Prescott Water Subcommittee Approves Dignity Health Hospital Campus; Tables Mixed-Use Project Over Water Rights Conflict

Good morning. Today is September 1st, 2026 and this is the city council subcommittee on water issues. Roll call, please. Chair Rousing here. Member Garing here. Here and member Fworth is excused today. Thank you. our uh we got a slight change in our agenda. We're moving our water uh budget uh discussion up and it will be item B now. Thank you. Item A is approval of the July 7th, 2026 Council Subcommittee on Water Issues meeting minutes. Do we hear any changes? No. I move a vote. Second.

Did anything pop up for you? Passes two zero. Item D, presentation and discussion regarding the amended 2022 water management policy, current residential and non-residential water budget overview for July 1st, 2026 through August 19th, 2026. Good morning, water issues subcommittee. I'm Brian Reese. I'm the water resources manager for the city of Prescat um in community development department.

Um per the amended 2022 water policy guidelines 11 through13 um uh we established a semianual water budget for both residential and non-residential projects um for the budget set from July uh 2026 through December 31st 2026. The residential um budget was set at 25 acre feet per year and the non-residential budget was also set at 25 acre feet per year.

So with this uh we're just going to give you a recap of the water that um has been allocated uh for that budget period starting uh on July 1st, 2026 and going through August 19th of 2026. So starting off with residential projects um there was no residential projects approved um uh in the period so far. So we still have all 25 acre feet left in the budget for the residential projects. Moving on to the non-residential projects.

Um, in that same period up to August 19, 2026, we had five non-residential projects that were all administratively approved below the threshold of 1.5 acre feet. Um, that's set by water policy. Um, total uh the total for the five uh projects was 2.15 acre feet per year and that leaves us a remainder of 22.85 85 acre feet within the non-residential budget. And then lastly, um we just uh track uh projects that are going through um go through existing contract.

Um projects with an existing contract for water do not go uh are not accounted towards the budget period, but we provide this for reference just to show what has been approved through that same period. And at this point, there was no existing projects that were approved um uh to this point. So, uh, fairly fairly slow start off to our new budget season, but that's basically, uh, what we've done since, uh, July 1st. So, if there's any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer.

Um, I would just like to, uh, comment that we got the, uh, development summary from community development and there's 88 projects on it. So, it's not like there's nothing happening. Nope. Um, I have a question. You know, Stringfield Ranch gets city water, but it it's not on our it's never none of those residences are ever on our uh budget. Um do you have any I know it's in the county, of course, but it's still on city water. Why isn't any of those?

Um I guess it would it would be a matter of uh of parcel maps or subdivision maps that would come in and then we we we would track them just like we do for other um development agreements. um on that. Um I don't think we've seen anything come in. All those would go to the county. So I was just uh just asking maybe we should figure out a way to include uh the Springfield Ranch. I will make sure that it is um water allocation in as I see any type of subdivision map or anything come in.

We have a tracking spreadsheet that we use to track against the uh inner uh intergovernmental agreement we have with Streamfield and we we use that to make sure that we um that it the water that's allocated, the number of units, how it's assessed that we're tracking against that and we're as as things are coming in, we're accounting for them. Yeah. Okay. Because I I'd like to see if there's any way we can include that in our uh our budget discussions. Well, definitely.

and and it would it would it would come out on this one right here, the existing contract. Yeah, that's where you would see it, right? Yeah. So, I'll make sure that the mechanisms are in place to make sure, but I do believe that um that subdiv subdivision maps come in, we would see them, we would track them, they would end they would end up on this list right here. Yeah, maybe reach out to the county. Okay. Thank you, Brian. Certainly. Uh question, mayor. Yes.

Uh really for Elaine, Elaine, Elaine, sorry. Uh I know we've been working on categorizing all our development agreements. How are we coming on that? We're still working on it, but we've got quite a few in there. Um and then we have uh a new staff member that's going to take over that project. So hopefully we'll have that uh more succinct here in the next few months. Okay. Thank you. And at some point those will be available for the public and the council. I'm for the council for sure.

Um I don't know how it's going to it's in a specific system. So we might have to look at how we'll translate that into a viewing for the public. But yes, we are working on it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next item. Item B, WSA26-031, water service application submitted by Yavapai Community Hospital Association. Location is Willow Creek Road and Jenna Lane. Okay.

So, for this agenda item, um we did receive a water service application from the applicant uh in in accordance with the amended 2022 water policy. Um that was in your um agenda packet. Um, this particular project's located off of Willow Creek Road, um, just north of Jenna Lane, um, b, uh, binding it to the south and north of Pioneer Parkway. Um, the site plan included for with the application um is shown up on the screen now.

Um so uh the project uh generally consists of um of uh medical facilities uh medical buildings um uh four buildings as shown on the site plan ranging from 12,000 square ft to approximately 60,000 square ft per building. Um so the city uh staff uh did a water demand analysis based on uh the site plan presented and using water resource management model and using similar medical facility buildings to establish um a demand for the project.

Uh based on that analysis um it was estimated that the buildings uh for the uh uh development would use approximately 10.8 10.82 acre feet per year. And then based on the on the site plan in front of us um come uh the landscape area came up to approximately 4.8 acre feet. um using city's um um low plant um uh land development code requires that that all landscape use uh low uh low water use drought tolerant plants.

And based on ADWR's suggested water use for those plants of 1.5 acre feet per acre, uh that would come out to about 7.2 2 acre feet of water uh estimated for outdoor use for this particular project. So the total um is uh uh for the project uh determined by the city staff was 18.02 acre feet per year for this particular project.

