Prescott Council Adopts Three Charter Amendments, Defers Two, While Authorizing Airport Eminent Domain and Scrutinizing $48M Facility Budget

Good afternoon. Today is June 9th, 2026 and this is the city of Prescuit City Council voting meeting. Roll call, please. Mayor Rousing, here. Mayor Prom Freeworth, here. Councilwoman Frederickson, here. Councilman Garing here. Councilman Grady here. And Councilman Ruby here. And Councilman Gamboji is participating remotely. I cannot seem to unmute him at the moment, but he is in the meeting. Yeah. So, this is the first time that we've done a remote virtual meeting with a council member.

So, uh we might have a few technical glitches, so please bear with us. Thank you. introductions and announcements. Okay, we have a lot today. Uh it's summertime and things are happening. Um let's start off with SR89 nighttime closures. Please everyone plan ahead. to support the design of the effluent wastewater pipes um and SR89 projects. The consultant will be conducting geotechnical and survey investigations along SR89. So starting in 2 weeks from June 22nd to Friday, June 26th.

So one week every evening from 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. between Fippen Trail and the Willow Lake roundabout. Um this work will be occurring. SR89 will be closed nightly in that zone. Detours will be posted. Drivers should plan to allow extra time. Local traffic will still be able to access properties from both roundabouts. Um but a hard closure is going to happen between Boulder Creek Lane and Twisted Trail.

And so this work is being done every evening to reduce daytime impacts to travelers and residents. For more information, go to sr89improvements.com. Uh the Prescuit Fire and Central Arizona and Fire and Medical Authority are launching a community wildfire protection plan to help reduce wildfire risk and strengthen community resilience. Our region's wildfire hazard potential is 97% higher than communities nationwide. So being prepared and working mitigation now is important.

Community input is essential. Residents are encouraged to participate by completing the uh community wildfire protection plan questionnaire and sharing it with neighbors. And so you can get that. Oh, this is not a really friendly website. https bit.ly vk pyvt. And I know if you go on social media or probably on the city's website, you'll find a link which would be a lot easier than remembering what I just said. All right, next topic. Cyber security seminar fraud prevention uh efforts.

The Prescuit Police Department invites the community to an upcoming cyber security seminar presented by FBI special agent Tro Coffer. It is Wednesday, June 24th at 10 a.m. at Yavapai College. The seminar is going to cover how to recognize scams, underlying uh understanding online threats, and protecting protecting yourself from fraud. In addition, the police department will soon launch a fraud prevention campaign focused on education, awareness, and community safety.

So, more information on the next phase will be shared soon. Goldwater Lake temporary closure um temporary closure happening for roadway improvements between the 15th and the 26th of June. Uh full closure of the entrance and exits during paving. Plan accordingly. For questions, reach out to rec services at 9287771121. All right, something fun. World Cup watch party and moonlight movie night.

Recreation [snorts] Services invites the community to a free family event at AC Williams Granite Creek Park on June 12th. Gates [snorts] are going to open at 400 p.m. US versus Paraguay will be live streamed on a big screen TV at 6:00 p.m. And then stick around for After Sunset with your children or if you like this movie as an adult, Airbud World Pup will be playing. So enjoy an evening of soccer, movies, bounce houses, food trucks, family activities. Bring blankets and lawn chairs.

No alcohol, pets, nor smoking are permitted. Um, and then finally, we have the summer reading program by the Prescuit Public Library is beginning, and it's a theme for the summer called unearth a story. And residents can participate in one of three ways. There are paper reading logs available at all the library desks. You can online uh track your progress through Beanstack at the Beanstack mobile app as well.

So for youths age 0 to 18, there's reading challenges running May 21st to July 25th with prizes starting June 1st. And all prizes must be picked up by the 2nd. And for adults ages 19 and over, same uh kind of a program. June 1st to July 25th, you will read a lot. Participates complete a treasury diary, earn prizes and entries. Um you can go to the desks at the libraries and ask them about the program. And uh grand prize winners announced by July 31st of prizes by the 31st.

For more information, go to prescatl.info. Thank you so much. Have a great beginning of the summer. And I'd just like to add that uh remind you that Sunday, June 14th is our flag day. So if you're not already uh flying the flag, get that flag out there in front of your house and let's enjoy Flag Day and honor our flag. Thank you. All right. And our next item is an invocation from Pastor Kendra Hobson with St. Luke's Ebony Christian Church.

and then Councilman Garing will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Father God, we thank you for this opportunity to come before you and give you honor and glory. Father, we ask that your uh will be done today. Bless each and every individual that is here from our highest law in the land, Father, down to the peacemaker and each and every household represented. Father, we thank you in Jesus name we pray. Amen.

face flag and I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'll move on to our open call to the public. The city of Prescuit welcomes the public engagement. Residents may comment and address the council regarding matters that are not included on the posted agenda during the call to the public.

If you wish to please complete a green speaker card and submit it to me prior to the meeting being convened. As a reminder, speakers are limited to four minutes and the call to the public will be limited to 40 minutes in total. Citizens will be limited to addressing the council on the same topic only four times in total. If a topic has been addressed more than five times by different speakers, the mayor may limit future discussion on the topic.

Topics of a primarily national concern may be limited at the discretion of the mayor and the call to the public shall not be used to address the council on current or pending litigation matters by a party or their representative. I do have one open call card and that is from Greg Murray. Good afternoon. Thanks for providing this opportunity as always. Um, last July, I sent a letter to the mayor's, city managers, and city or town council members of Prescat, Prescat Valley, and Chino Valley.

I also included the town and city managers and all of the county supervisors. That letter, which uh also included detailed maps, described the potential um to connect the new regional park with grassland habitat to the north extending all the way into Chino Valley. It also showed how the new regional park would become an isolated habitat island unless the two parcels that separate Granite Dell's Estates from the Jasper development, both of which are in the city of Prescott.

both of those parcels anyway um could be left undeveloped. I noted the wellestablished scientific principle that isolated populations, especially those of large species like prongghorn, are almost always doomed to local extinction because they're unable to move freely in search of food and water and unable to maintain their genetic diversity.

In uh in early January, I sent another detailed letter to the same group, noting that the preliminary plan for development on those two parcels had already received approval and invited all of the recipients to meet with one another and with members of the Central Arizona Wildlife Alliance to discuss the need for regional planning for wildlife connectivity. Several of those meetings took place in February, and I thank those of you who were able to participate.

A few weeks later, we learned that the final plat for phase six of Granite Dell's estates had been approved for those parcels. A plan that will forever prelude or or a plan for development at least that will forever preclude the ability for pong horn and other wildlife species on Glford Hill to connect with populations to the north.

In late April, I explored the area um where that potential wildlife corridor intersects Highway 89 and found that there's already a double 12-t high concrete covert crossing underneath um Highway 89 on State Trust land. And thus much of the land and infrastructure necessary to conserve wildlife in that area for the the new regional park and preserve, especially Ponghorns, is already available if we're willing to cooperate to make it happen.

My letter of last January noted that I have found over 40 articles from the Prescuit Courier over the last 26 years about the plight of our local ponghorn herds and that preceding the demise of each of those herds, wildlife experts and decision m uh decision makers noted that they knew that those herds were going to to be lost, but that unfortunately no one had considered the needs of wildlife early enough in the planning process.

How many Prescat residents even know that there was once such a thing as the Willow Lake herd of Pong Horn that vanished completely as a result of the very same process? We now find ourselves on the cusp of yet another such loss. Is it again too late to do what we all know is the right thing?

or will we have to explain to our children and grandchildren why pr p pr p pr p pr p pr p pr p pr p pr p pr p pr p pronggh horns appear so prominently on our statues and lo uh and logos in this area even while they don't still live here prescat valley's wildlife corridor plan and y plans regional conservation planning efforts are a really good start but have we already lost the opportunity to protect the wildlife on a major park and preserve that was initially proposed to do just that Or can city and county leaders, land owners, and citizens agree to cooperate now to keep more of our wildlife on the landscape and thereby enhance the quality of life for both wildlife and people now and into the future.

Thank you very much. Um, thank you. I'd like to direct legal to give Mr. Murray a copy of HB2447 where uh effective January uh 1st the state legislature now allows preliminary plats and uh final plats to be approved without council's attention and solely by community development. So please give him a copy of that so it might help him understand what's going on. We'll do I am aware of that. I've seen it. Our next item is the consent agenda.

We did receive a request um from Councilwoman Frederickson to pull item E from the consent agenda. Um but outside of that, no other items have been pulled. So if there is nothing else, we can take a motion. Mayor, at your discretion on the balance of the consent and then um go through item E thereafter. Frederickson here, I would uh move to approve consent agenda items 7A through 7D. Second, please vote. Mayor, a brief comment on the voting meeting minutes of May 26th. Okay.

Page five, uh, third of the way down. The sentence starts out, city manager Joseph Young stated, and that was either city manager Don Kimmel or city attorney Joseph Young. We can make that correction. We will do that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gary. Councilman Gamboji, can you please verbally let me know what your vote is on consent agenda items 7A through 7D? Yes. Thank you. That passes 70. Okay, Mary, take it away. Thank you.

And I had asked to pull consent agenda item 7E as the agenda memo left me confused and I had uh input since then uh from public works who cleared it up for me. But I just thought it would be better just in case anybody in the public was similarly confused to have um some clarification on the record.

And specifically it was in regard to the requested by the staff increase in the existing contract of one of three vendors but there was no mention of any change to a contract from the one vendor that has been acquired by that first one where the contract was being bumped up. So um I see public works director Gwen is here to make sure it's clear on the record. Thank you Gwen. No worries. Thank you, Council Member Frederickson.

So, in our utilities divisions, we um we solicit for um suppliers of parts that we need and we have a contract in place with three different suppliers, Corin Maine, Dana Kempner, and Ferguson. Uh this year, Dana Kempner was absorbed into Corb and Maine. And as a result, uh, we don't have enough monies on the contract itself to pay the bills for the parts that we're ordering. We have the money in our budget. We just had it on a different contract.

So, what we're asking you to do here is move the monies from the Dana Campner contract, which no longer exists, to uh, core in Maine so that we can purchase the parts um, and materials that we need. We have had an unusual number of mainline breaks this year and so our expenses are higher than the corn main original contract. So that's what we're asking you to do. Thank you.

And I guess then that just to clarify, so the contract that was originally uh set up for Dana Keaptainner has dissolved, has gone away. They don't exist. So it's no longer a valid contract. And so this does not increase the amount of the three contracts that were out there now just two contracts, but the amount is the same globally. That's correct. Thank you. You're welcome. Mayor, yes, Jim. Uh Gwen, did we get a quote from Ferguson?

