Final report & recommendations

              The Honorable Bruce Babbitt
Office of the Governor
State Capitol, West Wing
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Governor Babbitt:
I am pleased to transmit to you this Final Report
and Recommendations of the County Government
Study Commission. The Commission has been zeal-ous
in responding to your charge to study the
functions, structure and problems of Arizona
County Government.
As you are well aware this study encompassed a
number of problems and issues. It was not possible
for us to recommend a solution for every problem.
However, we believe that if our recommendations
are implemented a framework will be established
which will permit the counties to solve many of
their other problems.
We appreciate the opportunity to have served on
this Study Commission. The recommendations are
submitted for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marriner Cardon
Chairman
Tkble of
Contents
Summary of
Recommendations... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The County
Government
Study Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Arizona
County Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Commission Findings
and Recommendations
1 a: tRhoel;eo uonft y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self -Government
lb* Powers (Home Rule).. . . . . . . 4 1 C : Chloautinotny-sS .t.a. .te. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
d County
Revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Other Issues .................
Self-Government
Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
I Mandated
Functions Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . .
dations
Page 1
The chief recommendations of the
Commission may be summarized by the
following statements:
a : tmhele C oof unty
The County must be recognized both
as an administrative arm of the State
and as a local government capable of
solving local problems and providing
local services.
Self-Government b : Powers (Home Rule)
Arizona's diverse counties must be
given the authority, through adoption
of charter powers, to formulate their
own structure and exercise the pow-ers
necessary to perform their func-tions
in an effective manner.
County-State
C: Relations
Some reasonable restrictions must be
placed on the State's right to mandate
functions to be performed by counties
including:
Prohibiting a future State-man-dated
function from becoming
effective unless an appropriation
to pay for the costs of perform-ing
the function accompanies the
mandate.
Transferring all of the costs of
administering and operating the
Superior Courts from the counties
to the State.
d . County
Revenues
The Legislature should consider re-
Structuring the formula for sales
tax distribution, with speciai atten-tion
given such factors as service
objectives and County needs rather
than origin of the funds, and to
distributing to counties a share of
income taxes collected.
Counties should be authorized to
collect service fees.
Charter counties shoclld be autho-rized
to levy taxes on a county-wide
basis for services provided
countywide and on specially desig-nated
areas to pay for services or
special levels of services provided
to such areas.
€3 : Other Issues
The Commission identified a number of
problems affecting counties for which
specific recommendations may be sum-marized
by the following statements:
County Boards of Supervisors
should be given authority to
approve the formation of special
districts within their jurisdictions.
Appropriate legislative committees
should study the entire budget
process of political subdivisions for
purposes of making necessary and
desirable changes regarding time
frames and procedures.
0 Counties should be authorized to
establish and collect a fee with
each property tax bill to cover the
costs of tax biil processing.
Counties should be granted per-missive
authority to regulate lot-splitting
similar to the authority
now granted to cities.
The Legislature should consider mod-ifying
or repealing standards estab-lished
by statute for creation of new
counties.
Following enactment of the Commis-sion's
major recommendations, State
statutes relating to counties shoula
be reviewed, consolidated and recod-ified
as necessary.
Intergovernmental contracts and
agreements between governmental
entities should be utilized whenever
appropriate.
The County
Government
Study
Commission
Arizona
County
Government
Page 2
In June of 1980 the County Supervisors
Association passed a resolution calling
for a study commission to be estab-lished
by the Governor to study the
organization, functions and operation
of Arizona's county government. This
resolution was endorsed by the Arizona
Assoc~ation of Counties (AACo) In Sep-tember,
1980. The AACo resolution
emphasized that social, economlc and
political changes have occurred since
statehood which make a re-examina-tion
of Arizona county government
imperative.
In April, 1981, Governor Bruce Babbitt
established the twenty-member Coun-ty
Government Study Commission. The
Governor appointed Marriner Cardon
to chair the Commission. Governor Bab-bitt
asked the Commission to study
the role, functions and problems of
Arizona county government and report
its recommendations prior to January,
1982.
The Commission held its initial meet-ing
in Phoenix on May 6, 1981. In addi-tion
to thlrteen regular meetings,
Early in its work the Commission con-centrated
on learning about the pres-ent
problems of Arizona county govern-ment.
This was a crucial part of the
work of the Commission. Now, to bet-ter
understand the findings and recom-mendations
of the Commission, the fol-lowing
brief background information is
provided.
Organization and
LegaJ Basis
The Arizona Constitution, adopted in
1912, accepted the system of county
government in existence in the Arizona
Territory, and provided a structure for
each county by specifying officers.
After subsequent amendment the
constitutional offices now specified are
Sheriff, County Attorney, Recorder,
Treasurer, Assessor, Superintendent - of
which included two full-day work ses-sions,
the Commission held two public
hearings, In Tucson on May 28 and Flag-staff
on June 19, to solicit public com-ment
on the work of the Commisslon.
