Heritage Preservation Commission Approves 820 North Beaver Demolition with Conditions; Broader Code Inconsistency Controversy Deferred

We're going to call the meeting to order. Oh god. All right. Um, so we are calling the meeting to order at on my watch. It's 402 on Wednesday, September 16th, 2026. We will start with roll call, I guess. Duffy Westimer here. Alicia Hayes. Oh, I guess she dropped off. Alec Overman here. Jeannie Stevens, present. Emily Dale, present. Caitlyn Stewart, here. Jesse Dominguez, here. looking at the computer. All right. Who would like to read the land acknowledgement? Anyone? Thanks.

The Heritage Preservation Commission humbly acknowledges the ancestral homelands of this area's indigenous nations and original stewards. These lands still inhabited by native descendants, border mountains, sacred to indigenous peoples. We honor them, their legacies, their traditions, and their continued contributions. We celebrate their past, present, and future generations who will forever know this place as home. Thank you.

Would someone like to read the Heritage Preservation Commission purpose? Alec, the purpose of the Heritage Preservation Commission is to protect and enhance the cultural, historical, and archaeological heritage of the city of Flagstaff by recognizing preserving enhancing and perturbating the use of those objects, structures, sites, and landscape features that represent distinctive elements of the city's cultural, political, and architectural, and archaeological history.

The council finds and attends the preservation of the city's heritages is in the interest of the health, economic prosperity, education, cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the public.

The commission implements the city's general plan and has implemented pursuant to the provisions in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended the certified local government program and Arizona state statute providing the statute providing the standards and procedures for heritage preservation. Thank you. Okay. Now we move on to the open call to public. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address the commission? If so, I'll read this here's not chair.

We just want to note that Commissioner Hayes has now joined the meeting at 4:04 p.m. All right. There seems to be nobody who would like to speak from the public. So, we will approval of the minutes from the August 19th meeting. Anyone want to move to approve? I make a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting, the August 6 uh August 19th, 2026 uh Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. Any discussion? No. Okay, let's do a vote. All in favor say I. I. I. I. I. Any opposed? I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. It app it passes. So, we go to the public hearing. 7A is 820 North Beaver Street, the phase 1 cultural resource study. Is there a staff report for this? Because we didn't get one. We don't do staff reports for cultural resource studies unless staff disagrees with the finding of the study. We only do staff reports for the certificates, which is yeah consistent with our past practice.

Uh it doesn't look like the applicant or the report preparer um were are here to attend today. So I know um you all had the report to review in your packet. Um and the request here is to approve a phase one culture resource study which was the staff recommendation.

Um and alternate actions are that the commission could require additional research or documentation as conditions or of approval or the commission could continue to a date certain and requires submitt of additional research and documentation prior to acceptance of the report. And the background information, this is a parcel, a property located at 820 North Beaver. It has not previously been inventoried or subject to a survey.

It's located outside of any existing historic district or historic overlay zone. The property owner wishes to demolish the existing structures and redevelop the parcel. And therefore, given the age um of the property, it fell under our heritage preservation code requirements for a cultural resource study. Um and the property owner had a Envir systems management conduct a phase one cultural resource study. Um that was here in your packet.

And the study found that um the subject property although it did retain some integrity um did not have sufficient significance to be eligible for the Flagstaff or National Registers of Historic Places and did the commission have any specific questions or items to discuss about this report? Uh this is Commissioner Stewart. I had two comments.

Um, not that I necessarily disagree with the findings, but it seemed that uh the NRHP was pretty well addressed and there really was no discussion of really limited discussion of the Flagstaff code, which is what this would most likely be eligible if it if it was under. So, I feel like there wasn't enough information on that per se.

Um, and my other question since I can't really ask it on this would be that it seems to be like that there is some conflation between condition and integrity, the condition of the building versus whether or not it actually retains integrity. I don't they seem to go back and forth on those two terms.

So, it made it a little difficult for me to say whether not that I think that it would be eligible under NRHP, but whether or not it would be eligible under or would need anything additional under Flagstaff. For for our audience, NRHP is the National Register of Historic Places. Did you want someone to address that? I guess I would like to see how the commission feels, but I do think that that that those are the the history of the port was done well, the building and the findings. I don't know.

I I have a hard time saying if I would agree with them just because those two pieces are not not flushed out. Maybe they're not missing, but just not uh adequately addressed.

Um, so I don't know how I guess that would be the question is is could that just be addressed because I do think that it probably would still fall under not eligible based on the information provided but the information provided which would be the only sole record at this point after this point assuming that that was agreed upon should at least discuss integrity fully outside of condition. I'm not even sure condition is part of a cultural resource study. So I don't I don't know why it's there.

The owner it seems to me could be saying I'm not willing to put the money in. That's what he wants to say or she. But I don't know that that's part of the cultural resource study. And I also feel like some of the condition has to do with the fact that our we are not enforcing property maintenance ordinance here and that this building has suffered from that.

So, um, makes me sad, very, very sad because that certainly is could be repaired for a long-term residence and the garage could be turned into a second residence and, etc., etc. So, makes me sad. Um, anyone else? Jesse, is there any way that we can find out how many families have owned that that home? Um they did in the report go through the history of the ownership that they were able to find. So they did list um all of the known owners at least through the historic period.

It was built in 1927, correct? So it's 99 years old. Yeah, I believe they said 25 through 27. They didn't have a exact date, but yes, they went they did list um the owners throughout the historic period that they were able to find. Commissioner Stewart, I was going to say, so I guess the question boils down to and this is for us to is do we have enough information to make that to agree that it is not eligible?

just I'm pointing out these deficiencies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we couldn't make that determination. But I guess we would want to decide make that decision. Is is there enough information on integrity and enough information on the Flag Staff uh register to say that we're comfortable saying it is not eligible. You know, um integrity flows from condition, right? And so I agree that condition was discussed a lot. Um but I did get the argument and I did it did work for me.

I could see the logic of it. Um I understand your point. Um but I for me um I do think it was adequately addressed and I am comfortable. Maybe just to reiterate as options, the commission could could approve as is could approve with the condition condition or conditions that additional language be added. Um so approval but additional language be added about the Flagstaff Register of Historic Places and or um integrity versus condition.

Or the commission could not approve and request it be revised and come back for um additional review. And if you did choose to approve with conditions, you could have the condition be that you saw it again or that it was added and I approved administratively. The I agree largely it probably is adequate.

My one concern about the integrity that I would say is is that I think obviously condition can impact integrity but they aren't onetoone and the answer of Flagstaff any architectural issue I don't think that was addressed how this would fit into the architectural styles of Flagstaff and if it's important not saying it is if it is important I don't think that was addressed for me definitely the national level was addressed Commissioner, I did I did find that um a question came up while I was reading this.

I I was curious as to how it fits into the context. And so I understand what you're saying. Um and I think we could definitely ask for a little bit more information on that on the impact locally from local registry. Yes, I would like as someone who has written a report uh assisted in writing a report that has been submitted to this commission prior, I would like to see more about Flagstaff register of historical places and addressing its criteria.

And another thing I also noticed is that the Flagstaff Register of Historical Places um the criteria could be better listed out because I'm thinking again this is documentation for the public and right here the National Register of Historical Places and Flagstaff register historical places. It just mentions like criterion B and then parenthesis persons. It doesn't go a little bit more into depth and I think that's just beneficial to the public.

And then also the document is not searchable which I would also appreciate. Lauren, are these things that would be um conditions for approval or conditions that sending it back to be revised? How would that work? It will only be revised if you ask for it to. So either you ask for it to be revised and come back to you or you make them conditions of approval. So any specific things that you want changed in the report need to be listed as specific conditions of approval.

Otherwise um we wouldn't be able to request that. So I think yeah the it sounds like the we haven't heard from everybody but it sounds like the commission does want changes. So I think it's whether or not you agree um it sounds like largely the commission does agree that it does not most likely does not have enough significance. Um and because it doesn't necessarily have to have integrity if it doesn't have significance. So therefore, some of the integrity versus condition is moot.

If it doesn't have significance, it can have all the integrity in the world. It's still not going to be eligible. So I do, you know, so that's something to weigh. So really, it's just whether or not you approving with the condition that these and what they specifically are for resubmitt or you are not approving asking for specific revisions and want to see it as a public hearing item again at a future meeting.

I think my perspective would be uh from my p professional experience this I think it should not be eligible. Um I would I would be fine with them adding it because I do think that there is a minimum standard and that needs to be addressed but I I still would most likely agree with the findings regardless of that. But I I would like to see that information included in the final public record.

So far right now we have that it would be addressed under the flagstep register of historic places and the document be searchable. Is there anything I didn't catch? Uh the explanation of or separation of condition versus integrity but again I think that we could approve the overall finding just with a adjustment. or I should say have Lauren approve it.

And maybe just because they do address the Flagstaff Register of Historic Places in here, add more specific what level of detail you're asking for them to add. I would No, that's a great point. I think I would expect the same level of effort that was placed on the National Register should be placed on the local register at minimum. I personally would like to see the a personal opinion about whether or not it's economically worthwhile to save removed. I think that's inappropriate for the report.

Anyone else have a thought on that? I would say that I don't think that that was the appropriate use of that in the report. Um, but I think regardless of that, I I still wouldn't think the place would be eligible. I would probably say that that that should be removed because it's not relevant. I will say it in the last commission meeting it was brought up that um a property that was not significant or did not retain integrity could be with if the changes were reversed.

And I wonder if that language was specifically added because of past commission comments calling for that. And maybe that's just a rewarding, right? Uh I would say that it's it was maybe posed as being relevant for the demolition as opposed to being relevant as a supporting evidence of integrity. So maybe just a rewarding of it because as it stands it was a bit unclear, but I think I I agree with what they were trying to get at. Anyone else want to say anything? Anyone online? Emily, Alicia?

Nope. This all sounds reasonable to me. I would be all right with this. The changes that were mentioned that economic hardship is not part of this um didn't need to be part of this report. Any minor changes could occur and Lauren could approve the final report. I don't think we need to see it come back before us. I don't think the building has significance.

But I will say as someone who knows is really familiar with the downtown area, that's a really common building form in historic Flagstaff, it would be interesting to have it addressed as um was there one major builder who was doing all of these things like that. Um [clears throat] just something to acknowledge that it's really common. [laughter] That doesn't make it less significant.

