City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Today is January 13, 2026. This is our first city council meeting of the year. So, happy new year to everybody. This meeting is now called to order. Roll call, please. Uh, we actually have a few items before roll call. Mayor, first is introductions and announcements. You're correct. Sorry.

All right. Happy new year, folks, and good afternoon. There are several upcoming city updates and reminders that we want to share with the community. First, the state of the city. This week on January 15th at 8:30 a.m., the city of Prescuit will host its first ever state of the city. Mayor Kathy Rousin, council, and city leadership will share updates tied to the city's strategic plan priorities. While RSVPs are now closed, residents who did not get in are encouraged to watch the event live on both the city's Facebook and YouTube channels. So that's Thursday the 15th at 8:30. Groundbreaking and it includes breakfast

if you were lucky enough to get an RSVP. If you're at house, you're home, you got to feed yourself. All right. Groundbreaking Old City Hall Hotel. We invite the community to join us for a groundbreaking ceremony at the Old City Hotel uh hall hotel site this uh next Wednesday, January 22nd at noon. This milestone marks another important step in the continued revitalization of downtown. And of course, we have to talk about the holiday closures. Observance of the MLK holiday. The city offices will all be closed on Monday the 19th. will reopen Tuesday at 8:00 a.m. Therefore, there'll be uh no residential or commercial trash, recycling, or dumpster services on Monday, and the services will all be delayed for residents a day every day for the rest of the week. You all go back one day. The transfer station will also be closed and will reopen on Tuesday at 7 a.m. Holiday collection details are available at prescatrecycles.com. The library will also be closed on Monday and will reopen Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. Residents can continue to access ebooks, online resources, and all streaming services 247 at prescatl.info. The city is currently seeking residents interested in serving on city boards, commissions, and committees. These volunteer roles provide an opportunity to directly represent your peers and impact the community and help prescuit. Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 30th. More information is available on the city website or by contacting the city clerk's office. And finally, public works will conduct water treatment happening at Goldwater Lake on January 15th as part of the healthy lakes program. This treatment was

recently used at Watson Lake and will improve quality and clarity during the warmer months. Residents can learn more by contacting public works or by visiting Prescuit water quality dashboard that's on participate.com. Thank you. We appreciate the community's continued engagement and partnership and we look forward to a productive year ahead for the entire city of Prescuit. Thank you. Thank you, Lois. Uh we'll now have the invocation by Pastor Scott Savage with the Cornerstone Church. Please stand.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Heavenly Father, we thank you so much for a new year filled with new possibilities. We're filled with gratitude as we think about the privilege that it is to live in this city. And we pray as we start this new year that you would guide this council with wisdom. In James 15, you tell us that if any of us lack wisdom, we can seek you because you give generously. So we pray that you would guide this council with wisdom and courage. We pray that you would bring rain and moisture to our city for the future. We thank you for those who've adopted the call to serve that they would follow your example, Lord, not to lord it over others, but to seek to be a servant of all rather than be served themselves. Guide this meeting and we pray that you would continue to watch over the city. In the name of Jesus, we pray. Amen.

Amen. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Now we can have roll call. Pan. Mayor Rousing here. Mayor Prom Fworth here. Councilwoman Frederickson here. Councilman Gamboji, I am here. Councilman Garing here. Councilman Grady here. And Councilman Ruby here. All are present.

We're now going to have some proclamations. Our first proclamation is celebrating the United Way of Yavapai County. Councilman Grady will present that and any representatives from the United Way are welcome to come up and join him at the podium. [snorts] That's right. We need to

I think we all know how important United Way is to our community and today with celebrating their work in our community is so important and that's why we're undertaking this marrow proclamation. So I'd like to read this proclamation now. Whereas the city of Prescuit recognizes the profound importance of community engagement and the vital role played by nonprofit organizations that form the social safety net for our citizens. And whereas United Way of Franklin County serves as a trusted essential backbone of our community, offering a reliable and effective conduit for Prescuit citizens and businesses to donate and pool resources, ensuring crucial funding reaches a wide network of local nonprofits directly, serving our neighbors and our friends. And whereas United Way is committed to improving the lives of individuals and families across our city through strategic investment in four core areas that promote a thriving community. And whereas these core investment areas include promoting education initiatives, ensuring local children and youth have the tools and opportunities necessary for academic and life success. And whereas the organization diligently works towards achieving financial stability for working families by supporting programs that foster job training, budget counseling, affordable housing solutions, and empowering individuals towards long-term independence. And whereas United Way also champions comprehensive health services, ensuring access to physical, mental, and behavioral care resources for all residents, regardless of their background or their circumstance. And whereas recognizing the immediate need to combat hunger, this organization actively fights food insecurity by supporting and funding programs that provides nutritious meals and

sustainable food access to our most vulnerable populations. Now therefore, Kathy Rousing, mayor of the city of Prescuit, does hereby proclaim a celebration of the United Way of Yavapai County. And we encourage all citizens, all businesses and organizations to recognize and support the critical services they provide to enhance the quality of life in our beautiful city. Thank you so much. [applause] Thank you very much, mayor and councel and distinguished citizens of Prescott, Arizona. Thank you so much. The United Way has been here since 1987. Currently, we're serving 142,000 individuals through 38 different charities. We do that with your help. We don't get big giant grants from governments or from businesses. What we get is payroll deduction gifts. Small amount that you contribute every week to your payroll that you don't even miss much, but collectively the impact on that is huge. $453,500 was invested this last year because of you. So, if you're on board and helping, thank you. If you're not, my door is open. Come on in. Let's talk about what you need to do for your community and how we can help you. Thank you so much.

[applause]

Thank you. Our next uh proclamation is for Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service. And anyone from the committee that'd like to come up and join Mayor Rousing at the podium is welcome to do so. Come on up. Thank you.

Whereas the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service honors the man who imagined a future for our country that he called the be beloved community where we can look beyond our external differences to see the comality of our dreams, our hopes and fears. Whereas we honor Dr. King's legacy by keeping alive the spirit of community and compassion that always sees us through challenging times and recommitting to the realization of his dream for a more equitable society. Whereas Dr. King reminds us that each generation must answer the call to protect our civil rights and our democracy and to see each other as neighbors, friends, and families and not enemies because freedom is never free. Whereas Dr. King believed that the ark of the moral universe is long but bends towards justice and the combined effort of all of our citizens is required to reach the ultimate goal. And whereas we recognize the need to model Dr. King's pursuit of unity, equity, and justice to prevent all forms of discrimination. Whereas the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day is the only federal holiday celebrated as a national day of service to encourage us to give back to our community on the holiday and commit to serving others throughout the year. Now therefore, I, Mayor Kathy Rousing of Prescat, Arizona, do hereby proclaim

January 19th, 2026 as the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service and call upon each individual to pay tribute to the life and works of Dr. Martin Luther King by seeking out community service projects throughout the year. Thank you. [applause] Please have we'll have some comments from the committee now. [clears throat]

Thank you, mayor. I'm Jim Heling. I'm the chair of the Martin Luther King Peace and Justice Committee. Uh so, yeah, thank you, mayor, for reading our proclamation today. Uh it is refreshing to hear our committee's hope for us to come together as a beloved community being spoken by our mayor. Martin Luther King once said, "We must learn to live together as brothers or perish as fools." To that end, we invite the Prescuit community to join us on MLK Day to come together and celebrate the legacy of an American hero. The day will start at 9:30 at the Presky College Welcome Center at the corner of Grove Grove and Western Avenues where we will gather for a march around the courthouse square. Prior to the march, we'll have a Native American smudging ceremony where Manuel Lucero, the executive director of the Museum of Indigenous People, will pray for those who are part participating in the march. The Prescuit Bucket List drum line will then send us off on the march around the courthouse. Following the march, we will offer refreshments at the Prescuit United Methodist Church, hot chocolate and cookies and good stuff. Uh that's unirly. prior to our celebration event where we will have dynamic speak speakers, musicians, and a children's program. So, if you have kids, bring them. We have some activities for them. Uh our keynote speaker, Dr. Coral Evans, who was the first black female mayor of the city of Flagstaff. and our spoken word speaker, Truth Be Told, will participate in breakout sessions after the celebration where attendees will have an opportunity to hear their views on how we can better extend Dr. King's legacy within our community and lunch will be served. So, there's food food for that, too. Um, so

please plan on joining us for the day of fellowship and togetherness as we celebrate Dr. King. And one more thing, if first 200 people get one of these. So, this is a button. A button that was designed by a 10-year-old artist. He won our button contest. So, we're going to have 200 of these to hand out. So, get there early if you want one. Thank you. [applause] So sorry was taking a picture.

Thank you.

All right. And while the mayor makes her way back up here, I will move us on to the open call to the public. City of Prescuit welcomes public engagement. Residents may comment and address the council regarding matters that are not included on the posted agenda during the call to the public. If you wish to speak, please complete a green speaker card and submit it to me prior to the meeting being convened. As a reminder, speakers are limited to four minutes and the call to the public will be limited to 40 minutes in total with the following stipulations. Citizens will be limited to addressing the council on the same topic only four times in total. If a topic has been addressed more than five times by different speakers, the mayor may limit future discussion on the topic. Topics of a primarily, [clears throat] excuse me, national concern may be limited at the discretion of the mayor. And the call to the public shall not be used to address the council on past, current, or pending legal matters by an attorney or their representatives, nor by a plaintiff or defendant. They shall be declared out of order and instructed to put their comments in writing to the city attorney. I do have two, three, four green speaker cards today. And our first one is Ralph Hess. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I am Ralph Hes. I live here in Prescat. Under our council manager form of governance, the seven of you represent the 48,000 or so citizens of Prescuit. You are our representatives. As our representatives, we expect you to adhere to the spirit of our laws as well as the letter of the laws. In fact, the city council rules of procedure rule two

rule of ethics provides in part city council members and officials occupy positions of public trust. Council members and all city officials shall strictly adhere to both the spirit and the letter of the laws of the state of Arizona pertaining to conflicts of interest. I assert any expectation of adherence to the spirit of the laws as well as the letter of the laws also applies to the prescuit city charter. Two years ago, the city of Prescuit voters approved charter amendment to article 2, section 18 to increase the time for council to consider a citizen's petition before needing to act upon it from 30 days to 60 days. I am sure it was not the intent of the prescuit voters or the charter review committee that recommended the amendment that council presumptively deny petitions 14 days after submission without consideration discussion or public comment. You might have been advised that doing so complies with the letter of the charter, but it certainly does not comply with the spirit. I commented last month that your whether that your vote whether to uphold the council rule to presumptively deny citizen petitions 14 days after submission without consideration, discussion, or public comment was a character vote. It was. And those of us who were paying attention learned of your character. Two citizen petitions have been submitted to you since you have adopted

the rule and staff recommended denying both of them as I suspect staff would like to do with all citizens petitions. So here's my request. At your next study session, provide a presentation that demonstrates just how the council manager model of governance works here in Prescuit. Is that a comment? Who sets the council agendas? Is it your staff or is it you? Things like that. I think Prescuit citizens would be interested in just about how this system works in Prescat.

Bonnie. I have a big pile of papers here. Happy New Year, mayor and council. Thank for the Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Bonnie McMinn. I live in Prescat. [gasps]

I'm here today to submit a citizen petition and an accompanying resolution regarding the Prescuit Rodeo Fairgrounds master plan. This is about process and whether the city is following the process council already directed. On January 28th, 2025, the council directed that a master plan be prepared for the Rodeo Fairgrounds property, that the process be city-led, and that it include meaningful public input before decisions or major expenditures occur. At that same meeting, the council reaffirmed the public engagement requirements established in resolution 20231862. Following that direction, the city issued a request for proposals for master plan consultant. On June 10th of 2025, the city issued the first of two written addendums stating plainly that no existing master plans, traffic studies, or previous site studies should be referenced or built upon by the selected consultant. RFPs and their addendums are legally binding documents. This resolution exists to clarify and enforce the process stipulated by these documents. The resolution also considers public input. In 2023, the council unanimously adopted resolution 20231862, which mandates several public meetings and a 60-day public comment period. However, resolution 20231862 includes a sunset date of July 1st, 2026. As written, that resolution will sunset before this master plan is complete and any resoning occurs. This proposed resolution simply removes the sunset so

public input remains in place for the duration of the planning project. Finally, voters spoke clearly in August of 2025, Prop 484 amended article 8, section 12 of the city charter to protect city-owned open space. This in protection includes the 4.121 acres contiguous to the rodeo fairgrounds property. Yet recent city issued public meeting announcements show that this protected open space as part of the master plan boundaries. This creates understandable confusion and the proposed resolution respects both the voter intent and the charter requirements by explicitly excluding protected open space from the Rodeo Fairgrounds master plan, avoiding confusion later. Taken together, this resolution does three important things. It keeps the public input open during the planning process. It requires compliance with the city's records request for proposals. and it respects the voter protected open space. A citizen petition allows individuals to present their concerns directly to council, ensuring these issues are recorded as part of the official and actionable record, especially when other methods have been un unsuccessful. It does not dictate outcomes or stop the rodeo. It simply restores guard rails and good governance. I respectfully ask that council accept this petition into the public record and approve the accompanying resolution. Thank you.

I have some documents to pass out. Thank you, Bonnie. Um Bonnie, if you want to just hand them all to me and I'll distribute them out to council. Thank you. And I'd like to uh direct staff to take a look at this uh petition and resolutions. And uh we'll put this on the next uh meeting uh January 27th on the consent agenda for further discussion. Thank you,

Tony Hammer. Thank you. And happy new year to everybody, the mayor and all new counselors. At the start of the year, it's sort of traditional. You know, you revisit your goals and your objectives in terms of where you're going. I want to give us a chance to do that today. Now's the time to revisit the promises that were made in the election of last year and the new council members who made those. So the rubber really meets the road not in terms of the promises but those things that you're going to do this year. uh the concept of keeping promises will be under scrutiny continuously by the community. So this is an opportunity for you to think about the metrics that you will live and die on. So if I look at the promises that were made, the Rooing promise is to develop a diverse business community and a vibrant downtown. Sounds good. The Frederickson promise is to be thoughtful about regulation, workforce [clears throat] development, and strategic infrastructure to help businesses and workers thrive. Sounds good. The Garing Promise. work to ensure the city upholds existing development agreements and master plans

while managing growth to reflect a sustainable future and quality of life. And the Ruby promise, we're going to have to be smart about developing different aspects of our economy. And I think that means attracting young families here. And those were the four that I picked out as being really driving promises which you made and the voters obviously responded to. In addition, you all want to govern with transparency. Well, Ion Prescuit is here to help you do that. We challenge each of you to develop metrics around those overall goals because per se they're not easily judgeable. Truthtelling is very important in our community and we expect to elect people who are truthful. So, we're giving you the chance to set aside a scorecard on each of those goals and rate yourself as you go through the year. How am I doing against the goals I set myself? [snorts] That scorecard, is it fair? You said it. You made those promises. um they are your promises and the metrics that you want to have associated with me. If this isn't fair, tell us now and tell us what you are going to do.