The Commisslon also scheduled one of
its regular meetings in conjunction with
the mid-year conference of the Arizona
Assoclation of Counties in June at RIO
Rlco. The Commission solicited com-ments
through a questionnaire malted
to all county officers and certain other
officials. In addition, the Commission re-quested
input and assistance from a
variety of state officials, interest
groups and ~ndividuals. In many in-stances
the Commission examined the
experiences and legislative provisions of
other states to assist in its deliberations.
Staff support to the Commission was
provided by the Governor's Office of
Economlc Planning and Development.
The Commission has proceeded to
identify the problems facing county
government, make recommendations
and establish a framework for imple-menting
solutions.
Schools and a Board of Supervisors. A
clerk of the Superior Court is also
elected in each county.
The officers must be elected, and
each serves a term of four years. The
Board of Supervisors is required to con-sist
of no less than three members. The
supervisors must be nominated and
elected from districts.
The duties, powers and qualifications
of the officers are to be prescribed by
the Legislature.
Apparently the constitutional struc-ture
has not been adequate for Ariz-ona
County Government to function
properly because the actual structure
of most counties differs from what is
provided in the Constitution or the
statutes. Many of the counties have
employed a county manager or admin-istrator
although such a position is not
specifically authorized by statute or
the State Constitution. This practice
Arizona
Countv
permits the Board of Supervisors to
better manage its administrative re-sponsibilities
and to concentrate on
~olicvmkai ng.
~over"?unent 1 The general powers, duties and func- Iions of Arizona's counties are set forth
County Size
Graham
Greenlee
Marlcopa
- 1Mohave I
-N1avajo I
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
50111 r i vallc'y Narorlai Rarlk "Ar17oqa
:I,i:~~,t~:al iRrvfw' SeDl frlih('r la,':: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AI zona Dcoar rmenr or E r o r i ~ ~ n ~ c
5c cur r v Februat v 1080 iquarc milci thouiaridsl
Apache 1
Cochlse
Coconlno
G~la
Graham
Greenlee
Marlcopa
Mohave
Navajo
Plma
P~nal
Private Santa -C1ruz I
Land Ownership Yavapai
Yurna
'1urr v a i v lua+lcnal Bdrik A17oria
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
'tat1:t r a R ~ v f w56' r r i ~ r r I~Q:G i ~ ~ ~ II)I varc and ai a prrrcnt of all larid r i e arl] county
Apache P I
Graham
Grppnee
Marlcopa
Population
Change
Mohave
Navajo
Plrna
P~nal
Santa Cruz
1970- 1980 Yavapal
Yurna
',ou~c s 11 S iiu~6 ~ L\II tile ti-rr,w arnd AI ~ r o r ~ a
1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 D C - ~~ I~T VI' Y PI EKC r10-71r~ CCLII IT" p ~ r c ~ ~rfi tc hapgr
in numerous statutes The counties are
established as the State's administra-tive
arms for purposes of implement-ing
policies established by the legisla-ture
and administrative agencies The
various statutory provisions generally
prescribe what counties are required to
clo, are permitted to do, or conversely,
are flatly prohibited from doing Where
the law is silent with regard to an issue
a county may not act
Arizona County Covervment is express-lv
restricted by toe State Constitution
and slatutes n Pudyetary matters
These restt icricns were enacted as part
of the comprehensive property tax re
form measure in 1980 and impose levy
and spending I~mitso l? counties which
have the effect of drastically limiting
reliarce on the property tax as a
revenue sourcp However, there was no
corresponding reduction in the legisla-tive
and administrative mandates each
county must perform in its role as the
adm~nistrative arm of the State Since
the property tax has always been the
chief local revenue source these 1980
cbanges have caused the counties con-siderable
~roblems
Differences Among
the Counties
Arizona's fourteen counties vary greatly
in size, population resources, degree of
urbanization and n~eds However the
counties are treated for the most
part as if no such differences existed
for purposes of ~mplementing state-wide
mandates and functioning as local
governmental unlts
Of particular concern is the fact that
two of the fourte~nc ounties are high
Iy urban in nature and particularly in
the case of Maricopa County densely
populated In the nonmetropol~tan
counties much of the land is not pri-vately
owned which reduces the abil
ity of the County to raise revenue
The c o u t i t i ~c'i ifferences do not lend
themselves to a single solution to the
counties' problems Yet the counties
must operate under identical struc
tural functional and fiscal restraints
imposed by the Legislature and the
Constitution
Page 3
Commission
Findugs @
Recornmen-dations
/ Page 4
a: tRhoele C oof unty
The role of the County must be rede-fined
to reflect the fact that the County
serves both as an administrative arm of
the State and as a local government
capable of solving local problems and
providing local services.
The Commission recognizes that the
counties perform an Important function
as administrative arms of State govern-ment.
It is logical and cost-effective to
administer State government at the
county level. That is the traditional role
of County government.
On the other hand, the Commission
ascertained during its meetings and
public hearings that the primary role of
the County is no longer one of State
administration. In fact, the role of the
County is no longer readily understood.
Government officials and citizens are
confused as to the proper role of coun-ties.
