This plan responds to key trends, emerging issues, and community visions and goals. The Plan includes strategies and actions for the years 2020 and 2040 to address identified transportation needs, while being sensitive to possible future funding constraints. This Final Report provides an overview of both the study effort and the work products developed throughout the planning process, which forms the basis for the final plan recommendations. The planning process analyzed the existing transportation system, land use and socioeconomic conditions within the study area; conducted in-depth local stakeholder interviews; developed future growth projections; provided opportunities for public input; and included an evaluation of alternative future solutions.

This Land Use Survey, conducted for the Cochise County Planning Department, was designed to elicit citizen opinions about the future pattern of growth in Cochise County and land use issues in areas outside of City limits. This project is an initial step in the County’s "Envision 2020: Land Use Planning in Cochise County" process, developed to measure citizen opinions on how growth is currently managed in the County and how to manage future growth.

In fiscal year 2012, St. David Unified School District’s student achievement was much higher than peer districts’, on average, and the District was reasonably efficient in most operational areas. The District’s administrative costs were much lower than peer districts’, but the District lacked sufficient accounting and computer controls. The District’s plant operations and transportation program were reasonably efficient overall. However, the District needs to accurately determine and report to the Arizona Department of Education its bus ridership information to help ensure the District is properly funded and to allow it the ability to calculate and monitor rider-based transportation performance measures. The District’s food service program was inefficient, with a cost per meal that was much higher than the peer districts’ average primarily because of overstaffing and inefficient purchasing practices. As a result, the District spent $44,110 of its Maintenance and Operation Fund monies to subsidize the program.

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.

This report summarizes the results of an economic impact analysis of the Rosemont Copper Project, an open-pit mining operation to be developed on a 15,000 acre site in Pima County about 30 miles southeast of Tucson. The analysis employed the REMI PI+ regional economic forecasting model to estimate the economic impacts of the Project for the Cochise/Pima County/Santa Cruz Counties study area, for the State of Arizona, and for the United States.