http://littlebigdog.net/HazOrdCompareNow.htm

I.  Detailed comparisons and discussion of the Cochise County Hazard Abatement Ordinance enacted in 1987, and all the different sets of changes proposed during 2009, including the September 15 and September 23 revisions.  The terms of the September 23 revision appear to be identical to the terms of the September 15 version.  This digest refers to the "November 2009" version because the Planning Department did not release the September 23 version until November.


The goal of this digest is to make it easier for citizens to give input to the County.  Citizen input matters.  Many results from citizen input are apparent in the writeup below.  The County may never acknowledge citizen input -- in fact, that seems to be Planning Department policy -- but citizens can see that their input makes the County better.

My previous writeups kept the ordinance's individual sections in the same order as passed in 1987, mainly as a reminder that the test of a proposed ordinance is not "Would it be acceptable as a start from scratch?", but "Is it enough better than what we already have to be worth the time, expense, and inconvenience of making the change?"  With the November changes, I think, for the first time, that the game might be worth the candle; so this writeup has switched over to the order of the November version.

After the comparisons in Part II below, Part III mentions a few sections that have disappeared but should perhaps be reinstated, and Part IV offers links to the complete 1987 ordinance and the various proposals.

If you find any errors below, please email me to correct them at
    mpj@vtc.net

Here are a few -- by no means all -- suggestions for improving the latest draft ordinance:
    -- accurately describe the standard for obtaining a search warrant.  The standard is "probable" cause, not mere "reasonable" cause.  See Section 301(c)'s "Commentary."
    -- don't charge landowners for cleaning up trash on the road near their property.  See Section 404(b).
    -- when a Planning Department employee issues an order, don't let the same employee decide if the order should be stayed upon a citizen's appeal.  See Section 504.
    -- restore the "Commentary" following Section 504, to emphasize that the ordinance is intended to protect citizens' rights.
    -- don't let the Board Of Supervisors hand off citizen appeals to an appointed "hearing examiner."  See Section 505.
    -- replace a catchall paragraph about citizens' rights with the detailed description in the existing ordinance enacted in 1987.  See Section 604.
    -- don't confuse a trial panel with an appellate board; their duties are very different, and don't blend well.  See Section 604(b)(3).
    -- make it absolutely clear that no Supervisor who does not attend a hearing, and see and hear the witnesses, shall be allowed to participate in judging the case after the lapse occurs.  See Section 605(a).
    -- more carefully protect due process at hearings in general.  See Sections 605(b) and 605(c).
    -- restore the requirement of accurate cost accounting, and the right of any affected person to protest a Department decision.  See Section III below.

Now, on to the detailed comparisons.



II.  Section-by-section comparisons

Section 101 names the ordinance in legal "boilerplate" which need not be examined.

Section 102(a)
    1987:  It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide a ... method ... whereby any rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or damaged and dilapidated buildings which constitute a hazard to public health and safety may be compelled to be removed ....
    Mar 09:  ... rubbish, trash, filth, debris or damaged and dilapidated buildings ....
        CHANGE:  removes "weeds" from the list.  In fact, the March draft removes all reference to weeds.
    Jul 09:  rubbish, trash, weeds (as narrowly defined under this ordinance) ....
        CHANGE:  replaces "weeds" on the list, but "as narrowly defined under this ordinance."  This narrow definition is in section 201:  "Any vegetation that impedes emergency  vehicle access, constitutes a fire hazard, or interferes with the line of sight of vehicles on roadways."
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 102(b)
    1987:  The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all
hazardous conditions ....
    Mar 2009:  Same, plus "It is enacted pursuant to authority granted by A.R.S. 11-268."
        CHANGE:  mentions a statute as authority for enacting the ordinance
    Jul 09:  To the March draft, adds:  "Commentaries contained herein are intended as a guide to interpreting and carrying out the text of this ordinance."
        CHANGE:  Commentaries, which were removed from the March draft, returned in the July draft.
        COMMENT:  The commentaries put significant limits on applying the ordinance.  Their return is welcome.
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 201
    1987, numbered as 301:  For the purpose of this ordinance, certain terms, phrases, words and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this chapter.  Where terms are not defined, they shall have their ordinary accepted meanings within the context with which they are used.  Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, copyright 1961, shall be construed as providing ordinary accepted meanings.  Words used in the singular include the plural and the plural the singular.  Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and the feminine the masculine.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 201:  SAME IN SUBSTANCE
    Nov 09:  SAME

    Mar 09:  "Abate":  To end a nuisance, emergency, or nonconformance
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    Mar 09:  "Abatement":  Any action taken to reduce, relieve, or suppress another continuing action.  A legal action taken to suppress the continuation of an offensive land use.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    1987:  "Board of Appeals":  The Board of Supervisors shall constitute the Board of Appeals for all appeals pursuant to this ordinance.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    Mar 09:  "Contiguous Sidewalks, Streets and Alleys":  any sidewalk, street, or alley, public or private, adjacent to the edge or boundary, or touching on the edge or boundary, of any real property.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME    

    Mar 09:  "County":  The unincorporated areas of Cochise County.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    1987:  "Debris":  The definition of debris in addition to its ordinary accepted meaning shall include accumulations of combustible or flammable materials which are determined by the hazard abatement officer to constitute a hazard to public health or safety.
    Mar 09:  Accumulations of combustible or flammable materials which are determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer to constitute a hazard to public health or safety.
        CHANGE:  The opening reference to "ordinary accepted
meaning" is deleted.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME
        COMMENT:  Here, and wherever action is allowed based solely on a determination by the Hazard Abatement Officer, the language should be changed to indicate that the HAO's "determination" cannot determine any issue in a lawsuit or appeal.

    Mar 09:  "Dilapidated Building":  Any building in such disrepair, or damaged to such an extent, that its strength or stability is substantially less than a new building, or that is likely to burn or collapse, and the condition of which endangers the life, health safety, or property of the public as determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME
        COMMENTS:
            As to "as determined by" the HAO, same comment as in the definition of "debris."
            Many old pole barns, sheds, etc., are substantially less strong or stable than a new structure, but are still perfectly useful and safe.  To except such buildings, the definition should simply read "Any building that is likely to burn or collapse, and the condition of which endangers the life, health safety, or property of the public ...."

    Mar 09:  "Grounds":  Any private or public land, vacant or improved.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    Mar 09:  "Hazard Abatement Officer":  The Planning Director or his/her designated representative.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  "his/her" is now simply "his"
        COMMENT:  good cleanup

    Mar 09:  "Lessee":  A person who has the right to possess real property pursuant to a lease, rental agreement, or similar instrument.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    Mar 09:  "Lots":  Any plot or quantity of land, vacant or improved, private or public, as surveyed, platted or apportioned for sale or any other purpose.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    Mar 09:  "Occupant":  A person who has the actual use, possession, or control of real property.  This term does not include any corporation or association operating or maintaining right-of-way for and on behalf of the United States government, either under contract or federal law.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME
        COMMENT:  on the penult line, "for and on behalf of the United States" probably should be "for or on behalf of ...."

    Mar 09:  "Owner":  A person who is a record owner of real property as shown in the public records in the office of the Cochise County Recorder, and includes a person holding equitable title under a recorded installments sales contract, contract for deed or similar instrument.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME
        COMMENT:  "and includes" should be "including," as a matter of English

    Mar 09:  "Person":  An individual, partnership, corporation, association, trust, state, municipality, political subdivision, or any other entity that is legally capable of owning, leasing, or otherwise possessing real property.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    Mar 09:  "Public Nuisance":  A dilapidated building or an accumulation of rubbish, trash, filth, or debris that constitutes a hazard to the public health and safety as determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer.
    Jul 09:  "weeds" is inserted, i.e. "trash, weeds, filth"
    Nov 09:  SAME
        COMMENT:  Should read "as determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer or a hearing if one is requested."

    Mar 09:  "Real Property":  Buildings, grounds, or lots, as well as contiguous sidewalks, streets, and alleys, located in the county.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

    Jul 09:  "Weeds":  Any vegetation that impedes emergency vehicle access, constitutes a fire hazard, or interferes with the line of sight of vehicles on roadways.
    Nov 09:  SAME
        COMMENT:  consistent with section 102(a), see above

    Mar 09:  "Wildcat dumping":  The unauthorized placement, or transportation for placement, by any person, firm or corporation, of any rubbish, trash, filth or debris upon any private or public property located in the unincorporated areas of the County not owned or under the control of that person, firm or corporation.
    Jul 09:  "weeds" is inserted, i.e. "trash, weeds, filth".
        COMMENT:  You just can't stop that real estate clique from calling other people wildcatters.  Maybe people should start calling developers "carpetbaggers."

