Flagstaff approves Miltown rezoning, awards $1.65M affordable housing, defers immigration enforcement decision

All right. Hello everyone. Today is Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. This is the city council's regular meeting. I am calling it to order and giving notice to members of the city council and to the general public that at this meeting, the city council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public for discussion and consultation with the city's attorneys for legal advice on any item item listed on the following agenda. Could we have roll call? Mayor Daggett. Here.

Vice Mayor Sweet. Here. Councilmember Aslan. Present. Councilmember Garcia. Present. Councilmember House. Here. Councilmember Matthews. Here. Councilmember Spence. Here. Councilmember Matthews, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? It'd be my honor. Please rise if you're able. Councilmember Garcia, do you have the mission statement pulled up? Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. The mission of the city of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life for all. Thank you.

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

All right, next up we have item 4A, consideration and approval of minutes from some past meetings. If there are no questions or concerns, I'll entertain a motion. Mayor, I move that we approve the um City Council's special meeting of August 22nd, 2022, regular meeting of March 3rd, 2026, special meeting March 10th, 2026, City Council work session of March 10th. And I'll second that. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Any opposed?

All right, we're down to open call to the public which enables the public to address us about anything that is not on the prepared agenda. And because whatever you are going to address us about is not on the agenda, we can't have back and forth, can't answer questions or ask you questions, but we can, if there is an issue, we can ask staff to follow up with you. First up, we have Colleen Mering. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council.

I'm Colleen Mering, Chief People Officer at Northern Arizona Healthcare, and I'm excited to share that NAH will soon be getting another surgical robot. Um we actually have several already that assist us in surgeries um that minimize uh literally physical impact to patients um in care and improve um, healing times and overall outcomes. And our newest robot is going to be here any day.

It's called the Ion system and it's specifically designed to see and diagnose lung cancer at a much earlier stage um, than without this uh technology. Lung cancer is actually one of the harder cancers to diagnose and so we usually find it much later on making it harder um, to treat and uh, harder to survive that treatment and the cancer.

So with this robot at FMC, our pulmonologists um, both who work for us and those who are independent um, in private practice here in the community can support patients and detect cancers at a hopefully much more curable stage. Um, credit uh, a lot of credit for this goes to Dr. Mike Reedy. Um, he's a pulmonologist who worked for us many years ago, left the area for a while and we hired back in 2023.

When he reopened our our pulmonology clinic, um, he was really passionate about this, about early lung cancer diagnostics. Um, so he has recruited a whole team of physicians and uh, medical experts and uh, helped bring this robot um, to Flagstaff. Uh, and the really exciting thing is we're inviting all of you, council members and the public to come see it and use it yourself uh, before it goes into practice.

So Thursday, April 23rd in our West Campus parking lot, um, we'll have a a demo version of the robot. It is not the actual robot that will be inside the hospital. Um, where you can literally try using the robot yourself. It's from noon to 5:00 that day and we'll actually also have a da Vinci surgical robot um, which is a robot we already have in use in our operating room. Um, which you can also literally test drive.

Um, so we'll send council um, an invitation and members of the public can find details on the event section of our website at NAHealth.com. So please come check it out and and help us find and detect and hopefully cure lung cancer in our community sooner. Thank you. Thank you. Sherisa Tang Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, and community members.

My name is Sherisa Tang and I recently joined the City of Flagstaff Sustainability Office as the waste prevention specialist, where I will be supporting programs that reduce waste through repair, reuse, composting, and other community diversion events. I'm also excited to share that Flagstaff recently was named Circular Arizona's Municipality of the year. Woo! Oops.

For um for our achievement that reflects years of dedicated work by the Sustainability Office, Solid Waste, and especially the Hazardous Products Center. This recognition highlights initiatives such as waste diversion events, services, and the city's support for local innovation through um programs like the Innovate Green Challenge. This month, community members uh have the opportunity to participate in the very programs that helped us win this award.

So, on April 25th, we'll be hosting the Spring Drop-Off Day event, offering residents a convenient way to responsibly recycle or dispose of hard-to-handle materials such as batteries, fluorescent lights, um electronics, and uh prescription medications. One week after that, on May 2nd, we will hold a quarterly fix-it clinic, now entering our 16th year, which is incredible. Um, and this is an opportunity where community members can learn to repair and extend the life of their household items.

And that means that it's extending the life of our Cinder Lakes Landfill as well. And throughout the year, the residential food scraps drop-off program remains available to all of our residents, helping divert organic materials from the landfill and strengthening our community composting efforts. And last but not least, uh, the hazardous products center is open 3 days a week where residents can conveniently drop off electronics, paint, and other household hazardous products.

So, we're very proud of all of these different programs. And I'm just honored to help build on the strong foundation that's already here. And I look forward to working with all of you and the city and community members as we advance a more circular and sustainable Flagstaff. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Sheresa, and welcome.

All right, next up we have proclamations and recognitions, and we have a proclamation for Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and I believe there are quite a few people in the audience here for this. So, we'd love to have you join us up here on the dais. You'll just have to move those staunches, whatever they're called, out of the way, or if someone can help.

So, after I read this, we will take a group photo, and then if someone from your group would like to speak for a few minutes, you are welcome to do so. April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, a time to bring attention to the widespread issue of sexual violence and empower communities to act.

This year's theme is 25 Years Stronger Looking Back, Moving Forward, highlighting the 25th anniversary of the National Awareness Initiative, celebrating progress in the movement to end sexual violence, while focusing on future pre- prevention, building safer communities, and sustaining momentum. Everyone deserves to live in safe and supportive communities where they are treated with respect.

When we work together to uphold safety and respect, we make progress in preventing sexual abuse, assault, and harassment. Nationwide, over 53% of women and over 29% of men have reported experiencing sexual violence. In 2025, Victim Witness Services of Northern Arizona worked with 233 adult survivors of sexual violence and child survivors of sexual abuse. And the Northern Arizona Care and Services After Assault provided 86 forensic exams for sexual assault survivors.

The City of Flagstaff encourages all community members to work together to promote education about sexual violence prevention, supporting survivors, and speaking out against harmful attitudes and actions. Now, therefore, I, Becky Daggett, Mayor of Flagstaff, Arizona, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. I guess I'm speaking. Right over here? Yes. Okay. I have no I was warned. All right. Thank you, everyone.

Uh it's my understanding that Victim Witness Services Executive Director Jennifer Runge usually speaks at these things. Um she can't be here today, so she graciously entrusted that uh mission to me. Um my name's Michelle McManaman. I am the Program Supervisor for NACASA, which is the Northern Arizona uh Care and Services After Assault. We provide the medical forensic exams to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence strangulation um for uh large part of Northern Arizona.

Um thank you, all of you here, uh for allowing us to be here to bring visibility to the pervasive problem of sexual assault and to publicly show our support for all survivors of sexual violence. Um nearly every minute someone in the United States is sexually assaulted. And um we heard those numbers earlier that in our community um 233 adult survivors and 176 child survivors of sexual abuse were in our very own community getting services. And we know the problem is probably much larger.

I want to recognize our partners who are here with us today, especially the folks who are here from Sharon Manor and from Northland Family Help Center who have come today to help us support this cause. Um this Sexual Assault Awareness Month, they will be helping us to draw attention to the impact of sexual and domestic violence in our community.

One of the events going on this month is the Clothesline Project, an art installation where each shirt is made by a survivor or someone who has lost a loved one to this these kinds of violence. Um the Clothesline Project will be at the Downtown Library on Wednesday, April 15th from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and over at the Coconino Community College campus on Lone Tree on Wednesday, April 22nd from 11:00 to 2:00 p.m.

Then at the end of the month, we're going to mark National Wear Denim Day by donning our favorite jeans and doing a community walk over at Buffalo Park from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. and that's on Wednesday, April 29th to protest victim-blaming myths that surround sexual assault. Uh we invite Mayor Daggett and the honorable members of this City Council to join us in our efforts to support survivors of sexual violence in our community.

And we look forward to continuing to work with you all to encourage public conversations about sexual violence prevention this month and also all year round. So, thank you. All right. I think we're good. We can sneak out. They're really heavy whatever they're called. All right, next on the agenda is council liaison reports. And I'm going to start with council member Spence. Nothing this evening. Council member House? Thank you, Mayor.

Just quickly, first I want to apologize that I'm not able to be there in person. I'm dealing with a pretty gnarly migraine tonight. So, um I I'm sorry I'm not there. Um I did want to share that yesterday I was able to um visit the um America 250 traveling museum exhibit. I know many of us did as well. Um had the honor of ringing in uh the celebration at noon.

And uh was just very encouraged by the members of Team Flagstaff, um community members and organizations that were there, partnership with the county and other uh agencies that were there to support the celebration and recognize uh Flagstaff's unique history. It was a wonderful afternoon and a great opportunity to celebrate not only the nation's story, but also our state and our community as well.

Um, I also had the opportunity this past weekend um, or a I'm trying to remember if it was just this weekend or the weekend before, but Flagstaff Shakespeare Festival hosted several showings of the play "To Be Young, Gifted and Black" um, in collaboration with a major grant that they received, um, and I was able to support that with a talkback after the show and just celebrate that story in our community.

Um, I was also honored this past week to be um, uh, able to attend and actually recognized as part of the "Resilience Revisited" exhibit that recognized several women in Northern Arizona and Flagstaff that are supporting the community and making a difference in the lives of our community members. It was wonderful to see all the women that were recognized both in the past and currently um, as part of our community and as um, uh, sharing the story of Flagstaff and beyond. So, that's it for me.

Thank you. Thank you. Liaison report, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Mountain Line has begun a pilot of rebuilding end-of-life vehicles to extend their life 8 to 10 years. Um, this is 40% of the cost of a new bus and we are expecting this pilot to support efforts for cost-effective capital decisions and support our sustainability efforts, so we're excited for this new venture. At last week's Metro Plan meeting, I was asked to give the Route 66 Centennial proclamation.

Was delighted to do that, and we also got an update on the upcoming Ride Your Bike Week, and that is the week of May 11th, always my favorite event. And then there is a BPAC meeting coming up Monday, April 13th here at City Hall, 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Aslan. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Greetings to everybody on Council, City Hall. Um I had three liaison reports briefly for you today. First, the Tourism Commission met a couple weeks ago.

Um rising gas prices were among the the conversations. Uh we talked about the America 250 traveling museum, um which Councilmember House already went into a little bit. And uh had a wonderful time ringing that bell myself, but just shortly after you did, Councilmember House, and I know others did as well throughout the day. Um just a lot of reports and analytics and local check-ins.

So, moving on to the uh sustainability, they had their showcase at the Market of Dreams last Thursday, or was it 2 weeks ago now? I think it's 2 weeks ago now. Um where all of the sustainability grants um were able to uh talk up what they were able to accomplish and share out and do some horizontal learning between everybody. It was a wonderful little community evening.

Next day we had the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Councilship meeting, and the highlight of that was a conversation with um David Dressler the the director of the uh Verde River um uh Verde River um partnership, and he gave a lengthy report on the state of the the quality of the Verde River. Um and how it's been changing over time. Some interesting dynamics there. They have a groundwater resiliency workshop coming up on Thursday afternoon at NAU.

Uh if you're interested in checking that out, please check in with Ron Doba first because seating is limited and all the spaces are filled. Uh but you can certainly check in on that. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Garcia. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh the PROS department, Parks Recs Rec Open Space and Special Events. This month, the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting uh there was a lot of talk about how dry this winter was.

And while that was not particularly a happy conversation, it did open up some opportunities to get things done that would normally have to wait until springtime. A focus was on updating the Continental Ballfields. PROS staff were able to re-roof, paint, and fortify the dugouts, refurbish the concession stands, and built build a monumental staircase. Uh rebuild this um excuse me.

Or and that staircase went to the announcers' booth, redo a dilapidated scoreboard, and bring it up to modern technology standards, and pave the parking lot. All these improvements were done a bit earlier than anticipated, which will allow staff the uh opportunity to um take on some other springtime projects and get our um fields prepared for our springtime user groups, such as our Little League.

So, everyone in the uh commission is pretty excited about getting those type of things rolling uh for our kiddos out there and for everybody who loves to enjoy our Parks Department. Our Library uh commission, the big news is that we are happy to welcome our new library director, Jennifer Stas- Stasinopoulos. Jennifer brings a great value and experience to our team and will be starting her new post on April 12th. We wish her the best of success. That's all I have for today. Thank you.

Council Member Matthews. Thank you, Mayor. I have several events and meetings and stuff that happened. I'll share those at the two and from. With my liaison report this morning, we had our annual audit commission meeting and that is on schedule I think to be discussed on April 21st. It's great news. It's always nice to hear that we have such a solid financial record and a clean bill of health from our auditors, but we'll talk about that more on April 21st. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, the Commission on Inclusion and Adaptive Living met two weeks ago for a two-hour facilitated session which was wonderful to kind of get us back into the swing accomplishing the Commission's goals. We had a great Metro Plan meeting as Vice Mayor said and I will be unable to attend the Housing Authority meeting next week because we'll all be in Well, not we'll all be up We'll be in DC. All right. So, moving down to liquor license public hearings. I'm going to open the public hearing.

And remind me I I um City Attorney, we can take all of this in one, correct? Yes, that's fine, Mayor. Okay. Please. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Jessica Matias on behalf of Georgiana Star ski deputy city clerk before you today are four liquor license applications the full packet material was included in the agenda packets for review for conciseness and motioning I will be providing information for the licenses together.

The first one is Starlight Lanes series 12 restaurant located at 3406 East Route 66 the agent and manager manager handling the day-to-day operations is Ronald Frank Geto. Lee's Asian Market is the second one series 10 beer and wine store located at 1461 South Milton Road the agent is Amy S Nations and the manager handling the day-to-day operations is Guy Lee.

The third one is Senesta ES Suites series 007 beer and wine bar located at 1400 North Country Club Drive the agent is Amy S Nations the managers handling the day-to-day operations is Lonnie Lee Kim and last but not least Majestic Marketplace series 006 bar located at 601 East Piccadilly Drive number 95 and the agent is Lauren K Merritt.

The police department and planning development services have conducted their respective investigations the reports are included in the agenda packet and there are representatives from the divisions here to answer any questions you may have. Representatives from the business have also been invited to attend the hearing today. Thank you. Council do you have any questions? And it looks like we have no public comment.

All right so I'm going to close the public hearing and I will if we can have motions for each individually. Madam Mayor I'd like to make a motion to forward the application or to forward do I do you want me to specifically state the entire line or just item A 7A? 7A would be fine. Okay I would like to forward the application to the item 7A to the state with a recommendation for approval. Except it's 8A, sorry.

I would like to forward the application to the state 8A for recommendation recommendation for approval. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Any opposed? All right, a motion on 8B. Here I move that we forward 8B to the state with a recommendation of approval. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Any opposed? All right, moving down to 8C. I move that we move forward application 8C to the state for recommendation for approval. I'll second. Any discussion?

All those in favor? I. I. Any opposed? All right, 8D. Here I move that we approve or we forward the application of 8D to the state with a recommendation for approval. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Any opposed? All right, we're moving down to consent agenda.

All matters under consent agenda are considered by the city council to be routine unless a member of the city council expresses a desire at the meeting to remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion or a member of the public gives us public comments that they would like to speak to an item. The consent agenda will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda unless otherwise indicated expenditures approved by council are budgeted items.

Council, are there any items that you would like to pull for discussion? All right, we do have a request from um a member of the public and that is for 9B ratification of um a letter of opposition to HB 4030 and HCR 2052. So, Council, I will entertain a motion to approve consent agenda items 9A C D E. So moved. And a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Any opposed? All right, Ace Overman. Thank you, City Council and City staff and mayor.

I just want to say tonight I support the city of Flagstaff right in fine their letter of opposition for HB and HCR 2052. These two pieces of legislation call for a 4-year tax freeze and an increased threshold of 60% voter approval to increase city taxes. These bills seek to take the power of local control from our local government. The state legislature is seeking to strangle our vital and necessary city services and programs that benefit daily life here in Flagstaff.

Local governments and their residents should decide on the process for funding local local projects, not politicians who live 2 plus hours away in the valley. Thank you, City Council and City staff for speaking up and opposing these bills and prioritizing us the people in this amazing city we all get to call home. Thank you. All right, council. I will entertain a motion for item 9B. So moved. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. I. Any opposed? All right.

We are moving down to routine items. 10A consideration and adoption of resolution number 2026-14 and ordinance number 2026-08. Hello mayor, vice mayor, city council. Rick Tadder, management services director. Uh this item is related to changes to our city code to make corrections related to the ADEQ surcharge within our city city code. Uh we discussed this uh 3 weeks ago and we're just looking for your uh final approval and adoptions tonight. Thank you. Council, any questions?

I will entertain a motion. Mayor, I move that we adopt resolution number 2026-14. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. I. Any opposed? All right, and another motion? I move to read ordinance number 2026-08 by title only for the final time. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Any opposed? City clerk?

An ordinance of of the city council of the city of Flagstaff amending the Flagstaff city code title 7 health and sanitation section 7-04-001-0010 fees subsection H landfill fees providing for penalties, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. Thank you. A motion to adopt? So moved. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. I. Any opposed? All right.

Moving down to B, consideration and adoption of ordinance number 2026-06. Hi. Hi. Uh this is uh the amendment one of the hopefully last amendments to our subdivision code to make subdivision plats 100% administrative. So if you have any questions, we're here to answer. And we have discussed this before, Council. So um if there are no questions, I'm looking for a motion to read the ordinance. Mayor, I move that we read ordinance number 2026-06 by title only for the final time. I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. I. I. Any opposed? City Clerk? An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff amending the Flagstaff City Code title 11 general plans and subdivision chapter 11-20 subdivision and land split regulations division 11-20.40 subdivision procedures and requirements providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. And a motion to adopt?