We at the Prescott will respond and address the concerns that you have in terms of fulfilling those promises. Losers make promises they often break. Winners make commitments they always keep. We look forward to your quarterly review against your metrics. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hamer.

Isaac Jackson. Hello everybody. My name is Isaac Jackson. I'm a student here at Yavapai College and I moved to Prescuit, Arizona in about we'll say late 2011 with my parents. My father's from Chicago, mother's from the Philippines. Um I attended a Bayudette Elementary School, Trinity Christian School, and graduated from Prescuit High. So I've experienced both public and private education here. And after 14 years, give or take, uh I could say without hesitation that Prescuit is my hometown and I stand on that. A few days ago, I came across a Prescuit post Substack article claiming or with the title is Prescuit racist, which did make some fair points, one that I fully agree with, and that is Prescuit should be a place that values the quality of life for all of its residents. But it also claimed that due to facts and statistics that there are no racial issues needing urgent attention. I respectfully disagree and I'd like to share two real experiences from one of my part-time jobs as a delivery driver for Osadis. First case, I delivered to a gated community. I had the gate code from the customer parked in front of their house and a woman in about her 30s or 40s walking her dog approached my window and said, "Are you lost? You look lost." So, I replied calmly, "No, ma'am. I'm in the right spot. I'm a delivery driver." And she responded, "Okay, well, you look like you don't belong here." I've heard that tone before. Then she added, "Don't park in front of or near my house." And she just walked away. Those were my first two weeks on the job, by the way. Second case, I

delivered to a church uh somewhere off of Whitespar. And uh when I arrived, there was an elderly gentleman wearing a leather jacket sitting on a beautiful Harley-Davidson smoking a cigarette. So I asked him, um, "Excuse me, would you happen to know where I could find uh I don't remember the name. We'll say his name was Tim. Do you know where I could happen to find Tim?" And nothing. He didn't say anything to me. He didn't even look at me. He just took a puff from his cigarette. Let's see. Let's see. [clears throat] Um, and then moments later, the door opened and five or six men approached, one of which who had a visible luftwaf swastika tattoo on his upper left pectoral. Uh, he asked if the pizza was for Tim and then he got him. And Tim stepped out also tattooed with another swastika just a little bit smaller. And his first thing that he said to me was, "Uh, hey, man. The pizza's 30 minutes late. I'm not paying for this. What are you going to do about it?" And all of those men just stood there and stared at me. So, [gasps] I wanted to deescalate. So, I just said, "We'll handle it." And they went inside without another word. Now, let's be real. What would you have done in that situation? Five or six men mean mugging me and I'm not going to give him his food.

[laughter]

No, no, thank you. And uh I sometimes wonder with both of these instances, would a different driver have faced the same treatment? I'll let y'all decide that. And also, just today, I was going on my walk around the square and I passed the Tuesday Trumpers. I am a firm believer in our First Amendment rights and Tuesday Trumpers represent that to a tea. I have no problem with that. However, I was just minding my business, waiting for the walk light, and one of those Tuesday Trumpers decided to come up to me and put the sign in my face unprovoked. I didn't even say anything to them. I gave them a little smile. That's it. And um I found that very inappropriate. They didn't do that to anybody else, literally anyone else. And let's be honest, y'all, y'all don't see people like me walking around press kit often, do you?

Thank you. Thank you. So [sighs] on a different note, uh the article drew a sharp line between hate crimes and mere racially motivated microaggressions, suggesting that one is less concerning. Uh that distinction is very dangerous. Tourists don't go to Prescuit or Flagstaff for holidays. They come here. And can you blame them? You can tell that God has blessed this town so immensely. And truthfully, we have every opportunity to really live up to the name Everybody's Hometown. But how can it truly be everybody's when some residents encounter this and are expected to just move on? Do we want a visitor's first impression of our town to be rooted in exclusion or hostility? I mean, hell, I wouldn't return to a place like that if that was my first experience. And I wouldn't blame anybody else who wouldn't want to either. So in conclusion, to me the phrasing DEI is not about unfair advantages for people who look like me. It is about protecting basic fairness and dignity. Protection that should have existed from the start and removing that language and those safeguards sends a pretty clear message about who truly belongs here. Prescuit can do better. The choice is in your hands. Thank you for this opportunity. God bless you all. All power to the people. Thank you, Isaac. [applause]

That's all, mayor. Thank you. We now will move on to the consent agenda.

Does anyone have any items to be pulled besides me? I want to pull item A, B, and also items 9 A and B on the consent ordinance. So, mayor, I'm sorry. I just want to confirm you're pulling 8B and then the consent ordinance is a different section of the agenda. So, we're not going to pull those quite yet, but we did have that list that I sent you earlier today. So 8 B, 8 C, and 8 E from the consent agenda, unless any other member of the council has anything else. I also wanted to pull 8E.

I didn't I just say 8E. Okay. I just want to make sure. That's why I used the word also. No, those are the minutes. It doesn't necessarily matter who pulled it. I just said the ones that are getting pulled. Is there anything else? Yes. B B, C, E is an elephant. B, C, and E. Okay. So, we can vote on the balance of the consent agenda then. Okay. Do I hear a motion? Mayor, I move to approve consent agenda items 8A through 8 AF excluding B, C, and E.

Second. We have these new handy dandy pens that help us vote. Passes 70.

Thank you. Um, I pulled item B, action regarding a citizen petition received by the council at the December 9th, 2025 voting meeting and submitted by Mr. Charles H. Thomas. Is he here today? Okay. Well, apparently Mr. Thomas is a HOA president and resident of Summit Point. And I'd like to make a point that he uh did a call to the public to uh back in December 9th. It was a month ago, but we had the holiday. And so this is the first uh voting session that it was on, the soonest one we could get it on. And it involves a question of an easement. And uh I was wondering if we could have a discussion about the problem to show that we do are working on solving this problem because it's a trail that was apparently uh from Summit Point. It was an easement uh by the HOA and it was somehow blocked and the people cannot access downtown. They walk downtown. There's also a question of it being a secondary uh emergency access for fire vehic ve vehicles too. So,

and mayor, I can address some of what's happening just real briefly. Thank you, Leo. [clears throat] Part of the petition was that it hadn't gone through the proper process of an ordinance and we agree with that. So, this needs to come back to council for with an ordinance and it will. Um, in the meantime, both the petitioner and the property owner that's involved are working together to resolve the issues in terms of the access, uh, the ingress, egress, the trail easement, and so forth. So, this will come back to council. Um, I'm not sure if it's next meeting or after that, but it's Sarah says it's in February. So, the ordinance will come to council in February.

All right. I just uh wanted to pull this and show that we are being responsive and transparent and working with the citizens and uh solving problems. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry,

I don't know if you noticed. Um, and just to complete the record, beyond the HOA's walking path, that now if citizens were going to use it would require them trespassing on the private property that has been taken off the south end of Marina Street and given to adjacent land owners. There is a second property that also has used the south end of Marina Street uh for a secondary driveway to a garage on the lower part of their property. And they also, just to complete the record, uh they also are injured by this abandonment to the point that if they want to access their secondary garage using that driveway that used to exit onto South Marina and now they would be required to trespass over the private property that has been uh abandoned by the city. So, those two, the HOA walking path and also the property that has a driveway that exits onto what used to be South Marina.

Okay. Thank you. And Lois, do you have a comment? Yeah, Joe. Um, from what you said, you said the petitioner was working with the uh prop new property owner to work through access. Now, it sounds like we have the potential of another resident affected by this. What if they are unable to work through access? Um what would be the options available? Transfer of the property isn't complete until we go through the full process which includes the ordinance. So when it comes before council, if you feel that there's still problems with it, you can choose not to adopt the ordinance and we'll be in a position where we were previously.

So how would we know whether these two owners have worked out a solution with the new new res owners? We will give them notice that when this [clears throat] is heard and so you'll bring that to us when we hear this in February. Correct. So if it's not worked out, we can deny it. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And item C. And I do we do need to take action on that. The action could be to tell table it till February when they address it more. You could deny it knowing that it's coming. Um but action needs to be taken one way or the other. Okay,

Mr. Grady. Yes. On um item 8C, I'm sorry. I guess maybe Joe was not clear enough. Okay. The council needs to take a vote on the petition. Okay. Can either deny the petition knowing that the item is coming forward in February or if you'd like to make the motion to continue action on the petition, that is an option as well. We need to do that before you go to see. Okay. Um I move that we um continue with the action on this petition and put it on the uh next agenda um January 27th or is that two?

We're staff's already working on it and we have it set for February 10th. February 10th. So, I move that we continue the action on this petition and put it on the uh February 10th voting agenda. Do I hear a second? Frederick's in second. Please vote. Councilman Gambboji, can you please vote?

Thank you. Passes 601. Now you can talk about item C. Okay. Who who pulled item C? Okay. Patrick.

Thank you, mayor. So, I'm a big supporter, as John knows, of the economic development strategic plan. Um, but this particular contract um amendment, I just wasn't familiar and I thought some new council members wouldn't be familiar either. So, we started off with a $76,000 original contract and um we've amended it now for the fourth time for an additional $100,000. and I wondered if you could explain maybe what changed in the scope of services and the like. Thank you.

Sure. Absolutely. John Heiny, uh, economic development initiatives director. Um, basically they are two contracts. Um, the first contract that went out for bid and RFP was for the development of the strategic plan itself. Council, we went through the process with the group. Council approved that in November of 2024. At that time uh it was determined that there were some deliverables uh that this strategic plan was looking for and we identified that the group civic solutions that helped us with the plan could uniquely help us with some of those deliverables specifically uh convening what we call sector groups. So these are groups uh in different industries, aviation, healthcare, advanced manufacturing where we convene individual businesses together in meetings met on a regular basis to start providing some direction and to start meeting some of the deliverables from the strategic plan. So we employed civic solutions to assist us with convening those groups uh getting everybody focused, facilitating those conversations. We have done that now for we've had a year of meetings uh with the group uh with the different groups. We've got some great action items that we're working on with each of these groups. Um in the meantime, let's go back to July 1st. We were uh council approved hiring a new economic development manager. So, we went about that process hoping to increase our capacity. Um that process took a little longer than we had expected. Uh we were able to bring our economic development manager on in December. Uh we've already had our last sector group for the year. We're simply seeking here to allow um Civic Solutions to wrap things up, if you will, with the sector groups, convene one final meeting. We're going to hand it off to our team to take those

sector groups over. Uh the other thing that we're going to receive from this is something that's important that we've talked about quite a bit is um sort of best practices for uh incentivizing businesses to come here. So getting some uh council maybe a white paper from this group about what we can do in incentives in the environment that we're in. So those are the deliverables for the next three months. Um we're just looking for an opportunity to hand this off smoothly to staff to take it from here. Uh I have a question. Originally, this was a $76,000 contract and now it's a $176,000 contract. Was there any RFPs put out for this uh contract?

We went through the procurement process with the city and since this group was able to provide the initial service for us and do the service for us. We went through the procurement process and we did contract amendments which were approved at each step by council as we're asking today. Mhm. So there weren't any uh anyone that competed for this contract? You just These are extensions of the original contract. Extensions of the original. So is there was there any danger of it being more than a low bidder would have been like for example if it gone out.

Right. So the scope of work expanded from the original contract. The original contract was to create the strategic plan. we went back and did the extensions, the amendments to the contract to extend their scope of work to actually convening the meetings and doing the work that goes with it. So, it really is in two parts because I I do find that kind of a large increase. You know, it makes me wonder if it was lowballed and then gradually ballooned up to another 100,000. So, I'm just maybe we need to be a little more uh careful next time and ask more questions and have be [snorts] more specific on our scope of project. Uh make sure it's more all-encompassing. Patrick,

thank you. Good, good point. It's one of the reasons that I've raised the issue as well, but I like the response. Thank you for giving us additional info. Okay, Mr. Garing. Thank you, mayor. Uh, really a question for our legal counsel. What is the limit on the size of an increase in a contract when you only went through one RFP process?

Yeah, the limits it it's effectively treated as a as an original or new contract. And so in this case, the price um it's below the requirement to go back out to bid again because of where we're at. So it's it's legal, but certainly the concerns you bring up are relevant and and something to consider. So as to follow up on that, uh does the city have a purchasing manual or some equivalent to a purchasing manual? We do. Yeah. You know, I looked for that online. I couldn't find it. Maybe somebody can send me a link. We can send you a copy then. Maybe send it to all of us. You got it.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um move Lois, John. Um we got an interesting offer earlier today to give $50,000 and get 40 senior thousand uh 40 senior units potential. Um, so if we were to say no to your $19,500, how would you proceed?

That's a good question. Um, well, the sector groups, we have them in place and they're convened and uh we would just hand it off to staff sooner to start working with them. Uh, we would also not receive the assistance with the uh the incentives. As we know, incentives are tricky in this state particularly and some guidance and best practices with assistance and guidance from a proven economic development consultant would be helpful for us as we go forward. But we would continue to convene the sector groups, we will do that in either event. So the incentive work that you would have to take in house and do that work yourself might take longer before you get something to us. Right. Okay.

Exactly. This is, you know, this is basically again understanding our time frames with bringing on assistance with the the manager position. This is an extension of staff work for us to help us proceed in a more timely fashion. So, and I'd just like to make a comment in our study session. You know, we could help out lowincome housing, 40 units for $50,000. And I see this contract went from 76 to 176. So, we just have to look at um priorities and get everything in proportion. Mr. Ruby, what made the extension necessary?

Well, after we after council approved the this particular extension, the three months again, basically the delay in bringing staff on, you know, we were hoping to have our manager on staff in the, you know, second quarter of the fiscal year just didn't happen. So, um that and also just the timing. So, we had our last sector group in November. We brought our manager on in December. We'd like Civic Solutions to be there to help hand it off so that we can continue that work. It's a timing issue mainly. Do I h do I need to make a motion for this one individually? Okay. Do I hear a motion?

Yes. I move approval of city contract number 2024-217 A4 um with civic solutions for work on the economic development strategic plan. Second Sarah, my screen went blank. I'm in favor.

Thank you. I'll do it for you and then I'll come look at it. That passes 61. Okay, moving on to item uh E about the residential non-residential water budget. Was that Mary? Did you pull that? I did and I believe Ted spoke up and said he pulled it also, but yes, I did. You want to start with your question?

Sure. Uh, and kind of like the, uh, construction or development industry, um, I need to get up to speed on on things such as the water budget, but um, I understand that from the input here that there is no rollover considered from uh, the last 6 months to this next six months. Can you tell me what what the thought process is on that?

