Show Low approves Xolo Sports Complex Site 2, 4,300-seat venue with parking shortfall

Show Low Council Approves Disputed Site 2 for Xolo Sports Complex Despite Resident Outcry Over Transparency and Developer Favoritism

Show Low City Council voted unanimously on October 1, 2025, to locate the new Xolo Sports Complex and Event Center on Site 2—a 13-acre parcel offered by the developer—rejecting community preference for Site 3 and sidestepping concerns about undisclosed future development, potential conflicts of interest between the project engineer and landowner, and proximity impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. The decision capped a contentious public meeting in which four residents explicitly accused the city of prioritizing the developer's interests over community transparency and asked to see evidence of independent site evaluation.

Simultaneously, council approved Alternate 1 seating configuration, reducing the building height by 4 feet through design modifications that maintain the council-mandated 4,300-seat capacity (2,800 telescopic, 1,500 floor seats) at cost-neutral adjustments. However, the seating plan carries a parking deficiency of 295 spaces, requiring city staff to identify off-site parking solutions—a challenge not yet resolved.

Key Speeches

"I'm also disturbed by the thought that our developer and our developer's representative, the engineer for the Wolfford Bridge crossing, are benefiting each other. The developer is offering up a donation but a tax value of $71,000. That's the property value of site number two. He's offering up site number one a value of $45,000. He's not offering up site three. It's only worth $20,500 for him to donate that. I understand all of the implications of where electricity happens to be, where it doesn't happen to be. But in any case, I think these two sites one and two help our developer. They also help his representative, the engineer that wants that road across Xolo Creek. They're feeding each other and that bothers me that's not being acknowledged today." — Ravon Bonds, resident, 560 South Creek Side Road

"Options one and two, it's set back. It's not on Penrod Road and that's potential commercial building there. So, I don't know if they're going to put hotels, grocery store, apartments, but why would you want a sports center that's going to cost this much money and set it not on the main road back behind other commercial property? And another thing to consider, there is a Christian school supposedly going to be built in Xolo Bluff that was also donated by the developer to the Christian school. I'm not sure how close that property line is to option two. And I know alcohol sales are a big part of the revenue income that you're hoping for. And so I don't think those two things go together well at all." — Beverly Hammer, resident, 620 South Creekside Drive

"Wolfford Road's always been a dead end for future. Wolfford Road is always going to go across with this development or without this development. I get it now. Site three, he's not even going to donate to us. So for us to put it there, we'd have to buy it and then it's going to be millions to get utilities over there. So site three to us or to me didn't make any sense." — John Leech Jr..

"And you know what? The Wolfford road and the bridge there—I think people alluded to it a little bit by the mayor—but it's very important to understand that the crossing on Highway 260 bridge that we have now is not designed for a 100-year flood event and that has flooded over that bridge and that road where Show Low was divided basically when that flooded. So, the idea is that we would put in this Wolfford Road bridge that would be designed for a 100-year flood event, but it also would provide emergency access. If you look at the Xolo Bluff right now, you basically have one way in, one way out. If there was a catastrophic fire or if there's a flood or something, you guys are kind of pinned down. This Wolfford Road was designed to allow for emergency access to come out different ways during a fire or a flood event. And that's why it's been designated as NRCS number one project in the region." — City Manager Shane (last name not fully stated in transcript)

"I too remember the flood. I wasn't very old, but I do remember the flood. And it was a very traumatic time in our community and having these accesses—in case of fire or flooding—is crucial. And so those projects have always been talked about as long as I remember. And in 1979, that bridge was overrun by water. And my uncle was the water director at that time, and he drowned inspecting the lines underneath that bridge because of that flooding that we had down there at that time." — Vice Mayor Connie Kakavas

Timeline

• Staff presentation: City Manager Shane and Architect Chris Ford presented four sites evaluated for the sports complex. Site 1 (9 acres, ~700 ft to utilities, ~95 ft to residences, developer-donated); Site 2 (13 acres, utilities on-site, ~400 ft to residences, developer-donated); Site 3 (17.1 acres, 2,700 ft to utilities, ~1,500 ft to residences, developer not donating, $1–2 million utility extension cost); Site 4 (47 acres city-owned, steep 80-foot topography, 1,500 ft to utilities, not currently zoned for sports facility, no clear development path per architect).