We we yes we when we solicited for um the bid we received three from Ferguson Corin Maine and Dana Kempner and we awarded a contract to each one of those vendors to supply some supply parts that others do not and so we we ultimately um enter into multiple contracts for parts every year. All right. Thank you. Yes. And if there's nothing further, I would uh move to [clears throat] approve consent agenda item 7E. Second.

Councilman Gambboji, can you please verbally let me know your vote on consent agenda 7E? Yes. Thank you. Passes 70. Adoption of ordinance number 2026-1949, an ordinance of the mayor and council of the city of Prescuit, Yavapai County, Arizona, authorizing the granting of an underground utility easement to Arizona Public Service Company, APS, for new utility service on city property. authorizing the mayor and staff to execute any and all documents to effectuate said underground utility easement.

This is consent, so staff does not have a presentation unless there are questions from the council. Any questions? Do I hear a motion? I move to adopt ordinance number 2026-1949. Second, please vote. Thank you, Mayor. Councilman Gamboji, your vote on consent agenda 9A or 8A, rather, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. That passes 70.

Item 9A, adoption of ordinance number 2026-1948, an ordinance of the mayor and council of the city of Prescuit, Yavapai County, Arizona, authorizing the purchase of approximately 4.12 acres of real property from Crosswind Leasing LLC near the Prescuit Regional Airport, Ernest A. of fields including authorization to use the city's eminent domain authority and I will address this. I'm just waiting for the uh PowerPoint to pop up. All right.

So today, council, you'll be asked to approve an ordinance per to purchase a piece of property by the airport and to possibly use the city's eminent domain powers to do so. I will cover just briefly the city's the steps in use of eminent domain and then you will hear from the airport and I believe Brian Sparks regarding the specific parcel of property that we're looking at. So when you approve an ordinance for eminent domain action, you have to approve two things.

Primarily that this property is needed for a public purpose. And so that's what you'll hear specifically. The public purpose and that this the price of the appraised property is generally what you're willing to pay. In this case, we identified a specific property that was needed and the public purpose for it from which you'll hear from the airport.

Hired surveyors and appraisers to inspect and appraise the property and have now moved on to the second step which is at this point we are to make a written offer of before condemnation proceedings can begin. And you'll hear from the airport that there's been some negotiations before this point.

But at this point, the uh as I mentioned, we're asking council to approve the eminent domain process, which means that we send a formal written offer based on the appraised amount and any possible uh damages that we see in to the property owner. Um, at that point, the owner may hire their own appraiser or attorney and begin negotiations for that period of 20 days before step three occurs, which is the filing of a condemnation lawsuit in the Yavapai County Superior Court.

So the complaint would then identify the property in the public purpose and the court would make a threshold determination of whether there is indeed a public use or a public purpose and then usually that would proceed on to evaluation of the uh property value and a determination there. So that's the general process for an eminent domain proceeding and as it relates to this specific property I'll turn it over to um Rick from the airport. [clears throat] Thank you, Joe.

And good afternoon, mayor, mayor prom, members of city council. Um, this exhibit shows uh the layout that we're talking about, but just a little bit of a a primer if you would. Um, in 2025, we started to develop this vision that's on the screen. And uh really what it does is it it develops about a 20 we're working on the final planning, but somewhere between 12 and 20 acres of public use ramp. And the core core reason for that is to uh have flex space for the fire center.

So as many of you know during fire season uh we have a large fire large wildland fire uh we'll have a multitude of u helicopters and fixed wing aircraft that respond to stage uh in close proximity to that that wildland fire. Um this has been kind of a deficiency at the fire center for for many years. We've talked about you know creative solutions. Uh we hosted a a legislative day last year. Uh our state legislators and representatives came and and looked.

They toured the fire center and they agreed that really there's a deficiency that could be fixed and an improvement that could be made with public funds for northern Arizona. Um so this is really about building a a ramp that's approximate to the existing fire center. Uh it includes forest parcels you see on the on the screen there. The two pink ones are owned by the city, part of the W parcel if you will, and then two are privately owned. Um, so that's kind of the context.

The the other remaining uh background piece I would give you is that the state responded with our plea and our request and they they granted a warrant of $3.5 million in the 2026 uh budget. So that that money has been allocated through a warrant uh transferred to the city. So it's in our account to uh begin this process. It's really a first phase. In that first phase, we'll assemble the land.

We'll do uh planning and design for the the project itself and then ultimately build the ramp and the facilities that support uh this really essential public service for northern Arizona and the and the region. Um on this slide, a couple things I' I'd kind of point out is that again the the vision is being refined and I'm sorry if you go back one slide Sarah jumped jumped too fast for you.

Um so the black area you can see is the ramp but really the important part is the proximity to the fire center. um in and really the the shared use. We know that this is a seasonal activity. So being good stewards of the public money, we want to make sure it's flexible enough to do a variety of things. It can support a whole lot of helicopters or a few less large helicopters or uh you know the fixed wings, the large air tankers that operate here.

And ultimately as we expand the runway and we improve the taxiway uh set the stage so if there is a need for the very large air tankers we're ready and capable of supporting those aircraft as well. So flexibility is very key. Um again the the fire center and and just the you the different aircraft. The next page shows uh next slide if you would please uh shows the W parcel and the project overall.

Um the the triangle on the kind of the bottom left is the triangle we just talked about that had the ramp uh on it. I think the significance of this slide is that the intent is to extend that runway shift and extend the runway and at the same time straighten out the taxi way. So uh currently we have helicopter operations that operate from the dirt. You know they're in unimproved situations. We have fuel trucks on that on the dirt.

uh the the helicopters operate from a kind of s seasonally used uh taxiway if you will. All that's going to go away. Um so the the plan B if you will if we didn't assemble this land that gives that full utility and flexibility would be to jump around to those white boxes you see other other portions of the u the W parcel. What that kind of eliminates though is that proximity to the forest or the fire center.

It also makes the project much more expensive because we'd have to extend uh taxi ways in that direction. So, finally, before I answer any questions that you have or are or for me or for Brian, either one, is that we we have, as Joe said, uh had good conversations with a seller that went back to 2025. As we started to assemble the vision, we we talked to the local real estate community and identified this parcel and started inquiring.

uh unfortunately was purchased before they had the chance to buy it with the the warrant funds that were in place in September. Um but we began the conversation in in good faith had efforts about appraisals and what the land's worth and how we might acquire that for this public public purpose. Um at the end of the day, the uh current land owner uh purchased the price or purchased the parcel in June of last year for $550,000.

Uh we went through the appraisal process and it was appraised at $620,000. Um as the conversations went on and second appraisals were discussed, the purchase price was was much higher. And so uh the at that point the negotiations kind of broke down. I I think that there's certainly an opportunity to continue that. Uh but as as the city attorney said, we because this has a public purpose and it's very essential to the assembly of lands that helps the fire center meet their mission.

We feel like we want to have all the tools in the toolbox. Um, so let me stop there and answer any questions that the council may have of me or the or any questions.

I I just would like to comment that uh Arizona is a very strong private property rights state and I personally support private property rights and so this is something we're not entering into uh lightly [clears throat] but we realize that this is a very critical public safety use that we need to keep the region not just Prescuit safe. So continue. Yes, ma'am. That concludes my presentation. I'm sorry, Joe. Anything else to add?

No, I don't I don't know if you have any questions about some of the negotiation beforehand. That's what I think Brian is here if you want to address that. Um, but you've heard from Rick the public purpose and what we're looking at. um you have it before you the ordinance that kind of lays out that process as well along with the public purpose. So that's the determination um whether to give the go-ahad because our charter requires that any real estate purchase is done by ordinance.

It's a little bit more cumbersome than just normally we just before there's litigation we need council consent or council vote on it but in this case we need the ordinance which is a little bit more formalized uh due to the how our charter is worded. So that's what we're here for. And Mr. Garing, do you have a comment? Uh, well, no, not really, unless we have any public comments coming. Do we have any public comments coming?

I do have one um comment card, but I was waiting for the council to make their determination on how they wanted to proceed. Yeah, I think let's hear from the public. Mayor, I'm sorry. Oh, mayor. Before we get, let me just ask far as the uh the public interest aspect of what we are seeking, the parcel we are seeking to acquire within the city, is there I suspect I know the answer, but I want you to put it on the record.

Is there any other reasonable route we could take to accomplish what we want to do or what we feel we need to do to support fire suppression efforts other than that parcel? Yes, ma'am. That's why I was saying um those white boxes you see on the screen represent other city on parcels. Um so they're a little bit further to the northeast and and I don't have it. Maybe I do have a pointer. Let's see here. Nope. I think that turns the TV on.

Um the the box of the the left, you know, bottom left part, if you will. Um thank you Joe. Just a little more to the right. Steady hand. There we go. Um yeah, back to the left you'll see the fire the fire center itself. Let me tell you what do I was hoping you'd come get it. [laughter] What? The telepathy wasn't working. Is that is that the problem? And also we need to hear from Mr. Gambboji, too, if he has any comments. Let's see here.

He hasn't put his hand up yet, but I'll let you know if he does. Can you hear me? So, well, this shows that Yes, we can. Councilman Gambboji, did you have a question? No, I'm good. Thanks. So, if I can get There we go. So, this is the fire center here. Um, and the subject parcel, that triangle, uh, is right here in the purple. And as I said, these white boxes represent other parcels, uh, owned by the city. So, to answer your question, the backup plan would be to to jump around there.

What that erodess though is the proximity to the fire center. So they all obviously work very closely together. So even during emergency flex operations when we have extra helicopters, we'll put them in the you know the dirt areas and the taxiways where we can find you know approximate to the fire center because they use the restrooms there and they have sun shades there and they have you know trucks and all the things that you know they need to do their do their job.

So I think to answer your question to jump those white boxes um erodess that proximity right because then you're you've got quite a distance about I don't know I would guess quarter to half a mile uh to the to the between the fire center and the the new apron.

It also adds complexity and and cost to the project because then you're then connecting up what you'd have to extend the existing taxi way to the northeast understanding that as the runway is extended it's going to it's going to change alignment so it would add quite a bit of cost quite frankly so it in fairness you know to answer your question fully uh there is another alternative it is a much less desirable alternative and I think at the end of the day it erodess you know the spirit of what we receive the grant money for So the in theory there are other routes to take but in practical effect the parcel we are seeking serves our purpose and with the least uh harm financially or or by operation the best stewardship of public funds and in right operational proximity.