I move that we adopt ordinance number 2026-06. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. I. Any opposed? All right. Moving down to C, consideration and approval of materials for the Washington D.C. lobbying trip. All right. Good afternoon mayor and council. Sarah Langley, your public affairs director. So today I'll be providing you with a quick overview of Sorry. screen uh overview of the city's annual Washington D.C. federal lobbying trip.

And I'll also be asking you to formally approve the materials that we'll be using to guide conversations during the trip. Uh every year the mayor attends a trip to Washington D.C. and she is accompanied by two council members who are chosen through our rotation that we use. So this year the mayor will be accompanied by council members Matthews and Garcia uh as well as city manager Keen and assistant city manager Anderson.

The trip is scheduled for April 13th through 16th and our delegation will be meeting with a variety of elected officials and agency representatives uh including our two senators, our Arizona congress people, and a variety of agencies including the Department of Agriculture, uh the Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, and more. Uh topics of discussion during the trip are largely guided by our legislative priorities which you approved uh back in December of last year.

This year the topics will include uh the Rio de Flag flood control project, forest health, uh Novorsa, our congressionally directed spending requests, affordable housing, and federal transportation funding. So when the Flagstaff delegation is meeting with our representatives, those are the topics that will be covered. Uh we have updated our materials this year, so I'll go ahead and share those so you can take a quick look. Uh this is our external uh legislative request document.

So this is what we'll be leaving behind with everyone that um our delegation meets with. And as you can see the topics um that I just listed are covered here. And we also just include bullet points of our requests so they're easy to communicate with with the folks we'll be meeting with. Then oh, also just one comment on this Council member House was kind enough to point out a typo and two other minor issues so those were corrected on this document here.

And then in addition to the external leave behind document we also have our internal briefing book. This is much more detailed document that includes for example background information and talking points as well as our some more details of our request for each topic. So that is these are the materials we'll be taking to DC and I will turn it back to you mayor for any discussion and formal approval. All right, Council do you have any questions or comments about the materials? Mayor if I might.

Council Council member City Attorney. Yes, I I just wanted to make sure there has been progress. I know that there's a couple of items in the materials here that address NWSA and the that's the Northeast Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act that has been before Congress but there's also efforts to work toward a regional pipeline.

The City of Flagstaff and Navajo Nation are making a joint request to meet with the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate the completion of the Red Gap Ranch Regional Water Supply Appraisal Study. And I think if we added those materials if whoever makes the motion could just indicate to add the information that I mentioned and that can go to Sarah and that that should be enough of an update. I checked with our outside water counsel on that and we're good to go. Okay.

So with no questions or concerns, I will entertain a motion to approve the materials, including what our city attorney just included. Madam I'd like to move to approve the materials for the Washington D.C. lobbying trip to include the uh matters discussed by our attorney regarding uh the water settlement and Red Gap Ranch water supply. I'd like to second. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

All right, we're moving down to public hearing items 11A, consideration and adoption of resolution number 2026-15 and ordinance number 2026-10. And I Oh. Hold on just a second. Yes, so um I know that we are proposing to continue this. Do I still open the public Yes, go ahead and open the public hearing and then continue to the um date of May 5th. Okay. So, I'm going to open the public hearing and staff Good evening, Mayor, Council. Tiffany Antol, zoning code manager.

I would love to request an extension of the public hearing on this item to be heard May 5th 2026. Council, do you have any questions? Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just have one question, and I guess it might be procedural, but since we're on the topic, I'm looking at Sterling. Um in the future, if there's a continuance and we know ahead of time, could it be somehow posted for the public so that way they don't have to get all excited and come down here and all that stuff?

I I believe it was Councilmember Garcia, and it we do try to do that for the public because that is the whole purpose of a public hearing. Right. allow them to come and participate, and that's one of the reasons we also open the public hearing before it's continued so they'll know to come to the next one if they did show up, so. I do appreciate that, and I must have missed something when reading the agenda afterwards, or I didn't see the clarification. So, thank you for that clarification.

Any additional questions? We do have some public comment, and I believe these are both on 11A. River Ramuglia? Oh, if if if we're continuing the public hearing, then we don't take the public comment. Oh, okay. I wasn't realizing that. you would? Yes, I called River down. That's fine. Okay. Hi. Uh my name is River, and thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm here wearing black as one of many surviving externalities of the tech industry's greed.

I urge this council to consider the following three questions before voting on any measures facilitating the construction and operation of additional data centers in Flagstaff. One, what is a child's life worth to a data center? Two, what does a data center want, and what does the city of Flagstaff need? Three, how will your answers to these questions change in 1,000 years? These questions should make you deeply uncomfortable.

We know, based on recent lawsuits in New Mexico and elsewhere, the powerful publicly traded companies that depend on the endless construction of data centers willfully and intentionally target, traffic, and sacrifice children on the altar of more profit and false ideals. Most of us do not know what applications new data centers in Flagstaff will have. If you don't, how will you find out? And why aren't there parameters for their applications included in this resolution?

If the current tech climate is any indication, we know that someone is likely making their cryptocurrency wallet fatter on the backs of vulnerable people who have no idea how they are being used and poisoned at all. If you haven't yet been exposed to the abject cruelty of tech companies and their attachments in law enforcement, medicine mining manufacturing and extractive industries, please admit my testimony as surviving proof of it.

If I spoke about what they did to me and what they are capable of, and that they thought it was funny and entertaining, you would probably censor my testimony today. Let me be clear. Whatever future promised by advocates of data centers does not actually exist because they are actively destroying it. Voting to facilitate the construction of more data centers is a vote to waste our precious natural resources and for more industrial slavery.

If you are uncomfortable in 1,000 years scavenging for metal on behalf of an insatiable machine atop a sea of toxic electronic waste we can no longer export out of view, please vote with caution. I believe that in 1,000 years we will only be able to want what is force-fed to us by Big Tech.

For those of us who awake from the mesmeric lies dispensed by artificial intelligence, we will need and search for clean water and fresh air wondering half alive why there isn't any and why the clouds are made of drones. I urge this council to postpone voting on this measure until it is replaced with a different measure forbidding data centers in Flagstaff. We must win this fight against Big Tech and I repeat, what is a child's life worth to a data center? What do we want, and what do we need?

And how will your answers change in 1,000 years? If you can't answer these questions, or if you do not understand why they make you uncomfortable, please postpone voting on this resolution until you can answer all of those questions. Thank you. Thank you. Haley Jaramillo? Jaramillo? Um hello. Uh my name is Haley Jaramillo. Um I work for Rural Arizona Engagement as a youth coordinator. I run the youth programming here in Flagstaff. Um more importantly, I live here in Flagstaff.

I've lived here in coming up on 8 years. I went to school here. Um so I'm more speaking as a resident. Um the decision being made about zoning codes is a valuable opportunity to give communities a voice in decisions that could have long-term impacts here in Flagstaff. Data centers are not neutral developments. They come with significant water use, high energy demands, and ongoing noise impacts.

In a region like Flagstaff, where water conservation and sustainability are priorities and mean a lot to Flagstaff residents, those impacts really do matter. Um requiring the developers to receive permission from the city to rezone for data centers gives the community a chance to understand what's being proposed and how it could affect us.

Um in rural and northern Arizona communities especially, people rely on these processes to have a say what in what happens around us, and um without that opportunity, decisions can feel like they're happening without consideration of the communities that it'll affect. Um I encourage you to support a process that will ensure public involvement as these decisions move forward. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I am going to continue the public hearing to May 5th, 2026. Yes, Councilmember Garcia.

I just had a quick question. I I I understand that we're moving this um meeting up till when you just said, but is that the next time we're going to be addressing this topic or is there a way for us to let the public know if we're going to address this topic between now and then?

I believe this is the next time we're going to be Um Mayor Council, just um just to I'm looking actually on our website and we do have um an item right under news um that's that's titled data centers public hearing continuation. And if you're okay, I'd like to read it cuz I also think it answers your question, Councilmember Garcia. True, thank you.

Um so in March, city staff presented a zoning code at text amendment on data centers to the Planning and Zoning Commission for discussion and recommendation. This amendment is intended to help protect the community by addressing potential negative impacts including effects on water use, energy demand, and other critical resources. While the public hearing for this next for this text amendment was originally scheduled for a public hearing on April 7th, this hearing will be continued to May 5th.

Additionally, at the request of council members, staff will be providing a comprehensive presentation on April 21st on questions related to this topic. Thank you. No decisions on April 21st. And our first real deliberation on May 5th, 2026. Correct. Okay, so I am continuing the public hearing to May 5th, 2026. And I am opening the public hearing for the next item, which is 11b, consideration and adoption of ordinance number 2026-07.

Hello, my name's Alexandra Putrally, and I'm the current planning manager at the city of Flagstaff. Today, I'm here to present you with Milltown, a direct ordinance zoning map amendment. Uh this is a request to amend the 2018 zoning map amendment with a revised site plan. So, when we do direct ordinance rezones, that ordinance that changes the zoning of the parcel is tied directly to a proposed site plan. So, in 2018, a zoning map amendment was approved.

It permitted a mixed-use development consisting of 23,000 square feet of commercial development, as well as 348 units of a rooming and boarding facility. Now, there's a current proposal for horizontal mixed development consisting of 265-unit multi-family residential development, and a 19,500 square feet of commercial space on three pads, all on lot one. So, here's a vicinity map showing the location on Milton Road.

And you could see because of the um the right-of-way work that we did re-aligning University and the beautiful roundabout that we now have, um created these four different parcels. Uh we're really going to be focused on lot one. Um lot two is proposed for a commercial development. Uh tract A was mainly for open space and tract B had some stormwater detention uh associated with it. So, this proposal maintains that st- same zoning, the highway commercial with the resource protection overlay.

But now the development is a four-story multi-family building. It has surface parking. They've eliminated the parking structure. And it still has the commercial pads that front up to Milton. So, this residential component, I really want to focus on the major changes that have happened between 2018 and now. So, now we're looking at 63% fewer three, four, and five-bedroom units.

So, the old proposal had a lot of larger units with um individual bedroom and bathroom that could be rented individually. Um where in So, now we have a lot fewer of those large units. There used to be 266 versus now 95. Um there's 24% fewer units overall. So, used to be 348, now there's 265. There's 56% fewer bedrooms moving from 1,186 to 669. The whole structure is one story less. So, it used to be a five-story building, now it's four stories.

Um although the actual height is similar just because of the roof structure that's being proposed now. So, it's still within that 65 ft allowed in the highway commercial zone. For the commercial component, the changes that we're seeing is now they're proposing a second drive-thru use on lot one. There's also some elimination of screening at pad three. Um and then the big thing is the elimination of the parking garage.

That really enabled the bulk and mass of this residential piece to come way down by eliminating that parking. Um now we're just looking at surface parking. Um the proposal back in 2018 had 965 parking spaces. Um and 147 commercial spaces that were surface parking. And the current proposal provides 502 total surface parking spaces. Uh the commercial component has some pads have gotten a little bigger, some have gotten smaller. Overall, there's a reduction in commercial space.

I'm not going to read all the numbers to you guys. Um and then the proposed unit mix, as I talked about, a lot of those larger units have come down and there's been an increase in like the one-bedroom, the two-bedroom units. Um, this project also provides affordable housing units. Yay. Um, the current proposal is for 12 units um, to be subsidized a minimum of 30% below market as measured against comparable units in the project.

Um, the maximum household income is limited to 120% AMI and this will be in effect for a period of 10 years. It's important to remember for this project they're not taking any of the incentives involved with our affordable housing program. So, that gives them a lot more flexibility of what that affordable housing can look like and how it functions. Um the 2018 proposal had 22 units.

Um, a slightly different um, stipulations on that including none of the tenants could be full-time undergraduate students. I think we talked about in our last affordable housing project that that staff's attitude is if you happen to be a student but you also qualify for affordable housing that we don't necessarily want to limit your ability to have an opportunity for housing.

Uh, the site plan was reviewed by staff and approved on October 7th of 2025 uh, subject to the approval of this zoning map amendment. Here is the floor plan. Um, the blue elements, so floor one has is over on this upper left side. The blue elements are more common space components. Um, the building has two different courtyard areas um, that have amenities for the residents. Here are a couple elevations of this building.

And then we see the floor plans for the commercial components, pads 1, 2, and 3. I kind of lined them up if you're uh looking at if you're standing in Target and looking at this of where those would be located. And here are the elevations of those commercial components. So, parking, on-site parking based on code, it would require 668 parking spaces. Uh the applicant did complete a parking demand study that supported 502 parking spaces.

Staff um had the ability to approve that study, but we conditioned it with the idea that the applicant should secure 65 additional off-site parking spaces. Um the applicant has been working with NAU as well as the Flagstaff Airport to provide additional parking if needed for this project. Um the previous proposal included again that five-story parking garage, which we were able to eliminate with this new proposal.

Uh for the public system impacts that are required with a rezone, the most of the impacts actually went down, so we did not require a whole new study being done. Um we did want to look at stormwater just a little bit, and it was determined that it's it their proposal works, um that they're not making drastic changes, um so we're fine with that impact. So, for a rezone, we're looking at findings. Our finding number one is conformance with the general plan.

Um this is an existing suburban activity center. Uh the regional plan wants to see increased density in those areas. Um they're looking for 14 plus units an acre. This project is proposing 26 units per acre. Um at the time there was the Well, at the time the HOH specific plan was going through the adoption process, so it wasn't in place at the time the original Milltown was um approved.

But, looking back at that specific plan now, this project would not trigger HOH based on HOH having more than 30 units an acre or more than 75 bedrooms an acre. So, we don't need to worry about that. Um this project does support many of the housing goals of this of the regional plan, especially getting housing into areas like this where there's a lot of existing infrastructure and things that can support residents. Um there's also a big focus on multimodal transportation goals.

Um there is the underpass that got put in. It's on a bus route. Um And then, energy-efficient design components have been added to the residential component of this project. So, staff determined that finding number one has been met. Uh finding number two has to do with community benefits and public good. Um this project will bring 265 units within walking distance of NAU, shopping, dining, and transit stops.

Um, it advances the general plan's goals for compact growth, housing diversity, and sustainability. And the project is proposing to use energy-efficient building materials, native landscaping, open space amenities that all help to create a healthy living environment. So, it was determined that finding number two has been met. Finding number three is if the site is physically suitable.

Um, if the project continues to meet applicable codes and requirements, and mitigates any impacts as determined by those impact analyses that were completed, then it will meet this finding. Um, there is a development agreement amendment that I will bring back to you in 2 weeks. Um, that amendment focuses on the affordable housing component, as well as those sustainability elements that were added. For citizen participation, the applicant had one neighborhood meeting on August 19th.

Uh, one individual attended. Staff waived the requirement for the second meeting, and staff has not received any comments to date. Uh, this was brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh, they recommended by a vote of 4 to 1, in accordance with the findings presented, that City Council approve the zoning map amendment subject to the following four conditions. Which I can read if you need, but I trust you. Okay. And Um, the applicant is here.

Um if you'd like to hear from them or if you have any questions for me. Council, do you have any questions? For Okay, go ahead. Thank you for the presentation. Just a couple of clarifying questions. What does it mean when you say horizontal mixed-use development? So when we're looking at mixed-use development, we there are two different types that we look at.

One is vertical, which would be in the same building, like the first floor might be commercial and then you'd have apartments upstairs, versus horizontal, which is on the site. So this is an example of horizontal where the commercial is up on Milton and then the residential is behind it. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And then the elimination of screening at pad three, can you just go in a little bit of detail with that?

Yes, when this initially came in, there was a screen wall on the corner of University and Milton. Um that helped screen the loading dock area of of the third pad on lot one. The drawings that I were looking at did not show that screening um and I thought was important to mention that. I believe our code requires that sort of screening, so I would imagine when this project comes in for site plan review, that staff will want to see that screening done. Thank you for that.

Any additional questions be for Alex before I invite the applicant up? Um Lindsay, do you have anything you would like to add or a presentation. Of course I do. Yes. Mayor Dag and Vice Mayor Sweet. And the rest of council, Lindsey Schube from the from the law firm of Gammage and Burnham, 40 North Central, Phoenix, Arizona. 85004. Of course I have words to say. Walter paid me to come all the way up here.

So yes, I'll show you a few pretty pictures, address some of the comments, or one of the questions that the Vice Mayor had. And will not make it too long, but yes, want to highlight some of the wonderful things we've done with this project. So thank you for having us this evening. Again, I'm Lindsey Schube. With me is Shawn Creek, who was here last time for Lone Tree Ranch. So we're teaching him all about Flagstaff, and thank you for being so good to him at the last council hearing.

Walter Crutchfield is here on behalf of Vintage Partners. We have Guillermo from Adurra. Don Cartier is online from CivTech if we have any parking study questions. And our architect and planning firms were KTGY and Norris Design, who both do lovely work up here. And then this is a visual of our elevations. Alex had those 2D elevations on there, and she's an architect, and so she can see the nuance.

2D elevations are always for me as a layperson to see kind of the pushing and the pulling of the building. But as Alex described, we're here, right? We have property that's owned HC. We're asking for HC, and we're really just trying to modify the site plan. And I think we brought a lot of good things to the table that we're excited to show you, including the new design. It's it's been a number of years since it was approved in 2018, and I'm super excited about this updated architecture.

I think it matches it does a much better job um fitting in with the rest of the buildings along Milton. So, I want to highlight that. So, Vintage Partners uh you all know Walter Crutchfield and his team. Again, an Arizona-based uh real estate firm. Um they're dedicated to enhancing communities. I think we all know um all the wonderful things that that have come out of Timber Sky.

Talk about a diversity of housing types in uh partnership with Capstone Homes, Habitat for Humanity, Roers, and Liv Communities. We have brought single-family detached, 221 units of 60% AMI or less, market-rate multi-family, single uh single-family built to rent uh with a 20% component of affordable housing, that was Sky Cottages, uh 40 Habitat starter homes that I know you guys have been out there for the ribbon cutting, and then townhomes.

