Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Agreement Iga topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorneys for Tusayan and Grand Canyon Unified seek clearer IGA language to protect bond-backed facilities
Summary
At a Nov. 19 joint meeting, attorneys for the Town of Tusayan and Grand Canyon Unified School District discussed amending an intergovernmental agreement to ensure property rights last at least for bond terms and the useful life of funded facilities and to address a deed reversionary clause involving the U.S. Forest Service.
At a Nov. 19 joint special meeting in Grand Canyon School, attorneys for the Town of Tusayan and the Grand Canyon Unified School District (GCUSD) outlined next steps for amending an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that governs town property and facilities financed with bonds.
GCUSD attorney Nathan Schott said he had previously asked the Town to obtain assurances from the U.S. Forest Service that the deed’s reversionary clause would not be triggered if control of the property passed to an entity other than GCUSD. "We had asked the Town to get assurances from the Forest Service that they had no intent to enact the reversionary clause," Schott said. He added that an IGA end date can be extended later but said he was reluctant to make the agreement perpetual.
Town attorney Frank Cassidy said the Town needs property rights that last at least as long as bond obligations or for the facilities’ useful life. Cassidy described an approach that ties the IGA term to bonding cycles and the useful life of improvements: while acknowledging the Town cannot build its Master Plan all at once, he said the agreement should ensure protections "no less than the term for bonding." Cassidy and other attorneys discussed how rolling bond financing and phased construction would require rights to extend after each rebonding.
Aaron Arnson, another Town attorney, said his focus was practical and current: ensuring the IGA duration will allow for adequate bonding timelines. Council Member Andrew Aldaz noted the Town’s Master Plan will be implemented in phases, not all at once, a point attorneys said the amendment language should reflect.
Mayor Clarinda Vail raised the possibility that a long-term IGA could require voter approval. The attorneys agreed that whether an election is necessary depends on the final term and on local election law, and that the 2024 draft amendment could be used as a starting point if termination language is clarified.
No motions or votes were recorded during the meeting. Matt Yost thanked participants and the meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
Why this matters: The IGA’s term and any deed reversionary clause affect who may hold property rights over town improvements financed with bonds and how long those protections must last. Attorneys said clearer amendment language is needed to ensure that bond-financed facilities remain under the agreed control for the expected life of the improvements and for the duration of any bonds used to finance them.
What happens next: Attorneys said they would use the earlier amendment draft as a starting point and draft clearer termination and duration language that ties the IGA to bonding timelines and useful life; the Town and GCUSD staff and counsel will continue negotiations. No formal action or vote was taken at this meeting.
