Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

OKAY. WELCOME TO OUR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

[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).]

[00:00:07]

IT IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15TH, 2022.

CALLING TO ORDER OUR CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC THAT CITY COUNCIL MAY VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR LEGAL LEGAL ADVICE AT ANY OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

. WE SEEM TO BE HAVING SOME TROUBLE HERE. JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE.

YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU ON THE TEAMS, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S COMING THROUGH THE SPEAKERS.

IT IS. I GOT IT NOW.

SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION THERE.

SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN? YES. PLEASE STAND IF YOU CAN.

THANK YOU. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN OUR MISSION STATEMENT, PLEASE.

THE MISSION OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF IS TO ENHANCE AND PROTECT THE PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL AND COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS OUR LAND.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT. THANK YOU.

MADAM VICE MAYOR, I'M HONORED TO DO SO.

THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL HUMBLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE ANCESTRAL HOMELANDS OF THIS AREA'S INDIGENOUS NATIONS AND ORIGINAL STEWARDS.

THIS LAND 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 NOTE THIS PLACE AS HOME.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST FROM MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A COMMENT TONIGHT TO PUT IT IN THE CHAT BOX.

I AM, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME RUNNING A MEETING AND THAT WILL HELP ME KEEP EVERYTHING STRAIGHT.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

[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. ]

AND I DO SEE WE'RE DOWN TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND I DO SEE WE HAVE ONE ONLINE PARTICIPANT.

MAYOR, COUNCIL, I HAVE DANIEL CHAVEZ.

DANIEL, YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

HELLO, EVERYONE.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR FOR HAVING ME TODAY TO SPEAK.

MY NAME IS DANIEL CHAVEZ.

I WORK FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

I'M A CAPTAIN PARAMEDIC.

FOR THE PAST 16 YEARS, AND I HAVE BEEN RUNNING OUR CHARITIES PROGRAM FOR THE LAST FIVE.

I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON OUR ORGANIZATION AND WHAT WE DO.

THE LOCAL 1505 FLIGHT CHAPTER CHARITIES.

IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2004.

SHORTLY AFTER I GOT HIRED.

SOME OF OUR DONATIONS AND WHERE WE GET OUR FUNDING FROM IS IT COMES FROM OUR UNION DUES.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT COMES FROM THE GUYS DONATING FROM THEIR PERSONAL PAYCHECK MONTHLY, SOME TAX WRITE OFF DONATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC AND FUND ANY FUNDRAISERS THAT WE DO.

FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE DONATED MONEY TO THIS YEAR, WE'VE DONATED MONEY TO THREE MEMBERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT.

HAD DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER, INCLUDING THE LATEST ONE IS ONE OF OUR CHIEFS.

HIS WIFE RECENTLY GOT DIAGNOSED.

WE'VE ALSO HELPED MEMBERS OF THE FOREST SERVICE.

THAT HAS WENT TO A KIDNEY TRANSPLANT.

WE'VE ALSO DONATED MONEY THROUGH A TO A MEMBER FROM SALT RIVER.

HE WAS A FIREMAN. HE GOT IN AN ACCIDENT ON THE JOB AND IS STILL RECOVERING.

[00:05:05]

WE ALSO DONATE TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE IN OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS.

WE DONATE ANNUALLY TO THE PHENIX FIRE DEPARTMENT, BIG BROTHERS, BIG SISTERS HERE IN TOWN.

WE ALSO DONATE.

WE'VE ALSO DONATED TO THE LOCAL FLOODING VICTIMS IN OUR AREA.

RECENTLY, WE STARTED A NEW PROGRAM WITH OUR NEW RECRUITS.

AND EVERY YEAR OR EVERY ACADEMY, WE ASK THEM TO DONATE MONEY AND DONATE 4 HOURS OF THEIR TIME TO A LOCAL ORGANIZATION, THE LATEST ONE BEING THE COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY.

AND BEFORE THAT WAS OUR LOCAL FOOD BANK.

WE RECENTLY DONATED TO A FRATERNITY THAT HAD A CATASTROPHIC FIRE IN THEIR HOME.

AND UPCOMING EVENTS HERE.

IT'S USUALLY PRETTY BUSY DONATING.

WE DO SPONSOR ABOUT 15 KIDS THROUGH THE.

FOR CHRISTMAS. WE BUY AND DELIVER AND WRAP PRESENTS TO THE HOSONI FOUNDATION.

AND WE ALSO ARE GOING TO SPONSOR ONE FAMILY FOR THANKSGIVING.

THANKS AGAIN FOR HAVING ME AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, DANIEL. THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS.

[A. Proclamation: Veterans Brain Health Awareness Day]

WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION FOR VETERANS BRAIN HEALTH AWARENESS DAY.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN ME UP FRONT, I APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL AS ANY VETERANS OR REPRESENTATIVES, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO COME FORWARD AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

NOVEMBER IS A TIME RESERVED TO HONOR AND THANK THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED OUR COUNTRY, MANY OF WHOM RETURNED FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND LEADERSHIP AND TEAMWORK SKILLS THAT MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.

FOR SOME, ACQUIRING THOSE SKILLS HAVE LED TO PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY COGNITIVE CHALLENGES.

WITH MORE THAN 480,000 MILITARY PERSONNEL HAVING SUFFERED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES AND WITH OVER 600,000 TROOPS HAVING BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS IN THE PAST 20 YEARS, AWARENESS MUST BE RAISED TO ARIZONA'S VETERAN POPULATION OF OVER HALF A MILLION AND GROWING. THOUSANDS OF VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE LIVING WITHOUT PROPER DIAGNOSES.

SUPPORT FOR FAMILY CAREGIVERS.

RECOGNITION IS OWED TO THOSE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE SERVED OUR COUNTRY AND ARE NOW RECOVERING FROM THE INVISIBLE DISABILITY OF BRAIN INJURY AND WITH GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE BRAIN INJURY ALLIANCE WHO ARE HERE TO SERVE OUR VETERANS.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, VICE MAYOR SWEET, SITTING IN FOR PAUL DEASY, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER 15TH, 2022, AS VETERANS BRAIN HEALTH AWARENESS DAY.

ON BEHALF OF THE BRAIN INJURY ALLIANCE OF ARIZONA, WE'D LIKE TO THANK YOU THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, VICE MAYOR AND MAYOR FOR THE PROCLAMATION FOR VETERANS BRAIN HEALTH TODAY.

THANK YOU.

[00:10:23]

YES, I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY DEEPEST GRATITUDE FOR THAT PROCLAMATION.

BEING A MOM OF AN ARMY VETERAN, THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO MILITARY FAMILIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

PLEASE. I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT MY WIFE HAS A BRAIN INJURY, SO I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET APPROPRIATE MEDICAL CARE BY MEDICAL PEOPLE THAT REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW TO HELP.

I MEAN, A LOT OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION HAVE THE BEST INTENTIONS, BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND DOCTORS THAT REALLY KNOW HOW TO HELP.

AND LUCKILY, WE DID FIND ONE AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

[6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]

THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER SIX COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS, AND WE WILL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

LAST WEEK, I ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC COLLABORATIVE OF NORTHERN ARIZONA EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING, AND WE WELCOME A NEW MEMBERS ON THE BOARD, INCLUDING DR.

ERIC HEISER, THE PRESIDENT OF COCONINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND MR. DAVID COOLIDGE, THE SENIOR MANAGER FOR WINSLOW.

ALSO, I ATTENDED THE MEETING FOR THE AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING AND ALL CITIZENS WERE FOR THE CARES GRANTS PROJECTS.

INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WEST FLEX HANGAR.

THE AIRFIELD MAINTENANCE AND PARKING LOT.

REHABILITATION. CONSTRUCTION.

PENDING TERMINAL MAINTENANCE.

PHASE ONE. AIRFIELD MAINTENANCE.

PHASE THREE IN ARFF-6 STATION MAINTENANCE PHASE ONE.

ALSO A PENDING DESIGN.

OUR TERMINAL ENTRY EXIT LANES AND TERMINAL FIRE SPRINKLER REPLACEMENT.

ADDITIONAL PLANNED PROJECT INCLUDES THE WEST PLEX HANGAR AND SHARED REPAIRS.

PHASE TWO.

ALSO, THERE WAS A REMARKABLE PRESENTATION.

HOW OUR ARFF AND AIRPORT CREW HAS A VERY ROBUST SNOW REMOVAL PLAN WHICH IS OF COURSE HAS TO COMPLY WITH A LOT OF FAA REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SNOW AND ICE CONTROL ON THE THE RUNWAY.

AND THANK YOU TO OUR AIRPORT TEAM.

AND, OF COURSE, GENTLE REMINDER, ALWAYS FLY FLAGSTAFF FIRST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN? THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. I'M GOING TO.

DELAY IN REPORTING TODAY.

I'LL HAVE MORE TO SAY NEXT TIME.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY? WELL, THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

I'LL JUST QUICKLY MENTION THAT I PARTICIPATED IN THIS STUFF, THE BUS, AND REALLY ENJOYED HELPING PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY DONATE TURKEYS AND MET A LOT OF MY FRIENDS THAT WORK AT THE COUNTY WHO WERE ALSO VOLUNTEERING AND MY MOUNTAIN LION FRIENDS WHO BESIDES OTHER BESIDES PEOPLE DONATED THE USE OF THEIR BUS.

SO GOOD EVENT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT.

I HAVE SOME MEETINGS COMING UP MOUNTAIN LION TOMORROW, TEN TO NOON AND THE WATER COMMISSION ON THURSDAY.

HI, YOU'VE REACHED JOLINE MONTOYA, CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT SUPERVISOR AND.

OK.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT? HI. YOU'VE REACHED COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. YES, I HAD TO.

A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS.

THERE WAS A CJCC MEETING LAST WEDNESDAY, BUT IT SHOWED US CANCELED ON MY CALENDAR, SO I DID NOT ATTEND IT.

BUT I GUESS I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT DIDN'T ATTEND IT.

SO THERE WAS A CJCC MEETING, BUMMED.

I WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND AND REPORT BACK TO THE GROUP.

BUT ON THAT SAME TOPIC MYSELF, YOURSELF, VICE MAYOR SWEET AND COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY YESTERDAY TO MEET WITH THE NEW JCC COORDINATOR MICHAEL AND LEARN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND AND HIS INTENTIONS.

AND HE LEARNED QUITE A BIT FROM US.

[00:15:03]

AND SO THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE AND VICE MAYOR SWEET FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT AND ATTENDANCE AND INTEREST IN THE CJCC AND AND IN MEETING.

MIKE, I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO WHAT'S TO COME UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP AND THE GROUP'S EFFORTS.

MOUNTAIN LINE, AS YOU MENTIONED, VICE MAYOR HAS A MEETING TOMORROW AND IT WILL BE THE LAST ONE I'LL BE CHAIRING.

SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

AND THEN LASTLY, THE COCONINO CRISIS SYSTEM IS WHAT THE GROUP IS NOW CALLING THEMSELVES.

MEETING THAT IS MONTHLY IS NEXT MONDAY FROM 11 A.M.

TO NOON. SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

THAT'S BEEN A GROWING EFFORT WITH WHILE BUILDING MOMENTUM CHIEF IS THERE MYSELF AND PLENTY OF OTHER KEY INDIVIDUALS.

SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT AND PERHAPS EVEN COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE MIGHT JOIN US.

WE'LL SEE. BUT THAT'S MY UPDATE.

THANK YOU. MR. SHIMONI, COULD YOU, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE, TELL US WHAT CJCC STANDS FOR? OH, MY GOSH. GOOD.

THANK YOU. COUNCILOR MCCARTHY, CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL.

AND IT'S A CITY AND COUNTY JOINT EFFORT WITH A JOINT FUNDED POSITION AS THE COORDINATOR.

SO IT'S A PARTNERSHIP EFFORT.

THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, MY FRIEND.

THANK YOU. AND COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE? THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT FROM MY COMMISSIONS TODAY.

I DID JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE THAT I CAN'T BE THERE IN PERSON.

I AM CURRENTLY TRAVELING IN NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, SO I AM ALSO EXPERIENCING SOME ISSUES WITH OUR FIRE ALARM KEEPS GOING OFF HERE.

SO IF I DISAPPEAR AT SOME POINT, THAT'S WHY.

THANK YOU. AND I HOPE YOU'RE TRAVELING SAFE.

THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO ITEM.

VICE MAYOR. I'M SORRY.

I'M SORRY. MR. CLIFTON DOES HAVE A COMMENT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. SORRY.

CITY MANAGER. NO APOLOGIES NEEDED.

THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR.

I WOULD TYPICALLY NOT COMMENT AFTER THESE LIAISON REPORTS, BUT SINCE COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI BROUGHT UP THE CJCC, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT I DID ATTEND THAT MEETING. COUNCIL MEMBER GLAD TO SHARE NOTES WITH YOU.

IT WAS A VERY SHORT MEETING, SO IT WAS PROBABLY, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, A GOOD MEETING TO MISS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[A. Consideration of Appointments: Heritage Preservation Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Make two PROFESSIONAL appointments to terms expiring December 2024. Make two HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNER appointments to terms expiring December 2025. Make one AT-LARGE appointment to a term expiring December 2025.]

THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO 7 A.M..

WE HAVE FIVE APPOINTMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND FIVE APPLICANTS.

WE ARE TO MAKE TWO PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS TO TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER 2024.

TWO HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNER APPOINTMENTS TO TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER 2025 AND ONE AT LARGE APPOINTMENT TO A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 2025.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN, YOU ARE FIRST IN LINE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VICE MAYOR.

IT WOULD BE MY HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF MANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT WE ASSIGN DUFFY WESTHEIMER TO ONE OF THE SEATS I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT AS THE AT LARGE APPOINTMENT TERM EXPIRING IN DECEMBER 2025.

I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A SECOND.

ANYONE OPPOSED OR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE? THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

IT'S MY HONOR TO APPOINT ABBY BUCKHAM TO A PROFESSIONAL SEAT EXPIRING DECEMBER 2024.

JUST AS A COMMENT ON HER APPLICATION, I FOUND IT A VERY INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE THAT SHE BRINGS TO THIS COMMISSION, PARTICULARLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTION THAT SHE MADE IN HER APPLICATION. SO IT'S MY HONOR TO NOMINATE HER.

THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

YOUR NEXT THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE CAITLYN KELLY, A HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNER, TO THE ONE OF THE TWO HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNER APPOINTMENTS.

TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 2025.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE THAT MOTION.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. I HAVE THE NEXT ONE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE SHELLY DAY TO THE HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNER

[00:20:08]

POSITION EXPIRING DECEMBER OF 2025.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. AND LAST WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

I'D LIKE TO APPOINT ELIZABETH BURKHAM FOR THE PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENT WITH THE TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 2024.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. WE ARE DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ARE CONSENT ITEMS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

[8. 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.]

I WOULD LIKE TO DO A MOTION TO TAKE ALL OF THEM TOGETHER FOR APPROVAL AS STATED.

DO I HAVE A SECOND OR SECOND? OH, I THOUGHT YOU SAID I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOTION.

YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION.

I'LL SECOND IT. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

[A. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-51 and Ordinance No. 2022-27: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona, declaring as a public record that certain document filed with the City Clerk entitled "PZ-19-00248 Updates to Zoning Code - Outdoor Lighting Standards" and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff Coconino County, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 10, Flagstaff Zoning Code, to modify the existing Outdoor Lighting Standards. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-51 2) Read Ordinance No. 2022-27 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-27 by title only (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-27]

WE ARE NOW DOWN TO ROUTINE ITEMS, STARTING WITH 9A.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT.

CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-51 AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-27.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

COCONINO COUNTY DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK ENTITLED P Z-19-00248 UPDATES TO ZONING CODE, OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA.

AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE TITLE TEN FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE TO MODIFY THE EXISTING OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS.

DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION? WE DO NOT. SO THIS IS THE SECOND READ OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PRESENTED LAST WEEK.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE.

HAPPY TO ANSWER. COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION.

VICE MAYOR, I MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-51.

AND BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I SEE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE HAS A COMMENT.

NOPE. I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION.

BUT I WILL SECOND. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. THAT MOTION CARRIES.

WE ARE DOWN TO 9B CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION.

YOU KNEW I WAS GOING TO DO THAT, RIGHT? CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2022-51 AND ORDINANCE 2022-27.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

VICE MAYOR OH, YES. I APOLOGIZE TO INTERRUPT.

WE ACTUALLY THE NEXT STEP WILL BE TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE, AND THEN WE WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT OK.

I MOVE TO READ THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-27.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE TITLE TEN FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED PZ-19-00248 UPDATES TO ZONING CODE OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. AND NOW WE NEED A MOTION TO ADOPT.

AND NOW I NEED A MOTION TO ADOPT NUMBER 20, 22.

27. SO MOVED.

I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[B. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-28: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 10, Flagstaff Zoning Code, Section 10-90.40.030 Rural Floodplain Map, to change the map designation of approximately 7.76 acres of real property from Rural Floodplain to Urban Floodplain on eight parcels of land (APNs 101-01-020A, 101-01-020B, 101-28-005G, 101-28-005H, 101-28-005K, 101-28-013A, 101-28-013B, and 101-28-013D) located generally between W Forest Avenue and N San Francisco Street; providing for severability and establishing an effective date. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Ordinance No. 2022-28 by title only for the final time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-28 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-28]

OKAY, THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO 9B CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-28, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

[00:25:09]

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

COCONINO COUNTY.

AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE TITLE TEN FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE SECTION 10-90.40.030. RURAL FLOODPLAIN MAP TO CHANGE THE MAP DESIGNATION TO APPROXIMATELY 7.76 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY FROM RURAL FLOODPLAIN TO URBAN FLOODPLAIN ON EIGHT PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN WEST FOREST AVENUE AND NORTH SAN FRANCISCO STREET.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

IT DOES LOOK LIKE WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH BILL WADE.

PLEASE.

COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR FOR OPENING THIS UP FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND I HOPE YOU GIVE IT VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

THIS CITY HAS RECENTLY BEEN THROUGH SOME OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE AND DAMAGING FLOODING SITUATIONS IN DECADES AND WE ARE LOOKING AT.

POTENTIALLY OPENING AN AREA OF IMPORTANT DRAINAGE THROUGH THE CITY TO SIMILAR FLOODING, SIMILAR DAMAGE. AND THIS DOES NOT SEEM WISE AT ALL TO ME.

MOREOVER, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT.

WILDLIFE CORRIDOR.

WILDLIFE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO FLAGSTAFF CITIZENS.

IT'S PART OF WHAT MAKES FLAGSTAFF QUALITY OF LIFE WHAT IT IS.

THIS IS NOT PHOENIX WHERE IT'S JUST PEOPLE.

IT'S TERRIFIC THAT WE HAVE WILDLIFE CLOSE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

IN FACT. ONCE, TWICE A WEEK.

WE HAVE DEER IN THE PROPERTY RIGHT DIRECTLY BEHIND OUR HOUSE.

AND I HAVE FOLLOWED THESE DEER THROUGH THIS CORRIDOR.

IT IS THEIR ACCESS INTO THE AREA WHERE WE LIVE UP ON CHERRY HILL.

THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE ALSO CONNECTED FOR WILDLIFE, AND I THINK THAT.

FLAGSTAFF IS NOT JUST ABOUT PEOPLE.

IT'S ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE PEOPLE.

AND THAT DEPENDS TO SOME EXTENT, TO DIFFERENT EXTENTS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

UPON HAVING WILDLIFE, BEING ABLE TO VIEW WILDLIFE.

SO JUST IN TERMS OF.

THIS AREA, WHICH IF YOU WERE READING THE DAILY SUN NEWSPAPER, THE HISTORY COLUMN ON SUNDAYS JUST A FEW MONTHS BACK, THIS AREA WAS GOING TO BE THE RESERVOIR THAT WOULD SUPPLY FLAGSTAFF WITH ALL OF ITS WATER.

WELL, IT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE TO CARRY ENOUGH WATER TO BE A RESERVOIR FOR THE WHOLE CITY.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT A POTENTIAL AREA ZONE OF FLOODING.

IF WE HAVE INTENSE LOCAL MONSOONAL RAINS RIGHT ON THAT AREA AND WE HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED TOO MUCH OF THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT, I HAVE JANE JACKSON.

I LIVE ON MCMILLEN MESA.

I OFTEN WALK ON THIS PARCEL OF LAND BETWEEN FORREST AVENUE AND THE OLIVIA WHITE HOSPICE, WHICH IS NEAR NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE FEW PLACES LEFT WHERE WILDLIFE EXISTS IN A NATURAL, LARGELY UNDEVELOPED SETTING WITHIN THE CITY.

THIS AREA IS STILL LARGELY UNTOUCHED AND RETAINS ITS WILD NATURE AND ITS RIPARIAN FUNCTION.

I AM STUNNED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IN ANY TYPE OF FLOODPLAIN IS ALLOWED AND IT CERTAINLY SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO RESIDENTS TODAY.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHETHER THE MEASURE IS PASSED OR NOT, DEVELOPMENT WILL HAPPEN.

THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO MITIGATE IS A POSITIVE THING, BUT THE MORE I LEARN, THE MORE QUESTIONS I HAVE, WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE ANSWERED BEFORE A SECOND VOTE.

FIRST, DOES THE CURRENT CITY CODE ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT IN ANY TYPE OF FLOODPLAIN, AND IF SO, WHY? AND CAN THAT BE CHANGED? AS SEEN HERE THE SUMMER, IT SHOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF RESIDENTS NOT TO DEVELOP IN AN AREA THAT CAN FLOOD.

[00:30:01]

IN DISCUSSION AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, IT WAS SAID THAT THE AREA NORTH OF THE Y IS DESIGNATED AS A FLOODWAY AND THAT BUILDING IS EXTREMELY LIMITED ON A FLOODWAY. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THAT SECTION WILL NOT BE BUILT ON OR DOES TODAY'S POSSIBLE CHANGE FROM RURAL TO URBAN OPEN THAT UP FOR DEVELOPMENT AS WELL? WHAT RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS ARE THERE, IF ANY, FOR A RURAL FLOODPLAIN.

IF THE CHANGE TO AN URBAN FLOODPLAIN IS NOT MADE, WILL THE DEVELOPER CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE HOSPICE TO HAVE A GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THE HOSPICE AND THE UNITS? IF THE CHANGE IS NOT MADE, WILL THE DEVELOPER THEN DECIDE TO BUILD MORE UNITS OR TALLER UNITS INSTEAD OF HAVING THE LOW DENSITY THREE STORY UNITS CURRENTLY PROPOSED? WHAT IF DEVELOPMENT BEGINS AND IS FOUND THAT EVEN THOUGH FLOOD MITIGATION IS ENABLED BY THE AMENDMENT, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE? THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF A CONCRETE CHANNEL REPLACING THE CURRENT NATURAL CHANNEL.

CAN THIS HAPPEN UNDER EITHER DESIGNATION? AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF A CHANNEL OF CONCRETE FOR THE WILDLIFE THAT CURRENTLY USE THE AREA DAILY? AT THIS TIME I AM OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT.

DEVELOPING IGNORES ONE BIG REASON MANY OF US CAME TO FLAGSTAFF.

THE NATURAL HABITAT AND OUTDOOR RECREATION POSSIBILITIES IN GREEN BELTS WITHIN THE CITY.

I BELIEVE COUNCIL NEEDS TO WEIGH VERY CAREFULLY THE LOCATION AND THE TYPE OF GROWTH THAT HAPPENS IN ORDER TO KEEP THIS THE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS COMMUNITY THAT WE CLAIM TO BE. I FEEL THERE ARE TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT AND THAT THIS MEASURE MAY MIGHT POSSIBLY EVEN BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, JANE. DO I HAVE AN ONLINE PARTICIPANT? WE'LL TAKE THAT NOW. THE VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I HAVE STEPHEN HOLLOWAY.

STEPHEN, YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES. AWESOME.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING MY COMMENT.

I APPRECIATE ALL THE CONSIDERATION CITY STAFF GAVE IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE AND.

HELPING ME UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT'S GOING ON.

ONE THING I WANTED TO MENTION WAS.

I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO TAKE A PROACTIVE APPROACH IN MANAGING FLOOD PLAINS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE CRISIS AREAS.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME TO SEEK FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ASSISTANCE IN MANAGING THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS AND.

IF IT WERE TO STAY AS RURAL.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SEEK AND SECURE THOSE FUNDS INSIDE OF THAT TIME LINE TO HELP ADDRESS ANY POTENTIAL CRISES IN THAT AREA.

AND THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO SHARE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT.

TIFFANY, DO WE HAVE.

I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION TONIGHT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL, I WILL OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION.

LET'S SEE. REGINA OR COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS, PLEASE START US OFF.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR OR MISS ANTOL, CAN YOU PLEASE.

DEFINE URBAN.

THE URBAN DESIGNATION FOR FLOODPLAIN.

SURE, I'LL TRY TO REMEMBER IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

IT'S A FAIRLY LONG DEFINITION, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT BECAUSE IT GETS SUPER CONFUSED.

THERE'S FEMA DESIGNATED FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THOSE FLOOD PLAINS OR FLOODWAYS AND FLOOD FRINGES.

SO MANY TERMS ALL MEAN A LOT OF STUFF.

AND THEN IN OUR ZONING CODE, AS PART OF OUR RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY STANDARDS, WE HAVE A FURTHER DESIGNATION.

SO THIS IS VERY SPECIFIC TO THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, AND THAT IS WE HAVE THE CATEGORIZATION OF URBAN VERSUS RURAL.

SO URBAN FLOODPLAINS ARE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED OVER TIME.

THEY'RE WITHIN URBAN DEVELOPED AREAS.

THEY COULD BE CHANNELIZED, BUT THAT IS NOT THE PROPOSAL IN THIS CASE.

THIS PARTICULAR FLOODPLAIN CROSSES SEVEN DIFFERENT PROPERTIES WITH DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND IT WOULD TAKE PROBABLY A CONCERTED EFFORT AND WE AS STAFF WOULD WORK VERY HARD.

CHANNELIZATION IS NEVER REALLY THE PREFERRED METHOD WHEN DEALING WITH THE FLOOD PLAIN CONCRETE CHANNELING.

[00:35:06]

THAT'S NOT THE PREFERRED METHOD.

KEEPING FLOODPLAINS IN THEIR NATURAL STATE CAN GENERALLY BE SOME OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES.

RURAL FLOODPLAINS ARE AREAS THAT ARE DEEMED OF HIGH VALUE FOR PRESERVATION.

THEY ARE GENERALLY LOCATED IN AREAS WHERE THE ENVIRONMENT IS DEFINITELY MORE PRISTINE.

THERE HAVEN'T BEEN THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT.

RURAL FLOOD PLAINS STILL ALLOW FOR UTILITY CROSSINGS, THEY STILL ALLOW FOR ROADWAY CROSSINGS.

THERE ARE SOME VERY LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT DO HAVE URBAN FLOODPLAIN AND TO ACCESS THEIR HOMES THEY NEED TO CROSS OR TO PROVIDE UTILITIES TO THOSE HOMES. BUT THE IMPACT TO THE FLOODPLAIN ITSELF IS MEANT TO BE MINIMAL.

IT LIMITS THE DISTURBANCE AREA.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE THERE'S A FLOODWAY AND A FLOOD FRINGE.

THE FLOODWAY REMAINS, AS IS FLOODWAY IS AN AREA THAT REMAINS UNDISTURBED.

IN ORDER TO DEVELOP IN A FLOODWAY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH FEMA TO HAVE IT DESIGNATED SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE DON'T ALLOW CROSSINGS OR UTILITIES AND FLOODWAYS VERY SIMILAR TO RURAL, BUT THE FLOODWAY, WHETHER IT'S URBAN OR RURAL, WOULD REMAIN UNDISTURBED.

IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT ENCROACHING INTO THAT FLOOD FRINGE OR ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.

THIS IS THE AREA IN ANY GIVEN YEAR YOU HAVE A 1% CHANCE OF SEEING A FLOODING EVENT.

SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT MEANS.

SO WHEN THEY DO BUILD, THEY'LL HAVE TO BUILD THEIR FINISHED FLOOR TO A PARTICULAR ELEVATION.

JUST TRYING TO HIT ALL OF THE QUESTIONS.

AND YES, WE HAVE LOTS OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

THIS BUILDING, FOR EXAMPLE, IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

MOST OF THE SOUTH SIDE IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO WE DO HAVE LOTS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT STILL OCCURS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN AND OUR STORMWATER REGULATIONS DEAL WITH THAT.

FEMA ALSO ACCOMMODATES FOR THAT AS WELL, BUT FLOODWAYS TEND TO BE THE AREA WHERE THEY'RE NOT DISTURBED BECAUSE THEY'RE THE AREA OF HIGHEST HAZARD WHERE THE VELOCITY OF WATER IS COMING FAIRLY FAST.

I KNOW THAT WAS MORE THAN YOU ASKED, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE I CAN TRY TO ANSWER.

THANK YOU.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

SO IS IT TRUE THAT CERTAIN URBAN FLOODPLAINS THAT HAVE CHARACTERISTICS CONDUCIVE TO WATER QUALITY, WILDLIFE HABITAT AND STREAM ECOLOGY SHOULD BE PRESERVED? SO WE WORK TO TRY TO PRESERVE ALL FLOODPLAINS BECAUSE OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS.

SO WE WORK TO MINIMALLY MINIMIZE SITUATIONS.

BUT ON EVERY PROPERTY IT'S NOT ALWAYS FEASIBLE TO AVOID THE FLOODPLAIN IN ITS ENTIRETY.

IT MAY MAKE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT OR LIMIT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PERMITTED.

BUT YES, FLOOD PLAINS IN GENERAL, WHETHER THEY'RE URBAN OR RURAL, CAN GENERALLY HAVE THOSE SAME CHARACTERISTICS.

