Jan 16, 2024 City Council Meeting

LET'S START WITH, JILL STEVENSON.

COME ON DOWN.

HELLO, I'M BACK AGAIN WITH THE TOPIC THAT I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US THE CLIMATE.

SO MY NAME IS JILL STEVENSON, AND THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

I'M SURE YOU WERE PLEASED WITH ALL THE SUPPORT THAT WAS SHOWN FOR THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN, WHICH THE COUNCIL AND CITIZENS AND STAFF FORMULATED SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

I HOPE THAT YOU WILL KEEP THE GOAL OF THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN IN YOUR MINDS WITH EVERY DECISION THAT YOU MAKE.

WHETHER IT'S OKAYING A NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, OR APPROVING PURCHASES FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS, OR GIVING THE GO AHEAD TO NEW ROAD PROJECTS, THE GOAL OF NET ZERO CARBON BY 2030 SHOULD BE BEHIND EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE.

ARE WE SUPPORTING A COMPANY THAT LENDS MONEY TO OR ENSURES FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES? ARE WE BUYING FROM A BUSINESS THAT ENCOURAGES SINGLE USE PLASTICS? ARE WE IN SOME WAY IGNORING FOOD WASTE OR OVER USE OF WATER? THE CITY IS DOING SO MUCH TO EDUCATE CONSUMERS IN WATER AND ENERGY CONSERVATION.

THESE PROGRAMS ARE EXCELLENT.

OUR CITY RECYCLING PROGRAM IS ALSO GREAT, BUT MANY OF US COULD USE MORE CLARIFICATION REGARDING WHAT IS RECYCLABLE AND ASSURANCE THAT MOST RECYCLED ITEMS ARE ACTUALLY RECYCLED.

I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS WHERE PEOPLE JUST AREN'T SURE.

WE ALL NEED TO KEEP LESSENING OUR CARBON FOOTPRINTS, BUT YOU FOLKS HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE BIG POSITIVE IMPACTS FOR US ALL. PLEASE USE YOUR POWER WISELY IN THE INTEREST OF ALL LIFE IN FLAGSTAFF AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

NEXT WE HAVE OUR LIBRARY DIRECTOR, LINDA TILSON.

[00:05:02]

THANK YOU, JOE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE TO YOU OUR NEW DEPUTY LIBRARY DIRECTOR, WHO WILL OVERSEE COUNTY SERVICES AND ALSO SERVE AS COUNTY LIBRARIAN.

DAMARIS HILL IS COMING OUR WAY FROM LAWRENCEBURG, KENTUCKY, WHERE SHE WAS A LIBRARY DIRECTOR.

AND I'M JUST SO DELIGHTED TO HAVE HER HERE.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY A WORD OR TWO, DAMARIS? SURE. I WAS VERY EXCITED TO BE CHOSEN FOR THIS POSITION.

I KNOW SOME OF YOU ALL HAVE HEARD ME SAY THAT I HAD NEVER BEEN WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI UNTIL LAST SEPTEMBER.

AND WE FLEW INTO PHENIX AND STARTED AT THE GRAND CANYON AND ENDED AT TOMBSTONE.

AND I FELL IN LOVE WITH THE BEAUTY OF THIS STATE.

SO I WAS VERY EXCITED TO BE CHOSEN, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AND PROVIDE SERVICE TO EVERYONE IN THE COUNTY.

WELCOME TO THE MOUNTAINS.

SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

[5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS]

COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND START OVER AT THAT END.

COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET. THANK YOU.

NOTHING FOR ME TODAY.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS.

BPAC AND THE BIA GRANTEES WILL CELEBRATE UPCOMING BIA PROJECTS AT ARTISTS CREATED MINIATURE GOLF AT COCONINO CENTER FOR THE ARTS.

I DID PROVIDE, MORE INFORMATION FOR ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IT IS SUNDAY, JANUARY 28TH.

TEE TIME IS 3 TO 430.

IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF FUN AND I WILL BE THERE ALSO.

ARTS, SCIENCES AND CULTURE GRANTEES CELEBRATION WILL BE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31ST, 5 TO 7 P.M.

THESE B-B-B FUNDED GRANTS ARE THE CORE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM ADMINISTERED THROUGH CREATIVE FLAGSTAFF.

AT THIS OPEN HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL ART AND SCIENCE FUND GRANTEES WILL BE PRESENT AND I WILL BE THERE AS WELL.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST FOR METROPLAN, THE COMMUNITY PAINTING EVENT FOR CHESHIRE'S LOW STREET ASPHALT ART PROJECT IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 18TH.

I KNOW THAT'S A LITTLE WAYS OFF, BUT I HOPE YOU WILL MARK YOUR CALENDARS.

THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO REALLY SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS.

IT'S BEEN A LOT OF POSITIVE PUBLIC, COMMENT AND METROPLAN WOULD LIKE TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR THEIR EXPERTISE, INCLUDING INPUT FROM ARTS AND BEAUTIFICATION, SUSTAINABILITY, STREETS AND OTHERS.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, PARTICULARLY TO DAVID LEMKE FOR HIS TIME DRAFTING, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AND IDENTIFYING THE PAINTING AREAS.

THIS IS A REALLY FUN PROJECT AND I HOPE YOU ALL CAN JOIN ME FOR THAT.

AND ONE LAST THING.

THE WATER COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH I WILL BE ATTENDING IS THIS THURSDAY, 4 P.M.

IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYTHING TO ADD ABOUT METROPLAN OR YOUR OTHER ACTIVITIES? WELL, I JUST THANK MISS SWEET FOR POINTING OUT THE GOOD WORK METROPLAN IS INVOLVED WITH.

THEY DON'T DO IT ALL. WE WORK IN COOPERATION.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THOUGH.

THANK YOU. WONDERFUL.

AS FOR MYSELF, I ATTENDED THE YEARLY THE ANNUAL TOURISM COMMISSION RETREAT.

RIGHT. RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE YEAR.

IT WAS RIGHT AFTER OUR FIRST SNOWFALL OF THE YEAR.

SO, FOR ME AS AN AUTHOR, IT WAS KIND OF A NICE METAPHOR FOR A CLEAN SLATE AND A NEW BEGINNING.

THERE WAS LOTS OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PRIORITIES AND THE AND THE AND THE BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS, FOR TOURISM FOR THE YEAR.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE UPDATES.

BUT I WE DID WELCOME A COUPLE NEW COMMISSIONERS ON BOARD.

WE HAD THE MEETING AT THE AIRPORT, WHICH WAS A NICE CHANGE OF SCENERY AND A GREAT SETTING ROOM WAS A LITTLE SMALL, BUT WE MANAGED TO MAKE IT WORK.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND LEAVE IT THERE.

THANK YOU. IT'S A COUNCIL MEMBER.

HARRIS, ARE YOU WITH US? YES, I AM.

GO AHEAD. I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS.

YEAH, I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF.

I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT OPEN SPACE MEETING.

IT WILL BE JANUARY 22ND, WHICH IS A MONDAY.

AND IT'S IT WILL BE IN THE CHAMBER.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AT 5 P.M..

AND THERE'S A HOT TOPIC, THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE ALREADY STARTED RECEIVING EMAILS ABOUT.

[00:10:05]

AND THAT'S ACCESS THROUGH THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

I MEAN, MESA OBSERVATORY, MESA, TO SOME PRIVATE LANDS.

SO THEY'LL GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION AT THAT MEETING.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO LET COUNCIL KNOW, SO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LAST WEEK WAS OUR MONTHLY KHJK MEETING.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT TO JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, MENTAL HEALTH, SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

AND I CONTINUE TO BE IMPRESSED WITH THIS GROUP.

WE THEY REALLY DO A GREAT JOB OF WORKING ON JUST A LOT OF ISSUES THAT CONCERN OUR COMMUNITY.

LAST WEEK WAS NO EXCEPTION.

WE HAD, A GREAT PRESENTATION FROM A GOVERNMENT AGENCY ABOUT HELPING US IMPROVE OUR TRANSPARENCY, NOT ONLY NOT ONLY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE, INFORMATION LIKE NUMBER OF ARRESTS, WHAT TYPE OF ARREST, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET THROUGH THE SYSTEM, BUT ALSO TO ALL THE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISIONS, WHETHER, AGAIN, IT'S THE POLICE OR PROSECUTORS OR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY COGS IN THE WHEEL AND SEE WHERE MAYBE, PEOPLE ARE GETTING MAYBE STUCK IN THE SYSTEM.

AND WE KEEP THAT FLOWING PRETTY DARN WELL.

SO WE CONTINUE TO STRIVE FOR EXCELLENCE.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'RE DOING A REALLY GREAT JOB.

SO THANK YOU.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG HERE TO AGENDA ITEM.

[A. Consideration of Appointments: Water Commission STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Make one appointment to a term expiring December 2025. Make three appointments to terms expiring December 2026.]

NUMBER. OH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT NUMBER IT IS.

SIX A. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WATER COMMISSION TODAY, AND I WILL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE JOHN NEWMAN, AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THE TERM IN FRONT OF ME.

CITY CLERK. CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT? WE HAVE DECEMBER 2026 AND DECEMBER 2025.

OH IS OPTIONS CORRECT? OKAY. SO I WILL NOMINATE JOHN NEWMAN TO A TERM ENDING DECEMBER 26TH.

I THINK THAT'S I DON'T.

I NEED A SECOND. CORRECT.

YEAH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE.

AYE. AYE.

NEXT WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE KURT RIGGLEMAN.

I APOLOGIZE IF I'M SAYING THAT INCORRECTLY, BUT TO A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 2026.

I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET. WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

THAT PASSES. AND LET'S MOVE ALONG HERE TO COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEW'S.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. I HAVE A QUESTION.

WITH THE MAYOR ABSENT.

ARE WE GOING TO JUST SKIP OVER ONE NOMINATION? IF SHE'S NOT HERE IN THE NEXT 30 OR 40S? YES, THAT'S WHAT WE WILL DO.

TRYING TO STALL AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, BUT.

THAT KIND OF CHANGES WHAT I EXPECTED TO BE.

ALL THE APPLICANTS WERE VERY WELL QUALIFIED.

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT REACHING OUT.

I USUALLY LIKE TO TALK WITH THE APPLICANTS, BUT I DIDN'T GET THE INFORMATION UNTIL LATE, SO, BUT IT WAS A REAL EASY DECISION.

EVERYONE HAS GREAT QUALIFICATIONS, SO I'M GOING TO STEAL THE THUNDER HERE.

I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE MAYOR, AND I KNOW THE OTHER PERSON WILL BE NOMINATED AS WELL.

BUT ROBERT DILDAY TO A TERM ENDING 12 OF 26.

I'LL SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

LET'S VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, I OH.

GO AHEAD. IF THE MAYOR COMES IN A LITTLE LATER, CAN WE BRING THIS BACK UP? CITY CLERK. WE CERTAINLY COULD.

I DID SPEAK WITH THE MAYOR EARLIER TODAY, AND SHE HAD JUST SUGGESTED PUSHING IT OFF TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE FEBRUARY 6TH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE FOR HER APPOINTMENT.

[00:15:01]

CORRECT. WE'LL PROBABLY JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

I THINK A BETTER HOUSEKEEPING.

OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO SEVEN, LIQUOR LICENSE, PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[A. Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Matthew Patrick Dyer, "Southside Tavern," 117 S. San Francisco, Series 06, Owner Transfer. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors.]

WE'RE GOING TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE.

THE. CURRENT.

LIQUOR LICENSE THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED.

OFFICER, DO YOU HAVE ANY, MAJOR COMMENTS FOR US? I DO, IF YOU IF YOU COULD JUST SAY THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.

SO I THOUGHT I KIND OF DID THAT, BUT, YOU SAID WE'RE GOING TO HOLD ONE, BUT YOU GOT TO OPEN.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS HEREBY OPEN.

GOOD AFTERNOON, VICE MAYOR.

COUNCIL. I'M KEVIN SAPP.

I'M A LIEUTENANT WITH THE FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I HAVE ONE APPLICATION TO PRESENT.

IT'S AN OWNER TRANSFER.

IT'S A SERIES SIX, WHICH IS A BAR LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SOUTH SIDE TAVERN, LOCATED AT 117 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

IT'S. HIS NAME IS MATTHEW DYER, AND I FOUND NO DEROGATORY REMARKS FOR HIM.

DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION.

I APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE FOR NOT BEING THERE IN PERSON, BUT DID YOU SAY THAT IT'S A TRANSFER? CORRECT. IT'S A OWNER TRANSFER.

YES. AND I'M SORRY.

IT'S TRANSFERRING FROM, CRAIG, WHO IS A PRIOR OWNER, AND HE'S HERE AS WELL.

AND IT'S TRANSFERRING TO MATTHEW DYER.

IS THAT THE CURRENT OWNER.

THE CURRENT OWNER IS CRAIG.

OH, GREG. AND OKAY, I'M CONFUSED.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS GREG TRANSFERRING IT TO.

WHO'S TRANSFERRING WHAT TO WHERE? SORRY. CRAIG IS TRANSFERRING THE SERIES SIX BAR LICENSE TO MATTHEW DYER.

THANK YOU. WELCOME.

WELL, AS ALWAYS, I WANT TO THANK CRAIG AND THE AND MATTHEW FOR BEING HERE IN CASE THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS.

I DON'T SEE ANY.

OH, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY HAS SOMETHING TO SAY.

YES. MR. DYER, COULD YOU COME UP? AS YOU, I ASSUME YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS COUNCIL SINCE 2019 HAS BEEN, DISCUSSING, BAR NOISE ISSUES.

AND WHAT IT TURNS OUT IS THAT IT'S NOT ALL BAR NOISE.

IT'S JUST BARS THAT HAVE OUTDOOR.

AND I'LL STRESS THE WORD OUTDOOR LIVE MUSIC OR RECORDED MUSIC AND, I, YOU KNOW, IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION, I BELIEVE THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE YES ON THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE FOR YOU.

BUT I AND I ALSO WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO REACH OUT WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND TO TRY TO WORK THINGS OUT WITH THEM.

IN TALKING TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, THERE'S BEEN LIKE, FOUR OWNERS OR FOUR.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE AN OWNER OR A JUST AN OPERATOR, BUT FOUR PEOPLE RUNNING THIS BAR, THE ONE THAT YOU'RE THINKING OF TAKING.

AND SOME OF THE OWNERS HAVE BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE AND SOME HAVE NOT BEEN.

AND. I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU TO BE COOPERATIVE WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WHEN PEOPLE CANNOT LITERALLY CANNOT SLEEP IN THEIR OWN BEDS BECAUSE OF THE.

THE NOISE IS SO LOUD.

I KNOW OF THREE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACTUALLY MOVED FROM THIS GENERAL AREA THAT YOU'RE AT BECAUSE OF OUTDOOR BAR NOISE. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, ARE YOU WILLING TO KIND OF REACH OUT AND AND AT LEAST TALK TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS AND TRY TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE ISSUES BEFORE, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL IS GOING TO GET INTO THIS ISSUE.

BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN MAYBE RESOLVE A LOT OF THE ISSUES BEFORE WE HAVE TO COME DOWN WITH A HAMMER.

SO. YEAH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM REACHING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND, YOU KNOW, INTRODUCING MYSELF AND ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES.

AND I DO PLAN ON KEEPING ALL OF THE THE REGULATIONS THAT CRAIG HAD IN PLACE.

THE, YOU KNOW, THE SPEAKERS ARE ON A TIMER TO TURN OFF AT TEN.

THE BACK DOOR AUTOMATICALLY CLOSES EVERY NIGHT.

AND WE HAVE A DECIBEL READER TO TO MONITOR THE VOLUME THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT AS WELL.

SO I HAVE NO INTENTION OF BECOMING A NUISANCE TO THEM.

AND I'M AWARE OF THE ISSUES, AND I'M DOING MY BEST TO AVOID ANY ISSUES WITH THE WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

[00:20:05]

BUT YEAH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM REACHING OUT OR IF THEY WANT TO COME TALK TO ME AS WELL.

I MEAN, I'M THERE EVERY DAY, SO ALL RIGHT, THEY CAN JUST COME TO THE BAR TO TALK TO YOU.

YEAH, YEAH, I HAVE MAYBE BUY A BEER WHILE THEY'RE THERE.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO KIND OF WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT REALLY IS AN ISSUE.

I MEAN, WHEN PEOPLE MOVE BECAUSE OF THE NOISE, WHAT MORE CAN THEY DO? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MATTHEW.

AND, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY, FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME TO DO SO, IF YOU WANTED TO BEFORE WE, FINALIZE THIS, I WANTED TO INVITE THE PUBLIC TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS THEY WISH TO DO.

SO I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS, BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE NIBBLING ON THAT.

SO, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, SEE IF WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.

I HEREBY FORTHWITH DO ANNOUNCE THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

YOU FORGOT. HEAR YE, HEAR YE! RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING I DID IT IN MY HEAD.

NOW WE CAN TAKE ACTION HERE.

DO I HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATION? VICE MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE STATE WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

THIS IS COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

I'LL SECOND. WONDERFUL.

WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.

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

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NOPE. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS.

AND MOVING ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[8. CONSENT AGENDA All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine. Unless a member of City Council expresses a desire at the meeting to remove an item from the Consent Agenda for discussion, the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, expenditures approved by Council are budgeted items. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve the Consent Agenda as posted.]

THERE'S ONLY ONE ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

IT'S IT'S A CONSIDERATION OF AN ON CALL MAGISTRATE APPOINTMENT.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? VICE MAYOR. AS THIS IS A CONSENT ITEM, THERE IS NO FORMAL PRESENTATION.

OKAY, WONDERFUL.

DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ANY ANY RECOMMENDATION? VICE MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I'LL SECOND. WONDERFUL.

WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.

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

ANY OPPOSED.

OKAY. THAT APPROVAL ON THE OF THE ON CALL MAGISTRATE GOES FORWARD.

NOW WE'RE DOING ROUTINE ITEMS, CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 24.

[A. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-01: An ordinance of the Flagstaff City Council authorizing the acquisition of real property interests for a Flagstaff Urban Trail System alongside the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project; providing for delegation of authority, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, corrections, and establishing an effective date STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Read Ordinance No.2024-01 by title only for the final time 2. City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2024-01 by title only (if approved above) 3. Adopt Ordinance No. 2024-01]

DASH 20 2020 4-1, AN ORDINANCE OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR A FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAIL SYSTEM ALONGSIDE THE ROUTE OF FLAGG FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MR. INCE, YOU'RE UP.

I'M THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER FOR THE CITY.

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS MARTIN ENTZ.

WITH ME IS BRYCE DOTY, THE CITY'S REAL ESTATE MANAGER.

AND I'M GOING TO TAKE JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, ON THIS REQUEST, WHICH IS THE SECOND READ OF AN ORDINANCE.

SO THIS THIS IS ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE.

IT SHOWS THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE ORDINANCE GIVING US AUTHORIZATION TO PURSUE ACQUISITION TO THE BLOCK.

THE HATCHED PARCELS ARE THE PARCELS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ACQUISITION.

THE DARKER BLACK LINE IS THE ALIGNMENT OF THE PLAN FOOT'S TRAIL.

AND IF I ZOOM OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT, WHAT WE SEE HERE IN TURQUOISE IS THAT THE SAME SECTION OF FOOT'S AS THE IMAGE BEFORE.

BUT YOU CAN SEE THE THE LARGER CONTEXT OF THIS TRAIL PLANNED GOING ALL THE WAY FROM MALAPAI AND REALLY ROUTE 66 OR MILTON ALL THE WAY OVER TO RAILROAD SPRINGS.

SO AGAIN, THE SECTION IN QUESTION FOR THE ORDINANCE IS IN TURQUOISE ON THIS IMAGE.

ON THE EAST HALF AGAIN.

THE THE HASH HATCH PARCELS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE IN QUESTION FOR ACQUISITION.

AND THE DARK BLACK LINE IS THE PLAN FOOT'S ALIGNMENT.

IN THIS CASE, THIS IS ALL A LITTLE BIT EAST OF DOWNTOWN AND SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

SO IN THIS CASE, THE TWO PARCELS TO THE LEFT ARE BNSF PARCELS THAT WOULD BE ACQUIRED AS PART OF THE RIO DE FLAG PROJECT.

AND IT LEAVES THE LAST REMAINING PARCEL KIND OF TO THE TO THE RIGHT OF THE IMAGE FOR ACQUISITION.

AND AGAIN HERE, IF I ZOOM OUT HERE, WHAT'S SHOWN IN TURQUOISE ARE SEGMENTS OF THE FOOT TRAIL THAT WOULD BE PART OF EITHER THE RIO TO FLAG FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT OR THE LONE TREE

[00:25:01]

OVERPASS. AND WE HAVE WORK TO PLAN, KIND OF A CONTINUOUS SEGMENT OF TRAIL THAT HAS LOGICAL ENDPOINTS ON EITHER SIDE TO MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL. BUT AGAIN, WHAT'S WHAT'S SHOWN IN PURPLE WOULD BE THE THE LENGTH OF THAT TRAIL FOR WHICH WE'VE ASKED FOR ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

AND IF I ZOOM IN ON THAT LAST PARCEL, THIS IS THE THIS IS THE BUILDING IN QUESTION.

AND HERE WHAT'S SHOWN IN TURQUOISE IS THE AREA THAT WE WOULD REQUEST FOR AN EASEMENT FOR A FOOT TRAIL, AS WELL AS A MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD FOR THE RIO CHANNEL.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BIGGER CONTEXT.

TO GET BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, THIS IS THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

THE ORDINANCE WOULD GIVE US AUTHORITY TO PURSUE ACQUISITION OF THOSE PARCELS THAT WE NEED FOR THE FOOT'S TRAIL ALONG THOSE TWO SEGMENTS.

WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FROM SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT ABOUT THE TRAIL.

TYPICALLY AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS, WE'RE WE'RE JUST GETTING ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

WE DON'T HAVE A FINAL DESIGN FOR THOSE TRAILS.

WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT.

AND WE KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME WORK TO DO WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED IN ANY OF, OF THEIR CONCERNS, ARE RESOLVED. AND YOUR GIVING THE SECOND READ TONIGHT OF THAT ORDINANCE WILL ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND START TO WORK OUT THE DESIGN AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION HOW, IN TERMS OF TIMELINE AND THE THE COMPLETION AND SUCCESS OF THE RED FLAG PROJECT, AND SPECIFICALLY THINKING ABOUT BNSF'S ROLE IN THIS.

I KNOW THEY HAVE VERY, VERY TIGHT AND AND VERY, SPECIFIC, HOOPS THEY HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH AND IN ORDER TO WEAVE THIS NEEDLE, HOW HOW CRITICAL IS IT THAT WE MOVE THIS ALONG, IN, IN A VERY TIMELY MANNER? I'LL ADDRESS A PART OF IT, AND THEN I'LL LET BRYCE ADDRESS THE REST OF IT.

BUT WHAT IF THE IF THE CITY ACQUIRES THE BNSF PARCELS IN FEE SIMPLE.

THEN WE WILL HAVE THE RIGHTS TO BUILD THE TO BUILD THE FOOT'S TRAIL.

AND WE CAN DO THAT AT OUR OWN PACE AFTER THAT ACQUISITION IS COMPLETE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. LET ME GO BACK.

ONE SLIDE FORWARD.

REALLY, THE GENESIS OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS REALLY WE HAVE NEEDS FOR THE FLAG FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT RIGHT NOW.

SO WE HAVE OFFERS OUT ON THE OWNERS THAT ARE COVERED BY THIS TURQUOISE LINE.

AND WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO WAS, WELL, WE KNOW THAT THERE IS THE FOOT'S COMPONENT AND THE REGIONAL PLAN.

LET'S TRY WHILE WE'RE ALREADY HAVE OFFERS ON THE TABLE, WHY WE'RE NEGOTIATING.

CAN WE FOLD SOME OF THESE OFFERS IN WITH A FOOT TRAIL SO THAT WE CAN ALSO GET THOSE AT THE SAME TIME? SO THAT WAS REALLY KIND OF THE GENESIS OF THIS WAS LET'S MAKE SURE WE CAPTURE ALL OF THOSE NEEDS FORMALLY IN A REQUEST SO THAT WE CAN AMEND OUR OFFERS AND, AND BASICALLY CUT CHECKS IF WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH OWNERS SO THAT THAT'S REALLY THE THE URGENCY OF IT WAS REALLY WE ALREADY HAVE OFFERS OUT FOR THE RIGHTS WHAT WE DO NEED. LET'S, LET'S TACK THESE ON AS WELL.

I THANK YOU, MR. ASLAN. I'M AWARE THAT.

CERTAIN AT LEAST ONE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS STILL, AND I'M VERY RESPECTFUL OF THAT.

I WILL SAY THAT I SEND OUT AN EMAIL, OVER THE WEEKEND WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THE PACKET AND ANYA FROM, OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, SHE AND I BOUNCE BACK AND FORTH 3 OR 4 TIMES.

AND WHAT I CAME TO REALIZE IS THAT BASICALLY ALL THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS ALLOW US TO NEGOTIATE.

AND IF THERE IS A SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION TO WRITE A CHECK, AS YOU SAID, AND CLOSE IT OUT.

THIS ORDINANCE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY TO DO EMINENT DOMAIN OR ANY.

OTHER, VERY ASSERTIVE MEASURES TO TAKE THIS LAND.

IF IT CAME TO THAT, THAT WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL.

SO BECAUSE OF THAT UNDERSTANDING, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS TONIGHT.

SO THAT THE STAFF CAN GO AHEAD AND NEGOTIATE, MAKE OFFERS AND TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS I'LL HAVE TO SAY.

AND THEN IF WE CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATE A SOLUTION, THEN WE WILL DO A DEEPER DIVE INTO THIS.

IT WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL, AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE WHAT TO DO AT THAT POINT.

[00:30:01]

BUT I'M HOPEFUL THAT BECAUSE OF THIS ORDINANCE BEING PASSED AND, A COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE ON BOTH SIDES, WHICH I ANTICIPATE, WE CAN WORK THIS OUT.

AND SO THEREFORE I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THIS TONIGHT.

MARTIN, IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MY COMMENTS, PLEASE FEEL FREE.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

YOU ARE CORRECT.

IT IT AUTHORIZES US THE ABILITY TO TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN.

WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR ANY OF THOSE RIGHTS.

SO YOU ARE CORRECT, AND I DO WANT TO JUST COME BACK TO THIS LAST ONE.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IN TERMS OF VALID REASONS AND VALID QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH.

YOU KNOW, AS MARTIN MENTIONED IN THE FIRST READ, THE IDEA FOR THIS PUTS WAS WE DO HAVE A MAINTENANCE ROAD THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE A FOOT THAT IS GETTING BUILT BY THE RIO DE FLAG. SO THE HAPPY, HAPPY MEDIUM THERE OR HAPPY COINCIDENCE WAS, HEY, LET'S USE THAT AS A FOOT.

AND SO THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES WITH PROPERTIES, AND WE HAVE TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF THE CITY AND THE NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WITH THE FOOTS.