• Staff recommendation: Site 2 selected based on existing utilities, future roadway access (Wolfford Road extension), existing zoning, alignment with master plan, and developer land donation. Utility extension costs for Sites 3 and 4 flagged as prohibitive ($1–2 million plus).

• Council questions: Councilman Derik Whipple asked for utility cost estimates; staff confirmed millions in additional cost for distant sites. Derik Whipple also inquired about parking capacity on Sites 1 and 2; staff clarified Site 1 would accommodate ~750–780 parking spaces on two parcels, and Site 2 has 13 acres with potential 16-acre adjacent donation for overflow parking or fields.

• Public comment: Four speakers (Ravon Bonds, Beverly Hammer, Tim Flanigan, Doug Evenson) opposed Site 2. Key themes: (1) lack of prior disclosure about Wolfford Road and commercial zoning when purchasing homes; (2) suspicion of developer and engineer mutual benefit via Site 2 selection; (3) Site 3 superior for visibility on Penrod Road and long-term commercial draw (per Cardinal Stadium analogy); (4) proximity to Christian school and alcohol sales conflict; (5) traffic through residential streets not designed for two-way traffic; (6) environmental impact on dark-sky designation; (7) privacy walls and gates as added costs.

• Council discussion: Mayor Leech acknowledged Wolfford Road's decades-long planning necessity, historical flood context (1979 water director drowning), and emergency-access imperative for growing Xolo Bluff. Vice Connie Kakavas reiterated Wolfford Road bridge requirement imposed on original developer and its role in 100-year flood mitigation and ambulance access. Leech rejected notion of developer responsibility to disclose future development and said real-estate agents should have informed residents. Discussion also touched on desire to lower building height through grading and retaining walls to minimize visual impact.

• Vote on Site 2: Motion by Councilman Jon Adams to select Site 2, seconded by Councilman Bryce Judd. Passed unanimously (individual votes not named in transcript).

• Seating configuration presentation: City Manager/Staff and Architect Chris Ford presented five seating alternatives:

  • Alternate 1: 4,300 seats (2,800 telescopic, 1,500 floor), 4-foot building height reduction from prior design, 295 parking spaces short of 780-space base, $250,000 cost savings, cost-neutral modifications.
  • Alternate 2: 4,000 seats (3,000 telescopic, 1,000 floor), 220-space parking shortfall, ~$107,000 savings.
  • Alternate 3: 3,500 seats (1,000 telescopic, 2,500 floor), 95-space parking shortfall, ~$1.55 million savings.
  • Alternate 4: 3,000 seats (1,000 telescopic, 2,000 floor), parking surplus, ~$1.9 million savings.
  • Alternate 5: 2,500 floor seats only, parking surplus, ~$3.1 million savings.

• Architect's discussion points: Chris Ford noted critical distinction between 4,500-seat capacity for graduations versus concerts (different food/beverage concession requirements). Emphasized Alternate 1 maintains council's 4,500-seat directive while reducing telescopic seats (enabling 4-foot height reduction), pushed stage back ~15 feet to generate additional floor seats and reduce telescoping demand. Noted height reduction is maximum achievable with telescopic seating scheme.

• Council seating discussion: Derik Whipple expressed concern about building height and preferred Alternate 1 for achieving 4,500 seats with height reduction. Mayor Leech agreed, stating desire to keep structure below 45 feet and explore additional height reduction via grading and retaining walls. Councilmembers generally agreed Alternate 1 balanced city goals of capacity and visual impact.

• Vote on Alternate 1 seating: Motion by Councilman Jon Adams to approve Alternate 1, seconded (seconder not named). Passed unanimously.

• Other business: Contract for asphalt concrete (Sierra Pines paving project) awarded to Perkins Aggregate Inc. ($63,687.25 for 575 tons at $109/ton) after only one bid received; other vendors declined due to plant location and shipping costs. Approved unanimously.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 4 residents

Main concerns:

1. Lack of transparency at time of purchase: Residents stated they were not informed—by developer, city, or realtor—that Wolfford Road and commercial zoning were planned for the Xolo Bluff area when they bought their homes.

