City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Today is September 8th, 2026, and this is the City of Prescott voting meeting. Before we get started, I'd like to recognize a few dignitaries. We have Lucy Mason here. She was our Arizona State Representative for eight years, I believe. and also to help Councilmember Jay Ruby celebrate his birthday. I won't tell you what year it is. His parents have traveled all the way from Pennsylvania to be here. I see him back there, hi. Hope you enjoy your visit and keep an eye on Mr. Ruby. He does tend to be quite the rabble rouser and troublemaker up here. So thank you very much. Roll call, please. Mayor Rusing.

Here. Councilman Fredrickson. Here. Councilman Gamboge participating virtually. Can you hear us?

Yes, I can.

Maybe.

Uh-oh.

There he is.

I hear it.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN GEARING.

WELL, FOR TED, I AM HERE.

COUNCILMAN GRADY.

HERE.

COUNCILMAN RUBY.

HERE.

AND THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT MAYOR PRO TEMPFREWORTH IS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING. THANK YOU. AND OUR FIRST ITEM IS INTRODUCTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM COUNCILWOMAN FREDERICKSON THIS WEEK.

Good afternoon, everybody here in chambers and those who may be watching online. There are several things coming up in the next few weeks that we'd like to highlight for you. First, September is library card sign-up month. It's a great time to discover everything your Prescott Public Library has to offer. From the library of things and community programs to events and extensive online resources, there are many ways to take advantage of your library. Throughout September, visitors who sign up for a library card can receive a cool America 250 themed book bag. Supplies are limited, so don't delay. Also, if you and your library card, whether it's brand new or one that you've had for a while, go to the librarian desk on the second floor, you can spin the wheel and win a prize. Learn more about the resources and events available at the library's website, library.prescott-az.gov. Now as you know, September is a great time to get outdoors. Not too hot, lots of sunshine, plants are plump and happy from the summer's rain. So this is the perfect time for the Recreation Service's Parks for Pollinators BioBlitz, currently underway, and now through the end of September. There's still plenty of time to participate. This family-friendly activity invites residents to get out, get out, to Prescott's parks and help document the plants, insects, and animals that they find there using the free iNaturalist app. No experience is necessary and it's a great way to get outside, explore our local parks, and help us learn more about the species that call Prescott home. At the end of the month, on Wednesday, September 30th, we'll meet up at Watson Lake from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. to tally up the pollinator counts and celebrate with giveaways and prizes. More information and registration for the BioBlitz are available on Recreation Services' page on the City's website. And finally, tune in on Wednesday, September 16th at 4 p.m. for Talk of the Town with City Council. Mayor Kathy Rusing and Mayor Pro Tem Louis Freworth host this monthly radio show featuring conversations about what's happening in Prescott, city priorities, and the work of City Council. You can listen on KQNA, 1130 a.m., 99.9 fm, or listen online at kqna.com. There's always lots to do around town. We encourage residents to stay engaged and take advantage of the many programs and opportunities available throughout our community.

Thank you, Mary. Next, we will have a moment of silence to honor the memory of the almost 3,000 people who lost their lives on 9-11. And this, unbelievably, is already the 25th anniversary of that tragic day. We will never forget and we will hold them in our hearts forever. So please stand if you're able and remain standing for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Thank you.

We'll now have the invocation. Mayor Ruesing and council members, thank you for allowing me to offer this prayer as a representative of Temple B'rith Shalom, the largest synagogue in the Quad Cities. We have 110 family units, and we welcome you to a Friday night service anytime at 5.30 p.m. We are located across from Watson Lake. spirit of life and love, divine spirit which resides in all. We do not always understand each other. We do not always speak or listen carefully. We often find it difficult to look beyond ourselves to our common purpose, and we cause suffering to each other and ourselves. In this time together, let us be reminded that we seek to understand each other. We seek to speak to each other in truth with compassion. We seek to listen to each other in love with caring. We seek the common good and a life lived in accord with our highest aspirations. We call upon the living spirit in each of us to make it so and let us say amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Now I have the Constitution Week Proclamation presented by Mayor Roussingh.

Is anyone here representing Constitution Week? Please come up to the stand. You can get a little closer here.

Gather around.

Thank you. Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America, the guardian of our liberties, embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule by law. Whereas September 17th, 2026 marks the 239th anniversary of the framing of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention. whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary, and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it. Whereas Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America designating September 17th through the 23rd as Constitution Week. Now therefore, I, Kathy Ruesing, Mayor of the City of Prescott, do hereby proclaim September 17th through the 23rd, 2026, as Constitution Week, and ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals the framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties. Now, somebody would like to say a few words. Thank you.

All kinds of good stuff. There it is. Okay, thank you. There you go. Oh, thank you so much. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Melanie Krell, and I'm the Regent of the General George Crook DAR Chapter here in Prescott. And with me are some of our members, Lena Timm, Susan Williams, Charlotte Pontius, and Julia Kirker. And we want to thank you all so much for honoring us and the Constitution with this recognition. And speaking of patriotic celebrations, on September 17th, Courthouse Square, we're going to have bells across America. And so from 12 to 3, we're going to have a little ceremony, and we're going to actually ring some bells because across the United States— Everybody is going to be ringing bells in recognition of our Constitution, and we'd love to see you all come out and join us. It will be fun. Thank you, Mary Rusing. Very much appreciate it.

Thank you.

Do you want us to separate to get it?

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Kathy. Appreciate it. Thank you.

All right. And our next proclamation is for International Day of Peace, and that will be presented by Councilman Grady.

This past Sunday, I participated in a tribute to peacemakers and peace builders at my faith community. The Peace Pilgrim was one of those legendary but real activists who devoted her life to peace by walking literally thousands of miles across our country, relaying her message of peace along the way. She said over 50 years ago, Peace is an idea whose time has come. People need to be moved from apathy, start thinking, and actively work for peace. Begin to seek the real source of peace within and use the way of peace with others. These inspiring actions and words still resonate today. So I'm honored to present this proclamation and invite representatives of the Prescott Peace Builders to come forward. So in honor of the International Day of Peace, September 21st, 2026. Whereas the mission of Prescott Peace Builders is to inspire our community to believe in and work towards a more peaceful, sustainable world, and whereas Peace Builders is inclusive and committed to building an identity of peace, justice, and mutual respect, and whereas the issue of peace embraces the deepest hopes of all peoples and remains humanity's guiding inspiration, And whereas the United Nations expanded the observance of the International Day of Peace in 2001 to include the call for a day of global ceasefire and nonviolence, and invited all nations and peoples to honor a cessation of hostilities for the duration of that day. And whereas there's a growing support within our own city for the observance of the International Day of Peace, which affirms a vision of our world at peace and fosters cooperation between individuals, organizations, and nations. And whereas global crisis impels all citizens to work towards converting humanity's noblest aspirations for world peace into practical reality of a culture of peace for future generations. Now therefore, Kathy Ruesing, Mayor of the City of Prescott, does hereby proclaim September 21, 2026 as the International Day of Peace throughout the City of Prescott and urge its commemoration by individuals, organizations, places of worship, and schools. Would one of you like to make any comments? Oh, you would like to?

Thank you, Patrick. I think the proclamation stated our mission very well. Prescott Peace Builders has been an organization here for 11 years now, and every year since 2015, we have had a special International Day of Peace celebration at the courthouse at 6.30, and we will be doing that again this year with speakers, with music, with candlelight. This will be actually honored throughout the world. So it's an honor to do that. Also would like to invite you on the 27th of September to our fourth peace concert, which has been a lot of fun at Granite Park, Granite Creek Park from 1245 to four o'clock. There will be five different musical groups playing, and there's no admission, and just bring your chair and blanket and enjoy. I'd like to just say a word. I spent most of my day today at La Tierra Community School. I have been working with the third, fourth, and fifth graders there for about five or six years now. talking about peace and how we make peace a part of our life and in the community and for each other. And part of our discussion today was I told them about the city having this proclamation today and how important it was. And I said that I would mention that the future of our world and peace in the world is the children that will be our future. And so they need to know that the city cares and we really appreciate that you do this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next item is the open call to the public. The city of Prescott welcomes public engagement. Residents may comment and address the council regarding matters that are not included on the posted agenda during the call to the public. If you wish to speak, please complete a green speaker card and submit it to me prior to the meeting being convened. As a reminder, speakers are limited to four minutes and the call to the public will be limited to 40 minutes in total with the following stipulations. Citizens will be limited to addressing the council on the same topic only four times in total. If a topic has been addressed more than five times by different speakers, the mayor may limit future discussion on the topic. Topics of a primarily national concern may be limited at the discretion of the mayor, and the call to the public shall not be used to address the counsel on current or pending legal matters by a party or their representative. Our first card is from Carter LaBarge.

