Goodyear accelerates development approvals through streamlined agreements, faster plat reviews, departmental restructuring
GOODYEAR, ARIZONA — November 18, 2024

Goodyear accelerates development approvals through streamlined agreements, faster plat reviews, departmental restructuring

City staff presented comprehensive process improvements for development continuum including development agreement SOPs, administrative plat approvals, and rezoning stipulation workflows to streamline timelines and improve developer communication.

Goodyear Adopts Sweeping Process Reforms to Speed Development Agreements, Plats, and Zoning Reviews

On November 18, 2024, the Goodyear City Council convened for a work session on development-process improvements, signaling a strategic pivot toward streamlining a continuum that had grown bogged down by departmental siloing, reactive workflows, and communication failures. Development Services Director Katie Wilkin and City Attorney Brent Rocklin presented a suite of reforms—some already implemented, others being piloted—that moved the city from a reactive to a proactive model across development agreements, final-plat approvals, real-estate operations, and rezoning stipulations.

The session lasted approximately four hours and covered eight major improvement initiatives, but it was the development-agreement standard operating procedure and council's insistence on timeline accountability that dominated the discussion and exposed latent tensions between the City Manager's Office, Legal Services, and elected scrutiny of an industry facing state legislative threats and rising financing costs.

Development Agreements: The Centerpiece

At the heart of the presentation was Brent Rocklin's introduction of a formalized Standard Operating Procedure for development agreements—a process the city had never codified in the past, despite years of complex negotiation with major developers.

"We looked at whether or not that process was the most efficient way to work through development agreements, and what we wound up doing was putting together a standard operating procedure for the development agreement process which we had not had in the past." — Brent Rocklin, City Attorney

Rocklin explained that development agreements are long-term pacts between the city and developers addressing infrastructure gaps—roads, water, sewer, fire and police service—that the existing system cannot accommodate. The SOP emerged from process mapping, coordination with the City Manager's Office (where the Development Agreement Coordinator resides), and internal departmental sign-off.

The SOP pivots the workflow from reactive to proactive. Under the new model, before the city's first meeting with a developer, internal departments convene to establish the city's interests and negotiating posture—a deliberate shift from the old practice of walking into meetings with "general ideas but not fleshed out City interests."

Timeline and Accountability

The SOP establishes explicit time frames:

Rocklin emphasized that his office would take ownership of drafting the initial DA—a change from the old practice of letting developers draft first. He also highlighted the critical role of the Development Agreement Coordinator (stationed in the City Manager's Office) as the "quarterback" holding all departments accountable to the timeline.

Council's Accountability Push: Sheri Sterling's Challenge

The most heated and substantive exchange occurred when Councilmember Sheri Sterling pressed Rocklin and Wilkin on how council would ensure accountability across all departments, particularly Legal Services—which does not report to the City Manager and sits as an independent Charter officer.

"We've got the two Charter offices of the manager's office and then the attorney, and we have, as a council I think at least for the last five years, have put a tremendous amount of pressure on the manager's office about getting these processes put through, and then it became apparent that we have probably put as much pressure there as we can, and we didn't put any on the legal side. So how do we make sure that legal is holding up there in the bargain on this deal?" — Councilmember Sheri Sterling

Rocklin committed to tracking time frames and generating reports showing where the city meets or misses deadlines, noting that he had agreed to aggressive schedules and would hold himself and his staff accountable. However, Sterling pressed further, invoking historical precedent from city council's monitoring of public-safety overtime and ballpark finances (2012–2013), arguing that quarterly or semi-annual reporting was insufficient given the state legislative pressure and developers' financing pressures—where a five-day delay on a $50–100 million project translates to significant interest-payment exposure.

Sterling also raised a specific concern about the 17-week gap before developers see a draft DA, noting that if the applicant then requires four weeks to comment, the process consumes six months without apparent momentum. Rocklin clarified that deal points are negotiated along the way in writing (memos of understanding), but Sterling's underlying point—that council needs granular, frequent reporting to distinguish city bottlenecks from applicant delays—remained unresolved by the end of the session.

Final Plats: Already Implemented

Katie Wilkin reported that the removal of final-plat and easement approvals from council—replacing them with an administrative review process—became effective November 7, 2024. This change, modeled on Phoenix and Queen Creek's earlier moves, has already generated "a lot of positive feedback from our customers," according to Wilkin. Developers appreciate the ability to coordinate final-plat recordation with closing and financing deadlines without the overhead of a council meeting.

"We are working with our customers, and they often have closing dates or a financing date, and it just gives us an easier time of trying to schedule out: if you get this to us here, we'll be able to get it recorded for you here, without having the council meeting to work through." — Katie Wilkin, Development Services Director

The change also eliminates Legal's review of routine plats, saving city attorney bandwidth for non-standard transactions. Wilkin noted that over recent years, Development Services and Legal had developed standard stipulations for plat review, reducing the need for ongoing legal involvement.