2. Developer and engineer conflict of interest: Ravon Bonds explicitly alleged that Site 2 and Site 1 selections benefit both the California-based developer (who donates land valued at $71,000 and $45,000, respectively) and the engineer advocating for the Wolfford Road bridge crossing over Xolo Creek. Site 3 (worth $20,500 to developer if donated) was rejected, implying developer financial motivation.

3. Site 3 superior for commercial viability and visibility: Beverly Hammer and Tim Flanigan argued Site 3's location on Penrod Road (main corridor) is more appropriate for a $40–60 million facility and would naturally draw commercial development (as evidenced by Cardinal Stadium precedent), making developer claims about "future commercial potential" at Site 3 non-credible.

4. Proximity to Christian school and religious/alcohol conflict: Beverly Hammer highlighted planned Christian school in Xolo Bluff (also developer-donated) and raised concern that alcohol sales revenue model conflicts with adjacency to a faith-based institution.

5. Traffic impact on residential streets: Doug Evenson emphasized that neighborhood streets are not designed for two-way traffic and called for traffic mitigation, including potential gates on Wolfford to prevent through-traffic.

6. Environmental and quality-of-life impacts: Ravon Bonds cited Show Low's dark-sky designation and expressed concern that proximity to the event center will degrade that designation unless sited far away.

7. Privacy and gating costs: Ravon Bonds noted that if the facility is near residences, privacy walls and gates will be necessary—added costs not acknowledged in city presentations.

Most compelling arguments:

• Ravon Bonds' conflict-of-interest allegation was the sharpest challenge to staff's impartiality: she directly questioned why the city repeatedly selected the sites most beneficial to the developer (Sites 1 and 2, which the developer will donate or has donated) while rejecting Site 3 (which the developer must keep for commercial upside). She also cited utility cost trade-offs as foreseeable and manageable, implying the $1–2 million extension cost was not a dealbreaker.
• Site 3 commercial visibility argument (Beverly Hammer and Tim Flanigan) countered staff's claim that the developer would refuse Site 3 due to lost commercial development; the Cardinal Stadium example suggested that major civic institutions attract commercial investment rather than preclude it.
• Privacy and added costs (Ravon Bonds) highlighted that proximity to residences will trigger secondary costs (walls, gates, fencing) that current budget discussions omit.

Organized groups: None identified; comments were from individual residents.

Support

Support for Site 2 and Alternate 1 was implicit in unanimous council votes; no speakers testified in favor. However, council members articulated strong support during discussion:

• Mayor Leech and Connie Kakavas emphasized the Wolfford Road bridge's critical role as emergency evacuation infrastructure and 100-year flood mitigation, positioning Site 2's location (which aligns with Wolfford Road extension) as essential to broader community resilience. Leech cited the 1979 drowning of a water director during bridge flooding as historical context.

• Derik Whipple supported design modifications (Alternate 1) that reduced building height while preserving 4,500-seat capacity, viewing this as a win-win that addressed resident visual-impact concerns.

• Jon Adams moved both Site 2 and Alternate 1, signaling support for the staff recommendation and architect's refined design.

No members of the public spoke in favor.

Project Details

• Case number / Project name: Xolo Sports Complex and Event Center (specific case number not stated in transcript; referenced as a multi-year planning initiative).

• Applicant / Developer: California-based developer (name not disclosed in transcript); landowner of Sites 1, 2, and (implicitly) other parcels in Xolo Bluff area.

• Attorney: None identified in transcript.

• Architect: Chris Ford, Ton of Forland Studios (or similar; transcript phonetics unclear for firm name; referred to as "Chris Ford, architect").

• Location / Address: Xolo Bluff (residential neighborhood in Show Low, Arizona); Site 2 specifically located "across East Wolfford" from Site 1, with access via East Wolfford Road extension and potential future Lewis Street extension.

• APN: Not stated in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Sites 1, 2, and 3 are already zoned for sports and event center use. Site 4 (city-owned, 47 acres) is not currently zoned for sports facility, requiring zoning change.