Mayor, council, I'm Carter Labarge, resident of Prescott. This is in regard to the additional land needed for the police evidence facility. On October 14th, 2025, staff advised that he along with the chief and the public works had looked at several pieces of property and they kept circling back to the one on Prescott Lakes Parkway. I contend that this property was selected because we wanted it. and cost was no issue. The police needs were a little vague. They needed a building for a little more than 20,000 square foot and space for kennels and SWAT, additional possibilities, a gun range possible, and then exterior lots for police vehicles and storage of vehicles used in crimes. At the time, several members of the council were under the impression that we were buying the entire 16 acres from the county at retail price. It was clarified then that we were actually only buying 7.483 acres. of the total 16, and it would only be $1.55 million, and the entire 16 acres would be over $3 million. If you recall, the planning on this purchase was shabbily done, and the appraisal done by BBG Appraisals in Phoenix was a slapped-together job and did not even bother to include the City of Prescott in the appraisal. The document stated that the city of Phoenix was entering into the agreement to buy the property. Our staff never bothered to read the appraisal before submitting it to council for purchase. It was passed off as a clerical error. No problem. Sorry that you caught that we didn't read it before presenting it. You were told that this would be more than enough land to complete the project, and if we needed more, we had the first right of refusal for the second eight acres in that parcel. You were also told that the extra land was available, though we don't know if we would ever need to have it. There were issues raised by council about hard digs on this parcel. Staff assured council that nearby the grade of the hill was exposed and that they had a pretty good idea of the geology of the land. Anyone who had any experience in heavy construction would take a look at this parcel and ask why anyone would pay retail for a hillside drainage that will require extensive cuts and use in preparation. The first rendering showed multiple retaining walls in front and a huge retaining wall at the rear of the property. It was then evident that in addition to the huge retaining walls for that facility, they would also be exposed from above. So now we've got a security issue on top of a difficult site prep. As it stands today, we need the entire 16 acres to get it done. That is 696,960 square feet. For the sake of argument, let's say that when it's all said and done, our 20,000 square foot building turns out to be double at 40,000 square foot, and I'm sure that that could easily happen. No problem. If we add an additional 50,000 square foot for the exterior storage and parking, we've got a total of 90,000 square feet needed. Folks, that's 12.91% of the 16 acres. The remainder will be mostly retaining walls and unusable hillside and drainage facing Prescott Lakes Parkway. Now the police, public works and our capital projects team under guidance from the city manager desired this site. Desire does not mean that they're using good judgment or they're taking into consideration that the residents have to pay for this project. Everything in front of you tells you to find another site that is sound and financially practical and viable. Now, we're going to be stuck with the $1.55 million in unusable land if we do move on, and almost $2 million in negotiated design contracts with the architect. But let's be clear, let's not compound the errors and omissions of bad judgment. Find another parcel, build the evidence facility and all the other line items that the police need and want. But let's do it thoughtfully and with the knowledge that just because they want it, it doesn't mean that it is right or financially responsible. Thank you.

Thank you, Carter.

Lucy Mason.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, for having me come before you today. I am so grateful I'm trying to find my words right now, so just bear with me if you can for a second. Here we go. I just really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of JustServe. This coming Saturday, our community will join cities across the country for and on behalf of the National 9-11 Day of Service and Remembrance. I really am grateful for the recognition already happening on 9-11 today here and what you're doing for them. I just really appreciate that too. What began as a promise to never forget has evolved into a nationwide tradition of turning solemn memory into active compassion. This week, our residents will come together for volunteer projects across town, demonstrating that the spirit of unity, neighborly care, and resilience that carried our nation through 9-11 and remains alive and strong right here in our Prescott community. We invite everyone to join us at Just Serve this Saturday as we honor those that we lost by serving one another. And I've got the justserve.org is where you can get more information. But just to go on a little bit and elaborate a little bit, Just Serve. is a nationwide organization. And it exists in 17 other countries alive and well. So what it is, to explain, is it is at JustServe.org. It is a website where you can go find volunteer projects to serve. And it's extremely productive and a little bit understated, which is why I'm here today, because we in Prescott like to volunteer for different projects. And if you go on justserve.org, you can find opportunities where people are asking for volunteers. So that would be it. And I conclude with thank you so much for the opportunity to come up and explain about this.

Thank you, Lucy. Good to see you. Thank you.

Michael Marchand.

Good afternoon, Michael Marchand here. Excuse me. This past January 2026, a study session left us all with a cliffhanger, much like our favorite TV series at the end of the season. Will the Arizona state government start finding the city of Prescott? Has the city negotiated relief? Where's the project design at? Will this critical project really get done from one to three years later than promised to the state of Arizona? I'm talking, of course, about centralization. Last January, seven months ago, we heard that this $143.5 million project appeared to be in deep trouble. The agreed upon consent order said that sundog phase C3 must be completed by July 1st, 2027, a mere 10 months from now. If that doesn't happen, ADEQ can find the city. I don't know the amount. Meanwhile, the presentation in January promised completing sundog phase C3 in a vague FY29 or FY30 timeframe. That's one year late, best case, and three years late, worst case, per the consent order. One other thing I'd like to point out is that this is a big capital project. Maybe Prescott's biggest. Simple math, $143.5 million divided by 50,000 Prescott residents is just shy of $3,000 per resident, or just shy of $12,000 for a family of four. That's a lot. Besides the schedule, how's the projected cost holding up? Final thing, what one person in these four walls is responsible for centralization? If more than one person is deemed responsible, then no one is responsible. Please clear that up for me. So what's going on? I'd really like to know, and I'm betting lots of other people feel the same way. It's all about proactive city government transparency. So how about a detailed study session as soon as it can be arranged? Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to direct city staff to have Public Works contact Mr. Marchand, maybe answer a few of his questions. Thank you. That's all, Mayor.

Our next item is the consent agenda. Councilman Fredrickson did request pulling item C and H. Other than that, I've not received any other requests from the council and you can vote on the balance of the consent agenda.

I move that we approve items A, B, D, E, F, G. Second. Please vote.

Councilman Gamboge?

I vote yes.

Thank you. That passes 6-0.

Okay Mary.

Thank you. I wanted to pull consent agenda item C because I had a question nicely Chief Brambilla gave me the answer but I thought if I had the question others in the public might want an answer as well. And the question that came up into my mind is the SRO, the school resource officer for the upper elementary school and the middle school was at 25% to us as far as covering the salary. But at the high school level, it's 50% to us. And I wanted an explanation as to that difference. He gave it to me, but I see the chief is here to give it to the rest of you.

Yes, ma'am. Mayor Ruesing and Council and Councilwoman Fredrickson. John Brambilla, Interim Police Chief. And thank you for that question. It's a good question because we do have three different contracts with three different schools within the public unified school district. So... Two of them are for the two middle schools, Mile High Middle School, as well as Granite Mountain Upper or Lower Middle School, and then Prescott High School. So just a little bit of history on that as to why they're different. We used to have access to federal grants through the the Office of Community-Oriented Policing, and that's where we initially had funding for school resource officers and other community service officers. Those grants typically come with, they fund it for three years, and then at the end of three years, it's all on the city. So we didn't feel that those grants were sustainable. And actually, we had actually taken the school resource officer out of the high school because of staffing. We saw that as a need at that time, but going forward and having conversations with the school district, That was a need that we needed to have back into the schools. So we entered into a partnership with Prescott Unified School District for a school resource officer at the high school where they agreed to pay 50% and we agreed as far as the city to pay 50%. Which is actually a pretty good deal for us because we get that officer back during the summer. We get him back during their vacations during fall break and spring break. And we've maintained that relationship and that intergovernmental agreement for the last nine years with PUSD. A few years ago, the Department of Education put a lot of emphasis on school safety. They had... $70-plus million available for school resource officers and school safety officers because they wanted police officers in every school. So our school district, Prescott Unified School District, applied for those grants. They first received one in 2023 and 2024 fiscal year from Mile High Middle School. And so we've had an SRO in that position. That grant pays 80 or 75% of the officer's salary and we pay 25. Again, because that officer's only there during the school year, the officer comes back to us during the summer and during the breaks as well. And so this last year, the school district, because these grants are only available to the school district, they applied for the second one for Granite Mountain and they were awarded that one. So this is a renewal from last year's approvals. Really the only thing that changes is the pay as far as what the officers, because they do take into account the increases that the city gave this last year. And so that's why there's two different grants shared figures there.

