8/31/2009 10:26:00 PM Prescott council says earlier
vote on initiative will stand
Les Stukenberg/The Daily Courier
Prescott resident Ed Nicholson speaks at the special session of the Prescott City Council on Monday where they discussed the proposed November ballot measure, the Taxpayer Protection Initiative.
Les Stukenberg/The Daily Courier
Councilman Jim Lamerson wonders aloud who is giving him the right information during the special session.
PRESCOTT - No courtroom dispute on the validity of the Taxpayer Protection Initiative appears imminent - at least not before the November general election.
By opting not to take action Monday on the initiative's place on the ballot, the Prescott City Council allowed its earlier decision on the measure to stand.
And that likely means that the matter will not go to Yavapai County Superior Court before the mid-September printing of the ballots for the city's Nov. 3 general election, and the initiative will appear on the ballot.
The council's move this week appeared to mollify the bulk of the 70 or so people who turned out for the meeting - many in support of the initiative that seeks to require any city project costing $40 million or more to go to a vote of the people.
Local resident Ed Nicholson started off the public comment period by urging the council not to take a eleventh-hour action against the initiative.
"The appearance here is that the city is trying to pull a fast one," Nicholson said. "Having another path to pull it from the ballot at the last minute - I think that would be unethical."
Still, city officials noted repeatedly that the remaining question over the petitions could leave the initiative open to a legal challenge after the election.
The argument centered on the number of signatures necessary to get an initiative on the ballot.
Initially, City Clerk Elizabeth Burke told the committee in April that they needed to collect at least 2,058 signatures, based on 15 percent of voters in the last City Council election.
But later, City Attorney Gary Kidd maintained that the initiative actually would need signatures from at least 25 percent (totaling at least 3,429) of the voters in the last council vote.
Officials said at the time that the discrepancy stemmed from a conflict between what the Arizona Constitution requires, and what the state statute calls for.
In June, the council voted 5-2 to maintain the original petition signature requirement that the city gave committee members.
After that vote, Councilman Jim Lamerson, one of the members to vote against the motion, said he planned to seek further clarification on the matter from the state Legislature.
At Monday's special meeting, Lamerson said his research included consulting with "no less than four legislative attorneys," all of whom he said agreed with Kidd's interpretation of 25 percent - advice that helped to bring about the special meeting on Monday.
While Lamerson emphasized that his purpose was not to keep the Taxpayer Protection Initiative off the ballot, he maintained that the city needed to resolve the confusion for the future. Ultimately, a majority of the council agreed that he should take the issue to the League of Arizona City and Town's annual conference this week.
But others, including Councilman Bob Roecker, continued to push for a city action that would get the matter into Yavapai County Superior Court for a final decision on the Taxpayer initiative before the Sept. 17 printing of the ballots.
"I think this body has the responsibility to uphold the constitution of the State of Arizona," Roecker said of the City Council. "I don't care if this thing is on the ballot or not, but we need to determine if it's constitutional."
City Attorney Gary Kidd pointed out that the courts would not issue an advisory opinion. In order to get the matter into the courtroom, he said, the city would have to take an action that would create a legal dispute, such as voting to remove the initiative from the ballot.
Councilman Robert Luzius, however, spoke strongly against taking such a move, and he questioned the motivation for the Monday meeting.
"I think (council members) wanted to get this on the agenda today so we could torpedo the initiative," Luzius said. "And it's just a shame."
While Taxpayer Protection Committee Chairman Brad DeVries said was pleased with the decision Monday, he voiced concerns about the "waving of the flag that this is challengeable" in court, maintaining that such discussion amounted to negative influence by the council against the initiative.
Meanwhile, the council asked Kidd to get an opinion from the Arizona Attorney General's Office on the 15/25-percent question.
Posted: Thursday, September 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Paul G.
Hi Scotty, Yep and every one of those other legislative branches has a check and balance to them. None of them get to pass a huge spending bill without having to go through a very complicated process of convincing the other house and the administration that a bill should be done. Not here in little Prescott though, we can get saddled with a spending bill larger per capita than these others with only 4 people in the city voting for it. It sounds an aweful lot like tax and spend big government to me and now the opponents think they can change the entire history of the initiative system by creating a falacious constitutional argument, more of the same! It's called "oligarchy", rule by the few, not what our founders fought and died for.
Posted: Thursday, September 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Scotty
That's why we elect a City Council and a Mayor. It's called Representative Government...look it up. Did we get to vote on the $700 BILLION stimulus package...no. Do we get to vote on the Health Care bill...no. Do we get to vote on the State Budget...no...etc, etc.
Posted: Thursday, September 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Paul G.
