AAAPacer Thompson Whiting (1)

Read the item that says “as it is 9:00 am” zoning hearing. Then look for any other hearing for the building ordinance.

Feb.4, 1985 BOS minutes

Here is the Published notices for the TWO PUBLIC HEARING for Feb.4, 1985  Yes TWO public hearing. If you did not find TWO public hearing in the minutes maybe you should be asking why? Why was they not two public hearing and if there was not how did they adopt two different ordinances????

1985 published notices

Here is a link to the 1985 Apache County Published notices:

1985 published notices

Here we will place plan Ideas for issues of concern to all Apache County Residents

Part One

 “I just love it when a plan comes together.” This was the signature quote that was made by “Hannibal” Smith, leader of the “A-Team”, when the “Team” unleashed some real hurt on the bad guys.  One of the most fascinating parts of this series in the mid 1980’s, was watching this team address a problem with few resources, making the most of what they had available.  In some ways, we at ACIPRA, are faced with the same situation.  We are endeavoring to correct situations without huge resources.  We have our ability to research, connect with others and come together as one voice.

If we do this right…The Plan will come together.

 The first and perhaps most important item on the ACIPRA agenda is to exercise our right as citizens to speak to the leadership (BOS) at public meetings during “the “OPEN CALL TO THE PUBLIC”.

 But wait!  There is no “OPEN CALL TO THE PUBLIC” at the Apache County Board meetings.  And why is that, you may ask?

 The answer lies in the wording of the “OPEN MEETING LAW” of Arizona, section 7.7.7, wherein it states that the “public body may issue an ‘OPEN CALL TO THE PUBLIC’”.  Please note that the key word is “may”…not “shall or will”.  This gives any public body in Arizona the legal authority to withhold from the private citizen the opportunity to address any public body with their concerns or ideas in an open public forum and have those concerns entered into the public record.  In other words, if a public body, such as the Apache County Board of Supervisors, does not want to deal with public comment or input about any item NOT on the prepared agenda, they have every right according to the current wording in section 7.7.7 of the open meeting law to deny that opportunity to the private citizen.  Sad, but true.

 What can we do about this matter?  We can bring this issue to the attention our State Leaders.  Here in Apache County we have Senator Sylvia Allen, Representatives Brenda Barton and Chester Crandell.  We need to write them expressing our concern about this wording in the “OPEN MEETING Law” section 7.7.7 and respectfully request that they consider changing the wording from “may” to either “shall or will” in section 7.7.7.

 It would also be helpful to contact our friends and family in other parts of the State to ask them in helping change the wording as well.  If we can develop a web of contacts to our State Officials, we should achieve our goal. When we are successful in having the wording changed, we will have insured our rights as citizens to have a Public Voice at the local level of government throughout Arizona.

 We at ACIPRA have recently brought this issue to the attention of Sylvia Allen, complete with references to the Brown Act in California.  We will be E-mailing copies to Brenda Barton and Chester Crandell.  It may only take a simple resolution to change the wording. 

 While we wait for the wheels of government to turn, we should be turning toward Part Two of the Plan.

The Plan

Part Two

 At a recent meeting of the White Mountain Conservatives, Senator Sylvia Allen shared some of her hopes for the new legislative session.  She began her talk however with thoughts about American Exceptionalism. 

 The Senator pointed out that what built this country was the pioneer spirit, raw courage and ingenuity of brave men and women who did not wait for government to lead the way, but saw the problem and addressed issues head on without waiting for government to lend a hand.  She used as an example, the ingenuity of her great grandfather who led the oxen train to move multi ton sawmill equipment from Utah to Arizona.  The terrain was not helpful and it was a monumental task.  But succeed, they did. 

 When reflecting on what our forbearers managed to accomplish with little more than pure determination and the sweat of their brow, I am encouraged that the simple task of obtaining and “OPEN CALL TO THE PUBLIC” at the Apache County Board Meetings should be little more than child’s play by comparison. 