Thank you, Chief. And as long as we have you here, and I'm sorry, I'm just springing this on you, but for those who aren't familiar, why is an SRO an important thing?

So school resource officers are very important. They bridge those gaps that we have between the department and the schools. It's a great partnership that we have with Prescott Unified School District to have officers in those schools. Those officers do more than just enforcement. They teach law-related education classes. They assist the school with their safety plans. They obviously enforce the laws there as well. And it's just one of those community building blocks that we have where we bridge those gaps of putting the officers into the school. And who knows the kids better than those officers who are there every day spending time. And at Granite Mountain, we actually have a facility canine that we received as a donation to the police department. So her name is Marina. kind of like the street where the PD is located. And she's up there at the school to provide emotional support for the kids, and they just love that program. And we're actually working on another one. So just one of those things that we do for the community that's important.

That sounds great. Thanks, Chief. Thank you.

Thank you, Chief. Thank you.

The other item that I had pulled was consent agenda item eight.

I'm sorry, we have to take the motions separately since they were pulled from consent. So we'll need a motion to adopt the resolutions if you choose to do so.

I move that we approve item eight C. Second. Please vote.

Councilman Gamboggi.

I approve.

Councilman Gamboge, can I get a yes or no from you on the adoption of thorough resolutions, please?

Yes.

Thank you. That passes 6-0.

Sorry to jump the gun, Sarah. I figured I'd just lump them together after we were done. But I also asked to pull consent agenda item H because I had a question. This is about night work, authorization for night work about a bridge repair on Mount Azuma. And I was unclear from the background material presented whether or not blocking off one of the lanes on Montezuma was gonna be a 24 seven or just when night work was going on. Gwen provided me with an answer and I see Tim's here to give an answer to everybody else.

Yeah, so the recommendation from AECOM who provided the tech memo is to remove the top and bottom rail which are both 40 foot segments. So once those rails are removed, the safety element on that sidewalk is pretty much gone. So the barriers and stuff will be up 24 seven during the course of the week that they're gonna be out there. We requested two weeks just in case we get weather. It was kind of just a little bit of a buffer so we wouldn't have to come back and ask again if we ran long.

Thank you. And actually, I didn't know that. Because I was thinking of blocking that lane of travel on the traffic side, but you're also blocking the sidewalk?

The sidewalk, yeah. And you can see in the upper inset pictures, we have to go back as far as Merritt and Navajo. on the, if you're traveling southbound the sidewalk, it's the last access point, and then Sheldon Street on the south end to prevent people from walking down the sidewalk on that side. There is a sidewalk on the east side of the street, so there's plenty of pedestrian access, but the distances between the access points on each end are one of the reasons that we're gonna be closing that the way we are.

Thank you, I appreciate the input. And before you go, Tim, could you please tell the public why we have to do this work?

Yeah, there was a vehicle accident that occurred here in April. And then based off the damage that was seen, AECOM is currently doing some engineering for us on our bridge maintenance program. So we did a small amendment to their contract to have them analyze the bridge. They determined there is actually no structural damage to the bridge. The embeds are still in good shape, but there is some spalled concrete. The top rail has to be replaced. The recommendation on the bottom rail was to pull it, examine it, and see if it needs to be replaced. The problem is it's a very long lead item time, so we're gonna order the bottom rail anyway. If the bottom rail is okay, we'll salvage it and use it maybe in some other future use, but the contractor wouldn't be able to return it if we ordered it and the bottom rail was still usable, they would not be able to return it, so we didn't want to request the contractor to do that.

Yeah, this is damage as a result of a high-speed fatal accident, pretty substantial. Yes.

Not buying it from Amazon then because Amazon has a great return function.

Okay. Thank you for that, Tim. All righty. Thank you.

I'll move to accept consent agenda item H. Second.

Councilman Campogey.

Yes.

Thank you. That passes 6-0. Next item is adoption of resolution number 2026-2005, declaring city-owned property adjacent to Prescott Regional Airport, Ernest A. Love Field to be included as airport lands.

Good afternoon, Mayor and members of City Council. We have an item, actually two items, 9A and 9B, that we're going to tag team on a little bit. Brian Sparks is going to speak more to 9B. But if we could have the slides, Miss Sarah. I have the clicker. No slides?

If you have slides in there, I'm sure IT will pull them up in just a moment.

Awesome. I will stand here awkwardly. Here's the exhibit for the next two items. This is, you may recall, a conversation about the northeast ramp, which is in support of the fire base. So the notion is to apply those $3.5 million that The state issued two years ago, I'm sorry, 2026, for the improvements. So this was the assembly of land. The two pink boxes are city-owned property, part of what's referred to as the W property. And then a little bit hard to see, but there's two parcels that we'll talk about in just a minute that are privately owned, so I just wanted to set that context. This item 9A is really to do two things. One, reimburse the city for those appraised values. The larger ones are appraised for $1 million, the smaller for $340,000. We had an appraisal that was done a few months ago. So to reimburse the general fund for that amount and then... direct staff to pull it into airport lands, if you will. So what that requires is once the reimbursement's in place, we'll complete the environmental assessment, or environmental process, the CADEX, and once we get a thumbs up from the FAA, we'll change the airport layout plan and get approval to pull it into the airport lands. And that's important because those parcels then are eligible for state and federal investment, which we may or may not need in the future, and part of the land assembly process. So because these are separate items, I'd be happy to answer any questions on this. And again, it kind of sets the stage for 9B.

Thank you. I just wanted to comment. I think the public has noticed we've had a lot of agenda items concerning property acquisition for the airport. And I just would like to say this is one of the top 20 busiest airports in the nation. And it had, last year, had about 390,000 operations. And it is a very critical element for public safety for northern Arizona with this fire center. And we're also doing a lot of footwork and preparation for... runway extension and shift, which will also increase public safety. So I just wanted to let the public know that we're doing a lot of the airport things.

Okay.

Any other comments from anybody? Do I hear a motion?

Mayor I move approval of item 9A on the regular agenda resolution number 2026-2005.

Second.

Please vote.

Councilman Gampoji.

Yes.

Thank you. That passes 6-0. And I'd like to just ask staff to have a little bit of patience with IT getting the items pulled up. They're running teams, toggling through multiple different things to get the votes pulled up onto the screen. So there's a lot happening in the back. So they'll get it up as soon as they can.

Fair enough.

Our next item is adoption of ordinance number 2026-1960 in ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, approving city contract number 2027-057, a land purchase agreement between the City of Prescott and Crosswind Leasing, LLC, for the purchase of 4.18 acres, known as APN number 103-01, and city contract number 2027-058, a land purchase agreement between the city of Prescott and Aaron Land Company LLC for the purchase of 1.61 acres known as APN number 103-01-026S and adoption of resolution number 2026-2007, directing inclusion of purchase parcels into airport lands.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Members of Council, Brian Sparks, Real Estate Administrator. I love making these long ordinances and making Sarah read these. She absolutely loves them. As you can see on the map, this is the left V of the W parcel that we have out at the airport that is, as we had discussed in prior executive session, to show you that this will be the new ramp location for the fire bomber base. The two parcels in green are the only parcels that were lacking to complete this section of property there. So if you will recall, on June 9th of this year, we pushed through ordinance number 2026-1948, which was to implore the right parcel owner to sell or we would invoke eminent domain proceedings. We, since that time, have been able to negotiate a fair and equitable purchase agreement with Crosswind Leasing, thus avoiding the eminent domain. So we've also been negotiating with the parcel on the left, which is owned by Aaron Land Company, and they have been much more amicable to work with. So we're bringing this to you today as a package. We thought it would be easier. And as Sarah mentioned, there's two components to this. One is the purchase element of these and then The second is the resolutions then to, once we have completed this purchase, to move these two parcels directly into airport lands. And as you are probably aware, in fiscal year 2026, the state of Arizona appropriations included a $3.5 million warrant that the city will be made whole on these via the airport when we do bring these into airport land. So I can't remember what other... This is just to show you again the eventual plans for the building. You can kind of see the green in the background, how those two parcels are so important for this. The phase public aircraft parking area will be mainly for the fire bombers again to increase public safety for the area. It will allow us, do you know how many that we can park there once we have that done?

Go through design now.