Section 301(a)
    1987, numbered as 201(a):  The position of hazard abatement officer is hereby created, said officer being herein authorized to enforce the provisions of this ordinance.
    Mar 09:  The position of Hazard Abatement Officer is hereby created, said officer being herein authorized to enforce the provisions of this ordinance.
        CHANGE:  March 2009 capitalizes "Hazard Abatement Officer."  This change occurs throughout the 2009 proposal, and will not be further noted.
    Jul 09, renumbered as 301(a):  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 301(b)
    1987, numbered as 201(b):  The health officer, representative of fire district if one is established, and the hazard abatement officer and their authorized representatives are hereby authorized to make such inspections as may be required to enforce the provisions of this ordinance.  The Hazard Abatement Officer or his authorized representative may take such actions as may be required to carry out the provisions of this Ordinance.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 301(b):  A County environmental health inspector, representative of a fire distict if one is established, or the Hazard Abatement Officer or any of their authorized representatives are hereby authorized to make such inspections as may be required to enforce the provisions of this ordinance.  The Hazard Abatement Officer or his authorized representative may take such actions as may be required to carry out the provisions of this Ordinance.
        CHANGE:  housekeeping
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 301(c), first paragraph
    1987, numbered as 201(c):  Whenever necessary ... the hazard abatement officer or his authorized representative may enter such buildings ....  If such entry is refused, the hazard abatement officer or his authorized representative shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry.
    Mar 09:  Whenever necessary ... the Hazard Abatement Officer or his authorized representative may enter such buildings ....  If such entry is refused, the Hazard Abatement Officer or his authorized representative shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including recourse to an administrative search warrant pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3912(5).
        CHANGE:  Adds the last clause specifically mentioning an administrative search warrant pursuant to ARS 13-3912(5).
    Jul 09, renumbered as 301(c):  SAME
    Nov 09:  There are several technical reworkings of the last half of this paragraph.  The paragraph now closes
        he shall first present proper credentials and request
        entry.  If such entry is refused, the Hazard Abatement
        Officer or his authorized representative shall seek and
        obtain an administrative search and inspection warrant
        pursuant to [ARS] 13-3912(5) prior to entry of those
        premises.  If such building or premises be unoccupied,
        he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the
        owner or other persons having charge or control of the
        building or premises and request entry and, if such
        entry is refused or if the owner or other persons
        having charge or control of the building or premises
        cannot be located, seek and obtain an administrative
        search and inspection warrant pursuant to [ARS] 13-
        3912(5) prior to entry of those premises.
    COMMENTS:
        The rewrite appears to lose its way in redundancy.  Dropping the middle sentence might improve it, thus:
            he shall first present proper credentials and
            request entry.  If such building or premises be
            unoccupied, he shall first make a reasonable
            effort to locate the owner or other persons having
            charge or control of the    building or premises and
            request entry and, if such entry is refused or if
            the owner or other persons having charge or
            control of the building or premises cannot be
            located, seek and obtain an administrative search
            and inspection warrant pursuant to [ARS] 13-
            3912(5) prior to entry of those premises.
        This paragraph still refers to buildings being "unsafe, dangerous or hazardous."  This is like the theme song to the "Wyatt Earp" tv show, calling Wyatt "brave, courageous and bold."  Can't we write our ordinances less redundantly?
        This paragraph assumes that the HAO can both "seek and obtain" a search warrant.  An HAO can seek a warrant, but can't necessarily obtain it; "seeking" should be all that is required.

Section 301(c), second paragraph
    1987, numbered as 201(c):  When the hazard abatement officer or his authorized representative shall have first obtained a proper inspection warrant or remedy .....
    Mar 09:  When the Hazard Abatement Officer or his authorized representative shall have first obtained a proper inspection warrant or other remedy ....
        CHANGE:  1987 refers to a "warrant or remedy" to enter and inspect property; March 2009 says "warrant or other remedy."
    Jul 09, renumbered as 301(c):  SAME
    Nov 09:  The reference to "proper inspection warrant" is now changed to "proper search and inspection warrant."
        COMMENT:  The change seems innocuous.

Section 301(c), third paragraph
    1987, numbered as 201(c):  "Authorized representative" shall include the officers named in Section 201(b) and their authorized inspection personnel."
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 301(c):  Like Mar, but internal section reference changed to 301(b)
    Nov 09:  Now adds at end "and any law enforcement officer(s) accompanying them."
        COMMENT:  Not a good idea.  An HAO may want to inspect for a safety problem, but why should such a search require a sheriff's deputy?  This provision opens up the possibility of an HAO search being used as a pretext for a police search.

Commentary after Section 301(c)
    1987:  In order for the hazard abatement officer (or his representative) to make an inspection, he must have 'reasonable cause to believe' that there exists rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, or debris in or on a building or premises, or a dilapidated and dangerous building, which creates a condition which is unsafe, dangerous, or hazardous.  Generally, the inspection will result from a complaint which he has received, or by observation of a condition that appears so dangerous that following up with an inspection is reasonable.  It is not intended that the officer travel all over the county searching for hazardous conditions.  Also, if the officer is not given permission by the owner to inspect, the officer must get a court warrant to inspect the property, and this requires him to make a showing of reasonable cause to the court.
    Mar 09:  GONE
        CHANGE:  Deletes language intended to limit application of this ordinance.  Note that in legal arguments, the deletion of such language is often taken as an indication that the ordinance was no longer intended to be limited.
    Jul 09:  RESTORED WITH CHANGES:  "In order for the Hazard Abatement Officer (or his representative) to make an inspection, he must have 'reasonable cause to believe' that there exists rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, or debris in or on a building or premises, or a dilapidated and dangerous building, which creates a condition which is unsafe, dangerous, or hazardous.  Generally, the inspection will result from a complaint which he has received, or by observation of a condition that appears so dangerous that following up with an inspection is reasonable.  It is not intended that the officer traverse the county searching for hazardous conditions.  Also, if the officer is not given permission by the owner to inspect, the officer must get a court warrant to inspect the property, and this requires him to make a showing of reasonable cause to the court."
        CHANGE:  "it is not intended that the officer travel all over the county" becomes "that the officer traverse the county."  Traverse is slightly more concise, and does not appear to make any change in meaning.  If a change in meaning is intended, it ought to be explained openly, not buried in a long paragraph.
        COMMENTS:
            The last line of the Commentary is incorrect.  Obtaining a warrant does not require "reasonable cause," it requires "probable cause."  Under ARS 13-3913, "No search warrant shall be issued except on probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person and particularly describing the property to be seized and the place to be searched."  That's PROBABLE cause, not "reasonable" cause, and the two are very different.  It's reasonable to believe that you might win the lottery; that doesn't make it probable.  The Ordinance should definitely state "probable," not "reasonable," cause.  It should reflect American law, not some Commissar's dream.
            With the law so clear, it's a mystery why the Department persists, draft after draft, in talking about "reasonable cause" to obtain a warrant.

Section 401
    1987:  When rubbish, trash, weeds, filth or debris, are accumulated on or in buildings, grounds, lots, contiguous sidewalks, streets or alleys and the hazard abatement officer determines that the accumulation or condition constitutes a hazard to public health and safety, or if the hazard abatement officer determines that a dilapated and dangerous building constitutes a hazard to public health or safety, the hazard abatement officer may require the owner, lessee or occupant of buildings, grounds or lots located in unincorporated areas of the County to remove such rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building.
    Mar 09:  When rubbish, trash, filth or debris, are accumulated on or in buildings, grounds, lots, contiguous sidewalks, streets or alleys and the Hazard Abatement Officer determines that the accumulation or condition constitutes a hazard to public health and safety, or if the Hazard Abatement Officer determines that a dilapated and dangerous building constitutes a hazard to public health or safety, the Hazard Abatement Officer may require the owner, lessee or occupant of buildings, grounds or lots located in unincorporated areas of the County to remove such rubbish, trash, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building.
        CHANGE:  "weeds" removed, capitalization changes
    Jul 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR, but "weeds" restored
    Nov 09:  SAME
        COMMENTS
            "Dilapated" still appears in the November version (line 6 above, end of line 4 in the printed version.  Is this misspelling from 1987 immune to being fixed?
            Slight variations of the phrase "owner, occupant or lessee" appear throughout the ordinance.  Let's pick one version and stick with it, so that a chance variation in the phrase won't lead anyone to infer a variation in meaning.