Certainly. Uh, hello everybody. I'm Brian Ree. I'm the water resources manager here for the city uh under the community development department. Um so contemplation of the rollover was done probably about a year year and a half ago in the policy. Um the way I understand it is that um sometimes we leave water um on the table if we don't use it in a previous budget cycle. Um and maybe in a next budget cycle we have some projects that might be coming around that are a little higher in water use. um the budget needs to be expanded a little bit. They're good projects that the uh that the council wants to consider and you would be able to take some of that ro um some of that leftover budget and bring it into that other budget so that you can use it for that. So I think um and I won't speak for the water issues subcommittee. They're all up uh uh up here in front of you. Um I believe is the the reason that no rollover was considered was because water was um water um was uh allocated low in the last budget cycle. There was a lot of water left over. I think something 23 acre feet in the residential about 20 or so in the non-residential and so that didn't seem like there was any real need to do a rollover for the next period. And I believe again you can ask your um um uh fellow council people here, but I believe that's why it was not considered for this.

Is it also a consideration looking ahead to the upcoming 6 months as to whether or not there is any waterheavy projects coming forward that might benefit from Yeah. a rollover from the previous six months? Exactly. And and when we've had a rollover in the past, we've had one rollover since I've been here. That was exactly the consideration.

Thank you. And I guess just um on I don't know if you have it in front of you a chart uh looking at the last 6 months worth the July to December 2025. I think it's just typo, but just because of my own level of ignorance, let me ask you on the non-residential half of this chart, uh, it says down in the green block, total residential approvals. I'm assuming that's supposed to mean total non-residential approvals on the very bottom.

Yes, you are correct. And we'll get that uh you're the first one to spot that one. So, um, we'll get that we'll get that fixed up. You are correct. That is total non-residential approvals. I shouldn't doubt myself so much. But same thing as far as the number of applications directly across in that same green block. I'm assuming that should be eight and not one. So on um are you talking about the council approval block?

Sorry. Uh no, the green banner where it says uh what will now be total non-residential approvals and it says one where above that it says administrative approval was seven. Council approval one. Oh, I see. Yes. Yes, you're right. That that that should be eight. It should be seven plus one. Sorry. We'll get this we'll get fixed up. Obviously, we got some equation issues.

Minor minor for sure, but um um just didn't want anybody else to be confused as I was. Uh looking at sorry looking at the uh next chart which was potential residential um projects uh potential meaning what are they in the pipeline? Are they happening? Maybe happening.

Yes. Um some of them are in the pipeline. Um some of them uh may be happening. What I use um as a general guidance to um to produce this this uh table is we have our packs applications, our preliminary application uh conference and um so we we um we keep inventory of those. So I'll look at those over the last year. I'll see if there's some that um have still been are being um talked about that I'm I'm hearing, you know, that the the project could still be coming along and I'll keep them on the list. If I haven't heard about them for a while, I'll drop them off and I'll bring in new packs that have come in. And um as I've told the water issues subcommittee, this is just my my best guess of what might be coming down the pipeline in the next 6 months. Um, it's it it it's just that it's just based off of our packs and the best information that I have. If we know that there's a project coming in, I'll try to put it on that list so that you have a good firm pro the good firm projects on there. But and then we're just looking at the packs and kind of seeing how many we've got come in and what could be what could be happening over that budget period.

Thank you. And so based on that, you may or may not know the last item on the potential residential referred to 66 residential unit subdivision. Uh and it's out along the 89 kind of across from the point of rocks. Uh it's the heaviest load in your list. Do we know what kind of units we're speaking of? Apartments? I don't know. I don't have that information right now on on what that is. Yeah, I think it was just I just got it off of the pack list at this point. And the basis for the expected range versus um the approximate water demand

25 to 30% just based on historical and kind of um past experience. Thank you for the education. No problem. Any other questions? Thank you. Uh do I uh Oh, Mr. Gambboji. It says no speakers here. Do you have You've got Jay Ruby is on there and Councilman Gamboji is as well. Huh? Cuz my my screen, I'm sorry, says no speaker. Are you on the current item? Click your blue details button. [clears throat]

Thank you, Mr. Ruby. Are the I'm assuming that the when we save on the budget and don't use our full allocation, this gets tracked. Yes. Yes, we are tracking what we're using on a on an annual basis. It seems like this could be very important information when we begin to work with the regional county committee on water and be I don't know if other cities have budgets. I think we're the one that's advancing there. But I think when we can create an ethic of actually tracking and being able to use that for people to understand the total amount taken from the aquifer that is helpful.

Agreed. Thank you. Anyone else? [clears throat] Do I hear a motion? Mayor, I move to approve item consent agenda item 8E.

Frederickson second. Let's vote passes 61. Okay, let's move on to the next item.

All right, next item is consent ordinance. This is for adoption of ordinance number 2026-1927, an ordinance of the mayor and council of the city of Prescuit, Yavapai County, Arizona, amending Prescuit City Code Title 2, Chapter 2-7 by adding a new section 2-7-6 establishing the Prescuit Court docket fee and renumbering the subsequent sections. and adoption of ordinance number 2026-1928 an ordinance of the mayor and council of the city of Prescuit Yavapai County Arizona amending Prescat city code title 15 chapter 15-1 sections 15-1-2 and 15-1-12C1 and adding new sections 15-1-30 and 15-1-31.

Thank you. Uh let's start with A. It involves uh a new fee, a docket fee. And I just the reason why I pulled this was we tend to get a lot of comments, mostly negative, about any new fees that we implement. [snorts] And uh I just want to make sure that people understand that this docket fee is uh a user fee. It's originally we didn't have a user fee and this fee was covered by the community, the taxpayers in general. So this fee encourages personal responsibility instead of the taxpayers covering it. If you need to use the court system, you will be responsible for this fee. And our uh judge Gan is here. I don't know if you would like to make a few comments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Prom, members of the council. I'm Patrick Gan. I'm the city judge. This fee is just that. It's a user fee. It is for civil matters. Um, it does have the ability to be waved by a judge if in fact it is a undue economic burden for someone. Um, this is simply if you are found responsible. People who are not found responsible, whose cases are dismissed, will not pay this fee. It is only for folks that are found responsible. Um, we are, however, required to collect sir charges on these by state statute. That's was the breakdown that you were shown. So, it does make the $45 fee turns into $80. That money doesn't go to the city, that goes to the state. Those are sir charges. Just as this current city court assessment on criminal matters,

part of [clears throat] it goes to the state. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions? Comments? Yes, mayor. Uh, I'm assuming that the work that is um described as being covered by this fee will still need to be done, [clears throat] paid for by the taxpayers. AB: Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. This fee is not approved.

Absolutely. And when I compared our court to our surrounding courts, we are significantly lower than all of them. We collected in fiscal year 2024 just under $120,000. Our next closest court was 160. We have moved from the 22nd busiest municipal court in the state to number 16. Number 17 collected 525,000 in fees and number 15 on the other side of us collected 470,000. So even with this fee, we're far below everyone else. So the work that is involved in processing, managing, tracking, all the administrative things that go along with these kind of violations is still going to need to be done. This is just a matter of who pays the taxpayer in general versus the person who is found uh liable or guilty,

who commits the offense. Correct. Who comes to the court. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate uh you bringing this to our attention. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay. Do I hear a motion? Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 2026-1927. Frederickson second.

Please vote. passes 70. Now we're moving on to item 9B. This is very interesting. Uh it's uh some change in ordinances uh governing our uh parks and trails and lakes.

All of it. Good afternoon, mayor and council. Tim Ler, deputy director of recreation services. So the ordinance before you just to kind of simplify a couple highlights here, um it clarifies and tightens some of the definitions for camping. the parking fees. As you guys remember, in the budget process, the fee was increased through the process, but we couldn't increase it yet because the code specifically stated the $3. So, the part of this ordinance change also removes the specific fee in code and refers to it being adopted by council as the fee schedule. Um, then it tightens up the swimming, bathing, and waiting. It introduces new language to address the public health and safety concerns at the city lakes and the given waterways. Um given that the city cannot consistently monitor and guarantee water quality and safety conditions across the bodies of water currently there's signs up that say no swimming. There's just not in code that enforce that you can enforce that. So this just tightens that up.

Um I have a I have a question on uh section one. Did you say currently our fee at the kiosk is $3. So, if we pass this, it's going to increase the fee to five. No. So, the fee already increased to $5 through the budget process FY26. We couldn't legally increase the fee at there yet because the code specifically stated the $3. So, this removes a specific fee in the in the parks code and allows it to be adopted by the fee schedule during the budget process. And do we still have the uh the free day on Wednesday? Yes, we do.

Okay. Just wanted to double check that. And then moving on, mayor. Oh, Mary, thank you. The only thing that jumped out at me when I was looking at that is the idea of adding waiting as a prohibited activity. And it just popped into my mind, the children splashing around on the edge of the lake. Um, are we intending to prohibit that kind of activity? I'll defer to Mr. Young on the definitions of that one. [snorts] I I had concerns about

it would prohibit it would prohibit those activities 100%. Now, enforcement is a different question. You can also give direction to remove waiting, but yes, it would do that. Um, I I think that sounds pretty heavy-handed because I have a kayak and I like to go to Goldwater and launch it and it involves me waiting into the water so that I can uh get off the shore and I I would hate to get a ticket for doing that. Also, people have kids who like to wait around and catch, you know, minnows or something, you know, a family from Phoenix. And I think that would uh kind of be heavy-handed. This family from Phoenix comes up to enjoy our lake and they get a ticket cuz the kids are maybe waiting in the water. And then what if people have a black lab and the dog jumps in and takes a swim? Is that is that prohibited too? Are they going to get a ticket for that?

Is it just dogs or people? So the codes the the swimming is applying to the people the if we want to remove the waiting we can do that as Mr. Young said, "Yeah, remove the waiting piece."

I think to be a welcoming community, especially a tourist oriented business, I I don't want to make it look like we're running a goolog in our parks. And I understand that it contaminates our lakes when people get in there and swim, especially when a body isn't free flowing. And we spend a lot of time and effort and money cleaning up uh Watson Lake. But, you know, an example like Goldwater, I think that the [snorts] um person, I guess it's the campground host that issues these tickets or keeps an eye on things or who monitors this.

It could be a It could be a park ranger. It could be a law enforcement official. It could be game and fish. It could be a number of law enforcement individuals that would enforce this. So I I would like to recommend that we amend this to include uh exclude the waiting part so it doesn't sound very draconian and maybe if somebody is waiting or doing something maybe just a ticket um instead of a ticket like a warning if it's a family or somebody with a dog something a little more uh user friendly. But if somebody jumps in and they're actually swimming when they're not allowed, I could see a a ticket for that. And then also had a question on section two about uh vehicle or motordriven cycle. Is that like a motorcycle? Are we talking about that or an ebike?

I believe that that's referring to motorcycles. So it is referring to motorcycles. Is there a way we could change that just so it says motorcycles so people don't think it includes ebikes? We could change that language. Yes, if that's the motion by council. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh any other u comments? Um Lois?

Yeah. Uh the other one that I noticed um is back in the um uh totally aligned with the other ones you brought forward, but in the definition section um the way it's lined up with definition is that the previous section of city code would be completely deleted in its entirety and then replaced which as I compared current code to new proposal is virtually exactly the same on everything But the definition of park system, um, the new code would say a park system is any establishment operated by a veterinarian licensed to practice in the state of Arizona that provides clinical facilities and houses animals for medical treatment. And I had to say to myself, huh, that's a park system. Um, which if that's what you want to add, so be it. But I really liked the previous definition of park systems where we designated the names of parks. We said a property any anything uh designated by the recreation services director is a part of the city trail system and any uh designation by the recreation services open space and is maintained and owned by the city and so on and so on. So there were some other really good points that for me more defined a park system. I don't think of a park system as an established operated by a veterinary license to practice. So that was my concern and as long as So as if you all could go back I'm not sure this is rare in a go and that I don't want to make a resolution that would be the world's longest amendment.

Thanks for catching that Lois. So uh it sounds like are there any more comments? Um, sounds like we need to tune this up a little bit because our parks are so important to the uh public. And I'd like to make a motion that we uh bring this back with the uh said changes and amendments to the January 27th voting agenda. Do I hear a second? Second.

All in favor? Please vote. Thank you, Mayor Prom. I need your vote. And Councilwoman Frederickson as well, please. I voted yes. So did I.

Pass the 61. Thank you. Okay, moving on to our regular agenda. First item, presentation and discussion regarding the fiscal year 25 audit results and financial statements. Welcome, Lars.

Good afternoon. I'm Lars Johnson, finance director for the city of Prescuit. And with me today, we have Brian Hemerly, partner with Baker Tilly. So I'm just going to give a brief introduction of what this item is. FIS this is a presentation regarding fiscal year 2025 which is the period of time from July 1st 2024 through June 30 of 2025. So this will be the audit covering that period and with the city issuing the financial statements December 19th of 2025. That concluded our audit and Brian will present the results of what they went through and what they found if anything. And just for the public's awareness and city council awareness, these financial statements are published on the city's web page under uh budget and finance department. You'll see five years of of report history there. And this presentation is required by the city charter to hear directly from your independent audit that the city hires. With that, with that, I'll hand it over to Brian.

Thank you, Lars. Uh, Madame Mayor, Mayor Prom, members of council. My name is Brian Heimmerly. As Lars mentioned, I am the external audit partner for Baker Tilly that does your external audit annually. As uh Lars mentioned, I'm getting a buzz here. As Lars mentioned, this is a requirement of state statute forward. Not responding.