Does Ted have any comments? Ted he's I think we cover we we've covered this conversation before. I think it's pretty cut and dry. Okay. Pretty cut and dried. Would you like to take public comment now? Let's take public comment. Okay. Thank you, John and Kathy Stoneer. Well, good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Thank you for this uh this opportunity to speak. Um we were a bit surprised. I just returned from my 60th birthday celebration in Sedona.

We've been gone for about 5 days and uh found the pre in the prescuit courier that uh this eminent domain situation is is on your desk. It was our understanding that there was a workaround as described in the upper four or five uh boxes by the airport manager, Mr. Crider and that our our parcel was going to remain in our possession.

Um I've been in Prescuit for 28 years doing business as guidance aviation Helas Prescat Wing and Rotor amongst other businesses including Crosswind Leasing that holds that parcel. Um ironically that parcel was purchased to support public service. We are an operator for the United States Forest Service and about 60% of our revenues come from firefighting and so helicopter operations and firefighting are our very nature.

Um that's a big piece of our intended use for that property in a public private partnership. We're in a public private partnership with the Forest Service. We've been in one for many years uh leasing space on the Prescuit airport and successfully doing so. Um, I also operate a pilot school here in Prescuit and I've operated a couple of collegiate programs in the United States. Uh, we have supported the sheriff's office in Yavapai County. We gifted the county a helicopter about 25 years ago.

We've operated that aircraft safely with oh probably close to 80 or 90 uh 90 rescues under our belts and we did that in a voluntary basis with uh with the Avapai County. Uh in addition to that, we've worked for Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project, Western Area Power Authority, maintaining the utility lines throughout this county and throughout the city of Prescuit. Um we've been a strong supporter in that line of work. Uh I could go on.

Um we've flown tens of thousands of hours safely in this community. We've adopted a fly neighborly program that uh we've insisted that other operators follow on this on this airport. We operate under a letter of agreement with the control tower. We've done that safely and successfully for 30 years, better part of my career. I just told you I just turned 60. That makes 42 years I've been in this business. Um I've been a designated examiner, pilot examiner with the FAA for better than 10 years.

Um, I'm considered an expert in the industry and I I I want to getting I don't want to take too much time here with my background, but I've got a substantial background in helicopter aviation. Our intent for that property is actually synergistic with what the city's trying to accomplish here. It's just I'd like to do it privately because if I privately own that property, I can afford to make a better investment in better facilities.

The other piece of this is of recent we lost one of our properties, the old forest service building adjacent to our current operations and that is now inhabited by a fixedwing operation. The term of our our uh our lease expired early and uh long story short, I've been a strong believer in helicopters and fixedwing operations should not be comingled ever. It's dangerous. And when that fixed wing operation came in, I voiced to the to the airport authority that I didn't think that was a good idea.

Uh we had bid an almost identical number on our previous property, but we were not awarded the property for various reasons. And it's made our current space where we currently operate helicopters in support of firefighting, in support of law enforcement, in support of utilities, in support of pilot education in a way that I think is hazardous. So, long story short is I decided to take it upon myself and find some available property. We don't intend to cross over to the airport.

We don't intend to use the runways. We're a helicopter and set up a helport on that 4.2 acres. It's very doable. It's very safe. I've already talked to the FAA director from the Scottsdale FSDO. Our consultant has spoken with him. It should be something with the support of the city that could be accomplished. Now, I've been told by Mr. Crowder, he would not support that and he would actually block that attempt. So, I don't know. I I I want to work with the city. I've been a good tenant.

We've been here for going on 30 years. We love this community. We've raised our kids here and I want to continue to do what we do best, which is protect our protect our community. So, without it, we have leases running short. Uh I don't see much option for renewals of our current leases. We'll be pulling out of the community. And that's the very service that you're trying to inspire. So, uh, that's my two cents. My wife might have something to add if we've got any time left.

No, I think you covered it, but thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. That's all, Mayor. Any more comments from legal? No, I I don't have any comments. I have sort of the background on how the process works. The background in terms of this specific property, you'll have to hear from the airport. Um, but I think you heard reasons why there's a public purpose.

You've heard um from the current owners of their objections and now it's sort of within the council uh decision-m whether the public purpose is worth going forward with the acquisition attempt. Yeah. And the the property's current vacant right? My understanding is it's a vacant piece of property and my understanding also is that it was listed for sale. Correct. Both regards. [clears throat] And I would I would echo that, Mr. Stone Staffers are value tenants.

They uh lease um one building from us. They also have a ground lease on another hanger uh plus a ground lease on referred to as a six property referred to as a six-pack. So they've been there many years as Mr. Sun Cipher said, valued customer. Um the discussion broke down though when um there my understanding is that there they had another buyer for the property.

So, um, back to the point about the helicopter operations on that parcel, there was a pack, just for full disclosure, there was a pack request that went through last, uh, fall uh, shortly after they purchased. And our reason for objecting was that the FA um, prohibits and strongly discourages through the fence operation. And while they didn't need the taxiway and the runway infrastructure, it certainly impacted the airspace.

So our objection was based not because of the great work they do every day but because it was at the end of the day a through the fence oper operation. Yeah. We have to remember that um the airport is under the authority of the uh FAA and we have to follow all their rules and regulations if they're can going to continue with uh their grants to us to keep the airport viable. Um, so the stone ciphers said they were going to do a similar thing but just privately.

The uh the pack request was to build u hangers on that private property. Uh so and of course that required a special use permit. Our objection was that uh at the end of the day uh was was in basically a through the fence operation because it competed for the airspace. Uh you saw the proximity of the parcel. It's very close to the airfield. So they're they're outside the the fence, correct? And then they would have to somehow acquire uh acquisition to the runway.

They didn't require access to the runway, but a through the fence operation basically utilizes public uh airport infrastructure uh on private property. So as you and the FAA does not encourage that at all. pretty much against it and we would probably be viol in violation. Yes, ma'am. And we've heard our grants. Well, we, you know, it certainly doesn't set us up in the good favor of the FA. We've um because of that directive, we've re moved all the through the fence operations that we have.

So, we had a small one with the by college. They willingly gave that up. So, currently we have no through the fence uh agreements. And I think that's the uh gold standard for the FA that we'd like to continue on with. Okay. Any uh any more comments? Mr. Garing, do you have anything? Oh, I do. Okay. No, I can make a motion, mayor. Okay. I move option of ordinance. Lois, did you have to say any s? Yeah, I did. I just wanted to go back to Joe from the vote for today.

What is the process moving forward again? If council approves the ordinance today that then we will immediately within the next few days send the 20-day notice and intent to offer uh so it's an offer to purchase the property at a specific price.

Um, so that starts the process from the time we send the 20-day notice, then in 3 weeks, so to speak, if we haven't reached an agreement, um, then we can, and it'll depend on how the negotiations are going, but we can file with the Yavapai County Superior Court for eminent domain action.

So because this property is is uh critical to the vision with where the firefighting operations are in this period of negotiation on price, would the airport be open to other options the stone ciphers might raise in order to keep their business operating in Prescuit? Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. And I think by other options, if I might, just for directions purposes, you're referring to potential extension of leases and so forth that currently exist and or other property.

I don't know. And I think that other property or extension of leases would be part of that discussion, but it would ultimately come back to council for approval. So I think we should say that we should um not give up and leave no stone unturned with and look at all the options with the stone ciphers because uh we take a eminent domain very seriously and it should only be the last resort. Uh understood. Thank you. Okay. Do I hear a motion? Uh, Mayor, I move adoption of ordinance number 2026-1948.

Second, please vote. Councilman Gambboji. I vote yes. Thank you. [sighs and gasps] That passes 70. Item 9B, adoption of resolution number 2026-1984, approving the tentative budget for fiscal year 2027 and setting the public hearing for the final budget expenditure limitation and tax levy for the city of Prescuit. Good afternoon, mayor and council. Lars Johnson, finance director. As the clerk read today on the agenda is the tenative adoption of our fiscal year 27 budget which starts July 1st.

This action by council does three things. It sets the maximum expenditure for the next year which by the way can be reduced or reallocated from here but it can't be increased. So this would be like the expenditure cap for the next year. It also sets the public hearings on the budget and then authorize us staff to notify the public when those uh hearings will occur and then publish the required notices in the local newspaper.

A quick note is if you look at the exhibits attached to the resolution, uh you'll see schedules A through G. That's the official forms that the state auditor general requires municipalities to publish their budget on. Schedule A is the only um schedule that will be published in the newspaper. So this slide next is the process summary to date. As you recall, we had three budget workshops and then one follow-up budget discussion.

Um just wanted to thank council for that in-depth review and feedback and direction that we received through all of those meetings. Next, I have just a very high level summary of of what the budget looks like and the changes that were made throughout the council's input process. First to note is that the fiscal year proposed budget is balanced and it's aligned with council's strategic plan.

The direction given on the solid waste rates will fix the one fund that we're having a deficit problem with. So that will bring that one into um into balance pending f further decisions by council. We will be continuing the voter approved prop 478 projects. Um in the budget also is the four new police officers and new emergency manager that were all in the in that plan.

Uh police compensation adjustments and recruitment incentives are included in the budget to make progress towards full staffing. We um in the budget have established uh capability to create the standalone court cord operations and the facility improvements. Uh there's a few other things here. The extending the life of the Sund Dog wastewater treatment plant increased our operations some. Um and we have other critical asset maintenance in there as well. The five-year capital plan. Yes.

Excuse me, Lois. Yes, if you go back to the previous slide, um, one of the things, uh, we talked about at previous meetings is to do a reconciliation on Prop 478, what we, uh, promised the voters and what we, uh, where we're currently at, and we have begun doing that work. I've been in meetings with you all, and we've agreed that that will um, be published. I would like to see that um published and p and publicized prior to the final vote coming up at the end of the month.

So hopefully that will reestablish or establish that we're following the process that we promised we would. Yes. Yeah. So, we're working with the city manager's office to get that fully vetted and and given to the full council and public because I think that's critical before we vote on the final budget that everyone's crystal clear.

Jim Lars on the uh I I just noticed in the pension funding policy that annually the council reviews the funding balance remaining in the general fund and can use that to transfer to the uh retirement funding for fire and police. Did we do that? Is was that done last year? We did. Last fiscal year we did um allocate funds towards the unfunded liability. I think it was around 800,000. I don't have the number exact.

U what's remaining um for the unfunded liability for fire will be paid off from the state allocation. So this last fiscal year in July or August of 2025, the state gave their last final remaining um contribution for the unfunded liability. [clears throat and cough] That was a result of the hot shot uh trag tragedy that the city faced. So that will pay off the fires portion. The police portion we're expecting to pay off um actually after the vote today.