It means that it's part of our community character and the aesthetics of the people who were here and the builders who were here and all of that. So, um I'd als I'd also like to not see we wait till the last one and make that owner of the last one save it just cuz they are last. But anyway, okay. So, should we do a motion? Commissioner Hayes has her hand up online. Alicia, I was just going to address your comment um because I thought it was an appropriate time to do that.

I think that you know what is needed is a study of Flagstaff vernacular and in that say the you know craftsman bungalows from a certain period of time having in there information of who some of those builders would be a great reference um and if we had that then it could be referenced but I think that is what's needed if it ever gets anything else, Emily? Nope. No one else. Would someone like to make a motion? Uh, I can make a motion.

Um, I move that the report be accepted on Lauren's approval with the following changes. Uh, eligibility on the local level needs to be addressed at minimum to the same extent as the national. Uh, integrity and condition need to be differentiated where appropriate. um the production of a searchable PDF for final uh deliverable to the city and I believe that's it. Any discussion on that? No. A second. I second the motion. Any other discussion? No. Okay, let's vote. All in favor of the motion.

I opposed. I hear none. It passes. And then for the next commission item, uh, Commissioner Stewart will recuse herself. All right. And now we are moving on um to the previous conditions of approval for the certificate of appropriateness um for the graduate hotel project at 19 West Birch Avenue.

Um, I'm just going to give a quick update as um where what we're specifically looking at tonight as you've looked at this many times and then I'm going to um turn it over to the applicants representative who is here and has a presentation. So the specific request public hearing item this evening is to select a hotel design option to satisfy the previous condition of approval for the certificate of appropriateness.

Um, so just again project background, I know you're all familiar, but for anyone else listening, so this project proposes to construct a new graduate hotel and parking garage at 19 West Birch Avenue, um, which utilizes three parcels downtown. All three parcels are located within the downtown historic overlay zone and therefore subject to the design handbook for downtown Flagstaff.

Uh during the July 15th commission meeting, the commission approved the certificate of appropriateness for the design of the new hotel and parking garage buildings with uh two conditions. The first condition was to address concerns over the N2 guideline in the design handbook for downtown Flag Staff to submit renderings of the hotel building with the fifthstory limestone swapped with a second story brick to the Heritage Preservation Commission for review.

And the second condition was for information. Submit renderings from the street level of the micro retail spaces at the parking garage and hotel and murals on the parking garage. Examples allowed. So to address the first condition of approval, the applicant has submitted the alternate hotel um design rendering showing the fifth and second story swapped. Um however, there is one um some notes here. The final motion did include limestone.

However, uh the second story uh or the fifth story was never limestone. It was stuckco. That was um depicted correctly in the your agenda packet last month and in the staff report. It was just mentioned verbally by the applicant that it was limestone instead of stucco and it made in the final motion. But just to clarify, it was not it was not limestone. It is stucco.

Um and so that is um so still showing the reverse and the rendering submitted but please note that it is stuckco instead of limestone. Um, the applicant also submitted uh an updated version of the previous hotel rendering um that you looked at in July, but showing a lighter trim color for the commission to consider um as an alternate option based on the commission comments about color and and as well the original design that you reviewed in July um was also attached to agenda the agenda.

So you had the three to look at and selection of one of these design choices as satisfying the previous condition of approval is requested. And the second condition of approval um again was just anformational item. This is not a voting item. We're just looking at what they are providing. The applicants submitted renderings of the parking garage from the street level demonstrating uh the example micro retail spaces and um examples of what where and what murals could look like.

And this condition of approval again um was just asked forformational purposes and is not for design approval. Hey Lauren, what's the difference between you're saying condition of approval but it's information only? How can it be both? That was the what the commission the what the commission voted for in July was forformational purposes only that you would like to see the renderings. Um so they've been for that second item for the parking garage with the micro retail and the murals.

Um they provided the renderings. So that has been fulfilled. So we have we can say nothing about the murals um or the rendering or the micro and again they're just they were asked for examples. So these aren't the final design. They may not look like this in the end. The commission just wanted to see examples. Um so the applicant will, you know, go through those examples, but this isn't an item to vote on. Uh these may not be the final murals.

So you're not saying like yes or no, I like this one or yes or no, I like that one or I would prefer a different type of mural um because we don't they're not at final design stage and the commission did not ask for design review of those. So the only design review that the commission is doing this evening is the those options for the hotel. And so here are the options.

So first to select a hotel design option um from what will be presented to satisfy the previous condition of approval for the certificate of appropriateness and the commission alternately could request additional information uh related to demonstrating the previous condition of approval for the hotel design. And if there are no additional questions for me, I will turn it over um to the applicant team and pull up their presentation which was also in your packet for review.

Afternoon, commissioners. Tyler Mark, Westpak Construction back in front of you again. First, uh, I want to start off with something simple. Commissioner Dominguez, you wanted to save the plaque, so I wanted to present this to you formally. You can hold on to it. When we start laying masonry, I'd like you to come by and pick a spot and we'll put it on the building for you. I don't know, but thank you for doing that. Woodman of the World. I just want to explain a little bit of that.

My dad was part of Woodman of the World. Anybody that was in the lumber industry in Flagstaff knew what Woodman of the World was. So, thank you for saving this black. Yeah. I I thank the team. and the team spent some time chipping away, making sure it was uh preserved. I did the final, you know, final touches by getting the mud off of it. So, I didn't really do much. Um, okay. Um, we'll jump right into it.

So, the the two requests that were just mentioned by Miss Clementino, just re reiterated them up here. Let's get right past that. Um, so the first condition was discussing the micro retail and kind of just getting some elevations to see what it would look like along with uh renderings of the murals on the building. So these red blocks, just as a reminder, the three on the garage were micro retail.

The one on the hotel was a seating area that could connect kind of the cafe that's inside and and just provide some outdoor seating for for patrons nearby. Um so what we did we rendered uh both elevations that um that face most of the public. So this this elevation is basically from uh this would be Birch and Laroo uh the north northeast of the garage itself. So uh what you what you see down here at at surface level is just I mean hot dog carts. So we just placed them in there as just an idea.

Uh what we are uh engineering into the building is two 20 amp circuits for each of these three locations. So it could be really anything. Uh the crepery across the street operates much in the same fashion. Doesn't have sewer, doesn't have water. It's all self-contained. So really this was just an example of of what it could feel like. Um pick some, you know, some themes and uh put some renderings up there. I think that these murals could be anything. We kind of talked about it last time.

this could be up for a public vote or a um you know a competition per se. Uh it would come from the the BBB techs and the downtown beautifification grants. So there would be some competition amongst that. But um you know we put them in spots that I felt were kind of appropriate and uh would provide some pop. So uh next this is from uh this is from Birch just across the street. Again two areas that made a lot of sense. Uh there could be signage on the the garage itself.

It's not likely other than the code res uh required signage for like fire department and whatnot, but um this is really just a a rendering to give you a feel for what the the end building would look like. So I don't know if anybody had any questions we could go through real quick on the garage itself. I do have a question. Sure. The garage did not move the light color to the lower part and take the brick up. And so was that not considered as part of an extension of the project?

It's the same three lots that were discussed before cuz this picture really for me uh very much points out that that makes the garage look larger and the hotel looks less large. So um that was the commission did not ask for that in the last meeting. The commission very specifically only asked for the hotel. So that the applicant was not requested to do that.

Uh moving forward under the hotel uh I wanted to point out some things in kind of in response to lighter and darker and and call it the the tearing of a building. talked to some architects, did some Google research. Um, generally speaking, lighter colors higher up make the buildings feel less massive. Um, the ground at the bottom, darker, heavier, creates a podium, a base. Um, materials commonly used, stone, brick, dark metal.

Middle is a transition band, and this is for anywhere from four to six story buildings. This is, if you went on Google, you'll probably find the same information. the middle being a transition band. Uh secondary materials, colors, recesses, um and transition banding. And then the the top floor being the lightest visually lightest upper stories, pen pen houses, top floors are tend to be lighter colored stuckco, metal panels, and glass.

And this is the same thing that the project architect used when they came up with the original design with the exception of the band um which we'll talk about here in a second. Um the explanation being darker colors appear visually heavier. Uh lighter colors recede visually and it creates that base middle top that I was talking about. So the idea of build your base and then get lighter as you go up trends with the idea of using lighter colors, lighter materials.

So in our architect's opinion, my personal opinion, um I feel that lighter colors are nicer up top. So this was the original rendering. Um, it's got the dark bands. If you look up here, this is a is a stucco trim color here along with this cornice is also a a darker color. And so I could see where you're, you know, the thought of, hey, this thing's real topheavy. I I tend to agree with that statement.

Um, so what what he did is he lightened the colors of these bands to try to visually kind of make the top less heavy. Um, the LRV of this color meets the downtown design code. So would still fit within the parameters that we've um been uh tied to. The next is the switching of the materials. And I wanted to kind of toggle back and forth so you can see the kind of differences.

Even though the renderings aren't exactly the same size, if you you notice here, the upper being the lighter stucco and then you go here and the upper being the dark, you know, this the brick tends to feel a little darker in my personal opinion. So, you know, I kind of put them back and forth just to give you an idea of of the difference. Um, and that really kind of rounds out what we were asked to do.

We we did another uh elevation along birch to show the the brick up top with the original band colors. Um, I again I personally feel um that the the lighter color up top feels brighter and less heavy, but you know, it's up to the opinion of the viewer obviously. So, um, that's really all we had to present today. Um, I didn't know if we wanted to go through anything else specifically in detail about the colors. Um, but open it up for questions from the commission.

Anyone online have questions or comments or whatever? This is Alicia. I have a question. It's probably more for Lauren. um going forward in the murals, uh would that be something the city would work with, um the beautifification commission, but would they reach out to the public to see what would be appropriate? I mean, how does how does that go forward? It would depend on um you know, what the applicant chooses to do.

if they um do choose to go for a beautifification and action grant for the murals, you're correct um that that it they would um go before the beautifification public art commission um for their review as part of the grant process. Um but they there are many options here. You can apply for those grants already having an artist selected. Um they could, as um Mr. Mark suggested there could be some kind of public contest.

Um I I would you know what how the applicant chooses to proceed is is somewhat up to them um and is not determined at this stage. Um so I don't totally fully know the answer to that. It could go um a lot of different ways. I didn't think about it until I was just watching this presentation, but I was wondering I mean it just occurred to me maybe um it might be nice to have the indigenous commission's input too. Um if that's appropriate.