Oh, there we go. Okay. Uh so we do issue a number of audit reports for the city of Prescuit. Uh the first one is related to your annual comprehensive financial report. This is a very large report. Uh it sometimes spans two- 300 pages long and it includes all the financial information for the city on a fiscal year basis. However, at the very beginning of the report is what we call the management's discussion and analysis. Uh this is if you only had 5 10 minutes to read the what's going on for the year financially. Um I would direct you to read management discussion analysis. This is an area where management has the opportunity to discuss uh blatantly with the citizens and council and other users of the finance statements what really happened for the year. Um it is reviewed by us. We make sure it has no uh information in it that contradicts the financial statements. Uh but it is something that's easier to read. Uh and as some people may know GAP and accounting can be somewhat uh cumbersome at times and so reading the rest of the report although it is all uh in there for you to read if you want to read through the entire thing um I would suggest reading the management discussion analysis. That report received a clean opinion or what we call an unmodified opinion in the audit world. Uh so you did get clean opinion on that report. No findings related to your annual comprehensive financial report. The state also requires that all cities receive what's called we call it the yellowbook report. It's a government audit standards compliance report where we review and audit the compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, debt agreements, uh things of that nature. Uh you received no instances of non-compliance in that matter or in that report or other matters. And there were no identified material misstatements that needed to be reported in that report this year. Your third report is related to what the federal government requires for federal spending over $750,000 which will go up to a million dollars in the next year. Um the city of course spends more than $750,000 in federal grant money each year. So it is required to receive what's called a single audit from the federal government. Uh this year the federal government required that we

audit your airport improvement program infrastructure investment and jobs act programs. It also required that we audit the CO 19 related funding for that same exact airport improvement program grant. That single audit on that particular grant received no findings related to the way it was the money was spent or the compliance surrounding that federal grant. A little bit about what we do as auditors. We do audit your financial statements, your compliance, your your federal monies uh by providing reasonable assurance that that information is correct. We do not provide absolute assurance. Absolute assurance would require that we test every transaction down to the penny for everything the city has. That would take a very very long time and cost a lot of money. GAAP statute, the federal government, uh they all require that we do what's called reasonable assurance, meaning that your financial statements are materially correct throughout the financial statements. So, we do use a materiality threshold for different funds, different opinion units, uh the different federal grants. We do assess risks surrounding the different areas of the city to make sure there are no specific risks that need to be addressed at a lower materiality or greater scope for the audit. Uh and we did find that you are free from material misstatement on these financial reports this year. Our audit standards require that we communicate any internal control matters this year. We had no internal control matters to report this year. We do test controls throughout the city. Uh we had no qualitative aspects that we needed to address with the city. uh all qualitative aspects can be found in note one of the financial statements. The only change to note one this year was related to compensated absences. This is uh required by government accounting standards that vacation and sick time that's earned by your employees is recorded as a liability for anything that's been earned but not yet used, paid or converted uh by year end and will be after year end. So the accounting related to that expanded the scope of your vacation and sick time liability that needed to be recorded and

it did increase the liability but that was the case for all governments uh in the United States this year. Significant unusual transactions. We had no significant unusual transactions that need to be reported. We had no difficulties encountered with management, no disagreements with management. There were no circumstances that affected the former content of our report. We're not aware of any other audit consultations outside of ours. Uh there were no uncorrected misstatements during the year. Uh and there were no other audit findings to identify. Uh as mentioned before uh we did not identify any non-compliance laws, regulations during the audit. Uh during our audit, we do um attempt to plan and perform our audit to identify any potential fraud based on uh things that we're looking at throughout the audit. During the audit, we did not identify any instances of known or suspected fraud at the city. Uh we're not aware of any going concern issues, meaning we do think you will be operating as a city a year from today. Uh and there were no related parties that were material enough to be disclosed in the financial reports this year. Some non-attest services that we provide. Uh we do propose adjusting journal entries throughout the year. However, this year the city's books were very clean. Uh there were no proposed journal entries that were required for this audit. um preparation for data collection form for the federal audit clearing house has will be submitted in time for the federal audit that we do related to that single audit for the airport grant. There's a fourth report we do the auditor general in the state statute requires that the city has an expenditure limitation report to make sure that the city is not spending more than what is voter approved. This year's voter approved limitation was $278.6 million. Uh the calculation performed by the city and audited by us. Uh the city's expenditures subject to that limitation were only $188 million. Therefore, the city did come underneath their limitation by $90.5 million and that received a clean opinion and has been submitted to the auditor general's office of the state of Arizona. Uh again, your single audit, you spent $14 million in federal funds this year. We did audit your airport grants and we had no findings related to those those

grants. Some really high level financial information for the June 30, 2025 year end. Your general fund did have a fund balance increase this year of $15.7 million. So fund balance is essentially like equity in a business. So your equity in the city general fund did increase almost $16 million. This is primarily due to higher than expected uh collections on local taxes, charges for services related to building permits and inspections. Your investment income did well this year. And then there was a few transfers in from other funds to help cover some uh areas that were passed by council. Actual revenues were $12.6 6 million below what was budgeted. However, in the budget, there was a $19.8 million contingency amount put there for debt proceeds. Those proceeds were never issued during the year. The debt was never issued and therefore the $19.8 million wasn't needed for the for the budget. When you remove the contingency, the actual revenues exceeded budget by $7.2 million for general fund. Your actual expenditures were 30.8 million below budget. However, again, there's contingency in your expenditures when you remove contingencies of 13.4 4 million which weren't used. The net contingency of expenditures were only 17.4 million below budget, but you were still below budget. Lastly, the restricted fund balance of $4.2 million was set aside for dedicated public safety sales taxes that started in April based on the voter approved initiative that had occurred the November prior to that. Uh that $4.2 million is restricted in your equity and is being audited to make sure it is being uh used for the voter approved purposes. You have four enterprise funds. Water fund, wastewater fund, airport fund, solid waste fund. Your waist, your water fund had uh exceeded it sales that exceeded oper operating expenses by 5.6 million which led to an increase in overall net position of 9.8 million. That was your largest increase. Wastewater fund uh did have service fees exceed operating expenses by 3.8 million which helped lead to an increase of 4.1 million to its equity. The airport

airport fund uh did have operating expenses that exceeded the revenue. So this the only enterprise fund that went the other direction. Uh it exceeded by $4 million. The airport funds net position increased 12.8 million, but that's due almost entirely to uh grant activity, capital contributions from the general fund uh in the case of about $8 million in land uh and some other cash transfers from the general fund into the airport to help cover operations. The airport fund receives about 2.2 2 million I believe in uh rent revenue essentially uh which isn't enough to cover the expenses in the airport fund and that's another reason you see a decrease there. Solid waste fund refuge fees exceeded operating expenses by 82.9,000 leading to an increase in that position of 84,000. That's my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, Brian. Do we have any questions? No discussion. Uh anyone from the uh public wish to weigh in? We don't have any cards, mayor. Oh, okay. Thank you. Uh, this item is for discussion only and so we will not need to take a vote and we hope to see you in next year. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you.

Next item, please. GPA22-00001. Discussion and possible action regarding the approval of the Prescat 2025 general plan March 25th, 2025 version. Adoption of ordinance number 2026-1964 approving ballot language for the November 3rd, 2026 special election. Adoption of resolution number 2026-1963 establishing a council subcommittee for general plan general plan review and appointment of members to the subcommittee for general plan review. Staff is going to do a presentation um and go over the maps and items. There are um as you probably gathered from my reading of the title, a number of items that the council would need to vote on um in that particular order because each vote will affect theoretically the next one. I also want to point out that we do have 23 um public comment cards on this item. As a reminder, everybody is limited to 3 minutes um to give your comments. I would ask that everyone um public council staff um treat each other with respect and dignity while we're communicating with each other. Um if there is somebody that goes before you that has already said what you would like to say and you would like to concede your time to somebody else, please feel free to do so. Um and we'll go ahead and get started. Go ahead, Alex.

I just wanted to comment. Um I didn't think you were all here to listen to the budget presentation. [laughter] So, thank you.

Uh, thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Prom, and Council. My name is Alex Braramlet. I'm the planning manager for community development, and we're here um because in in December, we talked about some legislative changes, and at that meeting, the motion was made to have the March 25th version uh of the general plan brought before you all for for a vote. So, in terms of um kind of formal presentation, you know, I just I have all the plans and I'm kind of basing it off conversation and dialogue. I can pull up different plans because we have we have the March 25th, 2025 version. I have that map pulled up as well. We also have our June 24th, 2025 version as well. um including just various maps and um just kind of wanted to open it up for for potential discussion and and kick it off that way.

Well, first of all, I'd like to say that our goal here is to get a version of the general plan on the November ballot. That's a kind of a moonshot. We have two options. could be on this year's November ballot or next year's August primary ballot, but we need to get something on the ballot that will be overwhelmingly supported by the community. I think that's very important. I don't want to have something on the ballot and have it defeated by 51% or even approved by 51%. I'd like to see something approved wholeheartedly because this reflects what's important to our community going forward. Thank you. Thank you. So, we do have um the the the March 25th, 20125 version. I can um talk to some of the main differences between the two versions. Um from March to June, we did go through and um reduced a lot of the goals and strategies and so it was a general reduction in the plan in that regard. Um further we've added some of the maps. There's the open space map that we have included. Um and we have updated just the climate and energy section. there was concern around the the encompassing and energy into that section of the plan. And so those are kind of some of the distinguishing features. And then in regards to the map itself, [snorts] um we have this this is the well let me start with the this is the 2025 I'm sorry the March 2025 version. Uh so some of the key

differences from March to June is a lot of this area the yellow of what what map is this? This one is March 25 future land use map. Yes. Yeah. Future land and water use map and this is the one that includes the cor corridor the growth corridor up Williamson Valley Road. Correct. That added 12 square miles [laughter] to the Williamson Valley area.

Correct. Yeah. And there was several council sessions following the March um map version for discussion of this plan specifically. So um the the yellow areas have largely been removed and just for comparison purposes, this is what we landed on with the June 24th version. So the whole area west of this blue line was previously included in that boundary as you can see here and it was removed. Uh similarly there was some areas over on the east side that was uh concerning and so those areas were removed as well. There was dialogue on having this kind of mixeduse corridor area along um 89 and so that's been incorporated as well. And some other kind of areas is around the airport. We worked to just refine instead of having the yellow area which is this low medium density. We moved um from this map here you can see to this map there's some brown area and that's going to be the uh very low density working in coordination with the airport to get that a little bit cleaned up. So those are kind of some of the key differences between again this one being the March 25th, 2025 version of the future land use plan map and then this is the June 24th, 2025 version. So, there are two plans versions. Um, I know that there's a few layers going on with this item, so it's kind of hard to find a a starting point. Um, because we kind of potentially can go the subcommittee route. I think that we first need to decide um if we want to start with the March plan um and we can

substitute that with the map from June um or we want to start with the June plan maybe having a good starting point from a plan um and then kind of taking it from there. Um, I have a transportation map here with um a big red line through the middle on uh 89A Pioneer Parkway. Does that mean that's going to be at lanes added? Uh could you explain any changes what this means? Yeah, specifically First time I've seen it.

Yep. and it wasn't it was discussed at later council meetings so it wasn't incorporated into the June 24th meeting date so this has been produced following that meeting date um and that's why it's included as a separate attachment and so it was just in in meeting state law requirements we were to produce a circulation map and so this is just showing um major arterial ways it's it's in no way saying we're going to add a lane here or a lane there it's just identifying a regional view of transportation for the whole area that we have identified in our future land use map

because it says future general plan transportation map and I believe Simpo has some maps for future roads since we're looking forward ahead 10 years. I don't see any new roads or anything proposed. Yes, that's correct. in the transportation section of both plans, whether that's March or June, we have the transportation section that it talks about Simo's plan, it has a link to Simo's plan. Um, but further, it did not actually include a map in the the whole general plan itself. And so, this is the map that we've included. So, there's still links to SIMPO and we're relying largely on them, but this was the map. Also,

10 years from now, you may not have that link available, right? How long these links are these links good? So, I that was one of my problems with the um general plan was the lack of maps and we need separate exhibits in the back like our 2015 plan had actual maps so that you didn't have to fool around with links, you know, you could actually just bring up the map.

Yes. I and we we heard you and the concerns and I think it's um playing a little bit of both where Simbo has a whole new plan that identifies lots of maps and so not tying all those into our general plan leaning on that and the link version and then having our own kind of just broader regional plan for the transportation piece to include with with the general plan. Yeah, I'm I'm just having uh Lois.

One of the things that we all had problems with with the March version of the general plan when it came to circulation was it gave us little snippets of this neighborhood in Hidden Hills and a little snippet of this neighborhood here. And what it didn't tell us or the public was how are you going to get from that little neighborhood north, south, east, or west. So, we were missing these roadways. And so again, you know, I just got this this weekend when I got back and I was looking at the the roadways and you can see especially north of um State Route 89A, you see um to the west of Pioneer Parkway, you start seeing the connections from Hidden Hills up into Deep Well Ranch. And you start seeing um uh other blue lines that are some of them are thin, some of them are thick. They all seem to be around the 89A either north or south of it. I didn't see any rhyme or reason to the thin lines versus the blue lines, but I did think the heavy blue lines were truck routes and the thin blue lines were meant to be pedestrian, not pedestrian, I'm sorry, um people moving in their cars. Thank you. Um, so, so it's it is better than what we had in March because you finally see these roadways that we knew were supposed to be coming, but they're not there. But we really haven't had quality time to think about this or talk about this. We're just getting it.

And for example, the airport's not labeled Yavapai Prescuit Indian Tribes. I mean, unless you are familiar with the area, you'd look at this map and say, "What's that up there?" Oh, well that's the airport, but it's not labeled. We have a kind of a gray bluish gray blob across from Willow Lake. I don't know what that is. So, I think this map needs, you know, a lot. It's a nice attempt and you're getting some feedback, but uh obviously I don't think the plan just attaching these things to either the the June or the March plan, I don't think it's ready to come to the ballot.

Certainly. And but we have some other comments. Let's see. Mr. Gambboji, Madame Mayor, we [snorts] have beat this subject to death. So, I'm going to recommend that we don't go down another rabbit hole and redesign something here. I think we ought to hear from the public and after you hear from the public, you can hear from the council and then we can take a vote. Thank you. Uh Mr. Ruby, you're next.

I have two questions. One is these maps, and this this is probably for the city attorney. The way that the land use is described here in the future map, is that binding? Is it prescriptive? Is it something that we have to follow?

The land use map is binding. It's the one kind of the one aspect of a general plan that has some binding aspect to it. So in the general plan, you have definitions of a minor plan amendment and a major plan amendment and each of those carry different requirements. So as it relates to both either annexation or change of use of land this map is does have binding effect. Now that doesn't apply to the circulation map that doesn't have any binding effect but the future land use map does. So for example if we want to create a wildlife corridor or an open space between Chino Valley and Prescuit would it need to be on this map? that would not need to be on that map because that would be a reduction in use which doesn't trigger these same types of things. So it's an increase in use. So if for example if it's in yellow in this low medium density area and it were to be proposed to change it to commercial it then triggers a major plan amendment process which is a more extensive process through council including uh a super majority and so forth. But to to to use a land as open space if it's you know for example in the yellow and it's low medium density and you wanted to use it as open space that does not have to be reflect on the map that wouldn't be binding in that way. Does that make sense? I'm going to to understand is there a type of scaling where if we need to do more usage like an increase of density then there's another process to go into to that has to be approved by city council.

That's correct. But if we decrease that does not have to be approved. That does not have to be approved. Let me just comment. We could include a map though showing wildlife quarters in our open space. You could you could Yeah, we could always include that which is something pardon. Right. You can only do it for city- owned open space. City owned, right? You cannot unless you have consent of a private land owner, you can't put open space um on their property on the on the future land use map. And I'm going to assume that all of this land that is in the yellow or the yellow and white on the June map that is probably private land right now.

