Sedona City Attorney Robert Pickels didn’t hold back on his thoughts regarding a state bill that went into effect over the summer.
“This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen,” he said in regard to Senate Bill 1487 that passed on May 7 and went into effect on Aug. 6. “This is just another example of the state legislature imposing its own will on local jurisdictions and taking away our ability to govern effectively at the local level.”
The bill states that “at the request of one or more members of the legislature, the state attorney general shall investigate any ordinance, regulation, order or other official action adopted or taken by the governing body of a county, city or town that the member alleges violates state law or the Constitution of Arizona.”
It goes on to state that the attorney general shall make a written report of findings and conclusions as a result of the investigation within 30 days after receipt of the request. A copy of the report will be provided to the governor, the president of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the member or members of the legislature making the original request and the secretary of state.
If the attorney general concludes that a violation has been made to any provision of state law or state constitution, the attorney general shall provide notice to the violating party and shall indicate that it has 30 days to resolve the violation.
If the attorney general determines that the county, city or town has failed to resolve the violation within 30 days, the state treasurer will be notified to withhold and redistribute state shared monies. In the case of Sedona, that equates to nearly $2.1 million this fiscal year and is distributed to the city monthly in equal installments.
After that, the state will continue to monitor the response of the governing body, and when the offending ordinance, regulation, order or action is repealed or the violation is otherwise resolved, the attorney general shall notify all the parties involved. The state treasurer will restore the distribution of state shared revenues that were withheld. Any funds that are withheld from a town or city will be distributed among the state’s other 90 towns. Pickels said the bill does not address how that money will be refunded to the city in question.
What led to this bill was the town of Bisbee’s ban on plastic bags two years ago, Pickels said. The state said they couldn’t do that but the Bisbee City Council chose to move forward with it.
“In essence, the president of the senate said, ‘You’re challenging our authority? How dare you do that,’” he said. “So that’s what caused him to draft this draconian bill that really puts a heavy burden on local jurisdictions from considering what’s appropriate for them.
“Instead, they’re going to be constantly concerned about the correlation between a local ordinance and the state law. You always want to make sure your ordinances comply but it’s such a heightened scrutiny now that it feels like we’re governing from a position of fear.”
Ironically, the Bisbee issue hasn’t been challenged under the new law. But one has. The Snowflake City Council is under the microscope in regard to a marijuana farmer who wants to grow there and the fees the city charged him. It’s the first case to be challenged under the new law. Pickels said he also heard that the city of Tucson was bracing for a complaint but couldn’t recall the details of that case.
The Arizona League of Cities and Towns is opposed to this bill and is seeking to have it repealed, he said. If nothing else, he said they want to add wording that states a legislator must represent the area in which a complaint originates. Under the current law, a legislator from cities such as Tucson, Kingman or Page can file a complaint and request an investigation into a Sedona ordinance.
In regard to Sedona, Pickels said an ordinance at the forefront these days is the one being proposed to the Sedona City Council on Oct. 11 regarding short-term vacation rentals.
“Because of the change that occurred with SB 1350, our local ordinance now conflicts with state law,” he said. “So if we were to overstep our boundaries and say we’re going to maintain some regulatory structure that is not what the legislature intended with SB 1350, we could now get a complaint filed against us.
“We have to take great care when going through each section of the proposed ordinance. When I drafted the ordinance, I had in the back of my mind to make sure it complies with the specific intent of SB 1350 or we run the risk of violating SB 1487.”
