Prescott Valley Planning Commission Recommends 3-2 Government Tank Quarry Approval
PRESCOTT VALLEY, ARIZONA — December 9, 2025

Prescott Valley Planning Commission Recommends 3-2 Government Tank Quarry Approval

Planning Commission recommended approval of controversial 40-acre rock quarry on Government Tank site (3-2 vote) with major general plan amendment from residential to industrial and development agreement including 80-acre land gift, despite significant opposition from neighboring jurisdictions and residents citing water, dust, and noise concerns.

Planning Commission Narrowly Approves 40-Acre Rock Quarry at Government Tank Site, Forwarding Controversial Rezone to Town Council

The Prescott Valley Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3–2 to recommend approval of a major general-plan amendment and zoning change that would convert 38.95 acres of residentially designated land to industrial use and permit hard-rock mining at the Government Tank site, roughly 2,400 feet from the nearest homes but within a contested proximity to neighboring jurisdictions. The vote capped a December 9, 2025 hearing that lasted more than three hours, featured 15 registered public speakers, and exposed a fault line in the community over whether the site represents a pragmatic concession to regional aggregate demand or a harmful departure from the town's general plan.

The applicant and operator, represented by attorney Bill Lai of Tiffany & Bosco, argued that the Government Tank site is a superior alternative to the 96-acre West Fain Park expansion area—which the Fain Family owns and could mine today under existing state permits—and that a comprehensive development agreement addresses dust, noise, water, and operational concerns. Opponents—including the Prescott Valley Citizens Alliance, residents of neighboring Blue Hills and Dewey Humboldt, and a Dewey council member—countered that the project violates the town's general plan, sets a harmful precedent for industrial zoning adjacent to homes, and that the claimed mitigation measures, tax rebate clause, and 15-year expansion moratorium are insufficient guardrails against long-term mining expansion on adjacent Fain Family lands.

Key Speeches

"I know that when I was reading the major amendments, it talked about that these major amendments are subject to a public referendum. And I don't know if this case would be subject to that public referendum." — Commissioner Graci, noting the legislative nature of the decision

"Two and a half years ago, I toured this site. I was on the PNZ commission at the time. I came back from that tour convinced that if the motion was made the next day, I was going to vote against it. I am going to vote for it tonight… Because in the interim, I've been provided with facts. I've been able to make a rational analysis of the benefits, the costs." — Commissioner Evans, explaining his shift from opposition to support

"I feel that we need local aggregates. We have growth. Our region is continuing to grow and expand… Government Tank, as proposed before us tonight, strikes a balance. It meets the need for our community… I ask that you respect my vote." — Commissioner Griffith, YES vote

"I have a hard time understanding how this benefits the town… Tax revenue to the town, population growth to the town, things that the citizens of this town can use and benefit from… I have a hard time understanding how this would benefit the town in those matters." — Commissioner Graci, explaining his NO vote

"This is a well-run opportunity for this community to continue to grow, to prosper, and to remain successful. I have lived for many years. My yard is not filled with dead bunnies. The birds are not dropping from the skies… This is not fact-based." — Bear Shim, resident supporter, criticizing opposition rhetoric as fear-mongering

Timeline

Applicant presentation (via Bill Lai, attorney):

Staff recommendation (Mr. Norlock, PNZ staff):

Public comment: 15 registered speakers plus 2–3 unregistered speakers. Public comment period split: first, open-meeting period for general citizen statements and PVCA rebuttal; second, hearing-specific comment periods for both GPA 25-001 and ZMC 25-008.

Council discussion:

Vote (GPA 25-001):

Vote (ZMC 25-008):

Opposition

Number of speakers against: Approximately 9 registered speakers against (Patricia Betszel, Carolyn Zern, Jennifer Jones, Jason Chisum, Isabelle Cetes, two anonymous residents during unregistered period, implied others), plus organized group opposition (Prescott Valley Citizens Alliance).