Section 402
    1987:  The hazard abatement officer shall provide formal written notice of the alleged violation to the owner, occupant or lessee of the subject premises not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for compliance.  Such notice shall include the estimated cost to the County to remove, and advise the owner, occupant or lessee that if the county removes the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building, said expense shall be assessed to said owner, occupant or lessee.  Said notice shall be either personally served or mailed to the owner, occupant or lessee at his last known address by certified mail, or the address to which the tax bill for the property was last mailed.  If the owner does not reside on the property, a duplicate notice shall also be sent to the owner at the owner's last know address.
    Mar 09:  Like 1987, plus "Said notice shall include an advisory that if the owner, lessor or occupant alleges that they have been a victim of wildcat dumping, as defined herein, they may apply for vouchers to offset the cost of removal, subject to availability of funds, together with instruction on how to apply for such a voucher."
        CHANGES:
            Adds the possibility of recovering costs from the county if someone else trashes your property.
            Removes "weeds," capitalizes job titles
    Jul 09:  The Hazard Abatement Officer shall provide formal written notice of the alleged violation to the owner, occupant and/or lessee of the subject premises not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for compliance.  Such notice shall include the estimated cost to the County to remove, and advise the owner, occupant or lessee that if the county removes the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building, said expense shall be assessed to said owner, occupant and/or lessee.  Said notice shall be either personally served or mailed to the occupant and/or lessee at his last known address by certified mail, or the address to which the tax bill for the property was last mailed.  If the owner does not reside on the property, a duplicate notice shall also be sent to the owner at the owner's last known address.
        CHANGES:
            Removes the possibility, added in the March 2009 draft, of recovering costs from the county if someone else trashes your property.
            Reinstates "weeds"
            Changes notice, and billing for expenses, from owner, occupant or lessor to "owner, occupant and/or lessee" -- lessee being correct.  However, to whom is notice required to go, and who will be billed?
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY like July

Section 403
    1987:  If, after notice, and after the specified date of compliance, the owner, occupant or lessee fails to remove the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building, and abate the conditions which constitute a hazard to public health and safety, the County may, at the expense of the owner, occupant or lessee, remove or cause removal of such trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building.  The cost to be charged for such removal will be the actual cost of removal or abatement, including a five percent (5%) charge for additional inspection and incidental costs.
    Mar 09:  "... the County may, at the expense of the owner, occupant or lessee, remove or cause removal of such trash, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building; provided, however, that if such removal or abatement is not undertaken within 180 days after the right to do so first accrues, a new Notice of Violation shall be served as provided in Section 402.  The cost to be charged for such removal will be the actual cost of removal or abatement, including a ten percent (10%) charge for additional inspection and incidental costs, plus any anticipated associated legal costs."
        CHANGES:
            removes "weeds"
            adds language allowing a new Notice of Violation every 180 days
            doubles the charge for "additional inspection and costs" from 5% to 10%.
            adds charge for "anticipated ... legal costs."
    Jul 09:  "... the County may, at the expense of the owner, occupant or lessee, remove or cause removal of such trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building ....  The cost to be charged for such removal will be the actual cost of removal or abatement, and may include a ten percent (10%) charge for additional inspection and incidental costs."
        CHANGES:
            reinstates "weeds"
            changes "including a ten percent ... charge for additional inspection and incidental costs" to "may include a ten percent ...."
            removes the charge for anticipated legal costs
        COMMENTS:
            There should be no extra charge for "additional inspection" etc.  State law allows a county to pass through actual cost, not charge for hypothetical or unknown costs.  Could be rewritten so that the last clause would be "and may include the actual charge of additional inspection."
            Removing the charge for anticipated legal costs is good.
    Nov 09:  Like July, but adds at end "Said cost, if imposed against an owner of said real property, shall, if not paid within 30 days or timely appealed pursuant to Chapter 5 of this ordinance, constitute an assessment against the property upon recording thereof with the County Recorder.
        COMMENT:  The best version yet, but still, should not allow the County to charge a landowner 10% actually out of pocket for hypothetical charges which will probably never actually be incurred.  This charge is pure pickpocketing.

Section 404
    1987:  The cost of removal of the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building from any lot or tract of land located in the unincorporated areas of the County may be assessed, as set forth in Chapter 8 of this Ordinance, upon the lot or tract of land from which the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous buildings are removed.  The assessment, from the date of its recording in the Office of the County Recorder, shall be a lien on the lot or tract of land, until paid.
    Mar 09:  The cost to be charged for removal of the rubbish, trash, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous building from any lot or tract of land and/or contiguous streets and alleys located in the unincorporated areas of the County may be assessed, as set forth in Chapter 8 of this Ordinance, upon the lot or tract of land from which the rubbish, trash, filth, debris or dilapidated and dangerous buildings are removed.  The assessment, from the date of its recording in the Office of the County Recorder, shall be a lien on the lot or tract of land, until paid.
          CHANGES:
             removes "weeds"
             adds charges for removal not just from property but also from "contiguous streets and alleys"
          COMMENT:  does not allow assessment against property for the charges of removal from contiguous streets or alleys
    Jul 09:  REPLACED by 404(a) and (b), which are discussed directly below:

    -- 404(a):  When any work or removal is to be done pursuant to this ordinance, the Hazard Abatement Officer shall issue his order therefore to the Planning Director and the work shall be accomplished by personnel of this jurisdiction, by intergovemmental ageement with one or more other jurisdictions, or by private contract under the direction of said director.  Plans and specifications therefore may be prepared by said director, or he may employ such architectural and engineering assistance on a contract basis as he may, deem reasonably necessary.  If any part of the work is to be accomplished by private contract, standard County contractual procedures shall be followed.
         COMMENTS:
            404(a) is substantially similar to original 701(a), whose history is as follows:
                1987:  When any work or removal is to be done pursuant to this ordinance, the hazard abatement officer shall issue his order therefore to the director of public works and the work shall be accomplished by personnel of this jurisdiction or by private contract under the direction of said director.  Plans and specifications therefore may be prepared by said director, or his many employ such architectural and engineering assistance on a contract basis as he may deem reasonably necessary.  If any part of the work is to be accomplished by private contract, standard public works contractual procedures shall be followed.
                Mar 09:  Substantially similar, with corrections of clerical errors, and replacing "director of public works" by Planning Director.  This change also occurs in Section 801, but will not be separately noted there.
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY like July

    -- 404(b):  The cost of such work may be made a special assessment against the property involved as in the manner set forth in Section 703 through 709 of this ordinance, or may be made a personal obligation of the property's owner, whichever the Board of Appeals shall determine is appropriate.  If made a special assessment, said assessment shall, from the date of recording in the Office of the County Recorder, be a lien on the lot or tract of land until paid.
        COMMENTS:
            A "special assessment ... as in the manner" is meaningless; what is meant is "assessment ... in the manner."
            Draft 404(b) is substantially similar to existing 701(b), whose history is as follows:
                1987:  The cost of such work shall be made a special assessment against the property involved as in the manner set forth in Section 808 through 813 of this ordinance, or may be made a personal obligation of the property owner, whichever the Board of Supervisors shall determine is appropriate.
                      Mar 09:  Substantially similar, but changes "shall" (in the first line) to "may," giving the Supervisors discretion whom to charge.
            The discretionary power to decide whether to place a lien on property, or to lay a personal debt on a citizen, dates back to 1987 but is suspect.  This ordinance should not merely state the power, but should specifically reference the statute authorizing it.
    Nov 09:  MUCH LIKE JULY, but with "property's owner" changed to "property owner, occupant or lessee."
        COMMENTS:
            It may not be proper to convert an assessment against a renter into a lien on the property.
            In Cochise County, many people dump incredibly obnoxious trash -- cigarette butts, empty oil containers, used baby diapers -- alongside any convenient and unwatched road.  This is not the fault of the property owner, it is a burden laid on every citizen of the county for living in such an attractive area.  Many citizens already spend a good deal of their own time and money cleaning up such trash.  Absent sufficient proof that a property is the source of the trash alongside it, a property owner, occupant, or lessee should not have to pay for cleaning up trash alongside the property.

