Tri-City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome everybody here in council chambers and those who might be participating via the internet or our YouTube channel. Uh, this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the Kingman City Council held at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. We'd like to turn some time over to our city clerk for roll call. Mayor Watkins, present. Vice Mayor Samile here. Council member Dykins here. Council member Savage here. Council member Staley, present. Council member Walker is joining us via Zoom this evening. Here. Council member Ward here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. Unfortunately, our invocator is not here tonight, but I would like to ask us those who would like to participate to stand in a moment of silence. Um, and of course, it's always good to remember why we're having a moment of silence. On the way down, I'm think I'm sure a lot of you heard that um there's been a ceasefire called over in the Middle East. So, I we pray that that will hold and they might be able to come to some negotiation. Um afterward I word I have asked councelor Savage to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

Thank you. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. The council may go into executive session for legal counsel in accordance with ARS 38-431.03A3 03 A3 to discuss any agenda item. The following items may be discussed, considered and decisions made relating there too. We have a 1A is awards recognition fair housing proclamation. Um now this of interest. This is because we participate in CDBG uh grants and such. We this is something we I guess that we are need to we need to read and announce every year this proclamation. um and you'll understand about it as I read it. Whereas the city right the civil rights act of 1968 commonly known as the federal fair housing act and the fair housing amendment act of 1988 prohibit discrimination in the sale rental leasing and financing of housing or land to be used for the construction of housing or in the provision of brokerage services on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familiar status or national origin. and the 1968 and 1988 federal fair housing acts declare that it is a national policy to ensure equal opportunities in housing and whereas April has traditionally been designated as the fair housing month in the United States. Now therefore, I, Ken Watkins, mayor of the city of Kingman, do hereby proclaim the month of April to be designated designated as fair housing month and in doing so urge all citizens of this community to comply with the letter and spirit of the fair housing law. And of course, it's signed by me and also witnessed by our city clerk, Annie Meredith. Of course, once again, this is brought to us by our finance department and just keeps us uh dotting the eyes and crossing the tees. So, thank you. Item number two, call to the public comments from the public. Those wishing to address the council should fill out

request forms in advance. Comments from the public will be restricted to items not on the agenda with the exception of those on the consent agenda. There will be no comments allowed that advertise for a particular person or group. Comment should be limited to no longer than 3 minutes. The council may not respond to speakers during the call to the public. The council may direct the city manager to study the matter or request that the matter be placed on a future agenda. Uh first off, we have Mr. John Hill. If you'd like to come forward and share some thoughts, how you doing? I'm here today with a few of my friends, all residents of Kingman Crossman Crossing, and I'm here to point out to the city of Kingman to let you know you're in violation of Arizona public nuisance law. The walkway and water basin that is in our community is a public nuisance. Dirt bikes and side by sides use the walkway walkway and kids on dirt bikes are doing donuts in the basin. On the east side of the basin, they're jumping up on the hill onto the street and into the street. Um you'll notice if you come out there and take a look at it, there's a curve there. So if they go out in that street, guess what? They might get hit by a car. It is a public nuisance. We are asking for a fence and a gate to stop this activity, plus signs saying that no motorized vehicles are allowed. I know you have them because if you drive down Kino, right when you get to where the water floods from the park, there's a sign that says no no motorized vehicle and on the other side, no motorized vehicle. Uh you are in a very unique position. You can solve this problem. You have a chance to do that today or at least later on down the road. And there at this time there are 71 adults in our neighborhood. 44 of us are retired. And guess what we do? We vote.

And what you're protecting is these little kids who are 8 n 10 11 12 13 14 15 years old with no license plate. No license and they don't vote and they don't pay taxes. We do. Okay. So you're in a unique position. But let me talk about safety. We have seen kids in this water and it gets about four feet deep. We met with Jason back there and he pretty much knows what we're talking about. It gets about four feet deep and they're playing in the water. During the winter of 24 when we moved in, if you remember was really this last winter was great, but the winter before was cold. It iced up. Guess what they were doing? Walking on the ice. You get a eight, nine, 10 year old that breaks through that ice with that slope wet and muddy, he ain't getting out. He's going to die. And also, there's already been one kid back there that's already been killed back there. Do you know that? There's a memorial back there. A kid got hit by a motorcycle and he died. There's a cross and candles and all that. Let's not have another kid back there. But I will tell you this much. If nothing is done and another kid gets injured on a motorcycle in that basin or he drowns in that basin, I will contact that family and I will let them know that I'm on public record that I came to you and told you this is a danger to kids. This is a public nuisance. It will be on record and you won't have any defense and I will be more than happy to be a witness for that family. So, you're in a unique position. Let's put up a fence and put up a gate. Um, I invite you all to come out. I'd be more than happy to show you how danger it is anytime. Give me a call. Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Um, okay. Ronda Hill, I think he covered it. He covered it all. Okay. Real good. Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer Fabian.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm just adding to this group uh with my comments. They are on the northwest corner. This is where the walkway of the basin is currently where they reside. I reside on the south end of Charleston Loop. There is a walkway that goes out to I don't even know who the property owner is, but there is uh a section of land between I40 as well as Charles the Charleston Loop. There is a walkway and I'm not sure if it was the city or Engle. I'm not sure who Engle. did put up a gate blocking that because what was happening is all of these motorcyclists, ATVs, children, uh animal, you know, people with animals, things like that, they were coming up the walkway, coming up the basin, zipping very fast right up this up our our loop and then cutting through this other walkway into the land, the empty land that's behind us. gate got put up on the south end of the loop. There has not been one single motorcyclist people with animals cutting through ATVs, nothing. So, it's been very, very quiet on the south end of Charleston Loop since they put that gate up. But the issue on the northwest end where there is no gate, there is nothing blocking it. It is a constant activity. When we walk our dogs, there's constantly motorcyclists and kids just zipping in and out of that that corner. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. Janette Duran.

Thank you. Hi. Okay. I'm here today to discuss something that's dear to a lot of people's hearts. Kingman is pretty much the center of Route 66. and we have our centennial coming up. What we don't have, which a whole bunch of the other smaller towns around here have, are the emblems painted on the street. We got one right down the street. That emblem that says in the shield that says Route 66, that's a big thing. That's important to tourists especially and the people who live here who are proud of being part of Route 66. So, you know, I think maybe the city council might want to make a suggestion to whoever paints the stuff on the streets to put it. They we should have it every half mile. It should there should be a placard or the the emblem on the street. Okay. The other thing I wanted to mention was last month we had somebody here talking about the quality of our streets. I almost couldn't control myself. Our streets suck. were full of potholes, cracks there. The wa It's so bad in front of one of my houses that when it rains, it's like a lake and um the water just builds up. It's maybe 10 in deep. The cars go through there, they throw a big stream of water up. Motorcycles, they drive up on the on the curb right next to the fence to get through there without sinking down in the water. There was a big pothole there. The city sent somebody over to fix it and he did until it rained and then it's washed away. So, um, the potholes are really bad. I

don't know what streets the other fella drove around on, but all over potholes. People are trying to go around the potholes. You probably So, you probably done it yourselves. Try to avoid the potholes. He'd swerving around them. We used to have a system where we would every couple years they would, you know, put some stuff on the streets and people would drive on it and it would seal them. And we don't do that anymore. How come? Anybody? We can't comment, Jenn. This is called to the public, but

Okay. But you know what I'm talking about. We used to put this stuff on the streets and we drive on it and it would seal in and and the streets were in a lot better shape then. Now, man, we got potholes galore and I literally got a lake in front of one of my houses. So, thank you. Thank you, Janette. Terresa roundy.

Good afternoon, Mayor Council. My name is Teresa Roundy and I'm here in the protection of children and families in our community that are being human traffked through family courts, CPS, APS, the sheriff's department, school districts, and other institutions that should be helping survivors of domestic abuse. A study just came out that 84 teachers of the year have been found to be sexual abuse predators of children. Right now, there are more cops in our nation arrested for child sexual abuse than days in this year. Those are numbers that you should know. The results are in and LA County Board of Supervisors approved another 828 million in addition to the 4 billion for crimes against children by CPS. Mojave County needs to consider how much they are going to settle for the trafficking of CPS when their own internal report says 83.3% of children are removed without evidence. The Idaho ad hoc committee report states that children entering family court are removed from their safe parent 82% of the time. This issue is true for every state in the nation. Lawsuits are coming and it's the mayor's job to protect the community and require people to do their jobs. Otherwise, it's imalments violations. 11,000 children in Idaho were removed from their safe parents through family court. That's going to cost Idaho a lot of money. And they just approved 23 million for CPS to traffic kids. That's going to cost the city a lot, too. We need to address these very serious crimes against children to stop the killing of parents and children and the severing of attachments in families.

I care about my hometown where I live and where I raised, you know, this is my hometown, Kingman. And I also care about where I raised my children in the state of Idaho. And these are the numbers that are true. And this is what every community in every county in the nation is facing. It really is. You must know this. The numbers, the stats are out. It's detrimental. We have got to save children's lives. I care about my city and that's why I'm asking everyone here to do their job to protect children and families and address the crimes being committed against me and my family and by adult protective services in this town. The evidence is very clear. It's going to cost Mojave County a lot of money if they don't address these issues immediately. Please take it seriously, folks. You know, almost 5 billion for one county, okay? 11,000 kids brain damaged and neurologically damaged in the state of Idaho. Those are Idaho family court numbers. I'll get your numbers next. Thank you.

Thank you, Teresa. Christopher, I'm sorry, Christopher. Your last Yes. Granny.

Granny. That's it. Thank you. Good evening. Christopher Granny, founder and CEO of People Against Sex Trafficking, an Arizona nonprofit. Um, tonight I just want to talk about a case out of Prescott Valley. So, the title of the article is Prescott Valley woman to serve 50 52 years in prison for sexual assault child. The Yavapai County Attorney's Office announced Friday that 45-year-old Kelly Ray Smith was sentenced to 52 years in prison on April 1st for four counts of sexual assault committed against a child. Smith of Prescott Valley also plead guilty to three counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a child and beastiality. And I'd like to read a quote from Yavapai County Attorney Dennis McGrain that really resonated with me toward the end. Crimes such as these are shocking, will never be tolerated in Yavapai County. McGraine said people who choose to sexually abuse children or animals are incredibly dangerous and cannot be reformed. I repeat, cannot be reformed. I cannot agree with that statement more. I hope this case motivates the Arizona legislature to allow juries to impose the death penalty in cases where an adult sexually assaults a child. Doing so would allow appropriate punishment for anyone who chooses to rape a child and will deter others from committing these heinous crimes. I just I couldn't have put it better myself. Um I agree with Yavapai County Attorney Dennis McGra. We need the death penalty. Um I would like to be the executioner if Mojave County would let would allow me. I'm definitely expressing interest in that position. Um, yeah. So, that's that's kind of all I had for tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Christopher. Now, as a reminder, and we appreciate the public comments and bringing your comments and opinions forward, not just Sure.

Thanks, Christopher. Um, but all of you, we appreciate your participation in government. And believe me, as a council, we hear you. our we have our city attorney, we have our city manager, we have our police chief, our fire chief, and almost all our city department heads are here listening. So it I just want to assure you it is not falling on deaf ears. So thank you for coming forward and sharing your thoughts. Item number three, consent agenda. All matters listed here considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately. Council, there's items A through I. Is there anything needs to be pulled and discussed? Okay. Seeing none, can we have a motion then approving item three, consent agenda, items A through I.

So move. We have a motion. We have a motion, a second. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on. Item four, action items 4A, approval of resolution number 5602, authorizing the ex execution and delivery of an agreement, a trust agreement, a continuing disclosure certificate, a purchase contract, and other necessary agreements, and approving the sale, execution, and delivery of excise tax revenue obligations. Delegating authority to the city manager and deputy city manager, finance director to determine the method of sale for the obligations. Delegating authority to the mayor, city manager, and deputy city manager, finance director to determine certain terms with respect to the acceptance and award of a bid for the purchase of the obligations, as well as approving the final form of an official statement and authorizing the taking of and ratifying of all other actions necessary. The city will construct street improvements along Airway Avenue from Prospector Street to Flying Fortress Parkway and Flying Port for Fortress Parkway from Grand Canyon Road to Airway Avenue as part of the Flying Fortress Parkway traffic interchange project. To date, the city has procured pre-cast box culverts, executed a construction management agreement, and approved related design change orders. These costs together with the construction contract and a conting contingency reserve for un unforeseen conditions will be financed through excise tax revenue obligations. The municipal adviser to prepare the necessary agreements, preliminary official statement and related documents in anticipation of issuing the obligations in May 2026. The agreements provide that the total principal amount of the obligations will not exceed $25 million. staff recommends approval. Tina, welcome tonight.