AND THAT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, THAT LEADS TO A WHOLE HOST OF DESIGN OPTIONS, EITHER DESIGNING A BRIDGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT, WHAT WE REALLY, THIS ORDINANCE REALLY JUST DOES IS ALLOW US TO START HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS IF WE GET TO AN IMPASSE, OUR INPUT IS GOING TO BE TAKEN TO YOU, AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE A FINAL DECISION OF HOW BEST TO BALANCE ALL THE NEEDS.

ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD WITH YOUR FOLLOW UP.

SO, I.

AT THIS POINT.

THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN MY MIND, SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE THIS UP TO STAFF TO DO THE NEGOTIATING.

HOWEVER, IF IT COMES TO EMINENT DOMAIN BEING NECESSARY OR SOMETHING THAT I WILL GO OUT AND WALK IT AND MEET WITH THE LANDOWNER.

I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THAT THE IDEA OF A BRIDGE THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE PACKET, IS ON THE ORDER OF $1 MILLION IS PROBABLY IMPRACTICAL.

SO I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN FIND SOME SOLUTION SHORT OF BRIDGES.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU SAID THAT, THIS TURQUOISE AREA IS GOING TO ALSO BE THE SERVICE ROAD FOR THE RIO DE FLAG PROJECT, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. SO IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE.

LET'S SEE IF MARTIN CAN KIND OF USE HIS CURSOR HERE.

BUT IN BETWEEN THE THE GRADING LINE, SO IS A 15 FOOT MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS ROAD THAT THE RAIDER FLAG FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT IS BUILDING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

AND AND I ECHO THE COMMENTS OF COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

I AM HIGHLY CONCERNED FOR OUR ESPECIALLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOLKS.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THAT AROUND HERE.

AND WE NEED IT.

AND I DON'T WANT TO.

CREATE A PROBLEM.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO GREAT, POSITIVE, COOPERATIVE, NEGOTIATIONS.

AND JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE WON'T BE PUSHING THE ENVELOPE WITH AN INTIMATE DOMAIN WITHOUT DISCUSSION UP HERE.

SO I WILL TRUST THAT WE WON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS OF WHAT THOSE THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD MENTIONED THEIR CONCERNS AT THE FIRST READING.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND SO I'M, I'M CURIOUS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET PAST THAT, WITH WHAT HAPPENS BACK THERE.

AND THEY'RE UNLOADING AND LOADING AREAS.

SO LOOK FORWARD TO I'LL SUPPORT IT FOR NOW, BUT DEFINITELY HAVE MY EYES ON THAT.

THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN.

AND I DID NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HERE AS WELL.

AGAIN FOR THE SECOND READING.

I NOTICED THAT AS WELL.

CITY CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENT PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS FOR THIS ITEM? I HAVEN'T HAD ANYTHING TURNED IN RIGHT NOW.

NO. HE HAD SUBMITTED A WRITTEN COMMENT WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED THROUGH TO EVERYBODY.

OH. OKAY SO MY APOLOGIES.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE HE DOES WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE A VERBAL PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH WE CERTAINLY CAN ENTERTAIN.

THAT IS CERTAINLY FINE WITH ME.

BEFORE YOU LEAVE, PLEASE FILL OUT THE PROPER YELLOW PUBLIC COMMENT CARD FOR OUR RECORDS.

BUT YOU CAN COME ON UP IF YOU WANT TO.

AND PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

I APOLOGIZE FOR FILLING OUT THE WRONG CARD.

YELLOW CARD.

MY NAME IS JUSTIN CLIFTON.

1000 EAST BUTLER AVENUE, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, 86001I AM ONE THIRD OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION.

[00:35:08]

THAT'S ACTUALLY UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.

MY PARENTS BOUGHT THIS BUILDING IN 1973.

I'VE GIVEN YOU THIS SPIEL AT THE LAST MEETING.

THE LAST MEETING HAPPENED RIGHT BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS.

THE HOLIDAYS HAVE PUSHED US THROUGH TO NOW.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL, CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF SINCE THAT MEETING.

AT THAT LAST COUNCIL MEETING, WHEN YOU DID THE FIRST READ, WE HAD INDICATED, YOU KNOW, OUR WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE THESE CONVERSATIONS FORWARD, WITH CITY STAFF TO COME UP WITH A, A REASONABLE SOLUTION HERE.

IT'S OUR CONTENTION, AND IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN OUR CONTENTION THAT THESE TWO USES ARE INCOMPATIBLE.

I MEAN, THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, AND THIS TINY LITTLE SLIVER THAT THEY'RE SHOWING AS THE AREA FOR ACQUISITION IS A VERY MISLEADING GRAPHIC FOR YOU BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHT TO YOU THE WAYS IN WHICH IT'S GOING TO IMPACT A NUMBER OF ASPECTS OF OUR BUSINESS DAY TO DAY BUSINESS, BUT ALSO AGREEMENTS WE ALREADY HAVE WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF IN THE FORM OF EASEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FROM US BACK IN 2010 AS PART OF THE RIO DE FLAG PROJECT.

SINCE 2007 OR EARLIER, WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, TAKING PARTS OF OUR LAND THROUGH FOR SALE.

WE HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ON THIS RIO DE FLAG PROJECT, AND NOW THIS NEW FOOT'S PROJECT IS COMING TO US, WHICH IS GOING TO FURTHER IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO DO BUSINESS AS LANDLORDS, TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TENANTS.

THIS BUILDING SERVED OUR FAMILY IN BUSINESS FOR MANY YEARS.

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, MY IT'S BEEN IMPERATIVE FOR MY FAMILY TO PASS ALONG THE WEALTH THAT THAT FLAGSTAFF HAS GIVEN US BY OFFERING LOWER RENTS TO THESE INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIES TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE HERE IN FLAGSTAFF.

THIS SIGN UP HERE TALKS ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND ALL I EVER HEAR IN FLAGSTAFF.

QUALITY OF LIFE IS BUILD MORE TRAILS.

THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE QUALITY OF LIFE.

WELL, YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE GOOD JOBS SO PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VARIETY OF JOBS SO PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.

AND YOU NEED LANDLORDS LIKE US THAT GIVE PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IN AN AFFORDABLE PLACE FOR THEM TO RENT IN THE HEART OF FLAGSTAFF.

AND THIS FOOT TRAIL PUTS A LOT OF THAT AT RISK DIRECTLY THROUGH OUR PROPERTY.

AND I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THAT THE ESTIMATE ON THE BRIDGE MIGHT BE FAIRLY CLOSE, BUT I'VE SEEN BIDS ON BRIDGES LIKE THAT AT ABOUT $1,100 A LINEAR FOOT FOR A NICE STEEL FOOT BRIDGE TO GO ACROSS WAYS.

SO I THINK THAT WITH SOME INGENUITY IT COULD BE DONE FOR A LOT LESS.

IT LOOKS LIKE MY TIME IS ALMOST UP, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE THIS FORWARD TO A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE TIME TO MEET WITH CITY STAFF TO FURTHER DISCUSS THIS, RATHER THAN APPROVING THIS OUTRIGHT TODAY, BECAUSE I HAVE A FEELING THAT WE WILL BE BACK HERE IN FRONT OF COUNCIL TALKING ABOUT CONDEMNATION, BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY WE'RE GOING TO AGREE TO THE FOOT TRAIL AFFECTING OUR BUSINESS.

THANK YOU. JUSTIN.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL.

ANY OTHER OBSERVATIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

SO, BRYCE.

AGAIN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IF WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, IT THEN IS WHAT YOU NEED TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM UNLESS WE'VE APPROVED FOR YOU TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE CAN HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITHOUT APPROVING THE ORDINANCE.

THE THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS US TO CLOSE TRANSACTIONS.

SO IF WE DID PASS THIS, THEN ANY OF THE PARCELS THAT ARE ON THE ORDINANCE AND WE DID AGREE TO, THEY AGREED TO SELL US A FOOT TRAIL EASEMENT, THEN WE COULD CLOSE THOSE TRANSACTIONS.

OKAY. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DECIDE HERE TODAY, I'D REALLY LIKE TO COME OUT.

I'M A VISUAL, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE SEMIS UNLOADING AND REALLY JUST HAVE A VISUAL LOOK AT THE IMPACT AND THE RISK AND THE CONCERNS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAS.

SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT AND SEND ME AN INVITE.

AND I'D LOVE TO COME OUT AND REALLY UNDERSTAND BECAUSE SLIDES CAN BE A LITTLE DECEIVING.

THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT AT SCALE ARE THEY'RE AT SCALE.

BUT YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BLUE LINE LOOKS VERY MINIMAL HERE.

RIGHT. SO IT WOULD REALLY HELP ME TO SEE BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN I DON'T WANT TO.

PUT SOMETHING AND GIVE UP ONE THING JUST TO GAIN ANOTHER THING.

SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED AND AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN FIGURE THIS OUT.

[00:40:02]

THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN AND I ECHO ALL OF YOUR STATEMENTS, AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU GUYS ARE THE POLICY MAKERS AND DECISION MAKERS.

WE'RE JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION TO MAKE THE BEST DECISION TO BALANCE ALL THE RIGHTS.

CAN YOU, IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES, WHAT ELSE IS ON THE TABLE BESIDES A BRIDGE, FOR EXAMPLE? SOME, SOMETHING GRADED AT INTO THE CONTOUR JUST BEYOND THE PROPERTY LIMIT. MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE LOWER DOWN.

MAYBE IT'LL FLOOD SOMETIMES.

I MEAN, THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE.

I DON'T WANT TO BE PRESCRIPTIVE.

WHAT ARE THE UNIVERSE OF POSSIBILITIES THAT EXIST BEYOND A BRIDGE AND BEYOND BUILDING IN THE SPACE THAT IT'S CURRENTLY SLATED? AND I KNOW THERE'S PIE IN THE SKY RIGHT HERE.

YEAH, I KNOW THERE'S SOME BEEN SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT IN THE PAST, BUT HERE WE ARE NOW, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT IT AGAIN.

WELL, YOU KNOW, CANDIDLY, VICE MAYOR, WE HAVE NOT SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES.

YOU KNOW, AS WE SAID BEFORE, THIS REALLY JUST GIVES US THE ABILITY TO TO DO THE NEGOTIATIONS.

AS BRYCE POINTED OUT, WE WERE BEING OPPORTUNISTIC TO TIE, OUR ACQUISITION OF FUTURE RIGHTS TO THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS FOR THE RIO DE FLAG.

SO WHEN THERE'S WHEN THERE ARE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE CAN DO THEM BOTH AT THE, AT THE SAME TIME.

HAVING SAID THAT, JUST THE THINGS THAT HAVE CROSSED OUR MIND.

YOU ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A BRIDGE.

THEY DO TEND TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT. WE DON'T HAVE THAT BUDGET BUDGETED.

THAT WOULD BE AN EXPENSE THAT WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR AND WHAT ELSE WE WOULDN'T PAY FOR IF THAT WERE GOING TO BE THE CASE.

I THINK THERE ARE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES OF, OF IS IT POSSIBLE TO GRADE INTO THE CHANNEL TO MOVE THE TO MOVE THE ROAD AND FUTURE FOOT'S TRAIL TO SOMEPLACE WHERE IT WOULD BE LESS IMPACTFUL TO THE PROPERTY? AGAIN, THAT THAT THAT ME SAYING THAT IS ABOUT AS MUCH THOUGHT AS WE'VE GIVEN THAT THAT POSSIBILITY THAT'S GOING TO INVOLVE THE CORPS AND, AND, OTHER THINGS AS WELL. I WILL SAY WE'RE OPEN TO LOOKING AT ALL THOSE POSSIBILITIES.

WE, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANT TO GET THE RIGHTS FOR THE TRAIL TO GO ON TOP OF THAT ROAD, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO BE CREATIVE.

AND TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE THOSE, SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.

DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE.

I THINK YOU DID.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.

IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS AT THE MOMENT, I'M CHECKING THE CHAT.

AND, CITY.

CITY CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE NOTE THAT MAYOR DAGGETT IS PRESENT AT THIS POINT? SHE'S CATCHING UP, AND I'M SURE SHE'LL TAKE OVER HERE IN A MINUTE.

YOU KNOW WHEN WHEN A BUSINESS OWNER OR A PROPERTY OWNER COMES TO US WITH CONCERNS, I, I WEIGH THAT VERY HEAVILY.

I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION TO TAKE INTO THE OVERALL TOTALITY OF INFORMATION WE NEED TO GRAPPLE WITH.

SO I AGREE WITH OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE STATED, THOSE CONCERNS.

I. I QUESTION A BRIDGE NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF COST, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE PRECEDENT IT COULD SET AND THE SORT OF CONSIDERATION THAT MIGHT COME FORWARD FROM OTHER PROPERTY OR OWNERS DOWN THE ROAD FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

IF THIS IS A ONE OFF, MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ACHIEVE.

BUT AGAIN, IN TERMS OF SETTING A PRECEDENT, I'M NOT SURE IT'S FAIR.

IN TERMS OF FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ON DIFFERENT PROJECTS, I DO KNOW THAT THE BNSF AND THIS WHOLE RIO DE FLAG PROJECT, I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL FOR FIVE YEARS NOW.

I'VE SEEN THE CITY IS STRUGGLING TO WEAVE THIS NEEDLE, TO MOVE THESE THINGS FORWARD.

IT'S IT'S VERY, VERY, IT'S A FRAGILE PROCESS.

AND I ALSO NEED TO WEIGH THAT.

I NEED TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THAT.

I'M GLAD THAT THERE'S TIME FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD ON ALL CYLINDERS AT THIS POINT WHERE WE CAN, VOTE TODAY TO, MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY TO, START JUST DOTTING THEIR I'S AND CROSSING THEIR T'S WITH RESPECT TO THIS.

AND THERE'S WE'RE NOT WE'RE ALSO NOT, PREVENTING OR PRECLUDING A PARTICULAR ALTERNATIVE OUTCOME THAT MIGHT SATISFY THE BUSINESS OWNERS. I DO THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS TODAY, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF GUMMING UP THE SYSTEM AND ENDANGERING ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE THE HOUSE OF CARDS THAT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS WHOLE PROJECT POSSIBLE WITH SO MANY DIFFERENT MOVING PARTS.

I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAVEN'T ALREADY HAPPENED.

[00:45:02]

IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S BEEN ABOUT A MONTH, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS THAN A MONTH, SINCE WE LAST TALKED AT COUNCIL ON THIS.

SO I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO ENGAGE WITH THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND, AND START STRATEGIZING AND GAMING OUT POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AS QUICKLY AS AS WE CAN.

SO I HOPE THAT CAN BE SET UP AND PURSUED IN THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, WEEK OR SO.

AND LET'S NOT KICK THAT CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WILL BE TO MOVE FORWARD.

I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS OR WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS.

THANK YOU. YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? YES. SO I'M WONDERING IF THE STAFF CAN SPEAK TO, BECAUSE I HAD THAT CONCERN AS WELL IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL RIO DE FLAG PROJECT, IS THIS, THIS POTENTIAL ACQUISITION, TIED INTO THAT PROJECT IS IS THE REAL PROJECT AT ALL TIED TO OR DEPENDENT ON THIS, PROSPECTIVE FOOT'S TRAIL, OR IS THIS AN ADDITION TO THAT PROJECT? THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN HOUSE.

THIS IS BRYCE. WE DO NEED, FOR THIS ACQUISITION.

WE DO HAVE EASEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE RIO DE FLAG FOOT, FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT.

THE FOOT'S COMPONENT IS NOT ONE OF THOSE.

WE ARE STILL WORKING WITH THE CORPS TO FIND THE RIGHT LANGUAGE OF WHAT THAT EASEMENT LOOKS LIKE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT THE BUSINESS OWNERS.

AND WE ONLY GET THE THE ACTUAL EXTENT OF EASEMENT RIGHTS THAT WE NEED.

AND THAT IS STILL IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

BUT THE FOOT'S IS, IS REALLY THAT'S NOT BEING PROGRAMED OR DESIGNED OR BUILT AS PART OF THE THE RIO PROJECT.

THE. HAPPENSTANCE OR THE LUCKY HAPPENSTANCE, IS THERE IS THIS MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD THAT IS BEING BUILT AS PART OF IT, AND THAT IF IT MAKES SENSE, WE CAN UTILIZE THAT AS A AS A FOOT IN THE FUTURE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND THAT, I THINK, IS MY BIG CONSIDERATION WITH THIS PROJECT.

COUNCIL. IS IF IF THIS IS DIRECTLY TIED INTO THE NEEDS OF THE REO, THEN I WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH VICE MAYOR ON THE NEED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MAY NOT BE, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OTHER EASEMENTS FOR THE RAIL PROJECT ARE, A SEPARATE ITEM.

I AM NOT AS PRESSED TO MOVE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM FORWARD, BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT JEOPARDIZES THE RIO PROJECT, AND I I'M HESITANT TO CONFLATE THE TWO.

IF IF THERE'S ROOM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RIO, WITHOUT TYING THIS IN IN A WAY THAT THAT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

WHEN THERE ARE STILL THESE CONCERNS.

IF I AM MISUNDERSTANDING THAT, BRYCE OR MARTIN, PLEASE CORRECT ME ON THAT.

BUT THAT'S JUST WHERE MY MIND IS AT ON THIS.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

I THINK IF WE WERE IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN, STALLING, THE FOOT'S PART OF IT, THAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE OUT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. IT'S NOT GOING TO SLOW DOWN OUR PLANS.

I WOULD RECOMMEND LEAVING INTACT THE PARCELS FOR THE WESTERN SEGMENT.

SO WE STILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE THOSE EASEMENTS AS THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARISE, EITHER AS PART OF THE RIO DE FLAG PROJECT OR AS A SEPARATE. AND KIND OF DIVIDE.

DIVIDE THE PARCELS UP.

AGAIN, THIS THE ONE IN QUESTION WON'T SLOW US DOWN.

THE REAL PROCESS DOESN'T RELY ON, AND IT WILL MOVE FORWARD.

OUR PLANS FOR OTHER FOOTS WILL MOVE FORWARD, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE OTHER EASEMENTS THAT, ARE PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MARTIN.

I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET AND ALSO COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS.

WELL. AND BEFORE MOVING.

BEFORE MOVING ON.

VICE MAYOR. APOLOGIES, BUT I DID SEE BOTH ANYA AND CITY MANAGER CLIFTON HAD THEIR HANDS UP, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE GOING TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION AS WELL. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THEM.

AND. YES, GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

[00:50:05]

AND, THIS IS ANYA WENDELL, SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

AND I'M SORRY I'M NOT THERE PRESENT, BUT I HAD THE FLU OVER THE WEEKEND, AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO INFECT ANY OF YOU.

BUT TO TO.

MARTIN ANSWERED.

MARTIN MADE THE POINT THAT I WISH TO MAKE, WHICH IS IF IF YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CLIFTON PARCEL AS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE, YOU WOULD JUST ASK THAT THIS PARCEL BE REMOVED FROM THE ORDINANCE, SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND AND CONTINUE FORWARD WITH, PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ON THE REST OF THE, EASEMENTS.

WE'D LIKE FOR THE TRAIL ALONG THE RIO DE FLAG.

AND DO YOU KNOW THAT PARCEL NUMBER? JUST BY CHANCE.

I'M NOT SEEING IT HERE IN THE.

WELL, I'M NOT I'M NOT PINNING IT DOWN.

YES, IT'S THIS 10407005.

WHY? OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S USEFUL INFORMATION WHEN IT COMES TIME TO FORMULATE A MOTION.

CITY MANAGER CLIFTON, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US REMOTELY FROM, TRYING TO GET HOME FROM YOUR TRAVELS.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD? THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON. GREETINGS, EVERYBODY.

SORRY. ALSO THAT I'M NOT THERE.

SOME TRAVEL DELAYS.

BUT I WILL BE HERE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING.

VIRTUALLY. I WOULD ECHO MARTIN'S COMMENTS AND THEN THOSE BY ANYA.

THERE REALLY IS NO COMPELLING NEED TO HAVE.

FORMAL ACTION ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL RIGHT NOW.

THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE US IN ANY WAY FROM HAVING, NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND WE WILL DO SO, IN, IN AND WE WILL DO SO DILIGENTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL.

BUT, TAKING THIS PARCEL OUT OF THE ACTION AND THEREBY GIVING US SOME TIME TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS A GREAT STRATEGY.

AND I THINK WE'D GET, GIVE EVERYBODY A LITTLE BIT OF PEACE OF MIND.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CITY MANAGER.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

SWEET. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS BEING HERE TONIGHT.

THAT REALLY HELPS. AND FOR THE CLARIFICATIONS.

LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION, I, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL FROM THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND REVISIT IT AFTER WE'VE HAD MORE TIME TO THINK AND BRAINSTORM ON HOW WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK, KNOWING THAT THIS WILL NOT SLOW DOWN THE RIO PROJECT, BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.

BUT I THINK THIS SEEMS LIKE A GREAT COMPROMISE.

I THOUGHT YOUR HAND WAS UP.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. MAYBE I WAS MISTAKEN.

THAT. WE CAN COME BACK TO HER.

COUNCIL MEMBER, MCCARTHY, YOU HAD ANOTHER COMMENT.

MY NAME IS MCCARTHY.

I SUPPORT PASSING THIS ORDINANCE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

BECAUSE ALL IT DOES IS GIVE AUTHORITY FOR OUR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE AN OUTCOME.

IF THE LANDOWNERS DON'T AGREE TO WHAT STAFF COMES UP WITH.

WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

SO THERE'S NO NEED TO TAKE THIS OUT BECAUSE IT'S IN EFFECT, IT'S OUT.

IF THE LANDOWNERS DON'T WANT TO AGREE TO THE WONDERFUL IDEAS THAT MARTIN'S GOING TO COME UP WITH.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT FORCING ANYTHING ON THEM, AND I'M OPTIMISTIC.

I BELIEVE THAT THE LANDOWNERS WITH A LITTLE BIT OF COOPERATION AND OUR STAFF WITH A LITTLE BIT OF IMAGINATION, CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE.

AND SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF KEEPING THE ORDINANCE JUST THE WAY IT IS IN PASSING IT.

AND THAT WAY, IF.

THE LANDOWNERS AND STAFF CAN NEGOTIATE SOMETHING, WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH IT AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL TWICE OR BACK AGAIN. BUT IF WE CAN'T COME TO A GOOD IDEA AND A COMPROMISE, IT'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL SO THERE'S NOTHING TO LOSE.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION, TOO.

I DON'T THINK THIS HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY STATED.

TODAY, I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED, BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

FOR ME, IT'S IT'S CRITICAL THAT THE FOOT'S TRAIL, ENJOYS, CONTIGUOUS, CONTINUITY.

[00:55:06]

SO WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE, PART OF THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION AND, AND VALUE DRIVEN PIECE OF THIS FOR ME IS THAT THE FOOT'S TRAIL HAS CONNECTIVITY THROUGH THIS AREA SOMEHOW.

SO I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT OUT LOUD.

I THINK WE WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THAT.

PART OF THE REASON WHY THIS IS SUCH A STICKY ISSUE IS THAT IT'S CRITICAL AND 100% NECESSARY FOR US TO TO FIGURE OUT A PATH FOR THE FOOT'S TO GO THROUGH THIS AREA.

AND I'M INTERESTED IN FINDING THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE THERE FOR SURE.

OUR, OUR MAYOR, WOULD LIKE TO HAS A COMMENT FOR US.

ACTUALLY, I WILL DEFER TO COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS, BECAUSE SHE STEPPED BACK IN.

BUT FIRST, I WOULD LIKE ANYA TO CLARIFY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY'S POINT.

I MAY HAVE HAVE MISSED THAT INFORMATION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION, BUT, IT IS WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY SAID.

CORRECT, ANYA.

VICE MAYOR DAGGETT. YES.

THE ORDINANCE IS WE WE ALWAYS ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO COMPLY WITH THEIR CHARTER, WHICH SAYS WE HAVE TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY.

THUS, IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IF IF CONDEMNATION IS NECESSARY, THEN WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY.

WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND.

STERLING READ IT OUT LOUD FOR FOR US THE LAST TIME.

AND MAYBE HE COULD DO SO AGAIN.

SO I'M NOT FLOUNDERING AROUND, BUT THAT THAT THAT'S A STANDARD PROVISION THAT WE'VE BEEN PUTTING IN ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES.

BECAUSE WHEN WE WHEN WE GO TO CONDEMN PER STATE LAW, WE HAVE TO OWN, WE CAN ONLY CONDEMN WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC USE, AND THE DESIGN HAS TO BE IN THE GREATEST PUBLIC GOOD AND THE AND THE LEAST PRIVATE INJURY.

SO WE HAVE A STANDARD WE HAVE TO MEET THAT REALLY TRIES TO BALANCE THE THE RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PUBLIC.

AND WE DON'T HAVE THE OFFICIAL, YOU KNOW, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OR THE OFFER YET.

AND IT DOES.

WE WILL NEED TO LOOK AT THE DESIGN MORE CLOSELY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HARM THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS, FOR THE CLIFTON'S PROPERTY.

AND IF WE DID HARM THEM AND IT WAS LIKE, NOT A SERIOUS HARM, WE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO CONDEMN IT.

SO BASED ON THAT STATUTORY TEST.

SO THAT'S A LONG WINDED ANSWER.

BUT YEAH, WE THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT GIVE THE CITY AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN WITHOUT COMING BACK TO YOU AND GETTING ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.

THANK YOU. ANYA. I THINK STERLING IS READY TO PERFORM FOR US HERE.

THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.

LAST TIME, I JUST READ THE LAST HALF OF THE SENTENCE, WHICH IS THE PERTINENT PART, BUT I'LL READ THE WHOLE SENTENCE TONIGHT.

THE PROPERTY INTERESTS MAY BE ACQUIRED THROUGH PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, GIFT, DONATION, DEDICATION, OR CONDEMNATION FOR A PUBLIC USE PROVIDED.

HOWEVER, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL ADOPT A SEPARATE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, THAT SATISFIES MY CURIOSITY ON THIS.

AND I'M FINDING MYSELF LEANING TOWARDS COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY'S MOST DIRECT, RECOMMENDATION HERE FOR FOR MOVING FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

BUT, COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS, I DID WANT TO CHECK IN WITH YOU TO SEE IF YOU HAD ANY COMMENT OR QUESTION.

AND NO, I DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION.

I HAD A COMMENT ONCE I GOT BACK AND SORRY ABOUT THAT.

YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING I SHOULDN'T SAY, THE ONLY THING.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I LIKE TO SAY IS THAT WHEN I FIRST READ THIS, I ASSUMED THAT WE WERE KIND OF GETTING PERMISSION TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE THINK THAT IT'S A DONE DEAL.

AND AM I MISSING SOMETHING? WHEN I READ THIS, WHEN I READ THE PACKET, IT SOUNDED LIKE WE WERE COMING TO THE COUNCIL SECOND READ TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION AND TO GO OUT AND START TALKING WITH PEOPLE ABOUT THIS.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE PEOPLE ARE THINKING THAT IT'S DONE.

IS THAT AM I MISSING SOMETHING? I THINK THE SALIENT POINT HERE IS THAT THE CITY HAS IN THE BOOKS DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO MOVE

[01:00:03]

FORWARD. THEY HAVE AUTHORIZATION.

IT DOESN'T MEAN ANY FINAL DECISION IS BEING MADE.