Section 405
    1987:  Both the notice of violation and any assessment imposed pursuant to this chapter may be appealed to the Board of Appeals in the manner provided in Chapter 5 of this Ordinance.
    Mar 09:  Both the notice of violation provided under Section 402 of this Ordinance and the amount of any charge or assessment determined pursuant to Section 801 of this Ordinance, may be appealed to the Board of Appeals in the manner provided in Chapter 5 of this Ordinance.
        CHANGE:  Adds reference to Section 801.
    Jul 09:  "Both the notice of violation provided under Section 402 of this Ordinance and/or the amount of any charge or assessment determined pursuant to Section 403 of this Ordinance, may be appealed to the Board of Appeals in the manner provided in Chapter 5 of this Ordinance.
        CHANGE:  housekeeping
    Nov 09:  SAME

COMENTARY [sic] after Section 405
    1987:  This chapter is intended to provide a way to remove rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris, or dilapidated and dangerous buildings that present a real danger to persons or property.  This primarily occurs in three cases:  (1) accumulations or conditions which has a strong potential for causing or carrying a fire: (2) accumulations or conditions likely to cause injury to any person; and (3) accumulations or conditions likely to cause hazards to the health of any conditions likely to cause hazards to the health of any person.  A.R.S. 36-601 provides a separate and additional ordinance and remedy to deal with accumulations that can cause disease or other health problems.  While this chapter deals with situations caused by the occupant of the property, it also deals with involuntary acts of dumping by other persons or acts of nature.  However, this section shall only be enforced when the condition is serious enough to present a real hazard to persons or property.  It is not intended to apply as an 'aesthetic' control - that is, a way to get the county to beautify a neighbor's site."
        COMMENT:  The duplicated phrase in the commentary is in the original from 1987.
    Mar 09:  The Commentary is deleted.
        CHANGE:  The deletion might be taken as an indication that the ordinance was no longer intended to be limited.
    Jul 09:  The Commentary is restored, but now placed after section 407 below.
        CHANGE:  minor proofreading corrections, & the duplicated phrase is gone.
        COMMENT:  Restoration of the comment is very welcome.
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 406
    1987 and March 2009:  this section defined "occupant," a definition now in Section 301.
    Jul 09:  Before the removal of a dilapidated and dangerous building the Board of Supervisors shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Office to determine if the building is of historic value.
        COMMENT:  The July 2009 language is identical to Section 407 from 1987 and March 2009.
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 407
    1987:  Before the removal of a dilapidated and dangerous building the Board of Supervisors shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Office to determine if the building is of historic value.
        COMMENT:  Was Section 406 in the July 2009 draft.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09:  If a county removes a dilapidated and dangerous building pursuant to this section, the Hazard Abatement Officer shall notify the County Assessor, and the County Assessor shall remove the structure from the property assessment rolls.
        COMMENT:  The July 2009 language is substantially similar to Section 408 from 1987 and from March 2009.
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY like July, but "removes a dilapidated" is replaced by "removes or arranges for the removal."
        COMMENT:  Fixes a doubtless unintended loophole.

Section 408
    1987:  If a county removes a dilapidated and dangerous building pursuant to this section, the County Assessor shall remove the structure from the property assessment tax rolls.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09:  No Section 408 exists; substantially similar language has been moved to 407.

Section 501(a), opening paragraph
    1987:  "An owner, occupant or lessee of property affected may appeal from any notice and order or any action of the hazard abatement officer under this ordinance, or any assessment made pursuant to this Ordinance, by filling at the office of the hazard abatement officer written appeal containing ...."
    Mar 09:  "An owner, occupant or lessee of property affected may appeal from the terms of any notice issued pursuant to Section 402 of this Ordinance, or any determination of amount owing and subject to possible assessment made pursuant to Section 801 of this Ordinance ...."
        CHANGES:
            the 1987 language allows appeal "from any notice and order or any action of the hazard abatement officer," but the March 2009 draft refers to "appeal from the terms of any notice issued pursuant to Section 402"
            the 1987 language allows appeal from "any assessment," but the new proposal allows appeal from "any determination of amount owing and subject to possible assessment made pursuant to Section 801"
    Jul 09:  "An owner, occupant or lessee of property affected may appeal from the terms of any notice issued pursuant to Sections 402 or 403 of this ordinance by filing with the Hazard Abatement Officer a written appeal containing ....
        CHANGE:  Adds section 403
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 501(a), internal paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4
    COMMENT:  NO PROBLEMS

Section 501(a), closing paragraph
    1987:  The appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the service of such notice, order or action of the hazard abatement officer; provided, however, that if the condition is such as to make it immediately dangerous to the life, limb, property or safety of the public or adjacent property, such appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of the service of the notice and order of the hazard abatement officer.
    Mar 09:  The appeal shall be filed with the Office of the Hazard Abatement Officer within thirty (30) days from the date of the service of the notice provided by Section 402 or the determination issued pursuant to Section 801; provided, however, that if said notice alleges that the condition is such as to make it immediately dangerous to the life, limb, property or safety of the public or adjacent property, such appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of the service of the notice.
        CHANGE:  The 1987 language requires filing an appeal within 30 days after service of "such notice, order or action," but the 2009 proposal starts the 30 days upon "service of the notice provided by Section 402 or the determination issued pursuant to Section 801."  Also, the 2009 language makes it clear that the right to appeal depends upon service of a notice, not upon proof that the allegations in the notice are true.
    Jul 09:  The appeal shall be filed with the Office of the Hazard Abatement Officer within thirty (30) days from the date of the service of the notice provided by Section 402 or the determination issued pursuant to Section 403; provided, however, that if said notice alleges that the condition is such as to make it immediately dangerous to the life, limb, property or safety of the public or adjacent property, such appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of the service of the notice.
        CHANGE:  housekeeping
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME

Section 501(b)
    Jul 09:  Upon receipt of any appeal filed pursuant to this section, the Hazard Abatement Officer shall date stamp the appeal and forward a copy of the appeal to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for scheduling.  The Hazard Abatement Officer shall file with the Board and mail by first class mail to the appellant(s) an Answer to the Appeal, together with any relevant supporting documentation and proposed findings of fact at least ten (10) days before the hearing.
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR but states "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law".
        COMMENT:  A good clarification.

Section 501(c)
    Jul 09:  As soon as practicable after receiving the written appeal, the Board of Appeals shall fix a date, time and place for the hearing of the appeal by the Board.  Such date shall be not less than thirty (30) business days nor more than sixty (60) business days from the date the appeal was filed with the Hazard Abatement Officer.  Written notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given at least ten (10) business days prior to the date of the hearing to each appellant by the Clerk of the Board either by causing a copy of such notice to be delivered to the appellant personally or by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, addressed to the appellant at his address shown on the appeal.
    Nov 09:  SIMILAR but requires 15, not 10, business days' notice before the hearing.
        COMMENT:  A good change.

Section 502
    1987:  Failure of any person to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 501 shall constitute a waiver of his right to an administrative hearing and adjudication of the notice and order or any portion thereof.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 503
    1987:  Only those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant shall be considered in the hearing of the appeal.
    Mar 09:  Only those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant, and defenses thereto, shall be considered in the hearing of the appeal.
        CHANGE:  The scope of the hearing has been broadened to include defenses, obviously to be raised by the county, to the items raised by an appellant.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  Only those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant, in the written appeal, as filed, and defenses thereto, shall be considered in the hearing of the appeal.
        COMMENT:  A harmless clarification.

Section 504
    1987:  Enforcement of any notice and order of the hazard abatement officer issued under this code shall be stayed during the pendency of an appeal therefrom which is properly and timely filed.
    Mar 09:  Enforcement of any notice or determination that is under appeal shall be stayed during the pendency of that appeal, if that appeal is timely filed.
        CHANGE:  Under the March 2009 draft, to obtain a stay, an appeal need not be "properly and timely" filed, but only "timely."
    Jul 09:  Enforcement of any notice or determination that is under appeal shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal, if that appeal is timely filed, unless it is determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer that the condition poses an immediate danger to life, limb, property or safety of the public or of an adjacent property.
        CHANGE:  Properly filing an appeal from an order no longer results in an automatic stay of the order.  The county employee who issued the order decides if you can have a stay while you appeal it.
    Nov 09:  SAME
        COMMENT:  In America, we don't let people who issue orders decide whether or not the orders will be enforced while you appeal them.  By definition, the person who issues orders has already decided that they are right -- so that person cannot be an impartial decider of whether they are right, and whether they should be enforced while an appeal proceeds.  The March 2009 wording is best:  "Enforcement of any notice or determination that is under appeal shall be stayed during the pendency of that appeal, if that appeal is timely filed."  Or, perhaps, if the HAO wishes to prevent an automatic stay, the HAO could request and obtain a very quick hearing before the Board Of Appeals.

"Commentary" to 504
    1987:  A detailed appeal process is provided.  Owner/occupant can challenge a decision of the hazard abatement officer to the Board of Supervisors.  The Board will look carefully at the facts to see if the accumulation of rubbish, trash, filth, weeds, and debris, or dilapidated and dangerous building, is truly a hazard to public health or safety.  In short, every protection is given to the property owner.  There is a separate process to allow the property owner a right to challenge an interpretation by the hazard abatement officer to an independent advisory board.
    Mar 09:  There is no "Commentary."
    Jul 09:  The "Commentary" remains deleted, and no wonder, because it would be ridiculous to say that "every protection is given to the property owner" when the protection of a stay during appeal has just been taken away from the owner.  The "Commentary" should be included, and simplified to make its point clearer, thus:  "A detailed appeal process is provided.  An owner or occupant can challenge a Hazard Abatement Officer's decision to the Board of Supervisors.  The Board must look carefully at the facts to see if there is actually an accumulation of rubbish, trash, filth, weeds, and debris, or a dilapidated and dangerous building, which is truly a hazard to public health or safety.  In short, every protection must be given to a property's owner or occupant."
    Nov 09:  The Commentary remains deleted.  Its deletion is obviously connected to section 505, which lets the Supervisors hand off an appeal to someone else, as discussed directly below.

