[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6652630,"mediaKeyId","2490270-3bee3c940c13e5f030c7b21bd27229e5","parentId",2490270,"title","County update: coordinated‑entry bottlenecks, homeless encampment reporting and Loop patrols","audioSeconds",2076,"startMs",10387000,"endMs",12463000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2490270-3bee3c940c13e5f030c7b21bd27229e5&start=10387&end=12463","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2490270-3bee3c940c13e5f030c7b21bd27229e5/thumbnail_10387000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6652630/Pima-County/Arizona/County-update-coordinatedentry-bottlenecks-homeless-encampment-reporting-and-Loop-patrols","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6652630-161eeb010f16b9f361a83737909d0639/orig.mp4?Expires=1770823680&Signature=N0lKUHOAUOdUS10g1Q3idzJHH52VZRcB8MM8lmID~8aEnSEVQus2uRrOafmp7duB7I5j51hDyuzk1~7ChQ-lMJMlF-fvZvAen0uiFByzihxkmCsquGL41CZrCHvauGeSKroAS7PRdi-KDk0mUYLarmyqLx~L-JqMno78O3qxgYW1JOUPfHBC0DFy-~NnG1~Q5writnaCCqSIOc9fjW4vqDSxG6n2M0SR-yN6kVEjk6xrkyUkSl76amNicYUDNCN-oX~sgLE5LJv3sdtq9qHR-HQic3GU8TpXogU1wBxJ3iRg9Pyixf~8e7oFWECYKov~47MdGp5tHYzlRLZcrqH~vw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pima County","date","2025-03-04T23:04:33.43Z","article","Pima County staff briefed supervisors on recent homelessness system metrics and on a pilot safety patrol on the Loop that seeks to reduce criminal activity and improve public safety for park and trail users.

During the meeting, staff summarized a recent gaps analysis of the coordinated‑entry system: 7,689 individuals or households completed a housing assessment; 1,069 (about 13%) met the continuum‑of‑care’s community prioritization; and 535 (roughly 6% of completed assessments) received housing program placements. County staff and community advocates said the data highlight a bottleneck between assessments and actual placements and pointed to several contributing causes: program eligibility mismatch, individuals who cannot be located when a referral is made, household choice and program‑level restrictions tied to funding rules.

“Those are gonna have to be a conversation,” county staff said when describing why internationally referred households were not ultimately housed; staff urged coordinated, system‑level improvements by the local continuum of care (the Tucson Pima Collaboration to End Homelessness) to reduce attrition between assessment and placement.

Separately, the county’s pilot “Loop Patrol” – private patrol staff funded by the county to cover trail and park areas after dark – submitted a six‑month field report. The patrol recorded thousands of contacts and identified six sites responsible for roughly two‑thirds of reported problems along the multi‑use trail and adjacent parks. Patrol staff reported compliance with voluntary removal requests most of the time, but also a persistent subset of contacts who remained in place and engaged in criminal activity. County officials extended the pilot through the end of the fiscal year and will meet with Tucson Police and other public safety partners to increase targeted presence and refine outreach and enforcement coordination.

Quote: County staff summarized the coordinated‑entry findings in stark terms: “What would have happened to the remaining 534, referred individuals?” the presentation asked, underscoring the system’s attrition between assessment and placement.