I basically everything is either state land or private land and state land has the same requirement. You can't put open space on state land without their consent. Okay. So is there any difference in the maps towards moving to an open space use north of Prescuit? You meaning meaning if you wanted an open space in terms of actual policy going forward to potentially create open space north of Prescuit are either of these maps preferable. Do any either of them have a specific impact

for the sake of open space only? Neither map makes a difference because you'd have to secure those rights to that property in some other way. Yeah, we have an open space policy that if we annex something, then we require 25% of the property to be open space in exchange for city services. So, um, any other questions? We have Patrick, [clears throat]

thank you with the exclamation point. Um we've voted at our most recent meeting on the general plan 4 to3 to move forward um on with the March 25th version and I still believe that that and I realize that that vote wasn't um legislatively correct but we are at that same moment where we need to declare our position position and I would second Ted's comments and in several different respects. One talking about two and a half years of a citizen committee driving us through that process with significant opportunities for citizen comment with hundreds of comments I might add. Um, and candidly the most extensive public outreach campaign I've I've witnessed. And it strikes me that we're we're not that far apart. And if we could agree upon making a similar motion with respect to moving with the 2025 general plan recognizing assuming this happens recognizing that the subcommittee like you indicated what which comes first recognizing the subcommittee listening to each other can deal with transportation circulation map final land use map, a potential for an executive summary. Um, I think that this general plan that we would present, um, it's not 300 pages, it's not 400 pages, it's 134 pages. The Prescuit 2015

general plan, excuse me for throwing that at you, um, is 112 pages. No pictures though. Um, Prescuit Valleys 230 pages. Camp Verde 177 pages, Flagstaff 250, PAC 341, Sierra Vista 152. This isn't a question of how long it is. Question is it is a good is it a good plan? Um, and folks will read it. I I wasn't here in 2015, but I hear this passed like by 84%. It's 100. It's 112 pages. Um, it would likely again be have been longer. and um it had 295 strategies, but we felt compelled to do what we call the skinny version, the June version, uh which deleted probably close to 200 strategies. I think the public has spoken in the past. I think it has spoken recently at our public meetings and I think it's time to move forward and if you would accept a motion, I'd be willing to make a motion.

Point of order, more conversation. We've yet to hear from the public.

Yeah, we have to hear from the from the public, but I would just like to say clarify that, you know, this this general plan either version, it's an excellent plan. A lot of work went into it. It reflects a lot of our community values, but it does need some tweaking, fine-tuning, and review. And that's why I proposed a council subcommittee and also the hiring of a consultant to help uh guide us and actually a consultant that will be a catalyst to help us uh get this plan on the um November ballot hopefully this year. But uh I do not support just taking the plan as it is today and trying to get it on the ballot. I I don't think it would uh be a very good idea and I don't think it would pass uh in the community. Any other comments?

Yes. Can we hear from the public? Mr. Ruby,

I just in the mid80s I spent time in East Germany. I was there as part of the dant between Gorbachov and Reagan. And in doing so, I got to witness like East German bureaucracy at its finest slash at its worst. And some of the people there that I talked to, I can remember this. They were like, we have these five-year plans and there's zero flexibility with them and we're chained to them and then the market conditions change and we're stuck. And because of the type of hierarchy they had there, they ended up doing things that were not good for their economy. In hearing everything I've heard about the general plan, it is thankfully not like the East German Communist 5-year plan. Meaning that it is not binding and it is not there's nothing prescriptive in here that we have to follow. It seems like it's reference po reference points. I get very concerned that a huge body of the public has put effort and time into this so that we can do the specific policy decisions later. I don't think that this plan should be something that we have to get absolutely perfect because conditions change.

Thank you. Any other comments? U Mr. Garing? Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh, I wanted to mention that I have had a couple of communications from Mike Getty, and Mike is the chair of the airport advisory committee, and he's concerned about wording in the uh June 24th plan and very concerned about wording in the March 25th plan. So, and the reason that he's concerned is there's a good example in the terms of the Atlanta airport that lost 3700 $37 million in grant funding because they had inappropriate language in some of their documents. I'd like to make sure we don't have that in this document before it goes out. So my suggestion would be to take the 624 version and map and move forward with uh some modifications. Not finalize it today, but move forward with some modification perhaps through a committee and a consultant and get it to where we know we're not putting airport funding at risk. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um any more comments before we take public How about looking at your street? Well, I see Patrick Grady and Tim Gambboji. Oh, okay. He forgot to cancel. Okay, Mr. Gambboji.

Since I can't keep everybody from going down the rabbit hole, I'll speak now. Let's talk a little bit about the general plan. It's a committee made up of 11 people and I think if I remember from Terry Sapio, I got up to 14. and they spent three years and to Patrick Grady's point a lot of people over 200 people we had the best turnout at open house in the history of Prescuit [clears throat] the general plan is mandated by the state primarily for land use [gasps] although I think they've developed some other things like climate and so forth to Jay Ruby's point it is not legally binding except for the land use map Joe, as a member of the planning and zoning commission for previous four years or so, uh I'm familiar with anything that came out of the 2015 plan and I was the original chair of the general plan committee and I went through the 2015 plan because one time the mayor good asked anybody read it and I think I was the only hand that went up in the here. I can't count anything that came out of the 2015 plan. Now, why are we here? We're here because a certain group have accused the uh plan of being woke and DEI. Let's call it for what it is. There is no mention of woke or DEI anywhere in the plan. There is no mention that one groups get special privileges over another group. Earlier I wrote an article in the courier talked about shiny objects. You know instead of working on the big things we get dazzled by the shiny objects. This objection is a shiny object.

Secondly, the mayor's solution to hire a consultant and three council members to me is a slap in the face of boards, commissions, and and city staff. These people spent three years. This is a better plan than we had in 2015. And to quote my good buddy Ken Fidik, this is a product of the city of Prescuit, the boards, the the committee, the staff, and the residents. And if ever there was a time to keep Prescuit Prescuit, it's right now. to keep this process the way it is. We are everybody's hometown, not somebody's hometown. Everybody's welcome in the city of Prescuit. And finally, I find it ironic some time ago, Bonnie McMahon came before city council and said, you know, we ought to change the rules regarding open space. We don't think we can trust the city council. We can only trust the voters. And yet members of this city council when it comes to the general plan are taking the opposite perspective. They're not trusting the public who last time voted for the general plan by 84%. And I think if everyone realizes that we're making a lot out of this general plan, it is not legally binding. It's Prescott's best guess for the future. Like Jay Ruby in Germany, I was in Asia and I am experienced with five-year plans. This is not a five-year plan. We're making a lot to do about nothing. We much we do much better to approve this

plan, move on to tackle bigger projects. So I I'm going to ask after after the residents, I'm going to make a motion to approve this plan. There was a question, are you talking about the March plan? Which plan are you talking about? Last month, I made a motion to bring the March plan back to this uh council and we're going to vote on the March plan. The March plan with the March maps that have the 12 square miles. We can discuss that after the people speak.

Okay. Just clarifying it. Thank you. Alrighty, Sarah, let's go. And it's um almost 5 o'clock. Thank you for bearing with us. And who's ordering the pizza? All right. First up, we have Ralph Hess. Hello again. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I am Ralph Hess. I live in Prescuit. Part of my uh question, I think, has been answered. I kind of lost track of which versions of the land use map were attached to which plan. And I my [clears throat] recollection was that uh was that um the very low density designation uh was the most recently approved land use plan, the one that included very low density. And from what I saw from the presentations map, uh that seems to have been on the June 24th. And so um plan and I think that was approved by council if I recall correctly. And so what what um my suggestion is what was approved by council for very low density was one dwelling unit per acre. Is that correct? Okay. And so what was left out and and uh that me meant that low to medium density

um designation was 2 to seven uh dwelling units per acre. And so that covers the low low to medium density would cover most of the single family dwelling zoning designations. Even though the land use map is not a zoning map, those designations by limiting the number of dwelling units or setting forth what the number of dwelling units will be uh connects with the zoning designation. So the one suggestion I've made previously and I make it again today is very low density. I suggest that be one dwelling unit per acre or less. And the reason I make that suggestion is one of these zoning designations of of our land development code includes two acres or uh one wind dwelling unit per two acres. And if you don't have anything on the land use map to which that would refer, then I think the um the land use ma uh map is inadequate. So the one thing I suggest, however you're going to do this, however you decide what you're going to do with the land use map, I encourage you to keep the very low density, but have the very low density include not just one dwelling unit per acre, but also include less than or equal to. And I know that staff is concerned that that violates the statute uh regarding uh the land trust and private property. I'm suggesting it does not because it still allows for one dwelling unit per acre. So you'll probably hear uh contrary

input from others. Thank you, Ralph. Rosemary Dixon. [clears throat]

Hi everybody. My name's Rosemary Dixon. I want to thank the council members who responded to my email. Not everybody did, but I really appreciate when you respond to a citizen's email. They feel acknowledged and included and I appreciate that very much. I do speak today in favor of passing this plan. I understand that some of the maps are not where they would need to be and I think it's a great idea to do them as Mayor Rousine would like them and make sure that they are actually the land that we're working with. I think that makes sense. But I do believe it's a mistake to presume what the voters will do. Just looking at this room, I mean, look at this room. It indicates we're kind of 50/50 on this plan. There's a lot of people here who are for this plan. There's a lot of people here who are against this plan. But that doesn't mean it won't pass with the voters. I don't know how we can invite people to volunteer on commissions and then scrap their I know it wouldn't be scrapped exactly their plan, but get a consultant to what dot the eyes and cross the tees when we work three years on it already. One would think that had been done. And then as the courageous young man said today in this room, there is discrimination in this town. It's serious. It's very serious. And if we don't as a city just speak against it is not DEI. It's just saying we do not condone discrimination. Right. We don't. Right. That's all I'm saying. Thank you very much.

Thank you, [applause] Robert Shag.

Thank you for allowing me to speak um before the council. Uh, I have been a resident of Prescuit since 2000 and I'm here to speak in favor of sending the general plan to a vote of the people. I have the audacity to believe that people everywhere desire to be treated fairly, that people have a right to be involved in matters that concern them. That people everywhere cherish equality, e dignity and freedom. I believe that selfc centered people have torn things down when other centered people can build them up. I believe that we should live so that when our childrens think about fairness, caring and integrity, they see a picture of us. The fair thing to do is to pass this on to the public and let them make the decision. [applause]

Um, excuse me. I know everyone's enthusiastic, but please uh hold your applause. Thank you. Jonathan Best.

Oh, wow. I'm really thrilled to be here. I've never spoken to you before and I appreciate this opportunity. Um, I just I feel like uh Prescuit has has does have trouble recognizing the discrimination that happens in the city. If the city wanted to be a diverse city, it would be. I come from New York City and it's the wealthiest city in the country and it is also the most diverse. I think that needs to be considered. So, um I I just think I just want us I I think you know there's a lot of people that want to speak. So I just want to make sure that that gets noted that we need to make an issue of creating a diverse accepting welcoming city for everyone and it's a very hard thing to do. I've been on committees that have failed in this and I think that just by trying and taking in what people have expressed is very important. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Kenneth Gner. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak. My name is [clears throat] Kenneth Gner. Um, [sighs] I'm not sure where to begin. I have a lot of concerns about this. Um many of you in this audience know me and uh some of my some of my friends um have views that I agree with and some we don't. But I want to remind I want to comment on a few things that have been said and I'm going to sidestep my own prepared

comments. This is this plan is not about a a laundry list of u moral issues like moralizing and finger wagging to the public. I'm not saying that we could argue that those issues aren't important. But this document is not the place to be telling people how to think. You can't you can't moralize to the people. In fact, a better way would be just simply facilitating organically a culture of whatever it is that you want to create. I'm I'm a former educator. I believe in, you know, treating people uh well and judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, etc., which I think is what Martin Luther King Jr. said. But to put a fine point on that, DEI is not about that. It goes beyond that and says, I'm not saying this document, but I'm saying the whole archetype, the whole uh umbrella of that narrative goes beyond that and says, well, you have to be anti-racist, otherwise you're racist. You can't just not be racist. Right? So, anyway, I'm digressing a bit. Um, I want to comment on the fact that I get a very clear sense that some members of council have a clear contempt for the public, especially for uh any kind of criticism. But my problem is that and this is really going to my original comments is that one of the tactics that's being done all around the world now but at a local level is using language that is

uh basically wordsmith couched to be virtuous to be um something that nobody could disagree with as a way to get uh to deflect criticism. 30 seconds. Thank you.

Um, essentially what this document is, it's an inversion of language. So when it talks about balancing needs, that's a term that's used in other NOS's and it really is just a euphemism for removing. So like balancing the needs of the community or balancing the needs of the individual with the needs of the community is really about removing or ignoring the needs of the individual for example. So my point is is that this whole document is disingenuous. If I believed that the document on its face was what was actually the spirit of the document, I might have a different opinion. And the reason I have this opinion is because the the terminology and the overall narrative of this document is not something that comes from uh organic community input. Thank you. comes from the United Nations and I have all the documentation to prove it and I would invite any of you to reach out to me because I can provide that proof. It's not an opinion.

Thank you, Kenneth. Sedona Ortega.

Hello, my name is Sedona Ortega. I was born and raised in Prescuit and so were both of my parents. And in the summer of 2022, I was hired as an intern with the city of Prescuit planning and zoning department. And one of my primary tasks of that summer was conducting research and helping to lay out the initial recommendations for our 2025 general plan. My work and time was one of the very first pieces of input into the general plan that is currently being debated before you. And it is disappointing to see that the work that was started four years ago is still being nitpicked and torn apart. So many people have contributed time and energy into crafting this non-binding document that serves as a guide to our community. And I understand that one of the primary concerns about this general plan is that the anti-discrimination statement could compromise our city's ability to receive federal grant funding. The Attorney General's 2025 federal funding guidelines explains unlawful versus best practices in relationship to DEI policies and statements. These best practices directly recommend that federal funding recipients should quote incorporate explicit non-discrimination clauses in grant agreements, contracts, or partnership agreements requiring third parties to comply with federal law and specify that federal funds cannot be used for programs that discriminate based on protected characteristics." I have read through the full memorandum and I'd like to assume as an informed decision maker that you have done your due diligence and read it as well. The anti-discrimination statement proposed in our general plan is in compliance and aligns with the best practices that the federal government endorses. If we include this anti-discrimination statement, we will not lose federal funding. Rather, we will signal to our community members that our city is a place that does not tolerate discrimination of any kind. I truly believe and understand that some of the people in this room may have never experienced or witnessed

discrimination, hate speech, or racism in our community and therefore think it does not exist. But in reality, there are many people, including my own friends and family members, who have certainly experienced various forms of hate in Prescuit. While many of these experiences are not officially reported, it doesn't mean that they're not real. As a young person who grew up in this community, I cannot even begin to count how many times people have asked me why people my age move away and how we should keep younger people and professionals here. And yet, we go around in circles for months on end picking apart a statement that is aimed at envisioning a more welcoming city. No wonder young people leave. This city is falling behind. What needs to be interrogated here is what are you actually afraid of? Who are you trying to exclude? Because by debating the validity of this statement, the only thing our community is left to assume is that you don't value everyone that lives here. A statement reiterating that our city honors the diverse perspectives and identities in our community is the absolute least we can do. And if the idea of that doesn't sit well with you, then I feel sad for my neighbors who do experience hate here. But I also feel sad knowing that you feel comfortable leaving a legacy where you oppose a statement such as this one. As a young Prescatonian who started work on the general plan many years ago, I truly hope that you will approve the general plan with the complete anti-discrimination statement included. Thank you.