If you haven't seen out there, Capstone is putting out some tall and skinnies. Who doesn't want to be tall and skinny? So, anyway, that's what we're we're putting some uh for-sale townhomes up there. The only thing we don't have at Timber Sky is some of these uh you know, different type of multi-family units. So, we're really excited. Again, Vintage has now brought I don't know any other housing type that Vintage hasn't brought to the community of Flagstaff. So, really excited.

Um super quickly, because I believe many of you know this. Again, the history of Milltown. Again, this all started as a P3, a public-private partnership. And again, public times two. We had ADOT, we had the City of Flagstaff, um and Vintage Partners in here. I wasn't part of that project, wasn't part of those development agreements. I think Kevin Fincel and and Sterling were were here are here to tell. Um but yeah, P3 to relocate that ADOT building, realign University and Beulah.

That's why we have those four parcels now. In 2018, a site plan was approved. That was a five-story um building mostly four and five-bedroom units. We heard from the community community at that time, "A little too big. More smaller format bedroom units, please." Um in 2020, ADOT's headquarters were moved from ADOT or from that location on Milton. And they were are moving the most sustainable type of I'm I'm stealing Walter's words here, but the most sustainable type of development, right?

Which is adaptive reuse. Moving them into the old movie theater and allowing for a new movie theater for the citizens of Flagstaff. In 2024, we saw the university in Beulah roundabout open. Who was happy about that? No more construction when you're driving down Milton. In 2025, the Milton Road underpass opens. I've got a picture. It's an old picture. I think we all know now the underpass is there and functioning and it's very exciting.

We are now here in front of you um asking uh for the opportunity to develop a more community-oriented version of Milltown. Uh Alex had showed you this, but again with the with the roundabout there, we now have four parcels. It's approximately 12.29 acres. Again, Burger King and and Montessori school to the north, um Green Tree Vil- Green Tree Village Shopping in and out, Target uh to the east, uh Baymont Baymont Inn and the Suites to the south, and then the Woodlands Village to the west.

Again, with these three commercial pads and the the more appropriately sized residential development, we're really excited to um to add to to to what is the one of the entrances to Flagstaff. So, what is our project proposal? Again, as Alex described so well, and I'm going to try not to to duplicate, uh diverse and cohesive horizontal mixed use. Great question, Vice Mayor. Horizontal just means we're putting the commercial on the front along Milton where it belongs. We got three commercial pads.

Uh they include one uh one specialty supermarket at approximately 13,000 square feet uh and then uh two other uh pads. As for the screening, uh there was no intention to omit the screening. If there is no screening on the site plan, as we work through our construction documents, we actually we commit to you that everything that has to be screened by code will be screened by code. So, I checked with Guillermo on that. Guillermo, why is there no screening? Uh and he committed that you'll get it.

It depends on there was a loading dock there. Obviously, we will follow code and screen appropriately as this is very important. We've updated the architecture component. And again, just rezoning from HC to HC. Uh 65% of the units are now one and two bedroom. That's our biggest change. It is more community-focused. It's more what we believe aligns with what the the city of Flagstaff needs.

Uh indoor outdoor amenities, clubhouse, fitness center, outdoor pool, outdoor dining and seating areas, public civic space, as well as our commitment to the FUTS trails. So, again, a diverse yet cohesive uh mixed-use development here which we think embodies the spirit of urban mountain living. Here is a copy of our site plan from kind of the bird's-eye view.

Again, the three commercial pads along Milton, the specialty grocer right at the corner, and then two potential drive-thrus for restaurant uses. The residential has been right-sided again for the right unit mix and updating the architecture. Three findings. Alex took you through all three of them and I will uh reiterate again consistent and conform with goals of the regional plan and the specific plans which is the HOH.

Amendment won't be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare and again that the site is physically suitable to to ensure that the zone designation and proposed use will not endanger or constitute any type of hazard. HC to HC, right? That the regional plan designation hasn't changed. It was found to to comply back in 2018 and I submit to you tonight it still does. And again we're 26 units to the acre for the HOH specific plan to trigger it's 30 units to the acre.

So we don't trigger the specific plan. We are not seeking to change uh We're only seeking change the unit number and the architectural updates. No development standards, any of those things. We meet code in all of those. So what do we do here? What does the development of Milltown and this project bring? Infill development. Right? We need in This is this The regional plan does call for this type of density and more commercial growth at this corner. We're in a housing crisis.

We're bringing 265 units. As comparison towns on Lone Not towns on Lone Tree. Lone Tree Ranch was 168 units and then Sierra on 66, right? 221. So it's really nice that we're bringing all these kind of types of units here. Economic development, opportunity for commercial uses. We're right now showing dining and specialty grocer.

Sustainability multimodal transportation, building residential buildings that are eco-friendly and we did agree to go above and beyond code requirements for sustainability elements here. Transportation, Milltown is located near public transportation, hence the reduction in parking and you know, we less spots, less cars and but if there is a problem, we have a backup plan. We've got two backup plans. We've got a backup plan to the backup plan. So, we are in the customer service business.

If we need more parking spots, we have them. But we truly believe that and your code does require more parking than most codes in the in the cities in the state of Arizona. So, with the code sections that we have used and um and the parking study, uh we believe we've got the exact right number of parking here. And then not to mention the multimodal connectivity. Finding number two, the proposed amendment aligns with the public interest and furthers the public good.

Again, the city's long-range vision of concentrating houses and services to the urban corridor, reducing sprawl, improving multimodal connectivity, and leveraging the infrastructure improvements that we already have with that P3 and and allowing for this development here. And again, reducing the three and three and more bedroom units by over 63%.

We do believe that this new unit mix is better, as well as furthers the city's climate action objectives by some of the sustainability features that we are proposing. And find the third and final finding, the affected site is physically suitable. Again, as mentioned in 2018, it was determined uh that the nearby intersections would either continue to operate at acceptable acceptable levels of service and have little impact. We now have have less of an impact.

The proposed development has the ability to be served by water and sewer. Um and yep, so it's it's a little less dense, a little less intensive and therefore we we were okay before and we're even in a better spot now. So, ultimately, this project is a right-sized version of what Milltown was approved in 2018. Not to mention the underpass and the roundabout as generated from the P3 project. It will service this project in a great way.

As Alex mentioned, we'll be back and we'll speak specifically to the development agreement, although it's a very short one, that's associated with this when we're back in 2 weeks. But, you guys, you know, 10-year you do have the 10-year housing plan. And we're in a housing crisis that you guys declared in February 2022. As Alex mentioned, we are proposing 12 affordable housing units without taking any incentives.

The existing development agreement did call for affordable, so we're decreasing number of units, decreasing the number of affordabil- affordability um affordable units. We've got 12 and flexibility in the language, right? We've got the towns on the Lone Tree Ranch, Sierra on 66 that that cannot rent to students. Will this rent to students? I don't know.

But, as Alex said, in working with staff, we took that out of there because if there is someone in need, um we have an opportunity here to rent if they qualify. And the sustainability features, again, not only the sustainable transportation, um each residential bedroom will have a bicycle hook in there. We've got six dual port electrical vehicle charging stations, which is more than what code requires. And then, I've got a list of our sustainable uh features.

Um if you did watch the P&Z hearing or rewatched it after, we do go above and beyond what's required by code, but I'll leave something for us to talk about in 2 weeks and walk through the sustainability elements that we have agreed to and is will be codified in the development agreement. So, a summary, again, we have right-sized the residential component. We are providing commercial opportunities. We meet and exceed, I think, the design standards. I think it's a good-looking project.

Focus on sustainable transportation and attainable housing. As I think I mentioned in a previous hearing, the city of Tempe is looking more projects like this for young professionals. Is it if there's a traveling nurse, if there is an engineer at Gore, who knows, you know, the the landscape of where everyone lives is changing on a daily basis.

And again, down in Tempe, Mayor Woods is challenging developers to bring more developments like this, not just for students, but there are a lot of people who would benefit from units like this. In conclusion, we have a staff recommendation of approval, minimal public interest. I think one person at the neighborhood meeting. I think that's the least number of people I've ever had at a neighborhood meeting here in Flagstaff.

Uh Planning Commission recommended approval, and uh with that, respectfully request approval for approval from here, or at least to get through the first read, and stand for any questions. Thank you, Alex. All right. Thank you. We have a question from Council Member Garcia. Hello, Lindsay. It's great to see you and the team back here again, especially with the project the way it kind of pencils out now.

I remember one of my first uh or at least my first month on City Council, some of the biggest meetings we had was this project. And during that time, if I remember correctly, we were still looking at the 2018 renderings.

And during those meetings, if I remember correctly, and it could have just been happenstance, it was just in the ether and it osmosis-ly filtered into this plan, but I remember the discussion at City Council, and that was, you know, asking for cooperation in lessening the amount of student housing, adding more multi-family housing, everything that was presented here in this plan.

Like I said, could have just been happenstance, but the The was given of cooperation for the things that we valued in our community. Less parking, more mobility. Um, lessening the uh the parking structure. All the things that you have mentioned during in this thing was um was was kind of back and forth here at the dais during that meeting. Which I think if we knew the date of that meeting, it might be helpful for the public that wants to investigate this and look back at it.

Um, uh how how things moved on. Granted, that was some 6 years after you guys started this. So, who knows before what happened. But, if I remember correctly, this this is very responsive to the conversation that was up here on the dais. So, I I have to at least thank you guys for that. Um, regardless of how it came about, it's pretty much what I heard from council that our community was was uh interested in.

Um, and and I guess the question I have is uh what's what is the constraints with the three-bedroom units? If you could elaborate on that. And then also I I I don't think I can stress this enough. And I know that that there's I mean, I'm not trying to to to persuade you in this way um in any other way besides the community need. And that is for as much as you guys have done for affordable housing in your other developments.

Is there any way that we can live to this to the same standard that was given to the old um 2008 renderings of the 22 number? Um And if not, I Can you Can you kind of explain why? Uh Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Member Garcia, great question. Why we got rid of the three-bedrooms? I'm not I'm not totally sure. I I I was actually joking with the architect like did they not see What was it? Three's Company? Jack, Chrissy, and What was that other woman's? What was her Jan. Yeah, there you go.

Uh they're just I think they we did hear from the community the increase in the one and the two bedroom units for sure and decreases the four and five. There is flexibility that you'll see in two weeks in the development agreement to add additional one, two, and three bedroom units to to mix up that as long as we do not add any more four and five bedroom units um to add more to three.

I think it it's a it was a market condition and they just the response on ones and twos and what they did in economic studies that they did in your community felt like those were the better unit mixes and then the fours and fives are more economical. Right? And so I think it's balancing those two things. Um as for as for the affordable units um and I don't know if Walter's going to want to get up and address this, but I'll start and he'll come up and interrupt me if he wants to.

We we reduced, we heard. We heard from the community. Reduce the size of the development. We did. And so we're proportionally reducing the number of affordable units. It's the same proportional number of beds. So when you we reduce the beds, reduce the beds there is a certain amount of you know, the last time I was here it was for 168, 65 Lone Tree Ranch. Someone's going to correct me. In around there. Full affordable. Sierra on 66, 221 all affordable. 60% AMI or less on both of those.

There has to be housing for everyone. And therefore, you know, 12 is the proportional number from bedroom to bedroom count. You know, we lost a lot of bedrooms in the fours and fives in a great way. I think in a response to the community. But that response is also a revenue decrease and therefore the 12 is the proportional number that we would that we are bringing to council and we respectively like to move forward with. I appreciate your candor and your honesty on that um on that perspective.

Uh but I was I want you to hear from me that my my goal, uh you know, is is to make sure that we have affordable housing and that we have diversity of incomes, diversity of social economic structures within our communities including ones like this.

So while I really don't have any ground to stand on besides especially with all the capitulations you guys have come to from now, I still strongly advocate for that 22 number and I would love to see some some movement on that if there was a possibility. We need affordable housing and we need diversity within our communities. Mayor Vice Mayor if I may, one great thing about this proposal Councilman Garcia is the units are sprinkled around.

In the 2018 proposal all 22 affordable housing were ground floor units that didn't have interaction with the balance of the community. So I do think we meet one of your other goals which is the integration of all the units and moving around within the community. So hopefully we we met we met it a goal there. Nicely said. Thank you. Councilmember House. Thank you Mayor. Thank you Lindsay for the presentation.

I know you had reached out and we weren't able to connect before now but I didn't really have too many questions on this and and after speaking with some members of planning and zoning and just hearing other conversations about this development I I don't have a lot of lingering questions. My only question right now is just in terms of the commercial aspect if if there was any sense of um do you already have potential tenants in mind for those or are those pending?

Mayor Vice Mayor and Councilmember House, we have two LOIs. I can't say who they are, but the corner is a specialty grocer, 13,000 square feet. If you look at the floor plan and compare it to other specialty grocers down in the valley, we we have an LOI. We also um We've got the two ends we have LOIs for. The other is a a retail or a restaurant. It is a combination of sit-down and drive-thru. It would be a new restaurant to Flagstaff.

Um that I I'll say I I frequent down in the valley with my kids all the time, and it's nice to go and sit down, and it's also nice to run through the drive-thru if you're going between practices and you need to just pick up food. So, it's a nice um a a little bit of everything restaurant. But, I'm not at I'm not I'm not at liberty to say who they are, but those are those are two LOIs. They are signed LOIs. Perfect. Thank you. Council member Matthews. Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you, Lindsay, for absolutely listening to council in the past and and just moving forward. Um this project is a marathon project, and already um Vintage Partners and his partners have done a lot in this town moving ADOT and doing the underpass, which I've walked under. Um that was a great um safety feature for our community. So, I just want to reinstate that um already we've uh enjoyed a lot of benefit. And I just wanted to uh clarify a few things and then make a point.

Um If I remember correctly, when you were here last, um one of the reasons or the conversations we had about three and four bedrooms is that it was originally kind of built to attract student housing, and that attracts student housing when you have multiple bedrooms and stuff. And eliminating most of those now, um not that you're excluding students um from renting, but attracts more towards the young professionals.

And um not that we could ever have more affordable housing too much affordable housing with a capital A. Uh you guys have done a great job with um the Roers project, the 221 units you know, and and that incentive that we gave was only a million dollars, um which is incredible compared to other projects that we've had. And then the Habitat project, um so definitely no one can ever accuse um Vintage Partners and the other partners that you're involved with of not addressing the affordable housing.

But we have ex- what's in the pipeline, we have exceeded our 10-year housing goal for affordable housing with a capital A. Um and to to really fully address our housing crisis, we also need, as you mentioned, um in this presentation, we also need market and workforce housing. And so um my shift is kind of never would go away from affordable housing with a capital A, meaning, you know, 60% or 80% 100% AMI, but we definitely can't forget um that we also need to add other housing stock.

So, I really appreciate that. And if El Pollo Loco is not the restaurant um if there's anything I can do to lobby for that, um I would gladly do so before you sign any lease agreement. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Um thank you, Lindsey, for the presentation. Um so, I have a folder in my office, and it's it's funny. It begins from before I was even on City Council.

So, I was running for city council and I knew this project was out there and I started going to the meetings and really trying to dive in to see what this project was all about. So, I revisited my folder. And it's thick. There's been a lot. Um we have the P3 roundabout underpass. Um things have definitely moved with this, but in my folder, I did look at my notes from the last meeting and I had a list of things that I wanted to make sure when you came back were in in the presentation.

And I want and I don't know um Councilmember Garcia if that's what you're referencing, but I do want to thank you because you did hit my list and I just want to kind of restate it. Um include affordable housing, fewer cars, keep with our multi-modal goals, neighborhood-focused, smaller footprint, and provide a diversity of housing.

So, I guess what I'm saying is I would like to thank you for listening to the community, listening to council, and really taking what we have suggested we would like to see and coming back with that list. And I kid you not, I had my folder out and I checked off every single thing that I had written down from the last time and I just really do appreciate that. Um I am looking forward to seeing what this project becomes for our community.

I I think we're ready and um I just again appreciate your time and effort on this and thank you, Walter, for all of your efforts as well. I know it's been a long journey. It has been a marathon, for sure. So, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you, Alex, for all the work that you've put into this. Uh I know in your original proposal, you included affordable housing for 10 years and you're doing the same here.

And I'm sure that in your discussions with our housing division, you talked about lengthening that amount of time because typically we see a 30-year um timeline on capital A affordable housing. So, I'm wondering how those conversations went and um and what went into the decision-making to keep it at 10 years. Mayor, thank you very much and Vice Mayor, thank you for your comments.

Um so, what as you'll see in the development agreement, it's 10 years and then an agreement to to revisit for another 10 years. So, it it's a it's a continued discussion. I think as as Council Member Matthews pointed out, you know, with Sierra on 66, with Lone Tree Ranch, with all of these different 60% AMI, 80% AMI, there's another multi-family developer uh coming in that I many of you have met with that focus on the 80 to 120. Right?

That's a sweet spot that we that you guys are definitely missing here. So, it it's an we absolutely have have in an agreement that that a commitment to to revisit in good faith. And Mayor, I I guess I ask of you of you know, this is a commitment between Vintage Partners and the city of of Flagstaff. Your housing department did ask. Absolutely. They pushed. They they prodded um as they do in a good way. And we are not taking any incentives for this. We are doing this for 10 years.

If it's successful, if everything is working out, if we feel like there's still a need in the market, um we have absolutely agreed in a contract to come back and and Vintage Partners always stands up and and is a good community partner, so um we got that in the agreement that we're come we will come back and revisit for another 10 years. Okay, thank you. Any additional questions or comments? And I see no public comment. Correct?

So, I am going to close this public hearing and we can either continue to deliberate or I will entertain a motion. Mayor, I'd like to move that we read ordinance number 2026-07 by title only for the fine or for the first time. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. I. I. Any opposed? City Clerk.

An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff amending the Flagstaff zoning map to rezone approximately 12.29 acres of real property generally located at 1801 South Milton Road, APNs 103-21-024, 103-21-025, 103-21-026, and 103-21-027 by modifying the prior zoning map amendment with a revised site plan and conditions providing for severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. Thank you. And thank you all.

