The Arizona Court of Appeals heard a case involving Williamson Valley Road and the Yavapai County government's general plan this week that could set a precedent for future road decisions in the state.
Attorneys anticipate a ruling within the next 60 days after Wednesday's hearing in Phoenix.
The Friends of Williamson Valley sued Yavapai County and its Board of Supervisors in 2007, alleging that the board is violating its general plan by moving ahead with design work on the expansion of Williamson Valley Road going north out of Prescott to Outer Loop Road.
The Friends group opposes expanding the two-lane highway to five lanes as Supervisor Carol Springer has proposed.
"We think this is a pretty important case, not just for our organization but for communities throughout the state," Friends Vice president Neil Cooperrider said. "Yavapai County says, 'This (general plan) is just a guideline and we can do anything we want.'"
State law requires the county to use the general plan as a guide, Friends attorney Gil Shaw said.
Three community surveys and the most recent county election show that most of the Williamson Valley residents oppose five lanes, Cooperrider said. While Springer won the election, Williamson Valley precincts supported five-lane opponent Georgene Lockwood, he said.
The proposed Williamson Valley Community Plan envisions road improvements but not five lanes, Shaw added. County staff has rejected the proposed plan twice without explanation, he said, and he suspects it is because of the community stance on the road.
"There is some vested interest that says this road is going to get built, come hell or high water," Shaw said.
Visiting Yavapai County Judge Christopher Whitten of Maricopa County ruled in favor of Yavapai County in the case.
Whitten noted the general plan states the county will "monitor traffic counts for possible widening when the level of service falls below an acceptable level" on Williamson Valley Road. The plan also states objectives and goals for road building in general, such as preservation of wildlife corridors and "scenic routes over major highway proliferation."
"Plaintiff claims the adoption of the Yavapai General Plan created a legal duty for defendants to comply with each term of the plan," Whitten wrote. "The court rejects such an argument."
No state statute sets forth such a duty, Whitten said. The plan is a guide, he said.
"The law doesn't allow the county to be sued over a question of whether we're conforming with the general plan on road decisions," Yavapai County Deputy Attorney Jack Fields said. "If everything in that plan could be the basis of a lawsuit, that's all I'd be doing."
The board is complying with the general plan anyway, by taking the recommendation of its Public Works director to design a road expansion because of increasing traffic counts, Fields said. The board has not decided what kind of expansion is necessary, he said.
"The county is not thumbing its nose at the public and saying the general plan doesn't matter to us," Fields said. "It does matter."
State law requires a transportation element in the county general plan. And state law requires the board to conform to some parts of the general plan relating to zoning, Fields said. But that doesn't include roads.
The issue is a technical one, he said.
Reader Comments
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I don't like 3 lanes because you lose the passing lane and get stuck behind the dump trucks and cement trucks going out to build in Talking Rock so you're stuck behind them for MILES going UNDER the speed limit!! Either keep it the way it is or make it bigger!
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009
Article comment by:
Aaliyah
To widen this road would be a travesty to the development. Instead, road improvement, without widening, would be wise with perhaps a "beefed up" police patrol during rush hour traffic. Help keep Prescott beautiful. This is one area that remains a lovely drive. Most of downtown is ruined by its falling down homes and un kept yards. Preserve the beauty you have in the Williamson Valley Road area. Not a resident of Williamson Valley but an appreciator nevertheless.
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I guess the people who drive Williamson Valley road (not Highway Williamson Valley) every day and live there don't matter and our wonderful elected politicians can do what ever they want when ever they want. Waste our tax money on what ever fills their pockets instead of what we need and do want. We'll see what the next election says.
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009
Article comment by:
HCP
The plan has been developed with great sensitivity to all interests. It should provide a great, aesthetically pleasing solution to a road that is now a death trap for all that travel it.
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I used to be in favor of widening Williamson Valley Road but now I'm not. It's not the greatest travel route but if the folks don't mind it then why spend millions to widen it? The county supes have their heads in the wrong places lol. I think the County should win the suit however.
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009
Article comment by:
More Informed
As someone who does not live in the Williamson Valley area, but does spend a large majority of my time there I can see both sides of this issue. The area is beautiful and the people that live there have worked hard to achieve the lifestyle granted them in this area. Their work and subsequent lifestyles should not be destroyed by government intrusion. On the other hand is the need for an updated roadway. The increase in development, and therefore traffic, has caused advancing wear and tear on the infrastructure as it is. The roadway DOES need to be redone. But not to the extremes as proposed by Supervisor Springer. There has been no documented NEED for a 5 lane roadway. Expand the roads to 3 lanes. One northbound, one southbound and one center/left turn lane. In the areas where the intersections are already constructed add a right turn lane. This will allow for through traffic to continue their journey, those turning to be able to safely do so, and would also provide for safe pull outs in the event (and they are common) of emergency vehicles needing to go by.
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009
Article comment by:
Carol
this is not a technical issue at all it's pure greed. Just another way for the BOS to commit to what they see as growth. Quite frankly I don't want to live on a "highway" and others do not want that either. Listen to the people they do not want 5 lanes. I don't want truckers coming through here, period. This is not warranted there is not that much traffic to increase this road by 5 lanes. Fix the already existing roads.
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
Yet another example of government working for a "few" people and "their" attorney, Mr. Fields "defending" the government against the will of the people. Nice!