THANK YOU. LAST QUESTION.

SO WHAT ARE THE THREE REQUIRED FINDINGS TO PUT FORWARD A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT? SURE. THE FIRST ONE IS CONFORMANCE WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN.

THE SECOND IS THAT THE TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, LIFE, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

AND THE THIRD IS, IS THAT THE TEXT AMENDMENT IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER CODE SECTIONS WITHIN THE ZONING CODE ITSELF. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MS. ANTOL. THANK YOU.

NEXT, I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MS. ANTOL, FOR ADDRESSING SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS, FOR ASKING SOME.

YOU TOOK OUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD COMING UP HERE.

SO I THINK MY MY ONE OUTSTANDING QUESTION, MS. ANTOL, IS JUST IN REGARDS TO THE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR MITIGATION IN THIS AREA.

I, IT'S BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, WE ARE EITHER LIMITED OR RESTRICTED FROM PUTTING IN FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES OR BASICALLY DEVELOPING IN THAT AREA AS THE CITY TO TO TRY AND POSITIVELY IMPACT THE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF FLOODING.

AND THIS ZONING CHANGE WOULD PERHAPS ENABLE SOME OF THOSE MITIGATIONS TO BE PUT IN PLACE.

IS THAT A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING? AND IS THERE ANY IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT WITH THAT POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING IN MITIGATION AS THE CITY.

[00:40:10]

THAT IT WOULDN'T WORK, BASICALLY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE CORRECT.

SO THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN LIMITATIONS WOULD APPLY.

THE LIMITATION IN TERMS OF ONLY UTILITIES OR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS DOESN'T INCLUDE ADDITIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION.

SO IF THERE WERE AN EVENT IN THE WATERSHED ABOVE, BECAUSE THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU YOU'RE HAVING A FIRE OR SOME OTHER EVENT WITH HEAVY RAINS ON TOP OF THAT FIRE SCAR AND THE WATERSHED ABOVE.

AND THEN YOU GET THE TRICKLE DOWN OR YOU GET THE FLOODING THAT COMES DOWNSTREAM.

THE THIS PARTICULAR WATERSHED, AS MY DISCUSSIONS WITH STORM WATER IS ACTUALLY MUCH SMALLER THAN THE WATERSHEDS WE'VE SEEN PREVIOUSLY IMPACTED.

SO THE WATERSHEDS THAT YOU'RE SEEING IMPACT COCONINO ESTATES AND THE ONE THAT YOU'RE SEEING OUT IN THE PARADISE AREA, THOSE ARE MUCH LARGER WATERSHEDS.

THIS ONE IS MUCH SMALLER.

SO THE RISK OF SEEING THESE EVENTS IS LOWER.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED WITH STORM WATER AS PART OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S AN IMPOSSIBILITY.

WE'VE SEEN ALL KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN WEATHER RELATED.

BUT THAT RURAL FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION COULD PREVENT US TO GO IN.

AND ONE OF THE CONVERSATION POINTS IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CHANNEL IS BEAUTIFUL AND ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION IS ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS, IT HAS BEEN. MANIPULATE IT HAS BEEN ALTERED OVER TIME.

THE CHANNEL IS NOT ITS NATURAL FORM FUNCTIONING CHANNEL.

AND SO IT COULD BE IN A LARGE FLOOD EVENT THAT WORK WOULD NEED TO BE DONE TO RESTORE THAT CHANNEL TO HANDLE THE CAPACITY THAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS INTENDED TO HANDLE.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

FIRST OF ALL, I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY.

I USED TO BE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS THE FIRST CASE I EVER HAD WAS THE YMCA DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT PROPOSAL WAS DONE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT DIDN'T REALLY IMPACT THE THE REPAIRING CORRIDOR.

SO I WILL SAY THAT JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I DID WALK THE WHOLE AREA FROM THE ROUNDABOUT UP TO PASS THE BRIDGE. THAT IS ACCESS TO YMCA.

IT'S MY OPINION THAT, YES, THERE IS, THERE'S SEWER LINES AND OTHER THINGS THROUGH THERE.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE AREA IS SUBSTANTIALLY NOT COMPLETELY, BUT SUBSTANTIALLY UNDISTURBED AND SUBSTANTIALLY NATURAL.

SO THE OTHER THING IS THAT.

THE LANDOWNER UP THERE DOES HAVE SOME LEGAL RIGHTS TO BUILD.

AND THEY CAN STILL BUILD EVEN REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO TONIGHT.

LIKE I JUST MENTIONED, THE YMCA WAS BUILT, BUT THEY DIDN'T BUILD RIGHT DOWN IN THE THE WATERWAY.

AND I THINK THAT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT COULD BE DONE IN A SIMILAR WAY.

SO TO SUMMARIZE, I'M A NO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE AUSTIN OR COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN? HERE WE GO. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR, AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

I THINK OUR VIEWPOINTS ON THIS ARE VERY MUCH ALIGNED.

I VOTED AGAINST THIS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND MY VOTE WILL STAY THE SAME.

AND I'M HOPING WITH JUST A FEW MOMENTS HERE THAT I CAN CONVINCE OTHERS TO HELP PROTECT THIS AREA IN THE FUTURE HERE STILL FROM THE ZONING AMENDMENT.

THE YOU KNOW, I'VE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT HOW I THINK JUST FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE, IT SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE.

TO REZONE THIS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR A DEVELOPER TO BUILD HERE.

WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THE FLOOD, THE PRESENT FLOODING SITUATIONS OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS DUE TO POST-FIRE DISTURBANCE AND THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO RAISE STORMWATER FEES IN SHORT ORDER HERE, I JUST, I JUST THINK IT'S I

[00:45:03]

THINK IT'S THE WRONG MESSAGE TO SEND TO THE VOTERS OF FLAGSTAFF AND TO THE RESIDENTS THAT WE ARE HERE TO SERVE AND PROTECT.

REMEMBER THAT THIS REQUEST IS COMING TO US AT THE BEHEST OF A DEVELOPER WHO IS WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING HERE.

AND WHILE THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE THAT REQUEST, WE DO HAVE TO PAY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THESE FINDINGS.

AND I THINK THAT THAT SECOND FINDING THAT THIS IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IS QUESTIONABLE ENOUGH IN MY MIND THAT I CAN VOTE AGAINST IT.

THE OTHER THING THAT I JUST REALLY WANTED TO ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION THAT I DIDN'T MENTION MUCH LAST TIME, BUT I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY VERY ESSENTIAL AND VERY IMPORTANT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT AND MOVING FORWARD AS A CITY, I LIKE TO TALK ABOUT GROWTH IN TERMS OF SMART GROWTH.

AND NOT JUST GROWTH FOR GROWTH SAKE.

THIS VERY MUCH FEELS LIKE GROWTH FOR GROWTH SAKE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS AT RISK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GROWTH FOR GROWTH SAKE IS OUR OPEN SPACES, OUR TRAILS, OUR FORESTS, OUR URBAN BREATHING MECHANISM FOR THE PLANET TO BE VERY DRAMATIC ABOUT IT.

BUT I CAN BRING IT BACK DOWN HERE TO, YOU KNOW, WE LOSE OUR NATURAL DARK, WE LOSE OUR NIGHT SKY, AND WE ALSO LOSE WILDLIFE HABITAT.

WILDLIFE CORRIDORS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN AND TO PROTECT IN THE FUTURE.

THIS IS A CRITICAL WILDLIFE CORRIDOR FOR ALL WILDLIFE IN AND AROUND FLAGSTAFF.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL IN.

CHANGING THE DESIGNATION.

TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO DWINDLE EVEN FURTHER.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A CLEARLY COMPELLING ARGUMENT I THINK MAYBE COMES FROM I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS AS AS OTHERS MENTIONED AS WELL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, IS THAT THIS IS THIS ZONING CHANGE AMENDMENT ACTUALLY ALLOWS FOR BETTER ENGINEERING AND FLOOD MITIGATION.

WELL, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT'S TRUE.

I ALSO FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, MITIGATION SUDDENLY PUTS US ON THE HOOK.

WE'VE ALL HEARD THE ADAGE, WHEN YOU BREAK IT, YOU BUY IT.

WELL, IN THIS CASE, WHEN WE DEVELOP IT, WE'RE ON THE HOOK FOR THE POST-FIRE FLOODING OR ANY OTHER.

MORE FREQUENT THAN PREVIOUSLY INDICATED FLOODING EVENTS.

THAT COME OUR WAY.

FLOOD MITIGATION WOULD ALLOW FOR ENGINEERING, BUT NATURE CAN STAND ON ITS OWN HERE, I THINK.

SO THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO THAT PARTICULAR LINE OF THINKING, AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL SEE IT THAT WAY AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCIL? AND I DO SEE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS HAS A MOTION.

YES, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

BUT BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MS. ANTOL AGAIN TO APPROACH THE PODIUM.

COULD YOU EDIFY US IN TERMS OF WHEN THIS PARCEL BECOMES DESIGNATED AS AN URBAN FLOODPLAIN.

WHAT ARE THE MEASURES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE TO PROTECT, CONSERVE THE WATER QUALITY WILDLIFE, HABITAT AND STREAM ECOLOGY? SURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE FLOODWAY ITSELF REMAINS PRESERVED, WHICH IS THAT CORE CHANNEL THROUGH RUNNING THROUGH THE PROPERTY.

AS YOU MOVE FURTHER TO THE NORTH, THAT URBAN OR THAT RURAL FLOODPLAIN CURRENTLY IS 100% FOCUSED ON THAT FLOODWAY CHANNEL. IT IS ONLY AS YOU MOVE SOUTH THAT THAT FLOODWAY CHANNEL ADDS THAT FLOOD FRINGE AND THAT FLOOD FRINGE EXTENDS OUT A LARGER AMOUNT.

AND THERE ARE THREE CURRENTLY VACANT PARCELS OF LAND THAT HAVE PROBABLY THE BULK OF THAT FLOOD FRINGE.

AND THAT FLOOD FRINGE ALSO IMPACTS THE HOSPICE.

IT ALSO TOUCHES THE YMCA AND A PORTION OF THE YMCA DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN.

IT'S THEIR DETENTION BASIN.

BUT IT IS CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARIES.

AND WHICH PART OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE REGULATES DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODPLAINS?

[00:50:05]

SURE, IT'S TITLE 13, IT'S THE STORMWATER REGULATIONS.

SPECIFICALLY, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING ELEMENTS WITHIN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY BECAUSE AGAIN THE PROPERTY IS IN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.

SO BOTH OF THOSE WORKING HAND IN HAND.

BUT THE TYPE THE THE TYPE OF REGULATIONS GENERALLY REQUIRE THAT ESPECIALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL, THAT THE FINISH FLOOR BE ELEVATED.

AND IT'S USUALLY THE IN OUR CODE, IT'S THE LOWEST STRUCTURAL NUMBER FOR RESIDENTIAL.

SO IT COULD BE THAT A GARAGE IS ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR AND THEN RESIDENTIAL IS ON THE NEXT FLOOR ABOVE.

THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ELEVATE.

SO THERE'S WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE ELEVATED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

YOU CAN GO THROUGH AND FLOOD PROOF.

THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE EVERY BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN ELEVATED.

YOU JUST SEE THE OLD.

THERE'S ONE BUILDING IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU CAN TELL IS ELEVATED.

THANK YOU, MS. ANTOL.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT NO NEW INSTRUCTOR, NO NEW STRUCTURE OR DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE REGULATION OF THE CITY CODE THAT IS ARTICULATED IN DEVELOPING FLOODPLAINS.

THAT IS OUR ULTIMATE GOAL.

THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU, MS. ANTOL. I JUST WANT TO BRING BACK THE FOCUS TO THE DISCUSSION IN HAND.

IT'S NOT ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

IT'S NOT ABOUT A SITE PLAN.

IT IS ABOUT A ZONING CODE, TEXT AMENDMENT.

IT'S NOT A REASON.

SO IT'S CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF A PARCEL FROM RURAL FLOODPLAIN TO URBAN FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION.

AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

WITH THAT, MADAM VICE MAYOR, I SO MOVE TO READ ORDINANCE.

MS. SALAS? WE HAVE ADAM OR COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI WITH A QUESTION.

THANK YOU. OH, SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

AND THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, GOING TO SEE IF TIFFANY HAD ANY COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CUSTOMER ASLAN'S COMMENTS.

I WASN'T SURE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING THROUGH YOUR HEAD THAT YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO.

NOT REALLY. OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

I APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBERS ASLAN AND MCCARTHY'S COMMENTS.

I THINK I DO SEE AND OBVIOUSLY APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC WHO HAS A LOT OF CONCERNS ON THIS TOPIC.

I SPOKE A LOT TO THIS LAST WEEK'S COUNCIL MEETING THERE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN WE SAW IT LAST.

BUT IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED.

IT'S NOT OPEN SPACE.

I DO FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT UTILIZE THAT SPACE, BUT IT'S GOING TO LIKELY BE DEVELOPED.

AND AS COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS WAS SAYING THAT THE CONVERSATION AT HAND IS REALLY THE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT.

AND I DO, COUNCIL, I DO SEE VALUE IN MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.

I DO SEE VALUE OF US CHANGING IT FROM RURAL TO URBAN.

THERE ARE BENEFITS AND IT ALLOWS US TO BETTER MITIGATE FLOODING AS A CITY MORE.

AND SO I'M TORN AT THE MOMENT, BUT I THINK MY MY POSITION HASN'T CHANGED.

BUT I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS I'VE BEEN RAISED AND I'D LIKE TO PASS IT BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

I ALSO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I, MCMILLEN MESA IS IS MY BACKYARD TOO.

SO I MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE NUMBER 22.

I'M SORRY. NUMBER 2022-28 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FINAL TIME.

I'LL SECOND. NO COMMENT FROM.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE? THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR, AND APOLOGIES.

I KNOW IT'S CHALLENGING TO WATCH BOTH PLACES AT ONCE, SO THANK YOU.

I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT AND JUST RESPOND TO COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN AND JUST NOTE THAT YOU DIDN'T YOU DID NOT MISREPRESENT WHAT I SPOKE.

AND SIMILARLY TO COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

I AM VERY TORN ON THIS ONE.

I THINK THAT THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE WE'RE SEEING POTENTIALLY SOME.

COMPETING COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND AND COMPETING COMMUNITY NEEDS.

THIS IS NOT AN EASY CALL TO MAKE.

I KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE PRESENTATION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL FOR MITIGATION IN THIS AREA,

[00:55:07]

AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS THAT I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY ABOUT THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR AND JUST THE THE BENEFIT OF THIS AREA TO THAT COMMUNITY. SO I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND JUST ACKNOWLEDGE COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'VE MADE THIS EVENING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

I DO HAVE A COMMENT FROM STERLING SOLOMON.

YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AND I APOLOGIZE, I WAS HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH MY CAMERA EARLIER, SO IT'S NOT ON.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE A COUNCIL OF SIX TONIGHT.

YOU ARE A COUNCIL OF SIX.

WITHOUT THE MAYOR HERE, A TIE VOTE WOULD BE AN UNSUCCESSFUL VOTE ON THE MOTION.

JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CITY ATTORNEY.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY? YEAH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WHEN I WENT OUT AND WALKED THIS, THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO ME AND SO I HOPE COUNCIL MEMBERS WON'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS IF THEY HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO WALK IT.

I KNOW MR. SIMMONS WALKED IT AND I RESPECT AND TO THAT POINT, I WALKED IT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

YES. SO I BELIEVE THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI IS SAYING THAT I WALKED IT, COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE, WALKED IT, AND HE WALKED IT AS WELL. SO CLARIFYING.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NO. NAY.

AM I MISSING A VOTE? NOPE. OKAY.

CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? YEAH. YEAH.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I BELIEVE WE HAD FOUR IN FAVOR AND FOUR OPPOSED.

COUNCIL MEMBERS MCCARTHY AND CORRECT CITY CLERK? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

THANK YOU. I COULD NOT HEAR THE.

I THINK IT WAS MEMBER HOUSE.

I COULDN'T HEAR HER VOTE.

OK. IT'S READY FOR ME TO READ.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE TITLE TEN FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE SECTION 10-90.40.030 RURAL FLOOD PLAIN MAP TO CHANGE THE MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 7.76 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY FROM RURAL FLOODPLAIN TO URBAN FLOODPLAIN ON EIGHT PARCELS OF LAND AT APNS 101-01-020A, 10101-020B, 10128-005G, 10128-005H, 10128-005K, 10128-013A, 10128-013B AND 10128-013D LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN WEST FOREST AVENUE AND NORTH SAN FRANCISCO STREET, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MADAM VICE MAYOR, I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-28.

I'LL SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? NO. THAT MOTION CARRIES.

[C. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-30: An ordinance amending City Code to align City Code and industrial discharge permits with the language in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40, and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Ordinance No. 2022-30 by title only for the final time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-30 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-30]

THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO 9C.

CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-30.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TO ALIGN CITY CODE AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMITS WITH THE LANGUAGE IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

EPA 40 AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS CFR 403.

I SEE BRAD HILL.

VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL. BRAD HILL, YOU'RE ACTING WATER SERVICES DIRECTOR.

I'M STANDING HERE JUST.

WE HAVE OUR ACTING REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MANAGER IS ONLINE.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING, SHE'LL BE ABLE TO DO SO.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

YEP. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION.

[01:00:10]

DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE DO.

I MOVE TO READ ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-30 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FINAL TIME.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AMENDING CITY CODE SEVEN HEALTH AND SANITATION.

CHAPTER 02-001-0010 INDUSTRIAL SELF MONITORING AND CHAPTER 02-001-0012.

SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.

AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. I MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-30.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

[D. Consideration and Approval of Contract: Approve Change Order No. 16 with Shephard Wesnitzer, Inc. in the amount of $151,200.00 and a 470 calendar day time extension for the Rio de Flag Flood Control Utility Relocation Design Services Contract. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Change Order No. 16 with Shephard Wesnitzer, Inc. the amount of $151,200.00 and a 470 calendar day time extension for the Rio de Flag Flood Control Utility Relocation Design Services Contract; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.]

THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO ITEM D CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL CONTRACT APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 16 WITH SHEPPARD WESTMINSTER INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $151,200 AND A 470 CALENDAR DAY TIME EXTENSION FOR THE RIO DE FLAG FLOOD CONTROL UTILITY RELOCATION DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, BOTH HERE IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY TODAY.

MY NAME IS JEREMY DE GATER.

I'M A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT MANAGER AND I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL.

CHANGE ORDERS 16 WITH CWI OR SHEPPARD WEST FOR THE RIO DE FLAG FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT.

I BELIEVE MANY OF US ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE BASIC OUTLINE OF THIS PROJECT, SO I'LL JUST GO OVER IT ONE LAST TIME.

THIS WILL BE A PHASE PROJECT.

SO WE HAVE PHASE ONE, WHICH WILL ALL WORK, WILL STAY SOUTH OF THE BNSF TRACKS.

IT WILL ESSENTIALLY START AT THE FAR END OR THE TERMINUS WILL BE DOWN NEAR THE WARNER'S NURSERY ALONG BUTLER AVENUE, AND WILL CONTINUE BACK ALONG PARALLELING THE BNSF TRACKS INTO DOWNTOWN AND THE LOWER REACHES, WHAT WE CALL THIS LOWER PORTION, WHICH WILL TERMINATE AT THE MOUNTAIN LINE BUS CENTER.

RIGHT NOW, THAT'S THE CONFLUENCE.

WE WILL ALSO PART OF PHASE ONE WILL BE THE CLAY AVENUE WASH REACH, AND THIS WILL CONTINUE DOWN MIKE'S PIKE ACROSS THROUGH THE FIVE POINTS INTERSECTION AND CONTINUE UP OUTSIDE OF STREETS CROSSING BLACKBIRD ROOST AND CHATEAU, ULTIMATELY TERMINATING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

PHASE TWO WILL BE THE UPPER REACH.

THIS WILL BE THAT CONFLUENCE AREA.

THIS WILL INCLUDE PASSING UNDER THE BNSF TRACKS, PASSING OUTSIDE HERE ALONG CITY HALL, PASS THE LIBRARY UP INTO FRANCIS SHORT POND AND EXTENDING NORTH INTO THE COCONINO ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD.

AS I MENTIONED, THIS WILL BE PHASED.

SO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS HOPEFULLY GETTING INTO CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO ON PHASE ONE.

BEFORE WE DIVE INTO CHANGE ORDER 16, I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE HISTORY OF OUR DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT WITH CWI.

THIS STARTED A LONG, LONG, LONG AGO, BACK IN 2005, UNLESS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS FOR ROUGHLY ONE AND ONE HALF MILLION IN A CONTRACT TERM OF 270 DAYS, WHICH WAS RELATED TO 30% DESIGN FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

OVER THE YEARS, BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009, THERE WERE FURTHER CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

THESE WERE ALL DONE THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER'S CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY AND STAFFS CONTRACT ALLOWANCE AUTHORITY.

IN 2009 THERE WAS CHANGE.

ORDER FOR THIS DID COME BEFORE COUNCIL TO UPDATE THE CONTRACT.

AND THEN FINALLY, BETWEEN 2009 AND 2020, ADDITIONAL CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS OCCURRED AGAIN UNDER THE CITY MANAGER, CONTRACT AUTHORITY AND STAFFS CONTRACT ALLOWANCE CHANGE ORDERS 13 THROUGH 15 DID COME BEFORE COUNCIL.

I BELIEVE THE LAST TWO OF THOSE CAME BEFORE THIS COUNCIL.

THOSE OCCURRED BETWEEN MARCH 2020 AND JULY 2021.

AND FINALLY, WE BRING OURSELVES TO CHANGE.

ORDER NUMBER 16.

CHANGE ORDER 16 IS ANOTHER UPDATE TO THE CONTRACT WITH SHEPHERD WESNITZER.

IT ADDS ADDITIONAL TASKS WHICH INCLUDE CONTINUED COORDINATING AND RELOCATION OF UTILITIES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN BNSF RIGHT OF WAY. SO THIS REQUIRES APPLICATIONS, COORDINATION, BOTH FOR FRANCHISE UTILITIES AND SO ON.

[01:05:07]

ADDITIONAL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.

AS THIS PROJECT HAS MORPHED OVER TIME, IT'S BECOME CLEAR THAT ADDITIONAL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ARE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PACKAGE THAT WE NEED TO DELIVER TO THE ARMY CORPS.

AND FINALLY, WE'RE GOING TO BE REDESIGNING OR DESIGNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE THAT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CITY HALL THAT CROSSES THE CURRENT RIO DE FLAG. ONE FINAL NOTE IS THAT, AS I MENTIONED, THIS PROJECT WILL BE PHASED.

AND SO ONE ADDITIONAL TASK IS TO ACTUALLY SEPARATE OUT THE PHASE ONE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FROM THE PHASE TWO DOCUMENTS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE ARMY CORPS FOR THEIR PLANS FOR ADVERTISING.

SO TO SUMMARIZE, THIS CHANGE ORDER IS AN ADDITIONAL $151,200, AN ADDITIONAL 470 DAYS, WHICH BRINGS US GENERALLY IN LINE WITH OUR ANTICIPATED AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PHASE ONE.

JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE PER THE PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT OR PCA, TO DELIVER WHAT WE CALL THE LERDS. WE ALL LOVE OUR ACRONYMS IN GOVERNMENTS.

ALERGIA STANDS FOR LANDS, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS, RELOCATIONS AND DISPOSALS.

SO THAT IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE ARE THE TASK THAT WE ARE WORKING ON, COMPLETING AND DELIVERING.

CHANGE ORDER 16 BACK IN OCTOBER ON THE 27TH, THE CHANGE ORDER COMMITTEE, WHICH IS AN INTERNAL COMMITTEE HERE AT THE CITY, REVIEWED AND APPROVED THIS CHANGE ORDER AND MOVED IT ON WITH RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO.

FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

SO STATUS RECOMMENDED ACTION TONIGHT IS THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CHANGE ORDER 16 FOR SHEPHERD WESNITZER RESERVE FOR THE AMOUNT SHOWN ON YOUR SCREEN, ADDING THE ADDITIONAL 470 DAYS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

I'M GOING TO GIVE A REAL BRIEF PROJECT UPDATE.

I THINK WE HAD OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

ENGINEER JUST RECENTLY GAVE AN UPDATE TO COUNCIL LAST WEEK, SO I WON'T REHASH ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE WHERE THIS PROJECT IS AT.

I AM NEW TO THIS PROJECT AND I AM TRANSITIONING ON AND I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT I AM STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS WITH THIS PROJECT STARTED YEARS AND YEARS AGO WITH TIFFEN MILLER, JAMES DUVAL, ITS TRANSITION TO CHRISTINE CAMERON, TREVOR HENRY.

WE'VE HAD RICK BARRETT, BRETT PETERSON IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ROLES.

WE'VE HAD TREMENDOUS INPUT FROM WATER SERVICES, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

CERTAINLY A LOT OF CREDIT GOES TO THE CURRENT MAYOR, PAST MAYORS, CURRENT COUNCIL, PAST COUNCILS.

THERE'S A LOT OF ENERGY AROUND THIS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD AND WE'RE EXCITED TO CONTINUE MOVING IT IN THAT DIRECTION.

SO QUICK UPDATE ON PROJECT DESIGN.

OUR MAJOR MILESTONE THAT'S COMING UP IN EARLY DECEMBER IS DELIVERING THIS.

IT'S, WE ARE TERMING IT CLOSE TO 95-90% DESIGN PACKAGE TO THE CORE FOR THEIR AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW OR ATR REVIEW. THIS WILL OCCUR IN DECEMBER AND IT'S A CRITICAL MILESTONE AS WE MOVE TOWARDS THE CORE ADVERTISING THIS LATER IN 2023 AND HOPEFULLY AWARDING THE CONTRACTS ALSO IN 2023.

AS YOU'RE AWARE, WE HAVE THE ARMY CORPS WAS IN TOWN BACK ON OCTOBER 28TH.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ENGINEER JUSTIN GAY VISITED.

WE MET WITH THE MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS DID A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.

THIS WAS HIS FIRST VISIT TO GET ACQUAINTED WITH THE PROJECTS AND WE HAD WE HAD A GREAT VISIT AND I THINK WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE SOME IMPORTANT ITEMS FORWARD.

REAL ESTATE IS A BIG ONE.

HERE WE HAVE BRYCE DOTY, OUR REAL ESTATE MANAGER, AND HIS TEAM CONTINUE TO WORK ON SECURING THE REAL ESTATE THAT WE NEED FOR THE PROJECT.

SO APPRAISALS THAT ARE UNDERWAY, WE'RE HOPING TO DELIVER OUR FIRST PACKAGE TO THE COURT THIS WEEK FOR THEIR REVIEW AND WILL CONTINUE TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NEEDED TO GET THIS PROJECT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

AND THEN FINALLY, BNSF, ANOTHER HUGE PARTNER IN THIS PROJECT, ONGOING COORDINATION.

THERE'S A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT ARE ALL COMING TOGETHER AROUND THE RIO, WHETHER IT'S THE DOWNTOWN MILE, THE LONE TREE, AND THESE ALL REQUIRE EXTENSIVE COORDINATION.

AND SO BNSF HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT PARTNER FOR THAT TO COORDINATE BETWEEN THE VARIOUS PROJECTS AND ALSO TO WORK ON THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE MOVING THIS PROJECT FORWARD.

WITH THAT, I WILL STOP THERE.

I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE ALL OUR VALUED PARTNERS, BOTH INTERNALLY AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL AND OUR EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS.

SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON CHANGE.

ORDER 16 THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, JEREMY.

COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS?

[01:10:05]

NO QUESTIONS.

I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

MADAM VICE MAYOR, PLEASE DO.

FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST EXPRESS MY AMAZEMENT AND WONDER FOR TEAM FLAGSTAFF AND ALL THE COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR FOR WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

YEAH. SO, LIKE, IF YOU WERE RAISING A KID, THE PROJECT IS NOW AN ADULT.

READY TO. READY TO.

READY TO. TO FLY OUT OF THE NEST.

AND I AM JUST A.

THANKFUL THAT I'VE BEEN PART OF.

I REMEMBER FOUR YEARS AGO, BUT LESS THAN FOUR YEARS AGO, WHEN FORMER MAYOR AND FORMER VICE FORMER MAYOR OF CORAL EVANS AND VICE FORMER VICE MAYOR JAMIE LYNN AND I WENT TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

AT THE TIME WHEN BNSF WAS NOT EVEN AT THE TABLE.

AND OF COURSE, WITH THE RIGOROUS WORK OF OUR STAFF AND OUR LOBBYING TEAM, WE WERE ABLE TO GET BNSF ON BOARD.

NOW WE HAVE ALMOST 100% DESIGN WORK.

SO KUDOS TO TEAM FLAGSTAFF, ONE OF OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS.

SO WITH THAT, I MOVE TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 16 WITH SHEPPARD WESNITZER INCORPORATED, THE AMOUNT OF ONE 151,200 AND A 470 CALENDAR DATE TIME EXTENSION FOR THE RIO DE FLAG FLOOD CONTROL UTILITY RELOCATION DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

[A. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-32: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 12, Floodplains, Chapter 12-02, Stormwater Management Utility, by amending Section 12-02-002-0003, Schedule of Stormwater Management Utility Service Charges and Fees; providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, penalties, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: At the November 15, 2022 Council Meeting: 1) Open the Public Hearing 2) Read Ordinance No. 2022-32 by title only for the first time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-32 by title only (if approved above) At the November 29, 2022 Council Meeting: 4) Continue the Public Hearing 6) Read Ordinance No. 2022-32 by title only for the final time 7) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-32 by title only (if approved above) 8) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-32]

WE ARE NOW DOWN TO AGENDA 10A.

THIS IS OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-32.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE.

