The City of Casa Grande engaged TischlerBise to update its Infrastructure Improvements Plans and development fees for several categories of necessary public services. TischlerBise previously calculated development fees for the City in 1999, 2003, 2006, and 2008. Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality associated with providing necessary public services to a development. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure Improvements Plan. Development fees cannot be used for, among other things: projects not included in the Infrastructure Improvements Plan, projects related to existing development, or costs related to operations and maintenance.

Wilson & Company recently completed the City of Casa Grande Small Area Transportation Study. The SATS notes that “as the City of Casa Grande increases in size and planning area, the roadway network is also growing to meet the additional travel demands significant improvement measures are needed to meet the travel demand generated by forecast population and employment growth”. Given the findings of the SATS, the City of Casa Grande contracted with TischlerBise to calculate an infrastructure improvement plans and updated development fees for transportation.

Pima County’s Southwest area has been identified by County planners as a potential and strategic growth area. To accommodate population growth, the existing infrastructure must be improved and expanded. The purpose of this Infrastructure Plan is to provide a basis for infrastructure decision-making related to development in the Southwest area. It quantifies the nature, phasing, financial impacts, and funding possibilities for those flood control, parks and recreation, transportation, wastewater infrastructure and other improvements that are necessary to service future saturation growth within the study limits.

The analysis plan and the format of this report are derived from numerous meetings held over more than an eighteen month span with the AARIN project advisory board, Maricopa County leadership, and representatives from MCSO. Following the guidance of the advisory board, the dissemination strategy for the AARIN project shifted from a single, broadly scoped annual summary report supplemented by smaller topic-specific reports into shorter, individual reports tailored to the specific needs and wants of six key county criminal justice agencies. Meetings with MCSO representatives regarding their individualized report indicated they would be most interested in a broad analysis akin to the old annual reports. Given the MCSO’s need for the broadly scoped analysis as opposed to a topically-focused and interpretive report, the report here primarily provides analyses across most of the core instrument elements, presented in tabular form, with a list of key findings and highlights.

The Maricopa County Manager’s Office Report 2012 examines a variety of public and correctional health concerns among the Maricopa County arrestee population. The selection of the report’s focus serves to highlight details of the data collection that can be used for data driven decision making and examination of both medical and behavioral public health concerns relevant to Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, the Maricopa County Public Health Department, and others interested or involved in health-related services delivery. Substance abuse and treatment history and needs are a common issue for arrestees. This report describes substance use among arrestees, and provides self-reported detail, by drug, on whether respondents are currently receiving treatment, have received treatment in the past, feel they could use treatment, and if they feel they needed or were dependent on different drugs. Also examined are mental health assistance and risks, correctional health services concerns, and characteristics of the arrestee sample. Straightforward bivariate analyses comparing male and female arrestees are used throughout the report.

This report compares arrestees in three categories of probation history – never served probation (or not in the past 12 months), served probation in a county other than Maricopa, and served probation in Maricopa County, each defined for either lifetime or the past 12 months, ultimately yielding six analysis categories. Each of the three probation categories are mutually exclusive within a given time period (i.e. lifetime and past 12 months). Given the Department’s need for the broadly scoped analysis as opposed to a topically-focused and interpretive report, the report here primarily provides analyses across most of the core instrument elements, presented in tabular form, with a list of key findings and highlights.

This survey of visitors to Arizona’s wine tourism regions was undertaken to gather market research on a growing industry, including visitor demographics, travel patterns, satisfaction with the experience and spending patterns. This information will assist the wineries, vineyards, tasting rooms and local tourism communities in the wine regions with targeted marketing efforts, product development, and advocacy for a burgeoning industry that is critical to the health of these rural regional economies.