All right, we are moving down to our regular agenda. Item 12A is approval of rental incentive bond program award for Lone Tree Ranch. Good afternoon Council and Mayor. Um, Sullivan Moore, I'm the housing planner for the city. Um, I'm here to talk to you about the rental incentive bond program. Um, we're looking to award the remaining $1.65 million for for the Lone Tree Ranch project, which is the 168 capital A affordable units going to be built on the corner of Lone Tree and Bynoe.

Um, this award comes after the scoring committee deliberated and found it fit to award this project. So, just some quick background. This program was approved by Council in November of '23. We've had two previous funding cycles going back to March '24 and '25 for those approvals. Um, and then this most recent one was opened in January of this year and closed in February of this year with the scoring committee meeting again later in February.

And then I've got some information about the project up here. The big one I want to draw your eyes to there is that affordability period. In Lone Tree's previous documents, they only have an affordability period of 30 years, but part of getting this forgivable loan awarded, um, they extended to 50. So, we get 20 more years of affordability on their 168 units. I like to keep it brief. We appreciate that, Sullivan. Questions, Council? Comments? I Oh, Council Member Matthews.

This is just a comment. I just wanted to point out that I really appreciate that we're getting 168 affordable units out of this money. In In the past, we've gotten half of that sometimes, you know, always just wanting to bring in affordable units. So, this number really um excites me that this money is really leveraging a lot of units, and I appreciate it. So, thank you. I forgot my question while you were um Oh, can you remind us who's on the scoring committee?

Or or who the scoring committee is comprised of? Yes. So, the scoring committee was made up of Ooh. Trying to recall. Didn't I write that down? I believe it was members of staff, um members of commission and public. Thank you. Yeah. And uh I'd just like to say a thank you to the Housing Division for turning this one. Uh you know, we we've talked several times that we have four sections of the of the $20 million bond, and for getting this program up running and and turned around um so quickly.

So, thank you. And Council, I am looking for a motion unless anyone has additional questions. Mayor, I'd like to move that we approve the one million 650,000 rental incentive bond award uh as uh described for 168 units at Lone Tree Ranch. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. I. Any opposed? All right. Thank you, Sullivan. Thanks. Okay, so next up we have regular agenda 12 B consideration and adoption of ordinance number 2026-09. There it is. Oh, wait. No.

That's legislative request. Kevin's stuff. Kevin's stuff, do not touch. This one. Okay. Go. Great. All right. I will put the screen down because I'm height challenged. Um well, a good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh I am Joanne Keene. I'm your city manager for the city of Flagstaff. Um and I appreciate the opportunity to come back to Council today to have this discussion on the protocols for interactions uh with federal agencies.

Um so, today we're bringing a proposed ordinance to Council related to the use of city of Flagstaff property and facilities by partners and by part government partners and non-profit entities. Um but before I turn it over to Deputy City Attorney Kevin Fensler, who's actually going to walk through the ordinance language. I just wanted to give a little background um on the item and kind of how we got to where we are today.

Um So, uh on March 3rd, the staff delivered um a very detailed presentation covering the following topics. We reviewed the city's role in immigration enforcement. We identified a process for reporting issues of concern um including at that time unveiling an online reporting website um which has been utilized. We outlined protocols for city facilities um that we outlined for our staff and our customers and uh will be coming to staff on April 21st to do a citywide training on those protocols.

We also presented a proposal for the use of city property and specifically we presented a proposal for a city manager directive um which a lot of that language, most of that all of that language is actually included in the the proposed ordinance that Kevin will be walking through. Um after that discussion with council, I signed that directive the next morning, so it has been in place since uh the morning of March 4th.

And then also at that meeting, council directed staff to return with a proposed ordinance um like the proposed directive for consideration and I think you'll see with from Kevin that we have added um just a a couple of items just based on internal discussions and some needs that we saw.

Um but before I turn it over to Kevin um and I think I said this on my my my March 3rd presentation, um that I just like to recognize again that um what we are presenting today, it may not go far enough for some folks. Um And and I also it may go too far. So, we've been in a really difficult position of kind of balancing um, you know, what's best for our community and our city operations.

So, when we presented the city manager directive on March 3rd, um, I relayed that with the advice of our city attorney's office, this approach with a city manager directive, um, that I felt like it was the best approach for our city operations and our community and I know council, um, agreed with that during that time. And just a reminder that the city council hires the city manager to enforce the city's laws and manage the operation of the city.

And part of that is having, um, sound judgment and excellent decision-making ability. While we reviewed the Pima County ordinance, the city of Tucson ordinance, and the city of Phoenix directive, we moved forward with a city manager directive that best aligns with how we manage our operations in the city of Flagstaff.

We've also continued our communication with the city of Tucson and the city of Phoenix since the March 3rd discussion and that we've had discussions with, um, the attorney's office and also with their manager's office as well. We have great relationships. Um, and our approaches are more aligned than they're not. Um, we consistently hear that Flagstaff is unique and that's the wonderful part about living in in this community and that we're not like city of Phoenix and the city of Tucson.

And I hope you can all recognize that this is also the case with the city manager directive and this is why we, um, we moved forward in that approach. Um, so now I'd like to just to give you some background on that, I'd like to turn it over to Kevin who's actually going to walk through the proposed ordinance, uh, language for council. Kevin. Thank you very much. I am tall, so I will put this thing up a little bit. Um, good afternoon, mayor and council. Thank you very much.

Yeah, I'm just going to walk through the ordinance as we've presented it to you. As Joanne said, um we really just took the directive that was presented on March 3rd and put it in ordinance form as requested by council and then we added a couple items and I'll walk through those and highlight those. Um but the purpose statement is the same.

It's recognizing that we do collaborate with government entities and at times our government partners and nonprofit partners request the use of city property to to conduct their operations and we were looking for a way or a directive to put in place now an ordinance that provided some guidance to those partner entities for what to do when they want to make those type of requests. So, in the guidance and procedure section, um requests are made through the city manager and the mayor.

The mayor would be in times where the mayor has declared an emergency. The request would go through the mayor, otherwise they would go through the city manager's office. That is consistent with Phoenix and Tucson. Um that's where they ended up. Um I think Phoenix they think they both work in collaboration with their police chief, but essentially the decision-making authority and the review authority rests with the city manager.

Um requests are only will only be approved when the use furthers the interests of the city. So, we added that language to give the city manager some guidance to for what to look for and when to approve these items and then we flushed it out a little bit and stated that a request furthers the interests of the city when it aligns with city goals and priorities and does not create unreasonable disruptions to city operations or present an unreasonable danger to the public health or safety.

So, that gives our city manager a standard to look at when she receives these requests and that's what she will make her decision based on or what the mayor will make her decision based on if we're under a declared emergency. Our first addition that we'll talk about we did add a signage requirement. We saw that in the um Tucson and Phoenix directives. We talked internally about it and the city manager requested that we add this.

So, we put in this basic language for a sign that will be posted at city parks and facilities. We did leave the discretion up to the city manager for what the signage will look like and where it will be located. I think the Phoenix and Tucson directives were a little more prescriptive. We put more um authority with the city manager to make the best decision for the city in her discretion. Um the applicability section, um we really just took one paragraph and broke it out for easier reading.

Um but the first three are the same and then I'll talk about the fourth. So, the first one focuses on joint operations. This is a the easy example we give and actually we provide as an example in the draft ordinance is if we're conducting a joint burn with the National Forest Service. That's going to go through our fire department. That's going to go through a different process for that type of work or approval. Um those So, those type of joint operations will not fall under this ordinance.

As well as um the city municipal court building. The city municipal court building is subject to the administrative authority the Arizona State Supreme Court. So, we carved that out as not being applicable under this ordinance. And then special events. So, special events have their own process. If a festival organizer, Art the Park, wants to request use of city property, they will continue to use um 8-12 in our city code.

This ordinance that we're presenting to you tonight and the directive or the directive would not apply to those types of requests. The one we added um is transportation or TSA and any other federally mandated operations at our airport. And so, we saw this in recent news where the federal government um asked ICE to get involved with TSA and help TSA in their operations during the partial shutdown. And when we saw that, we could see how that could create some confusion.

And if the DHS added ICE to our TSA operations at our airport, that was not something we wanted to get in the middle of. Um that's federally regulated federally mandated. And so if DHS made that decision, they didn't need to come to us to make to ask for permission to do so. So that's why we added number four to make that type of situation not applicable under this ordinance as well. Um before I get into questions from Council, I did want to point a couple things out.

Um when we put this staff summary together, a staff summary has a generic form for how it's structured. And one of the sections in there is recommended action. And that's just standard language that is in that form and it's basically saying if Council wants to go down this route and adopt this ordinance, here's the steps Council will take to adopt the ordinance. I wanted to clarify that adopting this ordinance is not my recommendation. Um I can let Joanne speak for herself on her recommendation.

I think the directive we put in front of Council on March 3rd would be the recommended approach, at least my recommended approach. It provides more flexibility. One thing with an ordinance is that now that it's in code or if it were placed in code, in order to amend that ordinance, so if we had to change something, if we had to add something, we would need to come back to Council with an amendment to the ordinance, have two reads, and it wouldn't be effective for 30 days.

That was one reason why we put it as a directive initially. So that it's under the control of the city manager. If the city manager sees something, for example, the TSA addition we made. Um if she was able she she saw that and see the saw the need to add that working in consultation with our city attorney's office, she could just do it. She wouldn't have to come back and wait that time to get that implemented into the directive. So, I did but I just wanted to point that out.

I didn't want there to be confusion in reading that staff summary to think that adopting this ordinance is the recommendation of staff. We brought it back to council at council's direction to consider as a proposal if council wants to go that route, albeit that's council's provide prerogative, but I didn't want there council to think that this was the recommendation coming from me. Um The other thing I wanted to point out is that um I pointed that out. We did see recently 21487 complaints.

Um 1487 we we that's what we call it, but it's essentially a state statute that provides authority for state legislators to file a complaint with the Attorney General's Office and through that complaint review actions taken by a city or county or town that the legislator believes violates state law. Um since Phoenix adopted its directive, they have received a 1487 complaint alleging that it violates um SB 1070 essentially.

Um we recently just learned that Pima County also received a 1487 complaint um pertaining to the resolution and I just want to call that out to to council as a as something to consider. 1487 complaints um they happen. Um Sometimes cities, towns may get it wrong or a legislator thinks they got it wrong and wants to file a complaint. Um the concern with 1487 complaints is they can be pretty costly. Um the AG essentially has to do one of three things after reviewing it.

The AG has to determine that it violates state law, in which case the city or town has to remedy the situation within 30 days. That's relatively easy or should be easy. Little more difficult with an ordinance um because technically an ordinance doesn't become effective for 30 days, so we'd have to massage that one a little bit. Um the the AG could also say it does not violate state law. That's great, then we just continue as planned.

Um the concerning part is if the AG says it may violate state law. In that situation, the AG asks the Supreme Court to review the issue. The Supreme Court is supposed to review it quickly, but in the meantime, the city has to put up a bond equal to 6 months of its preceding state shared revenues, um which can be costly. Um that has been waived in the past by the AG's office in conjunction with the court, um but still even litigating that issue can be costly to the city.

So, it's just something to call out. Um we adopted our directive as in Joanne said, it was signed March 4th. We have not received a 1487 complaint. Fingers crossed. Um so, that I just wanted to call that out for council. And with that, I can take any questions. Thank you, Kevin. Yep. Council member Garcia. Thank you, Kevin, for that clarification on the 1487 thing. That was primarily the basis of my entire questioning for you. Great.

Um but, I think we if you wanted to toggle back to the third slide, partner entity use of the city property, and then meander down to the third bullet point. The proposed ordinance clarifies the process? Uh I think I might be looking at a different one. It might be the next Go to the next one. This one? Yes. Yes. Okay.

So, um I was wondering if we could get some clarification on um some of the I guess um the intention of this seems seems okay, but it is there a finer detail that the city can put on the third bullet point down? And that's the standard that the city manager reviews under. Is that what you're That's what you're talking about? Um I mean, we we could I mean, you can always provide more detail in that type of standard.

I think the problem I mean I'd want to know what what you have in mind um to see if it's helpful, but I think also if you get too detailed sometimes, then it kind of sort of locks in the city manager to only looking at certain things.

We drafted this in the way that it's a little broader um to to focus on those city interests and she can bring in things like one just whether or not it like I said creates that safety issue or health and safety issue um if she has that kind of concern or if she just thinks it's going to be an unreasonable disruption in the community, she can make her decision based on that.

So we tried to use pretty broad language to give her more discretion, but if you have an idea of providing more detail, I mean we'd be happy to consider it. Well, no, I think it would just adds to the conversation that you that you entered uh you know what you just entered.

And and what we're reading in the emails from community that are concerned about this and this goes back to um the city uh city manager's directive is folks are real concerned that specific words like immigration and ICE are not infused into this, which personally as a council member I think is is good because we're not specifying one agency in this ever-changing and evolving like from one second to the next administration that we're dealing with.

Um I think it's good that we have our options open to and also we have some sort of fairness to um anybody who wants to come and um do things like set set up a place at Wheeler Park for whatever reason that they have that they know that there is a process that they have to go through.

So um while I was kind of uh hoping that you would answer those questions just through osmosis, I'm I'm glad that you uh clarified that this is broad for a purpose and that is because we're trying to cover um any possible uh in in in fusion of a um, folks that want to use our lands and also be, um, also be, intentional with, um, being fair to everyone.

Yeah, and and and that was definitely the intent and this when we started talking about drafting the directive, it was it was on the heels of the DPS tragedy and the helicopter crash. And in talking with our public works department, um, there was there was a request from by from DPS to utilize our public works building and some of our other properties to set up their staging areas in response to that crash.

And it made us realize that we we often get requests from our from our partner entities for multiple reasons. We talked to our PROS group about past requests from FEMA to use Buffalo Park in response to wildfire. So, that's why those examples are in there, um, is to create that this a broad directive that would really cover any request because we just didn't have that in place before and we didn't want a request for FEMA to use Buffalo Park to have to go through PROS.

It made more sense to come through the city manager's office and same thing even with the public works example, if our partners at DPS need to need our assistance and need to utilize our property, we now have a process for them to make that request and it would be under this new directive or ordinance if council goes that way. I feel that it's stronger because of that. It's cuz it's not limiting us to one entity.

Uh, but I guess the next question would be a little bit more focused at, uh, City Manager Keen. And another question that keeps popping up in emails and in conversations on the streets are, um, that folks are concerned that their elected officials had nothing to do with this. And I would like you to I give you the opportunity to highlight the collaboration that was involved with this between council and the manager's office. Sure, Council Member Garcia, um, I appreciate the question.

I think it also gives me an opportunity just to talk about you know the Council Manager form of government that I I am hired by City Council that I report to all seven of you and I take my direction from all seven of you.

You know, when we initially had this discussion I had Council members approach me about looking at an opportunity to be more proactive related to our city facilities and when we met with the City Attorney's office and Kevin actually at that time was an interim Deputy City Manager and and our office so he was kind of he had both hats on. But it was a great benefit to us. We came up with some language that we brought to Council and the City Manager directive.

You know, I've had conversations with with all of you throughout this process and I think you you know that if if I do see something in the City Manager directive that that needs to be changed as Kevin alluded to that you know, with a directive it would be easier to make a change immediately instead of going through an ordinance process where we would need to amend an ordinance. But you have been involved throughout this process.

You've been involved in you know, the community meetings that the chief has held. You know, Shannon Anderson and and the mayor and the chief and our attorney's office were involved in kind of redrafting our immigration directive.

So there are a lot of things that you all have been involved in and I feel like we've been in communication kind of throughout this this process and while it feels like this is potentially new and kind of coming out of nowhere, I feel like it's been many many months of having these discussions and and really trying to determine the right approach for this community and I feel good that we are in a really good place. I feel like we're in a good place legally. I feel like we could defend this.

Um Did I answer your question? I probably went a little too far. And thank you for that clarification for those for those that have brought that question up before. It's it's good to hear it from more than just me saying this is what we were doing. Um but I I do agree.

I think that the approach that we have taken is very legally defensible and also appropriate and not far from anybody else's approach besides maybe a couple of buzzwords that have definitely um Well, I'm not going to say anything else but um I'll have some more questions after the public comment. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Council Member Spence. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank us staff and manager for responding to the council's request to draft an ordinance.

Um from my perspective uh I favor the directive using the directive approach only uh for the reason stated um that it's more functional and uh nimble. So, um I'm looking forward to public comment, but um my approach to this is to not go forward with the ordinance. Thank you. I have a quick question about the signs. Um So, we we consider the back, I guess, of City Hall that faces Route 66 and Humphreys to be kind of the free speech zone where protests, rallies, that sort of thing happen.

So I'm I'm assuming that there wouldn't be a sign there. Correct? The sign this and use this property for any other purpose because because that is a city purpose. Correct? Yeah, I think you could look at it two ways. We could either not sign it for the reasons you're stating just to prevent that confusion. But I I mean, if you were signed it, you've stated the intended purpose.

That intended purpose of that front area is for public use for things like demonstrations, for protests, for all different types of activities. So, if that were to happen, it wouldn't be in violation of this language on this sign.

But to your point, I we haven't we didn't talk about specific properties yet and we want to get council's input before we started that process, but that is something we definitely want to consider and why we created that discretion for the city manager to decide whether it makes sense to sign or how to sign any facility or park.

But if if some kind of immigration enforcement or other federal entity wanted to use that same property, then the directive stands that it has to further cities um goals, objectives and not disrupt. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that um that there be no change in the ability to protest and um hold rallies up there. Mayor, can I just add one thing? It's Yes.

and you know, the whatever direction council decides to go, um I think um this language is currently not in the direct the city manager directive. So, it will be added into the city manager directive. And the TSA language as well. Great. So, thank you. I don't see any other um council comments or questions.