Thank you so much, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council. I'd like to welcome this evening, who is virtually attending, uh, Jim Strickland and Kayn Dwire. They are representing Columbia Capital, who are serving as our municipal advisor on this transaction, as well as Andrew Maguire representing Gust Rosenfeld, who is serving as our special counsel on this transaction. They are in attendance. In the event there are any technical questions that I am unable to respond uh to I would like to cover a little bit on this item as it is a large amount of money that that we are asking for your approval to finance. So I'd like to cover the documents that you would be approving this evening if this resolution is approved. And we will start with the actual resolution itself which really just authorizes the issuance of the obligations along with some other things but overarching authorizing the issuance of these obligations. There is also a purchase agreement and that purchase agreement allows UNMB bank to basically collect the proceeds from the sale, distribute them to our municipal advisor, bond council, rating agencies, but more importantly hold those monies for us to draw on as we need to. It also includes a trust agreement which is also with UNMB bank and they will basically take our principal and interest payments on a annual and semianual basis and distribute those to the bond holders. It also includes a continuing disclosure certificate which basically states that we will comply with the securities and exchange commission rules. And then lastly, the preliminary official statement. And that really serves what I refer to as kind of a marketing tool as well as um assur asssuring to any of the investors that we are in compliance. We

also it shares our financial position. It talks about the revenues that we are going to repay the debt with and also talks about the terms of the actual obligations. I also want to talk a little bit about the dollar amount that we are requesting to uh finance and that is taking into account exactly what the mayor shared in his summary. But dollar-wise it will equate to about $23 million and that is if the contract that is going to be brought forward to you in a later item tonight is approved as recommended. Uh let's see. I also want to cover the structure of the debt. So we are planning on issuing the debt. We believe over about a 21-year term. We expect that the first couple of years we will pay interest only and then as we are better able to afford it by year three and in the out years of the term the debt repayment would be about $1.9 million on an annual basis. And so with that I will try to answer any questions that you might have. Um, ultimately just asking council to approve the resolution this evening.

Thank you, Tina. Any questions for Tina on item 4A? I I do have one question. Um, if if should we approve this, what does that do to our uh future bonding capacity?

Thank you very much, uh, Vice Mayor. So, we have planned to also borrow money for the fire station and once we have done that, we will no longer be able to afford to be able to finance future projects until one of these other debt uh uh debts that we have undertaken has been redeemed. Um we can as far as coverage is concerned we have plenty of revenues to cover it but from an affordability standpoint the fire station would be the last project that we would be able to finance. And on that um how many uh years are we expecting to uh go out for the the fire station? 20 years. Vice Mayor. Thank you.

That's all I had. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Can we have a motion then approving item 4A? Approval of resolution number 5602. So move. We have second. We have a motion and a second. Either councelor Ward or Councelor Dikkins. Councelor Dikkins. You okay? Councelor Dikkins. Thank you. Um we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. I.

Any opposed? Thank you. Item 4B, public hearing for accelerated public improvements, Flying Fortress Parkway, phase 2, uG25-000079. Ordinance number 1987, adopted by city council on January 6, 2026, incorporated accelerated public improvements into the city of Kingland Streets and sidewalks development rules and regulations. Staff has notified property owners of parcels adjacent to adjacent to Flying Fortress Parkway and Airway Avenue regarding the preliminary assessment costs associated with this project. These costs may be assessed to property owners upon project completion if they elect to develop their property within 10 years of this public hearing. The final assessment amount will be determined based on the actual construction cost of the project. Staff recommends that the council accept public comments and direct staff to continue with accelerated public improvements assessment. Tim, who want to turn, do you want to start this off?

Sure. Um, so the previous item was for funding for Flying Fortress. Um, as council knows, we are borrowing money in order to do that phase of Flying Fortress from uh the interchange to airway and then from airway over to Prospector. So, um we're we're funding that through borrowing money. Um previously, council had asked for um some guidance on whether or not we could look at an accelerated um funding, accelerated improvement program, um through the city. It had actually been previously requested by by some developers as a way to build full improvements and then receive payback for those improvements. So, uh, Carl and and, uh, working with with, uh, outside council, uh, Carl worked through that process and and put together an ordinance that allows for, um, improvements to be, uh, constructed prior to that land being developed and then those improvements being assessed to those properties. Um, so that there would basically be a payback. Um, the ordinance allows for a 10-year payback period. um which basically right now uh the ordinance uh states that before any um action through city council be approved that those would have to be paid back. Um in talking with uh some of the land owners around this specific uh property, they had expressed concerns with the reszone and you know some of those preliminary planning portions not being able to move forward without without being paid back. and um staff doesn't have an objection to waiting until the the building permits are pulled. So um the right now the ordinance reads that anything like any any improvements, any approvals through council, it would have to be paid back first. We don't have a problem with waiting until the building um permits

are pulled. Um but ultimately what we've looked at using that that um that ordinance is with flying fortress utilizing that that advanced accelerate or that accelerated uh public improvements to recoup uh those funds that are being spent uh to construct Flying Fortress. Generally in in land development whenever a property is developed the adjacent u streets are required as part of those improvements. In this case, the city is saying based on the uh the need and and the the benefit to the city, doing those ahead of time, uh makes sense. So, we're funding those and then would assess those adjacent properties. So, that's basically where we're at. I don't know if I'd be happy to answer any questions and and Carl can help me as well.

Any more to add to that? Yeah, tonight you're just taking some public public comments. We've mailed out those notices of what the assessments would be looking like based on estimates for the construction. Uh and this is really similar to uh you know sewer paybacks, things along that line where someone builds something out to reach their property and then obviously then those neighboring properties that are affected or benefited by it would be assessed a cost. Okay. Thank you Tim and Carl. Council, any questions for Tim or Carl at this moment?

I do have a question. I know that in looking at the map, we had a uh specific area and radius that we were looking to notice that had been noticed. And I'm just wondering um if we are able to extend that area and um I know that the the subject parcels for the proposed assessment are limited. So, I'm just wondering if when do we propose that? When when does uh council have an opportunity and what does that look like for the for the future notice and and the process?

Thank you, uh, Madam Vice Mayor. So, the initial uh assessments were based on linear footage. So, I I'll I'll basically answer the approach portion of it and then I'll let Carl answer what we can and can't do. Um, so staff went through, looked at the cost of the improvements, um, looked at how many feet of improvements are being done. So we've got so many feet on, uh, Flying Fortress, so many feet on airway, and then divided that cost up by that linear footage to get a per linear foot cost um, for those improvements, and then looked at each parcel, and based on the the frontage of that parcel on there, assessed a certain value to it. Um that's that was the initial approach and in general many of these parcels are larger in nature and and basically would that that assessment would be absorbed by that overall parcel. Um there is a portion just to the northwest of where the interchange is going in that is broken up into uh around two acres, two to two and a half actually some of them get down around 1 acre uh pieces. Those along that um alignment were assessed that linear footage to that 2acre piece. So, um, you'll see some of them were assessed as much as, you know, uh, I think anywhere from 372,000 to 500,000 and that was based on the the project cost, estimated project cost and then divided by the linear footage and then that multiplied by that that frontage. Um we've we've talked with some of those property owners and and discussed that and and understand the concern that um adding that type of value to a a 2acre parcel does cause problems. Um so definitely there would be there's consideration to expand that footprint to to be able to absorb it to where that assessment is more reasonable. But as far as what we can and can't do, I'll let Carl speak to

that. Yeah, I think we'll probably receive some comments tonight about that very subject. Uh, and I think that's beneficial. So, what you're going to do is see this is how the staff first addressed it, maybe making some assumptions on how to do these calculations. Uh, with uh the public input, we can reassess those and maybe redefine the parameters of how we're going to smooth it out, if you want to call that. as you know, particularly the property we're talking about instead of just the the the smaller more linear linearly impacted those properties that are further away from the improvements. So, so if I may.

No, of course.

So, if we expand that area, obviously it's less burdensome on those particular properties. I am well aware that there are some shared ownership amongst all of those properties. However, what was the method or the thought process just for the public's knowledge up into uh East Lamar Road? It does it doesn't appear that we are assessing um to the to the west on East Lamar Road. And to me, just thinking through this, you know, there is going to be an interchange there. there there is going to be benefit there. There are improvements that need to go there. So So can you explain the methodology behind that?

So thank you vice mayor. Um so looking at the properties um just north of the interchange west of Flying Fortress but south of Lamar Road. uh those properties did not so the the improvements that the city is is putting in as part of this project being considered tonight um stopped just north of Lamar Road. So because they were they stopped just north of Lamar Road um and we were going based on a linear footage assessment, the property south of it did not have improvements in front of them. So they were not assessed. So that that was the methodology to where we got to tonight.

Do we have the opportunity to expand that? We can always reassess methodology uh and and see what the benefit would be to the and this isn't an assessment of the traffic interchange itself. It's the road beyond. No, I understand that there would be some differences and some calculations,

right? I mean, the had there not been an interchange, there wouldn't be access to these properties. So, I understand that it may be less of an assessment. I just want to know what our options are when we get down to giving staff direction. the the council can provide whatever direction they so desire to encompass the most affected properties and those may be in a gradually declining perimeter of affected being affected if that makes sense.

It makes absolute sense. Thank you. That's all I had. Well, in basically I was going to say say in basically in layman's terms in first look it looks like we were only assessing the properties that actually footprint or touch those roads where now we are talking about expanding that out um especially that one specific area where those are all twoacre parcels where that whole area gets assessed because we're it's allowing more access to that whole area. Yes. Right. I wish we had the map up on the on the screen but um do not I don't have that. Yes. Sorry. But that that just to simplify it and of course to make it more equitable, we're expanding that. So it's

and if I may, I I know uh some of the owners of that property are here. I think it would probably be u advantageous to hear their impression on on whether that's a route that they'd like to go or or you know, maybe some some comments on them before. But yeah, we we're open to uh pursue however the c however the council would like us to. So, is it possible to put that map that is in the backup? Annie is working. I think that's gonna help. Oh. Oh, Keith. Yes, Councelor Walker. I see that. Go ahead.

Sorry about that. Uh, my question is on the payback. We're asking for a 10-year payback. Is there a reason we're only asking for a 10 versus a 20? I mean, I hope this thing builds out fast, but I know a lot of the other paybacks, sewer and water, a lot of times are based on a 20-year payback.

Councelor Walker, did you hear that? I thought it was 10. Okay, Keith. Yeah, I I thought they mentioned a 10-year payback, not a 20. I I may be misthinking which one is which, but I think it's based on some of the comparable statutes regarding some of the payback periods that we look at, but it's something we can always readress, but that is something we put in our ordinance was 10.

Okay. I know we're we're asking for a 20, you know, we're going to finance this thing out for 20 years, but we're only asking for a 10-year payback. I mean, like I said, I'm hoping this project builds out a lot faster than that, but I'd hate to see the city have to eat the last, you know, if anything did go past the 10 years that the city has to pay the the whole note on it. Thanks, Councelor Walker. Valid point. Um, we actually for everybody here in the chambers, the map is up and and so we'll discuss this more, but let's move to some of our public. Actually, Mr. Short, Tom Short would like to come up and comment on this. Welcome, Tommy. Mayor Watkins. Yes. Excuse me, Mr. Short. Did you want to open the public hearing at this time?

Well, it's all since he he did this already. Would you like me to do it that or do you want me to just have public hearing? I I believe that's the the way we want to do it. Public hearing then close it once. So, stay right there as we do have a public hearing on this. So, we will open this public hearing. Okay. And um and and Tommy, of course, you have comments on this. So, public hearing is open on on item uh 4B. Okay. Uh accelerated public accelerated public uh what is it? Improvements.