OKAY. OKAY. I WILL ABSOLUTELY DEFER TO, OUR STAFF TO CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

YES THAT THAT'S ACCURATE.

IT'S BEEN OUR OUR PRACTICE IN THE, IN THE PAST THAT WE COME TO COUNSEL AND GET AUTHORIZATION TO PURSUE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS OR PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR FUTURE TRAILS. I THINK THERE MIGHT BE OTHER OPTIONS FOR DOING IT.

LIKE LIKE I THINK THERE MAY BE AN OPTION THAT WE COULD REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEN BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL AND HAVE HAVE THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE ACQUISITION. WE CAN'T APPROVE ACQUISITIONS THAT THAT HAS TO BE DONE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

WE LIKE TO DO IT AHEAD OF TIME BECAUSE IT IT ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THESE ACQUISITIONS.

SO WE ALWAYS TIE OUR ACQUISITIONS TO OUR FOOT'S MASTER PLAN.

OF COURSE, WE TIE OUR OUR PRIORITY ACQUISITIONS TO OUR CAPITAL PLAN.

SO WE KNOW THAT THE TRAILS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS PRIORITIES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO GET DONE FIRST.

SO WE WANT TO WORK ON ACQUISITION TO GET THOSE ACQUIRED FIRST.

AND THIS PROCESS OF KIND OF BRINGING BRINGING THIS TO YOU AHEAD OF TIME ALLOWS THE COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC REALLY TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT, IN THAT PROCESS AND TO SEE WHAT WE HAVE IN MIND TO GO AFTER FOR ACQUISITIONS.

THAT DOESN'T SHORTCUT ANY OF THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH SUBSEQUENTLY, WHICH IS REACHING OUT TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND WORKING WITH THEM ON ACQUISITION.

AND, OVERALL, THE ACQUISITIONS FOR TRAILS THAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE YEARS, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A NEGOTIATION.

ULTIMATELY, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO AGREE TO GIVE US THE EASEMENT OR WE HAVE TO GO DOWN THE CONDEMNATION ROUTE.

IN MY TIME HERE, WE'VE WE'VE USED CONDEMNATION ON FOOT'S TRAILS TWICE.

BOTH IRONICALLY, FOR THE SAME TRAIL.

BUT IN ONE CASE, IT WAS OUR DUE TO OUR DEALINGS WITH, WITH A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WHOSE OWN RULES MADE IT DIFFICULT TO ACQUIRE AN EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY, WITHOUT GETTING PERMISSION FROM TWO THIRDS OF THE OWNER.

SO CONDEMNATION WAS SORT OF A WAY.

A FRIENDLY CONDEMNATION WAS A WAY OF OF WORKING WITH THAT.

AND THE SECOND ONE, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS WILLING TO PROVIDE US WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT WE JUST COULDN'T AGREE TO A PRICE.

AND SO ONE OF THE WAYS TO RESOLVE THAT IS TO GO THROUGH A CONDEMNATION PROCESS AND ALL THE OTHER ACQUISITIONS THAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE MANAGED TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS OR ALLEVIATE THEIR CONCERNS, OR GET TO A POINT WHERE IT WAS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TO BOTH PARTIES TO TO GRANT THAT EASEMENT OR THAT PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE CITY.

AND I CAN TELL YOU, SOME OF THEM HAVE NOT BEEN EASY.

WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH SOME PROPERTY OWNERS TO KIND OF WORK THEM THROUGH THE ISSUES AND THEIR QUESTIONS AND ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS, AND DO WHAT WE CAN WITH DESIGN OR OTHER FEATURES TO GET THEM TO THAT POINT.

BUT OUR APPROACH IN THOSE CASES IS THAT IS THAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY NEED TO BE WILLING TO SIGN THAT BOTTOM LINE OF GRANTING US THAT EASEMENT. WE DON'T WE DON'T QUICKLY GO TO CONDEMNATION.

WE DON'T GIVE UP ON THOSE NEGOTIATIONS OR THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OUR, APPROACH TO WORK AS BEST WE CAN WITH THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND THERE'S NO REASON TO THINK THAT YOU WOULD NOT CONTINUE YOUR SAME PRACTICE OF WORKING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO COME TO SOME AGREEMENT TO, YOU KNOW, LISTEN TO THEIR CONCERNS, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT ALL OPPORTUNITY, ALL OPTIONS.

THERE'S THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO THINK THAT THAT YOU WOULD NOT DO THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. QUITE SO, COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS.

OKAY, SO THEN, YOU'VE HEARD WHAT THE PROPERTY AND I HEARD THE LAST PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT.

AND I DO HEAR THE FRUSTRATION WITH THEM.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE HEARING THE SAME THING THAT I'M HEARING AND THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THE BEST THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF US WALK AWAY WITH AS MANY OF THE MARBLES AS WE POSSIBLY CAN WALK AWAY WITH, BUT STILL GET WHAT WE NEED TO GET DONE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS.

I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT FROM THE MAYOR, AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM A CITY MANAGER THAT YOUR HAND IS UP AGAIN.

OR WAS THAT? YES IT IS.

AND THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

NO. YEAH, I RAISED IT A SECOND TIME, AND I WILL DEFER TO OTHERS WHO WANT TO SPEAK, AND I'LL JUMP IN ON THE TAIL END.

THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S TAKE AN ORDER.

I DON'T WANT TO DRAG THIS OUT TOO MUCH LONGER, BUT DID YOU HAVE A SLIDE THAT SHOWS US, THE FOOT'S TRAIL, THE CONNECTIVITY OF WHAT

[01:05:07]

IT'S CONNECTING TO.

AND SO THE TURQUOISE IS THE NEW, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES.

AND ON THE THAT SIDE.

IS THERE ALREADY A FOOT TRAIL OR THAT WILL BE ANOTHER PHASE? THERE'S NOT A FOOT TRAIL.

PRESENTLY, PART OF THIS WOULD BE BUILT AS PART OF THE LONE TREE OVERPASS.

EVERYTHING KIND OF ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT IMAGE WOULD BE PART OF THE LONE TREE OVERPASS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST NEEDED THE VISUAL AGAIN.

I FORGOT WHERE IT WAS. THANKS.

MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MR. VICE MAYOR.

I, SO THE, THE THE CONCEPT OF THE FOOT'S CONNECTING IS REALLY EXCITING AND I AM COMPLETELY IN SUPPORT OF THAT.

WHAT I CAN'T SUPPORT IS AN EASEMENT.

THAT WOULD.

PREVENT THE, THE BUSINESS FROM OPERATING.

SO. IF THAT'S THE CASE.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT.

I WOULD ONLY SUPPORT IT IF IT WAS FOR THE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT.

AND I'M HEARING YOU SAY IT IS NOT FOR THE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, BUT, I JUST CAN'T SEE EFFECTIVELY PUTTING, A BUSINESS OUT OF BUSINESS FOR A FOOT TRAIL WHEN I KNOW THAT MARTIN IS THE MOST CREATIVE TRAILS PLANNER IN THE WORLD.

I'M NOT SURE, MARTIN, IF YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CONCUR WITH THAT OR, LET'S GO TO THE CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE CONVERSATION.

A QUICK COMMENT ABOUT PROCESS AND ONE THAT'S AN ATTEMPT TO, I THINK, WRAP SOME THINGS UP, SOME OUTCOMES THAT WE CAN ALL BE CLEAR ON.

ONE, WE DO NOT NEED THIS ACTION TONIGHT TO GIVE STAFF AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE.

STAFF CAN NEGOTIATE AT ANY TIME.

PROCEDURALLY, WE HAVE ALWAYS STARTED THESE TYPES OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH WITH.

CITY MANAGER. YOU'RE BREAKING UP A LITTLE BIT.

YEAH. CITY MANAGER, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU RIGHT NOW.

WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE AND FRUSTRATING BECAUSE I THINK YOU WERE ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING VERY WISE AND AND SALIENT.

AN ACCOUNT AS TO WHAT IT IS.

WELL, I'LL GIVE THIS A FEW SECONDS TO MAYBE WORK ITSELF OUT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT HE'S READING THE CHAT RIGHT NOW.

HE MIGHT BE ON HIS PHONE.

IT. IN ANY CASE, MADAM MAYOR, ARE YOU ARE YOU IN A PLACE IN THIS CONVERSATION WHERE YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE BACK OVER, OR ARE YOU STILL WOULD LIKE ME TO FINISH THIS ITEM? PLEASE FINISH THIS ITEM.

SO NOT SURE WHAT TO DO.

I DEFINITELY WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE CITY MANAGER ON THIS.

THANK YOU. JUST TO ADDRESS THE MAYOR'S COMMENTS, THIS ORDINANCE WILL NOT PUT ANYBODY OUT OF BUSINESS.

ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT.

ALL THIS DOES IS GIVE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE.

AND IF THERE IS A SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION TO, COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION, IF THERE IS NOT A A SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION, THEN THIS HAS TO COME BACK.

SO WE'RE NOT PUTTING ANYBODY OUT OF BUSINESS.

THAT'S EXTREMELY CLEAR.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THANK YOU. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.

AND I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR LOGIC.

I'M WONDERING IF WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE CAN CALL FOR A MOTION AT THIS JUNCTURE.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE THE CITY MANAGER.

I THINK WE'VE LOST HIS CONTACT.

[01:10:02]

SO HE LET ME GO AHEAD AND UPDATE YOU GUYS.

HE DID, APPEAR IN THE CHAT.

HE APOLOGIZED FOR THE POOR CONNECTIVITY.

AND HE SAYS STAFF CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH OR WITHOUT ACTION ON THIS PARCEL TONIGHT.

IT WILL INDEED COME BACK TO COUNCIL REGARDLESS, WHICH I THINK IS CONSISTENT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY'S, PRESUMPTION.

OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I.

I TAKE THE LANDOWNERS CONCERNS VERY SERIOUSLY.

I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS THIS WEEKEND AND READ ALL OF THE MATERIAL THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ME.

AND BEFORE WE FORCE ANYTHING ON ANYBODY, I WILL GO OUT THERE, WALK THE PROPERTY, ETC..

SO FOR TONIGHT, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 2024-01.

LET ME CLARIFY THAT.

I MOVE THAT WE READ ORDINANCE 2020 401 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FINAL TIME.

I SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ONE THING I WILL SAY IS THAT I'VE HEARD A LOT OF FOLKS SAY THEY WANT TO GO OUT ON THE SITE AND WALK THE GROUNDS AND SEE IT.

I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT AS WELL.

I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN DO THAT TOGETHER TO BE MOST EFFICIENT WITH THE LAND OWNER'S TIME.

EITHER WAY, I THINK IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS IT'S A PRIORITY FOR MANY OF US TO GO AHEAD AND AND WALK THE GROUNDS AND SEE WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE IN PERSON. JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN DOING THAT.

PERHAPS SOME OF OUR STAFF CAN THROW SOMETHING TOGETHER.

WONDERFUL. SO OUTSIDE OF NEXT WEEK, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S LOTS OF FLEXIBILITY.

COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

I DID WANT TO ADD MY THOUGHT ON THAT, THAT THAT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP ME OUT AS WELL.

SO IF WE CAN SET SOME TIME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH. COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE ALSO AFTER COUNCILMAN.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

LET'S TAKE YOU AND WE'LL GO BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

YES. THANK YOU.

CITY ATTORNEY AND VICE MAYOR.

SO I'M IN AGREEMENT THERE.

I WOULD LIKE TO, SET UP TIME FOR ALL OF US AS COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND SEE THIS PROPERTY.

I AM GOING TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS.

HOWEVER, I DO JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WAS SPACE AND AND THE ABILITY FOR US TO HAVE MOVED FORWARD ON THIS WITHOUT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL INCLUDED.

I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A STRONGER WAY TO GO BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION AND THE QUESTIONS THAT WE STILL HAVE ON THIS.

HOWEVER, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IT IS GOING TO COME BACK TO US NO MATTER WHAT.

I AM OKAY WITH THAT.

MY ONLY CONCERN IN PROCEEDING IN THIS WAY IS THAT WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS FOR US TO BE, YOU KNOW, FORCED TO CONSIDER AT THAT TIME, IF THAT'S WHERE IT WINDS UP A CONDEMNATION CONVERSATION, WHERE WE'RE VOTING IT DOWN WHEN WE COULD HAVE JUST EXCLUDED IT NOW.

BUT THAT SAID, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE REST OF COUNCIL IS AT ON THIS, AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF THAT AS WELL.

AND I KNOW THAT THE TEAM IS GOING TO DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO AVOID THAT SITUATION.

AND, I AM IN AGREEMENT ON THE COMMENT FROM THE MAYOR OF KNOWING THAT MARTIN IS LIKE THE BEST THAT WE'VE GOT.

AND I KNOW BRYCE PUTS A LOT OF EFFORT AND TIME INTO THIS AS WELL, SO I TRUST THEM WITH IT.

I JUST WANTED TO AVOID THE SITUATION, BUT I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN.

THANK YOU. DULY NOTED.

PROCEDURALLY, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THIS MOTION.

BUT IF THAT WERE TO FAIL, I EXPECT YOU WOULD HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION READY TO GO.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP.

I TOO WOULD LIKE TO GO ON A TOUR, BUT I WILL SAY THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PRODUCTIVE IF MR. ANTS AND WHOEVER ON STAFF COULD COME UP WITH SOME ALTERNATIVE IDEAS BEFORE WE GO OUT THERE, AS OPPOSED TO JUST BEING, PRESENTED A BUNCH OF PROBLEMS. IF WE COULD BE PRESENTED WITH SOME OPTIONS, THAT MIGHT WORK.

ANYWAY, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE THE TIME AND EFFORT YOU'VE, SPENT ON THIS ISSUE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY'S MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. I.

ANY OPPOSED? I. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT MEASURE PASSES.

[01:15:01]

CITY CLERK, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR A FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAIL SYSTEM ALONGSIDE THE RIO DE FLAG FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, CLERICAL CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I MOVE TO ADOPT 2020 4-01.

I'LL SECOND. SECOND.

OH, LET'S GIVE IT TO COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

THAT WAS HARRIS.

HARRIS. I'M SORRY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE AYE. AYE AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CITY CLERK. IS THERE ANY ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO DO? NOPE. WE'RE GOOD TO GO ON THAT ITEM.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

WONDERFUL. IT IS WITH GREAT PLEASURE THAT I HAND THINGS BACK OVER TO OUR, OUR MAYOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. SOLOMON, WOULD THIS BE A GOOD TIME TO GO BACK TO THE, WATER COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS AT YOUR LEISURE? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

OKAY. AND I ONLY HAVE ONE SCREEN THIS EVENING, SO, BEAR WITH ME.

I'M NOT AS HIGH TECH AS I USUALLY AM.

ALL RIGHT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE CURRENT COMMISSIONERS WERE, REAPPOINTED.

CORRECT? THAT'S NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE.

IF YOU'D LIKE A FULL RUNDOWN OF WHAT HAPPENED.

ROBERT DILDAY, JOHN NEUMANN, AND KURT RIEGELMAN WERE ALL PUT UP FOR APPOINTMENT.

ROBERT VANE IS THE IS THE LEFTOVER APPLICANT.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE THIS APPLICATION FROM MR. VANE, AND I MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT ROBERT VANE TO A.

OH AND AND WERE THE OTHER THREE EXPIRING DECEMBER 2026.

YOU GOT IT. OKAY, SO I MOVE TO APPOINT ROBERT VANE TO A SEAT ON THE WATER COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 2025.

I SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

AND, IF ANYONE HAS COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT THEM IN THE CHAT BECAUSE YOU ARE TINY LITTLE PEOPLE ON MY SCREEN.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER.

[B. Consideration of Support: Downtown Business Alliance's Downtown Flagstaff Vision and Action Plan (Plan). STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council supports the Downtown Vision and Action Plan and requests staff to consider it when making decisions related to Downtown Flagstaff.]

NINE. BE AND CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT.

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ALLIANCE'S DOWNTOWN FLAGSTAFF VISION AND ACTION PLAN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS IS MICHELLE MCNULTY, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

I HAVE DAVE MCINTYRE WITH ECONOMIC VITALITY AND TERRY MODICA WITH THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ALLIANCE WITH ME.

AND WE HAVE BRAD SIEGEL FROM PUMA, WHO WILL BE LEADING THE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING, AS WELL AS CHENEY BOSTIC WITH STUDIO SEED.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO REQUEST SUPPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN VISION AND ACTION PLAN TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE AS IT RELATES TO DECISIONS MADE IN DOWNTOWN. SUPPORT OF THE PLAN PROVIDES STAFF, WITH GUIDANCE.

HOWEVER, ANY NECESSARY CODE CHANGES OR BUDGET REQUESTS WOULD COME LATER THROUGH THE TYPICAL CHANNELS.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO BRAD FOR THE PRESENTATION.

THANKS. GREAT.

THANKS, MICHELLE. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME IN FLAGSTAFF? YES, YES. THUMBS UP.

EXCELLENT. THANKS FOR HAVING US AGAIN.

WE WERE IN CHAMBERS BACK IN OCTOBER TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE DOWNTOWN VISION AND ACTION PLAN.

TODAY WE WILL PROVIDE A BRIEF PRESENTATION.

10 TO 12 MINUTES.

NO MORE THAN THAT.

TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF SOME PROGRESS THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE THEN AND, ALSO HOPEFULLY, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

[01:20:03]

MY COLLEAGUE CHENEY, CHENEY, BOSTIC, IS UNFORTUNATELY SUFFERING FROM FLU LIKE SYMPTOMS TODAY.

SO SHE IS, IN THE MEETING.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO PRESERVE HER LIMITED ENERGY FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

SO, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO IF YOU'LL RECALL, THIS HAS BEEN A BIT OF A LONG AND WINDING ROAD FOR THE DOWNTOWN VISION AND ACTION PLAN.

WE GOT STARTED ON THIS PROJECT IN FEBRUARY OF 2020 AND WORKED OUR WAY THROUGH THE, THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF THE PANDEMIC.

GOT THE PLAN ABOUT 75, 80% COMPLETED THROUGH EXTENSIVE ONLINE OUTREACH.

WE WERE ALSO IN TOWN IN AUGUST OF 2020, HAD A SERIES OF OUTDOOR MEETINGS.

AND THEN, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, BOTH ON THE CITY SIDE AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION SIDE.

THERE WAS A PAUSE IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PLAN.

SO WE RESTARTED IN AUGUST OF 2023, AND WE'VE BEEN BUSY WORKING, UPDATING THE DOWNTOWN VISION AND ACTION PLAN SINCE THEN. SO THERE IS, BRINGING THE PLAN IN IN, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PLANS THAT HAVE ALSO MARCHED ALONG.

AND THEN YOU MAY RECALL, BACK IN OCTOBER, WE MET IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH AN UPDATE.

AND WE ALSO MET WITH THE BOARD OF THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO KEY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DOWNTOWN FLAGSTAFF.

ALL OF THESE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS REALLY ARE KEY TO THIS VISION AND ACTION PLAN.

ACKNOWLEDGING THAT DOWNTOWN IS THE HUB OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND INNOVATION FOR THE REGION.

PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE HISTORIC CORE OF DOWNTOWN.

REALLY THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY THAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY IN THE VARIOUS SURVEY AND MEETINGS THAT WE HELD THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.

IMPLEMENTING THE CITY'S CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN BY ENCOURAGING A COMPACT AND MIXED USE DOWNTOWN.

ALLOWING FOR CHANGE, INCLUDING DENSITY, THAT FEATURES MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AT A VARIETY OF PRICE POINTS AROUND THE PERIPHERY OF THE HISTORIC CORE.

ADDING PARKING SUPPLY WHERE IT MAKES SENSE, MANAGING THE EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY WITH A VARIETY OF IMPROVEMENTS, RECOMMENDED ENCOURAGING LOCAL ARTS, CULTURE AND NATIVE EXPRESSION TO FLOURISH IN DOWNTOWN AND THEN CREATING A DOWNTOWN EXPERIENCE THAT REALLY WELCOMES AND CELEBRATES EVERYONE IN THE FLAGSTAFF COMMUNITY AND REGION.

NEXT, PLEASE. I MENTIONED THE OUTREACH, AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN 20 AND 21, NEARLY 2000 INPUTS FROM A WHOLE VARIETY OF SOURCES IN FLAGSTAFF, INCLUDING A COMMUNITY SURVEY, THAT ATTRACTED, 1200 MORE THAN 1250 RESPONSES FROM RESIDENTS OF FLAGSTAFF FROM THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

NEXT, PLEASE.

THE ASPIRATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE ALSO BALANCED WITH AN EXTENSIVE MARKET ASSESSMENT, AND THE MARKET ASSESSMENT PROVIDES ACTUALLY EXCELLENT BASELINE DATA FOR PRE-PANDEMIC FLAGSTAFF SO THAT WE CAN JUDGE THE THE EVOLUTION OF DOWNTOWN AND A VARIETY OF WAYS AS A PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, SHOP AND DINE, VISIT AND STAY.

WE ALSO COMPARED FLAGSTAFF WITH A VARIETY OF PEER COMMUNITIES IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS.

NEXT, PLEASE. THE PLAN HAS A VISION FOR FLAGSTAFF, AND WE'VE BEEN ACTUALLY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING AFFIRMATION OF THESE VISION ELEMENTS IN ADDITIONAL SURVEY WORK.

BUT THE VISION IS FOR A DOWNTOWN THAT'S VIBRANT, WALKABLE AND ROLLABLE, HISTORIC AND ADAPTABLE, THRIVING, WELCOMING AND INCLUSIVE AND ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.

THE PLAN HAS AN ACTION PLAN THAT HAS RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, AND A VARIETY OF OTHER PARTNERS.

IT LOOKS AT ECONOMIC VITALITY, URBAN DESIGN, AND ALSO MOBILITY.

NEXT, PLEASE. A NUMBER OF CATALYTIC, DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE IDENTIFIED, ALL ON SURFACE PARKING LOTS.

SO ALL OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES ARE ON SURFACE PARKING LOTS IN THE PERIPHERY OF DOWNTOWN.

WE'RE PROTECTING THE HISTORIC CORE.

AND THEN WE FEEL WE'RE BETTER UTILIZING THE RICH SUPPLY OF ASPHALT THAT ENCIRCLES THE DOWNTOWN.

SO A VARIETY OF OF DIFFERENT VISIONS FOR THESE IDEAS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THE OLD CITY COURTHOUSE.

WE IDENTIFIED INFILL OPPORTUNITIES ALONG BIRCH STREET, WHERE CURRENTLY A NUMBER OF OF BANKS THAT THAT HAVE OUTDATED REAL ESTATE FOR WHAT THEIR BUSINESSES DO. IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY.

[01:25:02]

THE EAST SIDE GATEWAY, WHICH IS LARGELY AGAIN VACANT LOTS AND LAND, VARIETY OF DIFFERENT REDEVELOPMENT AND PARKING PROJECTS.

NEXT, PLEASE. THE PLAN ALSO LOOKS AT THE PUBLIC REALM.

HOW CAN WE BETTER UTILIZE, PUBLIC SPACES THROUGHOUT DOWNTOWN? NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THESE CONCEPTS INCLUDE, LEROUX STREET BECOMING A FESTIVAL STREET, WHICH COULD BE SEASONAL OR FOR SPECIFIC EVENTS.

HERITAGE SQUARE ACTIVATION ON AN ONGOING BASIS.

ALSO ALLEYS AND IF YOU RECALL BACK IN 20 AND 21, YOU MAY RECALL THAT OUR TEAM ACTUALLY REALLOCATED OUR TRAVEL BUDGET SINCE WE COULDN'T TRAVEL, INTO A VARIETY OF TEMPORARY INSTALLATIONS IN ALLEYS AND ON THE STREETS TO HELP THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION PAY FOR THOSE SO WE COULD DEMONSTRATE TO THE COMMUNITY WHAT SOME OF THESE PUBLIC SPACES REALLY COULD BE IF WE USE THEM IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

NEXT, PLEASE. SO THERE'S A VERY RICH ARRAY OF IDEAS AND IMPLEMENTATION THAT THIS IS SCHEDULED IN SEQUENCED.

SO THERE'S NEAR TERM MID TERM LONG TERM IDEAS AROUND ECONOMIC VITALITY, DOWNTOWN EXPERIENCE AND DESIGN AND ALSO MOBILITY WHICH INCLUDES PARKING.

NEXT PLEASE. SO TO WRAP UP, I'LL JUST REVIEW THE MAJOR EDITS THAT WE'VE MADE TO THE PLAN OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS BACK IN OCTOBER. THIS SLIDE, WE REPORTED TO YOU OF SOME OF THE EDITS THAT WERE ALREADY IN MOTION.

SO LARGELY BRINGING THE PLAN UP TO DATE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN REFINED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, SO THAT THERE'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE LATEST IN CITY POLICIES AND GOALS.

NEXT, PLEASE. AFTER WE LEFT YOU IN OCTOBER.

AND THIS HAS BEEN ALSO, ENGINEERED, BY CITY STAFF AND ALSO TERRY FROM THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION PRESENTATIONS WITH COMMISSIONS, WITH THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION BOARD, WITH DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CITY.

THIS HAS BEEN CIRCULATED THROUGHOUT.

WE DID ONE FINAL ONLINE SURVEY.

WE RECEIVED ABOUT 80 RESPONSES TO THE FINAL SURVEY TO SEE IF THERE WAS, SUPPORT FOR THE DIFFERENT VISION ELEMENTS, MORE THAN 80% SUPPORT FOR ALL VISION ELEMENTS, MORE THAN 70% SUPPORT FOR THE CATALYTIC PROJECTS, MORE THAN 80% SUPPORT FOR THE DIFFERENT PLACEMAKING OR PUBLIC REALM PROJECTS.

AND ALSO WE ASKED, OUR, OUR SURVEY RESPONDENTS TO RANK GOALS IN EACH OF THOSE GOAL AREAS.

NEXT, PLEASE. SO THE FINAL SET OF EDITS TO THE PLAN, DARK SKIES POLICY ALIGNMENT AND EDITS.

WE'VE REACHED OUT, TO ADVOCACY GROUPS, AND, RESOURCE GROUPS FOR DARK SKIES.

NOT ONLY ARE THERE POLICY ALIGNMENTS, THERE'S SOME PRETTY COOL IDEAS IN THERE.

I THINK MY FAVORITE, IS DEPLOYING TELESCOPES ON HERITAGE SQUARE, WHICH IS SORT OF AN INTERESTING USE OF THE SPACE, UPDATING RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX.

ADDING A, A, AN OVERLAY ZONE TO CATALYTIC PROJECT MAP.

SO IT'S CLEAR WHICH PROJECTS FALL UNDER ADDITIONAL REVIEW.

AND THEN ALSO FINAL QUALITY CONTROL FROM CITY STAFF.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN A WHOLE VARIETY OF EDITS AS HOPEFULLY WE, WE BRING THIS THING HOME.

SO WITH THAT, I THINK THAT IS THE FINAL SLIDE.

AND AGAIN, OH, YEP, THAT IS THE FINAL SLIDE.

SO WE'RE AVAILABLE, FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

AND AS I MENTIONED, MY COLLEAGUE CHANEY PRESERVING HER ENERGY IN CASE THERE'S ANYTHING RELATED TO, TO THE WORK THAT SHE'S BEEN INVOLVED WITH.

