units 1 and 2 in 1992. This report updates the well use inventory for Operable Units 1 and 2 and provides an evaluation of potential groundwater exposure pathways in Operable Unit 3.