Yeah. Improvements. Okay. Definition and and the the the uh the the the um let's say the the entire rules of that have have the public anybody's have you guys we I obviously none of the land owners have seen you know exactly what that supposed to represent. I don't I don't know what all is entailed in a in a accelerated public improvement. So anyway, oh all we know is uh we and when I say we uh I have a couple of partners and we're we're starting um the ranchas. We're well on our way when we got this little gift dropped on us right there for about 2.6 6 million which actually is about 50% of our budget for the first phase. So it it's it's it's a lot but then and then and this is what the Tim was talking about those small lots right there. If you break that down by the by the acre that's ridiculous. So number one, we would like we'd like council to at least advise to go back and take another look at that. And number two, one of the other important items on this when talking about our improvements when the uh when the funds were appropriated for for the interchange, it came down to the north right away on Grand Canyon. Well, that's great because that that took care of that intersection for us and those two lots you see there to the to the south wouldn't be included

in this uh assessment either. So we find out later that they decided to move or shorten the construction for um the interchange project by 600 about 630 ft. Well that now as a developers we we have lost the value that was there when you were going to build the road out there. uh you're going to build it out there now, but now you're going to charge us for it where it was funded before. So that 600 ft right there, we have strong objections to we'd like to see something figured out there. Either either go ahead and construct it down to where it was supposed where it was originally intended or some sort of compensation for the

Go ahead and continue. You're fight. I don't know I don't mean I don't mean monetary compensation but I mean some sort of uh uh explanation why how they could just at what at one minute we had this the north or the the south half of our subdivision was all under the uh the construction the the contract for the for the interchange. Then all of a sudden they move it back to almost where uh the first street that he enters it. So that particular piece of roadway right there that we're was going to be put in now we're going to be we're going to be paying for it put in again and we're going to have to do the the offsite improvements to it. So we lost out right there big time. But now we're we're going to lose that a lot more because those two lots right there is almost a million dollars. And actually, we gave the big portion of those lots to the city for drainage to make the interchange work way back when this thing was still in when the interchange was still just in the design stage. We we uh partnered with the city and said, "Yeah, we'll we'll we'll donate right away into here, give you all the drainage you need to take care of that water that's coming across the road." So, those those lots are already cut in half or a third anyway. And we of what we gave up and um we we've pretty much lost our advantage. So, we're here to uh beg you to take another look at that and see if there's another avenue for

okay,

re reduce our our per acre cost, you might say something where where it's feasible for us to build it. You can squeeze the public. I mean, the buyer is pretty hard, but there's a limit to what you can squeeze out, you know, and I you I sure you have these things here with all the fees on them. Some of those small lots right there are 455,000. One of them is 501,000, 380,000. Uh, and that's for a lot of times acre and a half, less than two acres. So, our per acre costs the way it is proposed right now is is way too high.

Okay. Any comments or any questions for Mr. Short? Okay. Thank you, Tommy. Thank you. Once again, this is the public hearing. Is there anybody else here in chambers um that would like to comment on it? Okay, seeing none, I will close this public hearing. Thank you. Okay, council, any com further discussion? I think we sort of mentioned that we need to send it back to staff and have them give them some direction as as far as the assessment values and what can and can't be done on that. So, I think Tim, any other

I'd like to Yeah, I'd like to get some clarification on a few things that were mentioned. So, um cost calculations, uh for the assessments, can you tell me, manager Walsh, um how those were calculated and what all is entailed in the construction? Because I know we talked about several different methods of construction and and cost incurred with that. So, I would like for the public's benefit to um to go over that, please.

Yes. Thank you. Um so, if I may just address real quick, uh Mr. Short had mentioned that initially the project had gone up to Grand Canyon and he is correct. Initially the uh well the interchange project included improvements up to Grand Canyon and south to Louise. It is con it is still south to Louise. Um, one thing that we did work with the contractors on is because of the discussion to going to Portland cement uh concrete pavement uh PCCP. The initial project for the interchange had PCCP up to a certain point. I believe it was either Siesta Road or between Siesta and Lamar somewhere in there. Um and then from there it would have been pavement uh asphalt pavement up to Grand Canyon up to up through that intersection. Uh with a dis discussion and the the interest in going to PCCP for the the length of Flying Fortress Parkway. U we worked with ADOT and the contractor there to extend um PCCP from where they were going to stop it as as far as we could get for the same cost for the asphalt pavement. knowing that we had this project coming up that we would if council desired to go with uh PCCP the rest of the way, we didn't want a patch of asphalt pavement in the middle of it and knowing that you know wherever we stopped with that project we could pick up and and go with this project. So he is correct with that and to his point based on the the way that we work these assessments it did add two additional lots to to those being assessed. Um, that being said, uh, with the assessments, we we used a value and I've got Robert Petrillo. He he actually, uh, helped or actually, uh, worked through the the assessments on

this. If I may, I'll ask him to come on up and and help through the methodology, the the project costs, how that was divided, and how that was assessed. And while you're doing that, if I may, u, mayor, so the difference in the cost, the increase was how much? And that is for concrete, correct? Because we know that that's going to be a heavily traveled area. We have We don't want to be having to go back and repair asphalt on the regular because this eventually is going to be brought into the city network for roads. Correct. That is correct. So, we're forward thinking in asking for the concrete. Okay, that is correct.

All right. Thank you, Welcome Robert. Um the general philosophy was that um because we were looking at PCCP on Flying Fortress which is obviously more expensive than the AC and I think it worked out to be 2 8 million I think was the difference. Um, we felt like it was not fair to the people on airway to assess part of the cost of PCCP to them because they were not getting a concrete street. And we likewise did not feel like it was fair to assess to the properties fronting on uh Flying Fortress the cost of the four box coververts on um Airway. So basically we split what was bid as one project into two separate projects flying fortress and airway. Now within both of those projects there were two situations. Um in in some areas we were building the full width four lanes curb sidewalk and in other l areas we were basically building the middle two lanes without the additional lane and the curb and sidewalk. So we broke each of the individual streets into two sections. One section full width assess the cost of the full width section in that area. to the the properties that fronted on that area again according to their amount of frontage as a proportion or as a fraction of the overall frontage on both sides. Then we did the same thing for the two

the two-lane section assessed those costs to the properties that fronted on the two-lane section and we did that for both Airway and Flying Fortress separately. So what we tried to do, what we felt was to make it as fair as as possible that um you know the the properties that were getting the full width assessment should be assessed more per lineal foot than the properties that only were getting two lanes. Uh so that was a general philosophy. Um, if I could make a comment on what we were just discussing previously, what happened with the the section from Grand Canyon to the interchange that we actually requested the entire section all the way up to Grand Canyon to be done in PCCP. But that obviously cost more than uh what the cost the way what they were going to build in in asphalt up to there. We we requested that that that additional cost be in effect a change order to the AOT contract. And if you remember, the city forwarded was a 2.1 million, I think, to cover change orders and things that that could happen on during the course of the construction of the ADOT project. And of that, at that point, I think we'd only use like a couple hundred,000. I think even now we're only up to 600 and some thousand. So there was more than adequate funds in of our money that we gave to ADOT to have done the whole thing in concrete. But the district ADA district would not do that. So you know if they would have done what the city originally requested this whole discussion you know about the difference in the limits would never have taken place.

um related to that. Now, Carl is the the lawyer here, but um I'm not sure that we could assess the ADOT portion to these properties because it it was not run through this process. Basically, there there were never assessments and once the project is bid, I think it's beyond the point that you can assess it. So, I'm not sure whether again, you know, Carl can be the final determination on this, but I'm not sure that we could legally even assess the cost of the ADOT project to the adjacent properties. So,

and I don't believe we're not proposing that the ADOT project be assessed to these properties at this point. Right. Yeah. This assessment does not include that at all. Okay. Thank you. I did have another question and then I promise I'll be done. Councelor St. You're fine.

Well, maybe I'll be done. Um, so the uh drainage parcels that were referred to by Mr. Short that were given to the city, I know we decided to go into a different in a different direction for the drainage. Um, what if anything can be done to mitigate that to res re resend that? Do we have any opportunity there to um I mean that was very generous uh gift to the city. So I mean I I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth but uh is there anything that we can

so so madam vice mayor the the drainage parcels that were uh received by the city from from Mr. Short actually are being used um they are allowing drainage across as part of um the project to allow that drainage across there. So, so those are being utilized. Okay. And so is there any was was there any and forgive me I don't recall but was there any compensation? Was it what what what was that arrangement?

I don't have the answer to that one. I I don't know. I wasn't here when those were were given. I don't know if it was I'm sure they were donated. So on that note, if they were truly donated, is there any opportunity for us to mitigate the property owner's cost with the drainage parcels that were donated because I would like to consider I would like to consider that as

I I would I'll take a stab at it and then I'll let let Carl go. I I believe that's it's it could be considered. I think that's that's council's purview to look at that. I I would say without those parcels, the project doesn't work. Um those parcels are required in order to do uh the improvements. So So I think it's Yes. And I see where you're going. The the the project couldn't have come to fruition had we not received those parcels. The the drain we would have issues with drainage. But we also we also changed the rules and we changed and we increased costs on that property owner. So,

and I will say in the past we have in some cases we we have purchased easements and those things. So I think it's it it's it could be considered by council but again I would I would say without those parcels without that that way to make the the project work it would be hard to have this project go through there. So, okay.

So, my comment that parcels were donated to the city, full stop. If you give to any property owner um something of value without consideration, without payment, then that's a gift clause violation. So, they donated that property to the city. That's done. that you don't take that into consideration the next step. And I I hear what and I understand what your argument is.

I I hear what you're saying, but they donated those pro properties, I believe, under the premise that they would be able to see this project to fruition, which then would increase their property value and allow for them to develop the property the way that they wanted to do it. So, I I I feel there is a wrong here and I I'm all for them paying their assessments. I'm just we've we've got to figure out a a fair way having considered all the information today. And I hope I hope as council we can we can get to something that's agreeable because this is a win-win for our community. um these property owners are is very excited about this interchange. Um development should pay for development. I mean all those things. So um with that um I will turn my mic over to the mayor.

Councelor Sader, do you have anything to comment? Yeah, I wanted to ask if we could go into executive session for some legal advice. Yes, we can do that if you'd like to make that motion. I make that motion. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to go into executive session. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay, we'll be right back. Thank you.

Are we good Annie? Okay, thank you. Well, thanks for sticking around those of you who are still in chambers and uh we have come back and come to a meeting of the minds and so actually councelor Saley would you like to make a motion? I would. Yes, we have um given direction to staff to um look at expanding the area that will be under the assessment um and they are going to take some time to meet with property owners and we are going to continue this public hearing until the May 5th meeting. That is my motion. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I.

I. I. Any opposed? Any opposed?

Thanks, Councelor Walker. Okay. Motion carries. Item 4 C, approval of award of bid 20206 IFB- 0003, Flying Fortress Parkway. CN city engineer recommends award to Perco Rock low bidder on pavement section alternate alternate two Portland cement concrete pavement PCCP on Flying Fortress Parkway and asphalt concrete AC payment on Airway Avenue at $18,194,134. Six bids were received from contractors each bidding on three payment section alternates. Staff recommends approval. Tim or is Robert gonna come forward on this one or do we have any

I think I can cover it for him. Okay. Um if not I'll I'll pull them up to help me out. Um so we put this out to bid. Uh we we put together three different alternatives. Um one being AC uh pavement throughout. Uh the next being Portland cement concrete on Flying Fortress and AC pavement on airway. and then a or Portland cement concrete on both airway and uh Flying Fortress. Uh given the heavy trough truck traffic that we're anticipating on Flying Fortress, um staff is recommending that flying that option two be selected which puts Portland cement concrete on Flying Fortress and asphalt pavement on airway.

Okay, thank you Tim. Any questions for Tim on this matter? And we have a motion then approving item 4 C, approval of W of bid 2026 IFB-3. So move. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 4D, approval of resolution number 5603, a request to consider an action directing staff to record the blank petition for annexation, a city in initiated proposal, which is AN25-00001 East Walpai Mountain Foothills to annex approximately 4,238 acres located south of Southern Avenue, north of Walapai Mountain Road, and east of Cherokee Street. At their March 3rd, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting, the city council directed staff to revise the boundary of the proposed annexation AN25-00001. Staff has revised the boundary as directed with a revised anchorage of approximately 4,238 acres, generally located south of Southern Avenue, east of Cherokee Street, and north of Walifai Mountain Road, and therefore seeks council direction to record the blank petition for annexation with Mojave County Recorder. Staff recommends approval.

Jason, welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Good to see you tonight.