So, um, water policy guideline number 14, uh, says that no single, uh, water service application will be approved, um, that request more than 50% of the water remaining in the budget at that point in time. There's a couple of things that projects that exceed that can do. One, they can, uh, they can wait and come back later when the water budget is renewed and there's enough water to get through without an appeal process.

uh a project like this that uses anything that uses over 12 1/2 acre feet of water would not have that option available to them because of uh the the budget being set at 25. Um so B, um they have the ability to appeal the 50% rule. Um and I'll read here it says the applicant shall demonstrate the benefit to the city such as job creation, wages, sales tax, economic impact, and other benefits to the city.

Um and uh those requests are pro are reviewed by the water issue subcommittee and recommendate recommend a recommendation moving forward to council on approval or denial denial of the water. So our applicant today they have requested an appeal of the 50% rule. Um in your agenda packet I provided the benefit uh analysis and letter that they that they have provided to the city uh to support that appeal request. Um, we have representatives here from the uh from the applicant um who are available.

I think they might want to come up uh quickly and just uh talk a little bit about the project. They can answer questions and I would be happy to try to answer questions on the city side. Thank you, Mr. Garing. Yeah, I got a couple of questions for Brian. So I don't have the Deep Well Ranch uh uh development agreement. So I don't know what it says exactly about water allocated to Deep Well Ranch.

And so a question would be was there a specific finite amount allocated to Deep Well Ranch or or how was that done? So, uh, the development agreement for Deep Well Ranch, the I think it was amendment number three to that development agreement, um, put a, uh, put all water for the development into into basically one bucket and all for residential. And then it, um, it speaks to water for commercial or non-residential uses as going through the city's water policy and and normal water processes.

So that's why we're taking it through water issue subcommittee and it's it would come out of the regular uh city budget or in this case an appeal and go through that process. So does does whatever water that is allocated to this project take away from the residential budget? It does not. Okay. All right. Thank you. Then uh my inclination would be to since this is a permissive item require zeroscape landscaping that doesn't require any water after establishment. Thank you. Good suggestion.

Um I have a question. Uh when I look at the site plan, there's a 100 foot easement that goes across the property. Uh it doesn't say what kind of easement that is. I can speak to that, Madam. Oh, okay. Okay. Um, okay. Well, that's uh all I have for Brian, but I'd like to hear from you, Stephen. Good morning. Steven Pulk with Boil Petridge Klein Whittington Installings representing Dignity Health YMC. Um, good morning, Madame Mayor, Councilman Garing.

Uh to answer your first question, mayor, the 100 foot easement, that's actually the old right of way for Willow Creek Road before the realignment uh located within that I believe is an underground utility of some sort. I would anticipate as uh development gets further along that that YRMC actually approaches city council and staff to uh really shrink the size of that easement to just what's needed to maintain that existing underground pipe.

Uh but yeah, but that's really that's the old Willow Creek Road before it was realigned and moved to the west. Is it uh is it our main water man that connects uh the uh little Chino water supply to the city that goes through there? I don't don't hold me to this. I think it's a gas line. I I don't believe it's the water main. All righty. Okay. Well, we'll we'll work on that later then. Thank you. Very good. Um so yes, so YRMC Dignity Health is purchasing. It's 16.25 acres.

It's located within uh the depot ranch master plan right at Willow Creek Road and Jenna Lane. So that is directly north of the new uh automotive dealership that's right there. It's uh YMC believes it's it's perfect location in terms of serving the medical needs of North Prescuit and really all of Prescuit. You have great access off of both Highway 89 and Pioneer Park. Uh so it's planned to be a phased medical campus.

It'll get developed over time and to meet the evolving medical needs of our community. We we are applying for the full amount of water needed for what's anticipated to be the full buildout over this. And that's really needed to uh you know obtaining this water entitlements now is really needed for the hospital to have the confidence to complete the purchase of this property and then make the financial commitment in terms of building it out.

Uh and just for the record, you know, YRMC is a nonprofit u corporation and so it's really this is serving just our medical community but providing basic health care needs. Uh on the landscaping issue, Councilman Garing, we are anticipating a couple things. One is when you look at the site plan, there's more landscaping than what you would typically expect for buildout of a site. Uh far more than the 10% that's required, and that's due to the irregular shape of the lot.

You know, you can see the little triangle in the north corner. Uh but we've run our own internal calculations. We're anticipating uh less water demand than than really uh what the formula says the yeah so plants will be selected from the prescuit active management area from the approved plant list. So we'll learn with align with local water conservation and zero escaping goals. Uh there's a little bit of a balance there because we got to follow what Prescuit city code says on that.

Uh we'll focus on tree canopy, indigenous plantings, uh little to no lawn or turf areas, and then and also grading the parking lot islands with shallow basins. So we passively capture natural storm water. And so with this water conservation approach, we're we're looking, you know, we project more closer to 2.5 acre feet for the total at full buildout landscaping.

And then the other thing to keep in mind is cuz it's phased over time, the uh the portion of the property that's not originally developed, that'll just be natural open space. So that won't be landscaped or have any water until it's really built out. Uh and then real briefly, uh if you'll entertain Dr. Torres, the YMC CEO, and I'll pause for a second. I should have introduced the rest of my team. So with me today, we have Dr. Anthony Torres, he is the CEO for Dignity Health YMC here in Prescuit.

And then also Penny Perea. She's the chief communications officer for YMC. But if you'll entertain, I'd call Dr. Torres up just to speak briefly in terms of what are the community benefits primarily uh you know, it's the community health needs assessment and then also in real general terms, uh the conceptual buildout, uh for the for the campus.

