City Council - Regular Meeting

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

here. Council member Matthews, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Be my honor. Please rise if you're able. Council member Garcia, do you have the mission statement pulled up? Yes. Thank you, Madame Mayor. The mission of the city of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life for all. Thank you, and vice mayor.

Thank you. The Flagstaff City Council humbly acknowledges the ancestral homelands of this area's indigenous nations and original stewards. These lands, still inhabited by native descendants, border mountains sacred to indigenous peoples. We honor them, their legacies, their traditions, and their continued contributions. We celebrate their past, present, and future generations who will forever know this place as home. All right, next up, we have item 4, A, consideration and approval of minutes from some past meetings. If there are no questions or concerns, I'll entertain a motion.

I move that we approve the um city council special meeting of August 22nd, 2022 regular meeting of March 3rd, 2026. Special meeting March 10th, 26 city council work session on March 10th. And I'll second that. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I

Any opposed? All right, we're down to open call to the public, which enables the public to address us about anything that is not on the prepared agenda. And because whatever you are going to address us about is not on the agenda, we can't have back and forth. Can't answer questions or ask you questions, but we can if there um is an issue, we can ask staff to follow up with you. First up, we have Colleen Maring. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. I'm Colleen Mering, chief people officer at Northern Arizona Healthcare, and I'm excited to share that NAH will soon be getting another surgical robot. Um, we actually have several already that assist us in surgeries um that minimize uh uh literally physical impact to patients um in care and improve um healing times and overall outcomes. And our newest robot is going to be here any day. It's called the ION system and it's specifically designed to see and diagnose lung cancer at a much earlier stage um than without this uh technology. Lung cancer is actually one of the harder cancers to diagnose and so we usually find it much later on making it harder um to treat and uh harder to survive that treatment and the cancer. So with this robot at FMC our pulmonologists um both who work for us and those who are independent um in private practice here in the community can support patients and detect cancers at a hopefully much more curable stage. Um credit uh a lot of credit for this goes to Dr. Mike Rei. Um he's a pulmonologist who worked for us many years ago, left the area for a while and we hired back in 2023 and when he reopened our p our pulmonology clinic um

he was really passionate about this about early lung cancer diagnostics. Um so he has recruited a whole team of physicians and uh medical experts and uh helped bring this robot um to Flag Staff. Uh, and the really exciting thing is we're inviting all of you council members and the public to come see it and use it yourself uh before it goes into practice. So, Thursday, April 23rd in our west campus parking lot um we'll have a a demo version of the robot. It is not the actual robot that will be inside the hospital. Um where you can literally try using the robot yourself. It's from noon to 5:00 that day. And we'll actually also have a Da Vinci surgical robot um which is a robot we already have in use in our operating room um which you can also literally test drive. Um so we'll send council um an invitation and members of the public can find details on the events section of our website at nahalth.com. So please come check it out and then help us find and detect and hopefully cure lung cancer in our community sooner. Thank you. Thank you, Sheresa Tang. Good afternoon, mayor, council, and community members. My name is Sheresa Tang and I recently joined the city of Flagstaff Sustainability Office as the waste prevention specialist where I will be supporting programs that reduce waste through repair, reuse, composting, and other community diversion events. I'm also excited to share that Flagstaff recently was named Circular Arizona's municipality of the year. Woo! Oops.

For um for our achievement that reflects years of dedicated work by the sustainability office, solid waste, and especially the hazardous products center. This recognition highlights initiatives such as waste diversion events services and the city's support for local innovation through um programs like the innovate green challenge. This month, community members uh have the opportunity to participate in the very programs that helped us win this award. So on April 25th, we'll be hosting the spring dropoff day event, offering residents a convenient way to responsibly recycle or dispose of hard to handle materials such as batteries, fluorescent lights, um electronics, and uh prescription medications. One week after that, on May 2nd, we will hold a quarterly fix it clinic, now entering our 16th year, which is incredible. Um, and this is an opportunity where community members can learn to repair and extend the life of their household items. And that means that it's extending the life of our Cinder Lakes landfill as well. And throughout the year, the residential food scraps drop off program remains available to all of our residents, helping divert organic materials from the landfill and strengthening our community composting efforts. And last but not least, uh the hazardous products center is open three days a week where residents can conveniently drop off electronics, paint, and other household hazardous products. So, we're very proud of all of these different programs, and I'm just honored to help build on the strong foundation that's already here, and I look forward to

working with all of you and the city and community members as we advance a more circular and sustainable Flagstaff. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Sheresa, and welcome. All right, next up, we have proclamations and recognitions. And we have a proclamation for sexual assault awareness month. And I believe there are quite a few people in the audience here for this. So we'd love to have you join us up here on the deas. You'll just have to move those staunches, whatever they're called, out of the way or if someone can help. I can talk to you with the last one. So after I read this, we will take a group photo and then if someone from your group would like to speak for a few minutes, you are welcome to do so. April is sexual assault awareness month, a time to bring attention to the widespread issue of sexual violence and empower communities to act. This year's theme is 25 years stronger, looking back, moving forward, highlighting the 25th anniversary of the National Awareness Initiative, celebrating progress in the movement to end sexual violence while focusing on future pre

prevention, building safer communities, and sustaining momentum. Everyone deserves to live in safe and supportive communities where they are treated with respect. When we work together to uphold safety and respect, we make progress in preventing sexual abuse, assault, and harassment. Nationwide, over 53% of women and over 29% of men have reported experiencing sexual violence. In 2025, Victim Witness Services of Northern Arizona worked with 233 adult survivors of sexual violence and 176 child survivors of sexual abuse. And the Northern Arizona Care and Services after assault provided 86 forensic exams for sexual assault survivors. The city of Flagstaff encourages all community members to work together to promote education about sexual violence prevention, supporting survivors, and speaking out against harmful attitudes and actions. Now, therefore, I, Becky Daget, mayor of Flagstaff, Arizona, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. speaking

right over here. Yes. Okay. You have I have notes.

I was warned. All right. Thank you everyone. Uh it's my understanding that victim witness services executive director Jennifer Rangi usually speaks at these things. Um she can't be here today so she graciously entrusted that uh mission to me. Um my name is Michelle Mcmanaman. I am the program supervisor for NASA, which is the Northern Arizona uh care and services after assault. We provide the medical forensic exams to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence strangulation um for a large part of Northern Arizona. Um, thank you all of you here, uh, for allowing us to be here to bring visibility to the pervasive problem of sexual assault and to publicly show our support for all survivors of sexual violence. Um, nearly every minute someone in the United States is sexually assaulted. And um we heard those numbers earlier that in our community um 233 adult survivors and 176 child survivors uh of uh sexual abuse were in our very own community getting services and we know the problem is um probably much larger. I want to recognize our partners who are here with us today. Uh especially the folks who are here from Sharon Manor and from Northland Family Health Center who have come today to help us uh support this cause. Um this sexual assault awareness month they will be helping us to draw attention to the impact of sexual and domestic violence in our community. One of the events going on this month is the clothesline project, an art installation where each shirt is made by a survivor uh or someone who has lost a loved one to this these kinds of violence. Um, the clothesline project will be at the downtown library on

Wednesday, April 15th from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and over at the Cookanino Community College campus on Lone Tree on Wednesday, April 22nd from 11 to 2:00 p.m. Then at the end of the month, we're going to mark National Wear Denim Day by dawning our favorite jeans and doing a community walk over at Buffalo Park from 5 to 7:00 p.m. and that's on Wednesday, April 29th to protest uh victim blaming uh myths that surround sexual assault. Uh we invite Mayor Daget and the honorable members of this uh city council to join us in our efforts to support survivors of sexual violence in our community. and we look forward to continuing to work with you all uh to encourage public conversations about sexual violence prevention this month and also all year round. So, thank you They're really heavy. Whatever they're called. All right. Next on the agenda is council

liaison reports. And I'm going to start with council member Spence. nothing this evening. Council member House.

Thank you, Mayor. Just quickly, first I want to apologize that I'm not able to be there in person. I'm dealing with a pretty gnarly migraine tonight. So, um I'm I'm sorry I'm not there. Um I did want to share that yesterday I was able to um visit the um America 250 traveling museum exhibit. I know many of us did as well. Um had the honor of ringing in uh the celebration at noon and uh was just very encouraged by the members of team flag staff um community members and organizations that were there partnership with the county and other uh agencies that were there to support the celebration and recognize uh Flagstaff's unique history. It was a wonderful afternoon and a great opportunity to celebrate not only the nation's story but also our state uh uh and our community as well. Um, I also had the opportunity this past weekend, um, or I'm trying to remember if it was just this weekend or the weekend before, uh, but, uh, Flagstaff Shakespeare Festival hosted, um, several showings of the play To be Young, Gifted, and Black um, in collaboration with a major grant that they received. Um, and I was able to support that with a talkback after the show and just celebrate uh that story in our community. Um, I was also honored this past week to be um, uh, able to attend and actually recognized as part of the uh, resilience revisited exhibit um, that recognized several women in Northern Arizona and Flagstaff that are um, supporting the community

and uh, making a difference in the lives of of our community members. It was wonderful to see all the women that were recognized both in the past and currently um as part of our community and as um uh sharing the story of Flagstaff and beyond. So that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you. Lazison report vice mayor.

Thank you. Mountain Line has begun a pilot of rebuilding end of life vehicles to extend their life 8 to 10 years. Um, this is 40% of the cost of a new bus and we are expecting this pilot to support efforts for cost-effective capital decisions and support our sustainability efforts. So, we're excited for this new venture. At last week's metrop plan meeting, I was asked to give the Route 66 Centennial Proclamation. Was delighted to do that. And we also got an update on the upcoming ride your bike week and that is the week of May 11th. Always my favorite event. And then there is a BPAC meeting coming up Monday, April 13th here at city hall 4 to 6 p.m.

Council member Alen.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh greetings to everybody council city hall. Um had three lessons on reports briefly for you uh today. First, the tourism commission met a couple weeks ago. Um, rising gas prices were among the the conversations. Uh, we talked about the America 250 traveling museum. Um, which Council Member House already went into a little bit and uh had a wonderful time ringing that bell myself just shortly after you did, Council Member House, and I know others did as well throughout the day. Um, just a lot of reports and analytics and local check-ins. So, moving on to the uh sustainability, they had their showcase at the Market of Dreams last Thursday or was it two weeks ago now? I think it's two weeks ago now. Um where all of the sustainability uh grants um were able to uh talk up what they were able to accomplish and share out and do some horizontal learning between everybody. It was a wonderful little community evening. Next day we had the Cookanino Plateau Water Advisory Council meeting and the highlight of that was a conversation with um David Dresley, the the director of the Birdie River um uh Birdie River um partnership and he gave a lengthy report on the state of the the quality of the Birdie River um and how it's been changing over time. some interesting dynamics there. They have a groundwater resiliency workshop coming up on Thursday afternoon at NASET. Uh if you're interested in checking that out, please check in with Ron Doba first because seating is limited and all the spaces are filled. Uh but you can certainly check in on that. That's all I have. Mayor, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Garcia.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh the pros department, parks, rec wreck, open space, and special events. this month, the parks and recreation commission meeting. Um there was a lot of talk about how dry this winter was. And while that was not particularly a happy conversation, it did open up some opportunities to get things done that would normally have to wait until springtime, a focus was on updating the continental ball fields. Pros staff were able to re- roof, paint and fortify the dugouts, refurbish the concession stands and build build a monumental staircase. Uh rebuild this um excuse me and that staircase went to the announcers booth, redo a dilapidated scoreboard and bring it up to modern technology standards and pave the parking lot. All these improvements were done a bit earlier than anticipated, which will allow staff the uh opportunity to um take on some other springtime projects and get our um fields prepared for our springtime user groups such as our little league. So, everyone in the uh commission is pretty excited about getting those type of things rolling. Uh for our kiddos out there and for everybody who loves to enjoy our parks department, our library uh commission, the big news is that we are happy to welcome our new library director, Jennifer Stass Stasinopoulos. Jennifer brings a great value and experience to our team and will be starting her new post um on April 12th. We wish her the best of success. That's all I have for today. Thank you,

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

Thank you. Well, the Commission on Inclusion and Adaptive Living met uh two weeks ago for a 2hour facilitated uh session which was wonderful to kind of get us back into the swing of um accomplishing the commission's goals. We had a great metro plan meeting as vice mayor said and I will be unable to attend the housing authority meeting la next week because we'll all be in well not we'll all be we'll be in DC. All right. So moving down to liquor license public hearings. I'm going to open the public hearing and remind me I I um city attorney we can take all of this in one correct.

Yes, that's fine. Mayor.

Okay, please. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Jessica Matias on behalf of Georana Staski, deputy city clerk. Before you today are four liquor license applications. The full packet material was included in the agenda packets for review. For conciseness and motioning, I will be providing information for the licenses together. The first one is Starlight Lane Series 12 Restaurant located at 3406 East Route 66. The agent and manager handling the day-to-day operations is Ronald Frank Ghetto. Lee's Asian Market is the second one. Series 10 beer and wine store located at 1461 South Milton Road. The agent is Amy S. Nations and the manager handling the day-to-day operations is Guy Lee. The third one is Sinesta ES Suites series 007 Beer and Wineb located at 1400 North Country Club Drive. The agent is Amy S. Nations. The managers handling the day-to-day operations is Lonnie Lee Kim. And last but not least, Majestic Marketplace Series 006 Bar located at 601 East Piccadilly Drive number 95 and the agent is Lauren K. Merritt. The police department and planning development services have conducted their respective investigations. The reports are included in the agenda packet and there are representatives from the divisions here to answer any questions you may have. Representatives from the business have also been invited to attend the hearing today. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? And it looks like we have no public comment. All right. So, I'm going to close the public hearing and I will uh if we can have motions for each individually.

Madame Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to forward the application or to forward. Do I do you want me to specifically state the entire line or just um item A7A? 7 A would be fine. Okay. I would like to forward the application to the item 7A to the state with a recommendation for approval. Except it's 8A. Sorry. I would like to forward the application to the state 8A for recommendation for approval. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I

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

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

Any opposed? All right, we're moving down to consent agenda. All matters under consent agenda are considered by the city council to be routine unless a member of the city council expresses a desire at the meeting to remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion or a member of the public uh gives us public comment that they would like to speak to an item. The consent agenda will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda unless otherwise indicated. Expenditures approved by council are budgeted items. Council, are there any items that you would like to pull for discussion? All right. We do have a request from um a member of the public and that is for 9B ratification of um a letter of opposition to HB 4030 and HCR 2052. So, council, I will entertain a motion to approve consent agenda items 9 A, C, D, E.

So moved and a second. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

All right. Ace Overman. Thank you, city council and city staff and mayor. I just want to say tonight I support the city of Flagstaff ratifying their letter of opposition for HB0430 and HCR 2052. These two pieces of legislation call for a four-year tax freeze and an increased threshold of 60% voter approval to increase city taxes. These bills seek to take the power of local control from our local government. The state legislator is seeking to strangle our vital and necessary city services and programs that benefit daily life here in Flagstaff. Local governments and their residents should decide on the process for funding local po local projects, not politicians who live two plus hours away in the valley. Thank you, city council and city staff for speaking up and opposing these bills and prioritizing us the people in this amazing city we all get to call home. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, council. I will entertain a motion for item 9B. So moved. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I I. Any opposed?

All right. We are moving down to routine items. 10A, consideration and adoption of resolution number 2026-14 and ordinance number 2026-08. Hello, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council. Rick Tatter, management service director. Uh this item is related to changes to our city code to make corrections related to the ADQ sir charge within our city code. Uh we discussed this uh three weeks ago and we're just looking for your final approval and adoptions tonight. Thank you council. Any questions? I will entertain a motion.

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

Any opposed? City clerk. An ordinance of of the city council of the city of Flagstaff amending the Flagstaff city code title 7 health and sanitation section 7-04-00001-000010 fees subsection H landfill fees providing for penalties repeal of conflicting ordinances severability authority for clerical corrections and establishing an effective date. Thank you. A motion to adopt. So move a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? All right. Moving down to B. Consideration and adoption of ordinance number 2026-06.

Hi. Hi. This is uh the amendment, one of the hopefully last amendments to our subdivision code to make subdivision plats 100% administrative. So, if you have any questions, I'm here to answer. And we have discussed this before, council. So, um, if there are no questions, I'm looking for a motion to read the ordinance. Mayor, I move that we read ordinance number 2026-06 by title only for the final time. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I I.

Any opposed? City clerk. An ordinance of the city council of the city of Flagstaff amending the Flagstaff city code title 11 general plans and subdivision chapter 11-20 subdivision and landsplit regulations division 11-20.40 subdivision procedures and requirements providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances severability authority for clerical corrections and establishing an effective date and a motion to adopt. I move that we adopt ordinance number 2026-06. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I.

Any opposed? All right. Moving down to C. Consideration and approval of materials for the Washington DC lobbying trip.

