Cave Creek approves $18M FY2026 budget, pursues 4,050-acre open space bond

Welcome to the town council meeting. The meeting is now in order. It's the regular town council meeting uh for the town of Cape Creek for May 19th, 2025. And um we had a silent roll call. So we'll start with the pledge of allegiance. I'm going to have my neighbor I never see Bob Voris lead us in the pledge. To the United States of Americ, so the pledge sounded really good and you were right on tune the whole time. Um, first thing is a public announcements.

The one I have is a fire season is upon us. They had a small fire up at Seir near Sears K and they got it out. So that's done. It's 100% containment, but uh with the Greer fire going on and our own potential for fire and they're all human cost it seems like. So be very careful out there. Does council have any announcements they'd like to make? Katherine, I have just returned from an international trip to Japan for two and a half weeks.

And while it's a very beautiful country, there's no place like home. Good to be back. Okay, first thing on the agenda then, uh, next thing on the agenda is call to the public. I have no one wishing to speak or call. Okay. Town manager report. I have no report. Um, mayor and councel. Okay. Um, we have a proclamation tonight. The Foothills Food Bank uh is opening uh June 1.

And whereas for nearly four decades, the Foothills Food Bank and Resource Center has has provided food and vital resources to the most vulnerable members of our community. And whereas in the past year alone, 350 dedicated volunteers received and processed 1.8 8 million pounds of food for distribution. And whereas volunteers contributed more than 42,555 hours of service, supporting over 29,000 family visits to the food bank, thus improving the lives of countless individuals.

And whereas through the adopt a family program in 2024, Foothills food bank volunteers and amazingly generous supporters and donors brought holiday cheer and smiles to 1,200 individuals. And whereas the food bank maximized its impact by allocating 93 cents of every dollar directly to programs and services for those facing food insecurity.

And whereas foot foothills food bank and resource center and the community celebrates the completion of the newly constructed food bank honor those who made a reality and recognize the positive impact and value it brings to the community, county, and state. Now, therefore, I, Robert Morris, mayor of Cape Creek, Arizona, to hereby join the Foothills Food Bank and Resource Center in celebrating their grand opening on June 1st, 2025.

So, we have a food bank in town, the lawn construction's over, and Katherine's going to represent the town at the grand opening on on the 1st. Yes. It's a real asset to our community. Next is a consent agenda. Uh we have seven items there. Uh I'll read them off and see and uh the council would uh if you have an issue with one, let us know. First is council approval of third quarter fiscal year 2025 budget transfers.

Council radic ratic council ratification of a lease for the tourism bureau office. Council approval of rati ratification of a change order for the rodeo ground skybox construction. Council approval of a lease agreement with Canon Financial Services Incorporated for three copers and a plotter.

Council discussion and possible approval of the first amendment of the professional service agreement between uh the town of Cade Creek and GHD Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $18,966 and authorize the town manager and staff to execute the necessary documents. Approval of April 3rd, 2025 town council work session minutes and approval of April 7th, 2025 regular town council meeting minutes. Is there a motion? So moved. Tom, I'm sorry. Did you have a question? No, sir.

I was trying to see if Catherine when the AC turned down. I'll take that. I'm good. Uh, who made the motion? I did. Okay. Tom made the motion. Cynthia had the second. Okay. Um, we'll do a voice vote. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion carried. 70. Next on the general general agenda items, I'm going to read a little uh speech here.

We have a a full house as we can all see and we have some overflow out there and we have uh at least two we have three big issues two of which are probably very popular. Uh before we begin our meeting I'd like to clarify how it is conducted and specifically the public comment portion of the meeting. Public comment is welcomed.

This is one of the many ways to inform your local governmental representatives and staff of issues that are important to you or to suggest improvements in the way we conduct the town's business. Our goal is to have a welcoming and friendly atmosphere between our community members and local government. Speakers are reminded to address their comments to the mayor and council and not to the audience.

Arizona open meeting law governs these activities and greatly restricts how meetings are conducted and how council members communicate outside of the meeting. Uh there are two opportunities for the public to speak. The first is called the public, but um I don't think we have that. Um, you will have three minutes to speak on the relevant subject after after you fill a card out, which is over here on the table. You will note a set of three lights on the podium.

Green means you're within your three minutes. It turns yellow as your time is about to expire and red when your time is expired. At that point, please expeditiously conclude your comments. Um, thank you for attending the meeting and uh with that, we will begin with our legend session. Council discussion, possible approval of the uh fiscal year 2026 tentative budget.

Mayor and council, I'll just kick it off with some preliminary uh remarks before um our finance director um moves into the presentation portion. Um, as you're aware, this is probably one of the most important activities of of the elected officials uh serving the town. And that is as in your um fiduciary responsibility to ensure that um the town is um conducting itself appropriately and and you're setting um what I would consider budget policy through your um annual adoption of the budget.

And so we've started off this long uh process uh initially with our council retreat. Um you saw uh budget forecasts and or excuse me financial forecasts. Um and then we even brought Jim rounds in for some additional economic forecasts as well. Um, so what you see before you tonight is an abbreviated uh version of what you've seen previously, but there's still quite a bit of content that we want to share, particularly since we have a number of people in the audience today.

With that, I'll turn it over to our finance director who will go more into the um the details for what is being proposed for fiscal year 26. Sherry, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council. So this is our tenative budget adoption process and advancing. I need to do it on the computer. Okay. So uh with the tenative budget adoption so this is what sets the cap um for our expenditures for our fiscal year 26 final budget adoption process.

So if there are any changes after the adoption of the tenative, it can reduce, reallocate, um we can adjust reserves if we want to change things like that, but we cannot come back with a higher number on our expenditures for final budget adoption above whatever is adopted tonight. So here's a recap of what we have for the tenative budget um adoption. So um I have some comparison numbers here for you. the fiscical year 25 budget numbers and then the tenative amounts for fiscal year 26.

So uh the subtotal line there so you see for fiscal year 25 the total budget was 57 million uh for fiscal year 26 tenative 58 million on the subtotal line but then we are including a placeholder for state land acquisition of $18 million. So that is the primary reason for the increase in the budget is putting that placeholder there to be able to have that capacity if council so chooses.

Um so you can see on the subtotal line the change from fiscal year 26 um uh compared to fiscal year 25 was an increase of about 800,000 until we added that that $18 million. That $800,000 if we had not gotten the $1.4 $4 million grant for the streets that um of all the one-time monies for the projects that HAL has planned, we would have been under budget.

The um if we did not have the regional fire station and the one-time costs that are being incurred there, then we would have been um about flat. So there there's a lot of like whatifs of if we had didn't have this or that, we could have been um under or just about the same. It's really um incorporating a lot of things that we'll talk about. Um you will see a difference there in the change between the operating budget and the CIP um budget.

So the payment management projects um were being recorded in the CIP budget. Those are really ongoing maintenance type projects that really should be part of operating. So that's moving 2.1 that was in CIP into the operating budget. Um, I mentioned the one-time payment management grant funded project. So, that's adding 1.4 million to the operating budget for a one-time cost.

And then between the ongoing and the one-time costs for the 50/50 share of the regional fire station, that's adding 2.4 million to the operating budget. So, um, a lot of very big things happening in shifting around and, um, uh, grants and and such forth. If we look at the budget um and comparison to the fiscal year 25 and the estimates um with our tenative and compared to what our resources are.

So here on the resources we take what our beginning balances are our estimated revenues other financing sources which is primarily debt financing and back out estimated reserve balances. That gives us how much of the resources we would have available compared to what the expenditures are in each one of those. Whether it was last year's budget, the estimates of where we'll be at for this fiscal year or next year's budget, all of them show that there were excess resources available.

Um the bottom line there is what the total fund balances are. So those reserves plus the um resources uh over and above the expenditures looking at the tenative numbers and starting the year off with an estimated 31.8 million in fund balances. The way this is is we're not projecting how much we think we will end up with fund balances at the end of the year. This is based off of a conservative budget of conservative information on revenues.

Um, budgeting expenditures at maximums, how much would be left as a calculated formula. The first three items here that are um, part of reconciling the beginning balance to the ending balance are things that I equate to if you set up a um, savings account to send your child off to college.

when it comes time to send them off to college and if you said well I can't use that money because I can't spend down my reserves you'd say well that doesn't make sense that's why you saved it that's essentially what the first three items there are so we are budgeting to assume that we would spend the open space balance of about 1.6 6 million does not necessarily mean that we will, but the placeholder is there in case we do.

The um assumed expenditure of capital reserves would be spending down our capital reserves about a million dollars. That's what they're there for to be able to spend on those capital projects. The water infrastructure, that's about a million there as well. Um the big item here that I would say is not part of that um setting aside a college savings account would be the subsidies that the general fund needs to pay to the utility fund.

So that's about 4.1 million and then the remainder is a very small amount. Um so here I'm showing you some of the history um back the last three fiscal years. So the first line here, this blue line is how much the budget numbers were. The uh kind of orange line there is how much the expenditures were. So you can see that there was a pretty substantial difference between how much the budget amount was and what is actually spent because we do budget for maximums as is recommended by the state.

The green line is our fund balances and as you can see that's higher than the orange line. that we have more than a year's worth of expenditures in our fund balances. So, um we are in a healthy position and I do have a table there that shows the differences between the budget and the actual expenditures. So, um going fiscal year 22 is about 16.1 million. Fiscal year 24 under budget about 24.7.

So substantially under and part of that was the practice of budgeting the full amount of a CIP project in year 1 even if it was going to take two or three years to complete the project. That is something where we're changing that practice. Um compared to what was presented to council um for the budget work sessions for the proposed budget we went from 54 million to 76. Again the big item here is the placeholder for the state land acquisition.

We did do the reduction of the um 40th anniversary as requested. Um there was um support for the turquoise circuit um that was not previously on the budget. We had several projects for CIP that are not progressing as anticipated in fiscal year 25 that will carry over more money than was originally thought into fiscal year 26. So it's just increasing the beginning fund balances and record and moving those expenditures to fiscal year 26.

Um again the place total for the state land and then we did have a small um correction on the rodeo grounds personnel costs. Looking at the budget by type um so you can see here that more than half the pie is capital improvements. This is a um very significant part. Um the capital projects are very costly um construction costs. So um that does include the 18 million placeholder um for um potential state land.

The um next largest piece of the pie is uh non-personnel related costs um ongoing costs um outstanding debt. So 24 million um is uh how much our debt would be and this is all related to the utility funds. Um we have some that is uh revenue related debt um with whiffle loans and we have some private placement and um cap agreement on that debt for fiscal year 26. I've got here what the uh debt service amounts are.

So this is a big part of um the need for subsidies to the utility funds um related to debt service along with capital. I show here what the colonel current final payoff amounts are. So um for wastewater um the end is is in sight of the current debt that we have. If we go into additional debt, um, which is what we were looking at in the rate study, then of course um, there would be further debt after that. For Cave Creek debt, the 2.6 million goes down significantly.

After 2028, it goes down to about 700,000. After 2030, then it's um 600,000. And that that's related to the Phoenix Interconnect project. Here's the summary of the CIP project. So the land acquisition um 19.6. So that is placeholders for both the open space money that we have and the $18 million for potential state land acquisition. Beyond that, Cave Creek Water is the one that has the most number of projects and the significant dollars at 14 million and goes down significantly from there.

Looking at the revenue side. So this is revenues and the other financing sources. So you'll see the biggest part of the pie is the debt financing that does include assumption of debt financing for the 18 million related to the potential state land acquisition. Uh beyond that the um sales tax is a very key part of our revenue sources at 21% of the pie. And then the next biggest part of the pie is the charges for services related to the utility funds at 17%.

So from a state statute um balanced budget perspective compared to what is referred to as a structurally balanced budget um we are looking at ongoing resources compared to ongoing costs. So here for the general fund on the left hand side are what has been identified as ongoing resources for the general fund of about 15.9 million. On the right hand side are ongoing costs um that total about 14.1 million.

So the net is a positive um not quite 1.8 million but looking at that compared to the one-time uses for the general fund. So, what is in the budget is um one-time uses offset by one-time revenues of about 5.8 million. Um if it were not for the subsidies to the utility funds um then we would be able to cover with the uh 1 point almost 1.8 of the net ongoing.

So, if I go back one slide, so this net ongoing of almost 1.8 eight compared to all the other net one time without the subsidies to the utilities we would have a net accumulation of um 100,000. Uh this is a summary of the reserve um and restricted balances within the general fund operating reserve based off of 25% of operating expenditures at 3 million as requested during the budget work sessions.

We have set up a placeholder in general fund for operating reserves for other funds that don't have the monies to cover their operating reserves. That's 3.1 million and um and couple of smaller reserves. And the last one there, we are not doing subsidies to Desert Hills Water. However, we because of having our our monies in a poolled cash investment, the cash basis for Desert Hills is short on cash. So it results in a loan to Desert Hills Water of about half million for general fund.

Beyond these reserves, there would still be 6.8 million of available um unreserved monies. Looking at the wastewater fund, so ongoing resources. Um so compared to costs on the left hand side, I've got the ongoing revenues, ongoing expenditures. Um, I also am looking at what I'm referring to as major maintenance projects with which are in the CIP, but they're ongoing costs that that are incurred. So, wastewater, we're looking at uh negative784,000.

When you tack on debt service, after debt service, um it's a deficit of of 2.6 million.

So, the wastewater fund requires debt financing of about 1.2 2 million to cover capital project costs and 2.9 million of a transfer from general fund um to help cover the CIP and those those debt service costs on the right hand side looking at that net after the debt service of about 2.7 million if a cumulative rate increase o overtime but the cumulative amount in order to cover that would end up being a 165% increase which we know is quite extreme and and not really feasible.

ible um the current debt in wastewater will be paid off 2029 and the new debt service um based off of the work session that we did on April 3rd for the rate study which there's a lot of input and things that have changed so that will be updated um was going to be about 620 um000 so substantially less in debt service and based off of the current debt of the almost 1.9 million the cumulative rate increase to we to be able to come off the subsidy right away would still be 87%.

The um Cave Creek water fund so looking at a similar comparison so ongoing revenues expenditures um the major maintenance projects so it's a positive almost 1.6 million but the debt service is about 2.6 6. So that is a negative about a million dollars after the debt service. U based off of the information that is in the fiscical year 26 budget, it would require about 10.4 million of debt financing.

A big chunk of that would be the Phoenix Interconnect that we have already acquired um the debt financing for. Um there is the 1 million transfer from Spur Cross and 1.2 2 million of a subsidy from the general fund to help cover those costs. Um for the to cover that um not quite 1.1 million, the cumulative rate increase that would be needed for Cave Creek Water would be 17%. Um as I had mentioned before, most of the current debt would be paid off in 2028.

It drops down um substantially after that. In the um last version of the rate study, the um debt service would be about 3.9 million. And so based off of of that, with the current payoff of of debt in K Creek Water, cumulative rate increase would need to be 37%. That that doesn't include any additional water we would have to procure. Correct. So none of that is in the fisc year. Okay.

um 26 um but the CIP the long-term CIP which includes the um debt service for all that it does include acquisition of water resources. So the next version we will be looking at um additional options on that um when we come back with another version of the rate study. So for desert hills water same comparison. So the ongoing revenues, expenditures, the major maintenance projects. So the net ongoing is a positive 875,000. Debt service of about a million.

So the net after debt service is a negative about 135,000. For fiscal year 26, we are looking at debt financing for the CIP projects of 1.1 million and then the cash loan of about half a million to cover that uh negative 135,000 for Desert Hills Water. the cumulative rate increase would be 3%. Um current debt paid off in 2028. However, in the last version of the rate study, we were looking at debt service um of about 970,000.

So um a little bit less that means that the rate increase um would need to be 2%. Question on that. Um that's quite a a difference from the rate increase for for the Cave Creek water. Have we allocated the the uh the treating expenses uh over to Desert Hills? Is that with a full allocation of their share of that? Yes. Yes. They've had very substantial rate increases the last several years.

So that's part of why they're in a better position because they've already had significant rate increases, but they're only they're they're almost breaking even now. Pretty close. And so, but that also assumes that we're going to debt finance all capital. Okay. Uh so uh did they cover their share of the uh water acquisition? So there's portions of that built into Desert Hills. Yes. And that would be covered with the debt service um of 970,000 in the future based off of the last rate study.

So, uh, that's basically what I have for you. Um, we have scheduled for June 16th, the final budget adoption. Questions from council. Mayor Morris. Uh, question about the 18 million placeholder for land acquisition. Um, pending discussion of agenda item two, we won't really know what direction for sure we're going, but does that place over then roll over to fiscal year 27 if there's no activity in 26? So, it's not exactly a rollover, but yes, essentially.

So, we would be rebudgeting that amount in 27 if it was not spent. Okay. Thank you. How could it possibly be spent in 2026? Um, so when we were first having discussions and there was um a misunderstanding on that, so I don't know that we would spend um $18 million, but there would probably be some portion of that that would get spent.

Um, just for clarity, we're talking about um the financial adviser who would be involved in identifying um the costs of putting together the um package for possible referral to the voters. There also would be what I would call bond council costs that would be required um as well.

So there would be some preliminary numbers that I think we'll have to spend next year plus we know we'll have to do another appraisal and I think that will need to be done prior to us having any kind of public involvement meetings um for the public on this. So it will not go to the purchase of land specifically. No, just for the planning purposes. And that couldn't be used with other funds in the general fund.

It it actually could, but we didn't um plug any of those numbers in for next year in any other the others um the other counts. I guess I just don't understand why we have to allocate 18 million. Obviously, the three things that you identified would not cost that much. If if the council wanted to um go ahead and reduce the budget tonight by what's being presented by an amount of um less than, you know, like 18 million or or slightly less, that would be an option for you.

Again, this is setting the ceiling for tonight for the budget. So, we can't exceed this number going forward um for the final adoption on June 16th. If I may, we we what whatever comes out of tonight because we have another agenda item later on um related to this, the adjustment could be made at the final budget adoption that we can bring back, right, based off of what happens during that item. Okay.

Question, town manager, that 18 million, should a miracle occur and we win the lottery, if we don't have that there, we couldn't use it. That's correct. Yeah, it's expenditure authority. Um although what was anticipated is that we would have um bonds or debt service to back it up. Bond proceeds for example, so that you've got it on the revenue side and you're you've got the expenditure side covered.

I guess my concern is public reaction to our budget potentially increasing $18 million even for a very justifiable reason. So if we do proceed in this way, it needs to be very fully explained. All of you hear that? So you could tell everybody because it's not going towards really operating costs. No, at least not significantly. It's for the purchase of the 4,000 acres and and we don't have to do it. I mean, it's up to the voters. So absolutely. It's just it's just a placeholder.

It's not real money until it's a spending limit. It's not money we're going to write necessarily use. No, but it would still be reported as part of our budget. Correct. You're right there. Other questions for council. Uh, seeing none, there's public comment. David Phelps. Good evening, Mayor and Council. David Phelps, Cape Creek resident. I'm spot on with you on this, Katherine. This is the first time this $18 million figure has been disclosed to the public.

