Filtering by
- All Subjects: Federal aid to transportation
- All Subjects: Education
- Creators: Battelle Memorial Institute. Technology Partnership Practice
The Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Rural Public Transportation Program provides program funds for capital, operating, and administrative assistance to local public bodies, nonprofit organizations, and operators of public transportation services in non-urbanized areas. The Public Transportation Division of the Arizona Department of Transportation provides financial and technical assistance to transit agencies throughout the state to enhance the access of people in non-urbanized areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services and recreation.
The Arizona Department of Transportation was authorized in 1996 to administer a State Infrastructure Bank under a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Administration. The Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program (HELP) was established. The financial statements present only the funds comprising the Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position or results of operations of the Department.
The Arizona Department of Transportation, the Arizona Game & Fish Department and the Arizona State Parks Board are required to conduct a study every three years on watercraft fuel consumption and recreational watercraft usage. The fuel consumption data is collected to determine the allocation of motor vehicle fuel tax to the State Lake Improvement Fund. The information on recreational watercraft usage patterns on Arizona’s lakes and rivers is necessary, in part, to determine the distribution of SLIF funds to applicants.
The Transportation Enhancement Program Handbook is intended to guide applicants through the funding application and project development process.
The Transportation Enhancement Program Handbook is intended to guide applicants through the funding application and project development process.
The Transportation Enhancement Program Handbook is intended to guide applicants through the funding application and project development process.
In fiscal year 2012, Laveen Elementary School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, and the District operated efficiently overall with lower costs per pupil than peer districts’, on average, in all operational areas. Despite operating efficiently, Laveen ESD spent 21 percent, or $751, less per pupil in the classroom than peer districts, on average, because it received less funding primarily because it had a lower poverty rate and fewer special needs students. In fact, the District had nearly the lowest overall per pupil spending amount in the State. Although the District operated efficiently overall, it needs to better ensure that its bus drivers meet all certification requirements and it may be able to reduce its plant operations costs by further reducing the amount it pays for custodial services.
In fiscal year 2011, Chinle Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, and the District’s operational efficiency was mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were much higher than peer districts’, and it lacked adequate controls over its vehicles, accounts payable processing, and computer systems. The District’s plant operations costs were also much higher than peer districts’ because the District maintained more building space per student, which was likely not needed since Chinle USD operated its schools far below their designed capacities. The District’s food service program was reasonably efficient, and its transportation program had similar per mile costs as peer districts’. However, the District did not meet bus driver and bus preventative maintenance requirements.
In fiscal year 2012, Clifton Unified School District’s student AIMS scores were lower than both its peer districts’ and state averages. The District’s instructional program needs improvement. For example, some students were not provided the statutorily required number of instructional hours, and one of its four teachers did not have a teaching certificate. The District’s operational efficiencies were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’. However, the District lacked proper oversight and adequate controls over nearly all of its operations. In particular, the District lacked basic administrative processes such as monitoring budgets and maintaining proper controls over expenditures resulting in it overspending its legal budget limits in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The District also failed to meet several transportation safety requirements. For example, its primary driver was not certified to drive a school bus. Lastly, the District lacked proper supervision of inmate workers on its school campus.