All counties, to some degree, act as
the local government for citizens living
in unincorporated areas, and in some
Gases (e.g., operation of the sewage
treatment system for all of Pima County)
serve some of the needs of ~ncorporated
areas. It IS to county officials that citi-zens
turn when local problems need
solutions.
Members recognize that the Impetus
for establishing thls Commisslon came
largely from the fact that the bas~cc on-fusion
surrounding the role of the
County has inhibited the ability of the
County to functlon properly.
Therefore, the Commlsslon recom-mends
acknowledgement of the County
as a local government, as well as an
administrat~ve arm of the State. If a
county chooses to be more responsive
to its citizens' needs and &ire, ~sth ould
be authorized to do so.
The Commission recommends acknowl-edging
the local governmental role of
the County by implementation, through
local voter approval, of self-government
or charter powers as described in sec-tion
b.
If self-government or charter powers
are adopted, a County, at its discretion,
will be permitted to provlde services
and perform functions as desired by
County residents in response to local
needs and problems. A t the same time
both charter and non-charter counties
will remain administrat~vea rms of the
State.
No change is necessary to clarify the
State admlnlstrative role of the Countv.
Self-Government b : Powers (Home Rule)
A county should be authorized,through
voter approval, to exercise local self-government
powers. The Commisslon
recommends adoption of a constltu-tional
amendment that provides for
botn structural and functional flexibil-ity.
Each county must be given the
authority, through adoption of charter
powers, to formulate its own structure
and exercise the powers necessary to
perform its functions in an effective
manner.
Structure
The Commission soon learned that one
serlous problem confronting county
government was structural inflexibility.
The State Constitution currently man-dates
the organizational structure of
county government. It is known as the
"row offlcer" concept because there 18
no hierarchy established, it is as if all of
the officers sat equally in a row without
the responsibility of reporting to any
centralized executive authority. This
structure has inhibited the functioning
of the County for a number of reasons.
The concept of equally powerful offi-cers
has caused conflict and competition
as well as "buck-passing" among officials.
Also, the effectiveness of the Board of
Supervisors in performing both as poli-cymaker
and as administrator is limited
by the lack of direct control over row
officers' departments.
Perhaps at one time when a county
served primarily as an administrative arm
of the State the row officer concept
was reasonable. In some counties today
the concept may still be a viable one.
However, the expanding role of the
County as a local government makes it
desirable for the citizens of each county
to choose the structure best suited for
their particular county.
The Commission determined, after
examining a number of structural alter-natives,
that no particular organizational
structure or variation utilized in coun-ties
throughout the nation was so
superior that ~st hould be recommended
Commission
Fin s&?
Page 5
as a model The Commission recom-mends
permitting each county to pro-vide
for its own structural organization
Because current constitutional provi-sions
mandate the existing county organ-izational
structure, implementing this
recommendation requires a constitu-tional
amendment The Commission
recommends such a change be incorpo-rated
as part of the adoption of self
government powers
Function
The Commission perceived another
serious problem with county govern-ment,
that is, its ability to effectively
function as a local government Since
the County can act to solve local prob
lems or provide local services only with
specific State authorization, t hC~ou nty
is now severely handicapped Thus, an
isolated problem in a County which could
not be solved with existing authority
can presently be remedied only by enact-ment
of legislation applicable to the
entire State
After much discussion concerning
better ways to solve local problems, in-cluding
discussion of the authority of
charter cities the Commission voted to
recommend that countips, like cities
have the option to adopt a charter
through local vote The charter author-ity
would include if desired by the
County ordinance-making authority in
relation to matters of local (as con-tl
asted with stat~widec)o ncern
The Comniission d~terminedth at func
t~onafl lexib~l~tiny matters of local con-cern
should be givm to counties which
adopt a charter
F'roposaJ
The Commission determined that the
process of adopting a charter should be
made a part of ?he State Constitution
and that certalt? provlsiors should be
included Through extensive delioera-tions,
the Commission drafted a pro
posal which mpears in this report as the
Self-Coverrment Powers Proposal
The recommended proposal provides
for election of a County charter com-mittee
of fifteen County residents to
draft a charter which sets forth the
organizational structure of County
government and tbe powers to be exer-cised
by the County government
County electors must approve the
charter before it becomes effective
Charter govermerit will provide a
County with flexibility so County resi
dents may tailor their local government
to suit their needs and desires, much as
City residents have the opportunity to
do at the present time
County-State c: Relations
Trie study of Arizona County Covern-ment
required Commission members to
examine the County as a single govern-mental
entity and as a part of the entire
State gwernment The most significant
problem with the County-State r~lation-ship
concerned the right of the State
government both legislatively and ad-ministratively
to mandate that the
County government perform specific
functions or provide certain services The
Commission did not undertake a com-plete
invpntory and analysis of all State
mandated functions, primarily because
of time constraints
However the Comn?ission gave care-ful
consideration to particular y bother-some
issues
Current Mandates
The most burd~nsonieS tatc mandate
as the Commission was informed time
a f t ~tri ve was the reqljirPment for the
County to provide health care to indi
gent residents With regard to the spe-cific
