Filtering by
- All Subjects: Finance, Public
- Creators: Battelle Memorial Institute. Technology Partnership Practice
- Creators: Morrison Institute for Public Policy
The Board of Supervisors make an estimate of the different amounts required to meet the public expenditures/expenses for the ensuing year, also an estimate of revenues from sources other than direct taxation, and the amount to be raised by taxation upon real and personal property of Graham County.
The Annual Report is produced to provide the Board of Supervisors, the Citizen's Audit Advisory Committee, County leadership, and the citizens with information about Internal Audit's performance, accomplishments, and results achieved during the fiscal year.
The Navajo County Board of Supervisors has adopted this budget after declaring its alignment with the principles established in the Navajo County Five-Year Strategic Plan, which describes the vision and mission for Navajo County. Within this document, each department has identified measurable goals for the coming year that will support the success of the County’s Strategic Plan.
This report is prepared on a cash basis and reflects the financial transactions of the State of Arizona, as well as the financial condition of the State.
Department Should Strengthen Its Management, Support, and Oversight of the State-wide Procurement System.
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.
Numerous tax cuts over the last 15 years have substantially reduced revenue to the Arizona state general fund and greatly narrowed the tax base.
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.