Section 505
    Nov 09:  The Board of Supervisors, sitting as a Board of Appeals, shall have the discretion at any time to delegate the hearing of any appeal brought pursuant to this Ordinance to a duly appointed hearing examiner to conduct hearings and exercise authority of the Board under Chapter 6 of this Ordinance, as stated therein, but said hearing examiner shall not be delegated any of the functions of the Clerk of the Board thereunder.
        COMMENT:  This section essentially nullifies the right to have the Supervisors hear an appeal.  No wonder the Commentary emphasizing that right is gone.  The Commentary said "every protection is given to the property owner."  With the Commentary gone, are people supposed not to notice that the role of the Board is also gone?  Section 505 is an attempt to cheat the people out of their right to a hearing by three elected publilc servants, and relegate people to a hearing by one appointee of unknown qualifications, training, interests, history, and personality, with no way for a citizen to object to the appointment of any particular hearing examiner.  Section 505 should be deleted.

Section 601(a)
    Jul 09:  A record of the entire proceedings shall be made by tape recording or by any other means of permanent recording determined to be appropriate by the Board.
    Nov 09:  A record of the entire proceedings shall be made by tape recording or by any other means of permanent recording determined to be appropriate by the Board, or the Hearing Examiner, if one is appointed to hear the appeal.
        COMMENT:  A necessary clarification if a hearing examiner is appointed -- but a hearing examiner should not be appointed; see the comment to section 505.

Section 601(b)
    1987:  The proceedings at the hearing shall also be reported by a phonographic reporter if requested by any party thereto.  A transcript of the proceedings shall be made available to all parties upon request and upon payment of the fee prescribed therefore.  Such fees may be established by the Board, but shall in no event be greater than the cost involved.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09:  The proceedings at the hearing shall also be recorded if requested by any party thereto.  A transcript of the proceedings shall be made available to any party upon request and upon payment in advance of the estimated cost of transcription and copying.  Upon completion of transcripts, the actual cost of preparation shall be determined and, if more than the estimated cost, the requesting party shall pay the balance due prior to receiving the completed transcript; if the actual cost is less than the estimated cost, the balance shall be refunded to the requesting party.  If one party orders a transcript of proceedings, other parties may obtain additional copies of trial transcript for the reasonable cost of copying, as established by the Clerk of the Board.
        CHANGE:  An elaborate procedure for paying for a transcript of a hearing.  The procedure described is the way the system works in many courts, but that is because court reporters often are, or work for, private businesses, and they make sure they don't work without pay.  There is no apparent reason why the procedure should be codified in such detail here.
        COMMENTS:
            All proceedings should be recorded, without the necessity for a request by anyone.  If anyone wants a transcript, payment terms can be settled with the Court Reporter who will prepare a transcript.
            In courts, parties may have the right to examine transcripts (especially of statements made outside of trial proper, for instance of depositions as part of discovery) for accuracy, and to make corrections.  Consideration should be given to setting up such procedures for transcripts at these hearings, too.
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR, but instead of "made available to any party upon request" reads "made available by the Clerk of the Board to any party ...."
        COMMENT:  A useful clarification.

Section 601(c)
    Jul 09:  The Board may grant continuances for good cause shown.
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR, but allows for continuances by a Hearing Examiner also -- though that position should not be created; see the comment to section 505.

Section 601(d)
    1987:  ... the Board, any board member, has the power to administer oaths and affirmations and to certify to official acts.
    Mar 09:  ... any Board member has the power to administer oaths and affirmations and to certify to official acts.
        CHANGE:  Apparently, clarification that an individual Board member, not the Board as a whole, may administer oaths etc.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR, but allows for oaths etc. by a Hearing Examiner also, though that position should not be created, as noted in the comment to section 505.

Section 601(e)
    Jul 09:  The Board and its representatives shall proceed with reasonable dispatch to conclude any matter before it.  Due regad shall be shown for the convenience and necessity of any parties or their representatives.
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 602, governing the contents of a notice of hearing during an appeal
    1987:  "You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held ....  You may be, but need not be, represented by counsel...."
    Mar 09:  "You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held ....  You may be, but need not be, represented by counsel.  If you are going to be represented by counsel, written notice of that representation should be filed with the Office of the Hazard Abatement Officer at least five days prior to the hearing...."
        CHANGE:  Addition of a time limit for an appellant to tell the county that he will be represented by counsel.
    Jul 09:  "You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held ....  You may be, but need not be, represented by counsel.  If you are going to be represented by counsel, written notice of that representation must be filed with the Hazard Abatement Officer at least five days prior to the hearing...."
        CHANGE:  Besides clearing away clutter, a change from "should" to "must" tell the Hazard Abatement Officer, at least five days before a hearing, that you will have an attorney representing you at the hearing.
    Nov 09:  "You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held before the Board Of Appeals at (or before a Hearing Examiner) ....  You may be, but need not be, represented by counsel.  If you are going to be represented by counsel, written notice of that representation must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least five business days prior to the hearing...."
        COMMENTS:
            The position of Hearing Examiner should not exist, as noted in the comment to section 505.
            Requiring notice to the Clerk of the Board, not to the Planning Department's HAO, is a very welcome change.
            Changing "days" to "business days" is welcome.
            The statement "you may be, but need not be, represented by counsel" is ambiguous.  It means to say that a person has a choice about whether or not to hire an attorney, but it gives the impression that a person may not actually need an attorney at all.  The County shouldn't give that impression.  The sentence would be more accurate if shorter, along the lines of "It's your choice whether to have an attorney represent you or not."  That leaves no implication about whether or not a person "needs" an attorney.

Section 603
    COMMENT:  In the 1987 ordinance, the sections jump directly from 603 to 605; evidently, 604 was omitted by mistake.  As of November 2009, 603 concerns only subpoenas.

Section 603(a)
    1987:  ... The issuance and service of such subpoena shall be obtained upon the filing of an affidavit therefore which states the name and address of the proposed witness; specified the exact things sought to be produced and the materiality thereof in detail to the issues involved ....
    Mar 09:  ... The issuance and service of such subpoena shall be obtained upon the filing of an affidavit therefore which states the name and address of the proposed witness; specifying the exact items sought to be produced and stating, in detail, the materiality thereof to matters at issue in the appeal ....
        CHANGE:  a slight rewrite aimed at clarification
        COMMENT:  the "materiality" comment may require a party to reveal his theory of the case to his opponent before the hearing.  It might be more fair to replace this by penalties for obtaining subpoenas for reasons that are legally "frivolous."
    Jul 09:  ... The issuance and service of such subpoena shall be obtained upon the filing of an affidavit therefore, at least ten (10) business days prior to the date of the hearing ....
        CHANGE:  addition of a 10-day time limit
        COMMENT:  Complications will result from the interaction of the 10-day requirement here, and the 5-day requirement for hiring a lawyer.  A lawyer might be hired, and see the need for issuing subpoenas, after the time for issuing subpoenas has passed.  It would be better to set a deadline for hiring an attorney to be far enough before the hearing to let the attorney become familiar with the case in time to meet the other deadlines.
    Nov 09:  The Board, or the Hearing Examiner ....  such subpoena shall be obtained ... at least fifteen (15) business days prior to the date of the hearing ....
        CHANGES:
            inserting language referring to a Hearing Examiner
            changing the lead time for subpoenas to 15 days
        COMMENTS:
            the position of Hearing Examiner should not exist, as noted in the comment to section 505
            increasing the lead time for subpoeans to 15 days is a good idea

Section 603(b)
    1987:  When any person refuses without lawful excuse to attend any hearing or to produce material evidence in his possession or under his control as required by any subpoena served upon such person as provided for herein, the Board may seek a court order to compel such attendance or production.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  "the Board, or the Hearing Examiner, if one is appointed, may seek a court order ...."
        CHANGE:  adding a reference to a Hearing Examiner
        COMMENT:  the position of Hearing Examiner should not exist, as noted on the comment to section 505

Section 604
    COMMENT:  In 1987, section number "604" was skipped over, obviously by mistake.  Present section 604 deals generally with procedure at a hearing, which was the subject of section 603 in 1987.  The March 2009 draft followed generally the same organization, but renumbered the sections into a new section 604.  The July 2009 draft lumped many of the sections together into a "catchall paragraph," 604(a), discussed below.