• Density / Units / Square footage:

  • Seating capacity: 4,300 seats (Alternate 1: 2,800 telescopic, 1,500 floor); originally discussed as 4,500 seats but refined to 4,300 via design changes.
  • Parking: Base design footprint accommodates 780 parking spaces; Alternate 1 creates 295-space shortfall requiring off-site solution.
  • Building height: Original design ~45–50 feet; Alternate 1 achieves 4-foot reduction (to ~41–46 feet), with potential further reduction via grading and retaining walls.
  • Concession space: 4,300 sq ft (Alternate 1); ranges down to 2,500 sq ft for minimal seating alternatives.

• Site comparisons:

  • Site 1: 9 acres + 3 additional acres reserved for parking; ~95 ft from nearest residence; utilities within 700 ft; developer-donated; zoned for sports facility; ~40-foot topography drop.
  • Site 2 (selected): 13.7 acres; ~400 ft from nearest residence; utilities on-site (north end of parcel); developer-donated; additional 16 acres available for overflow parking/fields; zoned for sports facility; ~21-foot topography drop; soil deposit stockpiles require geotechnical evaluation.
  • Site 3: 17.1 acres; ~1,500 ft from nearest residence; utilities 2,700 ft away ($1–2 million extension cost); developer not willing to donate (retained for potential commercial development); zoned for sports facility; ~42-foot topography drop; extensive retaining walls needed.
  • Site 4: 47 acres (city-owned); ~500 ft from nearest residence; utilities 1,500 ft away; not zoned for sports facility; extremely steep topography (~80-foot drop across equivalent 13-acre building footprint); architect opined no clear development path.

• Budget / Cost: Total project cost not explicitly stated. Alternate 1 represents ~$250,000 savings relative to original 4,500-seat design (cost-neutral modification). Alternate 5 (minimal seating) would save ~$3.1 million. Wolfford Road bridge construction estimated at $6–7 million (NRCS priority); Scott Ranch Road alternative estimated at $26 million.

Vote Breakdown

Site 2 Selection:

• Final: Unanimous (no opposing votes)
• Yes: All council members present
• No: None
• Abstentions / Absences: Councilmember Brandt Clark noted absent at roll call ("running a little late"); assumed present for votes, though not explicitly confirmed in transcript.

Alternate 1 Seating Configuration:

• Final: Unanimous
• Yes: All council members
• No: None
• Abstentions / Absences: Individual votes not stated in transcript.

Asphalt Concrete Contract (Sierra Pines Paving):

• Final: Unanimous
• Yes: All council members
• No: None
• Abstentions / Absences: Not stated.

Consent Calendar:

• Final: Unanimous
• Yes: All council members
• No: None
• Abstentions / Absences: Not stated.

Outcome & Next Steps

Site 2 approved unanimously. The Xolo Sports Complex and Event Center will be located on the 13-acre parcel donated by the developer, across East Wolfford Road from Site 1. Building will be positioned as far east as possible to maximize the ~400-foot separation from residential properties. Staff will evaluate soil deposit stockpiles on-site via geotechnical testing. Access will utilize East Wolfford Road extension and potentially a future Lewis Street extension. An additional 16 acres offered by the developer will be available for overflow parking and/or recreational fields.

Alternate 1 seating (4,300 seats) approved unanimously. Design will feature 2,800 telescopic seats (reduced from original plan) on all three sides and 1,500 floor seats, yielding a 4-foot building height reduction from the previously presented design. The modification is cost-neutral and maintains the council-mandated 4,300-seat capacity. However, the configuration creates a parking deficit of 295 spaces (of the 780-space design base). City staff must identify and secure off-site parking solutions to meet this shortfall before final design approval.

Height refinement ongoing: Mayor Leech and Derik Whipple emphasized intent to lower the building further through grading and retaining walls, targeting a height below 45 feet to minimize visual impact on the neighborhood. This will require coordination with geotechnical analysis of soil stockpiles and potential for fill reuse or relocation.

Wolfford Road bridge infrastructure remains separate but foundational: The City Manager and Vice Mayor reiterated that the Wolfford Road bridge crossing Xolo Creek is a decades-long general-plan priority, NRCS-designated project (estimated $6–7 million), and critical 100-year flood mitigation and emergency-access infrastructure independent of the sports complex decision. However, the sports complex site selection and Wolfford Road extension are implicitly linked in future development patterns.

