Sedona may end up owning SR89A irrespective of Sedona City Council’s vote. Sedona has virtually no bargaining chips left.
Recently there have been published in Sedona many riveting commentaries regarding the SR89A turn-back to this City. Nevertheless, I’ve seen no discussion of the legal ramifications of A.R.S. §28-7209’s impact on Council’s pending decision to either acquire it or leave title with ADOT (AZ Dept of Transportation). Let me digress! I’ll begin with what may seem irrelevant, but bear with me, since it’s critical to your understanding of the consequences of Council’s decision. What you’re about to read I’ve confirmed with our City Manager and Attorney. My purpose here is to redirect your focus to a little debated issue of preeminent importance.
To date, City Manager Ernster, ably assisted by Public Works Director Charles Mosley and Community Development Director John O’Brien, has negotiated an ADOT turn-back of SR89A to Sedona for $6,352,000 more than ADOT’s original offer. ADOT’s total offered funding package to Sedona is now $15,435,500 and is projected to cover the first 15 years of Highway ownership. The City will receive $8,010,150 in cash funded on the agreement’s effective date and another deferred $4,149,200 in Federal Highway Trust Funds (FHTF) for pavement preservation no later than February 1, 2013, $400,000 of FHTF funds for the Andante traffic light, then another $2,640,400 no later than June 30, 2015 for safety improvements plus, no later than June 30, 2015, another $235,750 for other traffic enhancements. ADOT has also included in the $8,010,150 cash payment to the City the local matching funds for the federally funded improvements. That’s a total of $7,425,350 in guaranteed deferred federal funds.
Of the up-front money, and miscellaneous enhancements, $1,125,000 are ADOT funds provided for 15 years of coverage of operating and overhead costs while $3,400,000 are ADOT funds earmarked for future paving overlay. The last $3,060,500 in funds are for a rock-fall and other aesthetic improvements. These are ADOT funds NOT earmarked, thus leaving them to be spent at the City’s discretion.
In November 2008 Arizona became the second worst state in the Union for being off budget…mismatching forecasted revenues to budgeted expenses by a whopping 17.8%. By mid-2010, Moody’s had twice dropped Arizona’s credit rating, now at Aa3, near the bottom of investment grade ratings.
Fast forward to the present…ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy released a study dated January 5, 2011 which says ” ‘Arizona suffers not only from a massive cyclical deficit but also a gargantuan structural deficit’ ” and “…Arizona’s budget situation—like that in other states—is likely to get worse before it gets better. In fact, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects a continued deterioration in the state’s budget outlook for decades to come absent fundamental policy changes that address core imbalances between revenues and spending.”
On January 12, 2011, the Associated Press published a list of this country’s most economically distressed states. Arizona was fifth worst on the list. Anyone who’s casually read a statewide newspaper knows Arizona has a perilous budget problem resulting from an economy still on the down-slide. So, Draconian state budget cuts are assured, and it’s likely that state-owned highway and road maintenance budget cuts will be painfully deep. Worse yet, on January 27, the U.S. House of Representatives scrapped rules protecting transportation funds from being spent in other ways. There’s a direct relationship between these economic facts, the legal ramifications of A.R.S. §28-7209, and Sedona’s decision to take title to SR89A or leave it with ADOT.
You see, A.R.S. §28-7209, when read in conjunction with A.R.S. §28-304, gives ADOT the unbridled authority, while mitigating municipal legal defenses, to require any Arizona town to take back a state owned highway, upon four years notice…with no monetary consideration to be paid at all!
In other words, if Sedona DOESN’T acquire SR89A, with an attendant $15,435,500 in cash and deferred funding, as currently negotiated, then ADOT could install its 108 lights through west Sedona beginning in June, and then, upon completion, issue notice to Sedona that it’s going to convey title to SR89A back to Sedona with NO attendant cash.