Uh, I've been to every budget hearing. I've been to every public session that the council has. When you can find an agenda, they typically don't invite people to their off sites. I made it to the off-site because it's a public meeting. They just don't advertise it. So, I see where we're disclosing the $18 million fantasy for funding open space. What I don't see is where we're funding the new town hall, which is a $6 million project.

If we're going to forecast $18 million for open space, I'd think we would forecast a $6 million. And we did it in our other studies. We did it in our other uh budget discussions. I'm just wondering why was that dropped off dropped off the uh disclosure.

Uh the other issue is um does the loans to the utilities include the $5 million in administrative error issue that the town is dealing with currently in that we have inadvertently loaned Desert Hills an estimated $2.7 million and it is uh suggested that we're not going to start to retrieve that under collection until 2029. are we going to include that loan value in these estimates?

And that uh information is found in the Desert Hill the from the Desert Hills 2.7 million is in the information packet from April 3rd uh that discusses that issue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Phelps. I have no additional speakers. Okay. No additional speakers. So, I guess at this point, uh, we're looking for a motion. I will make it. I move to, uh, approve the, uh, fiscal year 2026 tentative budget as presented. Second.

Um it it's a heck of a lot of money, but if you'll notice, we spend about 25% less than we budget normally. And that's at the about $55 million. And this $18 million, we don't have to spend it. It's just it's there. If we get enough community support to buy this, if the if the residents and the voters of Kane Creek want to do buy this land, then uh that's this is this will be the chance to do that. We've always budgeted more than we spent. That's what we do.

In case, as I said, we win the lottery. If we win the lottery, we get get a lot of money. We can't spend it unless it's in our budget. So, I I think the town has always been very conservative in the way that we have spent our money and uh we look forward to your support.

Other comments, mayor, I think one process that was helpful to me being the first year that I've looked at the budget process was the forecast not just for this fiscal year budget, but to look at the next five years with outlines about how uh budgeting will occur in the future because that helps keep this in perspective to what our future capital improvement projects are as well as special projects that the town may come up with.

Um I I initially had some concern about the renovation of town hall and expressed that in our budget meetings, but I continue to look at that as an asset that it's property that will be developed that will be improved that the town will own and continue to own whether choose for just our administrative purposes or other future purses purchases. So uh I hope that uh again it will be a good investment that will come back uh uh and be worth much to the town.

I appreciate the fact that everything in the budget this year is tied to the strategic plan which is tied back to the general plan. And for those of you who think we're making this stuff up, if you go back to the general plan, everything that the general plan said we wanted to do over the next 10 to 15 years is laid out in the strategic plan plus some additional information and that turns into the budget.

So when we do this, it's very important that you guys provide input to the general plan and our strategic plan. If we're way off base, the voters are going to pay for it. not just the seven of us sitting up here. So, it's very important you stay engaged in the general plan and the strategic plan as we update every year. That's all other comments. I guess I would just like to emphasize that uh all of our meetings are public meetings. All of them are noticed.

All everybody has opportunities to see when our meetings are. You can sign up to get notifications sent to your email. So there are no secrets here. We are transparent and we have a very high functioning staff who provide in-depth information at every level. So uh we welcome you at all of our meetings, at all of our work study sessions, at all of our business meetings. They are open to the public. Uh so just just emphasizing that this is town government and it's operated as a democracy. Okay.

Other comments. Okay. So uh we'll have a voice a roll call vote on this then. Council member Augurtton. Hi. Council member Driscoll. Yes. Council member Freriedman. Yes. Council member Magcguire. Yes. Council member Rhodess. Hi. Vice Mayor Royer. Yes. Mayor Morris.

I motion carries 70 and we're on to the next one which is uh another big issue council discussion and direction regarding how to proceed regarding potential acquisition of 45 acres of open space zoned property currently owned and managed by the Arizona State Land Department. Mr. Councilman, Mr. Mayor, members of council, uh thank you for putting uh some other items on the agenda that brought people out to listen to our budget.

I've prepared a uh report that I'd like to get to uh council and the public this evening. Um just a second here. So, just a little bit of background for the public. Uh back in 2003, the town and the state began discussion of future annexations and reszoning of state trust land within the planning influence area of Cave Creek. The town reszone state trust lands uh transferring density and value. Um this was done the uh you see the ordinances here. Uh this was approving the pre-annexation.

There were three or four ordinances, excuse me, adopted in 2009 um which uh codified the reszonings and uh the annexations. A little bit of recent activity uh well, let me go back here. Um, part of those agreements gave the town a 20-year window uh with which to petition the state to put those open space zone lands up for auction, approximately 4,5 acres. Um, those come to pass here in June 18th of 2029.

As far as recent activity, in 2020, the town council and Maroba County Board of Supervisors approved an IGA to share in the cost to uh provide an appraisal of 30 acres of privately held residential uh property contiguous to Spurcross Ranch Conservation Area.

Uh for those of you who might remember, the access to those properties would have followed essentially the um trail or pathway into Spurcross Ranch, providing access to up to six residential lots right there on the hillside looking into Spurcross. uh we were able to leverage uh our Desert Foothills Land Trust partners to uh get the owners to the table and effectively purchased the land for a grand total of $734,000 which was split between Maricopa County and the town of Cave Creek.

In 2023, the town and the state land department held several meetings to discuss future disposition of the state uh owned land within the municipal boundary of Cave Creek. Um during these discussions, uh staff was directed by council to move forward with obtaining an appraisal of that land. Uh the state in our early discussions, it really this land and and Cave Creek in general, this area is not really on their radar for development or sale.

Um, we had reminded them of the 20-year window coming to pass in the next approximately five years and how to proceed with that. Um, under advice of council, the town council staff moved forward with an appraisal because we really wanted to see um what that benchmark may look like as far as the value of the land. Um, we retained CBRE as the town's approved appraiser. They're also on the state land department's approved appraiser list.

Um that appraiser was conduct or that appraisal was conducted and completed in September of 2024. Upon completion, the town uh as well as the state land department and our appraiser met to discuss the report and options for next steps. Um one thing born of from those discussions was uh extending the existing agreements which are due to expire in June of 2029 out another 10 years. uh the state uh staff seem to to be supportive of that.

Uh they currently have draft applications or draft agreements that uh town's legal council has prepared that they're reviewing. Um once those are complete, those will be put on a council agenda for council to consider extending those agreements out another 10 years, which would uh give the town until 2039 um to to initiate auction. So, the appraisal examined the four distinct areas uh known here as Corors site, Willow Springs, Wgers Wash, and Apache Wash.

The map to the left um summarizes the different acreages and uh zoning of those lands. So, you can see, you know, on the top right there's Willow Springs. Uh it's a total of uh 720 acres, 660 of which is open space conservation. Um, moving clockwise, Rogers Wash, uh, is split between DR43, open space conservation and open space recreation.

And then down in the bottom, core site, uh, has multiple zoning categories, um, including open space conservation, open space recreation, and then last over on the west, the far west side, Apache Wash, uh, open space recreation. So, the appraisal just looked at the open space zone lands, the two categories of open space, uh, conservation and recreation. The map on the right um, is just I I put in here as as kind of a point of reference. You're going to see some pictures in the next slides.

Those are pulled directly from the appraisal report. The corresponding numbers on that map are the location points from that the the appraiser went out and actually spent uh several days doing field study of those lots and taking pictures and and that went into their report. Did I just exit out of this? Brian there. Yay. Okay, I I just turned 45 and this is already starting to happen. It's starting to get unwieldy at best. So, we'll get into uh the beautiful pictures of various sites.

Uh if you have ever gone out in your backyard and looked around, you might recognize some of these photos. Uh the appraisal considered various factors including allowed uses for open space recreation and open space conservation zones. Obviously, the availability of water resources and other utilities, accessibility topography considering flood zones and steep slopes as well as comparable sales. And then the four areas were given an ASIS value conclusion. There we go.

Um, with that, uh, staff based on, uh, previous conversations with council, um, working through the budget obviously and and other things and looking at a calendar, um, staff has prepared some options for council to consider giving direction u, with staff to proceed. Obviously, first and foremost, uh, would be finalizing the extension of the current IGA.

Um, I think both parties, the town and the state are in agreement that that should be done regardless of of what further direction comes out of this evening and and in the future. This just gives us an additional kind of safety net um for the town and protecting its interests and and ability to petition the state to auction that land to us.

Um the first option would be the town considers working with partner stakeholders like Desert Foots Land Trust, Maropa County Parks and Recreation to prepare phased acquisition approach including management and other cost sharing opportunities. So similar you know why I put that 30 acres early in the slideshow. Um there is kind of a set precedent for town working with um other stakeholders to identify and acquire and preserve land. Uh albeit the scale of this is much different.

Um, but it's it's something that should still be considered nonetheless. This makes again the 10-year extension even more valuable is that we can set milestones um and take down targeted land areas over a a period of time. The other option is the town would consider acquiring the entire 4,05 acres all at once through a voter approved measure. Uh staff has already identified uh key dates in 2026. um whereby the uh council would need to call an election no later than May 7th.

Um so presuming council would put this on their agenda May 5th of 2026 to call the election. Uh the election would be held it's a general election November 3rd of 2026 and then um we would come back to the town council depend depending on what direction we're given tonight to outline. Oh, did that not make it in there? Oh, I had one more slide. So, one thing um that slide wasn't in there. I apologize. Uh one thing would be preparing a a public outreach.

So, beginning in January, we would do a community survey. Um, and then we'd host a series of openhouse meetings. One thing I recall from when we went through this process, I was actually on staff when we did the annexations and reszonings. Uh, we actually went out and held uh neighborhood meetings in people's homes in their living room. Talked about the the zone the transfer of density from zoning with the state.

That's how the 240 acres of commercial land got reszoned on commercial on Carefree Highway. that was the trade-off to allow for this open space. So there was a give and take and then you know the transfer of of density and uses. So um something along those lines um that type of effort we you know we'd still host meetings here but one thing we learned from Michael Baker when we did the general plan is you cannot always expect people to come to you. You've got to be willing to go to them.

So, we would identify some stakeholders, hold some neighborhood meetings in their homes um to discuss this matter and and what the implications are. Um and if there's any questions, town manager Miller would be happy to answer those for you. Questions from council? Dusty, you pushed your button. Yeah. Um, could you put your ASL slide that shows the map? A couple things to consider. Well, I'll wait for Brian. There there's a couple things to consider.

Part of the reason that we want to keep that open space um is that it provides a significant portion of the groundwater that goes into the Desert Hills wells. Without that groundwater going in those Desert Hills wells, um the town of Cave Creek owns that Desert Hills Water Company and we would be on the hook for buying more water for them. We're already subsidizing them to the tune of 600 acre feet a year. You're talking about quite a bit of money that we would have to sink into this.

The second reason that you want to do it, how many people love to see Elephant Mountain? Just raise your hand real quick if you like to see Elephant Mountain. But you won't see Elephant Mountain in the future if you if you don't see that. If you take a look where the spur and conservation is on the left hand side of the map there, that blue area right to the left of it is the back half of Elephant but something to think about. If you don't buy the open space, it's going to come back.

And having watched it happen in California, having watched it happen in Oregon, having watched it happen in Washington State, having seen it in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and other places, builders will build wherever they think they can make money, and that whole area will have multi-million dollar homes on it, and that those lights will be shining down right on you. So, just something to consider when you when you think about this.

Now the other thing that that is kind of tied to this and the reason I asked the finance uh Sherry and finance why you know when the water bill was coming due if we take the expected cuts that we're taking with the central Arizona project we're going to have to acquire water that water is going to be significantly more expensive than anything we're currently being provided by the central Arizona project.

Without that additional water, we're going to subsidize Desert Hills more than we currently already are with our water allocation. So, this could be quite an expensive proposition. So, there's a couple things to consider when you do that. I'm not as crazy as I look. I do try to take take a take a longer term view on things. You have to take a look at what's going to happen five or 10 years from now. Let's say we buy the land at one fell swoop. You're we're we can't do it by raising sales taxes.

We're going to have to go to a property assessment just like we did in Spur Cross. You're going to have to do something along that nature. For the average homeowner in Cave Creek, that would be about 180 185 bucks a year in increased property tax for the 20 years it would take to buy the land. So, there's going to be some pain for this, but is the is the gain worth the pain? And that's the question you guys will have to decide. Thank you. Other question, Cynthia.

Um, Luke, in the core sites that are identified on the map, uh, are the rodeo grounds included in any of that or is that still separate consideration with BLM? Uh, correct, Council Person Driscoll. Uh, that is outside of the um open space that we're discussing.

the the federal lands are not rep uh not indicated on this just the state properties others Joe so we've talked about how we'd raise the money for this or if we do it in one fell swoop one thing we haven't talked about is fundraising privately I think that should be considered if this goes on the ballot we'd have a year at least to figure this out pretty soon actually but there's a lot of different people in this town that creative that have ideas about fundraising.

It doesn't have to be people in this town that give us chunks of money. It can be anywhere. This is a popular topic right now preserving land. And Cave Creek was pretty much founded on the whole premise that we would have open space and we'd be different from everybody else. And we're right here. We can't let this go. I agree with Dusty that even though some people say it can never be developed because it's on a slope or whatever, these dudes from these other states have so much money.

these private investors that they'll do it. I mean, look at Rio Verie. They developed that. There's no water there now, but those guys are happy in Chicago, wherever they're from. They made their money. But, um, we definitely could talk about that too, I think, in the future. Um, I even thought about maybe even doing a Crave Creek Visa card where like 2% could go to a fund that's established just for um, this land preservation. So, it's something to think about. Other comments, questions?

Oh, this is question. Well, yeah, it's question time, but this is kind of an open discussion. I mean, we've got to at some point here, we've got to give direction to staff. So, uh, if you've got ideas or questions, I got a comment. Somebody ought be thinking about a motion that's going to come up here shortly. I' I've got one written here. Our open space has defined Cave Creek. There are, I think, two reasons that we want open space. One of them is that we love the desert.

I mean that's been shown by the people who have supported us who threequarters came out to vote for spur cross. Threearters approve spur cross. But there's something more here and that is probably what's most important in preserving our land and preserving the desert is the people that we bring in to Cape Creek.

Cave Creek is not the same as some other communities and I think we need to pro to project that and I think that bringing in others who have the values that we have in terms of honoring the desert will preserve the commitment of the town going beyond getting the open space. It's the ongoing commitment and and getting that that's so important to me. Thanks Luke.

Luke, um assuming the worst case scenario that our community decided not to help fund this purchase, um how how likely is it that it would be developed? How much of that property could be developed? How many homes could be built assuming one per what five acres or less than that? So the um Vice Mayor Roy the the zoning and county prior to annexation was R RU43 uh which is one dwelling unit per acre.

The negotiations um that took place during the pre-annexation period moved essentially that one unit per acre density down to the commercial zoned property along Carefree Highway. There were some other zonings in the core site that took took place as well to to consummate the deal between the three annexation areas, Willow Springs, Rogers Wash, and Apache Wash. Um to your question about how likely they are to be developed, it would take um quite a quite a bit of things to occur.

Um the zoning would have to change. Um the state has um stated that only the town council can affect zoning in its uh boundary. Um so first you'd have to reszone it. Uh council would have to reszone it to another um zoning category in order for it to be developed. Uh the reason they were identified as open space areas is because of the extreme topography, access issues, and lack of water.

Uh, currently I don't know that the approximate 4,000 acres of residential, it's about 20 or sorry 3,750 acres of residential um have the water for it. Now there's no water entitlement for those. So it remains to be seen whether or not the the residential pieces will ever develop at least in until the water issues sorted out. So, to answer your question, it would take a lot. And to hypothetically go through those this evening, I I'm not sure I could do. I I do have a comment on that.

Um, be careful about saying that that the state allows that. Anybody here heard of Axon Corporation in Scottsdale? Yep. Axon got appro Axon was turned down by the city of Scottsdale because they didn't bring enough water. They wanted to build, 1900 high-rise units. five stories uh along the south side of I7 uh I'm sorry of the 101. Um they were that that zoning was taken away from them by the state and they were told shut up and let them build.

And so they're building 1900 high-rise units right off the 101. You remember the open space where all the car tents would be during Barrett Jackson and the other car shows? That's the area that they're developing. So, never say never with the state there. Yeah. Um Luke, can you put that map up one more time? I'm sorry. Or Brian because I need to use it as a prop if you'll just indulge me. If you look at the map, it's like a jigsaw puzzle.

And if you look at the light blue, which is spuros ranch, 2235 acres. Sorry, let me put that closer. Um the 2235 acres is shown there in light blue. And um if you stop and think this evening on this issue, what would have happened had we not gotten the 2235 acres in terms of what would have been built there, the golf courses, the hotel, the conference centers, the town homes, and so forth. And if you look at development as a townwide effect, transportation corridors usage and so forth.

So if it hadn't worked back in the '9s to save spur cross, the community would have a very different it would be a wonderful life redo with Jimmy Stewart where it wouldn't be Bedford Falls, it would be Potterville. So if you look at the dark blue, it's almost a jigsaw puzzle that finishes the work started with Spur Cross Ranch. You couldn't have a more dramatic example of the amount of land that's being looked at.

And I think that what worked last time was the public private partnership between volunteers and the community. Councilman Freriedman mentions private donations and so forth. I mean practically last time was forcross Ranch. We had bake sales, we had art sales, we had a lot of things that would be considered colloquial perhaps, but the most important thing at Cave Creek I think is what people perceive as quality of life.

And uh I had just arrived not too much before Spur Cross showed up and my biggest fear was that I would be the guy who would be here and lose this and all this would happen. So, we never knew what we were doing to be candid and we made it up as we went and the volunteers probably held us to a higher standard then maybe they do today.

But um I think this is almost a perfect opportunity with the council taking the leadership that it's shown to this point working with the staff to give the public a second opportunity to build on what they purchased in the past and possibly see they want to do it again because the effect of enhancing what has already been achieved with the amount of land that's being proposed is measurable in terms of quality of life in Cave Creek whether it's transportation corridors, whether it's lighting, whether it's construction traffic or whatever way you want to designate it.

Uh it is such a golden opportunity. The voters today in 2026 will not be the voters that were here in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. And we have probably less longtime residents and more newer residents. And uh I asked my wife what her position was and to my utter horror, she said, "I'm not going to pay for that." And I said, 'Well, I'm not even going to count your opinion.

But it did show me that people 30 years ago had a different idea towards recreation and open space than they may do now at this later age. So I don't take it for granted that this is something that will sell itself. But Mr. Mayor, I think the thing that would work in Cave Creek is if you if you build it, they will come.