TITLE 12 FLOOD PLAINS.

CHAPTER 12-02 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY BY AMENDING SECTION 12 DASH 02-002-003 SCHEDULE OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY PENALTIES, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I AM OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND I SEE WE HAVE A PRESENTER.

WE DO. THANK YOU.

VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL, ED SCHENCK, STORM WATER MANAGER HERE AT THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

YOU CAN GET THIS PRESENTATION READY TO GO.

SO WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL FIRST READ FOR THE STORM WATER RATE ADOPTION.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LAST MONTH.

TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF STARTING WITH THAT PROPOSITION FOR ONE BOND THAT WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS.

BIG NEWS, A BIG WIN.

WE'LL GO OVER THE STORM WATER PROGRAM.

JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT OUR PROGRAM ENTAILS.

THE RATE ASSESSMENTS.

WE WILL GO OVER RATE OPTIONS TODAY.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH THAT HAS OCCURRED AND WILL OCCUR AND THEN OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

SO STARTING WITH PROPOSITION 441, THAT WAS A BIG WIN FOR US.

THAT WAS APPROVED BY OVER 75%.

THAT'S $26 MILLION IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.

THAT'S THE SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX FOR STORM WATER.

THESE FUNDS ARE DEDICATED FOR POST MUSEUM FIRE.

THAT'S THAT 2019 FIRE MITIGATION AND SPRUCE WASH.

SO THE MAJORITY OF THAT WILL BE IN THE PARADISE AND SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THOSE PROJECTS WILL EXTEND FROM THE UPSTREAM PORTION OF OUR CITY LIMITS NEAR PARADISE ROAD DOWN TO THE EXISTING KILLEP SCHOOL REGIONAL DETENTION BASIN.

THESE GEO BOND PROJECTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL RESERVE OR CAPITAL REVENUE PLAN THAT WE'RE PRESENT TODAY.

DUE TO THAT, SINCE THIS WILL BE FUNDED ENTIRELY OUT OF THAT GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND.

[01:15:01]

AGAIN, A QUICK STORM WATER PROGRAM OVERVIEW.

I THINK YOU'VE SEEN THIS SLIDE BEFORE.

THIS IS JUST SHOWING THAT COMPLEXITY OF OUR STORM WATER PROGRAM.

THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDERTAKEN UNDER THAT PROGRAM, EVERYTHING FROM WATER QUALITY, FROM DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT THAT WE MAINTAIN AS THE FEMA PARTNER HERE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS THROUGH OUR LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, STORM WATER MAINTENANCE, ASSET MANAGEMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT.

RAIN AND STREAM GAUGING THAT'S THE FLOOD ALERT NETWORK.

FLOOD PROOFING PROPERTY PURCHASES.

DIRECT ASSISTANCE.

REGIONAL STUDIES.

REGIONAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND REGIONAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

SO WE'RE BUSY. OUR SMALL STAFF OF FIVE TEND TO WORK PRETTY LONG DAYS, AS DO OUR SUPPORTING PARTNERS.

SO OUR STORMWATER PROGRAM IS FUNDED THROUGH UTILITY RATE.

WE WERE THE FIRST STORM WATER UTILITY IN ARIZONA, NOT THE FIRST ONE IN THE COUNTRY.

THERE ARE SEVERAL THOUSAND BEFORE SEVERAL HUNDRED BEFORE US.

AT THE MOMENT THERE ARE SEVEN STORM WATER UTILITIES WITHIN ARIZONA AND OVER 2500 THROUGHOUT THE US.

OUR STORM WATER UTILITY IS BASED ON THE EQUIVALENT RATE UNIT.

THE ERU IS EQUIVALENT TO A 1500 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

AT THE MOMENT, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE CAPPED AT A MAXIMUM OF FIVE ERUS WITH AN AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH ROUGHLY THREE AREAS.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A MAXIMUM ERU.

WITH OUR CURRENT RATES.

WE CURRENTLY FUND $600,000 A YEAR IN CAPITAL FUNDING AND HAVE A LIMITED OPERATIONS BUDGET BUDGET.

THIS IS FOR OUR OPERATIONS AS WELL AS FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AND FLOOD RESPONSE.

MOST OF THAT FLOOD RESPONSE IS CURRENTLY UNFUNDED SINCE OUR LAST RATE ADJUSTMENT WAS BEFORE WE HAD THE 2019 MUSEUM FIRE IN THE 2022 PIPELINE FIRE.

DUE TO THOSE FIRES, WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN UNSUSTAINABLE BUDGET.

SOME OF OUR PAST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS JUST TO GIVE SOME HISTORY INTO THE STORM WATER CAPITAL PROGRAM.

THIS IS A LIST HERE.

MOST OF THESE HAVE ASTERISKS NEXT TO THEM.

THOSE ASTERISKS MEANS THAT THESE WERE DONE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER PROGRAMS. SO EITHER WITHIN CAPITAL PUBLIC WORKS, WATER SERVICES, OTHER GROUPS.

SO A LOT OF THESE WERE WORKED ON SINCE 2005.

THAT'S WHEN THE STORM WATER TOOK ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THEMSELVES TO TODAY.

YOU CAN SEE THAT LIST.

YOU CAN ALSO SEE ON THE RIGHT HOW WE'VE BEEN FUNDED FOR CAPITAL FUNDING.

SO IN 2005, AS INITIATED WITH SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 200,000 A YEAR, BETWEEN 2006 AND 2015, IT WAVERED KIND OF DEPEND ON YEAR AS HIGH AS HALF A MILLION, AS LOW AS 150,000.

AND SINCE 2016, IT'S BEEN ROUGHLY IN 600000 TO 800000, WHICH, AS YOU LIKELY KNOW, IS NOT ENOUGH PER YEAR TO USUALLY FUND EVEN ONE CAPITAL PROJECT. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE RATE ASSESSMENT HERE.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS RATE ASSESSMENT OR RATE ADJUSTMENT, SORRY, IS DUE TO THOSE INCREASED FIRE AND FLOOD EVENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, MAKING OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE INSUFFICIENT FOR ROUTINE FLOODING IN A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS.

THIS INCREASED FIRE AND FLOOD EVENTS HAVE ALSO INCREASED OUR DEMAND ON OPERATIONS.

SO STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT.

THESE LAST TWO YEARS WE'VE MOSTLY BEEN BORROWING FROM OTHER SECTIONS AND DIVISIONS.

SO WATER SERVICES OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN A HUGE HELP, AS HAS PUBLIC WORKS, INCLUDING STREETS, AND THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS.

SO THERE'S BEEN QUITE A BIT BORROWED FROM OTHER SECTIONS AND DIVISIONS, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ARE DEFERRING THEIR DAY TO DAY JOBS AS THEY'RE HELPING STORM WATER THROUGH THE SUMMER MONTHS AND EVENTS.

WE ALSO HAVE INCREASED MITIGATION COSTS OF SANDBAGS, BARRIERS, ET CETERA, A HAUL OFF.

AND THOSE NEW FLOOD AREAS SUCH AS SPRUCE WASH AND THE SCHULTZ CREEK AREA.

SO COCONINO ESTATES DOWNTOWN, AS WELL AS JUST NORTH OF THERE.

WE ALSO ARE HOPING TO CONSTRUCT SOME OF OUR DEFERRED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AS I MENTIONED, WITH 600,000 A YEAR.

WE ARE FALLING FURTHER AND FURTHER BEHIND ON OUR LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS JUST DUE TO THE FUNDING, AND PART OF THAT IS THE INFLATIONARY COST.

SO THE INFLATIONARY CONSTRUCTION COST IN NORTHERN ARIZONA HAS BEEN RATHER EYE OPENING TO SAY THE LEAST, AS IT HAS GONE THROUGH TIME, ESPECIALLY POST-COVID.

WE WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE CRITICAL CAPITAL PROJECTS TO HELP REDUCE FLOOD RESPONSE AND THOSE OPERATION COSTS.

SO MORE OF THOSE CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT WE CAN COMPLETE.

THE LESS MONEY WE HAVE TO SPEND ON SHORT TERM MITIGATION, SUCH AS SANDBAGS AND BARRIERS.

TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF OUR CURRENT STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND WHERE WE'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE TWO FULL TIME OPERATORS FOR STORM WATER AND ONE PART TIME SUPERVISOR.

[01:20:05]

FOR THOSE OPERATORS, THIS IS HOUSED IN OUR WATER SERVICES OPERATIONS SECTION.

THEY ARE TASKED WITH CLEANING 24 MILES OF FEMA RECOGNIZED CHANNEL, OVER 100 MILES OF DITCHES, OVER 60 MILES OF UNDERGROUND STORM PIPE AND 15 CITY OWNED LEAD FACILITIES.

ADDITIONAL NEEDS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE LAST YEAR IS THAT PRE SEASON FLOOD MITIGATION FOR THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED BY POST BY WILDFIRE.

AND THEN ALSO FLOOD RESPONSE, WHICH HAS BEEN NORTH OF $1 MILLION BOTH LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR.

WE ALSO HAVE A NUMBER OF NEW REGIONAL DETENTION BASINS THAT HAVE GONE IN.

THOSE DO REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE TO KEEP THEM FUNCTIONAL.

THIS WOULD BE THE SCHULTZ BASIN THAT WAS JUST COMPLETED THIS YEAR [INAUDIBLE] DETENTION BASIN, WHICH ALSO HAS BEEN COMPLETED THIS YEAR.

FRANCIS SHORT POND HAS REQUIRED DREDGING IN THE PAST AND IS LIKELY GOING TO REQUIRE AGAIN AS WE HAVE SEDIMENT COMING OFF OF THAT PIPELINE WEST AREA AND THE NEW NEW PARKWAY REGIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FLOOD MITIGATION BASIN JUST NORTH OF LINDA VISTA WITHIN THE SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO OUR EXPECTATION IS TO HAVE AT LEAST A FULL TIME SUPERVISOR FOR THE MAINTENANCE CREWS AND THEN BETWEEN TWO AND SIX ADDITIONAL FULL TIME OPERATORS PLUS EQUIPMENT FOR THESE ADDITIONAL NEEDS.

TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF MAINTENANCE.

SO WE SOMETIMES THROW AROUND THE COST OF MAINTAINING THESE DETENTION BASINS.

SO THIS IS NOT A CITY OWNED FACILITY.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE COPELAND BASIN CREATED BY THE COCONINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE IN THE DOUGHERTY PARK AREA, COMPLETED IN 2015. YOU CAN SEE THAT PICTURE OF IT SHORTLY AFTER CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN THIS IS A PHOTO FROM AUGUST OF THIS YEAR WHERE THEY HAD UPWARDS OF FOUR FEET OF SEDIMENT THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRETY OF THAT BASIN.

SO THEY DID SPEND SEVERAL WEEKS CLEANING THAT OUT, AND THAT WAS JUST FROM A HANDFUL OF EVENTS.

SO BASICALLY IT FILLED THE SEDIMENT WITHIN THE FIRST FEW EVENTS.

AND THEN AFTER THOSE FIRST FEW EVENTS, IT NO LONGER HAD A FUNCTION.

THE WATER AND SEDIMENT FLOWED RIGHT THROUGH IT.

SO THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT.

HOPEFULLY NOT THIS BAD, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT IN TERMS OF SCALE WITH THOSE REGIONAL BASINS AS WE NEED TO KEEP THOSE CLEAN AND FUNCTIONING TO PROVIDE THE FLOOD BENEFITS THAT THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED FOR.

PROJECTED EXPENDITURES FOR AN O&M BUDGET.

SO THE TOP ROW HERE IS OUR CURRENT O&M BUDGET KIND OF WAVERS THROUGH TIME, BUT IT'S ROUGHLY ONE AND A HALF MILLION PER YEAR.

WE'VE SEEN AN ADDITIONAL O&M OF BETWEEN 2.2 AND THREE PER YEAR MILLION, MOSTLY DUE TO THIS DETENTION BASE AND MAINTENANCE THROUGH TIME AND THE FLOOD RESPONSE AND FLOOD MITIGATION COSTS.

AGAIN, THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND WAS FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND IS NOT UTILIZED FOR OPERATING COST.

AND IT'S ALSO RECOMMENDED THE OPERATING COSTS BE COVERED BY RATES.

WE DO NOT HAVE GRANTS THAT COVER OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.

SO GOING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FINANCIAL PLAN, WE DID BRING IN AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT, WATER RESOURCES ECONOMICS, AND SANJAY WILL BE SPEAKING SHORTLY.

WE HEARD FROM HIM BACK IN OCTOBER AS WELL.

WATER RESOURCES ECONOMICS DID IDENTIFY THAT INCREASE IN OPERATING COST, PEGGING IT AT ROUGHLY 2.2 MILLION PER YEAR NEEDED FOR NEXT YEAR. AND THEN MOST OF THAT IS THAT DETENTION BASE AND MAINTENANCE.

WE ALSO HAVE SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE EXPECTED OVER THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS WITH A PROJECTED ANNUAL NEED OF AROUND $8 MILLION.

THE MIXTURE OF REVENUE BONDS, GRANTS AND RATE REVENUE, WHICH RATES WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, WILL BE UTILIZED TO FUND THAT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.

WE DO HAVE 2.5 MILLION IN GRANTS FOR TWO PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD FUTURE GRANTS AND FUTURE PROJECTS.

THOSE ARE AWARDED TO US AND WE ARE APPLYING FOR ANOTHER 4.6 MILLION THAT WE KNOW OF RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S OTHER FUNDS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AS THEY COME AVAILABLE.

THERE IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE WILL BE SOME DEBT FINANCING NEEDED DEPENDING ON WHICH SCENARIO WE GO FORWARD WITH TO HELP BALANCE THE BUDGET.

AND THIS IS THIS FIGURE THAT WATER RESOURCE ECONOMICS PUT TOGETHER OF OUR STATUS QUO.

SO WHERE WE STAND TODAY, THE BACKGROUND LINES OF THAT IS OUR COST.

A LARGE GREEN ONE IS OUR CAPITAL COST, AND THEN THOSE BLUE LINES BELOW IT ARE OPERATING EXPENSES AND CURRENT DEBT SERVICES.

YOU CAN SEE THAT DOTTED RED LINE.

THAT'S OUR OPERATING THRESHOLD.

THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO BE ABOVE.

AND THEN OUR REVENUES ARE THOSE BARS THAT ARE IN THE BACKGROUND.

[01:25:01]

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT IN OUR CURRENT SITUATION, WE HAVE SOME REVENUE COMING IN 2024 IN TERMS OF DEBT AND SOME BORROWED FUNDS AND THAT BLACK LINE THAT'S BEHIND IT.

THAT IS OUR CASH POSITION AND IT'S NEGATIVE, WHICH IS NEVER GOOD, WHICH MEANS THAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY RUNNING THROUGH OUR CASH BALANCE AND BY 2025 WILL BE BELOW OUR OPERATING THRESHOLD.

AND BY THE END OF 2025, THE FUND WILL ESSENTIALLY BE EXPENDED.

SO SUMMARY OF OUR STATUS QUO OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

CURRENT REVENUES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR INCREASED OPERATING COSTS, SO THAT WOULD BE THE SANDBAGS, THE BARRIER, THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND IT'S ALSO INSUFFICIENT FOR FUTURE CAPITAL NEEDS AND EXPENDITURES.

SO A RATE INCREASE IS NEEDED TO MEET THESE CURRENT AND FUTURE STORMWATER OBLIGATIONS.

SO WE'RE COMING HERE TODAY WITH THREE DIFFERENT RATE OPTIONS.

AND THIS IS BASED OFF OF THAT OCTOBER 25TH PRESENTATION THAT WE PROVIDED HERE.

COUNCIL STAFF AND CONSULTANT DEVELOP THREE ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT STORMWATER PROGRAM.

EACH SCENARIO HAS THE SAME LEVEL OF OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND THAT'S JUST DUE TO THE NEED FOR THAT FLOOD MITIGATION, PRE-SEASON RESPONSE AND MAINTENANCE OF THOSE BASINS. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE LEVEL TWO OF THESE ASSUMES FUTURE TWO OF THESE SCENARIOS ASSUMES FUTURE GRANT AWARDS.

THERE IS SOME RISKS TO THIS.

ONE OF THE RISKS IS IF THOSE GRANTS ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL OR IF THERE IS NO GRANT FUNDING AVAILABLE, THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED TO BE GRANT FUNDED WILL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED. DEBT SERVICING IS INCLUDED IN THESE SCENARIOS AND THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND BOND PROJECTS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT INCLUDED SINCE THOSE ARE PAID FOR OUT OF THE BOND.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE, AS I MENTIONED, THOSE THREE SCENARIOS.

SCENARIO ONE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN OCTOBER 25TH THAT IS FUNDING OUR OWN M AS WELL AS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOTH POST-FIRE AS WELL AS DEFERRED CAPITAL.

SCENARIO TWO IS VERY SIMILAR, BUT IT DELAYS SOME OF THE RATE INCREASES AND DUE TO THAT DELAY THERE'S MORE DEBT SERVICING AS WELL AS MORE NEED FOR GRANT FUNDING.

AND THEN SCENARIO THREE IS TRYING TO KEEP AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO OUR STATUS QUO.

SO ESSENTIALLY PAYING FOR OUR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, BUT A MUCH REDUCED CAPITAL PROGRAM.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS FOR THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, THE TOP ONES, THE ONES IN RED.

THESE ARE ALREADY FUNDED BY CURRENT RATES AND BY IN OUR CAPITAL PLAN.

SO THIS IS THE RIO DE FLAG FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT THAT JEREMY WAS JUST SPEAKING TO, AS WELL AS OUR PORTION, THE $2 MILLION PORTION OF THE STORM WATER SORRY, THE $2 MILLION THAT STORMWATER IS CONTRIBUTING TO THAT DOWNTOWN MILE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT WITH OBVIOUSLY WITHIN DOWNTOWN.

AND THEN ALL THREE SCENARIOS ALSO WILL HAVE FUNDING FOR THAT SCHULTZ CREEK HIGHWAY 180 CULVERT IMPROVEMENTS AND THE FIRST SCENARIO THAT'S RATE FUNDED AND THE SCENARIO TWO AND THREE THAT WILL BE DEBT SERVICED.

THE NEXT THREE BELOW THAT AND THE KIND OF YELLOW OR ORANGE, THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY GRANT FUNDED.

SO THESE WE DO HAVE GRANT AWARDS FOR.

SO THEY'RE UNDER ALL THREE SCENARIOS SINCE WE DO HAVE A 75/25 MATCH AND WE DO EXPECT THAT 75% THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SO THAT WOULD BE THAT SIDE DRAIN LATERAL FOR NORTH DOWNTOWN THAT GOES DOWN SANTA FE.

SPRUCE WASH RESILIENCY, WHICH IS A SMALL GRANT FOR IMPROVING THE SPRUCE WASH CHANNEL BELOW FOURTH AND BUTLER.

AND THEN THE KILLIP BASINS INLET SO GOING THROUGH PONDEROSA PARK.

NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO MORE OF THE LARGER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SCENARIOS.

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS. THESE ARE SMALL IMPROVEMENTS, ESSENTIALLY SMALL CATCH BASIN IMPROVEMENTS, AREAS WHERE WE SEE LOCALIZED FLOODING DUE TO AN INSUFFICIENCY IN A LOCALIZED PART OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO A CATCH BASIN, A SCUPPER, MAYBE EVEN A SMALL CULVERT, WE USUALLY HAVE ABOUT $75,000 TO $100,000 A YEAR TO DO SMALL IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE CITY.

SO THESE WOULD BE FUNDED UNDER SCENARIO ONE AND TWO, BUT NOT UNDER SCENARIO THREE.

AND THEN THE NEXT ONES BELOW THAT, OUR WHOLE SERIES OF PROJECTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, EITHER THROUGH OUR MASTER PLAN IN 2010 OR THROUGH OTHER AVENUES.

IN SCENARIO ONE, THESE ARE FUNDED IN THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS.

IN SCENARIO TWO, THESE WOULD BE FUNDED IF WE FIND GRANTS.

SO ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD BE PROVIDING THE FUNDING FOR THE 25% MATCH THROUGH THIS, BUT WE'D BE EXPECTING 75% OF THESE PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED THROUGH A FEDERAL OR STATE, SOME TYPE OF EXTERNAL GRANT.

[01:30:01]

SO IF WE DO NOT GET THOSE GRANTS, THESE PROJECTS WOULD BE DELAYED OR CANCELED.

AND THEN SCENARIO THREE, THEY ARE NOT FUNDED.

I'LL GIVE THAT SCENARIO AGAIN IN KIND OF A MORE CONDENSED FORMAT HERE.

SO THESE ARE THE THREE SCENARIOS.

MAINTENANCE, AS I MENTIONED, O&M IS FUNDED UNDER ALL THREE.

THE POST FIRE PROJECT, THAT IS THE HIGHWAY ONE, A CULVERT IS FUNDED BY RATES AND SCENARIO ONE AND SCENARIO TWO, ITS DEBT SERVICE AS IT IS, IT IS IN SCENARIO THREE.

AND THEN OUR HIGH PRIORITY AND MORE COMMUNITY LONGER TERM CIP PROJECTS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ARE EITHER FUNDED BY RATES IN SCENARIO ONE, MOSTLY UNDER GRANTS IN THE SCENARIO TWO, OR THEY ARE NOT FUNDED IN SCENARIO THREE.

SO NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO THE RATE SCHEDULE FOR THESE.

SO UNDER SCENARIO ONE, WE HAVE A 50% INCREASE IN THE RATE IN THE FIRST YEAR.

THIS SHOULD BE NOTED, THIS IS LOWER THAN THE RATE THAT WE PRESENTED IN OCTOBER 25TH.

SO WE ORIGINALLY PRESENTED AS 75%.

WE DID DO SOME LOOKING THROUGH THAT BUDGET THROUGH THE MODEL AND FOUND SOME COST SAVINGS.

SO WE DID FIND WHERE WE COULD PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE AS WE PRESENTED ON OCTOBER 25TH FOR A LOWER RATE.

SO IT WOULD BE A 50% INCREASE.

THEN AT 25% THE SECOND YEAR, THEN 10% THEN BASED ON INFLATION.

SCENARIO TWO WILL GET US TO A SIMILAR LEVEL OF SERVICE, BUT IT WILL BE A 17% INCREASE OVER SEVEN YEARS.

SO IT'S A LOWER COST TO THE COMMUNITY ON YEARS ONE AND TWO.

BUT AS YOU GET INTO THE OUT YEARS, IT ACTUALLY BECOMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SCENARIO ONE DUE TO THE DEBT SERVICING THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED UP FRONT.

AND THEN SCENARIO THREE, WHICH IS MORE FOCUSED ON OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE IN A MUCH REDUCED CAPITAL PROGRAM, HAS 17% FOR THE FIRST FOUR YEARS AND THEN IT LEVELS OFF. SO IN THAT SOME OF THAT DETAIL IS PROVIDED ON THAT LAST THAT LAST ROW, WHICH I THINK I SPOKE THROUGH FROM THE LAST SLIDE.

AND WITH THAT, WE TURN THIS OVER TO SANJAY.

THANK YOU, ED. HONORARY VICE, MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL STAFF PUBLIC, [INAUDIBLE] DO MY PRESENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE STORM WATER AND THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND PRESENTED THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FROM A LEVEL OF SERVICE PERSPECTIVE.

NOW I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF IT.

A LOT OF NUMBERS HERE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME WALKING THROUGH THE SLIDE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.

SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE FIRST ONE, SCENARIO ONE HERE.

THIS IS THE ONE WHERE WE PRESENTED A SIMILAR SCENARIO IN OCTOBER.

THIS SHOWS YOU THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR EACH YEAR.

AS NOTED, THE GO BONDS ARE NOT IN THESE IN ANY OF THESE SCENARIOS BECAUSE ALREADY FUNDED AND DEDICATED, WE HAVE GRANT FUNDING FOR 23 AND 24.

THOSE HAVE BEEN SECURED AND ISOLATED SO THAT WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT.

SO THAT'S GOOD. THEN WE HAVE SOME DEBT FUNDING.

THIS IS A $16 MILLION THAT'S ALREADY ON THE BOOKS PLANNED AND THEN WE HAVE $6.5 IN 26 AND $3 MILLIONS IN 27.

THESE ARE TENTATIVE NUMBERS THAT WE PROJECT OUT IN THE FUTURE.

THEN WE HAVE HOW MUCH WE NEED TO PAY BY CASH FOR EACH YEAR ASSOCIATED WITH THE CIP.

SO THIS IS BASICALLY THE REMAINING AMOUNT OVER HERE SHOWS YOU THE TOTAL AMOUNT.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT $54 MILLION $54.6 MILLION IS BEING SPENT IN SCENARIO ONE.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, ALMOST HALF OF IT IS DEBT, HALF OF IT IS CASH, AND A LITTLE BIT IS GRANT, ROUGHLY AS YOU CAN SEE THERE.

THEN YOU SEE ALSO THE INCREASES.

NOW, ALL OF THESE INCREASES OCCUR JANUARY, SO THE JANUARY 1ST AND THE PROPOSED WOULD BE $5.61.

THE CURRENT [INAUDIBLE] IS $3.74.

THEN, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE SEE THE NEXT YEAR, $7 AND ONE CENTS AT $7.71 AND ETC, ETC..

SO THAT'S SCENARIO ONE.

SO NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT SCENARIO TWO.

SCENARIO TWO, AS MENTIONED, HAS SOME COST SHIFTING.

WE MOVED UP ONE PROJECT UP LITTLE BIT HIGH FORWARD AND WE'D REDUCE SOME PROJECTS OUT THERE ARE SIMILAR COSTS IN SOME SENSE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S $53.4 MILLION, BUT THERE IS MORE DEBT ISSUANCE IN THIS SCENARIO, AS I MENTIONED, BECAUSE WE DID MOVE UP A PROJECT A LITTLE BIT, A HIGHER PRIORITY PROJECT RIGHT OVER HERE. IT ALSO ASSUMES A BIT MORE GRANT FUNDING.

SO THESE GRANT FUNDING'S IN THESE OUTYEARS IN 25 TO 27, THESE ARE SPECULATIONS.

YOU KNOW, WE HOPE WE GET THEM, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO GET THEM.

AND AS ED MENTIONED, IF WE DO NOT RECEIVE THOSE GRANT FUNDING, THAT MEANS THOSE PROJECTS WOULD BE CUT.

THE DEBT FUNDING, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, IS $21.3 MILLION VERSUS $16 IN SCENARIO ONE.

AND THEN THE OTHER TWO SCENARIOS ARE SIMILAR IN THE SENSE OF THE STAGGERING OF IT.

AND THEN YOU SEE HOW MUCH CASH IS FUNDED.

NOW, ANOTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCENARIO TWO IS THAT THIS ONE DOESN'T HAVE THE RATE INCREASE OCCUR UNTIL APRIL.

[01:35:02]

SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DO PUBLIC OUTREACH, COMMUNICATE TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO THIS WOULD OCCUR IN APRIL AND THEN THE FOLLOWING ONES WOULD OCCUR IN JANUARY.

AND THIS IS A LEVELIZED 17%.

AS ED MENTIONED IN THE BEGINNING YEARS, IT IS A BIT LOWER.

IT IS LOWER THAN SCENARIO ONE, BUT BECAUSE IT'S A 17% EACH YEAR FOR SEVEN YEARS, THAT COMPOUNDING DOES PRODUCE A HIGHER RATE IN 2029, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S $11.22 COMPARED TO THE SCENARIO ONE, WHICH IS $8.85.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE SMOOTHING OUT, NOT DOING THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE SCENARIO ONE OR THE INCREASE IN SCENARIO ONE AND ALSO THE MORE OF THE DEBT ISSUANCE IN SCENARIO TWO. NOW, SCENARIO THREE, AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS THE MINIMUM CAPITAL EXPENDITURE LEVEL, TRYING TO KEEP RATES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, HAVE THE LOWEST CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OUT HERE.

SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S BASICALLY $10 MILLION LESS THAN THE OTHER TWO SCENARIOS.

THERE'S STILL QUITE A BIT OF DEBT ISSUANCE HERE.

SO YOU CAN SEE $21.3 MILLION.

THERE'S STILL THIS ASSUMPTION THAT WE WILL RECEIVE GRANT FUNDING IN THE OUT YEARS.

THAT SPECULATION, WE HOPE TO GET IT.

BUT AS WE ALL KNOW, SOMETIMES THINGS HAPPEN.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S THAT CURVEBALL.

IF WE DON'T RECEIVE IT, THEN WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING FOR IT.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A RISK.

THAT IS A RISK THERE AND A LITTLE BIT.

THIS SCENARIO ALSO ASSUMES THAT APRIL INCREASE IN JANUARY EACH YEAR.

BY DOING THAT, WE CAN DO FOUR YEARS OF 17%, THEN A 3.5.

SO WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING YOU HERE ARE BASICALLY THREE SCENARIOS WITH THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SERVICES AND THREE PRICES.

AND AND SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR, OF COURSE, DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL, WHICH ONES TO GO TO.

AND NOW I WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN.

SO HERE'S A SCENARIO. ONE FINANCIAL PLANNER DID A GREAT JOB.

HE'S GOING TO TAKE MY COMPANY OVER AND EXPLAINING THIS GRAPH SO WELL.

HE THESE ARE THE THE BARS, THE REVENUES COMING IN WITH THE INCREASES.

THIS IS THE DEBT ISSUANCE OVER HERE.

THIS IS THE GRANT FUNDING THAT WE ASSUMED IN SCENARIO ONE IS ONLY TWO YEARS.

THE BACK OVER HERE IS THE EXPENDITURES WITH THE O&M, THE CURRENT DEBT SERVICE, PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE, CIP EXPENDITURE AND MY HAVING THE SCENARIO, YOU SEE THIS BLACK LINES ABOVE THE RED LINE AND IT'S HEALTHY.

