Jun 07, 2022 City Council Meeting

ALRIGHTY.

[00:00:01]

[1. CALL TO ORDER NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).]

CITY CLERK ROLL CALL.. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY, WILL YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I WILL. PLEASE STAND.

. THANK YOU AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI OUR MISSION STATEMENT, PLEASE.

THAT'S THE MISSION OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF IS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU AND COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

WOULD YOU MIND READING THE LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT, PLEASE.

I'M HONORED TO DO. MR. MAYOR. THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL HUMBLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE ANCESTRAL HOMELANDS OF THIS AREA'S INDIGENOUS NATIONS AND ORIGINAL STEWARDS.

THESE LANDS STILL INHABITED BY NATIVE DESCENDANTS, BORDER MOUNTAINS, SACRED TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.

WE HONOR THEM THEIR LEGACIES, THEIR TRADITIONS, AND THEIR CONTINUED CONTRIBUTIONS.

WE CELEBRATE THEIR PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS WHO WILL FOREVER KNOW THIS PLACE AS HOME.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

WITH THAT, WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM FOUR GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

[4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda. Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. ]

HI. HOW ARE YOU? OH, SORRY.

ACTUALLY, IF YOU COULD HIT THE MICS.

NOT HOT, RIGHT? THERE YOU GO. OKAY.

THANK YOU. WE'LL GET RIGHT INTO IT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. MY NAME IS CRAIG BOUCHARD.

I'M A FLAGSTAFF RESIDENT AND OWNER OF SOUTHSIDE TAVERN AND THE CORNER TAVERN.

I COME TO YOU TODAY REGARDING THE WORK IN PROGRESS ON AN UPCOMING NOISE ORDINANCE AND MY RECENT ATTENDANCE AT THE COFFEE WITH A COP PUBLIC EVENT.

I WAS A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK AT WHAT I GLEANED FROM THAT MEETING.

HOWEVER, IT WAS GREAT TO FINALLY MEET THE CHIEF, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE SENT HIM NUMEROUS REQUESTS TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A CONVERSATION.

I'VE ALSO LEARNED I ALSO LEARNED THAT AT THAT MEETING AT LATE FOR THE TRAIN WAS 67 DB FROM JUST US TALKING OUTSIDE IN THE PATIO.

ANYWAY, I DIGRESS.

BACK TO WHEN WE LAST TALKED ON JANUARY 24TH AT A COUNCIL MEETING, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND DOING SOME COLLABORATION REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE. AT THAT TIME, MS. SWEET INDICATED THAT IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE MEDIATED DISPUTES.

MS. DAGGETT INDICATED A NEED FOR COMMUNITY BUY IN.

I THINK WE'RE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

ADAM, YOU WROTE ME ON JANUARY 31ST AND SAID YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.

I'M STILL WAITING. BUT WHAT WE FOUND OUT DURING THIS COFFEE WITH A COP MEETING IS THAT THIS COLLABORATION WAS JUST A FALSE PROMISE.

APPARENTLY A NOISE STUDY HAS ALREADY COMMENCED AND 40 TROUBLE SPOTS WERE CHOSEN BY THE CHIEF.

I ASKED FOR AN RFQ RFP CONTRACT AND I WAS TOLD THAT ON 6/28 WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT.

ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

I ASKED WHO WAS MAKING THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I WAS TOLD THEY ARE USING TEMPE AND CHANDLER'S ORDINANCES FOR TEMPLATES.

SOUNDS LIKE A FOREGONE CONCLUSION TO ME, AND THEY'RE JUST COLLECTING DATA TO HAVE THESE MEETINGS TO PUT ON A SHOW.

YOU ALSO HAD A CONCERN FOR THE COST TO IMPLEMENT AND TRAIN BEING APPROXIMATELY 18,000, WHILE FLAG PD SPENT $17,000 ON THIS NOISE STUDY BEFORE ANY COLLABORATION, BEFORE ANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

I ALSO LEARNED THAT IN OVER A YEAR, ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF, THEY HAVEN'T HAD TO WRITE A SINGLE TICKET BECAUSE EVERYONE, BUSINESS WISE HAS BEEN COOPERATIVE.

WHAT I ASK, AS I AM NOW, ALONG WITH THE DBA, MAKING BUSINESSES AWARE OF THIS IMPENDING REGULATION FORTHCOMING WITHOUT THEIR INPUT IS TO DELAY THE MEETING ON THE 28TH. INSTRUCT FLAG PD TO MEET WITH BUSINESS OWNERS, ACTUAL SCHEDULE MEETINGS, SCHEDULE SOMETHING, HAVE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS COME AND VISIT THE ESTABLISHMENTS.

I'D LOVE FOR YOU GUYS TO COME AND SEE, WALK THEM, SEE WHAT MITIGATIONS WE HAVE TAKEN, DO THE WORK, LOOK AT SOME PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS PLUS THE DATA THAT YOU'VE NOW PAID FOR TO RECEIVE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INVITE THE CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES THAT ARE ON THE UPCOMING BALLOT TO SHOW US AND COME DO THE SAME.

SHOW US YOUR BUSINESS FRIENDLY.

AND ON THE SUBJECT OF DATA, I BROUGHT COUNCIL AND MR. MCCARTHY IN PARTICULAR SOME DATA AS HE KEEPS REPEATING THE RHETORIC.

EVERYTHING WAS FINE UNTIL YOU CAME.

THE PREVIOUS BUSINESSES WERE NOT A PROBLEM.

WELL, FROM THE TIME OUR LOCATION OBTAINED A LIQUOR LICENSE IN 2013 UNTIL THE NEIGHBORS WILL CALL THEM, THE SMITHS MOVED IN IN 2016.

ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS FROM THEIR MOVE IN DATE UNTIL I TOOK OVER IN 2020, 78.

SO MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, IT'S NOT ME.

I'VE ALSO INCLUDED FOR PERUSAL THEIR FORMER BUSINESS OWNERS LAWSUITS FOR UNPAID WAGES, EVICTIONS, UNPAID TPTS.

MAYBE THINGS WEREN'T SO ROSY BEFORE I GOT THERE.

MAYBE WHEN THE SMITHS BOUGHT A HOME FROM THE MISSION, THEY DIDN'T REALIZE WHAT AND WHERE THEY BOUGHT.

[00:05:05]

PERHAPS, AS THE COURT SAID, AND I QUOTE, THE SMITHS HOME IS LOCATED WITHIN 20 STEPS OF A BAR.

THEY PURCHASED THE HOME LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO A BAR WITH A KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THANK YOU. MY TIME IS UP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M WITH YOU. MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY? YES. NOW, SINCE THIS SPEAKER SPOKE TO ME AND ACCUSED ME OF CERTAIN THINGS, DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND? MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY COUNCIL MEMBERS DO HAVE A RIGHT TO RESPOND TO CRITICISMS. THAT OBVIOUSLY IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK CAN LEAD TO CONVERSATION BACK AND FORTH.

WELL, I'LL JUST MAKE A QUICK POINT THEN IN ONE SENTENCE.

THAT WAS A LOT OF BALONEY.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PUBLIC PARTICIPANT.

JACOB [INAUDIBLE].

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. HELLO, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS JACOB [INAUDIBLE]. SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS VISTA.

THE SUSTAINABILITY OFFICE WILL BE HOSTING A POLLINATOR WEEK CELEBRATION FROM JUNE 18TH THROUGH JUNE 25TH.

DURING POLLINATOR WEEK, WE WILL BE HOSTING EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES THAT SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE MAYOR'S MONARCH PLEDGE, INCLUDING PLANTING MILKWEED AND NECTAR, PRODUCING PLANTS, CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL AND ENGAGING WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL EFFORTS THEY CAN MAKE TO SUPPORT POLLINATOR POPULATIONS.

IN FLAGSTAFF LEADING UP TO POLLINATOR WEEK, COMMUNITY MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF POLLINATORS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT THROUGH FUN, ENGAGEMENT, ACTIVITIES AND CAMPAIGNS.

THIS INCLUDES A POLLINATOR ART CONTEST, REGIONAL PLANTING GUIDES, BACKYARD HABITAT CREATION AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO GET INVOLVED WITH POLLINATOR ACTION IN THE FLAGSTAFF COMMUNITY. I INVITE YOU TO PLEASE JOIN US IN CELEBRATING NATIONAL POLLINATOR WEEK IN COMING TOGETHER TO SUPPORT THE MONARCH PLEDGE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

KYLE NITSCHKE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.

VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL.

REALLY GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. MY NAME IS KYLE NITSCHKE.

I'M THE ORGANIZING DIRECTOR WITH THE ARIZONA STUDENTS ASSOCIATION.

WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR REGISTERING A LOT OF VOTERS HERE IN THE CITY.

AND I WANTED TO COME TODAY TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AN UPCOMING ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING THAT IS HAPPENING THIS THURSDAY.

WE KNOW THAT THE CITY AND OUR NEW PRESIDENT, DR.

CRUZ, IS COMMITTED TO CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2030.

BUT WE REALLY NEED TO SHOW THE STATE AND OUR HIGHER EDUCATION BOARD OF REGENTS THAT THE CITY COMMUNITY AND YOU ARE ALL COMMITTED TO ACTUALLY MAKING THIS HAPPEN.

BUT TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, WE'RE GOING TO NEED INVESTMENT FROM THE STATE AND FROM THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS.

SO I'M HERE TODAY TO REQUEST THAT YOU SEND SOME CITY STAFF OR COME YOURSELF TO THE MEETING THIS THURSDAY.

IT'S AT 1:30 P.M.

AT THE HIGH COUNTRY CONFERENCE CENTER.

AND JUST SPEAK TO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF HAS BEEN DOING TO PUSH US TOWARDS CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2030.

I JUST WILL ALSO SAY REAL QUICKLY ABOUT KIND OF THE INTERSECTION AND CLIMATE AND THE FOURTH STREET THING IS THAT IN GENERAL, THE ARIZONA STUDENTS ASSOCIATION PUSHES FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE FRIENDLY INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED IN THE CITY IF WE WANT TO HIT THAT CARBON NEUTRALITY NUMBER.

AND I'LL ALSO MAKE A SMALL NOTE THAT WE SUPPORT THE FULL HOUSING BOND GOING THROUGH LATER THIS AFTERNOON AS WELL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND HAVE A FUN MEETING.

THANK YOU, CARL. SANDRA LAUBACH.

DO I NEED TO GO TO? GO FOR IT? YEAH. SHE WANTS ME TO GO FIRST.

GO. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I AM NOT SANDRA LASKY.

THIS IS SANDRA LASKY.

BUT I'M GOING TO GO FIRST, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

MR. MAYOR, MY NAME IS DAVID MCINTYRE, THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DIRECTOR.

BUT I'M ACTUALLY HERE AS A RESIDENT.

BUT I WANTED TO SAY THAT ELIZA CRESSMAN JOINED TEAM FLAGSTAFF IN THE SUMMER OF 2019.

DURING THREE VERY BUSY YEARS, SHE OVERSAW THE PIVOT OF OUR BEAUTIFICATION PUBLIC ART PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT THE ARTISTIC AND SCIENCE COMMUNITY DURING THE PANDEMIC.

BY MOVING PROJECT FUNDS INTO THE SUDDENLY STRUGGLING NONPROFIT SECTOR, SHE WORKED WITH HER TEAM TO ENHANCE OUR PUBLIC PROCESS AND MOVE THE CITY INTO AN EVEN MORE INCLUSIVE AND COMMUNITY BASED WAY OF DOING PUBLIC ART.

SHE BUILT A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BEAUTIFICATION AND PUBLIC ART COMMISSION AND WORKED WITH THEM TO REDO THE WAY THEY DO THEIR LONG RANGE PLANNING AND THEIR BUDGETING.

SHE HAS OVERSEEN A SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN PROJECT DELIVERY.

SHE'S BEEN A HUGE PART OF MAJOR ART PIECES THAT ARE COMING SOON, SUCH AS THE LIBRARY ENTRYWAY, THE AIRPORT AND MANY MORE.

I PERSONALLY THINK THE URBAN FLOWERS PROJECT, WHICH SHE LED AND THEN EXPANDED, IS ONE THAT IS ONE THAT MOST PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER MOST.

SHE MADE STRONG CHANGES TO OUR BEAUTIFICATION AND ACTION GRANT PROCESS, WHICH HAS LED TO BETTER PARTICIPATION AND BETTER OUTCOMES.

SHE HELPED CREATIVE FLAGSTAFF OUR ARTS AND SCIENCE GRANT PARTNER GROW WITH US TO BUILD THE SECTOR UP AND TO HAVE AN EVEN MORE PRODUCTIVE AND IMPACTFUL PARTNERSHIP.

[00:10:05]

NOT ONLY THAT, SHE'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH WHILE GETTING THIS ALL DONE.

ELIZA IS LEAVING HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY ON JUNE 10TH TO RETURN TO NEW MEXICO TO BE CLOSER TO FAMILY.

WE WILL MISS HER GREATLY AND CAN ONLY HOPE THAT OUR NEXT BEAUTIFICATION ARTS AND SCIENCES MANAGER WILL BE ABLE TO BRING GREAT VISION, EXPERIENCE AND NUANCE TO THE ROLE AS SHE DID.

WE WILL ALL BE ABLE TO SEE A LITTLE PIECE OF WHAT ELIZA HAS ACCOMPLISHED FOR US AS WE ENJOY THE BEAUTIFUL FLOWERS THAT ARE GOING IN THIS VERY WEEK.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M SANDRA BOYARSKY, AND I'M VICE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION ON BEAUTIFICATION AND PUBLIC ART.

AND IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO SERVE AS A COMMISSIONER.

AND I KNOW I SPEAK FOR EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION WHO HAS HAD A CHANCE TO WORK WITH.

ELISA KRETZMANN THAT IT HAS BEEN A GIFT TO WORK WITH HER.

WE ARE DEEPLY APPRECIATIVE OF THE WAY SHE HAS GUIDED THE COMMISSION.

NOT ONLY DOES ELIZA HAVE A RICH KNOWLEDGE OF AND SENSITIVITY TO PUBLIC ART, BUT SHE HAS BEEN PASSIONATELY COMMITTED TO BEAUTIFICATION AS A COMMUNITY PRACTICE THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE CHARACTER AND WELL-BEING OF OUR TOWN.

ELIZA HAS HELPED THE COMMISSION TO DEVELOP AND MATURE, AND SHE HAS DONE SO WITH GRACE AND GRACIOUSNESS THAT THE KIND OF GRACE AND GRACIOUSNESS THAT'S BECOME A MODEL FOR ME PERSONALLY.

IF YOU KNOW ELIZA AND I HOPE YOU DO, YOU KNOW THAT SHE IS SMART AND SOPHISTICATED, KIND AND FORBEARING AND ALWAYS TACTFUL AND GENEROUS. A MASTER OF CHINESE PAINTING ONCE SAID, VIRTUE THAT FILLS THE WHOLE BODY IS BEAUTY.

ELIZA KRETZMANN IS A LIVING EXAMPLE OF THIS POINT.

WE WISH ELIZA WELL, EVEN AS WE WISH SHE WASN'T DEPARTING.

SHE HAS ENRICHED THE LIVES OF EVERYONE IN FLAGSTAFF, AND WE SEND HER OFF WITH OUR DEEP THANKS AND ADMIRATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SANDRA.

ALL RIGHT WITH THAT. THAT IS THE END OF OUR PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS AND WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM SIX.

[6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]

AND SO I'M JUST URGING THAT WE'RE ALL AS OUR CITY MANAGER, ESTEEMED WOULD SAY, BREVITY IS THE SOUL TO IT.

AND WITH THAT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT OUR CARE ONE TEAM PRESENTATION IS GOING TO BE MOVED UNTIL JUNE 28TH.

SO THAT WAY WE CAN ALSO HAVE A LITTLE MORE A LARGER DISCUSSION, PARTICULARLY ON THE BOND ISSUES AND SOME OF THE LARGER THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS TONIGHT.

SO JUST AS A NOTE AND THEN WE ARE DOWN TO OUR COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AND I WILL START ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM, COUNCILMEMBER HOUSE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE ANY REPORTS BACK. I HAVE NOTHING TO REPORT THIS WEEK, BUT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

I ACTUALLY HAVE NOTHING TO REPORT THIS WEEK.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING FOR TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. I'LL JUST MENTION THAT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT YET, BUT TOMORROW I WAS APPOINTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE ARIZONA LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS AND WILL BE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR NEIGHBORHOODS, SUSTAINABILITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE, WHICH WE WILL HAVE OUR FIRST MEETING TOMORROW ON.

SO I HOPE TO REPORT BACK AT THE NEXT LIAISON REPORT.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'LL JUST MENTION THAT I ATTENDED THE METRO PLAN MEETING AND THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.

NO COMMISSION AND THE BIKE COMMITTEE.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE BIRCH AND BEAVER BIKE LANES AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT WERE OF INTEREST FOR TRANSPORTATION.

I ALSO ATTENDED THE COFFEE WITH THE COP MEETING AND TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT A LOT OF ISSUES, IN PARTICULAR NOISE ISSUES.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY. COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO I ALSO ATTENDED THE METRO PLAN BOARD MEETING.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT WE, THE BOARD RENEWED THE CONTRACT OF OUR OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JEFF MILES. SMILE, SMILE BACK.

WE ALSO PROVE OUR BUDGET AND KEEP MOVING ALONG WITH WITH THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STRAIGHT FORWARD AS WELL AS THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS.

THANK YOU. Q COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS, THAT BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM SEVEN.

[7. APPOINTMENTS Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1).]

[00:15:08]

THE FIRST APPOINTMENT ASSIGNMENT COMES TO ME AND I WOULD LIKE TO APPOINT LINA WALLIN TO THE OPEN SPACES COMMISSION WITH APPOINTMENT TO TERMS EXPIRING APRIL 20, 25.

TO HAVE A SECOND. NOW SECOND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

ALL RIGHT. HI. HI.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NEXT COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE FOR THE OPEN SPACES COMMISSION APPOINTMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT LUCAS MINTON TO A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 20, 23.

I SECOND THAT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT.

HI. HI. HI.

ANY POST THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALREADY WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS OUR LIQUOR LICENSE, PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[8. LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS]

AND DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANTS, HAVE THEY PUT IN ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK OR JUST ON IF THERE'S A Q&A ASPECT THERE? WE HAVE MOTHER ROAD HERE IN PERSON AND AMY NATIONS REPRESENTING BOTH MILTON MARATHON AND COLLINS IRISH PUB AND EATERY, BUT NEITHER HAVE INDICATED A DESIRE TO SPEAK OK.

EXCELLENT. WELL, WITH THAT MOVING ALONG HERE, I DO SEE THE SHEEP ON HERE TONIGHT.

WERE THERE ANY MARKS ON ANY RECORDS OR ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH WITH THESE THREE APPLICANTS? NO. MAYOR, WE CONDUCTED INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALL THREE OF THE APPLICANTS AND NO DEROGATORY RECORDS WERE LOCATED.

SO THANK YOU. SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.

COUNSEL, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO STAFF FOR THE APPLICANT? ALREADY. I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING AT THIS TIME AND JUST MAKING SURE THIS COMMENT CARD ISN'T FOR THIS SECTION.

I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THIS TIME.

WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS EIGHT, A, B AND C OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS. AND I'LL JUST READ THEM.

THIS IS FOR MOTHER ROAD BREWING COMPANY, MILTON MARATHON AND COLLINS IRISH PUB AND EATERY.

ALL SECOND MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

WHEN YOU SAY MOVE TO APPROVE, DO YOU MOVE? MY APOLOGIES. I MOVE TO FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO THE STATE WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. ALL SECOND, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ANY.

YOUR. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE ARE NOW DOWN TO OUR CONSENT ITEMS ON AGENDA ITEM NINE AND I AM EXPECTING THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO BE PULLING OUT A FEW OF

[9. CONSENT ITEMS All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, expenditures approved by Council are budgeted items.]

YOU CERTAINLY COULD TAKE THAT PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA FULLY, IF YOU'D LIKE, AS AS TYPICAL OR YOU CAN APPROVE EVERYTHING AND THEN JUST PULL THAT ONE ITEM INDIVIDUALLY.

IT'S IT'S UP TO YOU. BUT BOTH OF THOSE WAYS WILL WORK.

THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, THERE'S NO ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS.

IT'S JUST THE ONE FOR NINE E.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT ITEMS AS A THROUGH DD AS WELL AS F AND PULL ASIDE NINE E FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. I.

AND YOUR POST. IT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THAT BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM NINE E THEN AS IS THE CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF CONTRACT, A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BY H RESOURCE GROUP INC.

[E. Consideration and Approval of Contract: A Professional Services Contract WIH Resource Group, Inc. in the amount of $103,472 to complete the final study and analysis of the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). This work is to confirm the transition of the traditional MRF into a functional transfer station that will best serve the community recycle processing needs. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Professional Services Contract with WIH Resource Group, Inc. in the amount of $103,472 to confirm the transition of the traditional MRF into a functional transfer station that will best serve the community recycle processing needs; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.]

THIS WORK IS TO CONFIRM THE TRANSITION OF THE TRADITIONAL MRF INTO A FUNCTIONAL TRANSFER STATION THAT WILL BEST SERVE THE COMMUNITY.

RECYCLE PROCESSING NEEDS.

AND WITH THAT, WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC PARTICIPANT.

MR. AL WHITE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME DOWN.

[00:20:13]

THERE YOU GO. HELLO? COUNCIL AND MAYOR.

HOW ARE YOU TONIGHT? EXCELLENT. I'M NOT HERE TO OPPOSE THIS ITEM.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO IT AND HOPEFULLY ADD A LITTLE VALUE TO THE PROPOSITION.

THE NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR DIVERSION RATE IN CITIES THAT HAVE A RECYCLING PROGRAM IS 37%.

YOU I THINK THE LAST TIME I HEARD FLAGSTAFF NUMBERS, IT WAS CLOSE TO 17%.

SO I'M URGING YOU TO SET A GOAL OF OF DIVERSION AT LEAST 37%, IF NOT MORE.

AND I THINK IN ADDITION, YOU SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT AND DIRECTING, I WOULD SAY SUSTAINABILITY, BUT ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN EXTRACT FROM CENTRAL LAKES, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF RECYCLABLES THAT.

OF OF LATE HAVE HAVE BEEN GOING OUT TO CENTRAL LAKES INSTEAD OF TO THE MURF.

COMPOST INERT MATERIALS TO TO PROLONG THE LIFE OF YOUR LANDFILL.

AND AND IN ADDITION, I WOULD OFFER THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THESE CONSULTANTS WHEN YOU BRING THEM ON BOARD, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT I CAN DO TO HELP THEM FIGURE OUT SOME GOALS AND OR I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS WELL, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE TIME OR PLACE FOR THEM.

IT IS NORTON'S CONTRACT ENDING AND WHO WILL MAN THIS TRANSFER STATION, SO FORTH AND SO ON.

SO. SO IF I CAN WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT, I'D LIKE TO.

THEY, AS YOU KNOW, THE RECYCLING WAS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART.

AND SO AND SO I THINK I CAN HELP.

THANKS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU ALL. AND ESPECIALLY WITH YOUR BACKGROUND, I WOULD REALLY LOVE FOR YOU TO BE PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND YOU BRING A LOT TO THE TABLE.

SO I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO SEE THAT.

SO STAFF TAKE NOTE.

THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A QUESTION THEN THAT PIGGYBACKS OFF OF IT FOR STAFF.

WAS GOALS IN PARTICULAR SET IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THIS CONSULTANT? HMM. STEVEN MAYOR COUNCIL TODD ANSWERS ALL THE WAYS DIRECTOR THIS PARTICULAR SCOPE OF WORK WOULD NOT DOESN'T INCLUDE ESTABLISHING ANY GOALS.

MR. WHITE IS RIGHT NATIONAL AVERAGE IS AROUND 37%, BUT PART OF ACHIEVING A 37% IS THE REASON THAT WE'RE GOING WITH A TRANSFER STATION TO A MORE MODERN VERVE, BECAUSE, WELL, VERY LIKELY TO ADD GLASS BACK IN THE CURBSIDE PROGRAM AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADD 3 TO 7 PLASTICS BACK IN THE PROGRAM.

AND THEN I'LL GO WITH WITH ART'S PROJECT THAT HE'S GOT COMING ONLINE HERE SHORTLY.

THERE'S MORE ORGANICS WE CAN RECYCLE TO.

EXCELLENT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. BUT.

ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS DISCUSSION ITEM? OR CONSENT ITEM, RATHER.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NINE E THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT W H RESOURCE GROUP, INC.

INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $103,472 TO COMPLETE THE FINAL STUDY AND ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY.

SECOND, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL HIS PROOF. HI.

HI. ANY POST? THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM TEN A.

[A. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-11: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 10, Flagstaff Zoning Code, Division 10-20.40: Permits and Approvals, Section 10-20.40.060: Development Agreement to add subsection E. Notification Requirements for a Development Agreement. Providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, and establishing an effective date. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Ordinance No. 2022-11 by title only for the final time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-11 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-11]

COUNSEL DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? THIS IS A SECOND VOTE.

SO WE HAVE GONE OVER A LOT OF THE INFORMATION BEFORE.

BUT LET'S MAKE SURE I GOT CEREMONY UP HERE.

TAKEN CARE OF. ANY QUESTIONS? GO FOR IT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR, I MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE 2022 11 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FINAL TIME.

[00:25:06]

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

HI. HI. HI.

AND HE OPPOSED THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

CITY CLERK AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE TITLE TEN FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE DIVISION TEN 20.40 PERMITS AND APPROVALS SECTION TEN 20.40 .060 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO ADD SUBSECTION E NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

CITY CLERK, I MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2022 11 AND OUR SECOND MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN OR VICE MAYOR SUITE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. AND HE POST THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY AGENDA TEN B THIS IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER

[B. Consideration, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-12 : An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff Zoning Map to rezone approximately 7.29 acres of real property generally located at 2661 N El Paso Flagstaff Road, from the Highway Commercial (HC) zone with a Resource Protection Overlay (RPO) to the Heavy Industrial Open (HI-O) Zone with a Resource Protection Overlay (RPO), providing for severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing and effective date. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Ordinance No. 2022-12 by title only for the final time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-12 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-12]

STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO READ ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022 12 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FINAL TIME.

ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL IS HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN MOTIONS.

I MOVE TO READ ORDINANCE 2022 TO 12 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FINAL TIME.

I SECOND THAT MOTION WITH A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY SECONDED BY MYSELF.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT.

I. AND HE OPPOSED.

THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 7.29 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2661 NORTH EL PASO FLAGSTAFF ROAD FROM THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL H C ZONE WITH A RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY RPO TO THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OPEN HI0 ZONE WITH A RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY RPO PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2022 TO 12.

I SECOND THAT MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. HI.

HI. NEAR POST.

THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG HERE, FOLKS.

THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM 11 A, THIS IS IN OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

[A. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-26: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona, approving an intergovernmental agreement between the Arizona Board of Regents, for and on behalf of Northern Arizona University, and the City of Flagstaff for the processing of organic material produced within City limits at the University's processing facility. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2022-26 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-26 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-26]

AT THE UNIVERSITY'S PROCESSING FACILITY, STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO READ OR READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 26 BY TITLE ONLY.

RIGHT. HELLO.

ME AND COUNSEL. MY NAME IS KAILEE WELLS, SUSTAINABILITY SPECIALIST.

THIS EVENING WE ARE EXCITED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEW COMPOSTING INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF IN NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY.

TONIGHT, I'M JOINED BY SHAUN MELANIE, PARK SUPERVISOR TODD HANSEN, SOLID WASTE SECTION DIRECTOR, AND AVI HENN, WHO IS THE MANAGER OF SUSTAINABILITY AT NYU.

DURING OUR PRESENTATION, WE WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS NEW COMPOSTING IWGA, WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 2019 TO 2021.

AND THEN WE WILL DISCUSS THE BENEFITS OF ESTABLISHING A NEW AGREEMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO CONTINUE TO DIVERT GREEN WASTE FROM THE LANDFILL FOR THE NEXT FIVE PLUS YEARS.

SO THE ORIGINAL ECG WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2019.

THE INITIAL AGREEMENT ALLOWED THE CITY TO PILOT THE COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF THE CITY'S GREEN WASTE AT ANY USED COMPOSTING FACILITY.

THROUGH THE AGREEMENT, PARKS STAFF DELIVERED MATERIALS SUCH AS PINE NEEDLES, LEAVES AND GRASS CLIPPINGS FROM CITY OWNED PROPERTIES TO AN EU AND EU THEN PROCESS AND PREPARED THE

[00:30:03]

THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THE CITY WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF A LARGE SCALE GREEN WASTE COMPOSTING PROGRAM WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUPPORT A COMPOSTING OPERATION.

THE CITY WAS NOT CHARGED BY ANY OF YOU TO DROP OFF AND PROCESS THE MATERIAL.

IN 2020, THE IGA WAS RENEWED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR.

OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, THE CITY LEARNED A LOT ABOUT WASTE DIVERSION FROM THE DATA COLLECTED DURING THE INITIAL IGA.

WE LEARNED THAT THE CITY CAN DIVERT OVER £200,000 OF GREEN WASTE PER YEAR FROM THE LANDFILL AND THAT THERE ARE MANY GREAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAMING IN OUR COMMUNITY. WITH YOUR APPROVAL, WE WILL CREATE A NEW COMPOSTING IGA WITH NEW THAT WOULD SUPPORT A COMMERCIAL FOOD SCRAP COLLECTION SERVICE THROUGH OUR SOLID WASTE SECTION THAT REDIRECT FOOD SCRAPS FROM GROCERY STORES AND RESTAURANTS.

WE WOULD ALSO DEVELOP A RESIDENTIAL GREEN WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE THAT WOULD CREATE COMPOST OUT OF YARD WASTE.

NOW MOVING ON TO THE NEW IG.

THROUGH THE NEW AGREEMENT, THE CITY WOULD ENTER INTO A FIVE YEAR PARTNERSHIP WITH AN EU TO CONTINUE GREECE'S GREEN WASTE DIVERSION EFFORTS.

THE IGA WOULD SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE AND CONSUMPTION, SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS OF THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN BY REDUCING LANDFILL EMISSIONS AND DIVERTING WASTE FROM THE LANDFILL.

THE NEW AGREEMENT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO COLLECT MORE DATA ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A CITY SPONSORED COMMERCIAL FOOD SCRAPS COLLECTION SERVICE, AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL GREEN WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE.

THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT WOULD NOT CHANGE AND THE CITY WOULD NOT BE CHARGED BY AN EU TO DROP OFF AND PROCESS MATERIAL ONCE AGAIN LIKE THE ORIGINAL IGA.

IN SUMMARY, THE NEW IGA WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS IGA.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE AGREEMENT WOULD LAST FOR FIVE YEARS AND SUPPORT ADDITIONAL WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAMING.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEW IG? THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC PARTICIPANT THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE.

AND THEN IF COUNSEL HAS QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE THEM AT THAT POINT.

THANK YOU. ART BABBITT.

COME ON DOWN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL PRIVILEGE TO BE HERE.

THANKS VERY MUCH.

AND JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE REASON FOR RESTORATION SOILS WHICH HAD THE SECOND READ TONIGHT.

THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND BRINGING SOME MUCH NEEDED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL LAND BASE INTO THE CITY.

JUST I SENT A COMMENT TO ALL THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND MANAGER CLIFTON.

JUST SOME IDEAS AS WE ARE GOING TO BE RAMPING UP WITH OUR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMPOSTING FACILITY, WHICH IS A THERMAL FLICK, WHICH MEANS IT'LL BE A HEAT MANAGED COMPOSTING PROCESS.

FIRST, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE GREAT WORK THAT NEW DOES ON TAKING THAT GREEN WASTE.

ALSO, THERE KIND OF ALIGNMENT WITH THE CITY ON YOUR CLIMATE LEADERSHIP, I THINK IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT AND IS RECOGNIZED AS WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS CONTRACT.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, AS WE RAMP UP OUR FACILITY, WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT FEEDSTOCKS AS WELL THAT SERVES OUR NEEDS.

AND WE JUST WANTED TO PUT FORTH THE IDEA OF A SHORTER TERM CONTRACT THAT ONCE A FACILITY ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN, WE HAVE ONE WITH NEW IN THE SOUTH AND KIND OF WESTERN SIDE OF TOWN BECOMES OPERATIONAL.

THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME EFFICIENCIES, TRANSPORTATION REDUCTIONS AND JUST GENERAL KIND OF OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES THAT ARE WORTH CONSIDERING.

WE HAVE A GREAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH SUSTAINABILITY.

CITY OF FLAGG RV DOES GREAT WORK AT NDU.

I HAVE NO PROBLEMS AT ALL BELIEVING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GREAT COMMUNICATION.

JUST ASKING THE QUESTION IS A FIVE YEAR THE RIGHT NUMBER AT THIS TIME AS WE ARE BUILDING CAPACITY IN THIS SECTOR ACROSS THE CITY? AND SO YOU'VE GOT MY COMMENTS ON IF THERE WAS A SHORTER TERM, WE'D BE OPEN TO THAT.

BUT ALSO I HAVE A STRONG BELIEF THAT WE'RE GOING TO COMMUNICATE WELL AND WORK TOGETHER TO SERVE THE WASTE REDUCTION, WASTE DIVERSION AND CLIMATE OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY AS WELL AS ANY OF YOU.

THANK YOU, ARI. GREAT.

THANKS. WITH COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

WELL, I WONDER IF EITHER THE CITY STAFF OR THE UNIVERSITY STAFF.

IVY. IVY, HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON MAYBE A THREE YEAR CONTRACT INSTEAD OF A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT? WHAT WOULD BE THE PROS AND CONS OF THAT? GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL.

TODD HANSEN, SOLID WASTE DIRECTOR.

AND LOOKING AT THE CONTRACT, IT IS THERE IS A 90 DAY OUT BY EITHER PARTY FOR CONVENIENCE AND IT'S A NON-EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT ALSO.

SO IF THERE IS A FACILITY THAT OPENED UP ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN TO MAKE MORE SENSE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN, MAKE MORE SENSE TO TAKE MATERIAL OUT THERE, THEN ALL THE WAY BACK

[00:35:01]

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE TERM IS.

SO IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S REALLY NO DISADVANTAGE TO EITHER PARTY IF WE GO WITH THE FIVE YEAR CONTRACT.

NO, NOT MY EYES.

AND WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS? I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR THE 90 DAY TO BE STEPPING BACK FROM IT? CONVENIENCE. JUST FOR CONVENIENCE.

OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT.

YEAH. SO THERE'S REALLY MIGHT FIND A REASON YOU WANT.

ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I PERSONALLY WOULD FEEL BETTER WITH A SHORTER TERM CONTRACT WITH THAT SAME LEVEL OF EXTENSION OF FIVE YEARS WHERE WE DO TWO YEARS AN APPROVAL FOR ONE YEAR AT A TIME THEREAFTER. DO YOU SEE VALUE IN THAT OR ANY CONCERNS WITH AMENDING THAT CONTRACT? IS THAT GOING TO BE TROUBLE? EITHER WAY, WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE.

HELLO, EVERYBODY.

MY NAME IS AVI HAHN, MANAGER OF SUSTAINABILITY FOR NYU.

I'M NOT THE CONTRACTING PERSON FOR THE UNIVERSITY AND THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT PERSON AS FAR AS LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, AS FAR AS MY INTEREST AND I'M PROBABLY THE MAIN DRIVER FOR A LOT OF THAT ON THE SIDE OF NYU IS.

I WOULD I WOULD RECOMMEND TO MY SUPERVISORS THAT IF THERE WAS A LARGE COMMERCIAL INSTALLATION LIKE THAT, THAT EVEN ANY YOU WOULD WOULD ENGAGE WITH THAT, WITH THAT INSTALLATION. SO I'M ACTUALLY EXCITED TO HEAR WHAT WHAT OUR SHARED AS FAR AS GOING FOR A SHORTER CONTRACT.

AS FAR AS MY OFFICE IS CONCERNED, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

WE COULD TRY AND AMEND THAT.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE GOING THROUGH OUR CONTRACTING DEPARTMENT AGAIN.

AND THIS IS A DIFFERENT PERSON THAT CITY STAFF IS ENGAGED WITH.

AND IF I'M ASKED THAT QUESTION, I WILL I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO RECOMMEND FOR A SHORTER TIME PERIOD.

YEAH. THANK YOU. NICOLE MAYOR IN COUNCIL NICOLE ANTONOPOULOS SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR AND IF I MAY JUST CHIME IN AND ADD TO THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT THE IG HAS WRITTEN IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THERE'S COOPERATIVE DISCUSSION BETWEEN ANY YOU AND THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNTS OF MATERIALS THAT ARE GOING TO ANY USED COMPOSTING FACILITY.

SO THERE IS ALSO BUILT INTO THE IDEA AND UNDERSTANDING THAT CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE, BE IT FROM A PROCESSING STANDPOINT, AND IT COULD GO ALL THE WAY TO JUST ANALYSIS OF THE DATA THAT WE HAVE FROM THE PILOT PROGRAMS THAT WERE PLANNING.

SO THERE IS FLEXIBILITY INHERENTLY BUILT IN, AND THAT WAS INTENTIONAL OUTSIDE OF THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT AS WELL.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, NICOLE, FOR THE EXPLANATION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ACTING IN A WAY TO SUPPORT A LOT OF THESE VENTURES THAT ARE OCCURRING NOW.

IT IS A BIG RISK TO INDIVIDUALS TO HAVE MADE THIS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE SUPPORTING OUR VENTURES THAT HAVE SUCH COMMUNITY GOOD FOR ALL OF US, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE COLLABORATING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

AND IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE IS A GOOD AMOUNT OF COLLABORATION THROUGH THIS.

WITH THE ADDITIONAL CLAUSE AND THE FLEXIBILITY, NOT AS AN EXCLUSIVE VENDOR OR HOWEVER YOU PUT IT, NO EXCLUSIVITY CONTRACT.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

BUT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE YOU TO WEIGH IN.

I'M EXCITED TO SEE.

I'M SORRY. I GUESS I'M GOING.

I'M EXCITED TO SEE THE COLLABORATION.

AND AS LONG AS WE CAN KEEP THAT MOVING FORWARD, I'M COMFORTABLE AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU.

GO. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY WHERE YOU WENT TO? WELL, ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S CRITICAL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT HOW LONG THE CONTRACT IS.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT CONTRACT.

WE DEFINITELY SHOULD DO IT.

I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE WE SHOULD GO THREE YEARS.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND HI, EVERYBODY. SO I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONTRACT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CLAUSE THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED BY TODD.

AND SO I'M OPEN TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBERS THINK, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY AND AND I THINK THAT WE ARE ALL GOOD PARTNERS IN THE ROOM HERE WITHIN EU, THE CITY AND IN THE NEW VENTURES THAT ARE COMING ONLINE.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW THIS PROGRESSES, BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A SPECIFIC STANCE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF YEARS.

I GUESS I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHATEVER WE DECIDE.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

WELL, THERE'S NO FURTHER CONTACT OR COMMENT.

I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

[00:40:03]

A SECOND MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND HE OPPOSED THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY AND THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF FOR THE PROCESSING OF ORGANIC MATERIAL PRODUCED WITHIN CITY LIMITS AT THE UNIVERSITY'S PROCESSING FACILITY.

MOVE TO A JOB RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020 226 A SECOND MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

ALL RIGHT. HI.

ANY POST THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 11 BE THIS IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER

[B. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-25: Approving a partial settlement of the case, City of Phoenix et al. v. Orbiz Worldwide et al., relating to collection of local transaction privilege taxes from online travel companies; providing for delegation of authority, and establishing an effective date STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2022-25 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-25 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-25]

STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO READ A RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 25 BY TITLE ONLY.

GO FOR IT. YEAH. I MOVE THAT WE READ RESOLUTION 2020 225 BY TITLE ONLY ALL SECOND MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR SUITE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. I.

AND HE OPPOSED THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

SID CLARK A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE CITY OF PHENIX ATOLL V ORBITZ WORLDWIDE ATOLL RELATING TO COLLECTION OF LOCAL TRANSACTION PRIVILEGED TAXES FROM ONLINE TRAVEL COMPANIES, PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

A MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2020 225 ALL SECOND MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR SUITE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. IN POST THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

I SEE IT CHAMPING AT THE BIT THERE.

CITY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO ON YOU, WENDELL, WHO WORKED HARD ON THIS OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS.

THIS IS A LONG STANDING CASE THAT HAS NOW BEEN SETTLED AND SHE'S DONE A GREAT JOB AS WELL.

KEVIN FINKEL HELPED TOWARD THE END.

SO IT WAS A VERY WELL FOUGHT SETTLEMENT.

THANK YOU. EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE WHOLE TEAM PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

THAT'S A LONG TIME TO BE WORKING ON A CASE.

SO. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 11.

[C. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-14: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Chapter 1-14, Personnel System by amending the Employee Handbook of Regulations relating to voluntary reassignment and transfer. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: At the June 7, 2022 Council Meeting: 1) Read Ordinance No. 2022-14 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-14 by title only (if approved above) At the June 21, 2022 Council Meeting: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2022-14 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-14 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-14]

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL BRANDI SUDA YOUR PREVIOUS INTERIM HUMAN RESOURCE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR AND YOUR CURRENT CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR THIS ITEM IS OUR CURRENT HR AND RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR DIETRICH SAUERS.

SO WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU FOR THE FIRST READ OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK RELATED TO VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS.

