Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

Prior to developing and approving new ordinances that would further regulate sex- offender distance restrictions and clustering, the Phoenix City Council approved a study to examine the nature and impact of sex-offender clustering. Their overall goal was to use the study to fill in some important knowledge gaps about the issue of sex-offender residential clustering in order to inform the development of effective policy. To examine this issue on behalf of the city council, we relied on a multi-methodological research design. We wanted to incorporate information from several different points of view, giving policy makers a more comprehensive perspective from which to inform their decision making. For this study, we relied on four resources: official police data, offender interview data, citizen survey data, and key stakeholder interview data.

ADOT is the primary decision maker for federal-aid transportation plans and investments in nonmetropolitan areas with populations below 50,000. However, ADOT understands the importance of consulting with local governments before, during and after the decision-making process to ensure participation results in improved transportation system planning, performance and project development. Therefore, ADOT has developed guidelines that outline the consultation process and define how and when outreach will occur with officials from rural areas.

The primary guidelines for state consultation with nonmetropolitan local officials are contained in the FHWA and FTA joint rulemaking, statewide and metropolitan planning: Part 450 Planning Assistance and Standards. (Federal Register: Feb. 14, 2007, Part III). According to 23 CFR 450.210(b), at least once every five years (as of Feb. 24, 2006), the state shall review and solicit comments from nonmetropolitan local officials and other interested parties for a period of not less than 60 calendar days regarding the effectiveness of the consultation process and any proposed changes. A specific request for comments shall be directed to the state association of counties, state municipal league, regional planning agencies or directly to nonmetropolitan local officials.

It is intended that this document is subject to review and revision every five years. In the event that Congress enacts new transportation language, this document will be subject to immediate revision.

This bond funded program differs significantly from other County capital improvement projects which typically include detailed information specific to each project when the bond proposals were developed. It utilizes its designated bond funding for specific community based projects via an open and continuous application process and under the oversight of advisory bodies appointed by the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

The Forum participants were assigned to six “break-out” discussion groups, where they engaged in facilitated dialogues with assigned content experts. Groups identified and endorsed a sufficient number of best practices. This report highlights the major points of consensus within each discussion. Whenever possible, the divergent perspectives and opinions expressed during the sessions were included.

There are two distinct components to the economic development activities described in ADOH’s LIHTC program details. The first component is activity that strengthens the economy. This is the quantifiable activity that is the subject of this report. The second component is community building activity which can be both quantitative and qualitative. This is an area that should be considered in the debate but which is not addressed within this report.