So, I'm going to take public comment and as always, uh we want everyone to feel comfortable giving testimony in City Council Chambers, even people who are at home watching and maybe not commenting on this, but we just want the public to always feel like this is um a welcoming place for them. So, please no clapping, cheering, booing, um anything of that nature. So, first up we have uh Eva Putzova. Good evening, uh Mayor Duggan and council members.

I speak on behalf of Keep Tucson Together, project of Catch Fire Movement. The proposed ordinance does not address our concerns about city property being used for civil immigration enforcement without judicial warrants. The manager's directive doesn't either.

We recommend that you direct staff to revise the ordinance to follow the substantive policies and implementation procedures outlined in Pima County's resolution titled prohibiting the use of county property and resources for civil immigration enforcement operations. Your fear of being challenged by bad faith state uh legislators or others citing ARS 11 dash 1051 or 41 dash 194.01 is not a sufficient reason to ignore community requests. The city is sued regularly.

If you are to be sued or investigated by the attorney general, let it be for doing something that is morally right. The central issue with your proposed ordinance is that it is identical with the core provisions of city manager directive uh in effect since March 3rd. Two things cannot be true at the same time. That the directive is merely an administrative action devoid of any policy and that this proposed ordinance represents public policy.

These instruments are structured in a way that violates the city charter which clearly separates policy making from administrative authority. The proposed ordinance also inappropriately delegates authority to the city manager by failing to establish clear standards for approving the use of city property. It is insufficient to state that the city manager will make decisions based on city goals and priorities especially since those can conflict depending on circumstances.

The city council must set specific standards within the policy for the city manager to apply for example by clearly describing prohibited uses. At minimum you should include the following language. Prohibited uses include but are not limited to using city property as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for civil immigration enforcement actions without a judicial warrant. As a return the proposed ordinance fails to address our core concerns.

It does nothing beyond what the city manager's directive already does which in practice isn't much because we have not established an actual policy. We have come to you for more than a year with repeated requests to take action and each time you have denied us the opportunity to publicly discuss immigration enforcement and related issues. Please take the time to revise the ordinance knowing very well legal challenges will follow and it's okay. Thank you. Ace Overman.

So I would like to start off by saying I do support the director's um manager's directive becoming an ordinance. Um my comments are regarding um recommendations and suggestions regardless if it becomes an ordinance or it's just stays as a manager's directive.

Um so I'd like to start off by thanking you, the city council, vice mayor, mayor, and staff for hearing the concerns that many residents have raised about federal overreach, particularly around immigration enforcement, and for taking necessary steps to use what power the city government has to ensure that public spaces and city property remain safe for everyone.

I'm glad to see that my recommendation on March 3rd to display signage on city property was included in the city man in the ordinance and city manager's directive. Signs like this will give our residents and many visitors who use our public spaces and city property clear information and reassurance just as just as it has in other localities across the nation that have passed similar measures like this one.

I know this ordinance touches on a sensitive and contentious matter and I appreciate the city staff and council are taking the time to hear the many concerns citizens have and doing the right thing to ensure that city property does not become an operational ground for immigration enforcement in the future.

My one I have a couple suggestions but one of my suggestions is for this ordinance is to or again, if it just stays a director's a manager's directive, is to include language that specify this ordinance applies to federal officers and agents within the guidance and procedure sections of this ordinance. Uh currently right now it just says uh partner governments and um non-government and non Sorry. See.

Yeah, right now it just says uh partnered governments and non-profit organizations and so I think to clarify it should uh specify federal agents and federal officers as well. And then my other recommendation uh suggestion is this is more of just a question. I don't really see any section in this ordinance regarding enforcement of this ordinance or director's manager um manager's directive, which I would just like clarification on that. If there is any enforcement and what it would look like.

Thank you. Thank you. Susanna Holm Good evening and thank you for taking our comments. Um my understanding of city government is that it's aim it should aim to steward the resources of the of its community responsibly for today and tomorrow. Protect its community members from dangers both natural and human-made. Embed the values of its community in practical governance.

As I looked at look at the draft ordinance before us, what I see is a government committed to what it sees as the responsible stewardship of resources through avoidance of potential legal entanglements. What I don't see is my government protecting our community members or our community values that I've seen in my 24 years of living in Flagstaff. I'm here to ask you to rethink that particularly as it relates to cooperation with civil immigration actions within our community.

Communities just like ours are facing unconstitutional and extra-legal actions by federal agents up to and including the wrongful deportation and murder of community members. In light of that the current the current ordinance does not meet the moment. Um we must be prepared not just for the best-case scenario, but the worst. I strongly encourage you to review the Pima County ordinance again and incorporate its language into our own.

For example, it gives clear guidance to government staff as to what is allowed and not allowed in support of civil immigration enforcement. It limits the use of county resources to those civil immigration actions which are legally conducted under a valid arrest warrant or other signed writ from a federal or state judicial officer. It further limits cooperation by city employees and officers to that which is required by law.

It denies the use of government owned and controlled property for organizing immigration enforcement staging and processing activities which do not have a judicial safeguard but can result in illegal enforcement actions, civil civil immigration enforcement actions. And it's hard the Pima ordinance says clearly that the community expects its federal government to follow the law.

Given that we have seen a repeated pattern of lawless actions by federal forces requiring that they show that they have followed the law seems appropriate. And not allowing the city to become entangled entangled in actions that federal agents may take outside of an appropriate legal framework seems the very best way to responsibly steward city resources for the community while also protecting the community and its values from harm. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Mali or Malee Adler? Good evening mayor and members of the council. My name is Mali Adler. I first moved to Flagstaff in 1995 and later returned 14 years ago because I love this community. As a public servant in a federal workforce for the last 25 years, I am not here because I want to be here. I believe elected officials should be They're in the best interest of the people they represent, and I shouldn't have to be taking time away from other productive work to be here tonight.

Yet, I am here today. My first time speaking before this council because I feel compelled to speak up and ensure this council hears loud and clear the same message I am hearing from our community. We need to be more specific in this proposed ordinance and explicitly prohibit the use of city-owned properties and resources for civil immigration enforcement actions. We need to do this, even if there is risk of litigation. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

We have already witnessed obscene abuses of power at the hands of federal immigration enforcement officers with no, absolutely no accountability. Thankfully, we live in a country where our democracy exists at multiple organizational levels. Now is the time our for our local community government to exercise every power it has available to protect the residents of this community. Council's job is to respond to the needs and concerns of those they represent, even if there is litigation risk.

I ask the council to act and request the proposed ordinance be substantially modified to include a section on prohibited uses, provide clear definitions, clearly describe enforcement and penalties, and revise existing sign language similar to Pima County's resolution prohibiting the use of county property and resources for civil immigration enforcement operations. Thank you. Thank you. Charlie Silver. Hello, Mayor and Council. I sent an email to all of you about 2:00 this afternoon.

I don't know if all of you saw it, but I wanted to read it into the record as well. And for those who um um who view this on YouTube and this recording. Um my name is Charlie Silver. I'm Flagstaff resident.

And in the staff presentation for this item, I point out that the background on March 3rd discussion, the slide deck's first bullet point reads, "Reviewed city role in immigration enforcement." Well, nowhere in the written staff report or in the proposed ordinance or in the city manager's directive does it mention anything about immigration enforcement, let alone when and how immigration enforcement operations would be handled by the city. These documents are weak in that regard.

For example, the city is committed to collaborating with partner agencies and non-profit entities when necessary to further city goals and priorities. When is when necessary? Also, which city goals and priorities? There are often competing goals and priorities. Which will take precedence? Especially when responding to a natural disaster or other emergency. What constitutes other emergencies? I would contend that indiscriminate immigration enforcement operations constitute an emergency.

Does not create unreasonable disruptions to city operations or present an unreasonable danger to the public health or safety? What are unreasonable disruptions to city operations? What presents an unreasonable danger to the public health or safety? Again, I would contend that indiscriminate immigration enforcement operations constitute danger to public safety. Further, I believe there is very little policy outlined in this proposed ordinance and the directive um are the other side of the coin.

Instead, what little policy present is relegated to administrative procedural discretion by the city manager. Furthermore, there is no language devoted to the true policy issue expressed by the public. That is, indiscriminate immigration enforcement operations.

I believe the concepts that should be considered include, but are not limited to, the competing goals and priorities of the city and standards when confronted with indiscriminate immigration enforcement operations, judicial versus administrative warrants, public policy issues versus admin administrative procedure. I would suggest Pima County's resolution on this topic, 26-10, be studied for best practices and therefore provide a stronger ordinance or directive for the city of Flagstaff.

By the way, resolution 26-10 mentions immigration 23 times. Please spend more time on this important policy issue to get it right. Thank you. Charlie. One moment. Council member Garcia has a question for you. Charlie, I didn't plan for this question, so I certainly don't mean to put you on the spot with it.

Um but when you refer to the Pima County uh ordinance that has been placed, um do you I mean I I guess this is kind of a it's it's not based, I guess, necessarily on fact, it's more of what you believe. Do you really believe that when they say that, you know, however they word it in there that you're more familiar with and have and have studied, um that immigration officers won't do this, that, and the other thing.

Do you really believe in your heart that the the federal government and the immigration officers that are there are going to are going to take heed of those warnings when they're carrying out their job when, as we know, federal law supersedes all state and local law?

Well, considering um actions of um federal agencies around immigration policy, be it ICE, be it another alphabet soup organization and agency of the federal government, we have seen specific abuses and and whole-scale abuses, as a previous speaker laid out, and it's really disturbing. What can we do? Um maybe the bottom line is that it comes back anything federal over uh supersedes uh state. Well, if that's the case, so be it.

But the states can can and they should morally lay out their positions, their public policy positions. As well, I'd like to point out that while I I definitely agree with the with the broad nature of the directive that you pointed out, uh represent um Councilman Garcia, and um again, to cover such things as whatever federal agency might be involved in immigration enforcement operations.

But I'm not seeing immigration enforcement operations specifically mentioned in the directive or this ordinance. And that's the issue that I think needs to be needs to be reconsidered. Thank you for that. Mhm. Thank you. Kim Cordt. Good evening, Mayor and Council.

The ordinance under consideration tonight was a response to a citizen petition that asked for a full discussion of prohibiting federal immigration agents from using city property for civil immigration operations without a judicial warrant. Instead of debating the public issue, Council deferred and the Mayor directed that an ordinance be drafted. There are several serious problems that I see with this ordinance.

First, it gives enormous discretionary power to one person, the unelected city manager, without adequate guidance. The guidance and procedure section gives the city manager the sole power to determine what uses further the interest of the city, which it says a particular particular use will do when it aligns with city goals and priorities. Which goals? Which priorities? Which interests? The guidance is silent on this.

These are questions of values that it is the work of council to determine and articulate to the administration, not the other way around. And that is the second problem. The no articulation of what values this public policy upholds. But that's the point of public policy, isn't it? To express the values by which the community will live. And doing that is the responsibility of the elected council, is it not?

Now, the values and concerns of the petitioners brought before council were those of protecting civil liberties in the face of widespread abuses across the country by ICE. We are about to have many ICE agents active in the city. The community is asking you to do what you can to provide limits on their activities, exercising your statutory right and duty to protect safety and control the uses of city-owned property.

Many of us are urging you to look at the Pima County resolution to guide an amendment process, and I urge you to do that as well. In closing, I also, like the deputy lawyer pointed out, want to point out that the resolution has already been challenged by several state legislators who, under Arizona Senate Bill 1487, are empowered to ask the Attorney General to investigate local ordinances they believe contravene contravening state law.

In 30 days, Attorney General Mayes will make a determination. This is the process in our state. It is nothing to fear. Fear rather fear not standing up for pretend protecting fundamental human and constitutional values and rights. Thank you very much. Kim Councilmember Garcia has a question for you. Thank you for your input today, Kim. Uh my question eluded me as you walked away. But uh so I'm going to try to think through it for just a moment here.

Um Do you Do you see uh um So you mentioned the again the Pima County thing and and I I have definitely looked at that quite a bit since since the inception of it while also working on this one as well. So that I don't know if I necessarily agree that being so loud about, you know, their statements and stuff is necessarily going to keep anybody out of anything except for more people into litigation. I think I it's been kind of clear here on the dais from my perspective.

But in your opinion, and again it's just an opinion, do you think how do you think it's going to be better enforced even though like from a broad sense all the way down to the micro sense we may be covering more um agencies as like I said this ever evolutionary of change in our government is happening um by by specifying it. And here is the actual question. Are you in support of the ordinance, the directive, or do you want us to just not do anything right now?

As I said, I've been supportive of amending the directive. And look using the city the county, uh Pima County ordinance to guide um sections of that. And other people have spoken to that, and what I really wanted to point out in my comments was a a couple things. One, that I think this directive does not give any value content in its guidance to the city manager. It gives enormous, very vague uh uh discretionary power to the city manager, and that is not about this particular city manager.

It is about the responsibility of the city council to articulate the values in a public policy that will guide administrative um enactment. That concerns me greatly. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Maria de los Angeles Castille Rincon. And my apologies. You did better than most. Mayor and council members. As an immigrant of this city and this country, back in 2010, when I had only been here for a year in Flagstaff, SB 1070 came into view.

This very discriminatory, racist, and xenophobic bill became a law, and it was signed by an equally xenophobic and racist governor. During that period of time, the group came to ask the council at that time to make a resolution, or an ordinance, or whatever you want to call it, to make this a sanctuary city, and it did not happen.

Again in 2016, when Trump became president, the city council had a group of people that asked again to pass resolutions, ordinances, anything to help the immigrant community because we were dealing with family separation at the border and they were caging children.

So, as Eva mentioned, we have come to you last year and this year to ask you to pass ordinances to not approve contracts that have the words immigration enforcement and to even allow communication discussion on making this a sanctuary city and it has not happened. For 16 years I have been told over and over by different people that we should not do this or that because we don't want to poke the bear.

Because if we poke the bear, ICE is going to have an office here in Flagstaff and we're going to have officers, you know, roaming the streets and then we're going to have funding cut from the federal and the state level. Yet all of this is happening without you poking the bear. You have not passed anything that is helping our immigrant community. So I want to ask you who poked this bear this time that they're coming here soon?

All is all that ICE is going to do is create chaos separate families they're going to roam the streets, they're going to hurt protesters they're going to even hurt people that are citizens of this country. You have citizens that are from the immigrant community because we have multi-generational families in this city that have different legal statuses and undocumented statuses. Yet they're citizens of this city.

So I am what bothers me the most is that ICE comes here with racial profiling in mind. Because they have been given that right by the Supreme Court. They're going to come here and it's going to affect all my brown brothers and sisters. If you have brown skin and black hair, you are going to be taken. What are you going to do to stop this? That's what I want to know. Thank you, Maria. Any questions? Councilmember Garcia. Uh thank you, Maria.

I I really am I'm really um interested in in the commentary tonight from the public. And I want to know if you think that somehow like the city of Flagstaff could like get in between a federal operation and the people that are that are involved with it in your opinion. Do you think that like, you know, our law enforcement can go fight ICE somehow or like how what how does this work for you for us to to stop them from doing what is is they're going to do? Don't let them come here.

Other cities have done that. Other states have done that. And are you afraid to poke the bear? No, it it's just that How can you say you support the immigrant community that yet you vote against it? How can you say you are for the immigrant community if you're not doing anything to protect them?

Um so so I was just asking the question for you, but if you wanted me to answer that question, um it's uh the the what what we have what I have supported up till now I think is the most legally defensible avenue for us to take without um Without poking the bear. No, without No, just basically in that form. The most legally defensible You don't say anything about immigration. And civil immigration enforcement needs to have a due process.

And these people are going to come in with no due process in mind. So, at least ask them to have a judicial warrant. Mayor, is there a question that is being asked? was answered. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. You're welcome. Ali Thomas Hello. Good evening. Um I'm here to echo what my fellow residents have shared as well as highlight the fact that we're all here clearly overwhelmed overwhelmingly demanding a stronger policy.

I don't see or hear anyone saying that what you propose has gone far enough. And that says something. Um I want to urge council to clarify standards, first of all, for why this power will be delegated to the city manager, especially given the existing non-delegation clause.

I understand that other cities have structured it the same way, but as the city manager herself stated, Flagstaff is unique and we should be structuring things in a way that's unique to our city and that reflects our community. Um the unilateral power that would be given to the city manager is very concerning and it's very subjective, especially when it's held by someone that we, the public, have not elected. It completely shuts the door for us to have any say on what's happening.

Um and when it comes to urgency and flexibility, especially regarding the difference between a directive or an ordinance, that unilateral haste to quickly fix and change something can only lead to closed doors, lack of transparency, and decisions that do not represent us, your constituents. So, I'd also like to urge that a signed judicial warrant be the only way that civil immigration law enforcement may be allowed to use the city property to take that ordinance or directive a little further.

Um and lastly, echo the piece of um the fear of litigation that the risk of a complaint is not a reason to move forward with only a directive or to maintain the authorization in the city manager's sole control. There is a clear and feasible timeline to fix an ordinance as the deputy attorney stated. Um if it's determined that it violates state law and should it fall into the potential violation category, the bond has been waived in the past again as he mentioned.

So, there's a lot of what ifs that you're weighing more heavily than taking action to protect your actual constituents in a very real way in their daily lives. Thanks. Thank you. Uh city manager, I believe you wanted to make a statement before we have some questions and comments. I do and I I'm not sure if Kevin has any follow-up items either, but I just wanted to um I'm not sure I stated it clearly earlier.

Um but just based on the information provided earlier by our city attorney's office, I do continue to have concerns about 1487 claims and impact on our city resources. I think um just to clarify for the public, you all are elected by the city and you hire the city manager. It's a it was a national process and um I take my direction from you. So, um I wanted to just make that very clear.

