THE COCONINO LIBERTARIAN PARTY

POSITIONS ON THE 2005

PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

 

1.         County Authority to Undertake Forest Health Activities  

Summary of Issue:  The fire risks posed by overgrown and diseased forests and the resultant impacts on private land owners have been key discussions points at all levels of government following several disastrous fire seasons.  While Federal and State lands have undertaken forest health improvement projects, Counties lack authority to provide similar services.  It is recommended that a bill be drafted authorizing Counties to undertake Forest Health Improvement projects in partnership with land management agencies on Federal and State lands, and singly or in partnership in County lands and on private lands with approval of the land owner.  During last year’s legislative session a forest health bill was passed that calls for a Wildland/Urban Interface Ordinance.  Although that bill has allowed for this issue to move ahead, Representative Tom O’Halleran is continuing to push for increased legislative authority. 

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  The Coconino County Board of Supervisors requests the County Supervisors Association support a statutory amendment to A.R.S. 11-251 by including additional provisions that would grant the Board of Supervisors the authority to cooperate with Federal and State Lands on forest health improvement projects.

 

 

The goal advocated of healthy forests and protection of property is worthwhile and one that Libertarians share.  The means advocated of the county undertaking to clear federal and private lands sounds positive, but is flawed in a number of ways.

 

First, the county will be covering the cost of clearing federal and state land, and no provision is made for recovering the costs to the already strapped county for services rendered to those lands.  In addition the county is then duplicating efforts of the federal and state government.

 

Second, the county will be covering the cost of clearing private land, rather than making the land owner responsible for this, thus improving the value of private land at taxpayer expense, arguably a gift prohibited by the state constitution.  Private land that poses a threat to other lands, whether public or private, must be made the responsibility of the land owner, who has no right to pose a threat to the lands of others by neglect or inaction. 

 

Third there is nothing that allows or empowers individual citizens and local communities to undertake such projects.  Currently if a citizen tries to clear adjacent public land to mediate the threat to private property, the citizen is held in violation of the law.  The assumption is that only government is able to perform such efforts.  There must be provision for the private citizen and land owner to be able to voluntarily undertake those efforts that result in the protection of private land.  If the county is to be involved, it should be only in implementing training of the individual citizens.

 

 

 

2.            Transfer of Development Rights for Counties 

Summary of Issue:  As part of Growing Smarter, the municipal zoning statutes were amended to allow the Transfer of Development Rights from one property to another (ARS 9-462.01.A.12).  The purpose of such a program is to be able to acquire the development rights on a parcel that has a high value as open space and to subsequently transfer those rights to a growth area.  Coconino County would like to see similar language included in the county zoning statutes. 

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  Within ARS 11-1201-1206 create the ability for Counties to have the same rights as cities.  For Coconino County, the major reasons for such a program would be to protect the economic viability of the large ranch holdings, to preserve as much as possible of these lands, identified as sending properties, as open space, and to allow the development rights to be utilized in areas where future growth is to be accommodated, identified as receiving properties.

 

 

This in effect removes part of the rights associated with property and transfers them to the control of the county.  We would oppose this.  The free market is a better source of best land usage, and the entry of groups dedicated to environmental protection and wilderness/ open space preservation on a free market basis will provide a significantly better solution that political favoritism.

 

 

 

3.         Authority to regulate and plan for Water within Counties

Summary of Issue:  Presently, counties within Arizona have no authority to require or plan for water adequacy in developments within their boundaries.  Water has become an evermore valuable resource that has received a tremendous amount of attention in the Southwestern United States.  Cities within Arizona have the authority to plan and regulate water within their boundaries.  A significant amount of population and development occurs throughout Arizona's unincorporated areas.  Within the last several years "The Growing Smarter Act" has sought to plan for development while taking in the scarcity of numerous natural and human resources.  The ability for Counties to plan for and require adequate provision for water within their boundaries is a natural evolution of sound planning for Arizona's future.

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  Within 11-806.01, clearly authorize Arizona Counties the authority to require developers to submit water adequacy statements for subdivisions and minor lot splits.  Also clearly authorize Counties within Arizona to Plan for water within their General Plans. 

 

 

The measure sounds like a solution but in fact only circumvents the real problem, which will only be dealt with adequately by counties causing the legislature to rewrite the anachronistic laws that are the source of this problem and many others.

 

Insofar as the measure would enable counties to preclude developers from building a project and forcing others to bear the cost of the water infrastructure, thereby forcing taxpayers to subsidize the cost of the developer’s project and profit margin, the measure is good.

 

Insofar as it furthers the continual erosion of property rights, by restricting what an individual in a minor lot split or a developer in a tract project can do with their own land, it is anathema to concept of private property that is the foundation of American freedom.

