A recent report has identified the five safest cities in Arizona and also noted a significant drop in violent crime experiences as well as a slight decrease in property crime experiences.
The report from Safewise found the ten safest cities in Arizona are (ranked order): Oro Valley, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Sahuarita, Surprise, Buckeye, Maricopa, Marana, Chandler, and Prescott Valley. Twenty-five cities in total were ranked.
The five lowest ranked were Apache Junction, Avondale, Casa Grande, Glendale, and Tempe. For comparison: the violent crime reported per 1,000 people in Oro Valley was 0.55 and property crimes per 1,000 people were 11.51. Tempe with over quadruple the population has 5.2 violent crimes per 1,000 people and 36.13 property crimes per 1,000 people.
Zeroing in on the reports findings, SafeWise found that the five safest cities collective violent crime rate is 1.0 incidents per 1,000 people while property crime was 10.4 incidents per 1,000 people. The report also found that the number of Arizonans surveyed who said they feel safe jumped up 5% from 36% to 41%.
SafeWise Managing Editor and Safety Expert, Rebecca Edwards said in a statement, “Violent crime experiences are trending down across Arizona, and mass shootings dropped by more than 60% year over year—from eight in 2023 to just three in 2024. Cities like Queen Creek and Surprise saw decreases in both violent and property crime, showing that safety is improving for many Arizona communities.”
According to the report, although 63% of Arizonans surveyed were concerned about property crime on a daily basis, personal experiences with property crime dropped year over year with just 26% of respondents reporting a personal experience with property crime in the past year.
Arizonans are also ranked third for adopting the use of security cameras for their homes, following Delaware and Louisiana. As a matter of preference most Arizonans surveyed, 59%, preferred security cameras or guard dogs, 44%.
Overall, Arizona respondents were most concerned over violent crime, although violent crime experiences fell from 19% to 11% year over year.
Approximately 14% of Arizonans polled reported carrying a firearm for personal protection and 33% reportedly own one for property protection. Incongruently, the number concerned about gun violence increased from 58% to 67% despite a decrease in mass-shootings.
According to SafeWise, the report was generated from “voluntary, self-reported information that cities and jurisdictions across the country report through the FBI Summary Reporting System (SRS) and National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). For our 2025 reporting year, the most recent FBI data was released in October 2024 for crimes reported in 2023.” The company’s full report and methodology is available here.
Under the direction of Governor Katie Hobbs, the Arizona Department of Administration (ADA) sold the state’s first private prison rather than repurposing it for illegal alien detainment.
The State House overwhelmingly rejected a bill last Thursday to lease the prison, Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility adjacent to Tucson, to the federal government for illegal aliens and other violators of immigration law for just $1 a year. The bill failed due to bipartisan rejection despite its party-line passage in the Senate.
“The federal government should have access to the empty Marana Prison to house these dangerous criminal illegal aliens so that Arizonans are protected from further threats,” said the bill’s author, Senator John Kavanaugh.
One Republican lawmaker representing Marana, Rep. Rachel Keshel, rejected repurposing the prison for immigration violations over concerns of bringing criminal illegal aliens into their community.
Keshel and fellow lawmaker to the area, Democratic Rep. Kevin Volk, alleged in remarks to Capitol Media Services that Kavanaugh failed to consult with local leaders about his proposed plan.
“Now, I do agree that something needs to happen with it instead of it just sitting there. But why was I not consulted with?” Keshel asked. “Why wasn’t I able to go to the mayor, the vice mayor, the town council of Marana, and figure out what their desires were for their community?”
The prison’s buyer, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) out of Utah, had operated and managed the prison. MTC purchased the 500-bed facility for about $15 million last Wednesday.
MTC owns nearly 40 correctional facilities, community release centers, and treatment programs across the nation.
The Marana prison was the state’s first private prison, established over 30 years ago. The minimum-security facility housed around up to 500 prisoners requiring substance abuse intervention. The declining prison population in the state prompted the prison’s closing and its recent sale.
The sale comes less than two years after Governor Katie Hobbs announced the prison’s closure in late 2023. The prison closed with under half of the number of prisoners that would constitute capacity.
Hobbs said the closure was a means of saving taxpayer dollars and eliminating government waste. The governor projected a savings of $15 million between the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years.
Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) absorbed the Marana inmates into other prisons throughout the state. ADCRR operates 15 prisons, six of which are private.
“So not only are we demonstrating significant savings, we’re demonstrating, with actions, our ability to be more efficient with the resources already provided to us,” said ADCRR Director Ryan Thornell.
The move by the Hobbs administration put off some local leaders. Marana Mayor Ed Honea said Hobbs gave notice to nearly 90 prison employees and staff of their impending job loss just three weeks before Christmas. The prison had the capability of employing over 200 individuals at full capacity.
Per Honea, the Marana inmates also provided affordable labor for the town. The inmates managed and cleared roadways, and during storm seasons would also clear debris.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion Tuesday finding that the Town of Marana violated state law by assigning the entire cost of upgraded and expanded wastewater treatment facilities to future homeowners through development impact fees.
The fees were challenged by the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) under Arizona Revised Statute 9-463.05 due to the fact that existing Marana residents also benefited from the improved facilities.
The opinion authored by Justice Clint Bolick reverses a Pima County Superior Court decision and sets aside an Arizona Court of Appeals decision, both of which sided with Marana.
According to Bolick’s opinion, town officials violated state law by requiring new residents to bear the entire cost of the expanded and improved services and facilities. Instead, the statute required a proper allocation of costs be conducted through a “discrete, evidence-based findings of fact” that took into consideration the benefit to existing residents.
The case now goes back to a Pima County judge for further proceedings, at which SAHBA will be free to argue that certain expenses should not be included in development fees at all, while Marana officials may argue that certain expenses pertain exclusively to new development.