Okay, considerable increase over what we can park now. And then as you can see, there will be future uses for either a Rotocraft site or an innovation center, air cargo site, multiple uses that we can use for this airport property. These are, did we do this?

I don't think we need that one.

Okay, so again, this is the background on it. June 9th, we did the ordinance for eminent domain. July 23rd, City and Crosswind Leasing negotiated a purchase price of $849,000 plus closing costs. I have our city attorney to thank for that. And then I have worked with the Air and Land Company and negotiated the $290,000 purchase price for the smaller of the two parcels. And both land acquisitions will be funded with the State of Arizona warrant, the proceeds of which are already received. Any questions?

Thank you. Thank you for all your expertise and hard work in bringing these deals to fruition and avoiding any lengthy lawsuits.

Well, as I said, I can't take credit. That was Joe.

And also, Rick, I believe part of this property that we're acquiring is going to be a future location of our air traffic control tower?

Close. It's not the actual site when we go back. The very bottom left of the screen you can see we're close to where the new air traffic control tower is going. Okay. again that was another acquisition yes ma'am yeah uh four lots in total and that that uh design is just beginning they're going through environmental assessment and geotechnical and survey so that project's off and running with the help of the council

Well, it looks like everything's coming together. Any comments from the city council? Mayor? Yes.

Yes, Mary. Thank you. Actually, these are just, I think the whole thing is great. And just to clean up things in my mind, one was in the contract for the Crosswind purchase, there was reference to exhibit A1 and B1, one being a legal description and the other being a special warrant. T deal deed special warrant deed I'm assuming on in the contract wherever it's held in the bowels of our record-keeping Those things are available

Not yet. That will be drafted by the title company. So it's just the warranty deed. They'll handle that as part of the contract.

Thank you. My ignorance about real estate deals. I guess the other thing was this map that shows the two parcels. The acreage sizes don't quite match up, and I'm wondering if there's some easy, squeezy reason for that.

for clarification, they don't match up as far as the price or?

The purchase, let's see, so Crosswinds, I understand we're buying 4.18, and here we have city acquisition parcel 4.48 acres. I don't know if that's just a typo, 4.18 versus 4.48.

Yeah, I would assume the map here is a typo. Okay. Yeah.

And it's just the same kind of thing with the air and land. The contract indicates acreage at 1.61, and this map anyway has that parcel at 1.78. Same thing? Yeah. Okay. Can't help it. My brain works out.

I think what happened is that when we, early on when we started addressing the sites, there was a degree of precision. You know, once the appraisals started, they actually pulled the parcels. I think the appraisals were much more accurate, to Brian's point.

Thank you. I knew it was an easy answer.

Any public comment? Any other comments? Carter LaBarge. Okay. Okay.

Mayor, Council, I'm Carter Labarge, resident of Prescott. It seems that after rigorous negotiations, we're preparing to enter into an agreement to purchase 4.12, 4.18, 4.43, some number of acres of airport property from Crosswind Leasing for about $849,000 plus closing costs. Now, it's my understanding that in June of 2025, Crosswind purchased this property at $550,000. That was just 15 months ago. In the fall of 2025, this property was appraised at $620,000. And then again in June of 2026, the city was prepared, finally, to use eminent domain to acquire this property. Now today, we're paying almost $300,000 more. Is that because we didn't know the property was going to be sold in 2025? If not, we should have known five years ago, ten years ago, that we were going to be acquiring property on the airport and we're going to need all additional available property as it became available. How is it possible that we did not know? Could it be that there are too many property owners on the airport and we have no idea what's going on? I don't think so. Does anyone in this organization ever get held responsible for not planning, not anticipating, and not being present in everything that is happening in and around their specialized area? This is a question for counsel. Or is it just so benign that a $300,000 additional amount doesn't really matter? After all, it's not like money has to come out of someone's particular pocket. Perhaps it doesn't matter because we took the money from a federal grant. Who cares how much the land cost? We just need it, and we've just decided we need it now. So this council should be considering the city's overall budget, the revenue needed to meet that budget, and I think we had better start holding staff responsible for $100,000 here or a couple million there. Whoever's running this place doesn't seem to be interested in holding anyone responsible for the activities that are going on in their particular areas. Why is that? And why do I need to keep coming and asking that particular question? Thank you.

That's all, Mayor. Thank you, Carter. Does city staff wish to respond to that?

Well, I could respond in such a way as the city of Prescott, in its totality, we own 11,400 acres. All other land in our jurisdiction is either privately held or held by the state land department or in very small pieces, the BLM. We can't control a private sale that happens between two parties. In this instance, the parcel, we would have loved to have picked this up for the 550,000 that Crosswind Leasing got it for. The property was never put on the open market. We found out about the sale once it had gone into escrow. We have been negotiating very thoroughly with the Aaron Land Company. To answer the second part of Carter's statement there, Yes, we are paying more than what they paid 18 months ago, 15 months ago. But as Joe would surmise, when you go down the route of eminent domain, you're not only gonna pay fair market value for that property, but you're also gonna pay significant damages to the impaired party that you're taking the land from. And with Joe and I working on this, we felt like the 849 was about the closest that we could get as to what we would end up with in an eminent domain case. So that's why we went with that number.

Thank you for your remarks, that really clears up a lot of questions that people might have had because tying up a property in court can go on for years and in this case time is of the essence if we want to move forward with our airport plans, thank you. Do I hear a motion?

Mayor, first let me ask Sarah, can this be done in one motion?

Yes, so the motion would be to adopt the ordinance, which is ordinance number 2026-1960 and the two resolutions, which are 2026-2006 and 2026-2007, but you can do that in one.

And before Mr. Goering makes his motion, I would just like to comment that we should include that city staff clarifies exactly the acreage involved and make sure everything is on the same page, no questions.

All right, Mayor, I could make a motion. I move approval of regular agenda item B, including adoption of ordinance number 2026-1960, resolution 2026-2006, and resolution 2026-2007. Second. Please vote.

Ted. Councilman Gamboge?

Yes. Thank you. Yes, Sarah.

Thank you. Passes 6-0. All right, our next item is a continued item, approval of city contract number 2027-044 with fan contracting for construction manager at risk pre-construction services for the effluent and wastewater pipelines and SR 89 improvements alternative 2C project.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Tim Sherwood, Public Works. As Sarah mentioned, this is a continuation from the item on the August 25th meeting. I have a short presentation for you today. So just briefly, we'll go over some of the events leading up to it. Like I said, Kimley Horn's design contract was approved in November of 24. Design concept report was completed in October, and then council approval of alternative 2C design by council on February 24th of this year. Today we're here to... Approve the CMAR contract is being requested by Public Works. And then the date is incorrect on the bottom one. That's actually 10-27 is the council meeting that we'll be giving a project update at a council voting meeting. The 24th is not a Tuesday. So what is a construction manager at risk? It's a partnership between the city, the design team, and the contractor. It provides a guaranteed maximum price contract, or what we refer to as a GMP. They advise on constructability, sequencing of schedule, determine needs and methods of construction, They provide value engineering. They're looking for opportunities as the design progresses to hopefully reduce construction costs and identify alternative materials, et cetera, to where it's applicable. Evaluate phasing, road closure scenarios, minimize congestion, impacts to residences, businesses, and emergency services, and also discuss effluent bypass planning. So I thought this was a good slide, because this is actually pulled straight from ADOT's website. So it just kind of talks about the relationship in a construction manager at risk. So the owner being the city in red, Kimley Horn, the design professional engineer in green, and we have already a contract with them. And then if we enter into a contract with the CMAR, in blue, then it kind of completes the circle. So the communication are the red arrows and then the contracts are the dashed lines. So the city will hold a contract with both the design professional engineer as well as the construction manager at risk. But where these two come together in a CMAR situation is that they communicate with, all three of us communicate with each other. If this was a bid situation, we took this project out to bid, the red line between the construction company and the design professional doesn't really exist in the way it does here. So then the construction manager after the pre-construction services later on, they'll be the firm that will acquire subcontractors, material suppliers, et cetera. So one of the other questions that came up at the last meeting are the two different types of pipe that we are considering for this project. I mentioned that HDPE pipe was being considered for effluent and HOBOS for the gravity sewer pipe. So just a brief explanation, HDPE is high density polyethylene pipe. It's very strong, it's very lightweight, it has a very high strength to density ratio based on the weight of the pipe and the strength of it. It's very flexible. It's a good purpose to use in this type of application. It's also used for various types of wastewater projects because it resists corrosion. Corrosion is a big factor in wastewater projects. pipelines. It's also used in municipal water supplies and natural gas distribution. So it's used in multiple areas. The one thing you'll see is a pipe that typically carries sewer will have a green stripe on it. If it's for natural gas, it'll have a yellow stripe. If it's for water, it'll have a blue stripe. So it's easily identifiable if somebody exposes the pipe. Hobos is actually, it's an easier term to use because Hobos is actually a manufacturer. The technical term is, get ready, centrifugally cast fiberglass reinforced polymer mortar pipe, or CCFRPM. So this pipe provides excellent hydraulic flow due to, or hydraulic flow, it has excellent hydraulic flow coefficients and is inherently resistant to corrosion. Again, corrosion's not our friend. Service life estimates of hobos pipe are up to 100 years or more. which reduces city maintenance significantly for our crews. I looked up HDP to the minimum lifespan of HDP pipes around 50, they estimate 50 to 100 years. Steel pipes, 50, 60 years tops. So when council approved starting the design on 2C, some of the elements that we were looking for was improved sight lines, providing right out only exits within 1500 feet of existing turnarounds, the taper extension coming southbound out of the Fitment Trail roundabout, a frontage road at the south end near the businesses near the Willow Lake roundabout, realigning the approach on Willow Lake Roundabout going southbound, consolidating access points, there are several properties along that corridor that have just a wide swath of access, so consolidating that will help with safety, an acceleration lane at Lillian, a turnaround north of Twisted Trail, and then acceleration lane at the future regional park exit. I didn't have another slide either. So Public Works is recommending approval of the CMAR contract with fan contracting. in the amount of, sorry, $358,208. And as we mentioned at the last meeting, this will be to provide pre-construction services, contract will be not providing any design services as part of this contract. They'll just be working with the designer and the city to give us access from a constructability standpoint earlier than we would if we do a bid, we're not gonna find out a lot of these things until we open bids and look to award to the lowest bidder. and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Tim. That cleared up a lot of things. We continued this item because there were a few things we wanted to see added to the contract and it looks like those items have been taken care of. I have a question. We've already got pipes in there in the road and in order to decrease road closures, are we going to be digging up those old pipes and using the same trench And also my other question is, is there a way we can design this so that the two pipes are like on one side of the road so we don't have to close the whole road? We can just close half the road if that's safely possible?