 

The real solution to the problem is to be found in three places:  First, restore the riparian property rights of the citizens of Arizona by rewriting anachronistic water law that transferred those rights to private special interests such as SRP.  This will restore the water rights of particular pieces of land to the individuals who own that land, solving myriad current problems, particularly in the rural areas of the county.

 

Second, clarify in law the rights to underground water and its relationship to surface water.  This would stop the theft of underground water which supplies the riparian sources that are currently fought over.

 

Third, require that individuals bear the responsibility of their actions in purchasing a piece of land.  Buying arid land and then using an improvement district to supply water to it allows both the developer and the buyer to force a third party to pay at least part of the cost of improving land that would otherwise be worth far less.  If buyer and seller were forced to recognize that arid land is their responsibility in the transaction, most of these controversial situations would not arise.

 

 

 

4.            Eliminate the requirement for a separate audit of Jail Districts 

Summary of Issue:  Jail Districts are the only Special Districts required to provide a separate audit in addition to the overall annual audit of the county.  All activities of the Jail District are accounted for in separate funds the same as other special revenue funds.  There is no need for a segregation of the Jail District in order to provide a level of comfort as to the financial operations of these districts.  The only unique aspect of a Jail District with respect to financial reporting is the calculation of the Maintenance of Effort (MOE).  This MOE calculation and explanation are also included in the county-wide financial statement footnotes.  In addition, the Jail District is under the direct control and supervision of an elected official (County Sheriff) independent of the Board of Supervisors.  This item was proposed by Coconino County last year.  The Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA) indicated their support at that time and during a recent meeting in July.  This proposal if passed could save the county approximately $12,000 in general fund.  The true benefit will be realized through the saving of time. 

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  There is no additional benefit to the County, Jail District, or the public for the expenditure of money for a separate audit.  Coconino County Board of Supervisors requests the County Supervisors Association support a statutory amendment to A.R.S. 48-4025 to eliminate the requirement for a separate audit.

 

While the savings in time and expense are obvious, our concern is that the audit of special districts should be independent of the county general audit, so as to maintain the integrity of each.  It would be far better that all special districts receive an independent audit.

 

 

 

5.         Create a Citizen Facilities District (CFD) for Counties 

Summary of Issue:   Coconino County is experiencing a tremendous increase in the number of districts.  Currently we have 19 Fire, 18 Road, 3 Sanitation, 1 Library and 2 Water Districts.  It has become evident that there are certain areas that need a variety of urban type services that cannot be provide for by the County.  To stem the number of districts and to make our government more efficient, it is recommended that a Citizens Facilities District be created.  This district would allow the creation of one district that would encompass all of the aforementioned districts.  They would not be mandated but optional to communities that have needs beyond one district service.  If an area of the county has a need for more than one service then they can go to the ballot with one district instead of numerous initiatives. 

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  Amend 48, Chapter 4, Article 6 to include authority to allow Citizen Facilities Districts within unincorporated County areas.  By allowing Counties to provide Citizen Facilities Districts as an option for providing infrastructure services, they could reduce the number of districts being currently created into one.  The Board of Directors of the Citizen Facilities District would not be the Board of Supervisors.  It would also be recommended that Cities be given veto power of the formation of these districts within six miles of their boundaries.  In areas where the City agrees with the formation, then an IGA between the City, County and CFD would be required in order to allow infrastructure compatibility between all jurisdictions. 

 

 

While sounding like an efficiency move, in fact this will add a whole new level of bureaucracy to the concept of districts, and create additional levels of power within our communities.  We strongly question how long this meta-district will retain the optional character and will instead become a mandatory bureaucracy in each neighborhood.  This proposal increases the amount and authority of government, as the BOS will simply resolve as the BOD of each district as it currently does.  Further it does nothing to empower or foster communities to act independently and self-sufficiently for their own needs, instead creating more dependence on government.

 

 

 

6.            Citizen’s Advisory Council for Road Improvement Districts 

Summary of Issue:  The Board of Supervisors acts as the Board of Directors for Road improvement districts.  The Board of Directors is set up in the Arizona Revised Statutes to play a key role throughout the public process.  If a citizen’s group within the District acted as an Advisory Council, the citizens would become more engaged and educated with the process.  Eventually the goal is to move the district toward self guidance, under the Board of Directors, by the very group that wishes to see the district succeed.  This change will bring the level of decision making back to the people of the area that are invested in their neighborhood.  Those decisions would result in improved recommendations to the Board of Directors. 

