Arizona State Senate Research Staff

ARIZONA STATE SENATE RESEARCH STAFF

TO: MEMBERS OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE SHARON LANGFORD LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ANALYST AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS Telephone: (602) 926-3171 Email: [email protected] DATE: February 5, 2014

SUBJECT: 2013 Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands Report

Attached is the final report of the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands (Ad Hoc Study Committee). This report has been distributed to the following individuals:

Governor of the State of Arizona The Honorable Janice K. Brewer

President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives Honorable Andy Biggs Honorable Andy Tobin

Members of the Ad Hoc Study Committee Senator Gail Griffin, Co-Chair Representative David Gowan, Co-Chair Senator Chester Crandell Representative Jamescita Peshlakai Senator Robert Meza Representative David Stevens

Secretary of State Ken Bennett

Director of the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records Joan Clark

Senate Majority Staff House Majority Staff Senate Minority Staff House Minority Staff Senate Research Staff House Research Staff Senate Resource Center House Chief Clerk 2013 Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands Report: Background

Laws 2012, Chapter 176 established the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Governrµent and Private Lands (Study Committee) to examine the consequences of the transfer of real property from private parties to government entities. This legislation also required the Arizona Department of Revenue to contract with each county assessor to conduct a Property Status Study by December 31, 2013. The Study Committee was repealed on October 1, 2013 before consideration and evaluation of the data provided by the county assessors was complete. As a result, the Ad Hoc Study Committee was formed with the same purpose as the Study Committee.

Ad Hoc Study Committee Activity

The Ad Hoc Study Committee met on October 9, 2013 and December 11 , 2013. Please refer to the Ad Hoc Study Committee minutes for a list of the presentations and public testimony.

Ad Hoc Study Committee Recommendations

On December 11, 2013 the Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands made the following recommendations: 1. Continued· cooperation with county assessors and the Department of Revenue into 2014 to further refine information provided in the required report, with possible allocation of limited funding if necessary. 2. Extension of the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands beyond the September 2014 sunset date. 3. Establishment of new designations/categories as necessary to account for all land uses for better tracking purposes and if necessary the creation of a uniform tracking system of different types of land in Arizona for use by county assessors.

Attachments

A. Purpose and membership of the Ad Hoc Study Committee. B. Meeting notices, minutes and handouts. C. Voluntary in-lieu contributions information. D. Arizona Game and Fish Commission voluntary in-lieu contributions 2008 through 2012. E. Conservation easement valuation information. F. 2012 Annual Report of the Study Committee. j

GAIL GRIFFIN COMMITTEES: STATE SENATOR, DISTRICT 14 GOVERNMENT AND ENVIRONMENT, CHAIR CAPITOL COMPLEX, SENATE BUILDING 1700 WEST WASHINGTON NATURAL RESOURCES AND RURAL AFFAIRS, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007-2890 VICE-CHAIR (602) '926-5895 TOLL FREE: 1-800-352-8404 APPROPRIATIONS FAX: (602) 417-3025 PUBLIC SAFETY E-MAIL: [email protected] RULES

January 29, 2014

Dear President Biggs,

I am pleased to submit the following report on the activities and conclusions of the Government and Private Lands Study Committee.

As you know, this committee was formed to examine the practice and impact of government acquisition of private land, including the frequency and circumstances of such acquisitions, The committee was also formed to consider ways to monitor private land acquisitions and to ensure that these practices are conducted in accordance with existing law,

The Committee was able to confirm that a large percentage of Arizona land is owned by government, and that this public ownership ofland has a significant impact on the state's economy and, importantly, on our local government's ability to generate revenue. For example, Gila County is comprised of less than 3% private land. Not coincidentally, it also has one of the highest primary property tax rates in the state; the absence of private land places the burden of funding local government on the small number of private property owners.

The Committee also worked collaboratively with the Department of Revenue and county assessors throughout the state to collect information quantifying how much land in each county is publicly owned, privately owned, non-taxable, etc.

Some county assessors provided the Committee with useful data. Unfortunately, it became apparent that other assessors obtained their information from the State Land Department rather than doing a parcel by-parcel analysis, This was disappointing.

In order to continue the important work of the Committee and ensure that policymakers and the public are more fully and consistently informed about the scarcity of private land and the increasing amount of private land being acquired by the federal government and conservation groups, I am recommending that:

• The Government and Private Lands Study Committee be continued for two years • The Committee continue to work closely with county assessors, the State Land Department, and the State Cartographer, on a permanent solution for creating a database capable of tracking and reporting on government acquisitions of private land and conversions of private land into tax exempt status.

I hope that the Committee will adopt these recommendations and incorporate them into the committee's work moving forward.

~'~ ~y~ Gail Griffin Senator, District 14 Arizona State Senate Attachment A · Joint L·egislative Ad Hoc Study ·committee on Government and Private Lands

PURPOSE: To: (1) conduct hearings to evaluate the practice and impact of government entities' acquisition of private property; (2) review the historical tax assessments on a sampling of acquisitions of private real property; (3) examine the frequency and circumstances of government acquisition of private real property; (4) consider ways to ensure that government acquisition of real property that is conducted according to law and appropriately can continue; and (5) identify the appropriate entity or entities to administer and review recording, tracking and reporting tax supported government acquisitions.

MEMBERSHIP:

House Three members of the House of Representatives, not more than two from the same political party, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives: David Gowan (Co-Chair), Jamescita Peshlakai, David Stevens

Senate Three members of the Senate, not more than two from the same political party, appointed by the President of the Senate: Chester Crandell, Gail Griffin (Co-Chair), Robert Meza

Notes: The Committee is formed to examine the consequenc~s of the transfer of real property from private parties to government entities. Committee expired September 2013 and was made into a joint ad hoc col11Il1ittee. The original committee formed under Laws, 2012, Chapter 176.

CONTACT: Sharon Langford, Senate Research Staff; Virginia Carico, House Research Staff REPORT DATE: 09/30/14 EXPIRATION DATE: 09/30/2014 STATUTORY CITE: Ad hoc created by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House Attachment B Interim agendas can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.azleg.state.az.us/lnterimCommittees.asp

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

INTERIM MEETING NOTICE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

JOINT LEGISLATIVE AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS

Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Time: 10:00 A.M.

Place: SHR 109

AGENDA

1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Update from the Arizona Department of Revenue on information provided by counties 4. Public Testirnony 5. Adjourn

Members:

Senator Gail Griffin, Co-Chair Representative David Gowan, Co-Chair Senator Robert Meza Representative David Stevens Senator Chester Crandell Representative Bruce Wheeler

10/7/13 tb

For questions regarding this agenda, please contact Senate Research Department. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by contacting the Senate Secretary's Office: (602) 926-4231 (voice). Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.

Page 1 of 1 CORRECTED CORRECTED CORRECTED

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

JOINT LEGISLATIVE AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS

Minutes of the Meeting October 9, 2013 10:00 a.m., Senate Hearing Room 109

Members Present: Senator Gail Griffin, Co-Chair Representative David Gowan, Co-Chair Senator Chester Crandell Representative David Stevens

Members Absent: Senator Robert Meza Representative Bruce Wheeler

Staff: David Fernandez, Assistant Senate Research Analyst Gina Kash, House Research Analyst

Chairman Griffin called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and attendance was taken.

Update from the Arizona Department of Revenue on Information Provided by Counties

Frank Boucek, Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Revenue, presented the results from a property status study conducted by 15 Arizona County Assessors as required by House Bill 2438, Ch. 176, Fiftieth Legislature, Second Regular Session, (Attachment A). Mr. Boucek also answered questions from the Committee.

Senator Griffin listed the expenses paid by the Arizona Department of Revenue to counties for their work on the study (Attachment B).

Senator Crandell questioned why there was such a difference in costs for the counties.

Mr. Bochek stated it could be related to labor costs and the technology used in the study.

Senator Griffin requested that any incomplete information be completed and submitted by the next meeting.

Further discussion was held by Committee Members.

Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands October 9, 2013 Page 1 Discussion was held and the Committee agreed to hold the next meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 10 a.m.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey Ong Committee Secretary

(Audio recordings and attachments are on file in the Secretary of the Senate's Office/Resource Center, Room 115. Audio archives are available at http://www.azleg.gov)

Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands October 9, 2013 Page 2 .. -...... ___ Pursuant to 2012's HB 2435,-~hapter 176, the Arizona Department of Revenue has compiled the results of the property status -.__/ studies performed by the fifteen county assessors. The data in this study is reported as received from the assessors and has not been audited or otherwise verified.

Five categories of property were to be reported:

1. The total amount* of private property within each county. 2. The total amount* of the private property that is tax exempt_ 3. The amount* of private property within each county that is in conservation status, such as land trusts, environmental organizations, habitats, open spaces and conservation easements. 4. The total amount* of federally held lands in wilderness areas, natural conservation areas, national parks, national monuments and other special conservation status are.as; if available to the county. 5. The total amount* of municipal and county held lands in ~~rk~; ~o-nservation areas or other special conservation status areas.

* It was assumed that "amount" referred to the nu~ber c,f actes of the property'.

The following results were received fn;,m the counties. A zero.indicates that the county dici'not have any property that fit into a category, and a N/R indicates that the county did n'ot to the request. In most cases the . re:;d~nd. county assessor does not have access to information.regarding the nqmber of acres in the county that are subject to a conservation status. .. County Private Pr_operty Exempt Private Conservation federal Municipal and Property status Wilaerness, county parks, .. ·, conservation conservation ' areas, national areas or other parks and special • ' , • national conservation

r .. monuments. status areas_ Apache 929;742 21,863 0 378,573 21 Cochise 1,587,041 12,Q20 0 510,304 0 Coconino 1,582,277 31,503 186,689 458,478 6,682 Gila 119,508 10,061 0 371,304 812 Graham 309,770 22,604 -·· 2,904 1,095,196 332 Greenlee Maricopa 1,506,560 14,080 4,352 1,582,080 32,640 Mohave 1,402,240 1,280 N/R 2,603,520 3,200 Navajo 1,140,789 389,920 0 22,400 0

Pima Pinal 877,901 13,367 7,239 639,968 524 Santa Cruz 331,326 5,375 28,089 33,004 234 Yavapai 1,280,258 8,427 Yuma 398,551 3,117 0 925,173 0 la Paz APACHE COUNTY ACREAGE

HB 2438 PROPERTY STATUS STUDY 5-29-13

PRIVATE LAND= 930,300 ACRES

LESS GPLET AGREEMENTS= 193.58 ACRES

LESS PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTY= 364.82 ACRES TOTA:t''PR'.tv;~rK~~;q:~:~~~~,~17.-¾~:f.~~~95.;~_s [PJ~avA1tf PR~tEBlf~fl*-1(8r~;r.0,;,g#,{f~g}~~~i ~'.?,

PRIVATE PROPERTY IN CONSERVATION= 0 (NONE KNOWN) tf9j5f1{~:~~M[~~It~{~:i~;§JJ- (INCLUDES PARKS, WILDERNESS, ETC. THESE ACREAGES HAD NEVER BEEN PARCELED OUT).