And I'd say it's going to be conceptual terms only because uh that's still in strategic planning and it'll be developed over time and also again just to respond to evolving medical needs and then after that we'll be available for any questions. Thank you. Good morning, Mayor, Councilman Garing, staff. Um we just completed our our third year um community health needs assessment um and we're developing a plan around that to implement uh a strategy for the next three years.

And the number one um concern coming from our communities is really the access to care. Um if you look at this uh location, this location uh we're intending it to serve Chino Valley, Prescuit Valley as well as Prescuit. Um we're going to create ambulatory services uh so that people can uh go here instead of having to go utilize a hospital. Right now from a hospital perspective 40% of our inpatient 40% of our imaging in the hospital is for outpatients.

So you can imagine what that causes within the function and operations of the hospital. So this this this particular uh project um is going to increase the need and demand uh for primary care uh for outpatient services, laboratory imaging um and other outpatient services as we as we grow this project. Uh and as you know, there's going to be a number of houses that'll be put into this area. Um so that also need uh healthc care services. That's all I have for you unless you have any questions.

Thank you. Uh the number of houses 10,500 just for uh depot ranch. Um I think this is a wonderful project. It's something that the community will need for our future growth in that growth corridor and I agree it's going to be a regional uh magnet for uh for the uh for the healthc care and uh I've always as you know being a a member of the medical community always have supported uh YRMC and uh all your wonderful efforts that you've uh undergone to uh provide health care to to our community.

So, thank you, Dr. Torres. Thank you for your consideration, Mayor. Just a Thanks, Jim. So, I've benefited personally a number of times from YRMC. I mean, I've had a a busted tendon to my knee fixed. Uh I've had a a arterial insertion of an art aortic valve, two two heart uh ablations and a cardio con conversion. And here I am back to my regular exercise cycle. So yes, we need that kind of service particularly in that end of town. Thank you.

Yeah, I just like to comment um the uh level of specialties that we have here in our community is uh for a rural area is very unusual and to have that level of expertise where we don't have to go to Phoenix to a major uh hospital center down there. We can stay locally and still get the same excellent care has been uh wonderful. But I think we're getting off topic here. Thank you.

So just summing it up for the uh subcommittee um basically WSA 26031 application for approximately 149,000 square ft of medical plaza um estimated demand for the buildings was 10.82 acre feet estimated demand for the landscaping 7.2 acre feet um and we've come up with a total demand for this project of 18.02 acre feet. So, with that, um, if there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer or you could, uh, move forward with your recommendation. Uh, I have a few questions for, uh, Mr.

Poke, uh, concerning the, uh, airport. Um, as you know, this project is in close proximity to our airport. In fact, it's in our um, our sple. And I was wondering uh have you uh done any uh pre- uh application process to uh deal with the issue of being in the play. I see you're in zone three, the north part. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Steven Pulk on behalf of YRMC Dignity Health. Uh you're correct that a portion of that property, if you pull up the site plan again, uh Mr.

Ruiz is you can see just that that real northern portion is within zone 3. Uh you can see in the conceptual planning there's not actually any planned and it's mostly parking lot. Yeah, that'd be planned just parking lot there. We have submitted uh for the FAA 7460 height determinations of no adverse uh air uh traffic issues uh on all four of those buildings as designed here.

Uh we I anticipate before we close on the property, we'll receive uh positive determination saying no problems constructing any of those four buildings. Um because I was concerned the building on the right is going to be 50 ft. And uh we have to make sure that there's no obstructions at the uh end of our runway.

And uh I'm glad that you um reached out to submit that form with the FAA, but um I think that it's important that we support the airport and make sure that we don't have any issues and now is the time to do it before we approve the water. So, uh we have a representative from the the airport here. I'd like to hear from her. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Councilman Garing. Christina Stapleton, your airport manager.

Um, so yes, we did review this project um in the pack review that goes through community development back in July. For a little clarification, it actually is just south of our OEIP and once we do the runway shift, it'll be completely obsolete. Um, we already acquired the property where that slay penetration would happen and so this development is all south of that. um they are going to have to follow part 77, fill out the form 7460 before they can move on with any development.

The airport would need to receive that approval from the FAA prior to them moving forward, which was all within the comments uh that we provided to uh the developer. Um did you reach out to United Sky West because they have a different set of criteria? I personally did not. Um, we just followed our splay guidelines that that we did as consultants using the Sky West formulas. Yeah. Because, uh, you know, they're essential air service.

They get a subsidy and someday we would like them to, uh, be profitable, but they will never be profitable if they have to fly out um, you know, half full and have to keep offloading passengers. So until we get that uh runway extension and shift um we have to be careful that we don't put obstructions. So I would I would recommend that we reach out to United and Sky West.

We can verify that but the displays that exist today they are run based on the Sky West airlines numbers and based on where those lie this project is just south of that. Okay. Well be nice to get their their blessing. Just make them aware. And then also um I was um wondering about uh our engineer, our airport engineer, uh firm on record is Dibble. Have you um gotten u reached out to them to get their input?

The OEIPs were actually run by Dibble and the subconultants for that when we were working on land uh acquisition. So it's the same OE OEIPs that have been presented to council over the last three years. Mhm. So have did you reach out to them on this particular project? No, because we have the OEIPs and so this on that project when you put it onto the OEIP and you show a a map, it's just south of it. Okay. So we just plugged it into what is already existing that Dibble has already provided. Okay.