SO THE FIRST CHANGE IS RELATED TO VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENTS.

A VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENT IS WHEN AN EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERS VOLUNTARILY REQUESTS TO BE PLACED IN A VACANT POSITION IN A LOWER PAY RANGE, OR WHEN THEY ARE SELECTED FOR A POSITION DURING A RECRUITMENT PROCESS INTO A LOWER PAY RANGE.

VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM A DEMOTION, WHICH IS NOT VOLUNTARY AND IS OFTEN CONNECTED WITH A JOB PERFORMANCE CONCERN.

WITHIN TWO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK, WE DISCOVERED CONFLICTING LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEE'S CLASSIFICATION DATE AND SHOULD IT CHANGE DUE TO A VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENT? THIS CONFLICTING LANGUAGE GOES BACK MANY, MANY YEARS.

AND JUST FOR REFERENCE, A CLASSIFICATION DATE DETERMINES THE EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DATE AND THEREFORE THE DATE THEY ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A MERIT INCREASE.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING UPDATING THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SO THAT THE NEW CLASSIFICATION, A NEW CLASSIFICATION DATE IS RECEIVED WHEN A VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENT OCCURS.

IN ADDITION TO REMOVING THE INCONSISTENT LANGUAGE IN THIS HANDBOOK, THIS CHANGE ALLOWS FOR THE EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TO COVER FOR ONLY

[00:45:06]

IT KEEPS WITH CURRENT AND PAST PRACTICES AS WELL AS REFLECTS THE CURRENT DESIRED LANGUAGE.

BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY LEADERSHIP.

THE SECOND CHANGE RELATES TO TRANSFERS.

A TRANSFER IS WHEN AN EMPLOYEE MOVES FROM ONE POSITION TO ANOTHER IN THE SAME PAY RANGE, OR FROM ONE AREA IN THE ORGANIZATION TO ANOTHER IN THE SAME POSITION.

IN KEEPING WITH THE DESIRE FOR CONSISTENTLY CHANGING THE CLASSIFICATION DATE WHENEVER AN EMPLOYEE CHANGES POSITION CLASSIFICATION OR MOVES TO A NEW AREA WITH A NEW SUPERVISOR.

THIS HANDBOOK CHANGE REFLECTS THAT AN EMPLOYEE WOULD RECEIVE A NEW CLASSIFICATION DATE WHEN A TRANSFER OCCURS.

AND WITH THESE CHANGES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A PRORATED MERIT INCREASE WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE EMPLOYEE SALARY FOR BOTH VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS. TO ENSURE THE NEW CLASSIFICATION DATE DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE EMPLOYEE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR MERIT INCREASES.

WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU, MASUDA. COUNSEL, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WELL, I MOVE TO READ ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022 TO 14 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

ALL SECOND SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR SUITE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. HI.

HI. HI.

HI. IN YOUR POST, THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY CITY CLERK AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE CHAPTER 114 PERSONNEL SYSTEM BY AMENDING THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK OF REGULATIONS RELATED TO VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES.

SEVERABILITY AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU, CITY CLERK.

THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 11.

[D. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-09: An ordinance amending Flagstaff City Code, Chapter 1-18, Administrative Departments, to establish the Sustainability Division and the City Clerk Divisions in City Code, and to retitle the City Engineering and Human/Resources/Risk Management Divisions. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: At the June 7, 2022 Council Meeting: 1) Read Ordinance No. 2022-09 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-09 by title only (if approved above) At the June 21, 2022 Council Meeting 3) Read Ordinance No. 2022-09 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-09 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-09]

GOOD AFTERNOON.

THERE WE GO. I WAS LOOKING TO THE ROOM.

THANKS, JEANNIE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

IT'S A BIT OF A TRIP FROM FLORIDA, SO I'M JOINING YOU VIRTUALLY AGAIN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL, JEANNIE GALLAGHER, YOUR CONTRACTED HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR.

AND THIS ORDINANCE WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR SOME TIME THAT WE BRING BEFORE YOU.

AS STATED, THIS WILL ELEVATE THE SUSTAINABILITY AND CLERK'S OFFICE TO A DIVISION LEVEL STATUS WITHIN THE CITY STRUCTURE. AND ADDITIONALLY, WE ARE REQUESTING TO RETITLE THE FORMER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND ENGINEERING DIVISION, WHICH FOUND ITSELF TO BE A LITTLE WORDY TO CITY ENGINEERING AND OF COURSE THEN CATCHING UP ON THE MOVE TO PLACE RISK MANAGEMENT UNDER THE HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR ON A GO FORWARD BASIS.

AND SO RE TITLING THAT DIVISION ACCORDINGLY.

AND I BELIEVE THAT OUR CITY MANAGER WANTED TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEFORE WE TURN TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THANK YOU, GINI. AS A PREFACE TO THE DISCUSSION THAT MAY FOLLOW HERE, I'D LIKE TO MENTION A FEW QUICK FACTS.

FIRST, THIS REORGANIZATION THAT JEANIE IS GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT OF BOTH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE SUSTAINABILITY SECTION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR SOME TIME NOW, SPANNING THE PAST YEAR AND BEING ADDRESSED IN THE MANY COUNCIL RETREATS DURING OUR BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, AND THAT MANY DISCUSSIONS AT THE STAFF LEVEL AS WELL.

SECOND, THE ELEVATION OF BOTH THESE SECTIONS TO DIVISION STATUS WILL HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT UPON ANY EMPLOYEE.

THERE WILL BE NO REDUCTION OF COMPENSATION, NO CHANGE IN THE FUNCTION OF THESE SECTIONS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPOSITION OF EMPLOYEES, AND CERTAINLY NO LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT.

THIRD, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIVISION STATUS FOR BOTH SECTIONS WILL PARALLEL VERY CLOSELY WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH THREE OTHER SECTIONS OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. NOTABLY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, PROSE AND THE CITY ENGINEERING.

[00:50:03]

IN THESE INSTANCES, THERE WERE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS UPON ANY EMPLOYEE AND NUMEROUS INSTANCES WHERE EMPLOYEES WERE POSITIVELY IMPACTED.

SO I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THESE COMMENTS AS A PREFACE TO TO THIS OVERALL PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER.

WITHOUT. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

WELL, I WANT TO THANK THE CITY MANAGER FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU SUPPORT IT AND IT'S IN YOUR PURVIEW TO MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL.

THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT A FRIEND OF MINE, JOE SHANNON, BEFORE HE RECENTLY PASSED ON, WAS PUSHING FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION CHANGE. AND IF ANYBODY IS A FRIEND OF JOE SHANNON AND LISTENING, I JUST WANT TO REACH OUT AND THANK JOE FOR HIS EFFORT OF PUSHING THIS FORWARD.

SO IN THAT REGARD, I MOVE THAT WE READ ORDINANCE 2020 209 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

I SECOND THAT MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? YEP.

OH. COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI JUMP OFF.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I ALSO WANT TO JUST ECHO THE GRATITUDE.

THIS IS REALLY EXCITING. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING AND JUST.

JUST VERY, VERY PLEASED.

SO THANK YOU ALL.

AND THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER.

AND THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU, JEANNIE.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

AND I THINK THIS IS VERY TELLING OF WHERE WE'RE MOVING AS A CITY.

WELL, OUR WAY OF THINKING, THE WAYS WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO APPROACH OUR ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS.

AND A LOT OF THAT IS DUE TO NICOLE'S LEADERSHIP NICOLE ANTONOPOULOS AS WELL, AND HOW GREAT OF A TEAM SHE'S PUT TOGETHER AND HOW MUCH IMPACT YOU ALL ARE ALREADY HAVING ON OUR BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS, OUR APPROACHES, HAVING THE NEW LINES ON THE AGENDA, ITEMS REGARDING CARBON NEUTRALITY.

AND I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE'S WORK ON IT.

AND THIS IS A WELL DESERVED HEIGHTENING OF THAT, THAT POSITION, WHICH RESEMBLES ALL OF OUR COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY'S DEDICATION TOWARDS THIS.

SO THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT.

HI. HI.

AND HE OPPOSED. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY AN ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU, JEANNIE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 TO 18 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION AND THE CITY CLERK DIVISION, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND SEVERABILITY AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MAYOR, IF I MAY, I BELIEVE THAT I MIGHT HAVE THE WRONG TITLE HERE IF I COULD JUST HAVE A MOMENT TO CHECK.

MY APOLOGIES.

CERTAINLY.

I HAD THE CORRECT TITLE.

I JUST I HAD MY APOLOGIES.

I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD INCLUDED INCLUDED THE NAME CHANGES OF THE OTHER DIVISIONS WITHIN THAT TITLE, WHICH WE DID NOT.

SO THE TITLE THAT WAS READ IS CORRECT.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

THANK YOU FOR CHECKING.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE ARE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 11 E THIS IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-23 A

[E. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-23: A resolution of the Flagstaff City Council adopting the City of Flagstaff Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Pension Funding Policy; delegating authority; and establishing an effective date. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2022-23 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-23 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-23]

STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-23 BY TITLE ONLY.

MR. TADDER.

YES. GOOD AFTERNOON.

CLAP. I MEAN, WE GOT THE BUDGET DISCUSSION TODAY TOO.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR. VICE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RICK TADDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE DIRECTOR AND CITY TREASURER TONIGHT.

THIS FIRST ITEM IS 11.

E IS A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT OUR ANNUAL PUBLIC SAFETY RETIREMENT SYSTEM PENSION FUNDING POLICY.

THIS IS AN ANNUAL REQUIREMENT OF CITIES PER STATE STATUTES, AND I'M PLEASED FOR THE SECOND YEAR TO PROVIDE YOU A FUNDING POLICY THAT DISCUSS BEING 100% OR MORE FUNDED FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, SHOWING OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR PENSION POLICIES WITHIN THE CITY.

AS OF JUNE 30TH, 2022, ACTUARIAL REPORT THE CITY'S PENSION PLANS WERE OVERFUNDED BY A COMBINED $14 MILLION AND A FUNDING RATIO OF 107% FUNDED.

DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, THE PENSION FUND POSTED A 27.8% INVESTMENT RETURN.

[00:55:07]

SO THIS PENSION THIS FUNDING POLICY PROVIDES AN OUTLINE HOW THE CITY WILL INTEND TO MAINTAIN 100% FUNDED POLICIES FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

AND AS A REMINDER, WE ALSO HAVE A PENSION CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND OF ABOUT $14 MILLION TO HELP US MITIGATE THOSE TIMES WHERE WE MAY SEE ACTUARIAL CHANGES IN PENSION PLANS, OR THERE MAY BE MARKET ADJUSTMENTS, SUCH AS A 10% DECLINE IN THE MARKET.

WE'RE READY TO ADDRESS THAT AND MOVE FORWARD AND KEEP OUR FUNDS 100% FUNDED.

SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL READING ADOPT RESOLUTION 2020 223.

THANK YOU, MR. TITER COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

WELL, IN THE SPIRIT OF RECOGNIZING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE CHARLIE ODEGAARD, FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER, FOR TAKING LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE, AND ALSO RICK AND YOUR STAFF AND THE CITY MANAGER.

A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM FOR MAKING A VERY LARGE CHANGE AND MAKING THIS PENSION SYSTEM.

ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, IT WAS VERY NEGATIVE BEFORE.

SO IN THAT REGARD, I WOULD LIKE TO READ RESOLUTION 20.

I MOVE THAT. WE READ RESOLUTION 2022 TO 23 BY TITLE.

ON SECOND THAT MOTION, I DID WANT TO GET A QUICK QUESTION, THOUGH.

SO I'M SEEING RIGHT NOW THAT THIS IS NOW THIS YEAR, CURRENT FUNDING STATUS IS AT 107%.

IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, LAST YEAR IT WAS 105%, 103, 103.

SO THAT IS JUST TELLING THOSE DIFFERENTIATION NUMBERS WE'RE ACTUALLY CONTINUING TO SEE TO BE PUTTING MORE IN AND GETTING MORE OUT FROM OUR PENSION SYSTEM AND MAKING SURE THAT OUR FIRE AND POLICE AND OUR EMPLOYEES ARE TAKEN CARE OF.

AND I'LL JUST ECHO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY SAYS, SAID THAT IT IS A HUGE, HUGE LIFT AND SOMETHING THAT TOOK A LOT OF WEIGHT OFF THIS CURRENT COUNCIL'S SHOULDERS BECAUSE OF ALL THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DID BEFOREHAND.

SO THANK YOU.

AND WITH THAT, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY, SECONDED BY MYSELF.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I MAY POST.

THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY CITY CLERK A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL, RETIREMENT SYSTEM, PENSION FUNDING POLICY, DELEGATING AUTHORITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 23.

SECOND, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. AND HE OPPOSED THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG HERE, FOLKS.

THANK YOU FOR SUCH AN EFFICIENT MEETING.

I'M DOING WELL HERE.

[F. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-24: A resolution of the Flagstaff City Council, designating its Chief Fiscal Officer for officially submitting the fiscal year 2022-2023 expenditure limitation report to the Arizona Auditor General, and establishing an effective date. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2022-24 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-24 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-24]

A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING ITS CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER FOR OFFICIALLY SUBMITTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 2023 EXPENDITURE LIMITATION REPORT TO THE ARIZONA AUDITOR GENERAL AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 24 BY TITLE ONLY.

MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS ITEM 11 F IS REALLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT THAT CITIES HAVE AS REQUIRED FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO DESIGNATE A CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER FOR THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING OUR ANNUAL EXPENDITURE REPORT.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR TO DESIGNATE MYSELF AS THAT POSITION AND STAFF RECOMMENDS READ AND ADOPT RESOLUTION.

SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS GUY.

AND OVER HERE IT'S DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS OR NOT? IT'S A SIGNATURE. I MOVED TO READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020 224 BY TITLE ONLY.

I SECOND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR I.

ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR POST CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY CITY CLERK, A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING ITS CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER FOR OFFICIALLY SUBMITTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 2023 EXPENDITURE LIMITATION REPORT TO THE ARIZONA AUDITOR GENERAL AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 24.

SECOND, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[01:00:01]

YOU POST THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 11 G CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 27.

[G. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-27: A resolution of the Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona adopting the tentative budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2022-27 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-27 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-27]

STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO READ A RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 27 BY TITLE ONLY.

MASUDA GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

BRANDI SUDA YOU'RE THE CITY'S FINANCE DIRECTOR, SO I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR THE FIRST STEP IN THE CITY'S BUDGET ADOPTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 2023. HERE IS THE TIMELINE FOR THE CITY'S BUDGET ADOPTION.

SO TONIGHT WE HAVE TENTATIVE BUDGET ADOPTION VIA RESOLUTION.

THIS SETS THE MAXIMUM APPROPRIATION THE CITY CAN SPEND IN THE UPCOMING YEAR.

IT ALSO SETS IN MOTION THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL ADOPTION IN TWO WEEKS ON JUNE 21ST.

WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUDGET AND THE TAX LEVY.

THE FINAL BUDGET, ADOPTION VIA RESOLUTION, AND THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE THAT SETS THE TAX RATE.

AND THEN ON JULY 5TH, WE HAVE THE SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE.

SO THE TOTAL CITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 2023 IS $540,887,795. THIS IS $152 MILLION INCREASE OR 39% OVER THE PRIOR YEAR.

THE MAJORITY OF THAT INCREASE IS RELATED TO CAPITAL PROJECT INITIATIVES, AS WELL AS MANY PLACEHOLDERS FOR SOME VERY LARGE GRANTS.

AND THEY ARE THROUGHOUT THE CITY'S FUNDS, THE CITY THE CITY BREAKDOWN OF BY FIVE OR FIVE FUND TYPES.

SO THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE BUDGET IS APPROXIMATELY $121.5 MILLION OR 23% OF THE BUDGET.

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, SUCH AS HALF THE HIGHWAY USER TRANSPORTATION, THE HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND, THE TRANSPORTATION FUND PARK FLAG ARE B-BBEE OR ABOVEBOARD, AND BEVERAGE FUNDS MAKE UP $152.8 MILLION OR 23% OF THE BUDGET. THE CITY'S DEBT SERVICE FUNDS FOR OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE AS WELL AS OUR PENSION BONDS, MAKES UP 17.5 MILLION OR 3% OF THE BUDGET AND OUR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS AND THIS INCLUDES BOTH OUR G O BOND AND OUR NON G.O.

BOND FUNDED PROJECTS MAKES UP 49.1 MILLION OR 9% OF THE BUDGET.

AND THEN LASTLY, OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS SUCH AS OUR DRINKING WATER, WASTEWATER, STORMWATER, RECLAIMED WATER, SOLID WASTE, SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, OUR FLAGSTAFF HOUSING AUTHORITY AND AIRPORT MAKE UP $199.9 MILLION OF THE BUDGET OR 37%.

SOME KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS.

THIS INCLUDES MERITS THE EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY, MINIMUM WAGE COMPRESSION ADJUSTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COST SHARE FOR MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.

WE ALSO USED OUR PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING AND OUR OUR CITY KEY COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES IN OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

THIS BUDGET INCLUDES MANY INVESTMENTS TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S CLIMATE NEUTRALITY PLAN OR CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN.

THIS BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES A FLAT PROPERTY TAX LEVY PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDRESSES MANY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SO WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BUDGET SINCE WE PRESENTED THE BUDGET TO COUNCIL AS PART OF THE APRIL RETREAT.

AND THEY INCLUDE, THE COUNCIL ADDS, AT JUST OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS LIST, ALL THE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT WERE ADDED TO THE BUDGET DURING OUR APRIL RETREAT.

THE MAJORITY OF OUR ADS OR OUR INCREASES TO THE BUDGET ARE RELATED TO CARRY FORWARDS.

SO CARRY FORWARDS ARE BUDGETED ITEMS, USUALLY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS OR OTHER ONE TIME PURCHASES OR SERVICES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PREVIOUS BUDGET. BUT FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, THE PROJECT OR THE PURCHASE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE COMPLETED BY YEAR END AND WE NEED TO CARRY IT FORWARD THOSE FUNDS IN THE FUTURE YEAR TO COMPLETE THOSE PROJECTS OR THAT PURCHASE.

[01:05:02]

THIS INCLUDES VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS RELATED TO BEULAH UNIVERSITY, MANY WATER SERVICE PROJECTS AND MANY FLEET PURCHASES, AS WELL AS OPERATING CARRYFORWARDS OF 19.4 MILLION.

THIS INCLUDES VARIOUS STUDIES, SOFTWARE AND OTHER CONTRACTS, AND THEN CAP AND THEN GRANT CARRYFORWARDS OF $17.9 MILLION.

MANY OF THESE ARE RELATED TO CARES OR COVID GRANTS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AIRPORT.

WE DID HAVE SOME OTHER ADDITIONS TO THE BUDGET THIS YEAR.

WE DID ALLOCATE $40 MILLION IN THE BUDGET FOR BOND INITIATIVES.

SO THIS IS AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE POTENTIAL VOTER APPROVED BOND INITIATIVES FROM THE NOVEMBER 2022 ELECTION.

WE ALSO HAD CAPITAL INCREASES OF 19.7 MILLION, THESE RELATED TO UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND REALIGNMENT, THE RIO SOLIDS TREATMENT PROJECT AND PUBLIC SAFETY RADIOS.

A LOT OF THIS IS REFLECTING THE LATEST COST ESTIMATES RELATED TO THESE PROJECTS, AS WELL AS ACCELERATING SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.

SO MAYBE THEY WERE IN THE FIVE YEAR PLAN, BUT WE HAVE ACCELERATED AND MOVED UP THE TIMELINE ON THOSE PROJECTS AS WELL AS $1.6 MILLION RELATED TO THE THREE RECENT DEBT ISSUANCE, AS WELL AS A LARGE LOAN PAYOFF IN WATER SERVICES.

SO WE WILL HAVE THE TENTATIVE BUDGET BOOK AVAILABLE TOMORROW AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS.

YOU CAN FIND IT ON THE CITY WEBSITE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AS WELL AS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST.

PLEASE SEND ME OR HEIDI DARRY BARRY AN EMAIL.

WE'LL GET YOU A COPY.

THE BUDGET LEGAL SCHEDULES WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE ARIZONA DAILY SUN ON SIX, NINE AND 616, AS WELL AS I'M ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE BUDGET IN MY EMAIL AND PHONE NUMBER.

ARE THERE. AND WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL.

WE HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND HI, EVERYBODY. GOOD TO BE HERE IN PERSON.

THANK YOU, BRANDY. QUICK QUESTION.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING, I'M THINKING AHEAD A LITTLE BIT, AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS A COMMITTEE BEING PUT TOGETHER FOR TO EVALUATE COUNSEL SALARIES.

I'M JUST WONDERING, FROM YOUR OPINION, IF COUNSEL WERE TO ADJUST OUR SALARIES THROUGH ORDINANCE, THAT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT AS OF THE NEXT ELECTION.

DO WE NEED TO SET ASIDE MONEY IN THIS BUDGET TO POTENTIALLY ACCOUNT FOR THAT, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT RICK MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE HAPPEN? MAKE IT RAIN, RICK.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S SOME YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME CONTINGENCY MONEY THAT WE SET ASIDE THAT WE BUDGET EVERY YEAR FOR CONTINGENCIES, FOR THINGS THAT WE DON'T ANTICIPATE.

SO I BELIEVE WE'LL BE ABLE TO COVER THAT WITHIN THE BUDGET.

IT WOULDN'T BE MUCH.

IT'S JUST SEVEN OF US.

THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCIL. EXCELLENT.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING THAT FINAL FULL DISCUSSION DONE HERE IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I MOVED TO READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 27 BY TITLE ONLY.

SECOND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

NIPOST. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY CITY CLERK A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 2023. MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 27.

SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. DOES BOAST THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 11 H CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OVER 2022 TO 28.

[H. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-28: A resolution of the Flagstaff City Council approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Glendale, Arizona and the City of Flagstaff for use of the Glendale Tax Application STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2022-28 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-28 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-28]

RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 AS 28 BY TITLE ONLY.

MR. TANNER. HELLO, MAYOR.

VICE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

IF I COULD JUST FIRST OFF, GIVE A GREAT MEASURE OF GRATITUDE TO HEIDI DAIRY BERRY FOR HER WORK ON THE BUDGET FOR THE LAST ITEM.

AS WE LOANED BRANDY TO THE H.R.

TEAM AND HER STAFF FOR THE GREAT WORK THEY DID, PREPARING ALL THE BUDGET TOGETHER IN A SCHEDULES.

AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY THAT BRANDY IS PUTTING HER FINANCE HAT BACK ON AND HAVING HER BACK WITH OUR TEAM.

[01:10:04]

FIRST. ITEM ONE H IS FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GLENDALE FOR THE USE OF A GLENDALE TAX APPLICATION. AS YOU MAY RECALL, IN 2016, THE STATE FOR WAS FORCED TO TAKE OVER COLLECTIONS FOR ALL CITIES AND COUNTIES OF SALES TAX OR TRANSACTIONAL PRIVILEGE, TAXES FOR ALL CITIES AND COUNTIES, INCLUDING THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

AND WHILE WE WERE PROVIDED WEEKLY REPORTS, THERE WERE VERY BIG SPREADSHEETS AND A LOT OF DATA AND VERY DIFFICULT TO MANAGE.

ONCE THEY TOOK THAT OVER, WE DID PARTNER WITH PHENIX FOR AN APPLICATION TO HELP BUILD A DATABASE TO HELP US DO SOME WORK IN OUR TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX AREA.

THE CITY OF GLENDALE WENT ONE ONE FURTHER, AND THEY'VE BEEN DEVELOPING AN APPLICATION FOR THEIR ORGANIZATION THAT IS MORE USER FRIENDLY, EASIER FOR SEARCHING, AND HAS A LOT OF OTHER FUNCTIONALITY RELATED TO IT.

THEY GAVE A PRESENTATION TO THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA AND ALSO TO OUR BILLING AND COLLECTIONS TEAM.

AND WE FELT IT WAS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO BE A PART OF THAT APPLICATION, THAT SOFTWARE THAT THEY'RE OFFERING.

THEY ARE STARTING TO OPEN THIS UP FOR OTHER CITIES TO BENEFIT FROM THE WORK THAT THEY DID.

AND WE ARE LOOKING TO BE ONE OF THE FIRST CITIES TO PARTNER WITH THEM TO HELP THEM MAKE SURE THAT ACCESS IS WORKING.

THE REPORTS ARE WORKING, AND WE'RE GOING TO PARTNER WITH THEM IN THIS FIRST YEAR TO MAKE A GREAT PARTNERSHIP, IMPROVE OUR TAX COLLECTIONS.

THE SOFTWARE IS A VERY FRIENDLY USER USER INTERFACE AND WE WERE LOOKING FOR BENEFITS SUCH AS REDUCE RESEARCH TIME, INCREASE COMPLIANCE MONITORING, INCREASE ACCURACY OF REVENUE REVIEW AND REPORTING.

AND AS PART OF THESE NEW BENEFITS OF SYSTEM, IT NOW ALLOWS US TO TAG ACCOUNTS, THOSE THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO MANAGE OR COLLECT ON.

WE CAN TAG AND GET IMMEDIATE RESPONSES WHEN THEY MAKE A PAYMENTS THEY ARE PAST DUE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IN THE PAST IN OUR APPLICATIONS.

SO A GREAT BENEFIT FOR OUR TEAM AND BUILDING COLLECTIONS.

I'D LIKE TO THANK STACEY SALTZBURG FOR ALLOW ME TO BRING THIS ON THE AGENDA THIS WEEK.

YOU DID NOT SEE IT ON THE DRAFT AGENDA, BUT DUE TO TIMING, GLENDALE NEEDED TO GET OUR APPROVAL SO THAT THEY CAN BRING IT TO THEIR COUNCIL BEFORE THEIR BREAK.

SO THANK YOU, STACEY, FOR THAT.

AND AT THIS POINT, STAFF IS ASKING COUNCIL TO READ AND APPROVE RESOLUTION 2022.

THAT'S 28. THANK YOU, MR. TANNER. I MOVED TO READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 22-28 BY TITLE ONLY.

SECOND, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR SUITE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT.

I. AND HE POSTS THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY CITY CLERK A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE AND THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF FOR THE USE OF THE GLENDALE TAX APPLICATION.

I MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022 TO 28.

I'LL SECOND SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR SUITE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. I.

AND HE OPPOSED THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

[I. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-13: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff authorizing the acquisition of real property and the determination and offers of relocation benefits to persons displaced to make way for the Fourth Street/Cedar Avenue/Lockett Road roundabout project; providing for delegation of authority, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Read Ordinance No. 2022-13 by title only for the final time approving the actual footprint and design as presented by staff with the understanding that staff will continue to seek to incorporate Z crossings at each leg feasible within the footprint as approved today; and also with the understanding that staff will continue to seek the incorporation of complete rapid flashing beacon signalization when deemed financially feasible by the Council. City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-13 by title only (if approved above) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-13 approving the actual footprint and design as presented by staff with the understanding that staff will continue to seek to incorporate Z crossings at each leg feasible within the footprint as approved today; and also with the understanding that staff will continue to seek the incorporation of complete rapid flashing beacon signalization when deemed financially feasible by the Council. Staff recommends adopting both Option 1 and Option 2 set forth in the Ordinance, related to delegation of authority.]

PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, SEVERABILITY AND AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MR. FOXX. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

VICE MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS.

MY NAME IS DAN FULLER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

I'M HELPING OUT TONIGHT.

BRICE DOTY, OUR REAL ESTATE MANAGER, IS TAKING SOME TIME OFF THIS WEEK, SO WE ARE HERE FOR THE SECOND READING ON THIS ORDINANCE.

I'M GOING TO UPDATE YOU ON A COUPLE OF THINGS, AND I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR CAPITAL ENGINEER, TREVOR HENRY, WHO WILL SHOW YOU SOME OF THE, I THINK, THE DIRECTION YOU GAVE LAST WEEK AT YOUR WORK SESSION.

SO I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WITHIN THE MOTION THERE'S SOME REVISED LANGUAGE, AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ THAT TO YOU.

WE BELIEVE IT REFLECTS KIND OF THE DIRECTION YOU GAVE AT THE WORK SESSION.

AND SO IT WOULD BE READING AGAIN THE ORDINANCE FOR THE FINAL TIME, APPROVING THE ACTUAL FOOTPRINT AND DESIGN AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK AND INCORPORATE Z CROSSINGS AT EACH LEG FEASIBLE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT AS APPROVED TODAY, AND ALSO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK THE INCORPORATION OF COMPLETE RAPID FLASHING BEACONS SIGNALIZATION WHEN DEEMED FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE BY THE COUNCIL.

SO THAT'S THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE ON YOUR MOTION.

OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN ALTER THAT DEPENDING ON THE ACTION YOU WANT TO TAKE TONIGHT.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT WAS THE ORDINANCE ITSELF HAS NOT CHANGED.

[01:15:03]

SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF SOME PROPERTY THAT NEEDS TO BE ACQUIRED FOR RIGHT AWAY, AS WELL AS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS.

SO THAT EXHIBIT IS THE SAME AS TWO WEEKS AGO.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO TREVOR HENRY, WHO'S GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THE DESIGN MODIFICATIONS.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TREVOR HENRY WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SECTION.

SO LAST WEEK WE PRESENTED THE ITEM AND WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION.

WE HAD THREE TAKEAWAYS FROM THAT MEETING.

AND SO TONIGHT I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CONVEY THAT TO YOU AND GIVE YOU THE UPDATE.

I'M ALSO PINCH HITTING FOR JEREMY DE GATER, WHO IS ON A WELL-DESERVED VACATION, AND HE'LL BE BACK NEXT WEEK.

SO MOVING FORWARD.

SO THE FIRST ITEM WE HEARD LAST WEEK WAS THE RAPID FLASHING BEACONS.

AND SO THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, WE WENT BACK TO THE DESIGNER AND HE WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT ADDING THOSE BEACONS TO THE THREE LEGS. BECAUSE AS YOU UNDERSTAND, THE SOUTH LAKE OF FOURTH STREET LEADING INTO THE ROUNDABOUT ALREADY HAS BEACONS WITHIN THE PROJECT. SO WE ADDED THREE TO THOSE TO THIS PROJECT.

AND WHAT THE DESIGNER DID IS HE WENT THROUGH SOME COST COMPARISONS OF BIDS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN RELEASED.

THEY LOOKED AT PRICE ESCALATIONS OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS AND THEN PROJECTED AHEAD FOR SIX MONTHS.

AND THEY'VE COME UP WITH ABOUT $250,000 TO ADD THOSE ITEMS. ON TOP OF THAT, WE DO HAVE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION MOBILIZATION FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL.

SO THESE ITEMS DO COME WITH SOME ADDITIONAL.

BED ITEMS THAT WOULD HELP NECESSITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BEACONS.

ALSO INCLUDED ARE ADA FEES FOR IMPACT, FOR ENGINEERING FEES, FOR CONSTRUCTION FEES, AND THAT'S ALL STANDARD WITH ANY TIME WE DO AN IGA WITH A DOT.

THERE IS ALSO INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND AGAIN THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE IGA.

SO THESE ARE JUST FEES THAT KIND OF COME WITH ITEMS THAT WE DO CONSTRUCTION OR PROJECTS WITH WITH ADOT.

SO RIGHT NOW THE COST IS APPROXIMATELY $400,000 TO ADD THREE LEGS WITH BEACONS.

SO THAT'S ABOUT 133,000 PER LEG.

RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO SCHEDULE IMPACTS TO ADD THOSE.

RIGHT NOW OUR CRITICAL PATH IS THE PROPERTY ACQUISITION.

SO THIS DESIGN UPDATE OR THESE CHANGES THAT WE CAN DO WILL PARALLEL THAT.

SO THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACTS FOR ADDING RAPID FLASHING BEACONS.

THE SECOND REQUEST WE HEARD WAS Z CROSSINGS AND OUR INITIAL DESIGN DID NOT HAVE THE Z CROSSINGS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OR WHERE THEY CROSS OVER THE LAKES. AND THEN THIS.

AND IN THIS EXHIBIT YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE ADDED Z CROSSINGS ON THE NORTH LAKE, THE WEST LAKE AND THE SOUTH LAKE.

SO THESE Z CROSSINGS WILL ALLOW THE PEDESTRIANS TO CROSS ONE LANE.

THEY WILL BE ABLE TO RESET, HIT THE BUTTON, LOOK FOR TRAFFIC, AND THEN PROCEED ON TO THEIR ACROSS THE STREET.

SO WITH THOSE WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOOTPRINT, THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT THAT IS PART OF THE ACQUISITION.

IF THAT DOES NOT CHANGE, WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADD THREE Z CROSSINGS ON THE NORTH, THE WEST AND THE SOUTH, THE LOCKETT LAKE. WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ADD Z CROSSINGS BECAUSE OF THE FOOTPRINT.

WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD RIGHT OF WAY OR EXPAND THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THAT WOULD SET US BACK.

THAT WOULD DELAY US. THAT WOULD PUT EVERYTHING BACK TO BEFORE THE FIRST READ AND JUST GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE AGAIN.

THE COST THAT WE LOOKED AT IS NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE WE WOULD ONLY BE ADDING CONCRETE FOR CURBS.

FORM BOARDS. JUST CHANGING HOW THAT THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK GO ACROSS THE INTERSECTION.

SO THERE'S REALLY NO ADDITIONAL COST THERE.

AS FAR AS THE SCHEDULE, AGAIN, IT'S JUST WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION.

THERE'S NO IMPACT THERE.

SO IT'S JUST AN ADD TO THE PROJECT.

THE LAST ITEM WE HEARD WAS RAISED OR ELEVATED CROSSWALKS.

AND SO OUR DESIGNER WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT SEVERAL OF THE CONSIDERATIONS, A LOT OF THE IMPACTS THAT RAISE CROSSWALKS COULD HAVE ON THIS PROJECT.

THE TWO BIGGEST ONE ARE DRAINAGE CONCERNS AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.

SO BASICALLY, HOW ARE WE GOING TO EFFECTIVELY DRAIN THIS INTERSECTION WITH A RAISED INNER WITH A RAISED CROSSWALK?

[01:20:01]

IF YOU LOOK IN THIS PHOTO HERE, THERE IS A SCUPPER, WHICH IS A CONSIDERATION OR AN ITEM DESIGN CONSIDERATION THAT YOU COULD DO. BUT THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET UNDERNEATH THE CLEAN.

ALSO, CARS COULD FALL OFF.

BICYCLISTS, ANYBODY, PEDESTRIANS COULD WALK OFF THAT EDGE.

SO JUST ANY TYPE OF DRAINAGE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE POSSIBLE WITH RAISED OR ELEVATED CROSSWALK.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS JUST SNOWPLOWS COMING THROUGH WITH THAT RAISED SURFACE.

YOU MIGHT HIT IT WITH THE FRONT END OF THE PLOW AND IT JUST DOES NOT LOOK GOOD.

AND YOU CAN CATCH ONE OF THESE CURVES AND TEAR OUT THE SCUPPER OR TEAR OUT WHATEVER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MIGHT HAVE TO GO IN.

SO BASED ON THAT, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING A RAISED OR ELEVATED CROSSWALK.

THE LAST ITEM WE HAVE FOR YOU IS TO INCLUDE ALL THESE ADDITIONAL ITEMS WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK WITH AND THEIR DESIGNER.

WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 75 TO 100000 ADDITIONAL TO REDO ALL THESE DESIGN EFFORTS.

AGAIN, THE SCHEDULE WON'T BE IMPACTED BECAUSE OF ACQUISITION IS OUR CRITICAL PATH AND THESE DESIGN UPDATES WILL PARALLEL THAT.

WE ARE, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THE TOTAL AD IS APPROXIMATELY $500,000 FOR THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE HEARD.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS ALL CITY FUNDING.

THERE IS NO CIP FUNDING THAT WILL BE ALLOCATED TO IT AND EVERYTHING WILL BE FRONTED BY THE CITY.

AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A SOURCE IDENTIFIED, BUT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE POSSIBLY BEING FOR 19 BIKE PED FUNDS COMING TOWARDS THAT. AND SO JUST TO WRAP UP OUR PRESENTATION, THE NEXT TIME YOU'LL SEE US IS WHEN WE WILL BE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH ANOTHER IGA OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE IGA GIVING INFORMATION ABOUT CONSTRUCTION.

SO WHEN WE START, WHEN ADA BEGINS THEIR CONSTRUCTION, THEY'LL ADVERTISE THE PROJECT FOR BIDS AND THEN THEY WILL GIVE US A NUMBER THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION. AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT BEING BEFORE YOU AT THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR.

SO THAT IS THE NEXT TIME YOU'LL SEE US.

WITH THAT.

TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC PARTICIPANT I'D LIKE TO CALL UP FIRST BEFORE WE GO ON TO COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION.

CINDY RO. I THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME ONE LAST TIME.

I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DID LAST TIME WITH THE Z CROSSWALKS AND THE BEACONS.

I WAS REALLY HOPING THAT BRYCE AND JEREMY WOULD BE HERE.

YOU COULD PASS IT ON.

ONE OF MY CONCERNS A LITTLE BIT IS JUST IN THE REPARATION.

I THINK THAT'S THE CORRECT WORD FOR ALREADY NEARLY OVER 2 MILLION OVER BUDGET.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT ARIZONA IS 48, 49, 50 FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

WE'RE NOT RICH AND CHARTER SCHOOLS DON'T GET FUNDING FROM THE STATE FOR THEIR FACILITIES.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO DECIDING, I HOPE THAT THOSE POWERS THAT BE WILL REALLY CONSIDER MAKING SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT AMOUNT THAT CAN HELP US MAKE THAT CORNER BEAUTIFUL.

HELP THOSE TEACHERS THAT WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC NOISE IS GOING TO BE IN THE CHILDREN'S EARS ALL DAY.

AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT SO MUCH UP TO YOU'RE ALL RIGHT THERE.

I JUST WANT TO USE YOU AS A SOUNDING BOARD.

BUT THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.

AND JUST THAT CONSIDERATION FOR A SMALL CHARTER SCHOOL, 27 YEARS OLD IN FLAGSTAFF.

WE WANT TO SURVIVE ALSO AND WE'RE CONCERNED THAT IT MAY TAKE AWAY FROM OUR ENROLLMENT.

WE ARE JUST NOW RECOVERING FROM COVID, STILL DOWN 50 STUDENTS.

WE GAINED 50 THIS YEAR.

WE WANT TO GAIN 50 BACK NEXT YEAR.

SO WE'RE HOPING THAT THE CITY WILL CONSIDER SENDING ENGINEERS MY WAY TO HELP ME DESIGN WHAT LOOKS BEST OR WHATEVER YOU CAN DO TO HELP US OUT.

SO BUT I APPRECIATE THE GOODWILL EVERYBODY'S HAD TOWARDS THIS PROJECT AND WE'RE SUPPORTING IT WITH THE ZS AND THE BEACON.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CINDY. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

AND I KNOW THAT OUR TEAM WILL BE VERY MINDFUL ABOUT THE TREES, REPLACING THEM AND ALL THE WORK THAT'S NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE YOUR SCHOOL IS TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T WANT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT, HAPPY TO OPEN IT UP TO COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

SO I DO HAVE A COMMENT AND IT IS DIRECTLY TIED TO OUR LAND ACQUISITION AGENDA ITEM.

BUT I'LL START OFF BY JUST SAYING, TREVOR, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME WITH THE TEAM TO WORK ON THIS.

I SO APPRECIATE IT.

I'M GLAD THAT THOSE BEACONS ARE COMING IN CLOSER TO 400,000 THAN 750 AND THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED AND IMPLEMENTED.

[01:25:08]

IT ISN'T, BUT IT'S THE COST OF HAVING A FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC CIRCLE.

RIGHT. SO I'LL BE HONEST, I STILL STRUGGLE WITH THE DESIGN AND US MOVING FORWARD WITH THE LAND ACQUISITION TONIGHT.

TO ME IT COMES DOWN TO TRADE OFFS AND WHO IS GETTING PRIORITIZED.

THE RIGHT TURN LANE IS A CHOICE AND A TRADE OFF.

WE ARE CHOOSING CONSCIOUSLY TO MAKE THAT PRIORITIZES THE LEVELS OF SERVICE OF CAR MOVEMENT OVER THE NEEDS OF THE SCHOOL AND PEDESTRIANS WHO WILL NEED TO CROSS AND NAVIGATE ANOTHER LANE.

I DO WONDER WHAT THE COST IS OF THAT RIGHT TURN LANE, IF THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO COVER THE COST OF THE BEACONS RATHER THAN TAKING IT FROM BIKE PED.

TREVOR, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT FOR A SECOND? DO YOU KNOW? COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI I DON'T HAVE THE COST FOR THE RIGHT TURN LANE AT THE MOMENT.

I BELIEVE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAN CAN TAKE CARE OF AND GET THAT TO YOU.

AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION, BUT IT KIND OF IS IF WE WERE TO ACTUALLY REMOVE THAT RIGHT TURN LANE.

SO I KNOW THE CITY IS TAKING SERIOUS STRIDES FORWARD ON THE TOPIC OF CHANGING OUR PRIORITIES WHEN IT COMES TO ENGINEERING.

AND I KNOW THAT CHANGE TAKES TIME AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE TEAM AND ALL THE HARD WORK AND ALL OF YOU WORKING WITH ME AND PUTTING UP WITH ME.

I REALLY DO APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU.

AND AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF OUR EXPERTS AND OUR ENGINEERS ON THIS TEAM.

