Matching Items (14)
41817-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMokwa, Michael (Author) / McIntosh, Daniel (Author) / Eaton, John (Author) / Evans, Anthony (Author) / Hill, Kent (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Contributor)
Created2016-04-13
Description

The 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship Game was held on January 11, 2016, in Glendale, Arizona. The W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University was commissioned to conduct an economic impact assessment of the Game and events surrounding it, including the impact of direct and indirect

The 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship Game was held on January 11, 2016, in Glendale, Arizona. The W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University was commissioned to conduct an economic impact assessment of the Game and events surrounding it, including the impact of direct and indirect visitor and organizational expenditures. This study utilized multiple research, survey and analytical methodologies. This report will outline the methodologies used and the results obtained in the study and the economic impact. 

41818-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsJames, Tim (Timothy Jon) (Author) / Evans, Anthony John (Author) / Madly, Eva (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Contributor)
Created2014-04-04
Description

This study examines the economic impact of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) to the State of Arizona in two aspects: the construction of CAP, 1973‐1993; and the impact of CAP's water supply delivery operations, 1986‐2010. A modified IMPLAN input‐output model for the State of Arizona is used to implement both

This study examines the economic impact of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) to the State of Arizona in two aspects: the construction of CAP, 1973‐1993; and the impact of CAP's water supply delivery operations, 1986‐2010. A modified IMPLAN input‐output model for the State of Arizona is used to implement both analyses. The economic impacts for each analysis are assessed in terms of gross state product (GSP) and employment.

41840-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2015
Description

Arizona Department of Administration's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2016-2020, intended to realize efficiencies and improve service delivery to Arizona State government agencies and Arizona State employees.

Created2004 to 2017
Description

The ADOA Building System was established concurrent with those of the Arizona Board of Regents' and the Arizona Department of Transportation's Building Systems. Each of these building systems is responsible for computing building renewal needs for each fiscal year according to a renewal formula selected by the Joint Committee on

The ADOA Building System was established concurrent with those of the Arizona Board of Regents' and the Arizona Department of Transportation's Building Systems. Each of these building systems is responsible for computing building renewal needs for each fiscal year according to a renewal formula selected by the Joint Committee on Capital Review and for allocating building renewal monies appropriated to agencies within each of these three building systems. The ADOA Building System is the largest of the three and includes buildings owned by multiple agencies, whose structures appear in this annual inventory.

ADOA revises its building system inventory each year to include structure acquisitions and deletions as reported by building system agencies, escalations or de-escalations of structure replacement values, and two fiscal years of forecasted building renewal requirements for capital funding consideration. If available, the inventory also lists a structure's construction class, year of construction, fire suppression/sprinkler system status, occupancy category, and other allied information.

The building inventory is utilized by a variety of entities, including State Risk Management, the State Fire Marshal, the Governor's Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting, and the Arizona State Legislature's Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

Created2003 to 2017
Description

The Director of the Arizona Department of Administration provides an annual report to the Governor and the Legislature on the status of the state’s human resources and the operation of the state human resources system. The report includes information on the following:
• All state employees including the executive, legislative and

The Director of the Arizona Department of Administration provides an annual report to the Governor and the Legislature on the status of the state’s human resources and the operation of the state human resources system. The report includes information on the following:
• All state employees including the executive, legislative and judicial branch agencies.
• The number of employees affected by and reasons for turnover within state service.
• Information concerning employee compensation during the preceding year.
• Overtime pay requirements of all state agencies.
• Other information as determined by the Director.

43586-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsHoffman, Dennis L. (Author) / Hogan, Timothy D. (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Publisher)
Created2005-02
Description

For those interested in one of the most extreme state tax and expenditure limitations, TABOR – Colorado’s initiative that limits the funding of most expenditures to annual revenue growth restrained by the sum of annual population growth and inflation rates – would seem to be exactly the right choice. To

For those interested in one of the most extreme state tax and expenditure limitations, TABOR – Colorado’s initiative that limits the funding of most expenditures to annual revenue growth restrained by the sum of annual population growth and inflation rates – would seem to be exactly the right choice. To some, the initiative simply limits government to spend within its means. However, the analysis in this paper reveals that, true to the language in the 1992 Colorado initiative, TABOR limits government growth, and over time the public sector, as a share of the overall economy, declines sharply – crowding out opportunities for investments in strategic initiatives or opportunities for tax reform that may be popular with large voter constituencies or the business community. Advocates point out that provisions in TABOR do allow for voter overrides, but these are costly in both time and money, and until the overrides take place, government is
hamstrung. A simpler, more efficient alternative would be to elect fiscally conservative legislators and hold them accountable for prudent fiscal decisions that strike the right balance between a tax base conductive to economic growth and strategic investments that provide public sector infrastructure, nurturing the business climate and promoting the health and well-being of the citizenry. The paper first outlines the TABOR amendment in Colorado and examines its fiscal consequences for that state. It then examines the potential impact of a TABOR in Arizona.

43588-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Publisher)
Created2005-06
Description

The research for this report was conducted in two phases. The first phase analyzed the change in national job quality using multiple datasets, going back as far as 1970. In addition, the level and change in job quality was estimated for one state (Arizona). Some inconsistencies in the measurement of

The research for this report was conducted in two phases. The first phase analyzed the change in national job quality using multiple datasets, going back as far as 1970. In addition, the level and change in job quality was estimated for one state (Arizona). Some inconsistencies in the measurement of job quality exist across datasets. Complete results of this analysis, with a strong focus on Arizona data, are available in the report "Job Quality in Arizona". The second phase analyzed data for all states but was limited to two datasets, one presenting industrial data, the other occupational data. Because of the limited availability of state data by occupation, the time period analyzed was restricted to the years 2000 and 2003. The level of job quality in 2003 and the change between 2000 and 2003 are presented. The findings of the second phase, initially reported in "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States", are included in the current report, excluding detail provided for Arizona in the original report. Additional national and regional analyses are included in the current report.

43589-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / L. William Seidman Research Institute (Publisher)
Created2005-06
Description

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona", March 2005, presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).