All right. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Sarah Langley, your public affairs director. So today I'll be providing you with a quick overview of sorry screen uh overview of the city's annual Washington DC federal lobbying trip and I'll also be asking you to formally approve the materials that we'll be using to guide conversations during the trip. Uh every year the mayor attends a trip to Washington DC and she is accompanied by two council members who are chosen through our rotation that we use. So this year, the mayor will be accompanied by council members Matthews and Garcia, as well as city manager Keen and assistant city manager Anderson. The trip is scheduled for April 13 through 16th. And our delegation will be meeting with a variety of elected officials and agency representatives, including our two senators, our Arizona Congress people, and a variety of agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, uh the Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, and more. Uh topics of discussion during the trip are largely guided by our legislative priorities, which you approved uh back in December of last year. This year the topics will include uh the Rio flag flood control project, forest health, uh NORsa, our congressionally directed spending requests, affordable housing, and federal transportation funding. So when the Flagstaff delegation is meeting with our representatives, those are the topics that will be covered. Uh we have updated our materials this year. So I'll go ahead and share those so you can take a quick look. Uh this is our external uh legislative request document. So, this is what we'll be leaving behind with everyone that um our delegation meets with. And as you can see, the topics um that I just listed are covered here. And we also just include bullet points of our requests, so they're easy to communicate with um with the folks we'll be meeting with. Then, um oh, also just

one comment on this. Council member House was kind enough to point out, um a typo and um two other minor issues. So those were corrected on this document here. And then in addition to the external leave behind document, we also have our internal briefing book. This is a much more detailed document uh that includes for example uh background information and talking points as well as our some more details of our request for each topic. So that is these are the materials we'll be taking to DC and I will turn it back to you mayor for any discussion and formal approval. All right council do you have any questions or comments about the materials? Mayor, if I might,

council, council member, city attorney.

Yes. I I just wanted to make sure uh there has been progress. I I know that there's uh a couple of items in the materials here that address uh Noarsa and the that's the Northeast Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act that has been before Congress, but there's also efforts to um work toward a regional pipeline. The city of Flagstaff and Navajo Nation are making a joint request to meet with the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate the completion of the Red Gap Ranch regional water supply appraisal study. And I think if we added those materials, if whoever makes the motion could just indicate to add the information that I mentioned and that can go to Sarah and that that should be enough of an update. I checked with our outside water council on that and we're good to go.

Okay. So, with no questions or concerns, I will entertain a motion to approve the materials, including what our city attorney just included. Mayor, I'd like to move to approve the materials for the Washington DC lobbying trip to include the uh matters discussed by our attorney regarding uh the water settlement and Red Gap Ranch water supply. I'd like to second. I'll second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? I I Any opposed? All right, we're moving down to public hearing items 11 A, consideration and adoption of resolution number 2026-15 and ordinance number 2026-10. And I Oh, hold on just a second. Yes. So, um I know that we are proposing to continue this. Do I still open the public? Yes, go ahead and open the public hearing and then continue to the um date of May 5th.

Okay. So, I'm going to open the public hearing and staff. Good evening, Mayor Council. Tiffany Antel, zoning code manager. I would love to request an extension of the public hearing on this item to be heard May 5th, 2026. Council, do you have any questions? Yes.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just have one question and I guess it might be procedurals, but since we're on the topic, I'm looking at Sterling. Um, in the future, if there's a continuence, and we know ahead of time, could it be somehow posted for the public so that way they don't have to get all excited and come down here and all that stuff? I I believe it was council member Garcia and we do try to do that for the public because that is the whole purpose of a public hearing, right? Is to allow them to come and participate and that's one of the reasons we also open the public hearing before it's continued so they'll know to come to the next one if they did show up. So,

I do appreciate that and I must have missed something when reading the agenda um afterwards or I didn't see the clarification. So, thank you for that clarification. Any additional questions? We do have some public comment and I believe these are both on 11A. River Ramugula.

Oh, if if if we're continuing the public hearing then we don't take the public comment. Oh, okay. I wasn't realizing. Did you already say you would? Yes. I called River Down. That's fine.

Okay. Hi. Uh, my name is River and thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm here wearing black as one of many surviving externalities of the tech industry's greed. I urge this council to consider the following three questions before voting on any measures facilitating the construction and operation of additional data centers in Flagstaff. One, what does a child's life worth to a data center? Two, what does a data center want and what does the city of Flagstaff need? Three, how will your answers to these questions change in 1,00 years? These questions should make you deeply uncomfortable. We know based on recent lawsuits in New Mexico and elsewhere that powerful publicly traded companies that depend on the endless construction of data centers willfully and intentionally target, traffic, and sacrifice children on the altar of more profit and false ideals. Most of us do not know what applications new data centers in Flagstaff will have. If you don't, how will you find out? And why aren't there parameters for their applications included in this resolution? If the current tech climate is any indication, we know that someone is likely making their cryptocurrency wallet fatter on the backs of vulnerable people who have no idea how they are being used and poisoned at all. If you haven't yet been exposed to the abject cruelty of tech companies and their attachments in law enforcement, medicine, mining, manufacturing, and extractive industries, please admit my testimony as surviving proof of it. If I spoke about what they did to me and what they are capable of, and that they thought it was funny and entertaining, you would probably censor my testimony today. Let me be clear. Whatever future promised by advocates of data centers does not actually exist because they are actively destroying it. Voting to

facilitate the construction of more data centers is a vote to waste our precious natural resources and for more industrial slavery. If you are uncomfortable in 1,00 years scavenging for metal on behalf of an insatiable machine at top a sea of toxic electronic waste we can no longer export out of view. Please vote with caution. I believe that in 1,000 years, we will only be able to want what is force-fed to us by big tech. For those of us who awake from the messic lies dispensed by artificial intelligence, we will need and search for clean water and fresh air, wondering half alive why there isn't any, and why the clouds are made of drones. I urge this council to postpone voting on this measure until it is replaced with a different measure forbidding data centers in Flagstaff. We must win this fight against big tech. And I repeat, what is a child's life worth to a data center? What do we want and what do we need? And how will your answers change in 1,000 years? If you can't answer these questions or if you do not understand why they make you uncomfortable, please postpone voting on this resolution until you can answer all of those questions. Thank you. Thank you. Haley Hermo Hario. Um, hello. Uh, my name is Haley Haram. Um, I work for Royals Arizona engagement as a youth coordinator. I run the youth programming here in Flagstaff. Uh, more importantly, I live here in Flagstaff. I've lived here and coming up on eight years. I went to school here. Um, so this is more speaking as a resident. Um, the decision being made about zoning codes is a valuable opportunity to give

communities a voice in decisions that could have long-term impacts. Here in Flagstaff, data centers are not neutral developments. They come with significant water use, high energy demands and ongoing noise impacts. In a region like Flagstaff, where water conservation and sustainability are priorities and mean a lot to Flagstaff residents, those impacts really do matter. Um, requiring the developers to receive permission from the city to reszone for data centers gives the community a chance to understand what's being proposed and how it could affect us. Um, in rural and northern Arizona communities especially, people rely on these processes to have a say what in what happens around us. And um without that opportunity, decisions can feel like they're happening without consideration of the communities that it'll affect. Um I encourage you to support a process that will ensure public involvement as these decisions move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. I am going to continue the public hearing to May 5th, 2026. Yes, Council Member Garcia. I just had a quick question. I I I understand that we're moving this um meeting up till when you just said, but is that the next time we're going to be addressing this topic or is there a way for us to let the public know if we're going to address this topic between now and then? I believe this is the next time we're going to be

um Mayor Council just um just to I'm looking actually on our website and we do have um an item right under news um that's that's titled data centers public hearing continuation and if you're okay I'd like to read it because I also think it answers your question council member Garcia.

Sure. Thank you. Um, so in March, city staff presented a zoning code of text amendment on data centers to the planning and zoning commission for discussion and recommendation. This amendment is intended to help protect the community by addressing potential negative impacts, including effects on water use, energy demand, and other critical resources. While the p public hearing for this next amen for this text amendment was originally scheduled for a public hearing on April 7th, this hearing will be continued to May 5th. Additionally, at the request of council members, staff will be providing a comprehensive presentation on April 21st on questions related to this topic. Thank you.

No decisions on April 21st and our first real deliberation on May 5th, 2026. Correct.

Okay. So, I am continuing the public hearing to May 5th, 2026. And I am opening the public hearing for the next item which is 11B consideration and adoption of ordinance number 2026-07. Hello, my name is Alexandra Petrelli and I'm the current planning manager at the city of Flagstaff. Today I'm here to present you with Miltown, a direct to ordinance zoning map amendment. Uh this is a request to amend the 2018 zoning map amendment with a revised site plan. So when we do direct ordinance reszones, that ordinance that changes the zoning of the parcel is tied directly to a proposed site plan. So in 2018, a zoning map amendment was approved. It permitted a mixeduse development consisting of 23,000 square feet of commercial development as well as 348 units of a rooming and boarding facility. Now there is a current proposal for horizontal mixed development consisting of 265 unit multifamily residential development and a 19,500 square ft of commercial space on three pads all on lot one. So, here's a vicinity map showing the

location on Milton Road. And you could see because of the um the right ofway work that we did realigning university and the beautiful roundabout that we now have um created these four different parcels. Uh we're really going to be focused on lot one. Um lot two is proposed for a commercial development. uh tract A was mainly for open space and track B had some storm water detention uh associated with it. So this proposal maintains that same zoning the highway commercial with the resource protection overlay but now the development is a fourstory multifamily building. It has surface parking. They've eliminated the parking structure and it still has the commercial pads that front up to Milton. So this residential component, I really want to focus on the major changes that have happened between 2018 and now. So now we're looking at 63% fewer three, four, and five bedroomedroom units. So, the old proposal had a lot of larger units with um individual bedroom and bathrooms that could be rented individually. Um where So now we have a lot fewer of those large units. There used to be 266 versus now 95. Um there's 24% fewer units overall. So, used to be 348, now there's 265. There's 56% fewer bedrooms, moving from 1,186

to 669. The whole structure is one story less. So, it used to be a fivestory building, now it's four stories. Um, although the actual height is similar just because of the roof structure that's being proposed now. So, it's still within that 65 ft allowed in the highway commercial zone. For the commercial component, the changes that we're seeing is now they're proposing a second drive-thru use on lot one. There's also some elimination of screening at pad three. Um, and then the big thing is the elimination of the parking garage. that really enabled the bulk and mass of this residential piece to come way down by eliminating that parking. Um, now we're just looking at surface parking. Um, the propo proposal back in 2018 had 965 parking spaces um and 147 commercial spaces that were surface parking. And the current proposal provides 502 total surface parking spaces. Uh the commercial component has some pads have gotten a little bigger, some have gotten smaller. Overall, there's a reduction in commercial space. I'm not going to read all the numbers to you guys. Um, and then the proposed unit mix, as I talked about, a lot of those larger units have come down and there's been an increase in like the onebedroom, the twobedroom units.

Um, this project also provides affordable housing units. Yay. Um the current proposal is for 12 units um to be subsidized a minimum of 30% below market as measured against comparable units in the project. Um the maximum household income is limited to 120% AMI and this will be in effect for a period of 10 years. It's important to remember for this project, they're not taking any of the incentives involved with our affordable housing program. So, that gives them a lot more flexibility of what that affordable housing can look like and how it functions. Um, the 2018 proposal had 22 units. um a slightly different um stipulations on that including none of the tenants could be full-time undergraduate students. I think we talked about in our last affordable housing project that that staff's attitude is if you happen to be a student but you also qualify for affordable housing that we don't necessarily want to limit your ability to have an opportunity for housing. Uh the site plan was reviewed by staff and approved on October 7th of 2025 uh subject to the approval of this zoning map amendment here is the floor plan. Um the blue elements so floor one has is over on this upper left side. The blue elements are more common space components. Um the building has two different courtyard areas um that have amenities for the residents.

Here are a couple um elevations of this building. And then we see the floor plans for the commercial components. Pads one, two, and three. I kind of lined them up if you're looking at if you're standing in Target and looking at this of where those would be located. And here are the elevations of those commercial components. So, parking, on-site parking, based on code, it would require 668 parking spaces. Uh the applicant did complete a parking demands study that supported 502 parking spaces. Staff um had the ability to approve that study, but we conditioned it with the idea that the applicant should secure 65 additional offsite parking spaces. Um the applicant has been working with NAU as well as the Flagstaff airport to provide additional parking if needed for this project. Um the previous proposal included again that fivetory parking garage which we were able to eliminate with this new proposal. Uh for the public system impacts that are required with a reszone. the most of the impacts actually went down. So, we did not require a whole new study being done. Um, we did want to look at storm water just a little bit and it was determined that it's it their proposal works. Um, that they're not making drastic changes. Um, so we're fine with that impact. So, for a reason, we're looking at

findings. Our finding number one is conformance with the general plan. Um this is an existing suburban activity center. Uh the regional plan wants to see increased density in those areas. Um they're looking for 14 plus units an acre. This project is proposing 26 units per acre. Um, at the time there was the well at the time the HOH specific plan was going through the adoption process. So it wasn't in place at the time the original Miltown was um approved. But looking back at that specific plan now, this project would not trigger HOH based on HOH having more than 30 units an acre or more than 75 bedrooms an acre. So, we don't need to worry about that. Um, this project does support many of the housing goals of the of the regional plan, especially getting housing into areas like this where there's a lot of existing infrastructure and things that can support residents. Um, there's also a big focus on multimodal transportation goals. Um, there is the underpass that got put in. It's on a bus route. Um and then energyefficient design components have been added to the residential component of this project. So staff determine that finding number one has been met. Uh finding number two has to do with community benefits and public good. Um, this project will bring 265 units within walking distance of NAU shopping, dining, and transit stops. Um, it advances the general plan's goals for

compact growth, housing diversity, and sustainability. And the project is proposing to use energy efficient building materials, native landscaping, open space amenities that all help to create a healthy living environment. So it was determined that finding number two has been met. Finding number three is if the site is physically suitable. Um, if the project continues to meet applicable codes and requirements and mitigates any impacts as determined by those impact analyses that were completed, then it will meet this finding. Um, there is a development agreement amendment that I will bring back to you in two weeks. Um that amendment focuses on the affordable housing component as well as those sustainability elements that were added for citizen participation. The applicant had one neighborhood meeting on August 19th. Uh one individual attended. Staff waved the requirement for the second meeting and staff has not received any comments to date. Uh this was brought to the planning and zoning commission. Uh they recommended by a vote of 4 to one in accordance with the findings presented that city council approve the zoning map amendment subject to the following four conditions which I can read if you need but I trust you. Okay. And um the applicant is here. Um if you'd like to hear from them or if you have any questions for me,

council, do you have any questions for Okay, go ahead. Thank you for the presentation. Just a couple of clarifying questions. What does it mean when you say horizontal mixeduse development? So when we're looking at mixeduse development, we there are two different types that we look at. One is vertical, which would be in the same building, like the first floor might be commercial and then you'd have apartments upstairs versus horizontal, which is on the site. So, this is an example of horizontal where the commercial is up on Milton and then the residential is behind it.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And then the elimination of screening at pad 3. Can you just go in a little bit of detail with that?

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

Thank you for that. Any additional questions be for Alex before I invite the applicant up? Um, Lindsay, do you have anything you would like to add or a presentation? Uh, yes. Either one.