issue of ~ndigent health care the
Commissicn mad^ no recomme~dation
n light of tbe fact that during the
coursp of the Commission's deliberations
the State Legislati~ree naced a program
designed to remedy many of the prob-lems
noted
1 Commission A multitude of other legislative and
administrative mandates Tany speming-
Iv insignificant hen considrred alone
have the combineci effect of significantlv
burden ng the courities SomP examples
of these mandates relate to peace
oft~certr airling iudiciary responsibilities
landFill operations and health code en
forc~ment
A particular State mandate identified
as burdensome by many County off1
cials which the Commission recommends
removing concerns County funding of
the Superior Courts After careful con
sideration the Commission recommends
that State government should pay for
the operating and administrative costs
of the Superior Court in each county
The capital costs of providing facilities
for the Superior Court would remain
with each county
At the present time the County is
required to fund most of the operating
and administrative costs of the S~pe-rior
Court However, the Superior Court
system is a statewide system which is
already administered to a major extent
at the State level through the supervi-sory
jurisdiction of the Arizona Supreme
Court The County has no real control
over the oudget or operation of the
Court Therefore it is particcllarly appro
priate for the operational and adminis-trative
costs of the Superior Court to
be transferred to the State
Each county should continue to pay
for the capital costs of the Superior
Court since this largely involves provid-ing
and furnishing the Court building
which is often used by the County for a
vumber of purposes In this same vein,
the Commission recommends for ron-charter
counties, that the Clerk of the
Superior Court continue as an elected
judicial official For charter counties, the
position of Clerl< of the Superior Court
should oe cowdered for election or
appointment in the draftlng of the
charter, just as other County officials
are considered for election or appoint
ment The Commission makes no recom-mendation
concerning the methods of
selecting Superior Court judges
Implementing this recommerdation
will require State legislation and an
appropriation
Restricting Future Nlandates
The Commission determined that to
ensure viable county government it
would be important to prevent the
State from overburdening counties with
additional costly mandates For that
reason, the Commission recommends
restricting the State's right to mandate
in the fbture
Specifically, a constitutional amend-ment
snould be adopted which would
prohibit either a legislative or admrnis-trative
mandate from becoming effec-tive
unless the State provided an appro-priation
to pay for the costs of imple-menting
the mandate
The restrictive levy and spend~ngli m-its
imposed on the counties necessitate
this rather drastic recommendation This
concept has been adopted in at least
five other states, generally in response
to controls placed on revenue-gener-ating
mechanisms at the local level The
Commission believes that this is a fea
sibl~id ea to correct an unbalanced
situation
The Commission's proposal to imple-ment
this recommendation appears in
this report as the Mandated Functions
Pro~osal
d. County
Revenues
One major problem faced by Arizona's
counties which was interrelated with all
other County problems was a lack of
revenue and the inability to generate
adequate revenues
The Commission was informed by
every county that it faced a critical
shortage of revenue This was true in
large part because of the recent consti-tutional
amendment imposing levy and
spending limits on the State's political
subdivisions
Since the County's power to levy
property taxes is restricted, the amount
of money each county can generate to
pay its expenses and provide services is
greatly reduced The Commissior, made
no recommendation concerning the levy
ard spending limits
As a resblt of its study the Commis-sior?
determined the following
* If the counties' fiscal situation is to
improve without changing the levy
and spending limits, then other
.evenue resources must be made
available to the counties The dis-tribution
of shared sales taxes repre-sents
the other major source of
1 Commission
(Continued)
County revenue, after property
taxes Therefore, the Commission
recommends restructuring the dis-tribution
formula for sales taxes,
with special consideration given to
such factors as service 0bje~ti~eS
and County needs, rather than the
origln of the funds The Commission
also recommends distributing to the
counties a share of the income taxes
collected by the State Currently
cities receive a share of the income
taxes collected
These recommendations recog-nize
that it is a desirable State goal
for each county to provide a min-imum
level of basic services, and that
the various counties differ as to
their ability to pay for that basic
level of servlces
State legislation is necessary to
implement these recommendations
Counties provide a broad range of
mandated and discretionary ser-vices
and functions Fees may be col-lected
for those services or func-tions
only if authorized by the
Legislature
Whether a county elects charter
status or not, the Comm~ssionre com-mends
that each county should be
authorized to charge sufficient fees
for services or functions to ensure
that such activities are not inequi-tably
subsidized by all County resi-dents
while benefiting only certain
County residents
State legislation is required to
implement this recommendation
As the Commission's constitut~onal
proposal concerning self-govern-ment
powers provides the Commis
sion recommends that charter
counties be permitted to levy taxes
on a countvwide basis for services
provided countywide, and in specially
designated areas to pay for services
rendered in such areas. This will en-sure
that an equitable situation
prevails if a county responds to the
varying needs and desires of a part
of the County or the entire County.
A constitutional amendment is
required to implement this recom-mendation.
As noted, the Commis-sion
has made this a part of the
Self-Government Powers Proposal.
e : Other Issues
Of the many County issues the Commis-sion
studied, a number merit comment
and recommendations.
County Boards of Supervisors should
be given authority to approve the
formation of special districts within
their jurisdictions.