Next phase: Architect and design team to proceed with detailed design refinement, incorporating height-reduction strategies, parking solution coordination, and continued investigation of soil conditions on Site 2.

Controversies & Context

Developer favoritism allegations: Ravon Bonds articulated a pointed accusation that the city's site-selection process prioritized the developer's financial interests (maximizing property donation value via Sites 1 and 2) over community input and planning logic. She specifically noted that Site 2 ($71,000 value to developer if donated) and Site 1 ($45,000 value) were preferred, while Site 3 ($20,500 value, developer-retained for commercial upside) was effectively rejected due to utility cost estimates. She alleged that the engineer advocating for Wolfford Road bridge also benefits from this site choice because it aligns the bridge crossing with developer holdings.

Engineer/Wolfford Road conflict: Though not explicitly named in the transcript, the "engineer for the Wolfford Bridge crossing" was referenced by Bonds as having a mutual-interest relationship with the developer. This suggests that an engineer or engineering firm retained for the Wolfford Road project may also have a consulting or contractual relationship with the developer, potentially creating a conflict of interest in site recommendations.

Wolfford Road as historical and infrastructure priority: The City Manager and Vice Mayor emphasized Wolfford Road bridge as a long-standing general-plan item dating back decades, tied to the 1979 drowning death of a water director during bridge flooding on Highway 260 in downtown Show Low. This framing positioned the bridge as essential emergency-evacuation and flood-mitigation infrastructure necessary whether or not the sports complex is built. However, residents implied that the sports complex site selection was strategically aligned to justify Wolfford Road construction, potentially obscuring who truly benefits (developer, engineer, or community at large).

Transparency and disclosure failures: Four residents independently lamented the lack of disclosure—by developer, city staff, or real-estate agents—at the time of home purchase that Wolfford Road, commercial zoning, and a major civic facility were planned for the Xolo Bluff area. This suggests a breakdown in the information supply to residential buyers and raises questions about whether the developer had an obligation to disclose long-range plans.

Lack of resident representation: Ravon Bonds explicitly stated that residents had requested representation in the site-selection process and were denied it "by our developer and his representative the engineer." This indicates that the developer and engineer may have held formal or informal advisory roles in the city's decision-making process, whereas residents had none.

Dark-sky and environmental impacts: Ravon Bonds cited Show Low's dark-sky designation and expressed concern that the event center—with associated lighting for evening events and parking—will degrade that environmental asset unless sited far from residential areas.

Christian school proximity conflict: Beverly Hammer raised the concern that a Christian school (also donor-recipient from the developer) will be adjacent to the event center, which will derive revenue from alcohol sales. This was framed as a values conflict, though not directly addressed by council.

Site 3 commercial visibility argument: Tim Flanigan and Beverly Hammer questioned staff's justification for rejecting Site 3 based on the developer's unwillingness to donate it due to "potential for future commercial development." They countered that major civic institutions (citing Cardinal Stadium) attract rather than preclude commercial development, making the developer's rationale appear pretextual.

State preemption or fiscal pressure: The Mayor referenced urgency tied to the "beginning of the fiscal year" and funding deadlines, implying that if the council did not act quickly, grant or appropriated funding for the project might be forfeited. However, the transcript does not specify whether this was state preemption, federal grant conditionality, or internal city budget constraints.

Duration

• Xolo Sports Complex site and seating items: ~60–70 minutes (from staff presentations through seating vote and architect thank-you).
• Asphalt concrete contract and consent calendar: ~5 minutes.
• Total meeting: ~90 minutes (estimated; meeting concluded with adjournment after seating vote).

Other Notable Items

Asphalt Concrete Contract Award (Sierra Pines Paving Project): City of Show Low awarded a $63,687.25 contract to Perkins Aggregate Inc. for 575 tons of asphalt concrete at $109/ton, following a competitive bid solicitation. Only one of three companies solicited (Brim Holland and Rock, WW Clyde, Perkins Aggregate) submitted a bid; the other two declined due to plant location and shipping costs. Approved unanimously with minimal discussion, indicating staff confidence in pricing and vendor reliability.