This could lead to no change to the development fees or an order for recalculation of those fees.
Court records show that until 2012, Pima County provided sewer and water service to residents of the Town of Marana. That year, after five years of effort, the town obtained operational control over a wastewater reclamation facility (WRF) from Pima County, assuming the facility’s roughly $16.4 million in outstanding debt.
In 2013, Marana acquired legal title to the WRF, including the infrastructure, land, and exclusive rights to the facility’s effluent. Owning the effluent contributes to the 100-year assured water supply required for new development, as it can be used to recharge the aquifer.
Town officials then voted to issue 20-year bonds with an annual debt service of $1.8 million to finance the acquisition of the WRF. The Town also commissioned two infrastructure improvement plans, which assigned half of the acquisition costs to future water customers and the other half to future sewer customers.
Those costs would be paid in the form of development impact fees.
The WRF’s output was initially limited to 380,000 gallons per day (gpd) but the capacity was up to 500,000 gpd by 2017 when town officials approved a Capital Improvement Project encompassing “multi-phase expansion and upgrades” to the water and sewer systems.
Phase 1, which was the subject of SAHBA’s litigation, was undertaken to increase the WRF’s capacity to 1.5 million gpd to serve both existing residents and anticipated development. It also brought Marana into compliance with the Class B+ water quality standard required by its Aquifer Protection Permit.
New water and sewer impact fees were also adopted by Town officials in 2017, still assigning 100 percent of the debt service to future water and sewer customers via development impact fees.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, SAHBA initiated its lawsuit in 2018 seeking a declaratory judgment that the development fees violated ARS 9-463.05 by disproportionately imposing the WRF and Phase 1 expenses on future developers even though current residents were also benefitting from the improvements.
In response, the Town’s attorneys argued the development fees were valid because the expansion and improvements were undertaken to serve future development. A Pima County judge agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the Town.
According to the judge, “the Town’s chief goal in acquiring the WRF was to obtain its effluent as a water resource in order to secure recharge credits towards water rights as a means for sustaining growth by having access to a 100-year designated water supply.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision, ruling it was irrelevant that any upgrades and modernization to the WRF would also benefit existing residents.
The Town’s attorneys then went on to oppose having the Arizona Supreme Court consider the case, calling such review “unwarranted.” But the justices announced in April 2022 it would hear the matter, noting the case presented unresolved issues of statewide importance.
Tuesday’s opinion notes the court of appeals “committed two principal errors” in upholding the lower court’s decision in favor of Marana. First was applying a presumption that the Town’s assessment of development fees was valid. Second, the appellate court took the position that the WRF project was “entirely” for purposes of new development, even though Marana officials conceded some costs would benefit existing residents.
“In sum, we conclude that the Town violated § 9-463.05 by making future development bear 100% of the cost of acquiring the WRF; by making future development bear nearly all the cost of upgrading, modernizing, and improving the facility; and by failing to determine what could or could not be included in development fees or to make any proportionate allocation of costs between existing and future development,” the opinion states.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
How to interpret changes enacted in 2011 to Arizona’s development impact fee law will be heard by the Arizona Supreme Court, it was announced last week.
At issue is Arizona Revised Statute 9-463.05 which was amended in 2011 to redefine the circumstances under which a municipality can lawfully assess development impact fees. The Legislature noted its intent that courts would “narrowly” construe a town or city’s privilege to assess development fees.
Specifically, the 2011 version of ARS 9-463.05 prohibits impact development fees on new residents to pay for “a burden all taxpayers of a municipality should bear equally.”
In 2018, the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) sued the Town of Marana after town officials spent more than $16 million in 2013 to acquire a water reclamation facility formally operated by Pima County. At the time, the facility only had capacity to serve current residents.
Marana then spent more than $17.5 million as part of a multi-phase Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to expand, upgrade, and modernize the facility, including compliance with environmental regulations. 20-year bonds were issued to cover the costs, with bond payments coming from impact fees charged on new homes and other development projects.
SAHBA’s lawsuit contends the expansion of the water reclamation facility and other upgrades undertaken as part of the project benefitted all existing residents as well as new residents. As a result, much of the impact fees violated ARS 9-463.05, the lawsuit argued.
The town, however, contended there was already sufficient water resources and wastewater treatment capacity to serve existing residents. It only acquired the Water Reclamation Facility and expanded the facility in order “to meet the needs” of future development, town attorney’s argued.
Marana also argued the project was developed “over years of careful consideration” by engineers, consultants, the public, and the Town Council. SAHBA was among the stakeholders involved in a planning process which started years earlier but took no action until 2018, according to town attorneys.
A Pima County judge and later the Arizona Court of Appeals sided with Marana’s position. Attorneys for the town later argued that review by the Arizona Supreme Court is “unwarranted” because the two lower court ruling were rightly decided.
“The trial court and the court of appeals evaluated whether the Town’s impact fee ordinances met the statutory requirements under A.R.S. § 9-463.05,” Marana’s response stated. “Both courts held the statutory requirements were met.”
But on April 5, the Arizona Supreme Court announced it will take up the case later this year, representing the first time the amended law will be subjected to review by the justices. The questions to be addressed during oral arguments are:
Did Marana violate A.R.S § 9-463.05 by making future development bear 100 percent of the cost of acquiring the Facility?
Did Marana violate the same statute by making future development bear nearly all of the cost of upgrading, modernizing, and improving the Facility?
Did Marana further violate the statute by failing to take into account what could or could not be included in development fees under that statute, and by failing to make any proportionate allocation of costs between existing and future development?
The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, which is a trade association representing nearly 500 member companies engaged in residential construction and development, filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of SAHBA’s case.