Special districts are formed to
provide certain services to an area,
often because no local government
is able to provide the desired ser-vice.
The County Board of Supervi-sors
assists in the formation of such
districts and in their administrative
operation. However, the Board of
Supervisors has little direct control
over the actions of the special dis-tricts.
The special districts are not
accountable to the County despite
the fact that the County may be
indirectly or directly hurt by a spe-cial
district which defaults. The
County Board of Supervisors should
clearly be authorized to scrutinize
the fiscal situation of special distr~cts
being formed, to approve or veto
their formation, and to take reme-dial
actions in the event of the
default of a special district. The
Board's exercise of this strength-
l Commission
Findings &
Recornmen-ened
author ity should help prevent
special district defaults
This recommendation requires
statutory changes
Appropriate legislative committees
should study the entire budget
process of political subdivisions for
purposes of making necessary and
desirable changes regarding time
frames and procedures Currently
the adopt1011o f county budgets
occurs ~n August after the new fis
cal year has begun in July The Com
mission nad been enroclrag~d to
recommend changing r hd~ate of
County budget adoption However
change in the budget adoption date
would not be an approprate recom-vendation
by itself since a number
of other activities with spec fic time
frames precede the final adoption
of the budget
Problems concerning the budget
process should be studied by the
legislative committees and statu
tory charges adopted to make the
budget process simpler, less costly
and more tim~lyIn relation to the
commencement of the fiscal year
0 The County should be authorized
to establish and collect a uniform
fee with each tax bill The fee should
represent the County's cost of pro-cessing
a tax bill Certain low-value
parcels of land do not generate
enough property tax dollars to
cover the cost to the County of
processing the tax bill
State legislation authorizing the
establishment of a uniform fee IS
needed to remedy this situation and
further improve the financial situa-tion
of the counties
Q Counties should be granted permis-sive
authority to regulate lot-split-ting
The Commission was Informed
that a problem exists with current
subd~visionla ws At this time subdl-vision
laws apply only to splits of
land into four or more parcels The
subdivision laws regulate such th~ngs
as access and improvements to be
provided on the subdivided land
However, if l a ~ dis s plit into less than
four parcels no regulations apply In
most counties problems arise when
multiple splitting Into three or
fewer parcels occurs for example,
one piece of land is split into three
parcels, those three parcels are split
into three parcels, and so on Then
purchasers of the property place
demands on the county to provide
services to the property
Counties experiencing problems
with lot-spli tting need legislative
authority to regulate such lot-split-ting
Statutory authority of this
type IS currently exercised by Ariz
ona cities at their discretion
The Legislature should reconsider
t hs~tat utory requirements for cre-ation
of a new county to determrne
if the requirements are appropriate,
and perhaps should modify or re-peal
the requirements
Certainly one of t h k~no ttiest
problems the Commission faced was
that of County boundan6 The Com-mission
determined that current
boundaries could be changed in two
ways by the Legislature acting to
amend the statutes which desig
nate the fourteen county bound-aries
and by citizens utilizing the
procedures specified by statute to
create new counties
The Commission cons~dered the
procedures and technical require
ments for creatlon of new coun-ties,
but the Commission d~dn ot
feel competent to judge whether
these technical requirements are
realistic or necessary to ensure
fairness
Nevertheless the Commiss~on,
recognizing growing pressures for
boundary changes recommends
that the Legislatur e study the stat-utes
which permit creation of a
new county to det~rminew hether
they should be modified or repealed
In the case of repeal the Legislature
would, of course, still relain ~ t s
power to create a new county by
direct legislative act
Following enactment of the Com-mission's
major recommendations,
State statutes relating to counties
should be reviewed, consolidated,
and recodified as necessary Current-ly,
State laws concerning counties
are scattered throughout the
volumes of Arizona Revised Statutes
This makes it difficult for County
officials and citizens to learn and
Commission
Findings 8
&cornmen-dat
ions (Continued)
use the law. Also, if the self-govern-ment
powers proposal IS adopted,
existing statutes may need to be
revised to accommodate charter
counties.
This recommendation should be
implemented through formation of
a special legislative committee
which, in turn, would recommend
statutory changes.
Intergovernmental contracts and
agreements between governmental
ent~tiess hould be utilized whenever
appropriate. Such intergovern-mental
agreements are often a cost-effective
way to provide services
and encourage cooperation. The
Commission strongly believes that
w~der use of such agreements would
I benefit all taxpayers.
No additional statutory authority
is required.