All righty. Well, thank you very much. I just wanted to make sure that we were um protecting the airport operations because this is in a very sensitive area. Another thing I want to bring up is uh you know you're going to have some overflights and maybe it might be a good idea to um add some extra soundproofing in in the buildings. Um it might be an extra cost, but I think it'll be worth it in the long run. Extra soundproofing on the windows and the and the structure itself. Okay.

Uh, any public comment? Uh, mayor, I had one thing. I wanted to ask Dr. Torres whether they fix the fans in the cath lab, the new lab. They're pretty loud. Yes, sir. That was uh part of our project. Uh, we just built out a new EP lab. Uh, so we fixed all of the HVAC associated with the cath labs on the EP lab. All right. Thanks. Last time I was in there, it was pretty loud. Maybe they need to turn up the music. Okay. Um, thank you. Um, if there's no other comments, um, do I hear a motion?

This isn't really a motion. We're not actually voting. We're just voting to recommend that this project go to council for approval. Uh, mayor, I move that we recommend to the council approval and that they consider uh asking for as much zeroscaping as possible given the other constraints. Okay.

And uh also I uh I vote that we recommend it to council but with the condition that um the play the map be improved and more detailed to show the the play so it can be part of the official uh part of the official record. So thank you mayor. At this point um we have Mr. Garing who's made his recommendation with the zero escaping. So that would be the motion before if you're wanting to change that or if Mr. Garing wants to incorporate your changes.

But right now we have a motion before this committee in order to Yeah, I I'll incorporate those comments in my motion. We have two uh two comments to the motion. Okay. Thank you. Um okay. Well, I'm a yes vote. Yes. passes two zero. Thank you. Next item. Next item. WSA26-037 water service application submitted by IDM LLC. Location Willow Creek Road and Hos Boulevard. All right. So for the next uh item here we have WSA application 26037.

Um per the amended water policy of water service agreement application was submitted for this project. It was included in your application package. Um we have uh the project in front of us here um located um uh basically just off of um uh Willow Creek Road um and uh up in the uh northern part of the city and uh this uh site plan was included with the with the application.

Um so a project consisting of um uh multi-uses uh centered around medical uh a medical plaza medical development um incorporating retail development uh incorporate incorporating uh medical buildings um adult uh active living and um and a hotel and single family uh residential homes. So um based on the site plan that was presented to the city, city staff went ahead and did a water estimate for this particular project.

Um we utilized the uh the water resources management model and and utilized uh the um water from uh single family residents, multifamily uh hotels, residential medical buildings that were um comparable to the site plan that was presented here. Um so uh total estimate uh for all of that put together for this particular project came out to 120.29 acre feet of water in total and uh that included uh 4.56 acre feet of landscape outdoor water use within that 120.29.

So um this particular project uh has an existing water service app uh agreement uh 18.010 um city contract number uh 2019-094. It was included as attachment 4 in the agenda uh or in the memo packet. Um that particular water service uh application uh or excuse me that that water service agreement um provides 60 acre feet of water to the specific uh site plan that was included in the development agreement for the project that was um known as whispering rock at the time that it was executed.

Um so uh with that um this particular project is in excess in terms of the water needs above and beyond what's in that water service agreement by um approxim 3 acre feet of water. So this water service application request is coming in to um to um is a request for the additional water above that development agreement amount of 60 acre feet.

So basically the request in front of you today is for 60.29 acre feet but it is associated with the 60 acre feet in the entire development would require 120.29 29 acre feet. Okay. Is that clear? Got that? Okay. Yeah. And our annual budget is 100. Uh our annual our well our our annual budget for non-residential uses would be 50 acre feet on an annual basis. We break it up into the by annual 25 and 25. Yeah. So definitely the project exceeds the price. Yeah.

exceeds the So, it's two years worth of water. It's Yeah, it's if the subcommittee or council chooses on that 25 acre feet of of water. Um so, this project uh exceeds that and um according to water policy guideline number 14, they have a couple of choices. Um they could a they could come back at a time when the when the water budget would would allow for that. In this particular case, the water exceeds the water uh any any even a full budget. So that that's not open to them at this point.

So the so what's open to them here is appeal of the 50% rule. Um just for the record, I'll read it again. The the applicant shall demonstrate the benefit of the uh to the city for such such as job creation, wages, uh sales tax, economic impacts, and other benefits to the city. Um all such requests are reviewed by the water issue subcommittee for recommendation and then goes to full council for voting.

Um so our uh the applicant is here today uh with representation and they have asked to uh to appeal the 50% rule. So within your agenda packet you had the um um uh the benefit analysis and letter that was um that was established by the applicant for the particular project. um they are here today. I think they would like to speak to you um about their particular project. Um we can bring them up, but if you have any questions for me before that, we can I I'd be happy to try to answer. Yeah, I do.

Um yes, Mr. Garing. So, uh Brian, a number of questions. First of all, I read closely the agreement for portable water for Whispering Rock and what it says is that it that this site has allocated 60 acre feet of portable alternative water. It's my belief and impression that alternative water is not part of the ADWR uh secured water that we have. So, do we have alternative water and if so, where and how much?

So the the 2018 water service app agreement is speaking to um another time period in the city's water um water resource management practices where we were attempting to um distinguish between groundwater and alternative water which would come from our effluent uh recharge creation from our surface water. And um at that point in time the water was put was kind of siloed into different buckets.

Ground water here um alternative water here and then uh an accounting method to try to to try to say that you have so much water within that alternative um uh water bucket.

At this point, what we've done is we've taken our assured water supply that that the um uh from 2009, which is the one that we're currently working under, and Arizona Department of Water Resources, has told us that you have um this much legal supply in groundwater in uh you've shown this much legal supply in available surface water and effluent. and we've taken all of that water together and we've managed um the re uh that portfolio totally within that total water supply available.