Yeah. Okay. Uh, Mayor Daget, Vice Mayor Swuite, uh, and the rest of council, Lindseay Shouy from the gam from the law firm of Gamage and Burnham, 40 North Central, Phoenix, Arizona 85004. Of course, I have words to say. Walter paid me to come all the way up here. So, yes, I'll show you a few pretty pictures, address some of the comments or one of the questions that uh, the vice mayor had, and we'll not make it too long. Um, but yes, want to highlight some of the the wonderful things we've done with this project. So, thank you for having us this evening. Again, I'm Lindseay Schubi. With me is Sean Creek, who was here last time for Lone Tree Ranch. So, we're teaching him all about Flagstaff, and thank you for being so good to him at the last council hearing. Uh, Walter Crutchfield is here on behalf of Vintage Partners. We have Germo uh from Adura. Don Cardier is online from Civ if we have any parking study questions. Uh, and our architect and planning firms were KTGY and Norris Design, who both do lovely work up here. And then this is a visual of our elevations. Alex had those 2D elevations on there and she's an architect and so she can see the nuance. 2D elevations are always so hard for me as a lay person um to see kind of the pushing and the pulling of the building. Um, but as Alex described, we're here, right? We have property that's zoned HC. We're asking for HC and we're really just trying to modify uh the site plan and I think we brought a lot of good things to the table that we're excited to show you including the new design. Um it's it's been a number of years since it was approved in 2018 and I'm super excited about this updated architecture. I think it matches it does a much better job um fitting in with the rest of the buildings along Milton. So want to highlight that. So, Vintage Partners, uh, you all know Walter Crutchfield and his team, again, an Arizonabbased, uh, real estate firm. Um, they're

dedicated to enhancing communities. I think we all know, um, all the wonderful things that that have come out of Timber Sky. Talk about a diversity of housing types in uh, partnership with Capstone Homes, Habitat for Humanity, Roars, and Live Communities. We have brought single family detached 221 units of 60% AMI or less market rate multif family single uh single family built to rent uh with a 20% component of affordable housing that was sky cottages uh 40 Habitat starter homes that I know you guys have been out there for the ribbon cutting and then town homes if you haven't seen out there Capstone is putting out some tall and skinnies who doesn't want to be tall and skinny So anyway, that's what we're we're putting some uh for sale town homes up there. The only thing we don't have at Timber Sky is some of these uh you know, different type of multif family units. So, we're really excited. Again, Vintage has now brought I don't know any other housing type that Vintage hasn't brought to the community of Flagstaff. So, really excited. Um super quickly because I believe many of you know this again, the history of Miltown. Again, this all started as a P3, a public private partnership. And again, public times two, we had ADOT, we had the city of Flagstaff, um, and Vintage partners in here. I wasn't part of that project, wasn't part of those development agreements. I think Kevin Fininsel and and Sterling were were here to tell. Um, but yeah, P3 to relocate that AOT building, realign university in Bula, that's why we have those four parcels. Now, in 2018, a site plan was approved that was a fivestory um building, mostly four and five bedroomedroom units. We heard from the community community at that time a little too big. More smaller format

bedroom units, please. Um, in 2020, A DOT's headquarters were moved from A DOT or from that location on Milton and they are moving the most sustainable type of I'm I'm stealing Walter's words here, but the most sustainable type of development, right, which is adaptive reuse, moving them into the old movie theater and allowing for a new movie theater for the citizens of Flagstaff. In 2024, we saw the university in Bula roundabout open. Who was happy about that? No more construction when you're driving down Milton. In 2025, the Milton Road underpass opens. I've got a picture. It's an old picture. I think we all know now the underpass is there and functioning and it's very exciting. We are now here in front of you um asking uh for the opportunity to develop a more community oriented version of Miltown. Uh Alex had showed you this, but again with the with the roundabout there, we now have four parcels. It's approximately 12.29 29 acres. Again, Burger King and and Monasuri School to the north. Um, Green Tea V, Green Tree Village Shopping In and Out, Target uh to the east. Uh, Baymont Baymont Inn and the Suites to the south. And then the Woodlands Village to the west. Again, with these three commercial pads and the the more appropriately sized residential development, we're really excited to um to add to to to what is the one of the entrances to Flagstaff. So, what is our project proposal? Again, as Alex described so well, and I I'm going to try not to to duplicate. Uh, diverse and cohesive horizontal mixeduse. Great question, Vice Mayor. Horizontal just means we're putting the commercial on the front along Milton where it belongs. We've got three commercial pads. Uh, they include one uh one specialty supermarket at approximately 13,000 square feet. uh and

then uh two other uh pads. As for the screening, uh there was no intention to omit the screening. If there is no screening on the site plan as we work through our construction documents, we actually we commit to you that everything that has to be screened by code will be screened by code. So, I checked with GMO on that. GMO, why is there no screening? Uh and he committed that you'll get it. It depends on you. There was a loading dock there. Obviously, we will follow code and screen appropriately as this is very important. We've updated the architecture component and again just resoning from HC to HC. Uh 65% of the units are now one and twobedroom. That's our biggest change. It is more community focused. It's more what we believe aligns with what the the city of Flagstaff needs. uh indooroutdoor amenities, clubhouse, fitness center, outdoor pool, outdoor dining and seating areas, public civic space, as well as our commitment to the Foots trails. So again, a diverse yet cohesive uh mixeduse development here, which we think embodies the spirit of urban mountain living. Here is a copy of our site plan from kind of the bird's eyee view. Again, the three commercial pads along Milton, the specialty ger right at the corner, and then two potential drive-throughs for restaurant uses, the residential has been right-sided again for the right unit mix and updating the architecture. three findings. Alex took you through all three of them and I will uh reiterate again consistent uh and conform with the goals of the regional plan and the specific plans which is the HOH uh amendment won't be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare and again uh that the site is physically suitable to to ensure that the uh zone designation and

proposed use will not endanger or constitute any type of hazard uh HC to HC right that the regional land designation hasn't changed. Uh it was found to to comply back in 2018 and I submit to you tonight it still does. Uh and again we're 26 units to the acre for the HOH specific plan to trigger. It's 30 units to the acre. So we don't trigger the specific plan. We are not seeking to change uh we're only seeking change the unit number and the architectural updates. No development standards any of those things. We meet code in all of those. So what do we do here? What does the development of Miltown and this project bring? Infill development, right? We need in this is this the regional plan does call for this type of density and more commercial growth. At this corner, we're in a housing crisis. Um we're bringing 265 units. Um as comparison, loan towns on loan, not towns on Loan Tree, uh Loan Free Ranch uh was 168 units and then Sierra on 66, right? 221. So, it's really nice that we're bringing all these kind of types of units here. Economic development opportunity for commercial uses. We're right now showing dining and uh specialty ger sustainability, multimmodal transportation, um building, residential buildings that are eco-friendly. And we did agree to go above and beyond code requirements for sustainability elements here. Transportation. in Miltown is located near public transportation, hence the reduction in parking. Um, and you know, we the less spots, less cars, and but if there is a problem, we have a backup plan. We've got two backup plans. We got a backup plan to the backup plan. So, we are in the customer service business. If we need more parking spots, we have them. Um, but we truly believe that and your code does require more

parking than most codes in the in the cities and state of Arizona. So, um, with the code sections that we have used and, um, and the parking study, uh, we believe we've got the exact right number of parking here. And then not to mention the multimodal connectivity. Finding number two, the proposed amendment aligns with the public interest and furthers uh, the public good. Again, uh the city's long range vision of concentrating houses and services to the urban corridor, reducing sprawl, improving multimodal connectivity, and leveraging the infrastructure improvements that we already have with that P3 and and allowing for this development here. Uh and again, reducing the three and uh three and more bedroom units by over 63%. We do believe that this new unit mix um is better as well as furthers the city's climate action objectives by some of the sustainability features that we are proposing. And find the third and final finding the affected site is physically suitable. Again, as mentioned in 2018, it was determined uh that the nearby intersections would either continue to operate at acceptable uh acceptable levels of service uh and have little impact. we now have have less of an impact. Uh the proposed development has the ability to be served by water and sewer. Um and yeah, so it's it's a little less dense, a little less intensive, and therefore uh we we were okay before and we're even in a better spot now. So ultimately, this project is a rightsized version of what Miltown uh was approved in 2018. Not to mention the underpass and the roundabout as generated from the P3 project. Uh it s will service this project in a great way. As Alex mentioned, we'll be back and we'll speak specifically to the development agreement, although it's a very short one that's associated with

this when we're back in two weeks. But you guys, you know, 10 year, you do have the 10-year housing plan and we're in a housing crisis that you guys declared in February 2022. As Alex mentioned, we are proposing 12 affordable housing units without taking any incentives. The existing development agreement did call for affordable. So, we're decreasing the number of units, decreasing the number of affordabil affordability um affordable units. We've got 12 and flexibility in the language, right? We've got the towns on the Lone Tree Ranch Son 66 that cannot rent to students. Will this rent to students? I don't know. But as Alex said, in working with staff, we took that out of there because if there is someone in need, um we have an opportunity here to to rent if they qualify. And the sustainability features, again, not only the sustainable transportation, um each residential bedroom will have a bicycle hook in there. We've got six dual port electrical vehicle charging stations, which is more than what code requires. And then I've got a list of our sustainable uh features. Um, if you did watch the PNZ hearing or rewatched it after, we do go above and beyond what's required by code, but I'll leave something for us to talk about in two weeks and walk through the sustainability elements that we have agreed to and is will be codified in the development agreement. So, a summary again, we have rightsized the residential component. We are providing commercial opportunities. We meet and exceed I think the design standards. I think it's a good-look project. focus on sustainable transportation um and attainable housing. As I think I mentioned in a previous hearing, the city of Tempe is looking more at projects like this for young professionals. Is it if there's a traveling nurse, if there is an engineer at Gore, who knows, you know, the the landscape of where everyone lives is changing on a daily basis. And again down in Tempe, Mayor Woods is

challenging developers to bring more developments like this, not just for students, but there are a lot of people who would benefit from units like this. In conclusion, we have a staff recommendation of approval. Minimal public interest. I I think one person at the neighborhood meeting. I think that's the least number of people I've ever had at a neighborhood meeting here in Flagstaff. uh planning commission recommended approval and uh with that respectfully request appro approval from here or at least to get through the first read and stand for any questions that you have for Alex or I. Thank you. We have a question from council member Garcia.

Hello Lindsay. It's great to see you and the team back here again especially with the project the way it kind of pencils out now. I remember one of my first uh or at least my first month on city council, some of the biggest meetings we had was this project. And during that time, if I remember correctly, we were still looking at the 2018 renderings. And during those meetings, if I remember correctly, and it could have just been happen stance. It was just in the ether and it osmosisfully filtered into this plan. But I remember the discussion at city council and that was you know asking for cooperation in lessening the amount of student housing, adding more multifamily housing. Everything that was presented here in this plan like I said it could have just been happen stance but the direction was given of cooperation for the things that we valued in our community. less parking, more mobility, um lessening the the parking structure, all the things that you have mentioned during in this thing was um was was kind of back and forth here at the dis during that meeting which I think if we knew the date of that meeting it might be helpful for the public that wants to investigate this and look back at it um how how things moved on. Granted that was some six years after you guys started this. So who knows before what happened but if I remember correctly this this is very responsive to the conversation that was up here on the dis. So I I have to at least thank you guys for that. Um regardless of how it came about it's pretty much what I heard from council that our community was was interested in. Um, and and I guess the question I have is uh what's what is the constraints with the three-bedroom units? If you could elaborate on that and then also I I I don't think I can stress this enough and I know that that there's you know I'm not trying to to to persuade you in this

way um in any other way besides the community need and that is for as much as you guys have done for affordable housing in your other developments. Is there any way that we can live to this to the same standard that was given to the old um 2008 renderings of the 22 number? Um and if not can you can you kind of explain why?

Uh mayor, vice mayor, council member Garcia, great question. Why we got rid of the three bedrooms? I'm not I'm not totally sure. I I I was actually joking with the architect like did they not see what was it thre's company Jack Chrissy and what was that other woman what was

Jan yeah there you go uh they're just I think the we did hear from the community the increase in the one and the two-bedroom units for sure and decreases the four and five there is flexibility that you'll see in two weeks in the development agreement to add additional one two and threebedroom units to to mix up that as long as we do not add any more four and five bedroomedroom units um to add more to three. I think it it's a it was a market condition and they just the response on one and twos and what they did in the economic studies that they did in your community felt like those were the better unit mixes and then the fours and fives are more economical, right? And so I think it's balancing those two things. Um, as for as for the affordable units, um, and I don't know if Walter's going to want to get up and address this, but I'll start and he'll come up and interrupt me if he wants to. We We reduced we heard we heard from the community reduced the size of the development. We did. And so we're proportionally reducing the number of affordable units. It's the same proportional number of beds. So when you we reduce the beds reduce the beds there is a certain amount of you know the last time I was here it was for 168 65 lone tree ranch someone's going to correct me in around there full affordable cron 66 221 all affordable 60% AMI or less on both of those there has to be housing for everyone and therefore you know 12 is the proportional number from bedroom to bedroom count you know we lost a lot of bedrooms in the four and fives in a great way. I think in a response to the community, but that response is also a revenue decrease and therefore the 12 is a proportional number that we would that we are bringing to council and we respectfully like to move forward with.

I appreciate your cander and your honesty on that u on that perspective. Uh but I I want you to hear from me that my my goal, you know, is is to make sure that we have affordable housing and that we have diversity of incomes, diversity of social economic stress structures within our communities, including ones like this. Um, so while I I really don't have any ground to stand on besides uh especially with all the capitulations you guys have come to from now, I still strongly advocate for that 22 number and I would love to see some some movement on that if there was a possibility. We need affordable housing and we need diversity within our communities.

Uh, Mayor, Vice Mayor, if I may, one great thing about this proposal, Councilman Garcia, is the units are sprinkled around in the 2018 proposal. all 22 affordable housing were um groundf flooror units that didn't have interaction with the balance of the community. So I do think we meet one of your other goals which is the integration o of all the units and moving around within the community. So hopefully we we met we met a goal there. Nicely said. Thank you council member house.

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

Uh mayor, vice mayor, council member house, we have two LOIs. I can't say who they are, but the corner is a specialty ger 13,000 square feet. If you look at the floor plan and compare it to other specialty grocerers down in the valley, we we have an LOI. We also um we've got the two ends. We have LOIs for the other is a a retail or a restaurant. It is a combination of sitdown and drive-thru. It would be a new restaurant to Flag Staff um that I I'll say I I frequent down in the valley with my kids all the time. And it's nice to go and sit down. And it's also nice to run through the drive-thru if you're going between practices and you need to just pick up food. So, it's a nice um a little bit of everything restaurant, but I'm not I'm not I'm not at liberty to say who they are, but

those are those are two LOI. They are signed LOI's. Perfect. Thank you, Council Member Matthews.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you Lindsay for absolutely listening to council in the past and and just moving forward. Um, this project is a marathon project and already um, Vintage Partners and his partners have done a lot in this town moving ADOT and doing the underpass which I've walked under. Um, that was a great um, safety feature for our community. So I just want to restate that um already we've uh enjoyed a lot of benefit and I just wanted to uh clarify a few things and then make a point. Um, if I remember correctly when you were here last, um, one of the reasons or the conversations we had about three and four bedrooms is that it was originally kind of built to attract student housing in that attract student housing when you have multiple bedrooms and stuff and eliminating most of those now. um not that you're excluding students um from renting but attracts more towards the young professionals and um not that we could ever have more affordable housing too much affordable housing with a capital A. Uh you guys have done a great job with um the ROR project, the 221 units, you know, and and that incentive that we gave was only a million dollars um which is incredible compared to other projects that we've had. and then the Habitat project. Um so definitely no one can ever accuse um Vintage Partners and the other partners that you're involved with of not addressing the affordable housing, but we have ex what's in the pipeline. We have exceeded our 10-year housing goal for affordable housing with a capital A. Um and to to really fully address our housing crisis, we also need

as you mentioned um in this presentation, we also need market and workforce housing. And so um my shift is kind of never would go away from affordable housing with a capital A meaning you know 60% or 80% 100% AMI, but we definitely can't forget um that we also need to add other housing stocks. So, I really appreciate that. And if El Poo Loco is not the restaurant, um, if there's anything I can do to lobby for that, um, I would gladly do so before you sign any lease agreement. Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you, Lindsay, for the presentation. Um, so I have a folder in my office and it's it's funny. It begins from before I was even on city council. So, I was running for city council and I knew this project was out there and I started going to the meetings and really trying to dive in to see what this project was all about. So, I revisited my folder and it's thick. There's been a lot. Um, we have the P3 roundabout underpass. Um, things have definitely moved with this. But in my folder, I did look at my notes from the last meeting and I had a list of things that I wanted to make sure when you came back were in in the presentation. And I want and I don't know um Council Member Garcia if that's what you're referencing, but I do want to thank you because you did hit my list and I just want to kind of restate it. um include affordable housing, fewer cars, keep with our multimodal goals, neighborhood focused, smaller footprint, and provide a diversity of housing. So, I guess what I'm saying is I would like to thank you for listening to the community, listening to council, and really taking what we have suggested we would like to see and coming back with that list. And I kid you not, I had my folder out and I checked off every single thing that I had written down from the last time. And I just really do appreciate that. Um, I am looking forward to seeing what this project becomes for our community. I I think we're ready and um I just again appreciate your time and effort on this and thank you Walter for all of your efforts as well. I know it's been a long journey. It has been a marathon for sure. So, thank you.

Thank you for the presentation. Thank you, Alex, for all the work that you've put into this. Uh, I know in your original proposal, you included affordable housing for 10 years, and you're doing the same here. And I'm sure that in your discussions with our housing division, you talked about lengthening that amount of time because typically we see a 30-year um timeline on capital A affordable housing. So, I'm wondering how those conversations went and um and what went into the decision making to keep it at 10 years. Mayor, thank you very much. And vice mayor, thank you for your comments. Um, so as you'll see in the development agreement, it's 10 years and then an agreement to to revisit for another 10 years. So it it's a it's a continued discussion. And I think as as council member Matthews pointed out, you know, with Sierra on 66, with Loan Free Ranch, with all of these different 60% AMI, 80% AMI, there's another multifamily developer uh coming in that many of you have met with that focus on the 80 to 120, right? That's a sweet spot that we that you guys are definitely missing here. So it's an we absolutely have have in an agreement that that a commitment to to revisit in good faith and mayor I guess I ask of you of you know this is a commitment between vintage partners and the city of of Flagstaff your housing department did ask absolutely they pushed they they prodded um as they do in a good way and we are not taking any incentives for this we are doing this for 10 years if it's successful if everything is working out if we feel like there's still a need in the that um that we have absolutely agreed in a contract to come back and and Vintage Partners always stands up

and and is a good community partner. So um we got that in the agreement that we're coming we will come back and revisit for another 10 years. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? And I see no public comment. Correct. So, I am going to close this public hearing and we can either continue to deliberate or I will entertain a motion. Mayor, I'd like to move that we read ordinance number 2026-07 by title only for the f for the first time. I'll second.