THE CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, I FEEL, WAS A REAL STEP FORWARD AND A WAY, IN A WAY, A COMPROMISE.

DO I FEEL LIKE IT'S ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE ACQUISITION TONIGHT? I DON'T. BUT I WANT TO BE.

I ALSO WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF TEAM FLAGSTAFF AND OUR EFFORTS.

I WANT TO SAY THAT, OF COURSE, WE HAVE AMAZING ENGINEERS AND EXPERTS WORKING ON THE PROJECTS LIKE THESE.

AND I APOLOGIZE IF THINGS I'VE SAID HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS DISRESPECTFUL.

I MEAN, NO DISRESPECT.

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT PROJECT AND WE HAVE EXCELLENT HIGHEST QUALITY STAFF AND INDIVIDUALS WORKING ON THIS.

I WANTED TO CLEAR THE AIR ON ONE OTHER THING.

WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO THAT HAD AN IMAGE OF A NOTE WITH MY PERSONAL BUSINESS CARD FROM COUNCIL WITH THAT NOTE.

AND I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO CLEAR THAT PUBLICLY FOR THE RECORD AND SAY THAT I DID NOT WRITE THAT NOTE, NOR DID I PASS MY CARD OUT TO BE GIVEN OUT LIKE THAT.

I DID HOST A TOWN HALL AND I DID PASS OUT MY CARD THERE, AND PEOPLE SEEM TO APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION ABOUT LINKS TO THE AGENDAS, LINKS TO THE STREAMS THAT WERE ON MY CARD.

BUT IN NO WAY WAS I TRYING TO PASS THIS AROUND AND KIND OF SCHEME BEHIND THE SCENES, BEHIND COUNCIL.

AND I KNOW THAT IT CAME OFF THAT WAY.

YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER VICE MAYOR AND I TALKED ABOUT A SITE VISIT AND WE SAID THAT WE SHOULD HOST IT PUBLICLY.

SO I DID THAT.

I HOSTED A SITE VISIT IN A TOWN HALL.

I WORKED WITH STACEY TO GET IT POSTED SO ALL OF US COULD BE THERE IF WE WANTED TO.

BUT I FEEL THAT MY EFFORTS KIND OF BACKFIRED AND IT REALLY LOOKED BAD ON ME AND IN MY STRUGGLES WERE MADE PERSONAL WITH THIS PROJECT. SO I JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE AND I FEEL SOMEWHAT OF A FAILURE IN THE SENSE OF THAT THIS WAS MADE PERSONAL WITH ME WHEN ALL IT'S REALLY TRYING TO DO IS ENGAGE THE PUBLIC AND AND REPRESENT THE PUBLIC AND BRING THEM TO THE DAIS.

SO MY GOAL IS TO BE INCLUSIVE.

AND AND I TRIED TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC [INAUDIBLE] BACK TO THE LAND ACQUISITION TONIGHT.

IF WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LAND ACQUISITION WITHOUT THE PURCHASE OF THE PINE FOREST SCHOOL PARCEL, THAT RIGHT TURN LANE.

I AM 100% ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT, BUT IF NOT, I AM STILL A NO.

AND THAT WAS NOT EASY FOR ME TO COME TO BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT STAFF HAS WORKED REALLY HARD TO GET IT TO THIS POINT, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT THE TRADE OFFS JUST DON'T ADD UP TO ME HERE.

AND AS OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, JEFF BAUMAN, SAID TO YOUR QUESTIONS WITH HIM MAYOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THAT WE COULD EXPLORE LEVELS OF SERVICE HERE IN THAT WE REQUIRE DIFFERENT THINGS OF OURSELVES THAN WE DO OF DEVELOPERS.

AND SO I THINK THAT IF WE DID WANT TO, WE COULD POTENTIALLY EXPLORE REMOVING THAT RIGHT TURN LANE, WHICH WOULD SAVE THE TREE THAT COUNCILMEMBER AS AND WANTED US TO DO, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CROSSINGS FOR YOUTH AND ALSO COST LESS.

LASTLY, I'LL JUST SAY I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH 4.19 FUNDING COMING FROM THE BIKE PED FOR THIS.

THE BIKE PED FUNDING IS IS BARELY COVERING STRIPING AND ENHANCEMENTS AND JUST THE BASICS FROM WHAT I CAN UNDERSTAND.

SO ANOTHER $500,000 IS KIND OF A DIFFICULT PILL TO SWALLOW FOR ME, BUT THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE TIME TO AIR OUT MY COMMENTS AND OFFER AN APOLOGY FOR MAKING IT PERSONAL AND POSSIBLY BEING DISRESPECTFUL, COMING OFF AS BEING DISRESPECTFUL WHEN THAT'S THE LEAST OF MY

[01:30:05]

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

AND WE DO REALLY RESPECT YOUR ADVOCACY IN THIS REGARD A LOT.

AND I APPRECIATE YOU CLEARING THE AIR AND MAKING THE STATEMENT.

WE DO. SO.

THANK YOU. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

HI, TREVOR. I ACCEPT THAT WE CAN'T GET Z CROSSINGS IN EVERY LEG OF THIS. I WISH WE COULD.

THE Z CROSSINGS CAN BE THIS WAY OR THIS WAY.

I WOULD ASK YOU TO TALK TO JEFF BAUMAN RIGHT THERE.

AND I THINK THERE IS A PREFERRED WAY TO PUT THOSE, AND I THINK WE'VE GOT THEM BACKWARDS FROM THE PREFERRED WAY.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? OKAY. SO PLEASE TALK TO JEFF ABOUT THAT.

I'M SURE THAT SWITCHING THEM AROUND WITHIN THE EXISTING GEOMETRY WOULD PROBABLY BE PRETTY EASY TO DO.

IT'S JUST THAT THAT HADN'T BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH.

SO PLEASE TALK TO JEFF ABOUT THE CORRECT WAY TO JOG THEM THIS WAY OR THAT WAY.

OKAY. YOU COMMENT ON THAT OR.

YEAH. YOUR HONOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TRY TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT.

AND IF JEFF WALKS UP, I'M GETTING IT WRONG.

BUT ON THE Z CROSSINGS, YOU'RE CORRECT.

THE WAY THEY'RE LINED OUT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WALK AND THEN YOU TURN TOWARDS TRAFFIC COMING AT YOU TO WALK TO THE NEXT PART AND THEN GO ACROSS.

HOWEVER, WHAT I HEARD LAST WEEK AND JEFF KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS IS THAT CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE INTERSECTION, CARS NEED TO QUEUE OR TO VOLUME OR STACK.

SO IN THESE PARTICULAR AREAS, THERE IS ENOUGH ROOM FOR POSSIBLY ONE OR TWO CARS TO STACK WITHOUT THE ENDS PROTRUDING INTO THE ROUNDABOUT. AND SO ALL OF THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

AND THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT NOW, YES, IT IS KIND OF BACKWARDS, BUT IT IS THE ONLY WAY WE COULD GET THE VEHICLES TO STACK PROPERLY.

NOW, AGAIN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK ABOUT RESETTING.

SO WHEN THE PEDESTRIAN WALKS ACROSS, THEY WILL HAVE TO ACTUALLY RESET AND TURN.

SO THEY WILL NO TRAFFIC WILL BE COMING EITHER TO THE RIGHT OR THE LEFT.

SO THEY'LL HAVE TO LOOK GET TO THE BUTTON TO PUSH IT.

SO THAT THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

AND THAT WAS KIND OF WHERE WE ENDED UP ON THESE CROSSINGS.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY ARE BACKWARDS, BUT WE'LL BE ABLE TO TO WORK WITH THOSE.

DOES THAT HELP? THAT HELPS A LOT.

I THINK YOU'RE YOUR ANSWER IS COMPLETELY RATIONAL AND IT MAKES SENSE AND I ACCEPT IT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S MOVE ON TO THE LIGHTS.

MY UNDERSTANDING.

WELL, IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF YOU WENT BACK TO THAT LAST.

YES. SO.

AH. THE WAY I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THESE LIGHTS IS THAT THERE'S A LIGHT THAT STOPS THE TRAFFIC.

THAT TELLS THE TRAFFIC TO STOP.

THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN COMING.

BUT THAT THAT HAPPENS BOTH WAYS.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE CARS ARE GOING INTO THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE, IF THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN THERE, THEY STOP.

BUT WHEN THEY GET TO THE MIDDLE, TO THE LITTLE Z THING, AND BEFORE THEY GO ACROSS THAT, THERE'S ALSO A LIGHT.

THEY'RE TELLING CARS COMING OUT OF THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE THAT THEY NEED TO STOP TO HELP THAT CHILD GET ACROSS THE STREET.

IS THAT THE WAY THAT YOU ENVISION THESE? I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK JEFF TO COME UP FOR THIS ONE.

JEFF DOES NOT WANT TO COME UP HERE.

THANK YOU, JEFF. IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE OVER MY HEAD.

I KNOW. SORRY, JEFF.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL JEFF BAUMAN, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

WE CAN DO HIM EITHER WAY FOR THE RECTANGULAR, RAPID FLASHING BEACONS, WE CAN DO IT AS ONE ONE CROSSING ALL THE WAY ACROSS EACH, OR WE CAN DO THEM AS SEPARATE.

TRADITIONALLY, WHEN YOU HAVE THE Z CROSSINGS, YOU'RE BREAKING IT INTO TWO DIFFERENT PIECES.

AND SO YOU DO IT WITH TWO SEPARATE PUSHES, ONE FOR, SAY, NORTHBOUND, ONE FOR SOUTHBOUND.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK WOULD MAKE SENSE.

SO CAN WE. IS THAT PART OF THE PLAN THEN? WELL, IT HASN'T BEEN DESIGNED YET, SO IT COULD BE DONE EITHER WAY.

BUT OUR AGAIN, OUR THOUGHT IS THAT YOU WOULD USE THE CURSOR HERE.

SO THIS CROSSING WOULD BE ONE INDEPENDENT CROSSING AND THEN YOU WOULD DO THE Z AS A PEDESTRIAN, PUSH THE BUTTON HERE, AND THEN IT WOULD GET YOU ACROSS THESE TWO LANES. SO THOSE TWO WOULD BE ONE LIGHT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S REALLY TWO SEPARATE LANES, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. FOR THAT.

[01:35:02]

AND BECAUSE THE YEAH, I MEAN, THERE IS, THERE'S, THERE'S DEFINITELY OPTIONS HERE AND BECAUSE THAT ONE'S SO SKINNY AND STRAIGHT ACROSS, WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE GOOD AS ONE SO IT'LL BE OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE.

BUT I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THEN WHEN SO THERE'LL BE STOPS GOING INTO THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE AND GOING OUT OF THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS THE ANSWER I WANTED TO HEAR.

SORRY. AND THANK YOU GUYS.

YOU KNOW, AND I ACCEPT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, BUT IT'S OUR JOB TO DO A SANITY CHECK ON YOUR GREAT WORK.

WE APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI. AND TO FOLLOW ON THAT, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING ONE CLICK THAT WOULD STOP TRAFFIC ON BOTH SIDES TO ALLOW LIKE SO AS A PEDESTRIAN MYSELF, WHEN I CROSSED THAT AT 66, I DO FIND THAT OR AT BUTLER.

I DO FIND IT KIND OF CUMBERSOME AND I'M CURIOUS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK.

BUT TO CROSS ONE LEG AND THEN STOP, BEG, PUSH THE BEG BUTTON AGAIN, WAIT A FEW MORE SECONDS FOR ANOTHER CAR TO STOP.

AND ALSO I FEEL LIKE CARS WHEN THEY SEE ME CROSSING ONE, THEY ALREADY START STOPPING UP FOR THE SECOND EVEN BEFORE I PUSH THE BUTTON.

SO I DO WONDER IF THERE'S A IF IT MAKES SENSE FROM OUR ENGINEER'S PERSPECTIVE TO JUST HAVE ONE BUTTON THAT SIGNALS TO BOTH SIDES.

AS COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY WAS SAYING, HEY, PEDESTRIAN COMING, GO AHEAD AND STOP.

AND THEN THE PEDESTRIAN DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PUSHING IT A SECOND TIME.

THE CARS ARE ALREADY STOPPED.

WOULD THAT MAKES SENSE TO SET UP THAT WAY WITH ONE PUSH? SO THE WAY THESE WORK BEST.

REMEMBER WAY BACK WHEN, PEDESTRIAN CROSSING JUST HAD A LIGHT ON ALL THE TIME AND AS A DRIVER YOU DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN THERE OR NOT.

AND SO THEY WEREN'T NEARLY AS EFFECTIVE AS THESE NEWER DEVICES THAT FLASH ONLY WHEN A PEDESTRIAN IS IN THAT CROSSWALK.

SO IF YOUR EXAMPLE ON BUTLER IS PROBABLY KIND OF THE FAR END, MAYBE BECAUSE IT'S BUTLER IS AT HUMPHREY'S AND IT'S TWO LANES IN EACH DIRECTION AND THE MEDIANS LANDSCAPED AND IT'S A Z CROSSING THAT HAS SOME WIDTH.

SO IF YOU PUSH THE BUTTON ON THE NORTH SIDE AND IT WAS REQUESTING CARS STOPPING ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND YOU WERE STILL 20 SECONDS AWAY.

IF YOU'RE SLOW WALKING, I'M AFRAID THAT WE'D LOSE SOME OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SYSTEM BECAUSE CARS WOULD START TO GO.

THE LIGHTS ARE BLINKING, BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE ANYBODY THIS TIME.

BUT THIS TIME I DO.

SO IT'S MORE RESPONSIVE.

IT'S IT'S, AGAIN, THAT CONVENIENCE OF A PEDESTRIAN TO PUSH ONE BUTTON OR TWO.

VERSUS SAFETY LIKELY SAFETY OUTCOMES.

SO WE'VE AIRED ON THE SIDE OF SAFETY AT HUMPHREY'S AND I WOULD I WOULD PREFER TO DO THE SAME HERE WITH THE Z CROSSINGS WHEN THERE ISN'T A Z CROSSING, IT'S A MUCH SHORTER CROSSING. IT FEELS LIKE ONE WALKING STRAIGHT ACROSS, A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BEING ONE PUSH.

THAT'S MY PHILOSOPHY ON THESE.

AND THAT'S AND IT'S NOT JUST ME, BUT, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERS THINK THIS WAY, AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST AN ADDED DELAY FOR PEDESTRIANS, BUT I GUESS IT'S FOR SAFETY.

SO I SUPPORT THAT.

IT'S DEFINITELY A BALANCE.

AND JUST TO REFOCUS A LITTLE BIT, I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE THESE EVEN FUNDED YET TO PUT IN.

THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CONVERSATIONS AT THE END OF THE YEAR ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC FUNDING AND HOW TO PUT THE CROSSWALKS IN.

AND TONIGHT, WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON LAND ACQUISITION.

SO HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY AND REALLY DO LIKE US GETTING INTO THE DETAILS, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER TIME FOR THAT AS WELL.

SO BUT I'M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.

OK [INAUDIBLE] I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS ON LAND ACQUISITION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A REAL QUICK COMMENT THAT CROSSWALK ON BUTLER IS UNSAFE IN THAT A PEDESTRIAN GOES HALFWAY ACROSS AND HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IF THE OTHER LIGHT IS ON OR NOT ON. AND THAT HAS TO BE MADE CLEAR SOMEHOW THROUGH SIGNAGE OR A BLINKING LIGHT OR SOMETHING.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. YOU GUYS CAN DO THE DETAILS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

WITH THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS, WHERE ARE YOU? I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. MAYOR. PLEASE DO. BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION I WANT TO ARTICULATE THAT THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ROUNDABOUT WILL IMPROVE SAFETY.

SLOW SPEEDS, HELP AVOID ANGLED CRASHES AND ACROSS A CROSSWALK.

THE FOURTH LEG OF THE INTERSECTION AND ITS IDENTIFIED IN THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

TRANSPORTATION TIP NUMBER 101020A.

PROJECT NUMBER 10-0247 AND IG NUMBER 20-007711.

AND THE COUNCIL APPROVED AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLAGSTAFF AND ADA FOR THIS PROJECT ON MAY 19, 2020.

[01:40:05]

THAT'S 13 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FINAL TIME, APPROVING THE ACTUAL FOOTPRINT AND DESIGN AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK TO INCORPORATE Z CROSSINGS AT EACH LEG FEASIBLE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT AS APPROVED TODAY, AND ALSO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK THE INCORPORATION OF COMPLETE RAPID FLASHING BEACON SIGNALIZATION WHEN DEEM FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE BY COUNCIL.

I SECOND THAT MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AND I WANT TO SAY WHY I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.

THIS ARRANGEMENT WITH THE Z CROSSINGS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ADD AND WITH THE SIGNALIZATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADD IS SUBSTANTIALLY SAFER FOR CARS AND FOR PEDESTRIANS, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT IN THE EXISTING INTERSECTION, LEFT TURNS ARE A REAL PROBLEM WHEN ONE PERSON MAKES A LEFT TURN IN A CAR, THAT'S A CONFLICT WITH PEDESTRIANS.

THIS DESIGN ADDRESSES THAT.

SO I'M A YES VOTE ON THIS.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY MCCARTHY.

WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS SECONDED BY ME.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED? NAY.

THAT MOTION CARRIES FIVE-ONE.

CITY CLERK. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY AND THE DETERMINATION AND OFFERS OF RELOCATION BENEFITS TO PERSONS DISPLACED TO MAKE WAY FOR THE FOURTH STREET CEDAR AVENUE LOCKETT ROAD ROUNDABOUT PROJECT PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, SEVERABILITY AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU CITY CLERK. I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2022-13.

SECOND.

SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE-ONE.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE ARE DOWN TO OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS, BUT BEFORE THAT, WE WILL BE TAKING A 15 MINUTE BREAK AND GET A LITTLE PIT STOP FOR EVERYONE AND APPRECIATE HOW EFFICIENT WE'RE MAKING THIS MEETING, EVERYONE.

SO THANK YOU. YEAH.

05:05. SO 20 MINUTES.

5:05. GOOD TO GO.

EXCELLENT. WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 12 B, LONE TREE OVERPASS PROJECT INTERSECTION AND CONNECTOR ROADWAY UPDATE.

[B. Lone Tree Overpass Project - Intersection and Connector Roadway Update STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present an intersection design update to City Council for the Lone Tree Overpass Project and facilitate discussion. Staff is seeking direction on finalizing the intersection design. Staff will also present an update on the Elden Connector Road concept. ]

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M CHRISTIN CAMERON. I'M PROJECT MANAGER WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

SO TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE LONE TREE AND BUTLER INTERSECTION, THE FIVE A AND FIVE B THAT WE WERE SENT AWAY WITH IN JANUARY IN COMPARISON TO A STANDARD DESIGN.

SO OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, WE WENT BACK THROUGH THE ADJUSTMENT AND THE MODELING WITH METRO PLAN TO SHIFT BACK TRAFFIC BACK TO SAN FRANCISCO, BEAVER STREET, PONDEROSA PARKWAY AND MILTON ROAD TO BETTER BALANCE THAT TRAFFIC OVERALL AND BRING THOSE VOLUMES DOWN TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH OUR INTERSECTION.

EVEN WITH THE REWORK, WE COULD NOT MAKE FIVE A AND FIVE B COMPLY TO CITY CODE AND THAT'S WHAT THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES REGARDING LEVEL OF SERVICE.

AND THAT'S FOR 2026, THE OPENING YEAR.

OUR NEXT STEP IS TO GET A FORMAL REVIEW WITH ADOT ON COUNCIL'S PREFERRED OPTION.

SO TONIGHT WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION ON ON THIS PREFERENCE.

DEPENDING ON HOW ADOT RESPONDS, WE MAY NOT HAVE A VIABLE PATH TOWARDS WITH THE SMALLER INTERSECTION.

SO WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT BACKUP OPTIONS TONIGHT ALSO.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO REVIEW THE ELDON ROAD ELDON LOOP ROAD CONCEPT, HOW THAT'S BEEN TAKEN TO A UTILITY CORRIDOR AND A FUTS CORRIDOR AND ALSO REVIEW SOME INTERSECTION SAFETY ITEMS. SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JASON CARLAFTES WITH WSP AND HIS TEAM TO TAKE IT AWAY.

THANK YOU, CHRISTINE.

MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE BACK HERE IN FRONT OF YOU ALL THIS EVENING TO PROVIDE THIS UPDATE ON OUR INTERSECTION REANALYSIS THAT WAS REQUESTED BACK IN JANUARY.

WE HAVE TAKEN YOUR REQUEST AND REANALYZED SOME OF THE MODELS THAT WE DID WORK WITH METRO PLAN ON AND REEVALUATE SOME INTERSECTION TYPES.

AND WE ALSO HAVE TWO INTERSECTION TYPES THAT ARE MODIFIABLE.

SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR INTERSECTIONS THAT WILL BE PRESENTING TONIGHT.

[01:45:03]

I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT OUR MODELING APPROACH.

BUT IF WE NEED TO GO MORE IN DEPTH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

THEN WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT.

UPDATES I DON'T HAVE HERE ON THE SUMMARY SLIDE, BUT WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE THAT WE SPOKE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IN JANUARY, AS WELL AS THE CORRIDOR AND FUTS TRAIL POTENTIAL REPLACEMENT AND THE PATHWAYS REPLACEMENT, AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO THE INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES THEMSELVES.

WITH ME TONIGHT, I ALSO DO HAVE SCOTT BECK AND JOE VASKOVIC, WHO HAVE BEEN ON LINE IN THE PAST, ARE HERE WITH ME TONIGHT.

[INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION ON LINE AS WELL TO HELP SUPPORT THIS PRESENTATION.

SO BEGINNING WITH THE NETWORK MODELS, JUST GETTING BRIEFLY INTO THESE MODELING, THIS WAS A REQUEST BACK IN JANUARY TO REEVALUATE WITH THE SMALLER INTERSECTIONS, RECOGNIZING THAT IF YOU DO HAVE A BREAKDOWN, TRAFFIC WOULD NATURALLY ADJUST TO OTHER ROUTES AND CORRIDORS THROUGH DOWNTOWN AND FLAGSTAFF AND OTHER OTHER AREAS.

SO WE COULD GO BACK AND WORKING WITH METRO PLAN, LOOK TO REEVALUATE WHERE THAT TRAFFIC WOULD GO AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT OUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS.

SO WE'LL GO THROUGH WHAT WE CALL A SIX LANE AND A FOUR LANE MODEL.

I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT LONE TREE IS NOT ITSELF EVER PLANNED TO BE A SIX LANE ROADWAY.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A FOUR LANE ROADWAY.

IT'S JUST THE WAY WE MODELED IT BASED ON INTERSECTION CAPACITY.

SO THE ROADWAY ITSELF IS A FOUR LANE MODEL, BUT BECAUSE INTERSECTION CAN ITSELF PROVIDE CAPACITY THROUGH TURN LANE STORAGE IN THE MODEL ITSELF, WE DID MODEL IT AS A SIX LANE MODEL FOR THE ORIGINAL STANDARD APPROACH THAT WE INITIALLY PRESENTED TO YOU BACK IN JANUARY AND BACK IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

WE ALSO DID WORK WITH JEFF BAUMAN TO REEVALUATE THE PEAK HOUR MODELING BASED ON UPDATED TRAFFIC NUMBERS THAT HE PROVIDED US.

JUST TO HELP CLARIFY THAT DISCUSSION OF WHAT WE'RE DEFINING AS PEAK HOUR.

WE'VE BEEN CALLING IT PEAK HOUR, BUT WE HAVE UPDATED NUMBERS TO PRESENT WHAT THE PEAK HOUR DISTRIBUTION LOOKS LIKE THROUGHOUT A TYPICAL WORKDAY THROUGH CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

SO WE'LL GET INTO THAT BRIEFLY.

SO SIX LANE MODEL, THIS WAS OUR ORIGINAL PRESENTATION BACK IN OCTOBER AND WHAT WE USED IN JANUARY.

THIS IS IF WE BUILD OUT MEET THE CITY'S ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR THE INTERSECTIONS.

THIS IS THE DOUBLE LEFT RIGHT TURN LANES.

THIS IS WHAT WE USE FOR THE SIX LANE MODEL.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE THE EXTRA CAPACITY OF THE INTERSECTIONS THAT STORES ADDITIONAL VEHICLES AS IT COMES DOWN LONE TREE.

SO THERE'S ENOUGH TRAFFIC TO QUEUE UP AND IT JUST HAS ADDITIONAL STORAGE LENGTH TO ALLOW IT TO BEHAVE AS A BIGGER ROADWAY NETWORK.

AS WE'VE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, THE BIGGEST SHIFTS IN 2026 THAT WE'RE SHOWING NOW IS THAT TRAFFIC TENDS TO NATURALLY SHIFT FROM THE MILTON ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR OVER TO BUTLER AND LONE TREE.

YOU ALSO GET A BIGGER SHIFT DOWN FROM LONE TREE FROM THE SOUTH SIDE AS WELL.

SO TRAFFIC MOVING SOUTHWEST TO THE NORTHEAST WILL WANT TO TAKE BUTLER UP TO LONE TREE AND THEN OVER EAST ON ROUTE 66, THAT'S SORT OF THE NATURAL PATTERN THAT WE'RE SEEING, PRETTY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION ON SAN FRANCISCO AND BEAVER AS WE'VE SHOWN BEFORE.

MOVING TO 2024.

I'M SORRY. ONE TOO MANY.

YOU STILL SEE THOSE NUMBERS, BUT YOU DO START SEEING MILTON AND BEAVER START TO OR MILTON AND BUTLER START TO NORMALIZE.

BUT BEAVER AND SAN FRANCISCO STILL TEND TO STAY REDUCED TRAFFIC THROUGHOUT.

WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS, AS WE PRESENTED BEFORE, IS LONE TREES PROVIDING A GRADE SEPARATED INTERCHANGE WITH THE BNSF RAILWAY.

YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO QUEUE UP AN IDLE THIS IS GOING TO BE A DESIRABLE ROADWAY.

AS WE POINTED OUT BEFORE, YOU HAVE MILTON, WHICH IS A GREAT SEPARATED ROADWAY.

YOU GOT YOU'LL HAVE LONE TREE AND YOU'LL HAVE FOURTH STREET.

SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO TEND TO AVOID THE TRAIN TRAFFIC AND HAVING TO STALL AND IDLE WHILE TRAINS PASS.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A NATURAL CORRIDOR PEOPLE WANT TO USE.

IT'S ALSO AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY.

IT'S MEANT FOR MORE VEHICLES.

IT'S A HIGHER VOLUME USE ROADWAY.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STICK TO IT.

YOU GET BACK TO A GRID NETWORK.

SO THESE ARE ALL THE INTENTIONS OF THIS ROADWAY THAT WAS PASSED BACK BY VOTERS.

GOING TO A FOUR LANE MODEL.

SO THIS IS GOING TO APPLY TO THE FIVE A THE SMALL INTERSECTION, RECOGNIZING THAT WE WE'VE TAKEN AWAY THE RIGHT TURN LANE AND WE'VE REDUCED THE DOUBLE LEFT'S ON SOME LEGS TO A SINGLE LEFT. WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH CAPACITY AT THE INTERSECTION OF BUTLER AND LONE TREE.

SO GOING BACK TO THE MODEL, WE REDUCE THE SIX LANE MODEL NETWORK LINK BETWEEN ROUTE 66 AND BUTLER TO A FOUR LANE LINK, JUST RECOGNIZING THERE'S LESS CAPACITY.

SO WE WORK METRO PLAN.

WHAT DOES THAT DO? IT SHIFTS TRAFFIC BACK FROM BUTLER AND LONE TREE BACK ONTO MILTON AND ROUTE 66.

SO AS WE EXPECTED, IF YOU SEE BACK UP AT THE INTERSECTION, DRIVERS WILL NATURALLY TEND TO GO BACK TO THE ESTABLISHED ROADWAY NETWORK BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH VOLUME OR CAPACITY THAT YOU CAN TAKE.

SO THE THERE'S A SLIGHT INCREASE ON BEAVER IN SAN FRANCISCO COMPARED TO THE SIX LANE, BUT THERE'S STILL A PRETTY DECENT REDUCTION INSTEAD OF 70%, YOU'RE STILL AT 60% IN THE 2026 YEARS. SO THAT'S STILL GOOD.

[01:50:03]

SO IT'S IT'S MORE OF A BALANCED APPROACH BETWEEN THOSE TWO ROADWAY NETWORKS.

MORE PEOPLE ARE STAYING ON FACILITY VERSUS THE CITIES FACILITY.

SO IN THE 2026 YEAR, BY THE TIME YOU GET TO THE 2040 YEAR, VOLUMES ARE PRETTY WELL BALANCED AT THIS POINT.

AND YOU START TO SEE A SLIGHTLY BIGGER INCREASE ON BEAVER AND SAN FRANCISCO COMPARED TO THE SIX LANE MODEL BECAUSE YOU'RE STARTING TO RUN OUT OF CAPACITY THROUGH THE NETWORK.

SO BEAVER AND SAN FRANCISCO STARTS TO BECOME THE BACKUP.

SO YOU'RE UP YOU'RE STILL HALF THE CAPACITY.

WHAT WE'RE WE'RE PROJECTING WITHOUT THE LONE TREE PROJECT, BUT YOU'RE STARTING TO CLIMB ON THOSE STREETS.

AND AGAIN, JUST BACKING UP THE 2040 VERSUS 2026, THAT'S JUST BASED ON NORMAL PROJECTION GROWTH THAT WE USE AS TRAFFIC ENGINEERS BASED ON REGIONAL GROWTH, COMMERCIAL GROWTH, HOUSEHOLD GROWTH THAT CAUSES INCREASE IN VEHICLE TRIPS.

SO WE DID NOT ACCOUNT.

WE USED METRO PLANS, MODELS.

WE DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR ANY CHANGES IN CITY POLICY FOR TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IN OUR MODELS, EVERYTHING'S BASED ON METRO PLANS.

MODELS IS THE UNDERLYING MODELS FOR FOR THESE EVALUATIONS.

SO THE BIG NETWORK DIFFERENCE IS, IS THE BIG THINGS TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS IS THE LONE TREE DOES REBALANCE THE END STREET NETWORK WHETHER WE'RE USING THE FOUR LANE OR SIX LANE JUST AFFECTS HOW MUCH IT REBALANCES THAT NETWORK.

THERE IS A DESIRE INDICATED BY VEHICLE USERS TO USE LONE TREE AS BIG AS YOU BUILD IT.

WE'LL PROBABLY MAX OUT CAPACITY ON LONE TREE BY TAKING VEHICLES OUT FROM OTHER NETWORK STREET NETWORKS TO AN EXTENT, YOU KNOW, YOU BUILD 12 LANES, NOT GOING TO FILL UP, BUT IF YOU BUILD A BIG ENOUGH ROADWAY THAT CAN TAKE THE CAPACITY, LONE TREE WILL BUILD UP.

AS A REMINDER, THIS NETWORK DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LONE TREE TI WITH I-40.

SO THERE IS A FUTURE PROJECTION THAT MAY EVEN MAKE THIS A MORE DESIRABLE ROUTE, BUT THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS MODEL.

JUST AS A REMINDER, THE SIX LANE MODEL WAS USED FOR THE BUILT OUT INTERSECTION, THE TIA CONCEPT.

SO THAT'S A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CONCEPT THAT WAS WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED BACK IN OCTOBER, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR AND SUBMITTED TO ADOT AS AN INITIAL REVIEW.

IT DID HAVE THE RIGHT TURN LANES AND LONG LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE WERE ABLE TO CALL IT A SIX LANE NETWORK.

IT'S OVER AGAIN, A 0.3 MILE STRETCH OF ROADWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 66 AND LONE TREE.

AND THE FOUR LANE MODEL WITH THE LESS STORAGE LENGTH JUST HAS A LOWER CAPACITY TO TAKE VEHICLES.

AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S SHIFTING ELSEWHERE, BUT WE'RE STILL SEEING SOME GAINS THERE.

SO DEFINITELY BENEFITS FROM HAVING THE LONE TREE PROJECT WITH EITHER MODEL THAT WE PURSUE.

SO DEPENDING ON THE DECISION TONIGHT, AS IF IF WE GO BACK AND REVISIT THE TIA, WE'D SELECT THE APPROPRIATE MODEL AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT WITH OUR FINAL DECISION.

SO WE DID TAKE THESE DIFFERENT MODELS AND WE DID APPLY THEM TO THE APPROPRIATE INTERSECTION DECISIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE COMING UP.

AND THE UPDATED INTERSECTION NUMBERS ARE BASED ON THE MODEL THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTERSECTION TYPE.

I'M GOING TO PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS CAUSE I KNOW THIS CAME UP.

THIS IS AN UPDATED DISTRIBUTION CHART BASED ON UPDATED TRAFFIC NUMBERS.

YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE IN FLAGSTAFF, WE HAVE A FAIRLY CONSISTENT TRAFFIC NUMBER BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11:00 AND 5:00.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PEAK VOLUME BETWEEN 11:00 AND 1:00.

TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE PEAK VOLUME IN MOST CITIES AND REGIONS BETWEEN 4:00 AND 6:00.

BUT IT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT ALL THE WAY FROM 11:00 TO 5:00.

AND YOU'RE REALLY BETWEEN 7 AND 8% OF TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC FROM ABOUT 9:00 A.M.

TO 7:00 TO 5:00 P.M..

THERE'S NO REAL DROP OFF THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

SO WHEN WE MODEL OUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE AND OUR DELAY TIMES, WE'RE EXPECTING TO SEE WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU FOR NUMBERS THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

THESE ARE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY ANALYZES.

THE NUMBERS WERE PRETTY CONSISTENT THROUGH MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

THERE WAS A CHANGE ON WEEKENDS THAT'S PROBABLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO WEEKEND VISITORS, TOURISTS.

YOU DO GET A LITTLE BIT OF SHIFT IN TIME OF PEAK HOUR, BUT EVEN THOSE NUMBERS WERE FAIRLY TYPICAL AND FAIRLY CONSISTENT WITH MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

BUT FOR OUR ANALYSIS, WE ARE USING THE PEAK HOUR VOLUMES BASED ON THIS GRAPHIC THAT YOU'RE SEEING UP HERE TODAY.

WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE WORST DAY OF THE WORST YEAR OF THE WORST TOURIST DAY THAT YOU GUYS HAVE WHEN SNOW FIRST FALLS OR WHEN THE SKI SLOPES OPEN, JUST TO TRY TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. AND THERE'S LESS THAN 10% VARIABILITY THROUGHOUT THE PEAK DAY, 10:00 TO 6:00.

SO JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, WE DID LOOK AT THAT TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T MISSING SOME OF THE PEAK HOUR DATA.

JEFF WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE US UPDATED NUMBERS AND IT SORT OF MATCHED WHAT WE HAD PRESENTED BEFORE.

IT'S JUST SORT OF A REDISTRIBUTION FROM 4:00 TO 6:00 IS OUR PEAK TO ACTUALLY A MIDDAY PEAK FOR THIS WAS THE LONE/ BUTLER ITSELF AND THE PROJECT AREA.

[01:55:04]

AND THEN JUST THE PROJECT OVERVIEW AGAIN, THE INTERSECTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS BUTLER AND LONE TREE ROUTE 66 AND LONE TREE IS AN ADOT FACILITY.

SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT LESS FLEXIBILITY WITH DECISIONS HERE.

WE DO HAVE TO UNDER ADOT POLICY, MEET SERVICE LEVEL D IN THE OPENING YEAR AND THEN EVEN WITH THE PREVIOUS INTERSECTION WE PRESENTED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THAT'S A DOUBLE LEFT NORTHBOUND, WE ARE ALREADY AT LEVEL SERVICE E WHICH DOES NOT MEET THEIR POLICY BUT BECAUSE THEIR ENTIRE CORRIDOR IS LEVEL SERVICE E, WE'VE HAD PRELIMINARY RESPONSES THAT THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT MEETS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OF THE CORRIDOR.

SO WE HAVE VERY LIMITED FLEXIBILITY ON THE ADOT FACILITY TO MEET THEIR GUIDELINES AND WE WILL BE LOOKING LATER ON IN THE PROJECT [INAUDIBLE]. BUT WE ARE FOCUSED TONIGHT ON LONE TREE AND BUTLER ITSELF.

IT'S JUST WHEN WE HIGHLIGHT THAT AND THE SAFETY FEATURES FOR BOTH INTERSECTIONS AT ROUTE 66 AND AT LONE TREE, THOUGH THIS WILL APPLY AT BOTH INTERSECTIONS. I KNOW YOU HAD A PRESENTATION LAST WEEK ABOUT PROTECTING INTERSECTIONS.

A GREAT VIDEO FROM SAN LUIS OBISPO.

THEY DID A GREAT JOB.

SO THIS IS SORT OF HIGHLIGHTING A LOT OF THE SIMILAR CONCEPTS, JUST SORT OF REFRESHING WHAT WAS PRESENTED LAST WEEK.

PROTECTED INTERSECTION CONCEPT IS A MODERN INTERSECTION DESIGN CONCEPT WITH A FOCUS ON MULTIMODAL SAFETY.

IT'S BASED ON NACTO, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CITY TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS, WHOSE MAIN DRIVING FORCE IS HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE TO USE OUR STREETS SO AS CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS.

AND ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS IS IF WE MAKE THEM FEEL SAFER, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO USE THE STREETS.

SO THAT'S WHERE THIS INTERSECTION AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THIS INTERSECTION, THOSE ARE THE BIG DRIVERS.

SO WE FOCUSED IN ON A CORNER HERE OF WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING.

YOU CAN SORT OF SEE A BLOW UP OF THE INTERSECTION ON THE RIGHT HERE.

I'LL SWITCH TO A LASER REAL QUICK.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.

THIS WOULD APPLY TO ANY CORNER, EITHER INTERSECTION.

SO WE HAVE A CORNER WEDGE STARTING AND I'LL START AT THE TOP LEFT AND WORK DOWN, BUT A CORNER WEDGE AT THE CORNER.

THIS IS A SMALLER RADIUS CORNER THAN YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE ON MOST INTERSECTIONS DESIGNED TO SLOW DOWN PEDESTRIAN VEHICLES.

SO THEY HAVE TO SLOW DOWN TO MAKE THAT RIGHT TURN.

IT IS AN APRON BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY LARGE TRUCKS CANNOT MAKE THAT SAME RADIUS TURN.

SO IT IS A MOUNTABLE APRON FOR LARGER VEHICLES.

NORMALLY YOU WOULD DESIGN INTERSECTION FOR THOSE LARGE TRUCK MOVEMENTS, BUT BY USING THE SURMOUNTABLE CURVE, WE SLOW DOWN PASSENGER VEHICLES WHILE STILL ALLOWING THE TRUCK MOVEMENTS TO MAKE A SAFE TURN BECAUSE THEY CAN MOUNT THIS THIS CURVE IF WARRANTED.

WE HAVE A CORNER ISLAND.

IT'S A VERTICALLY RAISED CURB TO THEN PREVENT THE TRUCKS FROM FURTHER ENCROACHING INTO THE PROTECTED AREA FOR THE FOR THE PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS LITTLE GRAY AREA HERE IS, IT'S THE CORNER ISLAND.

WE HAVE SPOTS FOR PEDESTRIAN QUEUING.

THAT'S WHAT THESE ZONES ARE.

THIS IS FOR THE WALKERS OR USERS, THE NON CYCLIST USERS.

WE HAVE WARNING MARKINGS WHERE CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS CROSS TO LET BOTH KNOW THAT, HEY, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT MULTIMODAL USERS CROSSING THESE INTERSECTIONS, SO YOU MIGHT HAVE A CYCLIST PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE BOTH AWARE OF THAT.

THESE INTERSECTIONS ARE INTENDED TO NOT FORCE CYCLISTS OFF THEIR BICYCLE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE GREAT CONCEPTS OF THIS INTERSECTION.

MOST CYCLISTS ARE TRAINED TO GET OFF THEIR BICYCLE AND WALK, BUT THESE ARE NOT INTENDED TO REQUIRE THAT.

WE HAVE A BIKE QUEUING AREA IN THIS GREEN ZONE.

SO WHERE THEY CAN STAY ON THEIR BIKES AND THEY CROSS DIRECTIONALLY JUST ACTING LIKE THEY WOULD AS IF THEY WERE IN THE STREET.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THESE DIRECTIONAL AREAS AND THESE GREEN CROSSWALKS AND THEN YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF ADDING BICYCLE SIGNALS IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ADVANCED SIGNALIZATION FOR PEDS AND AND BIKES TO CROSS EARLY, ENTER THE SIDEWALK EARLY OR CROSSWALK EARLY AND THEN I ALREADY POINTING OUT THE DIRECTIONAL GUIDANCE.

AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE SETBACKS.

SO YOU HAVE THE STOP BARS BEHIND THE INTERSECTION, THE STAGING AREA.

SO A VEHICLE BACK BEHIND THE STOP BAR CAN SEE PEOPLE IN THESE STAGING AREAS IN FRONT OF THEM BEFORE THEY MAKE THE RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT.

SO THOSE ARE ALL THE SAFETY FEATURES.

IT'S ALL ABOUT AWARENESS HEY, I GOT A CROSSING MEMBER.

YES, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

REALLY QUICK QUESTION, JASON.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION THUS FAR.

WILL CARS BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A RIGHT ON RED? SO THAT'S A DECISION THAT WE HAVEN'T FULLY VETTED YET.

TYPICALLY, WE WOULD LOOK AT A NO RIGHT TURN ON RED.