I don't think if I remember seeing um anything a mural downtown about Native American history in the area. Just a thought. I'm not a design expert. I do like the lighter color band at the top. I didn't even know that that's something that I would appreciate. Um I know Commissioner or Chair Westimer had a lot of questions about the color switching and I'm interested in your thoughts on that.

But just as a comment for the band, I do appreciate the lighter color no matter how the colors the other colors stay or are switched. Do you mean the very very top line? And we we also put it in in this transition band right here. Basically the whole dark scheme went away. The darker scheme uh except for at the just below it around the uh the windows here and at this trellis. Um, you know, that was the first thing the architect said.

He said, "Hey, you know, first thing I would do is just change the band colors and lighten it up." And I I literally did do I had some conversations with architects like, "What do you think?" I'm not a colors guy. I'll be honest with you. I really don't care what color it is. Um, but um, when you ask the professionals and what they've been trained in and and then I do the research and they tell me the same thing, I thought it was kind of interesting. Something I I learned.

Um the the it does come down to personal opinion to some degree, but I will note that your renderings here have different sky colors. Yeah. So yeah, that does change the comparison. We we ran out of time to get it. You know, this is high def and this is because this one was done uh a while ago in just a scheme thought and uh this one Whoops. Right here. He kind of we kind of almost missed a deadline. And so he was getting it together.

I mean, I don't know how much, you know, I agree with what you're saying, but I think our purpose, as I see it, this is a much larger building in the overlay than what the overlay was intended to have there. So, as I see it, our purpose is to minimize that height and that mass and bulk as much as we possibly can. That's my goal. Um, it's not to say anyone's not a good designer, whatever.

It's just to make sure the building doesn't overwhelm the actual historic properties, which it's inevitable to some degree, but it'd be nice to minimize it. So, that's what I'm trying to do. And almost all the buildings are brick or stone downtown. The Marriott, they moved the brighter band, whether it's lime, I think there it's limestone, or fake limestone, they moved it down low. So that's what they did over here over there.

Um, so I would think if we followed that model, someone made that decision and the HBO at the time was an architect. So I don't know, we can get different opinions from different people, but my goal is to make it fit into the historic as much as we possibly can. So that's all I was trying to do. Okay, seems no one has anything else to say. Do we want to make a motion? Oh, I was going to say something.

Um, yeah, I I agree that the the lighter colors um I forget who said it, but the lighter colors up top and the lighter band um help. Uh, I know it wasn't part of the agreement, but I hope you would consider doing the same light band around the top of the parking garage. Um, both to match and to um cuz I didn't. You talking about on these cornises right here? Yeah, that's doable. Um, yeah. And I I know that's not part of the preview here, but So, what I would say is this I I got to check.

I'm not sure if that's metal or if it's stucco. Um, if it's stuckco, we could change the color. It wouldn't be a big deal. If it's metal, it's a different story because they won't Yeah. directly match. Um, this is a sand blasted pre-cast. So, that's not really, you know, yeah, it's not something we could do. So, if it were, if it's stuckle up here, we could do it. If it's metal, I don't think I could match it. So, but if you if you Whoops. If you look at I'm going the wrong way here.

If you look at this um this section right here and this section right here just above the storefront or this glass that's on the building that is the same color as well you can see it in the background as that cornice that's on the garage. So they do kind of match. Um but if if like I said if that's stuckle over on the building on the garage over there we can do it no problem. I just I don't know off hand. Okay. Thank you. I agree with Emily.

I think that that would also lighten that uh line against the horizon. Yeah, it would eliminate some contrast. The eye always goes to contrast. Thank you for being open to that. We're we're here to help. I mean, we're not trying to make it hard. That's for sure. We aren't either. We're just trying to make it work for our community. Sure. Does anyone want to do a motion?

I make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 19 West Birch Avenue with the understanding that the revi hotel rendering revise of lighter trim would be the design going forward. Uh, Vice Chair Overman, can I just note you you have already approved the certificate of appropriateness. So, you don't need to approve that tonight. It's you're just uh selecting one of the design options. So, you don't need to include that in in the motion.

Just um which approval of of which of the design options? Thank you. Do the design options have like specific names we would call it or we just is the one with the lighter trim I think that would be sufficient. And the the original the brick in the original place on the bottom, correct? Okay. I think it was actually called out in the individual um renderings that it put in the packet. It had names. I just want to make sure you're correct. Specific. Okay, cool. Thanks.

Yeah, in the in the packet they're labeled as the alternate hotel design rendering um which is the one with the the second and fifth floor courses swapped and then or the you know updated original rendering with a lighter trim color. So I make a motion to for the hotel design to be the one with lighter trim. It also it also continues down here. It's a trim. Yeah. But it was two specific documents within the packet. One is this. The other one was the alternate design swapping the brick.

So they're pretty clear in the packet if anybody look back to it like in the future. Is it possible we say that we would like the the light story lower and the lighter corners and band? Can we combine the two? I don't have it. Well, maybe then we need to keep discussing things because it seems that there is now a disagreement in the whether or not we want the brick on the top or the bottom, right?

I I was just going to say that what I'm hearing is that the majority of the commission does not want the the brick and the stucco courses swapped and you just want the lighter band. And you could try a vote for that and if it, you know, passes then that's that or or continued discussion about creating a third option. um combining both. Do we want more discussion before we do a motion?

Do people want to say, do you want to swip swap as Lauren said the light band and the brick or do we not want to split [laughter] switch them? I think we need more discussion. Um, I'm okay with the lighter trim and the con the original rendering, but I understand that there was um an opinion that reversing that and having the lighter at the bottom would be much more desirable. So, I'm interested in hearing more about that.

And I see that Kevin Finel has up on Are you Do we need to withdraw the motion, Kevin? Is that what you're pointing out? Yeah, I was just going I was just going to say we have a motion on the table, so we need to deal with that motion. So, how do we withdraw a motion? The person who made the motion would have to withdraw it or we can get a second and vote on that motion. I make a motion to withdraw the previous motion. So discussion. Would you all like to discuss it more?

You want me to explain my thinking? Okay. Um, in my art training, light colors move forward and dark colors move backward. And when I look at buildings, I see that. Also, as someone who bicycles a lot, I don't wear dark colors because they're not visible. Even in the middle of the day, they're not visible. They recede. Bright colors are more visible. And so, if we're trying to minimize the mass bulk and scale of this proposed building, that's what I'm trying to do. So, it fits in better.

I like the lighter cornice. I think that's great. Um, I would combine them, but I'm only one person on this commission. I mean, I would combine it with a brick, but I'm only one person. So, that's my thinking. I hear your explanation.

I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I guess could you address the and I don't know if you're able to, but address what they have here about what their architects put in here that heavier at the base and lighter as it rises tend to make buildings look less massive. So, one can say anything they want. Um, but I think the point is that in art or when you're doing a landscape painting or something, as things move away, the light, the colors become less saturated. They become more grayish.

And I think that's what they're trying to say is that it's as though you're something's in the distance, the color is not as strong. That's what I think they're saying. Can you pull up both the renderings of the the brick swapped and the brick not swapped? So this is the original uh the original proposed and then we will go to the brick swapped. That's the brick swapped right there. I know that building just looks heavier to me but maybe it's just because it doesn't have the light top to it.

Exactly. But that's just me. It sounds like Duffy has a different perspective on it. I think the lighter cornice would be wonderful. I like the lighter cornice and if we could have lighter trim also, I think that would um be an improvement. So, but that doesn't answer the question about where the brick goes. I like the original rendering with a lighter on top and see if we can have the uh light trim instead of the dark trim. Jean, I'm not sure what people need mean by trim.

I understand the cornice. Could trim be explained? It it is this transition band here and this cornice up here. So, it's like um a bow tie on a tuxedo, right? That's the trim. That's what makes me look good when I dress up. I'd like to ask Chair Westimer if the lighter trim and the lighter cornice up top help enough to offset your concerns with the light uh color at the top. Uh it certainly helps anything that that minimizes the contrast will not draw the eye. So it definitely helps.

[snorts] Any more discussion or should we do a motion? But what about the brick? I thought we paused the motion so we would talk about is the brick on top or is the brick on bottom. And I've heard no one talk about the brick. So what I'm hearing is that okay how my opinion and from what I'm hearing it sounds like keeping the brick in its original position on the bottom is desired with lighter cornice and lighter trim. Thank you. The design as depicted currently on the screen. Correct. Thank you.

I was just waiting for the explicit discussion and that helps. No one wants to make a decision or a motion. I think you know. Go for it. I make a motion to approve the hotel rendering revised as depicted on the screen with lighter trim and cornice. I second the motion. Can we revise it to say that we'll stick with the original design then? That's what you're saying. Well, it's not. It's the original design with lighter trim. So, brick location is original. I think it's sufficient.

It matched what we had in the packet. Um, and also saying what's on the screen. I think we're any more discussion? No ladies online? No. Emily. No. Okay. Sorry. I shook my head. No, you can't see that. Okay. So, let's do a vote. All in favor of Alex motion to stick with the original design with the changes of light lightening the top trim and the cornice. Everyone, let's vote on that. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Okay passes. Thank you, Lauren. I have a question.

Can we get um updates as as uh planning comes along for the murals? Um I can can ask about that. Again, as you mentioned, some of this may may or may not be directly involved with with planning, but I would be happy to update you as as I hear things, and I'm sure the the project team would as well if especially if they are going to be doing like a call to the public for murals um or if it will be on a beautifification agenda. Um, and now moving down to our first general business item.

I'm going to invite our public safety ballot initiative team up here to um to present and introduce themselves. Good afternoon. My name is Shannon Anderson. I'm the assistant city manager here for the city of Flagstaff. Um, thank you for allowing us to come and share with you about propositions 404 and 405. like to begin with a little bit of a background.

Um, these conversations began with our city council back in January of 2025 when they identified public safety as one of their primary considerations. We continued those discussions to include defining what public safety includes and that's the four areas that you'll hear from today. Fire aircraft aircraft rescue firefighting, police, and emergency management.

Um, council supported the exploration of a potential ballot measure as well as setting aside um time and commitment for a public safety citizen committee. Um, we met with that citizen committee beginning in November of 2025 and continued that work with them almost on a weekly basis through May. Um, they allowed us the opportunity to talk about operations, to share identified needs, and talk about funding and how it works here at the city.