I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I I I Any opposed? City clerk.

An ordinance of the city council of the city of Flagstaff amending the Flagstaff zoning map to reszone approximately 12.29 29 acres of real property generally located at 1801 South Milton Road APN's 103-21-024 103-21- 025 103-21- 026 and 103-21-027 by modifying the prior zoning map amendment with a revised site plan and conditions providing for severability authority for clerical corrections and establishing an effective date.

Thank you and thank you all. All right, we are moving down to our regular agenda. Item 12A is approval of rental incentive bond program award for Lone Tree Ranch. Good afternoon, council, mayor. Um, Sullivan Moore. I'm the housing planner for the city. Um, I'm here to talk to you about the rental incentive bond program. Um, we're looking to award the remaining $1.65 million for the Lone Tree Ranch project, which is the 168 capital A affordable units going to be built on the corner of Lone Tree and Pine Null. Um this award comes after the scoring committee deliberated and found it fit to award this project. So just some quick background, this program was approved by council in November of 23. We've had two previous funding cycles going back to March 24 and 25 for those approvals. Um, and then this most recent one was opened in January of this year and closed in February of this year with the scoring committee meeting again later in February. And then I've got some information about the project up here. The big one I want to draw your eyes to there is that affordability period. In Loan Tre's previous documents, they only have an affordability period of 30 years, but

part of getting this forgivable loan awarded um they extend it to 50. So, we get 20 more years of affordability on their 168 units. I'd like to keep it brief. We appreciate that, Sullivan. questions. Council comments. I Oh, Council Member Matthews,

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

Yes. So the scoring committee was made up of trying to recall. I didn't write that down. I believe it was members of staff, um, members of commission and public. Thank you. Yeah.

And, uh, I'd just like to say a thank you to the housing division for turning this one. uh you know, we we've talked several times that we have four sections of the of the $20 million bond and for getting this program up running and and turned around um so quickly. So, thank you. And council, I am looking for a motion unless anyone has additional questions. Mayor, I'd like to move that we approve the one million650,000 rental incentive bond award uh as uh described for 168 units at Lone Tree Ranch.

I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I Any opposed? All right. Thank you, Sullivan. Thanks.

Okay. So, next up we have regular agenda 12B, consideration and adoption of ordinance number 2026-09. Oh, there it is.

Oh, wait. No, that's request. Okay. All right. I will put the screen down because I'm height challenged. Um well, good evening mayor and council. Uh I am Joanne Keane. I'm your city manager for the city of Flagstaff. um and appre appreciate the opportunity to come back to council today to have this discussion on the protocols for interactions uh with federal agencies. Um so today we're bringing a proposed ordinance to council related to the use of city of Flagstaff property and facilities by partners and by part government partners and nonprofit entities. Um, but before I turn it over to Deputy City Attorney Kevin Finel, who's actually going to walk through the ordinance language, I just wanted to give a little background, um, on the item and kind of how we got to where we are today. Um, so, uh, on March 3rd, the staff delivered, um, a very detailed presentation covering the following topics. We reviewed the city's role in immigration enforcement. We identified a process for reporting issues of concern um including at that time unveiling an online reporting website um which has been utilized. We outline protocols for city facilities um that we outlined for our staff and our customers and uh will be coming to staff on April 21st to do uh citywide training on those protocols. We also presented a proposal for the use of city property and specifically we

presented a proposal for a city manager directive um which a lot of that language most of that all of that language is actually included in the the proposed ordinance that Kevin will be walking through. Um after that discussion with council I signed that directive the next morning. So it has been in place since uh the morning of March 4th. And then also at that meeting, council directed staff to return with a proposed ordinance um like the proposed directive for consideration. And I think you'll see with from Kevin that we have added um just a couple of items just based on internal discussions and some needs that we saw. Um, but before I turn it over to Kevin, um, and I think I said this on my my March 3 presentation, um, that I just like to recognize again that, um, what we are presenting today, it may not go far enough for some folks. Um, and and also it may go too far. So, we've been in a really difficult position of kind of balancing um, you know, what's best for our community and our city operations. So, when we presented the city manager directive on March 3rd, um I relayed that with the advice of our city attorney's office, this approach with the city manager directive um that I felt like it was the best approach for our city operations in our community. And I know council um agreed with that during that time. And just a reminder that the city council hires the city manager to enforce the city's laws and manage the operation of the city. And part of that is having um sound judgment and excellent decision-making ability. While we reviewed the Puma County ordinance, the city of Tucson ordinance, and the city of Phoenix directive, we move forward with a city manager directive that best aligns with how we manage our operations in the city of Flagstaff. We've also continued our communication

with the city of Tucson and the city of Phoenix since the March 3rd discussion. and we've had discussions with um the attorney's office and also with their manager's office as well. We have great relationships. Um and our approaches are more aligned than they're not. Um we consistently hear that Flagstaff is unique. Um that's the wonderful part about living in in this community and that we're not like city of Phoenix in the city of Tucson. And I hope you can all recognize that this is also the case with the city manager directive and this is why we um we move forward in that approach. Um, so now I'd like to just to give you some background on that, I'd like to turn it over to Kevin who's actually going to walk through the proposed ordinance um, language for council. Kevin,

thank you very much. I am tall, so I will put this thing up a little bit. Um, good afternoon, mayor and council. Thank you very much. Yeah, I'm just going to walk through the ordinance as we've presented it to you. who as Joanne said, we really just took the directive that was presented on March 3rd and put it in ordinance form as requested by council and then we added a couple items and I'll walk through those and highlight those. Um, but the purpose statement is the same. It's recognizing that we do collaborate with government entities and at times our government partners and nonprofit partners request the use of city property to conduct their operations and we were looking for a way or a directive to put in place. now an ordinance that provided some guidance to those partner entities for what to do when they want to make those type of requests. So, in the guidance and procedure section, um requests are made through the city manager and the mayor. The mayor would be in times where the mayor has declared an emergency, the request would go through the mayor, otherwise they would go through the city manager's office. That is consistent with Phoenix and Tucson. Um that's where they ended up. Um, I think Phoenix, they think they both work in collaboration with their police chief, but essentially the decision-making authority and the review authority rests with the city manager. Um, requests are only will only be approved when the use furthers the interests of the city. So, we added that language to give the city manager some guidance to for what to look for and when to approve these items. And then we flushed it out a little bit and stated that a request furthers the interest of the city when it aligns with city goals and priorities and does not create unreasonable disruptions to city operations or present an unreasonable danger to the public health or safety. So that gives our city manager a standard to look at when she receives these requests and that's what she will make her decision based on or what the mayor will make her decision based on if we're under a declared emergency.

Our first addition that we'll talk about, we did add a signage requirement. We saw that in the um Tucson and Phoenix directives. We talked internally about it and the city manager requested that we add this. So, we put in this basic language for a sign that will be posted at city parks and facilities. We did leave the discretion up to the city manager for what the signage will look like and where it will be located. I think the Phoenix and Tucson directives were a little more prescriptive. we put more um authority with the city manager to make the best decision for the city in her discretion. Um the applicability section um we really just took one paragraph and broke it out for easier reading. Um but the first three are the same and then I'll talk about the fourth. So the first one focuses on joint operations. This is a the easy example we give and actually we provide as an example in the draft ordinance is if we're conducting a joint burn with the National Forest Service that's going to go through our fire department that's going to go through a different process for that type of work or approval. Um those so those type of joint operations will not fall under this ordinance as well as um the city municipal court building. The city municipal court building is subject to the administrative authority of the Arizona search supreme court. So we carve that out as not being applicable under this ordinance. And then special events. So special events have their own process. If a festival organizer art in the park wants to request use of city property, they will continue to use um 8-12 in our city code. This ordinance that we're presenting to you tonight and the directive or the directive would not apply to those types of requests. The one we added um is transportation or TSA and any other federally mandated operations at our airport. And so we saw

this in recent news where the federal government um asked ICE to get involved with TSA and help TSA in their operations during the partial shutdown. And when we saw that, we could see how that could create some confusion. And if the DHS added ICE to our TSA operations at our airport, that was not something we wanted to get in the middle of. Um, that's federally regulated, federally mandated. And so if DHS made that decision, they didn't need to come to us to make to ask for permission to do so. So that's why we added number four to make that type of situation not applicable under this ordinance as well. Um, before I get into questions from council, I did want to point a couple things out. Um, when we put this staff summary together, a staff summary has a generic form for how it's structured. And one of the sections in there is recommended action. And that's just standard language that is in that form. And it's basically saying if council wants to go down this route and adopt this ordinance, here's the steps council will take to adopt the ordinance. I wanted to clarify that adopting this ordinance is not my recommendation. Um, I I can let Joanne speak for herself on her recommendation. I think the directive we put in front of council on March 3rd would be the recommended approach, at least my recommended approach, it provides more flexibility. One thing with an ordinance is that now that it's in code or if it were placed in code in order to amend that ordinance. So if we had to change something, if we had to add something, we would need to come back to council with an amendment to the ordinance, have two reads, and it wouldn't be effective for 30 days. That was one reason why we put it as a directive initially, so that it's under the control of the city manager. If the city manager sees something, for example, the TSA addition we made, um, if she was able, she she saw that and see saw the need to add that working in consultation with our

city attorney's office, she could just do it. she wouldn't have to come back and wait that time to get that implemented into the directive. So I but I just wanted to point that out. I didn't want there to be confusion in reading that staff summary to think that adopting this ordinance is the recommendation of staff. We brought it back to council at council's direction to consider um as a proposal if council wants to go that route. Albeit that's council's prov prerogative, but I didn't want their council to think that this was the recommendation coming from me. Um, the other thing I wanted to point out is that um, I pointed that out. We did see recently two 1487 complaints. um 1487. We we that's what we call it, but it's essentially a state statute that provides authority for state legislators to file a complaint with the attorney general's office and through that complaint review actions taken by a city or county or town that the legislature believes violates state law. Um, since Phoenix adopted its directive, they have received a 1487 complaint alleging that it violates um, SB 1070 essentially. Um, we recently just learned that Puma County also received a 1487 complaint um, pertaining to their resolution and I just want to call that out to to council as a as something to consider. 1487 complaints. Um, they happen. Um, sometimes cities, towns may get it wrong or a legislator thinks they got it wrong and wants to file a complaint. Um, the concern with 1487 complaints is they can be pretty costly. Um, the AG essentially has to do one of three things after reviewing it. The AG has to determine that it violates state law, in which case the city or town has to remedy the situation within 30 days. That's relatively easy or should be easy. a little more difficult with an ordinance

um because technically an ordinance doesn't become effective for 30 days. So, we'd have to massage that one a little bit. Um the the AG could also say it does not violate state law, that's great. Then we just continue as planned. Um the concerning part is if the AG says it may violate state law. In that situation, the AG asks the Supreme Court to review the issue. The Supreme Court is supposed to review it quickly, but in the meantime, the city has to put up a bond equal to six months of its preceding state shared revenues. Um, which can be costly. Um, that has been waved in the past by the AG's office in conjunction with the court. Um, but still even litigating that issue can be costly to the city. So, it's just something to call out. Um, we adopted our directive as in Joanne said, it was signed March 4th. We have not received a 1487 complaint. Fingers crossed. Um, so that I just wanted to call that out for council. And with that, I can take any questions.

Thank you, Kevin. Yep. Council member Garcia. Thank you, Kevin, for that clarification on the 1487 thing. That was primarily the basis of my entire questioning for you. Great. Um, but I think we if you wanted to toggle back to the third slide, partner entity use of the city property and then meander down to the third bullet point. The proposed ordinance clarifies the process. Uh, I think I might be looking at a different one. It might be the ne go to the next one. This one? Yes. Yes.

Okay. So, um I was wondering if we could get some clarification on um some of the I guess um the intention of this seems seems okay, but is there a finer detail that the city can put on the third bullet point down? That's the standard that the city manager reviews under.

Is that what you're that's what you're talking about? Um I mean we we could I mean you can always provide more detail in that type of standard. I think the problem I mean I'd want to know what what you have in mind um to see if it's helpful but I think also if you get too detailed sometimes then it kind sort of locks in the city manager to only looking at certain things. we drafted this in the way that it's a little broader um to to focus on those city interests and she can bring in things like one just whether or not it like I said creates that safety issue or health and safety issue um if she has that kind of concern or if she just thinks it's going to be an unreasonable disruption in the community she can make her decision based on that. So we try to use pretty broad language to give her more discretion but if you have an idea of providing more detail we can happy to consider it. Well, no. I think it would just adds to the conversation that you that you entered uh you know what you just entered and and what we're reading in the emails from community that are concerned about this and this goes back to um the city uh city manager directive is folks are real concerned that specific words like immigration and ICE are not infused into this which personally as a council member I think is is good because we're not specifying one agency in this everchanging and evolving like from one second to the next administration that we're dealing with. Um I think it's good that we have our options open to and also we have some sort of fairness to um anybody who wants to come and um do things like set set up a place at Wheeler Park for whatever reason that they have that they know that there is a process that they have to go through. So, um, while I was kind of, uh, hoping that you would answer those questions just through osmosis, I'm I'm glad that you, uh, clarified that this is broad for a

purpose, and that is because we're trying to cover, um, any possible, um, in in infusion of outside um, folks that want to use our lands and also be um, also be intentional with being fair to everyone.

Yeah. And and that was definitely the intent. And this when we started talking about drafting the directive, it was it was on the heels of the DPS tragedy and the helicopter crash. And in talking with our public works department, um there was there was a request from by from DPS to utilize our public works building and some of our other properties to set up their staging areas in response to that crash. And it made us realize that we we often get requests from our from our partner entities for multiple reasons. We talked to our pros group about past requests from FEMA to use Buffalo Park in response to wildfire. So that's why those examples are in there. Um is to create that as a broad directive that would really cover any request because we just didn't have that in place before and we didn't want a request for FEMA to use Buffalo Park to have to go through Pros. it made more sense to come through the city manager's office. And same thing even with the public works example. If our partners at DPS need to need our assistance and need to utilize our property, we now have a process for them to make that request and it would be under this new directive or ordinance if council goes that way.

I feel that it's stronger because of that because it's not limiting us to one entity. Uh but I guess the next question would be a little bit more focused at uh city manager Keane. And another question that keeps popping up in emails and in conversations on the streets are um that folks are concerned that their elected officials had nothing to do with this. And I would like you to give you the opportunity to highlight the collaboration that was involved with this between council and the manager's office.

Sure. Council member Garcia. Um I appreciate the question. Um I think it also gives me an opportunity just to talk about um you know the council manager form of government that I I am hired by city council that I report to all seven of you and I take my direction from all seven of you. Um, you know, when, uh, we initially had this discussion, um, I had council members approach me about looking at, um, an opportunity to be more proactive related to our, uh, city facilities. And, um, when we met with, um, the city attorney's office and Kevin actually at that time was um, an interim deputy city manager in and our office. So, he was kind of he had both hats on. Um, but it was a a great benefit to us. Um, we came up with some language that we brought to council and the city manager directive. Um, you know, I've had conversations with with all of you throughout this process. Um, and I think you you know that if if I do see something in this city manager directive that that needs to be changed as Kevin alluded to that um you know with a directive it would be easier to make a change immediately instead of going through an ordinance process where we would need to amend an ordinance. Um but you have been involved throughout um this process. You've been involved in you know the community meetings that the chief has held. um you know, Shannon Anderson and and the mayor and the chief and our attorney's office were involved in um kind of reddrafting our immigration uh directive. Um, so there are a lot of things that you all have been involved in and I feel like we've been in communication kind of throughout this this process and um, while it feels like this is potentially new and kind of coming out of nowhere, I feel like it's been um, many many months of having these discussions and and really trying

to determine the right approach for this community. And um, I feel good that we are in a really good place. I feel like we're in a good place legally. I feel like we could defend this. Um, did I answer your question? I probably

Yes, absolutely. And thank you for that clarification. For those uh for those that have brought that question up before, it's it's good to hear it from more than just me saying this is what we were doing. Um, but I I do agree. I think that the approach that we have taken is very legally defensible and also appropriate and not far from anybody else's approach besides maybe a couple of buzzwords that have definitely um well I'm not going to say anything else but um I'll have some more questions after the public comment. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Council member Spence.

Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank uh staff and manager for responding to the council's request to draft uh an ordinance. Um from my perspective uh I favor the uh directive uh using the directive approach only uh for the reasons stated um that it's more functional and uh nimble. So, um I'm looking forward to public comment, but u my approach to this is to not go forward with the ordinance. Thank you.

I have a quick question about the signs. Um, so we we consider the back, I guess, of city hall that faces Route 66 and Humphre to be kind of the free speech zone where protests, rallies, that sort of thing happen. So, I'm I'm assuming that there wouldn't be a sign there. Correct. The sign this and use this property for any other purpose because because that is a city purpose. Correct.