Section 604(a)
    July 09:  Hearings may be conducted in an informal manner and without strict adherence to the rules of evidence required in judicial proceedings.  Neither the manner of conducting the hearing nor the failure to adhere to the rules of evidence required in judicial proceedings shall be grounds for reversing any administrative decision or order, providing that the evidence supporting such decision or order is substantial, reliable, and probative.  Irrelevant or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.  Every person who is a party to such proceeding shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to submit evidence in open hearing and shall have the right of cross-examination.  Any attorney appearing on behalf of any party shall enter his appearance, in writing and addressed to the Hazard Abatement Officer, at least five (5) business days prior to the hearing.
    COMMENT:  This does not include all the rights provided in the 1987 ordinance.  This is evident upon actual examination of the following paragraphs from 1987:

-- 1987 Section 603(c):  Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any direct evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions in courts of competent jurisdiction in this case.
    Mar 09, as 604(c):  Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any direct evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction in this case.
        CHANGE:  immaterial change from plural "actions" and "courts" to singular
    Jul 09:  with the omission of this language, any specific reference to hearsay is gone
    Nov 09:  any reference to hearsay remains absent

-- 1987 Section 603(d):  Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the type of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actions in courts of competent jurisdiction in this state.
    Mar 09, as 604(d):  SAME
    Jul 09:  with the omission of this language, any specific reference to admissibility is GONE
    Nov 09:  any reference to admissibility remains absent

-- 1987 Section 603(e)
    1987:  Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.
    Mar 9, as 604(e):  SAME
    Jul 09:  Substantially the same sentence -- differing only in saying "irrelevant or unduly" instead of "irrelevant and unduly" -- is in 604(a).
    Nov 09:  SAME

-- 1987 Section 603(f) lists six rights which each party has, "among others:"

-- -- 1.  To call and examine witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues of the hearing;
    Mar 09:  SAME, as 604(f)(1)
    Jul 09:  not specified
    Nov 09:  remains omitted

-- -- 2.  To introduce documentary and physical evidence;
    Mar 09:  SAME, as 604(f)(2)
    Jul 09:  not specified, but generally included within the right "to submit evidence" in the catchall paragraph
    Nov 09:  same situation as in July

-- -- 3.  To cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues of the hearing;
    Mar 09:  SAME, as 604(f)(3)
    Jul 09:  not specified, but included within the "right of cross-examination" in the catchall paragraph
    Nov 09:  same situation as July

-- -- 4.  To impeach any witness regardless of which party first called him to testify;
    Mar 09:  SAME, as 604(f)(4)
         COMMENT:  the March 2009 draft refers to "him or her," a difference that has no effect on meaning
    Jul 09:  not specified
    Nov 09:  same as in July

-- -- 5.  To rebut the evidence against him; and
    Mar 09:  SAME, as 604(f)(5)
    Jul 09:  not specified, but generally included within the right "to submit evidence" in the catchall paragraph
    Nov 09:  same as July

-- -- 6.  To represent himself or to be represented by anyone of his choice who is lawfully permitted to do so.
    Mar 09:  SAME, as 604(f)(6)
    Jul 09:  not specified, but included within "the right to be represented by counsel" in the catchall paragraph
    Nov 09:  same as July

Section 604(b)(1)
    1987, as 603(g)(1):  In reaching a decision, official notice may be taken, either before or after submission of the case decision, of any fact which may be judicially noticed by the courts of this state or of official records of the Board or departments and ordinances of the County or rules and regulations of the Board.
    Mar 09, as 604(g):  In reaching a decision, official notice may be taken, either before or after submission of the case decision, of any fact which may be judicially noticed by the courts of this state; or of official records of the Board or of any County government departments; of ordinances of the County; or of any rules and regulations promulgated by the Board, sitting as a Board of Supervisors.
        CHANGE:  Apparently, the addition of punctuation and a little extra language, for clarification purposes only.
    Jul 09:  In reaching a decision, official notice may be taken, either before or after submission of the case decision, of any fact which may be judicially noticed by the courts of this state; of official records of the Board or of any County government departments; of ordinances of the County; or of any rules and regulations promulgated by the Board, sitting as a Board of Supervisors.
        CHANGE:  minor punctuation changes
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY like July
        COMMENT:  It remains confusing to talk about "submission of the case decision," because "submission of the case" occurs when both sides have finished their presentation, while "submission of the decision" refers, most likely, to the filing of a decision in the matter; the two events are completely separate, and "submission of the case decision" is gibberish.

Section 604(b)(2)
    1987, as 603(g)(3):  Parties present at the hearing shall be given a reasonable opportunity, on request, to refute the officially noticed matters by evidence or by written or oral presentation of authority, the manner of such refutation to be determined by the Board of Appeals.
    Mar 09, as 604(g)(3):  SAME
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY like July, with provision for a Hearing Examiner instead of the Board
        COMMENT:  Allowing a Hearing Examiner to replace the Board is a bad idea, as noted in the comment to section 505.

Section 604(b)(3)
    1987, as Section 603(g)(4):  The Board may inspect any building or premises involved in the appeal during the course of the hearing, provided that:  (i) notice of such inspection shall be given to the parties before the inspection is made; (ii) the parties are given an opportunity to be present during the inspection; and (iii) the Board shall state for the record upon completion of the inspection the material facts observed and the conclusions drawn therefrom.  Each party then shall have a right to rebut or explain the matters so stated by the Board.
    Mar 09, as 604(g)(3):  SAME
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, except in providing for a Hearing Examiner instead of the Board, and adding a reference to following "the Open Meeting Law."
        COMMENTS:
            Appeals, as generally understood, don't hear new evidence.  The procedure proposed here changes a nominal "appeal" into an actual new hearing.  This is a bad idea.  A party could make one case at the original hearing, then make an entirely different case under 604(b)(3).  It's not really an appeal if new evidence is taken.  If either side wants the Board to inspect premises, or the Board wants to inspect premises, that should be done during the hearing itself.
            Allowing a Hearing Examiner instead of requiring the Board is a bad idea, as noted in the comment to section 505.
            Referring to the Open Meeting Law is a good idea.

Section 605(a)
    1987:  Where a contested case is heard before the Board, no member thereof who did not hear the evidence or has not read the entire record of the proceedings shall vote on or take part in the decision.
        COMMENT:  This doesn't provide due process.  Nobody should judge a case who did not actually attend, and pay attention at, the hearing.  A person who has merely read the record shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than a juror who falls asleep during a trial should be allowed to vote; reading a transcript is no substitute for seeing and hearing witnesses.
    Mar 09:  Where a contested case is heard before the Board, any member thereof who did not hear the evidence or did not have the opportunity to read the entire record of the proceedings shall vote on or take part in the decision.
        COMMENT:  Changing "no member thereof" to "any member thereof" results in a sentence that is gibberish if read carefully, and, if read sloppily, is a significant denial of due process.  It would still, like the 1987 version, let a supervisor vote even if he did not see and hear the witnesses.
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  When a case is heard before the Board, any member thereof who did not hear the evidence or did not have the opportunity to read the entire record of the proceedings shall not vote on or take part in the decision.
        CHANGE:  changes "shall vote" to "shall not vote."
        COMMENTS:
            The Department apparently wants to fix the problem without being seen to fix the problem.  Instead of saying "Any member ... who did not hear the evidence ... shall not vote," just say "No member ... who did not hear the evidence ... shall vote."  That is what is meant, and there is no good reason not to say so clearly, instead of producing gibberish.  Here is how the sentence could read, to make its point even more clearly:  "When a case is heard before the Board, no member thereof who did not hear and observe all of the witnesses and evidence, or attend the entire hearing, shall participate in the hearing after said lapse, nor vote on or take any part in the decision."
            Also, who would pay a court reporter for the accelerated production of a transcript?  Even the shortest transcript costs hundreds of dollars; transcripts can quite easily run into thousands of dollars; accelerated transcripts cost even more.  Since the accelerated transcript would only be needed if a supervisor insisted on judging a case without attending a case, the supervisor should have to personally pay for the extra cost of acceleration.  Surely the citizen on trial should not pay for a supervisor's inability to do the job, nor should the public treasury pay.  Requiring a supervisor to pay would, luckily, have the incidental effect of getting supervisors either to do their job, or get out of the way.

Section 605(b)
    1987:  The decision shall be in writing and shall contain findings of fact, a determination of the issues presented, and the requirements to be complied with.  A copy of the decision shall be delivered to the appellant personally or sent to him by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  "The decision shall be issued in writing within 60 calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing, unless extraordinary circumstances intervene, and shall contain findings of fact, a determination of issues presented, and the requirements to be complied with, and may provide that, if unpaid within 30 calendar days of the decision, that decision shall be filed with the County Recorder, and thereby constitute an assessment against the subject property."
        COMMENTS:
            The 60 day requirement seems too long, especially compared to the mere 30 days allowed to decide whether to appeal or pay.  Surely, if a case is so complicated that the Board takes 60 days to decide after a hearing, a citizen should have the same amount of time to decide how to respond to a complicated situation.
            Automatically converting a decision into an assessment is another assault on due process.  Doing away with the commentary emphasizing "protection of citizens' rights," letting the Board dodge its duty to hear appeals, and converting unsuccessful appeals into assessments against property, all seem to be prongs of one plan, to reduce citizens' rights and reduce county government's responsibility to treat citizens fairly.