 The Process

 Since the public can’t address any issue that is not on the Agenda, we could however ask Mr. Wengert to place discussion of an “open call” on the agenda.  We can also e-mail all three board members with the same request.

 In our request we will need to cite section 7.7.7 of the “Open Meeting Law” and encourage them in good conscience to consider offering the open call to the public.  If luck is with us, we should find the item on the agenda and we can each prepare to be at the meeting and fill out a request form per that agenda item.  Keep in mind however that we may address ONLY that agenda item…no sidetracking.   If it is not on the agenda, then we move on to the next step in the process.

 We should prepare a composite statement that once again addresses the issue of “open call” and give a copy to each Supervisor present, Mr. Wengert and Mr. Whiting before the meeting starts.  We can also give a copy to each member of the public in attendance OUTSIDE THE BUILDING BEFORE THE MEETING STARTS.  We do not want to run afoul of any legal issues that can come back to haunt us by trying to distribute inside the County Building.  We have to be careful here.  Also make sure that Karen or Terry knows what we are doing.

 If the BOS continues to ignore us, we may be able to have Karen make note of it in her article.  We can then use the power of the pen in letters to the Editor.  If we have to continually repeat the process a few times…then we do so.

 If none of that works, we might try to encourage Sylvia, Brenda or Chester to either write a letter on our behalf, post it publicly, or perhaps one of them could “drop in” on one of the Board Meetings.

 This is process that may take a considerable amount of patience on our part but it should be well worth the effort.  Keep in mind that we are addressing an issue that affects all citizens of Apache County.  We are not doing it for us; we really have nothing to gain but a VOICE for our fellow citizens.  At least we aren’t hauling several tons of sawmill equipment from Utah to Arizona by oxen.

769. Legal Liability Of Public Officials To Private Individuals Injured By Their Acts; Ultra Vires Acts

A local authority that enters an agreement or contract that is outside its statutory powers is said to be acting ultra vires. In Hazel v. Hammersmith [1991] 1 All ER 545, the House of Lords held that various speculative investments undertaken by local authorities lacked express statutory authorization and were void with severe consequences for those who had invested in local authority activities declared illegal by the courts.

The grounds for claiming ultra vires range from abuse of power, acting unreasonably (Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997), or acting not in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Ultra vires is a formidable doctrine for the courts to intervene and challenge the legality of decisions. Ultra vires may result in significant consequences for the body exercising legal powers. In many cases the decision that is ultra vires may be said, in law, never to have taken place, with often severe consequences from such a finding on the parties to any agreement.

Constitutional law

Under constitutional law, particularly in Canada and the United States, constitutions give federal and provincial or state governments various powers. To go outside those powers would be ultra vires; for example, although the court did not use the term, in striking down a federal law in United States v. Lopez on the grounds that it exceeded the Constitutional authority of Congress, the Supreme Court effectively declared the law to be ultra vires.

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

97_Mich_L_Rev_245[1]

Read the link below and see what you think.

http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2010/I10-003.pdf

Here is a question for the Apache County Officials. If you had adopted legally the 2003 International Residential Building codes as you claim you have. Why have you never followed the Section R 113 or Section R 114? Do you have any understanding of “time of discovery” and the limitations on a political subdivision for the prosecution of a petty offence and or a class two misdemeanor? You the Apache County Officials have failed to do your due delegence and as such have created all the legal nonconforming uses in Apache County. Just how many alleged violators have been prosecuted? None that I have found nor that any of those property owners I have spoken too have been.

So just who should we look at for this failure the people or the public officials?

I have a copy here from your own Apache County Building Ordinance.

R113 Violations

____________________________________________________________________________________

Here are copies of my recorded code violations. If you read the first part it is the sworn statement of the Apache County Building Official. 