Ending: County staff told the board they will continue to pursue better data sharing and coordinated case‑conferencing with the continuum of care and city partners; board members asked for follow‑up materials showing how the county and city plan to close the gap between assessments and housing placements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Pima County Board of Supervisors Meeting - March 4, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","County staff told the Board of Supervisors that recent coordinated‑entry data show large gaps between people who complete homeless housing assessments and those who are ultimately placed into HUD‑funded housing programs, and supervisors also extended a pilot ‘Loop’ patrol used to address criminal activity and encampments along the trail.","taxTitle","Pima County, Arizona","taxId",2570,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6652635,"Pima County public hearing draws sharp local debate over proposed fireworks ordinance",8601,3963000,12564000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2490270-3bee3c940c13e5f030c7b21bd27229e5&start=3963&end=12564","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2490270-3bee3c940c13e5f030c7b21bd27229e5/thumbnail_3963000.jpg","/articles/6652635/Pima-County/Arizona/Pima-County-public-hearing-draws-sharp-local-debate-over-proposed-fireworks-ordinance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6652635-b21ecea7a52217eeb84e0e8ffad6ea49/orig.mp4?Expires=1770823680&Signature=FDm8ntBldobCTRXDXPoGBadpGJrjlfhRM7JFSdqnkL3hzWOUA2LR~ELD9n82ppCp5g20k5RwOuuv4NlI0KCPMrykFntCzFULvAu9C6dlatCwXCICor9RQFy3HV02axGkeJiwMJSsFf872ODaWQqlIsNuVLk0qg7rIsLopaB51H4ukahc588dmIwqqz6xcJTgqS6kU2F0myNqe6elDtuTh7Mh~CYWhBh6VX7zSLfAmoGwbbsX7oDlTpXuIq55hruTw0~O8-21096M7is6-lwqeSgevBChI-ju2GcxuidLhyD6IlqaSntla2raoMQ4iLaO3Q8b-PkLzjFCgkrcELJ1Ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposed Pima County ordinance that would restrict public fireworks displays in the unincorporated county drew a packed public hearing and a mix of community objections and supporter comments, ending with supervisors directing county staff to consult with fireworks professionals before taking the ordinance to a vote.

The draft code changes circulated by county staff would do several things beyond current rules: require applicants to notify neighbors within 1,000 feet after an application has been approved; remove authority for justices of the peace and constables to grant fireworks permits (moving consistent permitting responsibility to the county); limit display hours (between sunset and 11 p.m. except for New Year’s and where the board authorizes a later hour); require on‑site standby by the appropriate fire authority; and allow fire authorities to cancel a show if sustained wind exceeds 10 miles per hour. The draft also tied approval to drought readings from the U.S. Drought Monitor, proposing that public displays be prohibited when the monitor shows the county in certain drought levels.

Local reaction was strongly mixed in the three‑hour hearing. Some residents described repeated, late‑night commercial displays in residential areas that have frightened pets and raised safety concerns, while fireworks contractors and several country clubs warned the ordinance in its current form would put longstanding community events and wedding and corporate displays at risk. A fireworks professional who has worked in the region for decades told the board he will forgo permits at one location where repeated problems have occurred but urged the county not to adopt a blanket ban that affects irrigated golf courses and school athletic fields. One resident said the ordinance’s neighbor notice requirement should allow signs or HOA notifications rather than certified mail because the latter would be onerous for schools and community groups.

County staff told supervisors the drought‑reference language was developed to avoid situational ambiguity (rainfall or humidity differ block by block) and to provide a single, public indicator for permitting decisions. Supervisors debated amending the drought clause to apply only to the most severe categories and to soften the presubmission mail requirement so notice occurs after an application is approved.

After the public testimony, the board voted unanimously to instruct the county administrator to meet with fireworks industry representatives and other stakeholders to work toward modifications that might narrow conflicts and improve enforceability. Chair Nora Scott framed the action as a request for further negotiation before the board considers ordinance adoption. The motion passed 5–0.

Quote: “No public fireworks displays shall be held at The US Drought Monitor weekly report, identifies the drought conditions for Pima County at d 2, severe drought, d 3, extreme drought, or d 4, exceptional drought,” Chair Nora Scott read when summarizing the proposed code language.