Self-Government Powers Proposal
REFERENCE TITLE county home rule charters
State of Arlzona
T h r t y - f f t h Legislature
Second Regular Scss~on
1982
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF AR17ONA RELATING
TO COUNTIES, PROVIDING FOR COUNTY CHARTERS, PRECRBING PROCEDURES,
POWERS AND DUTIES, AND AMENDING ARTICLE XII, CONSTITUTION OF
ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTIONS 5 THROUGH 9
1 BP t IPSOIVP~ by t r l ~ ot the State of Arizona the
2 concurr n g
3 1 The f o l o w n g amendment of artcle XI1 Consttuton of Arlzona
4 by addingsectloni 5 thr ouyfl n IS pr oposed t o b x o m t vaird whn? approved
5 by a major r y of the quailfled ~ l e r t o r iv otlng thereon and upon
6 ploclamat~ono f the governor
7 5 Criar tPr r o m r r i i t t e , crlar tPr p r ~ p a i a t ~ oarp~p,r oval
8 SECTION 5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ANY COUNTY MAY
9 CAUSE A CHARTER COMMITTEE TO BE ELECTED BY THE OUALlFlED
10 ELECTORS OF THE COUNTY AT ANY TIME THE BOARD OFSUPERVISORS
11 OF ANY COUNTY SHALL CALL FOR ELECTION OF SUCH A CHARTER
12 (OMMITTEE WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER RECEIPT Wi THE CLERK OF THE
13 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF A PETITION DEMANDING THE ELECTION
14 SIGNED BY A NUMBER OFQUALIFIED ELECTORS OF TtiE COUNTY AT LEAST
15 EQUAL TO TEN PER CENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BALLOTS CAST FOR
16 GOVERNOR OR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS IN THE COUNTY AT THE LAST
17 GENERAL ELECTION THE ELECTION SHALL BE I IELD NOT LESS THAN ONE
I8 HUNDRED DAYS NOR MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS AFTER THE
19 CALL FOR THE ELECTION EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS
20 SECTION FOR ELECTIONS HELD UNDER TtiIS SECTION OR SECTION 6 OF
21 THIS ARTICLE THE MANNER OF CONDUCTING AND VOTING AT AN
22 ELECTION CONTESTING AN ELECTION CANVASSING VOTES AND
23 CERTIFYING RETURNS SHALL BE THE SAME AS NEARLY AS
24 PRACTICABLE AS IN ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY OFFICERS AT THE
ELECTION AVOTE SHALL BE TAKEN UPON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TOWARD ADOPTING A CHARlER SHALL BE HAD IN
PURSUANCE TO THE CALL AND UNLESS A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED
El ECTORS VOTING ON THE OUESTION VOTES TO PROCEED FURTHER NO
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HAD THE SAME ELECTION StiALL ELECT
THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARTER COMMITTEE WHO WILL FUNCTION IF
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ARE AUTHORIZED THE CHARTER COMMITTEE
SHALL BE COMPOSED OF FIFTEEN QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE COUNTY
ELECTED BY SUPEWISORIAL DISTRICT WITH THE SAME NUMBER SERVING
FROM EACH DISTRICT A PERSOId SERVING IN A CONSTITUTIONALLY
DESIGNATED COUNTY OFFICE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS A MEMBER
OF A CHARTER COMMITTEE A NOMINATION PETITION SHALL BE MADE
AVAILABLE BY THE CLERK OFTHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHICH MUST
BE SIGNED BY A NUMBER OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS OK THE
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE FOR THE
NOMINEE AT 1 EAST EQUAL TO ONE PFR CENT OFTHE TOTAL NUMBER Ot
BALLOTS CAST FOR GOVERNOP OR DRESDENTAL ELECTORS IN TtiE
SUPERVISORIN DISTRICT AT ThE LAST GENERAL ELECTION AND FILED
WITH THE C1 ERK NOT I ATER THAN SIXTY DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION
THE CHARTER COMMITTEE SHALL WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE
ELECTION PREPARE AND SUBMIT A PROPOSED CHARTER FOR THE
COUNTY THE PROPOSED CHARTER MUST BE SIGNED BY A MAJORITY OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND FILED WlTH THE CLERK OF THE
BOARD OFSUPEWISORS AFTER WHICH THE CHARTER COMMITTEE SHALL
BE DISSOLVED THE PROPOSED CHARTER SHALL THEN BE PUBLSIiED IN
TIiE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE COUNTY AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK FOR
THREE CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IF PUBLISHED IN A DAILY PAPER OR IN
THREE CONSECUTIVE ISSUES IF PUBLISHED IN A WEEKLY PAPER THE
FIRST PUBLICATION SIIALL BE MADE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER THE
COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED CIIARTER NOT LESS THAN FORTY FIVE