So, so to answer your question, it's a different methodology. That's why that alternative water was was was in there at that particular time. We wouldn't use that methodology if we're creating that water service agreement at this point in time. However, we still have that same uh exact supply amount which was, you know, designated in 2009 is still currently designated today. Okay. Thank you.

Another one though, the uh agreement speaks to any change in the use of this property that's different from the site plan submitted with the pre- annexation development agreement. uh terminates the agreement. So has anybody checked to see if this proposal is consistent with that? So um I would defer to our legal department on that question. Mr. Garing, I think that's a great question.

Um and it's something that we have discussed from legal's perspective this would be a change and so um that 60 acre feet that is in the development agreement from my perspective would then be lost. So at this point it would be um they'd be asking for 60.29 ft under this water service application. Um but then moving forward it would be eliminating the 60 under the development agreement because it is in addition to it is a change from what that development agreement was.

So in effect because this isn't consistent the 60 acre feet in the agreement is lost. Correct. That's that's my position. So So really they should be asking for 120. I think that would be the more appropriate if they're if if they're going to ask for a change in what they're doing. Um then yes, I think that the it's they could go one of two directions. They could either do a water service application for the full amount of the 120.29 or we could look at amending the development agreement.

It would be one of those two situations, but um I think that it would be improper to consider moving forward that there's the guarantee of the 60 under the agreement plus a 60 in the water service. From legal's perspective, if 60 is added through a water service application today, um or if council approves it as if it were to be recommended, then that 60 would go away under the development agreement. Plus the whole development agreement expires in about six months anyway, right? Uh yeah.

So they had seven and a half years um from the date of the contract in order to execute um which I think is February of 2027 if I remember correctly. And uh tell you the truth, I've I've never seen 120 acre foot request uh for a project that uses up uh two years worth of our uh of our budget all at once. So um anyway, I'd like to hear from the applicants. Thank you. Good morning, Madame Mayor, Councilman Garing. My name is Dr. Edward Johnson.

I'm a senior advisor to the team that's uh put together this proposal. Um I have 40 years in higher education background, various presidencies, mostly in Arizona, but also outside Arizona. I was on the Prescat College board for a number of years and was chair of the national uh second nature consortium of 600 universities moving toward climate neutrality. So I personally am very sensitive to the sustainability issues uh related to this uh project.

I think I can say without equivocation our principal passion in orchestrating this uh proposal is to improve rural Arizona healthcare outcomes. It's that simple. So, how do you get from here to there? In partnership with all kinds of uh medical and non-medical uh groups. And so, for the last 5 years, that's what we have been focusing on. We're looking for a pilot site to ultimately build out a rural health care information system and support system.

And much of our work is driven by the four factors now that clearly are driving uh innovation in healthcare and many other industries too. And that's capital, that's talent, that's institutions, and that's industries. And so it's taken that long to to begin to align the um the groups that can make this happen. We've looked at a lot of rural areas in Arizona and Prescuit is by far our first choice in terms of uh this health innovation network.

Uh we're working with multiple uh medical schools with a focus on a teaching hospital model on our site. Uh but a key driver of this is how do we get more doctors to come to rural Arizona? And the way you do that is to provide residencies and internships and other programs.

So, we're intensely focused on the funding and the partnerships to bring those uh individuals after graduation to places like Prescott, knowing that about 75% of residents and interns who complete their work will stay in the communities that they become embedded in for all the great reasons we all love Prescuit. And so we see this as an opportunity to uh reach out to multiple existing hospitals. Um but our focus is really on next-gen uh technologies that everyone can ultimately use.

And a good example would be the robotic surgery industry. And so we're we're under tight NDAs. So I you know at some point we can go public in terms of our uh partnerships. But one of our first focus is on how can we bring the best doctors remotely if you will uh to places like Prescott to provide the kind of surgeries uh that we're currently unable to provide and to do that in a costeffective way.

And at the end of the day, can we ultimately provide better services, better outcomes at a lower cost? And that's a huge challenge. We're not kidding ourselves anymore than anybody else in this room and others at observing the challenges. uh in this state and elsewhere, but we've got some significant brain power and money behind this and we're determined to take a real run in this state and so we ask for your support to uh to come to Prescuit. Well, thank you very much.

Um we've seen sort of several iterations of this plan. Um, the one I remember it was going to be a uh mostly a a senior retirement uh long-term care kind of a staged uh facilities and the hospital was just mostly going to be for the residents. It was like going to be 20 beds or something. Yes, that was our initial thinking in terms of being conservative on size and services.

It's as our conversations have continued, it's clear that we have an unusual opportunity here to upgrade, if you will, the type of hospital services, the type of innovation that can come to the community, the type of innovation that can be created here and shared within uh the network. So it it has grown over time. I think for good reasons. And I think it just takes this much time to get to know the players, to get to know where the opportunities are, and to reassure people.

We're not trying to take away market share from anybody. We're trying to buy provide another level of service that isn't uh currently being provided throughout rural Arizona. Mhm. I think we're fairly comfortable now that we have the the kind of package that we will ultimately work with the city on. Well, I was going to ask our water resource uh director here. Um do you think that 120 acre feet is excessive for what they want to do? The bas it's all based on the on the demand analysis.

So here's kind of a recap. If you if you break it down, um residential usage about 57 acre feet of water based on the site plan provided. Non-residentidential um includes 336,000 square foot of uh medical plaza and facilities. Um and that came out to 58.7 um acre feet. So, um, the numbers are all based on on on the water resource management models assessment of what's used for facilities of of this same size. Um, you know, so with that, it's uh it's it's a project just like any other.

