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.

What a difference a year makes. In June 2008, AZ Views reported that “Arizonans have a strong sense of job security, despite the national economic slump and the state’s budget crisis.” That is no longer true, as this edition of AZ Views shows, and Arizona’s economic situation arguably is the best example of the worst case.

In the Valley, developing viable long-term transit from where we are currently will be very difficult if key
components continue to remain unaligned. Thus, before getting to the primary purpose of this report, it is important to first establish the players and basic considerations relevant to the effectiveness of a transit system.

Few would dispute that the Phoenix metropolitan area is severely lacking in terms of mass-transit compared to other similarly sized and configured cities. The Valley’s fleet of roughly 400 buses is about one-third of the service found in San Diego, Atlanta, and Seattle. In addition, most of Phoenix’ peer regions either already have, or are planning rail systems. Of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., only six -- Phoenix included -- do not currently have or are not planning to add rail to their transit system.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.

This report brings together the results of a survey of 1100 homeless people living in and around downtown Phoenix in 1996 with the results of a similar survey conducted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of the homeless population in Phoenix, the data and comparative information presented in this report also reveal the complex and intractable nature of the homeless problem in general.

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.

Good jobs and good schools—few would disagree that these are essential elements of a secure and rewarding life. Both are also vital components of a healthy society: Good jobs create revenue to support quality schools, which in turn produce a superior workforce to fill those jobs. Based on survey panelists’ responses, most Arizonans seem to feel that they’re doing well on the employment front, but not quite so well concerning education.