Yes, Mayor, like I said, those are options that we are looking at, and like I said, instead of finding this stuff out after a bid is open, when we're going through the 60 and 90% design, the contractor will be weighing in on that, and hopefully we'll have an answer for you before we get to final design.

Okay, because I think that we need to consider trying to safely keep at least one lane open for traffic, maybe with pilot cars or something so that people can access the local areas in there. And also, you know, it can still be used as a... is a thoroughfare. My other question is if these are plastic pipes and if there is, you know, in the future a break, will there be, will we be able, is there a metal stripe or anything in there so that it'd be easy to locate the plastic pipe?

There will be what we call trace wire installed with the pipes so that pipes can be located. And then there's what we call trace wire stations that are installed along the route so the locator can hook up to that and then get a signal through the pipe. And then what we call a continuity test is actually part of the final testing of the project. We'll go out and actually test that pipe to make sure we can locate it before we consider the job complete.

And these pipes, are they all gravity or are they gonna be under pressure?

The effluent line coming from the airport back towards Prescott will be under pressure.

Okay, all right, thank you. Are there any other comments, Patrick?

Yes, I was one of those that was concerned with where we were and what the definition of 2C was and is, and so thank you for that additional explanation and also the paper that you provided that compared one of the citizens' concerns and what the city's comments were about those various items, I think, that just gave us a more comfortable level on this critically important project.

I can't take credit for that. There were several people involved in...

Mary? Thank you. I don't have any questions as far as the nature of what a CMAR does or doesn't do. I mean, it seems like an industry standard. So that part's fine. I guess my concern comes around from the fact that this contract is, well, now seven months long, runs through February, and then we get into the construction phase as opposed to the design phase that we're currently in. And that'll be here before you know it, frankly, assuming no delays. And I guess that brought me back to the selection process for the design CMAR, the pre-construction CMAR, It doesn't sound like, and from some input, Tim, that you gave two weeks ago, it doesn't sound like there's in the works another request for proposals or request for statement of qualifications to consider who to use for the construction CMAR. Are we just gonna roll with FAN as the CMAR both now and come March when the construction starts?

We're not completely obligated to. There were provisions in the SOQ as well as the contract that we will use them for pre-construction services and may use them for construction services. And there's some in the contract, the pre-construction services contract, there's some language in there that if we can't negotiate a price that we don't have to continue, we could move on in a different direction.

Although it seems just with the rapidity of how construction will be starting, which is in March, and this is how the years go by, it'll be here pretty quickly. If we were going to, it sounds like to me, that the expectation is that entering into negotiation with FAN for the construction phase, and if things don't work out, you know, we're unhappy, they're unhappy, whoever decides to walk away, we would be then starting from scratch to put out a request for statement of qualification. So we're not doing it now.

We could either do another SOQ or we can actually put it out to bid. and just do a conventional bid proposal.

And in the meantime, would construction then just wait?

They would definitely delay construction a little bit.

All right. I had a question. In the background material, it indicated that the SOQs were received, reviewed, ranked. There was an indication of a five-member selection committee, and it didn't say, but it kind of sounded like it was all staff... City staff? Or did we have outside people ranking?

I don't remember the exact members, and there's a lot of anonymity with the members of the committee. ARS doesn't allow to reveal the names of the participants. But I believe, Scott, did we have? Outside participation, like we usually look for an outside engineer or something like that to participate in our committees.

Do you know if we did that this time around?

Yes, like I said, I'm certain of it, but I don't remember exactly how many members of the committee were outside of staff.

So is the confidentiality regarding the people who submit so that companies can feel free to submit and it's unknown that they are submitting, or is the confidentiality who's doing the ranking?

It's just the committee members. So anytime the scores are revealed or the results of the thing, they're just listed as reviewer one, two, three, four, and five. Names are not included. And that's just to protect the reviewers.

And the criteria for our selection process, because I know when I was reading through the contract, although frankly the contract sounded a lot like a construction CMAR as opposed to a pre-construction CMAR. There was just a lot of language in there about construction services. but thinking about major subcontractors, and there's language in there about, you know, they can be picked based on qualifications or qualifications and price. For the CMAR itself, Was the selection committee thinking along which of those two tracks, just qualifications or qualifications and price?

The purpose of the RSOQ is to make the selection based purely off qualifications. No prices to be submitted at that point, then it becomes a request for proposals. So a statement of qualifications by statute, we're not allowed to request pricing at that time.

Okay. I did see a letter from Jason Phan, I believe, submitting his pricing for the GMP. And it sounded like from what he was saying is he's excited about providing the pre-construction services, the CMAR services, and through construction. So it kind of seems like he's thinking going down that road.

Like I said, I would anticipate that's the direction we'll go. I'm just saying that there is a potential that if something happened in the relationship that we could go different routes.

Okay, so there's nothing guaranteed, but expectations.

In my experience using CMARS, the relationship that gets developed during the design phase generally continues through the construction phase. They've invested a lot of time and effort in it, we have. So like I said, I wouldn't anticipate that happening, but the option in the contract is there that if we can't agree to a price that we could mediate it or we can just go a different direction.

Okay, last thing, and I'm sure people are shaking their heads saying, why are you nitpicking about this sort of thing? But nonetheless, when I was looking at the fan contracting schedule that added up to the amount of the contract, the... 358 and change. There were a couple of trade partners listed, I think, in every one of the categories. One was trade partner for Trenchless and Pipe Rehab, and another was trade partner for ROC. Here in the design phase, do we know what they would be involved in? I mean, just by eeny, meeny, miny, moe, I added up about 40K for their services. Hi.

Hi. Jason Fan, Fan Contracting President, COO. I was summoned. I got the look that, hey, get up here. So this is where I'm at. Council Mayor, appreciate the opportunity to be here. And so to your question, the trade partners, When this was originally bid out, you know, way back when, it was a much different scope. So that scope's been now reduced, and we went through a second statement of qualifications, which is qualifications-based only, per the Title 34 statute. We enlisted a couple trade partners to give the city some added value in terms of the team that they're getting with the construction manager at risk. And one of those was Aiken Gardner, who specializes in trenchless technologies. So, for example, you know, they may and we discussed early on the potential of running a pipe liner through the existing Ameron pipe that keeps failing. And so that would be a major cost savings to do something like that, a trenchless alternative, as opposed to digging that line up and replacing it. Adams Contracting specializes in drill and shoot and rock extraction. So, you know, if there's certain things that unique features that require some of the rock extraction or drill and shoot or certain rock trenching, they do this stuff every single day. So those are the two trade partners that we had enlisted to kind of beef up the construction management and advisory committee that the city ultimately relies on with the CMAR team.

