Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

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 Forum participants were assigned to six “break-out” discussion groups, where they engaged in facilitated dialogues with assigned content experts. Groups identified and endorsed a sufficient number of best practices. This report highlights the major points of consensus within each discussion. Whenever possible, the divergent perspectives and opinions expressed during the sessions were included.

This bond funded program differs significantly from other County capital improvement projects which typically include detailed information specific to each project when the bond proposals were developed. It utilizes its designated bond funding for specific community based projects via an open and continuous application process and under the oversight of advisory bodies appointed by the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Arizona Housing Commission Task Force on Tax‐Exempt Mortgage Financing was established to review and report on 1) the availability of financing for single‐family housing and 2) the role of the private activity bond allocation process in facilitating the availability of housing for low‐to‐moderate income families in all areas of Arizona. The Task Force is required to issue an annual report of its activities, findings, and recommendations, including information reported to it by the four major Industrial Development Authorities and the Arizona Housing Finance Authority. These five entities issue tax‐exempt single‐family mortgage revenue bonds, mortgage credit certificates and other forms of Private Activity Bonds.

Housing plays a major role in the United States and Arizona economies. It is estimated that the housing industry accounts for one-fifth of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product. Despite the economic importance of housing, Arizona did not have a comprehensive approach or strategy for dealing with housing policy issues. In 1994, a Housing Summit addressed increasing concerns about the cost of housing. Participants from across the state met to discuss growing housing needs. A major outcome of the summit was the formation of the Affordable Housing Task Force, designed to review the state’s housing market and suggest ways the state could address housing affordability. Its principal recommendation was the creation of a permanent body that would focus attention on workable housing solutions. The Arizona Housing Commission was created by Executive Order in 1996 to serve as an advisory body to the Governor, the Legislature and the Arizona Department of Commerce, which is the primary agency currently responsible for housing programs. In 1997, the passage of House Bill 2011 formally established the Commission in statute.

The agency is dedicated to allocating funds in a responsible manner to assist as many Arizona homeowners as possible and through ongoing adjustments to the program we remain optimistic that new avenues will be successful in reducing foreclosures and stabilizing our neighborhoods. Reports highlight the outstanding efforts of the Arizona Department of Housing, Arizona Housing Finance Authority, and the Arizona Home Foreclosure Funding corporation. We are confident that through the tireless efforts of the agency and our dedicated partners we will push through this recession and emerge stronger and better prepared for whatever challenges the future holds.

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.