While ADOT’s authority to do so has never been exercised under this statute, it’s on the books and there’s no plan to rescind it. Thus, when the budget crunch strikes this state, as it has in California and Illinois, you can bet that the easiest way for ADOT to cut its budget is to rid itself of ownership of state thoroughfares where possible.
The set-up is in place dear readers! Now comes the ominous part: In City Manager Ernster’s negotiations relative to the turn-back, ADOT has firmly pointed this scenario out to him on three occasions. Why? If you understand current economics, though, then you’ll see that the handwriting is on the wall whether you’re on the electorate’s “dark-skies” side of the argument or ADOT’s “safety” side of it! It’s only a question of how we want to end up owning it!
Addendum to Article:
Please keep in mind that no matter what we do, it will be a calculated gamble. The future state of the State and Nation’s economy will trump all other concerns and LEGISLATION thus overriding whatever any state legislators want or demand. Arizona hasn’t shown much savvy at financial management in decades. If things get worse, ADOT will simply have to take Draconian measures to relieve itself of financial liabilities since, as I mentioned in the article, last week Congress mandated that the Federal Highway Trust Fund is no longer sacrosanct and its funds are, therefore, no longer assured to the states. Furthermore, Congress had made it abundantly clear this week that there will be no bailout for insolvent states nor will they be allowed under current Federal Bankruptcy Law to file bankruptcy. In light of these facts and that the tourism, construction and electronics industries show no likelihood whatsoever of resurrection in Arizona, I just don’t want see Sedona becoming ADOT’s test case under A.R.S. 28-7209!
Excellent observations. And in addition to ADOT’s $6 million increase in the offer their reputation with FWHA stands to improve if they can complete our route transfer. The promise of improving their reputation may have financial benefits if “push comes to shove,” especially since we are one of 12 states that do not have “safety standards.”
ADOT published its “Route Transfer and Level of Development Study” in 2003 in response to three issues; 1) the Transportation Board’s unease about the problem of highways within our state system not contributing to the mission and purpose of ADOT,
2) “concern that the pace of the transfers” was too slow and 3) to develop a consistent priority list of candidate routes for transfer” as_indicated in the former 1990 Highway System Plan. The 2003 Study provided an inventory of identified routes for abandonment, and recommended a procedure for increasing the number of abandonments and transfers.”
Some people are very confused and believe this transfer involves the School and Fire Districts! This is true. I just had an e-mail from a neighbor explaining that when the SFD reduces their 13 million dollar plus budget, “Sedona will have plenty of money to pay for improvements and maintenance for the State Route! ” OMG, with this kind of thinking, how many people even know what it is they’re voting for on these polls? This is scary as hell and no laughing matter.
I responded, attempting to explain that the only portion of SR89A which ADOT is negotiating as a turn-back lies within Sedona City Limits and that presently City of Sedona does not impose “City Property Taxes” and the tax bills we receive from the two respective counties, Yavapai and Coconino, in which we reside represent assessments for operating both the School and Fire Districts which expand to encompass the Village of Oak Creek and other areas outside City Limits in the Red Rock Loop vicinity.
The fact that this confusion exists indicates to me that the City of Sedona hasn’t done a very good job of educating Sedona residents.
Open Letter to the Sedona Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Reading the latest article in the Arizona Republic, Litchfield Park may hold off on its projects http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/02/10/20110210litchfield-park-city-projects-on-hold.html#ixzz1DkTB6MO6 gave me more confirmation that transferring SR 89A to the City of Sedona would be a VERY serious mistake.
As one reads the article we also see this statement, “Another fund called HURF, the Highway User Revenue Fund, is also projected to decline by 5 percent in fiscal 2012, and that is money the city uses for roads, Schoaf said.”
As we all know, the State of Arizona is in dire financial shape and is trying to divest itself of many of its projects by dumping them into the laps of cities with promises of funding. That funding will not be forthcoming and we, Sedona taxpayers, will be footing the bill.