Real Estate Division Relocation

As of October 1, 2024, the Real Estate Division—which handles easements, dedications, and plats—relocated from the Legal Department to the Engineering Department. Wilkin explained that this move, coordinated with a land surveyor, prevents work from "bouncing back and forth between departments" and allows real-estate professionals to sit in a pod with engineering support, reducing the need for continuous legal oversight on standard agreements.

Rezoning and Use-Permit Stipulations: Two-Review Model

One of Wilkin's more detailed explanations concerned a new two-stage stipulation process for rezonings and use permits—an initiative designed to head off the "frantic phone calls" that have plagued the process when developers encounter surprise stipulations late in the cycle.

Under the new model:

First review: Development Services staff identify all infrastructure-related stipulations in plain English (e.g., "you will be required to improve the half-street next to your property") and present them to the customer for discussion and alignment.

Second review: Legal Services translates the stipulations into legal terminology and produces finalized language.

Post-second review: The city provides the customer with completed stipulations and commits not to add additional ones unless the customer requests changes.

Wilkin stated she had already solicited feedback from "zoning attorneys customers" and reported "they are really excited for the process." One rezoning is currently being piloted under this workflow.

Laura Kaino pressed Wilkin on whether Legal would coordinate directly with Development Services to avoid gaps or surprises between first and second review. Wilkin confirmed that "legal will give them to the development services staff so we'll have a chance to familiarize ourselves with them first, and then we'll share them with the customer."

Code Modernization Roadmap

Wilkin outlined three major code updates planned for 2025:

Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Rewrite

The first comprehensive update since 1999. Wilkin cited outdated permitted uses (e.g., "typewriter repair") and industrial-district building-height standards that do not accommodate current technology—forcing costly pad adjustments and lengthening the review timeline.

"Our industrial districts were written for industries that were being built in the 1990s, and so the building heights don't work for the technology that industry is using today. That's why you see so many pads, and creating peds is costly and makes the development review timeline longer." — Katie Wilkin plans outreach to council and the development community in early 2025 to identify priority items. The rewrite will also ensure appropriate residential buffers alongside any height increases, a nod to Proposition 207's preemption concerns.

Building Code Adoption (2024 Standards)

The city currently operates under 2018 building codes. Wally Campbell noted that the city had been on the 2007 code in 2011 and questioned why the gap persists. Wilkin explained that building code updates are expensive and staggered across municipalities. The International Building Code is issued every three years; the 2024 version was released approximately six months ago. Staff will begin the adoption process after the holidays.

Wally Campbell pressed on whether the city is inadvertently allowing "substandard" construction by lagging. Wilkin clarified that the city would not permit anything unsafe and that staying current with larger municipalities (such as Phoenix) reduces modification burdens on home builders, who often secure approvals in one jurisdiction before moving to another.

Engineering Design Standards and Policy Manual

A comprehensive update is underway in coordination with operations departments to ensure clarity, reduce customer confusion, and accelerate approvals.

Project Management and Communication Overhaul

Wilkin highlighted several soft-process improvements aimed at reducing the perception that projects "disappear" into the system:

A "rapid improvement event" (Lean-style process mapping) was conducted a few weeks prior to formalize this workflow.

Laura Kaino expressed approval and asked whether Legal Services would participate in the quarterly development-advisory forums (which are being reinstated in person for 2025, replacing pandemic-era Teams meetings). Rocklin confirmed he would attend.

Portal Access and Wally Campbell and others inquired whether developers could access an online portal to view project status in real time. Wilkin confirmed that Aella—the customer-access portal launched earlier in 2024—allows all project stakeholders (developers, architects, engineers) to track their cases if they have login credentials. Wally Campbell suggested the city send out password credentials and reminder notifications when deliverables are due, particularly to alert applicants when documents have been sent to them (e.g., to an architect) and are awaiting return.

The State Legislative Threat

Councilmember Vicki Gillis raised what may be the underlying urgency behind the entire process-improvement initiative: potential state legislation that would strip local authority over development processes.

"There's going to be a variety of legislation to go in there trying to take some of this away from us that we're doing. I want to make sure that you know the message gets out to the Home Builders Association, etc., that we're working to streamline and we're working to make those improvements." — Vicki Gillis drew a parallel to Washington state, where the state has overridden local decision-making authority. She noted that "several developers are fighting it right now as we speak" and cautioned that if Goodyear loses local authority, "we lose everything at the local level."

Gillis's warnings were echoed implicitly by Sterling's earlier emphasis on measurement and accountability—the implicit message being that council cannot let these reforms dissolve into inaction, lest the justification for local control erode further.