AND WE YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS STORM, WE CAN FUND THESE PROJECTS AND WE AND WE'RE HEALTHY IN THAT SCENARIO.

SCENARIO TWO, A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSER TO THE RED LINE AS YOU NOTICE HERE, SIMILAR, YOU KNOW, BUT WE'RE STILL HEALTHY, BUT WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT CLOSER HERE.

AND IN SCENARIO THREE, IT'S LIKE WE'RE REALLY GETTING TO THE BONE IN THE SENSE THAT AS YOU CAN SEE THESE OUT YEARS HERE, WE'RE REALLY TOUCHING IN SOME YEARS WE'RE SLIGHTLY BELOW. SO WE'RE JUST REALLY TRYING TO SKIM THE SURFACE.

THIS IS THE MINIMUM INCREASE NEEDED.

SO WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS TO YOUR CUSTOMERS? AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A CONCERN.

AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT I ATTENDED, THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT IMPACTS IN THE YEAR OUT.

YEAR SEVEN, WE'RE ONLY SHOWING IMPACT YEAR ONE.

SO WE WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT. ALL OF THIS INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED.

SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SCENARIO ONE, AS I MENTIONED, THE ONE THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS MOST COST EFFECTIVE SCENARIO TWO STEADY INCREASE.

WE'RE DOING THE HIGHWAY 180 CULVERT PROJECT SOONER AND SCENARIO THREE IS THE MINIMUM PROJECT.

BY DOING THAT, YOU SEE THE SCENARIO ONE INCREASES HERE, DOLLAR INCREASE, BUT THESE INCREASES ARE OCCURRING.

SO IN YEAR SEVEN, YOU CAN SEE HOW WHAT THAT MEANS AND THE DOLLAR, YOU CAN SEE YOU CAN DO THE MATH YOURSELF AND SEE HOW THE DIFFERENCE IS.

SO REALLY SCENARIO ONE IS SCENARIO THREE, FROM A RESIDENTIAL PERSPECTIVE, IT'S A $1.10, SOME CHANGE DIFFERENCE.

SO NOW, OF COURSE, THAT'S FOR.

THAT WAS FOR ONE [INAUDIBLE].

OF COURSE. NOW THE REAL QUESTION IS, IS AND I MISSPOKE HERE.

LET ME CORRECT MYSELF. THIS IS ONE [INAUDIBLE].

MOST RESIDENTIAL HAS THREE [INAUDIBLE].

SO WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS LOOK AT THE THREE [INAUDIBLE].

SO THAT'S ACTUALLY $3, A LITTLE LESS THAN $3 DIFFERENCE.

A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $3 DIFFERENCE.

EXCUSE ME. SO RESIDENTIAL THREE [INAUDIBLE] RESTAURANTS ARE 14 [INAUDIBLE] AVERAGE AND BIG BOXES ARE ON AVERAGE, 220 [INAUDIBLE]. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN SEE THE IMPACTS HERE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH SCENARIO, WITH SCENARIO ONE AND SCENARIO SEVEN, YEAR SEVEN AND EACH OF THESE SCENARIOS.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FROM A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE? A RATE SURVEY IS ALWAYS INTERESTING TO LOOK AT.

ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH RATE SURVEYS IS THAT STORM WATER THE CHALLENGE OF A STORM WATER IS UNIQUE WITH EACH COMMUNITY.

SOME COMMUNITIES FOCUS MORE ON THE QUALITY OF WATER GOING INTO THE RIVERS BECAUSE OF FISH HABITAT.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. WE'RE MORE OF A FLOOD CONTROL, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT WE CAN STILL DO A COMPARISON.

RIGHT OVER HERE IS CURRENT.

NOW THIS IS CONVERTED TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET.

YOU DO ASSESS 1,500 SQUARE FEET, BUT WE NORMALIZED IT TO 1,000.

THIS IS YOUR CURRENT RIGHT OVER HERE.

HERE IS BASICALLY THE SCENARIO TWO AND THREE, WHICH ARE BASICALLY THE SAME BECAUSE IT'S 17%.

[01:40:01]

AND IN SCENARIO ONE, WHICH IS THE 50%.

AND YOU CAN SEE YOU'RE MOVING UP.

NOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN YEAR SEVEN BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST YEAR.

WELL, OF COURSE, YEAR SEVEN, WE WOULD HAVE HIGHER RATES, BUT EVERYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE HIGHER RATES.

AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO.

SO I COULD THEORETICALLY DO THE SAME GRAPH SHOWING YEAR SEVEN, BUT I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT EVERYONE ELSE'S IS.

I KNOW THAT THERE WILL INCREASE.

NOW WE TURN IT BACK OVER TO LISA TO TALK ABOUT SCHEDULE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. LISA [INAUDIBLE] MANAGEMENT ANALYST I OVERSEE FINANCE AND OUTREACH FOR WATER SERVICES.

OUR RATE IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE.

WE ARE HERE TO YOU TODAY FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

HOPEFULLY THE FIRST READ OF THIS OF THIS RATE CHANGE RATE ADOPTION WILL COME BACK TO YOU IN TWO WEEKS FOR TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR TO COMPLETE IT IF NEEDED AND HAVE THE SECOND READ AND HOPEFULLY RATES EFFECTIVE IN JANUARY OF 2023.

UNDERSTAND THAT THIS THESE RATES WHEN THEY START OR HOW MANY YEARS IS SOMETHING THAT IS DEPENDENT THAT IS SUBJECT TO COUNCIL'S DECISION.

SO WE'RE GIVING WHAT WE'RE.

PREFERENCE OF SEVEN YEARS, BUT IT'S STILL A COUNCIL DECISION.

NOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT COMMUNITY OUTREACH.

SO WE STARTED OUR OUTREACH EARLY AND OFTEN WHEN WE FIRST ROLLED OUT THE RATE PAGE AND THE RATE ADOPTION ADJUSTMENT STUDY WAS ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, THAT'S WHEN THE WEBSITE WENT UP.

A WEEK LATER, THERE WAS A PRESS RELEASE THAT'S ALSO PUSHED IN A COORDINATION WITH OUR PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE, WITH THE CITY'S PUBLIC AFFAIRS.

ALL OF THE SCHEDULES, ALL OF OUR OUTREACH HAS BEEN POSTED BOTH ON THE WEBSITE, THE CITY'S WEBSITE, FACEBOOK AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA. OUR WEBSITE DOES CONTAIN THE RATE ANALYSIS REPORT FAQS.

WE HAVE. WE UPDATE THE RECORDED PRESENTATIONS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD CHANGES IN DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF THESE PROPOSALS AND THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. SO THESE HAVE BEEN UPDATED AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

WE REACHED OUT STARTING IN SEPTEMBER TO 12 ORGANIZATIONS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, OFFERING ROADSHOWS AND TO HAVE DISCUSSION WITH THEM ABOUT THE RATE STUDY AND HOW IT COULD IMPACT THEM.

WE DID HEAR BACK FROM THREE, FOUR NAU THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE NORTHERN ARIZONA LODGING AND TOURISM.

WE'VE BEEN KEEPING GIVING THEM INFORMATION, KEEPING THEM INFORMED ON EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BEEN, ALL THE UPDATES AS WE'VE BEEN GOING ALONG.

WE ALSO TALKED TO PURINA, NESTLÉ AND THE CIVIL ENGINEERS ABOUT THIS RATE PROCESS DURING THESE DISCUSSIONS, WE'VE HAD THREE OUT OF FOUR COMMUNITY FORUMS. WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE ON FRIDAY AT 6:00 ON TEAMS THAT ARE BOTH VIRTUAL AND IN-PERSON.

BOTH OF THE IN-PERSON FORUMS WERE ALSO VIRTUAL.

WE'VE PUT IN 26 RADIO SPOTS AND WE PUT OUR THE INFORMATION.

WE HAVE REC CARDS THAT GAVE INFORMATION ON HOW TO ACCESS OUR COMMUNITY FORUMS AS WELL AS THE HANDOUT THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU THIS EVENING.

AND WE HAVE THAT AT 17 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AROUND TOWN, THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE MURDOCK CENTER, COFFEE SHOPS WE'VE JUST BEEN HITTING.

AND THERE'S ONE IN THE LOBBY TOO.

SO WE'VE BEEN WE'VE BEEN HITTING ALL OF OUR PUBLIC, AQUA PLEX, ALL OF THE CITY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SOME OF THE OTHER PUBLIC AREAS.

SO WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION WHERE WE INVITE DISCUSSION AND RESOURCES TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO, HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT AND WITHIN WHAT TIMELINE.

SO NOW.

QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I JUST WANT TO FRAME SOMETHING.

I WILL DO QUESTIONS NOW AND THEN WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT.

I WILL BE CALLING ON CITY MANAGER AFTER THAT AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

SO QUESTIONS I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

BEFORE US TONIGHT, WE HAVE A DRAFT ORDINANCE.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

WHAT SCENARIO IS IN THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE? I'LL LET RICK ANSWER THIS FOR ME.

HELLO, MAYOR. VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

RICK TADDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE DIRECTOR.

YOUR ORDINANCE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET TODAY HAS ALL THREE SCENARIOS OUTLINED IN THE RATES FOR YOU TO APPROVE.

SO YOU WOULD JUST ADOPT THE ORDINANCE WITH WHICH SCENARIO YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADOPT WITH THE FIRST READ.

[01:45:07]

ALL RIGHT. SO THE MOTIONS THAT SAY.

I MOVE TO APPROVE SUCH AND SUCH WITH OPTION FOUR OR WHATEVER.

THREE. I DON'T HAVE A FOUR YET, BUT THAT MAY BE ONE OF THEM.

I DID THAT FOR HUMOR AND I GOT A GOOD LAUGH OUT OF IT.

THANK YOU. THERE ARE QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL? OKAY.

I WOULD LIKE. OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

HYPOTHETICALLY IF WE APPROVED SCENARIO ONE, BUT THEN WE GOT A LOT OF GRANT MONEY COMING IN, IN A COUPLE OF YEARS OUT AND WE COULD MAYBE REDUCE THE INCREASES. BECAUSE OF THE GRANT MONEY COMING IN.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO MY UNDERSTANDING AND RICK AND CORRECT ME, WE WOULD REVISIT THIS.

SO IT WOULD BE BRINGING BACK A STORM WATER RATE ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE THE RATE.

SO THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PREVENTING US FROM REDUCING A RATE IN THE FUTURE IF THAT'S REQUESTED.

THANK YOU. I THINK RICK MIGHT HAVE A CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

VICE MAYOR COUNCIL. GENERALLY OUR OUR PROCESSES, WE WANT TO LOOK AT OUR WATER SERVICES RATES EVERY FIVE YEARS.

SO WE WOULD PUT THIS ONE IN THE CYCLE WITH THE OTHER RATE STUDIES AND SEE WHERE THE HEALTH OF THIS FUND IS WITHIN WATER SERVICES AND MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS AT THAT TIME, IS GENERALLY THE PROCESS WE GO THROUGH.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD ANSWER. THANK YOU.

YEP. COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF OUTREACH, SINCE THIS THREE SCENARIOS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO FOR DISCUSSION, WHICH WAS LAST THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10.

SO HAS THERE BEEN ANY OUTREACH TO THE LEAGUE OF NEIGHBORHOODS? HOA? BECAUSE IT IMPACTS RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

OUTREACH TO NAU ANY OF YOU THAT PAY STORMWATER.

OUTREACH TO OTHER BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE NORTHERN ARIZONA LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE.

OUTREACH TO THE MAJOR MANUFACTURERS LOCATED IN FLAGSTAFF.

ASIDE FROM NESTLÉ PURINA, I BELIEVE THERE IS ALSO A GROUP CALLED THE NORTHERN ARIZONA MANUFACTURING PARTNERSHIP, THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ALLIANCE, AND A LOCAL FIRST ARIZONA AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE IN TOWN REPRESENTING DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESS.

YES. THANK YOU. WE OUTREACHED TO.

I'M SEEING, MR. RICK LOPEZ.

THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME, MR. RICK LOPEZ, OF YOUR PRESENT OUTREACH TO ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE THE REALTORS ASSOCIATION.

WE DID SEND A NOTICE TO THE REALTORS ASSOCIATION, THE BUILDING ASSOCIATION, THE CIVIL ENGINEERS, THE OH, I'LL HAVE TO.

I DON'T HAVE ALL ORGANIZATIONS IN MY MIND NAU.

WE REACHED OUT TO THE MAJOR BUSINESSES GORE PURINA IN THE COMMUNITY, THE MURDOCK CENTER, THE SUNNYSIDE COMMUNITY.

WE'VE WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO ALL THAT WE KNEW OF AND ASKED ALL OF OUR WITHIN THE CITY LEADERSHIP TO ECONOMIC VITALITY ASK THEM TO SPREAD THE WORD TO ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT THEY DEALT WITH AND GAVE THEM THE INFORMATION ON THE SAME REC CARDS AND OUTREACH INFORMATION THAT WE HAD AS THAT WE ADJUSTED WITH THOSE THREE SCENARIOS.

SO WE HAVE HEARD BACK FROM SOME AND THEY HAVE TRICKLED IN.

HAVE WE HIT EVERY SINGLE ORGANIZATION IN FLAGSTAFF? POSSIBLY NOT.

BUT WE HAVE HAD WE HAVE POSTED ON FACEBOOK, WE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITES.

WE HAVE IT IN ALL OF OUR PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD THINK OF TO GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT THIS RATE ADJUSTMENT.

WE HAD A FORUM AT SEACREST SCHOOL AND PUT OUT NOTICES AT THE SEACREST SCHOOL IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WOULD HAVE WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN WHAT WAS GOING ON.

WE'VE HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE [INAUDIBLE] NORTHERN ARIZONA LODGING.

YES. AND HAVE HAVE EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN UPDATE, I'M SENDING THEM EMAILS WITH THE UPDATED INFORMATION TO SHARE AND THE DATES OF OUR OF OUR FORUMS ABOUT PUBLIC FORUMS. SO WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO DO OUR DILIGENCE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS GREAT STUDY.

[01:50:02]

I APPRECIATE I APPRECIATE THE ANSWER.

I, I FEEL THAT WE STILL NEED TIME TO COLLECT MORE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.

WHAT HAS ALSO BEEN HASN'T BEEN DOCUMENTED IS IMPACT TO NONPROFITS BECAUSE MOST NONPROFITS RENT COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BECAUSE THERE'S THERE'S THE DOMINO EFFECT WHEN WE INCREASE WATER RATE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WILL PASS ON THAT INCREASE TO THE LESSEE THE RENTER WHICH IS YOU KNOW NON PROFITS.

SO AND OF COURSE, HAVING BEEN IN THE OUTREACH FOR MANY YEARS IN THE PART OF THE COUNTY, IT'S STEP ONE IS JUST REACHING OUT AND GETTING THE WORD OUT, BUT ALSO ENGAGING THEM AND GETTING FEEDBACK AND PERHAPS EVEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONSIDER.

SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW? I SEE. I HAVE AN ONLINE PARTICIPANT.

I'D LIKE TO TAKE THAT.

VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I HAVE MICHELLE JAMES.

MICHELLE, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DRESS.

VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THANK YOU. HI.

MAYOR. VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

FLAGSTAFF STORM WATER RATES ARE NOT KEEPING UP WITH OUR CHANGING TIMES.

MULTIPLE WILDFIRES ON THE SAN FRANCISCO PEAKS, PARTICULARLY THE LARGE ONES IN 2019 AND 2022, HAVE LED TO UNPRECEDENTED MONSOONAL FLOODING IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

THE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN FELT BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN COCONINO STATE, SOUTH SIDE, SUNNYSIDE DOWNEY PARK, ETC..

CLIMATE CHANGE WILL CONTINUE TO IMPACT FLAGSTAFF, AND CLIMATE SCIENTISTS PREDICT CONDITIONS TO CONTINUE OR WORSEN, RESULTING IN DRIER FORESTS, LARGER AND MORE INTENSE WILDFIRES, AND INCREASED PRECIPITATION IN THE FORM OF RAIN.

AS A RESULT OF THE RECENT LARGE WILDFIRES IN THE PEAKS, THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF HAS INCREASED STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AS WELL AS COMPLETED LARGE CAPITAL PROJECTS SUCH AS SPRUCE WASH AND SCHULTZ CREEK.

STORMWATER MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE EXPECTED TO INCREASE IN FUTURE YEARS RELATED TO CLEANING SEDIMENT OUT OF THE THREE LARGE RETENTION BASINS IN THE CITY.

FRIENDS OF FLAGSTAFF'S FUTURE WAS PLEASED THAT THE VOTERS PASSED THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROPOSITION 441, PROVIDING A TOTAL OF $26 MILLION IN FUNDING FOR CRITICAL STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ADDRESS FLOODING WITHIN SPRUCE WASH, PARTICULARLY.

BECAUSE THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PASSED, THE PROPOSED ADJUSTED STORMWATER RATE UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL BE REDUCED.

IF [INAUDIBLE] DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT RATES OR STATUS QUO EXEMPLIFIED IN SCENARIO THREE, WILL PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF STORMWATER SERVICE THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS AND WANTS. SCENARIO TWO, AS PROPOSED, WILL INCREASE THE STORMWATER RATE AT A CONSISTENT 17% FOR SEVEN YEARS, BUT RESULT IN MORE DEBT AND RELY SOLELY ON DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN GRANT FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT 13 DEFERRED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

[INAUDIBLE] DOES NOT BELIEVE SCENARIOS TWO AND THREE ARE ADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH INCREASED RISK OF FLOODING AS A CONSEQUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF [INAUDIBLE] SUPPORTS SCENARIO ONE AS IT ADDRESSES DEFERRED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND THE HIGHWAY 180 CULVERT, THUS REDUCING OVERALL FLOOD RESPONSE COSTS AND OPERATION COSTS OVER THIS SEVEN YEAR PERIOD.

[INAUDIBLE] ASSUMES THAT IF THE FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING IS OBTAINED FOR ANY OF THE OUTLYING STORMWATER NEEDS, THE STORMWATER RATES WOULD BE LOWERED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO REFLECT THIS REDUCTION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MICHELLE.

I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RIGHT NOW, SO I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON CITY MANAGER.

FOR SOME THOUGHTS. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

PARDON ME. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED THIS EVENING.

WHEN THIS MATTER WAS BROACHED A SHORT WHILE AGO AT THE DAIS, THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMENTARY MADE, SOME BY MYSELF ABOUT THE TIMING OF THIS AND THE WHAT I'LL CHARACTERIZE AS THE FRONTLOADING OF SOME OF THESE COSTS AND THE OBVIOUS.

IT'S FRAMING THE ISSUE, BEING ONE THAT OCCURS COINCIDENT WITH MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE EFFECTIVE IN JANUARY.

THAT WILL, OF COURSE, HAVE IMPACT, ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY AMONG OUR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES AND RETAILERS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

BUT IT DOESN'T STOP THERE.

I MADE THE COMMENT LAST TIME AND I'LL QUICKLY RESTATE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALSO AT A TIME OF VERY HIGH INFLATION.

WE KNOW THAT THAT WILL EBB AND FLOW.

WE'RE UNFORTUNATELY SEEING THE HIGH INTEREST RATES NOW AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.

[01:55:04]

I JUST THINK THE TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS AT THE MOMENT DOES LEND ITSELF TO A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE TIMING.

AND I AM SO GRATEFUL THAT STAFF HAS COME UP WITH SOME OPTIONS THAT ADDRESS NOT JUST THE UPFRONT COST, BUT HOW THEY MAY BE PHASED OVER TIME AND WHEN THESE COSTS MEET OR THE RATE INCREASES MAY BE IMPLEMENTED EITHER IN JANUARY OR APRIL.

AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FRAME IN FRONT OF US NOW, WE CAN SEE THE OUTREACH CALENDAR.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S AN OVERREACH TO TO STATE THAT IT'S A RATHER AGGRESSIVE AND CONDENSED PUBLIC OUTREACH SCHEDULE.

I'M VERY GRATEFUL AGAIN TO STAFF FOR DOING WHAT THEY CAN UNDER THE SHORT TIME FRAME.

IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS SO EXPEDITED? AND I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL TO WRESTLE WITH AND ONE THAT COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER.

HOW MUCH? HOW MUCH TIMING IS NEEDED IN THE PUBLIC VETTING OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC.

IN COMPARISON TO THIS.

WE HAD OUR CITIZEN BOND COMMITTEE THAT SPENT SEVERAL MONTHS FORMULATING SOME STRATEGIES THAT ULTIMATELY COUNCIL TOOK AND CONSIDERED AND AND FROM WHICH COUNCIL PROVIDED A COUPLE OF.

I'VE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY APPROVED BY OUR VOTERS.

THAT WAS A RATHER LONG AND VERY IN-DEPTH PROCESS.

I OFFER IT UP ONLY IN COMPARISON HERE.

THE THE COST OF OUR BONDS SOMEWHAT RIVAL THE COST OF THE NEEDED CAPITAL THAT WE'RE SEEING FOR OUR STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE HERE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S OUT OF LINE TO SUGGEST THAT THAT COUNCIL COULD AND SHOULD CONSIDER SOME CONTINUANCES HERE TO ALLOW THIS DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE.

RECOGNIZING THE URGENCY AT HAND, MOSTLY FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT AND FROM SOME CAPITAL INVESTMENT STANDPOINT.

THERE ARE SOME URGENT CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE STILL NEEDED THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE FUNDED WITH PROPOSITION 441 FUNDING.

AND WE WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

ALSO, I THINK WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF ARTICULATING THIS IS THE OPERATIONAL COSTS THAT THAT ARE NOW IN FRONT OF US AND CANNOT BE DEFERRED.

AS WE INCREASE ALL OF THESE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT'S THE CAPITAL PART OF IT.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE OPERATIONAL PART, AND WE WE ARE SEEING OPERATIONAL COSTS INCREASE AND WE KNOW THAT THOSE COSTS WILL BE REALIZED IN THE COMING YEARS, ASSUMING WEATHER PATTERNS CONTINUE AS THEY HAVE.

SO DETENTION BASINS AND SEDIMENTATION BASINS WILL NEED TO BE CLEANED OUT.

CULVERTS AND DRAINAGES WILL NEED TO BE MAINTAINED ON A REGULAR BASIS OR THEY WILL BE RENDERED INEFFECTIVE.

SO WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE.

AND I DO AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT THE THOSE IMPORTANT CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE PARAMOUNT.

THE HIGHWAY 180 PROJECT TO CALL ONE OUT SPECIFICALLY ALONG WITH THE OPERATIONAL COST, ARE ITEMS THAT TRULY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

I BELIEVE, RESPECTFULLY, WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIVERGENT VIEWPOINTS AMONG STAFF, AT LEAST WITH WITH MY OFFICE AND PERHAPS OTHERS IS GOES TO THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES PARDON ME IN THE FUTURE IN HOW THEY MAY BE FUNDED.

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THAT RELYING ON FEDERAL GRANT DOLLARS FOR THESE PROJECTS IS SPECULATIVE AND RISKY.

I WOULD REMIND EVERYONE THAT.

THE RIO DE FLAG PROJECT IS LARGELY BASED UPON FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS.

SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT A RISKY AND SPECULATIVE PROJECT, BUT IT'S WHEN THAT WILL BECOME WILL BECOMING A REALITY IN THE YEARS AHEAD.

SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF RISK AND SPECULATION, I WOULD OFFER UP WELL, PERHAPS, BUT THAT'S A RISK WE HAVE TO TAKE.

AND THAT'S THE SPECULATION WE HAVE TO MAKE.

AND WE HAVE DONE SO SUCCESSFULLY IN THE PAST.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A STRETCH TO THINK THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE SUCCESSES IN THE FUTURE.

NOT AT ALL SUGGESTING THAT OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS RELY ON FEDERAL GRANT DOLLARS AND PERHAPS STATE GRANT DOLLARS.

BUT I WOULD STRONGLY MAKE THE CASE THAT WE'VE HAD SUCCESSES AND WE THINK THOSE SUCCESSES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE AND DOING SO ENABLES US TO

[02:00:01]

NOT RELY ENTIRELY UPON OUR RATEPAYERS TO FUND EXPENSIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE FUTURE.

IN THE IN THE STUDIES THAT I'VE BEEN A PART OF IN MY CAREER, I HAVE SEEN THIS ISSUE COME UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

HOW HOW MUCH DO WE EXPECT OUR RATEPAYERS TO CAPITALIZE LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS? VERSUS COVERING THE OPERATIONAL COST AND DOING MAYBE SOME CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

I THINK IT'S A BIT OF A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION AND A VERY IMPORTANT ONE FOR US TO WRESTLE WITH AS AS WE CONSIDER THESE THINGS.

BUT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO TAKE THE RISK AND SPECULATE UPON SOME GRANT FUNDING, SIGNIFICANT GRANT FUNDING TO HELP US WITH THESE CAPITAL PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD.

AND SOMEWHERE IN THERE LIES THE ANSWER THEN OF OF KNOWING THE BASELINE ON THIS HAS TO INCLUDE OPERATIONAL COSTS AND SOME CAPITAL COSTS.

AND THE OPTIMISM OF BEING ABLE TO SEEK FEDERAL FUNDS TO HELP US WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CAPITAL COSTS SO AS NOT TO BURDEN OUR RATEPAYERS ENTIRELY WITH THIS.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION.

I WANT TO CONCLUDE AGAIN BY THANKING STAFF FOR BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IN THE COMMENTS THAT ARE NOW BEING RECEIVED THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY AND COMING UP WITH THE OPTIONS, COUNCIL HAS SOMETHING TO WRESTLE WITH.

NOW, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT THAT WE COUNCIL CONSIDER CONTINUANCES HERE TO ALLOW THIS CONVERSATION, THIS VERY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE.

AGAIN, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE IS SOME URGENCY TO SEEING THESE RATES IMPLEMENTED SO THAT WE CAN GET OUR OPERATIONAL COSTS IN PLACE AND HANDLE SOME OF THE VERY IMPORTANT CAPITAL COST THAT ARE URGENT IN THOSE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.

I'M GLAD TO ALSO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR, FOR ALLOWING ME A LITTLE BIT OF TIME HERE.

AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR COMING UP WITH THESE OPTIONS.

THANK YOU CITY MANAGER.

COUNCIL DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY MANAGER? I SEE OUR ATTORNEY HAS A COMMENT.

YES. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR, AND THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THIS MATTER DOES INVOLVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE WERE TO BE ANY CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT COULDN'T BE UNDER A MOTION TO TABLE.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE UNDER A MOTION TO POSTPONE.

IF YOU DO THAT, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TO A DATE CERTAIN.

SO THOSE WHO WERE ON NOTICE FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT WOULD BE ON NOTICE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT DATE CERTAIN.

THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT.

SO, COUNCIL I WILL OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

WELL, THANK YOU VICE MAYOR.

WE'VE GOTTEN QUITE A FEW EMAILS SAYING DON'T RAISE OUR RATES.

BUT. WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF INPUT SAYING DO SOMETHING.

AND I THINK IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COUNCIL TO BALANCE THOSE TWO THINGS.

AND I COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF, LET'S DO SOMETHING.

SO AND THEN PHILOSOPHICALLY.

THE QUESTION COMES UP OF SHOULD YOU PAY AS YOU GO? OR SHOULD YOU FINANCE IT AND THEREFORE HAVE TO PAY A LOT OF INTEREST MONEY.

AND I COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF PAY AS YOU GO.

SO I'M LEANING TOWARDS SCENARIO ONE.

BUT IF IT'S THE JUDGMENT OF COUNCIL BEFORE I WAS JOKING ABOUT SCENARIO FOUR, BUT THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO FOUR, WHICH COULD BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN SCENARIO ONE AND SCENARIO TWO, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH SCENARIO ONE.

BUT I'M OPEN MINDED TO SOMETHING BETWEEN ONE AND TWO.

I THINK IN MY MIND, THREE IS A CLEAR NO VOTE.

IT'S LIKE IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.

BUT I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR WHAT THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THINK AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME TO A CONSENSUS TONIGHT ON WHERE WE SHOULD GO.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT AND PROVIDE SPACE FOR GRATITUDE FOR THE STAFF AND OUR CONSULTANTS

[02:05:05]

IN PUTTING TOGETHER THE THE THE STUDY AS WELL AS THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

AT THIS JUNCTURE, I FEEL I STRONGLY FEEL THAT.

TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH AN EDUCATED AND WELL INFORMED GUIDANCE AND DECISION BASED ON INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY.

I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS SCENARIO'S NEED TO BE FULLY VETTED FROM.

DIVERSE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY REPRESENTING RESIDENCES.

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.

MANY BUSINESSES. BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS.

NON-PROFITS. I STILL LEAN ON TO THE CITY MANAGER'S WISDOM.

TIMING. THE CITY MANAGER HAS ELOQUENTLY ARTICULATED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE VOTERS HAS SPOKEN APPROVING 441 441, WHICH FUNDS THE CAPITAL PROJECT.

I DO UNDERSTAND WE NEED TO FUND OUR OPERATION AND AND MANAGEMENT.

BUT IS IT IS IT IT'S THE TIMING NOW BECAUSE INFLATION AND WE HAVE THE LOOMING MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE BEGINNING JULY 1ST THAT WILL IMPACT EVERY BUSINESS, MOM AND POP, SMALL AND LARGE BUSINESS IN TOWN.

I STILL BELIEVE AND I SHARE THE CITY MANAGER'S COMMENT THAT.

WE NEED TO EXHAUST ALL EFFORTS TO TAP INTO FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING.

THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONGRESSIONAL DIRECT ALLOCATION TO FUND FLOOD MITIGATION. AND IN IN THE RECENTLY PASSED INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, THERE'S $3 BILLION IN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSETS AND EQUITY PROGRAM.