THANK YOU SO MUCH AND GOOD TO SEE YOU VIRTUALLY.

TERRY OR DAVE.

DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU.

THIS IS A LONG TIME COMING.

I THINK THIS IS OUR THIRD COUNCIL, AND I AM, JUST SO EXCITED TO BE HERE TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK, HEAR YOUR DIRECTION, AND HOPEFULLY SEEK YOUR APPROVAL.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

I KNOW DAVE AND MICHELLE ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THANK YOU. AND, TERRY, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR STARTING AND SHEPHERDING THIS, THIS PLAN AND THE WHOLE PROJECT AND FOR BEING SUCH A CHAMPION FOR DOWNTOWN.

[01:30:02]

AND WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU.

IT'S JUST IT'S EASY TO HAVE PASSION AND TO BE EXCITED ABOUT OUR CITY AND OUR DOWNTOWN.

WHEN I READ THIS DOCUMENT AND I ENVISION WHAT OUR DOWNTOWN COULD BE WITH MANY OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IN PLACE IS JUST REALLY EXCITING.

SO I'M, IT'S BEEN A PASSION PROJECT OF MINE, ONE THAT I'VE BEEN THRILLED TO BE A PART OF, AND I'VE LOVED EVERY SECOND OF WORKING WITH MY PARTNERS AT THE CITY.

THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR.

YEAH, I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO ECHO YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT TERRY.

I WILL ADD TO THAT, WHILE YOU WILL NEVER BE REPLACED, WHOEVER ENDS UP GETTING THE BATON FROM YOU, I'M COMMITTED, AT THE VERY LEAST AT THE OUTSET, TO MAKING SURE, THEY CAN HIT THE GROUND RUNNING AND THAT THEY'RE CONTINUING ON WITH YOUR ALL YOUR HARD WORK, IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T SLOW US DOWN OR CREATE ANY HICCUPS.

BRAD, I'M GLAD TOWARDS THE END, YOU BROUGHT UP THE DARK SKIES.

THAT WAS DEFINITELY A COMMENT I HAD MADE BETWEEN OCTOBER AND NOW.

JUST TO FLESH THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT.

OBVIOUSLY WE WANT COMPLIANCE WITH DARK SKY POLICY THROUGHOUT TOWN.

AND WITH, DENSITY COMING IN AND MAYBE SOME TALLER BUILDINGS GOING IN.

KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON HOW LIGHTING THROUGH VARIOUS HABITATIONS, EXPOSED TO THE SKYLINE, IS SOMETHING THAT'S CRITICAL AS WELL AS JUST, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS WE HAVE EVEN MORE CONTROL OF OVER MORE CONTROL OVER, SUCH AS THE KIND OF STREET LAMPS WE'RE USING AND WHERE THAT LIGHT IS FACING AND, AND HOW MUCH OF IT WE'RE USING AND WHAT WE'RE DOING DURING THE HOLIDAYS.

I THINK THE CRITICAL POINT HERE IS THAT WE HAVE A NEIGHBOR TO DOWNTOWN CALLED LOWELL OBSERVATORY, AND THEY ARE INVESTING $50 MILLION IN AN AMENITY THAT WILL HAVE AN OPEN ROOF, AND WILL BE TREATING THE ACTUAL NIGHT SKY AS, AS OUR, OUR PLANETARIUM.

I'M SURE THEY'RE VERY INVESTED IN SEEING THAT AMENITY REMAIN PERTINENT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 50 YEARS, PROBABLY 100 YEARS, THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE DISCOVERY CENTER ITSELF.

AND SO BEING MINDFUL OF BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO THEIR, CRITICAL TOURISM MISSION, IS JUST A GOOD, GOOD PRACTICE. AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I DID WANT TO ASK BRAD OR MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE, YOU MENTIONED BANKS WITH, OUTDATED REAL ESTATE, AND AND THERE'S SOME IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO REPURPOSE THOSE SPACES.

HOW DO THE BANKS WITHOUT.

WITH OUTDATED REAL ESTATE FEEL ABOUT THAT? TERRY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE INSIGHT, BUT THE THE BANK BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALONG BIRCH STREET, WE'RE JUST BUILT FOR A DIFFERENT ERA, AND, THEY'VE ALL DOWNSIZED, NOT ONLY IN FLAGSTAFF, BUT NATIONALLY.

THEY'RE ALL DOING BUSINESS IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

MOST OF IT IS GOING TO MORE VIRTUAL REMOTE TYPE MODELS.

WE ACTUALLY HAD A MEETING IN ONE OF THE BANKS, BACK IN OCTOBER AND THEN, AND THE BUILDING'S JUST VACANT.

IT'S JUST NOT BEING USED IN THE SAME WAY.

ALSO DRIVE THRUS, I THINK DRIVE THRUS ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT WITH, FLAGSTAFF GOALS FOR, FOR CLIMATE AND OTHER ASPECTS, WHETHER THAT'S IN SYNC.

SO, WE IDENTIFIED THAT EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS, AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE THE PANDEMIC'S FULL IMPACT THAT THE THE BANKING INDUSTRY WE JUST FELT WAS GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

AND IN CITIES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, WE'RE SEEING THESE TYPES OF SITES AND BUILDINGS BEING USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT I'LL DEFER TO FOLKS IN THE ROOM ABOUT ANY ACTUAL CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU'VE BEEN HAVING WITH THEM.

THANKS, BRAD.

MAYOR. VICE MAYOR, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS SO MUCH, AND I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.

SO, AS YOU KNOW, THIS PLAN, LOOKS AT WHAT COULD BE IN OUR DOWNTOWN, BUT THESE SITES THAT BRAD IS REFERENCING, AND THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED VICE MAYOR ARE OWNED BY PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND SO WE'RE IMAGINING WHAT COULD BE.

WE HAVE ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO CHASE BANK, AND WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH THEIR HEAD OF REAL ESTATE, AND THERE'S INTEREST.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SOME CONNECTIONS NOW TO PUT SOME POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS IN TOUCH WITH CHASE BANK.

AND WE HAVE NOT HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH NATIONAL BANK OR PNC BANK AT THIS TIME.

[01:35:01]

BUT, I WOULD SAY CHASE BANK, WHILE THERE'S NOTHING TO ANNOUNCE, THE CONVERSATION IS PROMISING.

THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR, IS THAT IT? THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS.

JUST A COMMENT AND A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

ONCE AGAIN, I THINK I SAID IT A MONTH AGO.

IT'S REALLY EXCITING TO SEE AN ACTUAL, SINCE I'M A VISUAL, A VISION PLAN OF WHAT DOWNTOWN COULD LOOK LIKE.

I ALWAYS FEAR BEING NEW ON COUNCIL, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT PRIORITIES, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY HOLDING HANDS OR ARE THEY ALL GOING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? AND THIS THEY'RE ALL HOLDING HANDS AND HUGGING.

YOU KNOW, IT JUST MEETS ALL OF OUR VISION AND OUR PRIORITIES AND OUR TOWN.

SO I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

AND JUST TO ADD TO, VICE MAYOR'S QUESTION, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? DOES THAT JUST IT'S THERE.

AND THEN A DEVELOPER KNOWS THAT IT'S IN THE PLAN.

AND THEY WOULD THEN INITIATE THE CONVERSATION.

AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS WHAT THEN ADOPTING.

IF WE ADOPT THIS TONIGHT, WHICH I'M SURE WE WILL, WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN OR A PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO RE PURPOSE OR PROPERTY, WHAT GUIDING RESTRICTIONS OR OR GUIDING? PRINCIPLES DO WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT IF SOMEBODY BUYS, LET'S SAY.

A BANK PROPERTY THAT THEY FULFILL OUR VISION, OR ARE THEY STILL GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BUILD WHATEVER? MAYOR. VICE MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MATTHEWS A COUPLE OF COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

THE FIRST IS WE ARE ACTUALLY NOT SEEKING ADOPTION.

WE'RE SEEKING APPROVAL.

AND THERE'S A SUBTLE DISTINCTION.

THIS DOES NOT BECOME CODE.

I MEAN, THERE MAY BE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT END UP GOING THROUGH A PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, COMES BEFORE COUNCIL WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A CODE REVISION OR THERE MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT, IS REFLECTED IN ZONING IN SOME WAY.

BUT WHAT WE'RE SEEKING IS APPROVAL, WHICH JUST MEANS THAT YOU SUPPORT THE DIRECTION OF THIS PLAN.

THIS PLAN WAS LED BY THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ALLIANCE, CERTAINLY WITH OUR FUNDING PARTNERS, THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND MOUNTAIN LINE.

BUT IT WAS LED BY THE DBA.

AND SO THIS IS NOT LIKE YOUR TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH DOES REQUEST ADOPTION.

SO THIS BEING LED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR, BY THE DBA, WE'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE CODE.

STAFF WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH THOSE, REQUESTS.

SO THAT'S JUST ONE DISTINCTION.

THE OTHER IS WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THAT WE CAN SET THE STAGE FOR A VISION AND THAT WE CAN BE AT THE TABLE AS DEVELOPERS ARE INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN DOWNTOWN.

WE DON'T WE DON'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT TO DEVELOP.

BUT WHAT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THAT THAT PROJECT INTERFACES WITH THE COMMUNITY, WITH DOWNTOWN, WITH PEDESTRIANS, WITH THOSE WHO ARE WALKING OR BIKING. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PROJECT FITS INTO OUR DOWNTOWN AND THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF DIALOG.

SO THESE PROJECTS HAPPEN WITH US AND NOT TO US, WHICH IS WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE PAST.

PROJECTS WOULD JUST HAPPEN, AND WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT REQUESTED CERTAIN AMENITIES, CERTAIN DESIGN FEATURES, AND CERTAINLY TO HAVE THE DBA HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS DOCUMENT ATTEMPTS TO DO.

THIS WAS BUILT WITH SIGNIFICANT INPUT FROM OUR PARTNERS AT THE CITY.

MICHELLE, FROM PLANNING, I MIGHT ASK MICHELLE TO COME UP TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT HOW WE SEE THIS BEING IMPLEMENTED IS THERE ARE SOME, IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS THAT ARE LED BY THE DBA AND SOME THAT ARE LED BY THE CITY WITH THE DBA AS PARTNERS.

AND SO HOW DEVELOPMENTS HAPPEN GOING FORWARD? I'LL ASK MICHELLE TO COME UP AND SORT OF JUST ADD TO WHAT I'VE SAID.

AND I JUST WANT TO DO ONE SMALL CLARIFICATION.

IT'S NOT APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, IT'S SUPPORT.

AND THAT'S TYPICAL TO HOW WE HANDLE PLANS THAT ARE FROM A PARTNER AGENCY, BUT NOT WITHIN THE CITY.

[01:40:07]

IF IT'S A CITY PLAN, WE WILL ADOPT IT AS PART OF THE REGIONAL PLAN.

THAT BEING SAID, IT'S WE'VE ALSO BEEN COORDINATING THIS WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN.

SARAH DECKER HAS MET WITH THE DBA, HAS ALSO REVIEWED THE PLAN.

SO SOME OF THE THINGS WILL ALSO GET PUT INTO THE REGIONAL PLAN, WHICH GIVES US A LITTLE MORE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THINGS LIKE IF THERE'S A REASON OR MORE DISCRETIONARY REVIEWS. BUT HOW WE'LL ALSO HANDLE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IS THERE'S THERE'S RECOMMENDATION FOR CODE CHANGES IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

SO WE'LL DO IT THROUGH CODE CHANGES, APPROPRIATE CODE CHANGES.

FOR BY RIGHT PROJECTS WE ARE LIMITED.

WE CAN ONLY REQUIRE WHAT'S IN CODE, BUT IT IS A TOOL THAT WE CAN POINT TO AND SAY THIS IS A PLAN SUPPORTED BY THE COUNCIL AND DIRECTING DEVELOPERS TO LOOK AT THAT PLAN AND WORK WITH THEM TO ACHIEVE WHAT WE CAN, VOLUNTARILY.

BUT THE, THE BIGGEST TEETH THAT WE HAVE IS, IS COMING BACK AND MAKING CODE CHANGES IS APPROPRIATE.

SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

IF IT'S JUST A WISHFUL THINKING, VISION.

AND I KNOW WE'RE DOING A CODE AUDIT I THINK RIGHT NOW.

SO ALL THAT'S IN COMMUNICATION AND, AND BECAUSE IT DOESN'T COME TO COUNCIL UNLESS IT'S A ZONING CHANGE AND SO STUFF CAN HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, AND DEVELOPMENT START BEFORE WE EVEN AWARE OF IT.

SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT EVERYBODY'S WORKING TOGETHER.

YEAH. AND THE CONSULTANT TEAM FOR THE CODE AUDIT HAS THE DOWNTOWN VISION.

SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THAT AS WELL.

AND WHEN YOU SEE THE PRESENTATION IN MARCH YOU'LL LOOK AT THAT.

YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE CATALYTIC SITES ARE PART OF THOSE OPPORTUNITY SITES.

SO THE HUGGING AND THE THE CONNECTEDNESS IS FAR REACHING.

AND IT'S NOT JUST IN THIS PLAN.

IT'S ALL THE DIFFERENT PLANS THAT WE HAVE IN MOTION RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

IF I COULD JUST ADD REAL QUICKLY.

MY NAME IS DAVID MCINTYRE, COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DIRECTOR, FOR THE RECORD.

WE ALSO IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAN ACTUALLY TAKE THIS PLAN OUT WHEN WE'RE MEETING WITH BUSINESSES OR DEVELOPERS WHO ARE LOOKING AT THE COMMUNITY AND SAY, COUNCIL ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THIS PLAN.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SEEN.

AND SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS A DIRECTION THAT THE COMMUNITY IS LOOKING TO GO, THAT THE DOWNTOWN IS LOOKING TO GO.

AND SO IT GIVES US A PLACE TO START WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES WHO WANT TO EXPAND OR BUSINESSES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE COMMUNITY, IT'S A IT'S A CONVERSATION STARTER AS WELL. SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THIS THIS VISION WILL HELP US BOTH FROM AN ACTUAL CODE STANDPOINT, BUT ALSO WHEN WE'RE OUT HAVING CONVERSATIONS FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT.

DAVE. THANKS, TERRY.

COUNCIL MEMBER. HOUSE.

TERRY. DAVE, EVERYONE WHO PRESENTED ON THIS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING PROJECT TO SEE AT THIS POINT.

I WAS TAKING TIME OVER THE WEEKEND AND LEADING UP TO THIS DISCUSSION TO LOOK BACK AT THE ORIGINAL, PLAN FOR THIS, THE DOWNTOWN VISION AGREEMENT THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER IN, I THINK, 2019, IF I HAVE THAT CORRECT.

AND MAYBE EVEN THIS THIS WENT BACK FURTHER THAN THAT POINT.

BUT, SEEING THE COMPLETION OF THOSE EFFORTS IS REALLY, I THINK, SIGNIFICANT.

AND, WHAT I THINK IS EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT IS THE FACT THAT, IT WAS NOT A STALE PROCESS.

AND BY THAT, I MEAN, LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR THIS, THERE WERE A LOT OF PRIORITIES THAT WERE LISTED AS PART OF THAT PROCESS.

TWO OF THEM THAT WERE NOT WERE, HOUSING AND SUSTAINABILITY OR CARBON NEUTRALITY.

TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN THE TIME AND EFFORT OVER THE PAST YEARS, IN WORKING ON THIS TO ENSURE THAT THOSE WERE INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS PLAN, I THINK IS VERY SIGNIFICANT AND VERY TELLING OF THE INTENTIONS OF IT.

HAVING A VISION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE ACTION FOR DOWNTOWN, I THINK IS GOING TO BE KEY AND ESSENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF FLAGSTAFF AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS TO MEET THOSE DIFFERENT GOALS, TO CONTINUE TO THRIVE AS A COMMUNITY AND TO, CELEBRATE WHO WE ARE AS A COMMUNITY, CULTURE AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT GO INTO THAT.

IT'S VERY, VERY EXCITING TO ME TO SEE ALL OF THOSE IDEAS AND IDEALS CAPTURED IN THIS PLAN FOR ONE REGION OF FLAGSTAFF, BUT A VERY CENTRAL REGION, BOTH PHYSICALLY AND SYMBOLICALLY, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR

[01:45:04]

CITY. SO I JUST WANTED TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS.

TERRY, YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS A PASSION PROJECT, AND I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PASSION SHINES THROUGH.

AND I THINK WE ARE GREATLY INDEBTED TO YOU FOR ALLOWING THAT PASSION TO COME FORWARD INTO THIS FINAL PRODUCT.

SO THANK YOU.

WELL. MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF EFFORT THAT WENT INTO MAKING THIS A SINCERE AND GENUINE PRODUCT.

WE REALLY LISTENED TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE REALLY WANTED TO TO WORK CLOSELY AND REPRESENT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO OUR CITY PARTNERS AND OUR COUNTY PARTNERS AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THAT AND, PUTTING VOICE TO IT.

COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

SOME REALLY GOOD COMMENTS TONIGHT FROM MY COLLEAGUES, AND I DON'T WANT TO DUPLICATE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

TERRY, YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

I'VE HAD MY SMALL BUSINESS DOWNTOWN FOR 23 YEARS.

I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS FROM DAY ONE, AND I AM SO THANKFUL TO SEE THAT THIS PLAN HAS VISION AND ACTION.

THOSE ARE TWO WORDS THAT I LOVE TO HEAR.

I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE KEY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE TIME AND THOUGHT AND THOROUGHNESS THAT YOU AND THE TEAM BROUGHT INTO THIS PLAN.

AND WE DO HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.

YOU KNOW, THE DOWNTOWN, THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, BUT I LOVE WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH IT.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT FOR ME, BEING IN BUSINESS ALL OF THESE YEARS, I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT WITHOUT YOU, TERRY, WITHOUT THE DBA, WITHOUT YOUR TEAM. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO BEING IN BUSINESS ANOTHER 23 YEARS SO THAT I CAN SEE ALL OF THIS COME TO FRUITION.

SO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK AND WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU.

DEFINITELY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. VICE MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET, I THINK I SHOULD COME TO EVERY COUNCIL MEETING.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

$100 TO THE FIRST COUNCIL MEMBER WHO MAKES TERRY CRY THIS EVENING.

I THINK WE'RE ABOUT THERE.

YEAH. IT'S CLOSE.

IT'S IT'S IT'S ALMOST HAPPENING.

ALL RIGHT, LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAKE TERRY CRY.

HARRY, I JUST WANT TO ADD MY THANKS TO THOSE OF ALL THE REST.

THAT YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT, YOU REALLY HAVE DONE AN AMAZING JOB.

AND TO DO IT SOMETIMES WITHOUT, EVERYBODY BEING ON BOARD.

SO THAT TAKES A LOT OF COURAGE.

IT TAKES A LOT OF FORTITUDE.

IT TAKES A LOT OF STRENGTH, INNER STRENGTH TO JUST KEEP MOVING FORWARD.

AND SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU'VE BROUGHT THIS PLAN TO, TO FRUITION.

AT LEAST YOU'VE BROUGHT IT FORWARD.

WE HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW, THINGS HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET, BUT I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THEY WILL.

I LIKE WHAT I'VE SEEN IN THE PLAN.

I LOVE THE IDEA ABOUT HOUSING.

I THINK THAT THAT'S KEY AND IT'S IMPORTANT.

AND AS YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY BEFORE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A SON THAT LIVES IN DOWNTOWN LA, AND HE WALKS EVERYWHERE, AND EVERYTHING HE NEEDS IS RIGHT THERE.

SO I KNOW THAT THIS CAN WORK.

AND SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

AND I'M, MAYBE I'LL BE HERE FOR THE NEXT 23 YEARS SO I CAN SEE IT, BUT WHO KNOWS? THE ONE THING THAT I DID WANT TO SAY IS THAT I REALLY DO LIKE THE IDEA OF, HAVING A TELESCOPE DOWNTOWN.

AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY.

SOMETIMES WHEN COMMUNITIES OF COLOR COME TO PLACES LIKE FLAGSTAFF, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS KNOW ABOUT LOWELL OBSERVATORY CENTER AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.

SO WE MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION THAT ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY, EVERYBODY THAT COMES TO FLAGSTAFF, KNOWS ABOUT LOWELL OBSERVATORY, WHERE THEY DON'T.

AND SO IT SURE WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A TELESCOPE THERE.

AND MAYBE EVEN HAVE SOMEBODY FROM LOWELL THAT JUST, YOU KNOW, DURING THE SUMMER, YOU KNOW, GIVES A QUICK LITTLE, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT PLUTO.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE PLUTO FROM WHERE WE ARE OR NOT, BUT, ANYWAY.

AND SO, AND THEN FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T GET TO LOWELL OBSERVATORY, YOU KNOW, IT COSTS TO GO UP THERE.

SO MAYBE SOME FREE THINGS WOULD BE HELPFUL, YOU KNOW.

SO. SO ANYWAY, JUST JUST SOME IDEAS.

[01:50:04]

AND, GOOD LUCK ON EVERYTHING THAT, THAT I'VE SEEN IN THE PLAN.

AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEPS.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

AND YOUR IDEA ABOUT, OR STRESSING THE IDEA OF HAVING A TELESCOPE AT HERITAGE SQUARE.

WE WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH LOWELL OBSERVATORY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AND WE HAVE TELESCOPES, ACTUALLY DURING MOVIES ON THE SQUARE AND OUR KIDS SQUARED EVENT DURING THE SUMMER.

AND IT IS A CROWD PLEASER.

AND SO I LOVE THE IDEA OF SEEING IF WE CAN EXPAND THEIR PRESENCE AT HERITAGE SQUARE, AND WE WILL WORK ON THAT FOR SURE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHEN I WAS WORKING ON MY MASTER'S DEGREE IN LAND USE PLANNING, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DOWNTOWN.

AND I REMEMBER ONE TAKEAWAY WAS THAT THEY SAID THAT DOWNTOWN'S NEVER STAY THE SAME.

THEY EITHER GET BETTER OR THEY GET WORSE.

WELL, I THINK BECAUSE OF YOU, TERRY, AND BECAUSE OF THIS PLAN AND, YOU KNOW, YOUR TEAM, IT'S OBVIOUS WHICH WAY WE'RE GOING.

WE'RE GOING TOWARDS A BETTER DOWNTOWN.

I DO HAVE ONE THOUGHT.

YOU KNOW, A VIBRANT DOWNTOWN HAS PEOPLE LIVING IN IT.

SO, I'M HOPING THAT SOME WAY.

AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND MAYBE THE CITY TOO, BUT MOSTLY THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

THAT WE SHOULD PROMOTE HOUSING WHERE PEOPLE LIVE, AS OPPOSED TO JUST BUILDING A BUNCH OF SHORT TERM RENTALS, WHICH ARE IN EFFECT, HOTELS. SO WE DON'T NEED YEAH, WE DO NEED SOME HOTELS DOWNTOWN AND MAYBE SOME SHORT TERM RENTALS, BUT WE DON'T WANT IT TO TURN INTO A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T LIVE BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE TO LIVE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REALLY IN THE PLAN, BUT SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.

VICE MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

THAT'S A GREAT COMMENT.

BRAD, I'LL OFFER, A RESPONSE.

AND THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD, PLEASE DO.

I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE.

I THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT OR YOU VISIT ANY THRIVING DOWNTOWN, IT IS A VIBRANT DOWNTOWN BECAUSE OF ITS RESIDENTS. AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT IS EXCITING TO ME IN THIS PLAN IS I HEAR SO FREQUENTLY, DOWNTOWN FLAGSTAFF IS A PLACE FOR VISITORS. OR, YOU KNOW, I'LL HEAR FROM BUSINESS OWNERS.

OUR LOCALS DON'T COME DOWNTOWN ANYMORE.

AND AND I WOULD RESPOND AND SAY, WELL, DOWNTOWN DOESN'T HAVE VERY MANY LOCALS.

WE DO WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.

THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS ARE, KEY TO, WHAT WE SEE IN OUR DOWNTOWN.

BUT WE NEED PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR DOWNTOWN THAT WALK TO WORK, THAT WALK TO GO OUT TO EAT THAT BIKE, TO GO SHOPPING OR TO COME DOWN TO MOVIES ON THE SQUARE OR ANY OF OUR EVENTS.

SO THAT HOUSING COMPONENT IS SO KEY TO US AND THAT LOCAL BASE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE THAT ARE NOT TRANSIENT, CHURNING IN AND OUT AFTER ONE, 2 OR 3 DAYS.

AND SO I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENT, AND I THINK HOW IT'S ADDRESSED, BECAUSE IT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN, IN ORDINANCE OR LAW RIGHT NOW, IS HOUSING PRODUCT OF ALL TYPES AT ALL PRICE POINTS? I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING DOWNTOWN ABLE TO LIVE DOWNTOWN.

I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE OUTGROWN THEIR FOUR BEDROOM HOMES LIKE MYSELF, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEXT MONTH MY KIDS WILL BE OFF AND TODD AND I WOULD NORMALLY LOOK TO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN, FOR ALL PEOPLE AT ALL PRICE POINTS IS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE.

AND AND THAT'S THE PRODUCT WE'D LOVE TO SEE IN DOWNTOWN.

BRAD, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I WOULD ADD THE MARKET ASSESSMENT SUPPORTS THIS AS WELL.

SO THE MARKET ANALYSIS LOOKED AT DIFFERENT GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES DOWNTOWN.

AND WE REALLY DO THINK HOUSING IS AT THE TOP OF THAT.

AND IT'S EXACTLY THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT TERRY WAS JUST DESCRIBING.

SO A VARIETY OF PRICE POINTS.

BUT BUT TO THE COUNCILMAN'S POINT, WHERE PEOPLE LIVE, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE TALKING APARTMENTS, WE'RE TALKING, MAYBE CONDOS, TOWNHOUSES, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

NOT SHORT TERM RENTALS.

[01:55:03]

YEAH. AND JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP.

AS FAR AS BRINGING LOCALS TO DOWNTOWN, THINGS LIKE FIRST FRIDAY ART WALK AND MOVIES ON THE SQUARE, THEY DO THAT.

AND SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO ALONG THOSE LINES, I'VE ALWAYS LOVED FIRST FRIDAY ART WALK.

COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET, I BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I WOULD BE HONORED, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I MOVE TO SUPPORT THE DOWNTOWN VISION AND ACTION PLAN AND REQUEST STAFF TO CONSIDER IT WHEN MAKING DECISIONS RELATED TO DOWNTOWN FLAGSTAFF. SECOND.

WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE AYE AYE.

IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED? THAT WOULD REALLY MAKE TERRY CRY.

YOU'LL. YOU'LL HAVE TO SPLIT THE $100 BECAUSE YOU ALL DID IT.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU AGAIN, TERRY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

MAYOR, VICE MAYOR. COUNCIL, IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE.

AND I'LL BE BACK.

MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT TERRI ATTEND ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE MOVING DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, C, WHICH IS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE 2024 STATE AND

[C. Consideration and Approval: 2024 State and Federal Legislative Priorities STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and approve the 2024 State and Federal Legislative Priorities.]

FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.

ALL RIGHT THING. MAYOR AND COUNCIL SARAH LANGLEY, PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR.