If you present an opportunity for input, I believe there's no shortage of people who will have an interest and raise their hand to volunteer or contribute or want to be involved in this regardless of the outcome. There was no certainty last time and we bothered poor old late Senator John McCain to the point of distraction and mayor campaign in Scottsdale and Mary Man Ross and Carla who headed up an environmental group over in Scottsdale.

We it it I know we were obnoxious and I know we were multi-layered in terms of bumping into ourselves. We had jeep tours up on the land up there for any politician. Governor Simon flew in. Uh they use the sheriff's helicopter and I can tell you never sit backwards on a helicopter because it's a test of motion sickness. So I did one helicopter tour up there. That was that was it. But anyway to not give a filibuster.

Um, I think that it's an intriguing opportunity and you're testing not only the voters at the November elections next next year, but I think you're testing the residents in the community to see if they want to be involved with their town and they want to volunteer and they want to partner with this potential to improve and secure our quality of life in the town. So, um, I it almost feels faithful or providential or whatever adjective you would want to use.

And I know I bug you a lot on this theme. I have I have for a while, you know, I know I do, but I am uh appreciative of how we got to this point this evening with the kind of detail and discussion and uh it's the ultimate witness test to see what people really care about and what they think. So, I'm obviously excited. I can't help myself, but uh it would be great to try to go out uh even 30 years later and convince people like my wife that this is a great opportunity. So, thanks, Mr. R.

Other comments or questions? Is it uh comments and questions both because we're not going to have well we'll have a vote but uh we need to get all the uh information out first. I vote for the bottom or buy the whole thing in one buying things peace meal. It never comes out right. We're going to have a another election here for state government and who knows what the next state government's going to look like. We have an opportunity now. We either go for it or we lose it.

So, uh, the debate on the, uh, proposal to buy it all now through a bond. U What does the council think about that proposal? Are there any, uh, better ideas or No, I I would support, uh, giving the public the opportunity to step forward and buy it all at once. Um, I've heard, uh, comment from residents and neighbors. Uh, better to do it now than to wait to see what happens. There are just too many variables, too many unknowns that we won't have control of. uh in the near future or far future.

So if we have an opportunity and support to do so now uh it would be worth the try to do that. Um, knowing that, however, I would agree with Councilman Auggerton that you can't predict what voters are going to do and we should keep in mind having plan B, which is what are other finance options either through uh general fund allowances, budgets each years over the next 10 years to at least get portions of that state land as a as we can afford it.

Joe, so yeah, and I agree with what they said as well, but again, fundraising can offset these costs. So when we finally get to that that juncture, we'll know, hey, we raised four million, three million, it's going to help us out in the long run. Anything privately we can bring in for this. We don't have to go for 18 million right away. Maybe we're going to go for 16 or 12 million. And not through bake sales either. I'm talking about hitting up heavy heavy hitters here.

We we we do have some time. I think that and the purpose tonight is to give staff clear direction so that we don't uh u alter in the wind. So we want to cut away as many other other options as we can and get that direction. But even the one the the most u the bond issue we still have some time to make changes. I mean we can still change what we buy, how much we buy. Um so there there is some time or or fund raise. Yeah.

Uh there's there's still time to do those things, but it gives staff the direction because it does take some time to get this all put together. Um any other comments? I'm going to open up to the public if uh if we've finished here. Just one last thing, Mr. Mayor, and getting back to Mr. Freriedman's comments. Um the appraisal is actually for 16 million and then we've added expected bonding cost and interest costs and things like that.

So if any money is contributed by the town or is independently raised from other sources, it lowers the 18 immediately. Yeah. Because the 16 was actually the appraisal price. Last thing I would say to the point of bonding again, I'm sorry, but the one acre of land on Carefree Highway for McDonald's sold for a million and the dog washed right down the street sold for 1 million.

Getting this type of land at this quantity for that price, I'm not encouraging anybody to pull out their calculator and do a per acre cost. And then lastly, just to slip one more point in, uh, Mayor Francia and even some people in this room were part of the original work on this. And the transfer of density down to Carefree Highway was the price the town paid in exchange.

We need to finish that dream and finish that effort because when that density comes up on the north side of Carefree Highway, hopefully we'll produce sales tax dollars, but it's going to be intensive development. And that was the price that was offered to be paid back then. Not financial but land use impact by the town in exchange for trying to preserve the hinterland.

So in a sense the town with previous councils and previous mayors have already made their down payment with the arrangement they put together many years ago. So anyway, thank you sir. Okay. So with that we'll open up to public comment. David Phelps. Um, Aron Council, David Phelps, Cape Creek resident. It's been a long road uh to get here. Over the last five years, I've been asking the town to set aside money from our operating revenues.

We just heard tonight that we overestimate the money that we need by 25%. You took 20% of that and left a conservative other 5% in the funds. You're still talking about having a fund that's 10 million in excess of our expenses. I think out of 10 million that the town could squeeze out a little bit of commitment towards this effort and the uh formula was set and it was uh derailed in 2017 by the need to uh prop up the water companies.

And so after the derail, the discussion has never really come full circle to the fact that we need to get back to the commitment that was made by Mayor Francia and his council. And that was after they signed the agreements with the state land department that the commitment from the town's revenue was part of the spurcross ranch sales tax. this year that would could and should add $977,000 to the preservation effort.

I think it's a wasted opportunity if we don't use these resources equitably to the residents. And this is a residents issue. You're not really going to see the international rodeo people come here to say, "Yeah, let's move some of that money from our sky boxes over to here." You're not going to see people that are going to come visit our new multi-million dollar town hall and say, "Yeah, let's don't do the town hall. Let's buy some land up there." We've got to say it so you you hear it.

But you're the leadership that can make the difference over the next 10 years in providing the seed money and that seed money can grow very well and there's no reason not to do it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Bilbasaur. I'm Bill Bassour, Cave Creek resident. Thank you all for showing up. It's amazing. Um hopefully I'll get the map up here. Strangely enough, I find myself aligned with Tom Auggerton and Dusty Roads.

And I think that that's probably like having the planets come to convergence. I want to suggest that what might be a good idea is to form an ad hoc citizens task force to study this. We had success with that. And I want to give you a couple of kind of interesting ideas why that might be important.

We've already done some density transfers and when I look at this I see some other opportunities to do that in particular we actually lack a really good bridge still from the east and west side and in this acquisition we have the opportunity to do that also see all those things the corsite u that surround Cave Creek Regional Park that's our our natural partner for those things let us citizens go to work and we'll will try and optimize this amongst ourselves. And you know what else we'll do?

We'll sell everybody else on this idea and we'll get buy in from the citizens. And Dusty, you're right. Don't you wish we bought this when interest rates were 2%. Life would be a lot better right now. This is our opportunity right here. And Council Member Freriedman of I want one of them credit cards. I think that is a great idea. And I think we have I think we can do better than bake sales on this. So again, empower the citizens to work for you.

We work as cheap as you do, which is kind of an amazing thing. And we got good results the last time we did this. Thank you, Charles Moranto. I'm Chuck Moranto, Cave Creek resident. I just want to point out one thing. I am entirely into this deal because I've missed too many real estate projects in my lifetime to let another one slip by. But um be aware that we need a commitment from Cave Creek to maintain the property.

Uh right now there is loads of junk being dumped out there daily by landscapers, by builders. There's piles of concrete. We need we're going to need to budget some monies every year to keep that place clean because it's a mess right now. I I walk through there every couple of days with my dogs and everything and every day there's more junk piled up in there. Uh the state has done a terrible job of maintaining the property and I I'm just asking you that that we need to do a lot better.

Thanks very much. Thank you, Janet Moore. and a more Cave Creek resident. I am so excited about this. I can barely contain myself. I was lucky enough to work with Ian back when the do uh deny transfers were were all in play. Um I sat in a lot of the committees uh along with the other town people and I also sat in a committee. There's actually some commercial land in there too that we were talking about doing some sort of a spa resort. Um, but it is just a phenomenal a phenomenal opportunity.

I wanted to do it back when the bonds were low at 2% because it it just made sense, but we were just never able to do it. Axon is so true. The Arizona state legislators stole the city of the citizens of Scottsdale vote. They stole it.

and the citizens are stuck with 1,900 votes even uh apartments even though they signed referendum to not allow that and they went behind their back and there's our great legislature um Joseph Chick even said that there were people that were bribing the other legislators to vote that in. It was disgusting. So don't think that we're safe because we're not. The only way to keep our skies dark, too, is to buy this property because the the dark sky international is not going to do it.

Our ordinances are great, but if you don't have any houses, then you're going to have dark. So, that's how to do it. So, this should be something that everybody should be behind. And although I am not a believer in property tax, I would be so worth $189 a year. Are you kidding me? Is that the right figure? I heard I would be so on board with that. I'll kick in $9 more. I would be so I would that is so worth it. Do you know if we didn't buy spur cross? Do you know how much that would cost today?

Not beside the fact that it would be destroyed and and you know who's going to come in and buy that? It's not going to be people popping wells. It's going to be people that are going to put cap water in and they're going to put town houses and apartments. Don't think that PY homes or Toll Brothers can't get around like what Axon did. They're going to they're going to come in. They're going to they're going to reszone it.

Our zoning is going to go out the window and we are not going to have one house per five acres. We're not going to have one house per acre. We're going to have a bunch of little houses. We're going to have a lot of people, a lot of lights. I am so for saving this. That's the only way we can do it is to gain control. Thank you. No additional speakers. No speak. Okay. Um Yeah. Go ahead. Um, I was here in 2017. I was I've been here since 1996.

I'd like to respond to um what David Phelps said earlier um about using current town funds to purchase this property. And while that may be possible to some degree, we need to remember what has happened since 2017. First, we had back-to-back wildfires in 2020. which forced us to build our own fire department because we were threatened by the state and other municipalities that they would not help us in case of another wildfire.

Hence, $5 million later, we have the Cave Creek Fire Department, which I'm sure we all know is worth every penny. But now, there's another fire department that we're building in conjunction with Daisy Mountain on the west side to protect the west side of Cave Creek. That's another $2 and a half million dollars. So, and this is constant ongoing expenses to maintain these fire departments. Again, worth every penny. We didn't have any options.

Glad we have it, but it's coming out of our general fund. Uh secondly in 2017, we had cap water at a reasonable cost. We've been suffering from an extended drought on the Colorado for as long as I've been here and as long as I worked there. It wasn't as prevalent as it is now. It wasn't as critical as it is now.

We're being threatened by half of the states that get Colorado River water in the upper basin that they're not going to take any cuts and that the lower basin, which is us in California and Nevada, will have to suffer the consequences of this long-term drought by taking as much as 30% of our current cap allocation. Huge amount of water. Not enough for us to service growth in any way. probably enough for us to service the current population, but not enough for the future.

So, we're looking at new water supplies. We're budgeting $5 million for new water supplies to acquire, if we can find them, let alone afford them. This is money out of the general fund. And finally, uh, we built the Phoenix Interconnect, which originally had a cost of about $6 million, jumped to 20 million at postco, and we're still waiting for a $2 million federal grant that was awarded to us. So, we're paying for that Phoenix interconnect, which is hugely critical to Cave Creek.

We have, just as a reminder, one pipeline from CAP in Phoenix to Cave Creek, 12 miles long, 30 years old. Imagine if that pipeline had a severe break. We would be out of water. It's our only water supply that that services the majority of people in Cave Creek other than those who have wells. So, we needed that Phoenix Interconnect. It's going to save us in multiple ways to have a backup supply with Phoenix in addition to protecting our current pipeline. $20 million for that Phoenix Interconnect.

These are the expenses that we're facing today in 2025, not 2017. We didn't have any of those expenses. So when we say we can afford to take it out of our general fund, we cannot. We do not have it. We might have a million that we could allocate. We don't have more than that. We have current critical expenses to protect all of us and our and our home properties. Our property values depend on our on our reliable water supply. So, please understand that it's different now than it was in 2017.

Other comments? Um okay. Um I actually I do have one final comment. Um it must be a strange day because I agree with Mr. Bour. I I do think we ought to have a citizen advisor here working with the town manager to come up with options for this. So whatever we pick your mic's not on. Push the button. I know. Um, don't push my button. I would never do that. Um, I I do agree with Mr.

Basau in that we we ought to have a citizens advisory panel to work with the town manager and staff um to to figure out different options for funding this.

I do think we ought to go for as our first option going for the buy everything and then if that doesn't work out we can't arrange the financing it it falls through uh in November 2026 election then we come to the backup plan which is buy whatever pieces we can buy and that's how I think we ought to proceed just my two cents others well okay I'm going to make a motion Then um and like I say and Dusty said, others said too, we have some time to to craft this thing and to go up, to go down, to change, but to get staff clear direction on where to go.

I move to direct staff to plan and hold ne and take necessary action to purchase the 405 acres of Arizona State uh land department by issuing bonds um uh using a a uh a sunsetting property tax to pay the financing costs. Second. That's a motion. Um so any discussion on that motion? Question mayor. Does that include extending the current intergovernment agreement with Arizona State Land Department? Oh, absolutely. We've already started that. That's that's we already approved.

We haven't approved the contract, but we've told you to do that and you're proceeding that way. Okay, that is correct. Mayor, um to Council Member Driscoll's um point, bring that up. That was in the suggested motion. And the reason why we wanted it is so it was very clear that that's part of our strategy. So that's part of our backup plan as well as um the acquisition of the 4,000 acres.

Motion to amend your motion um that we uh continue on with the IGA negotiation and get it signed as soon as possible. Oh, that's neat. Yeah, I accept that. Yeah. Okay. So the motion is that we uh add it on then to and extend and I'll just write and extend the IGA. Perfect. Mayor um in your motion you use the term property tax. Do we need to talk to the attorney to say property assessment?

Is there If I may, um just for clarification, whenever um a municipality um has voter approved general obligation bonds, they're only um the property tax is only good for the duration of the bonds until they're paid off. So, I think the mayor's point was well made um but he was much more explicit um making it very clear that he doesn't want the property tax to continue. Yeah, this probably test goes away when when the bonds are paid right? Other comments on this? Are we ready for a vote?

Ready for a vote. Okay. Well, let's do a voice, I think. Okay. All those in favor say I. I opposed. Motion carries 70. And we are on to we're on to item number three, which is council discussion and possible approval of the town of Cave Creek becoming a designated dark sky community. So, uh, mayor and council, um, we are before you tonight with, um, consideration of either becoming a dark sky designated community or or not. And so tonight, um, you're going to hear some background information.

um senior planner um Stephen Pales will be giving you a presentation that provides some background and then what um is required to become a dark sky community. As a staff report indicated um the planning commission considered this um text amendments that would be required to become a dark sky um uh community. We cannot go through those text amendments tonight um because it's already at the commission level and they will not be addressing that until um September at the earliest.

But tonight is a pivotal point um for you to give policy direction as to what you want to see happen relating to dark skies. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Pales. Good evening. Oh, is this on? Can y'all hear me? Yes. Okay. Good evening, Mayor Morris, Vice Mayor Ray, and then uh council members, um Vice Mayor Ray, welcome back. I'm glad to have you back. So, um what I'll be going through was Yeah, that's right. I'll just move closer to you. All right. Is this better?

Oh, you guys you guys make a lovely couple. Well, you have issues with the computer. I have issues with the microphone. So, I don't know what's going on. Um, so what I'll be doing this evening is just going over what the requirements are to be dark or for Dark Sky International and what it takes to be certified on that end. Um, if I happen to get a little bit off track, uh, Bill, legal counsel, please stop me in the track. So, I'll try not to go into the amendment portion.

I'm just more stay focused on what the requirements are and what they mean. So, I'll be presenting the slides, but I'll al leave them up, but I'll go more into detail of what those slides mean. Um, so to begin, um, as far as the reason behind the proposed text amendments and and such is is because, um, it it's the research that we conducted to it was the most appropriate tactic to research and conduct and bring back before um, council as requested in the coun uh, council action.

Um but it's also supported in the general plan and the uh and the strategic plan as far as preserving dark skies. Um there's also an action in the general plan which I will be presenting this slide um to further uh investigate uh dark of benefits of dark being a dark sky certified community. So, I'll be showing slides of the strategic plan um of the safe and vibrant community.

The town of Kaf will update support and provide policies, programs, and events that su uh sustain our vibrant, unique, and authentic community. Our community can come together to celebrate and preserve its culture and history while enhancing its quality of life. Sustainable relationships with the community will be cultivated through resident and business engagement, outstanding customer service with clear and accessible communication. Uh the action item within the strategic plan is dark skies.

Explore the dark sky implications for the town. Um so in in the general plan uh the general plan addresses several times um dark skies and is it in the vision and values? If you'd like me to go I just leave it up there. Um I think we can all read it stick. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Just going over the slides. Um and this is more presenting that where the support comes from. Um it's also in the general plan natural resources.

Um in this natural resources I action um at the last one bullet point it says continue to evaluate guideline requirements and benefits of becoming an international dark sky association certified community. who was uh previously known as International Dark Sky Association. Now they're Dark Sky International. Um but that would still be the similar uh uh what we've done is to evaluate the guideline requirements um as directed by council.

So I'll begin with the dark sky international ordinance require uh ordinance requirements. So one of the requirements is or the main requirement is to uh to develop a comprehensive lighting policy that is consistent with the requirements which is a model light ordinance. Um and I'm just going to go uh summarize with with the slides. Uh so one of the items being um to require light fixtures to be fully shielded where a fixture output uh outputs more than 1,000 lumens.

Um just to note I'm just going based off our current ordinance. Our current ordinance is more restrictive since all the light fixtures that are fixed on a building and parking lot lighting are to be casted downward and shielded. Um, another point is that there is another requirement where color correlated temperature is not to exceed 3,000 Kelvin. Uh, our current ordinance is more restrictive in that item where we do not allow for any light fixture to exceed 2700 Kelvin.

The only exception would be for uh for fixtures for recreational facilities where they're allowed to uh go up to 3,000 Kelvin, but that's still consistent with one of their requirements. Um the other the other uh item that they ask for is a restriction on a total amount of unshielded lighting such as lumen on limit on lumens per acre on a total site. But however, we don't allow for unshielded light fixtures. So we cross the uh checks on that with our current ordinance. Um let's see here.

So they also require a policy to address over lighting. Uh how it's currently written. Previously they had it where it was either you apply a flat flat allowance on either zoning district or individual parcels ba based on size or is at the discretion of the community. Uh the other previous requirement was a policy to address over lighting. way to address that is to implement a policy with lumens per net acre.

Um, however, as it stands right now is is just states, it's a pol a policy to address over lighting. So, working with Dark Sky International members, several of them, um, it's kind of swayed a little bit as far as our guidance as what's acceptable. Um mainly because my main question was what is really to address over lighting that is acceptable now other than the previous practices and that hasn't been uh very uh really clarified other than what they used previously.