AND IN THE CURRENT STATE BUDGET, THERE'S ALMOST $4 BILLION IN BUDGET SURPLUS THAT WE CAN TAP INTO TO BRING TO OUR OUR NEEDS FOR OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT, FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AND AND MAINTAINING OUR DETENTION BASIN. UM SO WITH THAT SAID I AM IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUING THIS DISCUSSION AND ENGAGE IN A MORE ROBUST COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND LISTEN TO OUR CITIZENS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER.

COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.

I WAS GOING TO COMMENT EARLIER, BUT ONLY TO RAISE SOME QUESTIONS FOR OUR CITY MANAGER WHEN I HEARD HE WAS GOING TO SPEAK ANYWAY.

I KEPT MY HAND DOWN SO THAT WE COULD HEAR WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.

WHEN THE CITY MANAGER SPEAKS IT'S ALWAYS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS.

I SPECIFICALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE RISK AND THE SCENARIO MOVING FORWARD THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND SOME FEDERAL MONIES TO HELP OUT WITH THIS.

IT FEELS A BIT ROSY TO ME, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE JUSTIFICATION FROM OUR PAST EXPERIENCES WORKING WITH FEDS ON FLOOD CONTROL TO SPEAK TO THAT.

YOU KNOW, NONE OF US NO ONE HERE WANTS TO EXACT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM RATEPAYERS IN ORDER TO GET THE WORK DONE.

THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

SO THIS IS, BY ITS VERY NATURE, A VERY UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION, AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE COME FORWARD EXCEPT OUT OF DIRE NEED AND URGENCY. WHAT I'M SENSING, THOUGH, IS THAT WE DO HAVE TIME TO EXPLORE THIS CONVERSATION A LITTLE FURTHER AND.

IF THERE WAS IF THERE'S ANY ALTERNATIVE TO RAISING THE RATES ON OUR RATE PAYERS, THEN I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD FIND THAT ALTERNATIVE AND JUMP ON IT.

I DO REMAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE SKEPTICAL THAN OUR CITY MANAGER IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE MY MY RISK ANALYSIS LEAVES LEAVES US

[02:10:07]

HANGING A LITTLE BIT MORE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE UNCERTAINTY AROUND A NEW CONGRESS AND A NEW CONGRESSPERSON IN OUR DISTRICT.

BUT THAT ALSO MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE MEET WITH THE INCOMING NEW CONGRESSPERSON AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, SPECIFICALLY AROUND THIS ISSUE.

WE MAY BE ABLE TO DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES, BUT THIS SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED AND WE SHOULDN'T WE SHOULDN'T WEIGH THAT CONVERSATION DOWN WITH TOO MANY PERIPHERALS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, PERHAPS, OR, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A WONDERFUL CITY APPARATUS FOR MAKING THESE CONNECTIONS.

BUT IF WE HAVE ALLIES IN THE COMMUNITY, SUCH AS THE CHAMBER THAT IS ABLE TO LEVERAGE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR INCOMING CONGRESSPERSON, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO LEAN ON THAT AS WELL.

THERE IS ROOM FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE CONVERSATION, IS WHAT I'M HEARING, AND THAT MAKES ME COMFORTABLE.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH SCENARIO THIS FALLS UNDER.

I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE AN URGENT NEED IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE AND GETTING SOME OF THESE PROJECTS OFF THE GROUND AND GETTING SOME OF THESE DEFERRED PROJECTS UNDERWAY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN A POSITION THAT IF IF THE WORST CASE SCENARIO COMES UP AND WE'RE NOT FINDING GRANT FUNDING, THAT WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE SOME HARD CHOICES.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M COMING INTO THINGS WHERE COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY WAS SOME OTHER SCENARIO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN SCENARIO ONE AND TWO.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD IN TERMS OF A FULL BLOWN COMMUNITY CONVERSATION, BUT WE DO NEED TO HAVE SOME STRATEGIC CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY PULL PURSE STRINGS AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING CONCRETE, TANGIBLE WITH WITH ACTION STEPS.

AND I DON'T WANT TO WAIT TOO LONG.

I DON'T WANT TO WAIT TILL NEXT SEASON TO GET THIS GET OUR FEET UNDER US.

I WILL DEFER FURTHER COMMENT UNTIL I'VE HEARD MORE OF DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU VIE MAYOR AND THANK YOU TO STAFF AND OUR CONSULTANTS.

EXCELLENT WORK AND IMPRESSED TO HEAR ABOUT THE SMALL TEAM OF FIVE.

BUT SMALL BUT MIGHTY.

VERY MIGHTY. I'LL BE HONEST WITH EVERYBODY.

YOU KNOW THE FIRST DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? I WAS THINKING SCENARIO ONE ALL THE WAY.

KNOW THE ORIGINAL RATE WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS.

YOU KNOW, AS COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY AND ASLAN SPOKE TO, OUR COMMUNITY DEMANDS ACTION, AND THEY RIGHTFULLY DO NEED TO SEE ACTION FROM THE CITY.

OBVIOUSLY, WE RECEIVED MANY EMAILS REQUESTING THAT WE DON'T ADDRESS THIS IN TERMS OF A RATE INCREASE DUE TO X, Y AND Z, ALL THE DIFFERENT REASONS THAT THEY LISTED.

AND FOR EACH EMAIL I RECEIVED, I RESPONDED SAYING, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO FORWARD COMMUNITY RESIDENT EMAILS TO YOU THAT ARE ASKING FOR ACTION SO THAT YOU CAN RESPOND TO THEM BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE CAN DO AS A CITY.

AND SO.

I WAS REALLY LEANING TOWARDS A RATE INCREASE BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I DO SYMPATHIZE WITH WHAT THE CITY MANAGER SHARED AND COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS AND THOSE WHO ARE STRUGGLING.

AND I KNOW STAFF IS GOING TO BE DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THIS FROM ME.

SO I'M SORRY IN ADVANCE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE TIMING IS REALLY DIFFICULT.

I REALLY DO. AND I REALLY FEEL FOR THE RESIDENTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSITIONS BEING PASSED AND PEOPLE SAYING, WELL, I THOUGHT WE WERE FUNDING IT.

LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT ELSE IS NEEDED? AND THEN ALSO THE MINIMUM WAGE AND JUST THE HARDSHIP THAT OUR COMMUNITY IS FACING TODAY.

I DO WONDER IF THIS WOULD BE BETTER OFF, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF GETTING ACROSS THE FINISH LINE AT A LATER DATE.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN.

I'M GUESSING AFTER MY TIME ON COUNCIL OR THE CURRENT COUNCIL'S TIME.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING TO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL FOR YOUR WISDOM AS WELL.

BUT MY GUT DOES TELL ME THAT WE NEED TO DELAY THIS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I FEEL REALLY TORN INSIDE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND WANTS ACTION NOW.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

I GUESS I'M ON THE FENCE AND I HATE BEING HERE BECAUSE I USUALLY LIKE TO HAVE MORE CLARITY IN MY OWN THOUGHTS AND DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY ON SUCH AN IMPORTANT TOPIC LIKE THIS ONE. BUT VICE MAYOR, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AND CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY.

[02:15:01]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR, AND THANK YOU TO THE TEAM THAT'S PRESENTED TONIGHT.

I DEFINITELY WANT TO START BY SHARING IN THE GRATITUDE THAT'S BEEN EXPRESSED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO ED AND THE FULL TEAM THAT IS CAREFULLY ASSESSED THIS COMMUNITY NEED.

IT'S CERTAINLY AN URGENT NEED AND I'M DEFINITELY IN AGREEMENT THAT WE NEED TO ACT TO MEET THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY, FIRST OF ALL, BUT BUT ALSO FURTHER TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE GROWING CONCERNS THAT OUR COMMUNITY IS FACING.

I ALSO AM IN AGREEMENT, THOUGH, THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING THE TIME TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE WE'RE REALLY FULLY ASSESSING THE NEED AND ALLOWING TIME FOR THE THE VARIOUS FORMS OF INPUT THAT ARE NEEDED ON THIS.

I DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE CITY MANAGER'S CALLED A CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE AVENUES OF FUNDING AND ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE ACTUALLY TO COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN FOR THE SUGGESTION OF THE NEED TO REACH OUT TO OUR NEW CONGRESSMAN.

YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S CERTAIN THAT OUR OUR THE LANDSCAPE OF CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST IS GOING TO CHANGE WITH THIS SHIFT.

AND I THINK IT'S IT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, TO ASSESS THE LANDSCAPE THAT WE'RE GOING INTO WITH THAT CHANGE.

I'M VERY MUCH ON THE FENCE ON THIS AS WELL.

AND I THINK PART OF WHAT'S CHALLENGING IN THIS CONVERSATION IS THAT WE KNOW THAT THERE IS A VERY GREAT COMMUNITY NEED.

AND I THINK WHAT'S MOST CHALLENGING AND THIS IS THAT THERE'S AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WHAT'S RIGHT IN THIS SITUATION MAY NOT AND PROBABLY WILL NOT BE AN EASY DECISION TO MAKE.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REALLY TAKING THE TIME THAT WE NEED AND THAT WE HAVE TO NOT ONLY REACH OUT TO THE THE DIVERSE VOICES THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS REFERENCED, BUT ALSO THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY TAKING THE TIME TO PROVIDE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY AND TIME TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

I APPRECIATE THE LISTING OF THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES THAT HAVE BEEN REACHED OUT TO YOU THUS FAR.

BUT I DID NOTE THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD A PRESENTATION ON THE FEEDBACK THAT'S COME BACK FROM ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO HAVE TO TO REALLY DIVE INTO THIS CONVERSATION.

SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHICH OPTION I AM ALIGNING WITH.

I KNOW THAT ONE OF THEM IS TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN, AND THAT MAY BE WHERE I'M LEANING, BUT I AM OPEN TO THE FURTHER CONVERSATION FROM COUNCIL AND ON WHERE WE'RE COLLECTIVELY HEADED ON THIS.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AT THIS POINT.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO WEIGH IN AND THEN I DO SEE COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN IS NEXT.

SO, YOU KNOW, TOUGH DECISION, OF COURSE, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE WE NEED TIME.

I WOULD LIKE SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THE OUTSIDE SOURCES OF FUNDING.

I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE OUTREACH.

I DON'T FEEL AS IF OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS HAD THEIR VOICE HEARD, ESPECIALLY TO THE LEVEL THAT WE NEED.

AND WE DO HAVE A HUGE CHANGE HAPPENING JANUARY 1ST, AND THAT IS THE MINIMUM WAGE.

AND WHETHER YOU'RE A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER OR NOT OR A BUSINESS OWNER OR NOT, IT WILL IT'S GOING TO AFFECT US.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THAT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

I THINK HAVING THIS ON TOP OF MINIMUM WAGE WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OF IF.

I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF HOW.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR TO A DATE CERTAIN.

ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

MADAM VICE MAYOR, THIS IS STERLING SOLOMON, CITY ATTORNEY.

AGAIN, JUST WANT TO INDICATE THAT WE WOULD NEED A FORMAL MOTION ON THAT.

AND THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE, BE A CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL.

SO A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO AND WE NEED TO SELECT A DATE FOR THAT.

THANK YOU, CITY ATTORNEY.

I DON'T THINK THE DISCUSSION IS QUITE OVER, BUT THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS.

YEAH, THOSE WERE MY COMMENTS.

I DO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER ASLAN.

YES. THANK YOU. SO JUST TO PUT A FINER POINT ON THINGS FOR ME, I DO THINK WE NEED MORE TIME.

BUT THE QUESTION BUT IT'S NOT TO ASK THE QUESTION IS THE NEED REAL AND IS IT URGENT?

[02:20:02]

WE KNOW THAT BOTH OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

SO I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM A DIVERSITY OF THE COMMUNITY ON THE SUBJECT WHO MAY OR MAY HAVE VARYING OPINIONS ON HOW ESSENTIAL IT IS THAT WE GET THIS DONE AND GET IT DONE RIGHT AWAY. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TAKE THE TIME TO HAVE THE RIGHT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO LOWER THE RISK IN TERMS OF LEAVING US HANGING WITH A BILL AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN OUR FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES DRY UP IF THEY DO.

SO THIS IS ABOUT WHAT IS THE PLAUSIBILITY OF RAISING THESE FUNDS THROUGH GRANTS AND THROUGH OTHER FEDERAL MECHANISMS OR THROUGH BAKE SALES OR WHATEVER IT IS WE NEED TO DO.

IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE NEED IS THERE.

SO JUST TO PUT A FINER POINT ON THAT, THESE AREN'T CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD, THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND LOWER RISK AS MUCH AS WE CAN WITHOUT ENTIRELY SADDLING RATEPAYERS WITH THE BURDEN ON THIS.

IF THERE ARE SOLUTIONS OUT THERE THAT INCLUDE OTHER MECHANISMS THAN RATEPAYERS, GREAT.

IF NOT, THEN WE NEED TO GET THIS PASSED.

BUT THAT'S THE CONVERSATION, NOT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

WITH REGARD TO GETTING FUNDING, THE RIO DE FLAG PROJECT WAS GIVEN AS EXAMPLE.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT OVER 20 YEARS AND WE AIN'T THERE YET.

ADMITTEDLY, WE'RE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT THESE PROJECTS CAN'T WAIT 20 YEARS.

SO THAT ARGUMENT DOESN'T DO TOO WELL WITH ME.

THE IDEA OF DELAYING THE VOTE, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONED TO JANUARY, WHATEVER.

I DON'T SUPPORT THAT.

I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, OBVIOUSLY I'LL GO ALONG WITH IT.

BUT WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF PUBLIC INPUT, I MEAN, BASED ON A NUMBER OF EMAILS, HAVE GOTTEN THE OUTREACH THAT WE HEARD ABOUT TONIGHT.

TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.

WE WERE ELECTED TO MAKE IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

YOU KNOW, IF WE WANTED TO HAVE A PURE DEMOCRACY, EVERYTHING WOULD GO TO THE VOTERS.

BUT NO, WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT WHERE WE REPRESENT AND MAKE DECISIONS.

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SIDESTEP THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON AND DO SOMETHING, AND I THINK WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING TONIGHT.

I THINK BASED ON ALL THE INPUT, WHICH I REALLY DO APPRECIATE, I WOULD AND I CAN MAKE THIS INTO A MOTION, BUT WE'RE STILL KIND OF JUST CHATTING AROUND IT. I THINK WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TONIGHT.

AND I'LL GIVE YOU A SUGGESTION OF WHAT IT MIGHT BE IN A SECOND.

AND THEN AT SECOND READ, WE CAN ALWAYS MODIFY THAT SOMEWHAT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A SECOND READ SO WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION.

SO I'LL JUST INFORMALLY SUGGESTS THAT WE DO AN OPTION THAT'S LITERALLY HALFWAY BETWEEN OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO.

I GUESS THEY'RE CALLED SCENARIOS.

BUT ANYWAY, YOU GET THE IDEA AND THAT WE MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT AND THEN IN WHEN THIS COMES BACK FOR A SECOND READ, IF NEED BE, WE CAN TWEAK THAT.

BUT THAT'S MY INFORMAL SUGGESTION.

BASED ON WHAT I HEAR FROM THE REST OF THE COUNCIL.

I'M WILLING TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION, BUT I'LL HOLD OFF FOR NOW.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

JUST NOTE IN TERMS OF TIMELINES WENT TO ASSETS, FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS.

THIS IS NOT RIO DE FLAG.

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECT SPENDING BUDGET REQUEST BEGINS BEGINNING OF JANUARY AND CLOSES MID-MARCH, WHICH IS AROUND SPRING BREAK.

THIS IS WHEN WE ASK OUR CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO PUT IN A LINE ITEM INTO CONGRESSIONAL DIRECT SPENDING FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS.

AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT I AM IN TOUCH WITH THE CONGRESS PERSON ELECT ELI CRANE.

ALSO FOR A STATE BUDGET REQUEST BEGINS OF JANUARY AND.

[02:25:01]

AND OF COURSE, THE THE STATE LEGISLATURE APPROVES THE BUDGET BEFORE THEY CLOSE THE SESSION.

I THINK THE LATEST ONE, THE LATEST ONE WAS MAY.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN A FEW MONTHS TIME IN TERMS OF TAPPING INTO DIRECT APPLICATION, ONE TIME FUNDING EITHER FROM THE STATE OR CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING. WHEN IT COMES TO GRANTS, IT'S ALSO THE NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY IS USUALLY MADE AVAILABLE AND THEN WITHIN A FEW MONTHS IT CLOSES AND WE WILL KNOW WITHIN THE CALENDAR YEAR WHETHER OR NOT WE OBTAIN THE GRANT MONEY.

SO THAT'S JUST A REALITY CHECK ON MY PART.

AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF DELAYING.

IT'S A QUESTION OF ENGAGING THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF VETTING ON WHAT THEY FEEL ABOUT THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS HERE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION AND WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES.

I MOVE THAT WE READ ORDINANCE 2022-32 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING BE HALFWAY BETWEEN SCENARIO ONE AND SCENARIO TWO.

AND OF COURSE THE EXACT NUMBERS AND THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO US FOR ON THE SECOND READ.

SO THAT'S MY MOTION AND THAT I'M MOVING THAT WE DO IT TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER.

I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS MADE A MOTION EARLIER.

OR INDICATED THAT SHE WAS READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

THAT'S WHY I CALLED ON HIM FIRST.

SO YEAH, THE REASON I JUMPED IN IS BETWEEN THOSE TWO THAT'S UP TO YOU.

WHICH MOTION YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE AS THE CHAIR.

MADAM VICE MAYOR.

ONE THING BEFORE ANY SECONDS ARE MADE, MAYBE BEFORE THE MOTION IS FORMALIZED, WHICHEVER WAY IT IS GOING TO BE, WE TYPICALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE HOLD IT FOR BEFORE WE TAKE A MOTION.

THANK YOU, CITY ATTORNEY.

I MOVE TO CLOSE THIS.

YOU DON'T NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE IT.

YOU CAN JUST CLOSE IT. I AM CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WAS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI? YEAH. I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT LIKE THAT.

I GUESS CERTAINLY MY QUESTION IS CLARIFYING QUESTION IS, IF VICE MAYOR CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY FAILS AND COUNCIL DOES CHOOSE TO PUSH THIS TO A LATER DATE, IS IT ARE WE ABLE TO OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING BACK UP AT THAT POINT? YES, YOU ARE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR AND THEN VICE MAYOR BEFORE THE ACTUAL VOTE.

IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND JUST MAKING SURE WE TAKE COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE THE VOTE BETWEEN THE MOTION AND THE VOTE.

I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION.

AND NO SECOND.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ANY MORE COMMENTS.

ACTUALLY, IF YOU COULD CALL FOR A SECOND FIRST.

THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? AND THEN INVITE COMMENT? THANK YOU. I AM NOT HEARING A SECOND.

IN THAT CASE VICE MAYOR, THE MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

THANK YOU, CITY ATTORNEY.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY.

I NEED TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC NO.

OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

I MOVE TO POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THIS HAS TO BE A SPECIFIC DATE.

IT DOES. CAN YOU HELP US FIND A DATE? CAN YOU HELP US WITH THE CALENDAR, PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A DATE AFTER JANUARY? IF YOU CAN HELP ME NARROW THAT DOWN.

ALL RIGHT. SO IN JANUARY, WE DO HAVE A REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 3RD.

[02:30:07]

WE HAVE ANOTHER REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 17TH.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE DO HAVE A FEW SPECIAL OR EXCUSE ME, A FEW WORK SESSIONS THAT IF NECESSARY, WE COULD COMBINE WITH A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING.

AND THOSE DATES ARE JANUARY 10TH, JANUARY 24TH, AND JANUARY 31ST.

SO LET ME REPHRASE MY MY MOTION.

I MOVE TO POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 31ST.

ITS 31ST THE LAST OPTION.

THE LATEST OPTION IN JANUARY.

YES, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT YES, THAT IS THE LAST MEETING IN JANUARY.

SO JANUARY 31ST.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE, AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED. I'M SORRY.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

OK VICE MAYOR.

I APOLOGIZE. I DID NOT VOTE THERE.

I JUST WANTED TO CHECK ON ON FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT BEFORE BEFORE WE HAD TAKEN THE VOTE.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER.

I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT BACK UP FOR DISCUSSION.

SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION ACTUALLY ABOUT IF WE ARE PUSHING TO THAT DATE.

I GUESS WHAT I'M I'M TRYING TO NAVIGATE HERE IS.

AND THE REASON I DID NOT SECOND COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY'S MOTION WAS I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WITH THAT PUSH WE ARE.

IS THAT ENABLING FURTHER LOOKING INTO THE MOTION THAT OR THE PROPOSAL THAT HE MADE, I'LL CALL IT, SINCE THE MOTION DIDN'T GO THROUGH. BUT I WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT'S PART OF THE CONVERSATION IS TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS THE VIABILITY OF THAT OPTION.

STAFF WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING WE CAN INCLUDE? MADAM VICE CHAIR, BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS MADE.

SORRY. STERLING SOLOMON, CITY ATTORNEY.

BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS MADE SECONDED AND A VOTE OCCURRED.

YOU CAN'T REALLY GO BACK.

THAT'S HAPPENED ALREADY.

BUT STAFF CAN AGREE TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK INTO WHATEVER IT IS THAT ANY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP FOR THEM TO LOOK INTO.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I DO HAVE A COMMENT FROM COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

YES THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR, AND THANK YOU, COUNCILOR HOUSE, FOR STEPPING IN THERE.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE.

I THINK THE NEED IS CLEAR.

I THINK THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

AND I REALLY APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN MCCARTHY PUSHING FOR A MOTION TO GET IT DONE TODAY AND MAKE A DECISION.

I REALLY DO. I JUST, LIKE I SAID, REALLY STRUGGLED WITH THE TIMING.

AND I HATE TO BLAME THINGS ON TIMING, BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS A VALID POINT TO BE MADE AROUND THE ISSUES AROUND TIMING TODAY.

AND SO COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR AMENDING YOUR MOTION.

AND I THINK AT THE END OF JANUARY IT WILL GIVE US ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS TO SETTLE IN A BIT AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH STRONGER FOUNDATION FOR COUNCIL TO ELEVATE THIS FURTHER.

I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT.

THANK YOU VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

POINT OF ORDER, MADAM VICE MAYOR, I BELIEVE WE HAVE ALREADY MADE A DIRECTION AND AND CONSENSUS WITH COUNCIL POSTPONING THE PUBLIC HEARING TILL JANUARY 31ST.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY.

THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER.

VICE MAYOR. IF YOU COULD STILL CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

I THINK IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

AND JUST A POINT OF ORDER.

IF A PERSON DOESN'T RESPOND LIKE I DIDN'T, I WAS JUST SILENT.

THAT COUNTS AS A YES VOTE AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN CONFIRM THAT.

SO THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND MS. HOUSE DID NOT VOTE.

THOSE BOTH COUNT AS A YES VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT'S CORRECT. SUSPENSION FROM VOTING IS COUNTED AS A YES VOTE.

[02:35:06]

UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE UNDER UNDER THE CITY CHARTER AND CITY CODE.

HERE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. STACY, ARE WE OUR CITY CLERK? ARE WE SET? WE ARE CLEAR TO GO.

YES, VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL A BREAK.

20 MINUTES. THIS IS OUR DINNER BREAK, AND I WILL SEE YOU IN 20 MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WELCOME BACK.

WE ARE NOW ON TO 11 A.

[A. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-31: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, abandoning approximately 5,237 square feet of public right-of-way at the northwest corner of Fountaine Street and Hoskins Avenue; providing for delegation of authority, repeal of conflicting ordinance, severability, and establishing an effective date STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: At the November 15th, 2022 Council Meeting: 1) Read Ordinance No. 2022-31 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-31 by title only (if approved above) At the December 6th, 2022 Council Meeting: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2022-31 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-31 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-31]

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ABANDONING APPROXIMATELY 5237 SQUARE FEET, A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOUNTAINE STREET AND HOSKINS AVENUE, PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCE, SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

VICE MAYOR. JUST MR. DOTY. JUST A MOMENT. WE'RE HAVING SOME TROUBLE WITH OUR SCREEN HERE.

GOOD. COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND RE SHARE THAT, PLEASE? MY APOLOGIES.

ABSOLUTELY. LET'S SEE.

CAN YOU SEE MY PRESENTATION? WE CAN NOW. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

PERFECT. WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, BRYCE DOTY, REAL ESTATE MANAGER FOR THE CITY.

TODAY I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION REGARDING ABANDONMENT REQUESTS THAT ANY OF YOU HAS MADE FOR A PORTION OF THE UNUSED RIGHT OF WAY OFF OF HOSKINS AVENUE.

PUT US IN PERSPECTIVE WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE CITY.

WE ARE IN THE SOUTH SIDE, SO HUSK IS A TWO BLOCKS SPAN OF EAST WEST STREET, BOUNDED BY NAU WEST AND THEN SOME UNIMPROVED LEADING LEADING OUT INTO THE EAST.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS STRETCH RIGHT HERE.

THE STAR IS THE PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

AND JUST FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME, LAST YEAR, WE DID ABANDON THIS PORTION IN SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO 709 O'LEARY STREET. AND SO WE DO HAVE SOME HISTORY ON HOSKINS.

THE HISTORY OF THAT ABANDONMENT WAS WE WERE TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT COULD GO ON HOSKINS IN TERMS OF CONNECTIVITY, WHEN WE DID WHEN COUNCIL DID APPROVE THAT, THAT DID KIND OF MAKE MAKE SURE THAT ANY FOOT'S CONNECTIONS WOULD BE HAPPENING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HOSKINS. AND SO WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE PORTION RIGHT HERE THAT IS REALLY, REALLY JUST THE KIND OF HOSKINS NEVER REALLY CONNECTED TO ANYTHING.

AND SO WE'VE GOT ALMOST A FULL LOT SIZE ON THE WEST SIDE OF FOUNTAINE STREET, SOUTH OF 631 SOUTH FOUNTAINE.

LET'S SEE. SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO ABANDON.

AND THIS IS EVERYTHING BUT THE TWENTY FEET SOUTHERN OF THIS RIGHT OF WAY.

HERE'S THE UNCANNY VALLEY GOOGLE GOOGLE VIEW, WHICH IS KIND OF TOUGH TO SEE.

BUT WHAT YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE IS REALLY THE USE OF THIS HAS REALLY JUST BEEN FOR PARKING FOR THE ADJACENT HOUSE.

AND THIS HOUSE IS OWNED BY NAU.

IT'S IT'S USED FOR VISITING FACULTY.

AND AND REALLY THAT'S THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS RIGHT AWAY HAS BEEN USED FOR A LONG TIME.

YOU'LL NOTICE THE BRICK WALLS RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S THAT PIECE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW THAT DEAD ENDS INTO THE PARKING GARAGE THERE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE SECTION OF RIGHT AWAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY.

THE CODE REQUIRES STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT, IDENTIFY WHETHER THE ABANDONMENT IS CONSISTENT PLANS AND TO AND TO MAKE AND FOR EXISTING USES AND FUTURE POTENTIAL USES AND TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED OFF OF THAT.

SO FOR RESTRICTIONS ON ABANDONMENT WE CONCLUDED STAFF CONCLUDED THAT ABANDONMENT WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH ANY EXISTING PLANS OR STANDARDS.

CURRENT [INAUDIBLE] OF OUR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO WE DO HAVE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE OCCUR WITHIN THIS RIGHT OF WAY.

IF YOU NOTICE, IT IS ON THE SOUTHERN TWENTY FEET.

SO THE ABANDONMENT REQUEST WOULD NOT IMPACT ANYTHING FOR THE CURRENT EXISTING USES.

AS FOR FUTURE USES, WELL, WE DID AT ONE TIME BACK IN THE NINETIES THERE [INAUDIBLE] AN EASEMENT ON THE NAU PARCEL TO ACTUALLY EXTEND A ROAD THROUGH HERE.

THOSE THOSE ARE NO LONGER FUTURE PLANS.

INSTEAD THE THE PLAN IS TO TO BUILD A FOOT CONNECTIVITY TO GO THROUGH THE THROUGH THE CEMETERY OR ADJACENT TO THE

[02:40:05]

CEMETERY ON HOSKINS.

AND SO REALLY THAT'S THAT'S THE FUTURE PLAN THAT THAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED AND THAT'S IN THE REGIONAL PLAN AND THE ACTIVE TRANSPORT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN. AND SO THOSE WERE KIND OF THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS THAT WE MADE.

WE DID REACH OUT TO ANY OF OUR FRANCHISE UTILITIES AND HOW THAT WILL IMPACT THEM.

APS APPROVED WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND NAU SOURCE SAID THAT THERE IS NO FACILITIES WITHIN THE PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY.

SO BASED ON THOSE FINDINGS, STAFF RECOMMENDS TO ABANDON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH OF 631 SOUTH FOUNTAINE STREET BUT RESERVE THAT PORTION AND THEN GO BACK TO THAT AERIAL VIEW.

SO YOU CAN SEE SORT OF THE SOUTHERN TWENTY FEET FOR THE FUTURE FOODS TRAIL CONNECTION.

FOR WE DID BRING THIS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 26TH, AND THEY RECOMMENDED ABANDONMENT AS [INAUDIBLE].

IF THESE THIS ORDINANCE DOES APPROVE THIS ABANDONMENT, WE WILL.

AT A FUTURE PUBLIC MEETING, BRING FORWARD A CONSIDERATION FOR ANOTHER ORDINANCE TO EXCHANGE THIS PROPERTY WITHIN NAU FOR PROPERTY OF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL VALUE.

WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING IGA WITH NAU THAT CONTEMPLATES REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS.

I KNOW PROPERTY NEEDS THAT THE CITY HAS WITHIN NAU RIGHT NOW.