SO WE'RE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING TO REVIEW THE EDITS THAT WE MADE BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK, AND TO ASK FOR YOUR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE DOCUMENTS.

AGAIN, WE HAVE BOB HOLMES, OUR FEDERAL LOBBYIST, JOINING US FROM DC, AND BRIAN MURRAY, OUR STATE LOBBYIST, JOINING US FROM PHENIX.

SO I WILL PULL UP THE FEDERAL PRIORITIES.

WE'LL START THERE.

SO TO QUICKLY REVIEW THE CHANGES, WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY SECTION WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION.

YOU'LL SEE IN THE IIJA PRIORITY WE ADDED A MENTION OF WILDLIFE CORRIDORS HERE.

AND THEN WE ALSO PULLED OUT MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION INTO ITS OWN PRIORITY.

WE WORKED WITH MARTIN INCE AND JENNY NIEMANN ON THAT LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE IT REALLY CAPTURED WHAT THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON.

MOVING OVER TO THE NEXT PAGE.

WITHIN THE CLIMATE CHANGE PRIORITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT SECTION, WE ADDED THE WORD NATIONAL AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

SO WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SCALE AND THEN MOVING TO THE SORRY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION.

WE JUST ADDED A BIT MORE DETAIL TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITY.

TO UPDATE IT A BIT, WE ADDED A MENTION OF SUPPORT OF THE MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT, FOR WHICH THERE'S CURRENTLY A A BILL AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED A SENTENCE NOTING THE NEED FOR FAIR MARKET RENT DETERMINATIONS TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE ACTUAL FLAGSTAFF RENTAL MARKET.

SO THOSE ARE ALL THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE, MAYOR.

I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOU FOR ANY COUNCIL FEEDBACK OR DISCUSSION.

SARAH. IT LOOKS LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE HAS A COMMENT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU, SARAH.

AND I SEE THAT OUR LOBBYISTS ARE ON AS WELL.

THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATES THAT YOU MADE TO THIS.

I APPRECIATE YOU, HEARING US AND MAKING THOSE CHANGES.

I ALSO JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IN EMAIL ON THESE, PRIORITIES.

THERE WERE A LOT OF, OR WE WERE STARTING TO SEE A FEW OF THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE ASKING FOR US TO REVISE AND CLARIFY AND ADD MORE SPECIFICITY. AND I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT I'M SURE WE ALL, AS COUNCIL HEARD THOSE REQUESTS, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS ADDRESSED LAST WEEK.

THE REASON WHY WE DID NOT GET MORE SPECIFIC IS BECAUSE OF THAT DESIRE NOT TO TIE OUR HANDS WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THE PRIORITIES THAT WILL HAVE, IF WE WERE OVERLY SPECIFIC FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THEN IT REALLY LIMITS US IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE. RATHER THAN LEAVING THESE OVERALL PRIORITIES RELATIVELY BROAD SO THAT OUR CONVERSATIONS CAN ENCOMPASS MORE POTENTIALLY WHEN WE HAVE THOSE DIRECT, MEETINGS WITH LEGISLATORS OR TESTIFYING ON ANYTHING AND SO FORTH.

AND SO I JUST THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND.

IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO GET SPECIFIC ON DIFFERENT TOPICS, AND IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T HAVE MORE SPECIFIC THOUGHTS ON ANY OF THESE THINGS, BUT WE ARE REALLY

[02:00:06]

TRYING TO DO I THINK, I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE THAT I'M A BIG THEMER WHEN IT COMES TO OUR MEETINGS.

AND THE THEME FOR TONIGHT, FOR ME IS REALLY DOING THE HIGHEST AND BROADEST GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK BY KEEPING THESE BROAD, WE ALLOW OURSELVES THAT ROOM TO DO ALL THE BEST THAT WE CAN FOR FLAGSTAFF.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO MAY BE LISTENING OR WATCHING OR, IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT, UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE IGNORING THAT REQUEST. IT'S JUST THAT THERE'S A REASON FOR THIS BROADNESS.

AND I APPRECIATE THE STAFF TAKING THE TIME TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THOSE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, WHILE ALSO TAKING THE TIME TO ADD IN SOME OF THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE ASKED FOR.

SO THANK YOU, SARAH AND TEAM, AND THANK YOU TO OUR LOBBYISTS.

AND THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE.

VERY GOOD POINT.

AND IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT AS ITEMS COME UP EITHER FEDERALLY OR AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE, WE WILL OFTEN TALK ABOUT THEM.

SO EVEN IF SOMETHING ISN'T SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL WATCHING WATCHING BILLS CLOSELY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF WILL BRING FORWARD ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN A MEETING.

AND SO, MR. HOLMES, NICE TO SEE YOU.

DO YOU, HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO ANY OF THIS? THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND WELCOME TO DC.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE SNOW.

FIRST SNOW AND I THINK 700 DAYS.

SO NO, REALLY. IT'S GOOD TO SEE THE THE SNOW.

I GUESS YOU GUYS CAN USE IT MORE THAN WE CAN, BUT NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

I JUST ECHO ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE, JUST, SO ELOQUENTLY STATED AND I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AGAIN, AS I, AS I STATED WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST WEEK, THIS IS A VALUE STATEMENT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN OR CAN'T LOBBY.

AND I THINK IT'S REALLY GOOD TO KEEP THESE ISSUES BROAD AS OPPOSED TO NARROWING THEM DOWN.

SO I APPRECIATE, THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S COMMENTS.

COUNCIL DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE FEDERAL PRIORITIES? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE CHAT.

SO I AM GOING TO MOVE ON TO STATE.

PRIORITIES. THANK YOU MAYOR.

SO I'M DISPLAYING THAT DOCUMENT NOW AND AGAIN.

I'LL QUICKLY JUST WALK THROUGH THE CHANGES WE MADE.

SO NO CHANGES AT THE GUIDING PRIORITIES OR TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION.

MOVING TO THE ECONOMY SECTION, WE DID AGAIN, ADD JUST A BIT MORE DETAIL TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITY.

WE INCLUDED MENTIONS OF ADVOCATING FOR ALLOCATIONS TO THE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND, AND THEN ALSO ADVOCATING FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE ARIZONA LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT. AND THEN ON THE SECOND PAGE WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENT SECTION, WE ADDED A SENTENCE TO THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION PRIORITY, FOCUSING ON THE REQUEST TO DEVELOP RELATIONSHIPS, WITH THOSE COMMISSIONERS AND INCREASE AWARENESS OF FLAGSTAFF'S CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS.

AND THEN LASTLY, WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIP PRIORITY, WE DREW OUT THE DARK SKIES INITIATIVE AND GOALS THAT FLAGSTAFF HAS AND NOTED OUR DESIRE TO DEVELOP AND STRENGTHEN RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADOT AS IT RELATES TO DARK SKIES.

AND THOSE WERE ALL OUR CHANGES.

BACK TO YOU, MAYOR, FOR ANY DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL. I DO NOT SEE ANY SEAS OR CUZ THERE'S ONE COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO BRIAN, THAT I DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION, BUT ONE OF OUR LOCAL AGENCIES FROM HOUSING SOLUTIONS DID SEND ALL OF COUNCIL, INFORMATION ON SOME LEGISLATION THAT'S GETTING PUT TOGETHER ON THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT.

AND WHEN I GET MORE DETAILS, I'M HAPPY TO FORWARD IT TO YOU SO YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT BILL THAT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AND STUFF AND WHO'S GOING TO BE SPONSORING IT? MAYOR. THIS IS JIM MCCARTHY.

MY COMPUTER IS NOT WORKING.

SO CAN I JUST ASK YOU VERBALLY FOR A PLACE IN LINE? YOU MAY SPEAK COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

[02:05:03]

THANK YOU. WE'LL WORK ON THIS COMPUTER ISSUE.

WE GOT AN INTERESTING LETTER FROM SOME CONSTITUENTS.

I THINK IT CAME IN TODAY ABOUT.

THERE'S SORT OF A MOVEMENT INSIDE THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON ISGS.

NOW, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT'S ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE.

AND WHAT THEY'RE SOME LEGISLATORS WANT TO DO IS SAY THAT THE CITY CAN'T DO BUSINESS WITH COMPANIES THAT HAVE ESG RATINGS. AND OF COURSE, PROBABLY 90% OF THE COMPANIES OUT THERE DO HAVE ESG.

SO I WAS WONDERING IF IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO ADD THAT IN SPECIFICALLY, OR DO YOU THINK THERE'S ALREADY ENOUGH IN THE IN THE EXISTING WORDING THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE OUR, LOBBYISTS TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO STAND AGAINST THESE RESTRICTIONS ON ESG. SURE.

SARAH, COULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT? THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

YEAH. I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE OPPOSING ESG RELATED LEGISLATION JUST BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTROL PRIORITY THAT WE HAVE.

I THINK THAT REALLY COVERS IT.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE PRIORITIES WE HAVE IN THE ENVIRONMENT SECTION AS WELL.

OKAY. I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

MAYOR. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS.

AND I DIDN'T READ THROUGH THAT WHOLE, LETTER, BUT.

WHEN I. GLAZED OVER IT.

I WAS READING IT MORE THAT THEY WERE WANTING US.

THERE WAS SOME IN THE STATE LEGISLATOR GROUP THAT WAS, NOT WANTING TO IMPOSE ESG RATINGS ON COMPANIES NOT PER PROHIBITING US FROM DOING BUSINESS.

SO THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MAYBE NOT READING IT CORRECTLY, BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE, I DON'T SUPPORT THAT.

I DON'T SUPPORT REQUIRING ESG RATINGS FOR BUSINESSES TO GET FINANCING OR TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.

SO MAYBE SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING AND WHAT THE ANTI ESG MOVEMENT WAS.

SO I THINK ANY FORCE IN EITHER DIRECTION IS INAPPROPRIATE.

THAT SHOULD JUST STAY OUT OF IT.

EXACTLY. THANK YOU.

AND, I'LL NOTE THAT RYAN INDICATED IN THE CHAT THAT HB 2258 IS THE ONLY LOW INCOME HOUSING BILL CURRENTLY IN THE HOPPER. SO WE'LL KEEP WATCHING THAT.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC KNOWS, AS PART OF THE LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS WHERE WE'RE ALSO WATCHING BILLS THERE.

SO BETWEEN STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND BRIAN, AND THE PUBLIC WHO WHO WILL WRITE US ABOUT CERTAIN BILLS, WE ARE PAYING VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE LEGISLATURE.

COUNCIL ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? BRIAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? MADAM MAYOR, I DON'T.

IT'S, IT'S GETTING BUSY DOWN THERE, SO.

MAYOR, RIGHT? DO YOU NEED A MOTION? YEAH. I'M PULLING UP THE AGENDA AGAIN.

YEAH. DO.

STERLING, DO WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR PRIORITIES? YES, YOU DO, MAYOR.

SO. OKAY, MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE 2024 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AS PRESENTED BY OUR LOVELY SARAH. I'LL SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

I I I I.

ANYONE OPPOSED.

OKAY. WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU BOB. THANK YOU BRIAN.

THANK YOU, SARAH AND SEAN.

SO MOVING DOWN TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS TEN A CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER

[A. Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-02: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 3 Business Regulations, Chapter 3-10 User Fees, Section 3-10-001-0004 Police Department to revise existing fees and add a new fee for Body Camera Video Review and Redaction; providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, providing for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: At the January 16, 2024 Council Meeting: 1) Hold the Public Hearing 2) Read Ordinance No. 2024-02 by title only for the first time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No.2024-02 by title only (if approved above) At the February 6, 2024 Council Meeting: 4) Read Ordinance No. 2024-02 by title only for the final time 5) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2024-02 by title only (if approved above) 6) Adopt Ordinance No. 2024-02]

2024-02. AND, I CANNOT SEE, BUT I

[02:10:01]

AM, IT LOOKS LIKE.

IS THAT RICK TADDER? IT IS I.

HELLO. ALL RIGHT, TAKE IT AWAY.

ALL RIGHT. HELLO, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

RICK TADDER. MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU, AT THIS POINT, TEN A IS AN ORDINANCE NUMBER 2020 402 RELATED TO NEW FEE THAT STAFF IS REQUESTING FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR BODY CAMERA VIDEO REVIEW AND REDACTION.

AND ALSO A SMALL MINOR AMENDMENT AS FAR AS THE DIGITAL SOURCE, WHICH WE CAN PROVIDE THOSE VIDEOS ON.

LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THERE WAS A STATE LAW THAT CHANGED AND ALLOWED CITIES TO CHARGE A FEE, FOR THE SERVICE OF REVIEWING AND REDACTING.

I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING, MAYOR.

I JUST NOTING ON THE AGENDA THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE WILL WE WILL NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE PROCEED.

THANKS. I KNEW THAT.

THANK YOU. STERLING.

MY APOLOGIES AND RICK, MY APOLOGIES.

I AM OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU.

RICK. THANK YOU.

SO, AS I SAY IN A NEW LAW WAS PASSED TO ALLOW US TO CHARGE A FEE FOR THE SERVICE THAT WE'RE PROVIDE FOR A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR POLICE VIDEOS, AND CAMERA FOOTAGE. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE THE CALCULATION OF COSTS AND DONE THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTES, WHICH IS A 60 DAY PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE OCTOBER 20TH, AS WELL AS A WRITTEN REPORT, WHICH IS ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

AS FAR AS THE COST OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE, OF PUBLIC REQUESTS RELATED TO VIDEOS.

THE FEE ALSO REQUIRES THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ADOPTION BY ORDINANCE TO UPDATE OUR CITY CODE.

AND IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE FEE AT THE SECOND READING ON FEBRUARY 6TH, THE FEE WOULD GO INTO PLACE ON MARCH 8TH.

WHEN LOOKING AT FEES FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, WE LOOK AT THE COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATION FOR THE COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS.

WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE FEE IS IS A BIT IN EXCESS OF THE $46, BUT THAT IS THE MAXIMUM STATE ALLOWANCE.

THE SERVICE THAT THIS IS PROVIDING IS IS REALLY INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT ALIGNED.

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST THAT'S PUT THROUGH BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY.

SO WE DO FEEL IT ALIGNS MOSTLY WITH THE WITH THE HIGH LEVEL OF THE PYRAMID THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, AS FAR AS COST RECOVERY BETWEEN THE 80 AND 100% FEE.

SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED US TO RECOVER 100% OF WHAT WE CAN.

AND AS STATE STATUTE ONLY ALLOWS US TO COLLECT THE $46 PER HOUR, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING TODAY.

I WILL PASS IT ON TO MARIANNE SULLIVAN WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO GO THROUGH MORE INFORMATION WITH YOU.

HELLO, MAYOR COUNCIL.

MARY ANN SULLIVAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING IN PERSON, AS YOU CAN TELL.

I DON'T SOUND VERY WELL.

I'VE BEEN A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER.

BUT HAVE WORKED ON THIS ISSUE, WITH MR. TATAR, AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE LEGISLATION CHANGING.

AND WITH OUR BODY CAMERAS FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.

SO WHAT YOU CAN SEE THERE IS THIS IS THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED 39 129.

THAT WOULD ALLOW LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CHARGE FEES FOR THE REVIEWING AND REDACTING OF BODY CAMERA VIDEOS.

PRIOR TO THAT, WE WERE UNABLE TO CHARGE ANYTHING FOR THOSE SERVICES THAT WERE PROVIDED.

AND AS RICK INDICATED, THE MAXIMUM UNDER THE STATUTE IS THE $46 PER HOUR.

NEXT SLIDE.

AND SO THIS IS THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE FROM THE STATUTE THAT BASICALLY INDICATES THAT WE CAN, CHARGE THE REASONABLE COST OF REVIEWING, TRANSMITTING, MAKING A COPY OF AND AS NECESSARY, REDACTING THE VIDEO RECORDING.

AND CONSIDER ANY OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION.

WE CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, THE, COST THAT IT DOES TAKE US TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND REDACT.

IN THE REPORT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE AND ATTACHED TO THE INFORMATION FOR COUNCIL TODAY.

NEXT SLIDE. SO JUST AS A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY IN 2014, IT WAS ACTUALLY THE COUNCIL THAT APPROVED IN THE BUDGET MONEY FOR THE PURCHASE AND USE OF BODY CAMERAS BY THE FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND WE ARE ACTUALLY THE SECOND AGENCY IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO ACTUALLY GET BODY CAMERAS AND HAVE AT THIS POINT, HAD THEM FOR NINE YEARS, ALMOST TEN YEARS.

[02:15:02]

IT REALLY WAS UNKNOWN AT THE TIME.

WHAT THE DEMAND WOULD BE FOR COPIES OF THESE VIDEOS BY THE PUBLIC? NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING WAS CONTEMPLATED, NOR PROVIDED TO COVER ANY OF THE COSTS FOR REVIEWING AND REDACTING THE BODY CAMERA VIDEOS.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS CONTEMPLATED.

THEY OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE PUBLIC RECORDS THAT WE WOULD BE RECEIVING REQUESTS, BUT WE REALLY KIND OF DIDN'T KNOW THE LEVEL AT WHICH WE WOULD RECEIVE THAT AT THE TIME.

PUBLIC RECORDS LAW ONLY ALLOWED GOVERNMENT ENTITIES TO CHARGE FEES FOR COST OF COPYING PUBLIC RECORDS, BUT NOT ANY TIME THAT IT TOOK TO LOCATE THE RECORDS TO REVIEW OR REDACT ANY RECORDS.

SO THIS IS A CHANGE, IN GENERAL FOR PUBLIC RECORDS LAW, BUT ONLY APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO BODY CAMERA VIDEOS.

NEXT SLIDE. SO IN 2021, THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY PASSED A LAW THAT ALLOWED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO START CHARGING FEES FOR REVIEWING AND REDACTING OF THEIR BODY CAMERA VIDEOS.

IT DID NOT, HOWEVER, APPLY TO ANY LOCAL OR, COUNTY OR CITY AGENCIES.

THE CHARGE AT DPS IS ALLOWED TO DO IS 21.33 PER 30 MINUTES OF VIDEO REVIEWED AND REDACTED.

NOT REALLY SURE HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT.

BUT THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO CHARGE AND WHAT THEY'VE BEEN CHARGING SINCE THAT STATUTE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2021.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE NEW LAW.

PASSED IN 2023 THAT WOULD ALLOW LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CHARGE FEES UP TO THE $46 PER HOUR.

NEXT SLIDE. SO JUST SO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS, HOW IT HAPPENS IS A REQUEST IS MADE BY THE PUBLIC, EITHER ONLINE OR IN PERSON, FOR VIDEO THAT'S CONNECTED TO A PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION, REPORT OR INCIDENT THAT HAS OCCURRED.

AND THE RECORDS DEPARTMENT WILL TAKE THAT PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOK AND REVIEW AND SEE WHAT RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE.

AND THEN IT'S FORWARDED TO THE LEGAL ADVISOR.

THAT WOULD BE ME, FOR KIND OF THAT INITIAL REVIEW.

THIS WAS A PROCESS WE SET UP IN THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN WE, YOU KNOW, IMPLEMENTED THE PROGRAM AND HAVE CONTINUED WITH THAT PROCESS SINCE.

AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT PUBLIC RECORDS LAW ISN'T KIND OF LIKE MOST LAWS, JUST ISN'T SPECIFIC.

IT GIVES KIND OF BROAD RULES AS TO WHAT CAN OR CANNOT BE REDACTED.

AND IF WE WERE TO BE CHALLENGED ON THAT, IF SOMEBODY DOES MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST TO US, AND THEY BELIEVE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO REDACT OR WE DIDN'T PROVIDE THEM WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION, THEY COULD FILE A SPECIAL ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT, BASICALLY REQUESTING, THAT WE, PROVIDE THEM WITH AN EXPLANATION. AND THE JUDGE WILL DECIDE IF THE DECISION WE MADE TO MAKE CERTAIN REDACTIONS OR TO NOT, ALLOW CERTAIN INFORMATION TO BE RELEASED WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW.

SO IT'S IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT VARIES FROM BASICALLY VIDEO TO VIDEO TO MAKE THAT KIND OF DETERMINATION WHAT WE ARE GOING TO RELEASE OR NOT RELEASE.

SO I DO THAT INITIAL REVIEW MYSELF, THEN I SEND TO RECORDS, WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO THEN BE REDACTED FROM THE VIDEO? NEXT SLIDE. SO THE RECORD SUPERVISOR, AND OR THE LEAD RECORDS TECHNICIAN WILL GO THROUGH AND START THOSE REDACTIONS.

AND THEN HOW LONG IT TAKES THEM TO DO THOSE REDACTION DEPENDS ON HOW MANY REDACTIONS ARE NECESSARY IN THE VIDEO.

AND JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT TYPES OF THINGS ARE REDACTED.

WE DO REDACT OUT ANYTIME ANYONE PROVIDES ANY, PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION.

SO SUCH AS DATE OF BIRTH, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBERS, EMAIL ADDRESSES.

WE ALSO EITHER BLUR OR BLACK OUT IMAGES OF ANYBODY WHO'S BEEN INJURED.

IF WE GET REQUESTS, WHICH WE DO A LOT FOR ACCIDENT REPORTS.

IF SOMEBODY'S BEEN INJURED, IF THERE ARE JUVENILES, THAT APPEAR IN VIDEOS, WE WILL TAKE THE STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THOSE ARE TAKEN OUT.

AND THEN THERE CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC THINGS DEPENDING ON THE PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION.

AND IF IT INVOLVES JUVENILES AT A SCHOOL AND THERE'S INFORMATION BEING PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, FROM SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, WE MAY REDACT OUT THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.

SO IT REALLY IS KIND OF CASE BY CASE.

BUT THEN THE RECORDS DIVISION WILL GO THROUGH AND MAKE THOSE REDACTIONS.

NEXT SLIDE. SO IT IS ESTIMATED THAT IT TAKES ABOUT 75% OF THE LENGTH OF THE VIDEO TO COMPLETE THE REDUCTIONS.

SO THE EXAMPLE WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 45 MINUTES TO REDACT A VIDEO THAT'S APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR LONG.

ONCE REDUCTIONS ARE MADE, THE VIDEOS ARE THEN DOWNLOADED, PLACED ON CD OR THUMBDRIVE.

THE CURRENT STATUTE, I THINK, ACTUALLY REFERENCES TAPES WHICH WERE USED IN THE PAST.

IT HAS BEEN TAKING LONGER AND LONGER TO DOWNLOAD ONTO A CD.

WE'VE KIND OF TRANSITIONED ALREADY TO BE USING, THUMB DRIVES BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT EASIER.

[02:20:01]

AND ACTUALLY LOTS OF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN HAVE CD PLAYERS IN THEIR COMPUTERS ANYMORE.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THE HOURLY SALARY COSTS FOR REVIEW BY LEGAL AND REDACTIONS MADE BY THE RECORDS SUPERVISOR LEAD TECHNICIAN WHILE EXCEED THAT CAP OF THE STATE STATUTE OF $46 PER HOUR.

AND SO THAT IS WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THE, THE ORDINANCE ADOPTED TONIGHT BE THAT MAXIMUM AMOUNT.

EXCUSE ME. SO SORRY.

UNDER OUR POLICY.

OFFICE. SORRY.

OFFICERS ARE REQUIRED TO SORRY.

I JUST WANT TO TAKE A BREAK. MARY ANN, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A BREAK? LET THE CHIEF HANDLE IT FROM HERE.

CATCH YOUR BREATH. SO, UNDER OUR POLICY, OFFICERS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR CAMERAS ACTIVATED AT ALL TIMES.

THEY'RE INTERACTING WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHETHER THAT'S VICTIMS, WITNESSES, SUSPECTS.

AND WE'VE ACTUALLY EXPANDED THAT.

NOW. OUR POLICE AIDES NOW HAVE CAMERAS IF YOU SEE THEM.

AND SO DO OUR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS.

AND THEN IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR, FROM JULY OF 2022 TO JUNE 2023, WE RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 140 REQUESTS, INVOLVING BODY CAMERA VIDEOS, SOME A LOT OF PEOPLE REQUESTED BY CASE.

AND YOU MAY HAVE THREE OFFICERS ON SCENE OR FOUR OFFICERS ON SCENE.

SO IT ENDS UP BEING MULTIPLE VIDEOS.

SO WE REDACTED CLOSE TO, I THINK, 200 HOURS WORTH OF VIDEOING, REDACTION FOR THE 136 REQUESTS CAME IN.

AND THAT'S JUST REVIEWING.

THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE TIME IT TAKES TO DOWNLOAD IT ONTO A CD OR THUMB DRIVE.

MOST OF OUR REQUESTS COME FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS, INSURANCE COMPANIES AND ATTORNEYS.

IF IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, A CRITICAL INCIDENT.

USUALLY WE POST THOSE ON OUR TRANSPARENCY WEBSITE ANYWAY.

IT'S JUST EASIER FOR US, THE VIDEOS OUT THERE, AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS IT, THEY CAN DOWNLOAD IT OFF THERE FOR FREE.

THE MEDIA DOES MAKE UP A SMALL PORTION OF REQUESTS FOR VIDEOS, BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING, THEY REALLY LIKE, YEARS AGO, WE HAD AN OFFICER FIGHTING WITH A NAKED GUY, AND THAT SEEMED TO HIT THE NEWS AND EVERYONE WANTED IT.

WELL, THAT WAS A TON OF REDACTION, SO WE HAD TO BLUR OUT ALL PARTS OF NAKEDNESS.

COST FOR VIDEOS CAN BE MANAGED BY MAKING REQUESTS FOR SPECIFIC VIDEOS, SUCH AS ONE WHERE A PERSON WAS ARRESTED OR ONES WHERE PARTICULAR PEOPLE WERE INTERVIEWED, AS OPPOSED TO ALL VIDEOS IN EACH CASE, WHEN WE DO GET THOSE LARGE RECORDS REQUESTS, USUALLY MARY ANN CALLS THE REQUESTER AND SAYS, WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? I MAY BE ABLE TO FIND IT FOR YOU IN THIS ONE VIDEO INSTEAD OF HAVING TO REDACT 10 OR 15.

AND THEN I TALKED ABOUT THE POSTING OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS ON OUR TRANSPARENCY PAGE.

SO BASED ON THE STATE LAW, WE'D LIKE TO ASK TO RECOVER THE FEE OF $46 PER VIDEO HOUR REVIEWED AND REDACTED, AND A FEE OF $30 FOR THE DIGITAL MEDIA STORAGE. WHETHER THAT'S A CD, THUMB DRIVE OR OTHER DIGITAL MEDIA THAT MAY BECOME AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK.

WITH THAT, I THINK WE'LL WE'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND THEN REQUEST THAT WE READ THE ORDINANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME.

THANK YOU, CHIEF.

OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING OVER.

THERE IS A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION IN THE LAW FOR VICTIMS TO NOT CHARGE VICTIMS WHO REQUEST COPIES OF REPORTS AND VIDEOS SO THAT THEY DON'T GET CHARGED.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

VERY IMPORTANT, COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS.

SO. WHERE I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS IS I DON'T WANT TO, DISCOURAGE OR PREVENT OUR CITIZENS FROM BEING ABLE TO GET INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP THEM IN THEIR CASE BECAUSE OF THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION.