Section 605(c)
    Mar 09:  The Hearing Examiner shall, within 20 calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing, submit to the Board of Appeals a proposed written decision, with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Within 20 calendar days of filing of the proposed decision, and after review of the written record, which shall include all pleadings and orders in the Hearing Examiner's files, all evidence admitted at the hearing, and any audiotape of proceedings, but no new evidence, the Board shall adopt, modify or reject the proposed decision of the Hearing Examiner.
        COMMENTS
            What an incredible botch.  The Board would -- in theory -- do just as much work as if conducting the hearing itself, but without having the benefit of seeing and hearing any live testimony; so having a Hearing Examiner wouldn't save the Board any work, but would make the Board into a poor substitute for a trial court.  On the other hand, the Board would also, in effect, be acting as an appellate board, but one without the powers that a real appellate board must have.  For instance, the Board could see all evidence ADMITTED at the hearing, but could not see all evidence OFFERED at the hearing, so the Board could not make a finding that any evidence had been improperly excluded; in other words, the dice would be unfairly loaded in favor of the decision that the Hearing Examiner made -- because there would be no way to argue that the Hearing Examiner improperly refused to admit any evidence.
            The County would have two 20-day deadlines under 605(c), but under 605(b) the County would have 60 days to act; that leaves 20 extra days for the County to twiddle its thumbs, while a citizen waits for a decision which must be very important to him or her.  Why does the County think it should have permission to toy with citizens this way?
            Where, in the process under 605(c), would the Board review the most important part of the order to a citizen, "the requirements to be complied with"?
            New section 605(c) provides another good reason for not allowing the creation of a "Hearing Examiner."  That position confers no benefit on anyone; on the contrary, it is a complicated, unworkable drag on both efficiency and due process -- a combination which is rarely seen.

Section 605(d)
    1987, as 605(c):  The effective date of the decision shall be as stated therein.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

Sections 701(a) and (b) have been replaced with 701.
    COMMENT:  Earlier versions of 701(a) and (b) are gone; their substance is in current proposed sections 404(a) and (b).  New versions of 701(a) and (b) were introduced in July 2009, but those revisions appear to have been replaced by a substantial rewrite of 701 in November 2009.
    -- Section 701(a), now gone
        1987, as section 805(a):  The Board of Supervisors of this jurisdiction may thereupon order that said charge shall be made a personal obligation of the property owner or assess said charge against the property involved, in the manner set forth in Section 807 through 813 of this ordinance.
        Mar 09, still as 805(a):  After the Board confirms, rejects or modifies the determination of costs pursuant to Section 804, below, or, if no appeal is taken, after a copy of the determination of costs has been served on the parties and 30 days has passed, the Board of Supervisors of this jurisdiction may thereupon order that said charge shall be made a personal obligation of the property owner or may assess said charge against the property involved, in the manner set forth in Section 807 through 813 of this ordinance.
        Jul 09, renumbered as 701(a):  After the Board confirms, rejects or modifies the determination of costs established pursuant to Section 403, above, or, if no appeal is taken, after a copy of the determination of costs has been served on the parties and 30 days has passed, the Board of Supervisors of this jurisdiction may order that said charge shall be made a personal obligation of the property owner or may assess said charge against the property involved, in the manner set forth in Section 703 through 709 of this ordinance.
            CHANGE:  housekeeping
            COMMENT:  If the Supervisors will be able to choose between making an amount simply a lien on land, or a personal debt of the landowner, the ordinance should state what standards will be used to make this decision.  There is a good deal of room for favoritism and "good old boy" politics in the existing and proposed language.  Because of the sensitive nature of the supervisors voting to create a personal debt, the statute allowing this procedure should be specifically referenced in the statute.
    -- Section 701(b), now gone
        1987, as section 805(b):  If the Board of Supervisors of this jurisdiction orders that the charge shall be a personal obligation of the property, it shall confirm the assessment, cause the same to be recorded on the assessment roll, and thereafter said assessment shall constitute a special assessment against and a lien upon the property.
        Mar 09:  SAME
        Jul 09, renumbered as 701(b):  The cost of such work may be made a special assessment against the property involved as in the manner set forth in Section 808 through 813 of this ordinance, or may be made a personal obligation of the property owner, whichever the Board of Supervisors shall determine is appropriate.
    -- Section 701, replacing all of above in Nov 09:  If no timely appeal is taken pursuant to Chapter 5 of this ordinance from a determination of costs imposed against a property owner pursuant to Section 403, or if a written decision issued pursuant to Section 605(b) or (c) so requires, the Hazard Abatement Officer shall file that determination or decision with the County Recorder, and by that filing an assessment against the subject property shall be established.
        CHANGE:  Removes some discretion from the Board, as to selective imposition of penalties.
        COMMENT:  Treats citizens more fairly; a good idea.

Section 702
    1987, numbered as section 806:  The validity of any assessment made under the provisions of this chapter shall not be contested in any action or proceeding unless the same is commenced within thirty (30) days after the assessment is placed upon the assessment roll as provided herein.  Any appeal from a final judgment in such action or proceeding must be perfected within thirty (30) days after this entry of such judgment.
    Mar 09:  The validity of any assessment made under the provisions of this chapter shall not be contested in any further judicial action or proceeding unless an administrative appeal has been timely brought pursuant to Sections 501 and 801 of this Ordinance, and said appeal rights have been exhausted.  Any judicial appeal of the Board's final determination of costs established pursuant to Section 804, above, must be commenced within thirty (30) days after the date of the Board's final determination.
        CHANGE:  Appears aimed at taking notice of the legal doctrine of "exhaustion of administrative remedies."  Probably does not make any change in substance.
    Jul 09, renumbered as section 702:  The validity of any assessment made under the provisions of this chapter shall not be contested in any further judicial action or proceeding unless an administrative appeal has been timely brought pursuant to Sections 501 of this Ordinance, and said appeal rights have been exhausted.  Any judicial appeal of the final determination of costs established pursuant to Section 403, above, must be commenced within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice of said determination.
        CHANGE:  housekeeping
    Nov 09:  The validity of any assessment made under the provisions of this chapter shall not be contested in any further judicial action or proceeding unless an administrative appeal has been timely brought pursuant to Chapter 5 of this Ordinance, and said appeal rights have been exhausted.
        CHANGES:
            Mentions "Chapter 5" instead of "Sections 501," a good change.
            Omits the last sentence about a 30 day appeal deadline.  The change is fine because Section 403 states its own deadline, and restating it here is unnecessary and could create complications if section 403 were changed.

Section 703
    1987, numbered as section 807:  If any costs or charges, as imposed pursuant to this ordinance, are not paid by the owner, occupant or lessee within (30) days of such removal, such unpaid amount shall constitute an assessment upon the lots and tracts of land from which the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth or debris are removed and a lien upon said lot, tracts, or land until paid.  Said lien may be perfected by the county against the subject property by recording a notice of lien in the Office of the Cochise County Recorder.  Such notice of lien shall specify the nature of assessment, the amount of the lien and the name and address of the charges assessed.  The lien shall continue in full force and effect on the tract of land or lot until the chares assessed are paid.  Such liens are subject and inferior to the lien for general taxes and to all prior recorded mortgages and encumbrances of record.  The County may bring an action to enforce the lien in the Cochise County Superior Court at any time after the recording of the assessment, but failure to enforce the lien by such action does not affect its validity.  The recorded assessment is prima facie evidence that the truth of all matters recited in the assessment and of the regularity of all proceedings before the recording of the assessment.
    Mar 09:  If any costs or charges, as imposed pursuant to this ordinance, are not paid by the owner, occupant or lessee within (30) days of such removal, such unpaid amount shall constitute an assessment upon the lots and tracts of land from which the rubbish, trash, filth or debris are removed and a lien upon said lot, tracts, or land until paid.  Said assessments shall be due and payable in equal installments, as follows:
        1.  Assessments of less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be paid within one year after the assessment is recorded;
        2.  Assessments of five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more but less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) shall be paid within two years after the assessment is recorded;
        3.  Assessments of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or more but less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) shall be paid within three years after the assessment is recorded;
        4.  Assessments of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more but less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) shall be paid within six years after the assessment is recorded;
        5.  Assessments of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or more shall be paid within ten years after the assessment is recorded.
    A lien may be perfected by the county against the subject property in the amount of the assessment imposed by recording a notice of lien in the Office of the Cochise County Recorder.  Such notice of lien shall specify the nature of assessment, the amount of the lien and the name and address of the owner of the lot or tract and the person failing to pay the charges assessed.  The lien shall continue in full force and effect on the tract of land or lot until the charges assessed are paid.  Such liens are subject and inferior to the lien for general taxes and to all prior recorded mortgages and encumbrances of record.  The County may bring an action to enforce the lien in the Cochise County Superior Court at any time after the recording of the assessment, but failure to enforce the lien by such action does not affect its validity.  The recorded assessment is prima facie evidence that the truth of all matters recited in the assessment and of the regularity of all proceedings before the recording of the assessment.
        CHANGES
            Addition of a timetable as required by statute, and correction of some minor clerical errors.
            "Weeds" removed
    Jul 09, renumbered as 703:  SUBSTANTIALLY the same.
        CHANGE:  "weeds" restored
    Nov 09:  The first sentence now reads "If any costs or charges, as imposed pursuant to this ordinance, are not paid by the owner, occupant or lessee within (30) days of such removal, or, if appealed, within thirty (30) days of issuance of any written administrative decision on that appeal, such unpaid amount shall ...."
        CHANGE:  Addition of a deadline after an unsuccessful appeal
            COMMENT:  A perfectly acceptable change.