DAYS AND NOT MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS AFTER FINAL PUBLICATION THE
PROPOSED CHARTER SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTE OF THE
QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE COUNTY AT A GENERAL OR SPECIAL
ELECTION IF A GENERAL ELECTION WILL BE HELD WITHIN NINETY
DAYS AFTER FINAL PLJBLICATON THE CHARTER StiALL BE SUBMITTED
AT THAT GENERAL ELECTION THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED
CHARTER SHALL BE PRINTED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER SHALL
BE PRINTED IN A PUBLICITY PAMPHLET AND DISTRIBUTED TO ALL
QUALIFIED ELECTORS PRIOR TO THE CHARTER ELECTION AND THE
BALLOT SHALL CONTAIN ONLY A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER
PROVISIONS AND A QUESTION REWDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
CHARTER IF A MAJORITY OF THE OUALIFIED ELECTORS VOTING
RATIFIES THE PROPOSEDCHARTER A COPY OFTHE CHARTER TOGETHER
WlTH A STATEMENT SETTING FORTH THE SUBMISSION OF THE CHARTER
TO THE OLJALIFED ELECTORS AND ITS RATIFICATION BY THEM SHALL
BE CERTIFIED BY THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR FOR APPROVAL THE GOVERNOR SHALL
2
Page 9
Self-Government Powers Proposal ( ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ n u ~ d )
APPROVE THE CHARTER IF IT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS
CONSTITUTION ON APPROVAL Tt IE CHARTER BECOMES THE ORCANIC
LAW OF THE COUNTY AND CERTIFIED COPES OF TllE CHARTER SHAl L BE
FILED IN 'HE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND WITH THE
CLERK OF THF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AFTER BEING RECORDED IN THE
OFFICE OF TI iE COUNTY RECORDER THEREAFTER ALL COURTS SHALL
TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE CHARTER
6 Amendment of charter
SECTION h A CHARTER SHALL SET FORTH PROCEDURES FOR
AMENDMENT OF THE CI IARTER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS StiALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE OUALIFED ELECTORS OFTHE COUNTY ,4T A GENERAL
OR SPECIAL ELECTION AND BECOME EFFECTIVE IF RATIFIED BY A
MAJORITY OFTHE QUALIFIED ELECTORS VOTING ON TtiE AMENDMENTS
AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5 OF THIS
4RTCLE
7 County char tor pr ovlilons
SECTION 7 CHARTER COUNTIES SHALL CONTINUE TO BE
POLITICAL iiJBDlVISlONS OF TtiS STATE EXISTING TO AD IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THIS STATE'S LAWS AND FOR PURPOSES OF
SELF~GOVERNMENTE XCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE
THE POWERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OVER COUNTIES RE NOT AFFECTED
BY THlS AMENDMENT CHARTER COUNTIES SHALL PROVIDE THE SAME
STATE-MANDATED SERVICES AND PERFORM THE SAME STATE-MANDATED
FUNCTIONS AS NONCHARTER COUNTIES CHARTER COUNTIES MAY
EXERCISE, IF PROVIDED THE CI~ARTR, ALL POWERS OVER LOCAL
CONCERNS OF THE COUNTY CONSISTENT WTt-1, AND SUBJECT TO, THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THIS STATE AND THE POWERS OF
INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITIES NOTWITHSTANDING ARTICLE IX,
SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA EACH CHARTER COUNTY MAY
I EVY AND COLLECT TAXES ON A SPECIALLY DESIGNATED AREA BASIS TO
PAY FOR SERVICES OR SPECIAL LEVELS OF SERVICE PROVIDED TO SUCH
DESIGNATED AREA AND AT THE SAME TIME MAY LEVY AND COLLECT TAXES
ON A COUNTYWDE BASIS TO PROVIDE SERVICES ON A COUNTYWDE
BASS WHEN ANY COUNTY HAS FRAMED AND ADOPTED A CHARTER AND
THE CHARTER S APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR AS PROVIDED IN THlS
ARTICLE, THE COUNTY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF ITS
CHARTER AND ORDINANCES PASSED PURSUANT TO ITS CHARTER Wt IEN
THE CHARTER HAS BEEN FRAMED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED, AND ANY OF
ITS PROVISIONS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH ANY LAW RELATING TO LOCAL
CONCERNS OF TtiE COUNTIES IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION
AND APPROVAL OF THE CHARTER, TtiE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER
PREVAIL NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONFLICT AND OPERATE AS A REPEAL
OR SUSPENSION OF THE LAW TO THE EXTENT OF CONFLICT, AND THE LAW
IS NOT THEREAFTER OPERATIVE AS TO SUCH CONFLICT
8 Government and other powers
SECTION 8 ALL COUNTY CHARTERS SHALL PROVIDE
1 FOR A GOVERNING BODY, ITS METHOD OF COMPENSATION,
lvlETHOD OF ELECTION, TERMS AND REMOVAL.