FOR MOST OF THESE INTERSECTIONS WE HAVE A SHARED THROUGH RIGHT THAT YOU'LL SEE.

SO THERE LIKELY WOULD NOT BE A RIGHT TURN ON RED.

THERE'D BE NO ADVANTAGE TO ALLOWING RIGHT TURN ON RED BECAUSE YOU MIGHT HAVE A THROUGH IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T FULLY VETTED THROUGH.

BUT IF WE HAD DEDICATED, RIGHT, IT'D BE A DECISION, POLICY DECISION WE'D HAVE TO WORK THROUGH.

[02:00:03]

WHEN WE ARE SHOWING ALSO MOTORISTS WAITING ZONE CARS PROBABLY SHOWN BACK HERE A LITTLE BIT, BUT THERE IS TYPICALLY ENOUGH ROOM FOR CAR HERE.

THEY COULD LOOK LEFT WHILE THEY'RE WAITING FOR A SAFE RIGHT TURN.

IF WE WERE TO ALLOW RIGHT TURN ON RED, THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH OF AN OFFSET TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO LOOK LEFT WHILE ALSO BEING FAR BACK ENOUGH TO LOOK FOR THEIR PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN IN THE CROSSWALK BEFORE THEY MAKE A MOVEMENT.

IT'S A SAFE ZONE FOR A CAR TO BE THERE AND NOT BE AN ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU COULD ALLOW A RIGHT TURN ON RED IF YOU HAD ENOUGH OF A SETBACK.

AND SO THERE WE GO.

JUST A REMINDER OF THE CRASH MODIFICATION FACTORS OF SOME OF THE ELEMENTS YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THESE INTERSECTIONS WILL HAVE.

WELL, MOST OF THEM WILL HAVE RAISED MEDIANS.

WE'RE DOING THAT FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE IS TO HELP CONTROL THE LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS, MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE NOT.

IF YOU HAVE A STRIPE MEDIAN, I'M SURE WE'VE ALL SEEN DRIVERS WILL CUT THROUGH THOSE STRIPES AT TIMES.

AND THAT'S A SO IF YOU HAVE RAISED MEADIAN, YOU CAN DETER AND MAKE PEOPLE MAKE SURE THEY'RE MAKING PROPER LEFTS.

IT ALSO IS PART OF OUR ACCESS CONTROL.

WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE MAKING ILLEGAL LEFTS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME QUEUEING CONCERNS THAT THE INTERSECTIONS, IF IT'S A RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT ONLY TYPE INTERSECTION, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE MAKING THOSE ILLEGAL LEFTS INTO THE INTERSECTION.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT RAISED MEDIANS FOR ALL THESE INTERSECTION TYPES.

THESE DO BECOME REFUGE ISLANDS WHEN THEY ARE SIX FEET WIDE.

NOT ALL OF OUR INTERSECTION LEGS WILL HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR A SIX FOOT MEDIAN.

AND I'LL EXPLAIN ON THOSE LEGS WHY WE DIDN'T GO WITH A SIX FOOT, BUT WHERE THEY ARE AVAILABLE OR IF WE COULD LOOK AT IT, I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THE PROS AND CONS ARE AS WE GO THROUGH. WITH THE PROTECTED INTERSECTION WE'LL AT THE INTERSECTION WE'LL HAVE SEPARATED BICYCLE PATHS AND I'LL TRY TO WALK THROUGH WHERE WE WALK THEM BACK ONTO THE STREET, AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.

HIGH VISIBILITY COLORED CROSSWALKS HAVE CRASH REDUCTION.

SO THAT'S THE GREEN STRIPES FOR BICYCLISTS.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE LATTER CROSSWALKS FOR PEDESTRIANS.

INSTEAD OF JUST THE TWO BARS THAT YOU WOULD SEE ON THE OLD STYLE, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE VERTICAL STRIPES [INAUDIBLE] YOU JUST MAKE HIGHER VISIBILITY FOR VEHICLES.

AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL.

THIS IS TO GET USERS INTO THE INTERSECTIONS AGAIN, INCREASING AWARENESS BEFORE VEHICLES CAN GO.

THIS DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON VEHICLE TIMING AND THE SIGNAL.

SO IT DOES HAVE A DEGRADATION TO FROM A VEHICLE PERSPECTIVE INTO THE INTERSECTION, BUT IT HAS A BENEFIT TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.

SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO BE AWARE OF [INAUDIBLE].

GOING BACK WE TALKED ABOUT THE PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS BACK IN JANUARY, JUST SORT OF CLOSED THAT LOOP.

AND THIS FELL INTO THE BUFFERS.

WE DID LOOK AT IT AND WE DO HAVE SOME ROOM AND AVAILABLE RIGHT AWAY.

THIS WILL BE ON THE WEST SIDE.

WE DON'T HAVE ROOM ON THE EAST SIDE FOR A PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS, BUT WE DID LOOK AT ADA REQUIREMENTS.

WE HAVE RAMP GRADES, RIGHT ABOUT UNDER 7% TO MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS.

SO THE APPROACH SPANS WHICH ARE IN BLUE OR ABOUT 300 FOOT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COMBINATION OF RAMPS AND LANDINGS TO MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS AND PRO REQUIREMENTS DEPENDING ON WHICH CODE WE FOLLOW.

THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR THOUGH.

WE DID USE SORT OF A STINK PATTERN TO MINIMIZE OUR FOOTPRINTS.

WE DO WE WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL PARCEL TAKE POTENTIALLY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

THIS IS WHAT A CONCEPT MIGHT LOOK LIKE FOR A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO GET ENOUGH VERTICAL CLEARANCE OVER BUTLER.

WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 150 FOOT STEEL TRUSS SPAN.

THOSE ARE USUALLY THE MOST COST EFFICIENT TYPE SPANS.

SO WE LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT WAS EFFICIENT.

SO THIS APPROACH MINIMIZED RIGHT AWAY IMPACTS.

LIKE I SAID, THERE IS ONE POTENTIAL PARCEL.

THE BIGGEST ITEM I WANT TO POINT OUT AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OUR OUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT YOU ARE INCREASING THE CROSSING LENGTH.

WE'RE GOING FROM A CROSSING OF BETWEEN 70 AND 90 FEET TO A CROSSING LENGTH OF 760 FEET.

SO A USER USING A BRIDGE GOES FROM 26 SECONDS TO THREE AND A HALF MINUTES AT A NORMAL WALKING SPEED.

SO WHERE WE SEE BENEFITS TO BRIDGES IS IF YOU HAVE A HIGH USER COUNT NEXT TO SCHOOLS OR IF YOU HAVE AN IMPASSABLE CROSSING FREEWAYS OR REALLY, REALLY HIGH VOLUME ROADWAYS OR MID-BLOCK OR SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A NATURAL BREAK.

ESTIMATED COST OF A BRIDGE LIKE THIS IS AROUND TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.

PLANNING LEVEL COSTS ARE GOING UP, AS EVERYONE KNOWS TOO, OUR ENGINEERING OPINION IS PROBABLY NOT VIABLE FOR THIS LOCATION.

WE DID LOOK AT TUNNELING TOO BASED ON OUR BORING EXPLORATIONS WHICH ARE NOW COMPLETE.

WE HAVE BEDROCK IN THE AREA 3 TO 5 FEET BELOW GROUND.

SO AND IT'S GRANITE OR BASALT, SORRY, IT'S BASALT, WHICH IS A VERY HARD ROCK.

SO GOING UNDER IS NOT IT CAN BE DONE, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE.

THIS IS VERY TOUGH. BASALT AND GOING DOWN 12 TO 15 FEET, GETTING WIDE ENOUGH IS GOING TO BE A VERY EXPENSIVE AND NOT TECHNICALLY CHALLENGING, BUT VERY TOUGH

[02:05:06]

AND YOU'RE PROBABLY SHUTTING BUTLER DOWN FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

SO I JUST WANT TO SORT OF CLOSE THE LOOP ON ON THOSE ITEMS. HAPPY TO DISCUSS FURTHER IF THERE'S QUESTIONS.

AND I KNOW LAST TIME WHEN WE MET TWO WEEKS AGO, WE TALKED ABOUT REMOVING THE OLD CORRIDOR AND THEN REPLACING IT WITH A FOOT'S TRAIL CONNECTION.

WE DID GO BACK THROUGH THE ATMP.

THERE IS A IDENTIFIED FOOT TRAIL EXTENSION EVENTUALLY TO COME THROUGH THE PROJECT AREA.

THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE RAIL TRAIL BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO TO BUTLER AVENUE THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.

YOU COULD SEE SOME CONNECTIONS DASHED IN ORANGE AS WELL.

THIS IS ACTUALLY LONE TREE FOOTS TRAIL THAT YOU SEE ON FOLLOWING OUR ALIGNMENT.

SO THERE IS A FUTURE FOOTS TRAIL COMING THROUGH JUST ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RIO DE FLAG PROJECT OUTSIDE OF THE CORE RIGHT OF WAY.

WE ALSO HAVE AND IT'S IDENTIFIED RIGHT NOW IS A TEN FOOT WIDE AGGREGATE PATH.

SO IT'S NOT A DEDICATED BICYCLE WAY.

THE BLUE LINES YOU'RE SEEING HERE ARE IDENTIFIED BICYCLE PATHWAYS.

YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFLICT WITH LONE TREE WHERE IT CROSSES.

SO THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME RECONFIGURATION.

THESE PLANNED ROUTES ONCE LITTLE LONE TREES IN.

TO THE RIGHT. WE DO HAVE ONE OF THE CONCEPTS OF THE SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY PLAN.

YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE THE SAME FOOTS TRAIL CONCEPT ALONG RIO DE FLAG AND THEN THEY HAVE SOME PATHWAY CONCEPTS COMING THROUGH HERE.

DIFFERENT PATHWAY LAYOUTS BASED ON THEIR TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS SHOWN ON THEIR PLAN.

WE DID LAY OUT PARCEL LINES.

SO WE'VE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY LOOKS AT WHAT MIGHT FIT WITH OUR PARCEL LINES OR IMPACTED OWNERS COMING THROUGH HERE.

WE DO HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS WE HAVE TO WORK IN UTILITY CORRIDORS, ITEMS LIKE THAT.

SO WE ARE DOING AN INITIAL CONCEPT EVALUATION BASED ON OUR FEEDBACK FROM TWO WEEKS AGO.

WE HAVE ABOUT A 15 FOOT CORRIDOR BETWEEN THESE TWO PARCELS.

THIS OWNER WAS INITIALLY IMPACTED BY THE CORRIDOR.

IF YOU REMEMBER, THE CORRIDOR ENDED AT BRENNAN RIGHT HERE AND CAME UP AND THEN PASS UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE.

SORT OF ALONG THIS ALIGNMENT.

IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING MY CURSOR, WE HAVE AN AVAILABLE 15 FOOT CORRIDOR BETWEEN THESE TWO PARCELS THAT WOULD MAKE A GOOD FIT FOR A POTENTIAL TRAIL PATH AND UTILITY CORRIDOR. WE COMBINE THE TWO AND MAKE THEM ONE CORRIDOR AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER PARCEL BASED ON THE OLD ALIGNMENT OF THE PARAMOUNT SPUR LINE, WHICH IS BEING REMOVED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. TO EITHER COME UP BACK NORTHWEST AND EVENTUALLY CONNECT SOMEWHERE IN THE SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY PLAN OR CONTINUE EAST TO THE RETAINING WALLS OF THE LONE TREE OVERPASS AND FOLLOW ALONG AND THEN MAKE AN EAST WEST CONNECTION.

SO THERE'S SOME OPTIONS WE'RE STARTING TO EXPLORE WORKING WITH THE CITY ON IDENTIFYING PREFERENCES.

I BELIEVE THERE'S ONLY ONE UTILITY OWNER THAT WE'RE STRUGGLING TO GET A UTILITY CONNECTION TO.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO REEVALUATE WITH THIS CHANGE WHAT THAT UTILITY CORRIDOR MIGHT NEED TO BE AND WHAT TO LOOK FOR.

WE ARE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH UTILITY COMPANIES RIGHT NOW.

SO THIS CHANGE OF CONCEPT, WE HAVE TO GO BACK IN AND DISCUSS SOME OPTIONS WITH UTILITY COMPANIES.

ON THE EAST SIDE WHERE WE EVENTUALLY COME BACK AND CONNECT BACK TO BUTLER IS ALSO BEING DISCUSSED, CONNECTING INTO LUMBER THERE'S NO CROSSING AT BUTLER THERE, SO WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES A GOOD CONCEPT OR DO WE KEEP GOING EAST TO SAWMILL WHERE THERE'S A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION.

BUT WHERE DO WE IF PEOPLE ARE USING THIS PATH, WHERE DO WE END THAT ROUTE? BECAUSE THERE'S NO GOOD EAST SIDE CONNECTION YET THIS PATHWAY EVENTUALLY EXTENDS TO WHERE THE RIO DE FLAG GOES UNDERNEATH BUTLER ON THE EAST SIDE, WAY OUTSIDE OUR PROJECT LIMITS.

SO THERE'S THERE'S THINGS WE'RE TALKING INTERNALLY WITH THE CITY ENGINEERING AND WITH CHRISTINE TO WHERE THIS WILL ULTIMATELY END.

THAT'S SORT OF A CONCEPT OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED ON THIS PATH.

BUT I THINK WE HAVE SOME VIABLE CORRIDOR ROUTES THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES.

ALL RIGHT. INTERSECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES.

SO I'LL BE SHOWING FIVE ALTERNATIVES.

SO WE WERE ASKED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT FOUR.

I'M GOING TO START WITH THE STANDARD APPROACHES, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPROACH THAT WE ORIGINALLY PRESENTED BACK IN OCTOBER.

SO I WANT TO RESET THE STAGE OF WHERE WE FIRST STARTED FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, JUST TO SORT OF SET THE STAGE AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO THE 5A, 5B AND THE 5C, AND 5D, WHICH WERE MODIFIABLE INTERSECTION TYPES.

SO JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHERE WE STARTED WITH THE STANDARD APPROACH IS THE BACK OF THE SIX LANE MODEL.

WE HAD DOUBLE LEFTS ON THE EAST AND NORTH LEGS AND THEN RIGHT TURNS ON ALL FOUR LEGS.

THIS WAS THE LARGEST INTERSECTION WHEN WE FIRST MET WITH EVERYBODY.

YOU COULD SEE THE INTERSECTION, LEG LENGTHS AND THE TIMING FOR A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FOR EACH LEG.

[02:10:03]

AND JUST TO ORIENT YOU WHAT'S OUT THERE TODAY.

THE WEST LEG OF BUTTLER AND LONE TREE IS 90 FEET.

SO THAT ROUGHLY MATCHES THE NORTH AND SOUTH LEGS OF THIS APPROACH.

AND THEN COLORADO ON THE NORTH WAS 50 FEET.

BUTLER WAS 81 FEET ON THE EAST LAKE, AND LONE TREE WAS 66.

SO GENERALLY WE'RE BIGGER.

BUT THE LONGEST INTERSECTION IS APPROXIMATELY WHAT'S OUT THERE ON THE WEST LAKE TODAY.

JUST TO GIVE A FRAME OF REFERENCE.

AGAIN, THIS WAS BASED ON VOLUMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE GET OF WHEN DO YOU GO LEFT OR WHEN DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT BASED ON TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES.

THAT WAS SORT OF THE BASIS OF HOW WE ENDED UP AT THIS INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION.

SO DESIGN FEATURES.

OUR LONGEST PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WAS 92 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LAKE, SO THAT'S ACROSS BUTLER ON THE NORTH SIDE.

THE CROSSING TIME BASED ON THE MUTCD SO THAT'S THE MANUAL FOR UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL THAT'S A NATIONALLY PUBLISHED CODE, WAS 26 SECONDS THE LONGEST TIME FOR A BIKE TO CROSS AND THE PROTECTED INTERSECTION WAS JUST OVER 5 SECONDS AND THE AVAILABLE GREEN TIME WAS 22.6 SECONDS.

SO THERE'S SOME REBALANCING WE HAVE TO DO TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH GREEN TIME FOR THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TIME.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE'D WORK THROUGH IN FINAL DESIGN.

FOR SLOWER CROSSING PEDESTRIANS.

IF YOU EXTEND WHAT THE MUTCD SUGGESTS, WE'D HAVE A CROSSING TIME OF ABOUT 32.8 SECONDS.

SO WE'VE HAD FEATURES WE'VE IDENTIFIED BEFORE, EXTENDED PUSH TO CROSS.

THAT COULD BE SOMETHING YOU COULD BUILD INTO THIS INTERSECTION.

SO IF THERE IS A SLOWER CROSSER, THEY CAN HOLD THE CROSSING BUTTON DOWN LONGER.

IT TRIPS THE SIGNAL THAT KNOWS I HAVE A SLOWER CROSSER.

THEY NEED TO HAVE AN EXTENDED PUSH TIME.

THE STANDARD APPROACH PROVIDES A LEVEL OF SERVICE D.

THIS IS THE WAY TRAFFIC ENGINEERS MODEL THE INTERSECTION BASED ON VEHICLE DELAYS.

THAT'S THE BIGGEST DRIVER IN THIS GRADE.

AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY IS 46.9 SECONDS AND THE LONGEST QUEUE IS IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION.

SO EXTENDING WEST OF THE INTERSECTION FACING EAST, THAT'S ABOUT 600 FEET.

WE HAVE THE FUEL USED IN VEHICLE DELAY HOURS HERE FOR INFORMATION THAT'S OVER A TYPICAL DAY.

AND WE ALSO PROVIDE THE 2040 P.M.

PEAK HOURS. SO YOU WILL SEE LEVEL SERVICES E LEVEL SERVICE E DOES GO BELOW WHAT THE CITY OF STANDARD CITY CODE IS, WHICH IS LEVEL SERVICE D FOR ALL INTERSECTIONS IN BOTH THE OPENING YEAR AND P AND THE HORIZON YEAR.

WE RAN THE [INAUDIBLE] WITH ADOT.

AS I DESCRIBED, THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR IS EXPECTED TO BE BELOW LEVEL SERVICE D AT THAT POINT.

SO IT'S IT'S TYPICALLY ACCEPTED THAT IF WE'RE MATCHING THE CORRIDOR, IT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE.

IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORK OUT IN FINAL DESIGN.

SO EVEN WITH THIS APPROACH, WE'RE NOT MEETING LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THE HORIZON YEAR 2040.

VEHICLE DELAY AT THAT POINT GOES TO 70.7 SECONDS AND YOUR LONGEST QUEUE GOES FROM 600 TO 770 FEET AGAIN IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION.

SO YOU START [INAUDIBLE] YOU START CREEPING UP.

DIAGRAM OF THE 2026 QUEUES YOU CAN SEE UP AT LONE TREE, WE'RE BACKING UP TO ALMOST ABOUT WHERE THE BRIDGE STARTS, WHERE THE IF YOU KNOW THE AREA, IT'S WHERE THE AC MATERIALS PLANT IS MORE OR LESS THE NORTH.

SO THE WEST, WE'RE OVER NEAR O'LEARY STREET.

NORTHBOUND IN EAST AND WEST BOUNDS.

NOT VERY LONG QUEUES AT ALL.

SO THE SMALL FOOTPRINT, WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE'VE TAKEN OUT THE DOUBLE LEFTS EVERYWHERE AND THEN WE HAVE A SHARED THROUGH RIGHT AT ALL FOUR LEGS.

SO THIS IS THE SMALLEST CROSSING DISTANCES FOR THE PEDESTRIANS ON ALL FOUR LEGS.

YOU CAN SEE WE'RE DOWN 67, 68 FEET AND ALL FOUR LEGS AND CROSSING TIMES HAVE GONE FROM 26, 27 SECONDS DOWN TO ABOUT 20 SECONDS.

SO SHORTER TIMES TO CROSS.

WE DID PUT RAISED MEDIANS ON ALL FOUR LEGS AND THEY ARE ALL REFUGE ISLANDS FOR THIS FOR THIS CONCEPT.

SO THAT THAT HAS A BENEFIT.

IF SOMEONE DOES START ENTERING THESE CROSSWALKS MID TIME AND CAN'T GET ALL THE WAY ACROSS THEY DO HAVE A SAFE REFUGE AREA [INAUDIBLE].

FOR THE SMALL FOOTPRINT AGAIN, 68 FOOT IS THE LONGEST DISTANCE, CROSSING TIME JUST UNDER 20 SECONDS, BIKES 4 SECONDS.

AVAILABLE GREEN TIME IS ABOUT 20 SECONDS FOR THE BEST BALANCE AND THAT'S THE EASTBOUND WESTBOUND MOVEMENT.

AND THEN IF WE GO FOR A SLOWER PEDESTRIAN THEIR CROSSING TIME IS ABOUT 24 SECONDS.

SO AGAIN, THERE'S SOME FINAL DESIGN BALANCING THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO FOR AVAILABLE GREEN TIME OR YOU GO WITH THE EXTENDED PUSH TO CROSS.

BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, YOU CAN SEE WE'RE AT OPENING YEAR, WE'RE LEVEL SERVICE E, SO NOT MEETING CITY CODE STANDARDS.

[02:15:03]

WE DO HAVE AVERAGE DELAYS ABOUT 120 FEET IN THE 2040, AND THEN 2040 AND OUR QUEUE HAS NOW GONE TO ALMOST 2000 FEET OR QUEUING ALL THE WAY BACK TO BEAVER IN SAN FRANCISCO.

WE ALSO HAVE QUEUING SOUTHBOUND OF ABOUT 1900 FEET.

SO IT'S BACKING UP ONTO ADOTS FACILITIES.

SO ADOT HAS TOLD US THAT IF IF WE DO PROCEED WITH THIS AND THE REVISED TIA, WE'D HAVE TO EVALUATE MITIGATION MEASURES AND THAT MAY HAVE TO BE ADDED LANES.

THAT'S THEIR MITIGATION MEASURE.

SO THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ADOT WOULD PUT BACK ON IF WE WERE TO SUBMIT THIS CONCEPT TO THEM AS PART OF THE TIA, BECAUSE IT IS IMPACTING THEIR FACILITIES BASED ON THE SOUTHBOUND QUEUING TO THE NORTH LEG.

THERE'S A SLIGHT UPTICK IN FUEL USED DUE TO ADDITIONAL DELAYING AT THE INTERSECTION BECAUSE YOU'RE SITTING THERE IDLING A LONGER TERM.

AS WE PRESENTED BEFORE IN OLDER PRESENTATIONS, THE FUEL USED OVERALL DOES DECREASE OVER TIME AS FUELS, AS FUEL GETS MORE EFFICIENT CARS AND WE GET THE IDLING EQUIPMENT AND STUFF.

BUT THESE ARE BASED ON DELAYS GOING UP SIGNIFICANTLY.

SO THIS IS BASED ON OUR SYNCHRO ANALYSIS, OUR MORE RIGOROUS ANALYSIS TO SHOW A SHARPER DROP OFF THAN WHAT YOU'LL SEE HERE WITH WITH SYNCHRO AND SOME TRAFFIC.

SO THIS IS BASED ON SYNCHRONOUS TRAFFIC, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE AS MUCH OF THAT FUEL EFFICIENCY BUILT IN.

HERE'S THE 2026 QUEUES YOU SEE, WE'RE QUEUING UP PAST O'LEARY AND WE'RE NORTH OF THE LONE TREE OR NORTH OF THE [INAUDIBLE] MATERIALS PLANT FOR THE 2026 YEAR. AGAIN 2040 THAT'S WHERE WE SEE THE QUEUES REALLY START TAKING OFF AND THIS WILL EXTEND UP INTO ROUTE 66 AND ON THE WEST SIDE, BACK INTO SAN FRANCISCO BEAVER, ABOUT MID-BLOCK BETWEEN THOSE TWO STREETS.

FOR THE MODERATE FOOTPRINT IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING IT.

WE DID PUT BACK IN THE DOUBLE LEFT SOUTHBOUND AND WESTBOUND TO TRY TO RELIEVE SOME OF THAT QUEUING.

THOSE WERE OUR TWO HEAVIEST MOVEMENTS.

WE'RE STILL HAVING THE SHARED THROUGH AND RIGHTS THOUGH.

SO THERE'S SORT OF A BALANCE BETWEEN THE SMALL FOOTPRINT AND THE TIA OR STANDARD APPROACH.

AND WE STILL DO HAVE RAISED MEDIANS ON ALL FOUR LEGS, BUT WE ONLY HAVE REFUGE ISLANDS ON THE SOUTH LAKE AND WEST LAKE AND NORTH LAKE.

SORRY WE DO HAVE A NORTH LAKE. WE COULD NOT GET A REFUGE ISLAND TO FIT ON THE EAST LAKE WITHOUT IMPACTING THE EXISTING PARCEL.

THIS IS A GUN RANGE PROPERTY.

IF WE PUSH THIS TO SIX FEET, WE LOSE DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY AND IT BECOMES A POTENTIAL TAKE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T SHOW A SIX FOOT LANE HERE, OUR SIX FOOT REFUGE, I'M SORRY.

LONGEST CROSSING DISTANCE GOES TO 79 FEET IN THIS CONCEPT.

WITH A CROSSING TIME OF 2020, 22.6 SECONDS.

BIKE CROSSING TIMES ABOUT 4.3 SECONDS.

AVAILABLE GREEN TIMING AND THESE BALANCE YOU'LL SEE THESE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE AS WE MODIFY THE INTERSECTIONS AND HOW WE GET THOSE VOLUMES THROUGH, THEY VARY BY WHAT'S OPTIMAL WITH WHAT WE USE FOR BALANCE THE INTERSECTION SYNCHRO SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THESE VARY WE CAN WE CAN ADJUST THESE AS WE DO FINAL DESIGN.

THEN FOR SLOWER CROSSING PEDESTRIANS ABOUT 28.2 SECONDS.

FOR THIS INTERSECTION AGAIN, WE HAVE A LEVEL SERVICE E NOT MEETING CITY CODE IN 2026 LONGEST QUEUE IS 500, 2040 P.M. PEAK WE GOT A LEVEL SERVICE F WE ARE SHOWING LONGER VEHICLE DELAY OF 1:45.7.

WE DO HAVE A QUEUE WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT LONGER IN THE SMALL INTERSECTION ON THE WESTBOUND SIDE, AGAIN, BACK TO BEAVER STREET AND SAN FRANCISCO.

BUT IN THE SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION, WE'RE ONLY QUEUEING 1100 FEET.

SO WE'RE ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY THROUGH THE BRIDGE, BUT WE'RE NOT INTO ADOT INTERSECTION.

SO THIS COULD POSSIBLY WORK WITH ADOT AND WE PRESENTED THIS INFORMATION TO THEM.

THEY DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THIS, WHICH I'LL ADDRESS LATER IN ANOTHER SLIDE.

BUT THIS POTENTIALLY DOES WORK IN ADOT FACILITIES, SO IT TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT BACK UP INTO THEIR FACILITIES.

IT IS GETTING CLOSE BOTH ON MILTON AND INTO ROUTE 66, BUT DOES NOT BACK UP.

YOU CAN SEE THE QUEUES HERE ARE BETTER IN 2026 OVERALL COMPARED TO THE 5A NOT QUITE MAKING IT TO O'LEARY.

SO I'VE GOT WINDSOR AND YOU CAN SEE NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND ARE PRETTY REASONABLE.

5C, THIS IS A MODIFIABLE.

SO WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE IS IT'S BASICALLY A 5A INTERSECTION, BUT BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE A 5B INTERSECTION IN THE FUTURE.

[02:20:09]

SO THIS CONCEPT IS YOU BUILD TO THE 5B FOOTPRINT, BUT THEN YOU STRIP OUT THE SECONDARY LEFT TURN LANE.

SO IT DOESN'T HELP WITH CROSSING DISTANCES, BUT IT WOULD LET IT BEHAVE.

YOU WOULD HAVE SORT OF A FALSE MEDIAN REFUGE HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A STRIPED OUT LANE.

YOU COULD EVEN PUT IN A REFUGE ISLAND HERE IF YOU WANTED TO TEMPORARILY AND RIP IT OUT IN THE FUTURE.

HAVE A WIDER MEETING HERE AS WELL.

RIP IT OUT IN THE FUTURE IF YOU WANTED TO.

FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IT'S GOING TO ACT FOR LEVEL SERVICE QUEUEING SIMILAR TO THE 5A INTERSECTION.

BUT THIS IS AN APPROACH TO BUILD TO WHAT YOU NEED NOW, BUT TO LET IT BEHAVE LIKE THE 5A INTERSECTIONS, THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, QUEUING DELAYS THAT'S ALL GOING TO BEHAVE LIKE WHAT WE PRESENTED IN THE 5A.

A SECOND OPTION, WHICH I THINK IS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BETTER APPROACH, IS YOU BUILD OUT THE CURVES TO THE ULTIMATE CONDITION OUTSIDE THE INTERSECTION AND THEN USE CURVE BUMP OUTS TO SHORTEN THE CROSSING DISTANCE.

AND THEY'RE MODIFIABLE.

YOU SEE THESE DASHED LINES.

THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD MODIFY IT TO IN THE FUTURE AND BRING THE CURB BACK TO THE TO THE 5B CONCEPT IN THE FUTURE.

THIS LETS YOU GET A MINIMAL FOR WHAT WE CALL THROWAWAY IN THE FUTURE.

SO IT BEHAVES IN THE NEAR TERM AS A 5A BUT LETS YOU HAVE MINIMAL WASTE FOR THE 5B RETROFIT IN THE FUTURE BY ONLY REMOVING CURB.

SO WE'D SET THE SIGNALS AND THE POLES BACK AND THE FUTURE CONDITION.

AND AS YOU ARE REMOVING CURB AND MAYBE RECONSTRUCTING SOME OF THESE TRUCK APRONS IN THE FUTURE.

SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A COST NEED IN THE FUTURE TO MODIFY IT, BUT IT WOULD BE AN APPROACH.

YOU'RE NOT RECONSTRUCTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF CURB LINE AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.

YOU'RE JUST MODIFYING STUFF AT THE INTERSECTION.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S SOME STRIPE OBLITERATION YOU WOULD NEED ON SOME OF THE LEGS, BUT MOST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE'S IN PLACE.

YOU'RE JUST ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL CURB NOW TO BE REMOVED LATER.

SO THAT'S THE 5D IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING THAT.

WE DID WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT THE DELAY TIMES WERE ON A NETWORK LEVEL.

SO THIS IS THE 2026 NETWORK WE WENT THROUGH WITH ANOTHER PROGRAM CALLED SIM TRAFFIC, AND THIS MODELS THE STREET NETWORK ITSELF.

IT SORT OF RUNS TRAFFIC VIRTUALLY THROUGH ALL THESE INTERSECTIONS LINKED TOGETHER AND CAN PRODUCE DELAY TIMES THROUGHOUT THE NETWORK.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THE BLUE IS OUR STANDARD APPROACH, OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, THE ORANGE IS THE SMALL FOOTPRINT AND THE GREEN IS THE MODERATE FOOTPRINT.

SO 5A AND 5B, THE ONLY INTERSECTION WE'RE CHANGING AGAIN IS BUTLER AND LONE TREE.

THE REST OF THEM STAY THE SAME, BUT THERE'S SOME NETWORK EFFECT WHEN YOU CHANGE THE INTERSECTION OF LONE TREE AND BUTLER, THERE'S SOME SPILLOVER EFFECT TO THE OTHER INTERSECTIONS. YOU CAN SEE A WAY FROM LONE TREE AND BUTLER, THOUGH THE OVERALL IMPACT IS NOT THAT LARGE.

LOOKING AT SAN FRANCISCO, FOR INSTANCE, YOU'RE SEEING ABOUT A 4 SECOND DIFFERENCE AT THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT INTERSECTION.

THE WORST CASE IS ACTUALLY OVER ON MILTON, ABOUT A 6 SECOND DIFFERENCE.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE SHIFTING TRAFFIC AGAIN FROM A SIX LANE MODEL, A FOUR LANE MODEL, YOU'RE PUTTING TRAFFIC BACK ON MILTON AND SO YOU'RE GETTING MORE TRAFFIC.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE DELAYS.

YOU DO HAVE A PRETTY BIG IMPACT ON ROUTE 66 AND LONE TREE, GET ABOUT 6 SECONDS.

THE WORST IMPACT YOU HAVE IS THAT THE INTERSECTION WE'RE LOOKING AT ITSELF WITH A 46 SECOND DELAY USING THE STANDARD APPROACH AND ABOUT A 75 OR 70 SECOND DELAY, DEPENDING ON THE SMALL FOOTPRINT OR MODERATE FOOTPRINT IN 2026.

SO DEPENDING ON IF WE GO 5A OR 5B, THERE'S NOT A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO INTERSECTIONS ON THE OPENING YEAR, BETWEEN THOSE TWO INTERSECTIONS THE DAY WE OPEN.

BUT THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE FROM THE STANDARD APPROACH JUST HOW MANY VEHICLES YOU CAN GET THROUGH THE INTERSECTION FROM AN EFFICIENCY STANDPOINT.

SO YOU SEE THAT GOES FROM 46 TO 75.

OUTSIDE OF THE NETWORK NOT A BIG OVERALL IMPACT, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE SEEING A FAIRLY BIG JUMP FROM 30 SECOND DELAY TIMES ALONG BUTLER TO ABOUT 45 OR 75 SECONDS.

ALTHOUGH ALONG MILTON, YOU'RE BETWEEN 46 AND 50 SECONDS AT THE WORST CASE SIGNALS ALONG MILTON AND ROUTE 66.

2040 YOU START TO SEE LARGER IMPACTS.

YOU DON'T SEE AS MUCH VARIABILITY OR YOU DON'T SEE VARIABILITY OUTSIDE THE NETWORK BECAUSE BY THE TIME YOU HIT 2040, MILTON AND BUTLER HAVE BALANCED EACH OTHER OUT.

YOU DON'T SEE VARIABILITY DEPENDENT ON THE FOUR LANE, FIVE LANE BECAUSE TRAFFIC'S REDISTRIBUTED, YOU'RE STARTING TO MAX OUT BOTH INTERSECTIONS OR BOTH ROADWAY NETWORKS SO YOU DON'T SEE YOU MIGHT GET A SECOND OR TWO DIFFERENCE ALONG THESE INTERSECTIONS.

WITH TIMING IT WASN'T WE DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL COST OF THE ANALYSIS, RECOGNIZING THERE WOULDN'T BE MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE INTERSECTIONS.

[02:25:09]

YOU DO GET A PRETTY BIG DIFFERENCE, THOUGH, BY 2040 IF THE VEHICLE NUMBERS DO PROCEED WITH THAT PROJECTION GOING WITH THE STANDARD APPROACH, 70 SECOND DELAY.

AGAIN, THAT'S A LEVEL OF SERVICE E VERSUS 120 OR 145, WHICH ARE BOTH LEVEL SERVICE F.

ONCE YOU HIT LEVEL SERVICE F, YOU TEND TO GET A PRETTY RAPID BREAKDOWN AT INTERSECTIONS AND THEN AT LONE TREE AND ROUTE 66, AGAIN YOU SEE A PRETTY BIG JUMP OUT 30 SECONDS AT BOTH THE MODERATE FOOTPRINT AND THE STANDARD APPROACH BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT HAVING THAT BACKUP YET, BUT YOU SEE A DOUBLING BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE BACKUP AT THE SMALL FOOTPRINT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN OUR MODELS.

NOW [INAUDIBLE] CLAY, MILTON AND BUTLER IS THE NEXT BIGGEST DELAY INTERSECTION, 82 SECONDS WOULD BE COMPARABLE.

IT'S THE STANDARD APPROACH, AND TWO THIRDS OF EITHER 5A OR 5B THOSE WOULD BE YOUR TWO WORST INTERSECTIONS IN THE 2040 HORIZON YEAR IF EVERYTHING STAYS ON PROJECTION.

SO THAT'S JUST SORT OF A HIGH LEVEL NETWORK EFFECT OF WHAT OUR MODELS ARE SHOWING.

WE DID HAVE AN ADOT MEETING ON APRIL 25TH TO SORT OF DO PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON THESE AND TRY TO GAUGE THEIR FEEDBACK AND RECONFIRM WHAT THEIR INITIAL RESPONSE WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION IN TIA.

SO WE DID PRESENT 5A AND 5B, WE DIDN'T SHOW 5C OR 5D BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CHANGE OPERATIONS, BUT WE DID SHOW 5A AND 5 B.

THEIR CONCERNS WERE THAT COMPARED TO THE TIA, WHICH WE HAD SUBMITTED AS A DRAFT FORM TO THEM, THE STANDARD APPROACH WAS THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT DEGRADATION IN OPERATIONS IN QUEUING BASED ON THE ORIGINAL TIA SUBMITTAL THAT THEY'D SEEN.

THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT SOUTHBOUND QUEUING IN 2040 WITH 5A ESPECIALLY IMPACTING 5B RECOGNIZED GOT CLOSE BUT WAS OUTSIDE THEIR FACILITY.

SO IT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO SHOW THAT THEY DID RECOGNIZE THAT EASTBOUND QUEUING DID BECOME START BECOMING A PROBLEM WITH THESE INTERSECTIONS.

AS WE START SHIFTING OUT TO THE WEST TOWARDS BUTLER, THAT'S NOW TWO INTERSECTIONS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BECOME CONCERNED ABOUT.

THEY DID MAKE THE STATEMENT AS WELL THAT IN THE FUTURE, IF TRAFFIC DOES BECOME AN ISSUE AS WE MAKE THIS INTERSECTION SMALLER, IT GIVES THE CITY LESS FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST TIMING BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE AVAILABLE CAPACITY TO PUT TRAFFIC THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION.

YOU CAN'T RE TIME THIS INTERSECTION.

YOU'RE TRYING THE BEST TO BALANCE YOUR INTERSECTION AS BEST YOU CAN.

AND THERE'S JUST NOT FLEXIBILITY IN THE INTERSECTION TO PRIORITIZE CERTAIN MOVEMENTS BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE JUST MAKING OTHER MOVEMENTS WORSE.

SO BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD TWO LEGS THAT ARE BAD, NOW, YOU'RE TAKING OUT THE CITY'S FLEXIBILITY TO PRIORITIZE MOVEMENTS TO PROTECT ADOT FACILITIES.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THEY SHARED WITH US.

WE ALSO PRESENTED TO MOUNTAIN LION ON MAY 3RD.

I WANTED TO DISCUSS WHAT THEY WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE WITH THESE CONCEPTS WITH REGARDS TO THEIR BUS LINE SERVICE.

THEY EXPRESSED EXCITEMENT TO SEE THE PROJECT MOVE FORWARD.

THEY'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING MORE CONNECTIONS IN THE ROADWAY NETWORK FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE USES.

THEY DO NOT PLAN TO REALIGN ANY ROUTES CURRENTLY ONTO LONE TREE, BUT THEY MAY USE THE CONNECTION IN EMERGENCIES, IF ANOTHER ROUTE DOES GET SHUT DOWN.

FOR SOME REASON IT WOULD BE A BACKUP ROUTE POTENTIALLY FOR FOR MOUNTAIN LION.

THERE ARE FOUR KEY ROUTES THAT WOULD PASS THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION ROUTES 3, 4, 7 AND 14.

THE MOVEMENTS ARE EASTBOUND THROUGH WESTBOUND THROUGH NORTHBOUND LEFT AND EASTBOUND RIGHT.

SO YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE SORT OF SCATTERED DIRECTIONALLY ALL OVER THE PLACE.

SO THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY ONE MOVEMENT WE COULD PRIORITIZE FOR THEM TO MAKE SURE THEIR BUSSES STAY ON SCHEDULE, THEY SORT OF NEED A BALANCED APPROACH AT THIS INTERSECTION FOR THEM FOR THE 2026 YEAR.

THE 5A/ 5B SCENARIOS PRESENT AN AVERAGE 5 SECOND DELAY BETWEEN THE OPTIONS.

SO THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A STRONG OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BETWEEN THE TWO, FOR THE 2026 YEAR.

THEY ARE NOT LOOKING TO RELOCATE STOPS BUT ARE REQUESTING FROM OUR PROJECT TEAM ANY COORDINATION FOR ANY IMPACTS, EXISTING STOPS.

OUR TEAMS ARE AWARE OF THAT AND WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE OUT ON THAT.

AND THEY HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN EXPLORING TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY IN THE FUTURE ALONG THE CORRIDOR.

SO AT A MINIMUM, THEY'VE REQUESTED THAT WE CONSIDER PROVIDING ENOUGH CABINET SPACE FOR FUTURE COMPATIBILITY JUST TO MAKE SURE, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT REBUILDING SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE THAT WE COULD ACCOMMODATE NOW.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING OUR PROJECT TEAM WILL WORK WITH THE CITY ON INCORPORATING.

YOU'VE SEEN THIS SIMILAR PRESENTATION BEFORE.

SO AGAIN, WE HAVE THE FIVE INTERSECTIONS PROTECTED SEPARATED BICYCLE FACILITIES PROVIDING FOR ALL FIVE CONCEPTS.

CROSSING TIMES ARE SHORTEST FOR 5A, SMALL FOOTPRINT THEY GET A LITTLE BIT LESS BENEFICIAL FOR THE MODIFIABLE

[02:30:04]

FROM A GREENHOUSE GAS PERSPECTIVE, THE MOST EFFICIENT IS THE STANDARD, FOLLOWED BY THE MODERATE.

NOT A BIG JUMP BETWEEN THE TWO JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR MOST EFFICIENT GETTING PEOPLE THROUGH THE INTERSECTION.

