Monday, April 20, 2009

Community Plans May Have New Rules

There are two communities currently ready to submit their Community Plans for approval by the county board of supervisors -- Paulden and Williamson Valley. Both have been working on their plans for several years. Several other communities are either in the process of revising their community plans or are about to begin.

The broad changes proposed in the Power Point presentation, the text of which is reproduced below, given on Monday, April 13th at the joint session of the county planning and zoning commission and the board of supervisors by development services director Chad Daines would change the rules in a dramatic way. These changes were for discussion only and the county will take public input before moving forward on adoption. We thought you'd like to see where the community planning process might be headed. Any questions or comments you might have should be directed to your supervisor and Mr. Daines.


Community Plans

Board of Supervisors
Planning and Zoning Commission
Joint Session – April 13, 2009

Community Plan Overview

• Community Plans are an extension of the General Plan and provide a detailed long-range plan for an area in terms of land use, open space, transportation and water resources.

• State Law mandates that the Board of Supervisors is responsible and has a duty to adopt and maintain the General Plan and by extension Community Plans.

• ARS 11-821.A “The commission shall formulate and the board of supervisors shall adopt or readopt a comprehensive long-term county plan for the development of the area of jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by this article.

• Over time, community groups have become progressively more involved in the formation of community plans (and amendments), as well as more involvement in the management of the process

• Although community involvement in the planning process is critical and integral to the success of a plan, a number of issues have evolved which necessitate clarification and possible amendment of the process

• As the Board is ultimately responsible for the adoption and amendment of the General Plan, direct County management of the community plan process is imperative and essential

Current Issues

• Lack of step to ensure County agreement in concept to the scope or goal of the plan or amendment

• Lack of clear goals of community plan or amendment

• Lack of step to ensure adequate staff resources are available to administer the process

• Lack of step to ensure plan or amendment is supported by majority of residents

• Lack of step to ensure process is inclusive, representative and transparent

• Lack of prioritization of proposed amendments in relation to other communities [sic] needs

• Lack of separate process for County initiated amendment and community initiated amendment.

• Lack of compliance with overall General Plan and State Law

• Limitations on community group financial participation for professional services, mailings and process administration

• Lack of compliance with expanded number of Elements required by State Law (Current: Land Use, Open Space, Transportation, Water Resources. New: Energy, Growth, Environmental and Cost of Development)

Proposed Process Changes

• Community groups to submit proposed conceptual plan or amendment goals for initiation by BOS with P&Z recommendation

• Clarify County’s direct role in process management

• Analysis of availability of staff resources to support proposed plan or amendment prior to initiation

• Prioritization of proposed plan or amendment in relationship to other communities [sic] needs for plan or amendment

• Establishment of requirement to file petition signed by 51% of residents to show broad support for the amendment (community group requests only)

• Establishment of amended citizen participation requirements to ensure inclusive, representative and transparent process

• Establish separate County requested plan or amendment process

• Require cost sharing from community groups for community requested plans or amendments

• Require community plans meet County General Plan and incorporate all elements required by State Law

County Request Process

P&Z recommendation and Board Initiation

County assembles Community Advisory [Community Input]
Committee, completes community assessment,
conducts community survey

Community Meetings and Draft Plan Formation.
Plan Revision and Finalization

Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing [Community Input]
and Recommendation

Board of Supervisors Public Hearing and Decision

Community Group Request Process

Community Group files request and petition for
P&Z recommendation and Board Initiation

County assembles Community Advisory [Community Input & Financial Cost Sharing]
Committee, completes community assessment,
conducts community survey

Community Meetings and Draft Plan Formation.
Plan Revision and Finalization

Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing [Community Input]
and Recommendation

Board of Supervisors Public Hearing and Decision

[Musings: I can't help but wonder if these proposed sweeping changes have anything to do with a pending lawsuit against the board of supervisors, which in the interest of full disclosure I must say I initiated on behalf of Friends of Williamson Valley, Inc. It has since been taken over by Williamson Valley Community Organization, Inc. I believed then, and we still believe, the board is not following their own General Plan. We seek legal clarification as to whether these General Plans, mandated by state law, are simply guidelines that can be trotted out or ignored at whim or whether there is a more binding obligation to follow them. A hearing at the state court of appeals for this action is scheduled in Phoenix for May 20th so the timing is worth noting. The full text of the complaint will be posted here shortly.

It also occurs to me that these strong-arm tactics concerning community plans may be a way of gaining more control over "troublesome" communities as the 2010 census is underway and redistricting imminent. Political eyes are certainly looking ahead to the 2012 election when there will be five supervisors and a whole new configuration of voters in Yavapai County.

This shift from community-based planning, which I believe should be the intent of any General Plan, in favor of top down government initiated/controlled planning for communities needs to be monitored. Our elected officials and their staff work for us and when creating plans that will ultimately dictate how our money will be spent, those who will live with the results of these plans should have the greatest say.]