Um, its scale is a little bit bigger, so its water use is a little bit bigger at this point. But we base those estimates based on facilities of comparable size and scale that we have here in the in the community. Mr. Garing, any comments? Well, well, we sure know we need these kinds of facilities in the north end of the city.

Uh I mean I heard about that almost every day during my campaign and this is a a helpful would be a helpful uh provision of those services but I'm hesitant about the amount of water required. Um not sure how to handle that. Uh uh legal do you have a suggestion on how to handle it? So again I think you can go one of two ways.

um you can either modify the development agreement which would be a decision that council as a whole would need to make otherwise I think um you would need to come through with a water service application for the full 120.29 um to this committee and then this committee would take it to council but ultimately council would have that decision as to whether um they want to agree to that much water for this project.

Yeah, this this was a a previous agreement that was I guess was it in a bankruptcy court or something that was uh purchased in a bankruptcy something something to that effect by an investor and it's going to expire in 6 months.

I think I would work on, you know, getting that extended uh get the agreement extended and uh save, you know, and protect that 60 acre feet that you already have and then uh we can work on maybe an additional 60, but as it as it is right now, you have an agreement for 60 and you're going to lose that if you don't pro, you know, protect it.

So rather than worry about the additional 60, I think we need to work on protecting the 60 and uh look at what you can do with that 60 because you did make a a huge change to the original master plan and that's why you need more water. Correct. So uh we can we can still work on this and uh but I'm not ready to recommend an approval today. So I think we have some options.

Um we can uh recommend that it go back to uh legal or uh for more work and then bring it back or we can recommend that it goes to council for more work and have them make some recommendations before the whole council. I don't know what uh what you would recommend. So in this case, mayor, it would be you have the application, you can um recommend not accepting that application, forward that on to council so that council as a whole can take a look at this. It's uh it's under the appeal.

So the council is some um the body that's ultimately going to hear that appeal um and can take a look at what the um applicant has brought forward under that appeal side of things. Um, and then ultimately, yeah, if they want to kind of pursue a different option as opposed to the water service application, they could do that as well. Would that be okay? Mhm.

It's uh we got to make sure that we uh, you know, protect your interest here and we don't want you to, you know, lose that 60 acre feet because the contract expired and it didn't get extended. Yeah. And we don't want to lose your city. Yeah. Frankly. So, uh, anyway, thank you very much and, uh, I'll, uh, uh, make the recommendation that we, uh, send this back for, uh, more work and, uh, and and bring it back to the water issues subcommittee. I'll second that. Okay. Please vote.

So to confirm, mayor, you're just wanting to table this for additional information uh additional information and to look at that uh development agreement and make sure that it doesn't expire and protect that 60 acre feet that they already have a right to and uh maybe look at their master plan. you know, they'll have to make some and make sure that they are going to do what they're going to say they're going to do there.

You know what I noticed is that there are some significant differences between the whispering rock approved preliminary plan and this application. And uh one thing I would like to know is whether they need to go through a whole new application to change that or how is that going to work. So, that would be something to ask uh community development about, I think. Okay.

I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page for what the actual motion was, which was to table this and give them time to come back with something to this body. Okay. Yeah, a good point. It may need some community development uh input. But, you know, we've got six months, but first thing we need to do is, you know, make sure that we don't let that expire in the meantime that we protect that water. So the motion to table passes two. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Last item e presentation discussion regarding the big chino watershed assessment. Good morning subcommittee. I'm Leslie Graaser, water resource project manager. I'm going to move quickly because I'd like to uh allow your presenter as much time as possible. Um today you're seeing an item that is familiar to you. Five months ago, you had a background on this. There's some updates we can provide you now.

So um Selena Pow, she's the Northern Arizona project manager will provide your um update for today. Thank you. All right. Uh, thank you for inviting me today, council members. Um, so today I'm going to provide you another update on the Big Chino Water Ranch assessment and design. Um, there has been a few updates that I think would be interesting to discuss. And so, let's go ahead. There we go. And just as a reminder, I just kind of want to quickly go over what has happened so far.

so we're all on the same page. Um, in early 2025, TNC and the city of Prescuit entered anou to develop this project, we quickly move forward with an RFP and selected and contracted natural channel design and engineering. Um once that contract was in place, we worked with city staff, TNC staff, um the contractor and keyers to have an on-site meeting. And from that meeting, we really developed four the four concept designs that we discussed last time and I will go over again.

Um and we have selected two concept designs to move forward towards 30%. We've received those 30% designs and we'll be presenting them to you today. They have also completed some geotechnical investigations. So that's four test pits on the site just to really understand um the soil composition and to better um inform the engineers to how to best design what we're proposing. So, as a reminder, these are the four concept designs.

Um, concept one is bank sloping, which is just bringing up that elevation of that insiz. Concept two would be reconnecting those historic meandering channels that are there that you can see that are still there. Um and then concept three was the plug and spread and um that would be kind of moving water onto more of a flood plane area and kind of um improving that grassland. And then concept four is upland low tech processbased restoration.

That's basically rock structures reducing that erosion through the upland areas. And then we obviously chose concept two and concept four to move forward towards a 30% design. And you know just to make sure we're all on the same page. Um concept 2 did come back with some questions that natural channel design had some had some discussions with with the staff and TNC and so that's what we'll be discussing more um later on.