AND YOU'VE GOT TO DROP OFF ABOUT 20% INCREASE IN 2026 FOR GALLONS USED PREDICTED BY THE MODELING SOFTWARE WE USE.

AND THAT WOULD BE EXCITING TO DECREASE OVER TIME WHEN VEHICLE EFFICIENCY GOES UP.

AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAYS AGAIN, STANDARD IS THE BEST AT 47 SECONDS, FOLLOWED BY THE MODIFIABLE.

JUST SHOW THEM MODIFIABLE HERE ACTUALLY, IT WAS MODERATE.

I'M SORRY. MODERATE. MODERATE FOOTPRINT IS 70.9 AND ABOUT AN INCREASE OF 5 ADDITIONAL SECONDS AT THE SMALL FOOTPRINT.

SO SLIGHT DEGRADATION BETWEEN MODERATE AND SMALL FROM THE VEHICLE PERSPECTIVE.

FOR THE 2040 PROJECTION COMPATIBLE, THE STANDARD WORKS BEST.

IT KEEPS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THE HIGHEST.

YOU SEE A PRETTY BIG DEGRADATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE SMALL FOOTPRINT WITH RESPECT TO ADOT FACILITIES, ESPECIALLY FOR 5A, BUT 5B, 5C AND 5D WE'LL, CONSIDER MODERATE ABILITY TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH 2040 JUST BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE ABLE TO WORK WITH ADOTS FACILITIES IN THE 2040 HORIZON YEAR.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS. THE STANDARD APPROACH IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE, THERE IS MORE PAVEMENT, THERE IS MORE CURB MODIFICATIONS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A WIDER INTERSECTION.

SO THESE ARE SPECIFIC TO THE INTERSECTION ESTIMATES AND THEN YOU'LL SEE A JUMP UP FOR THE MODERATE AND THE MODIFIABLE JUST BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S A BIGGER INTERSECTION COMPARED TO THE SMALL FOOTPRINT. SO YOU GO FOR ABOUT 1.8 FOR THE MOST EXPENSIVE, DOWN TO ABOUT 1.1 FOR THE LEAST EXPENSIVE INTERSECTION FOR OVERALL INTERSECTION COSTS.

AND THEN WE DESCRIBE THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CITY CODE.

THE STANDARD MEETS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE D, WHICH IS TYPICALLY WHAT WE WANT TO TARGET FOR THE CITY AND THE OTHER FOUR DO NOT THEY MEET LEVEL SERVICE E IN THE HORIZON YEAR LEVEL SERVICE F IN THE 2040 AND AGAIN STANDARD MEETS LEVEL SERVICE E IN THE HORIZON YEAR 2040.

SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO PRESENT TO YOU, FREE TO YOU TO OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY.

THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE A PARTICIPANT ONLINE, SO I'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION NOW BEFORE WE GO BACK TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE HAVE MICHELLE JAMES ON THE LINE.

MICHELLE, COULD YOU PLEASE GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOURSELF AND ADDRESS MAYOR AND COUNCIL? THANK YOU, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS MICHELLE JAMES AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FRIENDS OF FLAGSTAFF FUTURE.

THE VALUES OF GOOD URBAN DESIGN, SAFE STREETS AND SUCCESSFUL CITY PLANNING CAN SOMETIMES BE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO MOVE VEHICLES MOST EFFICIENTLY.

TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL OF SERVICE AN OUTDATED, CAR CENTRIC METHODOLOGY WHERE THE UNINTERRUPTED FLOW OF VEHICLES TAKES PRECEDENT OVER OTHER FACTORS THAT COULD IMPROVE A NEIGHBORHOOD AND CITY SUCH AS ACCESSIBILITY, SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY.

A [INAUDBLE] CHANGE IS NEEDED IN FLAGSTAFF APPROACH TO TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AT LONE TREE AND BUTLER.

THE GOAL OF MOVING CARS FAST AND EFFICIENT EFFICIENTLY IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE GOALS FOR MULTIMODAL FORMS OF MOVING THROUGH THIS AREA.

PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS CARE ABOUT THEIR SAFETY, THEIR FREQUENCY OF CROSSINGS, AND HOW LONG THEY HAVE TO WAIT TO CROSS THE STREET.

THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GOALS ASSOCIATED WITH LEVEL OF SERVICE.

FLAGSTAFF HAS A GOAL OF INCREASED DENSITY IN THE CORE PART OF THE CITY, WITH LESS TRAVEL BY VEHICLE AND MORE BIKING, WALKING AND USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

WE NEED TO DESIGN ROADS AND INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE BETTER FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE, NOT JUST THEIR CARS.

FLAGSTAFF CARES ABOUT PRIORITIZING WALKABILITY AND BIKE ABILITY, NOT JUST THE EFFICIENT AND FAST MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES.

I ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO RECOMMEND THE SMALL FOOTPRINT ALTERNATIVE 5A FOR THE INTERSECTION.

5A PROVIDES THE SHORTEST AND SAFEST CROSSING DISTANCES FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.

VEHICLES USING THIS INTERSECTION DURING THE SIX HOUR MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY PEAK PERIOD WILL HAVE AN AVERAGE DELAY OF 1 TO 29 SECONDS IN 2026 COMPARED TO THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES. THE EXTRA WAITING TIME FOR CARS AT THIS INTERSECTION IS NOT EXCESSIVE, AND THIS DESIGN PROVIDES FOR IMPROVED SAFETY OF MULTIMODAL USERS.

IT'S ALSO THE LEAST EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVES DETERMINATIVE IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

MANY CITIES ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CONSIDERATION OF AUTO ORIENTED LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS AND TOWARD MORE HOLISTIC PERFORMANCE MEASURES THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE VALUES OF A COMMUNITY.

SOME CITIES ARE ACCEPTING LEVEL OF SERVICE RATINGS OF F WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT OTHER COMMUNITY GOALS AND PRIORITIES ARE BEING MET AT THESE LOCATIONS.

PLEASE CONSIDER ALL THE USERS OF THIS INTERSECTION WHEN MAKING YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF.

[02:35:03]

AND THAT WAS JUST THE ONE COMMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, COUNCIL I'M HAPPY TO OPEN IT UP HERE TO DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS.

OTHERWISE, I'M HAPPY TO GIVE MY OWN.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF WE HAVE DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANES THAT WILL BE ON ARROW ONLY AS OPPOSED TO IF WE HAVE SINGLE LEFT TURN LANES, A PERSON COULD TURN LEFT WHENEVER THERE A GREEN IN THEIR DIRECTION.

IS THAT TRUE? CORRECT. TYPICALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A SINGLE LEFT TURN LANE, IT IS PERMISSIVE LEFT.

WHEN YOU HAVE A DOUBLE LEFT, IT'S A PROTECTED LEFT.

SO YEAH, THEY'D BE A SPLIT MOVEMENT.

AND SO WHEN WE HAVE TWO LEGS THAT ARE DOUBLE LEFT, YOU'D HAVE LEFT TURNS ONLY ONLY PROTECTED PHASE FOR THE WHOLE CYCLE.

SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT IF THERE'S NO LEFT TURNS ON GREEN, EXCEPT WHEN THERE'S AN ARROW, OF COURSE THAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT IF YOU CAN ONLY TURN ON AN ARROW, IT'S ACTUALLY SAFER FOR THE PEDESTRIANS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT AGAINST PEOPLE MAKING LEFT HAND TURNS THEY CAN GO ACROSS WHEN THERE'S NOT A LEFT TURN ARROW ON SO TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE A DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANE IS ACTUALLY SAFER.

INTUITIVELY, I WOULD AGREE.

BUT YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY RESEARCH ON PROTECTED LEFTS AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY? HE KNOWS THIS BETTER THAN I DO.

YEAH. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

IF YOU DO HAVE A PROTECTED MOVEMENT, YOU ARE REMOVING ONE OF THE CONFLICT POINTS AT THE INTERSECTION OR THAT LEFT TURN DRIVER WHEN SOMEBODY IS IN THAT CROSSWALK, WHEN YOU DO HAVE THE RED ARROW OR GREEN ARROW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY PEDESTRIANS OR BIKES IN THE CROSSWALK.

SO YOU YOU WON'T HAVE THAT CONFLICT POINT.

RIGHT. TO ME, THAT'S A SALES POINT FOR DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANES.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I AM WONDERING IF THERE IS A WAY TO SHORTEN THE LENGTH AND TIME FOR THE TIA TIA APPROACH.

THE CROSSING IS THAT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING? SORRY. YEAH, IT'S A SHORT IN THE CROSSING DISTANCE ITSELF.

EITHER THE THE LENGTH OR TIME.

I JUST I'M NOTICING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FAIRLY LARGER NUMBER.

AND IF WE COULD GET THAT DOWN, I'M JUST QUESTIONING IF THAT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE.

IT IS POSSIBLE WE'D HAVE TO BRING BACK THE CHANNELIZED RIGHTS, WHICH WOULD PULL THE RIGHT TURN LANE AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.

THAT'S SOMETHING YOU PRESENTED BACK IN OCTOBER, IF YOU REMEMBER, BECAUSE THAT DOES TAKE 12 FEET AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.

THAT DOES SPLIT THE CROSSING INTO TWO DIFFERENT MOVEMENTS, BUT IT DOES SHORTEN THAT DISTANCE.

THE OTHER WAY TO SPLIT IT WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE REFUGE ISLANDS AT EVERY LEG AND CONSIDER IT A TWO PHASE MOVEMENT.

MOST USERS COULD STILL CROSS SAFELY IF THEY FELT SAFELY IN ONE MOVEMENT, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE A REFUGE ISLAND TO BE ABLE TO STOP AND MAKE IT IN TWO MOVEMENTS IF YOU WANTED TO.

ALTHOUGH IT IS A LONGER OVERALL CROSSING TIME BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO WAIT A FULL CYCLE TO COME BACK OR HALF CYCLE TO COME BACK AROUND TO MAKE THE SECOND SECONDARY MOVEMENT.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE STUCK BASED ON THE GEOMETRY OF THE LANE LINKAGE ITSELF.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND JASON, CHRISTINE, WSP TEAM AND COUNCIL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GETTING US TO THIS POINT AND OBVIOUSLY OUR TEAM.

RICK, JEFF, TREVOR, OTHERS VERY EXCITING TO HEAR THIS PRESENTATION AND I'M JUST SO GRATEFUL TO BE HERE.

NOW WHAT I LOVE TO SEE THE MODELING ADJUSTED A LITTLE FURTHER.

I WOULD YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE BOTTLING AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, IF THE MODELING RESULTS IN MATH, I THINK WE GOT TO GO BACK BECAUSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE QUEUING LENGTHS, JUST LIKE WATER, I THINK PEOPLE WILL BEHAVE IN A WAY THAT THEY'LL FIND THE SHORTEST LENGTH.

THEY WON'T WAIT 2000 FEET, THEY WON'T BACK UP.

ALTHOUGH IF YOU LOOK OUTSIDE TODAY, PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT NOW, THERE IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BACKUPS ON OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM.

SO MAYBE MAYBE THAT THAT BACKUP IS IS REAL AND AND WOULD OCCUR IN 2040.

BUT, YOU KNOW, AS THE PUBLIC SPEAKER, MICHELE SAID, THERE'S A LOT OF CONFLICTING VALUES AND GOALS THAT WE HAVE AS A COUNCIL, AS A COMMUNITY, AND WE'RE WRESTLING THROUGH THAT.

SO I WANT TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE FOR US WORKING THROUGH THAT TOGETHER.

[02:40:03]

AND SOME OF US IN THIS ROOM KNOW HIM.

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY HIS NAME, BUT HE CAME UP TO ME RECENTLY AND SAID, ADAM, I'VE BEEN A PEDESTRIAN WALKING MY BIKE AND I'VE ALMOST GOTTEN HIT MORE THAN A CYCLIST.

SO COUNCIL AS NO SURPRISE TO YOU ALL.

MY TOP PRIORITY IS THE NEEDS OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE, OUR PEDESTRIANS.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US REALLY VALUE THEM AS A TOP PRIORITY IN CHOOSING THE DESIGN, MOVING FORWARD WITH YOUR TEAM.

METRO PLAN RECENTLY DID A COMMITTEE SURVEY, AS I'M SURE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL KNOW ABOUT.

AND DAVID WESSEL AND I DID A LIVE STREAM ON FACEBOOK TALKING ABOUT THAT SURVEY AND THE RESULTS.

AND DAVID PRESENTED THAT THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE WAS WILLING AND ABLE TO DELAY THEIR TRAVEL BY CAR IF IMPROVED SAFETY AND COMFORT FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS.

THAT'S OUR COMMUNITY AND I LOVE THAT ABOUT FLAGSTAFF.

WE CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER.

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT DRIVING 5 SECONDS FASTER OR A MINUTE FASTER TO GET FROM A TO B.

IT'S ABOUT CARING FOR EACH OTHER.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH TONIGHT.

BUT THAT'S WHAT METRO PLANNING SURVEY RECENTLY FOUND.

AND I THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT FOR US TO CONSIDER OUR CLIMATE NEUTRALITY GOALS.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE DECLARED A CLIMATE EMERGENCY.

AND IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT MAINTAINING 2019 LEVELS OF TRANSPORTATION, WHEN I SEE LOW FOR 2040 UNDER FIVE A UNDER 2040 PROJECTED COMPATIBILITY, THAT ISN'T A BAD THING.

TO ME, I ALMOST SEE THAT AS A GOOD THING IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT OUR CLIMATE GOALS, WHICH I THINK WE ARE.

SO AGAIN, CLIMATE ACTION IS NOT EASY.

IT'S PAINFUL.

IT'S FRICKING PAINFUL.

AND AND IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING TO ALL OF US TO GET THERE, ESPECIALLY IF WE WANT TO REACH NEUTRALITY BY 2030.

WE REALLY NEED LEADERSHIP AND OUTSIDE THE BOX THINKING.

I LOVE THE NETWORK VIEW THAT YOU SHOWED US.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE I REALLY DO VIEW THIS LIKE WATER.

AND AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE NETWORK, BILL, AS YOU SHOWED US, IT'S A DELAY OF 4 SECONDS, 6 SECONDS AROUND THE NETWORK AND THEN BY 2048 LEVELS OUT.

SO, AGAIN, COUNCIL THINK BIG PICTURE HERE.

YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN MOVE CARS FASTER THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GOOD FOR THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

THAT BACKUP WILL JUST OCCUR A HALF A MILE DOWN THE STREET.

RIGHT. AND THEN METRO PLAN HAS MADE IT CLEAR TO MYSELF AND VICE MAYOR THAT THEY PREFER THE FIVE LANE OPTION COUNCIL AND AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF.

SO THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH METRO.

SORRY, MOUNTAIN LINE.

AND I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO PUT THE CONDUIT INTO THE BOX FOR THE TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY ALONG BUTLER IF POSSIBLE.

AND THAT'S MY COMMENT COUNCIL AND I LOOK FORWARD TO OUR CONVERSATION.

BUT I REALLY I REALLY HOPE WE I PERSONALLY WOULD ADVOCATE THAT WE GO WITH THE SMALLEST, SIMPLEST FOOTPRINT HERE.

AND I JUST THINK IT'S NOTEWORTHY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT COST OF A PROTECTED INTERSECTION, $1,000,000.

RIGHT THERE. RIGHT.

I KNOW EVERY PROJECT IS DIFFERENT, BUT IT'S ABOUT $1,000,000 FOR A PROTECTED, SIMPLE INTERSECTION JUST TO TAKE NOTE FOR OUR OWN FOR THE FUTURE CONVERSATIONS WE'LL HAVE ABOUT OTHER PROJECTS. I LOOK FORWARD TO OUR CONVERSATION AND I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

THERE IS A FACTOR WE REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER WHILE WE ARE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH IT.

AND IT IS A, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE US A BUILDING PERMIT.

THEY CAN PULL THAT FROM US AND NOT AUTHORIZE IF WE GO FIVE A OR DO ANOTHER OPTION.

AND IF IT IS A QUEUE THAT AFFECTS THEIR INTERSECTION, THEY MIGHT NOT ALLOW US TO BUILD IT THIS WAY.

THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE VETO POWER OVER IT, WHICH IS WHY I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE ACTUALLY TO STREAMLINE THINGS FROM THE CITIES ANGLE TO GIVE AN OPTION A VERSUS AN OPTION B.

SO THAT WAY, IF OUR PERMIT APPLICATION FAILS WITH PUSHING THE LIMIT TOO FAR THAT WE HAVE A BACKUP PLAN, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO US.

WE DON'T DELAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS EVEN LONGER.

AND ALSO, WE DO HAVE A FIRM DEADLINE BECAUSE OF THE YOU KNOW, THE VOTERS THAT PUT THIS ON THERE ARE EXPECTING A CERTAIN TIME. SO WE NEED TO BE TIMELY IN A LOT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AND HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT HONESTLY VIOLATING THE VOTER PROTECTION ACT IF WE DON'T GET THIS DONE ON TIME.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO SUGGEST TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE AN OPTION A AND THEN AN OPTION B AS WE DISCUSS.

AND WITH THAT, I DID WANT TO CONFIRM WHAT YOU HAD SAID PREVIOUSLY.

THE FIVE B OPTION IS SOMETHING THAT IN 2026 IS NOT GOING TO CREATE A QUEUE THAT WILL INTERFERE WITH ROUTE 66 AND LONE TREE.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

NONE OF THEM CAUSE A QUEUE ISSUE IN 2026.

[02:45:02]

AND TO ME, I FEEL LIKE WE ARE I WANT TO PUSH THE LIMITS HERE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO JUST PUT TOGETHER AN INTERSECTION THAT WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO GET A PERMIT FOR.

AND I THINK THAT FIVE A IS GOING TO PUSH THAT TO THE LIMIT, PASS THE LIMIT FOR EIGHT TO APPROVE AND GIVE US THE PERMITS THAT WE NEED.

FIVE B THOUGH IF IT'S NOT AFFECTING THEIR INTERSECTION BY QUEUING BY 2040, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE ARE STOMPING ON TOES SO HEAVILY.

SO MY SUGGESTION REALLY IS THAT OPTION A FOR ME WOULD BE THE MODERATE FOOTPRINT 5B MODEL THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN PUSH THROUGH AND BALANCE THIS EQUATION AMONG MIDST OUR VALUES, THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE WITH THE REALITY AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF IT, WHICH IS THAT ADOT DOES HAVE A VETO CARD HERE.

SO ANYWAYS, THAT IS MY TOP OPTION RIGHT NOW.

AND WE CAN DISCUSS MAYBE WHAT A SECOND OPTION IS BECAUSE IF IF THEY COME BACK AND DON'T GIVE US A PERMIT, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO HAVE STAFF COME TO US YET AGAIN AND TRY TO START THIS ALL OVER THAT THEY HAVE CLEAR DIRECTIONS ON A PARALLEL LINE.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL.

MCCARTHY, WERE YOU? JUMP IN.

IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE S AND THE 5B JUST DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANES.

CORRECT. SO BY ELIMINATING THE DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANES, YOU'RE REDUCING THE LENGTH OF HOW PEOPLE, PEDESTRIANS TO GET ACROSS. CORRECT.

YEAH, WE WERE JUST ABOUT ABOUT 12 FEET EACH LEG.

SO I MEAN, I GUESS THEY IDEALIZED IF WE WEREN'T WORRIED ABOUT PEDESTRIANS WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SE BUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PEDESTRIANS, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR THAT FIVE B IS THE BEST.

I'VE ALREADY SAID WHY I THINK WE NEED LEFT TURN LANES, DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANES.

SO I'M SUPPORTING 5B.

THANK YOU COUNCILMAN MCCARTHY.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI? REALLY QUICK QUESTION, MAYOR.

WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO 5A AS OUR TOP PERSONALLY AND THEN 5B AS A BACKUP IF ADOT WERE TO REQUIRE IT? I DON'T THINK FIVE A IS GOING TO.

I'M 99.9% SURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A PERMIT WITH THAT OPTION.

AND I WANT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE FEASIBLE FOR IT AND NOT SPIN OUR WHEELS WHILE WE'RE THE CLOCKS THAT TAKE IN BOTH DOLLARS AND THE TIME WE HAVE TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT.

I'LL JUST SAY YOU NEVER KNOW UNLESS YOU TRY.

BUT. OKAY. OTHERS.

YEAH. I JUST SET JUMP IN THE CHAIR NEXT TO YOU AND THEN YOU'LL GET THE SECOND VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOU VOTE TWICE, I AM DEFINITELY LEANING TOWARDS.

ALTHOUGH MY MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE WOULD BE 5AI SEE THE POINT IN THE LOW LIKELIHOOD OF IT PASSING AIDS MUSTER.

5B SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE MOST REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE MOST OF THE SAME PEDESTRIAN PROTECTIONS AND MAINTAINING THE LOW LENGTH OF TIME FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.

I WOULD GIVE MY SUPPORT TO 5B.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I ALSO WOULD SUPPORT 5B AND I WOULD LIKE TO COME UP WITH, I GUESS, PLAN B FOR AN ALTERNATIVE IN CASE THEY DON'T BITE AT OUR FIRST OPTION SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO REVISIT THIS AGAIN.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

I HAVE ARTICULATED THIS BEFORE AND I AM ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN BRINGING ADDITIONAL $2.6 MILLION INTO THIS PROJECT.

THE STATE BUDGET HASN'T BEEN APPROVED YET.

IF THEY'RE STILL VOTING.

THE PROCESS OF VOTING. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO GET IT.

IT'S UNDER A LINE ITEM 2A TO UNDER ADOT RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS.

[02:50:05]

BEING AGGRESSIVELY AND ACTIVELY LOBBYING FOR.

AND ONE OF THE PROJECTS IS 2.6 MILLION FOR THE LONE TREE CORRIDOR.

WITH THAT SAID, AND I KNOW I'M A MINORITY ON THIS AND I PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE WHO WOULD SAY THIS, THAT TODAY IS THE DAY.

I AM FOR STANDARD SE.

IT'S LOOKING AT ALL THE MATRIX.

IN TERMS OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TIME.

TOTAL FUEL USE, AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAYS AND COMPATIBILITY WITH 2040 PROJECTION.

THINK. STANDARD IS THE MOST PRAGMATIC CHOICE.

AND I'M HERE TO KEEP LOBBYING FOR MORE DOLLARS FOR THIS PROJECT.

STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL.

GIVEN MY ROLE WITH THE RURAL TRANSPORTATION ADVOCACY COUNCIL.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AM SO EXCITED ABOUT THIS INTERSECTION.

I LOVE THAT THE TEAM HAS WORKED SO HARD TO MAKE IT REALLY FOCUSED ON PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS AND THEIR NEEDS TO CROSS.

I'M JUST BEYOND STOKED ABOUT THIS PLAN AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT REALLY CLEAR.

I JUST I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THAT GREEN BICYCLE LIGHT TURN ON AND I CAN RIDE MY BIKE ACROSS WITH A SENSE OF PRIORITY THAT'S JUST SO EXCITING.

IF I'VE B IS WHERE WE LAND, I AM NOT GOING TO LOSE SLEEP OVER THIS AND I WILL FEEL LIKE THIS IS A WIN.

YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A REAL COMPROMISE BETWEEN FIVE AND SIX LANES ON THE DIFFERENT BIKES.

WHAT I LOVE TO SEE THIS BE A FIVE LANE OPTION AND PUSH EIGHT OUT TO THEIR LIMITS.

I WOULD BUY OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE MAJORITY AND HEARING FROM THE MAJORITY.

I THINK 5B IS OK AND I WOULD BE PLEASED WITH THAT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD WITH 5B AND I JUST THINK THE TEAM HAS WORKED SO HARD ON THIS AND AND YOU DESERVE CLARITY FROM US.

SO LET'S GO WITH 5B.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY. YEAH.

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT FIVE B IS A COMPROMISE.

S WOULD BE WHAT NORMALLY WOULD GO THROUGH, BUT THIS IS A COMPROMISE.

SO I THINK IT'S A WIN WIN FOR EVERYBODY.

IF WE CAN GET THE PERMIT FROM ADA TO DO SO.

YEAH. WHICH IS WHY I THINK WE DO NEED TO HAVE THE BACKUP PLAN BECAUSE IF I MEAN IF THE STANDARD IS THE ONLY THING ADOT IS GOING TO ALLOW US TO DO.

I WE NEED TO TAKE NOTE.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO GET THIS BASED ON BOTH ON WHAT THE VOTERS TOLD US THEY WANTED TO DO AT THE VOTE BOX, AT THE BALLOT BOX.

AND THOUGH I WOULD DEFINITELY AM NOT THAT IS NOT MY TOP CHOICE.

IF THAT IS OUR ONLY OPTION, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND LET OUR ENGINEERS DO THEIR WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A TIMELY PROJECT AND WE'RE NOT LOSING ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION SEASON OVER IT.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI THANK YOU, JASON AND CHRISTINA.

I KNOW WE'VE TALKED TO ADOT SO WITH 5B, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE MAKING EXCEPTIONS FOR THEIR INTERSECTION GIVEN THE CORRIDOR.

DO YOU SEE ISSUES OF 5B IN TERMS OF ADOT'S OPINION IF WE WERE TO GIVE DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT OPTION TONIGHT.

SO WHERE WE'RE AT WITH 5B RIGHT NOW IS WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS INTERSECTION PRETTY CLOSELY.

WE'VE LOOKED AT THE LONE TREE ROUTE 66 INTERSECTION.

WE HAVE TO DO MORE ADVANCED NETWORK MODELING FOR THAT NETWORK MAP LEVEL.

SO THERE IS A NEXT LEVEL OF REFINEMENT TO GET OUR TIA UP TO ADOT STANDARD THAT WILL TELL US WHETHER WE MEET THEIR STANDARD OF NO IMPACT OR IMPACT. ONCE WE GET THAT, WE'LL KNOW BETTER.

AND THEN WE WOULD PRESENT TO THEM, IF THERE IS AN IMPACT, THEY WOULD GO TO A NEXT LEVEL WHAT THEY WOULD DETERMINE.

WE HAVE TO DO MITIGATION OR NO MITIGATION.

SO WHAT THOSE MITIGATIONS MIGHT BE, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING SIMPLE.

IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING MORE DIFFICULT.

THAT'S THE NEXT LEVEL OF CONVERSATION WE HAVE TO HAVE.

SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE RIGHT NOW BASED ON PRELIMINARY DATA, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE.

WE'RE TWO THIRDS THROUGH THE BRIDGE.

WE HAD ANOTHER 400, 500 FEET TO WORK WITH WITH THE QUEUE.

BUT AS WE DO THAT, ADVANCED MODELING, SOMETHING MAY CHANGE, SOMETHING MAY SHIFT.

IT'S HARD TO SAY JUST BASED ON THE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS WE'VE DONE TO DATE FOR THIS PRESENTATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS GOING FORWARD.

IF I BE AS LIKE THE OPTION AND IF THEY HAVE AN ISSUE, WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING.

BUT IN SPEAKING TO ADA LEADERSHIP MYSELF, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY WANT TO WORK WITH US.

THIS IS OUR CITY.

[02:55:01]

BUT THIS PROJECT NEEDS TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY AND WE CAN'T JUST CATER TO ADOT'S NEEDS, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT CAN'T, YOU KNOW, DELAY THIS PROJECT SO MUCH MORE THAT IT DOESN'T OCCUR. I AGREE WITH YOU THERE, BUT I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING ANOTHER OPTION THAT'S BIGGER THAN 5B UNTIL WE REALLY HIT THAT WALL. AND I DO BELIEVE AND I AM HOPEFUL THAT OUR TEAM WILL BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH ADA AND GIVEN JASON'S COMMENTS THAT 5B WILL BE ACCEPTABLE.

BUT I GUESS TIME WILL TELL.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE TO SAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

WELL, WE CAN ALWAYS WAIT TO SEE WHAT THEY COME BACK WITH IN TERMS OF WHAT MITIGATION STRATEGIES THAT THEY MIGHT WANT.

I JUST, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIMELINESS AND THE IN CONSTANT INFLATIONARY COSTS, WHICH IS WHY I WAS BRINGING UP THAT POTENTIAL SECOND OPTION AND HELP STREAMLINE THIS PROCESS. THE COUNCIL WOULD PREFER TO JUST GO GUNG HO WITH 5B AND SEE WHAT MITIGATIONS, IF ANY.

COME BACK TO US THEN.

SORRY MAYOR COUNCIL.

I THINK STAFF WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND WE HAVE A SECONDARY OPTION IN OUR POCKETS SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

I MEAN, THIS THE LONE TREE PROJECT ALSO IMPACTS OTHER LOCAL PROJECTS LIKE THE RED FLAG AND OUR WORK WITH BNSF AND THE ARMY CORPS.

AND I WOULD HATE TO PUSH THIS OUT ONE MORE TIME AND REALLY IMPACT THAT SCHEDULE AND THAT COST.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

ALL RIGHT, CHRISTINE. SO.

SO WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? BE OUR BACKUP PLAN.

THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF THAT NEXT STEP.

I. YOU KNOW THE STANDARD WE HAVE THE TIA AND WITH ADOT ALREADY SO I MEAN THAT'S THE SIMPLEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. IF THEY COME BACK WITH A MITIGATION AT A RIGHT TURN LANE IN THE SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION, THAT'S SOMETHING.

I THINK I'M SPEAKING FOR SCOTT WOULD BE AN EASY MITIGATION TO INCORPORATE.

BUT WE KNOW WE HAVE COMMENTS ALREADY WITH THE STANDARD FOR A SCHEDULED PERSPECTIVE.

THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST SECOND OPTION TO GO TO.

IF IT'S A SIMPLE MITIGATION, WE COULD FLEX AS AN ENGINEERING TEAM TO MAKE THAT DECISION, WORKING WITH CHRISTINE AND JEFF TO GO THAT ROUTE.

BUT WE DO KNOW STANDARD DOES WORK BASED ON COMMENTS WE RECEIVED.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

THE STANDARD, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, HAS A DEDICATED RIGHT LANE IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

OKAY. SO IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT A BACKUP PLAN FOR TO MAKE ADOT HAPPY.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT BE 5B AS IN BAKER.

WITH A RIGHT TURN.

DEDICATED LANE SOUTHBOUND.

ON THAT ONE LEG BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT WILL AFFECT THE ROUTE 66.

SO INSTEAD OF OUR BACK UP HAVING IT ON ALL FOUR LEGS, WE'D ONLY HAVE IT ON THAT ONE LEG.

WE ARE ALSO BACKING UP ON THE EASTBOUND.

SO THAT COULD BE A SECOND MITIGATION THEY MAY REQUEST.

JUST AS A REMINDER, WE'RE BACKING UP TO SAN FRANCISCO, SO IT MIGHT BE TWO LEGS.

I'M JUST GOING.

WORST CASE IT MIGHT BE.

SO EASTBOUND AND THE EASTBOUND, THAT'S IF YOU'RE GOING EAST AND THEN ONE TO TURN SOUTH.

BOTH NEED RIGHT TURN LANES.

WHERE ME CLARIFY THAT AGAIN.

EASTBOUND YOU MEAN EASTBOUND TURN RIGHT TO GO SOUTH.

RIGHT. THAT'LL HAVE NO IMPACT ON ROUTE 66.

NO IMPACTS, MILTON, WHICH IS STILL EIGHT.

OH, I SEE. WELL, THAT WOULD BE LIKE MY SECOND CHOICE AS.

BUT THAT'S STILL BETTER THAN HAVING IN ALL FOUR LANES.

YEAH. SO COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY JEFF BOWMAN KIND OF ENDORSED YOUR APPROACH TO THAT IS TO WORK WITH 5B FIRST AND THEN START ADDING TURN LANES.

THAT RIGHT HAND TURN LANE IS NEEDED KEEPING THOSE MINIMAL.

WE HAVE ONE OR TWO.

OKAY. I COULD LIVE WITH THAT.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL, BUT I ONLY GET TWO VOTES.

VICE MAYOR? I CAN LIVE WITH THAT.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE.

YEAH, I THINK. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY. I LIKE THAT STANDARD REALLY MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE.

I JUST AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING SURE THIS IS STREAMLINED APPROPRIATELY.

SO IF WE CAN GET.

GO AHEAD. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE PEDESTRIANS WANT TO GET ACROSS THIS INTERSECTION.

THEY CAN CHOOSE WHICH LEG TO GO ACROSS WITH.

NOT ALWAYS, BUT SOMETIMES DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO AND FROM.

SO HAVING ONLY ONE OR TWO RIGHT TURN DEDICATED LANES IS WAY BETTER IN MY MIND THAN HAVE IT IN ALL FOUR LEGS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A PEDESTRIAN.

[03:00:01]

SO I LIKE THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE.

I DO STRUGGLE AS WE'RE LIKE GOING BACK TOWARDS THE STANDARD OPTION AS WE CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO BE RESPECTFUL TO ADOT, BUT SEVEN LANES, ANY LEG IS AN ISSUE.

SO I HEARD THE ACCOUNT REALLY QUICK.

YEAH, THERE ARE SEVEN LANES NOW.

IF WE INCLUDE THE RIGHT TURN WITH THE TWO DOUBLE LEFT, AND THAT'S BASICALLY FOURTH AND 66, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.

AND THAT IS, IN MY OPINION, WE'RE FALLING SHORT TO MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR PEDESTRIANS.

KIDS DON'T CROSS THE INTERSECTION AT LEAST COMFORTABLY.

AND SO THE MEMBERS WHO ARE WHO HAVE A DISABILITY.

AND SO AS WE KIND OF INCH BACK TOWARDS SEVEN LANES ON TWO OF THE LEGS, TWO OF THE FOUR, THAT'S 50% OF THE PROJECT.

NOW YOU'RE PUSHING IT. YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW WE HAVE TO WORK WITH ADOT, BUT I GUESS I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH A SINGULAR RIGHT TURN LANE HEADING SOUTHBOUND IF THAT WAS THE TOP PRIORITY. I YOU KNOW, I HATE TO GIVE YOU ALL ALL OF OUR SECRET NEGOTIATING TOOLS UP FRONT BECAUSE I KNOW ADOTS IS GOING TO ASK FOR THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS PERSONALLY, IF WE CAN KEEP ONE LEG HEADING SOUTHBOUND, IF THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S A HIGHER PRIORITY TO HAVING THAT RIGHT TURN LANE SURE.

I GUESS I COULD GO WITH THAT IN THE NAME OF COMPROMISE, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD ANOTHER RIGHT TURN LANE, I MEAN, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS. CHRISTINE DO YOU FEEL OR JASON DO YOU FEEL LIKE A SINGULAR RIGHT TURN? LANE WHETHER IT'S EASTBOUND OR SOUTHBOUND MIGHT BE ADEQUATE? OUR GUT FEEL, TALKING TO SCOTT AND JOE BACK HERE, IS THE SOUTHBOUND RIGHTS GOING TO BE THE PRIMARY MITIGATION REQUEST.

I JUST WANT TO I ONLY SPOKE UP ON THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION AS A CAUTIONARY THAT IF THEY COME BACK WITH A SECOND, BUT THAT'S OUR GUT FEEL THAT WOULD ONLY BE THE SOUTHBOUND RIGHT.

BECAUSE THE EASTBOUND CARS WILL NATURALLY TAKE SAN FRAN OR WHATEVER THE ROUTE IS.

THEY'LL TAKE ALTERNATIVES.

SO COUNCIL, I THINK WE SHOULD DO 5B AS OUR PRIMARY AND THEN WE COULD DO THE 5B PLUS THE SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE SINGULAR RIGHT TURN LANE AS THE ALTERNATIVE OPTION THAT ADOT DOESN'T KNOW WHERE OK WITH YET.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY. I THINK MY POSITION IS GOING TO BE WHAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED THEN 5 B IS PRIMARY, 5B WITH ONE DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE, WE'LL AGREE WITH THAT.

IF THEY NEED MORE THAN THAT, THEY CAN COME BACK TO COUNCIL.

I LIKE THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING HERE AND I'M JUST PULLING UP THE SLIDES AGAIN FROM THE EXPECTATION OF MAXIMUM QUEUES FOR THE MODERATE FOOTPRINT, THE 5B AND I'M NOT SEEING IT REALLY ANYWHERE CLOSE TO MILTON, SO I DON'T THINK THAT I THINK THAT IF THAT WAS A REQUEST, IT'S KIND OF AN UNREASONABLE ONE TO EXPECT IT TO BACK UP SO HEAVILY.

SO BUT THE SOUTHBOUND ONE SEEMS TO BE THE ONE.

SO IF WE COULD DO THEN AND THAT WE PUSH FORWARD WITH 5B AND THAT IF AND ONLY IF THAT IS JUST A COMPLETE, YOU KNOW, NOT WORKING, WE CAN PUT THAT ONE RIGHT TURN LANE IN, BUT IF OTHERWISE, THEN IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO US.

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A SOLID PLAN HERE COUNCIL I'M SEEING NODDED HEADS.

WE'LL GET A CONFIRMATION HERE.

BUT DID YOU, WERE YOU WANTING TO CHIME IN AT ALL? I SAW YOU SHUFFLING PAPERS AND STUFF.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD EXTRA COMMENTS.

THE LAST WRINKLE IS THAT YOUR YOUR PRIMARY OPTION IS AN OPTION THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CITY CODE.

AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH COUNCIL BEFORE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT DISCUSSION TONIGHT OR MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH SUGGESTING THAT ADOT ACCEPT A NON COMPLIANT INTERSECTION.

STERLING JUST PUT THE MIC IN FRONT OF HIS FACE.

YEAH. IF. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATION ON THAT, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST IT BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

OKAY, WELL, I THINK WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS HERE ALREADY THAT WE DON'T NEED TO BRING UP THAT DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME.

I KNOW IT'S A CONSTANT DISCUSSION, BUT IF I CAN GET YES'S AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A MAJORITY ON THIS, WHICH IS 5B POTENTIAL FOR NEGOTIATION TO GO WITH SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE AS BACK UP, I GOT THREE THUMBS UP.

I GOT NODS.

OKAY, WE GOT FIVE HERE.

SO. SO IF ADOT APPROVES 5B, IT'S NOT COMPLIANT TO CITY CODE BY SOME CHANCE, HOPEFULLY.

WHERE DOES THAT TAKE US? DOES THAT TAKE STAFF BACK TO COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE].

MAYOR, COUNCIL THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND REVISIT IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I JUST NEED TO BE VERY, VERY BLUNT ABOUT THAT.

[03:05:06]

BUT THE FACT IS, IS THAT'S HOW WE WE'RE GOING TO CREATE REAL CHANGE.

AND I THINK WE HAVE A COUNCIL WILLING TO PUSH IT TO A CERTAIN POINT, MAYBE NOT ALL THE WAY, BUT I THINK THAT WE WE NEED TO START TO PONY UP A LITTLE MORE, AND ESPECIALLY AS WE START RELOOKING AT OUR CODE, MAYBE THIS CAN BE SOMEWHAT OF A TEST CASE FOR HOW WE WANT TO CHANGE THINGS FOR THE FUTURE, FOR LATER DISCUSSION. BUT FOR NOW, THIS DISCUSSION ITEM IS COMPLETE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I SEE STERLING'S CONCERNS.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING RIGHT ALONG HERE.

WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 12C THE CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.

[C. Citizen Bond Committee Recommendations STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Request direction from City Council on the bond measure categories and projects to be placed on the November 2022 general election.]

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL I'M SHANNON ANDERSON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF PRESENTING THE CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU THIS EVENING.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.

SO TONIGHT WE'LL COVER SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION, SHARE HOW INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMMUNITY, COMMITTEE INPUT, HOW INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, HOW THEY WENT THROUGH DELIBERATIONS TOGETHER AS A TEAM.

THE BOND PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS.

BOND CATEGORY RECOMMENDATIONS, THE COST, AAND THEN WE HAVE AN APPENDIX THAT'S ALSO INCLUDED.

WE WON'T GO THROUGH THAT THIS EVENING.

BUT THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO GIVE MORE DETAILS NOT ONLY TO YOU AS CITY COUNCIL, BUT ALSO THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO MIGHT HAVE REVIEWED THE PRESENTATION.

BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN REFERENCE ANY SLIDES, IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THEM IN MORE DETAIL.

WE ALSO HAVE CITY STAFF THAT ARE HERE TO ANSWER THOSE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AS WELL.

SO OUR CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE, THERE'S BEEN 17 MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2021.

I'M GOING TO LIST OFF THE MEMBER'S NAMES.

WE HAVE SOME OF THEM HERE IN THE AUDIENCE.

SO I'LL JUST ASK THAT YOU WAVE IF YOU'RE ONLINE, IF YOU WERE ABLE TO JOIN US, IF YOU WANT TO TURN ON YOUR CAMERA, THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC, TOO.

THAT WAY THE CITY COUNCIL CAN SEE EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS.

SO I'LL START ALPHABETICAL ORDER.

AL WHITE, WHO WAS OUR VICE CHAIR.

WE HAD AUSTIN KERR.

WE HAVE CHARLIE ODEGAARD, WHO WAS OUR CHAIR.

DARA MARKS MARINO.

I KNOW THAT SHE IS OUT OF TOWN AND SHE HAS SENT YOU SOMETHING IN WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FORM.

DEVONNA MCLAUGHLIN.

JASON SCHAFER.

JB DEWITT.

JESSE DOMINGUEZ.

JOE WASHINGTON.

JOHN DAILEY.

AS YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER KHARA HOUSE.

MICHELLE JAMES.

PAUL BEIER. RON GETTO.

STEPHANIE JEFFERSON.