;,:.i\:.._·J ..IY, _ ·· '·..'ri r:: A' .,R· ·,· ·- K·s· '·:::-,-:t .,hLl.\JI'f,,!iSi::::,,::, ;;;c¥;;:t/-:f.!\.. R"-,· ·'E '''., 5• :. • .,' _ ,., -. ·"- . .. •,c- ·:.'C'' · ,·• ~: fi' >•"',,,( .. "l• •• _: ;i - ~1: j ,.,-w~ .. ,-.:- .. ~ d Q9JJ_N1]1J!PR,-~~f§,0C~~i@q~J':t1~~m;iGJr~. Office of the County Assessor

Cochise County-Total Acreage as of 10/03/2013 3,980,538 ac

Entity Percentage Acreage Totals State Trust Land 34.66% 1,379,654 ac National Forest 12.33% 490,800 ac BLM 9.94% 395,665 ac I Ft Huachuca 2.16% I . 85,980 ac Willcox Bombing 0.55% 21,893 ac National Park Service 0.44% 17,514 ac San Bernadina Land Grant 0.05% 1,990 ac Private Land (ALL) 39.87% 1,587,041 ac 3,980,538 (Private - Full Exempt)/ 0.30% . 12,620 ac (Private- Conserv Ease) % I% ac , iCOCONINO • COUNTY ARIZONA

HB 2438 Property Status Study Coconino County Statistics

This data has been compiled using a variety of data sources including Coconino County GIS, Coconino County Assessor's TYLER system, Arizona State Land Information System, and various internet sites. These numbers are approximate due to various interpretation methods including differing data projections, rounding, and boundary approximations, etc. In order to gain a more comprehensive dataset of conservation lands within Coconino County, other agencies should be contacted including state, federal, and private organizations.

1. Coconino County Land Composition:

Ownership Category: Acres: Percent of County: BLM 607,993.91 AC 05.09 % Forest Service 3,248,755.97 AC 27.20 % Local or State Parks 58.73 AC 00.01 % Military 26,052.56 AC 00.22 % National Parks 780,089.00 AC 06.53 % Other (Game & Fish/ Bur. of Land Rec.) 14,412.54 AC 00.12 % Private Land 1,582,277.12 AC 13.25 % Reservation 4,556,563.68 AC 38.16 % State Trust 1,125,306.58 AC 09.42 % Coconino County 11,941,814.05 AC 100.00%

2. Tax Exempt Private Land Percent of Private Land

Personal Exemptions 1087.B0AC 0.069% Privately Owned Property 5335.75AC 0.337% Religious Use 1006.16AC 0.064% Federal, State, County, Municipal 23,845.92AC 1.507% Indian 197.97AC 0.013% Special Districts 29.82AC 0.002%

\\PHXFILEOl\HOMEDIR\JCHRISTOPHERSON\VGRAY\SPECIAL PROJECTS\PROPER1Y STATUS STUDY\HB 243 8 COCONINO COUNTY STATIS TICS REPORT.DOC . Total 31,503.42AC 1.991% .

3. Private Lands with Conservation Status

Parcels with Conservation ~asements: 1,765.69 AC Cataract Ranch Land Preserve (Private Land Portion): 40,880 AC (http://www.coconin6.az.gov/commdevelopment/ComprehensivePlan/1anduse.asp) Diab_lo Trust Planning Area (Private Land Portion): 100,000 AC Private Parcels Zoned Open Space: 44,042.93 AC TOTAL: 186,688.62 AC

4. Public Lands with Conservation Status

Need to acquire data·.from the various federal and state organizations that fall within Coconino County to · compl_ete data request.

Cataract Ranch Land Preserve (Public Land Portion: State Trust}: 130,085.81 AC Experimental Forest?? Hart Prairie Preserve: 245 AC (Source: http://www. nature. o rg/o u ri n itiatives/regi ans/north a meri ca/ u n itedsta tes/a rizon a/pl acesweprote ct/hart-prairie-preserve.xml} Diablo Trust Rural Planning Area: (State & Federal Land) 326,000 AC {Source: http://www.diablotrust.org/docs/rpa 1-16.pdf} Cedar Springs Conservation Easement I & II 630 AC (Source: http://nced.conservationregistry.org/projects/55854} Wetlands Resources Conservation Easement 1517 AC {Source: http://nced.conservationregistry.org/projects/55854)

TOTAL 484,477.81 AC

5. County & Municipal Lands - Parks

This data was compiled using Coconino GIS parcel and parks data layers. Many parks fall within parcels which are multi-use, meaning there are parks which make up only a portion of a parcel. Th is data is approximate because it is based on the size of the parcel, and not the actual boundary of the park.

County Parks/ Open Space: 3,074.29 AC Municipal Parks: 874.33 AC COF Picture Canyon: 477 AC COF Observatory Mesa: 2,256AC Total County & Municipal Parks . 6681.62 AC

\\PHXFILEOl\HOMEDIR\JCH~ISTOPHERSON\VGRAY\SPECIAL PROJECTS\PROPERTY STATUS STUOY\HB 243 8 COCONINO COUNTY.STATISTICS REPORT.DOC House Bill 2438 PROPERTY STATUS STIJDY

Report from Gila County Submitted to the AZDOR on 06/07/2013

· 1. The Total Acreage of private property within Gila County: 119,508 Acres

2. The Total Acreage of the above property that is tax exempt:. 10,061 Acres

3. The amount of private property within Gila County that is in conservation status such as land trusts, environmental organizations, habitats, open spaces and conservation easements: 0 Acres

4. The total acreage of federally held lands in wilderness areas, natural conservation areas, national parks, national monuments and other special conservation status areas, if available to the county: 371,304 Acres

5. The total acreage of municipal and county held lands in parks, conservation areas or other special conservation status areas: 812.39 Acres

Notes: The total parceled land, including governmental and private exempt land was calculated by Judy Esteves

The total acreage of government land and private exempt land was determined by Lynn Mata.

The amount of federally held lands in wilderness areas, national parks was calculated by Jackie Griffin. (Jackie called the Tonto National Forest Service to get the wilderness areas and the acreage of the Tonto National Monument.) Except Sue Pontel estimated the portions of the Superstition Wilderness and the Four Peaks Wilderness areas within Gila County.

The mount of municipal and count held lands in parks or other special status was calculated by Judy Esteves.

The above totals were compiled by Larry Huffer HB 2438 Property Status Study (Graham County 10/09/2013)

1. The total acreage of private property within your county. 309,770 acres

2. The total acreage of the above property that is tax exempt. 22,604 acres

3. The amount of private property within each county that is in conservation status such as land trusts, environmental organizations, habitats, open spaces and conservation easements. 2,904 acres

5. The total acreage of municipal and county held lands in parks, conservation areas or other special conservation status areas. 332 acres -Maricopa County Assessor Keith E. Russell, MAI

Date: February 21 , 2013

To: Valerie Gray, Manager - Research and Compliance, State of Arizona Dept. of Revenue, Property Tax Division

From : Russell Heisinger, GIS ManagE;.~ cc: Timothy Boncoskey, Chief Deputy David Boisvert, Chief Appraiser Lesley Kratz, Executive Advisor Stephen Hamman, IT Director

Re: HB 2438 Property Status Study

Below please find Maricopa County's findings for the property status as required in accordance with HB 2438 referenced above.

1.) Total amount of private property = 65 ,629,449,859 sq.ft. (2354 sq.mi.)

2.) Total amount of private property that is tax exempt = 622,290,002 sq .ft. (22 sq .mi.)

3.) Total amount of private land help in conservation status = 192,052,581 sq .ft. (6.8 sq .mi.)

4.) Total amount of federal lands held in wilderness, natural conservation area, national parks/monuments, and other special conservation status = 68,938,932,004 sq .ft. (2472 sq .mi.) t 5.) Total amount of municipal and county lands held in parks, conservation areas, or other special conservation status = 1,430,719,400 sq.ft. (51 sq.mi.)

The five categories above total 4,905.8 sq . miles of Maricopa County. The remaining 4,321 .2 sq . miles of grand total of 9,227 sq . miles are comprised of lands not statutorily required to include, but not limited to : • Tribal lands • Military gunnery range • Non-parceled lands of state or federal jurisdiction • Lakes • Public thoroughfares and roads

This office consumed 116.5 resource hours . . Based in our memorandum last year, costs are calculated on industry standard information query and extraction pr9,-t:0011res..and averaged at a $50.00 per hour to include both staffing and system resources. This office expended($5,82~o provide the information requested. This office will greatly appreciate reimbursement of that amounlm the spirit of your original memorandum requesting our participation in these important findings.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 602 372-1627 or [email protected]:gov.

Thank you for the opportunity to better serve our citizens and I look forward to your response to our findings. Page I of 1 Ken Fielder - Re:. HB243- Property Tax Study

From: Ron Walker To: Fielder, Ken Date: 7/19/2012 11:53 AM Subject: Re: HB243- Property Tax Study .-----,--~·-··- ·---

I have not seen such a request.

>>> Ken Fielder 7/18/2012 2:51 PM >>> The Assessor's office was asked by Jen Sweeney (AZCounties) to respond to DOR regarding HB2438 that was passed by the AZ legislature and signed by the Governor this past session. She "cautioned" us to coordinate with our County Manager in the event DOR also made the request to the fifteen County Managers.