Main concerns:

  1. Incompatibility with general plan: Designates area Village Pad A1 (residential, walkable communities, local commercial). Industrial mining directly contradicts stated goal to ensure new development compatible with surrounding residential uses and prevent land-use deterioration.
  2. Precedent for industrial zoning adjacent to residential: Once zoned IG for mining, future developers could propose distribution centers, commercial properties in same zone; concern that decision opens flood gates for incompatible uses near homes.
  3. Well water and blasting fracture risk: Neighbors in Dewey and Blue Hills rely on well water; blasting even once fractures bedrock and risks well failure. Some residents haul water due to existing scarcity; blasting will exacerbate crisis.
  4. Dust, silica, and respiratory health: Concerns about silica dust, excavator-hammer noise (10–12 hours/day), and health impacts. Claim that 40 mph winds carry particulates; applicant dust-mitigation measures (watering, soil glue) criticized as insufficient for scale of operation.
  5. Expansion beyond 40 acres: 15-year moratorium insufficient; Fain Family owns 1,700+ adjacent acres. Moratorium expires, or state statute on aggregate mining could override local restrictions. Family could sell property, and successor could mine without restriction.
  6. Tax rebate clause as hidden subsidy: Development agreement includes property-tax rebate for Fain properties up to value of gifted land if town adopts new taxes post-November 2025. Appraisal delayed 12 months post-approval, allowing donor tax deduction first. Criticized as quid pro quo and shifting tax burden to residents/small business.
  7. Insufficient environmental review: Applicant has not completed ADEQ dust-permit modeling or air-quality assessment. Environmental impacts of 50-year operation, 5 million tons of rock extraction, and resulting pit left in landscape not adequately studied.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups:

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Approximately 4–5 registered speakers in favor (David Larner, Bear Shim, Charles Gorman, Randy Bosber implied support through questions, one unregistered speaker), plus referenced but not explicitly speaking: APNS operator Pete Thompson, Fain Family (represented by Lai).

Main arguments:

  1. Site selection as improvement over alternative: Government Tank is 2,400+ feet from nearest homes (mostly trailers per aerials) vs. West Fain Park expansion at 1,200 feet from Stone Ridge subdivision. Distance-based map by Charles Gorman showed 345 homes within half-mile of West Fain sites vs. 13–20 at Dewey/Blue Hills area from Government Tank. Choosing Government Tank demonstrates good-faith effort to minimize residential impact.
  2. Applicant commitment to be good neighbor: Fain Family and APNS deferred operations for four years, spending millions extra hauling rock from Chino Valley, to honor town request. Comprehensive development agreement shows willingness to accept onerous mitigation and restrictions. No "mighty dollar" recklessness; family has 40+ year history in valley.
  3. Regional aggregate demand and cost efficiency: 91 incorporated Arizona municipalities have 294 quarries serving construction, road, and infrastructure needs. Hard rock must be sourced locally or hauling costs (and final price to developers, town, residents) escalate exponentially. Government Tank location minimizes haul distance relative to processing facility.
  4. Thoughtful mitigation measures: Development agreement includes 4 blasts/year max (vs. unlimited today), 7am–7pm Monday–Thursday operations, no new wells, dark-sky compliance, water-truck dust control, soil-glue dust palliatives, pre-blast notices, town compliance hotline, monitoring by regulated professionals (OSHA, ADEQ, county). Operator APNS has 30-year track record as good operator at existing east-side site.
  5. Land gift and park expansion: 80-acre gift west of Fain Park expands public recreation; deed-restricted to park use only. Reversionary clause if town violates restriction. Property-tax rebate clause (if town adopts new taxes) is fair compensation for free land and ensures Fain doesn't bear sole burden of town's future tax needs.
  6. Operator track record: APNS has operated east-side Fain Park site for 30 years adjacent to Stone Ridge without incident. Blasted once in 20 years. Demonstrates discipline and minimalist approach.

Most compelling arguments:

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

GPA 25-001 (General Plan Amendment)

ZMC 25-008 (Zoning Map Change with Conditional Use Permit)

Outcome & Next Steps

Commission actions: Both items forwarded to town council as positive recommendations (3–2). Per town attorney Ivan Regler, as legislative actions, both are subject to public referendum if town council approves.

Development agreement status: Finalized and posted to town website before hearing. Key terms:

Next step: Town council consideration. If approved by council, subject to referendum (per ARS statute on legislative land-use actions). ADEQ dust-permit and air-quality modeling to follow zoning/GPA approval. Town engineer to finalize haul-road specifications and Old Black Canyon crossing protocol. Conditional use permit conditions to be finalized by council.