Um my recommendation to council would be to not move forward with an ordinance, um but amend the city manager directive to include the sign language. I think um one of our public commenters actually mentioned this that that did come up during the discussion on this that when we had the city manager directive and council asked us to look at sign language. So, you know, we do listen and we have been listening to the public and council.

I also just wanted to just agree with our city attorney's recommendation that that we do feel like the city manager directive and the flexibility in that language it does provide city manager just more flexibility to address issues and I keep using that word, but I I couldn't I don't want to just overstate how important that is in this discussion. So, with that I don't know if Kevin has any additional comments. If not, I'll I'll hand it back to you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Matthews.

Thank you, Mayor. Um and I just want to echo what the city manager just said. First of all, I can't imagine whether we pass an ordinance or a directive if something came up and a decision had to be made if you just want to close your eyes and imagine we'd have to schedule a meeting and do a 48-hour notice and get together and vote and debate the the directive allows the city manager to act immediately.

Um the the directive allows for a broader scope and I know some commenters were not happy with that. They want specific targeting different agencies. Um I remember back in the '80s I was working in the banking industry and they took away our requirement to review a will or a trust because they didn't want to narrow us down to being an interpreter of what was directed in that will and trust.

That way it gave it back to the person to to the person who was requesting it a broader scope and and let the burden be on them. This is the same thing. We just saw ICE now be asked to assist TSA. We didn't know that would happen a month ago. And so, there may be several other things that happened that we had not anticipated.

And if we narrow our scope and start really honing in on specifics, that could limit us to then do what the community says they want us to do, which is address the concerns of the community better and more to be able to do it more nimbly and address it. Now, sometimes, well, we see on national TV, we see what Phoenix is doing or Pima County's doing, Tucson. We don't know what's going to happen with that um um What was it? 14? 87.

It may or may not come to play, but we do have a responsibility to taxpayer money. And we are not set up here to just arbitrarily say, "Well, I don't like how people are acting, so I'm just going to break a law or an ordinance, violate a law." Um this directive may not give everybody the feel-good um that they want because they like, you know, what some people are taking just defiant action. This actually delivers what the community wants in the bigger picture.

It may not have the words um that you want to hear, but it actually, if we're really talking about the best protection and response to the unknown and what could happen that we don't foresee, the the this directive is the best. We are elected officials. We hired a city manager, as she mentioned, we did a national search. We hired her because we trusted that she will make sound decisions that reflect our our request and our direction.

Um so I worry about if we did this this ordinance, it's it's a law. I also worry about what does that do to our law enforcement? Council member Garcia brought it up. I can't imagine that the federal government does they have the legal right to come in here. We making an ordinance will not stop them. You might feel good if we did it, thinking, "Huh, you know, they're not going to come in because we made this law." They trump our laws here, so they will still come in.

So, now we've put our law enforcement in jeopardy. Who are they going to enforce the city laws? Are they going to going to comply with the federal law? Are they going to clash with a federal agency and cause a real tragedy in our town? I would hope not. So, I want to add the verbage that we've talked about tonight about the signs and some other things to the directive. That is our best response.

May not be your feel good because of what we've heard on TV and oh yeah, we want to do that to to you know, say that we're part of the movement. I want to do what's best for our community and be the most effective for our community in addressing this in the best way we can legally and and it also protect our law enforcement and our taxpayers. Council member House. Thank you, Mayor. I first just want to thank all the community members that came out and spoke tonight.

Um, this is and has never been an easy conversation. We're in such a difficult space because as a city, we're operating in the space between federal authority, constitutional law, uh state constitutional mandates, and the trust that our community has placed in us as your community representatives. I want to be clear that we've heard a lot tonight about the fear that comes from saying anything more direct or more blatant about this action um and about the the conversation that we're having.

And what I want to be clear about is that those are not things that have I think at least in my conversations um been overlooked or overstated um among us as council members. I I try and only speak for myself in the conversations that I've had, uh it's very clear that there is a very real fear and very real concerns that exist within our community.

One of the challenges that we're facing is that we cannot, at least from my understanding, legally bar ICE or other federal agencies from operating within our jurisdiction. Because immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, we can't simply say that they cannot be here, period and and point-blank.

And I feel like that is part of the reason that we have undertaken a broader uh whether it's the directive or ordinance, that broader approach that at least ensures that city property is not being used in ways under any agency that contradict or counteract our community values and that same trust that that the community has placed in us.

What we can do and what I continue to wrestle with is the act of where we can land in terms of requiring judicial warrants, um making clear our statements and our stances when it comes to the immigration actions that we've seen happen in other communities that have resulted in the fears that we're seeing and experiencing now.

I believe that because of our First Amendment rights as as individuals, as a council, as elected officials, we can express and share the same concerns in opposition to what we've seen happen in other communities. And we can advocate for the protections that should exist to protect our communities' First Amendment rights, to protect due process protections and rights, and the call for transparency and restraint that we have have made throughout this process.

I think what's most challenging to me is finding that line between what we can and cannot do. Finding that line between how we make those statements in ways that do not put our community at risk and don't essentially abandon the faith that our community has put in us.

What I feel and this is just my personal feelings on this is that we are in essentially a lose-lose situation that we cannot go as far as some in our community want us to without risking violation of state or federal law and we cannot blindly go along with what's happening at the federal level without abandoning the faith that our community has placed in us.

I don't know where the line is and I don't know what the most responsible answer is to that and that's just me me being honest with our community that this is something that we've all been wrestling with that I've been wrestling with since before the beginning of this year, since we've seen these actions happening in in other communities and as we've addressed and faced that real question of what happens if it happens here.

I don't want to take too much more time because I know I've already spoken for for quite a while but I just wanted to voice that for our community and for the rest of council that these are the things that we're wrestling with and we're trying to find the proper balance in ways that both protect and preserve community trust and protect and preserve our community as a whole.

I don't know again what the answer is to that but I just feel that that is what we're wrestling with Why I've encouraged this ongoing conversation and why I think if we are going to proceed now, it's with the directive and continued conversations about what else we do. That's just where I'm at at this point. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council member Aslin. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um good evening, everyone.

Uh thank you, leadership for looking into this and bringing forth the proposed ordinance that would buttress the directive that we've um that we've already put in motion. Very supportive of the directive. I have a couple thoughts about it. Um and but you know, I a couple weeks ago I did ask that we incorporate our directive into an ordinance and there's been a lot of work behind the scenes um to honor that. Appreciate it. Um great conversation this evening.

I agree that our values are not being articulated at all in the directive or the proposed the proposed ordinance. And while I have zero concerns that our current city manager's values or police uh chief's values stray from the intent of this directive, zero. I do agree with the community members who feel these documents don't go far enough to be perfectly clear in their intent to protect residents. That's what people want to see in these documents.

Um so, Mayor, when it's time to call the question, I want to make sure we have a chance to consider the ordinance and I will offer an amendment as well. A simple amendment with almost identical language to that used by the city of Phoenix. And uh if if that fails, uh either way, I intend to offer the same amendment to the directive in addition to the side language amendments on the table, which I support, and the other uh things we've discussed. Thank you.

Looking forward to calling the question. Thank you, Council member. Vice Mayor. Thank you and thank you for everyone who spoke tonight and to my colleagues and their comments. Um you know, don't think for one second we're not all up here losing sleep every night over this. I mean, this is probably one of the toughest um moments in in my time. I would imagine it's the same for everyone in this room.

So with that being said, I I do think we should look at the directive and my reasoning is that I feel like we need to be nimble. I feel like there is a lot changing daily. I can hardly keep up. I'm sure we all feel the same and I don't know what's down the road. But I can tell you that I believe in the seven up here and online. Um we are working hard to ensure the safety of the city and I believe in our city manager. We did She the seven of us have entrusted ourselves in her.

And with a directive, we can at least have this conversation on the fly if need be when things come up, when when there is a question or an incident and how do we handle it? Um I know it's not and I think I can't remember who said this. It's maybe not what people in this room want to hear. But we are working hard. We are listening to you. We are trying to remain nimble ourselves so that we can tackle what comes at us. And right now we don't know what that future is.

But I believe in the direction we're going. I believe in the directive. And it doesn't mean this conversation stops. I I am sure we are going to have more conversations in the community and up here as we move forward. So again, I just want to thank everyone. I I take all the words and all the comments and all the questions to heart. I have met with many of you. I will continue to do that. But right now I feel we are moving in the right direction.

I like the directive idea, um keeping ourselves flexible during this unprecedented time. Thank you. Councilmember Garcia.

Thank you so much, Madam Mayor, and I wanted to thank the community again for coming out and pointing out um their concerns and and also being open enough to um formulate understandings around where we align in um being able to handle this in in a a a a a a legal way, in a proactive way, and and and with that being said, I will be thanking Ace Overman for bringing this to us tonight.

Or bringing the um bringing it to council so we could so we could um mull over this with the community and um while we were consistently, or at least I know I've been working on this for hundreds of days. Um there's been reasons why I didn't take a a you know a a loud stance to this. And I think it's proven to um be somewhat successful up till now. Now things might change. But thank you, Ace, for hearing the community's concerns.

I also wanted to look at your commentary um that you wanted to include language that was specifically aimed at federal agencies. And I question the relevance. If they are encapsulated within I guess the vagueness of the directive, then why would we limit ourselves to one body when we are including all bodies in this? I realize that the community has taken a different approach to being proactive about this in their stance.

And that's that's the beauty of Flagstaff and our community is we have our own ways of wanting to get this addressed. Uh my approach up to now is being a little bit more quiet about it, but being ready. And we were as soon as the citizens petition came out, then we were able to roll out the plan. And that could have taken different roles. It could have It could have been that I showed up and all of a sudden we had to take that plan. It wasn't because we were being inactive.

It was because we were trying to let it settle and not um turn this place into a Minneapolis because we're not. We're not Pima County. We're not Phoenix. We're not Tucson. We are Flagstaff. And because of that, we are different. I think that our differences um I I would like our differences uh that separate ourselves from those places mean that maybe we don't come under the same kind of scrutiny and national attention that these other places have gotten.

After tonight's conversation, probably won't be the case, but you know, it's here's for hoping. Here's for hoping that we could get through this without too much disruption, but be ready for when that disruption comes. Um I would also uh like to um like to acknowledge that that there may be a time when I am more on the side of pointing specifically at certain agencies or the the comments that the public has addressed us with has not fallen upon my ears on upon deaf ears here.

I'm I'm amenable to to an open mind and I'm excited to hear what Council Member Aslan has to say about his amendments and and the the and the changes here. But I want us I really don't want to see fractures in our community when we're really focused on the same goal. We're just taking different approaches to to grab that goal.

And while maybe in some cases I might question some of the relevance of of the actions that some community members want to take, the bottom line is is we're still moving in the same direction and there should be no reason why when it when when at the brutal moment of truth why we're not standing arm-in-arm. You know, um forces at our highest level of government have been successful at waging psychological warfare through our own consumption of media.

And um and that concerns me that that has a lot to do with um us not being in alignment even though we are we are in a line together. While we may not completely agree, I want the community to understand that I am ready to be on that front line when the time comes to make sure that we keep Flagstaff citizens safe and also I mean because there isn't much I can do about federal.

Um but but I don't want to see what happened in other locations happen here and I'm willing to do anything which includes standing with the community when the time comes. But when I show up, I want to make sure that you understand that I'm on your team, that we're all on the same page, we're just taking different approaches to getting there. I haven't quite decided exactly uh if I'm with the ordinance or because I haven't or the directive because I haven't heard from Council Member Aslan yet.

But I'll be excited to hear that and and um and hopefully we hopefully we'll have a sense of unity as we move through this because there's no way that we're going to get through this by separating ourselves here in the community. Councilmember Matthews. Thank you, Mayor. Um I too thank everybody for commenting and I honestly truly believe that we all want the same thing. We want our community to be safe and protected.

And we may see it through different avenues of getting there, but I wanted to also and I and I apologize to Chief. I don't see him here. You know, the Chief has done an amazing job of connecting with our immigrant community and answering questions and diffusing potential fears and talking about realities and what can be done and what cannot be done. And that doesn't happen in a lot of the other communities out there.

We are very much trying to do the best we can with the legal tools that we have. And again, I'm going to repeat it. It's not about doing things that make us all feel good that are going to be ineffective or put us in a worse situation. We're all, whether it's the Chief of Police, our City Manager, City Council, this has been a thing that has weighed on all of our minds. We're part of the community.

We are representative of the community and although you know, some of us are leaning towards staying to the the directive because that is what we feel we can do the best to keep our community safe. May not be what, you know, you you were hoping to get, but it the outcome will be better.

And that's what we believe and that's why I would be supporting the continuation of the directive adding some more, but I think we cannot forget that we have a Chief of Police that has made a commitment to our whole community, whether it's the immigrant community, what other community he has been out there in the public speaking to them, answering questions, assuring them that he's just not going to let, you know, something come in and be a whirlwind and disrupt our whole community to the best of his ability.

And that's what we're trying to do. And so I I think we all want the same end result. And it just sounds like there's some disagreement in what people think is the best effective way to do it. But I can assure you that we all want our community to stay safe, all of our community, and to have the least disruption as we can within our means and our abilities and our legal authority. Councilmember Aslan. Let me confirm my unmute button there. Thank you. Um, yeah, just a quick question.

And this might be most appropriate for for Sterling. Uh I I just want to make sure the you know, I I am a little confused on a couple things here. Uh it seems like we're trying to view this directive with a lot of values. And um dare I say uh sort of a you know, an underpinning of of policy. Um and at the same time, you know, uh it's not supposed to be an administrative action. Uh or it it's not an administrative action.

Um I just I I want some clarification on the on the on the on the line between administrative action and policy making when we're talking about uh how to how to uh make sure what we're doing is is, you know, first and foremost the will of council and uh not just um administration because we're not supposed to we're not supposed to get involved in administrative actions. Um on a day-to-day level as you know. Uh maybe you can just talk through that a little bit Kevin. I'll leave it to Sterling.

He can have that one. Yeah, I can have that. Okay, I just thought you said Mayor and Councilmember Aslan and Council, I'm happy to speak to that. Typically policy is set by resolution or ordinance. Um Council also sets city council goals for the city. Um the the code that is put into place is basically uh all those ordinances put together and the city manager is then asked through a council-manager form of government, which our charter is, to enforce those ordinances.

That said, um Council can also give direction in a situation like it did on March 3rd uh when the city manager came forward and said, "Hey, I've got a directive here that I believe captures our community values, your goals, your values as much as we can within the legal confines, and as a result I'm presenting that to you as a directive that I'd like to put forward." She didn't have to bring that to you. The city manager could have just done it.

But she brought that forward to you, received your direction. Uh you all gave uh um direction to go ahead with that and it went into effect the next day. Um I I hope that helps kind of you know define a little more for for you Councilmember Aslan and the public where policy and where administrative directives come into play cuz the the manager can put an administrative director into play at any moment.

That's her prerogative when you appointed her as the city manager, the charter and the code um give her the power to do so. Yeah, thank you very much. Um I guess I don't have a further comment right now. I I I just appreciate you um sifting through that a little bit. Thank you, council member. City manager, um does immigration enforcement meet the goals of the city? Yes. I'm I mean, we we have council goals, we have um city goals. Can I ask a clarification of your question, please? Thank you.

Yes. If you were to be approached by ICE to use city facilities for staging operations, does that immigration enforcement meet the goals of the city? Mayor, now I understand the way you're asking that question. Um my answer would be I I would um consult with our police chief. Um and my recommendation would be no. Thank you. And if you or so if council proposed changes to the directive or if you thought changes to the directive were warranted, would you bring those changes to council?

Uh Mayor, yes, I would. And um Chief, can I put you on the spot? Again, you've you've stated this many times. Thank you. Does the Flagstaff Police Department have a um any role to play in immigration enforcement? I got it. Red means on. Interesting. Mayor, members of council, no. Thank you. Yeah, and um we were asked about reviewing immigration enforcement.

Can you talk a little bit about the set of police directives um regarding immigration and um what some of the changes were made along with um the public? Mayor, members of council, and I know Maria is here. Um you know, one of the things that we did very early on uh actually before this administration as they've or right at the onset has met with community. And talked about in process and expectations of of our values in this community.

Um a lot of those values um connect to being lawful uh and peaceful. And using the the systems and the relationships we have in place to make sure that we honor uh the human and civil rights of our our community. And my promise to everybody has always been um I want to be informed. Um I get calls daily from community about things going on and I vet them.

Um and the day I hear about something that is an operation or something that happens um I will ensure to the best of my abilities with the authority that I have um that on behalf of our residents of this community I will investigate that. Um and I have pathways. As it relates to policy um you know, we uh uh took an effort to meet um with your leadership and a lot of community leadership and have a really detailed granular conversation about almost every word in our immigration policy.

Uh, and collaboratively and the growth of relationships through that process, I think was incredibly healthy. And through that process, I think we've come up with a more thoughtful immigration policy. You know, I remind people we're bound by state law on some things. And I don't And there's been a lot of conversation about that today and it's really important for me and my my ethics and my morality that I follow that.

And so I think this policy that we've shaped and I I ask everybody to go online and look at it, has met some common ground for us as it relates to the lawfulness of the policy and then the expectations that I have of the women and men of the Flagstaff Police Department and their authority in this community and as and affording grace as we move forward. And how have you communicated, these principles to the men and women of the police force?

Mayor, members of council, and I I I thank you for that. One of the beautiful things about the Flagstaff Police Department and this entire community and this city and it's and it's staff is we have the ability to be intimate in our leadership direction.

I personally uh, delivered this message with Maryann Sullivan, the department's attorney, in every briefing and and individually delivered the reforms of this immigration policy, my expectations of performance and communication and professionalism associated with that. That was hand delivered by me personally. Um, and I'm very proud.

Um, and we as a community should be very proud of the history uh of the performance of this police department related to immigration um uh with all this pressure that we're consistently feeling. Um I will tell you also my promise to you and everybody is I will do my best to be a navigator of communication. Um there are things that we have control of in life and things outside of our control.