Councilmember Sterling raised the recent Hammer Homes v. City of Phoenix ruling regarding tort-liability exposure. She expressed concern that the city might inadvertently set precedents that create legal liability.

"I'm concerned about: are we setting something in place that we so now we got to blow up because it's not correct?" — Councilmember Sheri Sterling

Rocklin acknowledged that they had not fully vetted the ruling's implications but noted that the streamlining effort itself mitigates risk by reducing the likelihood of miscommunication. He stated that a legal-services request had been submitted today to obtain advice on adapting processes based on the case and that the League of Cities had provided model language.

Concerns About Communication and Industry Perception

Sterling also relayed feedback from a private meeting with three developers (not currently working in Goodyear) that conveyed lingering wariness about the city's development processes. She noted that if they had not been in the room, "our name would have come up as well" in negative context—alongside Phoenix and other cities seen as problematic.

"There is still some trepidation about what is happening in and how we're communicating us as City of Goodyear… there's just some trepidation about all of this process improvement and nothing coming out of it. So whatever we've done to make these corrections, I would just encourage you to communicate: hey, we've made these changes." — Councilmember Sheri Sterling

This exchange underscored that process improvements, no matter how well designed, must be actively marketed to the development community to offset prior negative perceptions.

Timeline and Concerns About Measurement

A recurring theme was Sterling's insistence that council establish a baseline, track progress, and report frequently (more than annually) so that accountability remains visible and future councils do not let the improvements lapse.

She referenced council's prior experience requesting quarterly or semi-annual reports on public-safety overtime and ballpark operations (circa 2012–2013), arguing that similar rigor was needed here. She also flagged that a state-required municipality time-frame report had been provided in early October, but the state had not defined reporting parameters clearly—leaving Goodyear and other municipalities in an ambiguous position.

Other Council Questions

Brannon Hampton asked whether staff had used a Lean process to develop the SOP; Rocklin and Wilkin confirmed they had. Brannon Hampton also raised single-point-of-failure concerns about the Development Agreement Coordinator—asking whether someone could step in if the coordinator were unavailable. Wilkin clarified that Development Services staff can coordinate if needed, and that the system tracks all progress so work is not lost.

Wally Campbell inquired whether developers would receive a copy of the SOP (yes), whether zoning-ordinance changes would come back to council for approval (yes, they would), and whether meetings could occur via Teams (yes, in-person or remote, at customer preference). He also pressed on the current building-code vintage and whether this represented a lag in industry standards, and Wilkin committed to beginning the 2024-code-adoption process after the holidays.

Benita Beckles noted that almost all of her questions had been answered and thanked the team for the Lean exercise and interdepartmental coordination, emphasizing that communication improvements would make a significant difference, especially with new council members joining in 2025.

Outcome and Next Steps

No formal votes were taken, as this was a work session for feedback and input. However, staff committed to:

  1. Implementing the Development Agreement SOP as presented
  2. Tracking time-frame compliance on all process steps and reporting results to council after sufficient projects have moved through the new workflow (anticipated for next year)
  3. Conducting zoning-ordinance outreach in early 2025 to solicit council and development-community input on priorities
  4. Beginning the 2024 building-code adoption process after the holidays
  5. Scheduling quarterly, in-person development-advisory forums starting in 2025 to reconnect with the development community and gather feedback on further improvement priorities
  6. Requesting legal advice from the city attorney on implications of the Hammer Homes v. City of Phoenix ruling and adapting processes accordingly
  7. Expanding participation in development-advisory forums to include Legal Services and roundtable discussions with the Home Builders Association

Controversies and Context

Decade-Long Bottleneck Frustration

The work session reflected frustration accumulated over a decade of rapid growth. Development Services and Legal had been under sustained pressure to approve projects faster, yet council had historically focused its accountability demands on the City Manager's Office while, as Sterling bluntly put it, not pressuring the City Attorney's Office with the same rigor. This structural imbalance—two Charter officers with different reporting lines—emerged as a design problem that the SOP attempts to remedy through the Development Agreement Coordinator's coordinating role.

State Preemption and Industry Pressure

The session occurred against a backdrop of state legislative threats (referenced by Vicki Gillis and Sterling) and developer financing pressures (raised by Sterling and referring to interest-payment exposure from delays). These twin pressures appear to have motivated council's insistence on not just implementing reforms but measuring and reporting them regularly, so that the city can publicly demonstrate that it is not a bottleneck jurisdiction—a posture that may help defend against state-level restrictions on local authority.

Tort Liability: Hammer Homes Case

The Hammer Homes v. City of Phoenix case was mentioned as a potential liability exposure if the city missteps in development-agreement or stipulation processes. Rocklin and Wilkin indicated they would seek legal guidance, but the case underscored that process improvements must be legally sound, not just administratively efficient.

Duration