So right now they're just adding their expertise from their particular piece of the pie within the design phase as opposed to actually working.

Precisely. So we add value in many different forms as a CMAR, and that is through constructability, through risk management, looking at cost savings opportunities, looking at material strategies and things like that. And so if we can bring certain trade partners on board that do this stuff more regularly than we do, that's a value for the city to make sure that we're you know no stone goes unturned and we were looking at all all solutions possible given the constraints on this particular project

Thank you for that info, that's great. And this isn't to say anything about FAN, but should things be unhappy at the end of the design phase and we wanted to look for somebody else to be the construction CMAR, I'm assuming you have others that put in the SOQs that you have in your back pocket? Do you have to start from scratch?

We received two SOQs when we did this procurement. So there was only one additional submittal on this particular.

Okay. You just had two SOQs?

That is correct.

Okay. Your odds were 50-50.

We didn't know that at the time, but turns out it was good odds. Okay. The submitters do not know that.

Thank you, Jason. Yeah. Okay, let's see. We have Jim Gehring next.

Oh, thank you, Mayor. This is for Tim. I have a lot of experience with HTPE and I'm confident in what it'll do for us, but I don't have any experience with Hobass pipe. I'm curious about the city's experience with it.

And Jason could even help with this too, because we did one of the centralization projects, it was the airport truck main project, and we used 48 inch HOBOS pipe. And in that project we also used polymer manholes as well. So, like I said, up to this point, and I believe if I'm not correct, Jason correct me, the existing gravity maintenance on the west side of ASR 89 right now is HOBOS pipe. We've had very good success with the installation of that pipe and expect, like I said, years of useful lice out of that material.

We've installed from the wastewater treatment plant out by the airport. all the way to the connection at across the highway. If you recall, there was a boring and tunneling operation that went across 89 through that to that residential neighborhood. So we've got a fair amount of Hobas experience, probably most in the city for your project so far.

All right, thank you. And by the way, I'm glad to hear we're giving more consideration to a trenchless solution to the effluent main.

It is, like I said, it's one of the advantages of having the seamer on board is to help navigate those items as we move forward through the design.

And then last but not least, there was some confusion on the part of the public and myself, actually, about the division of duties between the CMAR contract and Kenley Horn. But that's been straightened out by Public Works, I believe. And, Gwen, I don't know if that's been sent to the public or they have available that to them. And that would be the answers to, I think, Michael's questions.

Thank you, Councilman Gearing. At this time, those comments were sent to Council, but we can post them on the project website if that's helpful.

If there's no reason not to, I think it could be helpful for public relations.

Yeah, there's no reason not to.

All right, thank you.

Mayor, Councilman Gamboge has his hand up.

Yes, Ted, please speak.

These are all questions. This is information for the public. These are all questions that could have been asked and should have been asked last week and answered. What we're seeing here is grandstanding. Could we get to the motion?

I'm sorry for grandstanding, as you say, but you have to remember that no elected officials were included in the preliminary talks, so we have a lot of questions, and now is the time to do it. In fact, I was just going to ask a question about... No, I beg to differ.

You had the pre-read material last week, just like I did, and I asked all the questions last week, and I got answers to my questions. I don't know why you wait till Tuesday and postpone, delay these meetings to ask questions that could have been asked last week.

Well, thank you for your input, Mayor. I have a question that's been on my mind and that's about shading. We have had numerous pipe breaks throughout the community due to improper shading. As you know, our soils are subject to expansion and contraction. They dry out. They get wet, they expand, they contract, and then we have micro tremors from small earthquakes, and we have a lot of granite. And in the past, there wasn't very much care taken with the shading, and I was going to ask Jason what kind of bed is going to be, because you have to be meticulous, I was going to ask what kind of bed you were planning on using around the pipes.

Yeah. Good question. I'll clarify from the last council meeting, it was not us that installed that original line many years ago. I'll attest to that personally. The city has a very rigorous detail that not only specs certain types of pipes that are more rigorous than the one we're replacing, but also the shading that goes around it. It sits on a bedding layer as well as a shading and bedding that goes around the pipe all the way up to one foot above top of pipe. So that thing is surrounded with bedding and shading. Um, and then from there, there's a detail that goes all the way up to the top of the trench. So, um, we follow the city standard on that and it's, it's very rigorous.

Is it a pea gravel, uh, sand or is it a screened fill that you reuse?

So Jason, yes, I'm just going to have you not answer that.

Um, The item is the CMAR. We're getting into details about construction which is not what the contract is for nor is it what the agenda item is for. So we're veering into a bit dangerous territory at this point for violating open meeting law and discussing something that's not on the agenda. So I would recommend that we go back to the CMAR and if you have questions about the pre-construction manager at risk, we can discuss that.

Thank you, Sarah. I'll talk to you after the meeting, Jason, and get my question answered.

Sounds good.

Okay, thanks. Anyone has any comments? Mr. Grady, do you have anything more? Okay, any... We do have some public comment. Yeah, any public comment? Thank you. Carter LaBarge?

Oh, for Christ's sakes.

Please delete that from the minutes.

I wasn't going to include it, but I'll be sure to not do that.

Good afternoon, Councilman Gamboge. Mayor, Council, I'm Carter Labarge, resident of Prescott. A couple weeks ago, I asked this Council to confirm if FAN had any participation in the original installation of the affluent pipeline on SR-89 in the Narrows. My friend... Councilman Gamboge did advise that it was some Phoenix contractor that did the work, and I appreciate his comment, but I asked for a confirmation. I have no issue with FAN doing the work. I'm asking that if FAN or any other contractor who was involved in the original work, which has been identified already as failed due to improper installation, be excluded from any rework at our expense. I've also asked that this premise be implemented across the board in our city going forward. So until the issue has been confirmed, I think you need to pause the CMAR until you've confirmed whether FAN was or was not involved in the original installation. One more thing, Mayor, you also asked, you had a concern about warranties. And I believe in the contract it says there is a warranty, and it's two years. So thinking that it's going to go the life of the contract, the life of the pipeline, that's not going to happen. And then the 2C attributes, this new acceleration lane that's going to be put in the regional park exit, would that cost be attributed to some new contractor in the future at a later date? Or is this just an additional section of contractor welfare issues that needs to be confirmed somewhere along the line? That's all I've got unless Councilman Gamboge's got another comment that I need to address. I'm not sure you'd ever address it. Sir, I would always address it for you.

Michael Marchand.

Thank you.

Thank you, Carter.

Good afternoon, Michael Marchand here. Regarding the pre-construction bid, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that Mr. Sherwood and team did a nice job of aligning the non-binding 2C attributes on the last slide of the presentation. I say non-binding because it's just a PowerPoint slide with the requirements that you voted on, but there's two exceptions. First, the turnaround is now north of Twisted Trail. You voted on one to the south. Second, you are unambiguously promised a Michigan left turn and not just any old turnaround. You're getting a U-turn instead. More on that at a different time. But that's not the bad news, this is. It's still two weeks later and the request for statement of qualifications, RSOQ from now on, still does not match the roadway requirements that you approved, the slide right in front of me. Again, I'm talking about frontage roads, ride outs, accelerations, lanes, et cetera. Why does this matter? fan bid according to the literal roadway requirements in the RSOQ. But if the roadway requirements within are ambiguous, missing, incomplete, or just plain wrong, that means that the bid amount is simply not credible. As I said two weeks ago, it's quite straightforward. Update the requirements in the RSOQ, a legal document, to match exactly what you see in front of you. Have FAN re-bid and then come back to Council for a vote with a high confidence cost estimate. Just do the work. Maybe the bid will change or maybe not, but you will know you did the right thing and didn't settle for good enough. I will say decisions like this may seem trivial, but they set a tone for the city. Is good enough okay or do you strive for great? You have a simple choice, accept a questionable bid today or embody fiscal responsibility, do the work and make it right. Your call, thank you.

That's all Mayor. Okay, do we have any more comments from council? Okay. Mr. Goering has one more question.

I just have one for Tim. If there are disagreements with the initial designs prepared by Kimley Horn, the time to discuss those is when we get to review them, is that right? That is correct. All right, thank you. Mm-hmm.

Okay, barring any more further discussion, do I hear a motion?