Um but what we do have control over is our ability to aggressively represent ourselves in this community and its values and demand information. Um there are times I uh it is uncomfortable for all of us to include you um to having to be speaking for things outside of our control. Uh I'm not the chief of ICE. I'm the chief of the Flagstaff Police Department, but constantly daily in this community I'm trying to communicate on behalf of them uh and represent them at the highest levels. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Um Okay. Couple other things. That's it for I think until you get back to your seat. Um We we've said this before, but I think it bears stating again that we looked at the Phoenix and Tucson city manager directives and the Pima County um Was it an ordinance? Was it an ordinance with Pima County? Resolution with Pima County. We looked at all of those when when writing ours. We had conversations with attorneys and elected officials, city managers of these entities.

So we're very familiar with what each one says. And and I've I've heard people be kind of flippant about worrying about being sued or losing money. And it's not just with this issue. I've heard it in other issues, too, right? Because the uh we often are having the um the state legislature put something on us that we have to do or the federal government putting something on us that we don't want to do. And um you know, the fighting words are, "Well, we'll just we'll take them to court.

We'll sue them." And we've talked about our our oath of office and safeguarding um taxpayer money. And I I think what gets lost is what taxpayer money is. And taxpayer money is public housing that hundreds of people live in in Flagstaff. And taxpayer money is housing vouchers that allows people to live in uh rental housing throughout the community. It's our after-school support of FACTS at FUSD. It's money that we give to Flagstaff Shelter Services and Flagstaff Family Food Center.

So, these aren't These aren't abstract um things that These aren't abstract um pots of money that don't impact people's daily lives. They do impact people's daily lives. And um I just ask that we we keep that in mind. And you can disagree. You can think that we shouldn't um that we shouldn't consider whether we're going to get a 1487. Um but I just ask that you know that this funding that we're talking about goes into the heart of our community.

And as has been said before, the city of Phoenix already has a 1487 complaint against them. And their city manager directive is is very similar to ours. And Pima County already has a 1487 complaint against them. Now, does that mean we have to automatically be afraid of of these kinds of challenges? No. It's not the only thing the fact that other entities have been challenged is not the only thing that we consider in the package of how we should address this issue. It's just one.

And that combined with with other things that we've talked about tonight, um all of our considerations make up the entire the entire puzzle of what we're up here trying to grapple with to um in order to serve our community. So, it's not just that we don't want a 1487 or we don't want to lose grant funding from the federal government. Um there are many factors that go into this decision-making. So, I wanted to say that. And Council Member Aslan, did you want to um propose something?

Yeah, thank you very much. Uh I think it makes sense to go through this in sort of a a linear fashion here. So, what I'd like to do is um begin by uh a motion to read ordinance number 2026-09 by title only for the first time with the amendment of the amended language of uh here a second.

Um prohibited uses Prohibited uses include but are not limited to using city property as a staging area processing location or operations base for civil immigration enforcement actions without a judicial warrant. Was was that a formal motion, Council Member Aslan? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Wait for a second. Can you read that one more time? Absolutely. I can provide it in the text or the chat as well.

Um prohibited uses include but are not limited to using city property as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for civil immigration enforcement actions without a judicial warrant. Uh uh Sterling, you and Joan should have this language. I've I've shared it with you previously, but let me let me pop it on here to the uh chat as well. Just give me a second. Mayor, uh at this point it would be appropriate to call for a second. Is there a second? I'll second. Any discussion?

All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Opposed. I. Okay, Mayor. That's fine. Um so let me uh make another motion here um to read ordinance number 2026-09 by title only for the first time with no additional amendments provided. Um this is the ordinance we asked for. It's what staff brought forward to us. Uh I think we should go ahead and move forward with it.

Um I do realize that all of the conversation around this uh is very pertinent and uh I just think that we should move this into a a bit of a policy realm instead of just leaving it administrative. So, that's that's why I support moving forward with the ordinance that we asked for uh in March and that staff brought forward as a proposal. Thank you, Council Member. Do we have a second? I'll second. Any discussion? Yes, Mayor, I had a question. Certainly.

Uh so, I I wanted to clarify uh Council Member Aslan that I voted against the uh proposed amendment to the ordinance because I I believe that's what we've discussed being the most risky option. I'm wondering if your second motion um the one that we're about to vote on essentially includes leaving the conversation open for being able to add the the proposed language that you shared to the directive in lieu.

Would that be a secondary conversation that we have to have or uh could that be part of what we're considering in this in this motion? Just the fact that that conversation is not the door is enclosed to the conversation of amending the the um the directive as we have this vote on the ordinance. From a from a procedural perspective, if I can speak, um there's a motion and a second um on what was presented as it as it was presented with the agenda packet.

Um whether or not any language is going to be included in in the directive is separate and apart from that. My recommendation would be to move forward with this. Um and then have any further discussion about the directive after that. If the ordinance if the ordinance doesn't pass. Okay, so we have a motion and a second to read ordinance number 2026-09 by title only for the first time. Uh we've had all discussion, no additional discussion. All those in favor? I. I. I. All opposed? Opposed.

Opposed. Okay. So now um I will entertain Madam Mayor Oh. Council member? Yeah, if I may I'll I'll just take the ball and run with it. I would like to um Uh wait. So the directive uh what I'd like to do is amend the directive um to include the statement that I provided uh both before orally and also in the chat.

Uh prohibited uses include but are not limited to using city property as a staging area, processing location, or for operations base for civil immigration enforcement actions without a judicial warrant. And I think there might be a couple other amendments that need to be wrapped into that if if we're going to vote on an amended directive. So what we'd be looking for in that case is to bring the directive back to council and adding that language um and having another discussion about it. Correct?

No, it wouldn't be to bring it back. Sorry, go ahead. Sorry, Council member I didn't No, no. You're you're You know more than I do on the the legality of the procedure. I'm just saying there wouldn't be anything um that would prevent you from talking about that directive tonight. I'm going to tell you though I would recommend we go into executive session if you consider adding that directive. Thank Yes, Council member Matthews.

directive If you consider adding the language that you've proposed to the directive, I would recommend the council go into executive session. We're um because this was adding language to the directive was not on the agenda and because I have a lot of legal questions, I'd like us just to table it with the understanding that we're going to have another e-session to talk about the impact of that language and stuff and then bring it back officially um if we deem necessary if that makes sense.

Uh again, there's been a motion and a second. The the ordinance has failed. Um whether or not something comes back to the council is going to be up to the um council and the city manager. I I there wouldn't be a need to bring something back to the council for a council member directive or for a city manager directive, excuse me. Because a city manager can do the directive.

very reason that we've talked about all throughout the discussion tonight, the directive can be amended uh very quickly, very easily. Um but again, if the proposed language is going to be considered by council or the city manager, I would recommend we go into executive session. That could be a separate executive session at another time as council member Matthews has indicated. The item has been presented tonight and discussed, but I don't know if the manager has something she wants to add.

Uh Mayor, Council, I do. Um I I think what I would like to receive direction on is um adding the sign language to the city manager directive, um adding the TSA language to the city manager directive, and if I can get direction, we can make those changes immediately. And then this this third item related to um civil I think What's the We have the language up there.

Civil immigration enforcement, this language without a judicial warrant, that is something that we would need to to discuss in executive session. Council member Garcia. I move that we go into executive session to discuss this now. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. I. I. I. Any opposed? I. Opposed. Mhm. All right, we have everyone online who's supposed to be online. Councilmember Aslan and Present. Yeah. Thank you.

So, city manager, you need You needed to ask for some uh direction, clarification. Um yes, Mayor and Council, um I just pulled up the uh the language that we um included in the draft ordinance. Um I am seeking direction from Council to include this language related to signage requirements into the city manager's directive.

I'm also seeking direction to add the item for number four um related to CSA and federally mandated operations at Flagstaff Pulliam Airport um including that language into the city manager directive. Council, is there anyone who who doesn't want to see either of those points written into the directive? I I approve it. Okay. All right. All right, so you have it. Yes, I will make those changes um immediately and we'll have a new directive signed. And place on the website. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin. All right, so that Madam Mayor. Yes. I I just wanted to remind you about the my amendment for the directive. We we didn't take a temperature check on that. Yes. Madam Mayor, um the city manager didn't ask for any direction on that. That said um if the council would like, I can research that. My office can and get back to you.

So, Councilmember Aslan and Councilmember House um we can direct the city attorney to do the requisite research into that and get back to us and then bring the if that's what you desire and bring the directive back to council. I I would appreciate that. I I can research it, but whether or not it comes back to council that will ultimately be between you and the manager, correct? And um Council member House, is that what you were seeking as well? Yes, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

And Council member Garcia, is that what you were seeking? No. Okay. So, we have two who would like that and I believe that the rest of us were um a no the first time around. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we are moving on to item C, which is consideration and approval of Council rules of procedure. Thank you. Mayor, can I make a motion? Do we need discussion? Well, do you um you gave us a presentation last time. Do you have anything this time? I don't. So, Mayor, thank you for the question.

I don't have a formal presentation. I did want to take a very brief moment um when we discussed at the work session a couple of weeks ago, Council member House had brought up um some concerns about the language regarding the fair process and I wanted to just show that up on the screen really quick um just to make sure that Council agrees that the language makes um makes sense and that it it captures what um Council member House was referring to. So, it's this sentence here.

We were trying to to clarify that there really isn't a whole lot of discussion that should be happening between council members, explanations, you know, discussion once the the item had been presented by the requesting council member. The way it was initially written kind of made it seem like that would exclude the initial requesting council member from kind of talking about why they're requesting this.

So, I changed the language to just um clarify that following the presentation of the topic, there should be no discussion or explanation of positions from other members of council. So, other than that, everything else was um what was discussed. And Council Member House, you had uh C in the chat. Yes, I just wanted to say thank you, Stacey. That uh clarify the clarification in that sentence gets at what I was pointing out on that, so I'm satisfied. Thank you. Thank you.

Did you have anything else that you wanted to point out? Council Member Aslan, you have a question? Yeah, I do. Uh this is mostly just for clarification because I believe I understand the the the dynamic pretty well. Um can we just have for the record as um can you let me know uh does this do these changes to rules of procedure in any way whatsoever um limit or diminish the public's ability to ask for items to be come agendaized.

Uh And I know that they don't specifically have that right already except for the petition process. I just want to make sure that that's being protected. And that the ability of the public to go to council members and discuss the agendaization of the various things. Um this only makes that broader, right? It doesn't diminish those things in any way. Thank you for the question. It does not diminish that in any way. The citizen petition process remains unchanged.

Um citizens can certainly approach you as council members with concerns or things that they would like to see on a on an agenda. You could then bring that forward as a fair request to the city manager. Um also within this it doesn't prohibit the public from coming to give public comment and expressing their views as to why something should be advanced to a future agenda for discussion. So I hope that answers your question. It certainly does.

I I uh very much in favor of this because I think it gives even more avenues um for the communities concerns to eventually become agendized in an appropriate manner. Um it doesn't take away any of anything. It only adds. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Garcia. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I have a couple of or I have two questions. They might be concerns. So my first one is the draft review of draft agenda process.

I'm I'm uh I understand why we're uh eliminating it from the council review process. I'm fine with that. Totally cool with it. I I know why we're we're why we're doing that. I get it. But I I appreciate and I think the public appreciates having that uh draft agenda online for longer than just a couple of days like we do for work sessions. And I wanted to see if we can keep that online ahead of time like we currently do for the public and for for Mhm.

Um so to answer your question very bluntly, yes. So the draft agenda, the process that we use right now of creating that draft agenda, having it posted on our website a week and a half before the meeting, that does not change. The only thing that's changing is we're just removing the section on our work session that asks if council wants to discuss or review. Um we haven't utilized that in a very, very long time. Um so it just makes sense to clean it up.

That is not to say that if you have questions that you want to bring up, that's part of the two from. Um you can certainly approach staff, the city manager on those questions, but the draft agenda will still be created and will still be available at the same time that it is right now. Okay, thank you. That adds clarity to that and that makes me really happy.

So my next concern is um I believe that when this was being made, I was online and I wasn't necessarily a part of this section of the conversation, but it refers to nine uh 91, I believe, and it's where it says basically that we will um comments during open call to the public may only be provided in person. And since I may have been off of or online but not coherent to that part of the conversation, I wanted to get clarification on why that is.

Personally, I feel like it's uh it disenfranchises some of the community and that that concerns me. I'll and I'll preface that by saying I also watch county supervisor meetings and I completely understand why from some commentary that has come online why this would want to be mitigated. Sure. So that direction came from some discussions with council. That was direction that was given um by the council body to move in that direction.

I will say that it was um that conversation was kind of started at a time where we had some unfortunate incidents where um, folks had joined our online portal and came on and were they were making some really terrible derogatory statements and I think the position that council took was if you're going to want to come and talk about something that's not on our agenda, you can come in person and do that.

But if you want to speak on things that are on our agenda, um, that would be allowed in that public comment, you know, speaking on an item that's available, that electronic um, ability would be there. Um, recognizing that the matters at hand on an agenda, those actions that are being taken are things that would affect our our community directly and that we're not necessarily getting outside influences, um, for things like that public open call to the public, excuse me.

And and I'm not trying to put you on the spot by any means. I I just wanted to to to ask because I'm curious like is there like a different protocol for stuff that's agenda-ized than there is for open call? Um, because if there isn't, I don't see why we need to to change it. So, we're not necessarily changing it. This has been in place since I want to say about 2021, 2022. So, putting it in here was really just a codification of the council direction um, and and the process that had changed.

Um, there isn't a different protocol other than open call to the public is limited to that first one is limited to 30 minutes and we ask we we require you to be here in person for those to have comments on things that are not on that agenda for the evening. So, there's they're not pertaining to something that council is taking action on or discussing specifically at that meeting.

And since we have taken, um, public or open call to the public is now what we'll be calling it to an online platform or taking it offline back in 2021 2022 when the incidents happened that required that to take place. We haven't seen any incidents like that happen since. No, we have not. And in fact, really the use of our online commenting has declined significantly over the last few years.

Um We don't I mean it's very rare that we have comments come through on that electronic system and we have not had any feedback on limiting that open call at the beginning and the end to just in person. So kind of tentatively you've never actually had to stop somebody from commenting on open call.

I mean there's been there's been times when people have joined and have tried to give comment at open call virtually and we've had to explain to them, you know, this isn't an option for virtual comment. Here are the ways that you can provide your information. You can reach out to the council. Um we have a public comment email that then allows those comments to be reflected in the minutes. Um that also reaches you guys directly.

Um or they can they can come in person and we also explain that you know, there's a time at the end of the meeting too that would give them enough time to be able to come if they are local. It has only happened a handful of times that we have had to direct people that way. Um it does not happen frequently at all. Okay, thank you.

Well, so while I do not agree with that portion of it because I'm a strong advocate for public participation, this is obviously a rule that was made long before my time and I completely understand why the rule was made. Like I said, I have experience and have had had experience listening to some of those bad bad comments that that disrupted the meeting. But I do not agree with it. That'll be be Thank you. Thank you.

And by way of clarification, these weren't comments that were directed at council. This was a concerted effort on the part of a group that was not located here to call in with some really racist comments, and they went one right after the other. Yeah, so that's why that's why we um did this. It wasn't to stifle criticism of the council. It was just that if you um if you want to approach us about something that is not on the agenda, you can come and do it in person or via email.

And thank you for that clarification, and thank you for giving me the time. All right, any additional questions or comments? Council member Spence. Thank you Mayor. Um can you Stacy, can you go back to 4.02 on the fair? I think there's a typographical error that we should correct. The sentence that says the city manager uh the city manager will determine the next steps for the request, which may include but is not limited to. I suggest the word not is missing. Oh. Excellent catch. Thank you.

I will make that change. I've only looked at this for hours. Thank you. Any additional comments, concerns? So, are we in agreement then with this as amended in Oh, actually, we have public comment. So, let me take public comment, and then I'll ask council for your direction. Michelle James. Hello Mayor and council members. Thanks for remembering the public comment. Um, you guys know who I am, Michelle James. I'm executive director of Friends of Flagstaff's Future.

I'd like to express concern about two of the items in the revised rule of uh, rules of procedure. The first one is rule five, order of business. Um, discusses the regular meeting agenda.

Um, a new paragraph is has been put in that says, "Quote, consent agenda items may be considered and acted upon by one motion unless a council member specifically requests that a consent item be considered and voted on separately." The section does not indicate that a consent agenda item can be considered separately if a member of the public requests it. This is something that you Mayor Daggett have been saying clearly in the last few months, uh, in recent months.

And we believe this is important, especially given the reason you're saying that and the consent agenda and the uh, issues that came around flock the flock cameras with that. The second comment is re- regarding rule nine, public participation in council discussions. I'm on the same page where um, council member Garcia is. Uh, this talks about um, it only being allowed in person. I did not know that that change had happened.

I was here when those horrible comments came in, um, and I remember them distinctly, but I don't remember having this change. I think this really important that um, that the public can speak to council at the beginning and at the end. And council is meeting during regular working hours, right? And so how will someone be able to do that if they can't get off work? And if they if you meetings are sometimes ending by 5:00, maybe they're 5:30, people can't get here to to comment.

And you know, I I I use the same word in my my mess- my note here to my what I want to say is it disenfranchises members of to public. And there are there are people who can't get here because of work. There are people who can't get here because of other reasons, lack of transportation, maybe there's physical restrictions, all that stuff. They should be able to talk to you. At either one of those um times. And one or both of those times.

And I think it's really important to leave that open for people. Um I you know I I I know I understand the concern with the comments that came in. Those are really quite horrible. But maybe someone can be ready to you know kind of forewarned to just cut it off or something like that. Um I I do think it's important to have some way for people without computers um and without transportation to actually comment to you guys about issues that they're concerned with. That's it. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Sterling, I saw your light go on. Yeah, I just I in in the context of and Council Member Garcia when you were speaking of it and um Ms. James was also speaking to it. Um there would be some legal advice involved in content and what's allowed and what's not allowed allowed uh when it comes to cutting people off so to speak in um a public forum. Although we are a limited public forum, there is First Amendment involved in this.