Section 704
    1987, numbered as section 808:  All such assessments remaining unpaid after thirty (30) days from the date of recording on the assessment roll shall become delinquent and shall bear interest at the rate established for delinquent taxes from and after said date.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 704:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

Section 705
    1987, numbered as section 809:  After confirmation of the report, certified copies of the assessment shall be given to the Assessor and the County Treasurer, who shall add the amount of the assessment to the next regular tax bill levied against the parcel.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 705:  SAME
    Nov 09:  The Hazard Abatement Officer shall supply certified copies of the assessment to the Assessor and the County Treasurer, who shall add the amount of the assessment levied against the parcel to the next regular tax bill for that parcel, in accord with the schedule of assessments provided in Section 703, above.
        CHANGE:  Specifies who shall supply the copies.
        COMMENT:  A good idea.

Section 706
    1987, numbered as Section 810:  If the County Assessor and the county tax collector assess property and collect taxes for this jurisdiction, a certified copy of the assessment shall be filed by the Hazard Abatement Officer with the County Treasurer within thirty (30) days after recordation of the lien.  The descriptions of the parcels reported shall be those used for the same parcels on the County Assessors map book for the current year.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 706:  SAME
    Nov 09:  A certified copy of the assessment shall be filed by the Hazard Abatement Officer with the County Treasurer within thirty (30) days after recordation of the lien.  The descriptions of the parcels reported shall be those used for the same parcels on the County Assessors map book for the current year.
        CHANGES:  Drops the opening clause, and specifies who shall file the certified copy of the assessment.
        COMMENTS:  Good ideas.

Section 707
    1987, numbered as Section 811:  The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and procedure and sale in case of delinquency was provided for ordinary property taxes.  All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of property taxes shall be applicable to such assessment.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 707:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
        CHANGE:  Corrects a minor typo, "was provided," to "as provided."

Section 708
    1987, numbered as Section 812:  All money recovered by payment of the charge or assessment or from the sale of the property at foreclosure sale shall be paid to the treasurer of this county, who shall credit the same to the General Fund.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 708:  SAME
    Nov 09:  All money recovered by payment of the charge or assessment or from the sale of the property at a tax deed land sale, up to the amount of the assessment, shall be paid to the treasurer of this county, who shall credit the same to the Hazard Abatement Fund.  In the event of a sale, the balance of any funds received in excess of the assessment shall be paid to the County General Fund.
        CHANGES:
            "Foreclosure sale" becomes "tax deed land sale."
            Money goes mainly to the Hazard Abatement Fund, with the General Fund receiving only excess amounts.
        COMMENTS:  No apparent problem.

Section 709
    1987, numbered as Section 813:  A prior assessment for the purpose provided in this section is not a bar to a subsequent assessment or assessments for such purposes, and any number of liens on the same lot or tract of land may be enforced in the same action.
    Mar 09:  SAME
    Jul 09, renumbered as 709:  SAME
    Nov 09:  SAME

Sections 801, 802, and 803 are legal "boilerplate" which is required, does not need thought, and should not be tinkered with.


III.  Sections that have vanished since the March 2009 draft, and should be reinstated

1987 Section 801
    1987:  The director of public works shall keep an itemized account of the expense incurred by Cochise County in the work or removal of any materials, done pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance.  Upon the completion of the work or removal, said director shall prepare and file with the hazard abatement officer a report specifying the work done, the itemized and total cost of the work, a description of the real property upon which the hazard is or was located, and the names and addresses of the persons entitled to notice pursuant to Section 402.
    Mar 09:  Substantially similar, and adds "Upon receipt of said determination, the Hazard Abatement Officer shall serve personally or by certified mail, the parties entitled to notice pursuant to Section 402, above, a copy of said determination, together with copies of Chapters 5 and 6 of this Ordinance, governing appeals and appeal procedures."
    Jul 09:  GONE
COMMENT:  If the County is going to be charging people, why not keep accurate records of the expenses?  The County apparently intends to charge people for estimated costs, without ever providing a way to compare estimates with reality.

1987 Section 802
    1987:  Upon receipt of said report, the hazard abatement officer shall present it to the Board of Supervisors shall fix a time, date and place for hearing said report and any protests or objections thereto.  The clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall cause notice and said hearing to be posted upon the property involved, published once in a newspaper of general circulation in this jurisdiction, and served by certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner of the property as his name and address appear on the last equalized assessment roll of the County, if such so appear, or as known to the clerk.  Such notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the date set for hearing and shall specify the day, hour and place when the Board of Supervisors will hear and pass upon the director's report, together with any objections or protests which may be filed as hereinafter provided by person interested in or affected by the proposed charge.
    Mar 09:  The determination of costs established pursuant to Section 801, above, shall be the amount owing by the party charged and payment shall be due from said party within 30 days of service of that determination, unless an appeal of that determination is lodged, pursuant to Chapter 5, within that time.  If an appeal is timely lodged from a determination issued pursuant to Section 801, above, the Hazard Abatement Officer shall present it to the Board of Supervisors who shall fix a time, date and place for hearing said report and any protests or objections thereto.  The clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall provide notice thereof as required by Section 501(c) of this Ordinance, together with copies of any objections or protests filed pursuant to Section 803, below, up to date of mailing of said notice.
    Jul 09:  GONE
COMMENT:  If 1987 Section 801 is restored, something like 1987 Section 802 must be restored also.

1987 Section 803
    1987:  Any person interested in or affected by the proposed charge may file written protests or objections ... at any time prior to the time set for the hearing on the report of the director....
    Mar 09:  Any person interested in or affected by the proposed charge may file written protests or objections ... at least fourteen (14) days prior to the time set for the hearing on the determination of costs....
        CHANGE:  The time for opposing the charges moves from "any time prior to" the hearing to at least 14 days before.
    Jul 09:  GONE
COMMENT:  Why should people interested in the change, or affected by it, lose their right to protest or object?

1987 Section 804
    1987:  Upon the day and hour fixed for the hearing the Board of Supervisors shall hear and pass upon the report of the director together with any such objections or protests.  The Board of Supervisors may take such revision, correction or modification in the report or the charge as it may deem just; and when the Board of Supervisors is satisfied with the correctness of the charge, the report (as submitted or as revised, corrected or modified) together with the charge, shall be confirmed or rejected.  The decision of the Board of Supervisors on the report and the charge, and on all protest or objections, shall be final and conclusive.
    Mar 09:  substantially the same
    Jul 09:  GONE
COMMENT:  If 1987 Section 803 is restored, something like 1987 Section 804 must also be restored.


IV.  Texts of the 1987 enacted ordinance, and the March, July, and November 2009 proposed changes

The complete text of the ordinance enacted in 1987 is online at
    http://littlebigdog.net/HazardOrdinance1987.pdf
and
    http://littlebigdog.net/HazOrd1987.txt

The complete text of the March 2009 draft proposals is at
    http://littlebigdog.net/HazardOrdinance2009.pdf
and
    http://littlebigdog.net/HazOrd2009.txt

The complete text of the July 2009 draft, showing the influence of public feedback, is at
    http://littlebigdog.net/HazOrdDraftJuly142009.pdf

The complete text of the November 2009 draft, showing even more influence of public feedback, is at
    http://littlebigdog.net/HazOrdDraftNov2009.doc

To best print any .txt file mentioned in this posting, use ASCII DOS text, 8.5 x 11" pages, 1" margins, Courier font, 12 point.