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.

In February of 1998, the Pima County Board of Supervisors launched what has evolved into the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) -- a comprehensive effort to protect the Sonoran Desert, guide growth and rationalize land development in the metropolitan Tucson region. Proponents of this planning process maintained that the project would reconcile conflicts between human activities and conservation, providing benefits for both wildlife and economic development. Critics, however, have increasingly alleged that implementing such an initiative will adversely affect land and housing markets, increase taxes and create problems of housing affordability. Over time a pressing need has consequently grown for objective information about the possible fiscal and economic impacts of the conservation programs being assembled by Pima County. This report addresses that need. It is a tool in the form of an impartial framework for assessment that government officials, environmentalists, business people and the general public can use for debate and decision-making.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.

States have always administered federal programs. But, states usually have had very little say in how they carried out programs. All states could generally do was follow the rules laid out by federal agencies. But now, devolution is giving states more power over programs. And, in general, Americans have said that they approve of the idea. A 1998 nationwide poll, funded by The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, showed that a majority of Americans perceive devolution to be a positive development for the country.