STEPHEN THOMPSON.

AND TAD MOORE.

TAD IS ALSO OUT OF TOWN, AND WE HAVE FORWARDED YOU HIS INFORMATION THAT HE SHARED IN WRITING.

[03:10:01]

THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CITY STAFF AND ALSO OUR NEW POINT MARKETING TEAM, WHO IS OUR ELECTION CONSULTANT.

I'M HONORED TO INTRODUCE THEM AS WELL.

I KNOW THAT MEREDITH FORD AND STEVE LYNN ARE WITH US.

IF YOU WANT TO TURN ON YOUR CAMERAS AND SAY HELLO.

THANKS, MEREDITH. THANKS, STEVE.

GOOD TO SEE YOU. SO THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN COMPRISED OF MEMBERS THAT REPRESENT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. WE HAVE FOLKS WHO WORK IN EDUCATION, REAL ESTATE AND OWN BUSINESSES, AS WELL AS SOME OF OUR CITY COMMISSIONERS.

SO WE HAVE A GOOD VARIETY OF INDIVIDUALS THAT HAS BEEN SERVING ON THE COMMITTEE.

THEY WORK TOGETHER TO ADOPT A CHARTER TO LEARN ABOUT THE PROPOSED BOND PROJECTS AND WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATIONS.

THERE WERE THREE BOND CATEGORIES THAT WE ASKED THEM TO CONSIDER INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING, AND CLIMATE ACTION.

THIS COMMITTEE CONSIDERED OVER THIS COMMITTEE, CONSIDERED OVER 31 MEETING HOURS PLUS THEIR INDIVIDUAL TIME THAT THEY SPENT IN PREPARATION AND THOUGHT.

THE COMMITTEE NARROWED DOWN A LIST OF 30 PROJECTS WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF $206 MILLION TO THE 12 PRIORITIES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TODAY.

SO A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE GET INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND CAPACITY.

THE CITY HAS $100 MILLION IN CAPACITY AT THE CURRENT TAX RATE OF 0.8000 PER $100 OF NET ASSESSED VALUATION.

THERE'S ALSO TWO CHARTS ON THE SCREEN TO REMIND EVERYONE OF THE IMPACTS BOTH TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TAX.

THE UPDATES TO THESE CHARTS IS THE $100 MILLION SO THE LAST ITEM ON THE CHART HAS BEEN ADDED BOTH TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT YOU SAW ENDED AT THE $70 MILLION.

SO IT DEMONSTRATES IN THIS IN THESE CHARTS THE AMOUNT OF VOTER AUTHORIZATION TO THE FAR LEFT AND THEN THE TAX IMPACT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO COLUMNS TO THE FAR RIGHT, YOU'LL SEE THE ANNUAL IMPACT BOTH FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND THEN THE 20 YEAR IMPACT.

SO FOR INSTANCE, LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTIAL TAXPAYER IMPACT, IF WE WERE TO ISSUE $100 MILLION IN DEBT, THE RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL IMPACT WOULD BE $210 AND THE 20 YEAR IMPACT WOULD BE THE $4,200.

SO MOVING ON TO INFORMATION SHARING, THE CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SHARED ONGOING THROUGHOUT WITH THE DEDICATED WEBSITE.

I'D LIKE TO GIVE A BRIEF THANK YOU TO SAM VICTOR AND SARAH LANGLEY FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE WITH YOUR OUTREACH EFFORTS.

THE WEB PAGE HAD AGENDAS, HANDOUTS, THE NOTES AND THE MEETING RECORDINGS SO THAT INDIVIDUALS COULD KEEP UP WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS SEE WHEN THEY COULD ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS SUPPORTED THE COMMITTEE WITH THE CREATION OF A BOND LOGO.

SO IT'S EASY TO RECOGNIZE SOMETHING COMMUNICATION WISE THAT WAS COMING OUT ABOUT THE BOND.

THEY CREATED AWARENESS, VIDEOS, ADVERTISING AND SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS ON TOPICS SUCH AS WHAT WAS THE COMMITTEE WORKING ON? GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, WHAT ARE THEY? AND THE COMMUNITY SURVEY.

HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.

BUT WE WANTED TO PROVIDE A FEW JUST FOR REFERENCE.

SO THE COMMITTEES RECEIVED INPUT FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS THROUGH THE SURVEY.

WE ENCOURAGED PARTICIPATION THROUGH POSTCARDS.

WE MAILED THEM TO ALL CITY RESIDENTS, INVITING THEM TO SHARE THEIR FEEDBACK.

ADDITIONAL OUTREACH TO REMIND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WAS PROVIDED VIA BANNERS HUNG THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, ADVERTISING, AND AGAIN OUR SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS.

WE RECEIVED 1,385 RESPONSES AND A RANDOM SAMPLE WAS CREATED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FLAGSTAFF COMMUNITY.

THIS IS WHAT WAS REFERENCED BY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHEN LOOKING AT THE RANKED POINTS THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR EACH OF THE BOND PROJECTS.

MEETINGS WERE ALSO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND THERE IS A FEEDBACK OPTION THAT WAS PROVIDED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE'S WEB PAGE.

MOVING ON TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR DELIBERATION PROCESS, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS CONSIDERED COMMUNITY SURVEY THEIR OWN COMMITTEE SURVEY

[03:15:07]

THEY USED THIS INFORMATION TO COMPLETE A FORCED RANKING EXERCISE.

USING THIS INFORMATION, THEY PARTICIPATED IN A FACILITATED PROCESS TO IDENTIFY THEIR TOP 12 PRIORITIES.

THERE WERE THREE DEDICATED MEETINGS TO THIS PROCESS, AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS COULD ATTEND BOTH IN PERSON AS WELL AS VIRTUAL IN ORDER TO ENSURE WHICHEVER WAY WAS EASIEST FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION.

CITY STAFF DID NOT ATTEND THESE MEETINGS TO PROVIDE SPACE FOR THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO OPENLY SHARE THEIR FEEDBACK.

SO THESE 12 PRIORITIES ARE WHAT YOU WILL SEE ON THE NEXT FOUR SLIDES.

THE BOND PROJECTS ARE LISTED IN PRIORITY ORDER, SO YOU'LL SEE THE ORDER HERE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN.

EACH PROJECT BEGINS WITH THE PROJECT AREA.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIRST ONE IS STORMWATER.

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT.

SO THAT'S THE INCREASED CAPACITY OF FLOODWATERS WITHIN THE SPRUCE WASH TO MITIGATE FUTURE FLOOD EVENTS, AS AN EXAMPLE.

AND THEN ALSO THE ESTIMATED COST.

SO IN THIS INSTANCE, IT'S $26 MILLION.

IN SOME OF THESE YOU'LL SEE A RANGE, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE WERE PROVIDED A LOW, A MEDIUM AND A HIGH COST FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.

THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS ARE OUR KEY.

THEY'RE GOING TO MATCH UP WITH THE PROJECT TITLES LISTED IN THE PRESENTATION, SO THE COST SLIDES AS WELL AS THOSE IN THE APPENDIX.

SO JUST TO GO OVER THESE FIRST FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'VE COVERED THE SPRUCE WASH, WHICH WAS NUMBER ONE.

THE SECOND IS HOUSING RELATED, AND IT'S TO REDEVELOP THE CITY OWNED HOUSING TO CREATE AFFORDABLE RENT OPPORTUNITIES AT A COST OF $5 MILLION.

WASTEWATER IS TO UPDATE THE WILDCAT HILL TREATMENT PLANT WITH EQUIPMENT TO INCREASE CAPACITY AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AT $21 MILLION.

AND LASTLY ON THIS SCREEN, HOUSING TO USE SELF-SUSTAINING LOAN FUND TO PARTNER WITH PRIVATE DEVELOPERS AND REPURPOSE EXISTING BUILDINGS INTO AFFORDABLE RENTAL OPPORTUNITIES WITH A RANGE OF $2 TO $3 MILLION.

SO THIS CONTINUES HERE FOR THE NEXT THREE RECOMMENDATIONS.

NUMBER FIVE IS IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND THEY ARE TO REPLACE FIRE ENGINES THAT ARE USED TO FIGHT WILDFIRES WITH A COST OF $2.2 MILLION.

WASTEWATER, THERE'S THREE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT PROJECTS.

EXCUSE ME. THE COST OF THESE THREE PROJECTS BUNDLED TOGETHER IS $8.1 MILLION.

CLIMATE ACTION, LOOKING AT FULL HOME RETROFITS TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, LOWER COSTS, AND INCREASE AIR SAFETY WITH A RANGE OF $2 TO $7 MILLION.

THE NEXT THREE.

ANOTHER HOUSING ITEM TO USE A SELF-SUSTAINING LOAN FUND TO INCENTIVIZE PRIVATE SECTOR TO INCORPORATE AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING INTO NEW DEVELOPMENTS A RANGE OF $3 TO $8 MILLION.

CLIMATE ACTION IS NUMBER NINE TO CONDUCT ENERGY EFFICIENT UPGRADES TO CITY FACILITIES AT $1 MILLION.

AND LAST ON THIS PAGE IS NUMBER TEN FOR WASTEWATER, AND THAT'S TO UPDATE THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS WITH NEW ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT UPGRADES FOR $6 MILLION.

THE LAST TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

NUMBER 11 IS HOUSING TO EXPAND THE HOMEBUYER HOMEBUYER DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE LOAN PROGRAM FOR $6 TO $11 MILLION.

AND THE NUMBER 12 WASTEWATER, AND THAT'S TO UPDATE THE RECEIVING STATIONS TO PREVENT EQUIPMENT DAMAGE AT $11.9 MILLION.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR CATEGORIES THAT ARE REFERENCED HERE, AND WE'VE COME TO THESE THROUGH LUMPING THE PROJECTS TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY SURVEY AND ALSO OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

AND SO THOSE FOUR CATEGORIES ARE BEFORE YOU HERE PUBLIC SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE, STORMWATER, WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING AND CLIMATE ACTION.

MOVING ON TO THE COSTS.

THESE ARE THE COSTS OF THE 12 PRIORITIES.

THEY'VE BEEN REPRESENTED OVER FOUR SLIDES HERE, AND THEY'RE ORGANIZED BY BOND CATEGORY.

SO YOU'LL SEE EACH OF THE PROJECTS WITHIN THE BOND CATEGORY.

SO THIS IS THE PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT CATEGORY AND THE ONE PROJECT WITHIN THIS WAS NUMBER FIVE IN THE PRIORITY LIST AND IT WAS WILDFIRE ENGINES AT AGAIN ALMOST $2.2 MILLION.

[03:20:03]

YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS PRIORITIES WITHIN THIS LIST.

SPRUCE WASH WAS ONE, WILDCAT CAPACITY WAS NUMBER THREE.

WASTEWATER ENERGY EFFICIENT WAS THE SIXTH PRIORITY.

THE TENTH PRIORITY WAS THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT UPGRADES AND THE RECEIVING STATION WAS THE TWELFTH PRIORITY.

THE TOTAL FOR THESE INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS IS ALMOST $73 MILLION.

MOVING ON TO THE THIRD CATEGORY, THERE'S FOUR PROJECTS AGAIN, THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OWNED HOUSING FOR RENTAL.

THE SECOND PRIORITY, THE REPURPOSE EXISTING BUILDINGS INTO RENTAL.

THE FOURTH PRIORITY INCENTIVIZING RENTAL HOUSING, THE EIGHTH PRIORITY AND HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE THE ELEVENTH PRIORITY.

THE TOTAL FOR THIS RANGES BETWEEN $16 MILLION IS THE LOW AND $27 MILLION IS THE HIGH.

AND THEN THE LAST CATEGORY IS CLIMATE ACTION PROJECTS.

THERE'S TWO LISTED HERE FOR CONSIDERATION HOME ENERGY RETROFITS, WHICH WAS THE SEVENTH PRIORITY AND CITY EFFICIENT FACILITIES THE NINTH PRIORITY.

THE TOTAL FOR CLIMATE ACTION IS THE LOW AT $3 MILLION AND THE HIGH AT $8 MILLION FOR THESE TWO PROJECTS.

SO THE GRAND TOTAL THAT YOU SEE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SLIDE IS THE $94.2 MILLION.

AND THE $110.2 MILLION IS FOR ALL OF THE CATEGORIES.

SO THAT IS WHAT THIS GRAND TOTAL NUMBER REFLECTS HERE ON THIS SLIDE.

I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO CHARLIE ODEGAARD.

HE'S PRESENTED A STATEMENT FOR YOU ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

AND THEN WE'LL DIVE INTO COUNCIL DISCUSSION, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. SOUNDS GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MS. ANDERSON, MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DIRECTION AND FORMING THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE TO GIVE YOU RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURES FOR NOVEMBER FOR THE RESIDENTS TO DECIDE ON. I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR TIME AND THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE COMMITTEE WHO MET FROM THANKSGIVING TO MEMORIAL DAY.

A HUGE COMMITMENT, AND THEY DID IT ON A WEEKLY BASIS WITH THE TASK OF TAKING OVER $200 MILLION IN COMMUNITY NEEDS AND NARROWING THOSE NEEDS TO AROUND $100 MILLION THAT ARE OF THE HIGHEST PRIORITY WITH THE BONDING CAPACITY OF $100 MILLION.

I SERVED AS THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE.

FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] SERVES AS VICE CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE IN SERVING AND IN CONTINUING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS AT A DISTANCE WITHOUT TRYING TO STEER THE COMMITTEE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE, I ALSO WANTED AGAIN, I WAS GOING TO THANK ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT MS. ANDERSON BEAT ME TO THAT PUNCH.

SO THANK YOU FOR THEIR RECOGNITION BECAUSE WITHOUT THEM WE COULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN HERE AT THIS POINT.

THE COMMITTEE WOULD ALSO THANK OUR PARTNERS THAT JOINED US VIA REMOTE, THAT GUIDE THE COMMITTEE, THEY LEAD US IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY, AND ALSO WANT TO THANK MR. CLIFTON, MS. ANDERSON AND MS. SALTZBURG FOR HELPING US ON A WEEKLY BASIS.

WE WANT TO THANK ALL CITY STAFF FOR HELPING THE COMMITTEE WITH THEIR EXPERTISE AND GIVING THE TOUR OF THE CITY WASTEWATER FACILITIES.

THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL IN BECOMING KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE NEEDS OF THE CITY CONCERNING WASTEWATER.

WE AS A COMMITTEE VOTED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET WITH THE RANGE OF $94 MILLION TO $110 MILLION WITH 12 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS. THE RECOMMENDATION WAS NEARLY UNANIMOUS.

OTHER THAN THEM, WE DID HAVE ONE NO VOTE.

THE COMMITTEE IS WELL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY TO BE VERY CONSERVATIVE, TO BE VERY LIBERAL.

WE TOOK ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH INCLUDED IN COMMUNITY SERVICES OR SURVEYS, AND WE RAN EXERCISE AMONG OURSELVES OF WHAT IFS.

FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE FEES, USER FEES, WHAT OTHER FEES ARE THERE BESIDES THE QUESTION THAT MAY BE POTENTIAL ASKED THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER.

WITH THE TIME WE HAD, WHICH WAS VERY LENGTHY, AGAIN, FROM THANKSGIVING TO MEMORIAL DAY, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, WE FEEL, THAT IS AS CONFIDENT AS A COMMITTEE THAT THE RESIDENTS WILL GET BEHIND TO FUND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ADDRESSING PUBLIC SAFETY, STORMWATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING, CLIMATE ACTION.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN IN WASTEWATER HAVE A LOT OF CLIMATE ACTION ITEMS IN IT.

THAT WILL BE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED WITH DOLLARS THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE LOVE TO CALL HOME.

[03:25:01]

SO THANK YOU AGAIN.

THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE.

REALLY APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS.

THANK YOU, CHARLIE. THANK YOU, CHARLIE.

SO OUR LAST SLIDE IS TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO CITY COUNCIL.

WE'VE GOT A FEW ITEMS THAT WE'LL NEED YOUR DIRECTION ON THIS EVENING.

THE FIRST IS TO IDENTIFY WHAT BOND PROJECTS YOU'D LIKE TO SEE POTENTIALLY ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT.

WHAT'S THAT MAXIMUM DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS? AND HOW DO WE WANT TO BUNDLE THESE BOND PROJECTS? WE'VE GIVEN YOU THE INFORMATION THAT'S COME FORWARD FROM THE COMMITTEE, AND NOW WE'RE HERE TO HELP WITH COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS AND ACCEPT YOUR DIRECTION.

THANK YOU. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER WE DO HAVE SOME PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS THAT I'D LOVE TO TAKE FIRST BEFORE WE START THE DISCUSSION.

SO ONLINE, I UNDERSTAND IF YOU WANT TO TAP THE FOLKS IN.

YES, MAYOR, WE HAVE THREE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ONLINE.

THE FIRST IS MS. ROSS SCHAEFER.

ROSS, IF YOU'D LIKE TO UNMUTE AND GO AHEAD.

YES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS ROSS SCHAFFER AND I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES.

AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE THE LARGEST EMERGENCY SHELTER FOR PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN NORTHERN ARIZONA.

I AM ALSO A CO-CHAIR OF THE COCONINO COUNTY LOCAL COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS, WHICH YOU MAY ALSO KNOW KNOW AS THE COC.

I AM ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF HOUSING COMMISSION, BUT THE VIEWS I STATE TONIGHT DO NOT REPRESENT THOSE OF THE COMMISSION AND ARE MY OWN.

I'M SPEAKING TO YOU TONIGHT AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN, AS AN ADVOCATE FOR HOUSING, BUT MOSTLY FOR SOMEONE WHO SEES DIRECTLY, NIGHT IN AND NIGHT OUT THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS THAT FLAGSTAFF LACK OF HOUSING HAS ON OUR NEIGHBORS EACH DAY AND NIGHT.

THESE NEIGHBORS ARE BARELY SURVIVING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND WITH THAT, I BELIEVE OUR COMMUNITY IS MAKING AMAZING STRIDES TOWARDS REALIZING NEW HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE.

THE LAST COUNCIL MADE THE BOLD MOVE TO DECLARE A HOUSING EMERGENCY.

THIS COUNCIL MADE THE BOLD MOVE TO APPROVE A TEN YEAR HOUSING PLAN.

AND NOW WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS COUNCIL TO HAVE A BOLD NEXT STEP TO PUT NECESSARY AND CRUCIAL RESOURCES IN PLACE TO MOVING THE HOUSING PLAN FORWARD.

SO TONIGHT, WE NEED BIG ACTION.

WE HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH ABOUT HOW HOUSING IS HEALTH CARE OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS.

WE ARE ALL HEALTHIER WITH HOUSING AND IN MY BUSINESS AS WELL AS MAYBE YOURS.

WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS, AND AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE FOUNDATION OF THIS PYRAMID IS BASED ON PHYSICAL SURVIVAL.

SO WE AS HUMANS ARE MOTIVATED BY OUR MOST BASIC NEEDS.

HOUSING IS LITERALLY A BASIC HUMAN NEED.

THINK ABOUT THAT. EVERY SINGLE THING I DO, YOU DO, OUR NEIGHBORS DO IS MOTIVATED BY SURVIVAL, BY THE NEED FOR ONE HOUSING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, LIKE FOOD AND WATER. OUR COMMUNITY CANNOT SURVIVE AND CERTAINLY NOT THRIVE WITHOUT A PATH FORWARD TO HOUSING.

AND WE NEED A BOLD PATH.

I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE WORK OF THE BOND COMMITTEE.

EACH OF THOSE FOLKS I ADMIRE.

I WOULD I WOULD SAY TO EVEN LOOK PAST THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND TO THOSE OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION AND THE FINANCIAL AMOUNT SPECIFIED, PLEASE CONSIDER ALLOWING A HOUSING BOND TO THE LARGEST POSSIBLE LEVEL.

MOVE ON TO THE BALLOT.

I TRULY BELIEVE OUR COMMUNITY IS READY TO SAY YES TO HOUSING AND WE JUST NEED YOU TO SAY YES ALSO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ROSS.

NEXT CALLER. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

WE NEXT HAVE MR. TYLER DENHAM.

HI COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M SPEAKING TODAY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

I'M CALLING ABOUT THE FOUR HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE.

IT IS MY HOPE THAT YOU ADVANCE ALL FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE FULL $27 MILLION FUNDING AS THEY ALL ADDRESS FLAGSTAFF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. THAT SAID, I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE VERY HARD DECISIONS IN FRONT OF YOU ON WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS TO PUT ON THE BOND AND WHAT LEVEL TO FUND THEM AT.

EVERY ITEM ADVANCED BY THE CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE CAN LEGITIMATELY CLAIM TO ADDRESS A PRESSING NEED IN FLAGSTAFF.

WHILE REITERATING MY HOPE THAT ALL FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ADVANCED AT FULL FUNDING.

SHOULD YOU END UP MAKING DIFFICULT CHOICES, I SUGGEST YOU PRIORITIZE ONE RECOMMENDATION AS MUCH OF FLAGSTAFF AFFORDABILITY CRISIS COMES DOWN TO SUPPLY ISSUES.

TWO RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CREATE REVOLVING FUNDS AS OPPOSED TO ONE TIME PURCHASES AS THEY MAY HAVE A LONGER LASTING IMPACT.

AND THREE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FOCUS ON RENTAL UNITS AS THESE TARGET RESIDENTS LOWER ON THE HOUSING CONTINUUM, WHERE THE NEED FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IS THE GREATEST.

[03:30:09]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, TYLER. NEXT CALLER.

MS. MICHELLE JAMES, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

HELLO. HELLO MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS MICHELLE JAMES AND I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FRIENDS OF FLAGSTAFF FUTURE.

I SERVED AS A MEMBER ON THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE, AND I'M TALKING TO YOU TODAY ABOUT SOME OF THOSE EXPERIENCES.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF SOME IMPORTANT DETAILS RELATED TO THE 12 PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE.

SO SOME PROJECTS ARE COMPOSED OF MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS THAT CITY STAFF DETERMINED HAD DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PRIORITIES FOR FUNDING.

THE BOND COMMITTEE CHOSE NOT TO SEPARATE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS IN SOME OF THESE CATEGORIES.

HOWEVER, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL COULD CHOOSE TO DO.

THE OVERALL LOW END DOLLAR FIGURE PROVIDED BY THE BOND COMMITTEE DISCRIMINATES A BIT AGAINST THE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS, AS ONLY PROJECTS IN THOSE TWO CATEGORIES PROVIDED A RANGE OF COST.

SO KNOW THAT IF YOU PICK THE LOW END, THERE IS SOME THERE IS SOME CONCERN THERE IN TERMS OF NOT NOT BEING COMPLETELY FAIR BECAUSE OF THE WAY STAFF WAS PRIORITIZING THOSE PROJECTS, WHICH ACTUALLY WE FOUND VERY HELPFUL.

BUT JUST BE BE AWARE OF THAT AS YOU DISCUSS THE PROJECTS.

AND THEN THE SPRUCE WASH PROJECT WAS CONSISTENTLY THE BOND COMMITTEE'S TOP PRIORITY AS A STANDALONE PROJECT.

THAT ONE WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO DISCUSS.

IT CAME TO THE VERY TOP BECAUSE IT'S AFFECTING SO MANY PEOPLE AND SO MANY PEOPLE OF LOWER INCOME AS WELL.

MANY OF THE 12 PROJECTS PRIORITIZED BY THE BOND COMMITTEE MEET MORE THAN ONE OBJECTIVE.

FOR EXAMPLE, ENERGY EFFICIENT PROJECTS AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS ALSO WILL BENEFIT CLIMATE GOALS AND FULL HOME ENERGY RETROFITS BENEFIT BOTH ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND REDUCE UTILITY COSTS TO ASSIST IN AFFORDABILITY.

I JUST WANTED TO PASS ON MY THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT THE COMMITTEE CAME TO YOU WITH, AND THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MICHELLE. IS THAT OUR LAST PARTICIPANT? MAYOR IT IS.

ALL RIGHT, GREAT. WELL, THEN WE'LL TURN BACK THE DISCUSSION UNTO OURSELVES.

MAYOR, I'M SORRY. WE DO HAVE ONE IN PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT.

THAT'S MR. AL WHITE.

OH, OKAY. SORRY, I MUST NOT HAVE.

PLEASE COME ON DOWN.

THANKS. I APPRECIATE IT.

I HAVE ACTUALLY THOUGHT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT I WANT TO SAY, AND I JUST WANT TO CONDENSE, I'M GOING TO DO YOU A LETTER ESSENTIALLY TO TO ALL THE COUNCIL AND THE CITY MANAGER WITH MY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE PROCESS AND AND SOME OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT I WANT TO IDENTIFY TWO KEY POINTS THAT I THINK YOU AND I IDENTIFY THESE NOW, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT I REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS THAT WILL TAKE YOU AWAY FROM THE DISCUSSION ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.

BUT NUMBER ONE, BONDING DOLLARS COULD BE BETTER UTILIZED TO ADDRESS EMERGENCIES LIKE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT.

IF YOU HAD FEES IN PLACE FOR BUSINESS AS USUAL TO ADDRESS NORMAL GROWTH, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR WILDCAT, WATER PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, A NEW LANDFILL.

YOU KNOW, POLICE, YOU'VE GOT YOU'VE GOT YOUR CARE UNIT UPGRADES, FIRE WOODLAND THE WOODLAND TANKERS.

YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WE'D BE AT 75,000 PEOPLE YEARS AGO.

AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME TODAY THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE AT 100,000 PEOPLE SOON.

AND SO I THINK THIS COUNCIL IS OUR BEST SHOT FOR IMPLEMENTING SOME FEES AND REGULATIONS MAYBE, BUT PRIMARILY FEES THAT ARE USER FEES AND OR IMPACT FEES THAT MIGHT HAVE GROWTH, FUTURE GROWTH PAY FOR ITSELF.

AND THE SECOND THING I WANT TO BRING UP IS SIMPLY THIS.

I THINK YOU SHOULD START NOW FOR YOUR 2024 BOND PROJECTS AND AND PULL TOGETHER A GROUP LIKE THIS ONE AND CONSIDER WORKING WITH WHAT USED TO BE CALLED THE ALLIANCE, WHICH IS BASICALLY, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, TAXING ENTITIES.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, I GOT TO PUSH, PULL, CALL, AND THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS.

IF THEY WERE TO PUT $100 MILLION OUT IN BOND IN NEEDS FOR THE DISTRICT, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO VOTE ON THE THINGS THAT WE'RE PUTTING FORTH TO YOU NOW? THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT THE JAIL TAX.

[03:35:03]

SO THERE ARE COMPETING AND COMPLEMENTARY TAXING ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS AND PUT TOGETHER IN A PROGRAM THAT ALIGNS THOSE NEEDS FOR 2024.

AND THEN PLEASE ACCEPT IDEAS FROM CITIZENS FOR STAFF REVIEW.

I'VE GOT FOUR OR FIVE OF MY OWN THAT I THINK WOULD ADDRESS HOUSING SUSTAINABILITY AND WATER NEEDS.

AND AND THEY NEVER REALLY GOT AIRED BY THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE IT. AND GOOD LUCK WITH THIS DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

IT'S GOING TO BE FUN.

THANK YOU ALL. AND.

OH, I DO. WE GOT ANOTHER PERSON JUMP IN ONLINE, MAYOR.

I BELIEVE SO. I'M JUST TRYING TO WAIT FOR CONFIRMATION.

I DO HAVE MR. RON GETTO ON THE LINE.

RON, IF YOU COULD UNMUTE AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT THE BOND COMMITTEE.

AND IF YOU'RE USING THE APP, IT'S ON THE UPPER RIGHT HAND SIDE TWO AWAY FROM THE LEAVE BUTTON FROM THE MUTE BUTTON.

MR. GETTO, YOU ARE STILL MUTED.

MAYOR I'M JUST ASKING IF HE CAN HEAR ME NOW VIA CHAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

HE APOLOGIZES, HE CANNOT GET ON.

SO I THINK WE ARE DONE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND IF YOU WANTED TO TEXT HIM OUR MESSAGE HIM COUNCIL AT FLAGSTAFFAZ.GOV SO THAT WAY HE CAN SEND OR SHE CAN SEND IN THE COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, I NEED TO ALSO THANK OUR BOND COMMITTEE SINCERELY FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE.

YOU ALL WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND.

IT WAS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IDEA TO GO DO THE TOURS OF THE PLANTS.

IT WAS THEIR IDEA TO REALLY GET AS LARGE OF GRASP ON THE SITUATION AS POSSIBLE BEFORE MAKING THESE VERY IMPORTANT, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THE FACT THAT YOU ALL WERE THROWN INTO IT IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME AND DRINKING FROM A FIRE HOSE TO UNDERSTAND ALL THESE COMPETING NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY IS JUST VERY IMPRESSIVE. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE HOW MUCH YOU ALL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CARVE DOWN THE VERY LARGE LIST THAT YOU INITIALLY WERE PRESENTED.

IT WAS NO EASY TASK.

WITH THAT, I DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS, JUST AS A REMINDER TO COUNCIL.

WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS LAST OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, ONE OF THE DIRECTIONS THAT WE WERE REALLY THINKING AND TRYING TO GET TO WAS ABOUT $70 TO $75 MILLION.

I PERSONALLY AM STILL AT THAT POINT.

SO AS WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT, I MEAN, WE'RE WE I DON'T WANT TO BE MAXING OUT BECAUSE ESPECIALLY AS NOTED WITH THE JAIL TAX COMING FORTH, THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE JUST GOT THERE.

AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING ALSO STILL AT 2024 AND THINKING ABOUT OUR PUBLIC TRANSIT COMING FORWARD THAT IF WE OVERWHELM FOLKS.

THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF NO'S DOWN THAT LIST, AND IT'S GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE REASONABLE REQUESTS AS WELL AS BUNDLE THIS, BUNDLE THESE APPROPRIATELY. SO WE DON'T OVERWHELM THE VOTERS TO THE POINT WHERE THEY DON'T WANT TO RESEARCH OR LOOK INTO IT AND THEY'RE JUST READY TO SAY NO AND GO DOWN THE REST OF THE LIST ON THE BALLOT. AND THAT IS STATISTICALLY PROVEN THAT THAT VOTER FATIGUE DOES HAPPEN AND THAT WE I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYTHING ON THERE THAT IS GOING TO FAIL.

SO I JUST WANT TO PREMISE WHERE I'M COMING FROM AND LOOK FORWARD TO LIVELY DISCUSSION.

I HAVE VERY SPECIFICS ON WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MOVE FORWARD AND HOW TO BUNDLE THEM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO FRAME THE DISCUSSION BEFORE KICKING IT TO OTHERS THAT I'M LOOKING FOR US TO SHAVE THIS DOWN TO $70 TO $75 MILLION TODAY AS BEST WE CAN AND TO BUNDLE THESE APPROPRIATELY SO WE DON'T HAVE A LONG LIST.

SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO OPEN THAT UP TO OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON OUR PRIORITIES HERE.

[03:40:03]

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

SO I HAD THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS FROM REALLY FOUR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION AND WORKING GROUPS ESTABLISHED TO PUT FORTH THEIR BOND RECOMMENDATIONS AS A MEMBER, OF COURSE, OF THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE AND NOW AS A MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL, I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE NOW AND I THANK CHAIR ODEGAARD FOR ACKNOWLEDGING IT AS WELL, THAT DURING THE END OF THE BOND COMMITTEE MEETING PROCESS, I DID AVOID VERBALIZING TOO MUCH BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO INADVERTENTLY INFLUENCE OR IMPACT THE PERSPECTIVES OR OPINIONS OF THAT GROUP.

BUT I DO WANT TO NOW OFFER SOME PRAISE AND THANKS FOR THE INTENSITY AND DEDICATION OF THOUGHT AND CONSIDERATION THAT THAT GROUP PUT INTO THIS PROCESS AND THE MANY HOURS PUT INTO PUTTING FORTH RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDANCE AIMED AT PROVIDING THE GREATEST GOOD FOR FLAGSTAFF VARIOUS COMMUNITY NEEDS.

I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF NOW WHEN I SAY THAT THERE ARE MANY THINGS IN THIS PROCESS THAT I REALLY WISH COULD BE DIFFERENT.

NOT LEAST OF THESE IS, OF COURSE, THE WISH THAT THERE WERE ENDLESS FUNDS TO MEET ALL OF THESE NEEDS THAT WERE PUT FORTH BEFORE US.

BUT ALSO, I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE WE CAN HAVE MORE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW BEST OR BETTER TO ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS.

FOR EXAMPLE, UNDERSTANDING THAT WITH MANY BOND PROPOSALS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD WITH THE UNDERSTOOD DIRECTIVE TO GO BIG OR GO HOME, WE MIGHT WIND UP IN THIS SITUATION THAT WE FIND OURSELVES NOW TO TRY AND WHITTLE DOWN NUMEROUS, IMPORTANT AND IN SOME CASES INFRASTRUCTURE, REALLY CRITICAL PROJECTS AND PROPOSALS FOR FLAGSTAFFS FUTURE. I'LL NOTE FOR MYSELF THAT WITH ALL THE PROJECTS PRESENTED, MANY OF THEM SPOKE TO IMPORTANT AND IN SO MANY CASES URGENT COMMUNITY NEEDS.

BUT THERE WERE THREE CRITICAL COMMUNITY CONCERNS THAT CONTINUE TO WEIGH ON MY VIEWS FOR BOND MEASURES TO BE PUT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION.

AND THOSE WERE WATER NEEDS, SPECIFICALLY COMMUNITY FLOODING MITIGATION AND STORMWATER CAPACITY.

AND FLAGSTAFF TWO DECLARED COMMUNITY EMERGENCIES IN CLIMATE AND HOUSING AND SPEAKING WITH VARIOUS GROUPS, STAKEHOLDERS AND INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

I HEARD THESE THREE CRITICAL ISSUES PUT FORWARD AS THE HIGHEST CONCERNS FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND NEEDS THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED NOW, RATHER THAN PUSH FURTHER AND FURTHER DOWN THE LINE AND THE DESIRE TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS, NOT WITH BAND-AIDS, BUT WITH PRECISE AND SURGICAL FOCUS AND ACTION, UNDERSTANDING AND HONORING THE CHARGE OF THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE BOND MEASURES PRESENTED TO THEM, WHICH TOTALED, AS WAS SHARED, ALMOST $200 MILLION IN BOND FUNDING PROJECTS. I ALSO NOTE THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY STILL FALLS ON US AS COUNCIL TO PUT FORWARD BOTH RESPONSIBLE BOND CONSIDERATIONS FOR PUBLIC VOTE AND CONSIDERED BY MEASURES TO ADDRESS OUR OWN STATED, CRITICAL AND CRISIS LEVEL CONCERNS.

PERSONALLY, I WISH THAT BOTH MORE OF THE MEASURES TO ADDRESS OUR HOUSING NEEDS WERE AMONG THESE OPTIONS, AS WELL AS MEASURES THAT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN HOUSING AND CLIMATE ACTION, SUCH AS THE $1.5 MILLION PROJECT THAT WOULD HAVE INCENTIVIZED THE BUILDING OF SMALL, HIGHLY EFFICIENT HOMES ON PROPERTY OWNERS LAND AS AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS. KNOWING THAT I AM PROBABLY AT THE RISK OF GOING ON TOO LONG.

I'LL SIMPLY SAY THAT I'M GRATEFUL TO THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.

I WISH THERE WAS GREATER CAPACITY TO SEE MORE HERE TO ADDRESS THESE THREE CRITICAL CONCERNS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AS WE AS COUNCIL TRY TO MOVE FORWARD WISELY ON THESE MATTERS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ANDERSON AND CITY MANAGER CLIFTON AND EVERYONE WHO IS PART OF THE COMMITTEE, THE BOND COMMITTEE.

YOU ALL WORKED REALLY HARD AND AND I SEE YOU AND I APPRECIATE YOU.

I THINK I THINK YOU ALL DID AN EXCELLENT JOB.

AND I RESPECT YOU.

I REALLY DO. AND AND YOU ALL ARE CHAMPIONS HERE ON THIS TOPIC.

AND WE APPRECIATE THAT TREMENDOUSLY.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY INTRIGUED TO HEAR MORE ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF HOW WE CAN WHITTLE THIS DOWN A BIT IF YOU HAD ANY INSIGHTS ON THAT, GIVEN YOUR PERSPECTIVE. I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS, AND I'M REALLY INTRIGUED TO HEAR HOW YOU THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.

BUT I, TOO, LOOK FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS JUST TO KIND OF MAYBE EVEN HELP SET UP THE CONVERSATION EVEN A LITTLE BIT MORE.

DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ANDERSON, DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO BUNDLING, WHAT DID THE CONSULTANT SAY ABOUT ONE BALLOT INITIATIVE FOR ALL THE PROJECTS VERSUS TWO VERSUS THREE VERSUS FOUR? HOW DID THEY RECOMMEND WE GO ABOUT BUNDLING AND WHAT WERE THOSE PROS AND CONS? SO STEVE AND MEREDITH ARE WITH US THIS EVENING, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

I'D LIKE TO KICK IT TO STEVE IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SHANNON, AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, MR.

[03:45:02]

IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, AND THE ISSUE FOR US AS CONSULTANTS IS TO TRY TO MOVE THE COUNTIES PACKAGE, WHATEVER IT LOOKS LIKE OVER THE LINE WITH VOTERS SO THAT IT BECOMES A SUCCESSFUL BOND PACKAGE.

TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION.

WE BELIEVE THAT A A SINGLE ISSUE ON THE BALLOT IS A VERY RISKY PROPOSITION.

AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET FROM THE COMMUNITY SURVEY, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SOME PRIORITIES OF ITS OWN THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AMONG THOSE ARE WATER, STORM WATER AND SEWER AND HOUSING.

THOSE CAME ACROSS VERY, VERY HIGHLY IN THE COMMUNITY SURVEY.

AND SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT YOU HAVE NO MORE THAN FOUR AND PERHAPS AS FEW AS THREE BOND QUESTIONS THAT ARE CATEGORICALLY SEPARATED SO THAT THE CITIZENRY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE EACH OF THEM, AS A CLUSTER OF PROJECTS.

AS THOSE PROJECTS FIT INTO ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY NO MORE THAN THREE AT THIS POINT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT AS FEW AS ONE THAT WOULD BE ROLLING ALL OF THE DICE ON ONE ISSUE.

AND I CONCUR WITH THE MAYOR'S COMMENTS EARLIER ABOUT BALLOT FATIGUE.

WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND THE THING WE CAN'T CONTROL IS HOW MANY OTHER TAXING ENTITIES ARE GOING TO BE ON THE SAME BALLOT.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE WILL BE MORE THAN A COUPLE.

AND THAT PRODUCES THE KIND OF NOT ONLY BALLOT BALLOT FATIGUE, BUT BUT NO VOTES DOWN THE LINE THAT WE WANT TO TRY TO AVOID.

OKAY, THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU, STEVE.

AND MY FOLLOW UP FOR YOU, STEVE, IS IN REGARDS TO THE RANKING REGARDING BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT RANKED PRETTY HIGH AND AND GOT DROPPED FROM THE PRIORITIES FROM THE COMMITTEE.

BUT HOW DID BIKE BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE RANK IN THAT IN THAT SURVEY THAT YOU ALL DID? MR. MAYOR, MR. SHIMONI I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, ALTHOUGH I THINK SHANNON MAY HAVE IT AND IT MAY BE IN THE APPENDIX THAT WE PROVIDED FOR YOU. WE LISTED THE RANK ORDER, OH THERE IT IS, ALL OF THE PROJECTS.

AND I THINK IF YOU GET DOWN TO THE THE ISSUE OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU'LL SEE WHERE IT RANKED WITH THE VARIOUS GROUPS.

SHANNON, IF YOU COULD JUST HELP US WITH THE CATEGORIES IN EACH OF THE COLUMNS AS AS THE RANKING SHOWED? YES. SO LET ME.

I CAN. SO THE COMMUNITY SURVEY, WHEN THEY LOOKED AT BUILD SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, IT WAS RANKED NUMBER ONE, THE TOTAL RANKED POINTS FOR 1,694 COMMITTEE SURVEY SPECIFIC RANK ORDER FOR THIS PARTICULAR CATEGORY WAS THREE.

AND SO IT DID RANK FAIRLY HIGH WHEN IT GOT DOWN TO ACTUALLY THE FOUR SHRINKING WHERE THEY WERE LOOKING AT ALL OF THE INFORMATION TOGETHER.

THAT'S WHEN THESE THIS ITEM FELL OFF.

IS THIS THE ITEM THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT? IT SURE IS.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOT SOME HIGH SUPPORT.

UNFORTUNATELY, I GUESS IT DID GET DROPPED OFF.

I DO WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY TO WIGGLE SOME OF THE FUNDING INTO THIS EFFORT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

YOU KNOW, WE JUST APPROVED ABOUT SIX I THINK SIX PROJECTS TO DO DESIGN WORK ON.

AND AS WE SAW FROM EARLIER TONIGHT, A PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS, ABOUT $1 MILLION.

I THINK THERE'S TWO OR THREE OF THOSE DESIGN PROJECTS THAT ARE FOR PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS.

SO EVEN SOMETHING LIKE $3 MILLION TO GO TO PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS.

TO FOLLOW UP ON THE DESIGN WORK, I THINK WOULD GO A LONG WAY, NOT NECESSARILY $8 TO $30 MILLION, BUT MAYBE $3 MILLION.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD DEFINITELY PASS GIVEN HOW HIGH IT RANKED HERE.

BUT THAT'S THAT'S HELPFUL.