The questions asked were:

1 - Total private property within each county answer for Mohave County - 2,191 square miles

2 - Tax exempt (private property) within the county answer for Mohave County - 2 square miles

3 - The amount of private property within the county that is in conservation status answer for Mohave County - unknown

4 - Federally held lands in wilderness areas, natural conservation areas, national parks, national monuments and other conservation status areas within the county answer for Mohave County - 4,068 square miles

5 - Municipal and county held lands in parks or conservation areas within the county answer for Mohave County - 5 square miles r Mohave County (according to the AZ State Land Department and our GIS) contains 13,468.85 square miles. The above (5 questions) account for 6,264 square miles. That leaves 7,205 square miles that are owned by various Indian Tribes, the State of Arizona and Federal lands not included in question number 4. Our calculation indicates private taxable land in Mohave County is 16% of the total area of the county. ·

Next, we were asked to provide a "billing" to DOR for the cost of completing this survey. We have a detailed spreadsheet that indicates we should ask DOR for $1,023.

We will wait to hear if your office has been asked for this infonnation or if you have questions regarding our numbers. If we do not hear back from you by July 30, 2012, then we will send a report and billing to DOR.

file://C :\Documents and Settings\Fieldk\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5007F546MohaveCNTYPO 110... 7/19/2012 Valerie .~ay, mm nr:-

From: Cammy Darris [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:17 AM To: Gray, Valerie Subject: Property Tax Study

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Val,

Will this information satisfy the Property Ta x Study Bill that was passed last year?

Total Private Property Ta x Exempt Property Private Conservation Status Land 0 .00 Fe·derally held lands in Wilderness Area 22,400.00 Municipal and county held lands in conservation area 0 .00

Cammy Darris Navajo County Assessor 928-524-4095

Cammy.darris@nava;ocountyaz.gov www. Nava;oCountyAZ.qov Proudly Serving, Continuously Improving

1 9,389 .·. 852' 14 202 • Vineyards 1

High Density Agr.icultural

Pasture Land 3 26,898 . John Ellinwood , Oollglas J . Wolf A ssessor Chief Deputy Assessor

PINAL•COUNTY wide open opportunity

2-19-2013

State of Arizona Department of Revenue Property Tax Division 1600 West Monroe Street Phoenix, AZ 85007-2650 Valerie Gray, Manager - Research and Compliance

RE: HB 243 8 Property Status Study

Mrs. Gray:

Listed below is the acreage infonnation for Pinal County, as requested in HB 2438.

Description Acres 1. The total acrea)!e of private property within your county. 877,901 2. The total acrea)!e of the above property that is tax exempt. 13,367 3. The amount ofprivate property within each county that is in 7,239 conservation status such as land trusts, environmental or,z;anizations, habitats, open spaces and conservation easements. 4. The total acreage offederally held lands in wilderness areas, 639,968 natural conservation areas, national parks, national monuments and other special conservation status areas, ifavailable to the county. 5. The total acreage of municipal and county held lands in parks, 524 conservation areas or other special conservation status areas.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Respectfu II y,

Mark Tesreau CAMA Manager Pinal County Assessor

ASSESSOR

31 North Pinal Street, Building E, PO Box 709 Florence, AZ 85132 T 520-866-6361 FREE 888-431-1311 F 520-866-6353 www.oinalcountv;,, nnv OFFICE OF THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ASSESSOR FELIPE A. FUENTES, JR. PABLO A. RAMOS ASSESSOR CHIEF DEPUTY

HB 2438 Property Status Study o ·ctober 8, 2013 nwChristopherson, ~~'"'-"""""""'"""' Jolene______,_,_ ___ ..,...,_. __ ..,....~~---=--•.....,,....__ ,,.,,..,,..._....,.,...,,...._..,..__,.,_,.._.....,...... _

From: Jeff Whitham ([email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 4:28 PM To: Christopherson, Jolene Subject: FW: DOR Property Status Project

Jolene,

Here is the e-mail that the Jenn McGovern sent me regarding categories 1 &2.

Jeff Whitham GIS Programmer Analyst Yavapai County (928) 442-5115

From: Jennifer McGovern Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:05 PM To: Jeff Whitham Cc: Ron Gibbs; Pam Pearsall Subject: RE: DOR Property Status Project

Good afternoon Jeff- Per our conversation and your request, please find items 1 & 2 summarized below. I have also included an excel sheet v-1ith the supp01iing documentation, as well as a case summary of these 154,644 properties account type.

1) Total Privately Owned Property within Yavapai County= 1,280,258.03 Acres (154,644 parcels) 2) Total Privately Owned Prope1iy within Yavapai County that is Tax Exempt= 8,426.82 Acres (1,218 parcels)

Case Summaries Gross Acres

Account Type N Sum

Agricultural 3649 740344.20 Care Facilities 57 128.37 Com Vacant Land 1579 3024.37 Commercial 4573 29886.48 County 1 .78 Duplex 1069 254.51 Exempt 3 6.11 Limited Use 1586 2365.23 MH Affixed 4531 11275.42 MH/RV Park 224 1913.31 Mobile Home 15801 24009.93 Multi-Res 616 809.69

1 Thr! following definitions should be used in this study:

Private property means property that is not owned by a public entity such as a federal, state or municipal government.

Private property includes:

• Property that is temporarily owned by a govemmental agency with the intent to transfer title to private property in the near future such as Veterans Administration owned foreclosed homes.

0 Property that is owned by a quasi-governmental agency that voluntarily pays a property tax (i.e . Salt River Project).

• Exempt properties of hospitals, private schools and churches.

Private property does not include:

• Properties subject to GPLET agreements.

• Public school property.

Private property that is tax exempt means any property that meets the exemptions under A.R.S . § 42-11104 through 42-11110 and A.R.S . § 42-11112 through 42-11133, if the property is not owned by a governmental entity including:

• Non-profit hospital and health care facility property that is tax exempt. • Apartments for elderly or handicapped residents that are not owned by a governmental agency and are tax exempt. • Property of charitable institutions and ag societies that are tax exempt. • Religious properties that are tax exempt. • Cemeteries that are tax exempt. • Observatories and property held to preserve or protect scientific resources. • Property of veterans' organizations and charitable community service organizations.

Properties that are owned by persons that qualify for a widow, widowers or disable person exemption are not considered in the category of private property that is tax exempt for purposes of this study. '

Here is a list (with links) of the A.R.S. exemptions specified above:

42-11104 Exemption for educational and library property 42-11105 Exemption for health care property 42-11106 Exemption for apartments for elderly or handicapped residents 42-11107 Exemption for institutions for relief of indigent or afflicted 42-11108 Exemption for grounds and buildings owned by agricultural societies 42-11109 Exemption for religious propert~; affidavit 42-11110 Exemption for cemeteries

42-11112 Exemption for observatories 42-11113 Exemption for land and buildings owned by animal control and humane societies 42-11114 Exemption for property held for conveyance as parkland; recapture 42-11115 Exemption for property held to preserve or protect scientific resources 42-111i6 Exemption for property of arts and science organizations 3 YUMA COUNTY Type Acreage Parcel Count County Property 1,551.54 319 Vac.ant 711.78 267 Residential Use 54.09 18 · Commercial & Industrial Use 183.28 15 Agricultural Use 40.69 2 Parks & Recreation 548.88 8 Law Enforcement 12.82 9

State Property 404,763.20 879 Vacant 191,027.40 611 Residential Use 3.09 6 Commercial & Industrial Use 641.99 4 Agricultural Use 16,544.57 55 Parks & Recreation 85,483.41 80 Military Use 111,062.74 123

Municipal Property 2,482.24 740 Vacant 1,469.18 576 Residential Use 30.32 51 Commercial & Industrial Use 670.90 71 Agricultural Use 106.60 3 Parks & Recreation 164.09 30 Law Enforcement 41.15 9

Federal Property 2,711,383.01 1,592 Vacant 491,882.17 822 Residential Use 133.51 81 Commercial & Industrial Use 43.30 7 Agricultural Use 2,983.13 67 Parks & Recreation 925,172.61 158 Law Enforcement 2.84 1 Military Use 1,291,165.45 456

Native American Property 6,053.45 24

CVP 5,359.02 327 Communications 2.30 3 Utilitites 608.05 83 Railroad 3,862.86 333

Non-Government Owned 396,308.60 83,033 Vacant 150,144.16 17,259 Residential Use 58,809.00 58,809 Commercial & Industrial Use 10,753.08 3,233 Agricultural Use 173,485.55 3,373 Church Property 424.74 176 Ex Property & Non-Profit Property 886.05 68 Schools 1,806.02 115

Total County Area 3,527,901.06 86,914

Acreage Wilderness & Refuge (lnc1uded in State, Federal, & County owned properties 1,010,656.00 Imperial National Wildlife Refuge 4,870.97 Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 92,271.20 Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge 9,721.42 Eagletail Mountains Wilderness 22,233.05 Muggins Mountain Wilderness 8,022.59 Kofa Wilderness 431,792.48 Cabeza Prieta Wilderness 441,744.29 PAMELA J. PEARSALL, ASSESSOR

.o. RONALD 0. GIBBS, CAE, AAS, CHIEF DEPUTY WWW.YAVAPAI.US PW¥& wee &&i Hi£&¥¥41466 +AMftMi#iiiiMiM'AMS ii@ R .,__ _

1015 FAIR STREET, PRESCOTT- PHONE 928.771.3220- FAX 928.771.3181 10 S. 6TH STREET, COTTONWOOD - PHONE 928.639.8121- FAX 928.639.8104

REVISED INVOICE ESTIMATE OF RESEARCH

FROM: YAVAPAI COUNTY ASSESSOR

TO: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

ATTN: VALERIE GRAY AND JOLENE CHRISTOPHERSON

DATE: JUNE 4, 2013

RE: HB 2438 PROPERTY STATUS STUDY

Estimate of time worked for HB 2438 Property Status Study using "Special District" rates rather than "Commercial" rates.