Mayor, council, thank you very much. uh tonight before use the annexation uh for East Wall Foothills, case number annexation 25-00001. I'll go through the background briefly because we've been through it a couple times. This is an we've been evaluating a couple different annexation uh areas over the last uh essentially two years essentially at this point in time. We have come before uh this body on a couple different occasions with a couple different boundaries. most recently back on May or uh March 3rd, we came back before you with uh a couple options to proceed. Uh that would include uh approximately 3,000 plus acres of BLM land uh along the easterly boundary of the project area. So before you tonight is really the request and giving staff direction to proceed forward with the actual filing of the blank petition. That is our next step that gets filed with the county recorders office. That does start then our 30-day waiting period. Uh within the last 10 days of that waiting period, we will actually bring it back before council as part of a public hearing. That will be on May 5th uh of this year. And uh after that, then we can then proceed with obtaining signatures uh to finalize the addexation. With that, I'll keep my presentation short, answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Jason. Any questions for Jason? Okay. Are any comments, council? Okay. Can we have a a motion then approving item 4 D, approval resolution number 5603. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Item 4E. adopt a notice of intent to consider increasing the transaction priv privilege tax TPT rate at a public hearing on June 16, 2026. In fiscal year 2024, the city council adopted a 7-year program to fund street repairs, maintenance, and improvements utilizing general fund reserves that are projected to be fully expended by fiscal year 2030. A recurring revenue source will be necessary to continue the existing program. On March 5th, 2026, the city council held a work session to review transaction privilege tax, TPT, rate options, the general funds, fund balance, and related policies, community comparison data, and the long-term funding needs of the street maintenance program. Members of the public attended and commented. Staff recommends council adopt a notice of intent to consider increasing TPT rates at the June 16th, 2026 council meeting. Tina, good to see you again.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, vice mayor and uh council. So, this particular item we have talked about at several meetings now. So, the presentation that I'm going to share this evening is very similar to the presentations that we've covered at our previous meetings, but I want to make sure that we still go through uh all of the slides and try to answer all of the questions that you might have. Give me just a second to get to the beginning of this. I believe should be up. Okay. Okay. Great. All right. So, we're going to start with some TPT basics or the transaction privilege tax basics. Cities and towns follow the model city tax code. This particular city tax code aligns very closely but not exactly with the state taxation statutes. So the middle the diff one of the main differences between the state taxation statutes and the model city tax code is that the model city tax codes allow cities and towns to adopt different types of model options and local options. One of those options is one we've been talking about and that is the big ticket option. The state does not allow for that but city the model city tax code does allow for that type of option. And also as far as adding an option, so to add a model or a local taxing option to the model city tax code, it must be taken to the municipal tax code commission for consideration and approval. And additionally, all of the cities and towns must adopt that and approve of that option being added. So it isn't something that the city council uh if if desired could just take action on. There is a process necessary to do that. How do our taxes get spent? So, we have a regular TPT rate or a regular tax rate. That's the rate that I call regular, but it is the amount of money

that we collect that goes directly into the general fund. It's that 2 and a half% for the most part across all taxable activities. And we expect to collect about $30 million to fund all of the general fund activities. So things such as our public safety departments, parks and recreation, city administration, uh development services is one of those divisions. We also have a 1% restaurant and bar tax that we charge on top of that regular tax rate. Those monies go directly in to the highway user revenues fund and it is used to fund our street repairs and maintenance. That'll generate about $1.4 million this year. And then we also charge an additional 4% on our hotels. And that is split, the revenues generated from that is split 50/50 between tourism and capital projects. And in total, we'll collect about $1.6 million this year. So that's where our taxes get spent. So we're talking about streets and that's the purpose of tonight's discussion. So how are our streets currently funded? They are funded with highway user revenues which are state shared revenues based on city population and the county origin of gas sales. And we expect to collect about $4 million this year for highway user revenues. Now those monies are spent just to fund our daytoday operations of the department. So, our labor, drainage, weeds, um signals, signs, everything that encompasses our again daily operations. It does not go to fund pavement preservation or street repairs and maintenance. And the 1% restaurant tax that we that we generate, that 1.4 million does go towards funding that, but as we know, that isn't enough for that uh for funding our pavement preservation. And so the council

implemented a program in fiscal year 24. It was a seven-year program whereby we would reduce our general fund reserves and move those monies yearly to fund a pavement preservation program knowing that at some point fiscal year 2030 we would not be able to do that any longer. And how do we know that we were not going to be able to do that any longer? Well, the city looks at takes into account a fiveyear forecast every single year that we budget. And so we knew that by the time we got to fiscal year 2030, our reserves would be depleted to a percentage that was about 30%. And that 30% is um is 30% of our operating expenditures and our outgoing transfers. The formal policy that the council adopted many years ago is to maintain a reserve of 25% to 50% of those expenditures and outgoing transfers. But the council adopted an informal policy when this program was put into place of maintaining anywhere between a 30 and 35% level. So in 2030 we'll get to that level and that's when this program ends. And you'll see that in 2031 there's really no change to those reserves, meaning that there aren't any additional reserves to be able to fund this program. We always want to compare ourselves to our neighboring cities or what we call our sister cities and certainly in this case it's very important that we do so as well. So while we provide many of the same services to our citizens, our revenue sources and the way we generate our revenues are very different. And so a lot of times we'll compare our tax

rates to our sister cities. But we need to take into account other factors when we're looking at just tax rate comparisons. So we have a table here that we've shared in other presentations as far as the revenue sources and what that looks like if we were to take those revenue sources and equate them or convert them to a tax rate. So looking at Lake Havsu City, they current they have a 2% tax rate in place that generates about $39 million that goes to their general fund. They also have a primary property tax rate and that generates about 7.2 2 million. So they generate about $46 million in revenues between those two sources to fund police and fire and all of their other general fund departments. So if we were to convert that primary property tax into a tax rate, it would equate to about 2.4%. Looking at Bullheads.

Yes, ma'am. Tina. So does that translate that means their their sales tax actually would be 4.37 since they already have two? Mayor, thank you. No, it would be about 2.37% in That's the real That would be the real rate of what it would should be. That's correct. Okay.

Then looking at Bullhead City, they currently have a 2% tax rate in place which generates $23 million for the general fund, but they have a fire district, meaning that the city's general fund and taxes do not have to support their fire department. The fire district, that property tax supports that, and that generates over $15 million. So, if we were to take that $15 million along with the $23 million and convert that, it would be about a 3.3% tax rate in total. And then we know that the city of Kingman is at 2 and a half% and we fund with our general fund all of those services including public safety. So, I'm not going to go I took some of the slides out that I've shared in the past, but there are a couple of Arizona city comparisons that I wanted to point out specifically because we do sometimes hear that the city of Kingman's tax rate is one of the highest tax rates in the state of Arizona. And I I just want to make sure that the public is aware that that is not the case. So, I I we have 91 cities and towns in this incorporated cities and towns in the state of Arizona. And when we look at this table of just city tax rates, this doesn't take into account the state or county tax rate, but city tax rates, that first block of blue that are numbered 27 through 38, we fall in that category. So of the 38 cities lowest tax rates, we fall in that category currently. So we are not one of the highest, we do not have one of the highest tax rates currently. If the council were to move forward with some sort of rate increase like a half percent increase, we would be at 3%. And even at that point, we are not the highest t uh the highest city the city with the highest tax rate. So, I wanted to to point that out. I also wanted to to point out that if we were

to take into account the state tax as well as the county tax because that is what our citizens pay uh all three of those rates. Fortunately, Mojave County does not have a sales tax. So, our citizens pay a state tax as well as a city tax. And the lowest 40 total retail TPT rates in the state of Arizona are listed here. And you'll see that number one, number two, and number uh eight are currently the three cities in Mojave County. So they are one of the lowest taxed taxi the cities with one of the lowest total tax rates. If we were to increase our tax rate by a half percent we would move to 8.6% which is still within that top 40 lowest total TPT rates in the state of Arizona. So what would certain tax rate incre increases generate in revenue? looking at a few different regular again I refer to the regular tax rate as the rate just applied across the board to the uh to our that go towards our general that goes towards our general fund. So if we were to increase the tax rate by 3/4 of a percent it would generate close to $9 million. A half percent generates close to $6 million and a quarter percent generates just under $3 million. You'll see to the right of the table how that would impact our consumers by uh with uh by taking into account that rate increase. There's also the opportunity to increase hotel and motel additional tax rates and you'll see there what that generates in revenue as well as our restaurant and bars and additional tax rate on those. One thing I do want to point out as we look through this and in further slides is that currently our commercial leasing rate is only 2%. And that was because we were uh that would have to go to the voters to get approved

prior to January of 2025 and so it always just stayed 2%. If there was a a tax a regular tax rate applied across the board, that particular tax would increase from 2% to 2 and a.5%. but all of the other taxes tax rates would be at 3%. So there's an opportunity to look at increasing that rate by another half percent to 3%. And I'll share what that looks like. I also want to point out here and I'm going to cover it on another slide, but um I I do want to point out that we are including all of the taxable c uh taxable activities in these additional revenue projections. Now, cities and towns are not required to increase all taxable activities by a certain percentage. You can certainly exclude certain t certain activities if you so desire and I'll cover that in on another slide as well. So, what are some different options that the council can consider? We have the big ticket option. There is also the option to include a sunset date in an ordinance and the commercial leasing tax as I shared earlier. You can increase that by an additional half percent and then also looking at increasing the additional tax on hotels and motel. So let's talk a little bit about the big ticket option and what it actually is. The big ticket option is a tiered rate structure for single item purchases over a certain dollar amount that is established by the city council. It's used primarily to recruit and retain business. And the tiered rate can be placed on the price of an entire single item or the portion of a single item. and I'll explain more on another slide over the price where the tiered rate

structure goes into effect. Now, this is an option that is allowed in the model city tax code. And it's important to note that this option only applies to retail sales and use tax activities. It does not apply to other activities such as one of the big ticket items that uh consumers pay our construction, right? And so our our contractors here in town end up paying tax um on their activities. This does not apply to that category. It only applies to retail sales and use tax categories. So what does this look like as far as to the consumer if any of the big ticket options were put into place? Meaning that entire single item or a portion of the single item. So, I'm I threw some assumptions in here. We can certainly look uh at different at different thresholds and different rates, but assuming that there's a 3% tax rate across the board and assuming that the council says we're going to establish the threshold at $10,000 and that the single item, whether it be an entire single item or a portion of a single item, will be taxed at 2 and a.5%. What does that look like? So, a consumer goes and buys a used car. Say it's $20,000. Currently, if there was no big ticket option in place, the consumer would pay $600 in city sales tax. If there was an entire single item tax in place, they would pay $500. And what that looks like is that when the consumer goes to buy that $20,000 used car, the tax on that used car, the entire cost of that used car would be taxed at 2 and a.5%. If it's a single item portion tax, the consumer would pay $550 in tax. The

amount up to 10,000, the consumer would pay 3% tax. Any amount above that, they would be taxed at 2 and a.5%. That's how those different items work. I threw in here an amount that was below the $10,000 just for illustrative purposes showing that doesn't matter if it's under $10,000, right? The consumer is going to pay the same rate across the board. Are there any questions on that particular slide that I can answer at all? Okay, great. Thank you. All right. There are goodness 28 cities and towns with the big ticket option currently and that is about a third of the cities and towns just under that. So it's definitely an option that is used cities and towns for whatever reasons that that the councils decide they establish whether or not uh that it they choose the entire single item, they choose the single item portion, they choose different dollar amounts. and you'll see it varies across all of the different cities and towns. So, uh, so really just pointing out that there is no real calculation or method. It is up to the city council to make that decision. So, as far as the tax increase options and the city fiscal impact, there are a few different options out uh laid out here for you this evening. Certainly there are other options as well, not just these that we that that uh you can look at. If there was a regular rate increase at half percent across the board going from 2 and a.5% to 3% 2% to 2 and a half% for commercial leasing. And there was no big ticket option approved. It would generate $6 million for our streets. There is also the big ticket option using that $10,000 single item, not a single entire single item at 2 and

a half% that'll generate the 5.34 million. And then if council looked at a portion of a single item, it would generate $5.59 million. There's also commercial leasing that you can increase from 2 and a half to 3% that would generate $180,000. And then if the council does increase the regular tax rate or the retail rates more specifically by half percent then there's the ability to also impose an additional 1% on hotels and motel that would generate the 390,000. Now again this is across the board. Uh if there was any sort of activity that were to come out of that that would uh reduce these revenues but this is across the board. So what would be the next step? So, the next steps, um, staff is asking that council adopt a notice of intent this evening to increase the sales tax rates at a June 16th public hearing. To this po, at this point, the council has not taken any action or given any direction on what that rate increase would look like or what those options are. So, we would need that also in tonight's action. We would end up posting a written notice uh on the city's website. we would hold the public hearing and consider adopting the tax ordinance at the June 16th meeting. If council does adopt that ordinance, then the rate would become effective the first of the month following 60 days after approval, which is September 1st. Now, that would be the beginning of time that vendors and merchants could begin collecting that additional tax, but the city would not begin collecting that until until sometime late October, early November. uh just the way that the filing and the reporting of taxes um are are done. And with that, I will try to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Tina. Any questions or comments for Tina? Yes, Councelor Savage. With all the meetings that we've had recently on this, it it appears to me and probably the rest of the council that we seem to have some trust going on with the community right now. Uh the concern that's been brought up to us is about future councils on the al the adequated amount going to the rows being changed by future councils. If we put a sunset on this and lock that in, can that be changed by future council? Yes. Yes. No matter how we try to lock it in,

correct? You can't find the future councils. And I would just add that if you look at our track record or the the council's track record on what we've allocated for the bar and restaurant, uh that's been in place for a considerable amount of time and the council has always kept it the allocated that way. So, okay. Thank you, Councilman. Good question, counselor. Anything else? Councelor Dykins, you look like you have a question. Not to pick on you, but you were pensive about something

and we have a p a member of the public that would like. Do you want to wait until member of the public? Absolutely. Okay, great. Um, as I mentioned, we have a member of the public who would like to comment on this. Mr. Tyler Angel, would you like to come up? Thank you, mayor, vice mayor, councel. My name is Tyler Angel, the president of Angle Homes and um some related land development companies in Kingman and Mojave County. Um want to address the the TPT increase proposal. We've we've kept in touch with staff and council members as the process has has gone forward. um it seems wise to get um some additional revenue to to cover the the roads so we don't keep dipping into our our savings account basically as a city. Um initially misunderstanding by us or everyone in the process. We thought that the uh contracting business codes which is primarily 015 is prime contracting or 016 is speculative builder contracting where a builder builds a lot on a a lot that they own and sells that as a package. That's called speculative builder um code. we thought those would be allowed to be within the the big ticket um options that we talked about. And so the first $10,000 of a new house sale would be taxed at the the higher rate and then after that it would be at the the two and a half%. So we we just found out recently that that's not how the the model code is really structured. It's for retail and use. Um, and so the only way for it to affect the the contracting codes is either full full effect um or exempt uh for whatever increase is is proposed.