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  Amend 48-908 and 48-901 to establish a Citizens Advisory Council for a Road District.  Such District would be comprised of citizens within the District.  By allowing the citizens within the proposed district to provide recommendation through a formal body, they will be able to directly affect the outcome of decision made in their best interest by the Board of Director.

 

 

This sounds good at first as it seems to create a more localized authority.  It does not in fact do this inasmuch as the local group can only make a recommendation to the BOS and the BOS will continue to have final authority on these matters. There is currently a process in place for the public to give input with the BOS; this will only create an additional layer of bureaucracy. It will create divisiveness in local neighborhoods when a segment of the neighborhood is able to extend its will over others in that neighborhood because it has the political connections to gain power in speaking to the BOS.

 

Further, it does not deal with the fundamental problem of a bare majority in a neighborhood being able to force its will on a minority, forcing that minority to pay for road improvements it may not want.  Claiming the majority wants these improvements fails to recognize that democracy is not sufficient to override property rights.

 

The proposal to allow these improvement costs to be paid when the property is sold belies the fact that a lien will be placed against the property.  This lien will prevent refinancing a property without paying off the lien, will accrue interest and devour the equity and appreciation that the homeowner would otherwise gain, as well as devaluing the estates of older citizens, acting as a hidden estate tax.  If the value of the lien approaches the value of the property, the homeowner can expect to be forced from their home in a lien sale.

 

 

 

7.            Authority to form a Solid Waste District

Summary of Issue:  The operation of county solid waste systems has historically been financed through the county’s general fund.  Federal and state legislation enacted over ten years ago placed supplemental compliance requirements upon the state’s counties, cities and towns.  According to the County Supervisor’s Association, in order to meet compliance requirements, smaller counties have had to strain resources beyond the mandated expenditure limits.  This proposal is being requested in order to provide smaller counties, those under 500,000 persons, with a method to obtain funding and to furnish services as prescribed by the EPA and ADEQ regulatory requirements through the establishment of a solid waste district.

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  The creation of a solid waste district for counties with a population of 500,000 persons or less would allow for better provision of services to the citizens of Coconino County.  The proposal would also allow cities to refuse to participate.

 

 

Currently private carriers must go great distances for solid waste disposal, contributing greatly to their higher costs of operation.  Allowing private carriers to create a solid waste disposal program locally rather than assuming it must be done by the county serves the interest of county residents far better than creating another bureaucracy. This proposal merely creates more government and does not even consider that the private sector can offer competitive services.

 

 

 

Administrative Initiatives

 

1.         Fund the Emergency Assistance Program (DES) 

Summary of Issue:  In FY 99 the Arizona State Legislature created a safety network to provide Emergency Assistance to low income citizens facing financial crisis.  These funds were distributed through the Community Action Network where they were leveraged with Federal funding.  In FY 2000 state general fund support of $500,000 was eliminated leaving only TANF funds of $500,000.  In FY 2002 the TANF funds were replaced with $500,000 in Utility Replacement and Reserve Deposits (URRD) funds. The URRD excess reserve has been depleted resulting in the potential loss of all Emergency Assistance throughout the state.   

Summary of Proposal and Benefit: Coconino County would like to propose restoration of funding to the DES EA funding in the amount of $1M.  This will restore the funding that was lost over the past three years.

 

 

Nothing in this proposal does anything to create locally supplied safety nets in local communities and instead only increases the tax burden on working Arizonans.  Rather than going to Phoenix for assistance, the burden of leadership is to create local voluntary solutions by creating incentives to business and local service groups in helping those in need.

 

 

 

2.            Increase of Expenditure Limits for Counties  

Summary of Issue:  Last year, Coconino County and CSA were successful in establishing a study committee to review Expenditure Limits.  This committee is currently forming.  CSA has also recommended that they may be forming a similar committee to further the effort.

The State of Arizona established an expenditure limit in 1980 in response to the Proposition 13 initiative in Sacramento, California.  Expenditure limits in Arizona have worsened the provision of basic services because of the increasing shift of State costs to the Counties.  These un-funded mandates impact the County's general fund because counties are required to pick-up a larger share of the State's costs.  Services that depended on those funds are then eliminated or reduced significantly impacting programs.  The expenditure limit that was established in 1980 was abnormally depressed for Coconino County.  The limit has become overly restrictive in recent years, due to a significant increase in county service needs and un-funded State mandates.   

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  Amendment A.R.S. 41-563, Section A, which would allow for a greater annual increase in the Expenditure Limit by using a per capita and inflationary adjustment.  If the expenditure limit were amended to allow for a greater annual increase by using a per capita and inflationary adjustment, almost every county would experience a greater annual increase in their limit.  Specifically, Coconino County expenditures subject to the limit would be increased by as much as $2 million annually. 

