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 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.

This report is one of several from Statistical Research Inc. written to develop the Cultural and Historic Resources Element of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Divided into four parts, the report summarizes available information that reflects the experience of (1) ancient peoples of Southern Arizona; (2) indigenous peoples; (3) non-indigenous peoples of the historical period; and (4) Pima County today.

This contains two reports. The first is by authors from Statistical Research, Inc. that provides background information on the definition and application of the traditional cultural places designation under the National Historic Preservation Act. The second report is from the National Forest Service and expands on the first with examples of how traditional cultural places can be considered as part of land management planning.