Together, the committee and city staff worked together to narrow down or to prioritize a list of needs that was $500 million plus in cost down to the 328 million um that you'll see in this presentation, which is our highest priorities. Um city staff uh did provide a few presentations to council along the way.

one in March um talking about the identified priorities um again the beginning of May to share results from a community survey and then lastly on May 26 with the citizens committee recommendation. Council did ultimately decide to support that recommendation um and they called the election on June 16th of this year. Um looking at our financial overview, um we start with fiscal year 2526 because again that's when we began the conversation with the citizen committee.

Um at that time the city had put aside $83 million for public safety. Um over that fiscal year that 83 uh grew to 85 million and so that's how we ended the fiscal year um with all types of funding. Um and then in this current fiscal year 2627 which started July 1, um during our budget process we reallocated 537,000 in ongoing dollars to public safety which led to a total of 107 million uh of city dollars being invested in public safety for this year.

Um, some have asked, you know, um, why have we gotten behind in what we are putting aside for public safety? And it really goes back to the great recession in 2008. Um, the city did take a 19% reduction across the organization. Um, and the growth that we experienced in our general fund um, wasn't enough to basically build back what we lost during that recession, plus do more um, to build uh, to keep up with the growth that was happening at the same time.

uh when we look at our needs um just with this uh group alone, the one year of personnel costs is about $12 million and we don't have that kind of ongoing capacity within our funding mechanisms in place. Um not to mention the cost of um operating capital, technology, infrastructure, those continue to rise just like they do for every other business within our community. So, I'm going to turn it over to Chief Gaylord, and he's going to talk to you um specifically about the fire department.

Thank you, Shannon. Thank you for uh making time for us today. We appreciate it. Um really want to talk about the fire department impact, what's occurred in the community, and fundamentally the landscape has changed, and so has the risk. Um more people, more resources, and smarter infrastructure that we needed along the way. who've just been unable to produce and and to keep up with the pace. Every station in the city of Flagstaff is an all-risk fire station.

So that means the same workforce is the one that's providing emergency medical services. It's also your firefighters and very much so in our community and not in every community, but in our community, their wildland firefighters as well necessarily because that is our community's largest risk. Essentially, the the bond itself proposes two measures that do two things just really simply.

So 405 provides the infrastructure and equipment needed and Prop 404 is the staffing that's needed to operate that safely in our community, the firefighters, boots on the ground. The seven priorities that are uh influenced by Prop 404 and 405 for us is the staffing itself. Uh wildfire mitigation, our ability to mitigate the potential of a wildfire from occurring and also lessen the impacts if it does occur. Uh insurance services rating insurance for our community is a growing concern.

Many of our residents are experiencing cancellations. In some cases, they're experiencing tripling of their firing or their home insurance cost because of our conditions here in the community. So, a little bit about the wildland fire risk Flagstaff. As we know, what makes it so wonderful to be here is we're in this forested community. It's a challenge also and a responsibility for us to kind of manage that risk that it poses. We've had a number of fires and impacting our community.

Uh you may remember the slide fire, uh the museum fire, uh the tunnel fire which just east or excuse me uh yes just east of our community in uh a short few hours in our in an afternoon 60 structures were lost. 30 of them were homes. And for us, the the impact of that is had that been a similar kind of ignition, similar type of fire south and west of our community, we could have seen catastrophic results.

And so the wildland fire piece um is definitely uh considered and addressed in props 404 and 405. That wildland fire threat is growing in its frequency. that wildland fire threat across the southwest and certainly in our community is growing in its in its frequency and its devastation that it creates. 405 builds and equips a wildland fire station. Uh we were fortunate enough to um receive a $4 million um investment from the state of Arizona. It's not quite what we need. 404 and 405.

It actually helps us finish that project to build that our wildfire management program is in a 70-year-old rock building that was never designed to have a fire station um and fire resources in it.

So again, just kind of tie it together, um 405 builds and equips the wildland stations and provides infrastructure and the 404 provides the staffing, the firefighters the ability to mount uh a more effective uh wildland fire attack when that type of fire impacts our community and threatens our community. Here's the other thing that's changed. Um we saw a beautiful example of it just a moment ago from a different applicant.

Um we're seeing more and more community um and investment and changing the risk from a single family dwelling which we saw in the first case that you all were uh considering. And then now more and more we're seeing four or more floor buildings. And the risk from that from our perspective is it changes it changes what's required to respond to those types of risk.

Obviously bigger buildings bigger masses and also just I call your attention to in this picture um a medical call chest pain on the top floor. It requires a different response and it's more effort for responders to access the patient and get the patient out. It's a different call. And so we really want to point to the 109 over 109% increase in these types of of buildings in our community. This is part of what the changing risk um has occurred in our in our landscape.

The other piece of this is the additional ladder truck staffing. You see currently the city of Flagstaff has ladder truck and trucks. One more on the way. We do not have the staffing to staff it. And so at a call that requires an engine and a ladder to respond, we can only take one of them. And we need more personnel at these types of fires and these types of incidents. And so that's the dilemma and that's the gap that this type of measure is designed to improve and help us address.

In addition to that, um fires in this type of building are necessarily requiring different types of training for our responders as well. And then just as we are uh having more and more of these conversations with the community, people ask, you know, well, tell us how this gap occurred and what's taking place. And then the information on this slide is really kind of bringing it all together from my perspective.

If you take a look at this in 2008, 9,800 calls, seven units, um 28 firefighters per day. Fast forward to now in 2025, nearly 17,000 calls, almost doubling it, and only two additional firefighters per shift. And to put that into perspective, I cannot staff a firefighting piece of equipment but two people. And so that tells the story about the gap. So much of this is really helping us address what's already occurred.

There are growth measures that we're going to be uh allowed to um uh address um the current uh JW power corridor. There's a fire station in there. But so much of this has to do with catching up with what's occurred in the community.

I will just give you um a snapshot and if you take a look at that well who's been going to all those calls the the doubling of the calls the same workforce our firefighters are asked to do a lot uh in many cases they're working in situations where there's a single paramedic that's responding on a call the standard of care anywhere else in our state that is our size of a community is that we have at least two paramedics on every operating unit.

We're not there and we can't get there without in increasing the investment in the fire department and just kind of the impact of that. Um I've worked u in the fire service for a number of years. This is uh um the most recent stop for me, 13 years here uh this month. I never really have encountered where paramedics would downgrade their certification to a lower certification. It's just unheard of. We didn't run into that.

But we see it here because our firefighters are going on all those calls and they're stressed in delivering medical care by themselves. And so we're seeing that we have firefighters that are dropping that certification. This measure will allow us to put more paramedics and integrated into that firefighting workforce. the new response uh the the new station that's envisioned in Prop 405. That's an important piece for us. It's about response times.

If a community grows and doesn't add additional resources, what that means is we increase the response time to emergencies, not only um in the new growth area, but as we send units out to a new growth area that doesn't have that pro protection available when we actually make the response times in the existing part of the community longer. And so the investment allows us to protect response times in existing neighborhoods and also in newer growth areas that are occurring in the community.

And I'll turn it over to Brian G from the from the airport. Good afternoon everyone. I'm Brian Gaul, director of the Flagstaff airport. airport provides emergency response services through its aircraft rescue and firefighting team which is a separate organization than the Flagstaff Fire Department.

That team is a specialized subset of the fire service that specializes in responding to aircraft emergencies and federal the Federal Aviation Administration requires commercial service airports like Flagstaff to maintain that ARF coverage uh during their for their commercial flights. Now the FAA breaks down the required ARF coverage by what they call ARF indices. Here at Flagstaff, we provide what they call ARF index B, which essentially means we have two trucks in service at all times.

That's 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Right now, we do that with a staff of 10. That's one battalion chief, and then three shifts of three AR specialists and captains each. Uh [snorts] those crews respond not only to aircraft emergencies, but also medical calls, vehicle accidents, structure fires, other incidents like that across the airport, including places like the terminal and all of our aviation storage hangers and all the different businesses that operate there.

Now, as I mentioned briefly before, our ability to maintain that ARF coverage uh is a is a major draw for the businesses and visitors that operate at the airport, and it's the reason we're able to maintain that required um maintain that commercial service that requires it. Now, the airport saw more than 160,000 passengers last year. Um with about 60% of those being visitors and 40% being residents.

And uh similar to what Chief Gayler mentioned earlier, that number has roughly doubled in the last 20 years. And we're seeing that number continue to increase. For example, this year we're up about six 6% from where we were even last year. Now, the [clears throat] the visitors and the tourists that visit the airport have generated a lot of funding elsewhere in the community.

Um, right now we're a recent study that was done by the Arizona Department of Transportation showed that visitor spending of about $33 million was spent by those visitors coming into Flagstaff and the airport itself generated another $36 million in on airport e economic activity. Now, most of that e economic activity impacts the businesses um in the town, not necessarily the airport funding itself.

Now, the ARF coverage is also a major draw in our addition or our attempts to attract additional air service. We're making a lot of progress on these areas. Not quite anything I can report yet, but without that ARF coverage that we wouldn't be able to um have those conversations with air carriers. Now, in addition to the scheduled commercial air service, we also support about 120 daily aircraft operations on average.

Now that's everything from wildland firefighting aircraft, charter aircraft, air medical flights, which guardian medical transport is based at the airport. Air cargo, we have daily flights from both FedEx and UPS, uh, and our general aviation aircraft. So all the private planes you see out there, many of those require rely on that ARF coverage in order to operate.

I spoke a little bit about what ARF is and why we have it at Flagstaff airport, but I would like to talk about some areas where we'd like to improve the services we're able to provide and how this ballot measure could help with that. Now, I mentioned before the FAA mandates uh the ARF index that we have. That's those two trucks in service, but that doesn't address the staffing. So, I mentioned those three personnel that we have assigned to each shift.

Now, while three are assigned to each shift, our minimum staffing is two. So, um when you count vacancies, training, sick time, personal leave, things like that, we're at our minimum staffing more than 50% of the year. So, for more than half of the year, we have two personnel on shift at any given time.