Yavapai Employee County Estimate Hourly Total Employee Department Hours Rate Billed

Jeff Whitham GIS 300 t $ 35 $10,500

Karen Barker ASS R/CARTOG RAP HY 50 $ 41 $ 2,050

Jennifer McGovern ASSR/CAMA 30 $100 $ 3,000 *CAMA rate remains at $100 per hour

Sharlett Smith ASSR/ADMIN 10 $ 35 $ 350

Debbie Annibale ASSR/CLERICAL 300 $ 27 $ 8,100 .

TOTAL DUE: $24,000

Please make check payable to :

Yavapai County Assessor's Office Attention: Administration Department 1015 Fair Street Prescott, AZ 86303 , , ,.:;-

Jeffrey Ong

From: David Fernandez Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 10:26 AM To: Jeffrey Ong Subject: FW: Government and Private Lands Study Committee

From: Laux, Sean [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:04 AM To: Gail Griffin Cc: David Fernandez Subject: RE: Government and Private Lands Study Committee

Sen . Griffin,

I apologize for the confusion.

Here are the amounts that we paid the various counties for their work on the Study.

Maricopa County $5,825 Mohave County $1,022 .91 Navajo County $2,236.65 Gila County $2,286 Yavapai County $24,000

We were appropriated $132,200 and spent a total of $35,370.56.

From: Gail Griffin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 8:43 PM To: Laux, Sean Cc: Gail Griffin Subject: RE: Government and Private Lands Study Committee

Hi Sean,

Can you please send me the correct amounts so I can forward to other committee members?

Thanks Sean.

Gail

From: Laux, Sean [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 2:09 PM To: Sharon Langford; Gail Griffin Cc: Gina Kash Subject: RE: Government and Private Lands Study Committee

Senator Griffin, 1 , > ..

Here are the amounts that we paid the various counties for their work on the Study.

Maricopa County $5,825,000 Mohav·e County $1,022,910 Navajo County $2,236,650 Gila County $2,286,000 Yavapai County $24,000,000

We were appropriated $132,200,000 and spent a total of $35,370.560.

,5ean L a ux C hieF L egislative L_i aison f' ublic Jnfo1·mat:10 11 Officer ;--\1·izona D e p art ment o f. K<~ve nue

(602) 7 1 t: .. r, 1 , 2 -oll i-:e (602.) , I 6-0 ) 11· -- ,:ell slaux@azd o r.gov

From: Sharon Langford [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:02 AM To: Laux, Sean Cc: Gina Kash Subject: Government and Private Lands Study Committee

Hi Sean,

We spoke a few weeks back on the phone about the Government and Private Lands Study Committee. Senator Griffin would like to know what counties have provided information, how the money was portioned between the counties and any information you can provide about the data to date. We are looking to have a Government and Private Lands Study Committee meeting in October and she would to be able to discuss this information then.

Thanks for your assistance,

~haron bangford Senate Researct1 Analyst Government and Environment Committee '1700 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 602.926.317'1 (phone) 602.417.3201.1 (fax)

NOTICE: This e-mail (and any attachments) may contain PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL information and is intended only for the use of the specific individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information

2 Interim agendas can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.azleg.state.az.us/lnterimCommittees.asp

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

INTERIM MEETING NOTICE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

JOINT LEGISLATIVE AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS

Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Time: 10:00 A.M.

Place: SHR 109

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Presentations: • Arizona Department of Revenue • Arizona Game and Fish Department

4. Public Testimony

5. Discussion

6. Committee Recommendations

7. Adjourn

Members: Senator Gail Griffin, Co-Chair Representative David Gowan, Co-Chair Senator Robert Meza Representative Jamescita Peshlakai Senator Chester Crandell Representative David Stevens

11/26/13 sp

Page 1 of 1 ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

JOINT LEGISLATIVE AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS

Minutes of the Meeting December 11, 2013 10:00 a.m., Senate Hearing Room 109

Members Present: Senator Chester Crandell Representative David Gowan, Co-Chair Representative Jamescita Peshlakai Representative David Stevens

Members Absent: Senator Gail Griffin, Co-Chair Senator Robert Meza

Staff: Sharon Langford, Senate Research Analyst David Fernandez, Senate Assistant Research Analyst Ryan Sullivan, House Research Analyst

Co-Chairman Gowan called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. and attendance was taken.

Presentation by Arizona Department of Revenue

Frank Soucek, Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Revenue, provided updated information on property status studies (Attachment A). Mr. Boucek reviewed the numbers and answered questions from the Committee.

Philip Leiendecker, Assessor, Cochise County, explained why some property is listed as "unknown" in the report. Mr. Leiendecker also answered questions from the Committee.

The Committee further discussed the process for retrieving easement information, exempt private property and the taxability of conservation property. Further discussion focused on the definition of a conservation easement.

Joe Wehrle, Assessor, Yuma County, explained that conservation easements come from the federal government and answered questions from the Committee.

The Committee discussed what happens to taxes when a non-profit resells the land and who can set aside land for conservation. Further discussion focused on who has the authority to determine conservation easement and deed restrictions.

Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands December 11, 2013 Page 1 Mr. Leiendecker clarified the categories of properties and the calculations in the land study.

Sean Laux, Chief Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Revenue, explained that conservation easements are dependent on the land owner, but property taxes may still be assessed.

The Committee further discussed deed restrictions and the qualification process for tax exemptions.

Mr. Leiendecker clarified statute requirements for deed restrictions and the process for transferring exemptions. ·

Mr. Laux explained statute guidelines for tax exemptions.

The Committee further discussed the process for tax exemptions.

Presentation by Arizona Game and Fish Department

Jorge S. Canaca, Ass·istant Legislative Liaison, Arizona Game and Fish Department, outlined the department's presentation of commission owned and managed properties and the nongame and wildlife program.

Angie Lohse, Land and Water Program Supervisor, Arizona Game and Fish Department, presented a powerpoint presentation titled "Arizona Game and Fish Commission Lands Held in Public Trust" (Attachment B). Ms. Lohse answered questions from the Committee.

Ms. Lohse clarified that the properties she referred to are calculated as Class 2 and valued as agricultural properties.

The Committee further discussed the status of property and possible discrepancies in existing tax exemptions.

Mr. Wehrle clarified that only properties that are donated to the state are eligible for the "in lieu of" payment program and answered questions from the Committee.

Ms. Lohse explained the property classifications outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes section 17-272, "Voluntary contributions in lieu of property taxes" and stated there are criteria that allow voluntary contributions in lieu of taxes. Ms. Lohse answered questions from the Committee.

Michael Rabe, Chief Administrator for the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, presented a powerpoint presentation titled "Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program"

Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands December 11 , 2013 Page 2 (Attachment C). Mr. Rabe outlined the department's efforts to maintain state authority and work with the act to manage wildlife conservation efforts and answered questions from the Committee.

The Committee discussed the 10-J Agreement which reduces penalties for landowners with endangered species in their area and allows for continued business operations.

Mr. Rabe answered questions about wildlife management efforts on tribal lands and stated that tribal nations negotiate directly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Representative Gowan thanked the county assessors and the Department of Revenue for the information provided. He stated the importance having guidelines and a foundation of information available for the Committee.

Committee Recommendations

Senator Crandell moved the following recommendations be adopted by the Committee:

Continued cooperation with county assessors and the Department of Revenue into 2014 to further refine information provided in the required report, with possible allocation of limited funding if necessary.

Extension of the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands beyond the September 2014 sunset date.

Establishment of new designations/categories as necessary to account for all land uses for better tracking purposes, and if necessary, the creation of a uniform tracking system of different types of land in Arizona for use by county assessors. The motions carried with a voice vote.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :39 a.m.

, Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey Ong Committee Secretary

(Audio recordings and attachments are on file in the Secretary of the Senate's Office/Resource Center, Room 115. Audio archives are available at http://www.azleg.gov)

Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Study Committee on Government and Private Lands December 11, 2013 Page 3 Attachment C Voluntary In-Lieu Contributions

On April 23, 1993, Senate Bill 1156, which amends Title 17 by adding section 17-272, (voluntary contributions in-lieu of property taxes for Commission property) became law.

This law authorizes the Commission to make voluntary contributions of money, in-lieu of taxes, to counties (includes all taxing authorities administered by the county) for real property purchased within the county after April 23, 1993. Thus properties acquired before 1993 are not subject to this law.

The law does not apply to: 1. Property that is exempt from taxation at the time of purchase unless the property was exempt from taxation under section 42-11114 or 42-11115 or 2. Lands acquired for fish hatcheries, game farms, firing ranges, reservoir sites, administrative sites or rights-of-way to fishing waters.

In accordance with the law, the Department advises each county before April 1 of each year if the Commission elects to make voluntary contributions under the law. We do this automatically each year and we .should continue doing so unless advised otherwise.

The law is very specific and prescribes the method that is to be used for the computation of the voluntary contributions. The law provides for the Department to annually consult with the county assessor to determine the assessed valuation of the property. This consultation is completed procedurally in letter form when the Department notifies the county of our calculations. The amount of the voluntary contribution is calculated from the assessed valuation ofthe property. In accordance with the law, the contribution must be computed assuming classification as Class Two property and valued as agricultural property. Since we really have no way of knowing if the county assumes the land as Class Two and values the property as agricultural purposes, the Department reminds each county of this requirement procedurally via our annual correspondence.