I can, Mayor. I move approval of city contract number 2027-044. Second. Please vote.

Councilman Gamboggi?

Yes.

Thank you. Passes 6-0. Next item is WSA 26-031, water service application submitted by Yavapai Community Hospital Association, location Willow Creek Road and Jenna Lane, within a portion of APN 102-05-033H.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm Brian Reese. I'm the Water Resources Manager here for the city under the Community Development Department. So per current water policy, a water service agreement application was submitted for this project in front of you today. Those WSAs are turned in so that we can estimate water usage for projects and go through the approval process for water service. In your agenda packet, a copy of that application was included. As shown on the vicinity map in front of you, the project consists of approximately 16 acres of land. It's located at the northeast corner of Jenna Lane and Willow Creek Road. So as shown on this site plan, the project consists of four buildings. They range from approximately 12,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet of medical medical plaza, medical buildings. A demand estimate for the buildings was done by city staff based on similar usages derived from the water resource management model. Based on that analysis, we've estimated that the total demand for the buildings in the project is 10.82 acre feet per year. And then based on the site plan in front of you, we also did an estimate for the outdoor water usage. The landscape area is approximately 4.8 acres and we utilize the low water use drought tolerant plant. Estimate from Arizona Department of Water Resources of 1.5 acre feet per acre of low use plantage and based on that it comes out to about 7.2 acre feet for the outdoor water use. So this project has a total estimated water use of 18.02 acre feet. So per current water policy guideline number 14, no single water service application can be approved that is greater than 50% of the remaining water budget in any given cycle. So this project does exceed that. There's a couple of options that they have. The applicant can decide to pull the project, come back later when there's enough water in the budget and have it reheard or they can apply for an appeal process. So the appeal process, the applicant shall demonstrate the benefit to the city such as job creation, wages, sales tax, economic impact and other benefits to the city. All such requests should be reviewed by the Water Issues Subcommittee and then approved or denied by council. If the city council grants the appeal, the water for that appeal will be included in the annual water assessment for the city, but we do not take it out of the semi-annual budget. The applicant has requested an appeal process for this project. Attachment 4 in your memo packet includes the benefit letter and analysis that they provided to support their appeal. So, Water Issues Subcommittee reviewed this project on September 1st, 2026. They went ahead and recommended approval based on two conditions. Condition number one was that the applicant utilize zero scape landscaping to the maximum extent allowed through city code. So the applicant who's here today and can speak on their behalf, but at the Water Issues Subcommittee, they agreed to this condition and said that they would definitely maximize out zero scape landscaping, low water use and drought tolerant planting as much as possible given the density requirements of the city code. They also talked about wanting to implement curb cut openings within their asphalt parking lot area so that they could route storm water into the planting areas, into the landscape areas as much as possible to help reduce the outdoor water needs for this project. The second condition was that the subcommittee asked if the... If we could have the site projected over the airport overlay so that we could see where it was at in regards to those restrictions for the permanent record. uh... so attachment five of your uh... agenda packet uh... included an uh... airport one engine inoperative uh... limited heights map with the uh... with the proposed site delineated on it so you can see exactly where falls uh... within the those restricted areas so uh... with that uh... We have water service application 26-031 is for approximately 149,000 square feet of medical plaza. The estimated demand for the buildings was 10.82 acre feet and the estimated outdoor use landscape use was 7.2 acre feet for a total of 18.02 acre feet. That's what I have for you today. We have the applicant here if you would like to hear from them and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have for City staff.

Thank you. Mr. Grady, do you have any?

Oh, this must have been left over from the other item.

Okay, Mr. Ruby.

I'm curious as to whether there were any discussions about rainwater harvesting with the applicant.

I don't recall any specific rainwater harvesting conversation at the subcommittee at this point.

This is problematic for me. because we need to have a rainwater harvesting policy for all of these big developments going on in North Prescott. There's Embry-Riddle, there's the place just southeast of here that'll be where the big box stores are. And I know that we had the discussion about creating a policy, but every time a new building comes in without that policy in place, we miss an opportunity to have a better attempt to do rainwater harvesting. Was there any discussion around the differentiation between rooftop water and surface water?

No, there was no discussion on that.

Okay. In our conversation, which was with me and a few people from city staff, that was a strong consideration because the quality of rooftop water is different, whereas water that hits the top of a parking lot carries toxins with it. So I just get concerned here that we're These water service applications in the north are not taking into consideration something that's very important for the future of Prescott, which is getting our rainwater into a place where it can help to recharge the aquifer. So hearing that those conversations haven't taken place makes it harder for me to wanna support this, but ultimately we need a policy for that.

Correct, yeah. At this point, we try to make sure that all of the projects are adhering to the water policy and to the codes in place at this point in time.

I agree with Councilman Ruby. That is something that we do need to do is have put in our water policy a rainwater harvesting policy. I think that's a very good idea. In the meantime, it can be totally voluntary, and I'm sure that the hospital and their designers and their architects will probably look into rainwater harvesting. I know they did mention directing the stormwater into retention, detention basins, which kind of turn into rain gardens and using it to water the landscape. Dignity Health is known for their healing environment. And this medical campus looks like it is going to be a regional draw. People are gonna come and see various specialists and will probably be there for the day at least. And it's very important to have landscaping where people can sit in a nice garden area that's relaxing because they are probably stressed out and will need to be making a lot of decisions. And I just know from personal experiences, when we go to these large medical campuses, there's usually a little restaurant or a cafe and then a little area. for people to relax in and decompress. I think we can have the best of both worlds and have some landscaping that'll be low water use. Desert willows are an example of a tree that gives shade and is very fragrant. So we have a plant palette and I'm sure that the hospital will be able to voluntarily meet these requirements. But you're right, in the meantime we do need to get this in a policy. Any comments from Mr. Gearing?

Thank you, Mayor. First for Brian, at our last water issue subcommittee meeting, you presented our status on the remaining water budget for this cycle. And as I recall, we have almost 23 acre feet of water left for non-residential uses. And reading the table in the first three months of that period, non-residential uses have only consumed about two acre feet. So we have quite a bit of water left, if I recall. Yeah, your numbers sound accurate to what I remember from that meeting. Okay, thank you. And then the other thing is, if I understood your presentation correctly, they are practicing or volunteering to practice passive rainwater capture from both curb openings and perhaps roof drains.

And I don't have the specifics from the applicant. Maybe they could provide them, but I believe they said they were exploring opportunities for providing these curb openings. They would probably... Well, I won't put any words on their behalf. Usually the curb openings would provide water from the asphalt areas of the parking lot, the impervious areas, and direct that water into the landscape areas. I guess that it could also be done from the rooftop areas too, as long as it was able to convey to the area needed.

I also remember, and since we have the applicant here, he could clarify this, but I also remember that the applicant thought he could reduce the actual irrigation water on site to less than three acre feet instead of the 7.2 that the city calculated.

Yeah, that was a statement made at the time. I think it was about, I'll let the applicant go ahead and speak on behalf of them.

Stephen's becoming the water expert now, landscaping, xeriscape expert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, council members. My name is Stephen Polk with Boyle, Petridge, Klein, Wington, Stallings, here on behalf of Dignity Health YRMC. Also with me today are Dr. Anthony Torres, CEO for Dignity Health YRMC, and also the Chief Communications Officer, Penny Perea. Yeah, great conversation on landscaping, water consumption, and a couple things I'd like to say on that. One is, you know, Digging Health certainly supports and intends on minimizing water conservation to the extent, maximum extent possible. I'd be real hesitant on making any firm commitments in terms of specific water-saving techniques, and I think, Mayor, really, your point really speaks to the heart of that, which is in terms of kind of public spaces or community spaces where additional water usage might actually be appropriate. A medical campus I think is certainly one of them in terms of actual things that have been discussed. Certainly, you know, the plants will be selected as required by the Prescott Land Development Code with the Prescott Active Management Area approved plant list and to align with local water conservation and xeriscaping goals, focusing on tree canopy, indigenous plantings, little to no lawn or turf areas, and grading and parking lot islands into shallow basins to passively capture the natural stormwater. So I think current internal projections really are anticipating as little as three acre feet or less per year of water for that landscaping. But again, I think we're not able to really make firm commitments here today on that. And so in terms of... In approval on that, I would request, if you want to make some suggestions in the approval in terms of things to consider, I'd certainly encourage that. But tying it to hard requirements on that would, I think, go beyond what the current landscape code for Prescott requires and would be a disservice to being able to build out the best project we could do here.

