The Planning and Zoning Department

I probably hear more complaints about the Planning and Zoning Department from people in District 2 than any other single thing; it makes people crazy whenever they hear the latest story about Mr. Smith who ran afoul of the new building code, or Mr. Jones who requested a zoning variance to erect a sign or a wall or a fence and found himself entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare, or someone else who was cited or fined or threatened for something or other that on the face if it seems absurd.

But none of this could happen without the involvement and permission of the Board of Supervisors; they have oversight responsibility for every County Department, including Planning and Zoning, and they are responsible for adopting the recommendations brought before them, and then monitoring the results. If the Board doesn't take an active role in oversight individual Departments act unilaterally according to whatever they believe is correct, and that is where the problems occur again and again.

In 2004 the Planning and Zoning Department submitted a new County Building Code to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and passage, and the Supervisors were told three things:

1. That the new code would increase public safety.
2. That the new code would decrease insurance rates.
3. That the new code would pay for itself in three years.

That code was adopted, and the first two contentions have never been examined in any serious way; without formal study or statistical evidence it's impossible to know if there's been any positive effect at all on safety or insurance rates, despite the assertions that were made in 2004.

One thing that can be known, though, is whether or not the third contention was valid, and four years later it's clear that it was not. In 2007 Planning and Zoning reported that the monies generated from the collection of fees for permits, as well as the monies derived from fines levied for violations, versus the operating cost of the program in terms of salaries and infrastructure, had resulted in a net loss of $252,000.00 in 2006/2007.

And the next year was probably even worse; collections of fees and fines were down about $150.000.00, bringing the loss for 2007/2008 to somewhere around $400.000.00.

And that responsibility falls squarely on the Board of Supervisors; that budget shortfall has to come from somewhere, and with the increase in valuation that the Board approved this year in order to increase tax revenue it might be a pretty good idea to re-examine the entire Code compliance and enforcement program.

Most people in District 2 view it as burdensome and intrusive in the first place, and I doubt that there would be many tears shed if the Board of Supervisors simply defunded the program, or at the very least imposed some stringent limits on the actions of enforcement personnel.

The people who staff the Planning and Zoning Department are career bureaucrats; they're trained and taught the precepts of Planning and Zoning, and as a result that's what they do. They keep current with the trends in their field, and attend conferences, and subscribe to trade journals, and it's not surprising that they advance plans and policies that are all the rage in San Diego or Boca Raton or Cape Cod, because that's where the cutting-edge progressive ideas are beign implemented.

It's up to the Board of Supervisors to remind them that Cochise County is different, and that it's residents take pride in that difference; they don't want to become Pima County or Maricopa County, and they don't want that kind of Governmental intervention in their lives, so the Planning and Zoning Department might be better served if they worked toward tailoring their recommendations to the people whom the properly ought to be serving instead of annoying.

John-Henry