That's one person in each of those trucks that are being asked to respond to aircraft emergencies uh for planes that potentially have between 70 and 135 passengers and crew on board at any given time. Now, the picture on the left of the screen here shows an incident that hits pretty close to home for us. Uh this was at the Toronto airport last year and it shows a regional jet very similar to the ones that operate here was coming in for landing in the winter on a snowy runway in windy conditions.

Um that aircraft experienced a hard landing which caused one of his landing gear to break and a wing to break off and the aircraft to flip over. So the ARF team responded to that. Uh what you can see in this picture is one of the ARF trucks starting to spray foam on the wing u the route of the aircraft wing which is where the fuel tanks are to create a safe exit path for those passengers and crew that's free of fire.

What you can also see in that picture is an ARF crew member walking up to assist those passengers in evacuating that aircraft. Now, when we're under our minimum staffing of two personnel per shift, that third person is what we don't have at the airport right now. So, for any aircraft incident, uh we'll be relying on our regional partners to respond.

Daniel's going to be talking a little bit about some recent uh training we did that showed that our response time for additional resources to get to the airport is about 6 to 7 minutes. So, that shows that for 6 to 7 minutes, our crew is going to be focused on preparing a safe exit path with those fire trucks. But unfortunately, as of right now, the passengers would crew be evacuating on their own without assistance from the ARF team.

So what this measure would do for us is it would add three ARF personnel. So one person per shift, which would raise our minimum staffing from two to three and give us that additional person uh to respond to those aircraft incidents. Now, similar to the ARF coverage, the airport is also required to maintain a law enforcement presence to the airport by the Transportation Security Administration. [snorts] We have had some grant funding in the past has helped us with that.

And that funding program is just starting to come back, but even at its largest, it's never been enough to fully fund the law enforcement presence that we're required to maintain in the terminal while the checkpoint is open. So, this funding would also help us have a secure funding source to be able to maintain our required law enforcement presence and maintain um that commercial service at the airport.

And with that, I will pass it over to Deputy Chief Beckman, who's going to talk a little bit about police department. Thank you, folks. My name is Ryan Beckman, uh, one of your deputy chiefs. Um, 27 years ago, I started as a police officer at 120 North Beaver, which was a property you folks talked about. So, I have an appreciation for your scope and your work at the board. But enough about me.

Flex Police Department employs 167 employees across communications patrol criminal investigations, animal control, records, evidence, and property control. Our regional 911 dispatch center handles approximately just over a quarter million calls for service annually for multiple law enforcement, fire, state, and federal agencies.

A workload uh a study conducted by PFM consulting group uh identified the need for additional communication center personnel including the return of call takers to a staffing model. Currently, the way that's being handled is our dispatchers are also taking calls when they should be focusing on our our patrol officers. They've recognized the need to bifurcate that for safety reasons.

Um the study also recommends additional police aids to handle non-emergency calls, allowing officers to remain available for higher priority calls. Proposition 404 would support adding two additional police aids to support that rule. The police department face increases faces increasing demands related to evidence, records, technology, and facility space. Two evidence technicians currently work more or manage more than about a 100,000 pieces of evidence a year.

That gets interesting for us because some of that those evidence items are required to have multiple people handling for example guns, firearms, currency, and if one of those people is off makes it challenging to manage some of that evidence. Um, staff with records process about 9,200 police record requests a year and almost 300 body warn camera videos. A lot of that takes significant time for redaction before that's released.

Uh, Proposition 404 would support an additional evidence technician and investments in technology that would improve crime analysis, information sharing, and operational efficiency. The department's facility is more than 25 years old and is no longer provides ade adequate space, training areas, locker and equipment storage, wellness space, uh, and vehicle storage. Uh, facility expansion is needed for us to meet essentially the current operational demands and and account for some future growth.

Um, the PFM Consulting Group, a nationally recognized public safety and workload assessment firm, conducted a comprehensive study of every single position within our police department and produced a 215page uh, report. The study recommend recommended 22 additional sworn police officer positions and 26 additional support staff. The PFM study found that residents expect timely responses for calls for service, visible police presence, and thorough investigations.

The property sales tax would support seven additional patrol positions and nine additional criminal investigations positions. Currently, patrol officers have about a 10% available time on our busiest shift, and that's usually late afternoon and swing shift or evening shifts.

Uh while detectives carry a case load significantly above national standards and pre frequently perform numerous collateral duties in addition to their daily investigative duties, the department's current staffing also limits its ability to absorb major incidents while maintaining normal service calls.

Um, a single large-scale critical incident can require the department and most of available resources forcing the department to re rely on partner agencies like the sheriff's department or state agencies to come in and help us out. Um, multiple major events, demonstrations or simultaneous criminal critical incidents can create even greater strain for us.

Uh, additional staffing would improve the department's ability to respond to emergencies, maintain routine service levels, and create more capacity for proactive and problem oriented policing. Our our detectives division, which is the division I currently sit over, handles just under 2,700 cases a year, and those are traditionally felony cases, missing people, basically the worst crimes that happen in Flagstaff. It's about 11 individuals that handle those 2,700 cases a year.

Uh we have a high closure rate. We're proud of that. It's almost 73%. Um but and it to to achieve that and to maintain that we require specialized software and training. Um some of those software is extremely expensive and in today's age with software it's recurring. We can't just buy it once. It's something that we have to buy every year ongoing.

Um we can some of those detectives that are working people crime cases can take about 27 hours per case um and about 10 hours for property crime detect cases. Uh the tools required to meet these justice legitimacy expected by jud these tools are required to meet the justice legitimacy expected by judges, attorneys, members of the jury um and victims of crime to be honest.

Um, once again, specialized software will create more capacity with our criminal investigations division along with additional criminal investigations detectives supported by this ballot measure. Currently, detectives investigate almost five to six times the number of cases per year that some of our our adjacent agencies investigate. And we've always felt that number was high, but what this PFM study came in and told us was yes, that is exceptionally high.

For example, the sheriff's department on their detectives on average handle about 50 to 60 of these cases a year, whereas sometimes our property detectives are having 271 cases a year that are felonies. And if we think about that, um there's about 250 work days a year, even less if you take into account for vacations and and training and things like that. So that's a lot of those detectives are being assigned a felony case, multiple felony cases per day.

Um, pursuant to that, the PFM Group consulting group recommends additional detectives to meet with today's case load. And this ballot measure includes nine positions in the in criminal investigations division. And with that, I will turn it over to Daniel Kelly. Good afternoon. Daniel Kelly. I'm the Flagstaff emergency manager. So, you may ask, why does Flagstaff have its own emergency management program? Well, it's because Flagstaff is very unique, right?

Uh we have um from wildfires to post wildfire flooding to severe winter weathers uh to airport operations uh busy rail line that runs through the downtown corridor 200300 200 to 300 times a day in major community events. You can look across the entire state of Arizona and you won't find another community that checks the same hazards and the same threat level that we do. Emergency management my job is to serve as the bridge between fire, police, and the airport. Mercies never stay in one lane.

So our job is to connect plans, people and communication to make sure the city responds as one coordinated effort. And currently I am a team of one. To that we invest in the resources, personnel planning training and equipment needed to address these local risk. This coordination strengthens how the city responds when something does happen and ensures the community receives clear, reliable public information and alerts.

Strong preparedness reduces long-term recovery costs and provides better support for residences and businesses as they recover from disasters. The preparedness phase, this is where we spend a lot of our work. Um, emergency management, my job is to lead the city's emergency operations planning effort and organize joint trainings across uh departments so that everybody understands their roles before an incident occurs. We plan for a wide range of hazards, active shooter threats.

We just wrapped up a fullscale active shooter uh hostile event over on NAU campus. Uh airport emergencies, Brian was just talking about that every three years we are required to have a full scale for accreditation, but it's not just for the accreditation. That is a very specialized skill set that needs to be crossrained. Uh Chief Gaylord, his firefighters, uh the other firefighters around, they're wildland and structural firefighters.

So therefore we need the structure um that cross trainining to take place. Uh the APS public safety power shut offs we meet to mitigate the impacts of those. Uh they not only impact the residences and businesses but it heavily impacts the city's critical water infrastructure. We come together we uh make sure we have plans in place. Um and we've been very successful in mitigating that impact on the city to date. Large scale community events.

Flagstaff is very good at hosting these large July 4th celebrations, pine cone drop. Uh it takes months and months of planning to make sure that these events go off uh safely. Um each one of these scenarios I talked about required a requires a coordinated planning effort among fire, police, airport personnel, public works, and city leadership. Preparedness also means keeping city services operating during times of disruption.

Cognitive operations and cognitive government are central parts of this mission. We're going back to the CO days, right? Um ensuring that the water uh services, roads, public safety and essential functions, city functions continue even in the midst of emergency. the response and recovery. When uh something bad does happen here and we do go down the emergency declaration route, it is my job to navigate that for the city. Sorry about that.

Um and when we go about the emergency declarations, it unlocks a heavy trove of county, state, and federal resources. Um these declarations are bringing in funding equipment, additional personnel, and specialized support when the city needs it most. Uh during the response phase, um our job is making sure every department acts as one team. Whether that's uh sharing information, issuing clear, um public updates, and aligning operations so recovery can begin immediately.

Uh this coordination prevents confusion, duplication, and delays. The recovery effort lasts far longer than the emergency event itself. um long after the lights and sirens and the media coverage. Uh I'm still trying to close out an emergency declaration from 2019. Uh unfortunately, we're on the federal uh time clock, so we can only go as fast as they do. Um in all these times, these meetings, it takes it takes serious amount of effort.

Uh emergency management, uh we lead this effort by repairing public infrastructure, supporting residences and businesses, and coordinating with the nonprofit partners. Our goal is to help the whole community stabilize and return to normal as efficiently as possible. And with that, I'll hand it back over to assistant city manager. This is our last section.

I appreciate all your time and attention today, but we wanted to spend a little bit of time talking about the citizen committee recommendation um and why it includes both a sales tax and a bond. Um, initially when we started talking about all the needs like personnel, operating costs, contracts, and commodities, we know we need an ongoing funding source.

So, the intent of a sales tax, but the benefit of adding a bond to that is you're able to take out some of those one-time expenses to keep that sales tax as low as possible. So, we wanted to take some time to point that out. our Proposition 404, which is the sales tax um or half cent sales tax um as some refer to it, it enhances public safety services currently covered by the city's budget, which means it's in addition to what we're currently doing today.