THANK YOU, SHANNON. AND THEN MY OTHER COMMENT IS, IN REGARDS TO THE FIRE COMPONENT IN THE TRUCKS.

I KNOW WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN FIND THAT FUNDING INTERNALLY OR NOT.

AND I'M WONDERING, SINCE I DO BELIEVE IF IT WAS ON THE BALLOT, IT WOULD PASS, IF THOSE FUNDINGS THAT WOULD GO TOWARDS FIRE.

I THINK IT'S APPROXIMATELY $2 MILLION.

IF THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT GO MAYBE CAN HELP OFFSET SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE LIST TONIGHT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

I MIGHT INVITE RICK TADDER TO HELP ME OUT ON THIS.

COUNCIL EARLIER THIS EVENING TOOK THE FIRST MEASURE TO APPROVE OUR UPCOMING BUDGET.

[03:50:05]

BUT IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD THE FUTURE, POSSIBLY FUNDING THIS THROUGH OTHER SOURCES LIKE OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, IT CERTAINLY COULD BE LOOKED UPON AS A PRIORITY.

BUT IT'S, I THINK, LIKELY NOT SUBJECT TO SOMETHING WE CAN DO IN THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BUDGET'S ALREADY PASSED.

BUT, RICK, YOU WANT TO COME ON UP AND SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

ADAM, YOU'LL HAVE TO REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION, BECAUSE I DID NOT FOLLOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PUTTING PUBLIC SAFETY ON THE BALLOT AND USING THE GENERAL FUND MONEYS FOR SOMETHING ELSE? YES, I DID.

YES, YOU HEARD CORRECTLY.

I HAVEN'T GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO THAT.

BUT YEAH, YOU COULD. EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THEM IN OUR BUDGET AS FUNDED THROUGH OUR PROCESS THAT WE DID WITH COUNCIL AND WE GOT YOUR APPROVAL FOR WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT WEEK TWO WEEKS.

ALSO, YOU COULD PUT A BALLOT MEASURE ON FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND USE SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX TO PAY FOR THOSE EQUIPMENTS.

IT'S THE THE QUINT WHICH IS ABOUT $2 MILLION AND THERE WAS THE PUBLIC SAFETY RADIOS, WHICH I THINK WAS $2.6 MILLION.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED.

WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO REALLOCATE ANY OF THOSE FUNDS AT THIS POINT UNTIL WE GET VOTER APPROVAL.

SO PROBABLY TO BE THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE THAT WE WOULD SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE'RE NOT USING THOSE GENERAL FUND MONEY.

NOW LET'S LOOK IN THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE AND SEE WHAT WE DO WITH THOSE FUNDS.

I WOULDN'T MIDYEAR CHANGE THEM TO THAT DRASTICALLY CHANGE.

OK OPTION, SURE.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR US TO CONSIDER IF WE NEED TO OFFSET SOME FUNDING.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE COULD POTENTIALLY EXPLORE.

AND AND YEAH, GO AHEAD.

CAN I CAN I ASK WHAT IS OFFSETTING FUNDING MEANS? I GUESS THAT'S WHERE HE'S GETTING A FUNGIBILITY IS WHAT HE'S LOOKING FOR.

WELL, BASICALLY, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF IF WE PUT THAT THAT LINE ITEM FROM THE BUDGET ONTO THE BALLOT, WE WOULD POTENTIALLY FREE UP THAT CLOSE TO $5 MILLION TO THEN UTILIZE MAYBE TO GO TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CARE TO, THAT THIS BOND MONEY WAS GOING TO GO TO, THAT WE MIGHT MAYBE RISK BY PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT. YOU KNOW, I THINK A QUINT WOULD GET VOTED SUPPORT VOTERS SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, A PUBLIC SAFETY TOPIC.

BUT ANYWAYS, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. THE THING THOUGH IS THAT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE TAKING THAT RISK.

WE'VE ALREADY FOUND THE MONEY TO BUY THE QUINTS.

WE'VE FOR THE RADIO SYSTEMS AND THAT'S WELL SET AND THAT'S NEEDED NOW.

WE CAN'T WAIT MUCH LONGER TO BUY THAT EQUIPMENT EVERY SINGLE DAY WHILE OUR FIRE IS OUT THERE, OR A POTENTIAL FIRE COULD HAPPEN ON A FIVE STORY BUILDING.

WE NEED THOSE VEHICLES AND I'M NOT WILLING TO REALLY PUT THAT TOWARDS THE OR TAKE IT OUT FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO PUT INTO THE POTENTIAL FOR A BOND PERSONALLY. SURE.

MR. TADDER. AND JUST ONE MORE NOTE.

THE QUINTS ALREADY APPROVED BY COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE] APPROVED THAT CONTRACT SO WE COULDN'T NECESSARILY SWITCH THAT ONE TO BOND FUNDS.

OKAY.

CITY MANAGER I APOLOGIZE.

I MISUNDERSTOOD. THE QUESTION IS CONFUSING BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE PUBLIC SAFETY FEATURES IN THIS LIST OF PRIORITIES THAT DO INCLUDE FIRE VEHICLES BUT NOT THE QUINT TRUCKS.

I THOUGHT COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU WERE ASKING IF THOSE VEHICLES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PRIORITIZED COULD BE FUNDED THROUGH ANOTHER MEANS IN THE FUTURE AND TAKEN OFF THIS LIST, I MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.

I SEE, MAYOR.

I THINK IN OUR CONVERSATIONS, AT LEAST, WHAT I TRY TO HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH YOU WAS THE THE ITEMS ARE ON THIS LIST AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIND GENERAL FUND FUNDS TO PAY FOR THOSE ITEMS ON THIS LIST.

AND MY ONLY POINT IN BRINGING THIS UP WAS THAT MAYBE WE LEAVE THESE ITEMS ON THAT LIST AND TAKE THOSE $2 MILLION, I THINK, OR SO DOLLARS AND PUT THAT TOWARDS SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S ON THIS LIST THAT WE WANT TO TAKE OFF THE LIST.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? FORGET IT. I'LL JUST END BY SAYING HOUSING GOT DELAYED IN 2020 BECAUSE OF COVID, AND HOUSING IS MY TOP TOP PRIORITY HERE WITH THIS LONG CONVERSATION ALONG WITH CLIMATE, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR NOW.

I THINK WE GOT A GOOD EMAIL FROM SOME FOLKS WHO GAVE US SOME GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO REMOVE, SUCH AS THE BAR SCREEN REHABILITATION ALONG WITH THE SEPTIC AND GREASE STATION EQUATING TO CLOSE TO, I WANT TO SAY, CLOSE TO $7 MILLION ALONG WITH THE MAIN MOTOR, MAIN MOTOR CONTROL

[03:55:05]

SO RIGHT THERE IS ABOUT TEN, $10.5 MILLION THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO LESSEN THIS TOTAL WITH GETTING TOWARDS YOUR GOAL THERE THAT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH PERSONALLY, BUT WE'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT COUNCIL THINKS.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI. THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO CALL IN THE ILLUSTRIOUS STACY BK BECAUSE ONE OF THE BIG THINGS FOR ME THROUGH THIS IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE FUNDS.

WE GOT ABOUT $73 MILLION FOR STORM WATER AND WASTEWATER, BUT THERE IS GRANTS OUT THERE.

THERE'S PARTNERS.

I MEAN, WE ARE RIGHT NOW WORKING ON THE SPRUCE WASH THAT WE'VE THROUGH FIVE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES NOW HAVE ABOUT $15 MILLION ALLOCATED FOR PROJECTS OF WHICH ALL ABOUT FOUR TO FIVE CAME OUT OF OUR POCKET AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL, THE FUSD, ALL ALL OF THESE OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MATCH WITH.

SO I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THOUGH, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS WE'RE GOING ALL OUT WITH IT OURSELVES, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT REALLY HOW A LOT OF PROPOSITIONS HAVE WORK.

THE FWPP, WE DID $10 MILLION AND WE GOT $8 MILLION IN ADDITION, TURNED INTO ABOUT $18-$19 MIL WITH PROP 419.

THE GW CORRIDOR WASN'T FULLY FUNDED WITH THAT.

IT WAS 40% FUNDED WITH THE EXPECTATION OF GETTING GRANTS TO MATCH THAT, TO PROVIDE SOME MATCHING.

SO I KIND OF WANTED TO SEE WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES OUT THERE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR OUR STORM OR SRUCE WASH OR WILDCAT CAPACITY? WHAT IS THE LANDSCAPE LOOK LIKE FOR POTENTIAL FEDERAL MATCHING DOLLARS? BECAUSE THERE WAS A ONE POINT ALMOST $2 TRILLION INFRASTRUCTURE BILL, THAT LAW THAT WENT THROUGH.

MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL.

STACEY IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.

WELL, THEN, FORGET IT. YOU CAN GO.

I'M JUST KIDDING. [LAUGHTER]. YOU KNOW, THE STRUGGLE IS THAT A LOT OF THOSE ARE COMPETITIVE GRANTS AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEES THAT WE WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL TO RECEIVE THOSE FUNDING'S.

I BELIEVE ANOTHER PART OF THE STORY IS THAT THE ASK HERE IS NOT THE FULL FUNDING FOR SPRUCE WALSH AND THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS.

THIS IS ONE PHASE RELATED TO THAT.

MY UNDERSTANDING THE ESTIMATES IS FAR BEYOND WHAT WE'RE ASKING WITHIN THIS MEASURE HERE.

BUT YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO BE VERY ACTIVE TO GET AS MANY FEDERAL FUNDING AS WE CAN, BUT SOMETIMES THESE TYPE OF PROJECT CAN HELP SUPPLEMENT.

OH, RICK, COULD YOU GET CLOSER TO THE MIC? I'M SORRY. I JUST GOT. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

SOMETIMES BOND FUNDS LIKE THIS COULD ACTUALLY SUPPLEMENT AND INCREASE OUR ABILITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL ON A BOND AND GROW THE PROJECT EVEN FURTHER.

SO THERE'S OTHER OPPORTUNITIES IF THESE WERE PASSED ALSO.

SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF NUANCES THERE.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

WELL, A COUPLE OF POINTS.

I'LL TIE INTO THAT LAST DISCUSSION.

THE $26 MILLION FOR SPRUCE WASH IS ONLY ABOUT A QUARTER OF WHAT WE NEED ACCORDING TO MS. ANDERSON, WE MIGHT NEED $90 TO $100 MILLION DOLLARS.

SO THIS IS ONLY, YOU KNOW, TO GET US STARTED AND WE WILL NEED GRANTS TO GET THE REST OF IT DONE.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. ANDERSON, ANOTHER ONE.

THE SURVEY THAT WAS MADE, WAS THAT A RANDOM SAMPLE OR WAS IT YOU KNOW, HERE'S A SURVEY CALL IN AND TAKE THE SURVEY IF YOU WANT? SO THE SURVEY WAS ONLINE AND ALL OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE INVITED.

SO WE SENT A POSTCARD TO EVERY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, INVITING THEM TO PARTICIPATE.

OKAY. SO THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN A RANDOM SAMPLE.

WELL, BUT THE NUMBERS THAT YOU SEE IS A RANDOM SAMPLE.

WELL, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

SO WE RECEIVED THE 1385 RESPONSES.

AND THEN OUT OF THAT WORKED TO CREATE THE RANDOM SAMPLE THAT MATCHES OUR COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHICS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REFLECTIVE OF WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN FLAGSTAFF, AND I SEE STEVE'S COME ON.

SO HE MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE DETAILS HE CAN SHARE.

BUT THAT'S THE HIGH LEVEL ANSWER.

GO AHEAD, STEVE. THANK YOU, SHANNON.

NO, THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH DIFFICULTY THESE DAYS IN GETTING PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY RESPOND TO SURVEY QUESTIONS.

WE USED A METHODOLOGY THAT HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL PRIOR TO OUR SURVEY IN FLAGSTAFF, WHERE WE INVITED THE WHOLE COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.

AND THEN BECAUSE WE ASKED DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS IN THE SURVEY ITSELF, WE WERE ABLE TO CREATE A RANDOM SAMPLE FROM ALL OF THE ANSWERS THAT WE GOT MATCHING THE COMMUNITIES DEMOGRAPHICS, AGE AND SO ON, SO THAT IT IS AS CLOSE

[04:00:06]

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE A SO-CALLED RANDOM SAMPLE, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT A RANDOM SAMPLE.

AND WE.

WE HAVE A RANDOM SAMPLE.

HOW WE DERIVE THAT SAMPLE IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY YOU WOULD NORMALLY GO ABOUT DERIVING A SAMPLE BY MAKING A NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS TO PEOPLE TO SEE IF THEY WOULD ANSWER A SURVEY AND THEN DOING THE ANALYSIS FROM FINISHED SURVEYS AS TO WHO ANSWERED AND WHO DO YOU NEED TO FILL IN TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S TWO WAYS TO ACHIEVE THE SAME THING, BUT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO LESS CONFIDENCE IN THIS METHODOLOGY THAN I WOULD HAVE IF WE HAD DONE IT THE OTHER WAY.

WELL, I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS, BUT MY KNOWLEDGE OF SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND STUFF SAYS WHEN YOU START WITH A SAMPLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT RANDOM AND THEN TRY TO MAKE IT INTO A RANDOM, YOU'LL NEVER GET THERE.

SO WE CAN RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.

NO HARD FEELINGS.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT THAT WHATEVER CONCLUSIONS WE TAKE FROM THE SAMPLE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.

MOVING ON, I THINK WE'VE BEAT THAT ONE TO DEATH.

I GUESS MY GUT FEEL IS SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF $100 MILLION DOLLARS IS TOO MUCH.

I THINK I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR ON THAT.

TO BE HONEST, I WAS THINKING OF SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF $50 MILLION AND YOU'RE SUGGESTING $70.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WHEN WE GET DOWN TO SPECIFICS SO I CAN MAKE SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT I MIGHT TAKE OFF THE LIST.

BEFORE I GET TO THAT, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT SOME OF THE WATER PROJECTS, LIKE IT'S A SEWER TREATMENT PLANT, ETC., ARE THINGS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

YET IN SOME OF THE OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S REALLY FOUR OPTIONS HERE, THE SO CALLED ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND THEN OPTION ONE, OPTION TWO, OPTION THREE.

A LOT OF THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ARE TAKEN OFF THERE.

AND THAT CONCERNS ME THAT WE NEED TO GET THOSE THINGS DONE, BE IT THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND OR THROUGH THE BONDS OR WHATEVER.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'D JUST LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT QUICKLY.

WHEN JIM [INAUDIBLE] AND HIS TEAM PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS, THEY DID PROVIDE A PRIORITY SCHEME OF EITHER HIGH, MEDIUM OR LOW PRIORITY.

AND SO THE OPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE NOW IN YOUR PACKET, WE SIMPLY TOOK OFF THE LOWEST PRIORITY.

THEY'RE ALL IMPORTANT.

I DON'T WANT TO MISSTATE THAT.

THEY'RE ALL IMPORTANT AND THEY'RE ALL FAIRLY URGENT, BUT SOME ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS.

AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE APPENDIX IS REFLECTIVE OF THAT.

THANK YOU. SO SOME OF THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN DROPPED OFF IN SOME OF THESE OPTIONS, WE CAN WAIT ON FOR A YEAR OR TWO.

I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT.

OKAY. YEAH. THANKS.

SO ANYTHING THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL IS STILL ON THE RECOMMENDED LIST.

YES. THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER.

DEPUTY CITY MANAGER. SO YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT THE VARIOUS GRANTS.

I KNOW SBK IS NOT HERE, BUT WE'VE BEEN HAVING A FINANCE COMMITTEE THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON SOME OF THE PROJECTS, AND THIS IS A LIST OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE NOT HEARD BACK YET, BUT THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL ITEMS SUBMITTED BOTH TO DEMA-FEMA AS WELL AS DFFM RELATED TO THESE PROJECTS. SO THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN.

EXCELLENT. YEAH. THANK YOU.

AND OUR TEAM HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL OF LATE IN GETTING THESE, AND I'M VERY GLAD ABOUT IT.

I JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL THESE PROJECTS NEED TO BE DONE.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHERE CAN WE FIND THE DOLLARS TO DO IT AND BALANCING THAT OUT WITH THE BALLOT.

SO THANK YOU FOR PULLING THAT UP.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL START US OFF A LITTLE BIT WITH THE IDEAS AROUND BUNDLING.

SO IT I THINK THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS CAN BE INCORPORATED TO REDUCE IT TO REALLY THREE BONDS, WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING, AND PUBLIC SAFETY. SOME OF THE CLIMATE ACTION ASPECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOME ENERGY RETROFITS I THINK IS FEASIBLE AND

[04:05:05]

IT DOESN'T REDUCE YOUR HOUSING COSTS INEVITABLY TO HAVE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES IN YOUR ABODE.

IN TERMS OF THE WHERE I'M WANTING TO SEE THE GENERAL NUMBERS AND WE CAN DISCUSS THE SOME OF THE SPECIFICS ON HOW TO GET THERE.

HOW I'M KIND OF ENVISIONING THIS IS ABOUT $50 TO $55 MILLION FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF OUR STORM WATER AND WASTEWATER BROUGHT TOGETHER THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY DONE BY REMOVING THE LAST TWO PROJECTS, THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT UPGRADES AND THE RECEIVING STATIONS TO BRING THAT NUMBER DOWN TO $55 MILLION.

SECONDLY, WITH HOUSING, HONESTLY, I'M VERY TREPIDATIOUS ABOUT PUTTING IN ANYTHING THAT FAILED JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE KEEP THAT NUMBER TO ABOUT $15 MAYBE $20 MILLION.

I FEEL LIKE IF WE PUT ANOTHER $25 MIL PLUS ON THERE, IT'S GOING TO FAIL LIKE IT DID A FEW YEARS AGO.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE LOW HANGING FRUIT WHEN PEOPLE ARE REALIZING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE GOT WE HAVE FLOODING TO DEAL WITH IN OUR CITY.

WE HAVE WILDFIRES TO DEAL WITH IN THE CITY AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE MORE LIKELY TO BE NIXED IF WE PUT TOO MUCH ON THERE.

SO AND THEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THIS.

IN ADDITION TO THE WILDFIRE ENGINES, AREN'T WE ALSO IN NEED OF A TYPE ONE ENGINE RIGHT NOW? FOR OUR FIRE. I MEAN, I JUST WE'RE LOOKING AT $2 MILLION HERE, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT MADE MORE SENSE THAT IF WE NEED MORE FIRE EQUIPMENT, SINCE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS, WHAT, $8-10 MILLION WHEN WE FIRST ORIGINALLY HAPPENED AND WE HAVE BEEN PECKING AWAY AT WELL, NOT JUST PECKING, BUT THE RADIOS GETTING REPLACED, THE QUINTS.

WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK THERE.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE BALLOT NOW FOR FOLKS, I'M WONDERING IF WE NEED TO IF WE'RE DOING A PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE BOND, IF MAYBE WE SHOULD INCLUDE MORE FIRE TRUCKS WITH THE EXPECTATION OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

SO THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR THE QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE IF CHIEF GAILLARD IS ON BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE AS TO WHAT'S COMING UP.

WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING ON WHAT'S NEEDED OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND MAKING SURE THAT THOSE ARE INCLUDED HERE.

SO I'D HAVE TO DO SOME WORK TO LOOK AT THEIR LIST OF WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE FUTURE TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT ANSWER TO YOU.

OKAY. WELL, THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE THINGS TODAY IS AND WHEN I'M LOOKING AT IT NOW FOR $2.2 MILLION, I MEAN, THIS YEAR WE'VE PUT QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO GETTING THESE ENGINES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE COULD PUT ON THE GENERAL COULD BE, YOU KNOW, PRIORITY LIST WHEN WE START NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET DISCUSSIONS COME SEPTEMBER THAT THIS IS THE TOP OF THE LIST.

JUST LIKE LAST YEAR, WE PUT IT AT THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR OUR RADIOS AND THE QUINTS.

IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT ON THE BOND, THOUGH, I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE BANG FOR OUR BUCK FOR ACTUALLY PUTTING IT ON THERE IS KIND OF MY THOUGHT.

BUT INEVITABLY I'M LOOKING AT THREE BONDS WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING, AND PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THAT WOULD BE AROUND $55 MIL, $50 TO $55 MIL FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, $15 TO $20 FOR HOUSING, AND POTENTIALLY JUST THROWING OUT THERE WHEN WE FIND OUT THE TYPE ONE ENGINE, $4 MILLION FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT.

AND THAT WOULD ROUND TO ABOUT THE $75 THAT I'M AIMING FOR $70-$75.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE. SO I AGREE WITH THE CATEGORIES THAT YOU PRESENTED.

AND I THINK THEY PRETTY MUCH MATCH THE ONES THAT I REFERENCED IN MY FIRST COMMENTS.

I DO WANT TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE HOUSING BOND, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOND MEASURE THAT FAILED, THEN CERTAINLY THERE WAS THERE WERE ISSUES THERE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOND MEASURE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN WHAT WAS IT, 2020 THAT NEARLY WAS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC BUT WAS TAKEN OFF BECAUSE OF THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC THAT WAS RANGING BETWEEN, I WANT TO SAY $30 TO $50 MILLION.

SO I DON'T WANT TO SEE US CUT FUNDING FROM THAT AGAIN, STATED HOUSING EMERGENCY, WHEN WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO MEET THOSE NEEDS AND MAKE REAL PROGRESS IN THAT AREA.

I ALSO I GUESS I WOULD WANT MORE CLARIFICATION ON WHY WE WOULD ADD FUNDING TO AN AREA WHERE

[04:10:02]

AND JUST SPEAKING FROM PARTICIPATING IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS, IF IF THAT WAS THE ASK, WE WERE VERY DETAILED IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE HAPPENING AT THAT POINT TO ASK ABOUT WAS THAT MAKING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND WAS THAT WHAT THEY NEEDED? WAS THERE MORE OR LESS OR WIGGLE ROOM IN THOSE NUMBERS? SO FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY, FOR FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, I WOULD SAY THAT THE NUMBER THAT WAS PRESENTED IS THE NUMBER THAT IS NEEDED.

I'M HESITANT TO SAY, LET'S JUST TACK SOMETHING MORE ONTO THAT AND CUT FUNDING FROM SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ACKNOWLEDGING WE NEED TO MAKE REAL PROGRESS ON.

[INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MAYOR, DO YOU SAY WATER, HOUSING AND PUBLIC SAFETY? CORRECT. SO, NO, I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT CLIMATE AND SUSTAINABILITY.

I THINK THE HOME RETROFITTING CAN BE PLACED INTO THE HOUSING BOND.

AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE CITY EFFICIENT FACILITIES, IF THAT COULD BE USED FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCIES AT OUR WATER PLANTS RATHER THAN OTHER FACILITIES, THEN IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR IT STILL BEING WATER AND HELPING TO FACILITATE OR WELL HELP TO CREATE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENCY TO THAT SAME TUNE ONLY AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS THAT WOULD BE WATER RELATED.

OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S INTERESTING.

THAT MAKES MORE SENSE NOW.

YEAH. I'LL JUST SAY THAT I TOO, SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT CUTTING DOWN ON HOUSING.

I REALLY DO THINK THAT THIS THIS INITIATIVE IS SO DIFFERENT THAN 2018, AS YOU KNOW.

RIGHT. I REMEMBER I THINK, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, YOU WERE PRETTY AGAINST THE PUMP IN 2018 BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF DETAIL.

AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD A HOUSING COMMISSION.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ALL THIS DETAIL, BUT I LIKE TO THINK THAT IF WE PUT ON THE BALLOT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SMALL ARMY OF CHAMPIONS IN THE COMMUNITY ADVOCATING FOR THIS AND MAKING SURE TO SEE IT THROUGH.

AND I DON'T THINK EVEN LOST BY MUCH THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

I WANT TO SAY YOU HAVE TO CORRECT ME IF SOMEONE KNOWS BETTER THAN I DO, BUT I THINK IT WAS LIKE 500 VOTES.

IT WASN'T MANY.

AND THAT WAS WITH THE LACK OF CLARITY AND THE LACK OF A HOUSING COMMISSION AND ALL THE EFFORT AND THE TEAM THAT'S BEEN PUTTING SO MUCH TIME INTO IT.

SO I'LL STOP TALKING NOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT HOUSING FUNDED AT THE HIGHER LEVEL.

THAT IS MY TOP, TOP ISSUE WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF TODAY.

HOUSING IS AT THE ROOT OF ALL OF OUR ISSUES THAT WE KNOW ABOUT.

AND YEAH, ANYWAY, IT'S I'LL LET THE CONVERSATION CONTINUE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

[INAUDIBLE] MAYOR COUNCIL THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO JUMP IN REAL QUICK.

I KNOW THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON THE TERMINOLOGY ABOUT BALLOT QUESTION, A BOND MEASURE, A BALLOT MEASURE.

THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL IS DISCUSSING TONIGHT.

WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT USE OF THE WORD INITIATIVE THAT'S VOTER DRIVEN, THAT'S VOTER PROTECTION.

THAT'S THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT TERM INITIATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT WE STAY AWAY FROM IN THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT COMES FROM THE VOTERS.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, STERLING.

VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU.

SO FIRST OFF, THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE AND ALL OF THE HARD WORK.

CITY MANAGER SHANNON ANDERSON.

WE CANNOT BE DOING THIS AND HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITHOUT YOU.

SO I VALUE ALL OF YOUR TIME AND ENERGY YOU PUT INTO THIS.

YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT THIS, AND I, TOO, AM WANTING TO KEEP IT BETWEEN $70-$75, EVEN $65 MILLION.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU ALL, BUT WHEN I GO TO THE GROCERY STORE, BUYING THAT GALLON OF MILK IS GETTING PRETTY, PRETTY TOUGH.

I DON'T GET TO GO TO PHENIX TO SEE MY MOM AS OFTEN BECAUSE OF GAS PRICES.

AND I CAN TELL YOU, AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, I THINK THE TIDE IS SHIFTING.

AND WE JUST DID COME OUT OF A VERY LONG PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY.

AND I THINK WE'RE WE'RE ROUNDING ANOTHER CORNER WITH THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE A LOT OF NEEDS HERE.

THE ONE THAT REALLY STICKS OUT TO ME.

WELL, I HAVE TWO.

THEY'RE ALL IMPORTANT.

THE STORMWATER/WASTEWATER.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT AFFECTS EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN IN OUR CITY.

AND THAT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANT HOUSING.

I'M LOSING EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF HOUSING.

I CAN'T KEEP THEM.

AND I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE.

SO THIS IS A TRUE EMERGENCY WE HAVE HAPPENING IN OUR CITY.

[04:15:04]

AND I THINK THERE COULD BE A WAY TO GET CLIMATE ACTION MAYBE SHIFTED AROUND INTO A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.

I MYSELF FEEL LIKE HAVING TWO BOND INITIATIVES IS A SWEET SPOT FOR ME BECAUSE I THINK VOTER FATIGUE IS GOING TO BE REAL AND ALIVE COME NOVEMBER.

AND WITH PUBLIC SAFETY, I AM NOT SAYING AT ALL THAT THOSE ENGINES ARE NOT IMPORTANT, BUT I AM WONDERING IF WE CAN FIND THAT TO THE TOP OF THE PRIORITY LIST FOR THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE INTERNALLY.

SO THOSE ARE MY INITIAL THOUGHTS RIGHT NOW.

I COULD GO INTO MORE DETAILS, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CONVERSATION FURTHER BEFORE I DO THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

CHIEF, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

CHIEF GAILLARD, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

I'LL LET THEM FINISH TALKING WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE CHIEF.

I'LL JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, I DO WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE THE CATEGORY.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF TWO QUESTIONS.

I REALLY DO. THAT JUST SEEMS REALLY CLEAN AND SIMPLE.

SO I'M THINKING WATER AND HOUSING.

AND SO I DO WANT TO KNOW FROM CHIEF WHAT HAPPENS IF WE REMOVE THIS FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY, FROM THE BOND, FROM THE BALLOT? BUT I'M WONDERING, MAYOR, TO YOUR POINT AND OTHER MEMBERS COUNCILS COMMENTS ABOUT TOTAL AMOUNTS.

I WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY TO SOMEHOW BRING WATER DOWN TO $40 MILLION TOTAL, PERHAPS $20 FOR SPRUCE TEA FOR THE REST OF THE LIST OF OF WATER RELATED PROJECTS.

AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS POSSIBLE, BUT IF WE WERE ABLE TO BRING THAT NUMBER DOWN TO $40 AND LET'S JUST SAY $30 FOR HOUSING, THAT BRINGS US TO $70 TOTAL.

IF WE WANTED TO DO $65 TOTAL.

MAYBE IT'S $25 TO HOUSING.

I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION, BUT IS THAT AT ALL POSSIBLE? AND THEN, CHIEF, MY QUESTION FOR YOU.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE WITH US.

WHAT HAPPENS IF PUBLIC SAFETY IN THESE REQUESTS IS REMOVED FROM THE BALLOT FROM THE BOND INITIATIVE? WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS ON NEXT STEPS? DO WE LOOK TOO FOND ONE, TWO OF THEM IN THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE OR WHAT DO YOU THINK? MY EXPERIENCE COUNCIL MEMBER IS WE HAVE STRUGGLED TO REPLACE FIRE EQUIPMENT.

WE HAVE A REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE THAT'S PUSHING 20 YEARS.

I SPOKE WITH COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE A TEN YEAR REPLACEMENT CYCLE AND THEY DON'T PUT NEAR THE MILES ON THEIR APPARATUS THAT WE DO NOR DRIVE IN THE INTENSITY OF ENVIRONMENT THAT WE DO HERE IN FLAGSTAFF.

THE BOND ISSUE AS WE PREPARED FOR THE CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMUNITY, WAS FOR EQUIPMENT WHICH WE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO FIND FUNDING FOR THROUGH OUR REGULAR GENERAL FUNDING PROCESS.

SO A WAY TO MAYBE PUT IT UNDERNEATH WATER.

I'M JUST THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX HERE, JUST TRYING TO GET US TO THAT TO NUMBER OF BOND INITIATIVES, BECAUSE $2 MILLION IS NOT A WHOLE LOT, IN MY OPINION, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $70 MILLION.

YOU KNOW, SO I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK.

I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I PERSONALLY WANT TO SEE IT BE A STANDALONE TO CREATE THAT THIRD QUESTION.

IF WE DO GET IT DOWN TO TWO QUESTIONS, SOME SOMEHOW.

COUNCIL MEMBER, I CAN'T COMMENT ON HOW THE HOW THE COUNCIL MIGHT GET TO THEIR DESIRED NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND SO FORTH.

I DON'T HAVE A RESPONSE IN THAT CONTEXT.

FUNDING HAS BEEN CHALLENGING.

THE GENERAL FUND IS HIGHLY CONSTRAINED, AS YOU'RE AWARE, AND NOT JUST FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT, BUT FOR OUR COLLEAGUES IN PUBLIC WORKS AND STREETS MAINTAINING SERVICE DELIVERY ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.

THESE ARE EVERYDAY PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT GO INTO SERVICE.

AND OUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN WE'VE DEFERRED A LOT OF REPLACEMENT THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

I DON'T HAVE A RESPONSE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT'S THE BEST GROUPING.

I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU AND THE EXPERTS WITH RESPECT TO THE NEED IT'S CLEARLY THERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

THANK YOU. JUST A SUGGESTION IN TERMS OF CATEGORIZING.

I MEAN, IT'S IT'S LISTED AS PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE HAVE STORMWATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

COULD WE NOT CATEGORIZE AS INFRASTRUCTURE? IF YOU WANTED TO COMBINE THOSE? AND I ALSO FEEL LIKE IF WE DID THAT, THERE IS ROOM TO INPUT THE CITY EFFICIENT FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER THAT CATEGORY AS WELL TO MAINTAIN THAT CLIMATE ACTION REQUEST.

[04:20:10]

RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

YEAH. I THINK THOSE CATEGORIES, SOUND INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

THAT IS AN EDICT. BUT JUST AS MY GUT REACTION, I'M THINKING THAT MAYBE THREE, THREE QUESTIONS WOULD BE ABOUT RIGHT.

ONE IS WAY TOO LITTLE.

TWO IS STILL KIND OF LITTLE THREE MAYBE.

BUT AGAIN, THAT DEPENDS ABOUT HOW WE BREAK THESE DOWN.

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT ONE LINE ITEM, WHICH IS CALLED HOME ENERGY RETROFITS.

I HAVE TWO CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

ONE IS THAT IT'S WAY MORE EFFICIENT TO PUT IN BETTER INSULATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENT THINGS IN A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAN IT IS TO TRY TO RETROFIT AN OLD HOUSE.

MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT SINCE THAT WILL BE GOING TO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WILL NOT BE REPAID.

IT'S NOT A LOAN.

YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY SELL THE HOUSE, THE CITY DOESN'T GET THEIR MONEY BACK.

THAT'S A GIFT AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DELETE THAT LINE ITEM.

HOME ENERGY RETROFITS.

DELETE THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

THAT IS ONE OF THE ONLY THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY GOT ON HERE FROM FOR OUR CLIMATE ACTION.

THAT MAKES ME A LITTLE TREPIDATIOUS, BUT I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT OFFER AND TO GET TO THAT SAME IMPACT.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE PLAN FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2030, BUT WE HAVE OUR OWN GOALS AS A CITY GOVERNMENT TO GET THAT WELL BEFOREHAND RATHER THAN DOING HOME ENERGY RETROFITS FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS.

WHY AREN'T WE WHY DON'T WE DEDICATE ALL THOSE FUNDS TOWARDS GETTING ALL OF OUR CITY FACILITIES AND TAKE CARE OF ALL OF OUR FACILITIES TO BECOME MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT AND RETROFIT WHAT WE HAVE? BUT THAT THERE IS AN ACTION, A LINE ITEM FOR THAT IS CALLED CITY EFFICIENCY, CITY EFFICIENT FACILITIES.

SO I'M SAYING THAT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE HOME ENERGY, THEN WE SHOULD PUT MORE MONEY TOWARDS THE CITY FACILITIES.

I WOULD SUPPORT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH, BUT I WOULD SUPPORT SOME FUNDING IN THAT REGARD.

I DO SEE NICOLE STANDING UP IN THE BACK, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME ON DOWN TO CHAT.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL NICOLE ANTONOPOULOS SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

THE CONVERSATION REGARDING CITY FACILITIES.

WE ARE CURRENTLY IN UNDERGOING A ENERGY CONSERVATION CONTRACT THAT IS CONDUCTING INDUSTRIAL GRADE AUDITS OF EVERY CITY FACILITY.

WE WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL AFTER THE BREAK WITH A FINANCE PACKAGE.

THE WAY THAT [INAUDIBLE] THE ENERGY CONSERVATION CONTRACTS WORK IS THAT THE ENERGY SAVINGS THAT ARE BROUGHT FORWARD ACTUALLY PAY FOR THE WORK THAT'S BEING CONDUCTED.

SO WE ARE CURRENTLY IN CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY CALLED [INAUDIBLE] AND THE CITY COUNCIL AWARDED THAT CONTRACT BACK LAST AT THE END OF LAST YEAR.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT.

SO JUST SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT AS THIS DISCUSSION UNFOLDS AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

SO WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES MORE THROUGH THE AUDIT AND SOME AND WE'RE WORKING ON ALL THE FINANCIALS AT THE MOMENT.

I DON'T HAVE THE FULL RESULTS OF THE AUDIT, AND YET WE'RE ABOUT 80% COMPLETE WITH THE FINAL REPORT THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE NEXT MONTH. SO TIMING IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT WITH THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION.

OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

THANKS FOR SHARING THAT.

SO IN TERMS OF THE CITY EFFICIENT FACILITIES MEASURE THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, YOU PRESENTED AN ORIGINAL LOW COST OF A MILLION ORIGINAL HIGH COST OF A MILLION.

ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT THERE MAY BE MORE NEED THERE BASED OFF OF THIS AUDIT THAT'S DONE? OR ARE YOU WOULD YOU STAND BY THAT MILLION DOLLAR FIGURE? SO FOR A CITY, THE WHOLE.

I APOLOGIZE.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD THAT CORRECTLY.

SURE. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE CITY EFFICIENT FACILITIES BOND MEASURE THAT WAS PRESENTED AND IT WAS PRESENTED WITH AN ORIGINAL LOW COST OF $1,000,000 IN AN ORIGINAL HIGH COST OF $1,000,000.

SO ARE YOU THINKING THAT WITH THIS AUDIT PROCESS THERE MAY BE A HIGHER NEED THERE OR ARE WOULD YOU STICK BY THAT $1 MILLION

[04:25:05]

SO INITIALLY WE HAD ALSO INCORPORATED CITY OWNED RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS, KIND OF BUNDLED INTO THAT.

SO THAT $1 MILLION WAS REALLY TO ACCELERATE AND GO DEEPER AND BROADER WITH THE ENERGY CONSERVATION CONTRACT WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.

SO IT'S REALLY TO TAKE THAT ABOVE AND BEYOND.

WE KNOW THAT THE FINANCING PACKAGE FOR ALL THE WORK THAT'S NEEDED AT CITY FACILITIES WILL NOT BE COVERED BY THE [INAUDIBLE].

I JUST DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION OR THE FINAL RESULTS OF THAT IN FRONT OF ME TODAY.

AND SO THE IDEA IS THAT THIS ADDITIONAL $1 MILLION WOULD THEN TAKE TAKE IT BROADER AND DEEPER.

SO I JUST WANTED TO BE MAKE THE COUNCIL AWARE THAT WE ARE WORKING IN THAT DIRECTION WITH THAT FRAMEWORK OF AN [INAUDIBLE] WILL WE ADDRESS EVERY CITY, FACILITY AND EVERY NEED AT EVERY CITY FACILITY? WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] THE ANSWER IS NO AGAIN, WHICH IS WHY WE INCLUDED SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE.

IS THAT HELPFUL? THAT IS GREAT.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND THANK YOU, NICOLE, FOR BEING HERE.

GOOD EVENING.

GOOD NIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE HONEST, I WAS A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED IN THE $8 MILLION TOTAL FIGURE FOR CLIMATE ON THIS.

I KNOW THAT THERE IS A MUCH HIGHER NEED FOR CLIMATE IF WE'RE TAKING THAT SERIOUSLY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, TO COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY'S COMMENT ABOUT THE RETROFITS AND THE HOME ENERGY IF COUNCIL NOT SAYING THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS, BUT IF THE MAJORITY WERE TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO PURSUE THE HOME RETROFITS, I'M SURE THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER WORTHWHILE CLIMATE INITIATIVES AND INITIATIVES.

BUT OTHER OTHER TOPICS OF INTEREST THAT NEED FUNDING THAT COULD EASILY FIT THAT $7 MILLION PLACEHOLDER, PERHAPS.

CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO OTHER ITEMS IN THE QUEUE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO FILL THAT IN CASE COUNCIL WERE TO WANT TO REMOVE IT IF THEY HAD ISSUES WITH THAT TOPIC? ABSOLUTELY. AND WE PRESENTED THE CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE WITH A $70 MILLION MENU TO CHOOSE FROM.

SO AND IT WAS QUITE EXTENSIVE.

BUT THE INTENT BEHIND THAT WAS REALLY JUST TO SHOW THESE ARE THE NEEDS ACROSS THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN GOALS.

THERE ARE A WIDE VARIETY OF INITIATIVES, BUT THEY WERE BASICALLY WITHIN THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, TRANSPORTATION.

AND SO WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES.

I'D BE HAPPY TO GO GRAB MY COMPUTER REALLY QUICK AND SHARE DETAILS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M STAYING WITH THEM.

THE CONSTRUCT OF THE LEGAL DISCUSSION, I THINK THAT'S FINE FOR NOW.

NICOLE I THINK JUST MY BIGGEST POINT TO COUNCIL IS LIKE IF WE IF WE DO DECIDE TO REMOVE THAT ONE, IF THERE'S A MAJORITY THAT WANT TO DO THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT LESSENING THAT $8 MILLION FOR CLIMATE BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A HUGE QUEUE OF $70 PLUS MILLION RIGHT BEHIND THAT THAT ONE LINE ITEM.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO REALLY PROTECT THAT THAT $8 MILLION HIGH COSTS FOR CLIMATE ACTION AT THE MINIMUM.

YOU KNOW, I WASN'T PART OF THOSE BOND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW CHARLIE AND OTHERS REALLY DO CARE ABOUT CLIMATE.

AND AND I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WERE CHAMPIONS FOR CLIMATE IN THAT PROCESS.

BUT REGARDLESS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

SO THAT'S WHY WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT LESSENING THAT NUMBER, GIVEN HOW MUCH THEY GIVEN THAT WE'VE DECLARED A CLIMATE EMERGENCY.

THANK YOU. GREAT.

AND DO YOU MIND IF I MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION WITHIN THAT ENERGY EFFICIENCY? WE DID SPLIT THAT BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND THEN CITY FACILITIES.

SO ENERGY, HOME HEALTH AND SAFETY, WHICH IS WHERE THE ENERGY REBATES FOR RESIDENTIAL SECTOR CAME FROM.

AND THEN THERE'S THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR THE CITY FACILITIES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR CITY FACILITIES AND THEN TRANSPORTATION.

OKAY, GREAT. LAST QUESTION.

AND WITH THE CITY EFFICIENT FACILITIES, THE COMMENT I MADE EARLIER ABOUT HAVING, IF WE FOCUS THAT ON OUR WATER FACILITIES, THAT MAYBE WE COULD BE BUNDLING THAT INTO THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

BUT IS IN A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BOND.