SO WHAT IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, WOULD HELP PROTECT THEM? FROM THEN EXPERIENCING THAT TO WHERE THEY CAN'T GET THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO HELP DEFEND THEIR CASE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FINANCIALLY ABLE TO.

SO IF THEY'RE A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO FREE VIDEOS, POLICE REPORTS THROUGH THE DISCOVERY PROCESS IN THE COURTS.

SO THEIR DEFENSE ATTORNEY OR THEY CAN REQUEST IT OF THE PROSECUTORS.

AND BY LAW, THE PROSECUTORS HAVE TO HAND THAT OVER.

THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS.

AND MARY ANN CAN CORRECT ME IF I MISSPOKE.

[02:25:02]

NO, THAT IS CORRECT. SO UNDER THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PROCEDURE, POLICE DEPARTMENT TURNS OVER ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, AND THEN THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THAT TO THE DEFENSE.

SO THIS DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT.

THIS IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE MAKING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE.

WE WILL SOMETIMES GET REQUESTS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE CHARGED, AND WE USUALLY CONTACT THEM AND SAY, MAKE THE REQUEST TO THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE SO THAT THEY CAN GET IT, THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

OKAY, SO THIS IS REALLY ONLY FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SEE THAT NAKED VIDEO WRESTLING POSSIBLY SOMEWHAT.

AND WE DO GET WE DO GET A LOT OF REQUESTS SOMETIMES.

IT KIND OF BULK FOR WE WANT ALL REPORTS AND VIDEOS PERTAINING TO THIS INDIVIDUAL AND IT'S SOMETIMES FROM LIKE A DIVORCE ATTORNEY, OR THINGS LIKE THAT. AND USUALLY I'LL CONTACT THEM AND SAY, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU GET POLICE REPORTS FIRST AND THEN SEE IF THERE ARE VIDEOS ATTACHED THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT? BECAUSE IT IS A LOT FOR US TO KIND OF REVIEW.

IF IT'S JUST GOING TO NOT REALLY BE PERTINENT TO WHAT THEY NEED IT FOR.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UNDER PUBLIC RECORDS LAW, PEOPLE CAN JUST REQUEST WHATEVER THEY WANT FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE.

AND WE HAVE TO PROVIDE IT.

VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MARY ANN AND CHIEF MUSSELMAN.

I'M FULLY ON BOARD WITH THIS.

I TOTALLY SEE THE RELEVANCE AND THE WISDOM OF IT.

I WILL BE VOTING IN TO SUPPORT IT.

I AM FAMILIAR WITH A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT WITHIN THE PAST WEEK AND A HALF OR SO.

SOMEWHAT MAYBE INACCURATELY, COMPARING, THE COUNTY'S APPROACH TO THIS AND THE CITY'S APPROACH.

I WAS JUST WONDERING IF FOR, FOR FOR THE PUBLIC YOU WANTED TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ON ON THOSE.

DIFFERENCES, OR SPEAK TO THAT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO IF, IF YOU'D RATHER NOT SAY ANYTHING.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND.

THAT'S TOTALLY FINE WITH ME.

I BELIEVE OUR FEES.

IF I READ THE ARTICLE CORRECTLY, I THOUGHT OUR FEES WERE LESS THAN WHAT THE COUNTY WAS CHARGING, BUT I ONLY READ THE HEADLINE.

I DIDN'T DIG INTO THE ARTICLE ALTOGETHER, SO.

AND I DIDN'T SEE THE ARTICLE.

I DO KNOW, AS A AS A MEMBER OF THE ARIZONA LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGAL ADVISORS ASSOCIATION THAT, DIFFERENT ENTITIES DO IT DIFFERENTLY.

OUR PROCESS HERE FOR THE CITY IS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND HAVE THE ORDINANCE.

SOME PEOPLE JUST POST THE NOTICE AND ADOPT THE FEES.

THE COUNTY I KNOW ALSO HAS DIFFERENT FEES FOR NOT JUST BODY CAMERA, BUT THE VIDEOS FROM THE JAIL, WHICH DO GET REQUESTED A LOT AS WELL, WHICH ARE SEPARATE KIND OF FROM THIS.

AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT NOT SURE YOU KNOW, WHAT REALLY THE COMPARISON WAS THERE.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS PROCESS AND PROCEDURE THAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CHIEF, MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THIS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK.

YES. MARY ANN.

MARY ANN, I FEEL FOR YOU.

I HAD ONE OF THOSE COUGHING FITS AND COUNCIL ONE NIGHT.

SO. SO THE FEED THAT THAT WE ARE CHARGING, THAT'S BY LAW, RIGHT? WE WE CAN'T CHARGE MORE THAN THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? AND SO WHATEVER THE COUNTY IS DOING, IT'S DEFINITELY DIFFERENT.

RIGHT OR WHATEVER.

I'M NOT ANSWERING.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO ANSWER FOR THEM.

BUT LEGALLY, THIS IS ALL WE CAN CHARGE, CORRECT? CORRECT. LEGALLY, FOR $46 PER HOUR WORTH OF REDACTION IS THE MOST WE CAN CHARGE.

FOR REVIEWING AND REDACTING, SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CHARGE FOR THE TIME IT TAKES ME TO REVIEW THE VIDEOS, AS WELL AS THE TIME IT TAKES OUR RECORDS CLERKS TO DO THOSE REDACTIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE WHAT THE COUNTY'S FEES ARE AND SO CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THAT.

OKAY. SO LET ME JUST, BE BE CLEAR.

SO, YOU CAN CHARGE UP TO $46 FOR REVIEWING AND THEN ANOTHER $46 FOR REDACTING. OKAY, SO THAT'S 100, AND NO, THAT'S DUE MY WHATEVER THE MATH IS FOR THAT.

AND IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY HOURS LIKE SO IF YOU HAVE A TEN MINUTE VIDEO, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE FULL $46.

RIGHT. BUT IF YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL VIDEOS, IT WILL BE.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE CAN WORK WITH PEOPLE TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE COST AS WELL.

OKAY. LIKE IF THEY'RE REALLY ONLY LOOKING FOR WE ONLY WANT THE VIDEO THAT CONTAINS THIS.

[02:30:02]

WELL THEN DO YOU NEED ALL FIVE OFFICERS VIDEOS THAT CONTAIN THAT OR DO YOU JUST WANT ONE OKAY OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT JUST THAT ANSWERS.

I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN THE CHAT.

AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

THAT IS CORRECT.

SO I AM SPEAKING SLOWLY IN CASE SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO PUT A C OR A Q IN THE CHAT.

OTHERWISE I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A, MOTION TO READ ORDINANCE NUMBER 2024-02 BY TITLE ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT.

WE READ ORDINANCE NUMBER 2024-02 FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THIS MEETING.

THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR I, I I.

ANY OPPOSED.

OKAY. CITY CLERK.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, TITLE THREE BUSINESS REGULATIONS, CHAPTER THREE DASH TEN USER FEES.

SECTION THREE DASH.

TEN DASH 001-0004 POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REVISE EXISTING FEES AND ADD A NEW FEE FOR BODY CAMERA, VIDEO REVIEW AND REDACTION. PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES.

SEVERABILITY. PROVIDING FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

ALL RIGHT, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 15 MINUTE, 16 MINUTE BREAK IF MY CLOCK IS CORRECT.

SO. SEE YOU BACK IN 16 MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE THIS NEXT ITEM IS MR.

[A. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2024-04: A resolution of the Flagstaff City Council, approving an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the State of Arizona Department of Revenue for the administration, collection, audit, and licensing of transaction privilege taxes, use taxes, severance taxes, jet fuel excise and uses taxes and rental occupancy taxes imposed by the State, cities or towns STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Read Resolution No. 2024-04 by title only 2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2024-04 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-04]

TATTER AS WELL.

SO WE'RE ON REGULAR AGENDA ITEM A CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 202404. MR. TATTER, TAKE IT AWAY.

YES, MAYOR. VICE MAYOR.

CITY COUNCIL. ITEM 11 A IS A RESOLUTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, TO ADOPT AN IGA INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUES.

THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SETS FORTH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AS WELL AS THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF BETWEEN THE LOCAL TAX ADMINISTRATION, FOR CITIES AND TOWNS AND WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE FOR EACH PARTY.

IT ALSO INCLUDES SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

CITIES AND ADR WILL ABIDE TO, SUCH AS PROTECTING TAXPAYER CONFIDENTIALITY AND INFORMATION SECURITY.

THIS IGA FOR IN 2023, IGA WILL REPLACE THE 2019 IGA YOU'VE ADOPTED IN THE PAST.

AND WITH THAT, WE ARE JUST HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? NO. AND NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO THEN I WILL, TAKE A MOTION TO READ RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-04 BY TITLE ONLY.

SO MOVED. AKALI'S SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU.

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

AND HE OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT. CITY CLERK.

A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, COLLECTION, AUDIT AND LICENSING OF TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE, TAXES, USE TAXES, SEVERANCE TAXES, JET FUEL EXCISE AND USE TAXES, AND RENTAL OCCUPANCY TAXES IMPOSED BY THE STATE'S CITIES OR TOWNS.

PROVIDING FOR DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.

EXPIRATION OF THE EXISTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

STACEY. AND A MOTION TO ADOPT.

SO MOVED. I SECOND.

[02:35:02]

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING DOWN TO DISCUSSION ITEMS.

[A. Continuation of discussion regarding the allocation of Homeless Shelter and Services Funds provided by the Arizona Department of Housing Continuation of City Council discussion as necessary, concluding with direction regarding allocations for Homeless Shelter and Services Funds provided by the Arizona Department of Housing. Staff will seek City Council's consideration of approval of grant agreements for the recommended projects through consent agendas at future meeting dates, TBD.]

12, A CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF HOMELESS SHELTER AND SERVICES FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING.

AND I'LL NOTE THAT WE HAVE TWO ONLINE COMMENTS.

BUT FIRST, I WANT TO OPEN IT UP, TO STAFF.

IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE AND THEN TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

SARAH DA, HOUSING DIRECTOR.

I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH BASE WITH YOU AND LET YOU KNOW THAT, STAFF HAS ALREADY STARTED EXAMINING THIS PROCESS.

WHAT HAPPENED DIFFERENTLY THIS TIME? SINCE THIS IS A REPEAT OF A PROCESS WE'VE DONE KNOWING THAT WE HAVE MORE COMING, CDBG IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.

WE HAVE STARTED EXAMINING WHAT'S DIFFERENT.

WHAT DID WE DO DIFFERENTLY, WHAT HAPPENED DIFFERENTLY IN THE COMMUNITY? WHAT ARE ANY CHANGE CONDITIONS SO THAT WE ARE MORE RESPONSIVE, MORE ABLE TO BE TO NOT DO THIS? AGAIN, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT THIS PROCESS AGAIN, AND THAT IS NOT SAID WITH ANY ILL INTENT.

IT'S BEEN AWKWARD, I THINK FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.

AND SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALREADY EXAMINING THOSE PROCESSES.

WHERE CAN WE TWEAK? WE'RE REPEATING A PROCESS WE'VE DONE OVER AND OVER.

HAS SOMETHING CHANGED WHERE THOSE ELEMENTS ARE NO LONGER EFFECTIVE, THAT TYPE OF THING.

SO I WANTED TO LEAD WITH THAT AND LET YOU KNOW THAT WE DID IN THE PACKETS THIS TIME, INCLUDE THE PROPOSALS AND THE MASTER RANKING SHEETS FOR EACH ONE.

WE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH GUIDANCE FROM PROCUREMENT AND GRANTS REGARDING BEST PRACTICES.

GIVEN YOUR REQUESTS, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL, ETC..

THERE THEY ARE. THEY'RE IN YOUR PACKETS FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE.

WITH THAT, WE CAN GO TWO WAYS.

CHRISTINA'S PREPARED A PRESENTATION, THAT IS, YOU'VE SEEN THE BULK OF IT.

WE DO HAVE ONE SLIDE PER PROPOSAL, SHOULD YOU WISH TO REVIEW WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED.

OR IF YOU'VE HEARD ENOUGH FROM US, WE CAN SLIP STRAIGHT INTO DISCUSSION.

THAT'S YOUR CALL.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE THAT ISN'T REPEATED.

OKAY. IN MY HEAD THERE WASN'T.

BUT I DIDN'T WRITE THE WHOLE THING, SO.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR FROM CHRISTINE OR MOVE? I LOVE HEARING FROM CHRISTINE, BUT I VOTE FOR DISCUSSION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S HEAR IT.

MAYOR. MAYBE IF I COULD ASK YOU TO CLARIFY.

HEAR IT. FROM WHO? OH, SORRY.

HEAR FROM CHRISTINE.

ALL RIGHT. AND AND AND MAYOR COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER MATHEWS HAS A COMMENT.

I CAN WAIT TILL AFTER CHRISTINE IS DONE.

IT MIGHT BE ANSWERED.

OH, OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER. HARRIS, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? YES, I DID, AND IF AND IF THEY COULD KEEP THEIR PRESENTATION BRIEF.

AND IF WE'VE ALREADY HEARD IT, WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.

AT LEAST I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT NEW STUFF, DEFINITELY TELL US.

BUT IF NOT, LET'S NOT BELABOR.

ALL RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

THANKS FOR HAVING US BACK THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS THE ALLOCATION OF THESE IMPORTANT FUNDS.

SO I WILL JUST SKIP THROUGH THIS REALLY QUICKLY.

THE FUNDS ARE FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING.

WE WERE ABLE TO FIND AN ADDITIONAL $56,000 THAT COULD BE ALLOCATED FOR PROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO ADMIN.

THIS IS JUST INFORMATION ABOUT OUR RANKING COMMITTEE.

AND SO, THIS IS KIND OF THE NEWER INFORMATION.

SO JUST TO GIVE A RUNDOWN OF THE REQUESTS WE DID RECEIVE, COMMUNITY ACTION TEAMS OF FLAGSTAFF HAS REQUESTED SLIGHTLY LESS THAN $100,000 FOR THEIR MOBILE OUTREACH AND SHOWER BUS PROGRAM.

SPECIFICALLY, THE HSF FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR SALARY EXPENSES FOR A BUS DRIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, AND THEIR HOMELESS NAVIGATOR, AS WELL AS BUS FUEL MAINTENANCE COSTS AND RENT FOR WINTER OVERNIGHT PARKING.

NORTHLAND FAMILY HELP CENTER IS REQUESTED $100,000 FOR THEIR YOUTH SHELTER PROGRAM.

FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR SALARIES FOR YOUTH SHELTER EMPLOYEES.

HOMELESS YOUTH CONNECTION IS REQUESTED.

FUNDS FOR THEIR EMPOWERING YOUTH FOR THE FUTURE PROGRAM, AND FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR THE SALARY OF THEIR YOUTH COACH, WHO ALSO SERVES AS A CASE MANAGER AND WORKS ONE ON ONE WITH YOUTH. HOUSING SOLUTIONS OF NORTHERN ARIZONA HAS REQUESTED FUNDS FOR THEIR HOMELESS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAMS AT BOTH SHARON MANOR AND JOJO'S PLACE.

FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR SALARIES FOR FOUR PROGRAM STAFF, CLIENT MOVING ASSISTANCE, UTILITIES, INSURANCE AND OTHER PROGRAMMATIC COSTS.

[02:40:08]

CATHOLIC CHARITIES HAS REQUESTED A LITTLE OVER $144,000 FOR THEIR FAMILY SHELTER AND THEIR PATH OUTREACH PROGRAM.

FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR SHELTER AND OUTREACH PROGRAM STAFF SALARIES, AS WELL AS HOTEL AND MOTEL VOUCHERS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER NEEDS FOR FAMILIES.

AND LASTLY, FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES HAS REQUESTED $550,000 FOR THEIR EMERGENCY SHELTER PROGRAMS. THIS INCLUDES THEIR CONGREGATE SHELTER AS WELL AS PROGRAMS AT THE CROWN AND THE SOON TO BE OPENING LANTERN.

FUNDS WILL PRIMARILY BE USED FOR PROGRAM STAFF SALARIES AND SOME, ABOUT $48,000 FOR SHELTER OPERATIONAL EXPENSES.

SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS OUR RECOMMENDED ALLOCATIONS.

AND THAT INCLUDES TAKING THAT ADDITIONAL $56,000 AND ALLOCATING IT EQUALLY BETWEEN THE THREE AGENCIES THAT WERE NOT INITIALLY RECOMMENDED FOR FULL FUNDING.

AND WE'RE HERE TO RECEIVE YOUR DIRECTION AND MOVE FORWARD TO CONTRACT APPROVALS.

WE REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF THESE FUNDS IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AS YOU MAKE YOUR DECISIONS.

THANK YOU. CHRISTINE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MATTHEWS.

SO MY COMMENTS ARE JUST, SOME OBSERVATION THAT I WANTED TO SHARE.

JUST SOME INSIGHT, BECAUSE I LIVE IN THIS WORLD A LITTLE BIT.

I WAS MADE AWARE, AND I'M IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR THAT WE HAVE OVER 400, YOUTH AGING OUT OF THE FOSTER SYSTEM.

THEY GO TO WHOEVER THEY CALL IT AT LITTLE AMERICA EVERY YEAR, AND THAT'S JUST IN NORTHERN ARIZONA.

AND SO AND I'M SAYING ALL THIS JUST TO PUT AN EMPHASIS THAT ALL OF THESE ARE SO CRITICAL SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITY.

AND THERE'S NOT A LOT FOR, AGING OUT YOUTH OUT OF THE FOSTER SYSTEM.

AND I CAN IMAGINE SOMEONE WHO'S GONE THROUGH A TROUBLED, HOME LIFE TO THEN, AT 18, BE KICKED TO THE CURB.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M CONSIDERATE OF THAT.

AND I MENTIONED THIS LAST WEEK, KATHY, CATHOLIC CHARITIES, THEIR PATH PROGRAM.

MY GOSH, WE'VE ALREADY HAD TWO PEOPLE THIS YEAR, DIE IN SHELTERED.

AND THEY'RE THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND GOING OUT, SEARCHING FOR PEOPLE THAT MAY NEED ASSISTANCE TO BRING THEM INTO WARMER AREAS.

AND BESIDES MY TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM FOR FAMILIES, I BELIEVE CATHOLIC CHARITIES HAS THE ONLY SHELTER EMERGENCY SHELTER TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER. SO MY POINT IS THAT THERE'S, THERE'S JUST SO MANY UNIQUE STORIES.

I WISH I WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE DETAILS OF THE ASK BEFORE I COULD HAVE RECEIVED MORE ANSWERS.

I STILL WILL BE SEEKING ANSWERS.

I WAS TROUBLED TO READ THAT, IN THE NARRATIVE FOR THE FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES THAT THIS.

MOST OF THIS MONEY IS FOR THE NEW HOTEL TO SHELTER IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT HAPPENED ON A PHOENIX.

THE CLOSING DOWN OF THE HOMELESS AREA AND THE THE SOBER HOMES.

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT THE NUMBER.

I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW WE WERE GETTING 2400 BECAUSE I KNOW THE THE POINT IN TIME SAYS 400 AND SOMETHING CATHOLIC CHARITIES AND THEIR NARRATIVE SAID 500. SO I THINK THERE'S SOME DISAGREEMENT ON WHERE I THINK THEY GOT IT FROM THEIR FRONT DOOR NUMBERS, BUT IT'S NOT 2400.

BUT NOW I KNOW WHERE THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, THAT NUMBER IS COMING FROM AND THAT THAT'S CONCERNING.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO DISCUSS THAT.

BUT SO BECAUSE OF ALL THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE OF WHY I'M SAYING THIS, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, THAT WE KEEP THE 100% FUNDING OF THE TOP THREE RATING AND THEN SPLIT THE ALLOCATION OF THE OTHER 56,000 TO THE OTHER THREE.

AND I'M HOPEFUL AND I KNOW SARAH, DOESN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS.

NONE OF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN, BUT WE DO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, AND I JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS REALLY STRESSFUL.

EVERYBODY HAS, YOU KNOW, FAMILIES AT HOME.

BUT WHETHER IT'S OUR LOCAL TAXPAYER MONEY OR THE STATE FUNDED OR FEDERAL FUNDED, IT COMES FROM TAXPAYERS AND.

PART OF OUR JOB HERE IS TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF ALL THAT MONEY.

AND SO, BECAUSE WE FELT A LITTLE IN THE DARK, WE ASKED SOME REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS AND KEPT ASKING AND ASKING, TO GET THOSE ANSWERS SO WE CAN FULFILL OUR OBLIGATION TO KNOW WHEN OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE OUT THERE ASKING US, WELL, HOW COME YOU GAVE YOU KNOW, SO AND SO, HOW COME YOU APPROVE THAT THEY GET BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, WHATEVER THE CONVERSATION MAY BE THAT WE CAN INSTEAD OF SAYING, I HAVE NO IDEA.

[02:45:01]

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A NUMBER THEY GAVE US.

WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY, AND THIS IS THE SERVICES AND THIS IS THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH.

I DON'T WANT TO EVER TAKE FROM OUR HOUSING COMMISSION.

THEY'RE VALUABLE.

THEY WORK HARD.

AND I WANT TO JUST EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION ON WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND GONE THROUGH.

AND I DON'T WANT THEM TO FEEL THAT WE WERE SECOND GUESSING THEM.

AND SO PLEASE PASS THAT ON TO THEM THAT WE JUST NEEDED TO FILL, THAT WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE PROGRAMS WERE, WHO THEY WERE SERVING, HOW THE NUMBERS MATCH UP.

YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AT THE END OF THE DAY.

THAT'S WHY IT COMES TO COUNCIL TO GET THAT FINAL APPROVAL ON THESE BIG NUMBERS.

SO I JUST APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR TIME AND, ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND THE COMMISSION'S EFFORT.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS.

VICE MAYOR ASLIN.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I'M EAGER TO HEAR FROM OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

I WILL JUST PREVIEW VERY QUICKLY SORT OF THE THINGS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

I DEFINITELY THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION HERE THIS EVENING.

I'VE BEEN FAIRLY CLEAR OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE, THE.

MAJORITY OF THE, NOT THE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE MONEY GO TO WHERE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE SERVICES ARE BEING PROVIDED.

IN MY MIND, THAT'S FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES.

I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE THESE RANKINGS ON HOW THEY'RE WEIGHTED.

REALLY, I THINK IT'S IT'S SORT OF CANCELS EACH OTHER OUT.

THESE THESE SCORES ARE SO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S A RELEVANT, CONSIDERATION IN THE CONVERSATION, BUT I AM GLAD THAT THERE WAS A PROCESS FOR PEOPLE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S UP TO US TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT I, WHILE I REMAIN CONFIDENT IN, IN MY ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THAT WE THAT WE REALLY SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS, GETTING THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK, SO TO SPEAK, WITH THESE MONIES GOING TO SHELTER SERVICES, I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO LOOKING AT, A PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION BASED ON THE TOTAL FUNDING REQUEST AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE 556,000 AVAILABLE, AND I CAN PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN FOR THAT.

THIS WOULD BE A COMPROMISE FOR ME, BUT I THINK IT'S A IT'S AN ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE, AND IT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M GOING THIS EVENING.

BUT AGAIN, I MIGHT BE JUMPING THE GUN A LITTLE BIT.

MAYOR, I AM EAGER TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC TO.

I USUALLY TRY AND BE PRETTY BRIEF, BUT I CAN'T PROMISE THAT TONIGHT FOR THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.

SO LET ME FIRST OF ALL, START BY SAYING THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HAS PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS.

SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR COMMISSION, BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET PAID TO DO THIS.

THIS IS A VOLUNTEER JOB FOR THEM, AND WE APPRECIATE THEIR VOLUNTEER VOLUNTEERISM.

I HAVE TO BE REALLY HONEST AND UP FRONT.

I WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THIS PROCESS.

I AM STILL NOT PLEASED WITH THE OUTCOME WHERE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO END UP.

BUT FOR THE SAKE OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE NEED THAT IS, OUT THERE, WE WANT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TONIGHT.

WE WANT TO GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION SO THAT THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE ANTICIPATING FUNDING, CAN RECEIVE THAT FUNDING AND GET ON WITH DOING THE BUSINESS OF, OF THEIR CENTERS.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE TAKE WE NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

AND WHEN I SAY WE, I MEAN HOUSING STAFF AND EVERYONE ELSE NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS PROCESS.

AND WHAT HAPPENED? I DO NOT LIKE HEARING, IN THE NEWSPAPER, THAT COUNCIL WAS HOLDING UP MONEY THAT NEEDED TO BE OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY.

NOW, I KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY WRITE IN THE NEWSPAPER, BUT IT DID NOT FEEL GOOD BECAUSE IT WASN'T OUR FAULT, BECAUSE WE DID NOT RECEIVE THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR AND THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS.

AND SO ALL OF US NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSCIENTIOUS OF THE OTHER PERSON'S POSITION.

AND SO I'M NOT TRYING TO LECTURE ANYONE.

I'M JUST BEING REALLY HONEST AND UP FRONT.

AND AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, I WILL HOLD OUR STAFF AND PUT THEM UP AGAINST ANY STAFF IN THE COUNTRY.

BUT BUT THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT DOES NOT MAKE ME FEEL GOOD.

[02:50:03]

AND SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT AND, I AM GOING TO BE WORKING AS HARD AS I POSSIBLY CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE, THAT I DO MY JOB AND THAT I HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT I READ, EVERYTHING THAT YOU GIVE ME AND MAKE SURE AND ANSWER, ASK QUESTIONS.

MAYBE BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO THIS PROCESS, AGAIN, SO THAT WE DON'T RUN INTO THIS PROBLEM AGAIN AND THAT ALL OF US CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE.

AND SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE FOR RIGHT NOW.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT, OTHER SUGGESTIONS COME UP IN TERMS OF HOW, IF THERE'S ANY REALLOCATION, HOW THAT WORKS.

AND SO I DO AGREE THAT, THE, THE ORGANIZATION THAT PROVIDES THE SERVICE TO THE MAJORITY, TO MORE PEOPLE, IS WHERE I THINK THE BULK OF THE FUNDS SHOULD GO.

AND SO THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU. A QUICK AUDIO CHECK.

AM I COMING ACROSS OKAY? YES. YEAH.

OH, GOOD. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE BAD RECEPTION BEFORE.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING TO HELP INFORM THE DISCUSSION.

AND I'LL PREFACE BY, NOTING THAT, OF COURSE, THERE'S A LOT OF SCRUTINY ON THIS.

AS WE WOULD EXPECT, IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC.

AND THE EXPENDITURE OF DOLLARS, ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, GARNERS THIS TYPE OF ATTENTION.

WE'RE LISTENING CLOSELY TO THE COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, AND WE WILL INDEED, CONTINUE TO, MAKE THESE PROCESSES TRANSPARENT AND INFORM THE COUNCIL AS BEST AS WE CAN ON THAT TOPIC.

AND I THINK A LITTLE BIT RESPONSIVE TO THE VICE MAYOR'S COMMENTS.

JUST A REMINDER TO THE COUNCIL AS WELL.

