The cities annex feature class is intended to track city and town annexations in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The ZIP Codes feature class shows the USPS ZIP Code boundaries within Maricopa County, Arizona.

The City of Tempe ZIP Codes feature class is intended to show the USPS ZIP Code boundaries within Tempe, Arizona.

This is the digitized version of a map of the Hohokam canal system in what is now the Phoenix metropolitan area. It is based on the thesis research by J. B. Howard "Paleohydraulics: Techniques for modeling the operation and growth of prehistoric canal systems"

This dataset contain the parcels from the Maricopa County Assessor's office. The area covered is in Maricopa County (Phoenix metro area), Arizona. Major cities include Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa and Tempe. Various types of property usage are depicted in this layer. The most common are residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural properties. Multiple sources were used to collect the information including but not limited to CAD packages, aerial photography, and digitizing from paper maps. Adjustments are made where necessary in the process of updating and some parcel lines are only approximate. In cases where a line adjustment might create a loss of landsize it is typically taken out from the right of way to minimize the loss of landsize in the property. The line symbology for different property lines are not available in this dataset. In addition to standard fields the data has unique assessor parcel number for identification, basic temporal information and the location of property.

Water surface elevations of the base flood as approved by the Federal mergency management Agency (FEMA) for the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The base flood elevation, in feet, is in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. Profile baselines are for the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The cross section data are used for the production of Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) show different floodplains with different zone designations. These are primarily for insurance rating purposes, but the zone differentiation can be very helpful for other floodplain management purposes. The differentiated floodplain zones are used for the production of Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Maricopa County has been subdivided into FIRM panels for the publication and distribution of FIRMs. Profile baselines are for the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).

City of Mesa population provided by Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP) updated annually as of July 1. See Population and Housing Unit Estimates. Census PEP estimates are used for state revenue sharing per AZ statute (42-5033.01). This dataset is the authoritative source for all city metrics such as Crimes or Traffic Collisions per 1,000 residents.

2025-2040 population projections provided by Maricopa County Association of Governments (MAG) and adopted June 2023. MAG's planning area and incorporated jurisdiction projections are published at 2023 MAG Socioeconomic Projections

Other sources of population estimates include US Census American Community Survey 1-year and 5-year Estimates at https://citydata.mesaaz.gov/d/n5gn-m5c3 and https://citydata.mesaaz.gov/Economic-Development/d/9nqf-ygw6, Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) at https://www.azcommerce.com/oeo/population/population-estimates/ (see link for OEO methodology which differs slightly from official US Census Estimates) and City of Mesa Office of Economic Development at https://www.selectmesa.com/business-environment/demographics (ESRI Community Analyst).

Plan submitted by: AriBradshaw on 10/20/2021 USER DESCRIPTION: Gave Graham and Greenlee to D2. Gave all of San Tan to D5 and spiralled from there. Gave all of the radically different part of downtown to D1 from D3. USER PLAN OBJECTIVE: Dear Commission, Mappers, Lawyers, and Public:

This map differs from the adopted 5.0 Map in the following ways:

Each district is equal in population.

We have added all of Colorado City and Wickenburg from D9 to D2. We have added the Biltmore/Arcadia-influenced "new Downtown" where First Friday occurs to D1 from D3.

We have added all of San Tan Valley together in D5. This area does not belong in D2 at all. By adding all of San Tan to D5 and by honoring the VRA in D3, D4 is forced to extend further into the East Valley. This means that it has around 50-70k overpopulation if it continues to include land North of the river. For this reason, the natives are united with the Ft. McDowell natives and Scottsdale is united together from D4 to D1.

We have united the Sun Cities together in D9.

The VRA D7 was made more conducive to the VRA by trading parts of Tucson, Yuma (city), and Maricopa (county) with various districts.Pinal's divisions need to make sense if Pinal is to be divided. Florence and Coolidge must go together. Apache Junction and San Tan must go together. Maricopa and Casa Grande should go together - though are more separable than the others. The southernmost part around Red Rock and Saddlebrook ought to be included in D5 no matter what. We understand the commission's hesitation to have an "arm" sticking out from D5, but we feel that these exurban cities have much much much more in common with Tucson than they do with a rural district such as D2 or the Latino VRA-oriented district such as D9. We urge the commission to strongly consider these points considering Pinal County.