WHEN ARE THE MOVEMENTS AND RIGHT AWAY NEEDED FOR THE BEULAH UNIVERSITY IMPROVEMENTS? THERE ARE SOME IDENTIFIED LOCAL EXPANSION THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BECOME A REAL ESTATE, YOU KNOW, AN INVESTMENT TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED THAT WE PUT THIS IN CONSIDERATION FOR.

AND THEN THERE'S SOME FOOTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED THROUGH CAMPUS AS WELL.

AND SO REALLY. GET THIS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NAU IDENTIFIED AS A NEED.

THE CITY DOES NOT NEED THIS RIGHT AWAY.

AND SO IT WOULD BECOME PART OF THE TRANSACTIONS FOR EQUAL VALUE FOR NAU PROPERTIES.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TODAY.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. VICE MAYOR.

I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SALAS.

I MOVE TO READ ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-31 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE, AYE, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ABANDONING APPROXIMATELY 5237 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOUNTAINE STREET AND HOSKINS AVENUE, PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY HAS A QUESTION.

YES, THAT'S PASSED FOR TONIGHT.

BUT JUST FOR BEFORE THE SECOND READ, I HAD A QUESTION FOR MR. DOTY. SO THIS WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON ABANDONS THE PROPERTY.

BUT LATER ON WE'RE GOING TO BE TRADING THE PROPERTY FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

SO KIND OF WHAT ARE THE MECHANICS OF THAT? THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

WE HAD HOPED AND WE GOT PRETTY CLOSE TO IDENTIFYING THOSE NAU PROPERTIES THAT WE WERE GOING TO TO TRADE FOR AND KIND OF DEVELOPING THAT MATRIX OF SUBSTANTIAL EQUAL VALUE.

EXCEPT WE WE HIT A SNAG WITH NAU AND THAT THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THEIR MASTER PLANNING ON SOME OF THOSE PIECES SO THEY WEREN'T COMFORTABLE, INCLUDING THOSE FINAL ACQUISITION PARCELS FOR THE CITY.

AND SO WE'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO COMPLETE THAT MASTER PLANNING ON SOME OF THOSE PARCELS BEFORE DOING THE TRANSACTION.

BUT THE TRANSACTION WILL WILL BRING FORTH AN AN ORDINANCE AND THEN WE'LL MEMORIALIZE IT ALL IN AN IGA WITH NAU.

SO WE'RE FORMALLY ABANDONING IT AT THIS POINT OR ON SECOND READ WE WILL.

AND I GUESS WE'RE JUST SAYING, WELL, TRUST US, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO FINISH THIS UP, FINISH THE JOB IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

IS THAT KIND OF. YOU KNOW, THE ABANDONING.

AND AS OF RIGHT AWAY, WE STILL WOULD NEED TO CONVEY IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

AND SO IT'S STILL IT'S STILL GOING TO BE IN THE CITY'S PROPERTY.

WE JUST NEED TO FORMALLY TRANSFER IT THROUGH WHENEVER WE CAN FIND THE RIGHT PIECES THAT THAT FIT WITH NAU.

[02:45:01]

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

[B. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-24: an ordinance of the Flagstaff City Council authorizing the acquisition of real property interests for the Milton Road and University Avenue Right-of-Way Project; providing for delegation of authority, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: At the November 15, 2022, Council Meeting: 1) Read Ordinance No. 2022-24 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-24 by title only (if approved above) At the December 6, 2022, Council Meeting: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2022-24 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2022-24 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2022-24]

THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO 11 B CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTEREST FOR THE MILTON ROAD AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY PROJECT.

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

HMM. YOU KNOW THAT.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL BRYCE DOTY AGAIN.

LAST YEAR ON JULY 6TH.

YES. MR. DOTY, I APOLOGIZE.

I NEED TO INTERRUPT.

MADAM VICE MAYOR, I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM, SO I'M GOING TO STEP OUT OF THE MEETING AND REJOIN AFTER THIS ITEM ENDS.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

BRYCE DOTY AGAIN.

LAST YEAR, ON JULY 6TH, I DID BRING BEFORE YOU AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR THE BEULAH UNIVERSITY ROUNDABOUT ROAD PROJECT.

AT THAT TIME, WE THOUGHT WE HAD DESIGN ALL FIGURED OUT AND WE HAD TO IDENTIFY 20 POSITIONS AFFECTING 9 PARCELS.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE WE'RE AT HERE.

SO WE'RE AT THE INTERSECTION OF MILTON AND UNIVERSITY.

SO THIS WAS THE CURRENT, THE THEN CURRENT DESIGN THAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED THE 22 ACQUISITIONS ON AFFECTING THOSE NINE PARCELS.

AS DESIGN HAS PROGRESSED AND SOME OF THAT THROUGH THE INPUT RECEIVED THROUGH COUNCIL.

I KNOW THERE ARE SOME DESIGN DISCUSSIONS OF THE PROJECT ON IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

THE FINAL DESIGN NOW INCLUDES OVER 75 ACQUISITIONS ON OVER 25 PARCELS, WHICH IS REFLECTED ON THIS OVERVIEW MAP, WHICH I DID NOT PUT IN MY PACKET PRESENTATION. SO I'LL UPDATE THAT PRESENTATION TO INCLUDE THIS UPDATED MAP.

SO THIS ORDINANCE CAPTURES EVERY PROPERTY RIGHT NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT.

SO WHAT IS? WELL, THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL ACQUISITIONS MAY SOUND DRAMATIC.

IN REALITY, THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT MAJOR AND THEY FALL INTO THREE CATEGORIES.

ONE, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS IDENTIFIED AND ASKED FOR OR NOT ALL OF THEM.

WE ADDED ADDITIONAL.

LET'S SEE ZOOM IN ON THIS.

WE ADDED ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, AS WE CAN SEE ON THIS.

THE ORANGE AND ORANGE REPRESENTS A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, SO NONE OF THESE WERE IDENTIFIED.

SO WE NOW HAVE LEGALS ON ALL OF THESE THAT WE CAN BEGIN ASKING FOR PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO WE HAD THOSE. THERE WAS AN.

AND THEN SO ON THIS MAIN PARCEL SIDE HERE AND THEN ADDITIONALLY WE'RE DECIDED TO PUT NEW SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OR THE EAST SIDE OF YALE STREET.

SO WE'RE LOOKING NORTH OR THE UP AS WEST AND THIS AND THIS MAP.

AND SO IT WOULD TIE INTO ALL THE EXISTING SIDEWALKS.

WE NEED TO HAVE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION.

EASEMENTS ON THEIR PARCELS.

AND SO THAT WAS AN. ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 10 PARCELS.

SO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND THEN DRAINAGE AND SLOPE EASEMENTS THAT WERE FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSED.

SO THERE WAS WE NEED TO ENLARGE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT RIGHT HERE COMING OFF OF BEULAH.

THERE WAS SOME. WE EXTENDED THE DRAINAGE ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH UNIVERSITY TO AFFECT THE TO UPSIZE SOME OF THE DRAIN CULVERTS AND NOT CULVERTS, THE DRAIN GRATES THE ASYMMETRY SITE.

SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS THERE.

AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, WE NEEDED TO EXCUSE ME, MOVE THE LIGHT POLES OUT OF THE EXISTING SIDEWALK HERE A LITTLE FURTHER INTO THE PARKING LOT ON THE GREEN STREET SHOPPING CENTER.

AND SO THOSE WERE THE MAJOR, MAJOR PROPERTY CHANGES.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S REFLECTED IN THIS.

SINCE THERE WERE SO MANY ADDITIONAL ACTUAL LEGAL TAKES THROUGH EVERYTHING INTO THIS ONE NEW ONE.

SO EVERYTHING THAT'S NEEDED FOR THIS PROPERTY, I DIDN'T TRY TO DO A SUPPLEMENTAL, BUT JUST THREW EVERYTHING IN THERE.

SO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF ALL THE RIGHTS NEEDED FOR THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM I DID NOTICE IN MY STAFF SUMMARY REPORT, I DID HAVE SOME BUDGET NUMBERS, BUT I DID UPDATE THOSE.

[02:50:04]

I DID HAVE THE TOTAL COST OF THIS RUNNING AT $16.6 MILLION.

THAT'S ACTUALLY BUDGETED RIGHT NOW FOR $21.9 MILLION.

AND SO THAT'S THE TOTAL PROJECT COST, INCLUDING ALL OF THESE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONS.

RIGHT NOW, WE'RE WRAPPING UP APPRAISALS, SO WE'VE GOT MOST OF THOSE IN RIGHT NOW AND WAITING TO SEND OFFERS OUT FOR THESE TO THESE OWNERS FOR THESE RIGHTS. AND WE'RE HOPING TO WRAP THIS UP SOON SO THAT WE CAN GET TO COUNCIL WITH THE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD.

SO THAT'S THE THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THIS ITEM.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACQUISITIONS.

FOR DESIGN, TREVOR HENRY IS AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, OR WE CAN GATHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWER THEM ON SECOND READ.

THANK YOU. I DO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU VICE MAYOR AND BRYCE GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND YOUR WORK ON THIS.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION.

THE $9.2 MILLION THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE IN THE AGENDA ITEM AS ALLOCATED IN FISCAL YEAR 2023.

DO YOU KNOW WHEN COUNCIL WEIGHED IN ON THAT BUDGET INCREASE? DID COUNCIL WEIGH IN ON THAT? I JUST DON'T RECALL.

THANKS COUNCILMAN.

IT LOOKS LIKE TREVOR IS GOING TO FIELD THIS ONE.

GOOD EVENING, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS TREVOR HENRY WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SECTION SERVING AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEER.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER SHIMONI WHEN THAT BUDGETARY ITEM CAME FORTH.

THERE WAS DISCUSSION THROUGH THE PROCESS OF FY 23, THROUGH THAT BUDGET PROCESS.

AND THEN WHEN THE BUDGET WAS ADOPTED, I BELIEVE IN THE LATTER PART OF JUNE, THAT WAS ALL INCLUDED.

I DON'T SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER A SINGLED OUT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BEULAH UNIVERSITY REALIGNMENT PROJECT.

IS THERE OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK? OKAY. NO, THANK YOU FOR THAT, TREVOR.

AND I KNOW THAT COUNCIL'S HAS HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS MY PERSONAL STRUGGLES WITH THIS TULANE ROUNDABOUT.

BUT I THINK JUST IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD INTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS.

IT'D BE GREAT IF IN THE FUTURE WHEN PROJECTS COME IN TWICE, MORE THAN TWICE ITS BUDGET, THAT THAT PROJECT IS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL AS A SPECIFIC DISCUSSION FOR COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON BEHALF OF THE TAXPAYERS.

I JUST THINK IT'S A LARGE JUMP.

I'M NOT TOO SURE IF OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THAT SAME CONCERN, BUT PERSONALLY I DO HAVE THAT CONCERN AND AND JUST YEAH, I GUESS I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE COUNCIL HAS BEEN ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON IT AND THAT DOES CONCERN ME.

BUT I MIGHT BE IN THE MINORITY HERE.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. AND THANK YOU, TREVOR.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY VOTERS IN MAY 2000.

AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL $9.2 MILLION IN FY 20 CURRENT FISCAL YEAR WAS BUDGETED FOR THE FROM 419.

SO ALL OF THIS VOTER APPROVED AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT.

AND AGAIN, REALITY CHECK, EVERY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT RIGHT NOW, PUBLIC WORKS HAS INCREASED BY AT LEAST 40% IN JUST THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS DUE TO LABOR SHORTAGE, SUPPLY CHAIN AND LOGISTIC CHALLENGES, SHORTAGE OF CONCRETE AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

SO JUST ANTICIPATE THAT EVERY PROJECT THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY WILL LIKELY INCREASE IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE.

MAYOR, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

THANK YOU. I SEE.

ALL RIGHT. WELL GOOD WAY EITHER.

COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

[02:55:01]

AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR THE MILTON ROAD AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT.

SO MY QUESTION IS, YEAH, I REALIZE THE PRICE HAS GONE UP A LOT.

AND IS THE CURRENT PRICE, WAS THAT APPROVED BY COUNCIL OR DID, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT, WE APPROVED THE CONCEPT, BUT DID WE APPROVE THE CURRENT COST OR WAS THAT, HAS THAT CREPT UP SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE COUNCIL'S HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE COST? YOUR HONOR, COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS EARLY SPRING, JUNE, WE DID TALK ABOUT GMPS INCREASING DUE TO COST, DUE TO JUST THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING NATIONWIDE.

WE DID GET TO A FINAL BUDGET WHICH WAS PROPOSED FOR FY 23 AND IT WAS ADOPTED.

AGAIN, THE BEULAH UNIVERSITY ROUNDABOUT PROJECT REALIGNMENT PROJECT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED, BUT IN THE FINAL BUDGET FOR FY 23, WE DID HAVE THE $21.9 MILLION ALLOCATED AND THAT WAS APPROVED.

OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN EFFECT IS COUNCIL'S ALREADY APPROVED THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE AND OBVIOUSLY WE ALSO APPROVED THE CONCEPT OF A ROUNDABOUT AS OPPOSED TO A TRADITIONAL INTERSECTION.

SO BOTH THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN DECIDED.

COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY I DO HAVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY COMMENT WANTING TO COMMENT.

THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR, YOU HAD ALREADY COMMENTED ON THE SCOPE OF THE AGENDA ITEM AS OPPOSED TO THIS PROPERTY ACQUISITION, THE FUNDING, THE DESIGN, ALL OF THAT, WHILE ANCILLARY TO IT, IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT, IN MY OPINION, AND I WOULD SUGGEST WE MOVE ON.

THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

SO, BUT I THINK I ALREADY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST SAID, I BELIEVE YOUR ANSWER WAS THOSE ARE BOTH ALREADY DECIDED BY COUNCIL.

WAS THAT CORRECT? YOUR HONOR, COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

I DO HAVE A COMMENT FROM OUR CITY MANAGER.

AND IT COMES WITH THE RISK OF STRAYING TOO FAR FROM THE SCOPE.

AND I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR STERLING WITH MY COMMENT.

IT'S RESPONSIVE TO COUNCILMEMBER SHIMONI'S COMMENT AND I FEAR IF I DON'T AT LEAST PUT THIS SUGGESTION OUT NOW, IT MAY NOT OCCUR IN A FUTURE MEETING.

SO CAN I KEEP IT BRIEF STERLING AND ADDRESS COUNCILMEMBER SHIMONI'S SUGGESTION? AS FAR AS THE AGENDA ITEM IS POSTED.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

I'VE GIVEN MY ADVICE, BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD, THAT'S UP TO YOU AND THE CHAIR.

I'LL BE VERY BRIEF AND KIND OF GENERAL WITH THIS.

THE SUMMARY OF ALL THE DISCUSSION IS THAT IT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL WITHIN A BUDGET, BUT IT WAS NOT CALLED OUT FOR SPECIFIC DISCUSSION.

THE REQUEST BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIMONI IS WHEN WE HAVE SUCH COST OVERRUNS THAT THEY BE BROUGHT BACK TO FUTURE COUNCILS FOR CONSIDERATION.

I THINK IS A WORTHY SUGGESTION IS SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON.

I'M SORRY FOR STRAYING STERLING.

I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WARRANTED A QUICK RESPONSE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL? COUNCILMEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. SO I JUST WANT TO LET THE COUNCIL AND THE STAFF KNOW I'M GOING TO BE A NO VOTE ON THIS.

I HAVE A FEELING IT'S GOING TO PASS REGARDLESS.

I JUST FEEL LIKE THE PROCESS WAS ONE THAT I DON'T FULLY FEEL SUPPORTED IN AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL AND REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY.

THIS WAS A BIG BUDGET INCREASE AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE COUNCIL HAD A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO LET THE VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL KNOW AND STAFF THAT I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO.

BUT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON AS TO WHY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

MADAM VICE MAYOR, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

THANK YOU. GO AHEAD.

OH, BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE THE REASON FOR MY MOTION.

THE BUDGET WAS APPROVED BY, UNANIMOUSLY BY COUNCIL FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

SO WE SUPPORT THIS EXPENDITURE AND THIS SPECIFIC ORDINANCE CALLS FOR

[03:00:09]

AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTEREST FOR THE PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS, DRAINAGE AND SLOPE EASEMENTS AND A SIDEWALK.

SO WITH THAT, I MOVE TO READ ORDINANCE NO.

2022-24 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

I'LL SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED.

NAY.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR THE MILTON ROAD AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. WE ARE DOWN TO 11C, CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-54, A RESOLUTION

[C. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-54: A resolution adopting the 2023 Revised Stormwater Credit Manual. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2022-54 by title only for the final time 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-54 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-54]

ADOPTING THE 2023 REVISED STORMWATER CREDIT MANUAL.

WELCOME AGAIN. GOOD EVENING.

I DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HERE TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE ANY.

COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I AM NOT SEEING ANY.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, TO READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-54 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FINAL TIME.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ADOPTING THE 2023 REVISED STORMWATER CREDIT MANUAL FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-54.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

[D. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-53: A resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Intergovernmental/Third-Party Agreement between the City of Flagstaff, Coconino County and Paw Placement of Northern Arizona dba High Country Humane for Animal Sheltering Services STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2022-53 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-53 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-53]

DOWN TO 11D.

CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-53.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, COCONINO COUNTY, AND PAW PLACEMENT OF NORTHERN ARIZONA DOING BUSINESS AS HIGH COUNTRY HUMANE FOR ANIMAL SHELTERING SERVICES.

WELCOME. GOOD EVENING, VICE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

MY NAME'S DAN MUSSELMAN, AND I SERVE AS YOUR POLICE CHIEF.

BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ISA REQUEST TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AND THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, COCONINO COUNTY AND HIGH COUNTRY HUMANE SHELTER FOR ANIMAL SHELTERING SERVICES.

THIS NEWEST AMENDMENT INCLUDES LANGUAGE THAT ALL THREE ENTITIES REQUESTED.

THE NEWEST AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDES FURTHER DEFINITIONS AND OUTLINES THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH ENTITY.

FINALLY, THE AMENDMENT SEPARATELY OUTLINES THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY THE CITY AND THE COUNTY TO HIGH COUNTRY HUMANE.

I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THIS.

TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM HIGH COUNTRY HUMANE WERE HERE EARLIER AND EXPRESSED THEIR APPRECIATION OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL, NY QUESTIONS? I MOVE THAT WE READ RESOLUTION 2022 DASH FIVE, EXCUSE ME, DASH 53, BY TITLE ONLY.

I'LL SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENT TO TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COCONINO COUNTY PAW PLACEMENT OF NORTHERN ARIZONA DOING BUSINESS AS HIGH

[03:05:06]

COUNTRY HUMANE AND THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF FOR ANIMAL SHELTERING SERVICES.

I MOVED TO ADOPT 2022-53.

I'LL SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

[E. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-55: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff adopting the City Council Holiday Display Policy for the City of Flagstaff. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Consider and Read Resolution No.2022-55 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2022-55 by title only (if approved above) 3) Consider and adopt Resolution No.2022-55]

BRINGS US TO 11E, CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ADOPTING THE CITY COUNCIL HOLIDAY DISPLAY POLICY FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION? NO PRESENTATION.

SORRY. SORRY MAYOR.

THIS IS STERLING, CITY ATTORNEY STERLING SOLOMON.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I WAS STRUGGLING WITH THE MUTE BUTTON, BUT MAYOR, COUNCIL, AT YOUR DIRECTION FROM THE NOVEMBER 1ST CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I DRAFTED A RESOLUTION HERE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND POTENTIALLY ADOPT TONIGHT, ESTABLISHING A HOLIDAY DISPLAY POLICY, WHICH BASICALLY ALLOWS FOR THE COUNCIL TO GIVE DIRECTION TO CITY MANAGEMENT TO DISPLAY BOTH SECULAR AND NON SECULAR ITEMS FOR THE CELEBRATION AND CREATION OF A FESTIVE ATMOSPHERE OF INCLUSION, DIVERSITY, PEACE, HARMONY AND LOVE THROUGHOUT THE HOLIDAY SEASON. WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS THAT RESOLUTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION? IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

AND AGAIN, APOLOGIES HAD SOME ISSUES WITH CONNECTIVITY.

I CANNOT USE MY CAMERA.

PLEASE PROCEED. COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. I AM NOT SEEING ANY.

MADAM VICE MAYOR, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

THANK YOU. I REALLY, FIRST OF ALL, I LOVE THE TITLE OF THE POLICY.

THE CITY COUNCIL HOLIDAY POLICY IS TO CREATE A FESTIVE ATMOSPHERE OF INCLUSION, UNITY, LIFE, DIVERSITY, LOVE AND PEACE WITH BOTH SECULAR AND NON SECULAR DECORATIONS.

AND WITH THAT I MOVE TO READ RESOLUTION NO.

2022-55 BY TITLE ONLY.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

OH, THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

I READ THE WHOLE RESOLUTION.

AND IT HAS SOME VERY ELOQUENT AND CAREFULLY WORDED LANGUAGE.

BUT, IN MY OPINION, IT'S PUTTING THE CITY IN THE POSITION OF UNNECESSARY GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENT IN RELIGION, AND I DON'T CARE WHAT RELIGION IT IS.

I THINK THAT THE THE CITY SHOULD STAY OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF DOING ANYTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ENDORSING ANY GIVEN RELIGION.

AND AGAIN, I'M NOT PICKING ON ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION.

I WOULD APPLY MY COMMENTS TO ANY RELIGION.

I BELIEVE IN SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT CHURCHES OF ANY SORT SHOULD BE FREE TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION IN THIS FINE COUNTRY.

BUT I THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF IT.

THEREFORE, I WILL BE A NO VOTE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

SO I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? YES, I SECOND VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OPPOSED? NAY.

THAT MOTION CARRIES.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ADOPTING THE CITY COUNCIL HOLIDAY DISPLAY POLICY FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-55.

I'LL SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[03:10:02]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. THAT MOTION CARRIES.

IT JUST DAWNED ON ME. HAS ANYONE INVITED COUNCILMEMBER HOUSE BACK TO THE CONVERSATION? YES. I BELIEVE SHE'S BACK ON.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION.

JUST WANTED TO BE SURE.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

WE ARE DOWN TO ITEM 12, DISCUSSION ITEMS.

[A. Thorpe Park Annex Updated Concept STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: On October 25, 2022, a robust conversation was held with City Council providing detailed direction and feedback bringing forward this updated concept of Thorpe Park Annex for future approval. ]

12.A.

THORPE PARK ANNEX UPDATED CONCEPT.

HI. GOOD EVENING, VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL AND VIRTUAL COUNCIL.

AMY HAGIN, ASSISTANT PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.

OK. WE'RE BRINGING THIS BACK THIS EVENING, THE THORPE PARK ANNEX CONCEPT PLAN AFTER A VERY ROBUST AND HONESTLY HEALTHY CONVERSATION THAT WE ALL HAD LAST MONTH. BEFORE JUMPING INTO THE REVISED DESIGN WITH SOME OF THE SUBTLE CHANGES, JUST A SHORT RECAP OF WHAT SOME OF THOSE CHANGES CONSIST OF, AND THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP AND WE'LL GO THROUGH IT, ESPECIALLY FOR THE VIRTUAL WORLD OUT THERE.

SO THERE WAS AN OVERARCHING NEED FOR RESTORATION OF NATIVE PLANTINGS, OPEN SPACES, INDIGENOUS GARDENS AND A LARGER ORCHARD TO ALL SURROUND THE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY CULTURAL CENTER OR THE ICCC.

AN INCORPORATION OF AN INTERPRETIVE TRAIL THAT WILL, THAT HAS A CONNECTION TO THE ICCC, YOU'LL SEE REPRESENTED ON THIS.

THERE IS A RELOCATION OF THE PICKLEBALL COURTS TO THE CURRENT BARK PARK, SO THAT'LL BE A FUTURE PHASE.

SO THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE SHOWN HERE ON WHAT I'LL DISPLAY HERE FOR US ANY SECOND.

AND THAT IS OVER LOCATED OVER BY THE PARK SHOP AND WITH PLENTY OF NEARBY PARKING.

LASTLY, WE ARE KEEPING THE POTENTIAL FOR THE CITY EMPLOYEE HOUSING AS WE CONTINUE TO DISCUSS AND RESOLVE THAT TOPIC, ESPECIALLY WITH ARIZONA STATE PARKS AND LAND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.

DRUM ROLL. CAN I GET A DRUM ROLL ON THIS? [LAUGHTER] OKAY.

WE ARE GOING TO VIEW THIS FULL MODE.

SORRY, IT TAKES A SECOND HERE TO GET THAT IN FULL MODE.

IT IS A HEFTY DESIGN PLAN.

I'M GOING TO WORK.

IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT A SCREEN FROM LEFT OR RIGHT, IF THAT'S OKAY.

SO WE STILL HAVE OUR RELOCATION OF A THORPE BARK PARK.

SO THAT IS IN THAT RELOCATED AREA, WHICH WOULD BE DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF AZTEC ROAD.

THEN AS WE START MOVING EAST ON THE PROPERTIES, STAYING ON THE NORTH SIDE, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 45 PARKING STALLS INDICATED ON THIS CONCEPT PLAN WITH A LOT OF LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND OTHER PLANTINGS TO REALLY BUFFER THAT IN.

THEN WE START TO MOVE INTO THE SURROUNDING AREA OF THE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY CULTURAL CENTER, REALLY CREATING MORE OF GREATER SURROUNDINGS AROUND IT.

SO WE'RE STILL SHOWING AN OUTDOOR FLEX FLEX SPACE, WE'RE SHOWING THE MARKET WALKWAY THAT I THINK RECEIVED SOME POSITIVE INDICATIONS LAST TIME.

WE'RE SHOWING A LARGER TRADITIONAL CEREMONIAL SPACE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE CULTURAL CENTER, WE'RE SHOWING AN ETHNO BOTANICAL AND POLLINATOR GARDEN AGAIN INCREASED IN SIZE TO REALLY CREATE THAT BUFFER AROUND THE ICCC.

WE'RE SHOWING STILL THAT ENTRANCE OFF OF DALE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF A ROUNDABOUT SO IT COULD MAYBE CREATE SOME EASY DROP OFF LOCATIONS FOR PATRONS TO THE AREA AND EIGHT PARKING STALLS WITH A WALKWAY LEADING TO THE NORTH TO THE ICCC.

AND THEN STILL SHOWING THE CITY EMPLOYEE HOUSING ALONG DALE AVENUE.

THAT IS JUST FOR AS A REMINDER, THAT'S WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS AS FAR AS WATER AND SEWER.

THEN AS WE MOVE BACK WEST AND CROSS DALE, WE'VE GOT A COMMUNITY GARDEN.

WE'VE GOT AN INCREASED SIZE IN THE ORCHARD, AS DISCUSSED BACK ON OCTOBER 25TH.

WE HAVE OUR SUSTAINABILITY OFFICES THAT REMAIN THERE IN THE GREENHOUSE THAT PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY PARTNERED ON, AND THEN STILL THE INDOOR HALF BASKETBALL COURTS THAT ARE INSIDE THAT METAL STORAGE BUILDING THAT EXISTS TODAY.

AND THEN LASTLY, WE'VE GOT THE COMBINATION OF THE SKATE PARK AND PUMP TRACK ON THE SOUTHWESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, STILL WITH A PRETTY HEFTY BUFFER BEFORE ANY OF THIS SPACE MOVES INTO THE CURRENTLY LEASED SPACE FOR THE URBAN FARM INCUBATOR, RUBY GARDENS.

AND THEN ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PROPERTY IS A 15, I'M SORRY, A TEN FOOT WIDE PATH, WALKING PATH, PROBABLY WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR TO OUR URBAN TRAIL SYSTEM, AND THE INTERPRETIVE TRAIL, WHICH IS, THERE'S SOME INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE, WHICH IS KIND OF THE ORANGE ASTERISK SYMBOL, AND THEN THE INTERPRETIVE TRAIL OFF THE

[03:15:04]

NORTH SIDE, THERE NEAR THE FRANCIS SHORT DUCK POND, HEADING DIRECTLY, MEANDERING THROUGH AND THEN HEADING DIRECTLY OVER TO THE CULTURAL CENTER.

THAT ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF THE SUGGESTED CHANGES FROM LAST MONTH.

AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE DOG PARK CURRENT LOCATION IS WHERE YOU'RE SHOWING PARKING ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER.

IS THAT CORRECT? THE CURRENT BARK PARK IS OVER OFF THORPE ROAD BY THE FOUR SOFTBALL FIELDS.

YOU MEAN WHERE THIS RELOCATED BARK PARK IS COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

OK. I THINK I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED.

SO THE NEW BARK PARK.

IS THAT, ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT, IS THAT THORPE ROAD? THAT'S AZTEC ROAD.

OH, OKAY. OKAY.

YES. SO THIS ROADWAY RIGHT HERE, THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE IS AZTEC ROAD.

THAT'S AZTEC? OK. YES.

WE DID GET SOME EMAILS SAYING THAT THE PROPOSED DOG PARK IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO FLOODING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I GUESS I'LL ASK YOU, IS THAT A POTENTIAL PROBLEM FOR THE DOG PARK? LIKE THE EMAILS ARE ALLEGING.

I HAVE NOT WITNESSED EXTREME FLOODING.

THERE ARE SOME CONTOURS HERE.

THERE'S THAT, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS IMAGE, THERE'S ABOUT A 65 SPACE PARKING LOT THERE THAT WE CALL SOMETIMES THE AZTEC PARKING LOT.

AND THEN DIRECTLY TO THE WEST ARE FOUR SOFTBALL FIELDS.

SO CLEARLY A GRADED PROPERTY TO CREATE THE FIELDS.

THERE ARE SOME CONTOURS HERE, BUT I THINK WE CAN WORK WITHIN THOSE AND CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FLOODING SITUATION.