After the county values the property, the Department must insure that the assessed valuation used by the county to compute the contribution is not increased from one tax year to the next by more than two percent. The amount of the voluntarily contribution is then determined by applying the current aggregate tax rate (held at no more than 2% annually) to the determined annual valuation. Attachment D Arizona Game and Fish Commission 2008 Voluntary In-Lieu Contributions

Apache County Property Acres Acquired $4,535.24 Sipe White Mountain WA 1,280.00 8-Oct-93 $331.96 Wenima Riparian Corridor 150.00 10-Mar-95 $171.60 Cross L Ranch 1,723.89 25-Jun-99 $0.00 Ocote Ranch 0.00 $42.65 Enders 295.26 8-Jan-02 $22.85 Greer 10.00 28-Aug-02 $22.85 Guyett 0.50 $5,127.16 Total - Apache County $3,459.65

Cochise County Property Acres Acquired $3,229.84 Whitewater Draw 1,427.35 3-Jan-97 $13.69 Wilson parcel 80.00 15-Dec-98 $102.28 Pinedo parcel 160.00 8-Nov-02 $3,345.82 Total - Cochise County $1,667.35

Pinal County Property Acres Acquired $501.47 Picacho - McFarland 50.00 3-Feb-98 $501.47 Total - Pinal County $50.00

. Santa Cruz County Property Acres Acquired $595.64 Coal Mine Springs Phase I 2,628.20 21-Dec-04 $198.02 Coal Mine Springs Phase II 873.79 25-Jul-06 $186.82 Coal Mine Springs Phase III 795.00 13-Feb-08 $980.48 Total - Santa Cruz County $4,296.99

Yavapai County Property Acres Acquired $61.95 Upper Verde River - Croll Parcels 757.91 11-Jun-96 $24.94 Upper Verde River - Wells Parcels 293.37 15-Feb-08 $86.89 Total - Yavapai County $1,051.28

Yuma County Property Acres Acquired $0.00 Nelssen (Lower Gila River) 0.00 31-Aug-94 $603.70 Marlatt Parcel 60.69 . 24-Sep-97 $16.97 Headstream & McVey 20.84 13-Nov-07 $620.67 Total - Yuma County $81.53

Maricopa County Property Acres Acquired $21.00 Elianto 25.00 20-Dec-07 $132.75 Richardson Parcel 158.00 6-Apr-08 $153.75 Total - Maricopa County $183.00 10,816.24 10,789.80

TAXES2008.XLS -TOTALS edited: 10/11/13 9:37 AM Arizona Game and Fish Commission 2009 Voluntary In-Lieu Contributions

Apache County Property Acres Acquired $4,488.54 Sipe White Mountain WA 1,280.00 8-Oct-93 $328.36 Wenima Riparian Corridor 150.00 10-Mar-95 $167.55 Cross L Ranch 1,723.89 25-Jun-99 $0.00 Ocote Ranch 0.00 $42.33 Enders 295 .26 8-Jan-02 $22.67 Greer 10.00 28-Aug-02 $22.67 Guyett 0.50 $5,072.12 Total - Apache County 3,459.65

Cochise County Property Acres Acquired $3 ,294.77 Whitewater Draw 1,427.35 3-Jan-97 $13.69 Wilson parcel 80.00 15-Dec-98 $102.55 Pinedo parcel 160.00 8-Nov-02 $3,411.01 Total - Cochise County 1,667.35

Coconino County Property Acres Acquired $8.99 Buck Springs 40.00 30-Mar-09 $8.99 Total - Coconino County 40.00

Maricopa County Property Acres Acquired 135.36 Richardson Parcel 158.00 6-Jun-08 21.42 Eliantro 25 .00 20-Dec-07 $156.78 Total - Maricopa County 183.00

Pinal County Property Acres Acquired $490.97 Picacho - McFarland 50.00 3-Feb-98 $490.97 Total - Pinal County 50.00

Santa Cruz County Property Acres Acquired $665.12 Coal Mine Springs Phase I 2,628.20 21-Dec-04 $221.12 Coal Mine Springs Phase II 873.79 25-Jul-06 $258.46 Coal Mine Springs Phase III 795.00 13-Feb-08 $257.02 Coal Mine Springs Phase IV 9.00 20-Jul-09 $1,401.71 Total - Santa Cruz County 4,305.99

Yavapai County Property Acres Acquired $66.55 Upper Verde River - Croll Parcels 757.91 11-Jun-96 $26.50 Upper Verde River - Wells Parcels 293.37 15-Feb-08 $93.05 Total - Yavapai County 1,051.28

Yuma County Property Acres Acquired $0.00 Nelssen (Lower Gila River) 0.00 31-Aug-94 $625.20 Marlatt Parcel 60 .69 24-Sep-97 $17.44 Headstream & McVey 20.84 13-Nov-07 $642.64 Total - Yuma County 81.53 11,277.28 10,838.80

TAXES2009.XLS -TOTALS edited: 10/11/13 9:37 AM Arizona Game and Fish Commission 2010 Voluntary In-Lieu Contributions

Apache County Property Acres Acquired $2,004.81 Sipe White Mountain WA 1,280.00 8-Oct-93 $208.52 Wenima Riparian Corridor 150.00 10-Mar-95 $131.32 Cross L Ranch 1,723.89 25-Jun-99 $0.00 Ocote Ranch 0.00 $27.79 Enders 295.26 8-Jan-02 $21.43 Greer 10.00 28-Aug-02 $21.43 Guyett 0.50 $2,415.31 Total - Apache County 3,459.65

Cochise County Property Acres Acquired $3,038.50 Kovacs parcel 1,427.35 3-Jan-97 $12.86 Wilson parcel 80.00 15-Dec-98 $38.06 Pinedo parcel 160.00 8-Nov-02 $215.15 Yarbrough parcel 122.00 9-Nov-02 $3,304.57 Total - Cochise County 1,789.35

Coconino County Property Acres Acquired $9.31 Buck Springs 40.00 30-Mar-09 $9.31 Total - Coconino County 40.00

Maricopa County Property Acres Acquired 143.78 Richardson Parcel 158.00 6-Jun-08 22.75 Eliantro 25 .00 20-Dec-07 174.08 Gable 171.00 l l-Dec-09 $340.61 Total - Maricopa County 354.00

Pinal County Property Acres Acquired $480.76 Picacho - McFarland 50.00 .3-Feb-98 $480.76 Total - Pinal County 50.00

Santa Cruz County Property Acres Acquired $616.03 Coal Mine Springs Phase I 2,628.20 21-Dec-04 $2_04.79 Coal Mine Springs Phase II sn19 _ i5-Jl!Hii $234.67 Coal Mine Springs Phase III 804.00 13-Feb-08 $2.66 Coal Mine Springs Phase IV 9.00 20-Jul-09 $1,058.15 Total - Santa Cruz County 4,314.99

Yavapai County Property Acres Acquired $65.05 Upper Verde River - Croll Parcels 757.91 11-Jun-96 $20.27 Upper Verde River - Wells Parcels 293.37 15-Feb-08 $85.32 Total - Yavapai County 1,051.28

Yuma County Property Acres Acquired $0.00 Nelssen (Lower Gila River) 0.00 31-Aug-94 $628.54 Marlatt Parcel 60.69 24-Sep-97 $16.80 Headstream & McVey 20.84 13-Nov-07 $645.34 Total - Yuma County 81.53 8,339.36 11,140.80

TAXES20J0.XLS - TOTALS edited: 10/11/13 9:37 AM Arizona Game and Fish Commission 2011 Voluntary In-Lieu Contributions

Apache County Property Acres Acquired $1 ,741.44 Sipe White Mountain WA 1,280.00 8-Oct-93 $181.86 Wenima Riparian Corridor 150.00 10-Mar-95 $112.79 Cross L Ranch 1,723.89 25-Jun-99 $0.00 Ocote Ranch 0.00 $19.99 Enders 295.26 8-Jan-02 $0.04 Greer 10.00 28-Aug-02 $0.04 Guyett 0.50 $2,056.16 Total - Apache County 3,459.65

Cochise County Property Acres Acquired $2,711.44 Kovacs parcel 1,427.35 3-Jan-97 $12.99 Wilson parcel 80.00 15-Dec-98 $97.42 Pinedo parcel 160.00 8-Nov-02 $20.90 Yarbrough parcel 122.00 9-Nov-02 $2,842.76 Total - Cochise County 1,789.35

Coconino County Property Acres Acquired $10.36 Buck Springs 40.00 30-Mar-09 $10.36 Total - Coconino County 40.00

Maricopa County Property Acres Acquired 146.64 Richardson Parcel 158.00 6-Jun-08 22.97 Eliantro 25 .00 20-Dec-07 170.64 Gable 171.00 11-Dec-09 $340.25 Total - Maricopa County 354.00

Pinal County Property Acres Acquired $552.36 Picacho - McFarland 50.00 3-Feb-98 $552.36 Total - Pinal County 50.00

Santa Cruz County Property Acres Acquired $630.38 Coal Mine Springs Phase I 2,628.20 21-Dec-04 $208.26 Coal Mine _Springs Phas~ II 873,79 _ ]5-Jul-06 $234.67 Coal Mine Springs Phase III 804.00 13-Feb-08 $2.66 Coal Mine Springs Phase IV 9.00 20-Jul-09 $1,075.97 Total - Santa Cruz County 4,314.99

Yavapai County Property Acres Acquired $65.98 Upper Verde River - Croll Parcels 757.91 11-Jun-96 $23.00 Upper Verde River - Wells Parcels· 293.37 15-Feb-08 $3,163.48 Horseshoe Ranch 198.80 11-Mar-11 $3,252.47 Total - Yavapai County 1,250.08

TAXES2011.XLS -TOTALS edited: 7/25/12 9:53 AM Arizona Game and Fish Commission 2012 Voluntary In-Lieu Contributions

Apache County Property Acres Acquired $1,775.40 Sipe White Mountain WA 1,280.00 8-Oct-93 $185.49 Wenima Riparian Corridor 150.00 IO-Mar-95 $112.79 Cross L Ranch 1,723.89 25-Jun-99 $0.00 Ocote Ranch 0.00 $19.99 Enders 295.26 8-Jan-02 $0.04 Greer 10.00 28-Aug-02 $0.04 Guyett 0.50 $2,093.75 Total - Apache County 3,459.65

Cochise County Property Acres Acquired $3,037.06 Kovacs parcel 1,427.35 3-Jan-97 $13.11 Wilson parcel 80.00 15-Dec-98 $38.18 Pinedo parcel 160.00 8-Nov-02 $21.51 Yarbrough parcel 122.00 9-Nov-02 $3,109.86 Total - Cochise County 1,789.35

Coconino County Property Acres Acquired $10.43 Buck Springs 40.00 30-Mar-09 $10.43 Total - Coconino County 40.00

Maricopa County Property Acn;s Acquired 159.12 Richardson Parcel 158.00 6-Jun-08 25.32 Roussell 25 .00 20-Dec-07 188.72 Gable 171.00 l 1-Dec-09 $373.16 Total - Maricopa County 354.00

Pinal County Property Acres Acquired $524.35 Picacho - McFarland 50.00 3-Feb-98 $1,246.44 San Pedro $1,770.80 Total - Pinal County 1,097.61

Santa Cruz County Property Acres Acquired $643.58 Coal Mine Springs Phase I . 2,628.20 21:Dec-04 $213.95 Coal Mine Springs Phase II 873 .79 25-Jul-06 $245.17 Coal Mine Springs Phase III 804.00 13-Feb-08 $2.72 Coal Mine Springs Phase IV 9.00 20-Jul-09 $1,105.43 Total - Santa Cruz County 4,314.99

Yavapai County Property Acres Acquired $80.40 Upper Verde River - Croll Parcels 757.91 11-Jun-96 $26.73 Upper Verde River - Wells Parcels 293.37 15-Feb-08 $2,617.01 Horseshoe Ranch 198.80 11 -Mar-11 $2,724.13 Total - Yavapai County 1,250.08

Yuma County Property Acres Acquired $0.00 Nelssen (Lower Gila River) 0.00 31-Aug-94 $702.43 Marlatt Parcel 60.69 24-Sep-97 $20.64 Headstream & McVey 20.84 13-Nov-07 $723.08 Total - Yuma County 81.53 11,910.62 12,387.21

TAXES2012.XLS - TOTALS edited: 10/11/13 9:38 AM Attachment E CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION - Issued: September 1, 1997 Page: CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION

PURPOSE The purpose of this guideline is to ensure equitc\ble and consistent assessment of property subject to a conservation easement. Research required reviewing Arizona's and other states' case law, guidelines and statutes regarding valuing and classifying property subject to an easement in general, and a conservation easement specifically.

CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEFINED

An easement is an interest in real property that conveys use, but not ownership, of a portion of an owner's property. The real property interest of the easement holder is termed the dominant estate and the encumbered property the servient estate. An entity that acquires an easement is the beneficiary of additional rights; the property that is subject to an easement is burdened with a loss of rights.

When applied to real estate, conservation is the protection of neighborhoods and structures from blight or other influences that might affect desirability or value adversely. A conservation easement is a restriction that limits the f_uture use of a property_to preservation, conservation, or wildlife habitat. 1

The Uniform Conservation Easement Act in A.R.S. § 33-271 defines conservation easement as "a non-possessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations for conservation purposes or to preserve the historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural aspects of real property." Typically, conservation or preservation easements are in effect in perpetuity. These easements are also known as Conservation Restriction in Perpetuity (CRP).

Open space [conservation] easements set land aside for non-building uses and may encumber land in three ownership categories: 1) private open space adjacent to dwellings owned by individual residents; 2) public open space owned by the government; and

1"The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal," 3rd Ed., Appraisal Institute, 1993. . CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION - Issued: September 1, 1997 Page: 2 3) common open space owned by a community association and set aside for the use of residents. 2

INCOME TAX BENEFIT

Under federal law, a conservation/preservation easement can be deeded to a qualified nonprofit organization or government agency. In such instances, the property owner donates the easement and receives an income tax deduction that can be equal to, but not more than, the market value of the real property rights donated. 3 Public access is generally not a requirement for the income tax deduction.

Typical holders of permanent conservation easements are 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organizations. For the purpose of income tax deductions, the easement benefits the property owner as a charitable deduction for gifts of easements to charitable organizations.

VALUATION CONSIDERATIONS

The impact on value of the typical conservation easement is based on the restricted use of the property. Measurement of the restricted use is contingent upon the effect the easement has on the ability to· develop, rent (or lease) and sell the property.

The economic theory on which the valuation of a conservation/preservation easement is based is generally the same as that which governs eminent domain appraising, although the acquirer of a conservation easement receives rather than takes rights. Each easement document is unique and contains specific controls and restrictions that must be carefully analyzed to determine how it affects that particular encumbered property.4

It should be noted that the value of the property associated with a servient estate may be increased as a result of the use of the easement of the dominant estate. The impact of the easement may be positive to both the dominant and servient estates. This is known as a shared benefit and the loss in value to the servient estate is mitigated by the benefit. The

211 The Appraisal of Real Estate," 10th Edition, Appraisal Institute, 1992. 31d. 41d . CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION - Issued: September 1, 1997 Page: 3 case of shared benefits resulting from an easement is considered an enhancement to the property.

Therefore, it is necessary for assessments in Arizona to consider servient easements in relation to the effect such easements have on that property, both in terms of reducing value and/or enhancing value. The Assessor is only concerned with the value after the imposition of the conservation easement.

In the assessment process, an appeal by the owner will normally be the trigger to review the property valuation. Assume an owner/petitioner has created a voluntary conservation easement on residential land and the easement is to be held by a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization. Furthermore, assume the easement prohibits the development of residential units on a portion of the larger parcel. The loss in value is a reflection of the inability to market the property with the same potential for residential development. Further, assume a recently active market for residential lands in the market area, and immediate development is feasible. An estimate of the present value of the residential units lost to the easement can be determined by the standard application of the direct sales comparison approach.

An easement may have little or no effect on the underlying fee. If the location of the easement and the prohibited uses are otherwise covered by other restrictive instruments or are not physically adaptable to development, the additional imposition of an easement may have no impact on value (i.e., undevelopable property in a flood-plain, on a mountain-side, etc.). This scenario can be seen in the same situation described above with the exception that the owner of the property occupied the parcel in a single family residence and the development units lost to the easement were for multi-family use. There would be no basis for a change in the property value. The current use remains constant.

It is also useful to consider a situation as described above, with the exception that the land is vacant and immediate development feasibility is not supported; assuming the development parameters were in the distant future (i.e., over twenty years), the impact on value may not be measurable. CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION

Issued: September 1, 1997 Page: 4

Alternatively, an easement may be associated with some betterment, amenity or public/private good which, over time, increases the value of the surrounding properties and remaining subject property. In this case, the reduction for the imposition of the easement from the market value of the encumbered property is offset by the enhancement in value to other property owned by the taxpayer or related parties.5 In the future, this may be reflected in an adjustment for enhancement or location.

Agriculturally classified land, encumbered with a conservation easement, will revert to a non agricultural value if the easement prohibits agricultural uses. If the easement does not restrict agricultural uses, then the property should be valued pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-141 (A)(5). This will normally result in no change.

LOSS IN VALUE PARAMETERS

An outcome where there is no loss in value is routinely possible, while value losses of more than 50% are improbable. The complete loss of value, or a near total loss in value from the imposition of a conservation easement, is essentially without merit. Land always retains some value even under conditions of restricted uses. In similarity to conservation easements, electric transmission line easements prohibit development, however they also impose an - - - - - · - - - unattractive and undesirable structure within the easement and proximate to the lands surrounding the location of the easement. This is in contrast to conservation easements whose purpose is usually stated to retain pristine environments (i.e., enhance the environment).

Conservation easements typically do not affect the value of the underlying property beyond the contributing value of the lost development potential (measured in dollars per unit). Additionally, the loss in value should not be estimated on a pro rata basis. The law of decreasing or diminishing returns6 assigns a lower unit value to the potential development lost to the easement than to the value of the remaining or unaffected potential development. This lesser value must also be offset for the remaining value of the land and any contributions to

5Treasury Regulation section 1.170A-14(h)(3) 6The law of decreasing or diminishing returns is the premise that additional expenditures beyond a certain point (the point of decreasing returns) will not yield a return commensurate with the additional investment ("The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal," 3rd Ed., Appraisal Institute, 1993). CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION

Issued: September 1, 1997 Page: 5 density elsewhere on the site, as well as the potential of satisfying open space or water retention requirements. Finally, the possibility of additional value associated with the creation of an amenity enhancement must also be considered as offsetting the loss (at least in part).

VALUATION PROCEDURE

Although the valuation process for conservation easements ultimately reflects a case by case approach, the generic appraisal procedure can be used for the assessment processes:

1. Define the Appraisal Problem/Identify the Property

The problem can typically be phrased as a question. What is the FCV of the underlying fee interest, taking into account the effect (if any) of the conservation easement? The property is identified according to standard appraisal practice and the Assessment Procedures Manual. Along with determining the assessment classification and the physical characteristics of the parcel(s), the easement itself must be identified and located. This will involve acquiring and reading the easement document to discover the prohibited uses or restrictions, the duration of the easement, the nature of the agreement (voluntary or coercive) and the accessibility provision (can the general public access the property or is this restricted also). Is the easement held by a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization or governmental body? Are the prohibited uses physically and legally possible and economically feasible? Does the easement involve a change in current use?

2. Collect and Analyze Data

Once it has been determined that the easement does restrict the current use of the property, it is necessary to collect sales data on properties that are most similar to the subject. If there are no comparable properties similarly encumbered with a conservation easement, the next best substitutes are lands with similar restrictions, whether they be the result of adverse physical attributes, zoning or legal deed restrictions. CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION - Issued: September 1 , 1997 Page: 6 3. Apply the Applicable Approaches to Value

If applicable, the easement will only affect the land value since improvement restrictions represent the most common constraint. Of those properties encumbered with conservation easements that do affect the value of the underlying fee interest, the valuation problems will be reducible to the valuation methodology associated with surplus land. This effectively redefines the problem to a surplus land appraisal. Sales of land that include both relatively small and large areas as well as those affected by physical limitations or other restrictions should facilitate sales comparison.

Note: The prohibited use(s) must be otherwise physically and legally possible and economically measurable (i.e., feasible). If the location of the easement follows the contours and dimensions of a prior restraining or constraining barrier to development (i.e., flood-plain, wash, etc.), the easement may not be affecting the property in any measurable way.

4. Reconcile the Final Value

CLASSIFICATION

Each easement is unique and contains specific controls and restrictions that specify how the easement affects each property. In most cases, property subject to a conservation easement should be classified as Legal Class 4 due to the non-building use. Conservation easements typically preserve the pristine nature of the land by restricting development of the property and limiting the use of a property to preservation, conservation, or wildlife habitat.

CASE STUDY EXAMPLES

It is important to acknowledge that conservation easements can influence value in a positive or negative manner, or not at all. This should be recognized in the valuation process using standard appraisal methods and techniques. Listed below are examples of typical valuation and classification problems that could result from the imposition of a conservation easement. CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION - Issued: September 1, 1997 Page: 7 Example I A vacant 40 acre parcel of land, backing up to a mountain preserve, contains a conservation easement that restricts the owner from building any type of improvement on the land. Parcels of land adjacent to the subject property have recently sold for $2,500 per acre for development purposes. Parcels of land that do not enjoy the benefit of the proximity to the mountain preserve have recently sold for $1,500 per acre. Also, parcels of land with severe topographic problems that would restrict the normal development of these properties recently have sold for $500 per acre.