As its residents, we need and expect far more from our City than owning asphalt. You have been entrusted by the majority of the voters in Sedona to lead us through troubled waters. We and the future generations in Sedona are counting on you to do the right thing and listen to the majority of the people: Take the lights now; they are paid for…the rest are mere empty promises, unless they are put into an escrow account!
Once again, as members of the silent majority and now the vocal majority, we urge all of you to do your due-diligence and be the conscience of the City Council as you deliberate in your decision.
Sincerely,
Abe Koniarsky
Sedona, AZ
Reply to Abe Koniarksy – What is the advantage to Sedona if ADOT still owns the road, installs the lights without daytime safety measures? Is that the ethical and moral approach to ensuring residents and visitors’ safety when we and ADOT have been aware for the past three years that daytime safety measures are needed? ADOT never rushed to correct those deficiencies.
I think local control is preferable in which the City has input as opposed to remaining a thorn in ADOT’s side.
Bravo, Mr. Koniarsky! However, you do have one problem which is that the thoughts you express are obviously derived from using common sense.
Something that’s being overlooked is the obvious. Who will be seated on the Sedona City Council at the time revisions reflecting their proposals come to the table for implementation? Who is to say that just next year (2012 I believe we’ll be approaching another Sedona City Election) the four people who will be facing term expirations will not be replaced by others with diverse perspectives?
Within less than six years it’s possible, and maybe even growing more likely, that the entire City Council will be of a different complexion.
What’s to prevent a change in the majority of the Sedona City Council to reverse the decision for no continuous lighting and go ahead with the plan anyhow? Except by then, of course, the city will own the highway and the money from ADOT will go for lights instead of the other improvements being suggested by the present Sedona City Council.
Although in concurrence continuous night lighting isn’t the solution for solving safety issues along that corridor, I absolutely do not agree with the ADOT turn-back. To suggest ADOT will turn it over to the city at some future date whether or not they accept the payoff is just that ~ a “suggestion” for which there is no proof or past history to jusify such a thing WILL happen. Unless offered proof that this is a fact, it should be regarded as nothing more than one of the scare tactics which the City Council is persistent in accusing those objecting to the turn-back of using. In this instance, is it OK for the pot to call the kettle black?
Further, how would it be possible for ADOT to single out just little Sedona to dump both SR89A and SR179 onto just because they can, without consideration of following suit to do the same with Cottonwood and Rte. 260 in addition to the same SR89A that runs through Sedona? The same would hold true for Clarkdale and Jerome, would it not? Would it not be discrimination if ADOT took such extreme measues on Sedona without imposing the same hardship on our three sister cities: Cottonwood, Clarkdale, and Jerome? Would our city leaders sit back and accept blatant discrimination as being acceptable should such an event occur?
No doubt in my mind ADOT would LIKE to unload every one of their State Routes running through incorporated areas onto the appropriate municipalities; however, how realistic is such a wish list? Well, maybe about as realistic as the ongoing never-ending Sedona wish lists that continue to grow on a daily basis.
My prediction for the outcome of this is that the City of Sedona will own both SR89A and SR179, and have continuous lighting as ADOT appropriated for a previous City Council. All it will take is a new set of seven faces seated behind that podium, but they will be unable to undo the take-back(s) from ADOT.
So then, fear of who will be sitting on Council in the future is okay on which to base Council’s final decision to let them keep 89A? The majority of Sedona residents still live in West Sedona (7,000 out of 11,500 people). Half of the City’s sales taxes emanate from business in this area. If for no other reasons, this area of Sedona deserves to be upgraded as was Uptown and SR 179.
It is no longer valid to point to the past as a predictor of the future. Past history never suggested the first African-American would have been elected in our last presidential election.
Nancy, if your reply was in reference to my comments directly above, I don’t understand your statement: “It is no longer valid to point to the past as a predictor of the future.” Where in my remarks did I directly refer to past events? I might ask, however, given the opportunity, just why would it be so bad to have a refresher course on Sedona’s history? Of course, apparently not everyone learns from past mistakes but I don’t happen to be one of them.