um to to give some numbers if So, what we were thinking it was going to be at the big ticket item, it would only add about $50 per house um on on the sales tax because if you do 10,000, half a percent of that would be 50 additional dollars. Um each house right now on average is around $5,000 for what the TPT is in total right now. So, we thought it was only going to be $50. It's going to benefit the city by, you know,5 million plus dollars already. Sounds good. Let's let's do it and and support it type of thing. Um, but now that it can't be a big ticket item for for construction, um, it would be over $900 would be the additional increase. Um, for for an average house. Um, the way you get to it, it's a little complicated on the contracting because there's deductions. you take out the land, there's a contractor deduction and sewer fees, but but anyway, on average for a house, if if it is increased by the half a percent, that would be around 900 additional dollars. Um, so I would ask I'm proposing if we want to to not have um that big additional, you know, almost a thousand additional dollars per per new house built in the city that we exempt that code. um from from just this this increase. And the code that that most of the the new homes are being built under it would be the spec home one which is 016 because in the new subdivisions the the builder at least for us we own the lot we package it and we sell it and so most of the time we're paying our tax under that that business code. Um, another quick item. Sorry I don't have this bigger, but this is the city's new home permits since 2018

to um, projected for this year from January's and February projected out. And we're on a pretty steady decrease on the new homes that that we're building in the city. Um, there's a few reasons for that. It's not because there's not demand. We're actually building more houses than we ever have, but most of them are in the county. Now, one of those reasons is because of the the costs. Just the TPT on the front is already $5,000 more on average for a house. So, if you have two houses that are same in the city and the county, the one in the city costs 5,000 more than the county just just for sales tax alone because it doesn't have city sales tax in the county. And then the the city has higher permit and impact fees that that increase that some more. Um, so a lot of that is is the cost factor there. So if we're wanting to keep keep some building and new permits in the city, then then that would lead us to maybe wanting to to not increase the the house prices compared to to the county for for the new home sales. But, um, last thing I would suggest, just my two cents, not to have a sunset clause if you do it because it just seems uh to messy the waters. and if you decide we need it, just do it. And a future council, if they don't want it, they can take it off, right? So, I would say no sunset clause would be my suggestion on the general increase. But anyway, thanks.

Thank you, Tyler. Any questions for Tyler? I do have some questions for you, Tyler. I just don't run away, Tyler. So, the average impact is $900 per home. I I wrote that down. How many uh homes are you proposed to build? uh Angle Homes is to propose to build in the city in the next five years.

Um we're probably at around 100 right now. If things went well, it could go up to maybe 150 over the next um few years. So I would say maybe 700 over five years. Okay. All right. Um, my next question is for Tina. Thank you. My next question Tina is, uh, should we decide to take that route, um, what's the, uh, fiscal impact to the numbers that you presented?

Oh, Tyler, hold. I have an answer to that. Will you want to come up though? Well, I'm gonna take actually be ready to be be ready to come back up. Tina's gonna

I'm gonna take Tina's assessment and then you're welcome to chime in. Vice Mayor, thank you for that question. Uh, so we collect more sales tax in contracting than just from angle homes. So, as far as the 015 and the 016, I did not break it out by just speculative builders. I broke it out by 015 and 016. the total impact would be anywhere from $400 to $500,000 for that additional half percent that we would uh not generate. Okay. And we're projecting um overall revenues of how much total the way that it is now?

Not not necessarily in that category cumulative. So without a big the additional half percent. Yes, correct. uh almost $6 million. If no big ticket option was taken into account. Okay. If the big ticket option was taken into account, what's your projections? Uh anywhere from 5.3 to 5.6 million. 5.3 to 5.6. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. Tyler, those numbers sound about what you come up with, too. Um yeah, the prime contracting

is the bigger portion because that has the commercial and commercial normally doesn't have the same property owner as the builder um is acting as the prime contractor. You hire somebody from outside. Um but if you do the numbers of my $900 average for a new house and then you multiply that by how many permits the city's having. So this year the city's projected to have new home permits of 126. And so that would come out to about 113,000 um for the spec builder one, which is primarily a home building um item or a business code. So she said 400 for all construction um which I didn't really look at, but the portion that's spec builder I think would be closer to the new home permits multiplied by the the 900. So it be around 113 or 115,000 per year.

Okay. If I may. Of course. So if we have you said you were you're planning to build about 150 homes on an annual basis and your numbers show 126. I'm thinking we're not comparing apples to apples here. So for a year, for like a year from right now, I'm hoping to build a hundred in Kingman myself. Okay. And I'm already about 80%. So So that checks out.

So you're saying that based off of your figures on your graph of declining homes, there's only uh 26 other homes that are being built that are not angle homes in the city. Yeah, we have we're doing about 75% or 80% of the new homes in Kingman is angle homes. Okay. And the city has all the data online. We have it all in the spreadsheets and track it. No, I'm not I'm not questioning your numbers. I'm just trying to put some perspective on it. And so we're I'm saying 100 in the next 12 months, but we're hoping with a couple new subdivisions coming online that that would grow for us from 100 to 150 um for the next several years.

Right. So I'm just I mean I'm just being in the industry I kind of have a unfair advantage. So I I just You are building the majority of the homes in the city of the city limits. Is that correct?

So you're really controlling those permitting. Is that correct? Um, it's obviously more complicated than that, but a big lever is how many new lots are coming on the market. And so when it takes a long time to like get a subdivision finished, then that's one of the reasons why like permits would be down is if there's no new lots produced that year or for that six months. Sure. But if you had a certain developer who owned the majority of the buildable lots in Kingman, that would also affect those permits coming online. Is that correct?

Um, yeah. I mean, all of our stuff's for sale, so as soon as they somebody wants to sell them, we sell them. We don't like restricted or anything. Okay. All right. That that's all I had. Thank you. Okay, Tyler. Thanks again. Any other questions for Tina or any comments about all this? Uh, yes. Go ahead, councelor Sy.

Oh, thank you. You know, I mean, I just um just in response to these comments, I would say that it makes sense that it costs more to live in the city limits, that it is a premium because when you live in the city limits, you get better fire service, you get better police service, you get parks that are beautifully maintained, you get a lower rate at the golf course. Living within the city limits is a higher quality of life, and you you pay for that, and people want that. that is an added bonus or incentive to live within the limits of our town. And so I don't think anybody would be upset about paying that premium when they can clearly see the value for it. Um so my my direction to staff I think that's the point that we're at here is I think um to make it fair it should be you know an increase across the board. You asked about the commercial leasing increase. I think um that should be included as well as the hotel and motel. Um if we were going to consider a big ticket item, I would go with item C from the one slide, which is the big ticket item single item portion. And um while I believe that I know we all know that this um revenue is going to be needed forever because we're always going to have streets that need to be maintained. Um I consistently hear back from the community that they want a sunset. And so I believe that we will spend these dollars on streets always and that a future council can decide to continue to do the same and I think they will. So I really don't think it will be a big deal to continue a sunset down the road. Um I

think it I think it'll just be um business as usual. So I think those were all your questions. So are you suggesting that we put a sunset on it? Yes. Oh, no. You're saying that's the way I was understanding it.

Yeah. I think that the community feels better about I mean, I just had a comment right before the meeting started that they would feel better if there was a sunset on the item and that does bring it back to the council so that if it wasn't being spent on streets, the community could hold that council accountable and they could come in and have their voices heard that they want it to end because it's not being spent accordingly. But I don't think that will be the case. I think it will be spent on streets and so it will easily pass as a sunset down the road. I think just to give peace of mind. Are you proposing what kind of time limit are like 10 year?

I I guess that's a question for you. What is a common sense? Is it 20 years, 15 years? Uh councilwoman Staylor, there it is all across the board. Prior councils here have placed just a couple of years on sunset dates. It can go all the way up to 10 or 20 years. It's entirely up to the council. I think 15. Okay. Councelor Ward, I pretty much agree with everything she said. And uh I would go with the uh definitely go with sunset. Uh whether it's a 10 or a 15 doesn't matter to me.

Okay. Um I hate having to raise the sales tax. I think if everybody looked at their budgets and how much they're talking per month of what they're going to increase, I think it's going to be under five dollars what they're paying in a sales tax on items that you pay a sales tax on. You know, unless you're buying a big ticket item and most people don't buy a car that often or, you know, something that's big ticket item. So, I would agree with you. I'm thinking may have more of a 10-year because once again, you mentioned a future c a future council can then examine it. I think we have a good track record, our council and previous councils of holding true if an previous council has agreed to something. I think we've done a pretty good job about that, but I know it makes it more palatable from the public that if we have a a sunset, so that's wise. Councelor Savage.

Okay. Now, now that we're speaking about that, with the money that we are going to be setting aside and borrowing, so to speak, Tina, how long are we scheduled to have that paid off for the work that's going to be with Flying Fortress and Airway and all that stuff? Good question, Councilman Savage. It'll be about 21 years is what we're thinking. You bring up a good point. So, maybe we should make 20 years. I'm thinking 20. Once again, we are sort of kicking it down the road a little bit, but yeah, bringing a good point. Vice Mayor,

I um I am in favor of the single item big ticket option. I think that our businesses, it'll give them some reprieve. Commercial leasing, I agree, needs to increase and the hotel motel tax. I disagree with a sunset clause. I mean, I I feel that um I if a council were to redirect monies away from streets, they would definitely hear hear about it. Um I I just I do not support a sunset clause. I don't support a sunset clause for many reasons. One of which we used to have a primary property tax and that went away. It was there was a sunset clause. And so I think that any opportunity we need to start investing in our streets. We as a council made the very difficult decision to set these monies aside for as long as we did. And our roads are looking better. I mean, I know we had a call to the public earlier and and I hope that Jack was listening and he'll get on that, but um I just I I think that we need to and and future councils will go ahead and continue to use this for uh roads. I I just I'm not in favor of sunset clause at all because that just gives everybody an opportunity to take it away. And like you have said many times, mayor, our road maintenance and our pavement preservation will never go away.

N make up a good point, Vice Mayor. It's we know among all of us that it needs to be in place forever, but on the same token, too. Um it gives options to the public as we represent the public. So I have a question though. If if we put this into place and we propose that this is going to be used for streets and pavement preservation and we put a sunset on it, is it earmarked for that next 20 years? Because we can't we can't force future councils. So, does the sunset clause really do anything?

No. The sunset clause would terminate the uh TPT increase and revert back to the original two and a half if council took no action. But it doesn't do anything to earmark those monies to go towards pavement preservation. It does not change where the money's going. It just changes how long. Why would we do a sunset clause when the very thing that we're trying to protect is that these monies are going to go towards pavement preservation when it it doesn't do it. It won't. So to me, I think a sunset clause is a is a mood point.

Mayor. Yes. Council Dickens,

I have a question. First sunset clause. Did I understand you earlier saying that a new council could completely change that? Correct. So in 2 years or four years, let let's say this council chose to do all of these changes with a 10, 15 or 20 years sunset clause. Two years from now, we have a different council or four years we have a different council. Can that council come in and end that sunset clause and do something different?

Yes. So, in my opinion, a sunset clause is uh a facade. We're just making everybody feel wonderful and warm and fuzzy by calling what we're doing a sunset clause to make you feel better. But in reality, the very next city council could come in and completely change it. Is that a correct statement? Yes, it is. Can I answer that? Yes. Okay.