Ending: The county will return to the board with staff recommendations after meetings with industry and other stakeholders; supervisors said they want a notice rule that balances public safety and feasibility and a drought threshold that is administrable by fire authorities.","Supervisors heard a public hearing on a proposed code change that would tighten permitting, require neighbor notification and tie public displays to a U.S. Drought Monitor threshold; board directed the county administrator to consult industry representatives before further action.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6652640,"Pima County weighs budget moves as federal grant funding faces review",5595,5677000,11272000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2490270-3bee3c940c13e5f030c7b21bd27229e5&start=5677&end=11272","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2490270-3bee3c940c13e5f030c7b21bd27229e5/thumbnail_5677000.jpg","/articles/6652640/Pima-County/Arizona/Pima-County-weighs-budget-moves-as-federal-grant-funding-faces-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6652640-41a85766e17cc20378668514483628a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770823680&Signature=R4gnr5o4fuO0HkFj0okN~6VVecPYuC0vt2ReePzYnaMdQwIOeWMo1SzPWh-tBE2s6L~C4UK~ZcyG2~~nF0d73NrZt1WPy7AfdkjuOw9OFFEiChTfzGFnXbNCFn5fUrnsHLRr3QE5xEgJisiR-kZvaaySFwHJEae7kA~vEIi6lbmwuqPlV1wFMFd60icZ7fD-NAldahiwhgHbVQMNLZN2MSiEM14OHTWd5GhaYB0HRb2VAmZ1sWI0aUqHkWgpFChfzT0XR9raAuthXjkslsnF6U~KndYXQQ4zzbhiR~Y2yjz4gIfe1Vzlkv1pKdkWdCW1DLoiZZXGzpv0q0h1lYMNuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Pima County officials told the Board of Supervisors that roughly $150 million in federal awards tied to pandemic recovery and other large programs are under review following recent federal memoranda and court action, and urged caution as the county finalizes its supplemental budget requests.

County Administrator Jan Lesher told the board the county cross‑walked federal CFDA numbers identified by the Office of Management and Budget and other federal guidance against the county’s grant portfolio and found “potentially 50 affected county grants representing approximately a hundred and 50,000,000 in expenditures last fiscal year.” Lesher said much of that total — about $94 million — reflects one‑time American Rescue Plan Act and similar awards already obligated, while roughly $56 million represents recurring or formula grants that require extra scrutiny.

Why it matters: County staff said the $56 million in reoccurring grants is the clearest short‑term exposure because those awards fund public health programs, workforce development, housing and other ongoing services. If federal reimbursement or pass‑through funding is paused or reduced, county departments could see sudden holes in operating budgets.

The county’s budget presentation emphasized uncertainty from three federal policy channels: recent executive orders and OMB memoranda halting some Infrastructure Investment and Inflation Reduction Act spending; court disputes tied to the Impoundment Control Act; and the continuing federal appropriations process in Congress. Lesher told supervisors, “Since January 20, this number is actually now 76 executive orders have been issued and signed by the federal administration,” and later summarized the county’s cross‑walk findings for grants tied to those actions.

At the board dais, supervisors pressed staff about which grants are most vulnerable and how rapidly the county can adjust if reimbursements slow. Lesher and grant‑management staff said most awards remain open and reimbursable today; the county is tracking a small number of reimbursement delays and one FEMA Shelter and Services reimbursement case being litigated in another jurisdiction. She warned that some large awards are closing out and will not recur while others — the $56 million group — are annual program funds that, if interrupted, would immediately affect services such as public health and housing.

After extended budget deliberations earlier in the meeting, the board voted on a substitute motion authorizing the county administrator to continue the fiscal‑year budget development process using a new prioritization framework presented by staff. The vote was 3–2 on a roll call (Yes: Supervisor Allen, Supervisor Grijalva, Chair Scott; No: Supervisor Christie, Supervisor Hines). Lesher said the framework is intended to help the board weigh countywide operational needs against maintaining existing programs and possible program expansions while tracking federal funding risk.

What to watch: County officials said they will continue to update the board as federal grant status and court rulings change. They also gave supervisors a menu of budget‑balancing options — property tax rate adjustments, reserve policy changes and one‑time PAYGO uses — and noted that every penny of the primary tax rate equals about $1.1 million in revenue.

Quotes: “If we were to take everything that is currently yes, you would only have to increase the primary tax rate by 48¢,” County Administrator Jan Lesher told the board in her budget overview.

Ending: Supervisors asked staff to return with continued updates and more granular grant‑by‑grant risk assessments; the administrator said she would incorporate federal updates into the next budget materials as the county moves toward its tentative budget.","County officials told supervisors that roughly $150 million in federal awards tied to pandemic and infrastructure programs is under review and that $56 million in recurring grants poses the clearest near-term risk to county services; supervisors directed staff to continue budget development under a new prioritization framework.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County update: coordinated‑entry bottlenecks, homeless encampment reporting and Loop patrols

Pima County public hearing draws sharp local debate over proposed fireworks ordinance

Pima County weighs budget moves as federal grant funding faces review