Knowing these facts, what is the estimated market value of the 40 acre parcel?

Example II A taxpayer comes to your office and asks, "I have a section of land that has been historically classified as agricultural grazing land. I am exploring the possibility of donating a conservation easement on this property to protect the natural resources of the land. The preservation organization wants to restrict the use of my property from grazing cattle for three months each year. From March to May, I would be prohibited from grazing my cattle because that is the breeding season for quail. Can I retain my agricultural status under these restrictions?"-

Knowing these facts, what would your answer be?

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS Solution I The land may be valued within the range of $500/acre minimum (topographically challenged parcels) to $835/acre maximum (i.e., $500/acre X $2,500/$1,500 = $833.33). Note: $2,500/$1,500 = 1.67 factor for proximity to the mountain preserve, which is then applied to the minimum value for properties with severe topographical problems.

Solution II Yes, the agricultural status is unaffected by the three months of prohibited use. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-167(A), property is eligible for classification as agricultural if the primary use is agricultural and the property has been in active production in conformance with generally CONSERVATION EASEMENT VALUATION - Issued: September 1, 1997 Page: 8 accepted agricultural practices for at least seven of the ten prior years. Further, grazing land that has been in active production may still qualify if it is inactive or partially inactive due to reduced carrying capacity or generally accepted range management practices; preventing the cattle from grazing for three months of the year may be prudent range management. Attachment F Joint Legislative Study Committee on Government and Private Lands

2012 ANNUAL REPORT

Members: Senator Gail Griffin, Co Chair Representative David Gowan, Co Chair Senator Sylvia Allen Representative David Stevens Senator Robert Meza Representative Bruce Wheeler JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY CO:MMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS

MEMBERS:

Senator Gail Griffin, Co Chair Representative David Gowan, Co Chair Senator Sylvia Allen Representative David Stevens Senator Robert Meza Representative Bruce Wheeler

MEMBERSHIP:

• Three members from the Senate • Three members from the House of Representatives

ESTABLISHMENT:

The Joint Legislative Study Committee on Government and Private Lands was established by Laws 2012, Chapter 176.

COMMITTEE CHARGE:

The Committee will examine the consequences of the transfer of real property from private parties to government entities. The Committee is charged with the following:

• Conduct hearings to evaluate the practice and impact of government entities' acquisition of private property. • Review the historical tax assessments on a sampling of the acquisitions of private real property. • Examine the- frequency: -and -circumstances of government acquisition of private real property. • Consider ways to ensure that government acquisition of real property is conducted according to law and appropriately can continue. • Identify the appropriate entity · or entities to administer and review recording, tracking and reporting tax-supported government acquisitions. • Submit a report regarding the Committee's activities and recommendations on or before December 31, 2012.

PUBLIC MEETINGS:

December 4, 2012: The Committee introduced members and discussed the issue involving the federal government and land ownership in Arizona. It was decided that Senator Griffin and Representative Gowan would co-chair the Committee. The meeting included discussion by the members and public testimony from Todd Madeksza, County Supervisors Association, and Representatives-Elect Bob Thorpe, District 6, and Sonny Borelli, District 6. I -.

I l

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A December 4, 2012 minutes and handouts Attachment B- Payments in lieu of taxes from the federal government Attachment A I . Format Document Page 1 of 1

I ' Interim agendas can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.azleg.state.az.us/lnterimCommittees.asp

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE INTERIM MEETING NOTICE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS

Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 Time: 3:30 P.M. Place: SHR3 AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Dfscussion of issue - why committee was formed 3. Discussion of committee goals 4. Discussion of committee procedures 5. other issues. 6. Date/time of next meeting 7. Adjourn

Members: Senator Sylvia Allen Representative David Gowan Senator Gail Griffin Representative David Stevens Senator Robert Meza Representative Bruce Wheeler

11/28/12 sa

For questions regarding this agenda, please contact Senate Research Department. Persons with a disability may reques1 a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language Interpreter, by conlilcting the Senate Secretary's Office: (602) 926-4231 (voice). Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.

1 ------ro--"+n,...,._,,.,..,,.n+ <>C!T'l?f'rirrn~t=nrint&inDoc=/iaQenda/senate/12041... 12/19/2012 Format Document Page 1 of 3

------DOCUMENT HEADER------

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE Fiftieth Legislature - Second Regular Session

JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS

Minutes of Interim Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2012 Senate Hearing Room 3 - 3:30 p.m.

Senator Griffin called the meeting to order at 3 :34 p.m. a,nd attendance was noted by the secretary.

Members Present

Senator Sylvia Allen Representative David Stevens Senator Gail Griffin Representative David Gowan Senator Robert Meza

Members Absent

Representative Bruce Wheeler

Senator Griffin welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Members.

COMMITTEE CHARGE

_ SenatoI Griffin asked Bill Boyd, Se.nate An.aly~ .to e__xp___lain th.~ CQmmitt~~·s PlJ!PQ~~.

Bill Boyd, Senate Analyst advised that Laws 2012, Chapter 176, established the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Government and Private Lands consisting of three Memb.ers from the Senate and three Members from the House. The Committee will examine the consequences of the transfer of real property from private parties to government entities. The Committee is charged with the following: • Conduct h~ to evaluate the practice and impact of government entities' acquisition of private property . • Review the historical tax assessments on a sampling oftlie acquisitions of private real property. • Examine the frequency and circumstances of government acquisition of pnvate real property. • Consider ways to ensure that government acquisition of real property is conducted according to law and appro_Eriately can continue. • Identity the appropriate en!it_r. or entities to administer and review recording, tracking and reporting tax supported government acqws1tions. • Submit a report regarding the Committee's activities and recommendations on or before December 31, 2012.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

Senator Griffin advised that the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Oovernment and Private Lands was formed last session because more and more private property is being lost The county assessors have been asked to provide information on how much land is private, how much land is tax exempt and how much is in conservation status. She called Members' attention to maps depicting the breakdown of private land, federal land, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land, tribal land and military bases in Arizona. Maps were distributed showing that most of the land in the nation east of the Mississippi River is in private hands while most of the land west of the Mississippi River is under federal control (Attachment I).

Senator Griffin stated that during this past session, Gila County provided data showing that only 4.07 percent of

1 ?/?7/?01? Format Document Page 2 of 3

land in the county is privately owned; the amount of private property that is tax exempt is 62.89 acres. She noted that this is the tax base that Arizona's counties and cities rely on for development

DISCUSSION OF COIVIMITTEE PROCEDURES

Senator Griffin announced that she and Representative Gowan will co-chair the Committee. She identified Representative Stevens, Representative Wheeler and Senator Meza as Committee Members, and noted that Senator Allen. will be a Member of the Committee until the new Senate Members are sworn into office.

DISCUSSION

Co-Chairman Gowan brought up the two issues that precipitated this discussion: a different set of rules for land management and an effort to get government entities to relinquish private lands or pay for properties they have through taxation. He said he would like Arizona's private land to be identified as well as to ensure that Arizona land is affordable now and in the future. He pointed out that Arizona receives compensation from the government; however, he questioned whether the amount received equals the ~on the government gets from the land.

Senator Allen related that when Arizona became a state, the federal government agreed to make payment in lieu of tax (PIL n payments. She advised that her county receives about $1.5 million in PILT payments every year because Navajo County does not have private lands that it can tax. The majority of the money goes to the schools and a small portion is used for roads. The county has now been informed that the PIT, T payments will no longer be sent because of the federal government problems. She stated that the county just lost its paper mill and will lose $340,000 in taxes from the mill next year, so it is becoming a serious problem. Additionally, in the land exchange resolutions, the federal government has traditionally asked states for a three-to-one swap.

To that point, Co-Chairman Griffin revealed that Cochise County just lost 1,800 acres to a non-profit organization, resulting in a loss to the tax base. Also, the City of Scottsdale recently lost about 6,400 acres for conservation purposes.

Senator Meza queried whether other western states are moving in this direction to identify private land. Co Chairman Griffin said that Utah has gathered a lot of information.

Senator Meza asked whether U.S. Senators Kyl and McCain have been consulted on this. Co-Chairman Griffin replied in the negative. She said she will provide information on this issue to newly-elected U.S. Senator Flake.

Co-Chairman Gowan revealed that in the past, affected states have forced the federal government to sell land so the .states ~QuJd have more private land. In 2009, Hawaii sued the government and that is a precedent that Arizona can refer to. · · · ·

Representatiye Stevens brought up the 1828 lawsuit which lliinois and Indiana won, giving them private land. He said the Enabling Act that created states required the government to dispose of land in a reasonable amount of time, which has not happened so far. He revealed that US. Representative Ivory from Utah has formed a western-states coalition to pursue the next lawsuit, so ·there are two precedents that Arizona.can cite for the sale of land which will benefit everyone in the state.

Co-Chairman Griffin stated that last session she contacted most of the counties to inform them of this issue. She will be sending a letter to all counties requesting information and said she understands they are working on the data and are being very cooperative. She stated it is to everyone's advantage to have this information.

Todd Madeksza, Director of Legislative Affairs, County Supervisors Association, made himself available for questions. In response to Co-Chairman Gowan, he advised that the county assessors are working on the private land data that has been requested. He understands that four or five counties have completed and are double checking the information they gathered to ensure this Committee has the correct ratios.

Co-Chairman Griffin advised that the counties were requested to provide this information by January 2014.

Co-Chairman Griffin addressed the PILT payments from the federal government The PIL T payments are voluntary and have been cut over the years. She would like to compare data to see how much the state and the state's schools have lost over the years.