Controversies & Context

Commissioner Colossimo recusal and PVCA accusations: During open-call-to-public period, Sandy Graham (PVCA Chairperson) called on Colossimo to recuse himself, claiming he made non-factual statements at November 10 PNZ meeting. Colossimo responded from commission table that he was recused at that prior meeting and therefore could not have spoken. Colossimo stated: "Do not trust anything these people say," referring to PVCA. He noted his name posted on Nextdoor by PVCA members and claimed supporters were blocked from that platform. Colossimo requested audience trust only facts, not PVCA claims. Chair Herb then directed Colossimo to formally recuse himself for the public hearing items (GPA 25-001 and ZMC 25-008), which he did. Graham's letter (referenced in her open-comment statement) asserted PVCA made no threat of legal action and that David Larner and Chris Russo made false attributions to PVCA. Tension unresolved; matter has procedural closure (Colossimo recused) but not substantive resolution.

Site selection debate (West Fain Park vs. Government Tank): Applicant argues Government Tank (2,400+ feet from nearest homes) is vastly superior to West Fain Park expansion (1,200 feet from Stone Ridge, 600 feet from future Stone Ridge phase). Opponents counter that West Fain Park's visible ore justifies using it instead of Government Tank, and that applicant is simply appeasing opponents of West Fain expansion. Charles Gorman (supporter) presented distance map showing 345 homes within half-mile of West sites vs. 13–20 at Dewey/Blue Hills area from Government Tank. Patricia Betszel (opponent) cited Kell Palguta 2022 statement rejecting West Fain permit on "quality of life" grounds, questioning why that logic no longer applies and why town now prefers industrial zoning elsewhere. Fundamental disagreement unresolved in commission debate; forwarded to council.

Neighboring jurisdiction opposition: Town of Dewey Humboldt passed formal resolution September 2, 2025, opposing mine. Council Member Jason Chisum testified that 90% of Blue Hills residents haul water, well failure from blasting is primary concern, and Dewey opposes the project. Chisum asked: "Why do you need to put it next to your neighbor to the south?" when Fain owns extensive land throughout Prescott Valley. This objection focused on health and water security of unincorporated residents outside PV limits; commission had no direct authority over county matters but noted neighboring jurisdiction position.

Blasting and operational intensity: Applicant claims limited blasting (4/year max); opponents dispute effectiveness. Concern raised about excavator-hammer noise (10–12 hours/day) from rock crushing. One unregistered speaker (Tomat, Dewey Council) challenged: "If they're not blasting, how are they removing this rock? Because they're going to be using an excavator with a hammer on it and that's going to be running for 10 to 12 hours a day. You're telling me I'm not going to hear that at my house? That's bull." Applicant countered that September 26 draft of development agreement mentioned 100,000-ton blasting increase; applicant disputes this as miscommunication or dated draft. Existing APNS site has blasted once in 20 years. Unresolved as to what recent blasting noise was; applicant attributed to home construction, not mining.

Tax rebate and gift clause: Development agreement includes property-tax rebate for Fain properties up to value of gifted land if town adopts new property or excise tax post-November 2025. Criticized as hidden subsidy and quid pro quo. Town cannot take possession and appraise land immediately; appraisal delayed up to 12 months post-approval, allowing donor tax-deduction benefit first. Opponent Randy Bosber stated: "While the public is told this is a gift, the town cannot use the land immediately and the donor receives a significant financial advantage… while residents and small businesses would pay their fair share, this developer would be shielded from future tax increases." Applicant (Lai) framed as fair one-for-one compensation if town adopts new tax, and noted applicant hopes town never approves new tax. Ivan Regler (town attorney) stated rebate does not violate state gift clause and would not exceed value of land received. Controversy remains over fairness and fiscal precedent.

