I'm embarrassed to say I missed the first line of the article, "Some see roads, others see twists" in the Oct. 25 Miner, thoroughly enjoying the rest of it. But there was a problem in that first line. State law does NOT stop with ARS 28-6701 (B). The very next section, ARS 28-6702, describes the precise procedure after the filing of a petition to accept roads into the county highway system. The first sentence of Subsection A: "On filing the petition prescribed in section 28-6701, the board of supervisors shall:
1. Direct the county engineer to make a survey of the proposed highway and to file with the board a report of the proposed highway ...
2. Set a date for a public hearing.
3. Give notice to the public of the hearing by advertising once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county."
In Section 28-6703, the law states that at the hearing supervisors, "Shall consider the feasibility, advantages and necessity of the highway sought to be established." And also, "If the board determines the proposed highway is a public necessity, may approve the establishment of the highway."
This section makes it clear that you CANNOT accept roads into the highway system without a public hearing, and the board considers all the factors before making the roads county highways. The standards are very clear on the county's Public Works website.
Here is the key: The county can only pay for improved highways, and NOT roads in subdivisions, much less in Sue Donahue's mobile home park! Buster Johnson, she is your employee. Did she do all this on her own initiative, or did she have your blessing?
If this was perfectly legal, why did Mr. Latoski, after I appeared and spoke to the county's Transportation Commission on Oct. 9 about Havasu Garden Estates, stop the work on the project the very next morning, telling residents that the weather was not "conducive" for it to be completed at this time of 90-degree days and 65-degree nights?