It's going to provide people, training, supplies, and equipment that meets again our highest priority needs. Um you'll find a more detailed listing of what's included in both propositions on our website, publicsafety ballot.com. It's called funding allocation and it has all the details there. To tell you a little bit about this sales tax, it will actually produce 18.2 million a year for the 15-year period that it would be effective.

The additional half cent would increase our city-based sales tax rate. But the benefit of doing a sales tax instead of a property tax is 37% of our sales tax here in Flagstaff is paid by our visitors. And again, a smaller increase produces a larger amount of money. For example, if we were to increase property tax by $14 million, that produces a million dollars in revenue versus this half cent sales tax produces that 18.2. Half of our Arizona cities are actually already at 3% or higher.

That's what the chart at the bottom is demonstrating. And you'll see where Flagstaff falls um for their city sales tax rate. So, we like to spend a little bit of time talking about, well, how will this impact our residents? Um, and so we we wanted to make clear that our sales tax doesn't apply to food. So, when you go to buy milk at the grocery store, it's not going to be more expensive because of the sales tax.

Um, but if you decide that, hey, I'm not going to go home and eat, but I'm going to stop by, I don't know, McDonald's on your way home, you would pay additional tax on that. Um, same thing, uh, with residential rent. Residential rent is not taxable in Flagstaff. Um, but if you were to purchase a vehicle, say it's $50,000, it's going to cost you another $250 with this sales tax. Moving on to Proposition 405, which is the $40 million bond.

Um, this would provide one-time resources, um, construction and equipment to go into new and existing buildings, purchasing vehicles, cardiac monitors, radios, computers, and software. Again, we do have $95 million in capacity uh for our GEO bonds, and this is within our current flat rate of the 76. Uh we do plan on supplementing these dollars with what's available and eligible within the development impact fees.

We're estimating that's about $15 million today, and that would help towards construction and the equipment to go into these new spaces. The bond will cover the one-time purchases not only to um build new or expanded buildings, but also the vehicle and equipment for the new staff and additional equipment again to go inside. So again, what does the bond mean to our residents? Um the issue of the bond itself doesn't actually cost us more.

What costs us more is if the county assessor says, "Hey, the home that you live in this year is valued greater than what it was last year." So, as an example, if your home last year was 333,000 and the assessor says it's gone up by the maximum of 5%, that's what would increase the 1493 per year. Um, for commercial properties, there's been some changes at the state and so that's why they would actually see a decrease in 2027.

So, you've heard about the benefits to the community throughout the presentation. Just want to highlight a few of them here as a reminder because it's been a lot of information for us to cover. Um, one of the benefits is the improvement of homeowner insurance. We're hoping that folks can access the insurance and that it becomes more affordable. Again, all risk firefighters, adding more of them supports our growing community and it also helps us on our wildland fire defense.

Being able to also respond to incidents that happen in those mid-rise buildings, being able to maintain operations at our airport, having more 911 communication personnel so we have folks to answer the phone 182,000 times and you still have those dispatchers to really work on those calls for service.

we would reduce the number of cases a detective would have to um cover um and allow them to spend more time with the victim um which is a greater response to our community members and overall improve emergency preparedness and response times. So our last slide is just to um remind you that propositions 404 and 405 will be on the November 3rd ballot. If you'd like to learn more, um, we do have all of the information on the publics safety ballot.com site.

Um, my contact information is also on that site. So, if you have questions that you think of after today, please reach out and we'll be happy to get you that information. Do you have any questions for any of the team today? I have a couple of questions. Thank you for all the presentations. Um, someone mentioned a property sales tax. I don't think there is one, is there? No. [laughter] Okay.

Um, the other thing is, have development fees changed or gone up for these buildings over four stories that now require new equipment? Are there development fees helping to pay for all of this? So development impact fees are set after a study is completed and they're in the process of doing a new study. Um so whether those will go up or not is determined based on the outcome of that study and then also the support by council when it comes to them for a decision.

But that would be after this is voted on. Um I think so. Yes. Based on the timeline that we've been talking about, I think it's scheduled to come forward in 2027. I believe those development impact fee studies though are done every five years. Oh, okay. And then so much of the growth is on the southwest side. Are those new developments paying in for this an increased need in their development impact fees? All of the new developments have to pay development impact fees. Yes.

Based on this this for public safety needs. Um it goes for public safety. Some of it is for construction. Um other is for equipment but none of it covers personnel. There is no development impact fees for personnel. Does that help answer your question? Very much. Thanks. Okay. Just want to make a comment and say thank you for the thorough presentation. Um and thank you everyone here for the way you serve the community. Um I learned a lot. Um it was it was detailed but it was good.

Um, a question I have is, uh, maybe you can't answer this yet, but are there projections on the effect it will have, um, to make these investments in the community on the homeowners fire insurance? Uh, specifically, asking for a friend. the the insurance issue as as you can imagine is um it's kind of compounded in our community because of the wildland threat.

Um, so I'll break it into two and I don't have uh projections, but what I can tell you is that we anticipate we'll be able to provide an insurance service office rating in the community um, which is the best rating that we can possibly um, provide and that means the more favorable rate for rateayers that are in residential structures and unprotected commercial structures. So that's one aspect of it.

The other aspect on the wildfire front um kind of the I've I've met with industry leaders in insurance and I've asked them how how does the insurance service office grading the the property protection classification system that the insurance industry grades every community by and the wildland fire threat and how that affects underwriters in our community and then they scratch their head and tell me they're not sure.

Um and so what we are doing with both of um this this measure allows us to address both.

It allows us to improve not only the ISO rating, but it also allows us to participate in home hardening and other outreach um in the community, which we are seeing significant improvements in uh communities and particularly uh most recently information coming out of New Mexico where if we can start to improve the the home hardening in the community, um they're seeing results in the 10 to 15% % reduction to homeowners.

And so, while I can't really give you the the exact return on investment, we know that advancing both these areas will have a positive influence on what our citizens are paying for insurance. I just want to say again, thank you all for doing this. We appreciate the presentation. I've heard a lot about this, but haven't been sure as all the needs and stuff that these uh bond and sales tax increase would go to. And now I have a lot more understanding.

I will make sure to pass the word around to friends, family, and neighbors. Um, one question I do have is how does the um city plan to pay off the $40 million bond over the years? What's the process for that? So, our general obligation bonds are backed by your secondary property tax. So the money that you pay into secondary property tax goes towards anything that we spend in that $95 million capacity. I don't see any other hands. So again, thank you for your time today. Have a good evening.

All right. And now we are down to um general business item uh 8B, which is our historic signs and facades grant tracking. Um for this month, we had no new grant submissions. Um, the update to the tracking spreadsheet is the $20,000 level two grant awarded last month. So, just adding that and there's still $136,000 available to award this fiscal year. Any questions? All right. And now the next item um the commission outreach and education program discussion.

So this has been on um quite a few of our previous agendas had some discussion some months due to the length of the meetings have um postponed it to future meetings. So past just to recap for everyone um past discussions have talked about the commission um reflecting and bringing back to discuss your top ideas for outreach and education as well as your personal time commitment um to discuss how you'd like to move forward.

Previously the commission um considered whether or not to form a standing ad hoc or subcommittee for outreach and education and at the last meeting we specifically discussed scheduling of an annual retreat in December that could include um more in-depth discussion at that meeting um and you know could would also serve as the December meeting. And so with that, I will turn it back over to the commission. I had something that I think has been brought up quite a bit.

Um I when we've talked about the outreach and education, one of the big hurdles that we've discussed is that as appointed officials, we're kind of we has it becomes difficult to align. It has to be align with the code specifically whatever outreach we do as representatives. But everybody has been commenting and I know my company has volunteered a lot of hours for some of the research. Perhaps we should discuss rather than outreach.

Maybe not entirely, but maybe focusing on if there's a way we can get these studies that everybody consistently mentions, oh, this would be nice to do as a service for the city of Flagstaff. Does that make sense? Are you referring to inventories? What studies are you referring to? What Alicia mentioned in terms of identifying the builders through time? What is it you're referring to?

Uh I think those are examples but I would say that if we went through a meeting somebody has suggested some study or another.

um which is probably as we all know needed in one way but I think that was a good example right um a vernacular guide which could be passed out to the public also in the wheelhouse of some people here and not necessarily requiring um standardized time commitments which because I know time was a big concern for everybody about can we meet at the same place another period of time it's a it's just a suggestion just because we have continually repeated this need which would also be something that could be useful as outreach.

I have a question for Lauren. Lauren, is there any kind of like I don't know inventory of our of where we are for um the dates of our inventories? I'm kind of thinking something like a spreadsheet. um that's that might have a list of things that are needed. The dates of some of our inventories are something we might be able to review as a group and and discuss where to prioritize. That is, you know, something we could discuss creating for a future meeting agenda.

Um I mean, I I do have a lot of that information, you know, prepared for myself. um not that I'm ready to pull up today. Um but that could be the type of thing um we could have as a future agenda a future agenda item potentially. Um, [snorts] that's what I thought or the city had it or or you had that information and then we could look at it.

If we could agendicize that to have that as a discussion topic and then kind of talk as a group but we think is a priority gives us an idea of our baseline too. And just to clarify, this is related to the outreach and education program discussion. Is that correct? is that the commission would like to work on as part of public education and the powers and duties working on these updates. Is that am I understanding that correctly?

Actually, I was just following up on something that Caitlyn had mentioned um that the inventories and yeah, that might be useful to put times towards that. So I think looking at what we need to prioritize, it might be helpful to to look at that in in in the greater discussion of needs. I was going to say to answer your question, Lauren, I think it could be twofold. Uh realistically, the outreach could be that we could train people to take these photos to update it in a very limited capacity.

That is an option, but it also would be fairly timeconuming, but that's a public outreach thing. The other option could be um assisting with grants, potentially helping to provide and guidance andor documents for money that could provide this Yeah, I sort of I lack a little knowledge on this area. [clears throat] Inventory of older units or inventory of the whole city both everything 50 years old in the whole city. So that's monumental. Yes.

And and just to and clarify and and some of this is you know ongoing city work as Caitlyn referred to there are inventories you know currently being conducted. Um and so we are kind of stemming from the current discussion. If we would like to have a different discussion and agendaize that for a later meeting um we could I'd be happy to do that and prepare more materials.

Um, and I would suggest this seems like something that especially, you know, going to Commissioner Hayes's point about looking maybe at the commission's authority as a whole and prioritizing the types of things outside of your regular meetings you'd like to work on, maybe this is something that we could do at an annual retreat in December where we had uh more time for a meeting.