All right. I think for me in the long run, the best project includes a commitment to rainwater harvesting that differentiates between rooftop water and surface water in the parking lot. Because the rooftop water you can get deeper into the ground so it percolates into the aquifer. And that is not super cost intensive. So I feel like there's a lack of awareness and a lack of commitment to this. And so when I hear best project, I'm thinking about Prescott 50 to 100 to 150 years from now. And I actually, I want to hear a commitment. And so it scares me a little bit to not hear the commitment.

I also would like to add that the legislature passed a bill that was effective January 1st of this year, House Bill 2447, where unfortunately plans, preliminary plans and plats are no longer applicable. have hearings in planning and zoning, water issues, even council. There's no transparency, public input. So unfortunately our hands are tied if we want to get second and third looks at this. It was all in the spirit of, I guess, fast tracking projects. Thank you, Mr. Gearing. I mean, I'm sorry, Patrick.

Thank you. So I concur with, and this is not grandstanding, I concur with the Mayor and with Jim and with Jay that rainwater harvesting is something we have to get working on now. However, I don't think we can make it a condition upon this approval. I'm assuming, and maybe Chelsea can, I'd say more and expand on this, but it's not a part of our land development code. And until it is, I don't think we want to negatively impact this huge economic engine. And it addresses such issues. critical medical needs for our citizenry. So it's kind of, for me, it's a balance and I think we need to put more emphasis on taking that maybe out of the overall land development code Improvement piece that we were looking at what things do we need to change in the land development code? I know we've talked a little bit about that in the downtown. Maybe this is another one We need to move up quicker rather than wait two years for a final land development code amendment.

Thanks Mr. Gearing do you have a comment?

No mayor, but if we don't have any public comment I can make a motion I

Okay, is, are we, Mary, do you have a comment? I'll just speak further and sign on to Mr. Grady. The two things are good, both the developing a policy in regard to rainwater capture and also approving this application.

TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I THINK THE PROJECT IS GREAT AND I THINK THE PROJECT IS GREAT AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE VERY IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE VERY MUCH NEED. MUCH NEED. I SEE IT, THIS IS A SECOND I SEE IT, THIS IS A SECOND BY-PRODUCT ISSUE BUT I WOULD BY-PRODUCT ISSUE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO USE THIS AS AN LIKE TO USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECT CITY OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECT CITY STAFF TO REALLY MOVE FORWARD AT STAFF TO REALLY MOVE FORWARD AT DEVELOPING A RAINWATER DEVELOPING A RAINWATER HARVESTING POLICY SO WHEN HARVESTING POLICY SO WHEN PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF BRING P

NOW YOU KNOW WHY THEY BRING THEIR LAWYER TO THESE THINGS.

HE'S A CLEVER GUY.

OKAY. DO I HEAR A MOTION? WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE DO. I'M SORRY. I FORGOT.

Mayor, council members, mayor, council members, I'm Walt Kosar, resident of Prescott Valley. Councilman Ruby, you basically stole my thunder, and I agree 100% with every single thing that you said about this. I think this is a tremendous opportunity that could be missed to implement rainwater harvesting as a way to cover a significant portion of the outdoor watering needs. If you look at the map or the plot layout, every one of the buildings has, you know, greenery landscaping around it. You know, that kind of rainwater capture, all that landscaping could be covered by that. Prescott Valley has recently installed some rainwater capture projects, and the grass is growing very well out by May. by the city hall area because of that. So I really think that this is something, it definitely is something you need to think about putting into the code to do that. And perhaps a condition of approval, another condition could be that perhaps the applicant could carry out just an engineering study to determine how much water they could capture from the roof areas that they have to consider what the potential possibilities are, at least to understand what could be done there. Then they could decide if it was practical to put something in. I think it's certainly one of those projects you want to do it up front. It's better to design it in to begin with than start tearing things up later on and retrofitting them. But it is a concern where these projects seem to get approved, Embry-Riddle, the shopping center, and the rainwater capture seems to get forgotten. The other point is, so this is a 16 acre plot. Phase one is going to be seven acres and that's the first part that's going to be built. And then later on, they're going to go on to phase two. Well, why don't you just say, okay, you want seven acres. Now we'll give you the water for seven acres. And then later when you're ready for the other part, we'll come back and consider the water needs for that. That way it's not all at once. They're using all this water at once. So they don't have to go through this process of approvals. So just something to consider. Thank you.

Thank you, Walt. Ken Fiddick.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. My name is Ken Fittick. I live on Soaring Avenue in Prescott. I kept changing my notes as we went through this section, so I may be all over the map in my three minutes or minute and a half. Yes, we need the health care, so I'm all for the health care facility. I mean, I'm concerned because I'm not an expert on water, and I didn't bring an attorney with me either. So... If the House bill that the Mayor talked about, fast track things, we still should have public comment whenever possible, like now. And so I say, if they want seven acres for landscaping, why can't that be, I'm not on the subcommittee for water either, but why does it have to be seven? I heard something about that's best practice or for low zero growth landscaping or something. But I would say, Is seven the right number or should it be less than seven for this commitment today? And I heard the comments about the harvesting of water and the fact there's no city policy. So I suggest the city policy be expedited at least on water related issues ASAP. If other things have to wait, don't wait a year or two for those. Get the water things related to development done soon, not later. So, and I agree with the comment by the previous speaker, if the water is only needed for seven acres in the initial project, if I understood correctly, I'm not sure I got that right, then just approve whatever water's needed for the initial part of the project so that you don't exceed your rule of 50%, which apparently you're about to do if you approve the project as presented today. So rethink that. or modify what the proposal is today. Thank you.

Thank you, Ken. That's all, Mayor. Okay, any more discussion? Do I hear a motion?

I just want to entertain with the the amount of the acre feet requested and we're hearing the possibility of just doing it in part what are are there complications with that and i'm going to direct it to the city attorney there's complications in that in fact the the project is the project you have before you there's not really a way to reduce portions of it um and i don't believe

I think the seven acres, we're talking about the 7.2 acre feet a year of estimated demand for landscape. That's a number that comes from the city just based on the square footage of the project. So no is the answer.

Meaning it's better to look at this as a whole and approve it or not approve it.

Right, meaning that you have a project, an application in front of you and you make a determination on the application in front of you and we can't convert it into what we want the application to be.

And Patrick, do you have a comment?

Prior to a motion being made, can I ask for clarification on what the conditions are that are contained in the current motion in front of us?

So the conditions were a recommendation made by the Water Issues Subcommittee, and we're We try to provide the information that we had available to us on how the applicant was addressing those conditions and by providing the splay map that was requested. So the information that you have in front of you is basically the application and the information that we have about this application.

But did the committee have two conditions that they added? What does that mean with conditions from water issues subcommittee?

Yeah, the conditions were that they requested that the applicant, to the full extent possible within the land development code, utilize zero scaping. And then the second was request basically from staff to provide the overlay splay map as part of the official record when it came to you in front of a council for vote.

I can make a motion, Mayor.

Go ahead.

I move to approve with conditions from Water Issues Subcommittee WSA 26-031.

Second.

Please vote.

Councilman Gamboge?

Yes.

Thank you. Passes 6-0.

Thank you.

All right, our last agendized item is council liaison board commission and committee reports. I just have a couple of brief updates that Councilman Gehring provided for me for the boards and commissions that he is liaison to. The first is the airport advisory committee. They've discussed recently that airport operations have increased from 160,000 in 2023 to approximately 207,000 in 2026. He added that there are multiple projects in design, including ramps, service road, overflow parking, and the environmental examination for the main runway shift and extension will begin soon as well. Additionally, the Veterans Commission, which is a mayoral ad hoc, has hosted a number of open houses recently to expose veterans in the community to the benefits of our local VA. at Las Fuentes Resort Village, Sacred Heart Catholic Church, and we'll have one upcoming at the Prescott Lakes Community Association. All of our upcoming BCC meetings, which are subject to change for the next month, we will have the Tourism Advisory Committee tomorrow, September 9th. Prescott Preservation Commission will convene on September 11th. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Traffic Advisory Committee, September 14th. Board of Adjustment, September 17th. Civic Enhancement Committee, September 17th. The Subcommittee for General Plan Review, September 23rd. Planning and Zoning Commission, September 24th. Water Issue Subcommittee will convene again on October 6th. Veterans Commission, October 7th. Planning and Zoning, October 8th. And Presque Preservation Commission, October 9th. And that is all for those updates.

Okay, thank you. This meeting is adjourned.