Um, this week we'll be wiring the remaining. There's $711,594 unfunded remaining. So once that's in the funds, we will have an updated actuarial report that we'll receive in the fall and we'll see where we're sitting. We're expected to be 100% funded or even exceeding. Okay. Thank you. The five-year capital plan is um went we went through in in pretty much detail in the workshop. 145 million is landing in fiscal year 27 for capital projects.

Uh some large projects to note is the construction renovation of the fire and police facilities and prop 478, the airport safety and runway enhancements. Um and then expansion rehabilitation of our waste and wastewater and water systems. We also have in the plan investments in parks, trails and library facilities that enhance community amenities.

So now yeah, one other thing I think is important is also we're making some good investments in um in streets and roads with a lot of prep uh preservation work going on. So, I think that's important to the public in how they uh think about their 1% sales tax going to the streets fund. Thank you.

So, just to reconcile from the proposed budget that was presented on the first budget workshop, April 27th, and where we're landing today for the tenative, I have on the screen, the operating capital, and then the total budgets. There were changes based on council's direction to the court proposal. Uh we to reduced the budget totally of $645,56 between operating and capital. And then there was a vote or a direction given regarding the operations study for community development.

Three positions were added for the next fiscal year that totaled $210,648. So the um revised tenative budget is 311,496498. Also to note um the court had proposals on re revenue generation um and not shown of course because it's not expenditure but we noted on the screen that about $500,000 of additional revenue that would offset the court budget. what that looks like in the total FTE count uh 626.5 total FTE. So between the changes it's actual neutral change between the two.

So on the court side we reduced three FTEES towards the um security officers at the court and then we added the community development positions. So that remains at 626.5. [clears throat] Now rolling up to the total we saw on the screen earlier for fiscal 27. This shows you how that compares to last year FY26 adopted budget. The operating budget will be increasing by 7%. And capital budget of uh going down slightly of 1.7 decrease. Overall that's a 2.67% sorry 2.6% increase.

Again, the action today for the tenative adoption by council sets the max expenditure limit for next year at the bottom line. So the 311,496 and $498. Uh from here you potential changes could happen reallocated reduced but this is the maximum. My last slide I have for you is just whether what are the next steps. As mentioned, this action will give direction to do the required publishing. Um in at the next official voting meeting of council on the 23rd of June, we'll have the public hearings.

We will have the alternative expenditure limitation and property tax levy hearings. And then you'll adopt the final budget, the personnel roster, and the approved expenditure list. And then as required after the hearing on the property tax, we have a minimum waiting period of two weeks before we can we can adopt the property tax levy. So that would be later in June, sorry, July and July 14th. And that's all I had for you today and then I'm here for any questions you have.

Yeah, let me start off with the property tax levy. uh we voted to increase the uh property tax and I saw the uh public notices uh on Facebook and I would just like to ask you to not do the per 100,000 value of a home because there's no homes worth 100,000.

So, could you please have uh city staff change that to 600,000 and change the number so it's a lot more clearer so people will know that their taxes are going up but it's only going to be like $10 a year or something something a little more easily understood. Mayor, I can answer that. And I unfortunately the statute spells out specifically the exact wording that we have to use and it uses 100,000. So, um, in the budget workshops I gave an example of a $500,000 residence.

Um, trying to make that more realistic. Um, but it is an increment of a hundred. So, it's pretty easy to do a multiplier. And unfortunately, we can't change that currently. Is there any way we could just kind of add on a little comment at the bottom? For example, a $500,000 dollar home would pay an extra I think it was what $7. I'll work with city attorney on that to see. Yeah, I think that would be helpful if we because there was a lot of uh people that were upset about it.

I mean, they see property tax increase, but it was, you know, they just didn't take the time to do the math. And you know, I think we should have an a practical example saying that this is, you know, $7 a year more and that this money will help us out like for funding the library. And I will say the language in this has to be is is statutory and we can't change it. Now, can we have additional language?

We'll check on that and see if we can have additional clarifying language elsewhere in the in the balance. I I'm not sure we can, but we'll check that. I almost feel this is more of like a PR issue, public relations, and maybe this is something that the city can create to just have a graph for those who are math challenged like with a $100,000 home value. This is how much it would cost 200, 300, 400, 500. If that shouldn't be in the legal probably we can have that come out through city. Yeah.

Because you know, you're right. you know, we have to we have public comment period and we need to be as transparent and as clear as we can because it is a it's a property tax increase and we need to uh have an example to explain it to uh to the public. Um, another thing that, um, we have our 5-year CIP plan and I saw that the property and ev evidence storage facility was coming in at being budgeted $48 million.

So, I uh went online and um contacted the city of Mesa and um because they just built a new property and evidence center uh storage facility and it's uh Mesa is has a population of 533,000 people. They're about 10 times the size of Prescuit. And they built a 31,740 square ft property and evidence center for 23,000 I mean 23,855,000 and change which comes out to about $751 and change per square foot. And that includes total the design, the fixings, I mean the fixtures, the furnishers furnishings.

And if you look at us with our $48 million budget, uh, and I think we were going to do a $22,000 square foot building for property and storage, um, it came out to $2,000 and 182 square foot. And we approved I approved that $200 $200,000 purchase of the property across the street from the justice center, but nobody told me it was going to be $8 million in dirt moving and retaining walls. And I find that unacceptable use of our tax dollars.

We have level property out by the airport by the wastewater treatment plant. plenty of room, easy build, plenty of room for the impound lots, the parking, a singlestory warehouse, and so unless we fix this, I am not going to vote to approve this budget. I just find that unacceptable that we were even thinking of spending $8 million in site prep on a $200,000 lot. Any other comments? Mr. Garing. Uh, thank you, Mayor.

Uh, Lars, my recollection is that, uh, expenditures of roughly $311 million is greater than the revenue for the year, and we're fixing that shortfall with fund balances. Can you summarize where those fund balances came from? Certainly. and and you're you're right the to balance the budget and on schedule A of the forms the state auditor general requires us to fill out shows how it's balanced but there essentially um we we balance the budget utilizing one-time funds for one-time uses.

So capital projects um it's very common that we will utilize previous year's revenue. So basically accumulated savings to pay for those. Um it basically spans most of the funds that the the general fund approximately 20 million is planned in the budget to be used. Uh a lot of that does come from the Prop 478 funds that are accumulating. For example, we've had revenue over expenses that goes into a savings account that we then use in the future years to pay for the projects.

So um that's an example. 20 million general fund, streets fund is 13.3 million. Um, our enterprise funds about $4 million of fund balance. Does that help? Would you like some additional clarification? Well, that does help, Lars, but and then that uh results in the question for what happens in fiscal year 28. Mhm. Are we going to have I mean, we're probably going to have a a an expenditure of 311 million plus a couple percent. And uh what happens if we're short next year?

We'll still have fund balances to pay that. Yeah, that's that's a good point. And to look at our current fund balance by fund, it's better to look at where we're at over a longer period of time for fiscal sustainability. and council um saw in [clears throat] two we went through a five-year plan for streets fund water wastewater solid waste. Um so we do look at it in a longer period of time to make sure that especially for this capital improvement plan that it's fundable.

Um you'll recall we're issuing quite a bit of debt to pay for capital projects that then brings a source of revenue but then requires us to pay it back through operations. So we do look at it as a longer period of time. Um and it's what what's presented to you is doable. It's fundable. All right. Thank you for that. Yeah. And um you know this is my seventh year on council and I just want to thank you.

This has probably been the most indepth dissection of the budget that we've had and uh I uh I just want to thank you because it did shed a lot of transparency on it and we were allowed to have some input on the expenditures because in the past, you know, it was just presented to us and we said, "Oh, oh, sounds good." you know, so I want to thank you for all your you and your staff and the rest of the city staff's hard work and putting this budget together. Lois, thank you, mayor.

Um, I have three things. Um, first, in this upcoming steps, um, between June 9th and June 23rd, I'd like to ensure that you're adding the public safety tax initiative um, reconciliation as a step that's there. Um, I also support uh the mayor on her comments related to the police um new facility and uh that had been an issue that we've been questioning from the beginning.

So now seeing what Mesa has done, you know, I think there's a way um of of seeing what we could do to make this more um taxpayer friendly. And then finally, I had a question as I was going through the uh the legal ease documents that you had in here um back on uh page on schedule C uh page five of schedule C with the budget. Um it's the first time I got in touch with um some of the money and where it's coming from.

And what I was surprised to see um is the county um intergovernmental revenue um has been going up, but we're budgeting it to go down in 27. Is that us just being cautious or is that us with some intelligence that something's going to happen from county information? because all the other ones were going up largely. So just to clarify that's um schedule C schedule C page five of schedule C or 161 in the package under intergovernmental there's county revenue there.

So um this would be the best projection that we have from the shared projects that we have. for example, the flood control district contributes to that. Um, I'll [clears throat] have to maybe give you a breakout on that. Yeah. I just want to understand if we're being cautious or we really have some intelligence that that um, you know, we've talked about our concerns about the library fund and other things. And so I was kind of worried um, with what's going on here. So, thank you.

Yeah, Lars, I have a question. And uh one thing that came out with the CIP plan um was the expense to the taxpayers to run water, sewer, roads, and uh easements, paying for easements that is that are in our development agreements that we negotiated. And uh to the tune of like a hund00 million and how are we going to pay for that? How do we I mean obviously we're going to have to go into debt, but what's what's the plan to pay for that?

Yeah, I think I think we will need to compare notes on the 100 million. What what we've done is we're working on a full spreadsheet um on all the development agreements, but from what I information I received from public works is we have $55 million in the five-year plan towards development agreements and roughly 53 million of that is funded through impact fees. So the projects that are in impact fees are then paid for over time as developments occur and building permits are issued.

the fees then help pay for the projects. But as you mentioned, we have we have to get the um infrastructure in place. So a lot of those are being done through debt issuances. We issue debt for the project and then uh over time that's paid down the debt service paid down with impact fees. So like uh bonds, right? General obligation bonds. Not not general obligation, that would be property tax base. So just just revenue bonds. Revenue bonds. Okay. And do you think this will affect our bond rating?

Um, potentially. We have a very strong bond rating right now with double A. Um, that's about as good as you can get for a city our size. We, you know, we'll get as we issue debt, we'll get new bond ratings because the the debt will then get a new rating. Um, but really what helps us keep a solid bond rating is what's called a coverage ratio. And that's what our revenue it the revenue that comes in each year, how that covers our debt. So there's a ratio involved.

