In the Valley, developing viable long-term transit from where we are currently will be very difficult if key
components continue to remain unaligned. Thus, before getting to the primary purpose of this report, it is important to first establish the players and basic considerations relevant to the effectiveness of a transit system.

Few would dispute that the Phoenix metropolitan area is severely lacking in terms of mass-transit compared to other similarly sized and configured cities. The Valley’s fleet of roughly 400 buses is about one-third of the service found in San Diego, Atlanta, and Seattle. In addition, most of Phoenix’ peer regions either already have, or are planning rail systems. Of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., only six -- Phoenix included -- do not currently have or are not planning to add rail to their transit system.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.

This report brings together the results of a survey of 1100 homeless people living in and around downtown Phoenix in 1996 with the results of a similar survey conducted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of the homeless population in Phoenix, the data and comparative information presented in this report also reveal the complex and intractable nature of the homeless problem in general.

Despite several early attempts in the Arizona Legislature to modify the framework for where the newly-passed Proposition 200 money would go, the four accounts established in the original voter-approved Tobacco Tax and Health Care Act have been maintained as intended since 1995. However, large sums of Proposition 200 revenue – on average $90 million annually – have gone unallocated and unspent by the Legislature.

The “Rural Planning Area” concept is a means by which traditional agricultural enterprises such as ranching can be preserved in the face of changing economic conditions. The intent of the Diablo Canyon Rural Planning Area is to identify a range of economic opportunities that would be compatible with maintaining traditional ranch operations on the Flying M and Bar T Bar. To be sure, some of the options identified in this plan are very different from traditional ranch practices, but they are intended to help support the existing ranches economically while keeping the ranches intact and operating into the next generation and beyond.

The purpose of the Valle Area Plan is to ensure that future development in the area is in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, that it is not detrimental to the established character of the community, and that it preserves or enhances the special characteristics that define the Valle Area. More specifically, the plan serves as an amendment to the Coconino County Comprehensive Plan, and guides the decision-making processes of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors in their consideration of zone changes, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and other development-related proposals.

As the principal gateway to the Grand Canyon, the community of Tusayan plays an important role in the provision of goods, services, and information to tourists and visitors. The study area extends three miles north to the Grand Canyon National Park boundary, and four miles south of the existing community and five miles on either side of Highway 64. The plan has no established time period. The last Tusayan plan, the South Grand Canyon Specific Area Study, was adopted by the Board in 1978. Ideally, this plan will be updated and amended regularly.

The Red Lake Study area consists of almost 40,000 acres of private land within an approximately 150 square mile area. State of Arizona and National Forest Service land comprise the remainder of property in the study area. The area extends north 14 miles from the Williams City Limits. Highway 64 bisects the study area with the boundaries extending 5 to 6 miles to the east and west. The study area is bounded on the east by the center line of Range 3 East, to the north is the 6th Standard Parallel, the west boundary is an extension of the west section line of Section 2, T24N, R1E, and the Williams City Limits forms the southern boundary. Land uses in the study area have evolved slowly through the years. The primary land use has historically been ranching. Most of the subdivisions were platted during the height of land speculation in Arizona in the 1960's and early 70's. The commercial development in the study area was primarily established in order to serve tourists traveling to the Grand Canyon.

The purpose of the "Parks Area Plan" is to ensure that future development in the area is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, that it is not detrimental to the established character of the community as a whole, as well as individual neighborhoods, and that it preserves or enhances the special characteristics that define the study area. The plan is adopted as an amendment to the "Coconino County Comprehensive Plan", and guides the decision-making processes of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The plan does not identify specific land uses for specific locations, but sets forth goals and policies designed to protect the special characteristics of the community, while allowing for orderly, well-planned, and appropriate development. The plan has no fixed time period, but is intended to be applicable for approximately ten years.