Yeah. I think you could look at it two ways. We could either not sign it for the reasons you're stating just to prevent that confusion. But I I mean if you signed it, you've stated the intended purpose. That intended purpose of that front area is for public use, for things like demonstrations, for protests, for all different types of activities. So, if that were to happen, it wouldn't be in violation of this language on this sign. But to your point, I we haven't we didn't talk about specific properties yet, and we want to get council's input before we started that process. But that is something we definitely want to consider and why we created that discretion for the city manager to decide whether it makes sense to sign or how to sign um any facility or park. But if if some kind of immigration enforcement or other federal entity wanted to use that same property, then the directive stands that it has to further city's um goals, objectives, and not disrupt.

Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that um that there'd be no change in the ability to protest and um hold rallies up there. Mayor, can I just add one thing? It's and you know the whatever direction council decides to go um I think um this language is currently not in the direct the city manager directive. So it will be added into the city manager directive. and the TSA language as well.

Great. So, thank you. I don't see any other um council comments or questions, so I'm going to take public comment. And as always, uh, we want everyone to feel comfortable giving testimony in city council chambers, even people who are at home watching and maybe not commenting on this, but we just want the public to always feel like this is um a welcoming place for them. So, please no clapping, cheering, booing, um, anything of that nature. So, first up we have, uh, Eva Putoova. Good evening, uh, Mayor Deed and council members. I speak on behalf of keep Flagstaff together project of catch fire movement. The proposed ordinance does not address our concerns about city property being used for civil immigration enforcement without judicial warrant. The manager's directive doesn't either. We recommend that you direct staff to revise the ordinance to follow the substantive policies and implementation procedures outlined in Pima County's resolution titled prohibiting the use of county property and resources for civil immigration enforcement operations. Your fear of being challenged by bad faith state legislators or others citing ARS1 uh-1051 or 41-194.01 is not a sufficient reason to ignore community requests. The city is sued regularly. If you are to be sued or investigated by the attorney general, let it be for doing something that is morally right. The central issue with your proposed ordinance is that it is identical with the core provisions of city manager directive uh in effect since March 3rd. Two things cannot be true at the same time. That the directive is merely an administrative action devoid of any policy and that this proposed ordinance represents

public policy. These instruments are structured in a way that violates the city charter which clearly separates policymaking from administrative authority. The proposed ordinance also inappropriately delegates authority to the city manager by failing to establish clear standards for approving the use of city property. It is insufficient to state that the city manager will make decisions based on city goals and priorities, especially since those can conflict depending on circumstances. The city council must set specific standards within the policy for the city manager to apply. For example, by clearly describing prohibited uses. At minimum, you should include the following language. Prohibited uses include but are not limited to using city property as a staging area, processing location, or operations based for civil immigration enforcement actions without a judicial warrant. As written, the proposed ordinance fails to address our core concerns. It does nothing beyond what the city manager's directive already does, which in practice isn't much because you have not established an actual policy. We have come to you for more than a year with repeated requests to take action and each time you have denied us the opportunity to publicly discuss immigration enforcement and rel related issues. Please take the time to revise the ordinance knowing very well legal challenges will follow and it's okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Ace Overman. So, I would like to start off by saying I do support the director's um manager's directive becoming an ordinance. Um my comments are regarding um recommendations and suggestions regardless if it becomes an ordinance or it just stays as a manager's directive. Um, so I'd like to start off by thanking you, the city council, vice mayor, mayor, and staff, for hearing the concerns of many residents have raised about federal overreach, particularly around immigration enforcement, and for taking necessary steps to use what power the city government has to ensure that public spaces and city property remain safe for everyone. I'm glad to see that my recommendation on March 3rd to display signage on city property was included in the city man in the ordinance and city manager directive. Signs like this will give our residents and many visitors who use our public spaces and city property clear information and reassurance just as in just as it has in other localities across the nation that have passed similar measures like this one. I know this ordinance touches on a sensitive and contentious matter and I appreciate the city staff and council are taking the time to hear the many concerns citizens have and are doing the right thing to ensure that city property does not become an operational ground for immigration enforcement in the future. My one I have a couple suggestions, but one of my suggestions is for this ordinance is to or again if it just stays the director's a manager's directive is to include language that specify this ordinance applies to federal officers and agents within the guidance and procedure sections of this ordinance. Uh currently right now it just says uh partner governments and um non-government and non sorry

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

Thank you Susanna Holm. Good evening and thank you for taking our comments. Um my understanding of city government is that it's aim it should aim to steward the resources of the of its community responsibly for today and tomorrow. Protect its community members from dangers both natural and humanmade. embed the values of its community in practical governance. As I looked at look at the draft ordinance before us, what I see is a government committed to what it sees as the responsible stewardship of resources through avoidance of potential legal entanglements. What I don't see is my government protecting our community members or our community values that I've seen in my 24 years of living in Flagstaff. I'm here to ask you to rethink that. particularly as it relates to cooperation with civil immigration actions within our community. Communities just like ours are facing unconstitutional and extra legal actions by federal agents up to and including the wrongful deportation and murder of community members. In light of that, the current the current ordinance does not meet the moment. Um, we must be prepared not just for the best case scenario, but the worst. I strongly encourage you to review the Puma County ordinance again and incorporate its language into our own. For example, it gives clear guidance to government staff as to what is allowed and not allowed in support of civil immigration enforcement. It limits the use of county resources to those civil immigration actions which are legally conducted under a valid arrest

warrant or other signed writ from a federal or state judicial officer. It further limits cooperation by city employees and officers to that which is required by law. It denies the use of government-owned and controlled property for organizing, immigration enforcement, staging, and processing activities which do not have a judicial safeguard, but can result in illegal enforcement actions, civil civil uh immigration enforcement actions. At its heart, the Puma ordinance says clearly that the community expects its federal government to follow the law. Given that we have seen a repeated pattern of lawless actions by federal forces, requiring that they show that they have followed the law seems appropriate. and not allowing the city to become entangled entangled in actions um that federal agents may take outside of an appropriate legal framework seems the very best way to responsibly steward city resources for the community while also protecting the community and its values from harm. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Malle or Melee Adler. Good evening, mayor and members of the council. My name is Miley Adler. I first moved to Flagstaff in 1995 and later returned 14 years ago because I love this community. As a public servant in a federal workforce for the last 25 years, I am not here because I want to be here. I believe elected officials should be acting in the best interests of the people they represent. And I shouldn't have to be taking time away from other productive work to be here tonight. Yet,

I am here today, my first time speaking before this council, because I feel compelled to speak up and ensure this council hears loud and clear the same message I am hearing from our community. We need to be more specific in this proposed ordinance and explicitly prohibit the use of city-owned properties and resources for civil immigration enforcement actions. We need to do this even if there is risk of litigation. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. We have already witnessed obscene abuses of power at the hands of federal immigration enforcement officers with no absolutely no accountability. Thankfully, we live in a country where our democracy exists at multiple organizational levels. Now is the time are for our local community government to exercise every power it has available to protect the residents of this community. Council's job is to respond to the needs and concerns of those they represent, even if there is litigation risk. I ask the council to act and request the proposed ordinance be substantially modified to include a section on prohibited uses, provide clear definitions, clearly desri describe enforcement and penalties, and revise the same sign language similar to Puma County's resolution prohibiting the use of county property and resources for civil immigration enforcement operations. Thank you.

Thank you, Charlie Silver. Hello, Mayor and Council. I sent an email to all of you uh about 2 o'clock this afternoon. I don't know if all of you saw it, but I wanted to read it into the record as well. And for those who um um who view this on YouTube in this recording, um my name is Charlie Silver. I am Flagstaff resident. And in the staff presentation for this item, I point out that the background on March 3rd discussion, the slide deck's first bullet point reads, "Reviewed city role in immigration enforcement." Well, nowhere in the written staff report or in the proposed ordinance or in the city manager's directive does it mention anything about immigration enforcement, let alone when and how immigration enforcement operations would be handled by the city. These documents are weak in that regard. For example, the city is committed to collaborating with partner agencies and nonprofit entities when necessary to further city goals and priorities. When is when necessary? Also, which city goals and priorities? There are often competing goals and priorities. Which will take precedence, especially when responding to a natural disaster or other emergency. What constitutes other emergencies? I would contend that indiscriminate immigration enforcement operations constitute an emergency does not create unreasonable disruptions to city operations or present an unreasonable danger to the public health or safety. What are unreasonable disruptions to city operations? What presents an unreasonable danger to the public health or safety? Again, I would contend that indiscriminate immigration enforcement operations constitute danger to public safety.

Further, I believe there is very little policy outlined in this proposed ordinance and the directive um on the other side of the coin. Instead, what little policy present is relegated to administrative procedural discretion by the city manager. Furthermore, there is no language devoted to the true policy issue expressed by the public. that is indiscriminate immigration enforcement operations. I believe the concepts that should be considered include but are not limited to the competing goals and priorities of the city and standards when confronted with indiscriminate immigration enforcement operations, judicial versus administrative warrants, public policy issues versus admin administrative procedure. I would suggest Puma County's resolution on this topic 26-10 be studied for best practices and therefore provide a stronger ordinance or directive for the city of Flagstaff. By the way, resolution 2610 mentions immigration 23 times. Please spend more time on this important policy issue to get it right. Thank you.

Charlie, one moment. Council member Garcia has a question for you. Charlie, I didn't plan for this question, so I certainly don't mean to put you on the spot with it. Um, but when you refer to the Puma County uh ordinance that has been placed, um, do you I mean, I guess this is kind of a it's it's not based, I guess, necessarily on fact. It's more of what you believe. Do you really believe that when they say that, you know, however they word it in there that you're more familiar with and have and have studied, um, that immigration officers won't do this, that, and the other thing, do you really believe in your heart that that the federal government and the immigration officers that are there are going to are going to take heed of those warnings when they're carrying out their job when, as we know, federal law supersedes all state and local law.

Well, considering um actions of um federal agencies around immigration policy, be it ICE, be it another alphabet soup organization and agency of the federal government, we have seen specific abuses and and whole scale abuses as a previous speaker laid out and it's really disturbing. What can we do? Um maybe the bottom line is that it comes back anything federal over uh supersedes uh state. Well, if that's the case, so be it. But the states can can and they should morally lay out their positions, their public policy positions. as well. I'd like to point out that while I I definitely agree with the with the broadened nature of the directive that you pointed out, uh, Repres uh, Councilman Garcia, and, um, again, to cover such things as whatever federal agency might be involved in immigration enforcement operations, but I'm not seeing immigration enforcement operations specifically mentioned in the directive or this ordinance. And that's the issue that I think needs to be needs to be reconsidered.

Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you,

Kim Curtis. Good evening, Mayor and Council. The ordinance under consideration tonight was a response to a citizen petition that asked for a full discussion of prohibiting federal immigration agents from using city property for civil immigration operations without a judicial warrant. Instead of debating the public issue, council deferred and the mayor directed that an ordinance be drafted. There are several serious problems that I see with this ordinance. First, it gives enormous discretionary power to one person, the unelected city manager, without adequate guidance. The guidance and procedures section gives the city manager the sole power to determine what uses further the interest of the city, which it says a particular particular use will do when it aligns with city goals and priorities. Which goals? Which priorities? which interests. The guidance is silent on this. These are questions of values that it is the work of council to determine and articulate to the administration, not the other way around. And that is the second problem. The no articulation of what values this public policy upholds. But that's the point of public policy, isn't it? To express the values by which the community will live. And doing that is the responsibility of the elected council, is it not? Now, the values and concerns that the petitioners brought before council were those of protecting civil liberties in the face of widespread abuses across the country

by ICE. We are about to have many ICE agents active in the city. The community is asking you to do what you can to provide limits on their activities, exercising your statutory right and duty to protect public safety and control the uses of city-owned property. Many of us are urging you to look at the Puma County resolution to guide an amendment process and I urge you to do that as well. In closing, I also like the deputy lawyer pointed out want to point out that the resolution has already been challenged by several state legislators who under Arizona Senate Bill 1487 are empowered to ask the attorney general to investigate local ordinances they believe contraven contravene state law. In 30 days, Attorney General Maize will make a determination. This is the process in our state. It is nothing to fear. Fear rather fear not standing up for pretend protecting fundamental human and constitutional values and rights. Thank you very much,

Kim. Council member Garcia has a question for you.

Thank you for your input today, Kim. Um my question eluded me as you walked away, but it um so I'm gonna try to think through it for just a moment here. Um, do you do you see um so you mentioned the again the Pima County thing and and I I have definitely looked at that quite a bit since since the inception of it while also working on this one as well. So the I don't know if I necessarily agree that being so loud about you know their statements and stuff is necessarily going to keep anybody out of anything except for more people into litigation. I think I it's been kind of clear here in the DIA from my perspective but in your opinion and again it's just an opinion. Do you think how do you think it's going to be uh better enforced even though like from a broad sense all the way down to the micro sense we may be covering more um agencies as like I said this ever evolutionary of change in our government is happening um by by specifying it and here is the actual question are you in support of the ordinance the directive or do you want us to just not do anything right now

as I said I'm in support of amending the directive and look using the city the county uh Puma County ordinance to guide um sections of that and other people have spoken to that and what I really wanted to point out in my comments was a couple things. One that I think this directive does not give any value content in its guidance to the city manager. It gives enormous very vague uh uh discretionary power to the city manager and that is not about this particular city manager. It is about the responsibility of the city council to articulate the values in a public policy that will guide administrative um enactment. That concerns me greatly.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. Maria Delos Anelis Castillo Rinkon and my apologies. You did better than most. Mayor and council members, as an immigrant of this city and this country, back in 2010 when I had only been here for a year in Flagstaff, SB 1070 came into view. This very discriminatory, racist and xenophobic bill became a law and it was signed by an equally xenophobic and racist governor. During that period of time, the group came to ask the council at that time to make a resolution or an ordinance or whatever you want to call it to make this a sanctuary city and it did not happen. Again, in 2016, when Trump became president, the city council had a group of people that asked again to pass resolutions, ordinances, anything to help the immigrant community because we were dealing with family separation at the border and they were caging children. So, as Eva mentioned, we have come to you last year and this year to ask you to pass ordinances, to not approve contracts that have the words immigration enforcement, and to even allow communication discussion on making this a sanctuary city. And it has not happened. For 16 years, I have been told over and over by different people that we should not do this or that because we don't want to poke the bear because if we poke the bear, ICE is going to have an office here in Flagstaff and we're going to have uh officers, you know, roaming the streets

and then we're going to have f uh funding cut from the federal and the state level. Yet all of this is happening without you poking the bear. You have not passed anything that is helping our immigrant community. So I want to ask you who poked this bear this time that they're coming here soon. All is all that I is going to do is create chaos, separate families. They're going to roam the streets. They're going to hurt protesters. They're going to even hurt people that are citizens of this country. You have citizens that are from the immigrant community because we have multi-generational families in this city that have different legal statuses and undocumented statuses. Yet, they're citizens of this city. So I am what bothers me the most is that ICE comes here with racial profiling in mind because they have been given that right by the Supreme Court. They're going to come here and it's going to affect all my brown brothers and sisters. If you have brown skin and black hair, you are going to be taken. What are you going to do to stop this? That's what I want to know.

Thank you, Maria. Any questions? Council member Garcia. U Thank you, Maria. Sorry. I I really am I'm really um interested in in the commentary tonight from the public and I want to know if you think that somehow like the city of Flagstaff could like get in between a federal operation and the people that are that are involved with it in your opinion, do you think that like you know our law enforcement can go fight ICE somehow or like what how does this work for you for us to to stop them from doing What is is they're going to do?

Don't let them come here. Other cities have done that. Other states have done that. And are you afraid to poke the bear? No. It It's just

How can you say you support the immigrant community that yet you vote against it? How can you say you are for the immigrant community if you're not doing anything to protect them? Um so so I was just asking the question for you but if you wanted me to answer that question um it's uh that that what what we what I have supported up till now I think is the most legally defensible avenue for us to take without um

without poking the bear. No, without No, just basically in that form the most legally defensible. You don't say anything about immigration and civil immigration enforcement needs to have a due process and these people are going to come in with no due process in mind. So at least ask them to have a judicial warrant. Mayor, is there a a question that is being asked? question was answered. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. You're welcome.

Ali Thomas. Hello. Good evening. Um, I'm here to echo what my fellow residents have shared as well as highlight the fact that we're all here clearly overwhelmed, overwhelmingly demanding a stronger policy. I don't see or hear anyone saying that what you propose has gone far enough and that says something. Um I want to urge council to clarify standards first of all for why this power will be delegated to the city manager especially given the existing non-delegation clause. I understand that other cities have structured it the same way. But as the city manager herself stated, Flagstaff is unique and we should be structuring things in a way that's unique to our city and that reflects our community. Um, the unilateral power that would be given to the city manager is very concerning and it's very subjective, especially when it's held by someone that we, the public, have not elected. It completely shuts the door for us to have any say on what's happening. Um, and when it comes to urgency and flexibility, especially regarding the difference between a directive or an ordinance, that unilateral haste to quickly fix and change something can only lead to closed doors, lack of transparency, and decisions that do not represent us. your constituents. So, I'd also like to urge that a signed judicial warrant be the only way that civil immigration law enforcement may be allowed to use a city property to take that ordinance or directive a little further. Um, and lastly, echo the piece of um the fear of litigation that the risk of a 1487 complaint is not a reason to move forward with only a directive or to maintain the authorization in the city manager's sole control. There is a clear and feasible timeline to fix an ordinance. as the deputy attorney stated, um, if it's determined that it violates state law and should it fall into the potential violation category, the bond has been waved in the past, again, as he mentioned. So, there's a

lot of whatifs that you're weighing more heavily than taking action to protect your actual constituents in a very real way in their daily lives. Thanks. Thank you. Uh, city manager, I believe you wanted to make a statement before we have some questions and comments.