So, we were researching alternatives um and having working on that item and I don't know if um we want to go further into that bill is that we were seeing some challenges on what what they were asking of us. Correct. Are we allowed to speak on that?

shouldn't go into specifics other than to say they have been somewhat imprecise regarding the need of having rationality the standards they're imposing and you deciding to impose them based on objective criteria if you decide to authorize us to proceed we will have to identify that we've been able to disabuse them of some of the clearly illegal provisions they wanted and they've backed off there are others that are more questionable that we won't get into because that's what if you decide to go forward that the the commission will resolve And but you will be the final arbiter.

Bottom line is Stephen has done a good job of of confirming with dark sky that we have the constitution, we have statutes and we need to we need to follow them and they've taken out the most difficult and challenging provisions. We still have some other provisions we have to work through. It wouldn't be appropriate to get into those because we have to wait till the commission gives you a recommendation. Thank you.

Um, another item would be uh to have town facilities and town um uh publicly owned outdoor lighting to also be brought into compliance and new light fixtures to be compliant with um with the town facilities uh and publicly owned outdoor lighting. That meaning just if we have street lights in the ride ofway or anything that would have to adhere to what the ordinance requirements are.

Um the other requirement of dark scan national is that there must be restrictions on installation operation of illuminated signs. Uh so evaluating what their requirement is. Um we we are more restrictive in that end because we don't allow for internally illuminated light internally illuminated lights. um we allow for them to be halo lit or um but they cannot project or push the light outward. So we've already we're already more restrictive on that end.

Um the outdoor recreational facilities uh and or athletic field. So this is more of just this requirement is based off more of athletic fields such as um soccer facilities, baseball facilities, uh softball facilities, etc. Um, our current ordinance addresses outdoor recreational facilities, but the preference having worked for Dark Sky International members is that to also clearly identify um athletic facilities and how are they to be utilized to be consistent with their requirements.

Um the last item that is a part of the requirements is uh a 10-year amorization period where after the date that is adopted of the ordinance um that all lighting is to be brought into compliance uh within the town of Cave Creek. And I'll let uh Bill go more into that if you if you're able to. I I don't I just did. We we don't need to worry about that one because that's not going to be in the ordinance. Understood. So with that, I do have this question, but I want to have a conclusion.

Is that staff has learned from several members of Dark Sky International that all requirements must be satisfied in order to be accepted to present a proposed ordinance of Dark Sky Committee. If all items are not met, the application can be rejected. It is also important to note that just because an application is accepted, it does not guarantee that the ordinance will receive a certification. It is ultimately up to the dark sky international committee.

To date, staff has not been given any assurance that the proposed amendments will be accepted by the committee, meaning it will not be approved. Um the only only that we have worked with several members with Dark Sky International where they have varied opinions on certain times. Um and no and no Dark Sky International members have clearly confirmed if this would pass at a committee level. So with that, um I leave with leave you with questions for staff for questions. Yeah.

How much of a change is it from our current lighting ordinance? How much of a change is it from our current lighting ordinance? There's as far as a change there. There's just more in depth. Council Council Member Rhodess is just it's very hard from to answer that question from my perspective as far as what's from working on this. It's just more clarity and more clarification.

What items are really changing is that um that would be that that would be a key point to mention is that the um luminance peret acre for unshielded light fixtures. Currently, we do allow for ambience lighting such as beastro lights to um be on properties and that would be considered unshielded um if they're out in the open um and not or not under a uh solid roof or an eve. Um if it's out in the open, not and not covered by any uh roof roof element, then it's considered unshielded.

And that's the item that would be the major change within the ordinance. You're not you're not going to stop people from getting beastro lighting. It's not going to happen. But yeah, that would be the biggest change though, Council Member RHS, is the lum is having to put a either a flat allowance on um unshielded light fixtures with lumen output or um to do lumen peret acre for for those. I don't view either of those options as a showstopper though.

I mean, we can petition for a for an exception. Understood. And I I I mean, quite honestly, um, we have we have very few places that have I mean, there are very few places I can think of that keep on their lights all night. So, I don't I I mean, I don't even understand why this would be a problem with them. And that is a that's a good comment, Council Member Rose, of petitioning for an exception on that.

um we have asked that and it's it's more of the language criteria that has to be met in order to do so. So that that so happy to glad correct. All right, mayor. Yes, Cynthia. Uh just to follow up on uh council member RH's question back at the March 3rd council meeting when we discussed this and it was voted on I think u manager Miller had indicated that our current ordinances were very close. we only needed to make a couple changes yet.

Looking at the document that went to the planning commission, it seemed like extensive changes. Would you agree that that was more than anticipated when we discussed? If I may, and then Stephen can follow up because Stephen's much more close to it. So what the text amendments without getting into the details um basically it's restating what we already have in a different way.

So um there are some things that are unique and different and that is for instance we are stricter on you saw Stephen show like for um signage we're much more strict on illuminated signage. Dark Skies International allows um some additional uh variables that that we currently do not allow. Um but if I were to estimate, and Stephen can jump in, I I know that our current ordinances, there's some housekeeping we need to do.

I would say we're probably close to 90% of what we have now that people are not aware that are in the dark sky tax amendments are very similar to what we have now. So, it's just restating it in a different way. And there are some there are some differences, but for all intents and purposes, people would not really know the difference. Meaning that the regulations that exist today, a lot of people don't know we have these regulations today. And so, but I'll I'll turn it over to Stephen.

He could probably add a little bit more to my comments. Certainly, Council Member Disco, uh, to again have to be cautious on how I answer it. really it's just more of um when stating it that we were almost there and a couple changes really having to clarify that is that the Dark Sky International looks for certain language. So it's more of that we do meet it in certain areas but we have to be more in depth to meet to satisfy their requirements.

So it's just for example would be our current ordinance states that uh with outdoor signage that um internally illuminated signs are not prohibited. I'm just paraphrasing. I'm not going based off the ordinance. So internally illuminated lighting is not prohibited. The signs have to be either halo lit or uh have a a fully casted downward shielded light projecting onto it. Um they want that more in depth and and clarified to satisfy the requirement. So I mean yes we we meet that requirement.

We just don't meet their language and that's what we had to go more in depth in in certain areas. Thank you. I have another good let's get everybody one shot here. Council member, does commitment to Dark Skies International mean that we basically have to accept their wording on the ordinances within uh 10 years? Um no, not not with the 10 years.

Um, as far as to answer that question that we have to meet certain language criteria for sections to satisfy the requirements I had just demonstrated in the slideshow, the 10 years is just for all outdoor lightings uh and to be brought into compliance. That's that's all I could really state at that moment. I think the best way to look at it um it's like a a college catalog. You're admitted into college and let's say you're admitted in say 1990. Well, they're going to hold you or 2000 or 2025.

Um, they're going to hold you to the course requirements or the degree requirements and let's say they they have other updates that occur say two years after you've already been in college, you are going to be held to that 2025 catalog, so to speak. So, that's the best way to kind of put it.

So once if this were if the council were to want to go forward with us tonight, any of the text amendments, if they went through the whole process and and the text amendments were adopted by council and then submitted over to the Dark Sky International, then what is adopted by us, the the town council, and approved by Dark Sky International, then we're locked in and any f virt uh future changes that occur at their policy level wouldn't affect us.

So you're locked in under that particular year that it went through and um we have since going through this process found that there was a major update. Was it in 16 or 18? Correct. From 2018 uh they updated it just in 2023 and some were going off of the previous and and some cases the newer requirements are actually easier. In other cases they're more difficult with the newer. It just depends. But I I hope we answered that because that that's a good question.

We've heard a lot of people ask about, you know, and they're only the body that provides the dark sky designation. They're not involved in enforcement or anything afterwards. So it would be the town enforcing its own ordinances. And if the town wanted to be dark skies, you know, into the future, they wouldn't have to continue if they chose not to be. But thanks.

Um Grady, not to make you the poster boy because I know you're not, but um for those of us who live in Arizona who've traveled to some of these states, most of them appear to be rural, although you have metropolitan and Tucson, Flagstaff. The rest appear to be smaller communities, even maybe fringe communities. Can you just give us any history of what took place in Fountain Hills? What first brought the issue up? uh what were people's reactions to it?

Uh that's a pretty conservative community out there. I'm curious as to what your observations were during the process of consideration and adoption. Sure. And what if you go to Fountain Hills, I don't you're not necessarily as aware that it's a dark sky community, I don't think. But what do you what was your experience like when you were the manager over there and what advice do you have for this town? Sure. Um so when I was the manager of Found Hills, um this process started in 2016.

I was a manager in 15. Um what actually precipitated it is the town had a capital improvement project that put Ballard lighting all around Fountain Park around the lake and there were people that and it went through a whole public process and people were involved in that.

They came back after the summer like in October after it was done and they were seeing reflections on a lake they previously didn't see and they were upset about it and the the lighting you know caused glare and and some other things. So that initially precipitated it but like this community um like Cave Creek found hills was already dark sky like already. There were no street lights.

I remember I moved into uh my street in in Found Hills and my wife said, 'Hey, I think you might want to say something to the town. I think our street lights are burned out. And I I said, 'Yeah, you know, I I've noticed it's been dark since we moved in. Next day I asked. They're laugh. The staff's laughing at me. We don't have street lights in this town. I'm like, "Oh, okay. I didn't know that." But that was prior to us becoming Dark Sky.

Um there was a group of people former um one of the first council members that served on council following incorporation really got behind this um and convinced our council um that this was the right thing to do um trying to protect because just like here we have in in that particular community mountains and beautiful stars and views and things like that.

And yes, just like our town, there is on the fringe and in and found hills, there are um you know, the the glow from Phoenix and Scottdale and and Mesa all kind of occur much like we have Phoenix to the south here. So, they were just trying to protect their their night skies and that was the the thought behind it. was very easy for us to go from being dark sky like to dark sky because we already had a lot of the same regulations that the dark sky international required.

So that that's why it was relatively accepted. There were also a lot of what I'd say people from all different um sides of the political spectrum that were um very much in support of of dark skies. So, I got a couple questions. Okay. I've got a barn. I keep my light on in my barn at night um over by my hay because I don't like rats or other vermin crawling in. Now, my lights are shielded and downward. Is that going to impact? Do I have to turn it off at night?

Um my understanding is so long as the conditions you just outlined, um that is correct. Um, if if we're having issues where people are it's it's bleeding or causing issues on a neighbor, then that would be different. But if it's just for safety purposes, um, dark sky um, allowances are first and foremost the lighting you need for safety and security are allowed. Yeah, I really don't like the idea of rats in my barn. That's just not a not a good thing to have.

But the the lights are are focused downward. The horses don't like it. they spend the night out in the arena. Um, so so much for that. But it's not a problem that I keep my light on as long as it's shielded. Same thing with blocking paths that have lights and things like that. Yeah, I've got I've got little, you know, solar lights that have a cap and everything shines down. So, those are okay for safety and things like that.

So the only the only thing is Stephen you might want to jump in and um so we do have that would be okay um like it is currently um but we do have requirements on the on the type of lighting fixtures currently um so like the lumens and all that would have to all be in compliance member roads is it in the barn or is it a fixed outside the barn? No, it's in the barn. It's in the barn. Got the hay in the barn. Mhm. So, we wouldn't view that as an outdoor lighting fixture.

Outdoor lighting fixtures if it's out a fixed to the building of the exterior. So, uh for example, there's one that uh we went through where someone had a tack room fully enclosed but no door and you can see the hay, but there's no actual no light. There's not a light fixture in it. So, it's considered an interior light. Yeah, I've got a tack room that that's lit and I just close the door. So, it' be it'd be considered interior lighting on that end.

But I I also have right next to it a place where I store hay. Um and that's lit 24/7. Like I said, I I don't like the idea of rats getting in the in the horses. And it's with inside the barn, correct? Yeah, it's inside the barn. Yeah, I'd be considering there is some bleed just simply but the way that the light goes, it bleeds onto my property almost straight down. Correct. So that's okay. That'd be viewed as an interior light. Correct.

But any exterior light that's fixed to the exterior of a building, um there's no restriction as far as time. It just that it cannot be left on from dusk until dawn. So meaning that if you leave it on all night, then that would be a violation. If you turn it off within within the hours of the night of the night, and it comes on at 3:00 in the morning, is on till 6:00 in the morning, that would not be a violation. Has to be off at least for a certain period of time throughout the night.

And that's current. That's a current or the external, right? That's correct. Mine are all internal. So, I had another question. How much money does this cost? What's what's what are the dollars involved? I'm not I'm talking with Dark Sky International. What do we owe them every year? What What What's the cost? There's an application fee. I think it's the $250 application fee and I think there may be an annual fee. I haven't if there's an annual fee then just the application fee.

There's so 250 bucks we get dark certification. Now, my understanding is Fountain Hill, Fountain Hills, John Kavanagh got him $20 million to build a build a planetarium. We've got 4,500 or 4,05 acres we're looking at potentially purchasing.

Gee, maybe we ought to get uh John Kavanaaugh and some of the other people down in the state legislature to cough up some money so we can put a telescope out there so people can enjoy the dark sky and maybe pump it somewhere to like the library where you can see what they were looking at the previous night. Just a thought. Um I I do have one final question. Is dark sky How often do we have to audit?

So each year, my understanding is um there's an annual report that the staff would submit to dark sky just showing if they're um correct Stephen. My understanding is that if there's any changes or anything then we would report that but then we would just continue to do the same annual report.

What's a little different for Cave Creek versus other communities that might be dark sky certified is we don't have things like ball fields or tennis courts or things that maybe the lights weren't in compliance at the time of becoming a dark sky community and usually those cities or towns have a certain period of time to get those in compliance. We don't have that issue here in town. Okay. So there's not any real impact on businesses.

There's not very much impact on existing homes because everybody's grandfathered in right now. My understanding that's according to state law. So the impact is only on future growth. Correct. Or if people come in to modify their properties. So if there were um if there were modifications, someone's doing say a new landscape plan and um they would need to go through plan review like they would anyways, right?

um that's when they would identify as part of that process if they had something you know that may not be in compliance. But that would be what we do now for our own ordinances. Correct. Correct. Anything that is legal non-conforming that can be proved in legal non-conforming. If they do any expansion or modification to that portion, then it would have to be brought into compliance. So, and everything that we're doing is is by people reporting your neighbors reporting you. Correct.

If there's a uh concern that a light fixture is not in compliance with the current ordinance, then yes, it'd be a complaint based driven system. So there's not going to be the thought police running through the town with little light meters, you know, ratting everybody out. No, Council Member Rose, there wouldn't be. Okay. Yes, it is. Yeah, this is a normal normal part of the meeting. The rest of us are being left out. You'll have your chance to speak afterwards.

Everybody's gonna we'll have public comment. The public is observing the council doing its job. That's what's going on right now and public participation comes after that. That's all I've got. Thank you. Other comments other questions from council. Currently, what are the Okay, thank you. Currently, what are the limitations on businesses in terms of the timing of lighting on their properties?

The current ordinance requires that all commercial properties have their lights turned off uh half an hour after the close of business or after the last employee leaves. That's the current ordinance and that's what we have now. That correct? That is a current or is that in compliance with DSI? Um that's not even a requirement with Dark Sky International. It's something that we would implement. Um or it may be let um I'm sorry. Um we'd keep it. We would keep it. We we'd keep it in the ordinance.

It's not going to change. We've already had that requirement set in there. So, so I have a question for Marshall Stein. I am D. Marshall Stein, I have question for you. Um, since the dark skies ordinances in town here were adopted, I believe what 2017. Um, how many complaints have you had to go out on roughly estimate? Um, I assist with the, um, nighttime inspections. I do one probably monthly.

Um, if we have a lot of complaints in, um, as far as answering that question, Council Member Freriedman, um, they're probably about two or three properties a month that I go to. Sometimes they're the same property. Um, and there's really no findings of any violations on that end. And it's for light trespass is the main concern, but um, to answer that question, probably two properties visited a month, if that. But would you say that since we are a small town, most people talk to their neighbors?

The most people do resolve it by talking to their neighbors and asking if they would be able to uh change out the light fixtures. But as far as answer your question, when is warranted a nighttime inspection? Um, very few complaints on that end to go out and do a nighttime inspection based off a complaint filed with the town. Thank you. Other questions from council? Okay. Uh, public comment. Before you do that, you told me to Oh, I promise a break. So, we'll take a 10-minute break.

Be back here at 7:10, please. Okay. Um, call to order and we are ready to proceed. We I understand I understand we have 33 cards, which is the most cards I can recall. 33 times three is 99. So, we're going to be here and this is about halfway through the agenda. So, I'm going to ask everybody to please be be concise. Please honor the uh the lights there. And uh one of the first things is please let us know whether you favor or or disfavor this.

So, we we know probably tell by your comments, but um and um if if someone has already made the point, uh you can just say you agree with them. You don't have to go through the entire point again. So, we'll we'll get through this. So Teresa, who's number one? Star Thornton. Sorry, Mayor Morris. Am I on here? I can't tell. No. How do I turn it on? Yeah, I just I need to speak up. Mayor Mars, Vice Mayor Reier, Council.

Um, first of all, I would like to compliment Dusty and Grady on the great little play we just got to observe. Thank you, gentlemen. Uh, second, uh, the handout that Teresa gave you is the Bortal scale. The Bortal scale clearly shows that our town is not dark skies. is no way in this earth it's ever going to be dark skies. A representative from dark skies said our skies are fouled and we wouldn't get astroourism so there's no money coming into the town from that. Mr.

Sims said that it would be a nightmare to try and well I'm not I shouldn't say nightmare because he didn't say that. He did state it would be a challenge, I think, to enforce all of this. If I have to get into the horse thing, I mean, I have horses. I no longer breed. I no longer have horses that I'm showing. Horses that are being shown need to be under lights. Mars that are being bred need to be under lights. I don't know any other way to say it. Um, our town is all about the dark skies.

It's not about not about a designation. Okay, we have dark skies. Steven said it. Steven said it would actually be brighter if we would were to pass dark skies. I am just I'm at a loss for words, actually. So, that's my thing. Uh, also I want to thank Stephen for all the time that he has put into this. I know it has been busy for him because he's had a lot of people calling him and complaining.

And I also want to thank anybody here that is in opposition to Dark Skies, for showing up, for writing emails, for sending a comment card. Thank you. Thank you, Michael Werner. Hello. My name is Michael Wener. Um I'm a professional satellite designer and uh I've spent a fair amount of my career working on various types of uh satellites, some of them astronomy satellites. For example, I was one of the designers in the James Webb Space Telescope.

The United States spends billions of dollars to investigate the universe. Your tax dollars right now are going some of it up there, some of it on the ground to try to understand what is going on. It's been a primal human question since we've started being intelligent of what are those things up there. So, we have a desire to try to figure this out. and I spent 30 years in Los Angeles and I tell you, you don't see stars there.

So, I'm pleased as a punch to be here in Arizona and have the opportunity to see dark skies. They've gotten worse since I've been here for about 12 years, but we can definitely keep it from getting continuing to get worse. Some people seem to be worried that we're going to go neighbor against neighbor. I don't think that's going to happen. I mean, we've got ordinances right now that it sounds like very few people are violating. Um, it's not going to be any change.

