The CAPER report represents a collaborative effort between the Arizona Department of Housing and the Arizona Department of Economic Security. This document outlines the State’s affordable housing and community development resources, their methods of distribution, geographic funding objectives, and actions by the State to meet those objectives during the past fiscal year.

The State of Arizona Consolidated Plan represents a collaborative effort between two state agencies, the Arizona Department of Housing and the Arizona Department of Economic Security. This document outlines the state’s affordable housing and community development resources, methods of distribution, geographic funding objectives and other actions to be taken by the state.

The Consolidated Plan is a document required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to be submitted by all jurisdictions that directly receive HUD formula funds. The Arizona Department of Housing is the state agency responsible for developing the Consolidated Plan. The goal of the Plan is to create a five-year strategy that identifies priorities and resources for affordable housing and community development projects and services.

The Consolidated Plan determines priorities, establishes strategic goals, and allocates resources for the HUD funded programs administered by the state of Arizona Department of Housing, namely: the Community Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS and the Emergency Shelter Grant Program administered by the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires all government entities receiving federal low-income housing and community development funds to prepare an Annual Action Plan. This is a one-year plan to address the low-income housing and community development needs in the state of Arizona, with a special focus on serving the small cities and rural areas of the state. It consolidates the planning, application, and funding requirements for several programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Community Development Block Grant; HOME Investment Partnerships Program; Emergency Solutions Grant; and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. The federal and state-funded housing and community development projects and programs described within the Action Plan are administered and implemented by ADOH, the Arizona Department of Economic Security, units of local or regional government, or non-profit agencies.

The collaborative process for developing the Tusayan Community Wildfire Protection Plan began May 5, 2004 at a Tusayan/Grand Canyon Chamber of Commerce Board meeting in Tusayan. A CWPP is developed to assist local fire districts, local governmental agencies and residents in the identification of lands—including federal lands—at risk from severe wildfire threat and to identify strategies for reducing fuels on wildlands while improving forest health, supporting local economies, and improving firefighting response capabilities.

The Coconino County Parks and Recreation Department (CCPR) contracted with PROS Consulting to develop an Organizational Master Plan that would aid the Department in sustaining a high quality park and recreation system over the next 10 years. This project seeks to provide sound and realistic recommendations, strategies, tactics, and suggested initiatives that address current and evolving park and recreation needs of residents of Coconino County.

A statement of the community vision for the 525-square-mile Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) area, which extends west-to-east from Bellemont to Winona, and south-to-north from Kachina Village/Mountainaire to north of the San Francisco Peaks. It is the general plan for the City of Flagstaff, and in county areas, works in conjunction with the Coconino County Comprehensive Plan.

In fiscal year 2011, McNeal Elementary School District’s student AIMS scores were lower than or similar to peer districts’ averages. Although per pupil costs were high in some operational areas, the District was relatively efficient overall. McNeal ESD’s per pupil administrative costs were higher than the peer districts’ average, but only because the District served fewer students. The District’s food service program also had higher per pupil costs, but its cost per meal was similar to the peer districts’ average. However, the District subsidized its food service program with $23,000 that otherwise potentially could have been spent in the classroom. In addition, McNeal ESD’s plant operations and transportation program were both reasonably efficient, with lower costs per square foot and per mile, respectively. McNeal ESD paid a neighboring district to transport high school students living within McNeal ESD’s boundaries. As allowed by law, both districts received full funding for the route miles. Lastly, the District needs to strengthen some of its purchasing and computer controls.