AND PURSUANT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION FROM SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, WE HAVE, ADMINISTRATIVELY WE HAVE, TAKEN MEASURES TO PUT INTO PLACE A, A LONG TERM CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WITH FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES, AS COUNCIL MAY RECALL, YOU KNOW, THE, THE YEAR AND THIS THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC TONIGHT.

BUT BUT IT DOES IT RELATES TO IT PERIPHERALLY.

IN TERMS OF THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS, COUNCIL EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO SEE THAT FORMALIZED IN A LONG TERM CONTRACT.

AND WE HAVE, PUT, PUT THE MEASURES, MEASURES IN PLACE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THAT AMOUNT AT INITIALLY, IT CAN CHANGE OVER TIME.

WILL BE 100,000 A YEAR.

NOW THAT'S ALWAYS SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE FINAL BUDGET, BUT IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE A LONG TERM ARRANGEMENT THAT WILL THAT COUNCIL CAN REVISIT EVERY YEAR. OF COURSE.

WHEREAS IN THE PAST THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.

SO, WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE COMMENTS MADE AND THE SPECIFIC AGAIN, TO THE VICE MAYOR.

AND, I JUST WANTED TO INFORM COUNCIL OR REMIND COUNCIL OF THAT ACTION THAT WAS TO.

THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER.

COUNCIL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE I TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE THE IN-PERSON COMMENT FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GO TO ONLINE.

THANK YOU MAYOR. OUR IN PERSON COMMENTER IS ANTHONY GARCIA.

HELLO, MADAM.

MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND STAFF ANTHONY GARCIA, 2212 NORTH CENTER STREET, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.

DURING THIS PROCESS, WE HEARD FROM COUNCIL A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES SOME UNTRUTHS THAT WERE SPOKEN IN THE PUBLIC REALM.

THAT REALLY KIND OF HIT ME AND TOOK ME OFF GUARD FOR A MINUTE, BECAUSE AFTER THIS, I HAD TO DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC COMING TO ME, SOME OF MY FRIENDS AND SOME OF MY COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ASKING WHAT'S GOING ON WITH COUNCIL AND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH STAFF.

WHY ARE THEY USING OUR MONEY FOR THINGS SUCH AS PET PROJECTS? SO I REFER BACK TO DECEMBER 19TH, WHEN A STATEMENT WAS MADE SHOOTING IN THE DARK, BLINDFOLDED AT TARGETS TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS WHEN THAT REALLY DISCOUNTS THAT.

THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, AN ACTION COMMITTEE PUT IN OR A RANKING COMMITTEE PUT INTO PLACE AND A COMMISSION THAT WAS ALL WEIGHED IN ON THIS ON A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WITH STAFF.

AND THAT'S THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION.

THAT THAT THE PUBLIC BELIEVES BECAUSE OF YOUR YOUR VOICE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS GIANT MEGAPHONE.

AND WHEN I TRY TO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM, WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

[02:55:01]

THEY STILL WANT TO BELIEVE THE THINGS THAT WERE CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE.

AND THEN THAT BRINGS ME ALSO TO THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE AT LAST WEEK'S MEETING ABOUT PET PROJECTS, AND THAT WAS REFERRING TO THE $56,000 MONEY ALLOTMENT.

AND I SEE THAT IDEAS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN, AND I RESPECT THAT.

I REALIZE THAT I MAY SOON BE IN YOUR POSITION AND SOMEBODY WILL SOON BE COMING AT ME SAYING, YOU'RE WRONG, AND I RESPECT THAT AS WELL.

BUT UNDERSTAND THAT THE PUBLIC REALLY TAKES YOUR WORDS INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THEN THEY COME TO THEIR FRIENDS WHO THEY TRUST AND THEY SAY, WHAT'S GOING ON? AND WHEN I TELL THEM WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON, THAT THAT PET PROJECT STATEMENT WAS COMPLETELY A.

UNTRUE AND JUST TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT THAT THERE IS A PROCESS TO THIS, AND THE PROCESS WAS INCLUDING ALL OF YOU AS WELL AS STAFF ON A VERY LIMITED TIME SCHEDULE.

IT MAKES ME JUST WANT TO REMIND COUNCIL THAT YOUR VOICE IS BEING HEARD BY SO MANY PEOPLE AND SO MANY PEOPLE THAT AREN'T CONNECTING TO YOU EACH INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THAT ARE REACHING OUT TO THEIR COMMUNITY LEADERS LIKE MYSELF.

AND I KNOW WE CAN DO BETTER MOVING FORWARD.

WHEN IT COMES TO, YOU KNOW, GIVING STAFF THE ABILITY AND THE ROOM TO DO WHAT THEY DO AND AND BEING CONTRARIAN WITHOUT SPREADING FALSEHOODS BECAUSE CONTRARIANISM IS PERFECT.

THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO REALLY SUSS OUT THESE CONVERSATIONS.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE CATEGORICALLY JUST TELLING UNTRUTHS TO THE PUBLIC IN A SLIGHT AND PUNCH DOWN TO STAFF WAY, THAT'S JUST WRONG.

AT COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEW'S.

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT NOW OR.

YES, AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. THANK YOU MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE PET PROJECT.

ANTHONY. BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND STUFF.

AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT IN THE CHAT, LAST WEEK.

IT WASN'T EVER ABOUT STAFF AND THEIR SELECTION PROCESS.

IT WAS THE CAUTIONING OF COUNCIL STEPPING INTO THE ALLOCATION PROCESS ON THE 11TH HOUR AND US HAVING LIMITED INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE REQUEST.

WE HAD NO NARRATIVE ON WHAT PROGRAMS THEY WERE WANTING THIS MONEY FOR, WHAT THEIR TOTAL BUDGET WAS.

NONE OF THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR US.

AND SO IT WAS JUST THE NAMES OF THE AGENCIES AND A DOLLAR AMOUNT.

AND SO AS MY TERMINOLOGY, PET PROJECT WAS A BAD CHOICE, IT WAS NEVER ABOUT SELECTION AND IT WAS NEVER ABOUT, THE COMMISSION AND HOW THEY RANK.

IT WAS ABOUT THE THE RISK OF US WITH ZERO INFORMATION TO DETERMINE $700,000.

WE RISKED CHOOSING OUR PET PROJECT, WHICH WAS JUST A PROJECT THAT OUR AGENCY THAT WE WERE MOST FAMILIAR WITH, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE SINCE RECEIVED AS OF FRIDAY.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THE RECORD WITH THAT, SINCE YOU DO TALK TO A LOT OF CONSTITUENTS THAT IT WAS NEVER ABOUT STAFF OR THE COMMISSION, IT WAS ABOUT THE FEAR OF US TAKING AWAY WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE AND THEN REALLOCATING EVERYTHING BASED ON ZERO KNOWLEDGE.

ALL RIGHT. CAN WE TAKE, THE ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENT? THANK YOU, MAYOR DAGGETT. OUR FIRST SPEAKER TONIGHT IS ROSS SHAFER.

ROSS, YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS COUNCIL.

ROSS, HOLD ON JUST A MOMENT.

COULD YOU PLEASE TEST YOUR MICROPHONE AGAIN? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU BETTER NOW.

THANK YOU. PLEASE.

OKAY. SORRY.

I WANTED TO BE THERE IN PERSON, BUT I HAVE A SICK CHILD AT HOME.

SO MY NAME IS ROSS SCHAEFER.

I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FLAGSTAFF.

FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES.

AND OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE, A PART OF THIS CONVERSATION TONIGHT.

AND I APPRECIATE THE GREAT CARE AND CONSIDERATION THAT CITY COUNCIL, CITY STAFF, AND THE RANKING COMMITTEE PUT INTO THIS WORK.

I KNOW THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN A SIMPLE PROCESS, AND I APPRECIATE THE GREAT CONSIDERATION.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHAT I WANT TO FIRST SAY IS THAT WE ARE INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL FOR ANY ALLOCATION OF FUNDING.

OUR BURDEN IS, BIG IN FLAGSTAFF AND IN COCONINO COUNTY.

AND I APPRECIATE, THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT.

I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WE DID SUBMIT INFORMATION TO CITY STAFF ABOUT THE NUMBERS.

I HEAR A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THAT.

AND THERE ARE SOME PRETTY SIMPLE EXPLANATIONS THAT I DO THINK THAT, THERE'S SOME MISUNDERSTANDING, EVEN TONIGHT TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BARLOW.

I JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THOSE NUMBERS IN A WAY THAT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE.

[03:00:02]

BUT TO BE CLEAR, OUR ORGANIZATION SERVES 76% OF THE PEOPLE, OUR NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE HERE RIGHT NOW EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

THEY'RE NOT COMING FROM PHENIX AND FROM HOTELS DOWN THERE.

WE'RE NOT TAKING ON NEW PEOPLE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN CRISIS HERE TODAY.

THE THE AGING OUT OF YOUTH FOSTER CARE FOLKS ARE COMING TO US.

WE HAVE 58 UNITS OF FAMILY SHELTER.

SO IT'S NOT JUST ONE PROGRAM.

WE, IN FACT, ARE THE LARGEST EMERGENCY SHELTER PROGRAM IN COCONINO COUNTY.

AND, SO I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR THAT NUMBERS MATTER, MATH MATTERS.

AND WHILE WE'RE SUPER GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF THIS SUPPORT, AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT, OUR ASK WAS BIG.

AND, YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, YOU GUYS KNOW, AT THIS POINT I AM A STRAIGHT SHOOTER.

I FEEL TIRED OF THE NONPROFIT HUNGER GAMES IN THE SENSE OF, GIVE TO US AND TAKE FROM ANOTHER.

I THINK EVERY ORGANIZATION THAT'S UP, IN FRONT OF YOU IS SO VALID AND IMPORTANT.

AND I JUST REALLY JUST ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT THE MATH IN IT.

AND I, I HATE TO THINK ABOUT ONE PERSON IN THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM FEELING, LIKE THEIR, THEIR TIME WITH OUR ORGANIZATION IS NOT AS VALUABLE AS IT IS WITH ANOTHER ORGANIZATION.

WE DON'T HAVE SPECIALTY POPULATIONS.

AND I KNOW SOME OF THIS IS ABOUT SPECIALTY POPULATIONS.

I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO REMEMBER THAT WE SERVE ANYBODY, IF YOU'RE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, IF YOU ARE, WHATEVER FAITH, WHATEVER SOBRIETY YOU HAVE GOING ON.

SO WHILE WE'RE NOT A SPECIALTY POPULATION, WE ARE SERVING JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY THAT YOU CAN THINK OF.

SO I'M GRATEFUL FOR YOU ALL AND THE CHANCE TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

SO THANK YOU. CLASS BEFORE YOU HOP OFF.

OR MAYBE YOU DID HOP OFF IF YOU HAVEN'T HOPPED OFF, I'M HERE.

COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE NUMBERS AND THE, BECAUSE I THINK FOR US NOVICES, IT CAN BE CONFUSING AND, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW IT BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS.

I DO, AND I WOULD SAY I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT CAN GET REALLY CONFUSING.

AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IT.

YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERY ORGANIZATION ON THIS LIST, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, I KNOW THAT CATHOLIC CHARITIES, FUNCTIONS IN A VERY SIMILAR WAY BECAUSE THEY ALSO USE THE NATIONAL DATABASE TO TRACK THIS INFORMATION, LIKE THROUGH THE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM.

SO THAT'S HMMIS.

OUR THE FIDELITY OF OUR NUMBERS IS, IN FACT, THROUGH THE LICENSURE THAT WE, WE HAVE WITH THE NATIONAL SYSTEM.

RIGHT? SO NOT EVERY ORGANIZATION ON THAT LIST USES THAT.

SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW THEY TRACK THEIR NUMBERS.

BUT I CAN SAY THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT UNDUPLICATED PEOPLE.

SO THE 2400 PEOPLE, PEOPLE YOU SEE IN OUR ORGANIZATION, THAT IS 2400 UNDUPLICATED HUMANS COMING THROUGH OUR DOORS.

NOW, THE TRUTH IS THAT IF WE COUNT EVERY SINGLE HEAD THAT HITS A PILLOW THAT WE SERVE, THAT'S OVER 100,000 HEADS A YEAR.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF DUPLICATION.

WE SERVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH THE SAME, WITH THE SAME SERVICES DAY AFTER DAY.

THAT'S NOT A NUMBER I'M SUPER PROUD OF, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BECAUSE I WISH IT WAS.

IT WAS JUST 2400.

BUT THAT DOES MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE SERVING A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE EACH AND EVERY DAY.

WE GET TO THAT NUMBER BY TAKING 365 NIGHTS A YEAR, TIMES THE NUMBER OF BEDS WE OFFER THE COMMUNITY, WHICH, ONCE THE LANTERN OPENS IN 30 DAYS, LOOKS ABOUT 380 BEDS.

SO 380 TIMES 365 AND YOU GET TO THAT, THAT, THAT HUGE NUMBER.

BUT THE UNDUPLICATED PEOPLE ARE ONLY COUNTED ONCE THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.

SO THE QUESTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BARLOW HAD ABOUT, ABOUT, OH, WELL, THERE'S ONLY 500 OR 490 SOME PEOPLE ON THE POINT IN TIME COUNT. HOW DID YOU GET TO 2400? THAT NUMBER IS JUST ONE POINT IN TIME.

SO 490 PEOPLE ON JANUARY 24TH OF LAST YEAR WERE COUNTED AS HOMELESS, BUT 490 NEW PEOPLE COULD HAVE COME IN THE NEXT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY OR THE OTHER 300 SOME DAYS.

SO THAT'S HOW WE GET TO THAT BIG NUMBER.

AND, YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, THE UNDUPLICATED NUMBER IS THE TRUE COMPASS TO REALLY HOW MANY PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE, ARE SEEKING SHELTER. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S REALLY HOW MANY PEOPLE WE SERVE.

[03:05:01]

THAT IN MY, IN MY OPINION, ARE OUR NEIGHBORS.

THEY'RE NOT COMING FROM ANYWHERE ELSE.

THEY'RE OURS. I HOPE THAT HELPED.

YES. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

THE POINT IN TIME ISN'T.

THE QUESTION THAT'S ASKED OF OF PEOPLE WHO ARE APPROACHED IS DID YOU DID YOU SPEND THE NIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC DATE ON SHELTERED SO OUT SOMEWHERE.

IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT OR IS IT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN SHELTERED BUT NOT IN YOUR OWN HOME.

THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, MAYOR.

AND I THINK THAT'S ONE THAT THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND REGARDLESS OF THIS CONVERSATION, BECAUSE THAT THAT 490 SOME PEOPLE, I'M GOING TO CALL IT 500 FOR OUR PURPOSES TODAY.

THAT 500 PEOPLE, ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE EITHER COUNTED IN SHELTER THAT NIGHT OR COUNTED THROUGH THE POINT IN TIME ON THE STREET.

AND SO WHEN YOU ARE APPROACHED, LET'S SAY YOU'RE ON THE STREET AND YOU ARE APPROACHED BY A TEAM FROM ACROSS THE COMMUNITY AND WE SAY, HEY, WHERE DID YOU SLEEP ON JANUARY 23RD? LET'S CALL IT THAT'S THIS YEAR.

IF YOU ANSWERED SHELTER, WE STOPPED THE SURVEY BECAUSE YOU'RE BEING COUNTED ALREADY THROUGH FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES OR ONE OF THE OTHER SHELTERS.

IF YOU SAY I SLEPT OUTSIDE, THEN WE CONTINUE WITH THE SURVEY AND THEN THOSE GET COUNTED AS UNSHELTERED.

HERE'S THE NUANCE I WANT.

I'M HOPING YOU'LL TAKE FROM THIS.

OF THAT 500 PEOPLE WE COUNTED LAST YEAR, ONLY ABOUT 50 OF THEM.

SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 40 AND 80 PEOPLE, USUALLY AROUND EACH YEAR, ARE ON SHELTER.

THE REST OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE IN SHELTER.

THEY WERE IN EITHER FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES OR SUNSHINE RESCUE MISSION, ONE OF THE OTHER FABULOUS SHELTERS.

SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT UNSHELTERED PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT 500 UNSHELTERED PEOPLE THAT WE KNOW ABOUT.

THEY'RE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 50 AND 80, WHICH IS WAY TOO MANY.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION.

AND WE USE THOSE WORDS PRETTY, LOOSELY IN THE EYES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

UNSHELTERED MEANS YOU SLEPT OUTSIDE ON A PLACE THAT WAS NOT FIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION, LIKE UNDER A BRIDGE OR IN A CAR, OR IN A MOTEL. PAID. PAID FOR BY A CHURCH.

PLACES LIKE THAT.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE OUR NEXT ONLINE COMMENTER.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. WE HAVE JESSICA DRUM.

JESSICA, YOU MAY GO AHEAD.

THANKS. STACEY.

HI, MAYOR. VICE MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JESSICA DRUM AND I AM COMMENTING TODAY IN MY CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES.

AND I KNOW ROSS COVERED MUCH OF WHAT I HAD.

I WANTED TO SAY, AND SO I WON'T I WON'T BE ENTIRELY REPETITIVE, BUT I DID WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK YOU AND THANK CITY STAFF FOR THE WORK AND THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS CONSIDERATION, AND WILL ECHO THAT GRATITUDE FOR, FOR THE FUNDING THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING AND WHATEVER DECISION THAT YOU COME UP WITH.

AND JUST THAT WE ARE WE ARE INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL FOR IT AND RECOGNIZE HOW MUCH WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS PROCESS AND THE WORK THAT IS TO COME.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THANK YOU. JESSICA.

STAFF. ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT? NO MAYOR.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE NOTED THAT SHE HAS COMMENTS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.

THANK YOU FOR THE CONVERSATION SO FAR.

AND THANK YOU TO THE STAFF THAT HAVE SPOKEN TONIGHT AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT HAVE SPOKEN TONIGHT.

I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A ONE TIME ALLOCATION, OF FUNDING FOR SHELTERS AND SHELTER SERVICES OR, HOMELESSNESS SERVICES.

LOOKING AT THE CAPACITY AND THE REACH OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE BEING SERVED BY THESE FUNDS WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PRESENTED.

AND THE REASON THAT I EMPHASIZE THAT IS BECAUSE OF OTHER INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT, JUST THIS PAST WEEK, ABOUT A NEW ALLOCATION FROM THE GOVERNOR OF A COMMITMENT OF $89 MILLION FOR HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW

[03:10:10]

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ARIZONA COMMUNITIES.

AND I WAS EXCITED TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH SEVERAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES.

AND THEN LEARNED AFTER SHARING THAT THAT, MANY, IF NOT ALL OF THE STATE'S LARGEST SHELTER SERVICES WERE NOT BENEFICIARIES OF THAT NEW, FUNDING OF OF $89 MILLION.

AND I CAN'T MAKE ANY SORT OF JUDGMENTS ABOUT HOW OR WHY THAT WAS THE CASE.

BUT IT DID SEEM TO ME, JUST ANOTHER REFLECTION OF THE FACT, THAT ONCE AGAIN, FLAGSTAFF IS IN THIS STRANGE PLACE OF BEING TOO BIG TO BE SMALL, TOO SMALL TO BE BIG IN TERMS OF ACCESSING THE LIMITED RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR HOMELESSNESS RESOURCES, SERVICES AND SHELTERS, WITHIN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY, STATEWIDE AND NATIONALLY.

AND TO ME, WHAT THAT REALLY STRESSES IS THE NEED FOR US TO BE PROPORTIONAL AND EQUITABLE IN THE FUNDS THAT WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO.

THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN PUSHING SO MUCH ON THE ALLOCATIONS THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.

I GREATLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT PROVIDED THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I HAVE BEEN WITH THE HOUSING COMMISSION FROM THE BEGINNING.

I KNOW HOW HARD THIS WORK IS.

AND IT'S NEVER MY DESIRE FOR US TO DISMISS OR IGNORE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THAT COMMISSION OR ANY COMMISSION OR FROM THE COMMITTEE IN THIS CASE.

I DO THINK IN THIS CASE, THOUGH, WE ALSO HAVE TO WEIGH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THE PROPORTIONAL NEEDS THAT ARE MET BY THE AGENCIES THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BENEFIT WITH THIS ONE TIME INFLUX OF FUNDS.

I DO WANT TO STRESS THAT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST ORGANIZATIONS AUTOMATICALLY DESERVE THE MOST, OR THAT SMALLER ORGANIZATIONS DESERVE OR NEED ANY LESS.

I'VE WORKED ALONGSIDE MANY THESE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS.

I'VE WORKED DIRECTLY WITH MANY OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER OVER THE PAST DECADE.

AND SO I KNOW HOW MUCH THEY EACH DO, WHETHER THEY ARE SMALL YET MIGHTY, OR IF THEY ARE BIG YET BURDENED IN THEIR EFFORTS.

ALL THIS IS SIMPLY TO SAY THAT I, SUPPORT A RECOMMENDATION FOR A MORE PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION THAT TAKES ALL OF THESE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT, AND THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF EACH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, AND DOES THE HIGHEST AND BEST GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE CAN DO. I'M VERY CURIOUS TO HEAR, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT, VICE MAYOR WAS, WAS DISCUSSING, IN TERMS OF POTENTIALLY REALLOCATING SOME OF THIS AGAIN, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORDS FROM THE FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICE TEAM SAYING THAT THEY ARE GRATEFUL FOR WHATEVER FUNDS THEY RECEIVE.

THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY TEAM THAT I'M CONSIDERING IN THIS IDEA OF POTENTIALLY REALLOCATING, BUT I DO THINK THAT THAT IS AN IMPORTANT THING FOR US TO KEEP IN MIND FROM EACH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS.

I KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALL GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY RECEIVE.

THEY ALL NEED THIS FUNDING.

I THINK THAT JUST PUTS AN INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY ON US AS COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THIS OUT TO THE PLACES WHERE IT'S NEEDED, AND WHERE IT'S GOING TO DO THE MOST FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING MORE OF THAT CONVERSATION AND SEEING HOW WE MOVE THIS FORWARD.

I KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO END THIS CONVERSATION BY DISTRIBUTING THESE ALLOCATIONS AND.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME FOR NOW.

I JUST LOOK FORWARD TO THE REST OF THE CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET.

FIRST OFF, THANK YOU AGAIN TO STAFF.

YOU'VE TAKEN PHONE CALLS FROM ME AND A LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND TO THE COMMISSION AND THE WORKING GROUP, I KNOW YOU'VE ALL BEEN WORKING HARD.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, BEING ON COUNCIL, I FEEL LIKE I OWE IT TO OUR COMMUNITY TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THESE FUNDS.

AND I'M I'M GUESSING BY THE END OF TONIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT.

AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME THAT IT'S TAKEN.

I TOO, AM LOOKING FOR A MORE PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION, AND I'VE BEEN PENCILING OUT DIFFERENT IDEAS, AND I'D BE CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT VICE MAYOR HAS COME UP WITH ON HIS PENCILING.

SO LET'S HEAR IT FROM HIM NEXT.

[03:15:05]

COUNCIL. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? VICE MAYOR. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE? SURE. I CAN MOVE FORWARD.

SO. I THINK I'M GOING TO OFFER WHAT IN MY MIND IS A COMPROMISE.

I DO THINK FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES, AS OUR LARGEST ORGANIZATION AND BIGGEST PROVIDER, DESERVES THE LION'S SHARE OF THE OF THESE FUNDS. BUT HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THEY DESERVE, ALL OF THE MONEY OR THEIR FULL REQUEST? I HAVE NOT GONE SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT.

AND WHILE I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO MUCH, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO BE SHORT WINDED HERE BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS A LONG CONVERSATION, BUT IT'S IT IS WORTH REPEATING OR WORTH SAYING OUT LOUD THAT I VALUE THESE OTHER AGENCIES THAT HAVE COME FORWARD AND RECEIVED GREAT SCORES.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR REQUESTS, ARE NOT TRIVIAL.

AND THAT THEY WOULD BE VERY GOOD STEWARDS OF THE MONIES THAT THEY RECEIVE.

AND IN THAT SPIRIT, I DO THINK THAT, A GREAT WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WOULD BE ON A PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION.

AND THIS THE WAY THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE, CALCULATED IS IF YOU TAKE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AVAILABLE, 756,000. AND YOU PROPORTIONALLY ALLOCATE THAT MONEY BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MONEY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED BY EACH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS.

WHAT YOU COME UP WITH IS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SEEMS FAIRLY REASONABLE TO ME.

FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES DOES RECEIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY THAN WHAT WAS BEING RECOMMENDED.

BUT LESS THAN WHAT THEY REQUESTED.

AND THAT FORMULA GENERALLY HOLDS TRUE FOR, I THINK, ALL SIX OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, ALTHOUGH THERE IS, DEFINITELY SOME LESS MONEY AVAILABLE FOR SOME OF THEM WITH WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO HERE'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

COMMUNITY ACTION TEAMS WOULD GET $61,765.20.

NORTHLAND FAMILY HEALTH CENTER WOULD RECEIVE $61,916.40.

THE HOMELESS YOUTH CONNECTION WOULD RECEIVE $30,996.

HOUSING SOLUTIONS OF NORTHERN ARIZONA WOULD SEE WOULD RECEIVE $171,007.20.

CATHOLIC CHARITIES, WHICH IS ORGANIZATION I WILL I WILL SPEAK HIGHLY OF TO THE MOON AND BACK.

I REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE CATHOLIC CHARITIES AND MY LONG EXPERIENCE WITH THEM.

OVER THE YEARS, THEY WOULD RECEIVE $89,737.20, AND FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES WOULD GET $340,578.

I ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO CHECK THAT MATH, BUT THAT IS BASED ON A PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION OF THE 756,000 AVAILABLE AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE ORIGINAL FUNDING REQUESTS FROM EACH ORGANIZATION.

SOUTH. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE TOP OF THIS GRAPH? MAYOR, I COULDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND YOUR REQUEST OR GO BACK UP TO THE TOP OF THE SPREADSHEET.

SO. OKAY.

SO THE MINIMUM REQUEST PULL REQUEST RECOMMENDED.

AND OKAY, MAY I JUST WHEN OUR NUMBERS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN VICE MAYOR'S NUMBERS? I WAS TRYING TO READ ALONG AS HE WENT.

WERE OFF BY TENS OF DOLLARS IN MATH CALCULATIONS.

WE'LL CHALK IT UP TO ROUNDING.

WE'RE HAPPY TO CHANGE THESE TO HIS NUMBERS, BUT ANTICIPATION OF THIS REQUEST, WE ADDED ALL THE ALLOCATIONS TOGETHER, DETERMINED THE PERCENTAGE OF THE ALLOCATION, AND THEN, APPLIED THAT PERCENTAGE TO THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING WE HAVE AVAILABLE.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

SO COUNCIL CAN I HEAR FROM EACH OF YOU? AND. DISCUSSION CAN COME AFTER THIS, BUT.

I WANT TO HEAR WHO IS INTERESTED IN ENTERTAINING A REALLOCATION AND WHO IS NOT.

[03:20:03]

SO WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS? YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M GOING TO GO AROUND THE TABLE.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? YES. I'M INTERESTED.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET.

I'M INTERESTED.

I KIND OF HAVE MIXED EMOTIONS ON THIS.

I MEAN, THERE WAS A RIGOROUS PROCESS.

THERE WAS A COMMITTEE SET UP.

