An update to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30), to bring its Road Network Illustration (Map 25) into compliance with Arizona Revised Statute requirements and to resolve inconsistencies between Map 25 and parts of the Flagstaff City Code. This update does not alter the intent of FRP30; it is only concerned with correcting errors, removing legal vulnerability, and improving the readability of FRP30.

The study was conducted in response to concerns from state leaders about the perceived shortage of construction workers and the impact that this shortage may be having on the industry’s ability to meet the growing residential and commercial demand for construction. The purpose of this study is to document the state of the industry, its workforce, and its capacity to prepare skilled workers to meet a growing demand.

The Arizona Department of Commerce has the legislated responsibility to develop a 10 year economic plan for the State of Arizona that wants to accelerate solar adoption, and develop a solar electric industry within the state that would provide economic development. Arizona incentives for solar are mostly provided by the utilities. Technology improvements/cost reductions will allow central solar to compete with conventional baseload and intermediate generation. Implementing the roadmap initiatives will allow AZ to build upon its assets and policies to establish a leadership position in fostering solar.

The purpose of this analysis is to identify supplier gaps in Arizona based on secondary data as well as a statewide buyer survey. The buyer survey includes results from a web-based questionnaire, as well as personal interviews. The analysis is structured around twelve industries of opportunity identified in “Arizona’s Economic Future,” prepared by Economy.com in August 2002.

One of the ways that buyer supplier relationships in Arizona could be strengthened is through a statewide program that would provide resources to allow buyers and local suppliers to identify each other more easily to and provide better feedback to suppliers enabling them to compete more effectively with nonlocal vendors. This study includes reviews of three such programs: AZBusinessLinc used in Tucson; Connectory which is a similar program used in California; and FOCUS which is used for government procurement in California.

The information in this report is based on telephone interviews with 700 registered voters. One random sample of 500 registered voters was selected from all registered voters living in Arizona. This sample was proportionately stratified so that voters in each of Arizona’s 15 counties were included in the sample. An additional sample of 100 interviews with registered voters living in Pima County was also interviewed. A third random sample of 100 registered voters living in the more rural counties also was interviewed. The purpose of selecting the two smaller samples was to create sub-samples of Pima County and rural voters that could be compared with the opinions of voters in Maricopa County.

What a difference a year makes. In June 2008, AZ Views reported that “Arizonans have a strong sense of job security, despite the national economic slump and the state’s budget crisis.” That is no longer true, as this edition of AZ Views shows, and Arizona’s economic situation arguably is the best example of the worst case.

This report profiles Yavapai County’s senior industries, beginning with a brief overview of senior industries components and a listing of significant findings of the study. In following sections, the report presents more detailed information on the age group characteristics of county residents, the spending patterns of seniors, the economic composition and relative size of senior industries, and the dynamics and requirements for growth of senior industries. In its conclusion, the report presents a menu of options for strengthening senior industries in Yavapai County. All analysis is based on the latest available demographic and economic data at the time of writing, as well as primary and secondary research performed by Morrison Institute for Public Policy in the fall of 2001.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.

Good jobs and good schools—few would disagree that these are essential elements of a secure and rewarding life. Both are also vital components of a healthy society: Good jobs create revenue to support quality schools, which in turn produce a superior workforce to fill those jobs. Based on survey panelists’ responses, most Arizonans seem to feel that they’re doing well on the employment front, but not quite so well concerning education.