Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 11
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-809 (2026)

Public works project planning; utility input; definitions

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A county in the design phase of a public works project shall provide notice and opportunity for comment to all utilities the county believes may be impacted by the public works project for the purposes of:

1. Eliminating or minimizing the need for relocation of aerial, surface and underground facilities of the impacted utilities and, if relocation is unavoidable, minimizing the relocation costs to the extent practicable relative to the cost of the public works project.

2. Minimizing subsequent reconstruction or modification of utility facilities after completion of the public works project.

B. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section, a county shall annually post on its website a capital improvement plan containing all public works projects scheduled to be constructed.  A utility may also request that the county annually provide a copy of a county's capital improvement plan and provide notice of any new projects not included in the plan or changes that advance the start date of any projects already in the plan.  The utility shall designate the utility representative to receive the plan and any notice of changes that would add new projects or advance the start date of any projects already in the plan.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Public works project" has the same meaning prescribed in section 12-1141.

2. "Utility" has the same meaning prescribed in section 48-5107.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2009–2009 · leading case: Vig v. Nix Proj. II P'ship, 212 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vig v. Nix Proj. II P'ship, 212 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “The court determined that the undisputed facts showed that the affidavit of disclosure had been provided to Vig’s nominor in June 2005. The court further concluded that the affidavit of disclosure was adequate and NIX was not required to elaborate on its statement in paragraph 1…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-809(G)(1): 1 case
Vig v. Nix Proj. II P'ship, 212 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “The court determined that the undisputed facts showed that the affidavit of disclosure had been provided to Vig’s nominor in June 2005. The court further concluded that the affidavit of disclosure was adequate and NIX was not required to elaborate on its statement in paragraph 1…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.