Chip. Yes. Comment in on it. My the way I look at this the sunset clause or even if another council came in in two years and un undid the sunset, it still would have to be a public conversation. It would be on a meeting agenda, the public could come in and speak. And I think the same for the sunset. If in 20 years it's on an agenda and they have to consider whether or not to keep it, it's a public conversation. and it's on an agenda and the public can come in and say yes you have been spending it on roads and we need to keep spending it or no you've been you know it didn't keep going to roads and we want to have a conversation about that. So in my opinion the sunset just gives the public an opportunity to come back and revisit that in a meeting whether or not they approve or don't approve. But you're right, a council could change it at any time, but but it has to be done publicly under the same scrutiny that we've been under to have this conversation about the increase.

Yes. Go ahead, Council Dickens. I would hope, and hope is a big thing, but I would hope that if whether we're under a sunset clause or not, if for some reason monies did not go where we really wanted it to go to roads that first off, the attorney, second off, our city manager would stop that or correct that. But definitely the community, I would say, would be up in arms saying, "Hey, sunset clause or no sunset clause, you're not doing what you promised." So, first off, I don't believe we need a sunset clause because it's fake. If it makes everybody feel warm and cuddly and it would prevent some bad phone calls coming in, then I'd be okay with going with a sunset clause. But to me, I still think it's false protection because 20 years, 5 years, 10 years, it doesn't matter. The next city council can completely change it. Um, so with that being said, the item that I think Tina is also looking for is are we looking at an increase in the TPT? Are we looking at 25% or I don't know if that's correct way of putting it. uh a quarter of a cent, a half a cent, or 3/4 of a of a cent or anything else. I think that has been missed in all of the conversation so far.

I think really I think all of us are on the same page on that. I think we're thinking about increasing it half a cent. Okay. But I think it needed to be said, but it needed to be made public.

Yes, I think it needed to be said, counselor. Good point. So, I'll go out on a limb and say I think what we're talking about is a half cent increase. I am also in favor of uh item C, the big ticket option with a $10,000 single item portion at 2.5, which means the first 10,000 would truly be at 3% and anything over 10,000 would be at the 2.5. Is that correct, Councilman Dykins? Yes, that is correct.

Okay. And then along with that the the commercial leasing and the hotel motel the projection on on yeah it's on the on the screen. I agree with the hotel motel tax increase to the 5% going up the 1%. But in your previous this slide is showing from 2 and a half to three but in reality right now it's at 2%. So, we're we're actually saying if we're going to go to the commercial leasing to make it equal, we're going to raise it to 3% which is increasing it from 2% to 3%.

So, Councilman Dykens, yes, that is correct. But that first half percent, the 2% to 2 and a.5% is included in option C. Okay. Already. Okay. Because we're doing an across $74,000 is included in that 5.59 million. Yes. Okay. All right. So, I'm in agreement with a half cent of pursuing it to the public meeting. That's that's what this is referring to.

That's true. half cent increase in the TPT number or letter C with the big ticket option the commercial leasing going from the two to the 3% so it's straight across and also increasing the hotel motel to 5% to uh basically help the city out with those that are staying in the crystal clear, right? No, this the sunset clause I haven't brought up yet. Okay.

Personally, I'm I don't care if I get bad phone calls or not. It to me it sunset clause is a fake and it doesn't help. Um, but when it comes to the sunset clause, I'll go with whatever direction the rest of council wants. But

I'm I'm not going to shoot this down. If I go with sunset clause and everybody else goes if I go against the sunset clause and everybody else goes with the sunset clause, I still don't want to be a nay because I'm in favor of the other 400,000 things I just said. So, how do you how do I do this? Or how how was this done? Well, I think right now we're just taking council input and then we're waiting for an actual motion to provide direction to the staff to do what you folks are asking us to do

for the public hearing on June 16th. That's really what this is all about. We are discussing what we want to increase it, but we are still going to have a public hearing on June 16th that'll come forward on this. But these are sort of the general thoughts of what we're wanting. So, can we move forward with all of this without a a determination with or without a sunset clause at this point? No. No, we have to go. Tina, I I cherish just brought this up for me because I was reading B and C. It's kind of the same thing. Can you describe the difference between B and C, please,

Councilman Savage? Absolutely. So the difference so B is where if you buy a single item that is more than $10,000 that entire item will be taxed at 2 and a.5%. Okay.

If C is if you buy an item that is single item over $10,000 the first $10,000 will be taxed at 3%. Anything above $10,000 will be taxed at 2 and a half%. So for instance, right, if we look at that used car, I go buy a used car for $20,000, that first $10,000 of the purchase will be taxed at 3%. The other $10,000 will be p will be taxed at two and a half%. But you didn't you just say it was the same for both of them?

No. So B is if I go buy that $20,000 vehicle because the item is over $10,000, that entire purchase, the entire $20,000 is taxed at 2 and a.5%. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome, Vice Mayor.

So can you go back to the slide where it shows the actual dollars? Because what I'm looking what I'm looking at I I disagree. I I like be. Yes. I like be better because I feel like it gives it gives more of a break to the consumer and it also gives more of an advantage or a break to the big ticket sellers because that's what we heard the first time around was the heartburn about not carving that out and having a big ticket auction. So, I hear them this time around and I think that and please tell me if you disagree if I'm not reading this, but it's a benefit to the consumer and it's a benefit to the big ticket seller if B is selected over C. Vice Mayor, that's correct. Thank you. So, I want to do what is in the best interest of our big ticket sellers and the big ticket purchasers and I uh would like to go with B. That's that's what I will support. I will not support a sunset clause. Um and then I think we we can make up the difference between the commercial leasing um increase and the hotel motel uh increase. I don't think we need to be greedy. I think that that is sufficient to fund our roads and that's what I'll support. Anything else I'm I'm not in support of.

Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Actually, Councelor Walker Keith, are you still there? Yes, I am. would you like to weigh in on this or what's your thoughts on it? Sure. Um I don't agree with the sunset clause. I think you know our our needs for the road uh maintenance never ends and a future council could come in and and redirect or back it out if they really wanted to if they felt it wasn't in the best interest. Um I was personally leaning towards C, but I'm trying to look at the numbers now on B to see what that would really do. So you could go either way on B or C. Yeah,

there you go. Okay. Well, I am I think I'm gonna side with vice mayor with councelor Walker and basically and councelor Dyk because I think well I don't know what your thoughts are on Jim about B or C but I do like the idea and because once again our car dealers have talked to us and we do not want to chase big business away like that. And so I like item B also and no sunset clause. I'm going to change on that. So, yes, Caler,

on on the difference between B and C, if you're a car sales company, you would still get a discount on the first 10,000. It would be taxed at 2 and a half%. Or the first 10,000 is 3%. And anything over that is 2 and a half. So, they would still get a discounted rate. The reason why I like C better is because we are taking into consideration the big purchases, but that those businesses are still contributing to the street maintenance. I think everybody should contribute because we all benefit. It's important for our community. So the I like C because you're still recognizing yes, you know, this does impact you and we want to reduce your rate, but anything over 10,000 is going to be that new rate so that that they do contribute to the street maintenance. So that's where I was coming from on C.

Understand and why I support that one. Okay. So where do we want to go? because it sounds like you want no sunset. That that's that's why I asked about the question on the payback for the 20 years. Um because it's moot. I mean that's a long sunset. So I'm not for the sunset.

Well, once again, as as councelor Dikkins pointed out, a sunset is just a feel-good facade. It really is. It's It's not accomplishing anything because once again, a council four years from now can change it all. I mean, I see I know. So, how do we want to go? Who wants to make a motion on this? It sounds like the majority of us are supporting B, no sunset and half a cent increase and the hotel motel a percent. Okay. And a commercial. I'll make a motion.

Okay. Make a motion that we adopt a notice of intent to consider increasing the transaction privilege tax TPT rate at a public hearing on June 16th, 2026 to include a half cent increase on the TPT B. the big ticket option. Now hearing everybody else talk about that, I I am swapping to that. I'd like that to give the residents just a little bit more of a benefit. The commercial leasing going from the 2% to the 3%, the hotel motel going from the 4% to the 5%. There you have it.

We have a motion. Second that. And oh, and no sunset clause. There you go. Okay, I will second that. We have a motion and we have a second. Any further discussion because this is this is big deal. And not that I want to beat a horse to death, but I want to make sure everybody gets their thoughts out and opinions out. Okay, we have a motion, a second. All those in favor that can support that motion say I. I I

any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Thank you, council. Council, I know that is a tough decision. None of us want to do it, but we recognize the importance of maintaining our roads and increasing what we have started as far as doing that. Moving on, item five, department reports 5A, Kingman UN municipal specialty courts update. Mayor Jud, mayor, if if I may, we have Tom Dorn. Oh, yeah. Not no offense to the judge and I did alert him that if we could have Tom go um we can let him off and then have the judge go. No, you're right. Thank you. Tom has been very patient. Good evening, Tom.

Good evening. I've actually enjoyed the com listening to all of this. So, um yeah, everybody, you're not the only city um miss me m Mr. Mayor and council members. I mean, every city down here in the Phoenix area is raising rates on water and whatever. And then the attack on uh the highway user revenue fund and the amount of money that's going to cities that should be uh for your road so you don't have to have the discussions like you just had. Um we need to make sure our legislators do not raid the highway user revenue fund because the legislature uses that money and the governor uh to pay for other programs. But that money should be going to all of you cities and counties uh for the use of your roads uh proportionate to population and where the fuels were purchased uh in that county. So and you being on Interstate 40 and with 93 um you should be getting a lot of gas tax revenue return. So anyway, just a little commentary there to add to your discussion, but uh you're and it all rolls downhill and you end up doing the hard work like you just did. So um we appreciate your leadership, I'm sure, in the city of Kingman for doing the hard stuff. But anyway, um just to give you a quick, very quick update because it sounds like there's a judge waiting and um uh you've had extremely long meeting tonight. Uh real quickly, um uh this is day 86 of the legislative session. As you know, they're they're only they're going to be done in two weeks, right? 100 days. Um they had 2,122 bills s as you know that the governor's signed. Only nine, 19 have been vetoed. Um they have finished up the committee hearings as of last week and the appropriations bills uh that moved forward including 2127 that had as the

transportation projects uh for uh for for for Kingman uh that we have in that bill. Um it was I mean I'm 2304 I'm sorry 20 other one is has to do with license plates but uh the legislation on the projects is still moving and as you know representative Gillette and representative Basuchi and Senator Angus have been working hard on on those projects. So hopefully if there is money uh beyond the uh smart fund that is being used by rural communities as you know um to advance dollars for projects um I I think it's really going to come down to the money. As of right now uh the state actually did a pretty good job in their budgeting to date because they're only negative about 50 mil 4145 million to the negative. Um, however, with full conformity, uh, if there is full conformity in the budget process, as you know, the governor's already vetoed it twice, and she was she didn't want to sign full conformity because there's a $441 million impact uh, by conforming the state of Arizona to HR1 uh, that passed last year. So, that's one of the big budget issues that we're dealing with. Will there be full conformity? And how that's hundreds of millions of dollars. The legislature wants it because they want to conform. The governor does not want to. She wants to conform to certain parts of HR1, but not at all of them. And then also um I wanted to also in the budget discussions that have been starting slowly um and as I've indicated to you before, sometimes if they get the budget done before the revenues come in, they're done in March. But now they're at the point they're waiting for the April 15th to happen. and the money to come in and then when they know what they've got by the end of the month in early May, then they make the push. Okay, now we have all this

money to spend or they really know how bad they have to cut back. Um uh with regard to one of the other things that the governor is pushing on is the Proposition 123, the extension of the uh the one-time fix borrowing from the state trust land uh fund. She really wants to extend that and actually increase the amount not just at the former level at the level of 6.9%. She wants to increase that and so many of the Republicans are opposed to that. Uh but they may be able to work a deal uh if uh certain items are put in there with regard to um school choice. The big item that most cities and towns obviously including the city of Kingman are concerned about is um House Bill 4030 and uh uh it was HCR 2052. But we all fought really hard on that and congratulations to those of you that weighed in. We defeated it on the House floor uh 21- 36 I think was the vote if I recall. but it has come back and so this is the one it's HC HCR 2016 and it passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee or the Senate I can't remember regulatory affairs I believe passed out last um week it is not moved through the rules committee this is the one that would prohibit you from doing what you just did um trying to raise revenues at the city level um uh and it it it there's I think there's enough Republicans in the legislature that are going to stand with their cities along with the Democrats and not allow this to happen. Uh because local control, you know what you need in your local communities and and if you need to reduce revenues or increase revenues, that should be left to you. Shouldn't be people down here in Phoenix telling you what you need to do. Um but

the thing is they're holding that over the head of the governor. uh whether or not they get what they want in the budget negotiations and then threatening on what they the Republicans may send to the ballot. And and keep in mind that when the legislature does a referendum, um it's referred to the voters. It goes straight it doesn't go to the governor for a signature. It goes to the secretary of state for filing. So that is the one big thing. I did want to also tell you that Senator Angus is Oh boy, she works hard. She she's going to be missed. Um she really has worked hard on that uh publication posting Senate Bill 1167. She is going to amend it on uh to another bill. Uh so that she is working hard and is determined to get that through so the city will have the option to uh post items instead of having to purchase it in uh uh local publications or other publications. So be really quick, Mr. Mayor and council members. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Tom. Any questions for Tom Council? Tom, we're good here. Thanks again for your report tonight. Long night and have a good evening. We appreciate all you do. You got it. Thanks. Byebye. Okay, moving back to 5A King Municipal Specialy Courts Update. Judge Singer.