And so if we're it would be if the commission is interested in doing that um given we're now only a couple months away and we need to make reservations and I need to change um the schedule meeting schedule posted on the website etc. Um it would be great if the commission since you're all here would be um ready to make a decision today on an annual retreat in December. Last month there were only four members.

So we postponed to this month in the hopes that um the commission would be ready to schedule that. But these are the types of things that we could if we were to schedule that longer meeting we could do that. Um this could be something it is currently posted again that it's going to be the third Wednesday. So but we could maybe you know start the meeting earlier in the day like lunchtime or have you know a morning meeting.

Um and we we had discussed in the last meeting like the lunch together could take the place of the annual holiday um gathering that we've done in the past. we could combine those events um so you weren't having three different things going on in December. Sort of a working lunch, right?

Or or a meeting that includes lunch and we adjourn for lunch, but you know, maybe like a sk I know our meetings generally go much longer than the two hours they're scheduled for, but maybe you know, an actual scheduled fourhour meeting, five hour meeting that begins earlier in the day. I think that's a good point. Maybe we should go ahead, Alicia. I was just going to say I can't see everyone, so I'm sorry I didn't see you um starting to talk.

The third uh Wednesday is the 16th, so that's um nine days before Christmas. Just pointing that out. Uh what I was going to say is maybe we take this opportunity to decide our retreat. And I think one of the biggest hurdles of this public outreach is that we have not decided what we want to do. And maybe we use that time to decide exactly what we want to do instead of a little bit here and there at the meetings.

So every time we've discussed this, it's been really great and exciting, but we have so many ideas. And um you know, Lauren, you have brought up wisely several times that like a larger span of time and some space for us to really think through these ideas would be good. And there's not going to be a shortage of ideas.

Um with this dynamic group, I'd really like to see us like prioritize and then, you know, vote or, you know, discuss and come to some understanding about where we want to put our energies. You know, some of us don't have a lot of extra time. Probably none of us have extra time, but there's things that could be passion projects. And I absolutely love your idea about training volunteers. That was a really, that was a brilliant stroke. So, [laughter] so let's brainstorm and meet. Yeah.

Um, one thing about the December meeting, I don't know if it has to be December. It's kind of a tough time for moms. I'm just going to say if January would be something that could also potentially work, I could probably make December work. But um I'm just putting that out there. Yeah. There. Is it a fiscal year thing? Is that why the December thing is a uh No, I mean December and January usually are lightest months.

And I was honestly and for my own selfish reasons trying to consolidate and not have multiple things in December. I I the going out after work in December is much tougher as a mom. So I would instead of having a holiday retreat prefer to pref that was one of the reasons I suggested combining them was not to have to do both. But we could we could skip that in December and do a holiday thing as a January meeting instead.

Um we would still have the evening third Wednesday meetings on the schedule though if we don't meet earlier in the day. So we would still have that commitment in December. Yeah. No. And we can and we can do January too. I think whatever is easiest because like you said, everybody we want to utilize as much as we can with the limited time that people have.

So, I have no issue with a January, but I do think that we'd probably have more productive conversations at a longer period of time and not at the end of very long meetings. Yeah. Is there a Yeah. If the general idea of morning or afternoon um works for folks, if we're good sticking with the third Wednesday, we could change it, you know, do a second Wednesday or something as long as I can, you know, get get that out.

Sticking with the third is good just for our consultants and applicants who um won't have the deadline moved up for them if we stick with the usual day that we have the meeting on. Um but we could easily Yeah, we could do January. The earlier the better if there is anything that stems from these discussions to be a city budget request.

But but right but again all of every all of the you know the projects mentioned do are going to most of them are going to have some level of city budget request even printed materials. So, so I can share that we did have our candidate forum on historic preservation and it was very well attended to the point that one of the city council members sitting city council members said how did you get so many people here? Well, because people care about this topic. This is matters to a lot of people.

Um and we did it mostly educational and then we took questions from the audience that the candidates would answer and it was very wellreceived that the council candidates and the audience learned a lot because this information does need to get out there so that well council is ultimately responsible. So um they really appreciated being able to learn they said that night.

Then I went to the Southside neighborhood forum and they actually were able to speak more freely and more in a more informed base from a more informed base about the topic of preservation. So they they want to learn more. People want to learn and I think it's really a useful and valuable thing to do for our community. I um just want to mention that if we were to do this in January, that would be the 20th. I actually have a meeting in Southern Arizona the 19th through the 21st. Okay.

One other potential benefit, we will have, as we discussed last time, at least one new, possibly two new commission members beginning in December. Um, so of course we don't know their their schedules, but um but either either month it would be a good on a nice onboarding to have a retreat with um with at least one new person. Lauren, is it possible to change the date from the third Wednesday?

Yes, we just have to move up the deadlines for um for [clears throat] the retreat is for applicants um because everything all of the submission deadlines are posted on the website. Um and so I haven't published 2027 yet. So January if we met earlier, you know, met a week earlier, I could um do that. December I just have to move up the deadline.

So, for example, like for this month to be on this month's agenda, you needed to have submitted the materials by the third Wednesday at noon of the previous month. So, if we're if we move the meeting up a week, um all of the applicants have to submit their materials a week ahead. But if we do a retreat, there are no applicants. No, you would still have the same public hearing items that would have to be included in the agenda. Okay, good to know.

Yeah, just again so otherwise our applicants don't miss don't have to wait an extra month um for their projects to move forward. So we would still we would still keep the um the majority of the agenda items just add more. Well, I don't know what other sk people's schedules are, but I can do the December meeting. Yeah, I can I can do either. I can do to the December meeting, not the January meeting. I can do either sounds like December. Okay. So, thanks everyone. I'll move forward with that.

And if it's amanable, I will not continue this discussion item for um the next two months. We will just save it for uh December agenda. I just have a question about like the format for that retreat and so it will be a regular meeting and so it will be will it be here and then will we just have more time on that topic essentially? Yes. It'll still have to be formally noticed and agendaized just like all of our other meetings are. So it's still open to the public and everything.

Um so yeah it'll look like this but and I it may not be in this exact room. Um, I'll have to see what's available, but for a longer meeting, I think it would you one of the conference rooms um would would be preferable. That's usually where they're they're held um is in the big conference room upstairs, which we were in a couple months ago, or the the one behind the partition. So, um but most likely at city hall. Moving on to reports. Okay, so only two this month.

I've already got three on next month, so two is great. Uh so the two these are the heritage preservation officer consent approval items. Um so the first uh is a cultural resource study letter report approval of um a out building um at 804 and a half North Laroo Street um which was proposed for demolition um largely due to the poor condition due to lack of maintenance as previously discussed. Although This poor one was essentially missing its sighting at this point.

Um, any questions on the the letter report? Is that a demolition of an out building? Yes. Is that out building uh for vehicle storage or item storage or housing or how is it being used? Um, it the one covered in the letter report that was attached to the agenda. Um it was constructed as a um you know an ADU essentially historic ADU. I think now it's vacant slash storage. Was it lived in? It w it was in the historic period.

Um they put some of the details in the report that's was attached to the agenda of um of that. [clears throat] But it w yeah it was it was a rental historic rental for a long time. Oh affordable housing going bye-bye. Um it's not currently used due to the condition. They are proposing to demolish and replace with a new ADU. Um, and then this, so that was the, yeah, the first one. Um, and then this one is a the second one, a window replacement of a building within the town site overlay.

It's outside the district. It's not a historic building, but it was within the overlay. So therefore, any exterior alteration, they still needed to come in for a certificate application, and it's being replaced in kind. So any questions about the second approval item? and then chair if we're ready. Now we're down to uh item 10formational to from commission members and staff. I would like to make a request for the agenda next month.

I would like us to discuss the proposed rule changes to section 106 by the advisory council on historic preservation that was made back in late July.

Again, these are just proposed, but the information is out there is currently going through review process and I would like us discussing a presentation on how it would affect us as a commission and city historical properties and more specifically on how local governments would no longer be formally recognized as formal consulting parties and how traditional cultural properties would essentially no longer be recognized under National Register of Historical Places.

And then from there potentially urge the city c have a vote to urge the city council to make a resolution and submit public comment if this does go to the federal register. And just for are you asking staff to present on all of these? Do you want a staff presentation? I would like a staff presentation because I think it would also be beneficial to the public. Um so yeah that that would be my request. Okay. Um, I'll have to review and see if I can do that.

I am of course not involved in any of these conversations directly. I'm sure I know what you know as a professional and I have watched other things. I would be happy to forward all of the resources that I have watched on on this um and maybe include that in an agenda packet. I'm not willing to commit to being an expert in these rule changes is again I'm not involved in the process.

Um, but I would be happy to have um an agenda item or you know add a discussion item and include you know information on places where you could go um find the redline version of the section 106 rule changes.

Um but again I I wouldn't be able to answer you know specific questions as this is happening at the federal level um and we're not directly involved although as you mentioned there are um nothing directly related to being a certified local government or you as a commission but there are some larger things that you wouldn't necessarily review but things that are it will affect the city um for our section 106 projects.

And then if we wanted to what what would the processing need to be if the commission wanted to like draft a resolution or ask the city council to draft a resolution that would be later submitted to public comment in the federal register. Um that is the we can we we could we could discuss next month what your options would be. There are some things we could look at your authority and specifically what if you wanted to make some kind of advisement to to counsel on that.

And then of course as private citizens, the National Trust and other organizations have prepared a lot of stock materials um for how to do this. So you can of course you and others could um as individuals submit those to to council and um and in the same material specifically the ones from the national trust there are some timelines available too of when the rule changes how it's moving through the process and it's not I don't it's not available that I've seen for open for public comment yet.

So, but should be this fall. I'm just getting prepared because once the public comment start period starts, we only have 30 days to make a public comment and we only meet once a month. So um if you go to Ora OIR's page you can see all who have submitted comments and Ora sorry will be uh has not yet set a date for the end of their review. So at the end of their review that'll start a clock again. Right. I would say uh I think it's a great idea.

I'd be interested to see or I guess I haven't spent too much time just thinking about how it would affect the Flagstaff historic code which is would be all that's really relevant to us. Um it would not. Yeah, I wouldn't think so. Uh not in any way that I've seen after going through it. Um I I don't think it's a bad idea that it is something that we could bring up.