I WILL POINT OUT, THOUGH, ON AZTEC ROAD, THERE ARE NOT EDGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS LOCATION AND A CURB GUTTER SIDEWALK TEND TO HELP CONTAIN STORMWATER IN A ROADWAY. SO WE DO NOT HAVE THAT CONDITION HERE CURRENTLY.

WHO KNOWS IF THAT ENDS UP BEING A PROPOSED IDEA WHEN WE DIG DEEPER INTO THIS PAST A CONCEPT DESIGN.

OKAY. AND MY LAST QUESTION IS REGARDING THE HOUSING THAT'S PROPOSED.

IS THERE GOING TO BE ENOUGH PARKING RIGHT ACROSS THE WAY FROM, FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES, THAT EMPLOY HOUSING.

IS THERE ADEQUATE PARKING OR DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PARK WAY UP ON THE NORTH WEST AND THEN WALK ALL THE WAY BACK WITH THEIR GROCERIES OR WHATEVER? I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO, YOU KNOW, AND AS WE GO THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS WITH THIS, PLUS THE ENTIRE PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT CITY HOUSING CAN OCCUR ON THIS PROPERTY, MY GUESS IS THAT DESIGN WILL ENCOMPASS THE PARKING.

SO WE WOULD NOT ENCUMBER PARKING THAT IS MEANT FOR THE PARK OR FOR THE ICCC.

IT WOULD BE PARKING WITHIN.

NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE UNTIL WE GET DEEPER INTO THAT DESIGN PROCESS, BUT WE HAVE A COMMITMENT FROM STAFF THAT THEY WILL NOT COMPETE.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER ASLAN.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

QUESTION FOR YOU, MS. AMY POEHLER. I MEAN, HAGAN.

[LAUGHTER] I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM FOR THOSE WHO ARE JUST TUNING IN THAT THIS DOESN'T AFFECT THE NUMBER OF PICKLEBALL COURTS IN THE AGGREGATE THAT WERE BEING PLANNED, BECAUSE I THINK THAT MIGHT BE CONFUSING HERE.

AND I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A MOMENT OF PANIC MYSELF UNTIL I FIGURED OUT THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE ON THE SCREEN AND FOR THOSE TUNING IN AT HOME, THIS IS JUST THE SPECIFIC FOOTPRINT FOR A MUCH NARROWER AREA THAT DOESN'T CONSIDER THE NEGOTIATION WE WENT THROUGH A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO PROTECTING PICKLEBALL COURTS.

IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT AND APPRECIATE IT.

THAT IS CORRECT.

SO WE WOULD STILL INDICATE, IT'S JUST NOT SHOWN ON THIS.

THIS IS THORPE PARK ANNEX PROPER, IF YOU WILL, THE EIGHT AND A HALF ACRES.

SO THROUGH THE CONVERSATION LAST MONTH THAT WAS PROPOSED TO MOVE THOSE SIX PICKLEBALL COURTS TO THE CURRENT THORPE BARK PARK LOCATION.

SO OBVIOUSLY SOME STEPS IN PLACE THERE.

THE BARK PARK WOULD NEED TO BE RELOCATED TO THIS LOCATION AND THEN PICKLEBALL COURTS DEVELOPED AT THAT LOCATION.

THOSE ARE ALONG THORPE ROAD.

AND THEN THANK YOU. AND JUST FOLLOWING UP ON COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY QUESTIONS WHICH WERE PREDICATED UPON BY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.

IF THERE ARE ANY GREAT ISSUES OR TERRAIN ISSUES FOR THE DOG PARK, THAT'S, WE'RE NOT GAINING A PROBLEM.

[03:20:02]

THAT WAS, IT WOULD BE THE SAME IF THE DOG PARK REMAINS IN THE SPOT IT'S ALREADY IN, WHICH HAS SUBSTANTIAL, NOT SUBSTANTIAL IS MAYBE A STRONG WORD, BUT HAS A HISTORY OF POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH MUDDINESS AND DRAINAGE AND THINGS.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THAT EXPERIENCE AND ENSURE THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE.

GREAT. YES, VERY GOOD TO MAKE THAT POINT.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT GAINING A PROBLEM BY MAKING THIS SWAP IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE OUR PICKLEBALL COMMUNITY.

CORRECT. I DO NOT THINK WE'RE GAINING A PROBLEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. AND THANK YOU, AMY, FOR YOUR HARD WORK WITH THE TEAM ON THIS.

THIS IS, I THINK THIS IS GREAT.

I THINK THIS IS A LOT CLOSER TO WHAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND MAYBE EVEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, I DON'T THINK I HEARD YOU SPEAK TO THE NUMBER OF HOUSING.

HAS THAT CHANGED OR HOW MANY, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? THAT HAS NOT CHANGED.

THE ESTIMATE LAST TIME WHEN WE SPOKE LAST MONTH, COUNCILMEMBER SHIMONI WAS POSSIBLY SEVEN UNITS.

BUT JUST TO BE TRANSPARENT, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW.

WE'VE GOT A SPATIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, IF YOU WILL, AND THAT DESIGN HAS NOT OCCURRED.

SO I REALLY CAN'T GIVE A TESTAMENT REGARDING HOW MANY UNITS THIS WILL ENCOMPASS.

I BELIEVE WE FEEL CONFIDENT WITH A MINIMUM OF SEVEN, BUT WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE.

OKAY. OKAY.

I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE I'M AT, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF WANTING TO SEE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ON THIS PARCEL.

BUT KNOWING THE LIMITATIONS, I GUESS I'LL GO WITH WHATEVER MAKES SENSE.

AND THEN, COUNCIL, I KNOW THAT I BROUGHT UP SOME TOPICS LAST TIME ABOUT OUTDOOR WORKOUT FACILITIES, AND AMY AND THE TEAM INFORMED ME THAT THERE'S OTHER LOCATIONS OF WHICH THEY'RE PLANNING TO BUILD THAT THAN A SIMILAR REGIONAL LOCATION.

SO I THINK IT'S FINE THAT WE REMOVE THAT FROM MY REQUEST AT LEAST.

I DO STILL WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE COULD BE A BICYCLE WORK STAND.

I KNOW THAT'S A SMALL THING, BUT I THINK IT GOES A LONG WAY, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUTH WHO MIGHT BE UTILIZING THE SPACE.

AND THEN LASTLY, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ADEQUATE BICYCLE PARKING AND IDEALLY EVEN COVERED IF POSSIBLE.

THAT'S ALL. BUT I THINK THIS IS GREAT AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I WILL TAKE A QUESTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER SALAS AND THEN I DO HAVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER.

YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

FIRST, WITH REGARD TO THE PICKLEBALL BEING MOVED TO, PICKLEBALL COURTS BEING MOVED TO THE CURRENT BARK PARK.

IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, AND I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING TO BUILD ANYTHING.

IS THERE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A COVERED INDOOR PICKLEBALL COURTS TO OPERATE IT YEAR ROUND? THERE COULD BE THAT OPPORTUNITY WITH PROPER FUNDING OR MAYBE A PARTNERSHIP ON THAT.

I THINK WHAT THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH OBVIOUSLY GAVE CLEAR INDICATION OF HERE'S A DEDICATED FUTURE SPACE.

SO WHAT THAT RESEMBLES, I'M SURE, WILL BE A LOT OF HEFTY DISCUSSIONS IN THE YEARS TO COME.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. MY NEXT QUESTION IS INVITING MS. ROSE TOEHE.

I UNDERSTAND OUR STELLAR INDIGENOUS INITIATIVE COORDINATORS HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE UPDATING THE DESIGN, THE CONCEPT PLAN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FEEDBACK FROM HER IN TERMS OF THIS UPDATED CONCEPT FOR THORPE PARK ANNEX.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SALAS.

REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.

I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THIS HAS COME AS FAR AS THROUGH INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY, THIS IS VERY SUPPORTED.

AND A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT I RECEIVED PERSONALLY HAS BEEN THAT THE CHANGES THAT COUNCIL HAD ASKED FOR IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD ENVISIONED.

AND THEY'RE VERY HAPPY THAT THIS IS THE CONCEPT THAT YOU'LL BE CONSIDERING.

THERE WOULD ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS THAT THIS WILL BE A COMMUNITY SPACE, THAT IT WON'T JUST BE

[03:25:07]

FOR INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY, BUT THAT IT WILL BE SHARED.

AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE CONCEPT BEHIND THE REQUEST FOR THIS PROCESS.

THANK YOU. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THANK YOU, MS. TOEHE.

THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT.

RICK LOPEZ, CAN YOU COME DOWN? THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL, STAFF.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

FIRST, BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT HERE REPRESENTING THE NORTHERN ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.

THIS IS STRICTLY MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWPOINT, ALTHOUGH IT IS SHARED BY A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, JUST NOT NECESSARILY THE ASSOCIATION.

I BROUGHT THIS UP SEVERAL TIMES, BOTH HERE IN THIS VENUE AS WELL AS WITH SOME OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY.

AS A TAXPAYER, I FEEL DECEIVED BY THE CITY BECAUSE THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS YARD AND THE MUNICIPAL COURT BUILDING WERE BOTH SOLD ON BONDS TO THE COMMUNITY BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT WE WOULD SELL THE PREVIOUS PROPERTIES TO HELP OFFSET THE COST OF THE NEW BUILDINGS.

THAT WAS WHAT WAS PRESENTED.

THAT WAS WHAT WAS PROMOTED.

THAT'S WHAT THE TAXPAYERS BELIEVED.

AND SO THEY VOTED IN FAVOR OF BUILDING THOSE TWO NEW FACILITIES, AS WONDERFUL AS THEY ARE.

NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO STAND HERE AND TELL YOU THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED THOSE BUILDINGS HAD I KNOWN THAT NEITHER OF THOSE TWO PROPERTIES WERE GOING TO BE SOLD AS PROMISED BECAUSE I MIGHT HAVE VOTED FOR THEM ANYWAY.

BUT THE FACT REMAINS, THAT'S HOW THEY WERE PROMOTED.

THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVED AS A TAXPAYER, AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

AND I FEEL THAT NOW THAT THE COUNCIL HAS INCREASED THEIR SALARIES 254% OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT TWO YEARS, THAT THINGS LIKE THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. I REALIZE THAT YOU'RE KIND OF OBLIGATED TO LISTEN TO WHAT STAFF TELLS YOU.

BUT NOW THAT YOU'RE GETTING PAID A LOT OF MONEY TO DO WHAT YOU DO, THERE'S NO EXCUSE.

YOU CAN DO THE RESEARCH.

YOU CAN CHECK ON IT FOR YOURSELF, ASK THE HARD QUESTIONS, THE TOUGH QUESTIONS, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY NEVER GETS DECEIVED AGAIN ON A FUTURE BOND.

SECONDLY, AS A CITIZEN, I'M DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE THE PREEMINENT SPACE FOR A TAX CREDIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE DECLARED A HOUSING EMERGENCY.

WE DIDN'T DECLARE A PARK EMERGENCY OR AN OPEN SPACE EMERGENCY OR A PLACE FOR A BUILDING FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY.

WE DECLARED A HOUSING EMERGENCY.

AND THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PREMIER SPOT FOR A TAX CREDIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HAVE SATISFIED THE NEEDS OF THE MANY.

AND I THINK THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS PUT THE WANTS OF THE FEW AHEAD OF THE NEEDS OF THE MANY.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

RICK. COUPLE OF POINTS.

THERE'S A LOT OF TRUTH TO WHAT YOU SAID.

I THINK THE VOTERS DID GET MISLEADED.

BUT SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND AT THE TIME THAT THIS WENT THROUGH, WHICH WAS I BELIEVE BEFORE I WAS ON COUNCIL, WAS THAT THIS LAND THAT WE GOT HAD DEED RESTRICTIONS ON IT.

SO THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN LEGALLY USE THE SPACE FOR IS IF IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY FOR PARK AND RECREATION USES. THAT'S THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEED WHEN WE GOT THE LAND FROM THE FEDS OR WHOEVER IT WAS.

THE OTHER POINT IS JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION.

OUR RAISE OVER TWO YEARS, AND I SAID IT WOULD BE 250% AND I WAS WRONG.

IT WAS A 150% INCREASE AFTER TWO YEARS.

AND OF COURSE, BEING A MEMBER ON COUNCIL NOW, I WILL NEVER SEE A SINGLE PENNY OF THAT.

I'M STILL MAKING 25-5.

JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I DO THINK, HOWEVER, AND I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, SO I CAN'T SAY THAT THIS UNEQUIVOCALLY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE LAND THAT WAS DEEDED INCLUDED THE CURRENT LOCATION FOR CLARK HOMES, MARSHALL'S SCHOOL AND THE BUILDING THAT HAS THE CHARTER SCHOOL ON IT RIGHT ACROSS FROM MARSHALL SCHOOL.

[03:30:04]

I THINK ALL OF THAT PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC WORKS YARD AND WE USED THE PUBLIC WORKS YARD FOR I DON'T KNOW, 40, 50 YEARS AS A PUBLIC WORKS YARD, NOT AS A PARK.

SO CONSEQUENTLY, I THINK THE PRECEDENT WAS SET LONG BEFORE THIS THAT THOSE PROPERTIES COULD BE USED FOR SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN A PARK AND COUNCIL CHANGES ZONING ALL THE TIME.

WE YOU HAD A DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT CHANGING A FLOODPLAIN STATUS ON SWITZER CANYON ROAD AND WE CHANGED ZONING ALL THE TIME.

WE, WE CHANGE LAND USE ALL THE TIME.

IT'S PART OF WHAT COUNCIL DOES.

AND AGAIN, I THINK BECAUSE THE NEED FOR HOUSING IS SO EXTRAORDINARY IN THIS COMMUNITY, IF THERE HAD BEEN A WILL, THERE WOULD HAVE YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND A WAY TO DO THIS. SO I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT YOU MENTIONED.

YOU MIGHT BE CORRECT, LIKE THE SCHOOL, ETC.

BUT I ATTENDED SOME MEETINGS.

OH GOD, IT WAS PROBABLY FOUR YEARS AGO NOW.

AND THAT'S WHERE IT CAME OUT THAT THERE WERE DEED RESTRICTIONS.

COUNCIL CANNOT CHANGE DEED RESTRICTIONS.

YES, WE CAN CHANGE ZONING.

AND IT WAS ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE TO USE THAT LAND FOR A MAINTENANCE YARD.

BUT AS MY MOTHER ONCE TOLD ME, TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

SO ANYWAY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS THIS PROPERTY HERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS DEED RESTRICTED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY USED FOR PARKS AND REC TYPE ISSUES.

SO, YEAH, AND I APPRECIATE, I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU AGAIN TO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

THE PUBLIC SHOULD NEVER BE DECEIVED THIS WAY.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, RICK.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION MYSELF.

I AM WONDERING, CAN WE PUT THE NEW PICKLEBALL COURT DESIGN AND INCLUDE IT INTO THIS CONCEPT PLAN? WE COULD. WE COULD HAVE LIKE A LITTLE ZOOM IN, MAYBE ON A CORNER AND FIT THAT IN OR MAYBE EVEN DOWN HERE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT SIDE OF THE SHEET WHERE IT'S WHITE. SO AT LEAST WE COULD SHOW WHAT THAT AERIAL IMAGE WOULD RESEMBLE.

WE COULD. WOULD THAT BE NECESSARY VICE MAYOR FOR ADOPTION? BECAUSE THAT IS THE NEXT STEP.

IF THERE ARE NO OTHER SUGGESTED EDITS TO THIS CONCEPT, DESIGN IS TO COME BACK ON DECEMBER 6 FOR AN ADOPTION OF THIS.

I DON'T NEED THAT TONIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT FOR THE NEXT READ.

THANK YOU. MM HMM. FOR COMMENT.

I DON'T CARE HOW IT'S DEFINED, BUT IT SHOULD BE DEFINED SOMEHOW.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT VERBALLY, BUT IT SHOULD BE PART OF WHAT WE FORMALLY APPROVE.

I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. COUNCIL.

I GUESS THEY NEVER REALLY SAID, I LIKE THE PLAN.

[LAUGHTER] I WAS WAITING FOR THAT.

COUNCILMEMBER SALAS.

I HAVE ONE LAST COMMENT.

LET'S APPROVE THIS.

FIND THE MONEY AND BUILD IT SOON.

YOU GOT IT.

THUMBS UP ON THAT. GREAT.

WELL, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS RAISED.

SO DOES SOMEONE.

I KNOW. WE DON'T NEED A MOTION.

NEVER MIND. GET AN EASY ONE ON THIS.

RIGHT. WE'LL BE BACK DECEMBER 6TH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THE JOKES ARE COMING OUT.

DOWN TO 12.B.

[B. Discussion regarding adult use marijuana retail sales. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive direction from Council regarding whether to allow adult use only marijuana retail sales to operate in Flagstaff.]

DISCUSSION REGARDING ADULT USE MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES.

WELCOME, TIFFANY.

AMY WAS GOING TO STAY WITH ME AND PARTNER ON THIS, BUT THEN SHE LEFT.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR STICKING WITH ME TO DEAL WITH THIS WORK SESSION ON ADULT USE MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES.

JUST AS, RECOLLECTION.

BACK IN AUGUST, WE HAD TWO ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS MOVE FORWARD.

ONE WAS AT THE REQUEST OF A LOCAL DISPENSARY TO EXTEND DISPENSARY HOURS.

THAT AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL ONLY SALES IN THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AND THAT PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WAS SORT OF DELAYED.

[03:35:03]

WE HAD A CONFERENCE AT THE END OF AUGUST AND THERE WAS A SESSION ON ADULT USE MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES THAT WE ATTENDED.

AND SO I HAVE SOME INFORMATION FROM THAT CONFERENCE SESSION TO SHARE AND AS WELL AS SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SINCE.

SO JUST THAT SMART AND SAFE ARIZONA ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS PROP 207, NOT THE OTHER PROP 207 THAT WE'RE SO FONDLY IN LOVE WITH.

BUT, BASICALLY THE ACT DECRIMINALIZES THE USE OF UP TO ONE OUNCE OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BY A PERSON WHO'S AT LEAST 21 YEARS OF AGE.

AND IN JUNE OF 2021, WE ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2120 2113, WHICH ENACTED REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT DID IS, IS WE MODIFIED OUR MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AND MADE THOSE, MADE THAT DEFINITION ALLOW DUAL LICENSED FACILITIES.

SO THE ONLY RECREATIONAL SALES THAT CURRENTLY OCCUR IN FLAGSTAFF ARE THOSE THAT ARE AFFILIATED IN ADDITION WITH A MEDICAL DISPENSARY.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE ACCESSORY USES ALLOWED WITH THIS EITHER DUAL OR MEDICAL SALES FACILITY, AND THOSE INCLUDE CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, PACKAGING OR STORAGE OF MARIJUANA PRODUCTS.

AND THOSE CAN OCCUR ON THE SAME SITE AS THE RETAIL FACILITY AS ACCESSORY USES.

SO A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND ON SMART AND SAFE ACT.

PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ACT, THERE WERE 130 EXISTING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ARIZONA.

AFTER THE ADOPTION, THE EXISTING 130 DISPENSARIES WERE ALLOWED TO BECOME DUAL LICENSED FACILITIES BY ADDING ADULT USE RETAIL SALES.

THERE ARE A LOT OF CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES THAT DID NOTHING IN REGARDS TO SMART AND SAFE.

THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR CODES.

THEY DIDN'T UPDATE THEM SPECIFICALLY.

I'VE DONE LOTS OF SEARCHES ON LOTS OF CODES.

AND THEN THERE ARE THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT WENT AHEAD AND DID WHAT FLAGSTAFF DID BACK IN JUNE OF 2021 TO SPECIFICALLY ALLOW DUAL LICENSED FACILITIES.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEDICAL DISPENSARIES, WHICH CAN BE DUAL LICENSED FACILITIES, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO, THEY HAVE THE CHOICE, IS DEPENDENT UPON THE NUMBER OF PHARMACIES IN THE STATE.

IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS SINCE THE LICENSE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED, SO THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL LICENSES IN THE FUTURE.

SO THEY DO RECALIBRATE THAT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PHARMACIES IN THE STATE.

AND AS YOU KNOW, ONCE A FACILITY IS LICENSED, THEY CAN MOVE ANYWHERE IN THE STATE.

IT USED TO BE A MUCH DIFFERENT SYSTEM.

WE WERE BROKEN INTO CHORES, BASICALLY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS, AND THERE WERE ONLY A SET NUMBER PER THOSE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS, AND THAT NO LONGER EXISTS.

SO TALKING ABOUT THIS ART AND SAFE PROVISIONS, THERE WERE 13 ADULT USE LICENSES.

AND WHEN I SAY ADULT USE, IT'S REALLY JUST THE RECREATIONAL SALES ONLY THAT WERE GRANTED IN RURAL COUNTIES.

THESE LICENSES WERE AWARDED IN APRIL OF 2021.

AND OF THOSE 13 LICENSES, APPROXIMATELY SIX RETAIL FACILITIES HAVE OPENED IN THOSE RURAL COUNTIES.

BUT THE REMAINING LICENSES WERE ACTUALLY SET TO EXPIRE IN OCTOBER.

AT THE CONFERENCE, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WAS NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND EXTEND THOSE LICENSES.

THE REASON THAT I BRING THIS UP IS JUST THAT WE ARE ADJACENT TO A RURAL COUNTY, THAT WE ARE SURROUNDED BY OUR BORDERS.

AND SO THERE ARE THOSE LICENSES THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE WITHIN OUR BOUNDARY AREAS.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE WERE 26 ADULT USE LICENSES FOR SOCIAL EQUITY APPLICANTS.

THIS WAS ONE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT I LEARNED.

THEY'RE NOT SOCIAL EQUITY LICENSES.

THEY ARE LICENSES ISSUED TO SOCIAL EQUITY APPLICANTS, SO THEY'RE NOT DEFINED DIFFERENTLY.

THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WAS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE.

SO OF THOSE, THESE 26 LICENSES WERE AWARDED IN APRIL OF 2022, AND THAT'S WHEN WE HELD OUR FIRST WORK SESSION WITH YOU ALL THIS YEAR.

AND THEY ARE SET TO EXPIRE IN OCTOBER OF 2023.

TO DATE, I STILL DON'T KNOW OF ANY OF THESE LICENSES BEING ABLE TO OPEN A FACILITY IN ARIZONA.

THE ACT ALSO ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO PROHIBIT ADULT USE RETAIL FACILITIES SO WE CAN KEEP OUR CODE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN AND NOT MAKE ANY

[03:40:04]

CHANGES FOR ADULT USE ONLY.

IF A MUNICIPALITY CHOOSES TO ALLOW ADULT USE RETAIL SALES, A MUNICIPALITY MUST TREAT ALL RETAIL FACILITIES THE SAME.

SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES HAVE, AND I'VE ALREADY DID STATE THIS, THAT THEY'VE NOT EVEN UPDATED THEIR CODE FOR THE ORIGINAL FOR THE DUAL LICENSE FACILITIES.

THEY STILL JUST HAVE THEIR MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY TEXT CODES.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF FOR SOME REASON WE WERE TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RECREATIONAL SALES, WE WOULD ALSO NEED TO APPLY THAT TO THE DUAL LICENSE FACILITIES AND THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AS WELL.

IN THE PRESENTATION AT THE CONFERENCE, THERE WERE REPRESENTATIVES FROM TWO CITIES, GILBERT, ARIZONA, AND TUCSON, ARIZONA.

IN GILBERT, GILBERT'S A SMALL LAND MASS CITY THAT HAS MESA TO THE NORTH, CHANDLER TO THE WEST.

AND AT THE TIME OF THE SMART AND SAFE ACT, THEY HAD ONE EXISTING DISPENSARY.

SO, BUT BOTH CHANDLER AND MESA HAVE SEVERAL DISPENSARIES NEAR THEIR CITY LIMITS.

SO IF YOU PULL UP THE GOOGLE MAP AND YOU GOOGLE WHERE THE DISPENSARIES ARE, YOU CAN SEE THEY SORT OF OUTLINE WHERE GILBERT IS LOCATED.

BECAUSE OF THAT AND THE NUMBER OF DISPENSARIES ALREADY EXISTING WITHIN THEIR PERIPHERY, THE CITY OPTED NOT TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL ONLY SALES, SO THEY REMAIN WITH THEIR ONE DUAL LICENSED FACILITY.

THE ONLY COMPLAINT THAT THEY'VE HAD IN REGARD TO THEIR EXISTING DISPENSARY WAS IN RELATION TO PARKING.

SO IT WAS AN EXISTING DISPENSARY.

IT DID GO TO DUAL LICENSE.

WE ALL KIND OF SAW A DIFFERENCE WHEN RETAIL SALES HAPPENED WHEN THEY WENT FROM SOLELY MEDICAL TO THE HAVING THE RETAIL COMPONENT.

I THINK EVEN HERE IN FLAGSTAFF WE SAW A DIFFERENCE.

IT STOOD OUT. THERE WERE LINES OUT IN FRONT.

I THINK THERE STILL ARE FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT DEFINITELY A LOT MORE BUSINESS.

BUT THOSE BUSINESSES HERE IN FLAGSTAFF ESPECIALLY, THEY JUMPED ON IT, RIGHT.

I WATCHED NOBLE HERB BUY ADJACENT PROPERTY, ADD ADDITIONAL PARKING, START WORKING ON THE ISSUE AS THEY DEVELOPED.

IN TUCSON, ARIZONA, THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW ADULT USE RECREATIONAL SALES ESTABLISHMENTS, AND THESE GO WITH A MAYOR AND COUNCIL SPECIAL EXCEPTION LAND USE PROCEDURE, WHICH REQUIRES A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, A ZONING EXAMINER, PUBLIC HEARING, AND A MAYOR AND COUNCIL REVIEW. SO THIS PROCESS IS SIMILAR TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

YOU JUST WOULD REPLACE THE ZONING EXAMINER WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AND THEN FOR US FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, IT'S ONLY IF THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTS TO HEAR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

IT'S REALLY YOUR CHOICE.

AND IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO, THEN IT GOES ON ITS WAY.

PIMA COUNTY HAS ALREADY ADOPTED THESE SIMILAR PROVISIONS.

TUCSON HAS ALREADY, THOUGH, REDUCED THEIR SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THE SEPARATION DISTANCE.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING I CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT AS WE, HOWEVER IT IS, WE CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CODE.

ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE WERE PROPOSING THE TEXT AMENDMENT, WE WERE PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN DISPENSARIES OR RETAILS SALES ESTABLISHMENTS.

BUT IN TUCSON, WHAT THEY FOUND IS BY HAVING THESE LARGE SEPARATION DISTANCES, THEY REALLY LIMITED THE AREAS IN WHICH THESE FACILITIES COULD LOCATE.

AND THEY ENDED UP LOCATING IN AREAS THAT WERE LESS THAN DESIRABLE, MUCH CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY HAD MORE OF AN IMPACT AND THEY WEREN'T THE BEST RIGHT COMMERCIAL SITE FOR THESE PARTICULAR USES.

SO THEY HAVE ALREADY REDUCED THEIR SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

SO IF STAFF IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A FUTURE TEXT AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE REALLY, IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE SORT OF A DIRECTION ON WHAT OUR PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE ON THOSE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

IS IT THE INTENTION TO LIMIT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY? AND IF SO, ARE THERE OTHER WAYS WE CAN DO THAT BESIDES JUST THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS? IT'S NOT A FINITE SCIENCE WITH SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S ALWAYS A LIMIT.

THERE'S ALWAYS AN UNKNOWN FACTOR AND SOMETHING THAT COULD NOT HAPPEN.

AND SO IF OUR IF OUR GOAL IS TO REALLY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF FACILITIES, I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS WE COULD POTENTIALLY GO ABOUT DOING THAT.

AND LASTLY, STAFF WAS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN A TOUR OF NOBLE HERB.

I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE REACHED OUT TO COUNCIL AS WELL.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY PARTICIPATED.

[03:45:01]

WE CERTAINLY DID.

NOPE. SORRY, IT WAS CANCELED.

WELL, STAFF DID GO AND PARTICIPATE, BUT IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR STAFF TO SEE THE FACILITY.

PLUS, IT WAS A BRAND NEW FACILITY, SO IT WAS REALLY NICE.

BUT I LEARNED A LOT ON THAT ON THAT TOUR BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM THE EXISTING DISPENSARIES AND SEEING THEIR MANUFACTURING PORTION OF THE RETAIL SALES AND HOW MUCH A PORTION OF THE BUSINESS THAT REALLY IS.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS THAT WITH RETAIL FACILITIES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT RETAIL LICENSE IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT MANUFACTURING COMPONENT.

AND SO THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE ARE SETTING UP A VERY LIMITED RETAIL OPERATION TO REALLY DO THAT MANUFACTURING AND THEN THAT MANUFACTURING, THAT PRODUCT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

SO THERE ARE SOME OTHER REASONS FOR PEOPLE TO WANT TO SET UP MORE RETAIL FACILITIES, NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN IS THE RETAIL SALES COMPONENT. THEY'RE ACTUALLY REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT MANUFACTURING COMPONENT.

SO JUST ANOTHER THING TO PAY ATTENTION TO AS WE WRITE CODE, AS WE THINK ABOUT THAT, HOW WE MANAGE THOSE ACCESSORY USES TODAY, WE TEND TO BE PRETTY OPEN ABOUT ACCESSORY USES.

AS LONG AS IT'S NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING WE TRY TO WORK WITH PEOPLE BECAUSE MANUFACTURING CAN BE CAN TYPICALLY BE BULKY AND LARGE, BUT IF THE RETAIL COMPONENT IS RELATIVELY SMALL AND THE MANUFACTURING IS THE MAIN PORTION OF THE BUSINESS, MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER WAY TO LOOK AT REALLY REGULATING THAT AND MAKING SURE THAT IT REALLY TRULY IS THE RETAIL FACILITY THAT IT'S PERMITTED UNDER.