 

 

Tax and Expenditure Limits (TELs) have been very successful when implemented properly.  Colorado’s has resulted in annual tax rebates to taxpayers numerous times.  However, the baseline should be maintained at the original level and not recalibrated or it simply acts as a massive tax and expenditure increase. We oppose any such increase beyond the baseline. Along with this must be the provision that any revenues over the limit must be refunded to the taxpayers.

 

Along with this is the necessity of reviewing the continued need of various programs and the elimination of those which are ineffective or obsolete.  Further, the BOS must be willing to oppose mandates from Phoenix that are not in the best interest of the citizens of Coconino rather than simply try to find a way to fund them.

 

 

 

3.            Funding for Regional Alcohol Centers 

Summary of Issue:  Two years ago Coconino County in cooperation with Representative Sylvia Laughter and Representative Jack Jackson Jr. introduced a House Concurrent Resolution, HCR 2003, that would have brought a ballot measure to the voters of Arizona.  The proposal, as submitted, would have tripled the liquor tax in Arizona.  The Legislative Counsel used the Tobacco Tax Legislation as the model for this proposal and it never received a hearing.  Last year our Representatives sought to identify funding within the existing State Budget for allocation to County Detoxification Centers.  The Coconino County Board of Supervisors recommended a "Blue Ribbon" Committee be established by the Legislature in order to study the broad issues involved with this state-wide problem.  The Board is very interested in keeping this item on the “front burner”. 

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  Work with our legislators and our representatives on the Study Committee to ensure funding is identified for Regional Alcohol Centers.  It is our hope that the recommendations of this committee will translate to funding for this critical state-wide issue.

 

 

Taxing Liquor to fund alcohol centers makes all consumers, whether temperate or intemperate, pay for those who are addictive.  It is not the job of government to pick up the cost of addiction; rather the state and the county should work with the private sector treatment groups who have a high rate of success in bringing solutions to the community.  Taxing those who are acting properly to pay for those who are not is wrong.  The programs such as the one in Sweden where the alcoholics were put to work and made to be self-sufficient has one of the highest rates of success in the world.  These are far better than government programs that do not address the root cause of the problem.

 

 

 

4.         Renew funding for summer youth programs 

Summary of Issue:  Summer youth programs provide a positive outlet for youth during the summer.  This continued budgetary support will address the reduction of teenage crime and negative behaviors when youth are unsupervised in the summer months.  Many teens are too young to work or drive.  In Coconino County, the program developed with this grant money dropped teen age crime in one community by 33%.  In the City of Phoenix this grant funded 170 jobs for at risk youth.   

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  Support the legislative budget process to allow the renewing of funds on an annual basis for summer youth programs targeted to at risk youth and at risk neighborhoods. 

 

Far better is to lead in the involvement of local community service organizations to create and fund meaningful programs that provide valuable work experience and productive learning in the local communities.  Many community needs such as the Forest Health Activities could provide teen involvement in bettering the community, while accomplishing the purpose that currently depends on government funding.  All this can be done without expense to the taxpayer.

 

 

 

5.            Support of State Land Reform

Summary of Issue:  Over the last three years a group has been reviewing numerous changes to the enabling legislation for the State Land Department.  The group has had a major challenge in balancing the many special interests and producing the most balanced document as possible.  Although much of that consensus was reach, a number of other interests were opposed to the legislation.  Currently, this item may come back for a special session in the Fall of 2004.  If approved, the Constitution of Arizona would then need to be amended by a ballot initiative.  The Coconino County Board of Supervisors were very involved throughout the process and would like to see its approval.

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  The Coconino County Board of Supervisors would like to request that CSA’s LPC support the proposed legislation to improve the operation of the State Land Department and how the lands will be designated for either transfer to the County or held in preserve before a future sale date. 

 

 

Insofar as this program transfers state lands to counties, we would support it.  We would oppose giveaways to private groups; we would support transfers to those groups if they paid fair market value for the land.

 

 

 

6.                              Support of Dine College Reauthorization Funding

Summary of Issue:  Each year funding for Dine College is evaluated by the State Legislature through the budget process.  The College has requested that Coconino County support them in their efforts this year to secure a re-authorization of their funding.  Dine College provides an invaluable service to the citizens and students on the Navajo Nation and should be kept whole.

Summary of Proposal and Benefit:  The Coconino County Board of Supervisors would like to request that the State Legislature support Dine College’s efforts this year to secure a re-authorization of their funding to keep them whole.

 

 

We would support this, and in addition look to the community to work to decrease the college’s dependence on the state legislature by long term private endowments.