Sedona AZ– In a letter dated April 7, 2011 to City Manager Tim Ernster, John McGee, Executive Director for ADOT notified the City that ADOT would not be transferring $10.6 million to the City on April 12, 2011 as previously indicated. The reason given for this decision was the pending referendum filed by the group, “Let the People vote on 89A.” The letter goes on to state that the City has until May 30, 2011 to give ADOT written assurance that the city “can and will accept full ownership, control and maintenance responsibility over the Transfer Segment” of State Route 89A.
The City had previously informed ADOT that Arizona courts have held that a referendum stays the effect of the related action of the law-making body until the electorate has had an opportunity to approve or reject it. Based on this ruling, the City indicated that if the referendum petition and accompanying signatures satisfy the necessary legal requirements for having the matter placed on a ballot, that the City could not legally assume ownership of the Transfer Segment until after the outcome of the referendum.
On April 12, 2011, after discussing the matter in executive session, the City Council authorized City Manager Tim Ernster to reply to ADOT in writing setting forth two possible alternatives for insuring that the citizens of Sedona can exercise their constitutional right through referendum in determining whether the City will assume ownership of the Transfer Segment of State Route 89A.
The Route Transfer Agreement by its own terms is terminated if the $10.6 million in funding is not transferred to the City by June 30, 2011.
In order to avoid this possibility, the City first proposed that ADOT provide the City with the $10.6 million in funding now, and that the City would hold these funds until the outcome of the referendum and would provide written assurances that if the referendum overturned the affirmative route transfer decision, the City would return the funds with interest to ADOT. As a second alternative, the City expressed a willingness to amend the funding deadline in the transfer agreement to a date after the referendum. Either of these alternatives would serve to maintain the status quo until after the referendum, and would insure that the $10.6 million in funding would return to or remain with ADOT if the Transfer Agreement was ultimately rejected by Sedona voters.
In sum, the City is attempting to do everything possible to respect the right of the Citizens of Sedona to determine the fate of State Route 89A at the ballot box, while still working in good faith with ADOT. Unless ADOT cooperates by agreeing to a solution that allows the Transfer Agreement to remain viable until the outcome of the referendum, the citizens of Sedona will be deprived of the opportunity to determine whether or not the City assumes ownership of this vital transportation route.
Why has the council continued to talk about forced return of road by ADOT and refused to inform the community of the truth? Transfer of 89A cannot proceed unless the voters approve transfer by means of their vote. Furthermore, ADOT cannot legally force a turnback of the road now or in the future. Why all the smoke, why not plainly tell the residents the facts?
The Council has been telling the truth, but certain individuals have been passing around lies regarding this. First, Council received notice from ADOT that if it did not choose the two options given to it; route transfer or ADOT lights without daytime safety, ADOT would forcibly turn the road back.
Secondly, AZ State law supports ADOT “abandoning” routes after it has paved them and given the city or county four years advance notice. The law requires that the Transportation Board abandon routes, to the underlying city, or county agency, or to another agency identified in the intergovernmental agreement that implements the transfer (ARS 28-304 and 28-7201-28-7815).
Requirements for abandonment of a state roadway are defined in ARS 28-7209. Section 28-304 stipulates that; 1) vacating or abandonment must be in cooperation with the affected jurisdiction, 2) fully recognizes the financial and administrative impacts of the changes on that jurisdiction, 3) the abandonment or transfer notice must occur four years in advance if not waived by mutual agreement, 4) the pavement before the abandonment occurs “shall be in such condition that additional surface treatment and major maintenance of the highway would not be required for at least five years” unless this requirement is waived by the board and the affected jurisdiction.
Finally, since the City has been negotiating with ADOT for the past two plus years no doubt that could be interpreted by a court that the City has been “cooperating” with ADOT.
To clarify comments made by “Guest” the following words have been taken from Route Transfer & Level of Development Study Draft Final Report, web site provided herein:
B. The superior court may review by certiorari the action of the board establishing, opening, relocating, altering, vacating or abandoning state highways.
Also:
The current process for abandoning or transferring routes from the state highway system is featured in Figure 2 on the following page. The process begins with a determination that the route should no longer be a part of the system. There are four ways in which this can occur:
1. The route is classified as LOD 5. [89A is LOD 3]
2. A bypass or parallel route is constructed making the route non-essential for the state system.
3. The DEs or other state official determines that the route no longer serves a state function.
4. A local government desires to take over the route.
74 roads are listed as meeting criteria for turnback and therefore listed as priorities for transfer. 89A south of the Y is not on the list.
http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/priority_programming/pdf/study/rtranstudy.pdf
As for local government desiring to take over the route, that means the people, will now have the opportunity to make that decision by way of casting their votes. Unless “Guest” has inside information, that route will continue to function as a State Highway under the ownership of the City of Sedona. Or is a Bypass in the works of which we aren’t aware?