And he says I never responded to the Jan.11, 2008 letter sent to me. Although in the letter recorded it fails to mention that if I did not respond they would begin the process of recording the alleged violation. However I did respond to the Jan.28, 2008 letter as it did mention the process of recording the alleged violation. I answered in a 11 page letter by certified mail. So I feel that this sworn statement is incorrect in it’s content. I would also point out that the Apache County Building Officials also failed to mention that with each new letter sent to me the letter added another ten days the respond before any process would begin. And that the Building Official failed to mention the two letters he sent to me and how each of his two letters added ten days to the response. These letter should have just said what they meant. SUBMIT TO OUR COLOR OF LAW OR PAY THE PRICE. As they failed to ever mention any zoning ordinance being violated. Nor did any letter sent to any property owner mention any right to appeal or any mention of any type of hearing either administrative or criminal. And each item mentioned in the letters from Rogers were never legally adopted by ordinance as required by the ARS. 

recorded code violation part 1 

In part two it shows how I was sent this letter for failing to get a permit for a manufactured home and other building. I do not have a manufactured home I have a mobile home. And yes it makes a difference. And I felt at the time the “RESPONSE TIME” mentioned was not directed at me. But as a time for them as it is very unclear. 

recorded code violation part 2 

The third part shows the first mention of a recorded code violation. BUT not one of the two letters mentions anything about a right to appeal or anything about a hearing to defend the alleged violation. 

recorded code violation part3 

This code violation against me was done in retaliation for looking into the way they had been enforcing the zoning ordinances in the past. In Apache County it was either do what they say or pay the price. And when I questioned what they were going to do they clouded my property title.  And there are 40 others whom this has happened too. And many others who just submitted without ever knowing any better. 

If you read this link you will find the statement made by the building official that if they did not hear from me by Feb. 28,2008 5:00 p.m. they would start the process of recording a NOTICE OF VIOLATION, with the added impilied threat of devaluing my property following. So now I may not be a lawyer but by the building official making this statement he is telling me he extented the first letter sent on Jan.11,2008 and yet he failed to mention that in his sworn statement. 

Rogers letter to George 

Now in this second letter from the Building official he extents the time to March 14, 2008 and yet this was not mentioned in the sworn statement. Nor that I had answered by certified mail the letters of Jan.28,2008 and both of the building officials letters to me. 

Rogers second letter 

Here is part of the mentioned Apache County Building Ordinance he failed to produce in the documents sent to me. If you read the two pages I have in the link you will see that this is a Building ordinance and the reference made for the adoption of the building codes is being made into this BUILDING ORDINANCE not the Apache County ZONING ORDINANCE as required by ARS 11-861. I would also like you to see the enforcement and penalties page I have in the link. Is it me or does it say the enforcement is by a criminal prosecution? And I failed to see any other type of enforcment or any mention in the penalites part about a penalty. All I see is what is known to lawyers as a classifacation of a offense that does not lay out in full all penalies as required by ARS 11-866. Of cousre this part of the building ordinance was not included in anything sent to me by the building official in his last letter. 

And this building ordinance was adopted at a BOS meeting not a public hearing. I have the mintues of that meeting I will be posting soon. 

AC Building Ordinance 

EXAMPLE OF A LEGALLY RECORDED VIOLATION

Here is what I think a legally recorded code violation for not having a permit should look like. Notice it mentions the state statute and the county ZONING ORDINANCE being enforced and how it mentions a hearing date. Thus showing this property owner was allowed due process in the alleged violation. I have all the pages to this violation in hard copy. 

Navajo County recorded Notice 

Here is the Apache County Zoning Ordinance in place when my property violation was issued. See if you can find any mention of a “REQUIRED PERMIT” to build. Then see if you find any mention of them recording a violation. Now look at the enforcement and penalty section and what it says. Do you see anything that mentions what the penalty is for a violation??? Or do you just see the “CLASSIFACATION OF A OFFENSE” which is not a PENALTY. And according to ARS 11-866 all penalties must be lay out if full. And ma not be adopted by a reference. This below is less then a reference as it is only a class of a offense. 