As we do our rate studies, that's really examined to make sure that our rates are at a level that we can have a healthy debt coverage ratio. If that remains healthy, uh we'll have a solid rate bond bond rating as well. Okay. Ready? Thank you, Lois. Yeah, one other thing um I just thought about as uh the mayor was asking questions about our communications relating to the property tax.

You know, I think we talked about it a lot when we were in here that day talking about why we were doing this, but I do think as part of that communication that we want to put together and help the public understand um you know, we've been um uh under attack from the state legislature on um lots of funding and our tax revenues that we've we all the cities have enjoyed. Um, and they've been, as we know, we saw the hurt when they did away with the rental tax.

Um, and the one that they've been at now two years in a row. Um, so they haven't been successful, but I don't think they're going to be letting up is is eliminating food tax. Um, and you know, I'm not making a political comment about food tax. People feel differently about these things, but the reality is when they do it, it happens immediately.

And the other thing that and and thankfully it hasn't happened because we have two rocking legislative LD1 representatives who have literally thrown their bodies in front of the train. Um and other people have followed them. So I just, you know, shout out to uh Quan and Selena for the work they've done to help us th this far. But you can see the train is coming. It's coming.

And so one of the things we why we're doing the the property tax levy is the state legislature has tied our hands as well that we can only raise property taxes by 2% per year. 2% of hardly nothing means hardly anything incremental. And if they were to do away with property tax, I think you calculated it was going to take us 43 years of 2% or 42 or 43 years of 2% increases to make that up in our budget. So what that would mean is overnight we would start slashing services.

That's the only choice we would have. Um and so this was a decision by this council to, you know, it's not much. The numbers are not much, but if we don't start on the journey of where we see the state legislature is going to, we'll be that many years behind on trying to protect our quality of life here in the city of Prescat. So, that's why we're doing it, not because we like to raise taxes. It's just um something we have to do to protect the city.

And our sales tax is tax rate is or TBT is 9.3% and every city and town in the state sends 5.6 6% of their taxes to Phoenix to maintain the state, keep their lights on. And last year we sent down uh 123 million to the state. And how much did we get back? Uh about like 25 28 million. I I'm sorry, I don't have the number anymore. Revenue sharing funds and the her funds.

So, uh, they kept a lot and, uh, we're definitely paying our fair share to the state of, uh, of Phoenix and it would have been helpful to have kept some of that, but, uh, we're doing the best we can. Any other comments, Ted, do you have any comments out there? I know it's probably about midnight where you are. It's 1:14 in the morning and I my comment would be let's move on. Okay. I I thought I heard some snoring over there. Thank you, Ted. Okay, if there's uh any more comments.

Do I hear a motion? Can I jump in real quick on the police facility? Thank you. Just to make sure the the council's clear. So, what is in the the budget for FY27 is a little over 10. It's 10.96 million budgeted to be spent in FY27. And then we can continue to work on um total project and sighting and all that kind of stuff before we start spending that money um so that we're comfortable before we move forward and update in in the future. We can update those out years.

Um but all that we're talking about for the FY27 budget is that 10.9. And was that going to be spent on design? [laughter] The full 10.9 is not design. It's usually design is a million or two and the rest is I just want to make sure we're not spending millions of on designing on the side of the slope. Right. So, we'll bring those contracts back to council so that we can have those conversations and make sure that we're getting it done the way that fits the community. Okay. All right.

Thanks, Dalon. Any public comment on the budget? None, mayor. Okay. I don't want to hear any complaining [laughter] out there. [gasps] All righty. Do I hear a motion? Mayor, I move to adopt resolution number 2026-1984. Second. Please vote. Councilman Gambboji. Yes. Thank you. Passes 70. All right. Item 9 C. Approval of ballot language as recommended by the charter review committee for amendments to the prescuit city charter to be included on the November 3rd, 2026 special election ballot.

Um we do not have a slideshow or specific presentation um for you on this item. Everything was included in the packet. Um [snorts] at a [clears throat] previous meeting, the council approved two ballot measures related to charter amendments. uh the first of which relates to um primary calculations and the second of which removed the word uh magistrate from the city charter um since we have a city judge um so we don't need that language in there.

These additional proposals from the charter review committee come um after a number of meetings of the group over the last few months. And uh the first is some cleanup language to article 11 section 4 um which pertains to the city court. Um and Joe is going to touch on that as well because there is a um [clears throat] we received communication with regard to some possible revisions that we would need to make to that. So that's was not included in the packet.

That's what you see on the screen that it is bringing up for us and Joe will touch on that. Uh the second proposal relates to development agreements. um would be an additional section added to article 8 of the charter. Um and the third proposal is uh related to that related to article the second proposal um would amend article 1 section 3 related to powers of the city and proposal four uh relates to boundary provisions um in development agreements.

And proposal number five would amend article 8 section replacing section two which was a previously deleted section to add in requirements related to acquisition of real property as it pertains to appraisals and valuation. So, like I said, all of the language was included in the agenda packet um for your review and the only additional item is a possible revision um that Joe's going to cover. Yeah, I'm just going to address that real quickly.

This relates to the section dealing with the city judge. Now, under the Arizona Constitution, it's similar to the federal constitution. The judiciary is to be independent of the legislative branch.

Um, and so what that means is the language that, and this was an attempt by the committee, I I'll say, to bring the city judges charter provision in line with um the other appointed positions, but in doing so brought over the language that says that the judge serves at the pleasure of counsel, which is language that's not really true for judges. It it impinges on the independence of the judiciary.

So, we would propose removing the language at the um pleasure of council to as a direct report to council. The other part of it that was problematic was the one-year term um which case law from the 80s made pretty clear that two years as a minimum is required to maintain that independent judiciary. The removal for cause though has been upheld in case law. Um, as long as the cause is not a political cause, but you know, true cause.

In this case, cause is defined as uh criminal behavior or a violation of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. So, I think we're good on the cause question, but I do think that if the council adopts this, and this will go to the voters, that you should adopt the amended language, which would remove at the pleasure of council and would change the one-year time frame to a 2-year time frame. Yes, Lois. Um, Joe, I have no problem with those suggested changes.

Um, but I do think it's important to have in here, even though the contract is every two years, the term is every two years, um, I do think, um, that we should have an annual performance review between the judge and the city council. And I think that helps us work our way to whether to renew the contract after the end of the second year because we would have had two performance reviews. and we're being absolutely fair and all those other kinds of things.

So, um that was my that was my suggestion. In in that case, it there would be the language would be um shall serve as a direct report of council with the contract to be reviewed every two years but an annual performance review something like that. uh that language I we can do. So it's not at the pleasure of but it is that you know we're not surprising someone have never talked to them and then two years later we decide not to renew the contract.

I don't think that would be fair behavior and we can do that. That actually would be consistent with what we currently have in our charter. Um there is a requirement that the judge present every year to council. I will say that as far as I'm aware that rarely happens. Um but it is a a requirement of our charter. Mr. Young if I I had made the same kind of note myself that um an annual review but the contract renews in two years.

So is it a matter of saying that the performance will be reviewed annually and the contract renewed every two years? I I actually think it's more a report, an annual report from the court and to and that council will give feedback because we wouldn't really be reviewing annually the contract. The contract will be what it is until the renewal date comes up, right? But annually, we would either be reviewing the performance or just getting a report.

I I think I think report and feedback is the way that has to be worded because if it's worded as a evaluation then we get into the potential uh interference of the independence of the judiciary but expecting a report from the judge I think is fair. Giving feedback so there's no surprises at the end of the two years is also fair. I think that's how it would have to be worded to to meet those requirements.

And I think what we can do, if the council's comfortable with this, is um the ballot language for this particular item, if you'd prefer, could be adopted on June 23rd. Um so that Joe and I can tweak based on feedback. We can bring it back and I'm still within my um deadline needs for ballot language to the county if the council would be more comfortable with that. And mayor um Councilman Gamboji does have his hand up. Mr.

Gambboji, if I count correctly, there's one, two, three four five uh charter amendment proposals. Is that correct? That is correct. And is this all or nothing at all? They're all individual. They're all individual. So you could like So we're going to vote on these individually. Correct. Thank you. I I should say that the public will vote on these individually. If you want to make a motion that has more than one proposal in it for approval, you can do so.

But I think, as I mentioned, I think that that proposal one needs a little bit of tweaking. You can give us direction to do so, but I think it probably makes more sense to update the language and bring it back for council approval. I' I'd like to hear from the city attorney concerns. I think having an independent judiciary is very important and so do you have any concerns with this language for this proposal? I have concerns with it as drafted. I don't have concerns with it changing.

I think it is important uh you know [clears throat] a city court judge I don't think needs a lifetime appointment like the Supreme Court have. Um so most elected judges have four-year appointments. I think a two-year appointment is allowable under the the case law and I think it's appropriate, but I I do think that the removal during the 2-year term needs to be limited under the Constitution.

um and limited to the cause that we have here I think is appropriate and that council can go a different direction at the end of two year at the end of two years. So I don't have a problem as long as we update the language. Are there any concerns around the timing of that two-year term in relation to when a new council would come on? As it currently stands, the two-year term, the current two-year term ends at the end of this year.

So, at the end of uh it it's at the end of each even numbered year. Um, and I think that's actually pretty consistent or or fits in pretty well with when we currently have our elections. That means a council would come in and have a year of experience before having to make a determination on a judge's contract. I think it actually works pretty well. Thank you.

And and I'd like to comment that one of the uh wording changes that the charter committee did originally the judge didn't even have to be an attorney or licensed. So this is one of the additions that they added that the judge must be a licensed attorney and in good standing. So I think that was very a very important addition because one of the goals of the charter committee was to uh make sure the amendments provided more transparency, clarity, and updates to the to the charter.

Mayor If I can just make a point. Yeah, Mary. Um, the last point that Jay made as far as the timing of the renewal for the contract for the judge, uh, versus election, new election for council people. I'd only support leaving it the way that it is because it kind of removes some of the political element away from a judge's contract being renewed. At the same time, people are voting for new counsel.

So having in addition to the point that the uh Joe you made as far as new council member having a year's exposure to the judge before they are being asked to uh make comment about renewing his contract or not but I do like keeping it in even numbered years and then council elections in odd number years for those two reasons. Yeah, I think the timing makes sense. I I I don't know if they did it because of those reasons, but I think those two reasons are pretty uh strong reasons to do so.

Lois Joe, I have a question. Um, the judge may be removed by city council only for cause after notice and the opportunity to be heard. Um because I've never managed a city judge before. What would be cause? And I asked this because we were did a lot of negotiations the last few weeks on the budget and and bringing in some new streams of revenue [snorts] and making those kind of commitments. And so I want to understand like what could be caused if none of that came to life. Yeah.