WE RAN IT BY THE HOUSING COMMISSION, AND NOW WE'RE THINKING OF UNDOING IT ALL.

I WILL ADMIT TO YOU THAT SOME OF THE THINGS IF IF I WERE TO BE THE ONLY PERSON TO MAKE THE DECISION, I PROBABLY WOULD REALLOCATE SOME OF THESE THINGS.

SO I'M BUT I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO OVERRULE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME TO US WITHOUT SOME KIND OF RIGOROUS, REASONING BEHIND IT.

SO HOW'S THAT FOR A NON-ANSWER? THANK YOU. AND VICE MAYOR, I KNOW THAT YOU ARE.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS.

I'M WITH JIM.

YOU KNOW, I'M.

I DON'T WANT TO JUST ALWAYS FEEL THAT WE'RE OBLIGATED TO DO WHAT OUR RECOMMENDING COMMISSIONS TELL US.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I DON'T, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

DISCOUNTING ALL THEIR HARD WORK.

I'M INTERESTED IN CONTINUING A DISCUSSION ON ON MOVING SOME MONEY AROUND, BUT I WORRY THAT IT'S A BAD PRECEDENT. I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

YOU KNOW, LET US BE CLEAR.

NONE OF US ARE DISCOUNTING ALL THE HARD WORK THAT PEOPLE DO.

WE KNOW THAT ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONERS WORK VERY HARD.

THEY TAKE THEIR JOB SERIOUSLY.

THEY DO THE BEST THAT THEY POSSIBLY CAN.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE TAKING THEIR, HARD WORK INTO CONSIDERATION.

YES, I KNOW WHAT IT IS TO VOLUNTEER AND DO A WHOLE BUNCH OF HOURS WITHOUT GETTING PAID, SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

HOWEVER, WITH THAT BEING SAID.

IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T FEEL IS QUITE RIGHT, I THINK IT WOULD BE UNETHICAL OF US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

AND IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I'M DISCOUNTING THE WORK THAT THE COMMISSION HAS PUT IN BECAUSE WE VALUE THEM.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COMMISSIONS AND WE'RE NOT GETTING RID OF THEM.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIVE THAT SAID THEY WANTED TO ENTERTAIN REDISTRIBUTION.

AND THIS IS NOT A NEGATIVE REFLECTION ON OUR COMMISSION.

YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY AND COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS.

IN TERMS OF THAT CONCERN, IT CERTAINLY HAS BEEN ONE OF MINE AS WELL.

IN TERMS OF NOT WANTING THE COMMISSION OR THE COMMITTEE THAT WAS PART OF THIS PROCESS.

THE, THE 5 OR 6 PERSON COMMITTEE THAT, THAT DID THIS, WORK TO FEEL AS THOUGH WE ARE DISREGARDING WHAT THEY DID.

AND I BELIEVE I MADE THAT COMMENT EARLIER AS WELL, THAT, LOOKING AT A REALLOCATION HERE IS I DO NOT FEEL DISMISSING THE HARD WORK THAT THEY PUT IN, IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

I, I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE AN INCREASED LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR COMMUNITY AND TO OUR AGENCIES THAT ARE APPLYING FOR THESE FUNDS.

NOT THAT THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, BUT OURS IS GREATER.

AS AS COUNCIL AND I, I ALSO JUST IN THINKING ABOUT THAT AND CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE COMING FROM THIS COMMITTEE.

I ALSO AM THINKING BACK TO THE WORK OF THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE, WHICH I HAD THE HONOR OF BEING PART OF.

[03:25:04]

FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT KNOW.

BEFORE SERVING ON THAT COMMITTEE, I WAS ON THE HOUSING COMMITTEE.

WAS APPOINTED THEN TO THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE, AND THEN SHORTLY THEREAFTER WAS APPOINTED TO FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL.

AND SO HAVING THOSE THREE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE PART OF A SIMILAR PROCESS TO THIS, IN TERMS OF PRESENTING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN HAVING CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY COME UP WITH THE DECISION.

I DID NOT FEEL SLIGHTED BY THE COUNCIL DECISION TO REDISTRIBUTE THE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE. I DIDN'T FEEL SLIGHTED BY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF COUNCIL TO REALLOCATE.

THE THE DIVISION OF THE PROJECTS FOR THE HOUSING BOND, THAT WE SPENT, MORE THAN MONTHS WE SPENT YEARS COMING UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS AND BUT IT WAS ULTIMATELY THE ROLE OF CITY COUNCIL TO COME FORWARD AND DISCUSS AND MAKE THAT DECISION ABOUT WHAT FLAGSTAFF TRULY NEEDED AND HOW WE COULD USE THOSE FUNDS TO THE, AGAIN, THE HIGHEST AND BEST GOOD OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

SO I, I WOULD JUST ASK US TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WELL, THAT IT IS NOT A MATTER OF JUST DISMISSING ANY OF THE WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS FROM ANY, ANY ONE GROUP OR ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WAS PART OF THIS PROCESS.

BUT WE HAVE A HEIGHTENED RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE THESE SECOND LOOKS AND DO THIS ADDITIONAL WORK TO GET TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WE'RE AT.

SO, THAT'S ALL I'D ADD TO THAT, AND I'D SAY LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU. US STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, MAYOR COUNCIL.

RICK TADDER HAS JUST MESSAGED ME AND WE ARE A PENNY OFF ON OUR OUR NUMBERS AND HE'S OFFERED A SOLUTION FOR US TO TAKE THAT FROM ADMIN.

SO FINANCE HAS LOOKED AT MY MAPPING AND WE'RE SOLID ON THE MAPPING.

SO AGAIN IF YOU HAVE DIFFERENT MATH WE'RE HAPPY TO TO LOOK AT THAT.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

I'LL LEAVE YOU THIS WITH YOU IF YOU WANT TO START MOVING MONEY IN CATEGORIES.

WE CAN DO THAT IN TOTAL AS YOU GO.

YOUR PREFERENCE.

I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT FORMULA IS PERFECTLY CAPTURING THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, AND I WOULD TRUST THE SPREADSHEETS MATH MUCH MORE THAN I WOULD TRUST THE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATIONS I'VE BEEN USING.

I TRUST THE SPREADSHEET ONLY BECAUSE VERIFIED BY RICK TADDER.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AMOUNTS? MAYOR, THIS IS JIM.

CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? PLEASE DO SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SPREADSHEET.

MY COMPUTER IS DOWN, SO I CAN'T READ IT.

IS THAT BASICALLY, ALLOCATE THEM IN PROPORTION TO THEIR FUNDING REQUESTS? IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD, JUST TO CLARIFY MY COMMENTS BEFORE, I'M OPEN MINDED ABOUT REALLOCATING THE MONEY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE SUGGESTED METHOD IS, MAKES SENSE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY CAN ASK FOR ANYTHING.

I GUESS THE LESSON IN THIS IS ALWAYS ASK FOR A LOT, BECAUSE IF IT GETS, IF WE AWARD BASED ON HOW MUCH PEOPLE ASK FOR, THEN PEOPLE WILL ASK FOR MORE.

SO I GUESS I WOULD LIKE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, MAYBE FROM STAFF ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE REQUESTED AMOUNT BY EACH ORGANIZATION.

IS THAT A GOOD BASIS TO MAKE FURTHER DECISIONS ON? THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I DON'T HAVE A DIRECT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS, IN THIS SITUATION, WITH ALL OF THE SCORES SO CLOSE TOGETHER, REMEMBER, THERE WASN'T A BAD PROPOSAL UP HERE.

THERE WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WASN'T UNFUNDABLE.

LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT ALLOCATION METHOD FITS WITHIN, FITS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, HAS DISCUSSED WITH LEGAL.

AND SO BECAUSE.

TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAY THIS.

IT IS A METHODOLOGY.

IT IS TIED TO A FORMULA.

[03:30:02]

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE ONE AGENCY GETS MORE BECAUSE SOMEBODY LIKES THEM MORE.

IT'S NOT ARBITRARY.

IT'S TIED TO THIS.

AND AGAIN, THERE WAS NO, PROPOSAL THAT WAS DEEMED UNFUNDABLE THAT YOU CAN REMEMBER WHAT WAS OUR OUR POINT SCORE? WE'RE BETWEEN 83 AND 79 POINTS.

IT'S SO CLOSE.

COULD STAFF HAVE COME UP WITH THIS AND PRESENTED IT TO YOU? WE COULD HAVE. THERE'S ENDLESS OPTIONS FOR WAYS TO DO IT.

THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ONE THAT STAFF AND THE RANKING COMMITTEE CAME UP WITH, ENDORSED BY THE HOUSING COMMISSION.

AGAIN, IT'S A DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY, BUT IT'S NOT INVALID.

ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY.

WELL, WHAT I WAS REALLY ASKING WAS, WHAT'S THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ASK NUMBERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US BY ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS? THAT MIGHT BE AN IMPOSSIBLE QUESTION TO ANSWER.

AND I ACCEPT THAT.

I'D LIKE TO TAKE A STAB AT REPLYING TO THAT.

SORRY, SARAH, I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU, TOO.

MADAM MAYOR, IS THAT OKAY? CERTAINLY. THANK YOU.

SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

AND I WOULDN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I THINK THERE'S A GENERAL UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION HERE.

THIS FORMULA ALLOTMENT IS BASED ON THE GOOD FAITH.

INTERPRETATIONS BY EACH OF THESE AGENCIES OF WHAT THEY WOULD NEED, KNOWING THAT THEY'RE IN A UNIVERSE OF OTHER AGENCIES.

THESE THESE AGENCIES DIDN'T JUST COME FORWARD AND ASK FOR EVERYTHING.

OTHERWISE ALL OF THEM WOULD ASK FOR THE FULL AMOUNT.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE AGENCIES, INCLUDING FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES, FULLY UNDERSTANDS THAT THEY'RE IN IN A COMMUNITY OF PROVIDERS.

AND SO.

I JUST THINK VERY NATURALLY AND IN GOOD FAITH, THESE AGENCIES PROBABLY CAME UP WITH THESE REQUESTS.

IN IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DYNAMIC.

ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.

YES. NOBODY SAID WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, SO I'LL SAY IT.

I THINK, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THEIR, THEIR ASK IS SUPPORTED BY THEIR BUDGET.

SO WHATEVER YOUR PROGRAM IS, YOU PUT TOGETHER A BUDGET THAT SAYS WHAT YOU NEED TO RUN THAT PROGRAM, WHATEVER THAT IS.

AND THEN YOU AND THEN WHEN I'M LOOKING OR REVIEWING YOUR APPLICATION, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR BUDGET AND I'M SAYING, OH, YOU ASKED FOR THIS MUCH FOR A STAFF SALARY.

THAT'S NOT REASONABLE.

AND SO THEN YOU QUESTION.

BUT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S JUST ME.

SO I THINK THAT THEIR ASK SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THEIR BUDGET.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY THINKING.

STAFF. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ANSWER TO THAT? MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M GOING TO JUMP IN.

I DON'T THINK, FOR STAFF TO SPECULATE ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE ORGANIZATIONS WERE MAKING FARE REQUESTS OR NOT IS APPROPRIATE.

FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.

AND SO I'VE COUNSELED STAFF ACTUALLY NOT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HOUSE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DID JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ON THIS ALLOCATION BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE, THE MINIMUM REQUESTS FOR THOSE THAT PROVIDED IT AND THEN THE FULL REQUEST AND THEN THE THE FUNDING BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL.

I DID NOTICE THAT CATHOLIC CHARITIES IS THE ONE ORGANIZATION THAT, WITH THIS NEW ALLOCATION IS NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUEST.

AND SO I, I WANT TO JUST VERIFY THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE.

THEIR NUMBERS ARE NOT FAR OFF FROM SOMETHING LIKE, I'M LOOKING AT EVEN LIKE HOMELESS YOUTH CONNECTION.

THAT SERVES 50 YOUTH AND THEIR PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION WAS JUST ABOVE THE MINIMUM.

SO I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN A DOUBLE CHECK THAT ON THE CATHOLIC CHARITIES NUMBER.

AND B, IF THAT STILL FITS WITH THE FORMULA, IF WE REDID SOME OF THIS ALLOCATION TO ENSURE THAT THEY MET THAT MINIMUM. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

[03:35:07]

AND I WOULD EVEN OFFER UP THE THE MONEY TO GET CATHOLIC CHARITIES ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, SO TO SPEAK, FROM FSS.

I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONING HERE ON COUNCIL.

I'M NOT REAL FAMILIAR WITH TWO OF THE AGENCIES, BUT I CAN I CAN ATTEST TO THE QUALITY OF ASK OF ALL THESE AGENCIES, EVEN THOUGH EACH GRANT OR THIS TYPE OF REQUEST HAS A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCES.

WE'RE ALL VERY SCHOOLED ON HOW WE COME UP WITH NUMBERS AND ARE ABLE TO VERIFY THEM.

AND MOST HOUSING SOLUTIONS THAT THE BOTTOM THREE AT LEAST, AND I'M SURE NORTHERN FAMILY HEALTH CENTER AUDITED STATEMENTS.

AND SO I'M HIGHLY CONFIDENT THAT THEIR ASK AND THEIR BUDGET AND THEIR PROJECTIONS ARE PRETTY SPOT ON WITHOUT ANY QUESTION. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCIL, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL MEMBERS WHO WANT TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CATHOLIC CHARITIES ALLOCATION? COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK, BUT I ALSO WOULD, YOU KNOW, REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TYING IT TO A FORMULA.

NOT JUST SAYING TAKE IT FROM HERE.

I DO THINK OUR NUMBERS NEED TO BE BASED ON A FACTUAL FORMULA.

SO, MR. SOLOMON. YES, SEEING AS THOUGH SEEING AS THOUGH STAFF IS MORE FAMILIAR WITH.

THE INS AND OUTS OF THESE PROJECTS, AND THEY'VE SPOKEN TO THE ORGANIZATIONS.

CAN THEY SPEAK TO THE, THAT THIS NEW ALLOCATION LEAVES CATHOLIC CHARITIES BELOW WHAT THEY SAID WAS THEIR MINIMUM. YEAH, THEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

THAT'S FINE. SO I DO THINK THAT THE THE REASON WHY CATHOLIC CHARITIES HAS THE MINIMUM THEY HAVE IS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE FUNDING, MULTIPLE PROGRAMS. SO THEY'LL BE FUNDING THEIR, FAMILY SHELTER, THEIR OUTREACH PROGRAM, AS WELL AS MOTEL AND HOTEL VOUCHERS.

USUALLY WHEN YOU UNDERFUND AN ASK, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE THINGS THAT ARE LESS NEED AND MORE LIKE, GREAT, WE CAN OFFER THIS ARE THE THINGS TO GET CUT FIRST.

SO I WOULD EXPECT THAT THEY WOULD PRIORITIZE THEIR FUNDS FOR STAFFING, AT THE OUTREACH PROGRAM AND THE SHELTER, WHICH MIGHT MEAN THAT THEY THEY PROVIDE FEWER MOTEL HOTEL VOUCHERS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT WE DID TELL THE STATE THAT WE WOULD, PROVIDE 200 INDIVIDUALS WITH MOTEL AND HOTEL VOUCHERS, SO WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS WITH THEM THEIR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO MEET THAT, PART OF THEIR PROPOSAL.

ALL RIGHT. GIVEN THAT.

INFORMATION O.

COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS SORRY, MAYOR.

SO THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

TYPICALLY. THANK YOU THOUGH, WHEN WE SET A MINIMUM REQUEST SAYING IF I CAN'T GET THE FULL AMOUNT, THIS IS A LEASE THAT'S REALLY TO TO PERFORM, TO PROVIDE THESE PROGRAMS. THAT'S REALLY THE MINIMUM.

AND GIVEN THE STATE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE 200 VOUCHERS, YOU KNOW, HERE WE GO.

YOU KNOW, GOING DOWN THE RABBIT HILL, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS AFRAID OF AND USING MY BAD ANALOGIES LAST WEEK.

BUT, AND I KNOW THAT CATHOLIC CHARITIES PUT IN THREE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE A FORMULA THAT HELPS EACH AGENCY GET TO THEIR MINIMUM, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IS REALLY A, HARD, YOU KNOW, VERY SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED NUMBER TO SAY, OKAY, WE CAN STILL DO WHAT WE KNOW IS CRITICAL OUT THERE, AT THE VERY LEAST, THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT. AND SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO REACH EVERYONE'S MINIMUM, SO THAT WE'RE NOT I MEAN, THEY CAN'T CUT OUT 200 VOUCHERS, HOTEL VOUCHERS, BECAUSE IT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR US TO EVEN USE THE FUNDS.

AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE THE MOST OBVIOUS TO ELIMINATE THAN GOING OUT AND FINDING PEOPLE THAT ARE IN CRISIS OUT IN THE STREETS AND

[03:40:01]

BRING THEM TO A SHELTER OR A FAMILY UNIT NEEDING, YOU KNOW, CRISIS SHELTER.

SO IF WE COULD JUST GET TO THE MINIMUM, FIND A FORMULA.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS AN OPTION, BUT, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO PERHAPS MINIMALLY FUND EVERYBODY AND THEN USE A FORMULA FOR THE REMAINING FUNDS.

OKAY, I'LL BE QUIET.

THAT WOULDN'T WORK, BECAUSE.

FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES.

OH, WAIT A MINUTE. THEY DIDN'T ANSWER IT EITHER.

YES. SO, HOW DO WE DEVELOP A FORMULA WHEN TWO OF THE ORGANIZATIONS DIDN'T PROVIDE A MINIMUM? MARY, I MAY.

YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

MR. SOLOMON AND I HAVE HAD A A QUICK CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU, CHRISTINE, FOR STARTING TO OFFER A SOLUTION.

WE WERE MOVING FAST BEHIND YOU.

THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 89,000.

AND THE MINIMUM AWARD OR MINIMUM REQUEST IS $10,256.65.

NOW THAT I'VE SAID THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO STERLING.

AND SO LONG AS THE MINIMUMS OF THE 200 OR 20 HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING MOVE IN ASSISTANCE AND THE 2200 INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING MOTEL HOTEL VOUCHERS, THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IS LOW RISK TO HAVE THAT NUMBER ADDED IN THERE.

SO, STERLING, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD BE LOW RISK TO TAKE IT FROM THE OTHER ALLOCATIONS AND ADD IT TO CATHOLIC CHARITIES? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE $10,000 DIFFERENCE, CORRECT? I'M LOOKING AT SARAH AS I ASK THAT QUESTION, AND SARAH IS NODDING, WHICH IS NOT HELPFUL WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE ME.

THANKS. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER HOW'S.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, THAT THAT ACTUALLY KIND OF ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK, WHICH WAS THAT AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT WAS THE 200, HOTEL VOUCHERS FIGURED.

INTO. I HONESTLY DON'T FULLY KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK HERE, SO MAYBE, CHRISTINE OR SARAH, YOU WILL FIGURE THIS OUT AS I'M STUMBLING THROUGH IT, BUT WAS THAT 200 VOUCHER FIGURE, FIGURED INTO THE THE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL FUNDS THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR? SO, LIKE, OR IS THERE A WAY TO FIGURE THAT IN SO THAT IT'S, IT'S COUNTED AS PART OF A MANDATORY MINIMUM OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT REALLY LOOKS LIKE.

IT'S HARD TO BE CLEAR JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU RIGHT.

BUT I DO BELIEVE IT WAS FIGURED INTO THEIR MINIMUM REQUEST.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THAT IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT, BUT IT'S NOT 200 VOUCHERS, IT'S 200 INDIVIDUALS, SO IT'S ABOUT EIGHT HOUSEHOLDS A MONTH.

SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE IT'S BIGGER THAN IT IS.

NOT THAT THAT'S NOT HUGELY IMPORTANT STILL.

SO SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT IT IS FIGURED IN BASED ON THEIR MINIMUM REQUEST.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

SORRY. THE OTHER PIECE I WAS GOING TO ADD IS THAT IT ALIGNS WITH THE NOFA.

AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THE NOFA DIDN'T SPECIFY HOW FUNDING WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.

SO, YOU'VE YOU'VE TIED IT ENOUGH TO A GENERAL, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, MAKING SURE WE MEET THOSE, 200 VOUCHERS WITH CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD STANDARD TO GO BY.

THAT'S AGAIN WHY I'M SAYING LOW RISK.

THANK YOU. SO THEN COULD COUNCIL SAFELY SAY, STAFF, WE LIKE THIS, RECALCULATE TO GIVE CATHOLIC CHARITIES THAT ADDITIONAL 10,000.

BASED UPON THE FORMULA.

THAT, THAT YOU USED PREVIOUSLY.

YES, MAYOR.

AND AND I'M JUST CONFIRMING WITH SARAH.

THE QUESTION WOULD THEN BE, DO YOU WANT IT TAKEN OUT OF ONE OTHER APPLICANTS FUNDS OR ALL OF THEM? ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT SUGGESTION, MAYOR.

SO I'M.

I'M JUST QUESTIONING.

WHAT STERLING, CAN YOU ANSWER? WHICH OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS IS A LOWER RISK, OR ARE THEY.

[03:45:02]

DOES IT NOT REALLY MATTER? IT DOESN'T REALLY. IT'S THE SAME.

YEAH. OKAY.

I'D SAY, TAKE IT OUT OF ONE AND TAKE IT FROM THE REALLOCATION THAT WE'RE DOING FOR FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES.

I THINK THAT'S THE ONE THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.

IT'S NOT DROPPING THEM TOO LOW.

IT'S LETTING ANOTHER MEET THE MINIMUM.

AND IT'S, IT'S STICKING WITH THE LETTER OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET.

I WOULD AGREE GIVEN THE INFORMATION FROM STERLING LOW RISK.

I THINK THAT THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND I'M IN SUPPORT.

WELL, JUST SOME OBSERVATIONS HERE.

I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON COUNCIL THAT WE SHOULD REALLOCATE BASICALLY ON THE PROPORTIONAL TO THE AMOUNT THAT THEY THEIR FULL REQUEST.

SO I CAN ACCEPT THAT.

SO THEN THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION IS AND THEN THE OTHER THING I'LL POINT OUT.

WELL, LET ME START OVER.

I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON COUNCIL TO TO REALLOCATE.

AND THE ONLY SUGGESTION WE'VE HAD IS TO REALLOCATE BASED ON, PROPORTIONAL TO THE TOTAL FUNDING THEY'VE REQUESTED.

SO I CAN ACCEPT THAT ALSO.

SO THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT'S STILL LEFT IS SHALL WE, MAKE, CATHOLIC CHARITIES WHOLE TO THEIR MINIMUM REQUEST, AND I CAN ACCEPT THE TAKING THAT FROM FLAGSTAFF SHELTER SERVICES BECAUSE THEIR, NUMBER IS QUITE HIGH COMPARED TO THE OTHERS.

AND I THINK THAT'S, I CAN LIVE WITH ALL OF THAT.

I THINK THAT'S A FINAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IN MY MIND.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

I THINK I ALREADY MADE THAT SAME RECOMMENDATION.

SORRY, I SAW IN MY NOTES I.

ED HARRIS.

YEAH, DITTO.

YES. ALL RIGHT, THEN, CAN I HAVE A MOTION? ACTUALLY, MAYOR, THIS IS JUST DIRECTION.

AND YOU JUST GAVE IT VERY CLEARLY AS A COUNCIL.

THERE ARE SIX OF YOU. I HAVEN'T HEARD WHERE YOU'RE AT, MAYOR, BUT, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION THAT'LL COME LATER AT ANOTHER MEETING.

ALL RIGHT. OH, WHEN THE CONTRACTS COME TO US.

CORRECT. OKAY.

YES, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

SO MOVING DOWN.

ITEM NUMBER 13.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS.

THIS IS A REQUEST BY COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET O.

EXCUSE ME, STAFF.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, FOR PROVIDING THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

AND THANK YOU TO COUNCIL FOR THE THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION.

AND I ECHO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE THAT IF WE COULD IF WE COULD HAVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION UP FRONT, IT, MIGHT AVOID, SOME OF THE CONFUSION AND MULTIPLE MEETINGS THAT, THAT WE'VE HAD ON THIS.

SO THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUEST COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

[A. Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Councilmember Sweet to place on a future agenda a discussion regarding commission member eligibility when receiving city funding. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council direction. ]

A DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMISSION MEMBER ELIGIBILITY WHEN RECEIVING CITY FUNDING.

WE JUST NEED, THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO TO INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO COUNCIL BEFORE I ASK FOR THUMBS? I DO THANK YOU, MAYOR, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THIS CONVERSATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP.

PREVIOUS. COUNCIL MEMBER SOLACE ALSO HAD THIS CONCERN, AND I FEEL AT THAT TIME IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED.

SO I'VE CHOSEN TO BRING THIS FAIR FORWARD BECAUSE I FEEL WE NEED A LARGER UNDERSTANDING OF THE MAKEUP OF THE COMMISSIONS IN RELATION TO THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AND FUNDING.

HERE ARE SOME REASONS I WOULD LIKE THIS CONVERSATION.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION.

IT MAY SEEM TO THE OUTSIDE PUBLIC THAT AN ORGANIZATION THAT SITS ON A COMMISSION AND RECEIVES FUNDING FROM THE GROUP IS POSSIBLY HAVING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE FROM ANOTHER ORGANIZATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE.

[03:50:04]

I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS AND EVEN EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS OF HOW THEY MIGHT PARTICIPATE.

THE COMMISSION APPLICATION THE APPLICATION DOES NOT ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS RECEIVING FUNDING FROM THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS DISCUSS THIS MORE AND SEE IF THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO NOT HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF FAVORITISM OR CREATING A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

EVEN IF A COMMISSION MEMBER WERE TO AGREE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM A MONEY CONVERSATION, IT MAKES THE JOB OF STAFF MUCH HARDER, AND IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO COMPILE THE BUDGET AND GO OVER EXPENSES THAT ARE TYPICALLY DISCUSSED AT SEVERAL MEETINGS.

THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE BEEN NOTICING SINCE MY TIME ON COUNCIL, AND I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING THIS AT GREATER LENGTH.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, I'M LOOKING FOR THREE THUMBS UP, AND COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET IS ONE OF THOSE THUMBS.

AND SINCE I CAN'T SEE YOUR THUMBS.

OR ACTUALLY, MAYBE I.

WELL, I CAN'T IF YOU'RE IN THE, IF YOU'RE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

SO, COULD EVERYONE IF WE COULD JUST HAVE THEM VERBALIZE IF THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD, MAYBE YOU CAN JUST GO AROUND LIKE YOU DID WITH THE LAST ITEM.

SORRY TO INTERRUPT. THANKS.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCARTHY THUMB UP.

OKAY, WELL, WE HAVE IT.

RIGHT? YES, AND I'M SURE THERE ARE.

I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS OF US WHO SUPPORT IT AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER SWEET.

THANK YOU. MOVING DOWN TO BE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUEST.

[B. Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Councilmember House to place on a future agenda a discussion to consider establishing a reporting structure or engagement strategy for board and commission updates to Council STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council direction. ]

THIS IS A REQUEST BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOUSE TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA A DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A REPORTING STRUCTURE OR ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR BOARD AND COMMISSION.

UPDATES TO COUNCIL.