That's the the extent to which I would go right now if if Council did want to entertain bringing call to the public back. And I will note that under the um open meeting law statute, call to the public is discretionary. Council um can choose to put it on their agenda or can elect not to. Um Council has always chosen to put it on the agenda, which I think is the right call. Um that said, um there there are um First Amendment issues to be considered during call to the public. Thank you.

Um we have another public commenter, so do you want to hold off, Stacy, and we can wrap it all up. Um Eva Putzova. Um so, I just want to uh comment very briefly on the rules change for changes for the fair for putting fair items on the agenda. And you probably don't know that, but um uh once upon a time uh any council member could request to put to have an agenda uh to to to put to have an item to put on a fair uh part of agenda without the consideration of the city manager.

So, nobody, even minority opinion, any topic could always be considered uh by another three council members. I do think it's kind of important to uh uh not have everything go through the city manager. City manager already has a lot of power when it comes to uh setting up uh council's agenda. Uh essentially, this is your only opportunity uh for city council members to introduce a topic that you want to discuss.

And so, I want you to consider uh actually preserving that right for any of you that uh you know, that's either could be a lot of fair agendas, and of course, you're going to have to navigate uh calendaring, and maybe you can have a rule only uh three fair agenda per meeting.

It you know, create whatever rules make change, but I would um ask you to preserve that right for yourself, and not have the city manager decide whether this item should be taken care of uh through a report or in other ways, or essentially seeking permission to talk about. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Council, I just just a comment on that. I you know, I think the thought behind changing this the the fair process is actually to make it easier for council members.

I mean, we've had a couple of examples you know, I will go to Council member Spence. I think you've had a a couple of fair items that they get on the agenda. We have to you know, do three thumbs up from Council. And then they get put on the agenda. And many times that takes months for that to happen.

So the idea was to put kind of an alternate path where you could come to the city manager and say, "Hey, I've got this issue of interest that I think other council members are interested in in putting on the agenda." I think data centers is a perfect example of that. So you know, I think there is still the option for city manager to say, you know, this is something I would like you to to kind of go through the fair process and see if other council members will give you a thumbs-up.

So we're not taking away that right. We're just adding some more opportunity for these items to to come to Council for consideration faster. And and what about the consent agenda? I think that is an important point. Um because it has never been written on the agenda. I just include it so that people know. Yeah, and I think Sterling and I were kind of you know, talking through that just a little bit as we heard that comment come in.

And I think that there is a way that we can add some language in there that just clarifies that the public can request to speak on any consent agenda item. Once that request is made, then it, you know, the mayor, you then will pull that item because that request has been made and then we can have public comment on. The the public doesn't get doesn't have the ability to pull an agenda item, but they can request to speak.

The mayor then, of course, has that direction or that discretion to say yes, we're going to take comment on that or or no, we won't. I've never seen somebody say no, we're not going to take comment on it and then you just pull that as part of the process. So, I think that there's a way that we can write that in there that clarifies clearly that the public can request to speak and at that time the mayor will decide um to pull that item for that comment. Okay, thank you.

I would like that clarification cuz I think that that is um a good point to make and regarding the call to the public um oh, I see you have a question. um I will say that a lot of discussion went into um changing the rules to to for a person to have to be here in person. That doesn't mean that we can't reconsider doing that.

um The fact that we have I don't know how many times someone has requested to online do um open call to the public, but it hasn't Would you agree that it hasn't been an issue? No, I think at least in the last year, I think I've had one, maybe two that I've had to say, "I'm sorry, you can't comment during this time, but here are your other options." Okay. And when they're when they're calling in are they are they calling in on a phone or through a computer?

No, they'll they'll join the meeting through a computer. So, it's a Teams meeting very similar to what we have going on here and there's a moderator that works to communicate with them, you know, what do you want to speak on, putting them in a queue, alerting you that there's online comments. Okay. Thank you. And Councilmember Garcia. Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um city manager, to uh clarify former councilmember um Bookwalter's point.

So, we're still available to to call for a fair from the dais at any point in time without discussing it with you if we so choose to do that, but you're just opening up another avenue for us to discuss with you prior um to clarify if there is if it's already on the agenda, if there's another way that we can go about this, and if all else fails, I can just say, "I don't care. We're going to I'm still going to ask for a fair." Correct, Councilmember. Thank you for that clarification.

Can Mayor, can I just ask Yes. I I I guess I want to make sure that um the comment related to um pulling items from the consent agenda. So, where did we land on that? So, right now the public can make a comment on an item, which typically then Mayor will pull that item for the comment. Right, because possibly the comment um creates questions or additional discussion among council members.

So, I guess I could just allow comment and then move into consent for all of the items, but I just pull it in case something that the member of the public said spurs someone else to want to say something. Or ask a question, yes. Yeah. okay. And and I think where we landed was we'll we'll build just a statement in that section of the rules of procedure that clarifies kind of that process and and makes the public know that they have the ability to request to speak on an item. Okay, thank you.

Okay, Council, any additional questions or comments? I am getting back to the agenda item. Okay, so we are looking at a um approval uh uh official approval of the updated rules of procedure. So, I'm looking for a motion. And Mayor, if I could, just also on that motion to add with the inclusion of the language discussed regarding the consent agenda. Mayor, I may Mayor, I will move to approve the updated rules of procedure with the amendments discussed this evening.

The amendments regarding the um the consent agenda? So, I I said the amendments discussed this evening because we talked about the consent agenda and there was the catch of Councilmember um Stunts. My typo. So, there were more amendments than just that item. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember House. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Any Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, we're moving down to 13, future agenda item requests.

And um Ace, did you want to come down here and present to council? And then council, what we're looking for is three thumbs up to move it forward. Just uh just to clarify, me presenting will not conflict with my public comment, would it? Or is this my public comment now? Okay, then I would like to go last on it, if that's okay. I don't believe we have any public comment on this. Oh, we do. Okay. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Isaiah Emmanuel. Rick Michaels. Hello mayor.

Hello council members. Thank you for the opportunity to talk tonight. Um just wanted to express my support um for the petition to uh basically put into writing that there should be discrimination against folks in Flagstaff on the basis of source of income. Um that includes folks who receive Section 8 housing vouchers, veterans benefits, um or any other type of, you know, nonprofit support to help with housing.

Um so I just wanted to come here as a uh community member and also a case manager um who works for Coconino County um Health and Human Services. Um I work with some of um the most marginalized members of our community. Um work with low-income folks who live with chronic, um, conditions and um, aside from their chronic health conditions, one of the biggest things that people speak to as a major struggle in this town is housing.

Um, I've had several clients, um, who had at some point, um, received Section 8 vouchers, um, but lost their Section 8 housing voucher and as a result, um, they had to then go out into the community, find someone else who would accept that voucher and weren't able to find anybody who was willing to do that. Um, I the current waitlist, um, for our Section 8 units here in Flagstaff is minimum of 2 years. Um, last I heard it's more like 2 to 4 years.

Um, so this is a major need here in the community. Um, there are a lot of folks who need this type of housing and need this type of assistance. Um, I know that this measure wouldn't solve all of our housing problems. There's a lot of, you know, pieces to that bigger puzzle, but I do think that, you know, explicitly outlawing discrimination against folks on the basis of their source of income would be a good low-hanging fruit that I think our city should take.

Um, uh, it's also included in our 10-year housing plan, um, that the the city council has mapped out. Um, there is a portion within that plan that does ask, um, that the city come up with, you know, some sort of against folks who receive Section 8 vouchers. Um, and, uh, yeah, I just think that this would be a great way to deliver on that, um, within the within the housing 10-year plan.

Um, although there's not lots, uh, you know, although there may not be like, uh, you know, specific reported instances of Section 8 discrimination, fact that that it's not currently on the books means that a lot of people feel that it's not worth actually coming forward and reporting.

Um so, I think that having this on the books and having some official writing around this would go really far um for those folks to feel like they do have, you know, a receptive uh opportunity to be able to make that heard. I have a question for you. Yes. Yeah. And this is just an estimate.

I'm not asking you to um you know, come with specific numbers, but do you have an estimate of how many people in the past year or two have told you that they were turned down um from from housing because they had a voucher? Um I can think of at least two examples um over the past year or two here where somebody was looking for housing and specifically yes, um but they weren't able to find it because they didn't want to work with Section 8. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that. No worries.

All right, Michelle James. Hello again, Mayor and Council members. Michelle James, Executive Director of Friends of Flagstaff Future. F cubed supports the petition and work closely with the citizen who submitted it. There is a strong This is a strong proposal that proposes a legal mode a legal means for cities such as Flagstaff to address discrimination in housing based on a person's source of income.

Phoenix, Tucson, and importantly the city of Tempe have passed ordinances that prevent this type of discrimination in housing. More than 100 cities and even 16 states have passed such laws. The fact that discrimination based on source of income is legal in Flagstaff is lamentable. Across the country, source of income discrimination is considered a leading contributor to housing discrimination according to the National Fair Housing Alliance.

Sources of income could that that could now result in refusal related to housing include section eight section eight vouchers we just talked about as well as social security benefits, public assistance, alimony, veterans benefits, foster care subsidies, supplemental security income, and child support payments. Prohibiting sources of income discrimination housing is supported by the 10-year housing plan as you've heard.

Flagstaff should take any and all actions to increase housing stability in our city. I have often used when I've talked to other people that this is the low-hanging fruit just like the previous speaker said. We urge council to vote to move this petition to a full discussion at a future council meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Breanna Acosta Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um I too wanted to come up here to share that I'm in support of the petition to prohibit discrimination in housing uh based on source of income. Everyone in our community deserves a fair chance to find safe, stable housing and people should not be excluded simply because they use vouchers or other lawful income sources. This is an important step toward making Flagstaff more equitable and accessible for working families, seniors, and residents with disabilities.

I encourage the council to move this forward. Thank you. Thank you. Kavon Khosrowpour Did I even get close? Hi, thank you. That was a good attempt. It's Khosrowpour. It does look weird. Um hi city council mayor. Thank you for your time. Um I'm also strongly in favor of this petition to prevent uh source of income discrimination in Flagstaff for housing. Uh anyone who has recently moved here like I have in the last few years will know we have no shortage of housing difficulties.

Um you know, it's been brought up multiple times in this session. Supply shortages, vacation rental, second homes, rising prices, inflation. The list goes on. Um you know, for all Flagstaff has to offer, this is a difficult place to live, um especially for those who depend on government assistance for housing. Um I understand housing is a priority for the city council, um and I think this is an effective and reasonable way to move in the right direction to address it.

Um my friend who works for the US Forest Service here um got extremely lucky with a pilot program um out west in Flagstaff. Can't remember the name of it, um but uh you know, many people uh that he works with in the Forest Service um did not get so lucky. They didn't get that lottery. Uh and they can't buy a house, they can't they're having uh trouble getting affordable housing.

Um you know, a lot of us um you know, may have a house or a comfortable living place and it's easy to look away uh from this uh discrimination petition. Um but discrimination in housing affects us all by limiting diversity and pushing for a classist community. And honestly, I moved to Flagstaff largely for the welcoming community and I would like to see our legislation reflect the openness that our community does have. I believe Flagstaff is better.

I believe Flagstaff can do better and then there's precedent uh for passing this legisla- the legislation um like previous uh commenters have said. Um and I think Flagstaff should join them. So, thank you. Thank you. Crystal Diaz. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm here to give my support for moving forward the citizen petition titled prohibiting discrimination in housing based on source of income.

Flagstaff's civil rights ordinance protects residents from discrimination in places of public accommodation and in and in employment, but it does not include protections in housing. Some may say that's okay as we can rely on the state and federal fair housing protections, but those laws do not include source of income as a protected class. Why would we want to protect source of income?

When cities do so, it promotes housing stability, prevents proxy discrimination, diversifies communities, and improves economic mobility and opportunity. My understanding is that we can add housing protections, including source of income, as an amendment to our current civil rights code just as Attorney General Chris Mayes has already allowed in Tempe. Page 60 of the 10-year housing plan lists ways to protect people from housing discrimination and remove housing barriers.

One of those recommendations is to explore expanding local fair housing protected classes to include items such as age and source of income. Moving this fair item forward does just that. It allows council to discuss and explore options. The city's 10-year housing plan, as others have already talked about, the website states that our goal is to quote substantially increase housing subsidies for our neighbors who are unable to afford housing in Flagstaff.

But increasing subsidies doesn't really mean much if landlords can reject those subsidies with no consequences. At the end of the day, this is about fairness. It's about ensuring that when our neighbors receive housing assistance, assistance that we want them to use, they aren't turned away at the door for reasons that have nothing to do with their character, their reliability, or their ability to pay rent.

By moving this petition forward, we send a clear message that discrimination has no place in Flagstaff and that our city is committed to making sure every resident has a chance at stable and safe housing. Thank you. Thank you. Ace Overman. I'd like to start off by thanking Councilmember Garcia for meeting me on this petition and this issue and being and supporting me in this whole process. Today, I'm asking the City Council to say no to discrimination and yes to fair housing.

We all know Flagstaff's housing situation isn't just a crisis, it's a nightmare, especially for those seeking affordable options. For example, here in Flagstaff, 30% of vouchers, equivalent to about 178 each year, expire unused, making those residents have to go back onto the wait list for another 2 to 3 years. One major barrier to affordable housing is source of income discrimination.

For those who don't know, source of income discrim- discrimination allows landlords to deny housing to people who use vouchers like Section 8 or rely on social security, veterans benefits, disability, or child support. This is a legal form of discrimination practiced today in the year 2026 as there is no federal or state law prohibiting it. The National Fair Housing Alliance identifies source of income discrimination as one of the most common forms of housing discrimination today.

Prohibiting source of income discrimination will provide a city and its residents of numerous benefits, including reducing the city's voucher expec- expiration rate, helping residents secure stable housing more quickly, improving access to resources, fostering diverse communities, fighting income inequality, and expanding affordable housing options. A 2018 study by HUD found that cities with these protections achieve nearly 100% voucher utilization.

In 2023, attorney Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes issued a legal opinion opening door for cities like ours here in Flagstaff to prohibit source of income discrimination. My citizen petition asked the city to use this pathway that Kris Mayes has laid out by amending the 2013 Civil Rights Ordinance, our non-discrimination ordinance, to include source of income as a protected class in housing, thereby prohibiting such discrimination. Flagstaff would not be alone.

Across the country, 16 states and more than 100 cities, both Democratic and Republican, have already prohibited source of income discrimination. Since Kris Mayes' opinion in 2023, Phoenix, Tempe, and Tucson have all implemented similar protections by amending their local non-discrimination ordinances. And these measures have faced no legal challenges or or any 1487 since 2023.

Um in my discussions with City of Tucson housing staff, they told me that this measure has been effective, low-cost, and easy for easy to enforce. For example, over 3 years, unused housing vouchers in the city have dropped from 300 to under 200, and utilization has rise risen above 80%. I'm asking to move this position forward, as other people said, is on page 60 of the 10-year Housing Plan.

Everyone in Flagstaff deserves the right to housing and the freedom to live near their jobs, schools, and resources. Discrimination should not determine where someone can or cannot live. It's time for Flagstaff to join the many many communities that have already taken this step. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Council, we're looking for three thumbs up to move this forward. Oh, you have a question? Oh. Um I don't know whose thumb that was. Councilmember House, did you have a question?

I I can withdraw it. Thank you. Okay thanks. Okay, so we have thumb. Sorry. We have enough thumbs up. Okay, thank you. We'll move this forward and get it scheduled for a um an upcoming agenda. Okay. So, next up we have open call to the public. Then we have informational items two from mayor, council, and staff and future agenda item requests. And I'll start with Councilmember Matthews. Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to share some other activities that I've been involved with um over the last 2 weeks. Um we did the Purina tour. I don't think we talked about that last week. Um we continue our steering committee for the healing center. It's going um still continuing to go forward and um I was at also the America 250 bus tour and also gave blood um across the street with Vitalant. And then next week we're going to DC. Councilmember Garcia and the mayor and city manager.

So, that's what's happening now. Uh yeah, Mayor Council um we are currently um in lockdown on in the facility. So, if you can stay even even those in the audience, if you could stay in the building, we've had an incident across the street in the park. And PD is currently um investigating it. So, we'll we'll give the clearance when we're ready to go. But, if we can just all hold tight in this um in this room, that would be helpful. That'd be fun. Councilmember Garcia. Sorry.

I'm debating on if I want to go through all this. I'm just going to put it off until next week. Thank you. Councilmember Aslan. You guys enjoy your sleep in your slumber party there. Nothing more for me. That's not nice. Vice Mayor. I do have some food in my cooler if anyone's super hungry. Um I I was able to ring the bell yesterday with my colleagues and it was a great event. It was loud but totally worth it.

And Saturday just a reminder, there is a dedicate a stud have a tat celebration fundraiser out at the starter homes located in Timber Sky. I will be helping serve lunch. And I did want to thank um our city manager Joanne Keene and the CMO office for sponsoring the food for the event. Um it's a great celebration and I can't wait to see the homeowners moved in and and just really celebrating what we've all accomplished for Flagstaff.

Um just to comment on that, it was really difficult to get a um sponsoring a stud through procurement. Councilmember House. Just one thing quickly. Um I will be presenting to the uh CJCC executive board tomorrow on the um recovery ready community resolution the city of Flagstaff passed. I was asked if I would do that by the executive director. So I'll be looking forward to meeting with folks tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Spence. Nothing this evening. And nothing from me.

Uh city manager. Mayor and council, I don't have anything. Thank you. Okay, so here we are. I'm going to adjourn the meeting and do we have any indication of how long we're going to detain people in here? I think if just staying here is we we have Mhm.