Judge, we made it. We made it a long night, so we appreciate you being here. Yes, I need to I come see y'all once a year on these things and I need to plan better. So, I need to look at that better. But no, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and give you all my annual report on the specialy courts so you all know what's going on across the street there for since you all help fund the specialy courts. I think it's my duty to come and report to y'all about what we're doing annually and now we're up to four specialty courts and um and we're proud of each and every one of them but you know they've been going on for different lengths and different time frames and things like that. One now what we're on 10 and a half years with vet court and community court is three months old. So we got quite a range there. But um uh again, mayor, vice mayor, council, again, grateful for the opportunity to be here tonight and to also be able to oversee these programs. They're um they're gamechanging. They're something different. It's something out of the box. It's outside the box of, you know, normal just criminal justice and just punishing people and sending them to jail and incarcerating them. It's, you know, going to specialized um populations and being able to address them in a unique way. And I think, you know, we've seen the effects of it. We've seen the outcomes and the numbers speak for themselves. So, um, we'll start with the obviously the oldest, the one that, you know, I think gets most of the attention is the Veterans Court. And every year I give you all this. This is the best I think report card we get is we summarize all the uh, graduate

evaluations that they do at graduation day. Um, and because that's their best chance to be honest with us. I mean, we don't have, you know, our hooks in them anymore and they can tell us truthfully and honestly what we're doing right, what we need to work on. And um I can tell you last, not fiscal year, calendar year in 2025 was our biggest number of grad graduates that went through the program. We had 22 veterans graduate. uh 21 completed the valuation and um yeah I think nothing really you know from other ones in the years past proportionally there's nothing really that jumps out at me um looking at this compared to other ones that we've done year after year after year you know just friendly reminders um sometimes I take it for granted you know what was most helpful to you know almost every single one of them positive interaction with the judge. You you forget that sometimes. You forget what an impact you have on the individuals before you and how they want to please you and and you know and make you happy and and make sure that you're proud of them. That has an impact sometime and sometimes we forget it because you know sometimes we just go through files and things like that. But that's a that's a good reminder for judges and when we go to state national conferences they remind us of those things too that that's usually the biggest impact is they want they don't want to let you down. So, um, other things, you know, some things we do, you know, the extracurriculars, you know, that that hits second on here, the vet court, you know, picnics, hikes, I think that, you know, goes on to the other things, the softball and the bowling and the things that we're doing now. Um, that really does seem to have an impact. You know, sometimes you wonder because so much time, effort, energy goes into these

things and, um, it takes a lot out of us between myself and the staff and everything. But, you know, if it continues to have an impact, I mean, we we started softball practice last week, whereas we're getting ready to go do this again with Lake Havsu will be in Lake Havsu on May the second. Um, a lot goes into it, but when you get out there and you see the camaraderie and teamwork and the pride that they have in representing Kingman, um, and you, you know, you you see them out there and I think it takes them back to their days in the military and teamwork and things like that. So, it's cool to see. Uh we hope to keep the trophy here in Kingman this year, but we we shall see. We got some work to do after our first practice on the field yesterday, but we'll we'll get after it. Um other things in the in the assessment, I I think one thing that kind of hit me um because I see it repeatedly in here is how beneficial the inpatient treatment was for the ones who have severe addiction issues. uh that really hit home because you see it here and you see it in there's some narratives in the back of this and also how much it um over the outpatient counseling. So, you know, obviously each veteran is different, but a lot of them do do have substance and alcohol abuse issues. And just knowing that, you know, we send to the domicillary or we send them to revive or whatever the inpatient that it it really does have an impact. And a lot of them are saying, "Heck, that did a lot more for me than the outpatient." So, and just having those experts on the team that can tell, you know, you sit there and, you know, you got to be careful as a judge and really as a team to make sure you're not stepping in and it's like as a treatment provider and saying, "Well, I think you should be doing this and I think you should be going to, you know, NA classes and I think you should be going to, you know, intensive outpatient treatment or things like that." You got to be careful. And that's why you got to rely on the providers and everything because as you know us judges seem to we put on that

magic black robe and we we think we have all the answers and everything but you got to be careful and you really got to rely on the experts in their fields to know which direction to go. Um so yeah that nothing really other than that that really jumps out. you know, uh, 60% want to consider being a mentor at some point and I get it, you know, um, and some do not. Some feel like they're not ready for it and and we the ones that are, we put them through the mentor training. That's kind of an additional aspect with the our alumni group to try to keep them involved. Again, that's my biggest thing is I don't I preach this all the time is I want them to stay actively involved and engaged. It's just like what happens in the military. They have that teamwork. They have that camaraderie. They leave the military and sometimes their life just takes off in magical, wonderful ways. Sometimes it goes straight to hell. And we don't want to do that with this treatment court because again, we're in their lives and we're doing softball and we're doing bowling and we're checking on their testing and we they got a mentor and they've got all these things and then once they get out of the program, we don't want to do what unfortunately happened to a lot of them in the military and go sideways. And again, I think that's the true testament of any treatment court. I've preached this. There are judges and programs out there who think I'm crazy because I preach this, but I will preach it till the day I leave here is that you can have all the bells and whistles of a treatment court you want. In my opinion, it all comes down to one thing. It's recidivism. And I've had judges, ah, you're wrong. Well, that's your opinion. All comes down recidivism. Are they reaffending? Other way, if they are, what are you doing? I mean, what are you putting all this time, effort, and energy in? And I get it. People slip up and everything that we get that, but you want to make sure they have the tools. You know, a lot of when we talk about slipping up and everything and recidivism, there's two different things. Sure, veterans and people in

drug courts and treatment courts, they're going to fall off the wagon and they're going to go back to using and things like that. But the thing is, if you're in a treatment court like this, are you becoming involved in the criminal justice system again? That's the key. So if you do slip up, hopefully you're not behind bars and you're committing crimes. That's the biggest part of this. So um so that's what I I believe. And again, you know, um like I've always said, treatment courts, the these things all started out with drug courts. Their mission, I think if you have a gold standard with a drug court, if you can have 30% or less recidivism, you're doing good. And if you veterans court is again a targeted population, they know about following rules and orders and directives. If you know the gold standard there is if you can keep it under 10% again we're under 5% here in Kingman we're under 3%. So um that's what I'm most proud of and that's what to me speaks volumes. Um so and then again um now we're going to go line through line through each one of these thing. No, I'm kidding. But anyway, you all have that you all have the narratives at the end. I I like sharing the narratives and the thing at the end and with my team because I think sometimes we get sort of lost and with you know it just gets so monotonous and everything and that way it I think inspires them about what they're doing and how what kind of impact they're having whether it's the treatment providers whether it's you know the ones directly work for the court the program coordinators whether it's the mentor coordinators the mentors that way they I and that's why I really enjoy sharing this with them you know others we other services that are on our team like Arizona at work who are just directly involved in getting these veterans jobs and things like that and when they see what an impact it has I think it really motivates them to hey we're we're doing some good. Um next the the second program that we um started

back in time flies by 2022 our domestic violence court. This is a a program that um I I think it's probably probably the less least discussed, but is really one that I'm almost I'm as proud of as any of them. Uh the DV program is is huge in my opinion. Again, we were only the um my understanding the second domestic violence court in the state of Arizona uh after Tucson. Tucson's kind of been the model and we um in other courts uh DV courts are starting to grow here in this state. But I I'm just so proud of it. We saw an issue years ago about domestic violence and you know law enforcement can probably testify to the probably most dangerous calls that they go to or DV cases. And if we can address this locally as best we can and have this domestic violence court where we have that carrot at the end of the stick where they know their charges they're not going to have you know having a domestic violence conviction on your record is horrific. It'll haunt you for the rest of your life. But if we have that carrot at the end of the stick where almost all the participants who come through the program almost all of them they're going to have well they're going to have the domestic violence component dismissed that that part usually gets deferred. So if they are convicted they're only convicted of the underlying charge but not having that domestic violence tag you know that affects you employment that infects you you know education that affects you so many ways but almost all of them too have the whole case dismissed which is huge. Um, and but you got to earn it. And there were before this there were so many of them. I was getting so irritated and even the attorneys were, the prosecutors were, even defense lawyers were. It was like these people will not do their domestic violence counseling. They won't they won't do what we're telling them to do. And then we're seeing them in court over and over and

over picking up new DV charges. Well, now if we're keeping our thumb on them and we're um making sure they're doing the domestic violence counseling and then there's ancillary issues that we learn too. A lot of it shockingly is they have substance abuse or alcohol issues. Okay, then we'll send them to Revive and we've done that and we've been shocked by you know some of the successes that you know yeah it was sobbriety. We send again our we've had a great partnership now with Arizona at work. Some of them is you know well husband can't find a job. Well, now that we got them a job through Arizona at work and we can show no, they're not convicted of this. It's just sort of floating out there. This domestic violence got them a job, things are more stable at home, you know, their lives just take off and everything. So, um, and I'll tell you one thing, we I talk in the last page here, as of March 2026, when I put this out, we've had 135 defendants who participated in the DVC court program since we started in 2022. 105 have successfully completed the program, which means they're able to complete the required counseling, remain clean and sober, and be law-abiding. I mean, that's huge. We have 15 now in the program. We're fixing to graduate quite a few tomorrow. Tomorrow we have DVC court. It'll probably be our biggest graduation, I know it is, that we've ever had. And let me tell you, um, again, our recidivism is under 3%. We we went to the last page talks about like the some of the training that we've done. I saw a couple of years ago there was something about domestic violence court mentoring program because again it's a growing trend but it's not exactly this huge thing is I thought hey that'd be awesome for us see what we're doing right see what we need to improve on and so we are accepted uh again oddest thing about the government um the one of the the four like mentor courts one of them was in Tucson Arizona so of course the other one in Arizona where did they send send them They sent

me to Idaho, whatever. Uh, but anyway, um, we, uh, we got certified. We we we did the train. We went to a training that they paid for for our team to go there and to, uh, St. Louis and then we went and visited our mentor court in Idaho and and again, we I guess got certified as a as a DV court, which is something that I'm proud of. But it's um, yeah, it's it's huge. I think the impact that we are having with the DVC court and we're not we're just not seeing the repeat customers. So I'm just very very proud of this. Um again the DV court doesn't get talked about a lot but it's very impactful. Oh, and the one thing I was going to point out, people wonder, you know, when you look at budgets and things like that, um, I'm the envy of a lot of courts and everything. And one of the things they they teach us and they train us, and again, I'm the only limited jurisdiction court that has this, and again, I'm grateful to the council. I'm grateful to um city manager and finance and everybody who you know and you all allow us to do this is we have probation officer um like they they've always said with veterans courts and again there's we're one of the few limited jurisdiction veterans courts that has probation officer. Well, it's the same probation officer that does our domestic violence court. That is huge, huge, huge. You have them going into their homes. You have them checking on them regularly. Um otherwise a lot of them are just spinning their wheels and so when I go and speak at national conferences or I go and share with other of the newer DV courts that they say oh gez that's you're right that's it's like night and day. So we're very lucky to have that and I think that leads to the success that we've had because the more eyes that we can have on our participants and

everything it's it's a gamecher. So DV court we're very proud of. Um to two newer programs uh youth court youth court youth court youth court. Again this expanded from we used to have a truency court and then the schools and I think KPD the school resource officers and everybody came to me and said well we have a youth court. I said okay we'll get rid of truency court. We'll just expand it to youth court. Um, and like I said, I think when I came here last year and we we just really started getting going with it. I thought, okay, well, we'll have about four or five juveniles a month. And then the first month I had 70 and was like, uh, I'm going to have to change this a little bit because I can't run a youth court. I I mean, I can't bring 70 kids in a month. I mean, I'm just again, you you get stretched out too many, you know, people say, why don't you do this special? Why don't you do this? You get stretched out too thin, you're not effective then in any of your programs or whatever. So I quickly had to revamp and people always wonder who comes into youth court and who doesn't. So, this kind of gives this flowchart, this beautiful mind thing that I came up with after a few days uh last year about how am I going to determine so my staff knows who's going youth court and who's coming to I have my own scared straight program and I'll explain that on the second page. But youth court again it's I decided to break it down because I we can't put everybody in it. I mean we'll we'll get we'll drown. So, if you look at it, if it's juveniles who get cited with two or more, you got to get two or more of uh purchase possession or consumption of spiritous liquor or a violation that involves marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia. If you get two or more of those, you're going to youth court. Uh class one and two, uh title 28 violations, you know, that would include, you know, DUIs, that include reckless driving. Um that would, you know, and that's it's serious matters. We know how those things, you know, with

