Arizona Housing Commission Task Force on Tax‐Exempt Mortgage Financing was established to review and report on 1) the availability of financing for single‐family housing and 2) the role of the private activity bond allocation process in facilitating the availability of housing for low‐to‐moderate income families in all areas of Arizona. The Task Force is required to issue an annual report of its activities, findings, and recommendations, including information reported to it by the four major Industrial Development Authorities and the Arizona Housing Finance Authority. These five entities issue tax‐exempt single‐family mortgage revenue bonds, mortgage credit certificates and other forms of Private Activity Bonds.

Housing plays a major role in the United States and Arizona economies. It is estimated that the housing industry accounts for one-fifth of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product. Despite the economic importance of housing, Arizona did not have a comprehensive approach or strategy for dealing with housing policy issues. In 1994, a Housing Summit addressed increasing concerns about the cost of housing. Participants from across the state met to discuss growing housing needs. A major outcome of the summit was the formation of the Affordable Housing Task Force, designed to review the state’s housing market and suggest ways the state could address housing affordability. Its principal recommendation was the creation of a permanent body that would focus attention on workable housing solutions. The Arizona Housing Commission was created by Executive Order in 1996 to serve as an advisory body to the Governor, the Legislature and the Arizona Department of Commerce, which is the primary agency currently responsible for housing programs. In 1997, the passage of House Bill 2011 formally established the Commission in statute.

This report includes both housing data and policy recommendations which are meant to stimulate debate and provide a menu of options for policy makers and intends to fulfill the following goals:
• Provide information on key socioeconomic trends which affect housing affordability including population
growth, household formation, age distribution and income growth.
• Communicate information on housing market trends including home ownership rates, rent levels and vacancy rates, home sales prices and new construction activity.
• Analyze cost components of typical new single-family housing and multifamily construction in Arizona.
• Identify potential regulatory and policy barriers to housing affordability.
• Recommend leadership and resource policies that will avert a potential housing crisis and improve housing affordability across the state.

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona," March 2005) presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" (June 2005), is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national
average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).

Available data on the cost of living indicate that living costs in Arizona are close to the national average — thus, the state’s lower-than-average wages are not offset by low living costs. No productivity data exist for Arizona. Worker productivity in Arizona could be below the national average due to lesser investments in physical or human capital, which would result in lower wages. Labor market supply and demand factors are a likely cause of the low wages in Arizona. A substantial number of people seem willing to move to Arizona and accept a substandard wage in exchange for perceived qualitative advantages to living in Arizona, primarily climate.

The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the three years, causing the U.S. average wage to be 2.5 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Arizona’s job quality fell between 2001 and 2004 at a pace worse than the national average. Relative to the national average, the industrial and occupational job mixes each slipped a bit more than 0.3 percent during the three years, for an overall decline of 0.7 percent. In Arizona, job quality in 2004 was 2.0 percent below the national average, but Arizona ranked 23rd among all states.

The quality of jobs in the United States became a national concern in the 1980s after a long period of losses of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs and gains of frequently low-paying service jobs. National job quality remains a concern today, as witnessed by the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign. The overall average wage is a measure of prosperity or well-being, but is not in itself a measure of job quality since job quality is just one of several factors — including cost of living, productivity, and desirability of an area — that affect the overall average wage. Little information on these factors is available by state. Adjusting for job quality reduces the state-by-state variation in wages. However, even after adjusting for job quality, the average wage still varies substantially by state.

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.