I do, and I I'm not sure if Kevin has any follow-up items either, but I just wanted to um I'm not sure I stated it clearly earlier. Um, but just based on the information provided earlier by our city attorney's office, I do continue to have concerns about 1487 claims and impact on our city resources. I think um just to clarify for the public, you all are elected by the city and you hire the city manager. It's a it was a national process and um I take my direction from you. So, um I wanted to just make that very clear. Um my recommendation to council would be to not move forward with an ordinance um but amend the city manager directive to include the sign language. I think um one of our public commenters actually mentioned this that that did come up during the discussion on this that when we had the city manager directive and um council asked us to look at sign language. So, um, you know, we do listen and we have been listening to the the public and council. Um, I also just wanted to just agree with our city attorney's recommendation that that we do feel like the city manager directive and the flexibility in that language, it does provide the city manager just more flexibility to address issues. And I keep using that word, but I I couldn't I I don't want to just overstate how important that is. um in this discussion. Um so with that, I don't know if Kevin has any additional comments. Um if not, I'll I'll um hand it back to you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Matthews.

Thank you, Mayor. Um and I just want to echo what the city manager just said. First of all, um I can't imagine whether we passed an ordinance or a directive. Um if something came up and a decision had to be made, if you just want to close your eyes and imagine we'd have to schedule a meeting and do a 48 hour notice and get together and vote and debate, the the the directive allows the city manager to act immediately. Um the the directive allows for a broader scope and I know some uh commenters were not happy with that. They want specific targeting different agencies. Um, I remember back in the 80s I was working in the banking industry and they took away our requirement to review a will or a trust because they didn't want to narrow us down to being an interpreter of what was directed in that will and trust. That way it gave it back to the person to to uh the person who was requesting it a broader scope and and let the burden uh be on them. This is the same thing. We just saw ICE now be asked to assist um TSA. We didn't know that would happen a month ago. And so there may be several other things that happen that we had not anticipated. And if we narrow our scope and start really honing in on specifics, that could limit us to then do what the community says they want us to do, which is address the concerns of the community better and more uh to be able to do it more nimly and address it. Now, sometimes, well, we see

in national TV, we see what Phoenix is doing or Pima County is doing, Tucson. Uh, we don't know what's going to happen with that. Um, um, was it 14 87? Um, it may or may not come to play, but we do have a responsibility to taxpayer money. And we are not set up here to just arbitrarily say, well, I don't like how people are acting, so I'm just going to break a law or an ordinance, violate a law. Um, this directive may not give everybody the feel-good um that they want because they like, you know, what some people are taking just defiant action. This actually delivers what the community wants in the bigger picture. It may not have the words um that you want to hear, but it actually if we're really talking about the best protection and response to the unknown and what could happen that we don't foresee, the the this directive is the best. We are elected officials. We hired a city manager as she mentioned. We did a national search. We hired her because we trusted that she will make sound decisions that reflect our our um request and our direction. Um so I worry about if we did this this ordinance, it's it's a law. I also worry about what does that do to our law enforcement? Council member Garcia brought it up. I can't imagine that the federal government does they have the legal right to come in here. We making an ordinance will not stop them. You might feel good if we did it um thinking, you know, they're not going to come in because we made this law.

They trump our laws here. So, they will still come in. So, now we've put our law enforcement in jeopardy. Who are they going to enforce the city laws? Are they going going to comply with the federal law? Are they going to clash with a federal agency and cause a real tragedy in our town? I would hope not. So, I want to add the um verbiage that we've talked about tonight about the signs and some other things to the directive. That is our best response. May not be your feelood because of what we've heard on TV and oh yeah, we want to do that to to you know say that we're part of the movement. I want to do what's best for our community and be the most effective for our community in addressing this in the best way we can legally and and to also protect our law enforcement and our taxpayers.

Council member House.

Thank you, Mayor. I first just want to thank all the community members that came out and spoke tonight. Um this is and has never been an easy conversation. We're in such a difficult space because as a city we're operating in a space between federal authority, constitutional law, uh state constitutional mandates and the trust that our community has placed in us as your community representatives. I want to be clear that we've heard a lot tonight about the fear that comes from saying anything more direct or more blatant about this action um and about the the conversation that we're having. And what I want to be clear about is that those are not things that have I I think at least in my conversations um been overlooked or overstated um among us as council members. I I try and only speak for myself in the conversations that I've had. Uh it's very clear that there is a very real fear and very real concerns that exist within our community. One of the challenges that we're facing is that we cannot, at least from my understanding, legally bar ICE or other federal agencies from operating within our jurisdiction. because immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. We can't simply say that they cannot be here

period and and point blank. And I feel like that is part of the reason that we have undertaken a broader uh whether it's the directive or ordinance that broader approach that at least ensures that city property is not being used in ways under any agency that contradict or counteract our community values and that same trust that that the community has placed in What we can do and what I continue to wrestle with is the act of where we can land in terms of requiring judicial warrants. um making clear our statements and our stances when it comes to the immigration actions that we've seen happen in other communities that have resulted in the fears that we're seeing and experiencing now. I believe that because of our first amendment rights as as individuals, as a council, as elected officials, we can express and share the same concerns and opposition to what we've seen happen in other communities. And we can advocate for the protections that should exist to protect our community's first amendment rights to protect due process protections and rights and the call for transparency and restraint that we have have made throughout this process. I think what's most challenging to me is finding that line between what we can

and cannot do. Finding that line between how we make those statements in ways that do not put our community at risk and don't essentially abandon the faith that our community has put in us. What I feel, and this is just my personal feelings on this, is that we are in essentially a lose-lose situation, that we cannot go as far as some in our community want us to without risking violation of state or federal law. And we cannot blindly go along with what's happening at the federal level, without abandoning the faith that our community has placed in us. I don't know where the line is and I don't know what the most responsible answer is to that. And that's just me me being honest with our community that this is something that we've all been wrestling with that I've been wrestling with since before the beginning of this year since we've seen these actions happening in in other communities and as we've addressed and faced that real question of what happens if it happens here. I don't want to take too much more time because I know I've already spoken for for quite a while, but I just wanted to voice that for our community and for the rest of council that these are the things that we're wrestling with and we're trying to find the proper balance in ways that both protect and preserve community trust and protect and preserve our community as a whole. I don't know again what the answer is to that, but I I just feel that that is what we're wrestling with, why I've

encouraged this ongoing conversation and why I think if we are going to proceed now, it's with the directive and continued conversations about what else we do. That's just where I'm at at this point. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Alen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, good evening, everyone. Uh, thank you leadership for looking into this and bringing forth the proposed ordinance that would budge us the directive that we've uh that we've already put in motion. Very supportive of the directive. I have a couple thoughts about it. Um and but you know I couple weeks ago I did ask that we incorporate our directive into an ordinance and there's been a lot of work behind the scenes um to honor that. Appreciate it. Um great conversation this evening. I agree that our values are not being articulated at all in the directive or the propos the proposed ordinance. And while I have zero concerns that our current city manager's values or our police uh chief's values stray from the intent of this directive, zero, I do agree with the community members who feel these documents don't go far enough to be perfectly clear in their intent to protect residents. That's what people want to see in these documents. Um, so mayor, when it's time to call the question, I want to make sure we have a chance to consider the ordinance, and I will offer an amendment as well, a simple amendment with almost identical language to that used by the city of Phoenix. And, uh, if if that fails, uh, either way, I intend to offer the same amendment to the directive in addition to the sign language amendments on the table, which I support, and the other, uh, things we've discussed. Thank you. Looking forward to calling the the question. Thank you, Council Member, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, and thank you for everyone who spoke tonight and to my colleagues and their comments. Um, you know, don't think for one second we're not all up here losing sleep every night over this. I mean, this is probably one of the toughest um moments in in my time. I would imagine it's the same for everyone in this room. So with that being said, I I do think we should look at the directive. And my reasoning is that I feel like we need to be nimble. I feel like there is a lot changing daily. I can hardly keep up. I'm sure we all feel the same. And I don't know what's down the road, but I can tell you that I believe in the seven up here and online. Um we are working hard to ensure the safety of the city and I believe in our city manager. We did. She the seven of us have entrusted ourselves in her and with a directive we can at least have this conversation on the fly if need be when things come up when when there is a question or an incident and how do we handle it? Um I know it's not and I think I can't remember who said this. It's maybe not what people in this room want to hear, but we are working hard. We are listening to you. We are trying to remain nimble ourselves so that we can tackle what comes at us. And right now, we don't know what that future is. But I believe in the direction we're going. I believe in the directive. And it doesn't mean this conversation stops. I I am sure we are going to have more conversations in the community and up

here as we move forward. So again, I just want to thank everyone. I I take all the words and all the comments and all the questions to heart. I have met with many of you. I will continue to do that. But right now, I feel we are moving in the right direction. I like the directive idea. Um keeping ourselves flexible during this unprecedented time. Thank you, Council Member Garcia.

Thank you so much, Madame Mayor. And I wanted to thank the community again for coming out and pointing out um their concerns and and also being opened enough to um formulate understandings around where we align in um being able to handle this in in a a a legal way, in a proactive way. and and and with that being said, I will be thanking Ace Overman for bringing this to us tonight or bringing the u bringing it to council so we could so we could mle over this with the community and um while we were consistently or at least I know I've been working on this for hundreds of days um there's been reasons why I didn't take a a you know a a loud stance to this and I think it's proven to um be somewhat successful up till now. Now things might change, but thank you ACE for hearing the community's concerns. I also wanted to look at your commentary um that you wanted to include language that was specifically aimed at federal agencies and I question the relevance. If they are encapsulated within I guess the vagueness of the directive then why would we limit ourselves to one body when we are including all bodies in this. I realize that the community has taken a different approach to being proactive about this in their stance and that's that's the beauty of Flagstaff in our community is we have our own ways of wanting to get this addressed. Uh my approach up to now is being a little bit more quiet about it but being

ready and we were as soon as the citizens petition came out then we were able to roll out the plan and that could have taken different roles. It could have it could have been that I showed up and all of a sudden we had to take that plan. It wasn't because we were being inactive. It was because we were trying to let it settle and not um turn this place into a Minneapolis because we're not we're not Puma County. We're not Phoenix. We're not Tucson. We're Flagstaff. And because of that, we are different. I think that our differences um I I would like our differences uh that separate ourselves from those places mean that maybe we don't come under the same kind of scrutiny and national attention that these other places have gotten. After tonight's conversation probably won't be the case, but you know, here's for hoping here's for hoping that we could get through this without too much disruption, but be ready for when that disruption comes. Um, I would also uh like to um like to acknowledge that that there may be a time when I am more on the side of pointing specifically at certain agencies or the the comments that the public has addressed us with has not fallen upon my ears on upon deaf ears here. I'm I'm amendable to to an open mind and I'm excited to hear what council member Alen has to say about his amendments and and the the changes here, but I want us I really don't want to see fractures in our community when we're really focused on the same goal. We're just taking different approaches to to grab that goal. And while maybe in some cases I might question some of the relevance of of the actions that some community members want to take, the bottom line is is we're still moving in

the same direction. And there should be no reason why when it when when at the brutal moment of truth why we're not standing arm in- arm. you know, um, forces at our highest level of government have been successful at waging psychological warfare through our own consumption of media. And um, and that concerns me that that has a lot to do with um, us not being in alignment even though we are we are in a line together. While we may not completely agree, I want the community to understand that I am ready to be on that front line when the time comes to make sure that we keep Flagstaff citizens safe. And also, I mean, because there isn't much I could do about federal um but but I don't want to see what happened in other locations happen here. And I'm willing to do anything which includes standing with the community when the time comes. But when I show up, I want to make sure that you understand that I am on your team, that we're all on the same page. We're just taking different approaches to getting there. I haven't quite decided exactly uh if I'm with the ordinance or because I haven't or the directive because I haven't heard from Council Member Ashlin yet, but I'll be excited to hear that and and um and hopefully we hopefully we'll have a sense of unity as we move through this because there's no way that we're going to get through this by separating ourselves here in the community. Council member Matthews.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I too thank everybody for commenting and I honestly truly believe that we all want the same thing. We want our community to be safe and protected and we may see it through different avenues of getting there. But I wanted to also and I and I apologize the chief, I don't see him here. You know, the chief has done an amazing job of connecting with our immigrant community and answering questions and diffusing potential fears and talking about realities and what can be done and what cannot be done. And that doesn't happen in a lot of the other communities out there. We are very much trying to do the best we can with the legal tools that we have. And again, I'm going to repeat it. It's not about doing things that make us all feel good, that are going to be ineffective or put us in a worse situation. We're all, whether it's the chief of police, our city manager, city council, this has been a thing that has weighed on all of our minds. We're part of the community. We are representative of the community. And although you know some of us are leaning towards staying to the the directive because that is what we feel we can do the best to keep our community safe may not be what you know you you were hoping to get but it the outcome will be better and that's what we believe and that's why I would be supporting the continuation of the directive adding some more but I think we cannot forget that we have a chief of police that has made a commitment to our whole community, whether it's the immigrant community, what other community, he has been out there in the public speaking to them, answering questions, assuring them that he's just not going to let, you know,

something come in and be a whirlwind and disrupt our whole community to the best of his ability. And that's what we're trying to do. And so I I think we all want the same end result. Um, and it just sounds like there's some disagreement in what people think is the best effective way to do it. But I can assure you that we all want our community to stay safe, all of our community, and to have the least disruption as we can within our means and our abilities and our legal authority.

Council member Alen, looking for my unmute button there. Thank you. Um, yeah, just a quick question and this might be most appropriate for for Sterling. Uh, I I just want to make sure the, you know, I I am a little confused on a couple things here. Uh, it seems like we're trying to imbue this directive with a lot of values and um, dare I say sort of a a you know, an underpinning of of policy. Um and at the same time, you know, uh it's not supposed to be an administrative action, uh or it it's not an administrative action. Um, I just I I want some clarification on the on the on the on the line between administrative action and policym when we're talking about uh how to how to uh make sure what we're doing is is, you know, first and foremost the will of council and uh not just um administration because We're not supposed to we're not supposed to get involved in administrative actions um on a day-to-day level as you know. Uh may maybe you can just talk through that a little bit Kevin.

I'll leave it to Sterling. He can have that one. Yeah, I can. Okay. I just saw you

mayor and council member Alen and council. I'm happy to speak to that. Typically policy is set by resolution or ordinance. Um council also sets city council goals for the city. Um the the code that is put into place is basically uh all those ordinances put together and the city manager is then asked through a council manager form of government which our charter is to enforce those ordinances. That said, um council can also give direction in a situation like it did on March 3rd, uh when the city manager came forward and said, "Hey, I've got a directive here that I believe captures our community values, your goals, your values, as much as we can within the legal confines. And as a result, I'm presenting that to you as a directive that I'd like to put forward." She didn't have to bring that to you. the city manager could have just done it, but she brought that forward to you, received your direction. Uh you all gave uh um direction to go ahead with that and it went into effect the next day. Um I I hope that helps kind of, you know, define a little more for for you, Council Member Alen, and the public where policy and where administrative directives come into play because the c the manager can put an administrative director into play at any moment. that's her prerogative when you appointed her as the city manager of the charter and the code um give her the power to do so. Yeah, thank you very much. Um I guess I don't have a further comment right now. I I I just appreciate you um sifting through that a little bit.

Thank you, council member city manager. Um, does immigration enforcement meet the goals of the city? Yes. I'm I mean we we have council goals. We have um city goals. Can I ask a clarification of your question, please? Thank you.

Yes. If you were to be approached by ICE to use city facilities for staging operations, does that immigration enforcement meet the goals of the city? Mayor, now I understand the way you're asking that question. Um, my answer would be I I would um consult with our police chief. Um, and my recommendation would be no.

Thank you. And if you or so if council proposed changes to the directive or if you thought changes to the directive were warranted, would you bring those changes to council? Uh, mayor, yes, I would. And um Chief, can I put you on the spot again? You've you've stated this many times. Thank you. Does the Flagstaff Police Department have a um any role to play in immigration enforcement?

