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 purpose of this report is to measure Pima County’s success in meeting priority needs, goals and strategies as outlined in the City of Tucson and Pima County Consortium Consolidated Plan; in addition to, use of federal HUD entitlement funding including the Community Development Block Grant and Emergency Solutions Grant. Pima County is also the recipient of HOME funds through a consortium with the City of Tucson. This document also describes the methods used to comply with federal regulations. All of this information chronicles a considerable amount of work by the Community Development and Neighborhood Conservation staff to carry out the mission of preserving and enhancing communities and improving the quality of life for lower income individuals and families in Pima County, Arizona.

The Annual Action Plans describe City and County allocations for the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs during the coming year. These allocations fund activities to address goals for each of the primary Consolidated Plan areas: Affordable Housing, Homelessness, Community Development, Special Needs and Citizen Participation. The City of Tucson and Pima County have formed a Consortium to plan for these activities. The lead agency is the City of Tucson.

A landmark assessment of infrastructure needs in Arizona was produced by the L. William Seidman Research Institute in May 2008 for the Arizona Investment Council (AIC): "Infrastructure Needs and Funding Alternatives for Arizona: 2008-2032", that addressed infrastructure needs in four categories: energy, telecommunications, transportation, and water and wastewater. The information from the AIC report is a major input to the report that follows. Other types of infrastructure — most notably education, health care, and public safety — also are analyzed here to provide a more complete picture of infrastructure needs in Arizona. The goals of this report are to place Arizona’s infrastructure needs into national and historical contexts, to identify the changing conditions in infrastructure provision that make building Arizona’s infrastructure in the future a more problematic proposition than in the past, and to provide projections of the possible costs of providing infrastructure in Arizona over the next quarter century.

The condition of Arizona’s infrastructure has a direct impact on economic productivity and quality of life. As economic competition expands domestically and globally, and as the knowledge economy evolves, the importance of a strong infrastructure increases. Education, in particular, is of growing importance. Arizona’s infrastructure challenges will require commitment and creativity to meet the needs and potential of 10 million people and to ensure a positive future for the state.

The Phoenix metropolitan area is new by national standards, having developed primarily since World War II and particularly since 1970. However, settlement patterns were established in the 1800s, in part due to topographic features such as water courses and mountains. The war effort during World War II stimulated the growth of the Valley. After the war, a combination of events led to much faster growth. These included the desire of ex-servicemen stationed in the area during the war to return; improvements in air conditioning; charter government in Phoenix, which allowed a small pro-growth business group to gain power; and
aerospace and electronics firms siting facilities, in part because of the federal government’s designation of Fort Huachuca as the principal proving ground for electronic defense equipment. The modern period began around 1970, when a maturing metro area coincided with the baby-boom generation reaching adulthood. The result was even more rapid growth that has continued to the current time. Rapid growth of the Phoenix metro area is expected to continue for at least the next 50 years. Land and water availability should not restrict growth until after the current population of nearly three million exceeds seven million in 2050.

The Phoenix metropolitan area’s “favored quarter” for employment in 1995 – the metro area’s highest employment densities outside the primary core – extended from Chaparral Road in Scottsdale to Baseline Road in Tempe. Downtown and South Scottsdale’s success can be traced to being adjacent to the favored residential quarter that extends from the area around the Phoenix Mountains through north Scottsdale. In the 1990s, the favored employment quarter has been extending north in Scottsdale through the favored residential quarter. The presence of Arizona State University, proximity to Sky Harbor Airport, and access to the region’s first two freeways contributed to the portion of Tempe north of Baseline Road becoming the largest employment center outside of the primary core in Phoenix. Employment also was above average south of Baseline Road, extending into the secondary favored residential quarter of South Tempe and Ahwatukee – Foothills. Considering residential and economic factors, the Phoenix metro area’s favored quarter stretches from north of Squaw Peak in northeast Phoenix through Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, and Tempe to south of South Mountain in southeast Phoenix.

The age of housing in the Phoenix metropolitan area reflects the mostly steady outward spread of development. Large differences exist across the area in other housing measures. Many of these differences are closely related to geographic variations in household income and in the type of housing. As in the rest of the country, housing affordability in the Phoenix metropolitan area fell substantially in the 1970s. During the 1980s, the change in affordability varied by situation. Affordability rose for the median-income household, especially for homeownership. For those at the low end of the income spectrum, affordability of rental units improved slightly, but affordability of owned units worsened. Data for the 1990s are limited; the affordability of owned units rose for the median-income household, which could afford the median-priced home in 1998. An inadequate supply of very low-cost housing existed in the Phoenix metropolitan area in 1990. Even if low-income households were perfectly matched to low-income housing that they could afford, a little less than 3 percent of all households (about 23,000) could not have found affordable housing. The inadequacy expanded in the 1980s. The percentage of households reporting an unaffordable housing payment was much greater. Considering only low-income households who spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing, about 21 percent of all households had a housing problem related to affordability.

Unlike the rest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, population density in central Phoenix dropped during the 1970s and 1980s. The primary cause was a decrease in the number of housing units. Rising vacancy rates contributed, but the increase in vacancy rates was similar to that of the entire metropolitan area. Between 1990 and 1995, population density rose in central Phoenix. A sharp decline in vacancy rates was a major factor in the turnaround, though the vacancy rate decline only matched that of the entire metro area. Another major factor in the increase in density was the rising number of people residing in prisons, homeless shelters, or on the streets.

Afterschool youth-development programs (AYDs) have grown significantly during the past 15 years in Arizona and nationally. Many providers have moved beyond simply providing a safe haven to actively promoting young people’s development. However, there is still tremendous opportunity for growth. There is also a continuing need to enhance coordination and collaboration among programs in order to extend their resources and heighten their impact.

Morrison Institute worked with AzCASE and VSUW to construct a 55-question survey using Qualtrics on-line software. While the term “afterschool” was used, the survey was designed to measure all types of out-of-school programs, regardless of whether they operate before or after school, on weekends, or during school and summer breaks. Approximately 1,800 questionnaires were distributed to individual program sites in Maricopa and Pima counties via a list provided by AzCASE. Though the survey did not utilize a random sample, its 38 percent response rate (681 returns) suggests that its findings can help educators, youth-development professionals, policymakers and the business community understand the scope, characteristics and needs of afterschool services in Arizona’s two largest population centers.