And so I'm going to answer a question you didn't ask first and then I'll answer the cause question. All right. Um the judge may only be removed for cause during the term of the contract during the two-year term. At the conclusion of the contract can be removed for any reason. Now during the contract can only be removed for cause. What is cause? It's the last sentence. Criminal conduct or a violation of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. That's that's the entirety of cause.

[clears throat] Okay. So the contract M if he wasn't following through on the revenue and other things like that and it was hurting the city, that would be something we'd address at the 2-year mark. Yes. Okay. And that was another thing that was updated. Uh originally it was, you know, basically you couldn't remove a judge that there it was, you know, you'd have to do something pretty heinous to uh get removed. Yeah.

And and you know, previously our judge, the city court judge was the elected JP for the area. And so the judges would have their elections every four years and they would fight it out. And then we would kind of be I'm going to use the we'd be stuck with whoever won the election. And at this point, um we're no longer tied to the JP.

uh the council can have many reasons why they might want to move go in a different direction at the end of the two years, but during the two years, this establishes that they're independent and can operate independently. Okay, next item. that next section there and I that proposal one was the only one where we I think needed some discussion and needed our clarification that I don't think it's ready and we need to bring it back to you.

uh proposals two, three and four are essentially uh development agreement related and establish certain requirements that the committee and the mayor in discussions with the committee felt were important in relation to DAS. Um I I can go I'll go through it quickly, but ultimately we're available for discussion if council has any questions.

The first in proposal two is um adding some sort of guidepost onto development agreements primarily prohibiting adjoining and adjacent property clauses and requiring that all development agreements have a specific term and duration. I think this was important for many reasons. I think the mayor brought it up as being important. But what this does is when a development agreement is approved, council hears what it applies to.

the public hears what it applies to and it will apply only to those things. A lot of development agreements have adjoining adjacent property clauses which allows sort of in the discretion of the developer to bring in additional property over time into the development agreement.

Whether the property owner or the developer subsequently acquires new property or has developed everything within the development agreement and now wants to develop more area and and I don't think that was consistent with what the public wants. If the public sees a development agreement, they expect that is what it should apply to. So the proposal two is just to require new development agreements, new areas, go through the same process that any development agreement would.

Yeah, it kind of left the door open with the adjacent and adjoining land clause so that he could bring in new property under the same old terms, previous terms. and also it makes it harder for us to manage our water growth and development. Uh we're working on our uh long-term water management plan and we're trying to figure out how we accommodate this concept of adjoining and adjacent lands, right?

And some contracts will right some development agreements will have allow for adjoining adjacent clauses but have specific water caps on the total. And so in that case we can plan but others don't and so additional property would mean additional water obligations. So sort of cutting that off and both prohibiting adjoining adjacent property clauses and the requirement that there be a term and duration I think allows us to plan better in the long term.

And also I might add the state legislature um has become uh enamored with pre preemptive legislation where they are trying to take over more and more local control and uh you know your local city government is at the level where you should have the biggest voice and unfortunately that is being silenced. So this is one reason why we need to put these amendments in the charter.

Uh it's the people will vote to put these amendments in the charter and only the vote of the people can change them or remove them. That's great, Lois. Um thank you Joe and thank you mayor. I only I have I'm totally supportive of A and B. I have one question about uh C. I understand what we're trying to accomplish and I absolutely get it, but given the wording that is there, um, could a future council sign a development agreement that sets out terms as 100 years? Yes.

Uh, so a council could do that and we had originally had a I think it was 35 or a year um maximum duration or expiration date. We then changed that or played with the defined uh date a little bit and ultimately removed the date and just requires that there be an actual defined term and expiration date. It does allow for a very long one. Um, but I I still think I actually think it's better in this format, even though it would allow maybe a potential uh future council to have a very long um term.

I think that's better than not having any guidelines as it relates to terms at all. Well, that's that's where I'm going. I'm like, we've gone as far as to say we need to have defined terms and guidelines, but then a future council could say, I don't get your intent. I don't want to agree with your intent. So, we're going to set this contract for a hundred years. And and I I just think that's way too open-ended. I don't know that we've gained anything by adding this.

And ultimately at at this point, this is yours. This is kind of the recommendation from the committee. And I'll be honest, I I preferred it as it currently is drafted with an uh requiring a defined term, but not having a specific cap on what that term is because, and I'll give you an example. The the recent development agreement that we entered into as a council um was relating to the workforce housing. um up by Culver's. We had a 35 or 40-year term in that event.

And the reason we had a little bit longer of a term was so that we could enforce obligations because they made certain promises to uh keep these units open into certain income classes for 30 or 40 years. And so we actually extended the duration on that for our purposes so that we could enforce that. Now given that we sometimes the longer term is in the city's best interest and enforcing it is in the city's best interest. I I don't know what a a proper number would be.

Smaller number doesn't necessarily mean better for the city. So I think requiring that it have a term and that it have an expiration date at least gets us out of a lot of the contracts and DAs we currently have don't have one. And to me that opens us up to uh the planning problems and so forth. So I that's what we get with it. If you want to put a a certain defined term or a date, we can do that.

That's it's up to your discretion, but I think it makes sense that given what you just described and I remember the 60-year term for Roa Cooper with the rates. Um, you know, so I get I get the point. I'll concede on not adding a number, but this is another point where we're adding something to the charter and who you elect to be up here agreeing to development agreements really matters. Mayor, Councilman Gambboi does have his hand raised. Yes, Mr. Gam.

Uh my my question has been answered, so I remove my hand raised. Okay. Thank you. And uh I'm pretty sure the county has uh a term term limits on their uh when people have not just development agreements but just plat and uh you know people can come up with a plat and then 20 years later they you know they don't do anything and then 20 years later they come and you know it's expired and then they have to renegotiate it. And so that's what we need to do.

We just can't have someone do something like 50 years ago and then come and and expect us to still honor it. You know, there should be an expiration date uh so that these things just don't continue to build up. One of the things I did uh I looked up the new Webster's New American DI dictionary because I've been having a hard time with the words shall, may, must, and will. [snorts] And uh I learned that shall and may are the two most litigated words in the English language.

And that the um that must is the best and clearest term to use for mandatory obligations in modern contracts according to the plain English drafting standards. Avoid shall use may for with discretion and we will cautiously. So I think that uh we really if we can use the word must like in this instead of say shall not exceed we should change that to must not exceed to be a little more clear. I we can make that change. This kills the lawyer's heart, by the way, to take shall away from us.

Yes, it's there's too many nuances uh in uh with the word shall, and we just need to uh get rid of those and make it perfectly clear. No shades of differences. Okay, next item. Proposal three increases. As the charter currently stands, the city has the power to require new development pay for itself, but doesn't have an obligation to require it. That's the shall part. Yes. And but the shall doesn't say that the city shall require. It says the city shall have the power to require. Yeah.

Shall have the power. And you know with me just person off the street it looked like you know we should be doing that and for some reason we used to and then something changed and we stopped doing it and it's uh we've been running up a big bill uh thanks to this. Yes. So, what this does is remove a few of the um obligations for new developments that we state statute doesn't allow us to necessarily ch uh require bike paths and other types of things.

Um so, it removes some of those, but it does include roads and all the utilities that we can uh require a new development do and then requires us to do that. That's the second the new paragraph which is the second paragraph requires that the city mandate that any new large uh residential development that comes into the city through annexation must or will or shall um bring in roads utilities and all of that infrastructure and it not have the city incur that obligation. Yeah.

I'd like in that second paragraph must be planned, designed, constructed. I like the word must. But going back to the first sentence, it's right out of the uh the charter uh the city shall have the power to require which was confusing and was never enforced.

I say that we should strike that strike the city shall have the power to require and then start with all persons, firms or corporations must be responsible for new physical development to provide for, furnish or pay a fee in lie of to make it perfectly clear. How would you define new physical development? a development just in the way that you phrased it, a person having new physical development like what could that mean? And could we get into any legal conundrums with that?

Well, that's what was in the charter and we're keeping that. So, I think it's just any develop development, physical development. Do we mean physical, commercial, and residential development as compared to a shack or garage, little tiny building you're popping up in your backyard? I'm just trying to how how I following up on Jay's line of question.

I if I may, I I think that kind of fundamentally changes a few things because we have to determine what the physical development we're talking about is. I I think that change may be one we need to come back to council on on how that looks because we would we'll have to have a discussion on what physical development we're referring to. As it stands now, the city has the the authority to require this for everything and that's fine.

when we on the second paragraph we sort of limit what is the mandatory uh and it's that's new residential development that comes in the city through annexation. I think if we change that first sentence to remove the city shall have the power and just requires every development it it opens us up and I think we would need to clarify that.

And what I'm thinking, for example, would be some sort of a commercial development next door that the city wants and would be of good benefit and we would and we might want to um pay for water to go next door to us. It would be a very limited cost and the city would receive a a a big benefit from that development. um and kind of taking away that potential feels, excuse me, feels pretty heavy. Um so I think we would need to come back on how that would look. Uh yes, Lois.

Um so I you know I I think back to uh when uh people sitting up on the dis were um in negotiations to bring Costco and they waved some fees and it was a really smart thing to do. So I get the difference between must versus shall shall. [laughter] Um because I I I think those opportunities are far and few between and and we need to seize them when the time comes because it paid for itself in I think it was two years of sales tax and we were doing well. So I I get your point.

Further down in that paragraph, I um I don't understand um I get the public rights away the roads. I don't get the other necessary transportation term because I'm like if we need buses or something, we would reach out to Y Plan and you know, so I I just wasn't sure what that meant. This is a a remnant. So this isn't a new drafting. This is a remnant um from how it was previously drafted.

We didn't remove it because I I don't know necessarily what other necessary transportation includes either, but it's a permissive rather than a mandatory. So, I thought that it made sense to that it stays in there. So, so if someone says it's a something and therefore we need our own dedicated bike lanes because you're going to a park or I don't know what you know like potentially. Right. Okay. All right. All right.

Um, further down, um, there was two terms that I was a little confused about, but if everyone is crystal clear and we have a city definition for them, then I will concede. Um, the word utilities, um, some people think of the word utilities as um, telephone, cable. Yeah. All sorts of things. So, it's like, could we say water, wastewater, drainage, flood control, and storm water? I'm looking at Mr. Ruby. Um, so I do think we have to pl start planting the seeds for storm water infrastructure.