Alternative site debate (West Fain Park visibility and expansion risk): Opponents argued that West Fain Park's ore is visible above ground and therefore the logical mining location, making Government Tank unnecessarily disruptive. Applicant countered that visible ore at West Fain Park is only 80 acres of approximately 96-acre vested-right area, and that hauling from West Fain Park (1,200 feet from homes) is less compatible than Government Tank (2,400+ feet). Patricia Betszel noted that in 2023, applicant sought M1 (light industrial) zoning for West Fain, but M1 does not permit uses creating "offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust or glare" or "air/surface/groundwater pollution"—meaning M1 would have excluded mining anyway. Applicant's pivot to Government Tank and IG (general industrial) zoning therefore appears to be deliberate workaround, not organic site-selection logic. Question unresolved: Does Government Tank represent genuine compatibility improvement, or does it represent political concession to Stone Ridge opposition, with IG zoning chosen specifically to avoid M1 use restrictions?

Petition-driven conversion from minor to major amendment: In 2023, community collected 2,000+ signatures to trigger conversion of minor amendment to major amendment per town general plan. No other Arizona general plan allows citizen-triggered conversion. Applicant had to halt process while petition was validated; case became stale by end of 2024. This procedural mechanism granted significant power to organized opposition but also created delay and uncertainty for applicant. Supporters noted applicant respected democratic process rather than fighting petition; opponents argued petition is evidence of community rejection.

State law preemption and future expansion risk: Opponents cited Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) regarding mining on aggregate pits, claiming state law is "very liberal" and may override 15-year moratorium. Applicant conceded that any expansion application after 15 years would require full PNZ and council review, but did not directly address state preemption question. Town attorney did not elaborate. Concern that state mining law could override local restrictions remains unresolved. Also raised: if Fain Family sells property post-approval, successor would not be bound by development agreement unless restrictions run with land. Lai stated restrictions run with land; Hwatt confirmed "everything runs with land"; but enforceability if title changes or property is divided was not fully explored.

General plan conformance language: Opponents repeatedly cited general plan Goal 3 (land-use compatibility) and Goal 4 (hazardous materials away from residential). Applicant's response: "if we were completely compatible with all the general plan, we wouldn't be here." This framing suggests applicant views general plan as guideline, not ceiling—i.e., the commission's job is to weigh and balance competing goals, not enforce strict conformance. Commissioners Evans and Griffith adopted this balancing view; Commissioners Graci and Herb appeared to prioritize strict general-plan conformance and residential protection. Chair Herb stated: "I need to find a way on how this benefits the town and its residents" and concluded he could not see how mining benefits residents (no tax revenue, no population growth, no services). This philosophical divide (balancing vs. conformance) drove the 3–2 split.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Call to the public (open comment): PVCA Chairperson Sandy Graham and David Larner used open-comment period to dispute accusations made at prior meetings. Graham denied PVCA threatened legal action, funded by anti-growth entities, or circulated referendum petition. Larner called PVCA's claims "lies and fear-mongering" and urged residents to question opposition materials. This unusual use of open-comment period for rebuttal (rather than substantive argument on merits) signaled high tension within community and potential for continued PVCA-commissioner relations friction.

Minutes approval: Commission voted unanimously to approve November 5, 2025 special-session and November 10, 2025 regular-meeting minutes. No dissent noted.

Significance and Takeaway:

The December 9 vote represents a narrow commission endorsement of a major land-use departure premised on site-selection pragmatism (Government Tank over West Fain Park) and applicant mitigation (development agreement). The commission was split along compatibility-vs.-balancing lines: Evans and Griffith cited facts, rational analysis, regional need, and documented mitigation; Graci and Herb cited general-plan conformance, resident benefit, and lack of municipal revenue. Colossimo's recusal removed a fifth voice and left the median voter (Hwatt) as the tiebreaker—he voted YES with an emphasis on town engineer oversight and the advisory nature of the commission's role.

The town council faces a decision subject to referendum, meaning public opinion could ultimately overturn the commission's recommendation. The development agreement, while detailed, defers key specifics (dust-palliative standard, haul-road crossing protocol) to post-approval engineering and town compliance review. Opponents have preserved arguments for council presentation and potential ballot measure; applicant has documented 3+ years of outreach, mitigation concessions, and land gift as evidence of good-faith efforts. The question whether Government Tank is a pragmatic accommodation to regional aggregate demand or a harmful compromise of residential character remains disputed and likely to fuel council debate and potential litigation or referendum campaign.