AND SO STAFF IS LOOKING FOR DIRECTION TONIGHT.

SHOULD THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ADULT USE ONLY MARIJUANA RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS BE DELAYED UNTIL MORE CITIES HAVE ADOPTED SIMILAR PROVISIONS? BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE'S SO FEW OUT THERE AND THOSE 26 LICENSES REALLY HAVEN'T FOUND A LOCATION OR A PLACE.

WE MIGHT NOT NEED TO BE THE LEADER IN THIS.

WE ALSO KNOW THE RISKS WITH PROP 207.

IF WE MOVE FORWARD AND WE DON'T LIKE THE RESULTS, IT'S HARDER TO TAKE IT BACK.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, TO CONSIDER AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY FUTURE TEXT AMENDMENT.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE COULD CONSIDER IS SHOULD THE REQUEST FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT COME FROM THE INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES DIRECTLY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF WORKING WITH NOBLE HERB, WHO WORKS HERE LOCALLY.

THEY WANTED TO EXTEND THE HOURS.

THEY HIRED AN ATTORNEY.

WE WORKED THROUGH THAT TEXT AMENDMENT TOGETHER.

ANYBODY IN THE INDUSTRY CAN COME IN AND DO THE SAME THING.

THEY CAN COME IN AND PROPOSE THAT WE ALLOW RECREATIONAL USE ONLY.

AND THEN AGAIN, WE WOULD BE WORKING WITH AN INDUSTRY OR BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL THAT KNOWS THEIR BUSINESS AND CAN HELP US ALONG IN THAT TEXT AMENDMENT, BUT BASICALLY ALLOW THAT PUSH FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO COME FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR SIMILAR TO THE LAST TEXT AMENDMENT WE DID.

AND LASTLY, IF WE, IF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD AT THIS POINT IN TIME, SHOULD WE REWRITE THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALL MARIJUANA RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS? AND LIKE I SAID, IF WE REQUIRE IT FOR ADULT USE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REQUIRE IT FOR THE DUAL LICENSED AND JUST MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES.

ALL OF OURS ARE DUAL LICENSED.

CURRENTLY IN MY DISCUSSION WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE BUSINESSES, THEY WEREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT BECOMING LEGAL NONCONFORMING, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WOULD BECOME IF WE REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AND OF COURSE, THE OPTION IS IS ALWAYS THERE FOR THEM TO APPLY FOR ONE SHOULD THEY WANT TO EXPAND.

BUT I MEAN, NOBLE HERB HAD JUST COMPLETED A MAJOR NEW RENOVATION.

SO, IF THAT IS, ON THAT LAST OPTION IF THAT'S THE ROUTE WE WANT TO GO, I DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I WILL NEED TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE AND I WILL NEED TO GO BACK OUT AND VET IT WITH THE PUBLIC.

I WILL NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND HOLD THE WORK SESSIONS, HOLD COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS.

AND SO I WOULD EXPECT IT WOULD BE LATE SPRING OF NEXT YEAR WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SOONEST THAT THAT COULD MOVE FORWARD.

AND THEN IT GETS THROWN IN THE MIX OF OTHER, LOTS OF OTHER AWESOME PRIORITIES THAT WE HAVE.

SO WITH THAT, I WOULD LOVE TO GET DIRECTION ON WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO.

IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO CONTINUE TO DIG AND GET MORE INFORMATION.

I KNOW I'M ONLY SCRATCHING THE SURFACE.

THERE'S SO MUCH TO LEARN ABOUT THIS.

[03:50:02]

THANK YOU. I DO HAVE COUNCILMEMBER ASLAN WITH A COMMENT.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, TIFFANY.

THIS IS VERY FASCINATING.

IT'S ALSO VERY CONCERNING TO ME.

I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY SECRET OR SURPRISE THAT I'VE BEEN SKEPTICAL OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS THE LAST COUPLE OF TIMES WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

AND MY SKEPTICISM AND MY CONCERNS HAVE ONLY INCREASED AFTER LISTENING TO YOU TONIGHT.

I FIGURED THIS VOTE WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, ACTUALLY, BASED OFF OF WHAT FOLKS AT TELEGRAPH AND PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS.

BUT I'M NOT SO SURE RIGHT NOW AND I HOPE COUNCIL WILL TAKE THESE HESITATIONS VERY SERIOUSLY.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS WILL LOOK LIKE FOR FLAGSTAFF, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS AND FIGURE IT OUT AND MAYBE SEE HOW IT'S GOING IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND MAKE A DECISION THEN.

I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHY IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE RUSHING INTO THIS AND I WOULD VERY MUCH CAUTION ADVOCATE FOR MORE CAUTIONARY APPROACH. AND THERE'S TWO ARGUMENTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FAIRLY COMPELLING IN FAVOR OF ADULT USE PERMITS THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS RIGHT NOW.

AS WITH A CRITICAL EYE.

AND ONE OF THEM IS THAT IF WE DON'T DO THIS, THE COUNTY WILL AND WE LOSE ALL THAT REVENUE, TAX REVENUE.

I JUST, I'VE ALWAYS HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS, AND I'VE FAILED TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE WHY.

AND HERE'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON.

YOU KNOW, FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS AND LONGER HAS INVESTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESOURCES, ENERGY AND EFFORT INTO RAISING THE AGE TO BUY TOBACCO WITHIN THE CITY FROM 18 TO 21.

UM, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE TURNING OUR BACKS ON THIS RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THESE ARE VERY, VERY PARALLEL CONVERSATIONS, AND WE NEED TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO OPEN UP FLAGSTAFF MUNICIPALITY TO MORE PERMITS AT THIS TIME.

AFTER WE JUST WENT THROUGH AN EXCRUCIATING, AGONIZING AND LENGTHY MARATHON PROCESS OF GETTING TOBACCO AGE RAISED TO 21.

THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT FOR NOT DOING THAT WAS THE REVENUE THAT WE WERE GOING TO LOSE.

AND I REMEMBER SAYING THAT I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE INNARDS OF OUR YOUTH TO BE TARRED FOR THE SIMPLE TAX REVENUE THAT IT GENERATES.

I THINK I SPOKE A BIT MORE ELOQUENTLY ABOUT IT AT THE TIME, BUT THE POINT REMAINS THIS REALLY SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT HOW MUCH INCOME OR REVENUE IS GENERATED FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

THESE ARE LARGER QUESTIONS.

AND I'M NOT HERE TO VILIFY MARIJUANA.

I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE PRESENCE OF NOBLE HERB IN OUR COMMUNITY IS NOT PROBLEMATIC.

I THINK IT'S A SIGN OF THE TIMES THAT WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT ERA WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS PERMISSIBLE AND CONSIDERED AN AMENITY TO THE TO THE COMMUNITY.

BUT FACING THIS.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

THE FRUSTRATION I HAVE IS THAT THIS CONVERSATION IS BEING BASED AROUND ALL THE MONEY THAT WE COULD LOSE BY NOT DOING THIS.

AND I JUST THINK THAT'S THE WRONG CONVERSATION TO HAVE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SUBSTANCE THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO ONE WE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF RESOURCES TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE HANDS OF TEENS.

SO JUST PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.

THESE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORTH THIS EVENING REALLY DO RAISE ADDITIONAL FLAGS FOR ME.

AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING TO END, BUT IF WE MAKE CONCRETE DECISIONS TONIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ALL THIS STUFF WE CAN'T TAKE THAT STEP BACK. AND I THINK THE MORE CAUTIONARY APPROACH, AN APPROACH THAT ALLOWS THIS PROCESS TO PLAY OUT AND FOR US TO LEARN FROM THE BEST PRACTICES THAT ARE OUT THERE.

AND WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT BY THE, N THE TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION THAT WE AS A CITY ARE LEARNING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE DETAILS

[03:55:09]

AND HOW THOSE AFFECT THE LANDSCAPE.

SO LET THAT PROCESS PLAY OUT A LITTLE BIT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE RUSHING INTO THIS, EXCEPT THAT WE DON'T WANT THE COUNTY TO MONOPOLIZE THE POTENTIAL REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED FROM THESE OPPORTUNITIES.

AND THAT'S NOT THE REASON WHY WE SHOULD RUSH INTO IT.

I'LL LEAVE MY COMMENTS THERE FOR NOW AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATION.

THANK YO COUNCILMEMBER.

COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

WHEN WE SAY ADULT USE ONLY, THAT MEANS RECREATIONAL ONLY, RIGHT? AND IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU TOLD US TONIGHT, WHICH IS NEWS TO ME, IS THAT WE COULD ALLOW RECREATIONAL ONLY.

AND YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE A SOCIAL EQUITY LICENSE TO GET RECREATIONAL ONLY LICENSE.

IN OTHER WORDS. I DON'T SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GIVING PREFERENCE TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BROKEN THE LAW.

THAT'S THE CONCEPT BEHIND THE SOCIAL EQUITY PROGRAM, WHATEVER.

BUT IF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT A PERSON COULD GET A RECREATIONAL ONLY LICENSE AND NOT DO IT THROUGH THE SOCIAL EQUITY PROGRAM.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE 26 LICENSES THAT EXIST FOR RECREATIONAL ONLY WERE LIMITED TO SOCIAL EQUITY APPLICANTS. THAT'S STILL TRUE? YES. SO BASED ON THAT, I DON'T SUPPORT RECREATIONAL ONLY LICENSES IN FLAGSTAFF. COUNCILMEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

FIRST OF ALL, I BEG TO DISAGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER ASLAND'S ACCOUNT OF THIS DISCUSSION ON T 21.

IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION IN COUNCIL THAT HAD THAT QUESTION.

COUNCIL INTEND TO ADOPT THAT POLICY BECAUSE OF TAX REVENUES.

I REMEMBER I WAS THE ONE ON COUNCIL WHO POSED THE QUESTION ABOUT CONSIDERATION TO ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY, BECAUSE IF OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS WHO ARE BELOW THE AGE OF 21, OR WHO ARE BELOW THE AGE OF 21, CAN FIGHT AND DIE TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY, PERHAPS THEY DESERVE THE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY TOBACCO.

SO THERE WAS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT QUESTIONING THE INTENT OF INCREASING THE AGE OF, THE MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT TO BUY TOBACCO AT 21.

AND FOR THIS MATTER, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT HAS TO BE ADULT USE ONLY, A MINIMUM OF 21.

I DO SUPPORT IF AND WHEN COUNCIL WILL APPROVE A, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND TEXT AMENDMENT IS TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALL MARIJUANA RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT.

HOWEVER, I ACTUALLY AM LEANING TOWARD THE SECOND BULLET POINT, WHICH IS THE TEXT AMENDMENT NEEDS TO BE DRIVEN, INITIATED BY AN INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE OR BUSINESS OWNERS.

BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE INDUSTRY, THEY KNOW THE LEGALITIES OF THE INDUSTRY STATEWIDE.

SO, I HOPE I HAVE PROVIDED A CLEAR COMMENT AND DIRECTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ASLAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST A QUICK REPLY TO THAT.

SO I ABSOLUTELY DO REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION AND THE RESPONSE THAT I GAVE, WHICH ACTUALLY HADS SOME NATIONAL LEGS

[04:00:08]

TO IT IN TERMS OF THE MEDIA COVERAGE.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT WE SHOULD NOT RAISE THE AGE OF TOBACCO AND FLAGSTAFF BECAUSE WE WOULD LOSE REVENUE WASN'T ONE THAT WAS DISCUSSED AMONG COUNCIL.

IT WAS THE TOBACCO LOBBYISTS WHO WAS BEGGING US TO CONSIDER THAT POINT.

SO THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT'S BEING MADE BY THOSE WHO WANT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE BY SELLING THESE SUBSTANCES TO OUR COMMUNITY.

AND IT IS NOT ONE THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS BEST FOR FLAGSTAFF.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN RAISE REVENUE AND THERE ARE WAYS IN WHICH WE SHOULDN'T BE RAISING REVENUE.

AND I BELIEVE THIS CASE FALLS INTO THE LATTER CATEGORY, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WE MAKE AS WE MAKE A VERY HISTORIC, VERY CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION ABOUT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS WHEN WE COULD OTHERWISE BE TAKING A MUCH MORE STEPWISE APPROACH TO IT AND SEEING HOW THINGS ARE GOING I N A GRADUAL FASHION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYER.

THANK YOU, TIFFANY, FOR THE PRESENTATION AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR THEIR DISCUSSION SO FAR.

COUNCILMEMBER ASLAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING IN TERMS OF A GRADUAL APPROACH.

I THINK THAT'S FINE.

I'M OPEN TO WHAT OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THINK TOO.

I'M KIND OF, YOU KNOW, NOT TOO RIGID WITH MY THOUGHT ON THIS TOPIC.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND STAFF, IS THAT WE HAVE TWO ESTABLISHMENTS VERY MUCH ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN/DOWNTOWN SIDE OF TOWN.

AND SURE, MAYBE OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS WILL OPEN OUT ON THE COUNTY BORDERS ALONG THE EAST SIDE.

BUT I THINK I VIEW IT AS A LENS OF ACCESS AND EQUITY IN TERMS OF THE LOCATION PLACEMENT.

AND THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT ADDRESSED THROUGH RECREATION ESTABLISHMENTS ONLY OR DUAL OR A SOCIAL EQUITY LICENSES. I DON'T KNOW IN TERMS OF HOW TO CREATE THAT BALANCE.

DO I THINK IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW? I DON'T.

I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE A HURRY TO GET IT DONE.

I ALSO THINK WE CAN LEARN FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES AND OTHER TOWNS AND OTHER STATES, RIGHT ? COLORADO BEING RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

SO I DO SEE VALUE IN LEARNING FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE IN TERMS OF BEST PRACTICES.

I ALSO AM INTRIGUED TO LEARN ABOUT OTHER TOWNS AND OTHER STATES THAT HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS.

SO I GUESS COUNCIL, THAT'S MY $0.02.

AGAIN, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE LOCATION OF THE TWO ONLY STORES IN TOWN CURRENTLY AND HOW IT ONLY SERVES A CERTAIN POPULATION OF TOWN IN TERMS OF EASY ACCESS.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR NOW. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER HOUSE.

I THINK COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY MIGHT BE PERFORMING.

CORRECT. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

JUST A BRIEF COMMENT.

WHEN I LISTEN TO MS. ANTOL'S PRESENTATION, THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THAT REALLY STUCK OUT TO ME.

AND ONE WAS THAT ONCE WE MAKE A ZONING CHANGE, BECAUSE OF PROP 207, THE OTHER PROP 207, THAT WE'RE STUCK WITH IT FOREVER.

WE, IN EFFECT, CANNOT GO BACK.

SO BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING, WE OUGHT TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER HOUSE.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

SO I AM IN AGREEMENT ON, I'M JUST READING THROUGH THE STAFF DIRECTION QUESTIONS.

I'M IN AGREEMENT ON THE FIRST THAT YES, I BELIEVE WE CAN DELAY THIS CONVERSATION.

NOT EVEN NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE'RE WATCHING FOR MORE CITIES TO ADOPT, THOUGH.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WISDOM IN THAT.

BUT I ALSO, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILMEMBER ASLAN THAT THERE IS NOT A RUSH ON THIS.

I AM SOMEWHAT TORN ON THE SECOND QUESTION.

SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT RUNS THE RISK OF SOME OF THE POTENTIAL.

I WAS GOING TO SAY CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT I MEAN.

BUT THERE'S SOME RISK, I THINK, IN ALLOWING THE, ALLOWING OUR DECISION TO BE GUIDED BY INDUSTRY

[04:05:03]

REPRESENTATIVES, THOUGH I DO THINK THAT THAT GOES ALONG WITH MANY OF THE WAYS THAT WE MAKE DECISIONS IN TERMS OF OF BEING GUIDED BY THE REQUESTS THAT COME FROM BUSINESS OWNERS.

SO I'M TORN ON THAT ONE.

I THINK THE THIRD QUESTION KIND OF WEIGHS, OR IS WEIGHED BY THE FIRST PROBABLY THAT I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO DO A REWRITE UNTIL WE ARE REALLY READY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

SO THAT'S KIND OF MY DIRECTION OR THOUGHTS ON THOSE THREE QUESTIONS.

I DO HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SOCIAL EQUITY LICENSES.

I THINK THAT'S A BIT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE TONIGHT.

BUT I DO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE HAD A VERY, FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN TERMS OF HAVING POSITIVE IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES THAT WERE DISPROPORTIONATELY NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY PRIOR LEGISLATION.

HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE LICENSES DID NOT NECESSARILY GO TO THE COMMUNITIES THAT THEY WERE MEANT TO IMPACT IN THE LOTTERY DRAWING FOR THOSE.

SO THAT'S MY, I GUESS, COMPLICATION WITH THE CONSIDERING OF SELS.

THAT SAID, I THINK ALL OF THAT GOES BACK TO THE THE BASIC COMMON AND FEELING OF YES, THERE IS NO NEED TO RUSH THIS.

I CERTAINLY THINK THAT WE CAN DELAY.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WISDOM TO LOOKING AND SEEING THE IMPACT ON OTHER COMMUNITIES.

FOR EXAMPLE, MS. ANTOL, I WAS THANKFUL FOR THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE ABOUT THE COMPLICATIONS THAT AROSE IN TUCSON WITH THEIR CHANGE AND ADOPTION AND HAVING TO IMMEDIATELY GO BACK AND REWORK THINGS BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES.

SO I WOULD RATHER US NOT FALL INTO THAT SITUATION OF HAVING TO GO BACK AND BE TRYING TO FIGHT THROUGH REVISIONS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO REALLY THINK THROUGH ALL OF THE POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND I'M GOING TO WEIGH IN REAL QUICK.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THE INFORMATION.

AND YOU'RE DIGGING DEEP AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I DO AGREE WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN A HURRY.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THIS IS FINALLY GOING TO LAND, BUT I AM OKAY WITH DELAYING TO A FUTURE DATE AND AND SEEING WHAT UNFOLDS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

ALTHOUGH I MADE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, I GUESS I NEVER ADDRESSED YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

SO ON THE FIRST ONE, YES, NO HURRY.

DELAY IT FOR TEN YEARS.

I DON'T CARE. ON THE THIRD ONE.

YEAH. I THINK A CUP WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE IDEA.

THE MIDDLE ONE. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.

THANK YOU. OK.

THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO 12 OR 13.A.

[A. Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A Citizens' Petition to adopt Option 2 of the proposed culvert improvements at HWY 180 and Schultz Creek to complement the Schultz Creek detention basin and provide relief to flood-beleaguered and vulnerable neighborhoods and use available funds and strive for completion before the 2023 monsoon season to protect people and property STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council direction. ]

A CITIZENS PETITION TO ADOPT OPTION TWO OF THE PROPOSED CULVERT IMPROVEMENTS AT HIGHWAY 180 AND SCHULTZ CREEK TO COMPLEMENT THE SCHULTZ CREEK DETENTION BASIN AND PROVIDE RELIEF TO FLOOD IMPACTED AND VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND USE OF AVAILABLE FUNDS AND STRIVE FOR COMPLETION BEFORE THE 2023 MONSOON SEASON TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

SO I THINK THE DISCUSSION FOR TONIGHT IS SHOULD WE TAKE THIS UP AS AN AGENDA ITEM AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IT? AND I AM FINE WITH THAT.

BUT I THINK SOME OF THESE DECISIONS LIKE OPTION TWO, I THINK WE KIND OF WEIGHED IN ON THAT ALREADY, OR AT LEAST WE HAD A STAFF PRESENTATION ON IT AND HOW WE FUND THIS PROJECT.

LET'S SEE, DIDN'T WE HAVE A DISCUSSION EARLIER TONIGHT ABOUT FLOOD, YOU KNOW, STORMWATER FEES.

AND IT SEEMS THAT THAT DISCUSSION AND THIS ARE THE SAME.

SO ANYWAY, THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT IS I WOULD SUPPORT A DISCUSSION ON IT, BUT IT CAN'T BE SO MUCH COUNCIL DRIVEN AS IT SHOULD BE STAFF DRIVEN

[04:10:07]

WITH COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE STAFF INPUT.

SO I DO SUPPORT HAVING A DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

I DIDN'T WANT TO TRUNCATE THE COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION OF THIS, BUT MAYBE MY COMMENTS WILL HELP INFORM THAT DISCUSSION.

I SEE NO DOWNSIDE IN KEEPING THIS FAIR ITEM MOVING FORWARD, AND THAT'S THE ACTION ITEM THAT COUNCIL NEEDS TO CONSIDER HERE.

I ALSO WOULD ECHO COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY'S COMMENTS OF JUST NOW.

STAFF OBVIOUSLY IS TREATING THIS AS A HIGH PRIORITY.

FUNDING IS ON THE WAY AND IT DID APPEAR IN ALL OF THE OPTIONS BEFORE YOU IN YOU EARLIER DISCUSSION.

EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE WITH ADOT TO FURTHER THE DISCUSSION AND EVEN ARRIVE AT A PARTNERSHIP.

SO THERE'S LITTLE DOWNSIDE IN HAVING THIS MOVE FORWARD.

BUT PLEASE REST ASSURED THAT IT ALSO HAS ITS OWN LEGS WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED TONIGHT.

SO IT'S MOVING FORWARD ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE IN HAVING THE FAIR ITEM ADVANCED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

AS FOR THE THE FAIR ITEMS RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT OPTION TWO, I BELIEVE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY DONE THAT IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED CULVERTS IMPROVEMENT ON HIGHWAY 180 AND SCHULTZ CREEK.

I AM SCHEDULED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING THIS FRIDAY TO PUT FORTH FUNDING FOR FLOOD MITIGATION ON HIGHWAYS 180 AND 89 AS TOP OF MIND.

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE MOVING THIS FORWARD TO A FAIR ITEM JUST TO KEEP IT GOING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND I, TOO, WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS FAIR ITEM FORWARD.

SO I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE THREE TO KEEP THIS MOVING.

THANK YOU. WE ARE DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER 14, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY.

SO ON TO 15, INFORMATIONAL ITEMS TO AND FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL AND STAFF AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS.

[15. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS TO/FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND STAFF, AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS]

AND I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH COUNCILMEMBER HOUSE.

THANK YOU. MADAM VICE MAYOR, I HAVE NOTHING THIS EVENING, BUT THANK YOU FOR RUNNING THIS MEETING.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SHIMONI.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS.

LAST WEEK, I GOT TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER NAU CLASS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE REALLY TAKEN PRIDE IN DOING OVER THE YEARS, AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING I'VE BEEN EXCITED ABOUT. BUT I BRING THAT UP JUST BECAUSE I OFTEN ASK A CLASS HOW MANY PEOPLE ENGAGE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR VOTE OR HAVE ATTENDED A COUNCIL MEETING.

AND RARELY DOES A HAND GO UP.

IN THIS PUBLIC HEALTH CLASS IT WAS LIKE 90% OF THE CLASSES HANDS WENT UP WHEN I ASKED IF THEY HAD BEEN TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

AND PARTIALLY THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE TEACHER'S ENGAGEMENT AND EMPOWERMENT.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, TYING THIS TO THE RECENT ELECTIONS, THE GENERATION Z AND THE YOUTH OF TODAY ARE MORE ENGAGED IN A WAY THAT IS NEW AND CHANGING POLITICS.

AND I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT AND JUST BE PART OF THAT AND TO WITNESS THAT.

SO JUST SHOUT OUT TO THE NEXT GENERATION, GENERATION Z AND ALL THOSE TEENS WHO ARE WAKING UP TO THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL POLITICS.

SO THAT WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY I HAD TO SPEAK TO THAT CLASS THIS THURSDAY.

I HAVE TWO EVENTS FOR NACA ON MY CALENDAR FOR THIS WEEK AND MAYBE SOMEONE CAN CORRECT ME IF I HAVE THIS WRONG.

BUT THIS THURSDAY FROM 9:30 A.M.

TO 4:30 P.M., NACA'S PUTTING ON AN UNSHELTERED SYMPOSIUM, I THINK, AT MESA.

AND THEN SATURDAY THERE'S A PANEL DISCUSSION TITLED FEAST AND ROUND DANCE FOR UNSHELTERED RELATIVES FROM 10 TO 3 P.M., ALSO PUT ON BY NACA AT SINAGUA. SO I NEED TO CONFIRM THAT THOSE ARE BOTH EVENTS ARE STILL HAPPENING, BUT THEY'RE BOTH ON MY CALENDAR FOR THIS WEEK AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO ATTENDING AT LEAST ONE OF THEM. BUT COUNCIL, GOOD WORK TODAY, LEADERSHIP, STAFF, PUBLIC.

THAT WAS A LONG MEETING.

AND VICE MAYOR, SPECIAL SHOUT OUT TO YOU.

YOU DID A GREAT JOB.

THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.

[04:15:04]

I'M GOING TO GO NEXT.

I DO WANT TO THANK STAFF AND MY COLLEAGUES FOR HELPING ME ALONG TONIGHT.

IT WAS A FUN RIDE AND I WILL BE ATTENDING THE ALLIANCE MEETING THIS FRIDAY.

LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

AND THANK YOU AGAIN, EVERYONE.

COUNCILMEMBER MCCARTHY.

WELL, THANK YOU VICE MAYOR.

GOOD MEETING. THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT.

WE DID IT. COUNCILMEMBER ASLAN.

NOTHING TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND COUNCILMEMBER SALAS.

THANK YOU, MADAM VICE MAYOR.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO GIVE OUR MADAM VICE MAYOR SUITE BE GRATEFUL, HEART, FOR PRESIDING THE MEETING TONIGHT.

AMAZING WORK THERE.

THANK YOU. AND I HAVE REALLY EXERCISED MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE DAIS.

AND I BEG YOUR INDULGENCE BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK.

SO ADVANCE HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO EVERYONE.

I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC, TO STAFF LEADERSHIP AND MY COLLEAGUES.

I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE SUPPORT OF VOTERS, VOLUNTEERS AND DONORS.

I AM THANKFUL FOR THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE GREATER FLAGSTAFF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, FLAGSTAFF LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION, THE LOCAL 1505 UNITED FLAGSTAFF FIREFIGHTERS AND LOCAL 469 ARIZONA PIPE TRADES.

WE KNOW THE ELECTION RESULTS.

SO COME HELL OR HIGH WATER I REMAIN DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF MISSION TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.

I CONTINUE TO LEAD THE STATEWIDE ADVOCACY FOR STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN RURAL ARIZONA, FROM FREDONIA TO YUMA UNTIL MY TERM ENDS ON COUNCIL IN MID DECEMBER, IN A MONTH.

I RAN AS A WRITE IN CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL TO OFFER FLAGSTAFF VOTERS THE INDEPENDENT CHOICE, THE CHOICE THAT SPEAKS OF CONTINUING BALANCED LEADERSHIP AND PROVEN EXPERIENCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A HIGHLY PERFORMING ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER FOR FOUR YEARS.

THE CHOICE WHO LOOKS AND LISTENS TO ALL SIDES ON ANY ISSUES AND FOSTERS CONSENSUS AND DOES NOT CAPITALIZE ON DIVISIVE AND POLARIZING VIEWS FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

THE CHOICE THAT BRINGS.

SORRY, I LOST MY NOTE HERE.

THE CHOICE THAT BRINGS THE STRONG VOICE FOR BUSINESS SUCCESS, JOB GROWTH, HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, ALONG WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.

THE CHOICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CHAMPION OF TEAM FLAGSTAFF FROM DAY ONE AND A STEADFAST VOICE FOR SUCCESSION PLANNING AND EMPLOYEE RETENTION FOR OUR EMPLOYEES AT THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

THE CHOICE IS GENUINELY INDEPENDENT FROM PARTISAN POLITICS, MACHINATIONS AND IDEOLOGICAL DOGMATISM IN A SUPPOSEDLY NONPARTISAN ELECTION. RUNNING AS AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WAS MORE CHALLENGING AND REQUIRED EFFORTS MULTIPLE TIMES COMPARED WITH CANDIDATES BACKED BY A WELL-OILED OR WELL OILED PARTY MACHINERY.

IN A BIZARRE TURN OF EVENTS TEN DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, MY FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM ACCOUNTS WERE SUSPENDED AND I WAS BANNED FROM CREATING NEW ACCOUNTS. I DID MY BEST CAMPAIGNING AS AN AUTHENTIC, INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WITH MY HECTIC SCHEDULE AS AN INCUMBENT COUNCIL MEMBER AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF A SMALL GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS.

MY DEDICATION TO MY RESPONSIBILITIES ON COUNCIL REMAINED MY TOP PRIORITY.

I'M THE ONLY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HOLDS PERFECT ATTENDANCE FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

ALWAYS FULLY AND PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS.

LOOKING AHEAD, I WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY ON ARIZONA AT WORK COCONINO WORKFORCE REPRESENTING SMALL BUSINESS TO AWARD WORK BASED TRAINING AND THE PIPE DREAM TO ESTABLISH THE PIPE TRADES APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CENTER IN NORTHERN ARIZONA.

I AM FOREVER GRATEFUL FOR BEING ABLE TO SERVE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITY AS A COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

AND AS I EMBARK ON MY JOURNEY WHEN I STEP DOWN AS A COUNCIL MEMBER AFTER THE DECEMBER 13 MEETING, I FIND SOLACE AND HOPE

[04:20:09]

IN POPE JOHN PAUL IIS WISDOM AND I QUOTE, "IN THE DESIGNS OF PROVIDENCE THERE ARE NO MERE COINCIDENCES." THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

I'M NOT READY TO SAY GOODBYE.

SO. GOODBYE.

THAT WAS BEAUTIFULLY SAID.

THANK YOU. AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING IN YOUR STATEMENT.

SO WITH THAT, MEETING ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.