So, if we could better define the utilities, that was my first concern. The second one, I wasn't sure what you meant by public service extensions. like is that APS extending a line to the neighborhood or did we mean um public safety services like if you're going to build you know 50 square miles worth of uh housing we want you to build a fire station. No, I think it that it it's in the [sighs] clause with all the other utilities.

So it's it's different utility and infrastructure related items um that's required to bring uh that those utilities and public services to the [snorts] location. But if we redefine and clarify what utilities means I think that will go along with it. And then the same what is public service extensions mean? Yeah, that that's what I'm saying. The public service extension, I think, is just an extension of utilities.

And the intent here was to re to apply to both um new utilities and to upsizing an extension of existing utilities. Okay, I'm aligned to that. But again, because this is about development, if somebody was going to annex a bunch of square miles and we have sunseted our sales PSTI and we want to for some reason think about bringing that in, shouldn't we have things like here in terms of public safety service extensions because we're going to have to provide more police.

We're going to have to provide fires. We can do so. I I will say that abs without even this provision, the public safety is an obligation that's paid for by the new development through development impact fees.

Um, and I think we could make that clear that yeah, but but this is sort of in addition to development impact fees and would take away from development impact fees quite frankly because if we require all the infrastructure to be put in by the developer, they do that in place of development impact fees and they wouldn't have to pay development impact fees.

But M they would still have to pay the development impact fees that relate to non infrastructure related items like public service and so forth. Does that make sense? It does make sense, but I know we're trying to be a little more um in tune with what our friends to the south of us managed to get um big developments to do and they build schools and they build fire stations and they build they buy cars for police officers.

So I'm just I just didn't understand first what public service extension mean. But I once I got my mind wrapped around public safety service extensions, then I went in all sorts of directions, which was where I'm I'm just not sure how how everybody how far everybody wants to go on on this because I thought this was about trying to bring Prescuit into, as Jay likes to say, the 21st century when all these other cities and towns across Arizona managed to get all sorts of stuff paid for.

And and if they would pay for those kind of things, I would certainly be opening to waving the impact fee if they're going to build it and and you know, maybe or lower the impact fee because now all we have to do is staff it. You know, I I I'm worried about sort of that going that far in a charter provision.

when we talk about cities that where developerment brings in you know for example a police station or or pays for cars and so forth that is done essentially universally through development agreements and that's a product of negotiation. So requiring that or putting it into a charter I I worry gets us too far into the specifics of how a development works.

And I think that the charter isn't necessarily supposed to be written in that way that it's more uh to be written in general and then we have figure out what that means specifically through the negotiation the development agreement process. Having said that we you know it's up to council but what we've talked about so far I think means that proposal 3 needs a reddraft. Um and we can do that. Yeah. And and I agree.

Um but for to for me what raised uh an alarm bell with me was the fact that we have been providing all these utilities and buying easements just to get them to a private property owner's property line. And in real life, the owner of the property, you know, negotiates with the seller to bring that property, those utilities in or they go out and get them themselves. But lately, we have been providing wet utilities and buying easements across state land for the developers.

And then if we don't do it quick enough for them and can't, you know, we're dealing with state land, a third party, and we can't do it, then they use it as leverage against us to embroil us in lawsuits to the tune of like, I don't know, 150 million, I think, is the latest one, and then leverage that into getting even more concessions from us. So we really need to be careful that we don't allow this to continue and that's why it needs to be in the charter to protect the public purse strings.

So maybe we should say to clarify it, you know, bringing wet utilities, easements, roads to the developers private property line and make it, you know, crystal clear that we're not going to be doing that anymore because in the past the developers were responsible for those things and they went out and did it and that's how it was drafted. So that's what paragraph two does, but it is limited in scope.

It doesn't cover sort of all the other things we've talked about, but what it does do is require that a development um in a newly annexed area has to bring all of those kind of baseline utilities to the property line. And so I we're covered there, but we've sort of talked about more things today and I think we would have to figure out how that looks. Okay. Um if there's no more comments, let's move on to the next. Sorry, Councilman Gambboi has his hand up. Ted, sorry. Yeah.

You know, I [clears throat] there there's an old phrase, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I I think you're trying to make this charter um so perfect that it doesn't afford future councils the latitude of examples that Lois brought up like with Costco or with Trader Joe's. So, um I think I think we've done some good work. I don't think it has to be perfect and and I don't think it should be perfect because we should understand and put trust in the council.

I think some of the problems I have with these past charter amendments, it presumes that the the city council is not trustworthy and I don't think you can run a city with that presumption. Thank you, Ted. All right. Second to the last second proposal 4 just adds a requirement that annexations large scale annexations um must have at least 25% open space and tries to define what that open space means.

Now there's a I think an understanding or belief that large annexations need this uh property or open space requirement now and actually it doesn't not under our charter under planned area developments this pad zoning there is a requirement to have open space to this way but um this adds it to our charter and establishes a requirement that these large residential developments include uh open space and that it be meaningful.

So meaningful was in the last two strategic plan sessions we heard meaningful that open space should be meaningful. I for one didn't know what that meant. Um but this is an an attempt to define what meaningful means so that it be um contiguous, usable, and preserve wildlife corridors and native habitat to the extent possible. Um so that's proposal four. Yeah. And I like the way on your paragraph three, rather than consisting of isolated or fragmented parcels.

Like if you go out to uh Prescat Lakes, they have those medians in the middle of the road that are lushly landscaped. Those are counted as open space. Uh detention basins uh can be counted as open space. Uh just a little border around the perimeter can be counted as open space. the developers will figure it down to the last inch.

And you know, legally, if we're going to provide uh public services and city utilities and increase a developer's property values and profit margins, we need to get something in return. A nexus has to be created. So that's where open space comes in. And you know, legally, uh you know, we have to require something tangible in return. And that's where this usable open space uh comes in. So, you know, there's a loophole that was, you know, exploited. And we just had Mr.

Murray talk about wildlife corridors and so something like this would be uh wonderful. And if we had this in prior uh those to that plat the deep well I'm not the Granite Delates J well well Jasper's in Prescuit Valley but you know we could have had a wildlife corridor through there and we would have been able to negotiate that but thanks to Prop um House Bill 2447 it doesn't even come before planning and zoning.

there's no public input uh and it doesn't come to elected officials and so as a result it was just uh rubber stamped and away they went and you know and I really think the community development could have had you know can even though it doesn't come to us they can't they require some concessions and some conditions and say hey you know you need to put some something in here you know like a wildlife corridor or you know public open space.

I I'll say that the community development can't act in their own discretion. They sort of are bound by the zoning um laws that we have. So what this does is it doesn't apply to you know plats but it doesn't apply to annexations which annexation your authority hasn't been removed by that house bill. It still has to come to council, right?

And it it then sets a requirement that when it comes to council, it has to have this open space requirement and we can review that and go through it before we ever approve an annexation. Yeah. Because we um we have an open space policy, but we just haven't been able to uh enforce it when we do our negotiations with the um with the developers.

I think this one is written quite clearly and I think it's important for us to remember each of these are going to go to the voters and so it's important that the language is clear because when it's confusing to voters it doesn't have as good a chance of passing and then proposal five just briefly sorry we've got I think Mayor Prom had something and then Councilman Gambboji has his hand up as well. Okay, Lois.

Yeah, I was I was concerned um that um since I've learned so much in the last year about being clear and unambiguous that um meaningful and functional is in the eye of the beholder. Um, and I was worried with HB2447 that that might not be clear and unambiguous for the folks in comdev who would be handling that. But because this is annexation, which I missed that in the title, or will I've never been through an annexation. So I have a question about the process.

When there is an annexation, will we be getting the level of detail to be able to see the wildlife cars and n or are they just saying we want to have, you know, we're going to do x thousands of homes on x amount of acres? Do we get to this level that we we the council are the decision maker of what is meaningful and functional in a large scale pre-annexation development agreement?

It's pretty comprehensive what the council gets and this provision adds the requirement that it also be comprehensive as it relates to open space and so you'll get that information. Now the good thing about annexation and tying these requirements to annexation is council has full discretion rather to annex. When you get a a plat you do not have full discretion. you're sort of bound by certain requirements and now you don't get plats anymore.

But as an example, um depending on the type of projects, you have certain guidelines and and handcuffs you might think, but when it comes to annexation, you have full discretion. So adding that requirement is the relates to annexation, I think makes a lot of sense. You and you are empowered to get the amount of detail that you feel is necessary.

And uh that's why it's important that the city council gets a copy of all the drafts and participates and goes through these agreements line by line, word by word because there's so many loopholes built into them. And uh that's why having good legal counsel is is so important with these uh with these deals. Councilman Gambboji, I go back to what I mentioned earlier. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

We're trying to do design wording into the charter that removes the responsibility of future councils to make rational evaluations. And I think we're going a little too far. It's kind of a two-edged sword. In the past, we've had council members that don't even read a development agreement. And sometimes it's been hard to even get a draft of a development agreement because we're just expected to have a PowerPoint presentation hitting the highlights and then uh rubber stamp it.

the proposal and it's incumbent upon the voters to write vote in the right council members. Thank you, Ted. [clears throat] Uh, briefly, a proposal five requires that the city prior to a purchase or an exchange of real property get an appraisal by an independent qualified real estate appraiser who's licensed and certified and that the city not pay more than that appraised value unless doing so through eminent domain. Yeah.

The um the purpose of this is to bring the the city's uh purchases of real estate up to the same level of what the private sector does. You know, it's routine. You get an appraisal. If they don't like the other side doesn't like it, they get theirs. And then if you don't like it, then you get a third one and have a meeting of the minds and and negotiate. But there's been pretty much every purchase since I've been on council, there hasn't been an appraisal.

Uh it just they just go, "Well, it's market rate. We'll just uh like for example, the W parcel that we bought from AED for 10 million." That was just kind of a number that uh AED came up with and was, "Oh, [clears throat] well, we think it's about this." We did a comparison. So, we we paid it. And then this building here, you know, it had two vacant out of three floors. I think two of them were pretty much just uh studs. And uh we just paid the asking price. We didn't get an appraisal.

And then on top of it, we paid an extra $250,000 on top of the asking price. And uh you know, we just can't we just can't keep doing that. And then there was a third case I can't remember. uh what that was where we did a similar thing. So this is just to establish a standard so that we you know just do what people do in the real world. Jesus Christ. I I will say I have some hesitation on proposal five.

I think the others we sort of discussed and I I have some hesitation on proposal 5 because I think um it could limit discretion of councils and the ability to negotiate. I do think having a requirement that appraisal be done makes a lot of sense but sort of limiting it to the appraisal value I think actually could hurt us more than it helps us. But ultimately, you know, this is up to council. Maybe the voters too. Yes. Did um Dalen, did you have some comments?