BUT IS THAT REALLY THE AREAS THAT WE NEEDED TO TARGET WITH THIS MILLION DOLLARS FOR CITY FACILITIES, OR COULD IT BE USED FOR OTHER ENERGY PURPOSES LIKE A MICROGRID OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AT OUR WATER FACILITIES THAT COULD ADDRESS ENERGY WHILE BEING.

ABSOLUTELY ONE OF THE ONE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS THAT WE AND AGAIN, WE BROUGHT A LOT TO THE CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE AND THEY HAD A LOT TO DIGEST IN THIS FRAMEWORK.

BUT WE ALSO AS PART OF THE PACKAGE FOR THE CITY FACILITIES.

THIS CONCEPT OF RESILIENCY HUBS WHICH INCORPORATE REDUNDANCY AND ENERGY SYSTEMS. AND SO ABSOLUTELY THAT OUR WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE UNDER THAT PROJECT UMBRELLA.

[04:30:02]

IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE REALLY STRONG PROJECT PARTNERS IN OUR UTILITY AND GRANT OPPORTUNITIES.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT.

CLEAR AS MUD. OKAY.

WELL, I'M GOING TO BACK I'M GOING TO BACK UP HERE WITH THE IDEA OF A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BOND.

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE TOP TWO PROJECTS WE NEED IS SPRUCE WASH AND WILDCAT CAPACITY, AND THOSE TWO ALONE TOTAL $47 MILLION.

WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING SOME OF THESE COMPETING VALUES AND THINGS THAT ARE ALL OF THESE ARE IMPORTANT.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE THINGS I'M LOOKING AT IS LIKE HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE.

RIGHT NOW, HOMES ARE BEING PURCHASED FOR $80,000.

ABOVE ASKING PRICE A $10,000 DOWN PAYMENT.

ASSISTANCE IS KIND OF A SPIT IN THE BUCKET AT THIS POINT.

SO WE'RE TALKING TO ACTUALLY HAVE A REAL IMPACT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE $40-$50,000 FOR PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY UTILIZE IT TO ACTUALLY PURCHASE A HOME.

AND WE'RE TALKING $2 MILLION, FOR EXAMPLE, TO HELP 40 TO 50 HOUSEHOLDS OR THAT MONEY GOING TO OUR WILDCAT CAPACITY THAT HELPS EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN IN THIS CITY PLUS SOME.

SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT A LOT OF THESE THINGS, I WANT US TO RECOGNIZE HOW MUCH IMPACT ARE WE HAVING ON WHOM AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING WASTEWATER, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN, THAT'S EVERY RESIDENT IN FLAGSTAFF.

AND I JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND, BECAUSE I AM I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS, LIKE THE HOME ENERGY RETROFITS THAT THIS IS GOING TO GO TO A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHEN WE HAVE A LOT OF VALUE OR A LOT OF COMPETING INTERESTS THAT AFFECT A LOT, LOT, LOT MORE.

AND THAT DOES INCLUDE THE WILDCAT CAPACITY AND SPRUCE WASH, AND THAT'S $47 MILLION, AND THAT'S ONE THAT I'M GOING TO BE A STICKLER ON THAT WE NEED.

SO JUST SO YOU KNOW WHERE I'M AT WITH THOSE TWO.

YEAH. MAYOR, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR HOME BUYING ASSISTANCE ITEM, I NOTE THAT IN OPTION THREE THAT THE BOND COMMITTEE GAVE IS THAT THAT WAS PUT BACK TO ZERO.

THEY TOOK THAT OUT.

AND AGAIN, I AGREE WITH YOU.

I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THAT ONE OFF, TOO.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO TAKE SOME OF THESE OFF.

THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

SO I'VE SUGGESTED TWO LINE ITEMS TO TAKE OFF HOMEBUYING ASSISTANCE AND HOME ENERGY RETROFITS.

MY GENERAL PHILOSOPHY IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU JUST STATED, IS THAT WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THINGS THAT ARE FOR THE OVERALL COMMUNITY GOOD AS OPPOSED TO FOR A SELECT FEW.

AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WHATEVER THAT MEANS IS, IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE PUTTING OUR MONEY.

THAT'S THE FIRST RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY BEFORE WE GET INTO HELPING INDIVIDUALS.

ALTHOUGH I DO IN GENERAL, I SUPPORT HOUSING IN DOING WHAT WE CAN WITH ITS IF IT'S WITHIN REASON.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES, MAYOR. AS YOU'RE CONTINUING YOUR CONVERSATION, I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE FIRE APPARATUS.

THERE IS A 21 YEAR OLD ALL RISK PUMPER AND THE ESTIMATED COST FOR THAT IS $1.5 MILLION.

OKAY. THAT WAY YOU HAVE THAT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I HAD RECALLED.

I JUST WANTED TO. YEAH.

CONFIRMATION. SO. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'LL JUST SAY ON THE HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE, THERE ISN'T MUCH WE CAN DO TO SUPPORT LOCALS GETTING INTO HOUSING.

I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT HERE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IS IS PRETTY SUCCESSFUL.

I KNOW SERDAR IS WITH US OR SOMEONE FROM HOUSING, BUT MAYBE EVEN COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS.

BUT THAT'S A REVOLVING LOAN, RIGHT? SO THAT MONEY KEEPS COMING BACK.

SO IN MY OPINION, YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY, YOU KNOW, INFRASTRUCTURE FOR WATER WASTEWATER IS CITYWIDE. I DO WONDER WHO'S LIVING IN THE CITY WIDE, YOU KNOW, GIVEN HOW HARD IT IS TO GET INTO HOUSING, YOU KNOW, AND WE ALL NEED TO GET INTO THAT CONVERSATION TOO MUCH.

BUT MY ONLY POINT IS, IF WE DON'T SUPPORT LOCALS GETTING INTO HOUSING WITH HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE CAN REALLY DO.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT WE ARE DOING, BUT I KNOW THAT THIS IS A BIG ONE THAT I THINK I THINK I SAW JUSTYNA OR SOMEONE JUMP ON ON THE TEAMS. AND I'D LOVE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO ADD, IF THAT'S OKAY HERE.

YEAH, OF COURSE. YEAH.

REAL QUICK, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

JUST REAL QUICK. THE FACT THAT IT'S A REVOLVING LOAN FUND IS VERY POSITIVE.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, JUSTYNA COSTA.

I'M YOUR ASSISTANT HOUSING DIRECTOR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

[04:35:04]

I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME AT THE MOMENT, BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SERVED JUST THIS YEAR ABOUT 20 DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLDS.

DAVONNA'S IN THE AUDIENCE, SO I KNOW SHE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M COMPLETELY OFF, BUT ABSOLUTELY.

AND IT IS A REVOLVING LOAN THAT COMES BACK TO US AND WE'RE ABLE TO THEN TAKE THAT MONEY AND USE IT TO HELP ANOTHER FAMILY.

THANK YOU, JUSTYNA.

MY QUESTION ON THAT FRONT IS HOW HOW LONG UNTIL IT COMES BACK INTO THE FUND? LIKE, ARE WE TALKING WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT MONEY FOR 20 YEARS OR WHEN WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE THAT REVOLVING FUND COME BACK TO HELP ANOTHER FAMILY? ABSOLUTELY. SO THAT FUNDING COMES BACK ANY TIME THE HOME IS NO LONGER OWNER OCCUPIED.

IF THE FAMILY REFINANCES FOR CASH OUT OR IF THE FAMILY DECIDES TO SELL.

AND AGAIN, WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMY, DEPENDING ON PEOPLE'S PERSONAL SITUATIONS, THAT TIMEFRAME VARIES DRASTICALLY.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU WE DEFINITELY HAVE PAYOFFS.

WHITE CONSISTENTLY, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR STAFF, ACTUALLY, THAT'S A LARGE PART OF HER JOB IS TO HANDLE PAYOFFS THAT WE GET FROM THESE PROGRAMS. IT LOOKS LIKE SARAH IS READY TO JUMP ON [INAUDIBLE].

HI MAYOR AND COUNCIL. JUST TO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ADD TO YOUR ANSWER A LITTLE BIT, WHAT JUSTYNA STATED IS OUR CURRENT PROGRAM, PROGRAM OUTLINE AND DYNAMICS, WE COULD ABSOLUTELY CREATE A PROGRAM THAT HAD A REPAYMENT SCHEDULE SO THAT THAT MONEY COMING BACK INTO THE PROGRAM IS MORE PREDICTABLE THAN IT IS NOW, WHICH NOW, OF COURSE, IT'S TRIGGERED BY THE THREE THINGS JUST YNA MENTIONED.

BUT AGAIN, LOCAL MONEY MEANS LOCAL RULES.

AND SO WE COULD STRUCTURE THAT, THAT PERHAPS THE FIRST HOWEVER MANY YEARS THERE ISN'T A PAYMENT AND THEN THERE IS A PROPORTIONAL REPAYMENT OR REPAYMENTS ARE EXPECTED ON A REGULAR BASIS.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE PREDICTABILITY WITHIN THAT.

BUT IN THE PAST WE HAVE NOT DONE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LETTING ME ADD TO THAT ANSWER.

THANK YOU [INAUDIBLE]. WELL, HONESTLY, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THESE AND WHAT HOUSING PROJECTS TO SHAVE DOWN A BIT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED WE NEED OWNERSHIP. AND I'M NOT AGAINST HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF, HEY, LOOK AT HOW MUCH OUR OUR WASTEWATER PLANT, HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT SERVE.

SO THIS WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE.

BUT WE NEED TO DO MORE FOR THE HOMEBUYERS.

AND I'M LESS I'M A LITTLE LESS, ACTUALLY, OF ALL THOSE ON THE LIST, THE INCENTIVIZING RENTAL HOUSING, BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET PEOPLE IN HOMES TO OWN, TO BUILD EQUITY. BUT I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT $6 MILLION TOWARDS HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE.

THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY, VERY LARGE NUMBER AND COMPARATIVELY WITH THIS.

AND TO ME RIGHT NOW, I'M LOOKING AT EVEN IF WE TAKE OFF THE THREE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE STORM, WATER AND WASTEWATER, WE'RE STILL AT $47 MILLION NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT.

YOU KNOW, WE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SHAVE SOMETHING OFF HERE FROM HOUSING, FOLKS.

SO I KNOW WE GOT A LOT OF SUPPORTERS ON THE HOUSING AND WE ALL WANT TO SEE IT THROUGH.

BUT I'M GOING TO NEED TO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ALL ARE GOING TO WANT TO SHAVE OFF, EITHER BY THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OR THE PROGRAM.

BUT AND I AM WILLING TO DO SO WITH THE STORM WATER AND WASTEWATER.

AS I SAID, I WAS WANTING TO DO $55 MIL TO BEGIN WITH.

SO I'M WILLING TO DO LESS.

BUT. THAT IS SPRUCE WASH AND WILDCAT CAPACITY TO ME ARE ABSOLUTES.

THEY HAVE TO BE ON THERE.

THERE'S NO QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE I AM JUST GOING TO NOTE THAT WITH OPTION TWO THAT'S PRESENTED FOR COSTS AT THE ORIGINAL LOW COST FOR ACTUALLY ALL OF HOUSING, THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE MADE TO STORM WATER AND THE ADDITIONAL CUT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON THAT HOME ENERGY RETROFITS, THAT TAKES US DOWN TO $75, AND CHANGE.

WELL, WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS YET ON THE HOME ENERGY RETROFITS BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM IF WE'RE ALSO NOT DOING ANYTHING FOR CLIMATE ACTION AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED.

IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING FOR CLIMATE ACTION, I THINK WE'RE NOT RESPECTING THE EMERGENCY THAT WE HAVE AS WELL AND GIVING THE COMPLETE AMOUNT TO ONE AREA OF HOUSING OF.

OF SUGGESTIONS WHILE CUTTING STORMWATER, WASTEWATER AND CLIMATE OUT OF THE PICTURE DOESN'T SIT SO WELL TO ME.

AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY SHAVE DOWN SOMETHING WITH HOUSING, JUST LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SHAVING THINGS FROM CLIMATE, JUST LIKE WE'RE SHAVING THINGS FROM STORM

[04:40:03]

WE ALL GOT TO COMPROMISE HERE TO GET THAT NUMBER DOWN TO AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL.

AND HONESTLY, I SAID $47 MIL FOR SPRUCE, WASH AND WILDCAT IS AN ABSOLUTE.

BUT HONESTLY, I WANT THE WASTEWATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY AS WELL THAT ALSO SPEAKS TO OUR CLIMATE ACTION.

BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WANTED, WAS THAT $55 MIL FOR THOSE THREE PROJECTS.

SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO HEAR HOW WE'RE GOING TO SHAVE ON HOUSING.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI. WHAT IF WE DID $25 MILLION FOR HOUSING IN TOTAL AND THEN THE $47 PLUS THE $8 IN CLIMATE, WHICH COMES OUT TO $55 UNDER A TOPIC OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE BUNDLE THOSE TWO OR THOSE THREE.

HOWEVER YOU WANT TO CATEGORIZE THAT AND THAT COMES OUT TO $80 MILLION TOTAL.

IS THAT A IS THAT AT ALL? I MEAN, WE'RE GETTING CLOSER, RIGHT? WE'RE GETTING A LOT CLOSER TO THAT $75 MILLION NUMBER.

I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH $80.

CALL IT A NIGHT. LET'S ALL GO HOME.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IS IT POSSIBLE TO BUNDLE CLIMATE UNDER INFRASTRUCTURE WITH WATER, BRINGING THAT TOTAL UP TO $55 MILLION PLUS $25 HOUSING? I FEEL LIKE THAT MIGHT BE THE SWEET SPOT.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE. I'D BE WILLING TO TO LOOK AT THAT RECOMMENDATION.

AND THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO NOTE ON THE HOUSING PROJECTS IS, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE OPTION OF SHAVING NUMBERS DOWN, HOUSING PRESENTED, AN OPTION THAT SHAVES THE NUMBERS DOWN. IT'S THE LOW END.

AND THAT WAS STILL THE NUMBER THAT WAS CONSIDERED MAKING A MEANINGFUL IMPACT WITHOUT BEING FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, NOT MAKING ANY IMPACT AT ALL.

WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE THE REDUCTIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED UNDER STORMWATER, THERE WERE NOT RECOMMENDATIONS ON AN ACTUAL LOW OR HIGH END.

SO I THINK WITH HOUSING, SOME OF THAT SHAVING THAT WE'RE CALLING IT IS BUILT IN, WHEREAS IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN SOME OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS. AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PUBLIC COMMENTER WHO MADE A COMMENT TO THAT EFFECT STATING THAT IN THAT REGARD, HOUSING AND CLIMATE WERE ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE FACT THAT THEY PRESENTED A HIGH AND LOW END, WHEREAS OTHERS DIDN'T.

SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL.

THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE. COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

UM. I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION WITH GREAT INTEREST AND A LITTLE BIT UNDER THE WEATHER.

NOT THAT CONTAGIOUS.

SO DON'T WORRY.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WOULD LIKE TO PAUSE AND SEND A BIG GRATEFUL HEART.

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE.

EVERYONE. AND OF COURSE, WHO? CHAIR, VICE CHAIR.

A COUPLE OF MEMBERS WHO ARE STILL HERE AT THE CHAMBERS.

THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE DEDICATED TO IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.

I SHOULD MENTIONED MR. ODEGAARD FROM FROM THANKSGIVING TO MEMORIAL WEEKEND.

AND TIME IS A VALUABLE, VALUABLE RESOURCE THAT IS NOT RENEWABLE.

AND WITH THAT, I AM VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR PROFOUND CONTRIBUTION TO COMING UP WITH THIS LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I TAKE THIS RECOMMENDATIONS VERY SERIOUSLY.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALWAYS HEARD THAT COMPETING VALUES AND WE HAVE COMPETING PRIORITIES, BUT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SEVEN KEY PRIORITIES, WHICH IS A MATTER OF TAKING THEM ALL HOLISTICALLY.

AND I THINK WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO US AS A COUNCIL, COLLECTIVELY AND AS INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS IS. PUT FORTH BALANCE.

BALANCE OF ALL THESE NEEDS THAT ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, AND THEY ARE ALL PROFOUND NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITIES.

SO WITH THAT AND I APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE'S COMMENT ABOUT HOUSING, WE HAVE THE LOW AND HIGH COSTS.

[04:45:10]

WE HAVE THE LOW COST OF $16 MILLION OR THE ORIGINAL HIGH COST OF $27 MILLION.

I DO RECOGNIZE THAT ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MADE HOUSING A PRIORITY IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL BONDS, WHICH WERE WHICH WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, AT LEAST $30 MILLION.

AND ALSO AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE SOME NEEDS IN TERMS OF RECREATIONAL FIELDS, SOCCER BALLS AND PICKLEBALL AND PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS.

BUT OF COURSE, FAST FORWARD TO THREE YEARS THROUGH COVID AND THE MUSEUM FIRE HAPPENED AND THE FLOODING HAPPENED.

THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE EVOLVED.

SO NOW HOW DO WE BALANCE PUBLIC SAFETY HOUSING AND WATER STORM WATER.

I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF OF BUNDLING ALL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FIND FUNDING FOR THE WILDFIRE EQUIPMENT, WHETHER THROUGH A BOND OR THROUGH THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, WHICH IS FISCAL YEAR 23 -24. UH.

SO I AM.

I AM FOR BUNDLING WATER, WASTEWATER, PUBLIC SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING.

AND NATURALLY, AM I? I WOULD LIKE EVEN AN OPTION OF WHAT MR. MCCARTHY HAS MENTIONED EARLIER.

BECAUSE WE HAVE $25 AND $70 MILLION.

CALCULATIONS. BUT WE HAVE WE HAVEN'T CALCULATED WE HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENTED WITH A $50 MILLION CALCULATION F OR A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT [INAUDIBLE] BUT WE HAVE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT $18 TO $50 MILLION.

INSTEAD. AND OF COURSE.

THAT WOULD MEAN CUTTING BACK ON ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR THESE PRIORITIES.

BUT I WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT $50 MILLION OPTION INSTEAD OF $70.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'VE MADE MYSELF UP A CUTE LITTLE CHEAT SHEET, WHICH I SHARED WITH SHANNON.

AND IF WE LOOK AT OPTION THREE, WHICH CAME FROM THE BOND COMMITTEE, IT HAS A RANGE OF PRICES AT THE HIGH END LOW, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU BREAK THINGS IN AND OUT OF IT.

AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THEIR OPTION THREE IS $75 AND A HALF.

SO THAT'S WAY BETTER THAN, YOU KNOW, THE $100 OR SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND IF WE DID TAKE OUT THE HOME ENERGY RETROFITS, THAT WOULD TAKE IT DOWN TO $68.

SO THAT WOULD BE VERY CONSISTENT WITH ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOND COMMITTEE AND GET US DOWN AND IN THE BALLPARK WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT.

THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOND COMMITTEE.

COULD I TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR CHEAT SHEET? SHARE IT WITH THE CLASS.

YEP. THANK YOU.

YES, COUNCIL MEMBER. THANK YOU.

I'M WONDERING IF SHANNON OR CITY MANAGER CLIFTON COULD SPEAK TO WHERE THESE OPTIONS IN THE APPENDIX CAME FROM. MAY I RESPOND? MAYOR YES, PLEASE.

I THINK WE'LL DO A LITTLE TAG TEAM HERE.

COUNCILMEMBER THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE I THINK IT GOES TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RANGES THAT WERE OFFERED IN MANY OF THE PROGRAMS THROUGH HOUSING AND CLIMATE ACTION AND THE FIXED COSTS THAT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO MANY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AND VERY SIMPLY, MOST OF THE ITEMS, IF NOT ALL IN THE THE RANGES ARE BASED UPON PROGRAMS. AND SO THE THE COMMITTEE CAME UP WITH, WITH THE RANGE BASED ON WHAT STAFF HAD REPRESENTED.

CONVERSELY, WITH RESPECT TO WATER AND WASTEWATER, ALMOST ALL OF IT IS PROJECTS, BRICKS AND MORTAR PROJECTS, NOT PROGRAMS.

[04:50:09]

SO THE ONLY THING THAT STAFF COULD DO IN THAT INSTANCE, IN THIS SPREADSHEET IN FRONT OF YOU ILLUSTRATES IT.

IS PRIORITIZED WHAT WAS HIGH AND WHAT WAS MEDIUM AND WHAT WAS LOW.

THAT, IN ESSENCE IS THE RANGE.

SO YOU HAVE COSTS ATTRIBUTED TO PROJECTS AND A RANGE OF COSTS ATTRIBUTED TO PROGRAMS. BUT I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT THERE WAS THIS CONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN TERMS OF RANKING THEM AS EITHER HIGH, MEDIUM OR LOW.

AND THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT.

MORE SPECIFIC TO YOUR QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

WE AT THE VERY LAST MEETING WITH THE COMMITTEE, WE AS STAFF PRESENTED A COUPLE OF OPTIONS TO THE COMMITTEE TO TRY TO PARE THIS DOWN, BECAUSE, FRANKLY, WE ANTICIPATED THIS DISCUSSION AT THE DAIS INITIALLY FROM THE COMMITTEE.

THERE WAS THE HIGHER RANGE THAT YOU SAW.

AND SO WE INCLUDED THESE AS ITEMS IN THE APPENDIX BECAUSE WE FIGURED WE WOULD TALK ABOUT THEM IF COUNCIL WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THEM. WE WERE GOING TO, OF COURSE, ADVANCE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE AS VERBATIM.

BUT WE ALSO WERE COGNIZANT THAT COUNCIL MIGHT ENTERTAIN THE DISCUSSION OF LOWERING THE OVERALL EXPENDITURES.

SO THAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED AS TO THE HOW THOSE OPTIONS WERE FORMULATED.

I WOULD ASK MS. ANDERSON TO SPEAK TO THAT SPECIFICALLY.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL AT THIS POINT MAYOR? AT THIS POINT I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT.

ALL RIGHT. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.

COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THE REASON FOR THAT QUESTION WAS JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT POINT ABOUT THESE BEING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE THE BOND COMMITTEE.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE.

THESE WERE OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED AFTER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOND COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS THAT THE PRIMARY PRESENTATION AS A MEANS OF MITIGATING THIS CONVERSATION, BUT IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S RECAP HERE.

SO I WANT TO TAKE IT ITEM BY ITEM.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DO HAVE DIRECTION TO PUT TWO BONDS ON THE BALLOT.

ONE, IT'S GOING TO BE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE OR INFRASTRUCTURE IN GENERAL.

AND SECONDLY, HOUSING.

SO WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING [LAUGHTER].

YEAH. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO EACH ONE AND INDIVIDUALLY AND DISCUSS THE AMOUNTS.

PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT AND I'M GOING TO START WITH THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

I THINK THAT SPRUCE WASH CAPACITY, AS I SAID, ABSOLUTE MUST.

BUT THE WASTE WATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADDS TO OUR WORK ON CLIMATE ACTION.

IF WE'RE GOING TO CUT OFF THE OTHER PARTS OF THIS, THE OTHER $8 MILLION OF SUGGESTIONS FROM CLIMATE.

I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO KEEP THAT ON THERE FOR $8.

THAT PUTS A $55 MILLION BOND FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE.

AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE FIRE APPARATUS, TOO.

BUT I'M SITTING HERE AT $55 MIL ON WHAT I THINK PERSONALLY SHOULD BE MOVING FORWARD FOR A WATER BOND.

AND I WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON IF SHAVING SOMETHING OFF OF THERE OR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.

BUT THAT DOES TOTAL $55 MILLION ALONE.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

YOU KNOW, MAYOR, I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT NICOLE WOULD SAY ABOUT DOING THAT IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, REMOVING THE THE OTHER CLIMATE EFFICIENCIES.

JUST CURIOUS IF WE CAN CALL HER BACK UP.

GIVEN THAT SHE'S THE EXPERT MORE THAN I AM.

YEAH. JUST BRIEFLY, THOUGH, WE NEED TO MAKE SOME HARD DECISIONS HERE COUNCIL.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, NICOLE AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY.

THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IS CRITICAL IN REDUCING OUR CITY ORGANIZATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

SO AGAIN, EVERYTHING IN THIS LIST IS ABOUT RESILIENCY AND COMMUNITY.

[04:55:01]

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS.

YOU'RE SAYING KEEP SPRUCE WASH ON THE LIST.

AND RECEIVING STATION BLAH, BLAH.

YES. TAKING THE TOP THREE.

DOES THE STAFF HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT DELETING THOSE TWO ITEMS LIKE.

YEAH. WE CAN LET THEM GO FOR A COUPLE MORE YEARS OR WE'LL FIND SOME OTHER MONEY FOR HIM OR.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? YEAH, OF COURSE.

THEY'LL REMAIN AS A PRIORITY AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THEM IN THE FUTURE AND LOOK AT AS THE DISCUSSION WAS PREVIOUSLY, WE'LL LOOK AT ANY AND ALL OTHER SOURCES TO FUND THESE. WE WANT TO GIVE GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOND COMMITTEE, AS YOU ARE RIGHT NOW DOING.

SO IF THAT'S THE, IF THAT'S THE OUTCOME HERE, OF COURSE WE'RE GOOD WITH IT.

THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER. AND LET'S JUST REMEMBER, THIS ISN'T A GUARANTEE THAT ANY OF THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO PASS EITHER.

SO WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS, SOME SIMPLICITY WITH IT IS GOING TO SELL BETTER TO OUR THE PUBLIC.

AND AS WE'RE ABOUT TO GO TO THE HOUSING ASPECT, I MEAN, I'D RATHER HAVE $15 TO $20 MIL FOR HOUSING THAN HAVE ZERO.

AND THAT'S THAT'S THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE CAN BE AS CONFIDENT AS WE WANT.

AND WE WERE CONFIDENT THEIR CONFIDENCE YEARS AGO WITH THIS AS WELL.

THERE'S CONFIDENCE IN EVERY BOND THAT YOU PUT FORTH, BUT THEY DON'T ALL MAKE IT.

SO WITH THAT, I FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH A $55 MILLION WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BOND DOING THOSE TOP THREE.

VICE MAYOR. I TOO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE THREE.

THAT WAS MY INITIAL THOUGHT FROM THE BEGINNING SO.

THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO GET ANYONE ELSE'S THOUGHTS.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY. SO SO FAR YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT STORMWATER WASTEWATER.

YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE LIST ALL RIGHT. OTHERS THOUGHTS.

COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS IS SHOWING A THUMBS UP FOR THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I'M ALSO ON BOARD WITH THAT.

OK THANK YOU THEN, BECAUSE THERE'S THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION BECAUSE I DO WANT TO GET ROLL BACK TO THE FIRE APPARATUS, BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING WE CAN FIRM UP AT LEAST RIGHT NOW AND THEN MOVE ON.

SO $55 MIL FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIFICALLY.

NOW TO THE HOUSING PROJECTS.

COULD WE MOVE IT UP ON THE SLIDE TO LOOK AT THE..

YES. THERE WE GO.

I WILL JUST SAY THAT I THINK THE REDEVELOPING CITY OWNED HOUSING FOR RENTAL IS AN ABSOLUTE THE $5 MIL REPURPOSING EXISTING BUILDINGS INTO RENTALS.

I THINK THAT'S BEEN GOING REALLY WELL WITH A LOT OF OUR PARTNERS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AT $3 MILLION.

AND THEN THE QUESTION COMES TO THE NEXT TWO, WHICH I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR, CONVERSATION FOR . COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY. WELL, I'VE ALREADY COMMENTED THAT I SUGGEST WE TAKE HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE OFF.

NOT THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE VALUE, BUT CONSIDERING THAT WE NEED TO LOWER THESE.

MAYBE WE COULD HAVE EXPLAINED TO US WHAT INCENTIVIZED RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MEANS.

I MEAN, HOW WOULD THAT BE ACCOMPLISHED? JUSTYNA, TO BE DETERMINED.

YEAH. PLEASE GO AHEAD. JUST ABSOLUTELY.

I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THAT.

THANK YOU. SO THAT THE INTENTION OF THAT IS TO BE ABLE TO HELP DEVELOPERS DURING THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION ROUND WHERE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION IS HELPFUL.

AND SO THAT WOULD GIVE US FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST WITH THAT.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

HI, JUSTYNA.

SO IS IT THE SAME? IT'S THE SAME. IS IT THE SAME AS RH THREE? THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PRIVATE DEVELOPERS TO ADAPTIVELY RE-USE AVAILABLE PROPERTY FOR THE CREATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

SO NO THOSE ARE SEPARATE.

OH, THAT THE, THE, THE ONE THAT YOU JUST READ IS THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO BE ABLE TO

[05:00:05]

SO THERE'S A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN TOWN WHERE THE VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE IS EMPTY RIGHT NOW.

SO IT WOULD ENABLE US TO TAKE THAT SPACE AND TURN IT INTO AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING.

WE COULD ALSO, WITH THAT FUNDING, ACQUIRE A HOTEL WITH A PARTNER AND AGAIN TURN THAT INTO AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING JUST AS SOME IDEAS.

THANK YOU JUSTYNA.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI. THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, I'D LOVE TO SEE US DO $25 MILLION, BUT, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING, IF WE'RE TRYING TO AIM FOR $20, I THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE.

YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING SOMETHING LIKE $5 MILLION FOR HOUSING, RENTAL, INCENTIVIZE, RENTAL HOUSING AND THEN FOR HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE, THEN $7 MILLION FOR HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE.

THAT BRINGS US TO A NICE ROUND $20 MILLION.

AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO SEE US DO $25 HERE.

I FEEL LIKE WE OWE IT TO HOUSING AND THE TEAM THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON IT.

BUT IF WE WERE AIMING FOR $20, THAT'S HOW I GET TO $20 AT LEAST.

AND CONSIDERING THIS, THIS, THIS CATEGORY.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

OTHERS THOUGHTS. YEP.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. I WOULD AS WELL.

I THINK FIVE THREE, FIVE SEVEN IS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

VICE MAYOR. I AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE SUGGESTING FOR THE FOUR CATEGORIES, FIVE, THREE, FOUR.

WHAT WAS IT AGAIN? RENTAL HOUSING AND THEN $7 MILLION FOR THE HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE.

AND THAT'S $20 MILLION.

THAT GIVES US. THAT BRINGS US TO TWO BONDS, ONE FOR $55 MIL AND ANOTHER FOR $20 MILLION.

WHAT ABOUT WILDFIRE, PUBLIC SAFETY AND CLIMATE? THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.

I THINK THE CLIMATE ACTION CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE $8 MILLION THAT WE PUT TOWARDS OUR WASTEWATER PLANT.

THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO NEED THOSE ENERGY RETRO GRADES.

IT ALSO WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE AND THE POSSIBILITIES THAT OUR WASTEWATER PLANTS, SUCH AS DRYING OUR WASTE TO THEN TURN INTO FUEL, THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT, THAT WE HAVE THE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES AND UPGRADES FOR THAT KIND OF LARGE PURPOSE.

SO ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT THE ONES THAT WERE RANKED AS NUMBER SEVEN AND NINE WOULD BE DELETED? THAT'S THE HOME ENERGY RETROFIT LOANS, EXCUSE ME, GIFTS AND THE CITY EFFICIENCY FACILITIES WOULD THOSE BE DELETED BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF DOING THAT UP HERE.

EXACTLY. WE'RE DOING THAT.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT WITH OUR WASTEWATER PLANT RATHER THAN TO PEOPLE'S HOMES AND TO OTHER CITY FACILITIES.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO FOCUS IT IN TO CUT THIS OUT AND BE ABLE TO PUT INTO OUR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BOND.

MEANWHILE, WE'LL NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE FIRE APPARATUS.

BUT I JUST WANT TO GET CONFIRMATION OF PEOPLE.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE HAVE THUS FAR AS A BASE.

SO WE'RE AT 75 MILLION? CORRECT? CITY MANAGER WERE YOU WANTING TO.

CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL FOR A VERY THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION.

IF YOU'RE READY TO SEGWAY INTO THE FIRE APPARATUS, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE A COMMENT.

YES, PLEASE.

MAYOR, YOU SHARED WITH ME TODAY NEWS THAT WE, THE CITY MAY POSSIBLY, MAY POSSIBLY HAVE SOME FUNDS.

LET'S NOT GO FURTHER.

PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.

NOTHING DEFINITE YET.

YEAH. DON'T JINX IT, BUT PLEASE.

SORRY. GO AHEAD. I'LL STOP IT THERE.

WELL, THERE MAY BE OTHER FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE THROUGH THE BUDGETING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE EXCITING.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO JINX ANYTHING UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THE.

THANK YOU, STATE.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

THIS REALLY QUICK COMMENT BEFORE WE REACH FIRE APPARATUS, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST SHARE.

I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT REMOVING THE CLIMATE PROJECTS LISTED HERE, THE 8 MILLION I KNOW WE'RE STILL DOING THE WASTEWATER EFFICIENCY AND I'D SEE THAT AS A WIN.

[05:05:07]

IF I'M ON THE MINORITY ON THIS, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO VERBALLY STATE PUBLICLY, I AM NOT COMFORTABLE REMOVING THE $8 MILLION FROM THE CLIMATE ACTION PROJECTS AND THEN SPEAKING ABOUT THE MOVING FORWARD TO THE FIRE APPARATUS.

I'D LIKE TO SEE MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO TO PULL A MILLION FROM SPRUCE WASH IN WILDCAT CAPACITY TO BRING THAT $2 MILLION INTO PLAY WITHIN THAT 55.

BUT I THINK 55 IS WHERE WE SHOULD STAY.

AND THEN 20 WITH THE HOUSING IS WHERE WE SHOULD STAY THERE.

AND AGAIN, I MIGHT NOT BE IN THE MAJORITY ABOUT THE CLIMATE, BUT IT MAKES ME VERY UNCOMFORTABLE AND I'LL JUST LEAVE IT THERE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE. ACTUALLY, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THE WASTEWATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

CAN WE GET A REMINDER OF WHAT THAT FULL PROJECT WAS? AND THEN I HAVE A COMMENT AFTER THAT.

I WAS JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE IS THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE, DO YOU WANT JUST THE PROJECT ITSELF, OR DO YOU WANT THE THREE THINGS THAT ARE COMBINED INTO IT? JUST SO I KIND OF KNOW WHICH SPREADSHEET TO PULL UP.

I APOLOGIZE. THERE'S JUST LOTS OF RESOURCES AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT ONE.

MAYBE THE THREE PROJECTS THAT ARE CAPTURED IN THAT.

I THINK WE'LL ACCOMPLISH THAT WITH.

COMING BACK HERE.

SO IT'S THE THE BYPRODUCT GASES INTO ENERGY AND HEAT THE PURCHASE OF THE BACKUP GENERATOR TO ADDRESS THE LOW POWER OUTAGES AND THEN THE VARIED SPEED BLOWERS.

SO THOSE ARE THE THREE COMPONENTS.

THANK YOU. SO THE REASON THAT I'M ASKING THAT IS JUST IN TERMS OF, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE CAN'T CONSIDER BASICALLY ALL OF THAT IF EFFICIENT FACILITIES.

SO IF WE CAPTURED THAT, RATHER THAN SAYING CITY EFFICIENT FACILITIES AND THEN WASTE WATER, ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE.

BUT BASICALLY TO SAY WE'RE DEDICATING $8 MILLION TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY, WHICH WOULD ENCAPSULATE THE $1,000,004 FOR THE CITY FACILITIES AND THEN $7 MILLION FOR THOSE WASTE WATER ENERGY THINGS.

I'M SURE WHEN IT COMES TO THE ACTUAL BOND MEASURE, WE'D HAVE TO GET SPECIFIC IN LISTING OUT THOSE PROJECTS, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THAT WOULD WORK TO CAPTURE BOTH.

I WAS JUST CLARIFYING. SHE ASKED.

CLARIFYING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE WAS ASKING TO REDUCE THE WASTEWATER FROM 8 TO 7 AND THEN ADDING IN THE CITY FACILITY.

I LIKE IT. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT I MEAN, IF WE CAN SAY THIS IS A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BOND, THEN I THINK IT'S GOING TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC WELL, AND IF YES, WE CAN DO ENERGY EFFICIENCIES AT OUR WASTEWATER PLANTS TO HELP WITH CLIMATE ACTION.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, PUTTING A MICROGRID, SOLAR MICROGRID AND SO FORTH TO ADDRESS SOME OF OUR ENERGY, YOU KNOW, ENERGY EFFICIENCIES AT THE PLANTS.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING HOW MUCH VALUE IT WOULD BE TO EXPAND JUST $1 MILLION TO OUTSIDE THOSE PARTICULAR WATER FACILITIES AND THE LEVEL OF ADDED CONFUSION OR CONVOLUTION, AS OPPOSED TO BEING ABLE TO GET THE PROJECTS DONE AND MAYBE ADD ON TO THE FACILITIES.

YEAH. COUNCIL MEMBER. SORRY, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION THEN.

ON THAT CATEGORY, ARE WE CALLING IT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE OR INFRASTRUCTURE? BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE ALSO LOOKING TO PUT THE WILDFIRE IN THAT AS WELL.

THE WILDFIRE ENGINES.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS IS THE FIRE, BECAUSE ONE THING THAT COULD ACTUALLY WORK AND BECAUSE WE GOT TO THINK ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S OUR JOB. BUT IF YOU DO A WATER AND FIRE INFRASTRUCTURE BOND, WATER AND FIRE BOND, THEN THAT WOULD SOUND GOOD TO THE PUBLIC, I THINK, AND WE COULD INCLUDE THE APPARATUS INTO THE WATER BOND.

AND NOW WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON THE WATER BOND, WHICH WOULD BE THE YEAH, FOUR SUCCINCT ITEMS THAT I THINK WE COULD SELL TO THE PUBLIC PRETTY EASILY, WHICH IS

[05:10:03]

I MEAN, WE'RE NOT THROWING EVERYTHING LIKE THE KITCHEN SINK IN THERE.

I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE CONSOLIDATION OF IT.

VICE MAYOR. I DO LIKE THAT.

AND WHEN YOU'RE SAYING IT, IT DOES SEEM LIKE SOMETHING OUR COMMUNITY WILL WILL GET BEHIND.

I MEAN, THOSE ARE TWO THINGS THAT ARE ARE HAPPENING NOW TO OUR COMMUNITY AND IT'S TANGIBLE.

SO I AGREE.

AND I'M WILLING TO THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE SAID 75, BUT IF YOU ALL ARE WILLING TO DO 77.

TO JUST STRAIGHT UP ADD THE WILDFIRE ENGINE'S PART INTO THE WATER BOND.

THEN WE'LL HAVE A $57 MILLION BOND FOR WATER AND FIRE AND A $20 MILLION BOND FOR HOUSING.

AND I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE REQUEST OF THE PUBLIC AND SOMETHING THAT BOTH CAN PASS AND WILL PASS.

ALL RIGHT? YEAH.

KNOCK ON THE LINOLEUM.

I GOT THIS ONE. WHOA.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WE'VE HIT ALL OF OUR POINTS HERE.

THAT STAFF HAS DIRECTION, AS WELL AS THE COUNCIL, AS A BODY FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS SITUATION.

$77 MILLION WORTH OF BONDS, WATER AND FIRE AND A HOUSING BOND.

I'M SEEING NODS. WAS THERE A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR THAT? JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. OKAY.

YES, I'M SEEING NODS ALL AROUND.

SO CAN WE CALL IT WATER, FIRE, RAIN? THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THEN, FROM.

YEAH, THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO OR ANY DIRECTION NEEDED FROM HERE ON? MY BRAIN'S TURNING INTO PUTTY BY NOW, SO THAT'S TERRIFIC.

SILLY PUTTY. ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL.

WOW. WE DID IT.

TEAM CONSENSUS BUILDING.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 13, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

I ASSUME THEN WE ARE DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM 14, INFORMATION ITEMS TO/FROM MAYOR COUNCIL AND STAFF AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS.

[14. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS TO/FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND STAFF, AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS]

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. NOTHING TONIGHT.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE. GOOD NIGHT.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI. A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS.

GOOD MEETING TODAY, CJCC IS MEETING TOMORROW.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND THOSE MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

THOSE ARE TOMORROW FROM 3 TO 5 P.M..

RICK BARRETT HAS HIS RETIREMENT CELEBRATION THIS THURSDAY.

CONGRATULATIONS, RICK.

THANK YOU FOR 40 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND BIG, BIG CONGRATS ON YOUR RETIREMENT CELEBRATION.

AND OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK I HAD ONE MORE THING.

OH, I WILL BE JOINING US NEXT WEEK VIRTUALLY.

I WILL BE OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND THEN I WON'T BE HERE TWO WEEKS FROM FROM TODAY.

BUT I WILL BE WITH US NEXT WEEK VIRTUALLY.

SO I WILL SEE YOU ALL IN THREE WEEKS.

THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI, COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TONIGHT, BUT THANKS FOR ALL THE PARTICIPATION THIS EVENING AND GREAT MEETING.

YEAH, THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

AND JUST TO NOTE THAT IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW IN CASE WE NEEDED TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, BUT WE DID IT.

SO THERE IS NO MEETING TOMORROW, JUST AS A NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC.

YEAH. A FEW HOURS OFF FROM THE JOB.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW? TAKE CARE OF THE REST OF LIFE.

ANYWAYS, WITH THAT MEETING ADJOURNED.

BOOM!

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.