3-
2 FOR ALL OFFICERS OTHER THAN SUPERVISORS CREATED
UNDER SECTION 3 OF THIS ARTICLE AND ARTICLE VI SECTION 21
THEIR ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT THEIR TERMS AND REMOVAL AND
METHOD OFCOMPENSATION THE AUTHORITY OF A CHARTER COUNTY
EXTENDS TO THE CREATION MERGER OR DISSOLUTION OF COUNTY
OFFICES OTHER THAN TtlE GOVERNING BODY WITHOUT RECARD TO
SECTION 3 OF TI ilS ARTICLE
3 FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS REQUIRED BY STATUTE
OR NECESSARY TO EXERCISE THEIR POWERS OVER LOCAL CONCERNS OF
TtlE COUNTY
4 FOR THE POWERSAND DUTIES OF Ti IE GOVERNING BODY AND
ALL OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS AND FOR THE MANNER OF FILLING ALL
VACANCIES OCCURRING IN SlJCH OFFICES
'5 WHETHER A PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE CHARTER PROVISIONS
SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IF A CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES A
PERIODIC REVIEW THE CdARTER PROVISION SHALL ALSO PROVIDE FOR
ESTABLISHMFNT OF REVIEW PROCEDURES
18 9 Self executing provlslon
1'1 SECTION Q THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE ARE
SELF EXECUTING AND NO FURTHER LEGISLATION IS REQUIRED TO MAKE
THEM EFFECTIVE
2 The proposed amendment (approved bya rnajorityof the members
elected toeach houseof thelegslature, and entered upon the respectve
journals thereof together wlth theayesand nays thereon) shall be by the
secretary o f statesubmtted t o thequallfledelectorsat thenexr regular
general elect~on, or a t a special electlon called f o r t h a t purpose, as
provded by article XXI Constltutlon of Arizona
REFERENCE TITLE state fund~ng state
mandated local programs
state of Arizona
Th~rtyf ~ f t hL eg~slature
Second Regular Sess~on
1982
C R -
Introduced by
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA RELATING
TO PUBLIC DEBT REVENUE AND TAXATION PRESCRIBING STATE FUNDING
FOR STATE MANDATED LOCAL PROGRAMS PRESCRIBING EXCEPTIONS AND
AMENDING ARTICLE IX CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA BY ADDING SECTION 22
1 Be it resolved by the of the State of Ar~zona the
2 concurring
3 1 The follow~nga mendment of article IX Const~tutlono f Ar~zona
4 by addng section 22 18 proposed t o become valld when approved by a
5 majorty of thequalfed electorsvot~ngth ereonand upon proclamation of
6 the governor
7 22 Fundlng for local programs mandated by the
8 state, exceptions
9 SECTION 22 A IF ANY COUNTY [OR INCORPORATED CITY OR
10 TOWN1 IS REQUIRED BY A LEGISLATIVE ACT OR ADMINISTRATIVE
11 PROCEDURE RULE REGULATION OR ACTION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE
12 BODY PURSUANT TO A LEGISLATIVE ACT TO INSTITUTE ANY NEW
13 PROGRAM OR ANY INCREASED LEVEL OF SERVICE OF AN EXISTING
14 PROGRAM OR ANY NEW PROCEDURE FOR THE DELIVERY OFSEWICES OF AN
I5 EXISTING PROGRAM OR ANY ADDITIONAL OR INCREASED PERSONNEL
16 COSTS THE LEGISLATIVE ACT OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SHALL NOT
17 BE EFFECTIVE OR APPLICABLE TO ANY COUNTY1 ClTY OR TOWNl UNTIL
18 SUFFICIENT FUNDING IS PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO COVER THE COST
l'i OF THE ACT OR ACTION AND ANY COST INCURRED BY THE COUNTY1 ClTY
20 OR TOWNl IN CONFORMING TO THE ACT OR ACTION
21 B THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO
22 1 THE CRIMINAL CODE AND OTHER STATUTES WHICH DEFINE OR
23 CLASSIFY CRIMINAL OFFENSES
24 2 ACTS PROCEDURES OR ACTIONS WHICH AFFECT ALL
25 PERSONS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AS A GENERAL CLASS OF WHICH THE
26 ICITY TOWN OR1 COUNTY MAY BE A MEMBER
Page 11
1 2 The proposed amendment (approvedb ya major~toy f t h e members
2 elected toeach houseof thelegislature andentered upon therespectve
3 journals thereof, together w ~ t thh eayesand nays thereonlshal be b y t h e
4 secretary of statesubrnltted t ot hequal~f~edelectorstahte next regular
5 general elect~on, or a t a speclal electlon called for that purpose as
6 prov~dedb y art~cleX XI Constltut~ono f Ar~zona
-2-
Acknowledgements
The County Government Study Com-mission
expresses its apprec~ationt o
those who met with the Commission
to share their knowledge of current
problems of county government, pro-vided
research or draft materials, and
provided meeting facilities: Richard
Casey, Executive Director, AACo;
Robert Mauney, Maricopa County
Manager; State Senator Ray Rottas;
Karen English, Coconino County Super-visor;
Cralg McDowell, Pima County
Manager; Andrew Migala, Pima Coun-ty
Finance Manager; John Olsen,
Yavapai County Supervisor, Jay Bate-man,
Pinal County Administrator; Bob
Schuster, Editor, The Klngman Daily
Miner; Betty Van Fredenberg, First
Vlce-President, Sun City Homeowners
Association; John Cliege, Attorney-at-
Law; Coconino County Board of Super-visors;
Pima County Board of Super-visors;
Advisory Commission on Inter-sovernmental
Relations: Arizona
Association of Count~es; and League
of Arizona Cities and Towns.
Principal Staff: Alice Beddingfield
Donna Schober
Support Staff: Janis Curtis
Graphic Design: Nikylla Celine
This report was produced by the Ariz-ona
Governor's Office of Economic
Plannlng and Development, assisted
by a grant from the Four Corners
Regional Commission of the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Larry Landry, Executive Director-Arizona Governor's Off~ceo f Economlc Planning and Development
The Arizona Governor's Office of Economic Plannhg and Development 1981