No, just other than agreeing with that point of there may be a situation where, you know, 5% above above appraised value is the difference between closing a deal and missing out on a property that we really were wanting to get on and and then maybe needing to be in a negative domain situation or something like that. So, some flexibility.

I think the biggest thing is having the if you have the appraisal then there's the ability to hold the city accountable for what we decide to pay and it's it's clear and transparent that we paid appraised or we paid above and how much above. Um limiting the city's actual ability to execute um could just be a wrench in the gears at some point. Yeah, there's it's always good to you know it's a two-edged sword.

you know, you don't want to tie your hands and and lose a property over like $10,000 or something like that. Patrick? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um I think for me that third paragraph, um independent appraisal, that doesn't really cover what you described mayor.

I think you're absolutely right that when you think of an appraisal process, particularly for a city purchase, um this happened a lot in my career is there was the independent appraisal and then an opportunity for the seller to get their own appraisal and then if those two still didn't come to agreement, then you each agree on the third appraiser. This doesn't say that. This just says an independent appraisal.

um the process you just described, which I agree with, um gives some of that flexibility um that the city manager was referring to. Yeah. So, I I don't know. That's that's kind of a to me that that's kind of a a given, but you know, we could put that in if you excuse me [clears throat] if you wanted to if you wanted to get that specific, but you know, it's just a negotiation. And I don't know if we should get into the details of routine negotiations and this is for this is up to you.

It'll be up to the voters later. Um and so I'm only giving what I my suggestion which sort of mimics what uh the city manager said, which is that there must be an appraiser. And say if something appraises for 1 million and then council pays 5 million, well that council's probably not going to last. there's going to be political consequences for that. And I I think that sort of accountability is established by having an appraisal.

The real problem I see is with past um and none of us were here I think or at least most of us weren't here but where there was not an appraisal done and then there's that there's it's hard to have accountability because you don't even know what the proper uh value is. So requiring appraisal but allowing some uh flexibility with negotiations I think makes a lot of sense of sense because it could be in the best interest of the city to do so. So it sounds like we need to work on that one too.

Yes, Jim. Uh so Joe, does that paragraph eliminate the city's ability to negotiate a higher price for its own convenient reasons? um if the city is selling it, it doesn't apply. But if the city is buying and we want to negotiate a higher price for some reason, yes, we wouldn't be able to do that. Yeah, that I think the airport acquisition is a good example. So, I'm not all that in favor of limiting it to the appraised value.

Didn't you say in [clears throat] except in the case of imminent domain? That's what the current draft says. So what it would I'll just bring up this the the property we discussed today as an example. It was appraised at 620. We'd be limited to the 620 offer and the you heard from the stone ciphers, but say they came back and said, "Hey, we we'll sell it to you for 640." At this point, we'd be going forward to eminent domain.

um the with the way this is written and I I don't think that's in the best interest of anybody and that's kind of where I think that requiring an appraisal makes a lot of sense limiting it to and this sounds like uh it's probably not a very popular position to say hey let's pay more than appraise value but I think they're ultimately the accountability rests in the voters having an appraisal sets and having it the appraisal be part of the public record establishes the accountability for you a council or city that that pays more than that.

And I think that voters are smart enough to say, "Yeah, we paid this much more than the appraised value, but it was for this good reason or it's because it was part of negotiations." Whereas, if you pay way higher and there's no explanation for that, I think the voters then change their mind on what they think about that council. And when we're selling uh city property, the buyers always ask for an appraisal. [laughter] And uh so we pay you know we sell at a praise price.

I think we have to be careful about restricting ourselves. We're not going to be able to correct the mistakes of the past or prevent the mistakes of the future. So the tool of an appraisal is really useful but saying what we have to do with it seems fraught with error. Lois. Yeah. I'm with the uh majority of what I'm hearing here across the board. I like everything on this except for paragraph 3.

I would recommend we strike paragraph 3 and just get the appraisal and have it be part of the record, but not tie council's hands on future decisions and end up going to court where we could have just paid $3,000 or $5,000 more and avoided court. And and from my perspective, just the legal perspective, I think striking the third paragraph, it weakens it in some ways, but I think that it establishes the public record and creates accountability.

And I think that that is a good middle ground [clears throat] personally, but like I said, this is council's decision. You said it's important to have paragraph three or we can in my opinion I would remove paragraph three. Okay. Because it's it's important to have an offramp in these kind of things. Uh Councilman Gambboji does have his hand up again. Mayor, sorry to cut you off. Ted, I think what Lois and Joe have said is suffice for us to move on. Just have that reworked again.

you're trying to put language in the charter to make it absolutely perfect and in the case that Joe mentioned about the airport instead of going to litigation, we'd rather just pay a couple thousand dollars more and be done with it. So to me, let's move on. Okay. So, um let's um ask if there's any comments from the uh public. Don't have any comment cards, Mayor. Okay. Thank you. So, um let's uh summarize what we've done here.

Um proposal number one, we need to uh tweak that a little bit about the city judge. And I think that the general consensus uh that we heard from that was to do the two-year term with an annual sort of report and feedback from the council and then we'll um take out the language uh pleasure of council and utilize what was in the amended that's up on the screen. Okay. And then proposal two concerning development agreements. Um let's see.

Um there's some um this is about adjoining and adjacent provisions. Um under paragraph C, my tweak was change uh shall not exceed and I changed it to must not exceed. Um, was there going to be any other changes? I think that was the only change that was and I think and up to council of course, but I think this could be voted on with that simple change. We could just make that if if you're prepared to do so. Okay.

And then uh proposal three uh powers of the city uh we had some u tweaks to that that we needed to bring back. Uh for example, uh the city shall have the power to require strike that and re reward that. So I didn't have council consensus on that um in the minutes here. I know it was mentioned um by you, mayor, but I didn't hear general consensus from the council to do that. If there is consensus from the council, of course, we certainly can.

Um and then um the there was also discussion regarding um specific definition like wet utilities, easement, things of that nature. Um but again not not consensus there just um suggestion. So um staff does need some direction and consensus from council on how they would like to proceed with proposal three. Um, I like the notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph.

I think it's pretty clear, but like I said, I have a I had an issue with the first sentence because it's exactly like what was in the in the charter which allowed which wasn't enforced. You know, it was the shall language again and must is uh a lot more definitive and clearer. So we but then we we spoke about how that created some potential problems. Yeah. But I just would like to see shall not used anymore.

So if there's consensus from council, the first sentence which is the city shall have the power be the city has the power. Just strike the city shall have the power to require and then begin the per the sentence with all person firms or corporations must be responsible for new physical development within the city. And then oh that reminds me we were going to look up the definition of physical development.

We we I think there were specific problems with that though in striking those first words because of then it leaves new physical development undefined. Yeah, we were going to look at that. Yeah, I I I think that from my perspective, proposal one is an easy change that will bring back and clear. Proposal two you could vote for as you as it stands with just a verbal modification from the shell to must. Proposal four I think is good where it's at.

And proposal five we'd recommend removing paragraph 3. Proposal three is the one that I think we're we're sort of not very close and maybe we need to bring back and discuss that one. Yes, I agree. Does that give you all enough direction to conclude? I guess the only thing uh would be Joe if you think that it's reasonable on three to have that by June 23rd because if it's not that item is not going to be on the November ballot, which is up to the council, but I just want to make that very clear.

Yeah. I I guess the first question is, do you want to vote on any of the other proposals? I think I think a vote on the adjoining and adjacent one changing three. So proposal 2, four, and five. I think you're at a place that you can vote from the discussion I heard. And I just wanted to make sure the shall there's three shall one in paragraph B and two in paragraph C. Are we changing all the shall to wills in proposal two?

Yeah, because I heard the mayor say at the very end of the second the se the second shall in ter term and duration will not exceed. So I and I agree with that but it's like every development agreement will include this novel all the shells to will in in proposal too. Okay. How about if excuse me it says every development agreement shall Why don't we just say must include and forget the will because must like it says uh must is the gold standard for expressing an obligation.

It's direct and leaves no room for ambiguity. Fair enough. If that's the motion, I think that's understandable that if you make a motion to approve proposal two, changing shall to must, we will do that. Yeah. Thank you. When we vote on these, are we voting on them separately or all together? So if you'd like given the discussion you can do proposal two proposal with the change of shall to must or will or whatever the council decides must.

[laughter] Uh proposal four I don't think that there were any changes there. And then proposal five we would remove paragraph three based on council consensus. I think on that could be one motion. I think on proposal four we also spoke of taking the shells out and changing them to must in proposal four as well. Are there any is there a shell? Yeah. Yes, there's must dedicate I see three I circled. Okay. So shall both of those two and then removing paragraph three in proposal five.

How would one make a how would one state that motion? My recommendation would be that you move to approve the ballot language as proposed for proposal 2, proposal 4, and proposal 5 with the stipulation that all shall be changed to must on the affordable ballot language. Can I just repeat what Sarah said to make the motion? Oh, and strike paragraph three from proposal five. But yes, you can say that. So I don't need to repeat you right now. I can just say ditto.

You can say that you would like to make a motion based on the language provided by the city clerk. I would like to make a motion pro based on the language provided by the city clerk. Second. And I second that. Okay. Ted [clears throat] gets it in the notes. Uh, Mayor Prom, I'm going to assume you're yes since you've made the motion. And then Councilwoman Frederickson, I need you to click it. Thank you so much. Okay, that motion passes 70. And I'd like to congratulate the council.

This is a momentous shift in council policy and I hope that everyone realizes that we are pivoting to do what's best for the people of Prescuit instead of focusing on what's best for the um developers. Mayor, yes, I'm sorry and this is for Sarah. Uh the resolution is that on hold until those other two proposals are reworked? No. So that resolution was previously adopted by the council, the one that was attached in the memo.

I just put it in there as a reminder that the resolution was adopted which set the special election for the city. So this will just be included with the previous um propositions. Um, and proposition numbers will be assigned once I know how many propositions for sure we're going to have. The county gives me those and then that will all be included in the publicity pamphlet and all of that information. And as it stands now, proposal one and three are are going to come back to us. Yes. Yeah.

On on u the 23rd. Yep. On June 23rd in order to meet the deadline. Of course, if the council is still not comfortable with the language as presented, um you do not have to approve it, uh then it would just be on a future ballot, but not November 3rd. Thank you. I'd like to thank the charter review committee for putting this work together. It was really formidable work. Yeah, Monty Mcmmin had an appointment or something or else she would have been here. Thank you. Okay, any more comments?

That's all we've got, Mayor. That was our last item. All right. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.