What the change is is that we're making a statement that this is important to us, to humanity. It's a political statement that it's not okay to become a Las Vegas and pollute the sky. So, I encourage you to go ahead and go to this. This is a informal. There not going to be international police coming by to check out your light meters. So, it's informal. It is going to make a statement that this is important to us as a community. Thank you. Thank you.

I want to remind everybody to please uh say where you're from. If you're from Cave Creek or another area, please state that. Okay. Thank you. Mark Boston, Cave Creek resident. I'll try and be quick. I sent you all an email earlier today with kind of my thoughts and opposition to the dark skies. Um I think Cave Creek has already made a statement that we closer to the mic. Sure. Is that better? Yeah. Yes. Okay.

I believe Cave Creek has already made a statement that we care about dark skies just through the current ordinances that we already have in place. I don't see any additional benefit that we're going to gain by trying to be a dark side community and getting one of these international certifications. Uh, I just am trying to understand why everybody's pursuing this when it's already been voted down twice in the past and here we are trying to do it again.

Our ordinance is already better than what they're asking for. So, what is this certification going to get us? If the city decides to move forward with this, there definitely needs to be some exceptions and cutouts for equestrian and uh, a livestock type activities because we can't shut the lights off at 10 o'clock. And that's all. Thank you, Ron Silva. Ah, mayor, vice mayor, councel, Ron Silova, Cave Creek, Town Corps resident. I'm for dark skies.

Cave Creek, in my opinion, currently has dark skies. Being a member of Dark Skies International, I believe, will not cause our skies to become any darker. Continued growth to our south and west will continue as we've you've talked about tonight and adding to the existing light pollution and all of that goes unabated. So, in my opinion, it's not going to get better.

Several residential communities and commercial properties have been constructed in recent years, which do not pollute our skies because they followed our existing town lighting ordinances, which in most cases are more stringent than what Dark Sky International would propose. Cave Creek is regulating its lighting with its current lighting ordinance ordinances which do not require any outside influences, controls or specific regulations.

Cave Creek was founded as a western equestrian eclectic community and has grown without the need for outside certifications controls requirements or regulations. Our able-bodied staff is quite capable of maintaining, improving, and regulating our current lighting ordinances to maintain our dark skies. without any outside suggestions, thoughts or influences. I would remind the council that this item was rejected by council I believe if memory serves me right about six maybe seven years ago.

So let's keep our community the western equestrian eclectic town we all moved here for without the need for outside influences controls certifications etc. Therefore, I feel that responsible governance suggests you vote no on this agenda item. Thank you, councel. Tom Claire. So, I'm Tom Claire and I'm a a resident of Cape Creek and I'm in favor of dark skies. Uh my wife and I moved here in 2006. One of the reasons was because of the rural nature of Cave Creek.

Also, um the wildlife here, the open spaces, the hiking, but also the pretty amazing dark skies. Um I know it's not perfect here for dark skies because we have, you know, evil Phoenix to the south of us on the other side of the mountain, but the stars here are still pretty spectacular.

Um, I've been a professional photographer for my entire career, and I can't begin to tell you what a joy it is to just step out in my backyard, photograph the stars, and get international awards for the photos that I've taken in Cape Creek. We have an unbelievable opportunity here to be recognized internationally uh this community for dark sky community by people who share um our desire to protect what we have.

We need to protect these skies and what you all were talking about earlier about getting more land around here to protect it. It goes right along with it. you know, we need to protect the skies, too. And this is just another way that we can do it by having a dark sky rating, an international dark sky rating. Um, it's going to be in all the information about Cave Creek.

Uh, it's going to get all the press, you know, that we're known as international dark sky community and that gets all the people in this community involved. And there's a lot of spin-off things too from it. when you're a dark sky community just like they've done in Fountain Hills. They have um they have um um things that go on where they invite people there to talk about the stars and everything. And already, you know, Bruce is doing this stuff uh up in Spur Cross.

So, it's a great educational opportunity not only for the adults, but the children uh really like this, too. So, that's all I have to say. Thanks. Thank you, Bill Bassort. Let's see how fast the slow talk and Okokei can move here. Actual dark skies are a thing of the past for Cave Creek. The first thing that DSI told us in the public meeting was that that ship had sailed. Nothing we could do would change that. So why are we even having this discussion?

Like so many issues, the devil is in the details. We do not qualify to be a dark sky place. That is a place they send you to observe dark skies. To do so requires that the Milky Way be visible to the human eye. We are now and have been for years far too bright for that. The DSI people told us that five years ago. The only certification we do qualify for is a dark sky city or town. The only qualification for that is a restrictive lighting ordinance. That's it. No dark sky required.

Sounds simple enough. The basic requirements are included in your packet. One of those requires all private and public lighting to be brought into compliance in 10 years. Of course, we know that's illegal. Number of other things as well. Doesn't matter because we're all grandfathered in. So what we're really saying is it's not going to have a measurable effect even if we did it. What we learned however when we found out that that didn't apply was everything was negotiable.

In fact you you charge the staff to bring you a definitive list of what it was required and there is no such list because it's not like that. A committee decides that. So the final say when the final say on your ordinance comes from someplace else, it is a stretch to say you are in control. Now if this is starting to sound strange that for some reason the specific requirements are set in soft mud, there's a reason for that. It never hurts to follow the money. They only charge the town $250.

One time you're signed up for good. But DSI licenses a dark sky approved logo for a lot of things. They do this to manufacturers. If you manufacture lighting, you will pay $3,000 to sign up and then another 350 for every one of your products. They have signed up over 180 of these companies. The way this works is pretty straightforward. When you go to Home Depot or Lowe's or a dark sky certified town, you're going to look for that logo and that's the light you're going to buy.

I wish I had thought of this idea first. It is a great marketing scheme. So, if we want to follow the money and understand who we are getting in bed with, you can look at this. And I also would recommend all of you take a look at their form 9990. That's their their tax return because this is a lucrative business. The the real question to me the purpose of government is the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens.

It must do this with the least impact upon our freedom and liberty given that even DSI I'm [Laughter] out. I want to close with this. You need to tell us what the benefit is when you take our liberty away. Thank you. Not that Vicky Dirkson. Hello, I'm Vicky Dirkson. I am from Fountain Hills, Arizona and I have been part of the effort in Fountain Hills since 2017 and um we were designated in 2018. So I got to be part of this whole process. ask all the questions you guys are asking tonight.

And I have to say that in Fountain Hills, our residents wear this certification as a badge of honor. And it is a flag that we love to fly in our community. And um we we have had we don't even have as incredible skies as you do. You guys have stricter lighting regulations than we do. There's a few things I want to clarify of um some inaccurate things I've heard tonight based on um our work with Dark Sky. I also have worked with nine other communities across the American West um on this issue.

First of all, Dark Sky International is about responsible lighting and so even Jackson Hole Airport recently was designated as an urban dark sky place. There are different levels of certification. Um uh uh the annual report that was brought up, that's an annual report. It costs nothing. The biggest thing that we have to provide to them is an annual sky quality reading um from four different locations, the same place every year. It's very simple to do. It's submitted by town staff.

Um, as far as Dark Sky International making money off of this, they are a nonprofit. Um, they have gotten $250 from the town of Fountain Hills and not a penny more. And we've been certified since 2018. Um, this is really all about um I what was your name? Tom, somebody who spoke. Um, this is about recognition. Dark Sky International is not controlling anything. This is about recognition.

You guys have worked really, really hard to create an incredible lighting code and my hats off to you because ours isn't even as good as yours. So, I'm very jealous. And so, this is about recognition for the hard work that you guys have done here and can continue to do. Um, we've had unanimous support in Fountain Hills from three mayors now, all town councils since the beginning. Um, there were a lot of questions like what you guys are asking tonight in the beginning.

A lot of uh misunderstanding about things that have been cleared up. Arizona is a multi-million dollar state when it comes to astronomy, dark sky communities, and you guys, just like us in Fountain Hills, we call ourselves a dark sky oasis in the Valley of the Sun. And as I was hearing um Tom, I'm not sure how to pronounce your last name, talk about the conservation efforts here. incredible. This is where the desert meets the sky.

And so I encourage um council to um approve this because this is an incredible recognition and feather in your cap that will not be ignored anywhere. Travis went. My name's Travis went uh on Buffalo Chip in Cave Creek. I won't repeat everything Bill said, but I think Bill kind of hit it as a really high points um that Bill brought up. Somebody is making money on this somewhere. Whether it's a nonprofit redonating money back to other projects, somebody brought up an observatory.

I don't really want an observatory in here. No offense to a Fountain Hills resident. I don't want to be like Fountain Hills. I don't want to be like Flagstaff. I don't want to be like Sonic. I don't want to be like those people. I think Cave Creek is unique and different. Um, obviously I oppose Dark Skies. Um, I think the impacts that we're figuring into what the new ordinance that we saw at the planning and zoning commission, I think we're only looking at the primary impacts.

If we start removing lighting, then we start having to secure our businesses in other ways, whether that's IR cameras that can pick up a night image, um, just to be able to to secure our stuff. So, I think there's a lot of impacts that aren't being discussed here, including flashing Christmas lights that will be no more. That's not true. That's what the planning and zoning commission. Thank you. Okay. That's exactly what Please direct all comments to council. Thank you, Lisa Greenman. Says that.

Lisa Greenman. Good evening, council. Lisa Greenman and I am in favor of this. Um for the past uh six years we've been exploring and Reese's put time and money into figuring out uh if Cave Creek should be nominated for dark sky certification and during that time there have been many opportunities for the town to ignore this effort.

The one time they did they did they voted against the non-binding resolution when we were going to explore it like we did for the trails um effort but instead of the town has always chosen to embrace the idea of dark skies. We are we Cape Creek wants to be a dark sky town but in the past six years we have not achieved this on our own. Lights have increased in some areas and improved in others. It's hit and miss and clearly we need a structure to give us some sort of guideline lighting practices.

Um maybe a uniformed uh having the uniform code so that the structure comes with certification and our new proposed lighting or ordinance. There's one thing I want to say. It's really easy to be a rural town when you are a rural town. It's quite another thing to maintain the look and feel of being a rural town when you are near expanding city lights. And it can be done, but it won't happen if left to chance.

And Mayor Morris, you spoke to this so eloquently at the last council meeting, pointing out that we all need to realize that times have changed and we shouldn't just virtue signal when we want to have opportunity to move forward with we need to have opportunity to move forward with solutions. Dark sky certification is an opportunity for civic pride. It's a solution for the town that wants to keep its rural character.

Also, it's a way that if you in the future, let's say they want to put electronic billboards up on Carefree Highway, well, we're dark sky certified town. So, it's a non-issue. It makes things more simple. And this is not about no lights at night. This is about using your light correctly so it doesn't shine up and pollute the sky or shine out across acreage and trespass into other people's homes. The only thing being asked of anyone in this room is to be thoughtful how you use your lights.

And don't be a jerk if your neighbor asks you to stop a light from shining into his home. Know that your lights affect those around you, their health, and the animals health. And a good example we have of what happens is the library lights, which we all love that look like little moon pies flying in the sky now since they've been shielded.

Uh recently the town has invested in dark sky nomination certification and the staff was directed to update the lighting ordinance to be dark sky international compliant. Steve Morales has done a lot of work with staff and they've worked with the consultant who is a dark sky expert and the town had several open houses for businesses and residents to have input and ask questions and at this point the town has spent considerable tax dollars on considering dark slice certification.

I want to say the good news is that there is an elegant solution to all of this with no downside and that is to vote yes for moving forward with nomination for dark sky certification. It's a win for the town. Everything is in place. There's no further cost to the town to be certified and it if it doesn't work out then we just leave it. That's it. So it's an opportunity for all of us to find out whether dark sky certification is appropriate for Cave Creek. no harm, no foul.

So, vote yes for certification tonight. It honors all the hard work and all the uh countless hours that people are put into looking into this and whether they be town people or citizens. So, thank you very much for your time. Janet Moore. Janet Moore, Cave Creek resident. I'm taking my $189 back because I do not want to hear anybody talking about preserving that property and putting a big old auditorium there for public to come and look at the stars. That's not what I want it for.

I want it for preservation. Preservation is preservation. All right. Now, getting on to this. I did not appreciate what was the discussion going on. And I I will look into that. I I'll look at the tape later and maybe talk to someone. Um I'm just I just don't understand. Why are we doing this? Why are we spending so much time?

I understand that now we're going to be hiring an assistant for the for the town manager to help do some of this business and we've wasted all this time on an ordinance that we've already thrown out before. Maybe we shouldn't put so many man-hour on things that are so simple. We already have dark skies. We've already said they've already fixed the lighting at the library. They've already done that. We we've knocked on people's doors and we've told them to please turn your lights down.

We don't need to be this thirdparty company or business or whatever it is to tell us what to do. I vote for you. You make the ordinances. I abide by them. I don't need Dark Sky International getting involved. Period. I don't want a certification. I don't care to be on the map. And in fact, on property values. Let's take a look at that. Do you know why people move to Cave Creek? Because they don't want to be told what to do. So, who's going to move to Cave Creek?

Because when you go to all these different houses, I might have something nice, somebody next door might not. Somebody might have horse trailers all over the place. We're turning. We're going to have to be an HOA and we're just going to have to forget about the horses because nobody in with a horse is going to want to come here and be told when to when what to do. It's not going to happen. That is our uniqueness. Our horse community.

I lived in Scottsdale at one time and and all the horse people were kicked out. I remember when the ride to Fountain Hills was all big lots and desert and and now it's all little tiny houses. And I don't want to be like Fountain Hills. Fountain Hills doesn't have houses or horses. Fountain Hills has homeowner associations, gated communities. They're not Fountain Hills. And their business district, if you've ever been there, because I have gone for dinner there, their lights are out.

There's there's no business there. That's how we get our tax revenue is is Cave Creek uh our our main street. There's absolutely no reason for this. There's 70 chapters, by the way, for Dark Skies. And I believe that that once you get the certification, then they can um make money on selling the merchandise. I do want to add too, the grandfathering in is only if your house is from before 1985, and everybody has changed their lighting since 1985.

So, I'm going to say that nobody's grandfathered in and they will have to change your lighting. And I just bought new lighting for mine because, as you know, I was turned down because I bought Dark Sky International. It wasn't wasn't good enough for our already strict town and it cost me over $800. So, get ready for that. The town might not have to put extra money out, but you're going to have to when you change your lighting. Thank you. Thank you, Kathleen Bait.

Good evening, Mayor Morris, Vice Mayor Royer, and the rest of you, all of council members. Um, Kathleen Bay, Cape Creek resident. I am in favor of Dar Skies. Um, you hear the argument that we don't need this. Why do we do this if we already have all of these uh ordinances in place? Well, why not do it? You already have the ordinances in place. It is a recognition. No, we don't want to be like Fountain Hills. Fountain Hills is unique in itself.

If we want to be like Cave Creek, I know that the animals um when you breed, you have to and when you show, you have to keep the light on to protect their hair coat. I get all that, but that can be that can be addressed. They're not roaming around out in pasture. There could be just as uh council member Rose was indicating, he has the light on. It's protected. It's inside. It's not outside. Um so I'm in agreement with the dark skies. The town website, we've talked about it.

it already supports it. The general plan already supports it. Um the speaker, the person before me already mentioned that was another one of my points. We put countless hours into this. So why not recognize that and go for the certification? It's there. If you don't want to buy the dark sky lighting, don't buy that brand. The town's going to be following their own ordinances for their own lumens or however you measure all that and you're already satisfying those things.

General SC is not going to come in and tell you what to do. If they can make money from somebody else and sell selling that merchandise, great. I don't have to buy it. I I have low lighting in my house. I Everything is the town is beautiful. You can see the nice guys. I don't want to lose it. Phoenix is south of us and I see them to the west of us from my house and I see that glow, but that doesn't mean it has to come up here. Once we let it go, you're never ever going to get it back.

And if you're in support of the five 4,000 acres and if you can secure the 4,000 acres and keep it open space, maybe put some CCNRs on it so it runs with the land and it never gets changed with the zoning. I don't know if that's legal or not. Maybe. Um, but if you're in support of the 5,000 acres, it would seem as though you have no problem with keeping the skies dark at night. Watch the moon when it comes up. It is absolutely gorgeous.

The full moon up over the foothills, the orange, beautiful color. Three days in a row, you get to enjoy this. So, and and that I'm not real clear on everything that was discussed at the planning meeting. I wasn't able to attend to that. But if it's just a matter of a workshop to get the ordinances changed, to get the lighting that needs to be where it is, if it's truly housekeeping, don't let that be the holdup for certifying dark skies because you gave the planning commission a directive.

And if they're pushing it out, I don't understand why it's being pushed out to September. It should be something that should be already aware. If we've been discussing this for six years, they should be aware of the things that are happening. I'm not saying they're not, but don't push it out. If we have the ordinances that cover everything, this is just like a recognition.

I don't see it as a control and and you're hearing that it was never that way in Fountain Hills from the town manager and from this lady who lives there. So, I'm in support of Dar Skies and I'm sorry that there's opposition to it. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Ernie Bunch. Well, I'm going to Ernie Bunch. I'm going to claim dual citizenship. Um, still still have a house here I sleep at sometimes. Um, three of y'all up there remember the last time this was before us.

It was a uh looking at the dark sky. It was international dark sky then, not Dark Sky International. And uh what we did is is I played Neville Chamberlain and it worked out just as well for me as it did for him because we're still back here like six years later. Um the the the problem here uh for me is is we're we have involuntary subjugation with the federal government, state government, and the county.

Now you're looking for voluntary subjugation to an international committee or a group where we don't have any say so in in their in their guidance. Um the uh town of people when I first got elected in 2005 was uh we had a population that was fiercely independent and they didn't want to be told what to do. Uh maybe that's changed, but I always said that move here like in 90% of it want to change the 10% that they don't like. Well, that's somebody else's 90%.

You got to be real careful when you start messing with this stuff because these people can be pretty darn um uh orary when you when you tick them off. You're gonna find out if you go ahead and keep going down this line. U the other thing is I got a problem with the fact that the town has uh donated $2,500 to uh to this organization locally in order to uh educate the people about it. And what you have, you have people fired up. I think that's a legal issue.

I don't think that you can actually this council will ever be able to legally make a decision on this without interference from the attorney general's office. Um, when you do something for a group of people, you're doing something to another group. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Abraham Abate. Good evening. Uh, I don't have this big speech or anything written, but what I want to share is an experience. Last night, Kathleen, my wife, and I, by the way, I'm a Cave Creek resident.