My comments and final prediction, and that is all it was . . . a prediction . . . were directed toward future potentials. Isn’t it customary when analyzing proposals that at least an attempt to cover all case scenarios is taken into consideration, particularly when the effort at hand has been publicized and predicated by so doing? At least that most asssuredly was my impression by those who commenced with the undertaking of this alleged above-board endeavor. Did the research come with a stipulation excepting possibilities which might tend to taint their agenda? Is that the way it was meant to be?
As for those of us “on the other side of town” and where we shop, speaking only for myself, tax money I spend in Sedona except for an occasional trip to the grocery store is minimal. It’s much quicker for me to go to the Village of Oak Creek or Cottonwood via Beaver Head Flat Road where, even with the price of gas, it’s more economical in addition to a wider selection and availability of products. However, in the event the city runs out of money for improving “your side of town” guess maybe we’ll be more acceptable when we have the privilege of being taxed to help pay for your bills. Hey, here’s an idea, since you already made the geographical division, why not just form a Special Improvement District and ban anyone from the East side of Sedona from entering your territory?
Sorry , Kiddo, but I miss the point of your complaint since my prediction clearly identifies SR89A turn-back as the “winner” of this latest contest which ultimately appears to be serving to divide Sedona even more as exemplified with your territorial accusations.
I’m done with this and by next week the goose will be cooked and the bones ready for picking.
Amen & Hallelujah!
Eddie
Brenda said: “The fact that this confusion exists indicates to me that the City of Sedona hasn’t done a very good job of educating Sedona residents.”
No, no, no. This is exactly and dangerously backwards. I don’t want any government “educating” anyone. That’s what used to be rightly called brainwashing and propagandizing. Sedona residents need to educate themselves.
As for the City taking over 89A, the City has repeatedly proved that it cannot be trusted to do anything right and should not be given more power or control over anything. 89A will be another capital black hole for the City which we will all pay for.
Additionally, the medians they have planned will ruin the functionality of that road. It’s amazing; they do not yet have control of the road but already have plans to mess it up!
appalling to discover that Arizona has “no safety standards” — and adot’s poor handling of road design and past maintenance are indicative of its government agency “not my dime” mindset. Adot’s lack of responsiveness and aggressive posturing when faced with citizen initiatives is infuriating and finds me imagining a nonviolent egyptian-style “kick all the arizona pettycrats to the curb” and my reaction disturbs me, a truly liberal nonviolent type. Let’s face it–we don’t need lights as proposed by adot, we need safety markers as seen on modern highways in other states with a few well-placed low beam lights (been to VOC lately–damn fine layout and lit roadways). Ok, so maybe we put a light at Adante to slow traffic..but forget all the brouhaha about the drunken idiots who walk in front of cars– call AA and ask that a 12 step program be set up from dark to dawn at the intersection. Liability issue solved. (where’s your sense of humor, readers?) Listen up-tourists will money dripping from pockets are long gone from almost anywhere in the world and recovery is not right around the corner. god save us from the next 18 months of candidates campaigning that will lie to us otherwise. Accept it. Time to cut the Chamber fat from the budget, take the road back, xnay the lights, invest in our wants and needs–the actual 24/7 residents of Sedona. Let the council do what they were elected to do. The voters said no lights, and that means taking back to the road. Yes the past means something and no we cannot predict what it means, and N.Baer, President Obama was elected by a white majority. The election probably means that we are a people not hamstrung by others past mistakes nor are we intimidated by embracing others new ideas. Full steam ahead, council. Do the job that you were elected to do. Step up.
I am disappointed in all of us who have allowed SR89A to become the hot potato in a ‘not-mine’ game about money.
Let’s get back to the basics: safety, particularly vehicle versus pedestrian and vehicle versus bicycle safety.
1) Control where pedestrians cross the roads, and make the crosswalks close enough together that people will, for the most part, be willing to be controlled (use the crosswalks).