But just to give you an update on Upland on the Upland LTPBR design, we got the 30% back. They um were able to design six tributaries that go into Big Chino Wash. It includes 82 one rock dams, eight zuni bowls, 15 rock rundowns, and five media lunas. And those are just different um rock structures just to help with the erosion based on the needs of the landscape there.

Um so these structures will help reduce erosion, slow flows, um and help hold water right there on the ground and then eventually help improve grassland health and habitat. Um the 90% design is expected to be completed this week and then the staff your staff and my staff will be reviewing it giving natural channel design more comments so we can develop that 100% design.

This particular concept is on track to be completed by the end of the month and then we can really discuss you know implementation at that time. Um, I did want to mention that LTPBR, while it doesn't fix everything, it is a really great um part of the solution, it's it really helps couple with other strategies in the watershed and that benefit really does add up um as time goes on. And it's just really great to see um a town, a city just to really embrace uh a concept like this.

While it is um slow in developing those benefits, there are benefits to be had with these strategies. So as a reminder, this is concept two. This is reconnecting those historic channels. And then you can see in the upper section there's that oxbow and then we see downstream lower to the south um a longer stretch of meandering um historic channel that is there. So this is a 30% design. So it's very conceptual.

Things are probably going to change as we develop um further into the design, but as it is designed right now, um this shows that uh we would gain probably around 5,000 um linear feet in meandering if we were connect those two channels. So, it's it's a lot um of additional meandering and stream beds that we would add if we were to connect those.

But what natural channels has found in this particular this version of the 30% is that there is a lot of um soil movement that is required as well as you know bringing in a lot of that um rip wrap to to do this. So just to give you an example just looking at the upper section of the oxbow this is the shorter section. So the existing channel um that is shown in this design. So there's an existing channel that leads up um let's see right here right there.

Right here that leads up to the connection site to the historic channel. Um that will that would require about a thousand linear feet of backfill. Um and then we would have to slowly raise up that um existing channel by six feet. So it's going to be starting at basically zero and then continue to rise up all the way to the connection site.

Um and then at the same time the historic channel would have to be lowered by 3 ft just so that those elevation can can match just because of the differences of what's going on um in those channels. So if we go to the downstream SE section, um there would be 600 linear feet of back fill and then raising the channel to three feet and going to that relic channel, we would need to lower that relic channel or the historic channel by 4 feet for 2700 linear feet.

So there's a lot of rip wrap we would need to be brought in and then a lot of um dirt and fill that would need to be removed in those older channels just so that the flow would would work properly there. Um so they estimate 2200 cubic yards of rip wrap that would need to be brought in to a very remote location. That's a lot of truck full of rip wrap. Um, over 10,000 cubic yard of earthwork. So, we would have to remove about over 10,000 cubic yards of soil that's already there on the site.

And not to mention the geoteexile fabric that is required. Additional structures. I mean the structure that would need to be built to move that water from the current channel to the historic channel. There would have to be something built up there. Um and the mobilization surveys and other testing that would be required. So they looked at it. This is just a opinion of probable cost at 30%.

These are not the most accurate, but it gives us a really good idea of how much it would potentially cost, and they are estimating over $3 million for these two projects. Um, this really gave them pause and came back to us and really wanted to discuss more. Um, while TNC does think this is a great project, we do not have two, you know, $3.2 $2 million laying around to implement a project like this. But we are still interested in a project like this.

There are some great benefits to this project, but we would we did tell Natural Channels to kind of pause on this particular design just so that we can do um additional assessments and think through this particular project a little bit more, understand the permitting requirements and then hopefully identify some additional additional partners and funding opportunities.

And so due to this high cost, they did come back to us with an alternative option that I would like to discuss a little bit more. So one of So their suggestions is to install baffles throughout Big Chino Wash. So baffles are essentially structures.

There are wooden stakes that are driven into the channel bottom and then they utilize rocks and you can see in that picture right there um to fill in those spaces just to provide additional support during you know high flood events which big china wash does experience those quite often.

Um, so these structured would and so if you look at figure nine to the right, you can see how the flow comes in and then it kind of the the baffles would push that flow towards the bank opposite it and slowly erode that bank away. I understand that we're trying to reduce erosion, but in this particular technique, it it helps induce that meandering that we want to see.

So in the in the channels in that historic channel that we were thinking of of of implementing, you know, it has that great natural meandering that we want. And so the baffles would kind of induce the development of the meandering and eventually flood plane. And so that's kind of what we're really interested in seeing.

Um so if you look here the current um channel profile of big china wash kind of resembles G the most in that ta in that um figure on the left and it's just very insized when it's kind of um when the flows are kind of stuck in the channel it just it accelerates and when it accelerates it just continues contin to erode and it continues to insize. Um so what we're trying to induce is trying to get it to look more like C or E with flood plane.

Flood plane is good because it helps um dissipate the flood energies across a wider area. Um it reduces flood peaks and it facilitates sediment retention and provides habitat for streamside vegetation and wildlife. So the baffles, you can see in the figure on the right, those triangles represents the baffles. And it just kind of forces that flow to meander.

And it uses um natural flows that would come through that area to restore that that wash to make it more look like the lower channels where it's instead of being straight, it really just meanders like that. Um, so what are the differences between the two options? Um, when you're reconnecting that channel, spending $3.2 million to implement that design, those benefits are going to be immediately seen will be seen immediate upon the completion of the design.

Um so whatever potential benefits come from reconnecting those channels that would be immediate once the design's complete. Um for the baffles the benefits is um slowly developed through time. It takes you know quite a bit of time for those flood planes and the meandering to come back into that channel. there are places that have implement this particular project with baffles and they probably didn't see full benefits um or you know a good amount of benefits for 10 years.