Thank you, Sedona. Please hold your applause.

Ann Louise Sawyer. Council members, mayor, my name is Annie Sawyer, retired architect living in Prescat. I'm excited to have this opportunity to speak in support of the general plan, the full version. I have heard your concern about its length, but rather than seeing it as a burdensome checklist, I'd like to offer another view of the long plan as a resource, a catalog of ways to effectuate the overall livability goals. that uh effectuate came right out of the state statue statute that requires us to encourage effectuation which to me suggests flexibility is allowed in achieving the overall goals. The number of strategies and the detail given will help not hinder I'd like to end by expanding the window of responsibility for implementing the plan. Taking a wider view, we have a whole city of nearly 50,000 people with lots of e expertise in um in their professions and their work and in each of the five areas of the li livability goals. uh working people as well as volunteers. And [clears throat] I I really don't believe that Prescatonians are

discouraged from taking supportive advisory roles. I I understand that ultimately the buck stops here in this chamber and um you all deliberate. You make the guiding decisions and you will have help from your community in effectuating the the our new general plan. the full version. Ken Fidic.

Thank you, Ann Louise. [clears throat] Happy New Year and good afternoon, Madame Mayor and City Council. I'm I'm glad to see a few smiling faces because it's been getting rougher and rougher. Maybe I'm a lone voice out here this afternoon, but we'll find out. My name was mentioned before I even got up here. So, here you go. [clears throat and snorts] I highly recommend you deny the March 25th, 2025 plan. I don't think I have to go over why we don't have time for that in three minutes. Number two, I know you've made lots of changes in June. I was here and spoke in June also maybe back in March. But anyway, it's not where it needs to be. If you really want to take this to the people, this you're not there. If you're going to vote today up or down, then vote today up or down. But I voted for most of you on this council at least once, if not twice or more. So, I hope you'll listen to my voice as maybe there's a few others in this room today or who couldn't make it, but maybe you're here on Zoom and listening in. [clears throat] So, we're going down the rabbit hole again. I think it's an overreach. I think good intentions, but as my wife always tells me, the road to hell was paved with good intentions. And I think she means it. It's not a joke. So, I won't take it as a joke to you either. Uh, good intentions by everyone on council, good intentions by the staff

that worked on this, by the by the subcommittee for two, three years, whatever it was. Why didn't, and I can't explain it, maybe someone else can. Why didn't you take the 2015 plan and make the necessary changes? The 2015 plan took the previous plan and made the changes. Why wasn't it done this time? Why did you have to reinvent the wheel with everything and all these issues that are still out there that need to get resolved, whether it's maps, plans, or whatever you want to call it. So, I guess I'm saying if you're going to take it to the vote of the people, you better go back to the last plan and make the necessary changes so that the people can understand what's changed from the last one. If you're going to vote today, I strongly suggest that you reject what's in front of you right now, which is the March or the June or some combination thereof. And just to make a comment on keeping Prescuit Prescuit, yes, we voted for you to make the decisions for the community. But when we mean keep Prescuit Prescuit, we also mean the fiscal responsibility, the fiduciary responsibility to the community. I heard it earlier today on one of the one of the consent items where you challenge some of the RFPs and such. That's terrific. We'd like to see that from the the taxpayers of this community that you represent as well as the voters. So, um I could add more, but I think I'll just leave it there. I hope you make a wise decision today whether it's voting to deny or voting to to modify it as it should be so that the people of this city can understand it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fidic. Greg Murray. Happy new year. Uh, thanks for providing this opportunity. Again, my name is Greg Murray and I'm a citizen of Prescuit. As always, [clears throat] um, I think this is a really good exercise to go through, even though it it takes some time. As a lot of people have said before, the March 25th, 20 25 version of the general plan was a really good one. uh it was the result of that diligent effort of so many people um for over two years at the time and since then however a couple of items were identified as needing some additional attention. Some of those have been have come up today like for example the the land use map. Um, also, uh, as as came up, uh, I think during the December meeting, an executive summary that would be more accessible to more members of the general public than the plan is in it in its entirety because uh, even though it's a lot shorter than a lot of uh, general plans for cities of our size or even smaller, lots of people are not going to delve into all of the details. So, I think it could really benefit by a good executive um uh summary, maybe one that would be written by uh a consulting uh company based on the starting point of the the uh March 25th uh plan. So, um, communities provide, uh, more detail in a lot of cases in their general plans precisely because a worthy general plan provides a vision for the future. So that when new proposals are made, cities, city leaders will know

what questions to ask because the community has already agreed upon what it wants the future to look like. And so more detail is better, not worse. And so it is here. We want city leadership over the next 10 years to know what we envisioned for protecting open spaces for wildlife habitat, for infrastructure, for housing and transportation uh transportation needs and so forth and to be able to go back to that and refer to a detailed document to see what the what the the citizens wanted. For that reason, I think it makes sense uh to start with that March 25th plan and to make small changes that were identified as needed before and to construct an executive summary that informs the public about the broad outline of the plan and invites them to delve into the details where their particular interests lead them. But let's not remove the details from the body of the plan because those details represent the substance of our aspirations for the future. Thanks.

Thank you, Greg. Robert Seaton. Mayor Council, my name is Robert Seatin. I spoke uh before the council in March down. Okay. I spoke before the council in March during the last excuse me during the last presentation uh when uh the former mayor um feel good made a complaint because the planning department provided the 25th 2025 plan on a on a Friday and you're supposed to vote it on the following Tuesday. And I was here for discussions after that 3pm meeting where it was necessary to go in and look at the plot map, go in and look at the airport and then other issues associated with that plan. Now, I'm going to step back. The 2015 plan should not have been modified in such a way to include woke DEI verbiage and terminology. It's throughout the document. The document is basically turning Prescuit into Los Angeles or into San Francisco or into another woke type city. Now, at the federal level, they're pushing the lot of the woke verbiage and terminology out into the law. But back to the document, where are the change pages? as an engineer who worked high-tech DoD NASA programs, you always had changes. You had a change page document that gave you a history. We don't have that. What we have is a lot of verbiage because of what was going on in the previous federal administration. Now, I'm going to share something else

with you. I'm very familiar with the planning department. I have four college degrees, two bachelors, two masters, and I was combat trained engineer during the Vietnam War. And I know Mr. Garing, we were both with the Third Marine Airwing at one time. There is a push on a national level and it's being generated by Michael uh uh the current president ASU and the idea is to basically use the planning departments to basically take over the cities. And you'll find it in the APA, the American Planning Association document. It's a national level and they're going after rural cities and it's very important. It's very important that the cities recognize what's happening in other larger metropolitan areas with this underground activity to push a global type of operation into the rural and into metropolitan areas. I disapprove of the plan as presented in 2025 and as amended in June of 2025. I believe it needs to go back to a committee to re-evaluate some of the comments that maybe were not incorporated with the previous committee u over that 2-year period and then make a determination and recommendation to the council that then decide how to go forward with the general plan. I don't believe the general plan as it is now even with the amendments to the plot mat out by the airport will pass public public scrutiny and be voted on in November. So I further recommend that to not go with a 2026 approval but really consider 2027 because it's going to take the next six or eight months to to enlighten and educate the public and to to put the necessary verbiage together in order to get it on the November election. I think it's a push again like what we had last year. Thank you very

much. Thank you, Roger. Michelle Hamer.

Go ahead. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Hello, mayor and city council. My name is Michelle Hamer and I've lived here for 21 years. Uh but some of you also know that I was the treasurer and the marketing uh person on Prop 478 committee. I did the work because I saw firsthand the tough conditions our first responders faced due to chronic underfunding. That's why I was shocked to hear advocacy for the March 25th version of the general plan. Even the people that worked on it said it was a bloated wish list of progressive policies. It causes ex excessive staff time and taxpayer dollars. Now, how can we claim that there's no money for our first responders while funding expansive initiatives? This isn't about politics. It's about economics. And you're here to protect our tax dollars, not protect our feelings. Uh, mayor, you were right uh in supporting a simpler 2015 plan and hiring a consultant to keep it the strictly a land use document. Uh, one focused on generating tax revenues and delivering real returns. Uh, Council Member Lois, thank you for pushing the to keep the general plan bare bones and reminding everyone that state law requires active implementation and reporting. We can't shove it. You rightly highlighted the massive workload on the March 25th plan would create. I also think people need clear estimates what these policies would cost taxpayers. Uh your idea to delay and refine a plan to the 2027 election and incorporating the city council's input is a great idea and I hope that the council follows it. Um, mayor, you mentioned concerns about expanding the land use area by 12 miles as to progrowth, but I think we need to have honest talks about how no growth and slow growth policies have hurt us. They've driven up our home prices

through the basic supply and demand consequences. They've deterred companies with high-paying jobs and contributed to why we struggle to fund first responders in the first place. And it's why by my calculations the last few years our tax revenue is down 6 to 7%. Prescuit's medium home prices have risen to 45% above national average. This hurts families. It hurts service workers and especially the majority of our residents who are on fixed incomes. Their rising property taxes and their insurance due to exc uh escalating home values on paper are real cost in their pocket. Experts have confirmed our parking is exit uh adequate outside of events and at the meeting that four of you were sworn in on uh experts told you we had 50 years of water before tapping into the big chino. So growth when carefully managed isn't the enemy. It's going to be part of our solution. My request is when you evaluate this land use document add one key criteria to every decision. How does this help increase city revenues to better support essential services through responsible managed growth? And one last thing, you just passed a legislative platform and it had a discrimination statement in it. And this might be a uh a legal question, but shouldn't a land use document be consistent with the one that's in our legislative platform? Thank you very much. Michael Calder.

I have no comments on the current plan, so I will respectfully yield my time back to the panel. Thank you. James Hling. [cough and clears throat]

Hi, I'm Jim Haling, a resident of Prescuit. Uh the general plan committee consisted of volunteers who took the time to listen to the needs and desires of the Prescuit community in putting together the plan that was brought before the council on March 25th of last year. I strongly recommend that the council send that plan with the changes recommended by Councilman Grady to the ballot in November to allow Prescuit citizens an opportunity to vote on whether to adopt it. Whether you agree with the contents of that version of the plan or not, we owe it to the volunteers who have to have their work forwarded to the voters as they had intended. Please don't decide for the voters what is best for them. Let us decide for ourselves. Thank you,

Terry Sapio.

Thank you, Jim. Hello, my name is Terry Sapio. I'm the former chair of the G of the former general plan committee and 38-year resident of Prescuit in Yavapai Hills. And um what strikes me today, what surprises me today is that uh is how much controversy can be generated by trying just trying to make people happy. Uh as members of the committee, we saw the public come to us meeting after meeting and they say we want this and we want that and say okay, let's put it into the general plan. And it's kind of turned into a lengthy Christmas wish list of everything that everybody wanted that came to us. And we really didn't consider the cost and time consequences of what all was going into the general plan. Last night, I compared the two general plans. And I'm sure uh Congresswoman Congress councilwoman I'm [laughter] sorry Councilwoman uh sorry I'm sure Councilwoman Lois Fworth has already done this as well. You can see all my hash marks. The March 25th plan I counted 90 goals and 337 strategies. So a 10-year plan if you were to accomplish them all would be nine goals a year. and 33.7 strategies per year. [sighs and gasps] The June 24th plan, I counted 52 goals and 110 strategies.

So that would be 5.2 goals per year and 11 strategies per year. Obviously, the June plan would take much less staff time and much less money to accomplish than the March plan would. Now, many people would say, "Well, we we want all these things that are in the March 25th plan." Well, they can still get them, but it would be on a case-bycase basis. It's kind of like when Congress, and that was on my mind, does an appropriations bill. Everybody puts their pet projects into one big appropriations bill, and it's called pork. Well, there's a lot of pork in the March 25th plan. And the thing is is if you take out the pork, those pet projects can still be accomplished, but they would have to come to Congress on their own merit. And same thing with the pet projects for the city. They would come to you and those pet projects would have to stand on their own merit and be approved and be funded by the city council at that time. So the March 25th plan we thought was pretty benign, but it has certainly generated quite a bit of controversy. And some of the subjects in the the general plan such as climate is very controversial. Even though some people say, well, 98% of the climatologists say that we all agree that we have a climate emergency. Well, I did some research on that and that's actually 98% of 37% of 928 papers that were written on climate. [gasps] So, I mean, as as um the Mark Twain would say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

So, there's lots of controversy about many subjects that are in the general plan. But the good thing about the general plan is that only the land use map is really enforcable. Uh the the the other part the other side of that is with if you do the March 25th plan with 90 goals and 337 strategies every year when you do your annual report on where are we on the general plan, everybody's going to show up and say, "Well, why haven't you done this goal and why you haven't done that strategy?" whereas you can always do more, but it's difficult to explain why you're doing less. So, I feel sorry for you all having to make these tough choices, but that's what you all get paid the big bucks for. [laughter] I used to Steve to tease Steve Schisca who's in the audience. They say, "Steve, the number of hours you put in as a city councilman and what you get paid for being a city councilman, that must work out to about a buck 17 an hour." And he says, "I don't think of this that much." But so, you know, I'm sorry you all are left with these tough choices, but uh I trust you all to make the the good choices and good luck.

Thank you, Terry. [clears throat] John Morris. Madame Mayor and Pro Tim mayor and council and fellow Prescatonians, I'm John Morris. I'm the interim pastor at Trinity Presbyterian Church. I've lived in this community since uh March 18th, 1991. I too, like Councilman Gamboni said, I thought it still was everybody's hometown. And that's kind of the assumption I've operated out of in my career in living here. I came out here to get well after a divorce. I'm one of those people. Want to warn you, I'm in long-term recovery. I came here to get well and I stayed. Um, I enjoyed working in the facility, Prescuit House, which has been here for a long time. It's a premier treatment facility for men that changes lives. It changed mine. I wanted to die one day at a time. Now, I want to live one day at a time. Sometimes living is tough. And um, and yet it's very rewarding. I have a life beyond my wildest dreams that I'm standing here in front of you today, tonight talking to you that and then maybe you're listening. I hope. But uh [gasps] I want to thank you for your service. Um I left there and working there and then I had a 25-y year career working for Yavapai County in Yavapai County adult probation. I got to see another side of everybody's hometown doesn't often get reported. And thank God for all the first response first responders who work day in and day out to keep this city safe and try to encourage people at least in my line of work for 25 years to get a vision of change. Um the last eight years I was the chief of adult probation. So I

empathize for what you're going through right now because we have to stand in front of people and taxpayers and u be accountable to budgets and what we do and our plans and ideas. One of the my experiences I grew up in the south and um I did a year of vista in this rural county and we went I went to uh one of the leaders of the community and we have those people here. They weren't serving on any boards or they weren't elected officials, but they knew how things were. And this gentleman was in his 90s and he was sort of like the well, you went to him. He kind of ran the county that I worked in. It was an 86% black um the school system I worked in was almost 96% black. But what he we said, "What how what can we do to help?" And he said two things. Love everybody and don't know nothing about nobody. And then when we were in trying to change the world there in this rural county in Georgia, some of my black friends would say, "Go talk to your white folks. That's who needs convincing. We're going to work our end. You guys work your end." And what I'd like to do is continue to live in a city that I I've gained so much from. And I've tried to give back. And there's many, many more. And you've heard from two great young people who are the legacy of this city. I didn't hear anything. And you know, these loaded terms don't help move the ball forward. I don't experience any controversy or any of these hidden uh things. We're going to farret that out because truth I've learned in my life of 71 years will emerge. Truth stands on its own. And that's what we try to do in a democracy and it's messy and some of us get frustrated because we want an instant answer. We want it our way. And

I've got to tell you, I've been married for 34 years. I met my wife here in Prescuit. We've been married 34 31 years. We lived in sin for a couple years. But anyway, sorry about that. Anyway, [laughter] but I am not in long-term marriage because I want to be right. You have to negotiate. And part of negotiation is listening to everybody and then making your decision and standing by it. And so I voted. I'm here tonight. I want this non-discrimination thing to stay in the 2025 plan. I think it's wise. I think it's smart. I think it it's loving and I think that's what we're all about. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, John. Diane D. Sophia.