ZoningOrdinance old

PENALTY 

SECTION 1301 – PROVISION 

If is unlawful to erect, construct, reconstruct, maintain, or use any land in any

zoning district in violation of any regulation or any provision of any ordinance pertaining 

thereto. Any person, firm, or corporation violating such an ordinance, or any part 

thereof, is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. Each and every day during which the illegal 

erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, maintenance, or use continues is a 

separate offense. 

 http://libraries.vermont.gov/sites/libraries/files/supct/166/95-581op.txt

http://www.kscoplaw.com/outlines/dueprocesscodeenforcement.htm

Due Process in Code Enforcement

Presented to the Kansas Association of
Code Enforcement Conference
 
 

November 15, 2002
 
 

Brenden J. Long
City Attorney

by

John J. Knoll
Assistant City Attorney
City of Topeka, Kansas

Due Process in Code Enforcement

I. Introduction

As a government agent, you are prohibited from depriving people of life, liberty or property without “due process of law.” Determining what constitutes “due process” is not all that difficult. If discussing procedural due process (the process used to arrive at the decision as opposed to the substance of the decision), it generally means that before you take someone’s property you must give them notice of what you intend to do and why, and an opportunity to complain about why you should not be able to do it. If discussing substantive due process, (the fairness of the decision as opposed to the process leading to the decision) it means the overall decision must be fair. In certain circumstances, the person served with notice may have a right to a hearing before a neutral, detached decision maker before you take your action (a “pre-deprivation hearing.”) In other cases, .you may be able to take your action first and give the person receiving the notice a chance for a hearing later (a “post-deprivation hearing.”). The determination of what process is due in any particular situation is a little more complex, because it depends on the circumstances. This outline will attempt to explain due process requirements, the fundamental elements thereof, and set out some general guidelines to follow to make sure those affected by your actions receive the process they are due.

II. The Rules

A. The Fifth Amendment

Although the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution generally applies to criminal actions, it also prohibits the government from denying any citizen of “life, liberty or property without due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. Code enforcement cases rarely involve depriving someone of their liberty, and even more rarely, depriving someone of their life. However, most code enforcement cases can and do affect someone’s property interests.

B. Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part:

“….nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV. Local units of government generally obtain their power from the state, so the Fourteenth Amendment’s applicability to states also applies to local government code inspectors.

C. Kansas Constitution

All persons, for injuries suffered in person, reputation or property, shall have remedy by due course of law, and justice administered without delay. Kansas Bill of Rights § 18.

III. What Is “Due Process”

A. Notice & Opportunity to be Heard

The basic elements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Kennedy v. Board of Shawnee County Comm’rs, 264 Kan. 776, 797-98, 958 P.2d 637 (1998).
 

The purpose of the due process requirement in the code enforcement context is clear – to let the landowner or occupant know of a pending action and make an informed decision about whether to agree with, or contest the proposed action.
 

In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), the United States Supreme Court discussed the constitutionality of service by publication and the implications that service by publication has on due process rights. The Court stated:
 

Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause but there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.
….
Against this interest of the State we must balance the individual interest sought to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is defined by our holding that ‘The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.’ [Citation omitted.] This right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.
….
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. [Citations omitted.] The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, [citation omitted] and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance….But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 313-16, 70 S.Ct. 652.

The notion of due process originated in criminal law, but it now permeates every type of judicial or administrative decision seeking to deprive someone of life, liberty or property. Examples include termination of government employment, Gillett v. U.S.D. No. 276, 227 Kan. 71, 78, 605 P.2d 105 (1980); attorney disciplinary proceedings, In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, reh. denied, 391 U.S. 961, 88 S.Ct. 1833, 20 L.Ed.2d 874 (1968); termination of parental rights, In re H.C., 23 Kan.App.2d 955, 958, 939 P.2d 937 (1997); revocation of probation or parole, Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985), denial of workers compensation benefits, Nguyen v. IBP, Inc., 266 Kan. 580, 588, 972 P.2d 747 (1999); prison disciplinary hearings, In re Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620, 24 P.3d 128 (2001); hearings to prosecute juveniles as an adult, State v. Jones, ___ Kan. ___, 2002 WL 1075057 (2002), and many, many others.