AGAIN I will say that the Taxpayer Protection Initiative is not about "stopping" the pipeline, it is about giving the taxpayers back their right to vote on how such a project will get paid for. Remember when you got to vote on big projects? But now the staff tells council that they can avoid asking the citizens what they think about how their money is being spent by doing some sneaky and creative financing? Yes, this initiative is all about protecting the
Taxpayer's right to have a vote on how money is spent in this city, all of the arguments to the contrary are simply misleading, and it doesn't matter who they are coming from. And it is interesting that when opponents to this initiative don't have any worthwhile arguments to offer they try to change the interpretation of the constitution so that their neighbors will not have a vote! This is nothing more than a subversive action by opponents to the Taxpayer Protection Initiative to try and change long standing law.
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Article comment by:
everyone's sneaky
So what if the Taxpayer Initiative is a 'sneaky' way to stop the pipeline? Sometimes ya gotta be sneaky! See how all the opposition is now being sneaky trying to stop this initiative?! Could be an endless cycle. Politics is sneaky business - get used to it!
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Article comment by:
Scotty
Now all the "safe yield" comments show up. Thanks for proving that this is a special interest initative not designed to protect the taxpayers, but to stop the water project. TOLD YA SO. But you gotta be all sneaky and lie to the citizens about "protecting the taxpayer". It's about stopping the water project, and if the citizens of lose millions in the process, who cares. Why trust people who can't even put the proper name on their initative.
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
All eyes are on prescott. Are they going to do the right thing.
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
Viable Safe Yield Plan - It's funny, the same interests who are now stating we must meet Safe Yield, and we must have this water to do so, were the ones pushing the ADWR to delay making the official "out of safe yield declaration" so they could allow thousands more plats to be approved. These same interests have "dragged their heels" at even modest conservation measures. Now, it is convenient for them to claim that reaching Safe Yield is their motive, when as indicated by other posters, there has been no pledge of any of the Big Chino water to meet Safe Yield.
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
There seems to be some confusion about this water project, and safe yield. NOT ONE DROP OF THIS IMPORTED WATER IS FOR SAFE YIELD, ITS ALL FOR DEVELOPMENT!!!!
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
The Sky is Falling
Dear Viable Safe Yeild Plan, If you had read the Taxpayer Protection Initiative you would know that it does not stop the Chino Valley Pipeline. Even pipeline supporters generally agree with having a vote on the costs of any project, including the pipeline that exceeds 40 million.
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
Want viable safe yield plan if pipeline dies
Lamerson has probably done the TPI backers a big favor by giving them 2+ months to prepare for the first round of litigation that is sure to ensue if the TPI passes. Assuming the courts let the TPI stand, the next round will most likely be the exception in the TPI for state mandated projects and whether the city's solution to the safe yield mandate qualifies for the exception. A lawyers dream. The Big Chino anti's have an obligation to propose a viable alternative for the Quad cities to reach safe yield. Measuring all the exempt wells would be an excellent start to determine just how far we are in violation of safe yield, as we get no credit for discharges from all the septic tanks out there.
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
It should not pass unnoticed that the council people who are vocally spearheading these efforts to tank the initiative are the ones who are not up for re-election. Suttles, Lamerson and Roecker also apparently tried to sway Lopas, who is also not up for re-election. I guess they are not so worried about public scrutiny as the others who are up for re-election.
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
Sneaky Try Lamerson, may you pay soon
Well now : with :"After that vote, Councilman Jim Lamerson, one of the members to vote against the motion..." should mean to any right minded person Lamerson needs to be thrown out of office ASAP. The voice of the people is not enough for him? He has to try an end run against the the democratic process. Just who does he think he's fooling.
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
The so called "Taxpayer Protection Initative" is a FRAUD! Why don't they have the guts to call it the "Stop the Pipeline Initative"? That's the only reason for it. Come on supporters, quit your hiding behind the "taxpayer" and admit this has nothing to do with protecting them. YOU don't want the water project to go foward, and if the taxpayers of Prescott get the shaft in the process, you don't care. Your high and mighty act is transparent and downright dishonest.
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
Compassionate Conservative
The editor has removed this comment because it violates the Terms of Use
agreement for dCourier.com. The "Use of Service" portion states, "If you use
the Service, including the Messages Boards or Blogs, or submit essays,
e-mail messages or other information via www.courieraz.com or
www.prescottaz.com, you agree to abide by and be bound by the following:
1. You may not post, upload, or transmit any material or links to material
that is libelous, defamatory, false, misleading, obscene, indecent, lewd,
pornographic, violent, abusive, threatening, harassing, discriminatory,
racist, vulgar, invasive of anotheršs privacy, illegal, constitutes hate
speech, or harms minors in any way. You may not post content that degrades
others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets
and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be
tolerated. Debate, but donšt attack. The Daily Courier encourages vibrant
discussions and welcomes active debate in its discussion forums. But
personal attacks are not tolerated, and are a direct violation of these
Terms of Use."
Posted: Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Article comment by:
Creagan McConnell
Will the council be so diligent when the next initiative is an issue they agree with? Seems like they didn't do their homework on any past initiatives, why this one? It is a rhetorical question, we all know the answer.