So, Kathleen and I were driving from Carefree Highway, made a left turn on Cave Creek Road, and it was like coming into a breath of fresh air, quiet, peaceful, calm. So, as I'm driving home, I'm thanking the Lord to giving us an opportunity to live in such a great place. And I realized that all this work that has been done is for one purpose to preserve. The issue of preservation is what do we do to leave something for the next generation. Everything is subject to change.

A certificate says here is the benchmark. This is what the town is representing and we're going to maintain this benchmark for the generations to come. And to me that's the simplest thing. What do we leave for the next generation? Thank you. Marcy Kman. Hi all. Thank you for having me here. Um, and thanks for being here. I am opposed and I'll start with that.

I would invite you all to come and visit my house which is up on Grapevine, very dark and I open up my patio and I step outside and I see the Las Vegas Carefree Hotel lit up like a firecracker and I know that there's nothing that we're going to be able to do about that. We also can't do anything about Phoenix. We can't do anything about Carefree Highway that's always on fire there with as far as the lighting.

Um, I'm concerned mostly my horses are across the street from my property which is cut through by grapevine and quite frankly it is so dark and people drive fast. I have to cross that street. Right now I use a flashlight but I would really like to have just a normal light that I can turn on outside my barn for when I need to go there like now to go feed.

And maybe it needs to be shielded and I understand that which my interior lights are all undercover, but it, you know, I'm telling you it's dark and I have to walk across the street through a, you know, an area that is pretty dark and I'm concerned about everybody else's safety when they step outside. Last time at the planning commission, somebody talked about um that they heard noise outside their home and they lit it up with external lighting and I think it was Bill. Yep.

That you know that for the safety of the people possibly breaking into your house or the safety of me getting broken into. I 100% agree with you that we we have dark skies but there are other circumstances involved.

the um the Cave Creek government website showed that we were that you or that the government had already adopted this and there were pictures and I happen to know that that picture was not from Cave Creek and it got taken down immediately because I think enough people brought attention to it. So anyways, I'm really in opposition to this. I don't know why we have to have anybody in our business why our elected government would want to bring in somebody else's ordinance and have to abide by it.

So, thank you. Thank you, Bruce Arland. Arland, Cave Creek. I have remarks, but there's been so many comments I made just riff this thing. Well, I'll just say this. So, I did turn in to Terresa Reza, our town clerk, and to Grady Miller, uh 145 petitions, which is a partial actually of uh people in favor of uh you voting yes for us to become to actually start the process officially. Tonight, if you vote yes, we're not voting to become certified. We're voting to start the process.

Okay, that's super important to understand. There's still an ordinance to review and to refer from PNZ. Then you guys have to vote on it. There's still a few tweaks, but by and large, Dark Sky, Dark Sky International, and their board has uh agreed with uh generally what uh our town staff uh directed to do. worked very hard on u the text amendments to the lighting ordinance. They agree pretty much on that. Uh uh our town attorney weighed in and talk to Dark Sky International too.

So there's generally an agreement with a few minor changes to be made. I did want to say that uh well I really just urge you to vote yes. We've been working at this for a long time.

six years ago when there was a non-binding resolution brought by Ernie Bunch and myself actually nonbinding resolution that's just to discuss it was voted down four to three Ernie Bunch his name was on it and so is mine he ended up voting against it oddly enough I I name you Ernie because you said to me we should do this you actually said that to me and your name is on that resolution And then you voted against it. And I say that with great sincerity, everybody, because what was that all about?

Non-binding resolution to have a discussion. That's all it was. And now, six years later, I urge you to do the right thing. And what is the right thing? Council voted seven to zero to move forward on a text amendment lighting ordinance. It's in our general plan overwhelmingly voted by the citizens in the town's strategic plan saying the same thing. Essentially, multiple town newsletters positively talking about dark skies all the time. It's on our website, Town of Cave Creek's website.

Dark skies. We love dark skies. The interest is high. We have bike week. We have everything. We have I'm trying to find my spot. I've lost my spot. Well, we have a lot of civic stuff. This is a civic activity that people love. 600 plus people come every year to our annual star party. Nobody's telling anybody what to do. Dark Sky International, I'm going to say it one last time. It's not a government agency. They It's free and we can leave any time we want. Let's try this. and see how we do.

No one's telling anybody what to do. It's very close to what we have now. I'm over time. I'm very sorry. Please vote yes. Thank you. Bob Boris, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of council, Bob Forest, Cave Creek. One can value dark sky and still be opposed to seeding part of the governance of our town to a special interest international organization. DSI has no direct ties to Cave Creek and is led by a 13 voting member board, seven of whom are from foreign countries.

DSI offers a perceived benefit, dark sky, which cannot be fulfilled. The benefit is an illusion because DSI's certification cannot control what happens outside the boundaries of Cave Creek. Skylow glare and light trespass do not recognize boundaries. Dr. John Bington, executive director of policy for DSI, July 19th, 2019 at the Foothills Library.

quote, "It's harder to do the tourism angle when you're situated at the edge of a big city, and it's not because of anything you're doing right or wrong. It's because you have a big city that's fing skies. Cave Creek exists on the edge of the 10th largest USA metropolitan area with a population of 5 million people. Growth around us is inevitable and is occurring as we speak. This is growth. This growth is fing our night sky and will continue unabated un by anything that we do or don't do.

We do not want to give control to DSI's preset one-sizefits-all model lighting ordinance into which we had no input and does not take into consideration our history, culture, values, or important issues facing us. Among the most egregious requirements are the amortization requirement which runs a foul of the Arizona Revised Statutes and ridiculous and arbitrary lumen limitations placed on property based on zoning category or net acreage.

Both raise potential financial and legal consequences for the town. Cave Creek's profile is a limited commercial lowdensity residential community. 75% of Cave Creek's land is 1acre plus residential lots. Our our outdoor lighting code matches our community profile and desire for dark skies by being rational, reasonable, grounded in common sense and legally defensible. And it doesn't take a lighting engineer to understand or or apply it.

Most important, it's amendable by us without the approval of DSI. Finally, we don't want to live in an HOA. In 2020, a sideby-side contrast and comparison Cave Creek outdoor lighting code was judged to be superior to DSI's model lighting code. A request to pursue DSI's certification was wrought by the town council at that time. Erosion of dark sky is not occurring because of what is happening in Cave Creek. That is demonstrable.

Go to a high location in the north end of Cave Creek at night and look at look at where the sky glow glare and light trespass are coming from. It's not Cave Creek. Look directly overhead and to the north. It's darker. DSI community certification would make us one in 10 uh would make us one of 10 in Arizona. The seven communities are the other seven communities are very rural with small populations located substantial distance from anything that file our night sky.

Two outliers are Flagstaff population 72,000 located 183 miles from Phoenix. Unique features of the LOL Observatory, US Naval Observatory, and NAU has an astronomy BS degree. The second is Fountain Hills. Certified in 2018, population a little over 23,000. Located 32 miles from Phoenix. Unique feature, International Dark Sky Discovery Center, expected to open in the fall of 2025. Costs $28 million. Distance from Cave Creek, 34 miles.

It's time to kick this valueless vanity project to the curb once and for all and focus on the issues that really matter in Cave Creek. Many of which we've heard tonight. Water in my opinion being the most significant along with open space. I urge your no vote on the issue to continue the pursuit of DSI certification. Thank you for your time. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. David Phelps. David Phelps.

Uh, dark sky comments are for all the folks that wanted us to respect us dark sky enthusiasts to respect property rights. All I'm asking is your light stays on your land. If we can all live by that, this would be so easy because we wouldn't have a problem. we would automatically meet dark sky standards. What we don't do here is say I need my property rights and I will take responsibility for my light. What we do is we say we want the value of dark skies but I need these lights on over here.

I want these extra lights on over here just just because it attracts more people to my business. What's happened is it's the accumulative value of the string lights and other lights that are there to make us look like a circus town that have driven part of the need for us to say maybe we need more regulation because we don't have people that are responsible property owners to take care of their own light. I am for the continuence of seeking the dark sky approval.

By the way, if you're upset about Dark Sky International, you better get online and start looking at all the international codes our town governs under, including the International Building Code, the International Mechanical Code, the International Plumbing Code. International is an internationally exchanged word for saying we're a big place. So, get over that part. That whole international dark sky thing is a little bit of a herring. It's not worth fighting over. Thank you.

Thank you, Jody Leenbe. Good evening, council, mayor, vice mayor. I appreciate y'all being here. I wrote, but I can't talk like an auctioneer. So, I'm just going to read what I can, what other people haven't covered. I am a Cave Creek resident, proud Cave Creek resident. Um, and I am opposed to this 100%. Um, the reason most people would say yes to this is because they simply do not know that we already have ordinances in place to keep dark skies in Cave Creek.

I would imagine if you asked off the street, would you like to keep Cave Creek a dark sky community? Most would emphatically say yes. Would you support DSI if it promised dark skies? Most would say yes because they are unaware that our current ordinances are more stringent than DSIS. The ones that are not more stringent are based on safety and common sense. At the planning and zoning meeting, I'll just bring this up. They said you couldn't have an address light that shines on your address.

that's against the lights ordinance in DSI. So, that's a safety issue. Um, and who benefits from this? Um, is it the residents that have to do their chores in the dark in the summer? Those that want to wait until the heat of the day to go shoot hoops with their kids in the driveway and toss the ball around to their kids to practice sports. We all wait until the sun sets and the heat heat index falls below the surface of the sun temp before we do anything all summer.

This requires lighting and it's illegal under DSI. So really the benefit is not to us. Somebody is benefiting and they're doing it for a profit. Don't let them kid you on that. U let's talk about liabilities. Who's responsible when somebody walking out on your property trips and falls because they can't see or steps on a snake because he can't see? You can't have your yard lighting in there. What you have now is legal but non-compliant under their standards. So, is the town responsible?

Am I the homeowner responsible for that person? I'm going to go back. If I I'm If I'm responsible, you're the one that told me I had to follow these rules. I'm coming to you. Um the town business part is the dark skies. We are dark as we will ever be. If you want to attract people to come to this town to gaze on the stars, just simply put it on our town's web page. Hey, we're dark sky town. Come here. That's all they're going to do. That's all we're going to do. Or put Dark Sky International.

Woo. It doesn't change us. We are already dark skies. Um, in the housing additions, uh, housing real estate, if your house has lighting, it is legal non-compliant. So if somebody's buying your home, it the sale could fall through because they want their house put into compliance before they buy it. So that's going to be a real estate nightmare. Marshall Stein doesn't have enough time to follow around all the stuff he has now.

So we have to hire somebody else to do that job that because this is going to cause problems with all your neighbors. You know it is. I have horses. I do chores. I'm not going to do them in the dark. I'm not going to do them in the hot of the day. And neither are you. You're going to use your lights. We're not going to follow this international garbage. It's a gimmick and we don't need to fall for it. No. She's noted uh in favor. Roger Bowek. Okay. Also noted in favor Karen Cheryl.

Hi, I'm Karen Cheryl and my husband and I have owned horse property in Cave Creek for over 30 years and we love Cave Creek and I am opposed to the Dark Skies Initiative. So, we currently live on Grapevine Road and it was originally a roping camp. And so, we have motion activated lights that go on at night when we have people come leaving their horses. We have uh a vacation rental, people drive in. We have to keep it lit. They are they do face down.

They do do that, but they shine out onto the driveways and the pastures where the horses are going to be turned out. I think everyone can agree here that the western heritage of Cave Creek is huge. It started back in the 1800s, late 1800s with cattle farms and then Spurross. and we've got Harolds and the the rodeo and it's a huge draw. That's why we came here for our horses. We left another area because the city was encroaching and they were not horse friendly.

I guarantee you this certification is not horse property friendly. If you vote for this, you are going to deter people with horses from moving here and living here. Cave Creek has miles of Crave Creek trails. I've ridden my horse to town. I've ridden my horse through the um Rancho Mñana up to Spur Cross. It's a huge trail system and that attracts a lot of horse people, a lot of western things. Cave Creek has a rearing horse as its entry sign.

You will be foregoing and putting a a damper on what makes Cave Creek's heritage and personality a big part of it. So, I am opposed to you voting for it. Thank you. Stacy Daniel. Okay. Uh she is in favor. G S. Good evening, mayor, council members, town staff. My name is G Serap. I'm a Cape Creek resident and I oppose.

I was born and raised in this beautiful sonor and desert and I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening and and to take part in a conversation that affects the character and quality of Cave Creek or character sorry quality of life in Cave Creek. Uh I'm here to express my concern about the proposed adoption of a dark sky initiative.

While I greatly respect the intent of protecting our night skies or believe this initiative may have unintended consequences that do not align with our town's unique values. Cave Creek already has strong lighting ordinances. We limit it unshielded flood lights, restrict dusted on lighting, and regulate low voltage landscape fixtures. These rules show we already balance responsible lighting with the with respect for the desert and its beauty.

For nearly nearly 30 years, I've camped at the same spot remote spot just north of here with some of my friends that I grew up with. When we first started, you couldn't see anything from the valley. And when we went this last year, I felt like I was camping in my backyard. um that didn't come from Cave Creek. It came from overdevelopment and unchecked sprawl across the valley. None of this which none of that which this initiative will stop. I also own a large telescope.

It's almost tall as I am at home which I you still use take in the the night sky. My fellow neighbors and I don't need a designation to appreciate the night sky. We live it. Uh, and while towns like Sedona or Flagstaff may benefit from this kind of branding, Cave Creek is not a tourist town trying to reinvent itself. We are a community rooted in history, privacy, Western values, and independence. We already shine without needing to go dark to earn someone else's certification.

Thank you for your time, your service, and for allowing public to be heard. Thank you. Thank you. Jordy Powers. My name is Jody Powers. I live on Morning Star and Old Stage Road and I'm in a favor of dark skies. I have a new neighbor that moved in across the street. Maybe I should um have you guys just drive down the road and see what's going on. It looks like a stadium. Now, if if I had horses, I don't have them right now, but we always had the light on for the horses.

Never never was a problem when never never. So, I'm I'm really um surprised at how many people that have horses are so opposed to the lighting. We have We have a home that has the lighting sidewalks and everything. They're low. Everybody can find their way. So, this has been very interesting to hear the opposing side and the pro side, but I am definitely on the pro side for Dark Sides. Thank you. Thank you.

Mike Hadock, Mike Hadock, Cave Creek, uh, Mayor Bob, council members, I really like our Cave Creek Dark Skies existing ordinances as they are today. I don't see any overwhelming favorable factors why we should be dark skies international compliant or be directed by a totally woke international organization. Yeah. Woke. Read the bios of their staff and officers. These people have anything but Cave Creek values at heart.

The legal implications of the 10-year amortization will be very problematic for 10 years and beyond to argue and enforce. Why create unknown future problems? I'm a resounding no to Dark Skies International. Please vote it down again. Beth Bulman. My name is Beth Balman and I'm in favor of the Dark Skies International. And the first thing I'd like to do is just thank all of you guys up there on the dice.

I know you work really hard to do the job that you do and I don't think you get enough appreciation for it and I want to just say thank you. Um, all right. So, on to this. Um, my husband and I moved here 20 years ago. And when we first moved here, we could actually see the Milky Way. Not every day, but some days. And it was really special that we could do that. Now, we might never be able to do that again because we have all of the light coming from the south from Phoenix and whatnot.

But I don't think that's any reason not to say we want to preserve what we have. And so, that is how come I'm in favor of the dark skies initiative. Why not have a set of guidelines that enable us to align with standards that we can all embrace and understand? And I believe it can be done in a way that protects all of the objections that have been expressed in terms of having the downward pointing lighting and just being considerate of our neighbors. So I don't see it as a big enforcement thing.

I see it as education process and really working together with our neighbors to do the right thing. So I'm in favor of it. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I have a handful of cards that indicated they did not wish to speak. Uh, Shelley Anderson, um, indicated opposed. Jeff Hill in favor. Martha Claire in favor. Cynthia Jones in favor. Miriam Frell in favor. Fred Daniel in favor. Shannon Preowitz in favor, Scott Howey in favor, and Jerie Manard in favor.

We also had uh multiple electronic comments submitted. 51 indicated opposed, 13 were in support. We had a non-resident in support and then we had two that were neutral or undecided including 145. Uh that does not include 145 submitted. Thank you my hard to speak. Uh, what was your name? I'm sorry. Christina Sanber Olympi. Um, I do remember seeing your name. I apologize if it [Music] hi mayor, vice mayor, council. I'm Christina Sanberg Zalinsky.

I wanted to come and speak tonight about something we all share, something that doesn't belong to one person or group, but all of us. the night sky and my support for the dark skies designation. Here in Cave Creek, we pride ourselves on being close to our environment. We have miles of trails, conservation areas, open spaces, and sweeping views. But one of our most magical views, the star-filled sky, is fading and something we often don't think about or overlook because of light pollution.

Over the last 30 years, I have noticed our views of the stars slip away. If the Milky Way fade and the magic of stargazing diminish, the great news is we as a community can do something to preserve stargazing for our kids and future generations. All across Arizona, communities are stepping up. Flagstaff, for example, the world's first international dark sky city. They prove they can grow, welcome visitors, and thrive economically and still protecting the night sky.

Through thoughtful lighting laws, the community cooperation, they preserve their skies and built a legacy for future generations. In Sedona, residents and businesses work together to re reduce glare, protecting the amazing night sky. Today, visitors come from around the world to see the red rocks and the brilliant starlight. Not only is that good policy, but smart tourism.

And in Bisby, a town known for its rich history and unique charm, residents took action to make sure that the stars remain part of that charm. They have seen the benefits in energy saving, community pride, and better sleep. So, why not Cave Creek? We have so much going on for us. wide open spaces, the love for the land, and a community that values conservation.

By adopting dark sky principles like shielding outdoor lights, using warmer tone bulbs, and reducing unnecessary lighting, we can protect one of the most precious natural resources, the darkness. This is not about turning off the lights. It's about using light responsibly, about safety and beauty, about seeing the Milky Way again, about keeping Cave Creek not just a place people live, but a place to look up and dream.

Because when we look up and see the sky full of stars, we remember something essential that we are part of something vast, ancient, and wondrous. And I think that's worth preserving. So, please vote yes to continue our work on the dark skies. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I want to compliment you. That was the best series. Everybody looked at that light and just Thank you very much for your consideration.

Um, so we've uh we've had the uh the information, we've asked council questions, we've had public comment. It's time for motion. I'll make it. Um, before I do that, I just want to based on the numbers that that Teresa gave us, I have 179 people who've commented or come here uh in favor and 65 opposed. So, just how many of those are petition? Pardon? Were there 175 comment cards or 145 on the petition? So, it's 179 total and 65 total. No to the petition. I can't I can't comment to that.

I don't know. How can you count? I can. Oh, okay. We're We're gonna uh just just let the council speak. Public comment is is over. Thank you. So, I don't know. Oh, I suspect though that that they're all Cave Creek residents because the groups that went out were in Cave Creek. If I had a gabble, I'd pound it. Anyways, I'll go ahead and make a motion. Hold on a second.