So it just really depends on what flows come through and actually develop those meanderings and the flood plane. Um obviously reconnecting the channel there's going to be a high initial cost. It's potentially over $3 million or more. um with the baffles, it's going to be a low initial cost, but it's a long-term commitment to maintain those baffles. Um you never know when a flow is coming through, right?

And so you have to make sure that those structures are in place to push those flows and then really induce that meandering throughout. Um, we believe the permitting requirements for both these projects are probably very similar because they're going to take place in the main wash. Um, and the benefits of reconnecting the channel is flood planes will eventually develop in those two connected sites, but it's not going to be developed in the other sections of Big Chino Wash.

So, it's just kind of allocated to those what 5,000 10,000 um linear feet of the entire Big Chino Wash that's throughout your property. So, with the baffles, if we were to install more of those throughout Big Chino Wash, there's a potential of more um flood planes being developed throughout the property. So, for my proposal to the committee is to essentially move forward with a combination of both.

um the fact that the lower um connection site to the historic channel is just a longer section, it seems more economical to from my point of view to maybe potentially just move forward with that one. Um and then look at installing baffles throughout the entire section through the other section.

So, we wouldn't install baffles um through the length of the current channel where the lower the lower channel would be connected, but we would look at installing baffles through the other sections throughout. I currently don't see just because we have to pro get way more um rip wrap to the top section. It's about a thousand linear feet from the connection site um for the upper channel.

It just doesn't seem as economical to to do that just for such a small section to be reconnected that that that meandering section. So that is kind of my proposal to the committee, but I'm also open to any suggestions um from from you. Mr. Garing, do you have some comments? Uh, I did have a question. The uh I like the reconnect option and if you leave out the upper section that makes it more economically feasible.

Um, the the existing non-natural straight channel is steeper than the than the old channel is. So, uh, when you the minute you put drainage into the old channel, it's going to be a lot more likely to flood because it's longer and the gradient is flatter. I guess you guys are considering all that in your hydraulic analysis.

Um yeah, from what I understand, and I'm not an engineer, um from what I understand is um the there's going to be some kind of structure to push that flow into the historic channel and it would take the majority of flow towards it would push the majority of flow to the historic channel, but once it reach a certain um flow height, etc., it will also utilize the old channel.

So it will just kind of um split the flows at a certain point to so that not one channel is taking like the brunt of the force. Okay. Yeah, I got that. That that probably works. So you have an overflow overflow uh emergency access for big storms basically. Okay. Thank you. Well, as we all know from the news, flash flooding has been at the forefront.

I've never seen so many news stories about flash flooding, you know, on a world basis with Nepal uh statewide with the what happened in uh the Grand Canyon and then locally Prescuit Valley, Chino Valley and in the surrounding areas. So I think these efforts if you can somehow control and prevent that flash flooding so that it doesn't destroy properties uh downstream and also if it protects the riperian areas of the verie so the verie doesn't get overwhelmed.

So I think you've got a a good start here. Um I like the more natural approach. Uh the fir the $3.2 $2 million approach sounded like a uh Army Corps of Engineer project, but you'd have immediate results. Uh I like the combination of u of both. So this sounds like a very uh worthy project and I think it's something that is needed to prevent the all the flash flooding that's uh occurring out in that area. Any uh public comment? No mayor. Okay. All righty.

Well, this was just for discussion only and it'll be uh you'll be speaking to council as a whole, presenting this to council. We can definitely bring this over um to council uh once maybe we move forward with uh some of the recommendations, have uh the plans a little bit more developed if that is uh if that's your desired. Yeah, we could definitely do that. Yeah, I think they'd really like to to hear about that. Yeah. No, definitely we can we can look at scheduling that in.

Um we'll we'll work with um Selena and kind of figure out what their schedule is, what our schedule for for study sessions may be and um and try to work something in. So, um and just in summary, yes.

So the the channel a lot of places that in in our in our land out there in the big chino the channel was was altered for the for the purposes of agricultural and um uses and for that putting all the water into an incise channel so that it didn't spread out didn't cause havoc through your operations made a lot of sense. Now that we've inherited the land and we're looking at kind of restoring back its natural flood plane use we're trying to kind of do the opposite.

We're trying to take that channel and spread the water out a little bit. Um so that those natural flood planes come back, you get all the benefit for that.

Um the side benefit we had discussions with was exactly that that um that done right and it might take a number of years but it could help reduce peak flooding downstream in in in the communities Paulen Chino Valley um you know the communities downstream could be a a a side alternative or a side um benefit for this particular project and we've been talking about that a bit um and for us you're slowing the water down through the the big chain O um you're allowing these flood planes to be reestablished.

You're reestablishing vegetation, reducing erosion and downstream sedimentation into the into the upper Verie um and and propagating maybe more natural watershed processes in terms of recharge and and those things. So those are all benefits that we're we're really excited about. Yeah.

And I just want to comment, you know, I uh support the cattle industry 100%, but a lot of these issues are caused by overg grazing and our it'd be nice to support our native grasses because they are very nutritional, but we have to keep in mind that we don't want to overg graze them too and then it'll just keep perpetuating the pro the problem in the in the overall picture. Yeah. and and and our partnership with the keyers who are uh leasing the land and they are 100% for all of those processes.

They want a sustainable area for their cattle um so that they can just uh you know they can they can ranch in the most efficient way possible and they've been very good partners with us on this so far. Yeah. And I'm I'm sure that with all the the rain that we're getting this this project is very vision visionary. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Do we have any announcements? No announcements today, mayor. Okay. All righty. Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.