ADOT will not build crosswalks. They will not even allow us to get out there with 50 gallons of our own paint and mark crosswalks. It’s their road. We cannot do ANYTHING to it without their permission, and as often as this has been discussed, ADOT has refused.
2) Improve visibility at night. ADOT will do this, but only EVERYWHERE which encourages people to continue to jaywalk (cross anywhere they want to). It is not guaranteed that every person who has difficulty driving at night could avoid being surprised by a pedestrian cross midpoint between street lights.
3) Improve safety during the day. ADOT will not do this.
4) Get cyclists off the sidewalk! ADOT will stripe bike lanes. Then we need police enforcement of them. People, you can stop riding your bikes on the sidewalks right now!
5) “Like the lights on 179” – the survey asked if people wanted continuous roadway lighting like the lights on 179. If we own the road, we could do that. That is not the kind of lights ADOT has proposed. The ADOT lights will be more similar to freeway lights than to the short poles on 179 or in Uptown.
6) Medians – continuous medians – will make it difficult for businesses, deliveries and the fire department. Maybe. But continuous medians are NOT what the Civ Tech report suggested. It suggested putting medians at two locations where pedestrians consistently jaywalk.
This list could go on and on. I intend to talk to the city manager about the projected expenses of owning the road – with increases in costs – to see whether the $15+ million will cover it. It looks like it will, but I want to get still another opinion on the financial aspects.
Sedona is not a democracy. We have a representative form of government and the majority elected the current city council to vote, not to run a straw poll in which the blind are led by the uninformed.
I dare you to list the questions you’re afraid to find answers to. Because what I’m seeing right now is a game of chase with many intelligent, vocal people running because of their FEAR of running out of money if there is a turn back. Have you tracked the numbers? Can we really afford it? not afford it??
One more thing: the likelihood ADOT would force a transfer after installing lights is based only on a worst case scenario in which ADOT goes broke. Barring that, it is very unlikely they’d force the road on us. But aren’t the people who are saying this threat is over the top the same people who are saying we probably won’t get all of the money ADOT is promising because they will run out of money before they pay it all?
All of you are aware of my position on this matter. However, as an 11th hour entry it’s my right to confirm that information you’ve provided, although it might be pertinent at this time, has no substantiation that it will be applicable a few years from now.
This city council to date has focused entirely on the area of the State Highway between Airport and Dry Creek Roads, completely ignoring the acquisition encompasses far more. Not acknowledging the city’s future responsibility for improvements and maintenance from the City Limits (near the high school) and, especially, the upkeep of the Highway Interchange at the “Y” is a major disservice and extremely misleading to residents of Sedona who will ultimately become responsible for future expenses incurred, including but not limited to a traffic light at the Sedona Medical Center, snow and/or rock slide removal, traffic signal maintenance, and potential repairs and/or replacement to roundabouts in the event of accidental wipe-outs.
Last but not least is the results of your two polls, both of which clearly defined the will of the people as being that you do not accept the turn-back. Weak attempts have been made to discredit those poll results, but that’s all they amount to . . . weak attempts. It’s very likely the percentage against the turn-back would have been substantially higher if the threat of ADOT to turn the route over anyway had not been distorted, misleading, and, in fact, questionably truthful. For those who haven’t read the State Statute, it’s ARS 28-7209. Other legal opinions differ from the interpretation publicized by the City of Sedona.
The moment of truth is but a few heartbeats away. Will you uphold your commitment to the will of the majority of the people or continue the past practice of playing big brother, or even God if you will, and vote your own beliefs which is what the last city council did and why they weren’t re-elected. However, there’s one major difference here. Your blunder could well leave Sedona not only with owning a State Highway but also installation of lights since it’s doubtful any of you will be in a position to decide how that “promised” money is spent when the time comes. It’s true, Karma can be a bitch but in some situations the undeserving are forced to pay, too. How fair will that be?
Eddie Maddock