I would request that we limit the conversation because it is obviously something we as professionals could talk about for hours and might and it's it's not quite the place but I do think it is important that is something to be brought and and to that end especially if those of you who are are thinking of this um and maybe if you did want to work on a letter in advance that could be edited um to and to keep the the time shorter in the meeting itself.

But I like but we can set a time limit maybe based on what other agenda items we receive um for public [clears throat] hearing. I think several big organizations have put together statements. So we don't necessarily need to craft one from scratch. We could just say we encourage the city council to, you know, look at the SAA or the the historic trust or whatever statement on this. Commissioner Stevens, I encourage this conversation.

I probably will have to recuse myself as the Secretary of Agriculture is a standing member of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and I'm literally not allowed to talk about it. Yeah, sure. Well, I think that's a valid point. same here, right? Is that I think it would be an informative thing to put on an agenda, but it is out of scope and actually not capable for lots of individuals on the commission to discuss.

Um, but I do know that if anybody is interested, I'm my company, I'm sure anybody else's company has already drafted letters that people can use personally if they haven't found one online. Cultural Heritage Partners has a lot of information online and some template letters as well. And I have um one announcement item um for myself. I am now I moved into the comprehensive and neighborhood planning manager position. I'm still going to be the HBO and take that with me.

And my former position of senior planner, I am currently hiring a neighborhood planner to fill that position. So, I will no longer be doing neighbor well once I hire someone. I will no longer be doing neighborhood planning and the being the HBO.

I will just be the HBO and the neighborhood planning duties will go to someone else and then I will take on the some of the management duties of the small department of three but um so more capacity is HBO which is which is good um and then you'll probably next agenda see the agenda updates uh title updates now coming from slightly different thing so that uh that announcement um I did also want to let the commission should know that we did apply for a certified local government grant um for the max award of 20,000 um to update our historic contacts, conduct new ones that haven't been conducted um and possibly inventory although the money is going to won't even get us through the context but um and I will have a hopefully a formal announcement about the grant award next month.

I can say that. So, heard some informal things. Um, but hopefully good news, but I'll do a formal announcement on that next month. We are also going to be presenting, just so you know, a a update um and seeking direction on the May Hicks House relocation um and options from the commission next month and then it will be going to council for their direction in November. And hopefully I will also have um funding announcements about that project next month that are not official yet either.

So those are the things for me. Anyone else have anything? No. Well, I want to bring up the Grand Canyon House again that got an exemption. So I looked up exemptions under applicability 10-30.30-2. 30-02. Um, and I don't see how it got an exemption. And I'm what I'm concerned about is it's really hard to deal with things that have been built a long time ago. And it's really hard with a new code and it's really hard to be consistent.

But we need to be as consistent as we can to have validity with the public. And so I think we need to address it because the project on North Beaver, it's private property. It's not in an overlay. Um it just seems that that was treated differently from this one from the properties on is it on Jesse? The ones where they tore down the house and then came back and did the cultural resource studies.

And we've seen a whole bunch of different scenarios go on, but we need to figure out how to make it as consistent and predictable for the public as possible. And I think the Grand Canyon is situation. There's like no documentation for anybody. We can't explain to the public other than to say, you said there were garages added. Well, I don't even know if the two walls are still standing because they were so precarious.

Um, but how did we answer to the public who come to us on the commission to say, "What the heck?" Like, he gets to tear that down with a phase one, but I'm being told I have to do a phase two. They tore down the whole building with nothing and it's over 50 years old. So, I'm seeing a lot of inconsistencies. I can't answer because I don't know how things are being decided that it seems we need to be figure out how we can be more consistent for the public.

And you're happy to direct all of those questions to staff to answer. As you said, the exemptions are made by staff. So, the commission would not be able to answer um the things that are outside, you know, that aren't in the commission's purview. You're happy to welcome all those to me. I don't as we have covered this in the last couple meetings.

I don't think we need to go over the exemption criteria again um in the as this is not an agenda item but I would you're happy to direct questions to me. Okay. I would like to have a discussion on the agenda about how we're going to be more consistent so the public does not feel they're blindsided by this commission. Okay. Because I think that it's being inconsistently applied. It's not fair to the public that they will get rid of this program.

And if that's the city's goal, you're doing a great job, but my goal is to be consistent and preserve Flagstaff for Flagstaff. And I think that there are reasons to do that. So when I look at the exemptions, there was no reason for that exemption on Grand Canyon. Okay, that's the way I read it. That I don't know if there's a report I can read, but I would like us to be as consistent as possible.

And if that means the zoning code needs to be addressed so that it's consistent for our citizens, we need to do it. And that that's what I was going to suggest as the next step for a future agenda item would be reviewing potential updates to the code. um for all of the things these and others that have come up in the last couple years that are you know inconsistent or unclear and that the commission review it in that capacity of how to actually clarify the language.

I would suggest that that only occur with legal present since correct it. We are not capable of defining the code or really making those suggestions. They go over everything has to be approved by legal and that that would be yes it would be you know staff would be drafting an update. it would be, you know, reviewed internally, including legal. And yes, I I appreciate, yeah, the suggestion that legal be present during the discussion to answer those sorts of questions. Yeah.

And it's not that I assume that they wouldn't look at it. It's that that is information we don't have and it would be informative for all of us to know why these changes are being made based on what's legally available as opposed to just why. That would be my suggestion just so we could all be informed about how it ends up at whatever it ends up at. So are you suggesting that league will be there so they can answer answer questions in real time as we discuss it? Correct. Okay.

Commission sense I mean does the it's it's complicated. So, [snorts] Historic Preservation Commission, I I'm having problems with it. What are we preserving? Seems like we're giving okay to knock down our historic buildings and I'm just wondering what incentives is city council giving us? I mean, are they backing us up or are they not backing us up? I mean, it's almost seems like, well, let's knock down another house. I mean, and they're historical.

I mean, we have one here that's 96 to 100 years old and it's going to go bye-bye. The Grand Canyon House, you have one wall standing. That's not preservation. So, I I'm I'm I'm I'm having a hard time wrapping myself around this. what is our job? Are we supposed to preserve stuff or just say, "No, they did their due diligence. Let's knock it down." So, I don't know. Maybe it's just me personally, but I think city council needs to be a little bit more forward with their decision making.

And I know it's nobody's fault except whoever is writing the books, but I'm having a problem with it because I am seeing a lot of Flagstaff go away. I mean, look at this. And and I'm just I'm I'm just curious. Is there incentives? Is the city council giving some of these property owners I mean property rights? I mean, if I want to knock down uh I mean, it's happening in Washington DC. Let's knock down all these beautiful old buildings.

And so maybe maybe I'm just venting a little bit and I'm sorry, but but I feel that what are we here for? Um and you know, it's preservation is preservation. I don't understand. I will. Yeah. One of the your main incentives is the grant program.

I mean, you you as you explained, Commissioner Dominguez, the the code is what it is, and the owner of these the properties you mentioned, you know, they can the only thing the code calls for is doing the studies to document them, you know, for future research and as somewhat of a disincentive by having to go through this process of demolishing. But there is nothing um even national register listing does not prevent you from demolishing.

You can demolish your property and that is that is frustrating as you said venting but that is the you know that is the fact. There are things like being in a overlay which add additional roadblocks to make it harder to demolish um but still don't completely prevent it in the end. But other things like the like the grant program, things that make it easier to to keep the I read something just lately about what they used to do about in the 30s and 40s they would move monster houses to save them.

I mean, they would actually put them on on tracks and move them to save a house. and and and it just bothers me that we're losing I know in my neighborhood there's three houses that are going to go bye-bye and maybe more but right now I know they're for sale and they're not even going to be preserved they're going to be demolished because the land is more important than the building. Another question is when all these studies go where do they go? I mean where are they? I I don't know.

I mean, if I wanted to research a house that was on 514 South Ory Street, where would I find that information? That was You would contact um me essentially and we have all of the records. You could do a public records request from the city and get them or you could contact me directly and get them. Everything that you review is also published online in your agenda and therefore it's searchable online and you can find it pretty easily through the city website.

But most of the folks doing research contact me directly and then I provide them. Some are given to the library but that's not um the library is not set up to take all of them for one um and then and two that has just hasn't ever been traditionally a city requirement since the program's been in operation. The reason I asked that question was because there is people that have contacted me and saying, "Hey, you're on that historical preservation commission.

So and so lived at this house at so so number and they want to know who lived there 100 years and it's more for historical value, nothing else. my great grandma used to live there or an uncle or something like that and they don't know how to get that information that supposedly we're making these people put together for us, [snorts] right? And it is right. It is all publicly available. It folks just have to ask for it.

Um so and some of the other things like all of the National Register information is all available online. anyone can access that at any time which co does cover um you know the majority of flag staff but then the individual surveys you're talking about like these um unless folks looked at our agendas or search the city website they would have to contact me directly and I could provide them.

So, if I may add, reading the code number four, let's see, B, it says, when a cultural resource study has been accepted, it shall be offered for curation to the appropriate repository as directed by the HPO or the state historic preservation office and in accordance with standards set forth and whatever. So, we are supposed to be curating them somewhere in and we do here like we have at city hall a system for filing all of these digitally and physically.

Does it say on the resources page for this program that if you want to see these studies to contact the HBO? That would be helpful for people to make it as easy as possible. My I mean my contact information is all over all you know whatever 10 of our pages. I can double check that it specifically says or to have a link that says or something that says if you would like to see these studies contact whoever the HBO is and make it as easy for people as possible.

I think that would be helpful because it's about community. It's not about just grandma. It's about knowing who your neighbors are were who built this town. And that's really important to a lot of people. A lot of people. So, I think if we could make it as easy as possible for people to get the information about our community, I think it would serve us.

Um, the other thing I wanted to say to address what Jesse said is we are up against the zoning code which wants to redevelop as much as possible. So, houses like on North Beaver will be redeveloped as a multi-use. So, it's what he wants to do. had said in his thing and I appreciate his honesty is commercial and residential which will totally change that block. So um that's what's that's the incentive the city of Flagstaff has put forward. It has nothing to do with the signs and facades grant.

People are incentivized to redevelop the properties. That's just the truth. And are there any additional two front items or are we ready to adjurnn? I guess we can adjourn. My watch says 619. We are adjourned.