We have added Graham and Greenlee Counties to D2. There is no logical reason why these should be included into a southern district. The mining communities of Greenlee County should not have their small voices diluted even further by urban populations. Additionally, the rural lifestyles along the valley in Graham county are much more akin to those in southern Apache and Navajo than in Pima or Santa Cruz.

We understand the hesitation to even consider adding parts of Cochise to D2. However, when faced with the alternatives, no option best respects the populations of towns like Benson or Wilcox as giving them to a rural district like D2. Giving them to D5 effectively nullifies their voice while D2 must take from an urban area instead. We would rather sacrifice appearance of contiguousness for the sake of the voice of the rural communities along the I10 in Cochise County.

We have added Gold Canyon to D5 from D2. However, for population rebalancing in the Phoenix area, we understand if you return it to D2.

Finally, we have added a portion of D8 south of Cave Creek to D1. This community was split down the middle by an arbitrary diagonal so we attempted to balance it.

Thank you so much to the Commission, Mapping Team, Lawyers, and AZ public for your work and dedication to the State of Arizona. God Bless.

Plan submitted by: redistrictadmin on 10/15/2021 USER DESCRIPTION: In this version based off CD Test Map Version 3.0, CD Test Map Version 3.4 looks to remove West Valley cities (Southern section) from District 9 and is left Unassigned. CD Test Map Version 3.4 then extends District 2 into Pinal County, adding Maricopa and the western portion of Casa Grande in order to achieve population balancing. Gila Bend is added to District 7 while the eastern portion of San Tan Valley and Florence is added into District 2. The western border of District 5 is moved into District 4, including East Mesa, South Chandler, and most of Gilbert. The Northern border of District 4 is moved into District one, including Tempe, South Scottsdale, and the entire Salt River Reservation. The Western border of District 1 is moved into District 8. Both Sun City and Sun City West is moved into District 8. The northern part of Peoria is moved into District 9. For more information on the methodology used to create these boundaries, please visit: https://redistricting-irc-az.hub.arcgis.com/pages/draft-maps USER PLAN OBJECTIVE: N/A

An Interactive map of the Foreign-Trade Zone 75 located in Maricopa, Pinal, and Yavapi county in Arizona. The map includes placeholders of areas where current FTZ members are located and industry thet belong to. The map also shows the excluded area near Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport.

Plan submitted by: PeteRios on 10/16/2021 USER DESCRIPTION: The attached map of Pinal county is being submitted in hopes that you will consider making this particular legislative district more competitive than what it currently is. This proposed draft removes San Tan Valley which is more urban in nature out of the district and also removes Saddlebrooke Ranch, that has testified that they have nothing in common with the Copper Corridor and would rather be with Saddlebrooke Ranch, Oro Valley and Catalina. This also includes the San Carlos Apache reservation in this proposed district along with the Globe-Miami area, which is part of the copper Corridor. The draft also includes the city of Maricopa which appears to be more in line with the rest of this proposal & communities of interest and they appear to be more competitive in respect to party affiliations. You will find that this draft is approximately 51.34% preference Republican and approximately 48.66% Democrat. USER PLAN OBJECTIVE: The attached map of Pinal county is being submitted in hopes that you will consider making this particular legislative district more competitive than what it currently is. This proposed draft removes San Tan Valley which is more urban in nature out of the district and also removes Saddlebrooke Ranch, that has testified that they have nothing in common with the Copper Corridor and would rather be with Saddlebrooke Ranch, Oro Valley and Catalina. This also includes the San Carlos Apache reservation in this proposed district along with the Globe-Miami area, which is part of the copper Corridor. The draft also includes the city of Maricopa which appears to be more in line with the rest of this proposal & communities of interest and they appear to be more competitive in respect to party affiliations. You will find that this draft is approximately 51.34% preference Republican and approximately 48.66% Democrat. I suspect it could have been closer to a 50-50 split in party affiliation, however this is the best I could do at the moment.