Good afternoon to the council. [sighs and gasps]

I have to say that I have had the privilege and the good fortune to spend time with individuals and groups in this city who have had the time and interest that most of us haven't had to really look behind this agenda and a lot of the words within it as to what they actually portend and what they actually represent as opposed opposed to what they look like and sound like. And I've noticed for a lot of years now, no matter where I live, in this society, words no longer mean what we grew up thinking they meant. If you speak English as a first language and you're familiar with a dictionary, you've seen it in the newspapers for decades that people say words and they're not saying it the way you understand that word. And that is a big problem here in putting it to the voters and in reading that agenda. So many words sound good that actually are catch words and a lot of people have caught on to them. I will say that the same agenda has been has been presented across this country with the same languages and the same verbiage and they couldn't and globally too. They couldn't possibly reflect the local concerns and the local issues when you've got a cookie cutter agenda showing up all over this planet. The terms managed wellplanned growth sound good to me. But who's managing and who's planning? This is a this is a UN derived type agenda.

This is not your local person and it couldn't be the same for every district across this country. There are many people in this community that have researched and synthesized in depth the agendas presented and could be highly valuable to council to quickly enlighten in a very few minutes a plethora of realities that are not readily apparent to the voter or to yourselves. in much of the verbiage. Meeting informally and briefly with some of these individuals would take very little time and would result in highly valuable information derived in a very few minutes of your time. These individuals have a breadth of insight that most people do not have the time or the interest to have researched and been able to even synthesize. My greatest concern here today is that I I've seen a list of truly disturbing issues behind the pretty words of this agenda and not one of them has been addressed here.

Diane, your time is up. Thank you. I thank you for your time. Patrick Pearson,

mayor and council, thank you for hearing me. What I just want to mention is the future land use map portionment of this. Um, I live in the area that would be affected by the difference between the 325 version and the 624 version. There were many people before last year that went through the same thing. I'm grateful that last year we actually had a council person that got in a car and drove up Williamson Valley Road and drove over Outer Loop and decided this is too rural to be absorbing. and others in in the council last year mentioned that they didn't want to necessarily absorb the expense of all the services that would have to be uh taking taken up by the city in order to absorb these 12 square miles. I live along Williamson Valley Road in a state in the state land now and I would prefer it to be that way for a particular reason and that is something that was mentioned by the mayor last month 9.400- oh 9-400.49 49. Notwithstanding the law, the legislative body of a city or town shall instead of may by ordinance do the following. Authorize administrative personnel to review approve site plans, development plans, land divisions, lot line adjustments, lot ties, preliminary plats, final plat amendments without a public hearing. So, I'm just concerned that if you go ahead and make a change in the map, that's one

further step that you might not be able to manage in the future. And that's one of my major concerns that I wanted to bring up. So, I thank you. Thank you, Patrick.

Lee Bulong. Hi all, my name is Lee Budlong and I'm here in Prescuit. This July marks the 250th anniversary for our country. How about that? So, one of the things I've noticed in the general plan, I happen to have a lot of expertise in this. I see a lot of them across the country and a lot of the things you're hearing today are true. A lot of verbiage is copied over and over again. But something that wasn't copied between the 2015 and the 2025 version that I think is worth so much so that I made eight copies or seven copies to drop off is right here from 12.5. The Prescuit Police Department. The police department is committed to the prevention of crime, preservation of peace, order, and safety, enforcement of laws and ordinances, safeguarding constitutional rights, and strives to attain the highest degree of ethical behavior and professional conduct at all times. So, I want you to have a copy of that because it's not in the 2025. In fact, property rights is only in there one time. And I really like the fact that we have copies of your oaths because again it's the Constitution United States that's there's an allegiance to. We have to remember that there are different types of laws. There's aspirational goals. People can say it's just a piece of paper. It doesn't matter. But there are complete documents that get created off of this document. Things get in motion. [clears throat] So, if we don't have the US Constitution front and center, I don't care what color you are, if you're old, if you're young, your rights are at stake, and I appreciate you, mayor, for

putting flock safety as a study session for the 27th. I mean, it meant a lot. It's a big deal because everyone in this room, I don't care old, young, color, this, that, you're being photographed, you're being surveiled, and we don't like it. Many of us don't. I appreciate the study session. So, in closing, we have an AI surveillance system in play right now that uses a ton of water. AI is not mentioned in the general plan. Point of order, Mrs. Mayor, this is not on the agenda. The jobs that are cited, she's exercising her right of free speech

for taxbased growth, which is a major part of having a general plan. Well, where's the AI component of it? How does that impact our community? Thank you. And I'm going to drop these off. Kelly Hart.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to speak. I'm a Prescuit resident and I'm also uh the co-chair of the Quad City Interfaith Council along with Rabbi Susan Channerman. And I just wanted to briefly say that we support um or at least I support sticking with the March 25th plan and um or 2025 plan and keeping the language for anti-discrimination in there. Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. Steven Pulk, Madame Mayor, Madame Prom, Council members, my name is Steven Pulk. I'm with Boil Petridge Klein Wington and Stallings Law Firm, 125 North Granite Street, Prescuit. I represent James Family Deep Oil Ranch and the James Family Foundation. Uh here with me today are Ron James, Jenna, uh Jenna James, and John Martin, all of the James family. And I wish to speak to the future land use map in the general plan. Council member Ruby had some questions earlier uh specifically about the portion of Deep Depot Ranch that's in that plan. Uh, let's see. Today, Deepo Ranch, let me back up a second for history. We have some new council members. So, Harold and Mitsy James purchased Deepo Ranch in 1954. Today, the ranch is owned by the James Family Foundation. Uh, that foundation is a nonprofit foundation supporting many worthy causes in the community. Uh some easy examples are the James family heart center at Yavapai Regional Medical Center, the James family prescuit YMCA and the James

4 camp with the UFA Cooperative Extension up on Mingus Mountain. [snorts] Uh and my point is this. The James family has three generations of family members living in Prescuit today. They're invested our community. They live here. They work here. They love here. And they are stewards of Deep Wall Ranch. For the future land use map, our preference would honestly be to leave the unannexed portions completely [clears throat] outside of the map. When you look at the map, you're talking about there's the future land use map has city of prescuit and what's inside. And then the future land use map actually addresses some areas outside the current city boundaries. And we'd ask that you just simply leave all that out. That's that's for a future day. uh borrowing that in the alternative, we would support the March 2025 version of the general plan. That was the version that uh the that went through the general plan committee. They recommended it for approval. That went to planning and zoning. They recommended it for approval. So, we'd ask that you approve that that map. Uh let's see. Council member Ruby, let's see. Your your questions really were speaking to that is Deep Well Ranch, the UN annex portion just north of Prescat City boundaries. Uh so a couple things I want to say. The future land use map is not zoning. The all that that governs is if you apply for resoning later, it needs to comply with the future land use map or if it doesn't then you go through a major amendment process to the general plan. Uh the second thing is the area we're talking about in deep ranch that's not annexed right now. That's outside city limits. And so to for it ever to come inside the city and get city zoning, that would require an annexation process, that's certainly not something uh the depot ranch is contemplating today. That

require that that'd be a legislative act by you as the council and that that would require the consent of the property owner. Uh and then if it were to get annexed, that comes in with what's called its uh equivalency zoning. So when it gets annexed in, it automatically gets assigned the equivalent county zoning it currently has today. And then if something else were to happen, you'd apply for a normal reszoning process to to ask for a different zoning. Uh the June 2025 map designates a commercial corridor along the Highway 89 uh uh highway there. And that's in in principle. I think that's a great idea. in in reality when you think about it the commercial planning takes a lot of really intelligent thought and I think easy point is I think you guys just approved another $100,000 on your commercial economic development contract today and so picking that area out specifically I think is is not uh real real effective or or wise that'd be something as part of the annexation process and that that need to be worked out at that time so that that'd be a reason that we prefer the March 2025 map versus the uh the map that's presented June 2025. [sighs] Uh and then my my last point here today is you know earlier you had a study session on workforce housing. A few years ago the city actually approached the James family and Deepo Ranch about workforce housing. Uh there were talks where we would actually contribute from our own water allocation to support that workforce housing up in North Prescuit where it really needs to go. Uh that's something we'd still be interested in doing. Uh something we'd be happy to talk to you guys about. Uh but in conclusion, we'd ask uh uh really that you either fully remove the areas of Deepall Ranch that are uh outside city limits from the future land use map or in the alternative approve the March

2025 future land use map. Thank you,

Jenna James. Thank you, Stephen. Mayor, members of council, uh my name is Jenna James. I am the manager of Deep Well Ranch. Uh, I'm not going to echo Steven's comments other than to say, um, I've heard a lot from the community that they like the June 2025 map uh, with the reduced total acreage, especially the exclusion of those areas of Williamson Valley. My biggest concern with that map is the commercial corridor because we're relying at least especially uh, currently we're relying on traffic coming from Paulen, Chino, etc. to feed that area cuz we don't have a lot of people from Prescuit who are going to travel all that way to access that commercial corridor. So, I think we need to maybe rethink that specific area. uh if we move forward with the June 2025 map, uh I don't know if there's a way to kind of thread the needle or split the difference where we can move forward with the June 2025 future land use map, but the text of the March document. Uh I think it's really important that we don't invalidate all of the work that's been done by staff and the committee by making huge sweeping changes to the document and we focus more on targeted [clears throat] changes. Um, I've heard it from members of council. I have said it to previous versions of council um that the goals and strategies in the document are not legally binding. This council and future councils are not legally required to complete every single goal and strategy that's in the document. you and future councils have the opportunity to pick and choose which

of those goals and strategies you want to allocate city funds for. So you have that flexibility and I think by taking out entire sections we are harming the future of our community by saying we we just don't even want to worry about that. I think we need to be more targeted in uh how we choose to move forward with a draft of this plan. Thank you. Thank you, Jenna. Cynthia Wagner.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Prom, and council members. My name is Cindy Wagner, and I live in Prescuit. I support the March 25, 2025 version of the general plan. I believe the language regarding nondiscrimination should be retained as well as sustainability and climate provisions. There was about three years that citizens volunteered their blood, sweat, and tears into preparing the general plan proposed and is disheartening for the people whom served on the committee to have their hard work put aside by a new subcommittee. It is raised by some council members that there is concern if we use a language that is objectionable to the administration that Prescott will lose airport funding based upon overrulings by federal courts on executive orders and actions of the administration. I for one do not think that city council should obey in advance or bend the knee. Thank you. Isaac Jackson. Thank you, Cynthia.

Uh, city council, I just want to speak briefly about the importance of the anti-discrimination clause under discussion. I want to iterate, first of all, that I don't think any of you are being manipulated by the United Nations. By the way, um, I'm choosing to trust that whatever the future holds for this town comes from a place of mutual agreement and not planned out authoritative agenda. I mean, hell, pardon my French. I Madame Mayor, while I was doing my job at The Raven, we had a lovely conversation, and I hope you enjoyed my service. By the way, um I've noticed a strong negative reaction in the room whenever words like discrimination or racism or protections for people of color come up, not for anything else, but just that. And it seems like most of that hubbhub has left. Huh. Um, have you ever stopped to think that maybe that reaction to our pain and our voice is exactly why this clause matters to us so much? I mean, I look at all of you and all of you not as opponents, but as or not even as people that need convincing, but as fellow citizens of Prescuit and children of God that want a safe America just as the next person I want to have equal footing with and not viewed as just another black kid. All right? The fact that I have to hide parts of myself to make some of you in the room comfortable goes in the opposite direction of what my father fought for. And that man was born in 1948 in Chicago. If anyone has seen discrimination, it's him. [snorts] What is so bad about being anti-racist, by the way? I mean, isn't the definition of anti-racism to be against racism? I mean, who in this room isn't against racism? [laughter] Cool, cool, cool. So when we hear about safeguarding people who look like me or anyone who has faced bias, why is the immediate response often denial, dismissal, or unease instead of concern for fairness? As a community that claims to value safety and opportunity and

equal treatment for all of its residents, shouldn't we be asking, is it really worth the risk to leave vulnerable people without this basic safety net? This isn't about blame. Okay. It's about building a city where everyone can feel secure, respected without any exception. Protecting against discrimination strengthens all of us, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, literally all of us. It upholds the principles that we say we've always stood for. So, prove it. Thank you for your time and for considering this. Like seriously, I cannot reiterate how grateful I am to have this opportunity to discuss important issues with people who can actually help us make some kind of changes, you know. Um, I just ask that you give me the same recognition as the next man or woman. God bless you all. Thank you.

Thank you, Isaac. Natasha Levy.

Hi all. So, my legal name is Natasha, but the name I go by is Feather, and my pronouns are they, them. I was born in South Africa. It was called by Desmond Tutu, the Rainbow Nation. But it did not get there naturally. Laws and regulations helped it get that way because it would not have happened on its own. Apartheid was an incredibly hateful, manipulative, taking power away from other people system of oppression. And without laws to make sure that that would not continue to happen, it would continue to be in that state. Apartheid did not bring South Africa strength. It was cut off from the world during this apartheid era. My parents tell me of how they had to come up with creative ways to create their own gasoline because they struggled to get access to it. My parents describe being in a cultural generation from Jay's well from technically people who would be my grandparents because they were cut off from global culture. Apartheid brought weakness. Hate and fear bring weakness. Unity brings strength. The March 20 2025 general plan was created by the Prescuit Commission by a Prescuit committee with the public. That is a plan of strength. It is a plan of unity. Going forward, please adopt that plan. Please choose strength. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Feather. That's all, mayor. Well, that was a lot to digest and I want to thank everyone for being here and expressing themselves. 6 o'clock. The pizza still hasn't arrived. [laughter] But we need to we have three tasks here before us. Let's see here. Get to my notes. Madame Mayor,

um number one, uh the first task before us is to move to approve or deny whether we want to put the Prescuit 2025 general plan March 25, 2025 version. if we want to put it on the ballot today with a few minor amendments. Can you help me? Uh, Mr. Gamboji here. Madame Mayor, I think it's time for the council to speak and if so, I would like to go last and then I'll make that motion.