I move the possible I move for the pos the possible approval of the town of Cave Creek becoming a designated dark sky community once it goes through planning and zoning commission. Would you would you read that one one more time yet? Did you have it written down? Did we have it? It may be on the serious. Um, I move for the approval of the town of Cave Creek becoming a designated dark sky community and sending this back to the planning and zoning commission to make sure it happens. Okay.

And Tom had the second, so it's your comment first, Dusty. We're already dark sky compliant. Not becoming a dark sky town makes no sense. There is recognition that comes with it to me. We're not really changing anything technically. We're changing some wording and and how those how those are phrased in our ordinances. Now, based on the comments that that I've heard from Stephen and from our lawyer, I don't see that there's any technical issues.

The things that people are concerned about regarding lighting. We can put up Christmas lights, you can put up Easter lights, you can put up Hanukkah lights, you can put up uh, you know, whatever lights you want to for that holiday season. So I don't see where there's any real impact on this and I support dark skies. Tom. Um, move close your ears. Uh, 40ome years ago, uh, we had dark sky automatically, but we didn't really talk to government about where we built, how we built.

And as the years have gone by, now you have to have state permission with your well and where your well is. And you have to have state permission for your septic. And then you have to have permission for your neighbor as well and septic for I think obvious reasons. We have the native plant setback ordinance which most people don't even know about. 12T undisturbed on the borders 25% total in residential. Uh all of these restrictions that we didn't even think about years ago.

Dust particullet on our roads that we had to now pave or chip seal or we use sugarcane water there for a while. So the town is not the same. But the people that live coming into the town are not the same as probably were here many many years ago. So if we can do something credibly to try to preserve dark skies on the community, the same way we had the discussions in the wars 30 and 40 years ago, Ernie, how many horses on an acre? How many cows? How many pigs and chickens?

As we've matured as a community, a lot of things that people did not want to lose cottage industries in Cape Creek. you can run a business out of your house. So, there has to be a happy median between what Cave Creek was and what it is in terms of living with our neighbors. And today's Cave Creek is unrecognizable from the Cave Creeks that some of us arrived at years ago. The lighting is an issue.

It's not an issue in the commercial corridor, but a year ago, everybody up here, I'm sure, saw a 2acre parcel or 3 acre with LED lights around it that I think people thought first was a wedding or a special party and they burned for two months up on below seven sisters across the creek. So, I'm not even sure what that was or if anybody ever complained. But the use of lights now is not in many cases considered. And I think this is a worthy discussion to continue to have with PNZ and to look at.

If nothing else, we have focused on the discussion and I think that's worthwhile. Quality of life issues in Cave Creek are never easy to find agreement on. Cave Creek citizens against virtually everything. The town too tough to govern. We've heard all of this before. But I do think that we should continue this discussion and we should see what we can do with trying to maintain against a never- ending flood of illumination from south of here. It it is never, I don't think, a wasted effort.

even when we don't agree to try to quantify what Cave Creek is and even if we disagree about it, we have the common hope of without sacrificing private property rights hopefully of trying to work collectively together to save what Cave Creek used to be and what it can still be. The majority of stuff that comes up on this agenda is Cave Creek protective. So, I just think we should continue the conversation on Dark Sky. I went to the website. I read all the pages.

I know the communities that are dark sky designated right now. I think we would benefit from having that designation. So, that's just where I'm at. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments, Joe? Um, I want to say that um I've heard a lot of things tonight that are positive both ways and negative both ways, but point out right now that Fountain Hills is not Cave Creek. It's a completely different community. Cave Creek is unique. Cave Creek is Cave Creek. There's nothing like us in this world.

Um, and the other thing I wanted to say is the staff, I've I've heard them kind of get twisted into it, out of it. The staff has nothing to do with this. They don't have a opinion on this. They're neutral. They were do they were doing what they were told to do. I want to read to you really quickly um how I'm going to vote and I'm going to explain it to you right now. Um, first of all, many of you are probably not familiar with my background.

I've been an Arizona resident in Maricopa County since I left Detroit and arrived here in 1981. That's 44 years now. Okay. I moved to my present home off Highland in Cave Creek in July of 2001. So, I've been a Cave Creek resident 24 years this summer. And my wife and I raised our son here who is now 21 at ASU. I understand the lay of the land and I also understand what truly makes Cave Creek the unique small town that it is.

Um, second, with only 5,000 residents, we are a small town unlike our neighbors to the south. Those sprawling cities have hundreds of thousands of people and the wherewithal per their tax bases to have full-time compliance ordinance enforcement departments. We do not. We are a complaint driven and as I stated before, a small town where most people know their neighbors. And if there is an issue that we can discuss it rationally.

If not, you file a complaint and our town marshall will follow up on it. That being said, and the fact that we already have have strict lightning ordinances, there is no need for an outside organization to come into Cave Creek and be involved with our lighting ordinances in any shape, form, or way. Also, at this time, I believe we have bigger fish to fry that we have to be focused on, such as our impending water crisis and our fire prevention, just to name a couple.

That not only goes for the council, but our staff at this time has to put has much on their plates and needs to stay focused. I have heard many other reasons as well that I consider prudent, and I am not here to give a thesis of all the pros and cons. I am voting no on dark skies. Thank you, mayor. Uh, I would say it feels like groundhog day because we talked about this in March and I thought as a council we had said yes, let's look at the dark sky issue.

Let's work on the uh, zoning ordinances and the language and send it through the process. And uh, the process is important. That's what gives us the opportunity to examine and share opinions and build consensus. And I think the town's best served when the actions and ordinances go through that process. I think the morning uh star trail consensus uh task force uh was helpful. Uh that was an effective process.

But to me the primary concern with the commitment to dark skies international is that it seems to be a moving target for approval. Uh it seems that the has limited opportunity for negotiation uh andor amendment that might be appropriate for Cave Creek for our unique circumstances uh and things that fit the requirements for our lifestyle here.

So, while I do support ongoing review of the uh lighting ordinances uh to make the best option uh available for Cave Creek, I think it takes more in the way of consensus building uh to support what uh residents and businesses need uh for their safety and their functional purposes as well as to keep us the best dark sky community we can be. Uh to me, that does not require certification.

If we intersect with certification uh guidelines in the future, I think that's an excellent opportunity, but I don't think that should guide our discussion. First of all, I I want to thank the dark skies people who have made this an issue in Cape Creek. Everybody seems to want dark skies, little D, little S, and that's great. Uh it's it's wonderful to have a community like that.

If you come to my house, you better bring your your cell phone because you're going to have a hard time getting to our door with the the limited lighting that we have. And I like it. I I don't like the fact that I've got neighbors who are coming in and then they feel that they've got to illuminate their landscaping. To me, that's that's not Cave Creek. Everybody wants dark skies.

We are going to lose this because I mean the dark skies because there's going to be increasing lighting coming from Phoenix. We're going we are going to have more people who come in who want more illumination. U so I I I think that I I'd like to I wish we could have more dark skies and I appreciate those that are speaking up here. I was on the council with Ernie and with staff and we looked at a lot of the things about dark skies.

I know tonight I think I've heard misinformation on both sides from what what I know. Uh but there's so many uncertainties here. I I just don't see continuing the process. Uh I I feel that uh it's just not we need not go there. I voted against it uh some five years ago. I'm going to vote it against it again. Uh it's just not something that the community needs and there's just been so much uncertainty in dealing with this organization.

I have been an early supporter of Dark Skies that was created by Bruce u from the very beginning uh when he started his light shows. I've been to them. I enjoyed them. I think they're wonderful for this community. That said, I'm going to quote a tagline from a friend of mine and a neighbor of mine and a former council member, uh, Paul Defenderfer, who got himself elected to this council, um, by quoting, "Keep it creaker." Uh, we know how to monitor our behavior here.

uh and uh I think we do a wonderful job of it through our planning and zoning committee. I as small as we are uh we have exceptional ordinances in this regard that are sufficient for our purposes. So I'm not going to vote in favor of DSI.

I'm in favor of I'm in favor of Dark Skies, Bruce, your organization that I have supported from the beginning and encouraged you to uh form a 501c3 in order to apply for grants from our grants committee which was successful and I'm proud of it for all of work that he does as a volunteer uh in this community and I hope you continue that and I hope that this council and community continue to support your efforts. Uh first of all, it's been a really good debate.

Um it and and we're we're here because um it was turned down, but then there's been strong interest and we have a a community and a very strong support in the community that's put on the star parties and worked very very hard and they're very passionate about it. Uh we had new council support for that and uh uh the uh the dark skies advocates wanted us to bring it up.

So we're a democracy so we did that and to get it fully um discussed and to have the new council members able to weigh in on this. Um and I must say that I've been to the to the the dark sky parties, sky viewing parties and and I'm I'm a science lover myself. So I like this sort of thing. Uh my issues I don't see consensus on this. Um I see a very very strong and unyielding um on both sides. So there's there there's no middle it seems like.

And uh the recognition part is very hard for me to vote for something for recognition uh that is not as important as these other issues that Joe has been talking about. We've got some thorny thorny issues coming at us from all sides and um uh so um it's a close vote. I've supported in the past, but I I think I'm going to switch this time and and vote no. Call the role, please. Council member Augton. Hi. Council member Driscoll. No. Council member Freriedman, no. Council member McGuire, no.

Council member Rhodess, I Vice Mayor Royer, no. Mayor Morris, no. Motion fails. 52. Next on the agenda is the council uh council discussion of the second reading and possible approval of ordinance number 2025-05 amending ordinance number 207-05 to remove restrictions on the halfsent transaction privilege tax dedicated to utilities and other debt. You might want to wait just a minute. Yeah. Yeah, let's let's take a five minute break. We're waiting on you, Tom. Hello, Tom. Okay, thank you.

Um so, mayor, vice mayor, council. So this um agenda item is for a second reading on ordinance um 2025-05. Um this is taking what was previously dedicating a half cent of the sales tax to um essentially the sewer system. There was um some changes on that where it allowed um both water and sewer but in reality sewer is at such a imbalance that it never went to water only went to sewer.

Um and in the uh tenative budget that I had presented um actually today earlier seems like it was a long time ago. Um I had um made the changes based off of the assumption of the um approval during the first read that um that this is what you wanted. So that was reflected in the numbers that I had presented earlier. Okay. So you're looking for are there any questions? Any questions for Sherry? Everybody understand it? Okay. Can I just pause? I I guess I don't. We approve.

It was approved last time. It's first reading. All right. I know I could get that part, but how has it changed since the last approval? It's not this one. It's the next one that changed. They're very similar, but this this one the council um I believe it was unanimously supported this first read. Okay. And this was the last meeting. Yes. This has not changed. It's the same as what was presented for the first reading. The next one, it's very similar. Um Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

But it's not a second reading. It's a first reading because we made a significant change to it. So, what number is the next? Number five is the next one. This one's number four. Um Okay. I I'll make the motion. I move to approve u the second reading in of ordinance number 2025-05. Second. Second. All those in favor say I. I. Motion carried 70.

And we are on to number five which is council discussion process approval of the first reading of ordinance number 2025-07 amending ordinance number 2017-02 to revise restrictions on the halfsent transaction privilege tax to spur crossost trails open space and general fund purposes. So if I can just make a couple comments and I'll turn it over to you real quick. Um, so Mayor and Council, when this item came before you, um, the last time, um, I I heard that there were some questions tonight.

Why is this back on? I thought we said no to this already, but the staff was listening to the comments that were made, um, that night about importance of the historical significance of this ordinance and the um, the the uh, concerns for preservation. So, we listened. We we reconstituted this. We redid it. We're going to go ahead and give you a presentation that shows how we made changes to it.

Um so that we think it's much more um acceptable to the council based on the feedback we heard from the last council meeting. So with that, I'll turn it over our finance director who'll go through what this um includes. Thank you. So um I do have a very short um PowerPoint on this one. So for this half cent the way it is currently being allocated is it goes to spur cross for any of the spur cross cost. Maintenance is 216,000 a year.

It's been that same dollar amount for actually several years in a row. Um there is 100,000 of whatever's left that is not used by spuros that goes to trails. Um it is as we talked about in the budget work sessions how that it is not adequate to cover all the trails costs and so there is an additional 135,000 that comes from general fund to help cover um the cost of the trails.

The way it is currently allocated is then whatever is left over which is about 1.9 million is then split 50/50 between the water infrastructure fund and the general fund. The water infrastructure fund basically benefits the Cave Creek water fund and so that's how we have presented it as rolling into that particular fund.

So based off of what we had heard at the last meeting, this is what we're coming back with that again we would retain the dedication for spur cross that is in the IG with Maricopa County that does require that dedication. Um and then we have 300,000 that would go for operation and maintenance of trails, planning and construction of new trails, acquisition or repayment of debt service for acquisition of open space and then the remainder would be unrestricted. Any questions?

So, uh I do have a quick question. Why under the $300,000 you've got three bullets. Um but the first position is to take the 100,000 for trails and multiply it to 300,000 and then if there's anything left from then then we would put it towards open space. How did we rep prioritize? That's not a prioritization the listing.

It could be any of those items that are there bullet points and if council through its own budget process or something came up this money is there for you to decide how you want that money to be utilized. So, um I'll give you an example. If let's say um we have the $1.5 million that we have right now set aside for um open space um preservation.

Um if we go to the voters, say it's next year, we could conceivably have by the time bonds are sold, we could have already had like 900,000 on top of that $1.5 million set aside. So, you'd have like, you know, quarter of a million um I'm doing the the math wrong. You would have uh $2.5 million basically available for maybe a down payment towards um you know, the open space, so you don't have to bond for quite as much. This gives the council, the town flexibility over time.

So we could fund the trails or we could fund the acquisition of open space or pay for debt service for that. So let me just ask a dumb question as a followup if I could. Why would we not want to give a dedicated budget line for trails and then adjust as necessary? Because it's amorphous this way. It was 100. Now it could be three, but it may still be one. Why would we just not have a dedicated line every annual budget for the town's trails maintenance and expansion?

I I I have a kind of question related to that. How much do we currently spend on trails? I thought it was like 130,000 a year. Um the amount I don't think I have that number with me, but what was in in the budget and has been in the budget for a little while hasn't always been fully spent, but it's always been at least the 100,000 if not more. I I thought it was 130,000.

So why wouldn't we out of that 300,000 just say we're going to do 150,000 for trails and 150 does dedicated to the uh open space. We've got a the optics on us having this had this tax for a number of years and misusing it because it's essentially false advertising. I don't think that's true. Well, I think it is true. It is not true because in in the brief it identifies how those funds from the halfsent sales tax were supposed to be allocated. It did not specify preservation.

The halfsent well that was from the 2017. No, that was from 1999 when it was first created. It's in the brief first summary. Debt service for the purchase of Spurcross. Operation and/or maintenance of Spurcross. Protection and restoration of historical and archaeological sites on Spur Cross. It's preservation. No, it isn't. It's protection and restoration. It is not acquisition of new land. But that's exactly what preservation is. No, it isn't.

It's there's it's there's a different definition between preservation and acquisition. And I'm not opposed to either one, but you have to follow what was originally in the ordinance. You cannot make up things. Uh I want to get back to trails, though. I mean, I I'm I guess I'm against having a certain amount of money we're going to spend on trails we need to spend just like roads or anything else.

I don't know why trails have a special place uh above the fire department or I mean we do that for the fire department, we do it for police, we do it for everything else. Why is trails which are a nice to have but they're not essential to the town and I use them. I use them. I'm in favor of trails. I've voted for every trail but this special point here makes no sense to me. We need to have the money to spend it where the town needs it. And if we need $300,000 for trails, we spend 300,000.

If we need 50,000, we spend 50. I I just don't see that restrictions of what we do with things. I I I don't I don't see the I think I think what they're trying to do here is to save face to be perfectly honest because of certain members of our council who believe that we would look bad if we don't look like we're supporting trails and or preservation. We just approved $18 million to potentially buy 4,000 acres last two. It was either 2023 or 2024. We spent $700,000 to acquire how many?

60 new acres. 30 acres 30 acres around Spurcross. It's not like we haven't used our open space funds and we work with the Desert Foothills Land Trust to identify new parcels every year. It hasn't happened because they're hard to come by, but we have when possible spent that money. So, it's not like we don't support preservation or the wise use of the halfsent sales tax towards that effort.

But again, if you read the staff report tonight, it identifies exactly what that halfsent sales tax was supposed to be used for. from 1999 which I said the three items from 2007 dedications were subject to ple pledges of the half cent sales tax for the repayment of debt for both sewer and water systems and in 2014 is when they did the final reallocation for 50% allocation to the acquisition of open space and 50% allocated to the general fund.

So, you know, there there's there's just there are methods to the madness here. There is rhyme to the reason and all the other trit sayings, but we've done our job. We've done it well and we're still continuing to do so. Other comments or questions? Thank you, Cynthia. I appreciate uh the initiative of staff and trying to satisfy the concerns of council's vote last meeting.

Uh but I would say my impression is the same as last time that I really feel these are general fund items that should show up as line items in the general fund which are part of our budget process every year without the special designation.

I think it it complicates it to rework and rework the ordinance to address uh different priorities, changing priorities over time, and it makes it a cleaner, more transparent budget process uh to be able to take those general fund monies from the TPT tax and allocate them according to the town's priorities. Well, there are certain people on staff who have the same dedication to trails and open space that I do. And the people I've spoken to there feel that this redesation does make sense.

We still have our dedication to open space. We still have our our dedication to trails. So, I'm going to support it. Uh I'm I'm not totally confident, but I think uh the dedication I feel the dedication to trails and open space and I think we can honor that and still approve this. Anything else down here? Yeah. I mean, so let's go to the 9903 ordinance. The payment of debt service for the purchase of Spurcross Ranch. We're talking about doing that again.

I think we should have some money set aside out of the general fund and I support the $300,000 uh going to either trails or acquisition of new land. Once Spurross should have been paid off, a portion a significant portion of this should have been grandfathered. We didn't do that. We kept the half cent sales tax. So, I think it's bad faith on our part to take and say, "Oh, well, we've had this amount of money coming in here for years, and we've used it by changing the purpose for it.

This sales tax was sold to buy Spur Cross and restore things at Spur Cross. We chose not to do that. I get it. But I don't think you can go and tell the public then. Oh, $18 million more and, you know, we'll give you what you want. That sounds very much like Washington DC. Just give us another tax dollar and, you know, we'll help you out. I think we ought to at least give part of the money back for what it was designed for in the beginning, which is the purchase of open space.

Two years ago, we sat here and I plugged, you know, for money for open space and there was a lot of discussion and as a placeholder and I think as a concession, the manager was instructed to put $100,000 in, not this budget that we're currently in, but the previous budget. And then we came back to the subsequent meeting, the $100,000 was removed, and that was not in there.