our teenagers in this community, it's impacted this community probably more than any communities our size or whatever. So, we think they've earned it coming into youth court if they get these the serious uh title 28 traffic violations truency again and kind of because we expanded on our um uh truency court by doing this youth court earphing or judicial proceedings and city ordinance violations. So, then they you see they they go through different programs within the youth court. the youth court. Um, uh, I let Judge Verman kind of, uh, I mean, I oversee everything, but I let him run the youth court. Um, and you know, they got to come see him monthly. We have the staffings. We have representatives from the school. We have representatives from different youth organizations in the community that are a part of this. We have now uh counselors and therapists that we've brought on to help out with this because sometimes, you know, and the parents or whatever, oh, geez, my kid needs therapy or whatever. We we have resources that in the schools to get them, you know, tutoring or whatever they need and then they're they're just like in the regular treatment court, you know, they come back every once a month. We're UA testing them. Obviously, that can be a big issue. and we we're in synergy getting their grades, making sure they're attending school, making sure they got passing grades and things like that. And then they can earn their eventual dismissal of their case. These they all turn to with the cooperation of the city attorney's office their suspension of prosecution cases and they successfully complete it, their case is closed and dismissed. If they don't, we refer to the city attorney to resume prosecution. Um, so that but that is a small portion. Right now I think in youth court we break it up into one day I can't remember what day it is Tuesday or Wednesday but it's Tuesday and Wednesday like what we're doing it this week. One day is J is junior high and the other day is high school. So uh um

but I think probably between the two of them they may have like 15 total kids in the youth court. Now then they go into the next slide would be the non- youth court which is the other 50 60 that I get a month or whatever and these are if you know first-time offenders for purchase possession or consumption of spiritous liquor the marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia if it's their first time curfew violations that's huge around here uh purchase of possession tobacco or tobacco paraphernalia it's almost seems like a requirement of a lot of these kids that you go to school with paraphernalia I don't know what is going on here in class 3 title 28 violations. Those are the minor I call them minor, you know, that's like the excessive speed and things like that. Not that it's not serious with teenagers, but so you come uh if you get one of those then you get to come see Judge Singer. We do these dockets twice a month and I do the scared straight thing with them. I I read them the riot act. I say, "I want this to be as uncomfortable for you all as possible." Of course, they have to bring a parent or guardian with them. I say, I just I want this to be as horrible as possible. I don't want you all getting comfortable coming to a courtroom and seeing a judge because how many of these kids have we seen that didn't have that that then we just see them in the adult system? I we've seen we see it all the time. So, I figure if I can get my claws in them and scare the living heck out of them and tell them, look, you know, and and I I balance it out, you know, I I get on them and everything like that and say, you know, but and I tell them, oh, if you don't do this, I'm going to refer you and get you to juvie hall, blah, blah, blah, whatever. Um, but I think they know when I'm serious and I make it as uncomfortable as I can on them. But I also, you know, you got to do kid gloves at some point, too. And then I also tell them and I remind them, hey, at least one you're not in the youth court

because those are the more serious matters. And if you look on my um uh my sheet here, we also others we um send up to Mojave Con probation if they're already involved with the county. If we just feel like they're just too serious enough to even go beyond youth court or whatever, we just send them up there. So I remind them, hey, you're not in youth court and you're not we didn't send you automatically just up to the county. And you know, I I remind them, too. Heck, we were all teenagers at one point. None of us were perfect. And I'm not per se looking down on you, but I'm here to help. And I give them the tools. And again, it's a suspension of prosecution. So, they're not involved, the city attorney's office. And I remind them, it's all right here. And what we can do is we can call this a bad day. And you all do what I tell you to do. Again, they're not under direct supervision like in the youth court, but I say you got to have passing grades, attend school, no unexcused absences, remain clean and sober, have no contact with law enforcement, and I put them in a specific class. And you can see what I where I put them. If you know, if it's a liquor or marijuana matter, I send them into this Project Impact program. For those of you all don't know, that's an 8-week program put on by KUSD, and they have to go through this 8-week program. They go once a week and everything, and they complete that. then they get a certificate or life for the curfew violations. I put them in life skills. That's sort of an online program that's um focuses spec specifically on curfew and hopefully opens their eyes about the problems that curfew can lead down the road. Uh healthy futures, that's a program through the county. Uh it's a one-time class that's that that's where all my um tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia uh kids go. Actually, their parent has to go with them, too. I know the parents hate that, but whatever. It's a free class. This is all free, by the way. It's free class. It's on Fridays. They go once. Complete the class. Follow my rules. You're good to go. And then the title 28 violations, I put them in the defensive driving

school. So, um, and then at the end of the day, uh, I put a date on here where I need them to supply me proof that they've done whatever I told them to do. We check with the grades. We check everything else out. And I tell them, you and mom and dad don't even have to come back here to court. We will mail them a certificate showing that their case was dismissed like it never happened. They don't have to pay a nickel for any of this. They don't have to pay a nickel for youth court. They don't have to pay a nickel for any of this. These programs some how much is it going to cost me? It's like well nothing as long as you do what we tell you to do. So we don't we send them that way and then we go into the we resume prosecution and then there's court costs and there's all these fun things and unfortunately we've had to do that a few times but not very often. So anyway, that kind of details where we're at with the youth court and the non- youth court and how cases get from one place to the other. I think I've broken it down. It's it's manageable now where we know which direction we're going. It seems to be working pretty well. Last is uh community court. Uh started I guess technically January. I think we had our first court actually in February. Again, community court, brand new. Nobody's ever heard of this throughout the country, but again, we I I want to give you all kind of a a this kind of gives like a participant handbook. It's very pretty short, a three-page participant handbook, actually with a cover page, only two. But again, this goes back to what the city uh council's priorities are, right? Beautification of the city, holding these property owners accountable. But on the flip side, if they do what they we tell them to do, kind of like with the juveniles, you'll be dismissed. you won't owe us a nickel. So, um it's just a different way of trying to, you know, uh clean up the properties. Again, like we say, our priorities are increase city beautifification, hold property owners accountable, provide resource information, and find alternatives to criminal convictions. So, brand new,

we've had a, you know, I I don't know how many we've had, probably five or four or five or whatever. Um 100% success, so of the ones that we've had so far. But, you know, we just figure out what uh what is going on. What why why can't you get your property in compliance? What do we need to do to help you do that? And we've been sort of going on the, you know, it's trial and error and figuring out, okay, we're going to do this, we'll do this. And I think, knock on wood, so far we've been successful in getting them to comply with their property there. I mean, there's been a couple of them that have been so scared that by the time they get to court, um, neighborhood, uh, resources are there and they're saying they're already in compliance. So, judge, we move to dismiss the case. Great. So, we dismiss it. Um, if down the road, uh, somebody doesn't comply, and again, here's the incentive. You have to come see me every month, which is horrible. I would hate to do that. I'd hate to come see me every month, but you got to come see me every month. and we review and I look at the pictures and see what are we doing and how are we in compliance and how have we improved from last month but again uh one of those big incentives is don't come see me every month we will dismiss the case no court costs and the case is dismissed and propertyy's in compliance and the city is hopefully more beautiful than when we started so that is uh the four specialty courts and I'm happy to take any questions

thank you Yeah. Oh, sorry. On the community court, I did want to share with you

right now again any treatment court that I start here actually I have to get permission from the uh presiding judge. So, Judge Moss. So, obviously I don't have to anymore for veterans court, DV court, youth court. Those are established programs. Um there's still a little wondering he and Judge McCoy about what exactly this community court is because there's nothing like it in the country. So, they've put me on a one-year trial period and we're going to come up with the statistics and show how effective it is and everything. I think they just want to make sure like, you know, people, you know, we're not just, you know, punishing them and trying to get a bunch of money and or things like that. They want to make sure that due process is being heard and and again, it's a it's a very new, it's a unique program. We couldn't find anything else like this in the country. I think there are other programs called community courts, but not exactly what this one is. But again, like I explained to them when I met with them to get their approval was, you know, I just want to be consistent with what the council's priorities are. And I think it I see it as a win-win across the board. And it saves the city attorney's office from getting a bunch of cases, you know, where these people are getting criminal complaints and then they're getting convictions. Who wants a class three misdemeanor because you're or class one or class two depending on what the charge is because, you know, you couldn't keep your property up and now that haunts you and everything. So again, it gives you the keys to be successful and um also, you know, avoids a lot of them going down the abatement route as well. Now I'm done. Sorry,

Judge Singer, once again, thanks for all you do. Questions or comments for Judge Singer? I just got one. Yes. Yes. Do we have prime rim at 9? Yes. Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. What What's my time? What did I do? She did flash that red light once. Did you see it? No, I didn't see it. So, I know I know the people behind me are timing me and everything, so I don't know what the overunder was on it, but um but again, it's just once a year you have to put up with me. So, well, judge, please tell you, well, you and your staff, thanks for all you do and look at the good you are doing in our community. We appreciate that as a city council.

Well, I appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity because again, um I think I'm the envy of a lot of judges because of I have all y'all's strong support to do this or whatever. sometimes it's uh they don't exactly have that. And so I know how much you all care about the veterans. I know how much you all care about these specific issues that we're trying to address with these programs. So I appreciate the support and thank you and just think at least once a month I know Vice Mayor, myself, councelor Ward, Councelor Sy, we come and want to see you. Yes. There you go. Exactly. Exactly. You know that's right. It's a win. Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Okay. So, thank you, judge.

Okay, finally item number six. Not because of you, judge. This has been a long night. There's no way. I'm good at putting my foot in my mouth. I already know that. Anyway, item number six, announcements by mayor, council members, and city manager. Manager Walsh. Nothing tonight, sir. Councelor, actually, Councelor Walker, are you still with us? Yes, I am. Nothing tonight. Great. Thank you, Keith. Appreciate you participating. Councelor Savage, nothing tonight. Councelor Ward, nothing. Councelor Sely. Council. Okay. Councils, Vice Mayor,

I do have a few things. I wanted uh to thank the community for all their participation and their time um for participating in our town hall. I think we really got some great information and I'm looking forward to um it coming before council. I also wanted to thank uh the Chamber of Commerce and all those that are involved in First Friday. It was a fantastic first Friday, this first one that kicked off this past Friday, and I'm looking forward to seeing the the attendance numbers on that. I wanted to also thank uh Senator Ggo for coming up to Kingman um to talk to our veterans. Um he hosted uh kind of like a town hall at the JAVC and um he is very pro veteran and it was nice to see him in our community and hear about all the things he's doing for us uh in our veteran community. So, I wanted to thank him for coming up. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I say ditto to everything you just said. And of and of course, once again, encourage everybody to go on to the city website or go use the app. There's so much going on in our community. Please look there and you will find out what's going on. And thanks to staff once again for staying so late tonight. We appreciate you all being here. And we are adjourned. Thank you. Oh, wait. Council request future reports. Anything? Yes. Oh, no. Go ahead.

Finally. Um, the first one, uh, I planned on bringing up anyways before call to the public, but I'm would like to find out more from staff as far as the Kingman Crossing walkway, the fact that uh, the south side is has no problems now with a gate there. What would it take for the city to guard off or gate our part of the responsibility? And then the second thing is could we get a report in regards to the speeding on Gordon? There's been some emails and stuff regarding that that the machine that shows a speed limit out there has been used but it's been taken away. I I would just like to know if there's been any anything that can be done or any progress on slowing the residents down or whoever is driving on Gordon, not necessarily just residents.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council Vin. Any other thing else? I do. I do. I would like um in light of uh the call to the public as well. I would like to have um KPD do a report on just uh sex trafficking trends that you're seeing in Kingman. What are we able to do to mitigate it at the local level? um and just give us some more information and maybe hopefully put our the the public at ease for all the things that we are doing that maybe the citizens of Kingman do not know that we are doing. So, I'd like to see a report on that, please. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Anything else? Councelor Walker, we're good.

We're going to take it as a yes. Yes, I'm good. Thank you. Thanks, Keith. We are adjourned. Have a good evening and be careful going