Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

Public finance—taxes and other revenues collected by government and the expenditure of those revenues—always has been somewhat controversial because of wide philosophical differences among residents regarding the role that government should play in providing public services and in collecting taxes and fees from its residents. Recently, public finance in Arizona has become a prominent public issue due to the need to resolve the deficits that afflict state government and most county and municipal governments in Arizona.

State trust lands are among the greatest public assets in Arizona’s portfolio. Set aside at statehood, the Arizona State Land Department manages more than 9 million acres of trust lands on behalf of 14 beneficiaries. The largest of which by far is Arizona Public Education K through 12.The mission of the Land Department is to maximize revenues from these trust lands. In FY 2005, state trust lands generated $115 million for all beneficiaries, of which $101 million was designated to support public K-12 schools.These amounts are increasing rapidly as more state trust land becomes attractive for development in Arizona’s urban areas.

The parcel discussed in this report, “Superstition Vistas,” stands out as the jewel among Arizona’s trust lands. Not only is it situated in the path of metro Phoenix growth, but it also borders thousands of acres of public land managed by the Tonto National Forest and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Estimates of its total value run well into the billions of dollars.

"The Treasure of the Superstitions" sets the stage for a continuing dialogue about the potential for Superstition Vistas, and indeed, all of Arizona’s trust lands. We look forward to listening to and working with our beneficiaries, citizens, counties, municipalities, real estate businesses, and other interested parties to make the most of Arizona’s “treasure.”

Four major statewide "tools" to help manage growth and preserve open space have been put to work in Arizona over the past five years. These include the Arizona Preserve Initiative and the closely-related Proposition 303, as well as the Growing Smarter Act and its "addendum," Growing Smarter Plus. All four tools are based in large part on a concept known as "smart growth," which is generally considered to be a set of growth management measures that attempt to strike a balance among issues of economics, environment, and quality of life. Taken together, these four growth management tools make significant changes in the way that (a) city and county governments plan and regulate their lands, (b) citizens play a role in land use issues, (c) state trust lands are managed, and (d) open space may be acquired and preserved. Many of these changes will have long-term effects for the state. This paper provides a brief overview of each of the four growth management/open space tools, a preliminary accounting of major activities each one has stimulated, and a perspective on what can be expected for the future as expressed by a selection of growth planners and other leaders of growth management in Arizona.

Maricopa County has experienced remarkable population growth for decades, and will continue to do so. But while expanding metro areas tend to pay close attention to physical infrastructure—diligently budgeting for roads, sewers, schools and the like—there is often a relative lack of attention to meeting the future demands for human services. Relying on the expertise from throughout the College of Public Programs, this report analyzes 12 critically important topics, including children and families, poverty, substance abuse, and Latinos.

What do we mean by "shoes waiting to drop?" We mean the trends that are already well under way — but that we can't quite see yet. These trends could overwhelm us if we don't spot them now and aggressively use our knowledge to plot our course for the future. The five "shoes" highlighted in the report are: A Talent Shake Up; Latino Education Dilemma; A Fuzzy Economic Identity; Lost Stewardship; and The Revenue Sieve.

This report presents the second comprehensive look at the conditions of children and families in Arizona. Building upon information presented in the 1992 Factbook, this document presents and analyzes 48 indicators of child well-being. Following the executive summary and tables, chapter 1 provides an overview of the data for the state as a whole, including a summary of key findings and tables depicting raw numbers, rates adjusted for population growth, and rate changes over time. Racial and ethnic breakdowns are presented when such data are available.

Chapters 2-16 offer individual county profiles, following the general format established in the state chapter. These chapters offer insights into regional variations and identify varying conditions for children across the state. The report charts data within the state and county chapters for each of the following six categories: (1) poverty; (2) child health and safety; (3) child abuse, neglect, and out-of-home care; (4) early care and education; (5) children in school; and (6) teens at-risk. Overall, findings reveal significant improvements for a few indicators since 1990, most notably within birth-related items, such as an increase in the percent of women receiving timely prenatal care and a decrease in low birth-weight births. Findings also suggest there has been a worsening for many indicators, including poverty, firearm-related deaths and hospitalizations, alleged child abuse incidents, and births to teens.

This publication offers comparative data and analysis on 10 public policy issues. With its scope and detail, "How Arizona Compares" will be of interest to many throughout Arizona and strives to encourage leaders and residents to discuss and move ahead on the state's most pressing public policy issues. The intent is for this publication to be studied and used for dialogue and action. The following sections are included: (1) Polishing the 48th Star; (2) Inside "How Arizona Compares"; (3) Arizona's Land and People; (4) Crime and Punishment; (5) Health and Health Care; (6) Education; (7) Business Futures; (8) Families and Incomes; (9) Signal Measures on Hot Topics; (10) Government; (11) Arts and Culture; (12) Housing; (13) Transportation; and (14) Environment. A list of selected sources is appended.

Arizona is emerging from one of the worst state budget crises in the nation. Entering 2003, its projected deficit, measured as a percentage of the general fund, was the fifth largest in the country.1 The state had slashed spending in 2002 in the face of a $900 million deficit, but still faced a $400 million shortfall for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $1 billion deficit in fiscal 2004. Although improved revenues have reduced the anticipated gap, fundamental underlying problems remain concerning the ability of lawmakers to control the budget. Some observers consider this a revenue problem, others a spending problem. Our concern in this paper is whether state lawmakers have enough control over either revenue or spending.