Matching Items (12)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

42445-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsThe Pride Publishing Company (Contributor)
Created2011-12
Description

Valley Metro conducted a transit on-board survey between October 2010 and February 2011. The purpose of the survey was to better understand the travel pattern of transit users in the metropolitan Phoenix area, particularly the impact that light rail has had on regional travel patterns. The survey included nearly 100

Valley Metro conducted a transit on-board survey between October 2010 and February 2011. The purpose of the survey was to better understand the travel pattern of transit users in the metropolitan Phoenix area, particularly the impact that light rail has had on regional travel patterns. The survey included nearly 100 bus routes and all light rail stations.

ContributorsValley Metro Rail (Author)
Created2009 to 2016
Description

METRO's management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of METRO are protected from loss, theft, or misuse and to ensure that adequate accounting data are compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements.

ContributorsValley Metro Rail (Author)
Created2009 to 2016
Description

The Operating and Capital Budget is prepared with the goal of delivering a fiscally prudent, balanced budget. A Five-Year Capital and Operating Program identifies anticipated capital projects, their anticipated capital and operating costs, and funding sources.

42453-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsValley Metro Rail (Author)
Created2006-07
Description

METRO will be recognized as a trusted and respected community partner and visionary leader that provides a premier regional rail transit system with a commitment to excellence and safety, which provides value, enhances quality of life and is a point of pride for our community.

42454-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsValley Metro Rail (Contributor)
Created2010-04
Description

The development of a Life Cycle program began for each of the three major transportation elements identified within the Regional Transportation Plan. The RPTA is responsible for preparation of the transit component of the Life Cycle program, and METRO has been further delegated the responsibility to prepare the high capacity

The development of a Life Cycle program began for each of the three major transportation elements identified within the Regional Transportation Plan. The RPTA is responsible for preparation of the transit component of the Life Cycle program, and METRO has been further delegated the responsibility to prepare the high capacity transit/light rail transit element.

42832-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsLarson, Kelli L. (Author) / The Pride Publishing Company (Publisher)
Created2013-02
Description

Presents results of a 2010 survey aimed at understanding water resource and land use planning. First it explores how professional views about water resource stressors and management strategies converge and diverge among water resource managers and land use planners. Second, it examines the degree to which water managers and land

Presents results of a 2010 survey aimed at understanding water resource and land use planning. First it explores how professional views about water resource stressors and management strategies converge and diverge among water resource managers and land use planners. Second, it examines the degree to which water managers and land planners are engaging in integrated planning.

42044-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsHoffman, Dennis L. (Author) / Rex, Tom R. (Author) / The Pride Publishing Company (Publisher)
Created2009-03
Description

This is a summary of several reports related to government finance in Arizona that have been produced by the Office of the University Economist since December 2008. Some new information has been added in an attempt to provide a complete picture. The format of this report is a brief summary

This is a summary of several reports related to government finance in Arizona that have been produced by the Office of the University Economist since December 2008. Some new information has been added in an attempt to provide a complete picture. The format of this report is a brief summary by issue, sometimes accompanied by a table or chart. References are provided to the report and the page number where additional detail can be found.

ContributorsHoffman, Dennis L. (Author) / Rex, Tom R. (Author) / The Pride Publishing Company (Publisher)
Created2008-12
Description

Volume I: Facts
Analyses of Arizona state government finance, using data of the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and of the combined finances of all state and local governments within Arizona, using data of the U.S. Census Bureau. A historical perspective is provided for both datasets. For combined state and local

Volume I: Facts
Analyses of Arizona state government finance, using data of the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and of the combined finances of all state and local governments within Arizona, using data of the U.S. Census Bureau. A historical perspective is provided for both datasets. For combined state and local government finance, comparisons are made to other states and to the national average. In addition, other measures of the tax burden by state are examined.

Volume II: Concepts and Issues
Addresses the conceptual and empirical relationships between taxes, government revenue, and economic growth. Also discusses current issues specific to Arizona state government finance. This is a revised version of the report "Tax Reductions, the Economy, and the Deficit in the Arizona State Government General Fund," incorporating new and updated material.

Volume III: Options for Managing the Arizona State General Fund
Presents options and offers recommendations for managing the Arizona state government general fund. The near-term budget deficit is addressed as well as ways to prevent budget deficits from recurring every time economic growth slows.

43587-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / The Pride Publishing Company (Client)
Created2000-08
Description

Unlike the rest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, population density in central Phoenix dropped during the 1970s and 1980s. The primary cause was a decrease in the number of housing units. Rising vacancy rates contributed, but the increase in vacancy rates was similar to that of the entire metropolitan area.

Unlike the rest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, population density in central Phoenix dropped during the 1970s and 1980s. The primary cause was a decrease in the number of housing units. Rising vacancy rates contributed, but the increase in vacancy rates was similar to that of the entire metropolitan area. Between 1990 and 1995, population density rose in central Phoenix. A sharp decline in vacancy rates was a major factor in the turnaround, though the vacancy rate decline only matched that of the entire metro area. Another major factor in the increase in density was the rising number of people residing in prisons, homeless shelters, or on the streets.

43590-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / The Pride Publishing Company (Client)
Created2000-08
Description

The age of housing in the Phoenix metropolitan area reflects the mostly steady outward spread of development. Large differences exist across the area in other housing measures. Many of these differences are closely related to geographic variations in household income and in the type of housing. As in the rest

The age of housing in the Phoenix metropolitan area reflects the mostly steady outward spread of development. Large differences exist across the area in other housing measures. Many of these differences are closely related to geographic variations in household income and in the type of housing. As in the rest of the country, housing affordability in the Phoenix metropolitan area fell substantially in the 1970s. During the 1980s, the change in affordability varied by situation. Affordability rose for the median-income household, especially for homeownership. For those at the low end of the income spectrum, affordability of rental units improved slightly, but affordability of owned units worsened. Data for the 1990s are limited; the affordability of owned units rose for the median-income household, which could afford the median-priced home in 1998. An inadequate supply of very low-cost housing existed in the Phoenix metropolitan area in 1990. Even if low-income households were perfectly matched to low-income housing that they could afford, a little less than 3 percent of all households (about 23,000) could not have found affordable housing. The inadequacy expanded in the 1980s. The percentage of households reporting an unaffordable housing payment was much greater. Considering only low-income households who spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing, about 21 percent of all households had a housing problem related to affordability.