So, um, and I asked at the time, and I'm still kind of asking, if we could just get some assurance in writing, and the 18 million, I mean, let let's just chat with that in a second, but if we could get some assurance that some portion of our tax income is dedicated towards open space preservation, so whatever we do with this project or future projects, there's some contingency funding in there.

The 18 million, Katherine, uh, unless I'm understanding that incorrectly, is literally a placeholder figure that's not based on reality or even implementation for years to come. It's the $16 million appraisal plus bonding and interest charges. And uh, there's no proposal by anybody in this council to pay for the purchase of those public lands. True. But I think it was a good faith effort. That's what that was all about. It shows our good faith, our dedication to preservation of land.

I was shocked, I mean, to come in to see that this evening. And then the only thing left is based on what everybody up here and the manager recommend is what percentage of down payment the town can make before the the voters are asked next November whether they want to pursue that, whether it's 10%, 5%, 8%, 20% or whatever. So, as I mean I guess everybody understands the 18 million is for discussion purposes only based on current known appraisal and cost which will adjust again.

So, I mean the only thing I'm just bugging you guys again on tonight is can we just get anybody to put any money in a fund and call it whatever and have it as the beginnings of a savings account for open space. We're not going to have a spur across fund anymore because these ordinances are getting rid of the restrictions and the name. So, I just am asking if somebody today alive can do something to put money aside regardless of the state land.

If this all falls through and the voters say no thank you, then I want to talk to you about guys about micro preservation, little things in town that we can purchase if we can get some money. Well, we got a million and a half right now. It's just sitting there. It's been sitting there for years and years. Yeah. I you know I I Well, can we grow it a little bit, do you think? Is that reasonable?

Well, actually, Sher, do you want to explain how this works with the um general fund fund reserves based on the policies that they recently adopted? Yes. So, um there's the um capital improvement fund that we created that we're putting all the capital projects in and we rolled in the open space, but we're still tracking it, but for presentation purposes, we're rolling it in. So capital improvement fund has that that one and a half million.

It also has I believe it was around 8 something million in capital reserves that is for non-utility capital projects not specifying whether it's open space or whatever it's just a capital reserve. And then in the general fund beyond all the different reserves so on the slide that I had earlier um today there's 6.8 8 million that has not been um allocated to any sort of reserve. It's just unrestricted monies in the general fund right now. Just one follow-up question.

Is it accurate or fair to say then that the state the state sorry that the town actually has um identifiable resource that could be applied to the eventual if the voters approve purchase of state lands. If you've got 1 point something now, then in a sense, you've already started building your down payment on the acquisition of the 4,000 acres. Is that correct? Well, no. Uh I mean, is there any way to fund? We haven't arrived there yet.

We haven't we haven't approached that yet, but my preference would be to keep the 1.5 million for the next opportunity and you and use and fund the $18 million because it's a lot of work. I mean, you want to get some bang for that buck to do that. But I I think that that pre preservation has got to go into the hopper with all the other priorities we have. We have got to we have got to fund the fire department.

We have got to take care of the uh the construction downturn that's going to be hitting us. We got to take care of the fact that the herp is dropping that the and I what I don't see from council frankly is that we're looking at the entire picture. It's focused on one little piece without looking at everything. I I think this ought to be a uh a process we go through through strategic planning every year with this council or future ones. Yeah.

That says, "Hey, we've got some more money this year and we got an opportunity. Let's go out and do it no matter what it costs or and we have reserves to do that." But I'm I guess I'm opposed. You know, Cynthia said it far better than I could have. Your your description was was perfect. all these little funds have confused things over the years and frankly the uh the town's record on going back many years uh is is mixed on this stuff.

Um you know we've we've got almost $4 million subsidies to this neverending sewer issue that we've got to handle and we need money to do that. I'm not sure it's going to be general fund money but uh in the past they've used general fund uh funding to uh to borrow money out. they borrow money for the utilities against the general fund. I don't I don't want to do that. I will say that right now.

But I I just think we shouldn't tie our hands in the future and we ought to manage the the town to the priorities that are facing us. And there's some pretty good priorities facing us in the near future. Water is going to be a big one. I don't think we can get the water and sewer companies to to pay for that by themselves. I mean, I'd love to say that, but I just don't think you can. I think it's going to be too expensive no matter what option we take a look at.

Whether it's Colorado River tribes, whether it's the Arquwaya Basin, or whether it's the uh the Bartlett Dam. Well, I sure hope that they're all expensive. Well, they really are. We I mean, we've got these bonds that are starting to pay off in 29 and you know, we have to we have to do some things. We're probably to borrow some money before then, especially for the open the land, the 4,000 acres.

But, uh, we're in kind of a between 26 and 29, that two or threeyear period is kind of a peak, uh, before we have this these this $5.5 million a year that we're spending on uh on covering those original bonds for the three the utility companies. But that'll be gone. most of it, a few hundred,000 for one company, but that 5 a half million we've been spending historically will be disappeared. And uh um I'm I'm ready for that to happen.

I mean truly we have the opportunity every year to put the emphasis on preservation and to grow that fund. And on our tenative budget notes today, I had lots of scribbles of where I was going to suggest to move money to preservation if there was objection to the 18 million because there is money in the budget and if that's our priority, it can go there.

So I I think the council should have that opportunity every year to look just not at segments of the TPT tax but to look at it as the whole except that just to clarify the TPT tax from Spur Cross was not intended for acquisition of new land. That was not the original intent. You may debate me. People could interpret it any way they like. How it's written on the staff report is how the ordinance was defined. And it did not include acquisition of new property. No.

Was to pay off property that we bought. And by the way, we could have not taken any more tax money once we paid it off. We could have that was also an option which nobody contemplated. I did actually fess up to that the last meeting that I was shortsighted in not having a self-repaler when the tax had like the mayor proposed this evening in fact that that should have been a self-realer based on the project completion. Yeah. Well, we certainly have put it to good use.

Well, I I I just want to point out I hope that this hasn't been recorded. Of course, when people of Kate Creek are not paying that tax, most of it it's coming from other places. I mean, there's 35,000 people in our zip code. We're five. So maybe 17th of what Walmart brings in as us and the visitors coming in. On the other hand, when we go to Phoenix to buy a car, they get the sales tax. So it's it's it's self balance.

So I don't feel guilty uh with it with a 3% sales tax given the fact we don't have a property tax and we need the money. My my look at the future indicates that we're going to be stressed for our funds and we need the the most flexibility we can get. uh to to do our job without any prior restraints. That's uh that's my take on it and Cynthia said it better than I could. Here here I agree with the mayor. But Cynthia, it's all good. All right. So, where are we? We had uh your vote.

So, so Mayor Yes. Um June 16th is when we have planned for the final budget adoption. Um we don't have a lot of time for me to incorporate in the budget whatever the result is. So if it's um if there's some sort of consensus on an amendment to what is presented here, then I can deal with that and come back the June 2nd meeting with a second read and then have that incorporated into the June 16th uh we could also pass this as it is and then change that in July.

What what I think the finance director is saying though is based on the way this is written, she has made assumptions in the the budget that you passed earlier tonight, but we can make a change to the final when it comes back June 16th is what you're saying. Correct. So, so what you had earlier tonight was based off of status quo, which was that that first slide that we had up. Um, I will incorporate whatever direction I get from council into the final budget adoption.

is just I need to know what that is. Make a decision. Mayor and council, it seems like there's not really consensus on maybe the trails part and knowing that we've budgeted the trails in the general fund, the 200. Yeah, it it's in the general fund. The full the full amount that was requested, it's already taken care of next year. It's built into the baseline budget now.

So, we thought this worked really well the way it's written because it was very similar to what was already in there except for we included the open space and financing for open space. Um, but that's an option. So, could you pull that slide up again so we could see the bullet points? And mayor, I do have public comment on this item. So, and then Sherry, um, what would be freeing up from the current ordinance versus the new ordinance?

How much more discretionary TPT would be going into the general fund rather than being designated? So, as it is written right now, um there's the 977,000 that's going to the water infrastructure fund that would go to the to the general fund, but um we did bump up instead of 100,000 for trails. So, it's really So, that would be 777,000 additional that would be going to the general fund. So that would be roughly 1.7 million going to the general fund. Correct.

If we can compromise on this 300,000, I'll I'll vote for that. Yeah. As as as staff written as it as it's written. Yeah. I mean, if we need to change it, we can change it after the after the budget's passed. I do have public comment. Okay. David Phelps. Turn the light on. Now, finally, I just came for this one item and then those other things were on the agenda. So, maybe I'll go ahead and speak a couple of other things. Katherine, you're wrong. I'm not wrong. Read it. Katherine, you're wrong.

I dis I respectfully disagree. In 2014, they changed it specifically. I see that. I see that today. But I was talking about the original I've I got my three. I'm sorry. Thank you. The reason why they did that was because of the annexation. There was no funding me mechanism uh described in the town. We had already boughten the water to to satisfy state trust lands. We had already improved and moved the sewer. We knew we had these expenses coming.

Some of it, yeah, things change and we have identified that we have a bloated budget of an extra 25%. Now, you just take a fraction of that because we don't spend it. It was admitted tonight. We don't spend all of our allocation in our budget. Like 25% of it, we don't spend it. That's our common practice. If you take 25% of the $50 million budget, you're over $10 million that we know we're not going to spend. How is this going to hurt us to save $977,000 for preservation?

And oh, by the way, $1.5 million commitment to preservation tonight on that state trust land deal at 4,000 an acre. 375 acres. Boom. That's how you do preservation, Tom. You save money up and when your appraisal comes in, you buy land. But if we're not saving money, then what do we need to do? Guess what, folks? We've spent this pie. We found another thing to buy, uh, you pay for the pie. That's what I really feel like's going on here.

That you guys have had the budget under control for years and years and now you're so used to spending the whole pie. You can't see about sharing it on preservation. And it is just dumbfounding to me that I have to come here year after year and say, "What about preservation funding?" So, no disrespect, Cath. No. And likewise, I was referring to the original ordinance.

I know, but we've moved from the original ordinance on our commitment, which, you know, also brings up another point though, and I don't know if I'm supposed to be talking back and forth, but Tom asked for something in writing. This is in writing, and this has changed three times. So, there's no guarantee. There is no guarantee in any part of life. There really isn't. But it's also erroneous. It's erroneous for you to suggest that we are not committed to preservation.

Over the course of the last two decades, we have preserved and we continue to uh you've done a fraction of what could be done. We've missed the greatest opportunity to buy the Dick Van Dyke Ranch because when the preservation community called my house and said, "What will these guys do on preservation?" I said nothing. What year was that? Uh it was in the last 12 months. We heard nothing to that effect. Yeah. No, you wouldn't hear that. And this is the point.

If you're not saving money to have that elephant gun to go do the job, they don't contact you because they're they're moving. Land's moving. The opportunities move. If you've got the money sitting there and the opportunity comes, you can get it. Did they go through the Desert Foothills Land Trust? I'm not because that's who our contact is. That's who our partner is and they inform us of what's available. I'm not going to speak to that right now because I can't. Okay.

But I'm telling you, preservation community asked me quite frankly, do you think the council would fund the acquisition? And I said, they're not going to do it. Well, they went to the wrong person. That's right. All right. This this discussion is gone beyond the time. We're going to move on. I like that one move that lady made tonight. Yeah. You didn't put your hand over in time.

I I think the land trust did look at that particular piece of property and it was so expensive it just didn't make sense. It would prevent us from getting larger amounts of property that was more reasonably priced. Well, the 80 acres sold for 2.2 mil. It was a steal. So, but the town was not contacted. I'm not Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Sorry. Okay.

I'm going to make a motion here that um uh let's see um approval of the first reading of ordinance number 2025-07 amending ordinance number two 2017-02 to revise restrictions on the halfsent transaction privilege taxes for across trails trails open space and general fund purposes as presented by council as presented by staff. Second. Okay. Uh you want a roll call or we um let's try a voice vote. All those in favor? I I opposed. No. Okay, let's have let's have a roll call.

Council member Auggerton. Well, yeah, maybe I should change my I voted I just a a trust exercise with my colleagues. I Council member Discll, no. Council member Friedman, I. Council member Magcguire, yes. Council member Rhodess, hi. Vice Mayor Royer, yes. Mayor Morris, I want to be sure we argue about this next year, too. Okay. So, we're now on number eight, which is council discussion of possible approval of the first amendment to professional services agreement.

You've been here all night waiting for this, Sean. Uh between the town of Cave Creek and GHD Incorporated to assist in modifying the operating permit for the town's water treatment plant for an amount not to exceed $13,000 $103,210 and to authorize the town management staff to execute the next necessary documents. speak faster or I'll filibuster you on the I'm trying to get to my next slide already. Uh hey, Marian Council, I will be brief.

Um so last year uh well this goes back to when we installed the pole membranes at the water treatment plant, the uh the filter units back in at the end of 2019 is actually when we installed them. We were given a four-year operational permit.

That permit actually um uh expired last year, but we started discussions before that time with Maricopa County Environmental Services about uh uh extending that permit andor making the palm membranes our preference was to make the pal membranes a permanent part of the the treatment unit at the plant. Um so we started that conversation with Maropa County last year. We thought we were getting uh uh good uh discussions with them, but then uh through staff changes and other things in Maropa County.

They've asked us to go a step further um which is to go and have uh do some design drawings and give them some information about what we're actually going to do to improve the site. Um there are some things that they didn't like some of the um the uh piping layout of the site. They want us to improve that and there's some general other things moving of chemical containments and and some other things.

So, while we uh gave them a a approval of proposed plan, the AOP last year, they've come back and said they didn't like that and they want us to go the next step, which is to give them design drawings that they can respond to before they give us a permit. They're also having a discussion of whether they'll make allow us to keep the filters as a permit installation or want to have a date certain from the town is when those trailers would be removed.

Our argument to them is that while they are enclosed in trailers, the Paul units are actually the same uh units that would be put inside of a building. It's just not efficient to take those those specific units and put them inside the building. But that's the discussion we're currently having with them.

But um what may actually happen is the county, Maricopa County might come back and ask us to say give a date certain five, seven years from now that we have to remove the P trailers and replace them with membrane units inside the treatment uh uh buildings themselves. we sort of have that built into our capital program. Um the start of that project uh that' be going a little bit further than what we have in the capital program.

So we need to get to a conclusion with Maricopa County um and their permit so that we know exactly in certainty gives us certainty in uh planning our future capital improvement program. So we started this process last year with GHD. GHD was the firm that actually helped us in 2019 to do the permit uh for installing the PS. So uh their staff helped us through this first step.

uh we need more funds now that we have a clearer scope of what we need to provide for them which is more specific drawings not just the initial report. That's why the change order is is more than the original um amount but when we brought that forward last year and it's a long time ago we did say this is probably a two-step process. So this is the second step.

Um, so, uh, we're asking for approval to, um, add the additional $103,000 to the initial $35,000 scope with GHD, and we hope that this will get us to a conclusion to get a clear permit, uh, from Maricopa County Environmental Services for the for our water treatment plant. So, they're they're raising our expenses, making it harder, preventing us from getting full value out of the existing equipment we have, which costs us money.

and they want us to do design drawings just because they they want it inside rather than outside. No, the drawings that we're talking about right now are really going to be about relocating if I go back um some of the chemical containment is out in the pavement area. There's actually a contam chemical containment area. So, they'd like us to move things like the alum into the actual chemical storage uh facility that's there at the plant.

Initially, they want us to do some things with the pipe supports that are out there. Um they've actually talked about us uh supporting the trailers themselves. There's actually still some wood blocking from the original installation uh from 20 uh the end of 2019 out there. So that's what we're discussing with them. They still see the trailers.

The the new staff again we got to a point by the end of the end of the by around Christmas time frame all the Maropa County staff were actually on board with the idea of just giving as a permanent modification. Staff have changed. So the new manager there is uncomfortable about giving us a permanent um uh designation. We are meeting all um uh water quality regulations with this plant. I think you know since 28 the pole filters went online we're providing the best quality water to the town.

They just see it as more temporary than they would like. So it seems like an abuse of discretion. I won't comment on that. We're just trying to satis make sure that they're comfortable. They have brought up some issues about the layout of the site as far as accessibility. So, we actually did have a report done and we're doing some things like adding some walkways and some other things, some fence improvements. Why are they dealing with walkways and things like that?

I mean, it's they brought Why is it Can they just do whatever they want? Not totally. Micromanagement is what it is. Yeah. You know, we agreed in some cases that we should have better accessibility around the site. So, we're trying to do improvements. Um, but we're trying to, you know, again, at this point, the scope of work with GHD is going to outline some stuff. There was actually one point that they did bring up from the original installation back in or construction back in 2008.

Our point in compliance uh at the plant for our chlorine residual is at the plant itself. They're saying that does not give us enough chlorine contact time with the water. So, we actually have to move that to the nearest site. So, we have to do an improvement and add a chlorine analyzer to the nearest site, which currently doesn't exist. They brought that up with this this when they open up the permit, it basically allows them to look at everything on the site.

That's one thing that came out of it. We're trying to get to a conclusion here to limit and have an understanding what's the scope of work. Right now, it's still a little gray. I think we've tightened it down in the last couple of months with some conversations with the Maricopa County staff. Well, I I I hope you're pointing out the the micromanagement. God wouldn't use that term, but but also that we want to get the money out of those fall filters. We paid for them.

We ought to be able to use them as long as they'll do the job. Yeah. And we actually well Paul's they've actually changed name to ARO filters right now. We actually had that conversation with with them and they we asked them how long will these trailers last? Effectively the equipment again is very similar if not the same as what you put in a permanent installation. You change out the filter cartridges as necessary.

They typically have a 10-year lifespan and some of the other equipment will just wear out and you just replace it in kind. after 10 years of inservice with the trailer units, they do a full re rehabilitation of them is what Paul said to us. So, you know, if we can get 10 years out of these and that's sort of the time frame that Paul has, but we there still be some life so we could rehab have it. So, we're trying to get to not have to have a date certain Yeah.

of when the Paul units have to be removed. We need to get the economic life out of our and I I think you ought to ought to tell them that, you know, that we we you've heard all the discussions about dollars here. We're very cautious of that, very conscious of that.

I do I do not have this situation where the town is in a sit and they actually are calling it formerly a descent decree that they would tell us a date certain that we agree or are being told when the pole trailers have to be removed from the site and we're trying to avoid that and say, you know, they're working. Let us let us manage it ourselves and do it. Yeah. So, I see we're trying to get there. We need GHD's help to get there. So, what what do you need? You need a motion? Yes. Yes, please.

Okay. Um, somebody got their book out. What my order? I can do it. Motion to approve the uh first amendment to professional services agreement between the town of Cave Creek and GHD Incorporated to assist in modifying the operating permit for town's water treatment plan for an amount not to exceed $103,210 and authorize the town manager and staff to execute the necessary documents. Second. Okay. Any discussion, comments? We have a choice. Yeah. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carry 70.

By state law, we must adjourn the meeting. We've finished our agenda.