Okay. We'll start with Mr. Garing. Uh would you like to make some comments about the um first item here number one to move or deny? I mean to approve or

Thank you, mayor. I'm personally not in favor of 325. I'm much more in favor of 624 with substantial modifications. And I'm reminded that I also had a conversation on the grant issue with uh Mr. Crider who's the airport manager and both he and Mike Getty said well the risk is low but it's not zero. So for that reason I think we need to straighten that out. In addition, Mr. Grady,

respectfully I totally disagree. Um I think we have to start with the March 25th plan as the basis for moving forward like many um whatever side you're on, I think we're all concerned about the divisive character that that we're dealing with now in this in this environment. Um, I just don't fathom how we can discard the work of two and a half years and hundreds of comments and hours and town hall meetings etc. The the general plan review committee approved it 8 to two. Chair Sappia was not one of those two. He was one of the eight that approved that particular motion. Planning and zoning approved that motion to move forward with the March 25th plan. [snorts] I believe and I've said this to without violating open meeting law. I've said this publicly uh that I think we have to make some modest ch changes to that March 25th plan. And I'll reiterate what those are again. um the transportation circulation map that the mayor has brought up, the the land use map and and potentially an executive summary and that's it. I think we're in a good position. I think with a consultant, with a subcommittee, and with a good campaign, we can take this to the voters and we can get it passed.

My question is, do you want to put it on the put it to vote today? Do you want to put it on the ballot today? I'm going to make that motion. Okay. But that's that's what the motion is about. Putting this plan, the March 2025 plan with I guess a different map. I haven't made the motion yet. Yeah. Okay. And we haven't heard from all the council.

Okay. Well, let me just say um I think we can all agree discrimination is reprehensible. It's immoral and thanks to the Civil Rights Act, it's illegal. So, I just wanted to make that perfectly clear, Lois. Thank you. Um, [clears throat] I've been consistent in how I've been voting on this, so I it won't surprise anybody in the room. However, what I think about with the three years of effort is with my background from business, we would never send a group of citizens off without having a clear charter with clear success criteria. And we did that. And shame on us. We sent people off and they did exactly what we asked for. They created a Christmas wish list which we can't afford that I don't want to track that I don't want to report against every single year. And I think, you know, I think that's our responsibility as council is to put forward something that doesn't cause so much divisiveness in this community. I spent the weekend looking at Little Chino Valley's general plan. It's beautiful. It's simple. It sets AC across 50 goals with the policies that they're going to work on to get there. It's so elegant. It exactly describes exactly describes Chino Valley to a tea. And somehow we have gone off to the Milky Way in my opinion with this general plan. And so I will not be supporting it today. I

actually am kind of wishing we had saved a year and chartered a new effort last year with success criteria to get us to a point today to be able to actually approve something. Um, but we weren't going to do it with the last council and I'm not sure we're going to do it with this council either. So, it is what it is, but I can't I can't consciously send the March version forward.

Mary Well, first I just want to discard the idea that the March 2025 version that's being talked about today is what the general plan review committee forwarded on its path went to planning and zoning then went to the council. The March 2025 version is not what came out of the review committee. So the idea that we need to vote on the March 2025 to honor the work done and I was on that committee for the entire 2 and a half years. Um is a false flag. Um, so just just to set that aside, but looking at the March 2025 version, I will not support that version going to the voters if that is the motion that is being considered even with the amendment of uh the future land use map from June 2025 included instead uh and including the transportation map. Little tweaks uh I don't think will get my vote to excuse me to go forward uh to the ballot. Um I think there are some changes that need to be made. Uh there's been talk about well the future land use map is the only thing that has teeth and I'll just point out that that's I don't believe accurate. I think the other thing that has teeth is the major plan amendment process which I do believe has teeth and maybe our attorney could nod his head and confirm for me that that's true.

Yes, it's the it's the future land use map and the definition of major uh plan amendment. Those are the two that have kind of teeth,

right? So there is the map to consider, but there's also the major plan amendment policies or or path forward. And just looking at the chart, which is u was a big step forward that the planning department made from the 2015 to the 2025 versions providing this chart and Chelsea's smiling and and I I think it was a great piece of work. The one thing that I would point out is that of all of the boxes uh going from one uh designation to another, the only one that doesn't include it as a major amendment uh in the lower half of the chart is going from very low density to low medium density. It is identified as a minor amendment which is very dangerous as far as I'm concerned because low medium includes up to seven dwelling units per acre. That is a wild leap forward from very low density which is tagged at one um dwelling unit per acre. Uh so to make that a minor amendment I think is is not a valid way to go. It should be major just like everything else on the bottom half of that chart. Um so there's that and I would [clears throat] just also sign on to and I think Mr. Hess has left the building along with Elvis. Um, but I do believe that the very low density descriptor needs to include less than or equal to one dwelling unit because we have to have a category that captures a unit on, for example, two acres.

So, no, I'm not on board with um sending the March 2025 version uh to the voters, even with the minor tweaks. Thank you for uh catching that. And I agree 100%. Last but not least, Mr. Ruby. I don't think I'm last. I think Ted's going to follow me.

Sometimes I feel like Prescuit is stuck in a combination of uh Groundhog Day and Billy Jack. And this feels like an iteration of that to a degree. I want to thank all of you for coming here today because there were a lot of opinions expressed across the board and what I sensed is a lot of people deeply care about this community and there was one person who spoke about the constitution and I think we the people is a very important guiding principle and it was we the people of Prescat who took the time to create this document. I also believe that it's we the people of Prescuit who should decide whether that document becomes our non-binding general plan. So we have an opportunity which is we have the opportunity to pass the March 25 plan and let the voters decide. And I think that's important. I also think city council, it was beautiful hearing all of you today and we have to do things with housing. We have to do things with transportation. We can't wait for the general plan to get approved. We're going to be dealing with the actual policybased decisions on a weekly and monthly basis. So for me, I see the general plan as something the state mandate needs for a charter city. I would like to see us address it as quickly as possible so that we can move to the substantive issues of policy. I will likely be supporting the March 25 general plan. I'm open to either of the maps and my question for city attorney is is it possible to include one or the other maps with the March 25 plan to

vote on to go to the voters or does that that need another 30-day period? No, you can. It depends on your motion, but you could approve any of the versions you have in front of you at this point if you want to. Like if if the March 25 version didn't pass and we did the March 25 version with the 625 map, that would be legitimate. You could make that motion. Okay. I'm not making that motion right now. I'm passing it on to last but not least, Mr. Ted Gambogi. Thank you. I have a question for our city clerk Sarah. If we uh vote on the general plan today, we will need a supermajority. We'll need five to pass instead of four.

Five. Five. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Last but not least, Mr. G.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. As I've heard the comments from so many of you, I think of two quotes. You know, I always have a quote for a council meeting. The first is from Abraham Lincoln, and it kind of goes like you can make all the people happy some of the time and some of the people happy all the time, but you can't make all the people happy all the time. So, some of you are not happy with the March plan. I go back to what you've heard from Patrick Grady, what you've heard from Jay Ruby. It's not legally binding except for the map. In the other case, I quote from Voltater. The perfect is the enemy of the good. [clears throat] And this plan, take it from a person that's went through both of them, this plan is a better plan than 2015. I I I think Patrick Grady would said that this has reached out more to the residents than any other plan effort before. Is it perfect? No. Is it good? Yeah. Is it better than the 2015 plan? Yes. So, some of you fall prey to the Voltater quote. You want to make it perfect, but we'll we'll get nothing done in this city if we always strive for perfection. And as Jay Ruby said, we've got some bigger fish to fry in this city. And we don't need to be chasing this shiny object. So, Madame Mayor, I move to approve the Prescuit 2025 general plan March 25th, 2025 version with the June 25 map.

Do I hear a second? I second. Got a motion and a second. Please vote. fails. Three, four.

Thank you. Let's uh move on to the second. Yes. Could I just briefly ask something? Sure. So, uh, the question I have is we have the James family here. We have their legal, uh, consultant. Were you guys contacted with what was being proposed around your development? Never. Not ever. What does that tell you?

Not much public input from a major stakeholder, I guess. Okay. The next um motion in front of us is about um approving a resolution to put out an RFP to hire a consultant that specializes in No, that's not the motion. It's a motion to adopt a resolution to form a council subcommittee on general plan.

Okay. Thank you for uh clarifying that. Um, I'd like to make a We approved at the December 9th committee, I mean, city council meeting. I'm sorry, I'm getting a little tired. Um, to form a subcommittee. No, you made a motion to direct staff to adopt a to create a resolution to adopt to form a subcommittee. You cannot just make a motion to form a subcom. That's what I meant.

Yes. Thank you. That's why you get paid the big bucks and I don't. [laughter] [gasps] So, I make a move. I'd like to make a motion to um adopt resolution number 2026-1964. It's 1963. 1964 would have been to put ballot language. I think we have the November ballot. Different paperwork here.

No, it's 2026-1963 establishing a council subcommittee for general plan review. Okay. I move to adopt resolution number 2026-1963. Do I hear a second? Second. Please vote. passes 511.

Thank you very much. Now you need to appoint three members of the council to the subcommittee. I'd like to nominate a three-member subcommittee of council members to review the general plan and get it on the ballot. I'd like to nominate Patrick Grady who has a lot of expertise in civics and in community development and economic development. I'd also like to nominate Mary Frederickson who was on the general plan the original general plan committee. She brings a lot of uh expertise to the table with her um attorney experience. And I'd also as mayor like to nominate myself because I think it's important that uh we have the mayor on this subcommittee to kind of I think bring everybody together and represent the people. So um I'd like to uh make a motion to nominate Patrick Grady, Mary Frederickson, and myself to the subcommittee. Do I hear a second?

Second. Please vote. Passes 511. Thank you. Do you need any other direction, Alex? Is it is it possible to ask questions about the subcommittee? Sure. First amendment [laughter] rights. There'll be there'll be chances. Do what you want.

I I guess my concern is and I'll state it very clearly. There was a lot of advocacy for the non-discrimination clause and it is easily one of the more controversial parts of the of the general plan. I think there's probably popular general support for it. To what degree, like since it's open meeting and we're not in defiance of open meeting law, for those of you who have been appointed to this committee, what is your perspective or take on that what is for some people very important? Clause,

thank you. Um, I think that's why I recommended that we uh hire a a consultant, an expert that has um a wide- ranging experience and can be a catalyst to help us with those kind of a questions because like I said, our goal here is to get a general plan on the ballot that will be passed overwhelmingly. So, that's something that we will be uh working on. And of course, we'll have open houses and be getting lots of public input on that, too. So, thank you very much, Mayor.

Anyone else? Let's see. We have uh Patrick. [clears throat] Um I am definitely in support of that. It's in both the March version as well as the June version. It wasn't changed from that point to the and I see no reason to revise it at this point either. [snorts]

Okay, Alex, I I know you all are ready to get going. I just probably a starting point for the subcommittee from from staff what we would be looking for is if we are going to bring forward the March plan to kind of make changes based off of or the June plan to make changes. Where's the starting point is what we need to know.

I think that that might be something the committee would have to decide. I I'd like to include the 2015 plan too and just look at everything comprehensively. There's good parts of that too. We should build on that. We do have a wonderful foundation on both the 2025 uh May I mean June and March. They're pretty similar if you ask me. Uh Mayor. Yes, Mr. Could I suggest that uh the committee engage the James family about what's going to happen around their development?

I think that would be a brilliant idea because they do own a few acres out there. [laughter] [gasps] Thank you. Good point. So, continue. that that is mostly it. It's just the starting point of where we need to build off of, but it sounds like we're looking at 2015, March, and June.

Yeah. But, uh, like I said, we got a lot of work ahead of us, but I think we have a very strong foundation, a good basis, and I think the co consultant will be a good catalyst to help us move forward. I kind of feel like we need something, you know, we've kind of reached, you [snorts] know, an impass or something. We just need something to get us rolling again. Sounds good. Thank you. And uh I think uh while we're talking about BCC updates, um I am resuscitating the um charter review committee and I'm very excited about that and they're very excited and we have a date is it when we

I'd be happy to just review the BCC updates if we're moving on to that item and that way we can wrap up. Okay, jump right in.

So, um the board commission and committee updates will come before the council um generally one to two times per quarter. Uh as Mayor Rousing just stated, she is reestablishing the mayor's charter review commission. This group was formed under uh Mayor Phil Good originally and previously worked on 13 charter amendments in 2023, of which 12 were approved by voters. Following voter approval of the amendments, Mayor Good dissolved the ad hoc committee um and it has now been reformed. The group will convene once monthly beginning Wednesday, January 28th at 10 a.m. Additionally, Mayor Good is or Mayor Brousen, I'm sorry, has elected to retain and continue the previously established mayor's veterans commission. This group was originally established under Mayor Greg Mangarelli and continued under Mayor Phil Good and is comprised of members representing the various veterans group in Prescuit. They meet once monthly and will convene again on February 4th at 9:00 a.m. As for liaison updates, Councilman Garing informed me that at the January 8th planning and zoning commission meeting, commission members discussed several concerns regarding proposed parking requirements for hospitality uses in downtown Prescuit Business District and staff will be looking into these and making revisions to the proposal. There are a number of upcoming I'm still talking everybody. We're still conducting a meeting. Thanks. Um, there are a number of upcoming board commission and committee meetings. All meeting times and dates are subject to change, but as of now over the next month, the tourism advisory committee will convene on January 14th at 11:00 a.m. Civic Enhancement Committee will convene on January 15th at 3:30 p.m. The airport advisory committee will convene on January 20th at 2 p.m. The CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee will convene on January 21st at 1:30 p.m. The Planning and Zoning Commission will convene on January 29th at 9:00 a.m. and the pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic advisory committee will convene on February 9th at 9:00 am. And that's all I have.

I'd also like to add that uh we are have an application period open for our various BCC's that have vacancies. Planning and zoning is one of them. And the deadline is January. January 31st is the deadline to apply. There's a full list of all of the boards, commissions that have vacancies that will be expiring at the end of March. So, all of the new terms would begin April 1st or whenever the meeting uh whenever the body convenes again after that date. Yeah. It was the 30th at 5:00 p.m. It's the 30th. Friday the 30th or Saturday the It's Friday the 30th, I'm sorry. Yes.

Yeah. And also, if you're currently on a BCC and you want to continue, you need to reapply. You're not just automatically extended. That's correct. Okay. And um thank you very much everybody. Um I see I think this is going to be our modus operendi going f in the future having meetings till about 7ish. So come [snorts] prepared. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.