B. WHAT PROCESS IS DUE?

The question of what process is due in a given factual situation under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution is a legal one. See Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589, 594, 921 P.2d 1225 (1996).

C. Neutral & Detached Decision Maker

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)(in order to obtain the greatest objectivity an uninvolved person should make the determination that a reasonable ground exists for revocation of parole)

Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). The district court found a medical examining board could not suspend the doctor’s license at its own contested hearing on charges evolving from its own investigation, basing its decision on the absence of an independent, neutral and detached decision maker. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that combining the investigatory and adjudicatory functions of an administrative hearing were not a denial of due process in that case.

IV. Specific Sources of Notice Requirement

A. State Statute Examples

1. K.S.A. 12-1617e Notice required to abate nuisance conditions.

2. K.S.A. 12-1617f Notice to cut or destroy weeds

3. K.S.A. 12-602 Publication notice when city intends to grade, regrade, pave, repave, etc.

4. K.S.A. 8-1102 Posting notice on vehicles before towing them from public roadways or property; and notification prior to selling vehicle at public auction

B. County Resolutions/City Codes

If state law is not uniformly applicable, city or county can “opt out” of state law by passing a charter ordinance or resolution and establish its own provisions by regular ordinance or resolution under its home rule powers. Kansas Constitution, Article 12, § 5; K.S.A. 19-101a.

V. Methods of Providing Notice

A. Types

1. Oral (almost never a good idea – lack of evidence about what was said)

2. Written (better – more defensible in court).

Boyles v. City of Topeka, 271 Kan. 69, 21 P.3d 974 (2001)

On September 3, 1998, the City notified Boyles in writing that an inspection of his property showed a violation of Section 66-27(2). The notice informed Boyles that the following specific items found outside on his parking lot constituted a nuisance:

“vehicle seats, plastic floor runners, baby jump seat, baby safety gate, carpet, fold away bed, cabinet doors, mattress, bed frames, bicycle tires, inner tubes, baby car seats, baby high chairs, baby stroller, fan, school desks, tarps, deflated raft, wheel chair, sinks, wicker table, cardboard boxes, stuffed furniture, baby bed frames, section of hand rail, wood tables, wood desks, bumper pool table, vacuum, doors, vanity, counter top, wood bed frames, disassembled metal displays, metal hand rail sections, electric stove tops, formica display cabinets, gas stove, unattached storm windows and doors, disassembled bicycles in pickups, stove, refrigerators, toilet, disassembled and broken lawn mowers, sewing machine, grass bags in pickup, mattresses in pickup, loose trash and debris.” 271 Kan. at 71.

A specific, written notice delivered to the defendant can help overcome arguments that your ordinance or resolution is too vague to be enforced.

Here, Boyles was informed with specificity of the approximately 50 types of items creating the unsightly appearance which he permitted to remain outside on his parking lot.
The enumeration of Section 66-27(2) categories, when linked to the detailed notice Boyles received, focuses on and identifies the conduct deemed by the City as constituting a nuisance.” 271 Kan. at 473.

B. Method of Service

RULE NUMBER ONE IS TO FOLLOW THE RELEVANT STATUTE, ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION!

1. Personal/Residential

a. Personal service is the best method of service. When you can testify that you personally handed notice to a person, it overcomes any argument the person to be served never received it.

b. Residence service is suspect if not left with someone of suitable age and discretion at the residence of the person to be served. Follow up with posting, mail service, etc.

2. Certified Mail

a. Preferred method of service process. K.S.A. 60-303.

b. Service complete upon mailing. K.S.A. 60-303(c)(3).