Other information was provided to Members (Attachments 2, 3 and 4):

, _....._ _ 11- · - · -·· ~~ 1 = ~ ~ ,m/R,--...... ,.,+n",..,,,.,.,P.nt ::i,m?fnrm::it=nrint&inDoc=/iminute/House/12041 ... 12/27/2012 Farm.at Document Page 3 of 3

• PIL T Payments to Counties • Land Ownership and Management • Information from the Amencan Lands Council State Representative-Elect Bob Thorpe, Legislative District 6, testified that the payments from the federal government are approximately $35 million, which is about 71 cents per acre. He opined that it is appalling for them to control so much of Arizona and for Arizona to receive so little in benefits. He maintained that it is the duty of the state to try to turn that equation around. He said that from an enumerated-powers standpoint, the federal government does not have jurisdiction to hold on to this much land. Enumerated powers give them the ability to reserve land for a post office or a garrison, but to have millions of acres of land is unprecedented in this country's history. Toe best course of action is for Arizona to partner with other western states that are affected by this issue and to build a coalition to put enough pressure on the federal government to turn that equation around. He said he does not advocate privatizing all the lands under federal control; however, a future Arizona needs a more expanded private ownership which will provide opportunities for private owners and result in improved Arizona land. Improving the health of the land will have many positive benefits for Arizona, such as jobs and revenue for the state.

State Representative-Elect Sonny Borrelli, Legislative District 5, mentioned that when a private citizen owes property taxes, that property is levied and eventually seized by the city or county. He wondered whether that coul(l be another vehicle for fighting back against the federal government: · ·

Co-Chairman Griffin reiterated her understanding that the PILT payments are voluntary. Toe latest information she has is that the payments may be eliminated next year.

OTHER ISSUES

Co-Chairman Griffin thanked everyone for attending the meeting and wanting to be involved in solving some of the problems that the state faces with government ownership of land. She advised that a report will be issued by the end of the month and stated that this Committee will probably not be meeting during session because of other obligations.

Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Joanne Bell, CoIDID1ttee Secretary December 12, 2012

(Qri_ginal miI!utes, attach!D,e1:1ts and _audio on file in the Chief Clerk's Office; video archives availabl_e_at http://www.azleg.gov)

------DOCUMENT FOOTER---

JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE LANDS 4 December 4, 2012

------DOCUMENT FOOTER-----

l-,tt.-,.//mmm -:nlPrr rrmrffinrrn!'ltnnr.llmf"nt ::i

Land Ownership in Arizona State Trust Land within Each County

The State of Arizona contains an estimated 72,931,000 acres, or ap COUNTY ACRES proximately 113,417 square miles, making it the sixth [argest state in the United States. The surface land ownership in Arizona can be Apache 652,660 classified into four basic categories. Cochise 1,370,681 Coconino 1,125,118 Gila 31,231 Graham 496,321 Federal, Greenlee 172,104 · Indian Trust, La Paz 254,411 42.2% 27.6% Maricopa 640,214 Mohave 565,350 Navajo 370,155 Pima 860,483 State Trust, Private, Pinal 1,204,538 12.7% 17.5% Santa Cruz 61,154 Yavapai 1,264,280 Yum.a 186,830 Misc* 2,540 The percentages are estimates derived from digitized map data. The category TOTAL 9,258,071 called Private is overestimated due to the inclusion of smatl amounts of land owned by local, State, end Federal agencies. 'Trust lands located In Cellfomla or Nevada due to realignment of Colorado River

19 Attachment B 1999 2000 2001 2002

H:CI; APACHE , 489,540.00 523,885.00l~ffi~ 745,100.00it-lll 795,723.oolffI COCHISE 619,422.001 841,942 653,544.00I~~ 841,942li~ 936,958.00lrifil ... 8_43,839l~k 976,944.00l~)f!i COCONINO 789,440.001 4,711,070 820,879. 001,~'.if!I--4, 711,073IL~l 1,260,220.00li:+il 4,717 ,333lili 1,329, 731.00l:~4i GILA 942,506.001 1,774,604 1,046,543.00t~.il 1,774,229lf'!i} 1,498,572.00lt¥iLL273,89jJf 1,~~;, 1,574,039.00l~i~ GRAHAM · 749,771.001 1,081,861 817,889.00l~~:l Ll:l8i;ss8k~% 1,J87 ,783.QQft l..LQ{3_1,.858.]~~:1;, 1,248,837.001~¥. 001tij:;:,1 896 8151;;,,,),•, GREENLEE 286,757.001 900,141 345,990.00Hlf.:J 900,1401\iftJ: 473 1 543 • t.T ;. I :;~;,r_._; 530,056.00IHi LA PAZ · 448,830.001 1,849,713 473,763.00lt¥1l 1,849,673ll~t:- -837,591.00W!f!JI 1,849,60Bl\~¾l~ 879,288.001~;4:i MARICOPA 969,069.001 2,309,656 1,019 ,264.00l~ J2,29.9.,643lf;#/! l.1Ll-6~414.00~ 2,299,602l{i::1ii;;, 1,539,003.00lii+: MO HAVE 996,910.001 6,448,544 1,052,149. OO ht+'I 6 ,448,6521{~~ 1,;509,613.00k+sl 6,448,67513+~· 1,584,701.00h:4'1 NAVAJO 415,070.001 597,161 435,569.00t+.J 596,48311&.~1 641,880.00lt+,l 59-6,484-lr:f:t- 694,151.001\!t'f/ PIMA 998,178.001 1,527,086 1,061,362.00lit-i(l l,527,386lt4~ 1,,s29,516.00l~¥.0I 1,s27,956lait 1 1,618,859.00l:ttl

PINAL 377,565.001 516,901 396,290.00l'~4_r] . 516,5811. ~§; 568,264.00l~~ I 516,.5.Bll:~ 599,120.00ltt~i - :i~ :i-4···2-0-83'2.1i::;;... 1 . SANTACRUZ 315,323.001 420,902 331 , 976 • 001 '-~i~.:i,T :1 __420 ,_ 832l:f"•;!tf.::-~.~ 4 75 , 255 . Oo'k~h - -- / _ ).t.J,;::::;t 498,484.00l~Pf: YAVAPAI 879,521.001 2,403,266 973,796.00li~J 2,403,374l~f ; 1,417,178.00lf.-¥.112,403,29S!f;z~, 1,473,737 .OOl/4:· YUMA 997,394.001 1,516,533 1,052,736.00l,i*11 1,509,182h~~ 1,510,193.001%4';1 1,509,181kf\\: 1,sas,3s2.001p,fl :. 2003 2004 2005

APACHE COCHISE COCONINO GILA GRAHAM GREENLEE LA PAZ MARICOPA MOHAVE NAVAJO PIMA PINAL SANTA CRUZ YAVAPAI YUMA 2006 2007 2008 2009

APACHE 946,414.00h{+i 652,583IM.!-+, 956,164.oot@i 1,462,097. OOlt~?fi 1,553,599.00IY;~'f. COCHISE 1,242,640.001;.~i-:-: 900, 7461 ~];/pJ 1,236,526.00l~l~r 90~74z]ti:~1 2,044,105.00l[i~ 2,062,865.00lfu::~ , COCONINO 958,986.001¥,~; 4,726,72711*-1: 9s1,ss1.001~~I 4)32,001Miif.\) 1,517 ,895.00lt.t-t,f, 1,548,284.00lr:~i{~· 1,,:;·.,, 1 5 37or·:;,, .. 1 GILA 1,826,289.00l~)ti 1,11s,s121ri'+: 1 I 8 96,3 5 1.001 \ii $ ' ,77 L~ . 'IJ~,'t' 3,049,527 .001~~qri 3,133,057 .00 foiP.: 1 GRAHAM 1,519,665.00ltlEF.11 1,487 ,969.00l11fili#,jJ.j14,413};;.+; 2,474,390.001]{¥. ' 2,564,987 .OOliii,$1 GREENLEE 269,139.00IIii.;;. 376,788.ooi~ r 907,854lt~+: 612,682.00l'.f},itj: 643,949.00lt~':,4 LA PAZ 1,077 ,843.001;•(4¥ 1,010,982.oob~t±:l 1,829,124lir:jl 1,700,374.00h~~: 1, 744,946.00~'5,7 MARICOPA 1,858, 1ss.oolW,+! 1,844,364.00hf.tlf2,457 ,368liliiit:· 2,915,379.00l~ff t 2,997,005.00[~'[4':' -- :;,.\i, 1 MOHAVE 1,944,307 .OOb~~'. 3,o69,876.001r~ , I I • ,::~/~ . 1,935,970.00li~i-f 6,083,28. - -- - · --0l- it¥~·. -- 3 148 076 001 .. ,,,,-·.-. , 598 12,3p1r;., NAVAJO 744,028.00lffiM 7 4 9, 81 4. 001 i/fH! _ __ "-'__L · i,J:::• 1,335,324.00l!}JAf: 1,41a,214.ooH~ff; i' 1 /j~ PIMA 1,925,348.00l'~b\'oii 1 I 902 I 625 • Ool .r~,.t!:t'"I 1 I 600_ I 3-:,~ ,11- {·-t,:ifr~~:,. 3,003,013 .OOl~i~i 3 I 073 I 106 • 001 .!,!:_;,-r.:. PINAL 868,239.00h]}'f' 858,776.00liit~[ -627,2941~: 1,374,260.00l~!ffi!i 1,403,450.00l~i SANTA CRUZ 574,210.00l·~jf~ 57o,9os.ool!i§I 4:3i,SJl6lgN<~ 931,234.0010~ 1,006,572.00liit~ ' 1 YAVAPAI 1,323,467.oornti~ 1,323,147 .OOlt~~~I 4..,587 ,0231~4~' 2,113,869,00liii\~ 2,214,680,00l~&:~' 1 ,;f,i;,i!,11 564 43·71;,;,,,;,!,: YUMA 1,944,685.00li.{if,) 1 I 936 I 291 I 001l:rr:',~' I I 91;:.~1 3,070,448.00lt~ 3,149,333 .001;t1¥.i· "

2010 2011 2012

APACHE 662,743 COCHISE 900,752 COCONINO 4,732,288 GILA 1,775,022 GRAHAM 1,114,629 GREENLEE 907,852 LA PAZ 1,831,900 MARICOPA 2,440,166 MOHAVE 6,143,366 NAVAJO 615,318 PIMA 1,600,331 PINAL 624,688 SANTA CRUZ 432,595 YAVAPAI 2,587,482 YUMA 1,563,464