I got red means on. Interesting. Mayor, uh members of council, no. Thank you. Yeah. And um we were asked about reviewing immigration enforcement. Can you talk a little bit about the set of police directives um regarding immigration and um what some of the changes were made along with um the public,

mayor, members of council, and I know Maria's here. Um, you know, one of the things that we did very early on, uh, actually before this administration as they or right at the onset is met with community and talked about process and expectations of of our values in this community. Um, a lot of those values, um, connect to being lawful, uh, and peaceful and using the the systems and the relationships we have in place to make sure that we honor, uh, the human and civil rights of our our community. And my promise to everybody has always been, um, I want to be informed. Um, I get calls daily from community about things going on and I vet them. Um, and the day I hear about something that is an operation or something that happens, um, I will ensure to the best of my abilities with the authority that I have, um, that on behalf of our residents of this community, I will investigate that. Um, and I have pathways as it relates to policy. Um, you know, we uh uh took an effort to meet with your leadership and a lot of community leadership and have a really detailed granular conversation about almost every word in our immigration policy uh and collaboratively and the growth of relationships through that process I think was incredibly healthy and through that process I think we've come up with a more thoughtful immigration policy. you know, I remind people we're bound by state law on some things and I don't and there's been a lot of conversation about that today and it's really important for me in my uh my ethics and my morality that I follow that um and so I think this policy that we've shaped and I I ask everybody to go online and look at it um has met some common ground for us as it relates to

the lawfulness of the policy and then the expectations that I have of the women and men of the Flagstaff Police Department and um their authority in this community and as and affording grace as we move forward. And how have you communicated um these principles to the men and women of the police force,

mayor, members of council, and I I I thank you for that. One of the beautiful things about the Flagstaff Police Department and this entire community and this city um and its and its staff is we have the ability to be intimate in our leadership direction. I personally uh delivered this message with Maryanne Sullivan uh the department's attorney in every briefing and and individually uh delivered the reforms of this immigration policy, my expectations of performance and communication and professionalism associated with that. Um that was handd delivered by me personally. Um and um I'm very proud um and we as a community should be very proud of the history uh uh of the performance of this police department related to immigration um with all this pressure that we're consistently feeling. Um I will tell you also my promise to you and everybody is I will do my best to be a navigator of communication. Um there are things that we have control of in life and things outside of our control. Um but what we do have control over is our ability to aggressively represent ourselves in this community and its values and demand information. Um there are times I uh it is uncomfortable for all of us to include you um to having to be speaking for things outside of our control. Uh I'm not the chief of ICE. I'm the chief of the Flagstaff Police Department, but constantly daily in this community, I'm trying to communicate on behalf of them and represent them at the highest levels.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, okay. Couple other things. That's it for I think until you get back to your seat. Um, we we've said this before, but I think it bears stating again that we looked at the Phoenix and Tucson city manager directives and the Puma County um was it an ordinance was an ordinance with Pima County? A resolution. Resolution with Pima County.

We looked at all of those when when writing ours. We had conversations with attorneys and elected officials, city managers of these entities. So, we're very familiar with what each one says. And and I've I've heard people be kind of flippant about worrying about being sued or losing money. And it's not just with this issue. I've heard it in other issues, too, right? because the we often are having the um the state legislature put something on us that we have to do or the federal government putting something on us that we don't want to do. And um you know the fighting words are well we'll just we'll take them to court. We'll sue them. And we've talked about our our oath of office and safeguarding um taxpayer money. And I I think what gets lost is what taxpayer money is. And taxpayer money is public housing that hundreds of people live in in Flagstaff. and taxpayer money is housing vouchers that allows people to live in uh rental housing throughout the community. It's our afterchool support of fax at FUSD. It's money that we give to Flagstaff Shelter Services and Flagstaff Family Food Center. So, these aren't these aren't abstract um things that

these aren't abstract um pots of money that don't impact people's daily lives. They do impact people's daily lives. And um I just ask that we we keep that in mind. And you can disagree. You can think that we shouldn't um that we shouldn't consider whether we're going to get a 1487. Um but I just ask that you know that this funding that we're talking about goes into the heart of our community. And as has been said before, the city of Phoenix already has a 1487 complaint against them and their uh city manager directive is is very similar to ours and Pima County already has a 1487 complaint against them. Now, does that mean we have to automatically be afraid of of these kinds of challenges? No. It's not the only thing. The fact that other entities have been challenged is not the only thing that we consider in the package of how we should address this issue. It's just one. And that combined with with other things that we've talked about tonight, um, all of our considerations make up the entire the entire puzzle of what we're up here trying to grapple with to um, in order to serve our community. So, it's not just that we don't want a 1487 or we don't want to lose grant funding from the federal government. Um, there are many factors that go into this decision making.

So, I wanted to say that. And Council Member Alen, did you want to um propose something?

Yeah, thank you very much. uh think it makes sense to go through this in sort of a a linear fashion here. So, what I'd like to do is um begin by uh uh a motion to read ordinance number 2026-09 by title only for the first time with the amendment the amended language of uh here second um prohibited uses. Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using city property as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for civil immigration enforcement actions without a judicial warrant.

Was that a formal motion, Council Member Alen? Is Yes. Yeah. Waiting for a second. Can you read that one more time?

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

Is there a second? I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Opposed. Opposed. I

Okay, mayor. That's fine. Um, so let me uh make another motion here um to read ordinance number 2026-09 by title only for the first time with no additional amendments provided. Um this is the ordinance we asked for. it's what staff brought forward to us. Uh I think we should go ahead and move forward with it. Um I do realize that all of the conversation around this uh is very pertinent and uh I just think that we should move this into a bit of a policy realm instead of just leaving it administrative. So that's that's why I support moving forward with the ordinance that we asked for uh in March and that staff brought forward as a proposal.

Thank you, council member. Do we have a second? I'll second. Any discussion? Yes, mayor. I had a question. Certainly.

Uh so I I wanted to clarify uh council member Alen that I voted against the uh proposed amendment to the ordinance because I I believe that's what we've discussed being the most risky option. I'm wondering if your second motion um the one that we're about to vote on essentially includes leaving the conversation open for being able to add the the proposed language that you shared to the directive in lie. Would that be a secondary conversation that we have to have or uh could that be part of what we're considering in this in this motion? Just the fact that that conversation is not the door is enclosed to the conversation of amending the the um the directive as we have this vote on the ordinance. from a from a procedural perspective, if I can speak. Um there's a motion and a second um on what was presented as it as it was presented with the agenda packet. Um whether or not any language is going to be included in in the directive is separate and apart from that. My recommendation would be to move forward with this um and then have any further discussion about the directive after that

if the ordinance if the ordinance doesn't pass. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to read ordinance number 2026-09 by title only for the first time. Uh, we've had all discussion. No additional discussion. All those in favor? I I I. All opposed? I Okay. So now, um, I will entertain. Oh, council member.

Yeah, if I may, I'll I'll just take the ball and run with it. I would like to Um ah wait so the directive uh what I'd like to do is amend the directive um to include the statement that I provided uh both before orally and also in the chat. Uh prohibited uses include but are not limited to using city property as a staging area processing location or operations space for civil immigration enforcement actions without a judicial warrant. And I think there might be a couple other amendments that need to be wrapped into that if if we're gonna vote on an amended directive.

So what we'd be looking for in that case is to bring the directive back to council and adding that language um and having another discussion about it. Correct. No, it wouldn't be to bring it back. Sorry. Go ahead. Sorry. Council member, I No, you're you're you know more than I do on the legality of the procedure. I'm just saying there wouldn't be anything um that would prevent you from talking about that directive tonight. I'm going to tell you though, I would recommend we go into executive session if you consider adding that directive.

Thank Yes, Council Member Matthews.

Directive. If you consider adding the language that you've proposed to the directive, I would recommend the council go into executive session. Mayor, um because this was adding language to the directive was not on the agenda and because I have a lot of legal questions, I'd like us just to table it with the understanding that we're going to have another e session to talk about the impact of that language and stuff and then bring it back officially um if we deem necessary. If that makes sense. Again, there's been a motion and a second. The the ordinance has failed. Um whether or not something comes back to the council is going to be up to the um council and the city manager. I I there wouldn't be a need to bring something back to the council for a council member directive or for a city manager directive, excuse me,

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

Uh mayor, council, I do. Um, I I think what I would like to receive direction on is um adding the sign language to the city manager directive. Um, adding the TSA language to the city manager directive. And if I can get direction, we can make those changes immediately. And then this this third item related to um civil I think what's the we have our language up there. Civil immigration enforcement. this language without a judicial warrant. That is something that we would need to to discuss in executive session. Council member Garcia,

I move that we go into executive session and discuss this now. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I I I. Any opposed? All right.

All right, we have everyone online who's supposed to be online. Council member Alen and President,

thank you. So, city manager, you need you needed to ask for some uh direction clarification. Um, yes, Mayor and Council. Um, I just pulled up the uh the language that we um included in the draft ordinance. Um, I am seeking direction from council to include this language related to signage requirements into the city manager's directive. I'm also seeking direction to add the uh item four number four um related to CSA and f federally mandated operations at Flagstaff Poleium Airport um including that language into the city manager directive. Council, is there anyone who who doesn't want to see either of those points written into the directive?

I I approve it. Okay. All right. All right. So, you have it? Yes. I will make those changes um immediately and we'll have a new directive signed and place on the website. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. All right. So, that Madame Mayor, yes. I I just wanted to remind you about the uh my amendment for the directive. We did take a temperature check on that. Yes,

Madame Mayor. Um the city manager didn't ask for any direction on that. That said, um if uh the council would like, I can research that. My office can and get back to you. So, Council Member Alen and Council Member House. Um we can direct the city attorney to do the requisite research into that and get back to us and then bring the uh if that's what you desire and bring the directive back to council. I I would appreciate that. I I can research it, but whether or not it comes back to council, that'll ultimately be between you and the manager. Correct.

And um Council Member House, is that what you were seeking as well? Yes, Madame Mayor. Thank you. And Council Member Garcia, is that what you were seeking?

No. Okay. So, we have two who would like that and I believe that the rest of us were um a no the first time around. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we are moving on to item C which is consideration and approval of council rules of procedure. Thank you, Mayor. Can I make a motion?

Well, do you um you gave us a presentation last time. Do you have anything this time?

I don't. So, mayor, thank you for the question. I don't have a formal presentation. I did want to take a very brief moment um when we discussed at the work session a couple of weeks ago. Council member House had brought up um some concerns about the language regarding the fair process. And I wanted to just show that up on the screen really quick um just to make sure that council agrees that the language makes um makes sense and that it it captures what um council member house was referring to. So it's this sentence here. We were trying to to clarify that there really isn't a whole lot of discussion that should be happening between council members um explanations, you know, discussion once the the item had been presented by the requesting council member. The way it was initially written kind of made it seem like that would exclude the initial requesting council member from kind of talking about why they're requesting this. So I changed the language to just um clarify that following the presentation of the topic there should be no discussion or explanation of positions from other members of council. So other than that everything else was um what was discussed

and council member house you had uh C in the chat. Yes. I just wanted to say thank you Stacy that uh clarifi the clarification in that sentence gets at what I was pointing out on that. So I'm satisfied. Thank you. Thank you. Did you have anything else that you wanted to point out? Council member Alen, you have a question?

Yeah, I do. Uh this is mostly just for clarification because I believe I understand the the um the dynamic pretty well. Um, can we just have for the record is um can you let me know uh does this do these changes to rules of procedure in any way whatsoever um limit or diminish the public's ability to ask for items to become agendaized. Uh, and I know that they don't specifically have that right already except for the petition process. I just want to make sure that that's being protected and that the ability of the public to go to council members and discuss the agendaization of the various things. Um, this only makes that broader, right? It doesn't diminish those things in any way.

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

It certainly does. I I uh very much in favor of this because I think it gives even more avenues um for the community's concerns to eventually become agendaized in an appropriate manner. Um it doesn't take away any of anything. It only adds Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Garcia.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. And I have a couple of or I have two questions. They might be concerns. So, my first one is the draft review of draft agenda process. I'm I'm u I understand why we're eliminating it from the council review process. I'm fine with that. Totally cool with it. I I know why we're why we're doing that. I get it. But I I appreciate and I think the public appreciates having that uh draft agenda online for longer than just a couple of days like we do for work sessions. And I wanted to see if we can keep that online ahead of time like we currently do for the public and for myself.

Um so to answer your question very bluntly, yes. So the draft agenda, the process that we use right now of creating that draft agenda, having it posted on our website a week and a half before the meeting, that does not change. The only thing that's changing is we're just removing the section on our work session that asks if council wants to discuss or review. Um we haven't utilized that in a very very long time. Um so it just makes sense to clean it up. That is not to say that if you have questions that you want to bring up, that's part of the two from. Um, you can certainly approach staff, the city manager on those questions, but the draft agenda will still be created and will still be available at the same time that it is right now.

Okay. Thank you. That adds clarity to that and that makes me really happy. So my next concern is um I believe that when this was being made I was online and I wasn't necessarily a part of this section of the conversation but it refers to nine uh 91 I believe and it's where it says basically that we will um comments during open call to the public may only be provided in person and since I may have been off of our online but not coherent of that part of the conversation I wanted to get clarification on why that is. Personally, I feel like it's uh it it disenfranchises some of the community and that that concerns me. I and I'll preface that by saying I also watch county supervisor meetings and I completely understand why from some commentary that has come online why this would want to be mitigated.

Sure. So, that direction came from some discussions with council. that was direction that was given um by the council body to move in that direction. I will say that it was um that conversation was kind of started at a time where we had some unfortunate incidents where um folks had joined our online portal and came on and where they were making some really terrible derogatory statements. And I think the position that council took was if you're going to want to come and talk about something that's not on our agenda, you can come in person and do that. But if you want to speak on things that are on our agenda, um that would be allowed in that public comment, you know, speaking on an item that's available, that electronic um ability would be there. Um recognizing that the matters at hand on an agenda, those actions that are being taken are things that would affect our our community directly and that we're not necessarily getting outside influences um for things like that public open call to the public, excuse me. And and I'm not trying to put you on the spot by any means. I I just wanted to to to ask because I'm curious like is there like a different protocol for stuff that's agendaized than there is for open call? Um because if there isn't, I don't see why we need to to change it.

So, we're not necessarily changing it. This has been in place since I want to say about 2021 2022. So putting it in here was really just a cotification of the council direction um and and the process that had changed. Um there isn't a different protocol other than open call to the public is limited to that first one is limited to 30 minutes and we ask we we require you to be here in person for those to have comments on things that are not on that agenda for the evening. So there's they're not pertaining to something that council is taking action on or discussing specifically at that meeting.

And since we have taken um public or open call to the public is now what we'll be calling it to an online platform or taking it offline back in 2021 2022 when the incidents happened that required that to take place. We haven't seen any incidents like that happen since.

No, we have not. Um and in fact really the use of our online commenting has declined significantly over the last few years. Um we don't I mean it's very rare that we have comments come through um on that electronic system and we have not had any feedback on limiting that open call at the beginning and the end to just in person. So, so kind of tenatively, you've never actually had to stop somebody from commenting on open call?

I mean, there's been there's been times when people have joined and have tried to give comment at open call virtually, and we've had to explain to them, you know, this isn't an option for virtual comment. Here are the ways that you can provide your information. You can reach out to the council. Um, we have a public comment email that then allows those comments to be reflected in the minutes. Um, that also reaches you guys directly. Um, or they can they can come in person and we also explain that, you know, there's a time at the end of the meeting too that would give them enough time to be able to come if they are local. It has only happened a handful of times that we have had to direct people that way. Um, it does not happen frequently at all.

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

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

Thank you for that clarification and thank you for giving me the time. All right. Any additional questions or comments? Council member Spence. Thank you, Mayor. Um can you Stacy, can you go back to 4.02 02 on the fair. I think there's a typographical error that we should correct. The sentence that says the city manager uh the city manager will determine the next steps for the request which may include but is not limited to I suggest the word not is missing.

Oh, excellent catch. Thank you. I will make that change. I've only looked at this for hours. Thank you.

Any additional comments, concerns? So, are we in agreement then with this as amended in Oh, actually we have public comment. So, let me take public comment and then I'll ask councel for your direction. Michelle James. Hello, mayor and council members. Thanks for remembering the public comment. Um, you guys know who I am. Michelle James. I'm executive director of Friends of Flagstaff's future. I'd like to express concern about two of the items in the revised rule of uh rules of procedure. The first one is rule five, order of business. Um, discusses the regular meeting agenda. Um, a new paragraph is has been put in that says, quote, "Consent agenda items may be considered and acted upon by one motion unless a council member specifically requests that a consent item be considered and voted on separately." This section does not indicate that a consent agenda item can be considered separately if a member of the public requests it. This is something that you may decad have been saying clearly in the last few months uh in recent months and we believe this is important especially given the reason you're saying that and the consent agenda and the uh issues that came around fl the flat cameras with that. The second comment is r regarding rule nine public participation and council discussions. I'm on the same page where um council member Garcia is. Uh this talks about um it only being allowed in person. I did not know that that change had happened. I was here when those horrible comments came in. Um, and I remember them distinctly, but I don't remember having this change. I think it's really important that um that the public can speak to council at the beginning and at the end. And council is meeting during

regular working hours, right? And so, how will someone be able to do that if they can't get off work? And if they if you meetings are sometimes ending by 5, maybe they're at 5:30, people can't get here to to comment. And you know, I I use the same word in my my note here to my what I want to say is it disenfranchises members of the public. And there are there are people who can't get here because of work. There are people who can't get here because of other reasons, lack of transportation, maybe there's physical restrictions, all that stuff. they should be able to talk to you at either one of those um times and one or both of those times. And I think it's really important to leave that open for people. Um I you know I I I know I understand the concern with the comments that came in. Those are really quite horrible, but maybe someone can be ready to you know kind of forewarn to just cut it off or something like that. Um, I I do think it's important to have some way for people without computers um and without transportation to actually comment to you guys about issues that they're concerned with. That's it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Sterling. I saw your light go on.