3. Regular Mail

a. If allowed by code or resolution, is usually reasonably calculated to inform.

b. If person to be served claims they did not receive it, actions may be void for a denial of due process.

4. Posting or Tacking

a. Usually ineffective if only method used. Must also send mail notice that party was served by posting.

b. Owner can always claim they did not receive notice because they did not go to the property.

5. Publication

a. Fraught with peril, but may be necessary if all other methods have failed.

b. Use only as a last resort.
 

It would be idle to pretend that publication alone as prescribed here, is a reliable means of acquainting interested parties of the fact that their rights are before the courts. It is not an accident that the greater number of cases reaching this Court on the question of adequacy of notice have been concerned with actions founded on process constructively served through local newspapers. Chance alone brings to the attention of even a local resident an advertisement in small type inserted in the back pages of a newspaper, and if he makes his home outside the area of the newspaper’s normal circulation the odds that the information will never reach him are large indeed.
….
… The ways of an owner with tangible property are such that he usually arranges means to learn of any direct attack upon his possessor or proprietary rights…. When the state within which the owner has located such property seizes it for some reason, publication or posting affords an additional measure of notification…. ‘It is the part of common prudence for all those who have any interest in [a thing], to guard that interest by persons who are in a situation to protect it.’ ” (Emphasis added.). Mullane, 339 U.S. at 313-16, 70 S.Ct. 652.

c. If you know where they live, send them notice! Stockman v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, 27 Kan.App.2d 453, 6 P.3d 900, (2000)(redevelopment notice sufficient where the UG provided publication notice as well as mailed notice before the redevelopment district was created and before the redevelopment plan was adopted, and the UG held a hearing where property owners were given an opportunity to be heard.)

d. Due Diligence – Exhaust Reasonable Sources of Information Available

Mullane does not stand for the proposition that service by publication deprives a party of their due process rights. Service by publication, without more, however, is unconstitutionally invalid. The Court in Mullane admitted that service by publication is nothing more than an exercise in futility a majority of the time. Service by publication will, more often than not, fail to provide notice to affected parties. Failure to provide actual notice, however, will not prevent a judicial foreclosure sale of real estate. A party’s due process rights are protected by what occurs prior to and in addition to the attempted publication service. In Mullane, nothing was done prior to service by publication. The Court in Mullane approved of service by publication where addresses were not known, but disapproved of service by publication where addresses of parties could be reasonably ascertained. [Citations omitted]. Board of County Comr’s of Reno County v. Akins, 271 Kan. 192, 21 P.3d 535 (2001).
 

In Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74, 82-86, 434 P.2d 858 (1967), the court said:

“Where the names and addresses of adverse parties are known or easily ascertainable, notice of pending proceedings by publication service, alone, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process under the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution or § 2 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution.” 200 Kan. 74, Syl. ¶ ¶ 5, 6, 434 P.2d 858.

You must engage in a “reasonable effort” to find addresses. Board of County Commissioners v. Knight, 2 Kan.App.2d 74, 574 P.2d 575 (1978)(10 to 12 unsuccessful efforts to contact owner at home prior to publication service was not sufficient).

Board of County Comr’s of Reno County v. Akins, 271 Kan. 192, 21 P.3d 535 (2001)( in tax foreclosure of piece of land, worth more than $150,000, checking local & regional telephone directories, as well as county court records was insufficient where no effort was made to see who farmed the land)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:sd011.105

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

For those reading this you may want to also read Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as this will also apply to what is happening here in Apache County,

http://www.azdor.gov/PropertyTax.aspx

And read  The Agricultural Property Manual

The Agricultural Property Manual contains information specific to agricultural property classification and valuation. Included are the criteria required for the classification of land which has a “qualified” agricultural use, the statutory income capitalization land valuation procedure, and the requirements regarding filing applications for agricultural classification and leased land reporting.

 I think that someone in the assessors office is doing favors for some property owners by suggesting the property owner change the class of the property. Just how much does this practice cost the county come budget time?