Yeah. I just in in the context of and council member Garcia when you were speaking of it and Miss James was also speaking to it. Um there would be some legal advice involved in content and what's allowed and what's not allowed allowed uh when it comes to cutting people off so to speak in um a public forum. Although we are a limited public forum there is first amendment involved in this. That's the the extent to which I would go right now. if council did want to entertain bringing call to the public back. And I will note that under the um open meeting law statute, call to the public is discretionary. Council um can choose to put it on their agenda or can elect not to. Um council has always chosen to put it on the agenda, which I think is the right call. Um that said, um there there are um first amendment issues to be considered during call to the public. Thank you. Um, we have another public commenter, so do you want to hold off, Stacy, and we can wrap it all up. Um, Eva Putoova.

Um, so I just want to uh comment very briefly on the rules change for changes for the fair for putting fair items on the agenda. And you probably don't know that, but um uh once upon a time uh any council member could request to put to have an agenda uh to to put to have an item to put on a fair uh part of agenda without the consideration of the city manager. So nobody even minority opinion any topic could always be considered uh by another three council members. I do think it's kind of important to uh uh not have everything go through the city manager. City manager already has a lot of power when it comes to uh sit setting up uh council's agenda. uh essentially this is your only opportunity uh for city council members to introduce a topic that you want to discuss and so I want you to consider uh actually preserving that right for any of you that you know that's there could be a lot of fair agendas and of course you're going to have to navigate uh calendaring and maybe you can have a rule only uh three fair agenda per meeting it you know, create whatever rules, make change, but I would um ask you to preserve that right for yourself and not have the city manager decide whether this item should be taken care of uh through a report or in other ways or essentially seeking permission to talk about. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Council. I just um just a comment on that. I you know I think the thought behind changing this the the fair process is actually to make it easier for council members. I mean we've had a couple of examples. You know I I will go to um council member Spence. I think you've had a a couple of fair items that they get on the agenda. we have to, you know, do three thumbs up from council and then they get put on the agenda and many times that takes months for that to happen. So, the idea was to put kind of an alternate path where you could come to the city manager and say, "Hey, I've got this issue of interest that I think other council members are are um interested in in putting on the agenda." I think data centers is a perfect example of that. So, um, you know, I think there is still the option for, um, city manager to say, you know, this is something I would like you to to kind of go through the fair process and see if other council members will give you a thumbs up. So, we're not taking away that, right? We're just adding um some more opportunity for these items to to come to council for consideration faster. And and what about the um consent agenda? I think that is an important point um because it has never been written on the agenda. I just include it so that people know.

Yeah. And I think um Sterling and I were kind of, you know, talking through that just a little bit as we heard that comment come in. And I think that there is a way that we can add some language in there that just clarifies that the public can request to speak on any consent agenda item. Once that request is made, then it you know the mayor you then will pull that item because that request has been made and then we can have public comment out. The the public doesn't get doesn't have the ability to pull an agenda item, but they can request to speak. The mayor then of course has that direction or that discretion to say yes, we're going to take comment on that or or no, we won't. I've never seen somebody say, "No, we're not going to take comment on it." And then you just pull that as part of the process. So, I think that there's a way that we can write that in there that clarifies clearly that the public can request to speak and at that time the mayor will decide um to pull that item for that comment.

Okay. Thank you. I would like that clarification because I think that that is um a good point to make. And regarding the call to the public um Oh, I see you have a question. Um I will say that a lot of discussion went into um changing the rules to h to for a person to have to be here in person. that doesn't mean that we can't reconsider doing that. Um the fact that we have I don't know how many times someone has requested to online do um open call to the public, but it hasn't Would you agree that it hasn't been an issue? No, I think at least in the last year, I think I've had one, maybe two that I've had to say, "I'm sorry, you can't comment during this time, but here are your other options."

Okay. And when they're when they're calling in, are they are they calling in on a phone or through a computer? No, they'll they'll join the meeting through a computer. So, it's a team's meeting, very similar to what we have going on here. And there's a moderator that works to communicate with them, you know, what do you want to speak on? putting them in a queue, alerting you that there's online comments. Okay. Thank you. And council member Garcia.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. So, um, city manager, to, uh, clarify former council member um, Pulp Solva's point. So, we're still available to to call for a fair from the dis at any point in time without discussing it with you if we so choose to do that. But you're just opening up another avenue for us to discuss with you prior um to clarify if there's if it's already on the agenda, if there's another way that we can go about this. And if all else fails, I can just say I don't care. We're I'm still going to ask for a fair. Correct. Council member,

thank you for that clarification. C, mayor, can I just ask I want I I I guess I want to make sure that um the comment related to um pulling items from the consent agenda. So, where did we land on that? So, right now the public can make a comment on an item which typically then mayor will pull that item for the comment,

right? because possibly the comment um creates questions or additional discussion among council members. So, I guess I could just allow comment and then move into consent for all of the items, but I just pull it in case something that the member of the public said spurs someone else to want to say something discussion or ask a question. Yes. Okay. And and I think where we landed was we'll we'll build just a statement in that section of the rules of procedure that clarifies kind of that process and and makes the public know that they have the ability to request to speak on an item.

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

Mayor, I mayor, I will move to approve the updated rules of procedure with the amendments discussed this evening. the amendments regarding the um the consent agenda. So I I said the amendments discussed this evening because we talked about the consent agenda and there was the catch of council member um Spence. My typo. So there were more amendments than just that item. Okay. Thank you, Council Member House. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I any any opposed?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, we're moving down to 13 future agenda item requests. And um Ace, did you want to come down here and present to council and then council, what we're looking for is three thumbs up to move it forward. Just uh just to clarify, me presenting will not conflict with my public comment. Would or is this my public comment now? Okay. Then I would like to go last on it if that's okay.

I don't believe we have any public comment on this. Oh, we do. Okay. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you, Isaiah Emmanuel, Rick Michaels. Hello, Mayor. Hello, council members. Thank you for the opportunity uh to talk tonight. Um just wanted to express my support um for the petition to uh basically put into writing that there shouldn't be discrimination against folks in Flagstaff on the basis of source of income. Um that includes folks who receive section 8 housing vouchers, veterans benefits, um or any other type of, you know, nonprofit support to help with housing. Um, so just wanted to come here as a uh community member and also a case manager um who works for Cookanino County um Health and Human Services. Um I work with some of um the most marginalized members of our community um work with low-income folks who live with chronic um conditions and um aside from their chronic health conditions, one of the biggest things that people speak to as a major struggle in this town is housing. Um, I've had several clients um who had at some point um received section 8 vouchers um but lost their section 8 housing voucher and as a result um they had to then go out into the community to find someone else who would accept that voucher and weren't able to find anybody who was willing to do that. Um

I the current weight list um for our section 8 units here in Flagstaff is minimum of two years. Um last I heard it's more like two to four years. Um so this is a major need here in the community. Um there are a lot of folks who need this type of housing and need this type of assistance. Um I know that this measure wouldn't solve all of our housing problems. There's a lot of, you know, pieces to that bigger puzzle, but I do think that, you know, explicitly outlawing discrimination against folks on the basis of their source of income would be a good lowhanging fruit that I think our city should take. Um, uh, it's also included in our 10-year housing plan, um, that the the city council has mapped out. Um there is a portion within that plan that does ask um that the city come up with, you know, some sort of protections against folks who receive section 8 vouchers. Um and uh yeah, I just think that this would be a great way to deliver on that um within the within the housing 10-year plan. Um although there's not lots of you know although there may not be like uh you know specific reported instances of section 8 discrimination the fact that it's not currently on the books means that a lot of people feel that it's not worth actually coming forward and reporting. Um, so I think that having this on the books and having some official writing around this would go really far um, for those folks to feel like they do have, you know, a receptive opportunity to be able to make that heard.

I have a question for you. Yes. Yeah. And this is just an estimate. I'm not asking you to um you know come with specific numbers, but do you have an estimate of how many people in the past year or two have told you that they were turned down um from from housing because they had a voucher? Um, I can think of at least two examples over the past year or two here where somebody was looking for housing and specifically Yes. Um, that they weren't able to find it because they didn't want to work with section 8. Yeah.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

All right. Michelle James. Hello again, mayor and council members. Michelle James, executive director of Friends of Flax Future. FC supports the petition and work closely with the citizen who submitted it. There is a strong, this is a strong proposal that proposes a legal mo legal means for cities such as Flagstaff to address discrimination in housing based on a person's source of income. Phoenix, Tucson, and importantly the city of Tempe have passed ordinances that prevent this type of discrimination in housing. More than 100 cities and even 16 states have passed such laws. The fact that discrimination based on source of income is legal in Flagstaff is lamentable across the country. Source of income discrimination is considered a leading contributor to housing discrimination. According to the National Fair Housing Alliance, sources of income could that that could now result in refusal related to housing include section H section 8 vouchers we just talked about as well as social security benefits, public assistance, alimony, veterans benefits, foster care subsidies, supplemental security income, and child support payments. Prohibiting source of income discrimination in housing is supported by the 10-year housing plan. As you've heard, Flagstaff should take any and all actions to increase housing stability in our city. I have often used when I've talked to other people that this is a lowhanging fruit, just like the previous speaker said. We urge council to vote to move this petition to a full discussion at a future council meeting. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Kavon Crochor. Did I even get close?

Hi. Thank you. That was a good attempt. It's Kasropore. It It does look weird. Um, hi city council mayor. Thank you for your time. Um, I'm also strongly in favor of this petition to prevent uh source of income discrimination in Flagstaff for housing. Uh, anyone who has recently moved here like I have in the last few years will know we have no shortage of housing difficulties. Um, you know, it's been brought up multiple times in this session. Supply shortages, vacation rentals, second homes, rising prices, inflation, the list goes on. Um, you know, for all Flagstaff has to offer, this is a difficult place to live. um especially for those who depend on government assistance for housing. Um I understand housing is a priority for the city council. Um and I think this is an effective and reasonable way to move in the right direction to address it. Uh my friend who works for the US Forest Service here um got extremely lucky with a pilot program um out west in Flagstaff. Can't remember the name of it. Um but uh you know many people uh that he works with in the Forest Service um did not get so lucky. they didn't get that lottery and they can't buy a house. They can't they're having uh trouble getting affordable housing. Um you know, a lot of us um you know may have a house or a comfortable living place and it's easy to look away uh from this uh discrimination petition. Um but discrimination and housing affects us all by limiting diversity and pushing for a classist community. And honestly, I moved to Flagstaff largely for the welcoming community and I would like to see our legislation reflect the openness that our community does have. I believe Flagstaff is better. I believe Flagstaff can do better and then there is precedent uh for passing this legisl legislation um like previous uh commenters have said um and I think Flagstaff should join them. So, thank you.

Thank you, Crystal Diaz. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm here to give my support for moving forward the citizen petition titled prohibiting discrimination in housing based on source of income. Flag staff's civil rights ordinance protects residents from discrimination in places of public accommodation and in and in employment but it does not include protections in housing. Some may say that's okay as we can rely on the state and federal fair housing protections, but those laws do not include source of income as a protected class. Why would we want to protect source of income? When cities do so, it promotes housing stability, prevents proxy discrimination, diversifies communities, and improves economic mobility and opportunity. My understanding is that we can add housing protections, including source of income, as an amendment to our current civil rights code, just as Attorney General Chris Mays has already allowed in Tempe. Page 60 of the 10-year housing plan lists ways to protect people from housing discrimination and remove housing barriers. One of those recommendations is to explore expanding local fair housing protected classes to include items such as age and source of income. Moving this fair item forward does just that. It allows council to discuss and explore options. The city's 10-year housing plan, as others have already talked about, the website states that our goal is to quote substantially increase housing subsidies for our neighbors who are unable to afford housing in Flagstaff. But increasing subsidies doesn't really mean much if landlords can reject those subsidies with no

consequences. At the end of the day, this is about fairness. It's about ensuring that when our neighbors receive housing assistance, assistance that we want them to use, they aren't turned away at the door for reasons that have nothing to do with their character, their reliability, or their ability to pay rent. By moving this petition forward, we send a clear message that discrimination has no place in Flagstaff and that our city is committed to making sure every resident has a chance at stable and safe housing. Thank you.

Thank you, Ace Overman. I'd like to start off by thanking council member Garcia for meeting with me on this uh petition and this issue and being and supporting me in this whole process. Today I am asking the city council to say no to discrimination and yes to fair housing. We all know Flagstaff's housing situation isn't just a crisis, it's a nightmare, especially for those seeking affordable options. For example, here in Flagstaff, 30% of vouchers, equivalent to about 178 each year expire unused, making those residents have to go back onto the wait list for another 2 to three years. One major barrier to affordable housing is source of income discrimination. For those who don't know, source of income discrim discrimination allows landlords to deny housing to people who use vouchers like section 8 or rely on social security, veterans benefits, disability, or child support. This is a legal form of discrimination practiced today in the year 2026 as there is no federal or state law prohibiting it. The National Fair Housing Alliance identifies source of income discrimination as one of the most common forms of housing discrimination today. Prohibiting source of income discrimination will provide the city and its residents with numerous benefits, including reducing the city's voucher e expiration rates, helping residents secure stable housing more quickly, improving access to resources, fostering diverse communities, finding income and quality, and expanding affordable housing options. A 2018 study by HUD found that cities with these protections achieved nearly 100% voucher utilization.

In 2023, attorney Arizona Attorney General Chris Mace issued a legal opinion opening door for cities like ours here in Flagstaff to prohibit source of income discrimination. My citizen petition asked the city to use this pathway that Chris May has laid out by amending the 2013 civil rights ordinance or non-discrimination ordinance to include source of income as a protected class and housing thereby prohibiting such discrimination. Flagstaff would not be alone. Across the country, 16 states in more than a 100 cities, both Democratic and Republican, have already prohibited source of income discrimination. Since Chris May's opinion in 2023, Phoenix, Tempe, and Tucson have all implemented similar protections by amending their local non-discrimination ordinances, and these measures have faced no legal challenges or or any 1487 since 2023. Um, in my discussions with City of Tucson housing staff, they told me that this measure has been effective, low cost, and easy for easy to enforce. For example, over three years, unused housing vouchers in the city have dropped from 300 to under 200 and utilization has rise risen above 80%. I'm asking to move this petition forward as other people said is on page 60 to 10ear housing plan. Everyone in Flagstaff deserves the right to housing and the freedom to live near their jobs, schools, and resources. Discrimination should not determine where someone can or cannot live. It's time for Flagstaff to join in many, many communities have already taken this step. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, council. We're looking for three thumbs up to move this forward. Oh, you have a question. Oh. Um, I don't know whose thumb that was. Council member House, did you have a question? I I can withdraw it. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Okay. So, we have was my thumb. Sorry.

We have enough thumbs up. Okay, thank you. We'll move this forward and get it scheduled for a um an upcoming agenda. Okay. So, next up we have open call to the public. Then we haveformational items to from mayor, council, and staff and future agenda item requests. And I'll start with council member Matthews. Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to share some other activities that I've been involved with um over the last two weeks. Um we did the Perina tour. I don't think we talked about that last week. Um we continue our steering committee for the healing center. It's going um still continuing to go forward. And um I was at also the America 250 bus tour and also gave blood um across the street with Vitalist. And then next week we're going to DC. Council member Garcia and the mayor and city manager. So that's what's happening now. Yeah. Mayor, councel, um we are currently um in lockdown on in the facility. So if you can stay even even those in the audience, if you could stay in the building, we've had an incident across the street in the park and PD is currently um investigating it. So, we'll we'll give the clearance when we're ready to go. But if we can just all hold tight in this um in this room, that would be helpful. That would be fun. Council member Garcia,

sorry, I'm debating on if I want to go through all this. I'm just going to put it off until next week. Thank you. Council member Alen, you guys enjoy your sleep in your slumber party there. Nothing more for me. That's not nice. Vice Mayor,

I do have some food in my cooler if anyone's super hungry. Um, I I was able to ring the bell yesterday with my colleagues and it was a great event. It was loud, but totally worth it. And Saturday, just a reminder, there is a dedicate a stud habitat celebration fundraiser out at the starter homes located in Timber Sky. I will be helping serve lunch. And I did want to thank um our city manager, Joanne Keane, and the CMO office for sponsoring the food for the event. Um it's a great celebration and I can't wait to see the homeowners um moved in and and just really celebrating what we've all accomplished for Flagstaff.

Um just to comment on that, it was really difficult to get a um sponsoring a stud through procurement. Council member House,

just one thing quickly. Um, I will be presenting to the, uh, CJCC executive board tomorrow on the, um, recovery ready community resolution the city of Flagstaff passed. I was asked if I would do that by the executive director. So, I'll be looking forward to meeting with folks tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Council my response. Nothing this evening. And nothing from me. Uh, city manager, mayor, council, I don't have anything. Thank you.

Okay. So, here we are. I'm going to adjourn the meeting. And do we have any indication of how long we're going to detain people in here? I think if just staying here is we we've